Interpreting our own theology

I am a member of various online theology and Bible discussion groups.

I have met some really interesting, educated and passionate people. I have also met people who informed me that my family and friends were going to hell because I didn't evangelise properly to them. Lovely.

One thing I have noticed over the years, is that most people value integrity of ideas. They don't hold a view unless they think it makes sense to them. This is true of most people, religious and non-religious. Debates can get quite fierce, as having someone tell you that your currently held view is wrong is very painful and can be pride-damaging.

This is why HOW we debate is so important. Creating a safe environment of respect for others can go a long way, along with holding an attitude of humility that shows an openness to changing our own opinion. I have my own confession to make - at times, when I meet someone so sure of their own opinion and so hostile towards others, I feel a mission to prove them wrong on some point, just for them to experience what it's like to be wrong and to show humility.*

"Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect" - words from the Apostle who wasn't always known for holding his tongue, in 1 Peter 3: 15.

(*it doesn't work, and I don't recommend it.)

Today I was musing on how I interpret my own ideas. When presented with a concept or a theory, how do I weigh it? What measure do I use?

Many in the various groups I belong to would answer that by saying "we believe what the Bible says." However, you don't have to go too far to find another person with a strongly held view, armed with their own Biblical arguments.

The problem with using the Bible to defend your views is that the Bible is such a diverse collection of works written over centuries and you have to select parts of the Bible to make your case, whereas another person will use different parts of the Bible to counter your claims. This might make it sound like the Bible is unreliable, but it's not so unusual if you were to make an analogy. My father died almost two decades ago. My memories of him are varied. Depending on my mood at the time, I can recall him as a gentle, kind man who loved music and had a sense of humour. On other days, I remember him as a man who struggled to show emotion, who frequently criticized and who didn't seem to understand me. This doesn't mean my father didn't exist or that some things I write about him are true and others false. It means that it is hard for me to be entirely objective, as all my evaluation is flavoured by how I feel and my own subjective experience.

I think many of us do this when we read the Bible. If you live under genuine persecution and fear for your life, as sadly many Christians do in this world, then seeing passages of God rescuing his people from oppressors, of restoring justice and of punishing those who harm you can bring words of hope into your life. It is easy for me to write about loving everyone when I haven't seen my wife, daughter, sister getting raped or my best friend being murdered for his beliefs.

In my own experience, while brought up in a loving home, I did often struggle to feel accepted and understood. For me, this is why I was drawn to a loving God who created me and rejoices in me. We all have our own needs, and our own experiences will always shape how we view God. Even atheists who don't believe in the likelihood of God existing can hold emotional views about how they would feel IF God DID exist. That can present a double barrier to belief. Again for me, this is why HOW we discuss is so important. It's not just about being right. It's also about being loving.

I want to share one of the lenses I use when evaluating different theological views. I am not a trained theologian, but I have talked with enough to know that each has their own deeply held views and each can use Scripture to make their case. We all need a framework to help us interpret and navigate ideas. Below is mine:

LOVE

"Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God, and all who love are fathered by God and know God. The one who does not love has not known God, because God is love."

These words come from 1 John 4: 7-8.  I heard a speaker once point out that this is not just a statement about God being loving (an adjective), but is a rare description of God as a noun.  God IS love.

Jesus was famously asked by a Teacher of the Law to say what the most important commandment was.  His reply (Matt 22: 37-40) is incredibly powerful:

"You must love the Lord your God’, replied Jesus, ‘with all your heart, with all your life, and with all your mind.  This is the first commandment, and it’s the one that really matters.  The second is similar, and it’s this: You must love your neighbour as yourself.  The entire law hangs on these two commandments – and that goes for the prophets, too.’"

The Apostle Paul also refers to this (and Paul had not been a follower of Jesus during his life and had not read the gospels as they hadn't been written - meaning that he had the same logic as Jesus, had heard it from Jesus in a vision himself, or the early Church leaders clearly taught this).

He writes in his letter to the Galatians (5: 14) "for the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one command: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.'"

When leaving his disciples, Jesus gave clear instructions... even a command:

"I’m giving you a new commandment, and it’s this: love one another! Just as I have loved you, so you must love one another.  This is how everybody will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for each other.’" (John 13: 34-35)

Now, these aren't just conveniently cherry-picked verses to suit my own theology.  These are foundational statements that I believe summarise the entire Christian faith movement.  Both Jesus and Paul describe the ENTIRE law being summed up by love.  Not just parts of it.  God isn't just loving, he IS love.

Now, normally these statements would suffice, but I have even found people argue over the definition of love.   Some find loopholes in any argument - you have to be cruel to be kind.  How can it be loving if you don't tell someone they are wrong?  If someone is in danger, is the loving thing not to shout at them?  I don't think it takes much discernment to spot an attempt to justify behaviour.  But even if we need a little help to define love, Paul does that very thing in the famous passage 1 Corinthians 13: 4-8

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud.  It does not dishonour others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.  Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth.  It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.  Love never fails."

When encountering a theological view, I find this framework helps in evaluating it.

Take for example the 3 classic views of hell/judgement (with simplified descriptions).

1.  Eternal Conscious Torment.   Those who reject Jesus/God are sent to a hell of eternal conscious torment as a place of judgement.  This reflects the justice of God.  

2.  Merciful Annihilation.  Those who reject Jesus/God are sent to a period of punishment, but as God is merciful, they will cease to exist and their suffering will end.  This reflects the love of God that gives free will, but also the mercy of God.

3. Universal Reconciliation.  One day all creation will be reconciled to God.  The broken relationship between man and God will be restored.

If you are new to these concepts, you will find that each has Biblical support.  Supporters of each model tends to say theirs has the most Biblical support and they have ways of understanding passages differently that seem to disagree on the surface.  I don't have time here to go over this here (hurrah, the reader cries!) but they are well-established views and well debated.  What is interesting is that most western agnostics or atheists probably assume all believers hold to the first model, largely thanks to the influence of Dante and Michelangelo and the medieval church.

But what happens if you read each of these 3 ideas through the lens of 1 Corinthians 13?

Which is patient, kind, not envying, not boasting, not proud, not dishonouring of others, not self-seeking, not easily angered, keeps no record of wrongs, doesn't delight in evil, rejoices in truth, protects, trusts, hopes, perseveres and never fails?

Many 21st Century atheists have been told that if they don't repent of their sins and declare Jesus as Lord/believe in him, then they will go to hell.  Then they are told that God loves them so much that God sent his son to take their punishment, but only if they believe.  Sadly many Christians proclaim this also (and do so loudly).  If this is what I had been told, I am sure I would have been an atheist too.  That god is not patient or kind.  He is easily angered, definitely keeps records of wrongs and only perseveres in punishing.

Realising that the Biblical authors and early Church didn't believe this model either was such a revelation.

My leaning is towards the third model, that of Universal Reconciliation.  Critics of this model often point to the issue of justice.  How is this fair?  And yet, the heart of God and his scandalous grace and mercy is clearly on display in some of the well known stories Jesus told.  The Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, the Prodigal Son, the Workers in the Vineyard.

However, I have noticed that when many criticise this model, they often do so in shortening the term to "Universalism" and protray it as "everyone is saved" no matter what they do or believe.  This then begs the question of what was the point in Jesus and his life, death and ressurection?  Where is justice?  Does God force people to love him?

Those questions are valid and fair, but to me they point to the second model rather than the first.  They also work on the assumption that hell is a future destination and not a current man-made reality (I recommend the work of Tim Mackie at the Bible Project.  If you haven't seen this, please watch it!   https://youtu.be/ykH8E9wTCcQ)

They also show a clear misunderstanding of reconciliation.  Reconcililation is a process that is painful and involves sacrifice on both sides.  Love must be the driver.  Forgiveness is not cheap.  Pain, loss, pride, all must be dealt with.  Reconciliation also often takes part in community.  We adopt a very individualistic western view of salvation that pits one individual against God.  But Jesus declared God's Kingdom to be in our midst and promised that wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in his name, then he would be among them.  I believe reconciliation begins in loving communities.  This is why Jesus commands love to be at the centre of all we do.  We cannot force people to love us back, but we can choose the path of patience, not keeping records of wrongs, always hoping and always persevering.

May we know that love in our hearts today.

Jesus and Healing

Musing for the day...


Our 21st century minds read many of the healing accounts of Jesus and focus quite naturally on the overcoming health-related suffering aspects. This is the love and power of God made manifest.


However, we are probably missing a lot of the social exclusion aspects of the first century. Even with some head knowledge of this, we probably struggle to fully appreciate it as a lived experience.


In the famous story of the paralyzed man being brought to Jesus through a hole in the roof, Jesus responded in an unusual way.


"When Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralysed man, ‘Son, your sins are forgiven.’" (Mark 2:5).


In fact, it looked like Jesus wasn't even going to heal the man, until he became aware of the grumbling of the Pharisees, at which point he carried out the healing to demonstrate he had the power to declare his sins forgiven.


This is a very odd story if you approach it from a (penal substitution) way of seeing the Good News being that if you repent of your sins and accept the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross then you will have eternal life. For starters, there is no indication that this man repented of anything. Secondly, Jesus had not yet died or been resurrected - therefore how could this man put his faith in the cross?


A much better reading of this passage to my mind, is that Jesus was not preaching about avoiding hell if people repent, but rather he was declaring a message of inclusion - God's love is for ALL. In those days, any illness or disability was considered grounds for exclusion, or attributed to sin. People who were ritually unclean were not welcome, certainly not allowed to be touched or to share a table with a Rabbi - hence the shock of people who saw "sinners" eating with Jesus, the shame of the woman with bleeding touching Jesus, or Peter eating with gentiles. When Jesus saw the faithfulness of the friends (remember, the concept of faith and faithfulness is not a cognitive belief in something, but a living out faithfully to something) he was declaring that this man was living in God's Kingdom, evidenced by the love of the friends. While the Pharisees were judging people as unclean and putting barriers up between them and God, these friends were doing the exact opposite. They were, quite literally, taking their friend into the very presence of God. Jesus saw his message lived out in this stunning example of faith, love and inclusion.


Coming back to the healing aspect - it is an amazing story of inclusion, and Jesus proclaiming that the faithfulnnes of his friends is "Kingdom living". The way the story is told, as I mention above, it looks like he was almost not going to even do the healing, had he not heard the grumbling Pharisees. The physical disablity was not what Jesus saw when he looked at the man.


In today's world, many are perplexed why God appears not to heal/answer all prayers (although many point to times God DID appear to answer their prayers also).


However, my musing of the day - might Jesus' lifetime ministry have primarily been one of inclusion? In a first century culture where illness resulted in exclusion and blame (assumption of sin), might the healing of physical illness have been the method Jesus used to bring people healing from their exclusion (almost all the healings were of people likely to be considered unclean, or of outsiders), rather than the purpose - just something to make people's lives more comfortable or less painful? Jesus spent a lot of time outside of the city (Jerusalem) precisely where the marginilised would be. He wasn't a travelling doctor. He was a proclaimer that God's Kingdom was for all.


This has interesting implications for Christianity today. Rather than focusing, as some churches or ministries appear to, on miraculous healings, might we be entirely missing the "healing of exclusion"? There is a lot of research that shows the health benefits of belonging, relationships, friendship, community etc. Our medical advances have transformed health care. Many great advances in society have stemmed from Christianity (but let's acknowledge the amazing contributions of all types of people, regardless of culture or belief). Do we need to think of all physical healing as miraculous? Or perhaps a better way of putting it, might all our medical advances be miracles in themselves to give thanks for?  However... how are we doing at love and inclusion?


In Matthew 18:8-9, Jesus said it's better to find life, despite being crippled and maimed, than to have physical well-being but to be discarded on the rubbish dump that is Gehenna, outside the city walls. Perhaps we need to focus more on this gospel of inclusion to see genuine healing in our world.


Notes on Matthew 18:8-9: many read this as Jesus saying it's better to gouge out something that causes you to sin, so that you can enter Heaven maimed than be sent to hell whole. However, this is a very different way of understanding what he was likely meaning. Jesus said it is better to enter "life" (not a future Heaven) than be thrown into the fire of Gehenna, which was the burning rubbish dump outside the walls of Jerusalem. John the Baptist proclaimed the Kingdom of Heaven being near. Jesus said it would be in our midst. I think it is much more likely that Jesus is saying it is better to be included (in the loving Kingdom that he was proclaiming) even if we were maimed or crippled, than to be physically healthy but excluded and cast aside - often as a result of our own sinful decisions, greed and unloving actions that destroy the loving community Jesus calls us to build with him.


This is a turning upside down of the beliefs of the day that physcial disability was a sign of sin and therefore the person needed exluded. Jesus challenged this head on, saying those people could find true life despite it, thus breaking the idea that illness was somehow linked to sin. A total challenge to the theology of the day!


Readers of this blog will know my views on homosexuality. Where would Jesus be today at a Gay Pride march? On the sidelines with a placard saying "faggots will rot in hell" or amongst the religious and non-religious marchers declaring how wonderful it is to include all in our world and to celebrate human life? Does God exclude us because of our genetics, our appearance, our orientation, our beliefs, telling us that only after repentance will he welcome us? Or does God celebrate us as created beings, longing for us to be welcomed in his loving arms, and calling us to share that all-inclusive love with all? I know which God I love...

Finding meaning in the Cross and Resurrection

When an artist creates a painting, there is a deep, multi-layered expression.  When people look at art, we all find our own meaning in it.  The idea of looking for the "truth" or correct interpretation is an odd concept.

Of course, the artist might have been trying to express something, but will find joy in people connecting their own lives to his or her work.

In our scientific reductionist western world, we can often reduce things to a single meaning. Is love a beating heart, a well of emotion, a willing sacrifice, a feeling of desire, a flow of chemicals to certain parts of the brain... or might it be all the above?  Why must we always try to reduce things to only one meaning?

When I put bird food in my garden feeder, if people came to examine the action and debate what the meaning of my action was, what might they say?

He did it because he cares about vulnerable creatures, one will say.

No, he is bored and needed something to occupy his time, another will suggest.

Both wrong, says a third.  He is easing his guilt at the damage mankind has done to natural resources.

A fourth might suggest the answer is clear.  He finds a peace from watching nature from the comfort of his window.  He is luring nature towards himself.

And what of my children?  What will they learn about me as a father?  One might suggest this shows that a father with power and resources must care and provide for those who are weak, and motivate her to do likewise.  Another might say it reflects my gentle spirit and be reminded of my care for her.

These are very different ways of looking at the same event, while drawing different meanings from it.  The truth is multifaceted, and of course, someone might draw an incorrect conclusion.  However, it's also possible for multiple "truths" to be contained in the same event.

I was reading up on different models of atonement, and found all 7 fascinating.  However, as I was reading, I sensed an internal panic rising.  I had to find the "correct" view.  Which was closest to the truth?  How should I explain this to my children, other believers or an enquiring non-believer?

Was it the Moral Influence theory?  Ransom to satan or God?  Christus Victor?  Satisfaction theory?  Penal substitution?  Governmental?  Scapegoat?

Each can find supporting scripture.  Each has an army of theologians and authors able and seemingly willing to argue their case.

I found myself wondering, did God want me to have a clear opinion?  Did I need to understand the complex theology of the Cross and resurrection?  No doubt some theologians would tell me yes, as a "correct" understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ will guide me to know how to live my life in the best way.

And yet, at times there can be a theological paralysis that does more harm than good.  Spending too much time studying something can reduce our pleasure of enjoying it.  I know God loves all creation.  I know Jesus taught us how to love.  I know the Bible has stories, poems, pastoral letters and historical events that help me reflect upon God and his relationship with people and with me.  I know Jesus died on a cross, free from guilt.  I know Jesus overcame death.  I know Jesus promised his Holy Spirit as our guide and counsellor.  I know Jesus gave a commandment of love and summarised the Law and Prophets with the greatest commandments.

While reading the different models of atonement, I began to see how people across the ages would connect with different models and draw something beautiful from each.

In the Moral Influence theory, I find inspiration in how I live today.  Too often in my faith, I have focused extensively on heaven as a future place, while neglecting God's Kingdom in our midst today.  The moral influence aspect of the life of Jesus and the consequent explosion of Christianity across the globe following the resurrection and by the subsequent work of the Holy Spirit fills me with hope and energy to be part of that story and to partner with God in my prayer life and Christian walk.

Within the Ransom Theory, I see a God who is willing to pay any price to rescue me from a life of pain and suffering - a life without God.  At times I need reminded that there is someone who loves me so powerfully that he is willing to put himself on the line for me.

In Christus Victor, I am rescued from my fear of death.  Christ has conquered death!  In following him, I know that there is nothing that can separate me from the love of God.  No sin and no death can keep me from God's love!

I am aware that in my own focus, I am drawn to models that emphasise the love of God over the justice of God.  This is what drew me to faith in the first place.  When I saw the love and acceptance in the lives of Christians, I knew this was a community I wanted to be a part of.

However, I am also aware that there is a father whose son was murdered in a gangland crime.  I know there is a mother whose daughter was raped and killed by an unrepentant paedophile.  I know there are victims of war criminals who escaped justice and died in the comfort of their own homes surrounded by wealth.  How do these people respond when we tell them God loves and accepts the murderer and rapist of their loved ones?  These voices demand justice.  They demand repentance.  And for those people, I can understand that they need to believe in a system of justice.  A price to be paid, a genuine repentance of sin.  In my desire to move away from any model of penal substitution or satisfaction theory that addresses the issue of sin, as it can paint an angry God of wrath demanding sacrifice, might I be robbing the grieving victim of a sense of justice?  What God turns a blind eye to their pain?   Perhaps models like the scapegoating theory of a non-violent substitution for our natural violence is something important for people to hear?

As she approaches the cross, she sees a reminder that God has suffered with her.

As he approaches the cross, he knows God will not ignore his oppression and injustice.

As she approaches the cross, she knows no sin or failure on her behalf can ever stand between her and her God.  She knows her slate has been wiped clean.

As he approaches the cross, he is reminded that death is not the end.

As I approach the cross, I am reminded of the loathing humanity can show when the force of love encounters the greed of power and control, but the resurrection reminds me that love wins.

What do you see when you approach the cross?  What hope do you find in the resurrection?

Perhaps, rather than obsessing about a single correct truth (and fighting amongst ourselves about who is right), we need to find our own meaning in a much bigger truth than we will never truly be able to grasp in its fullness.   For myself, this might mean sacrificing my hunger for a perfect understanding of that cross, on that cross, that I might be free to love with all my heart, soul, mind and strength in the light of the resurrection.

Perhaps, rather than convincing others my view is correct, I need to help people find their own meaning within it, while being willing to share mine, as we journey that Road to Emmaus together, making sense of what happened that first Easter.  Then together we might encounter the living God, however limited and imperfect our theology.

(A helpful overview of models of atonement: http://www.sdmorrison.org/7-theories-of-the-atonement-summarized/)

A Tale of Two Kingdoms

We are living in strange times.  As I type, my country is in partial lock-down.  The global pandemic of Covid-19 is affecting every life on this planet in some way.

This morning, as I took a breath, I was musing about the times we are in and the behaviour we see in people around us, and humanity's response in a time of global/universal crisis.

Firstly, I have to categorially state: I do not believe God has sent a virus to punish us.  I do not believe that if we paint the blood of a lamb on our doorposts that death will pass over our households protecting the faithful, and smiting those who reject God.  Why do I not believe this?  Clearly this illness is affecting all of humanity, regardless of faith and belief.  A virus doesn't discriminate by race, gender or religion.   Secondly, to understand God, I always look first at Jesus.  His ministry was one of healing and love.  He didn't walk around casting plagues on sinners.  He healed the leper, he cured the disease, he restored the spirit... he even raised the dead.  We see the attitude of God revealed in the life of Jesus.  I believe in a God who loves us all passionately, and I believe Jesus is a universal saviour.

Returning to my musings... the last few years has been very disconcerting.  Across the world, we are seeing shifts to extremism.  Far right governments and political parties are gaining power.  Nationalism is taking the place of internationalism.  Walls are being built and bridges are being burned.  Immigrants are being demonised.  Foreigners are being treated with suspicion and as outsiders.


Deuteronomy 24:10-15; 17-22

When you make a loan of any kind to your neighbor, do not go into their house to get what is offered to you as a pledge. Stay outside and let the neighbor to whom you are making the loan bring the pledge out to you.  If the neighbor is poor, do not go to sleep with their pledge in your possession.  Return their cloak by sunset so that your neighbor may sleep in it. Then they will thank you, and it will be regarded as a righteous act in the sight of the Lord your God.

Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.  Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the Lord against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

Do not deprive the foreigner or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of the widow as a pledge.  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you from there. That is why I command you to do this.

When you are harvesting in your field and you overlook a sheaf, do not go back to get it. Leave it for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow, so that the Lord your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.  When you beat the olives from your trees, do not go over the branches a second time. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow.  When you harvest the grapes in your vineyard, do not go over the vines again. Leave what remains for the foreigner, the fatherless and the widow.  Remember that you were slaves in Egypt. That is why I command you to do this.

In these ancient words for an ancient people in ancient times, we see the heart of a God who cares about the vulnerable, the foreigner, the orphan and widow (those with no protection and security).

And when I contrast what I see in the news before the virus outbreak with what I see during it, the difference is huge.  We are now seeing humanity working together to care for the vulnerable.  We see people loving their neighbours.  We hear of communities coming together, people helping strangers, reaching out to the housebound.  A few months ago, the conservative and increasingly right wing UK government was judging people's value to our country based on their income level.  The talk was of points-based systems to judge the value of a human being to our society.  Thousands of carers and other low paid but hugely critical roles were being told they weren't wanted.  We want high earners to pay higher tax.  Those are the ones we want.  Bring in the bankers and throw out the cleaners.

Yet today, in the midst of our crisis, we now talk of key workers.  People are being protected and prioritised who would previously have failed to meet the "skilled workers" definition.  We are praising the cleaners, the child minders, the teachers, the hospital workers.  Our world has turned upside down, but in some ways, it has reverted to the right way up.  

While I do not believe God causes natural disasters, I do believe, like the famous painting of Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel, that God reaches out to us and asks us to reach out to him.  And when we connect, we feel the compassion and love that God has for all humanity.   We feel the call to bring love and compassion, to heal and bring hope.  God asks us to partner with him as agents in his Kingdom to bring peace to this earth.    And God does not limit his power to those who worship him.  I believe God is working through the nurses, doctors, scientists, teachers, carers... every spark of human compassion for our neighbour comes from the image of God within each of us.   We are created beings, but we face a choice.

I can sit with the questions: Did God cause this?  Did he allow it?  Is it part of a greater plan?  I will let the theologians argue amongst themselves on that one.  Rather, I can choose to answer a different question:  What does God want me to do about it?

Which Kingdom do we want?  A Kingdom of love, hope, compassion, grace, forgiveness, mercy, justice and the building of bridges, or a Kingdom of hate, greed, lust, abusive power and the building of walls to divide us?

As Jesus taught, may our prayer be "Father, hallowed be your name, your kingdom come."  Let's work with God to make his Kingdom of love for all a reality.

The Anger of a Loving Father

I was sitting, reading in my room one day, when I heard my daughters playing in the room next door.  At first, the play was collaborative and friendly.  Then it became over-excited.  Then I heard a thud, followed by silence.

A moment later, I heard my youngest daughter crying.  Parents become quite skilled at recognising different cries.  Some are the cry that is just looking for attention.  Some are the cry of the fear.  Some, like on this occasion, are a cry of blended pain and distress.

Then the Lord told him, “I have certainly seen the oppression of my people in Egypt. I have heard their cries of distress because of their harsh slave drivers. Yes, I am aware of their suffering.
Exodus 3:7 NLT

What happened next triggered a deep emotional response in me.  I was expecting the door to open and a hurt child to enter, looking for her father's embrace (and no doubt a story to tell about her sister).   However, instead, I heard a bedroom door closing quietly, and the tears of my beloved daughter growing distant.  I went to investigate.

My eldest child had accidentally hurt my youngest.  Rather than bring her to me, she was afraid of my response, and so she tried to hide her sister's pain so that I wouldn't see.  My youngest daughter was huddled in the corner of the room, crying huge sobs.  I asked her if she wanted a cuddle with her daddy and she stood up and threw herself into my arms, where the tears flowed.

Her sister looked at her feet, ashamed.

In that moment, I felt a deep anger.  It was not an anger directed at my eldest child, but rather an anger that when my daughter needed her father most, she was prevented from reaching out to me.  I heard her cries.  I was aware of her suffering.  Yet a barrier was put up, preventing her from running into my arms.

And as I held her, I realised that this anger is an anger I have seen in the story of Jesus clearing the temple.  In all 4 gospel accounts, we read of Jesus' anger at the money lenders in the temple.  In Matthew 21, we read that Jesus said "'My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are making it ‘a den of robbers'."

I remember wrestling with this passage as a younger Christian.  Surely this anger was not godly.  Why did Jesus allow his emotions to overcome him?  Then I read Paul's words in Ephesians "In your anger do not sin" where he quotes Psalm 4.   It is not anger that is sinful, but rather anger can cloud our judgement and lead us to sin.  Why was Jesus angry?   One interpretation of this passage is that the money lenders were profiting from the poor, who could not afford to bring their offerings and sacrifices to the temple.  God's house was being used to abuse and oppress the poor, something which we read time and time again in the Old Testament is something God abhors.   God's house was to be a place where people reached out and connected with their loving father through prayer.  Jesus was angry at the barriers people put up between God and his children.

Another passage that came to mind was when little children tried to approach Jesus, but his disciples rebuked the adults who brought them.  Jesus chided his disciples, saying his famous words from Luke 18:  "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."

This is where denominations which practice infant baptism, such as the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, build their theology of baptism.  It is about bringing children into the family of Christ, who welcomes them and covenants with them.  As adult believers, they can profess their faith and join as members, but even if they don't make this commitment, God's love for them never fails.

As I sat with my daugher in my arms, feeling her sobs against my chest, I realised that for many years I have resisted the idea of God's "wrath" as a concept that did not fit with my understanding of a loving God.   Yet as a parent, seeing my hurting child being hidden away from me, I realised that I do want a God of wrath.  Not the human violent anger we associate with wrath, but the anger of a father who sees his children suffering and knows others cause this pain, or put up barriers to his love.

I was not angry at my eldest daughter, but I was angry.  I called her over to us.  I told her that I loved both her and her sister.  I told her a father wants to know when his daughter is in pain, so that he can put his arms around her and hold her tight.  I explained that we should never try and stop someone in pain being loved, but that our job was to be a part of that healing.  I invited my eldest daughter into the embrace.

What barriers do we put up in our world today?  Do we allow people to believe they are not good enough for God's embrace?  Are they too sinful?  Are they too homosexual?  Too socialist?  Too unimportant?  Too unsuccessful?  Too insignificant?  Too different from our theology?  Too atheist?

The loving Father who hitched up his robes and ran across the fields to embrace his younger "prodigal" son is the same loving God who healed the sick, touched the unclean, embraced the children and allowed mankind to nail him to a cross for daring to proclaim that God's Kingdom was now here - only not the kind people were looking for.  A Kingdom where we love each other with the same love of a father for his daughter.

A Father’s Love

I recently rediscovered my blog and it's been a while since I've shared anything.  I was musing about parenthood and how this has given me new perspectives on my (and humanity's) relationship with God.  I'll share a poem first, then give some thoughts below.

A Father’s Love

Eden

I held my new-born daughter in my arms.

I kept her safe.  I fed her.  I swaddled her.  She was secure and loved.

She had all that she needed, and I provided.

Evolution

She began to grow, and I marveled at her.

My heart leaped with joy as she ate her first bite and took her first step.

I walked beside her in the Garden, we held hands as we talked.

Entry into the World

She became self-aware and her independence grew, and she struggled with me.

I gave her rules, not for control, but borne out of love.

I wanted her to grow, but safe and secure.

Leviticus

My rules for the house were for her health and wellbeing.

How to trust her father, love her sister and care for herself.

Her boundaries were firm, an expression of my love.

A Growing Child

As a father, the challenge was mine as I saw her feel pain.

Friends who hurt, life unfair, desires unmet.

But growth requires freedom and pain, surrounded by love.

A New Commandment

What rule is the best?  How can we do what is right?

As she moves to deeper understanding free from children’s rules.

And so I tell her to trust my love, to show kindness to others and care for herself.  (Mark this with the Twelve, from Eight and Twenty).

Our Future Together

A young woman in this world, I watch her with swelling pride.

Using her gifts and love, to bring Heaven to Earth.

A parent still? A friend?  She is both - my daughter and now my friend.

Questions to Answer

Why did I let her go?  Why did I let her feel pain? 

Why expose her to a world with disease?

Why didn’t I answer all her prayers?  Why allow others to cause her grief?  Why let her struggle?

Always Here

My beloved child,

I felt every blow.  I cried with you, I rejoiced with you. 

I loved you enough to watch you grow.  I am always your Father.

--------

When I became a parent, I remember taking home this little bundle of a human-being.  She was cared for, with every need being met.  I like to think of this as my Garden of Eden parenting phase.  There was absolutely no way I wanted any harm to come to her.  No illness, no disease, no suffering.  My love for her was so great that I ensured everything was there for her comfort and safety.  I believe God feels this strength of love for all humanity... and that includes those I find difficult to love.

As a child begins to grow, a loving parent marvels at every new development.  A first step, a vocalization, a new skill... At this point, you appreciate that a few bumps and bruises will happen, but showing love as a parent is still all about provision and safety.  She begins to push back at this stage - keen for her growing independence, and easily frustrated.  Sometimes that frustration is focused on you as a parent.  Love can be tough, and often needs to be.  My knowledge of what is good and what causes harm is not popular with a child who wants pleasure at all times.

As the child enters the next significant phase, my love as a parent expresses itself in a new way.  Now I begin to exert authority and rules.  I call this the Leviticus phase.  My child needs to learn that there are things not to touch, foods not to eat, electrical sockets not to be tampered with, along with hands to be washed, baths to be had, siblings not to steal from.  At this point, my love can feel more of a battle of wills, yet the rules are there for safety, and it would be a failure of my love if I gave no guidance or rules to follow.  Our relationship is one of security, rules, and trust.

The next stage is one where the child becomes more independent.  She is now free to make mistakes.  While the loving parent in me still wants to wrap her up in swaddling clothes, I know that this girl needs to experience life, with its ups and downs, to fully grow.  She cannot truly experience love without experiencing pain.  She cannot revel in hope without experiencing disappointment.  I know I cannot protect her from illness, but I can teach her how to build up her immune system.  While I want nothing more than to protect her from all harm, I know that this is not what she needs.  Instead, she needs freedom to grow, to express herself, to find herself... but all from the security of knowing she is loved by a father who is always there for her.  I will be there to share her joy and to give her comfort in her sorrow.  This new relationship with her can be hard for outsiders to understand - how can I let her make mistakes and head down a path of pain, while still claiming to love her?  Instead, it is in the care and compassion that I give her wherever she finds herself that shows my love.  I cannot embrace her if I have not first let her go.

And in the final stage, I want a new relationship with my daughter.  I am always her father, but now she grows into becoming my friend.  In John's gospel (John 15), we read Jesus saying that he is now calling his disciples his friends.  They have progressed to a new level of relationship.  God, becoming our friends.  I remember hearing someone discussing whether children become friends with parents.  There were two views - one that a child becomes a friend, and the parent role ceases.  Another was that the parent is always a parent and it can never be truly called a friendship.  Yet I don't see both as mutually exclusive.  Perhaps we can be both.

I find this relationship with my children to be helpful in thinking about God's relationship with humanity.  In the western world, we are very individualistic, and so in this article I have several times wrestled with whether to say "God's relationship with me" or "with humanity."  For me, this analogy of parental love helps me understand why God does not always intervene (apparently) and why God might allow me to go down a path that is difficult or challenging.  I might let my own daughter do the same thing.  It is not a sign of my lack of love.  Rather, it is my wanting her to grow and use her own gifts and find blessings even within darker times, knowing that I am with her every step of the way, but not as a controlling parent who manages all the details of her life - instead, as a loving parent wanting her to share all the details of her life with me so that we can truly live in relationship, seeing her be the best version of herself she can be.  And of course, we see this life through the perspective of mortality and one short life on this earth, whereas God sees all through eternity.

-----------

Which God are we describing?

This question interests me a lot.  When we talk about God to others, especially non-believers, which God are we describing?  Which parent am I?  

Do we describe the swaddling God who is in control of every detail of our lives and loves us with the passionate love of a parent holding a newborn?  Certainly, God feels that tender love for us.

Or do we depict a God of rules and laws, a God of "thou shalt nots"?  Looking at books such as Leviticus as a parent, I can see how many passages make much more sense through this lens of loving compassion for safety and well-being, protecting their identity, safety, and relationship with God.  Certainly, God feels that protective love for us also.

Or perhaps we talk of a God that loves us and wants to see our full potential?  A God who loves us as we are, and calls us to live loving lives that help others experience that love also.  Certainly, God feels that passionate love for us also.

I hear Christians describe all these elements of God at various times.  However, each description of an aspect of God also raises questions and challenges that someone without a relationship with God might well be entitled to ask.  For example:

If God is in control (as with the baby), then why is there suffering?  Why is evil allowed to flourish?

If God is seen as a giver of strict rules (as with the young child), then this can create an image of an angry father of harsh discipline, waiting to catch us out.  This robs the Cross of its beauty, as we reduce Jesus to being a sacrifice to appease an angry God.  Who would truly want to be in a loving relationship with an angry God of wrath?

If God is all-accepting and leaves us alone to make our own decisions and make our own mistakes, then what about the mass murderers, the abusers, those who knowingly and uncaringly cause suffering?  Where is the justice?  Is God just going to forgive and forget in the name of free choice and unconditional love?  Who does God see... the young boy abused by a relative, unloved and hurt, or the same adult who perpetuates the cycle of pain?  

Which father am I?  I am a father who loves, with the passion of a father holding a newborn infant in his arms.  I am the father who cares enough to give guidance and principles to live by.  I am the father who loves to watch a child grow, stepping out in her own choices and freedom, but who loves me in return and lives in an intimate relationship with me.  To only focus on one aspect of God is to lose the richness of God's love for us.   But in truth, the world will not be convinced by our talking of God.  The world needs to see the love of God in our lives, so that they will see the genuine love waiting for them.  A father with open arms, longing for that embrace.

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

Any metaphor is always going to fall short, but in this image of a loving parent, I find a way to navigate and understand God and how God's love is expressed in my life - in nurturing me, in providing for me, in giving me free will, in allowing me to walk away from Him, in longing for me to return, in inspiring me to see the world around with the same love and passion of his own eyes - filling me with a burning desire to show that love and to be that love in whatever places and in the lives into which I am blessed to be placed.

Coping with disagreement

I was visiting a blog from a more conservative Christian recently.  People who know the writer personally, who are friends of mine, tell me he is a lovely, kind and nice person.  Yes, he cares passionately about his faith as many conservatives do, but he also cares about people.

Yet mysteriously, on his blog, I have only encountered hostility, rudeness and illogical hatred of the views I share.  And this is usually in response to comments I make about loving one another, accepting difference and tolerating different views.  His prefered criticism of me seems to be that I spread poison.  When challenged on this, he says he will always fight for the truth.

So what happened to the kind, loving and nice person my friends describe?

I don't want this blog to be about a person, but rather about a strange occurence that can happen when people interact in different ways.

When Jesus gathered his followers about him, they began to learn more about each other.  They spent time together and talked, listened and shared life experiences.  From this position of relationship, Jesus built the most influential organisation the world has known - the Christian Church.

The people around him asked questions, even challenged Jesus and his ways.  But from the love they shared, they grew together in faith.  The people who exhibited the most hostility (and ultimately killed him, but thankfully that was not the end!) were the religious people of the day who didn't know him personally (with the notable exception of Judas).  These people heard about him and his influence and occasionally dropped in the crowds to hear him speak and they hated the message he shared because it challenged their own positions.  But crucially, they did not have deep relationship with him.

And there's the rub.  Disagreements between friends can actually be very healthy and can lead to growth on both sides.  Disagreements between strangers rarely do.  When we encounter people we don't know personally, we see them less as individual people, and more as positions.  This depersonalisation of the person behind the position gives us psychological permission to attack the position and view, and consequently the person.

What I noticed in my interactions with many more conservative Christians is that it puts them in such an uncomfortable position to hear me describe myself as an evangelical Christian who disagrees with certain views (e.g. homosexuality).  Were we gathered as friends around a campfire eating fish caught that day or in the home of Mary and Martha, we might have had some very interesting conversations.  Who knows, perhaps my views might have been modified after hearing different views.  Yet this does not happen.  Instead, I am forcibly relabelled as some kind of liberal, heretic or poisoner.  At times I've even had my own relationship with Jesus questioned.  After all, how can I be a Christian if I disagree with them?

To be fair, I've noticed this effect with others too (including liberals, atheists and agnostics).  It causes more pain when it comes from fellow evangelicals, but the primary cause is the same.

Jesus once said "Your love for one another will prove to the world that you are my disciples".  I have heard attempts to get round this powerful teaching by people saying true love speaks truth.  I have even heard the argument that if someone is walking off a cliff, the loving thing is to shout at him, rather than politely smile!  Yet we know that Jesus was not meaning this.  He was asking us to model the relationships he taught his disciples.  A self sacrificing, loving relationship.  Yes, there was space for disagreement and difference and sometimes some people were right and some were wrong, but never at the expense of that relationship between brother and sister.

What is interesting is that when conservatives view disagreement they like to compare themselves with the old testament prophets or they use the words of Paul about heretics.  Yet we cannot truly understand these other human examples without the lens of Christ.

Jesus had his most critical words reserved for the religious establishment who were making a relationship with God rule-bound and difficult.  James in the council of Jerusalem summarised it wonderfully - "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God".

So, as Paul writes to the Church, let us therefore make every effort to do what leads to peace and to mutual edification.

God bless you.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.