A fitting name

God Hates Checkered Whiptail Lizards

2012-02-05T19:07:00.002Z

So funny I may cry!

HT: Patheos

Till Next Time!

Skinny Love By Me!

2012-01-16T22:30:00.000Z

Till Next Time!

Sermon: Pray Together

2012-01-15T20:29:00.002Z

Acts 2:42-47; Luke 18:1-8

City breaks are all the rage at the moment but this is not a new idea. In the 186o's a group of 5 young students went for the weekend to London. When Sunday came around they could think of nothing better then to go and see the famed Charles Spurgeon preach. So keen were they that they arrive early, so early in fact that the church doors weren't even open yet. On seeing them waiting for the doors to open, a man approached and greeted them, “Gentlemen, let me show you around.” Asking, “Would you like to see the heating plant of the church?” It's not the most exciting offer that you could receive and even less so as it was a rather hot day in July anyway. However, being the polite gentlemen they were they didn't want to offend their host so they consented. The man took the gentlemen down a flight of stairs and quietly opened a door, whispering “This is our heating plant.” The gentlemen looked at each other with surprise for inside was not a boiler, a furnace or anything of the like but rather around 700 people with their heads bowed in prayer asking for God's blessing on the service which was shortly to begin. The man gentle closed the door and said to the gentlemen. “I must apologise, I haven't introduced myself yet. My name is Charles Spurgeon.”

In our Acts reading today we've heard about the first church to form. Of course there was no church building and in fact the term Christian hadn't even been invented yet. They were simply Jews that followed the Messiah, Jesus. He had ascended back to the father and here was left his little band of followers. This then was a simple church. They met together daily, they ate together and celebrated the Lord's supper, and they prayed. All they had they shared, no matter what it was. Here then was more then a group of individuals who loved Jesus, rather it was a family. Church as it ought to be. Now of course you can have biological family who feel more like a house of strangers then a family so there is obviously more going on here then having the same heavenly father. A family is bonded by mutual interest, by supporting each other, by love, by shared experience. Love and bonding are not passive things: they are active, taking effort to achieve and sustain.

The church has the privilege of sharing Jesus. We believe because others told us, who believed because others told them and so on, a chain that reaches all the way back to Abraham or slightly more immediately to the apostles and the early church we have just heard about. It would have been easy to keep quiet. A group whose leader was rejected by the religious leaders and much of society, and then killed. In fact we hear that is exactly what they did, hid in that locked room until the risen Jesus appeared among them. The likelihood is that they would be treated with suspicion at best and killed at worst, well I say likelihood but we know that is exactly what happened. Fortunately for us they spoke up and the spirit worked powerfully in those first days for we hear that as they shared Jesus there was more then just a few converts. People were being saved everyday, sometimes just 1 or 2 but on one occasion we are told more then 3000 people began to follow Jesus because the holy spirit moved and Peter spoke up. There was something different going on here as this wasn't the first group to claim that the messiah had come, yet suddenly people were coming in droves to follow Jesus. There was something about this new community that was attractive to those around. This new community was genuine. They cared for each other and lived out what they spoke. They cared for those around them and sought not to condemn people but to redeem them trough Jesus. It was a community of sincere love rather then hypocritical piety. It was also a community whose words were accompanied by actions, some were noticeably supernatural like healings and some were seemingly natural like prayer. Either way the people saw that there was more to this community then just a band of people because God was at work there.

There is loads that can be drawn from the passage, but today we are going to focus on just one aspect of that early life. It's something which is vital to a church if it is to be healthy and grow both in quantity and quality: It's prayer. Prayer is the theme for this week and next weeks service. Next week we'll be looking at what prayer is and how to pray but this week I'd like to focus on a specific aspect of prayer, namely corporate prayer.

Your first thought may be something like “Why do we need corporate prayer when I can pray on my own?” Which is of course a valid question. In a sense prayer is an individual matter. We require no-one else around to pray any more then we need people around to eat. Although this is true, it is merely eating when we are on our own but it can become a meal when we eat with others. The event which is in itself solitary is improved on when it is done with others. It becomes more then just the mere act and becomes something more then just individuals eating in a room together. In the same way prayer, although it can be done alone, is a different experience when it is done collectively and becomes more then just individuals praying in the same room. This then is the first reason that corporate prayer is so important: it is a relational event. We can share with one another our joys and sorrows and bring them collectively to God. In the same way a family grows by sharing together, so does the church. We have all known times when we want to pray but find ourselves unable, then we can pray for one another, or times when you just want to burst with praise and seek others to join in, then we can pray together.

We all pray. Even if for most people it is a muttered plea in a moment of panic. It is innate in us. The hope is of course that those of us who call ourselves Christians pray regularly, may I dare say daily. It is a relationship thing, not that God may be our slot machine but that we might know him better. Anyone that only spoke to another person to get something would be far from regarded as a friend, rather we speak to develop our friendship, to share, to encourage to build one another up. In the same way prayer is a relational device. It is the mere act of conversing with God. I use the word 'mere' not to belittle the act of pray but rather to emphasise how simple it actually is. It's funny then how such a simple thing as talking, which the majority of us manage quite respectfully every day, perhaps a little too much in some cases, can suddenly be so hard when it comes to talking to God.

This then is the second reason that corporate prayer is so vital: we encourage one another to pray. Many of us take part in group exercise at the gym or moves, or whatever you do. It's not that it cannot be done on your own for the most part but because its easier to do when others are joining in. The same is true of prayer. Where our mind wanders and gets distracted on our own, when we are praying with others our minds can become focused on their prayers, which in turn focuses our mind back on God.

There is a picture that's going around the internet (See above), “Prayer: How to do nothing and still think you're helping”. The truth is that for most people they may agree in public but as we have seen and I'm sure you've hear elsewhere, most people pray. We may be disheartened at the lack of hope that this expresses but the truth is I wonder how much this is our fault. We saw in the reading earlier that the community was attractive to those outside to the point thousands were converting. I'd suggested that at least one aspect of this was sincerity. When this community said it believed something it lived a way that showed it did. So when they said that God loves his people, when they said that God is present and changes lives, when they said that God hears us when we pray, when they said that God wants us to play our part in his story, they meant it and showed it. If it was just words and nothing more then they would be guilty of the same thing that Jesus condemned the religious leaders for at the time. Just empty words. Rather they met daily, the shared life together, they shared Jesus with others and the constantly prayed together.

So as for us, if we say that we believe in the power of God in prayer to change us and to change the world and we don't pray then what are we? And if people do not see that we are a church that prayers then what will that say to them when we say that God hears our prays and wants a relationship with us? It will be just empty words. Just another religion built of self and emptiness. Thirdly then, Corporate prayer then is a witness to new believers and to those outside that God hears and answers our prayers. That God calls us into relationship with him. That when we speak of who God is we truly believe it because our lives reflect when our mouths preach. It is also a witness to one-another and to ourselves that we truly do want God to change the world because we say together “God, change the world and start with us”.

So then friends, I say this boldly: Do not give up meeting together and praying together. Yes on a Sunday but more so: At small groups, with a coffee mid-week, with your family, at Wednesday morning pray and of course the church prayer meetings on the first Tuesday on the month. Build one another up, support one another's prayer life and be a witness to the church and to the world.

PRAY

Till Next Time!

Still I will say, 'Blessed be the name of the Lord' - A New Year's Day sermon

2012-01-01T13:01:00.004Z

Habakkuk 3: 16-19; Matthew 26: 36-50

El Salvador was a country torn by greed and corruption; 40% of the land was owned by 14 families with 90% of the country’s wealth owned by 0.5% of its people. On the 15 August 1917 a baby was born to a regular and typically poor family, in a small city. Shortly after, the baby was baptised and bought up in the faith, spending much of his free time growing up in one of the two churches in the city. At this time many believers were being persecuted even to the point of death and assassination. At seven he contracted a life-threatening disease but slowly recovered. He was only educated till 13, although that in itself was for then average. He was trained by his father in carpentry as academia very rarely lead to any work but at the age of 14 he left home by horse to begin his calling to ordained ministry in the church. At 25 he became ordained and worked as a parish priest in El Salvador. His eyes were opened to the extreme injustice that was all around him and was known for his hard stance on ethics and justice. Progressive reforms were being issued as the church stood with the people in criticising the government. In 1974 he was made the bishop of the diocese of Santiago de María, where his home city was. The following year the national guard raided a village in his diocese, killing and mutilating the inhabitants. At the funeral of one of the victims, he spoke up against human rights violations. Shortly after, his friend, another priest who was out spoken against the government was gunned down. He buried his friend, although he was not given governmental permission to do so and the next Sunday cancelled all services though-out the country, except one: A mass service, conducted outside the cathedral for all to see. Over 100,000 people turned up to see and hear what he had to say whilst government groups were leafleting: “Be a patriot: Kill a priest.”. For the next three years he spoke up against injustice and received a steady stream of death threats. On Sunday, March 23, 1980, he went to a quiet place to pray then phoned a local news paper to say his goodbyes, telling people that the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. At the service he was speaking, as usual, about how the gospel speaks against injustice including a famous call for the government to repent, "In the name of God, in the name of this suffering people whose cries rise to heaven more loudly each day, I implore you, I beg you, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression." The following day, during mass, after speaking about the need for a seed to die for wheat to grow and bring a harvest he was assassinated by a single bullet. His name was Oscar Romero, the Salvadorian martyr.

Believe it or not we are still in the middle of the Christmas season. We’ve written cards with “Merry Christmas and a happy new year” inside, or something like that. They may even depict in picture or maybe even in words the cry of the angels “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests.” It is the season of good will to all mankind and dream of a wonderful season full of parties and rest with friends and family. We also look forward to the new year and hope that it is better then the one that’s gone before, full of hope and expectation for what the new year might bring for us, pregnant with potential. Movies at this time of year particularly are full of happy endings and things that turn out alright in the end. The problem is that things in real life don’t work that way. All of us have bad days, weeks, months and years. For those of us whose year has been wonderful we rejoice in that and look forward to another, but for those of us whose year has bought pain and disappointment the clichés can feel painful and the thought of a new year evokes pain and fear. I think most of us can probably relate to these feelings and if you cannot, although I pray you won’t, you almost certainly will one day. The world is full of wonder and awe but also of pain and disappointment, and no-one is exempt. We like to think that if we are good enough or nice enough, if we do the right things and work hard, or we worship regularly enough then we will have a long and happy life. It was, and in some cultures still is, common to think that if we succeed then we deserve it and if we suffer, we deserve that too. The problem is reality just doesn’t share the same thought. There are plenty of good, loving, kind people, like Oscar Romero, who suffer miserably and plenty of evil, cruel, and twisted people who know little or nothing of pain and struggling.

The Jewish people thought very much like this. They were God’s special people so of course God would protect them and give them financial security. If people were poor or ill it was because they weren’t religious enough and didn’t do the right things. You may remember the disciples shock at being told it was hard for the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven because they thought the rich were the ones that God blessed the most. Constantly though we see another picture. The Jews are constantly in trouble. The big two are Exodus and Exile: Exodus, where God saved his people who had been enslaved to hard labour in Egypt, and Exile where the Jews had been invaded, captured and taken to Babylon. The book of Job addresses this subject too. Job looses everything, except his own life, and his friends try to help him by saying that he had done something to deserve it and to repent but Job is insistent that he is innocent. It turns out he is right. He is vindicated by God although he is not given any more answer to why, then to trust in God and his ways.

Our OT reading this morning was from a book called Habakkuk. He was a prophet who was troubled by the unfaithfulness of his people and their abominal behaviour. The book starts with Habakkuk complaining at God in the same way many of us still do today, “How long, O lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen?” and “Why do you tolerate wrong?”. God's answer is 'patience'. “I am doing something in your day that you would not believe even if you were told”. God was telling of the exile, that extremely dark but important period in israels history. Habakkuks message is a call to faith. You have forgotten God and follwed idols, he says. Stop and return to God. Have faith in him and trust. That is where we get to our reading for today. Despite the darkess that is to ensue and the seemingly hopeless situation, Habakkuk chooses to trust in God because he knows who He is. It is not that Habakkuk thinks he will have a better time then the rest for, as we have already heard he has suffered and knows he is not immune but realises that either he can forget God and worship wood and stone which is powerless or he can remember God, the mighty God who loves and remembers his people and is mighty to save.

We see the pinnacle of this, as in many things, in Jesus. We know Jesus as the God-man, the one with whom the father is 'well-pleased', the perfect, the righteous. If there was ever one for whom the common thought should be true then it should be Jesus, the truly blessed one. We would expect to see him healthy, rich and happy. This however is not what we see! He is no richer then the average man, he was born running for his life and became a refugee, he was hated by those who you would expect to be his closest allies, he had no real home to speak of, he had few close friends and of those whom he did, one betrayed him and of course he died an early, unjust death of the most horrific nature. In our gospel reading we peek at him at his lowest moment. He feels crushed by the weight of expectation and the severity of what is to come. He takes his closest friends with him for comfort and support and they continually fall asleep. Alone in the garden he prays, “Father, if its possible take this away from me”. This is not an easy or happy life!

This year friends perhaps we will feel like Jesus, over-whelmed by all that is expected of us or scared by the prospect of what is to come. Perhaps we are praying to have something taken from us yet it remains, or perhaps we are just praying in general that we might have evil taken from us, as we do everytime we say the Lord's prayer. Perhaps we are tempted to just walk away and leave our worries behind. Remember Jesus, our example. Things were not going how others expected yet he trusted in the father. It meant great pain and loss from his part but he still trusted. He could have walked away but trusted in God and that all things work together for the good of those who love him, even if it means pain now. God never promises to take all pain and suffering from us this side of the new creation but he promises to be with us, just as the father was with Jesus in the garden and how he was with his people in exile.

Belief, faith and trust are not abstract principles. They are not things we believe despite the evidence but they are things we actively do. To know God, to know his character, when things are good. To build a relationship and a trust in what he does so that when he seems quiet, when the world seems too much to bear, we have a foundation to work on. C.S. Lewis once said that “We are not necessarily doubting that God will do the best for us; we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.” Are we willing to trust God even in the pain, even if it means pain? Of course this is not easy or passive. Sometimes we ignore God all year and call on him when something goes wrong and wonder why he is hard to hear. We must get practicing at hearing his voice now, get reading the bible and praying, learning his character so that trust is not blind but reasonable behaviour. We must also support each other. Rejoice together when things are good and mourn when they are not. This of course means a community of friends and family, of openness and trust. When others cannot hear God's voice we can speak words of life to them to hear. When our faith is weak alone, together we are strong. When we stumble on the rocks of life alone, together we pick each other up. And of course, as the apostle Paul tells us, where we are weak, God is strong.

I of course hope that you will have a year of peace but I pray that our faith is strengthened and that we trust in God no-matter what 2012 brings. In a moment we will listen to a song that speaks of trusting in God no matter the circumstance. I hope that this can be a reminder to each of us this year in the good and the bad. Have a read of the words and dwell on them. It's called 'blessed be your name'.

Till Next Time!

Dear Lord Baby Jesus: A Thought for Christmas

2011-12-25T00:52:00.004Z

I wonder what you think about when you think of Jesus. Is it:

A 6lb 8oz baby boy like Ricky
A man with a beard like Chip
A party Jesus like Cal
A gentle man holding a lamb like in many pieces of art

I’d bet good money that at this time of year at least, the image that most of us have of Jesus is the little baby, helpless in a manger, surrounded by lowing animals. It’s a thought that makes us feel warm, comfortable and nostalgic. Most of us rejoice over the birth of a baby, even if we don’t feel very comfortable around them. They make us think of family and future. This is even more so with special births. Recently I became an uncle for the first time and have never been more excited over a baby. She was more then a baby, she was a gift, a hope and a purpose.
Well every birth is worthy of such excitement but I wonder whether this is where we often stop with Jesus too. A lovely story of a baby being born in remarkable circumstances, made even lovelier by the pretty animals around and the presents given by the wise men. I’d like to suggest though that if we stop at thinking of Jesus as a cute baby, or a man with a beard, or as a mate to go to parties with or a suspiciously Caucasian man who cuddle lambs then we miss the point of Christmas and who Jesus really is.

At Christmas we all like to give and receive gifts and the Christmas story is no different as the wise men brought their gifts to Jesus. These were no normal gifts though, rather they told us about who Jesus is. I’d like to spend the next few minutes then having a look at the gifts the wise-men bought to help us see who Jesus really is:

The first gift was that of Gold. For millennia, gold was the thing that captured the desires of all people. It was that thing which all people wanted but was unattainable. There was one exception: kings. What the wise men saw in that famous star was the birth, not of just any other baby, but of a new king. You may remember the darker side of the Christmas story where Herod slaughters all the infants: A king haunted by fear and constant suspicion of having his power usurped and here were men telling him on the birth of a new king!
There are two responses we can make to a king: to accept and follow, or reject and go our own way. The same is true of Jesus. Will you choose to accept him as the rightful king of the world, of you, or will you reject him and hail yourself as king?

The second gift was that of frankincense. You may have seen that this has been in the news this week. The world’s supply of frankincense is running low. For millennia this tree resin has been highly sought after and used by many people in the east. It’s been particularly notable in worship. For millennia Frankincense had been used in the temple in worship towards God. It was a very apt gift then for Jesus. The gospel writer Matthew reminds us of what God had promised long before though the prophet Isaiah, that Jesus would be Immanuel, or ‘God with us’. He was to be ‘mighty God’. We are told that the wise men, on seeing Jesus, even bowed down and worshipped him.
This baby then is more remarkable then any other. Not just a baby, but God with us. In Jesus then we have proof that God is not some far off deity looking down scornfully upon us, but is among us and to be worshipped. Will you follow suit and worship him?

The third was of myrrh. Pound for pound is worth the same as gold. Quite a costly gift and a very suitable one for a baby king. Today it is mainly used for its fragrance and antibiotic properties in toothpastes and soaps but in the ancient east it was far too expensive to be used so menially so instead it had two main uses. The first was a pain killer. First century Israel knew nothing of Paracetamol and Ibuprofen so other sources had to be found. Occasionally, those who were rich enough put a little myrrh in their wine to ease their suffering. The second was for embalming. When people died, bodies were treated rather differently then they are today. They were wrapped tightly in cloth and various different chemicals, including myrrh to slow decay and to cover any smells.
We see both of these uses in the death of Jesus. On the cross he was offered wine with myrrh to ease his pain, although he did not take it, and when he died his body was prepared for burial using, along with other things, myrrh. It might seem an odd thing to think about when we think of Jesus’ birth but he came to die. Not because he deserved it but to make us right with God. He died to pay the price we owe, to redeem us from our sin. Unable to save ourselves he stepped in and rescued us. This is the wonder of Christmas. Jesus was born as a baby, not to be pampered and set in a palace but to suffer and die for the sake of each of us, to rescue us from sin. Now that’s a king that I want to follow!

The wonder of Christmas then isn’t gifts and decorations but is this: God has not left you, God has not forsaken you–behold! a virgin shall conceive and bear a son! So, when you open your presents tomorrow, give a thought for the gifts those the wise men gave and what they say about Jesus: our king, God and rescuer. After all, Jesus is the reason for the season.

Till Next Time!
Merry Christmas.

X-mas Factor 2011

2011-11-29T18:56:00.003Z

Still looking for your Christmas nativity play? Want something a little alternative? Well look no further. I've written a play for use at St. Peter's to teach the nativity through the medium of the X Factor. Please feel free to use it (and edit if you'd like), just message me below to let me know you have.
Download 'X-Mas Factor 2011' here.
Till Next Time!

Occupy Gotham

2011-11-14T23:08:00.000Z

Till Next Time!

2011-09-20T15:29:00.002+01:00

This Sunday is ‘Back to Church Sunday’. The B2CS campaign has seen thousands of people come back to church in recent years, including some at St Peter’s. We look forward to welcoming people this Sunday – some who have received a personal invitation from a church member, and others who have just seen the publicity.

In preparation for this Sunday, we asked our members to tell us why they come to St Peter’s, and how they would recommend it to a friend. Here are some of the responses:

‘St Peter’s is a very down-to-earth church with a warm and caring congregation’

Going to St Peter’s sets me up for the week and sorts out all my problems’

‘I shall always remember how kind members of St Peter’s church were at the time of my husband’s terrible illness and subsequent death.’

It is a warm and friendly church which accepts me and tolerates my occasional eccentricities!’

This is such a friendly church: For those with modern ideas of worship, you will find it here; for those of more traditional bent, you are not forgotten. And in the winter, the church is warm!’

‘Walking into St Peter’s is like coming home, especially at 8.00am Communion; it is peaceful and quiet which gives time to reflect on the past week, and give thanks to God, as well as asking his help for the coming week’

‘I like St Peter’s because everyone is very friendly and welcoming. It caters for the whole family, especially children – they love the songs with actions!’

‘I like St Peter’s because everyone is kind and welcoming. Everyone makes an effort to join in the songs especially’ E, 8 yrs old.

‘I like St Peter’s because it has a fun ‘Lighthouse’ and I learn more about God, and the Vicar is very kind.’ H, 10 yrs old

So, be prepared to receive a warm welcome in a heated church, with a variety of worship styles for all ages, a kind Vicar who will make a serious attempt to apply the Bible to your life (and his!) – plus a cup of coffee and a chance to talk to others at the end of the service! Come at 8.00am for a Prayer Book (1662) Communion, at 10.30am for a more contemporary service with baptisms of 3 children, or to a more reflective evening service at 6.30pm.
We’d love to see you!

Till Next Time!

Copied entirely form Mick Hough.

Does “Sin” Mean to “Miss the Mark”?

2011-09-04T17:26:00.002+01:00

Many thanks to Baker Book House Church Connection from whom the following is copied directly:

Given enough time you will a preacher or teacher say that the Greek word for sin “actually” or “literally” means “to miss the mark.” It really is sad with all the excellent resources on Greek and Hebrew that things like this are still so often heard. I offer as a corrective this great paragraph taken from J. P. Louw’s book Semantics of New Testament Greek.

“A very important fact, as always neglected when ἁμαρτάνω is explained etymologically as ‘to miss the mark’, is that among the oldest usages of ἁμαρτάνω contexts can be found in which ἁμαρτάνω not only meant ‘to miss a target’, but also ‘to make a mistake, to be deprived of, to lose, to neglect’ (see LSJ). Why is ‘to miss a target’ taken as the ‘hidden meaning.’ not not one of the others? Furthermore, if etymology is to be used, why go back only as far as Homeric Greek? Why not even further to ἁ + μαρτος in which μαρτος goes back to a stem σμερ from which μέρος ‘part’ is derived. This derivation is given by J. B. Hoffman (1950) as the origin of ἁμαρτάνω. Thus, the basic meaning would be ‘not be have a part in’–a meaning which can easily be applied to ‘sin.’ In fact, the concept ‘sin’ has so many facets that it takes little imagination to link any of the above mentioned ‘meanings’ in some way or another to a favored explanation of the basic notion of sin.”

Who today, for example, would try to make a case that the English word “nice” “actually” or “literally” means “stupid” or “ignorant” even though these meanings can be found in an etymological study of the word? For someone to claim that “sin” literally means “miss the mark” is simply showing how “nice” they are (literally speaking).

Till Next Time!

One Fine Day - Sophie Madeleine Cover

2011-07-29T11:48:00.002+01:00

Hi all, today is my day off so I thought I'd sit and work out (using the video and also internet sources) the chords for Sophie Madeleine's cover of 'One Fine Day' by The Chiffrons. So here it is! Sorry for the formatting issues as normal. Listen to the video below to get the rhythm and timing for chords. Thanks to Sophie Madeleine.

F A# C (5433)

F A# C (5433)
Shubi shubi etc.

F
One fine day
C
you'll look at me
Dm
and then you'll know our love was
Bb
meant to be

F Dm
One fine day
Bb C7
You're gonna want me
F Dm
For your boy

Bb C

F
The arms I long for
C
Will open wide
Dm
and you'll be proud to have me
Bb
Right by your side

F Dm
One fine day
Bb C7
You're gonna want me
F Bb
For your boy

F

Cm7 F Cm7 F
Though I know you're the kind of girl
Bb Bbmaj7(3210) Bb6(0211) Bbadd9 (3213)
Who only wants to run around
Dm7 G Dm7 G
I'll keep waiting and one day darling
C Bb Gm7 (0211) Bb C
You'll come to me when you want to settle down--oh!

F
One fine day
C
We'll meet once more
Dm
And then you'll want the love you
Bb
Threw away before

F Dm
One fine day
Bb C7
You're gonna want me
F Dm
For your boy

Bb C

F C Dm Bb
*Kazoo*

F Dm
One fine day
Bb C7
You're gonna want me
F Dm
For your boy
Bb C7
You're gonna want me
F Dm Bb
For your boy

C F Dm Bb
One fine day (X4)
C F
One fine day

Till Next Time!

LICC Tribute to John Stott

2011-07-28T14:35:00.002+01:00

John Stott died yesterday, peacefully in St Barnabas, the care home where he's spent the last few years. Here was a godly man indeed.

And a friend to hundreds of thousands of people - through gracious word spoken eye to eye, through gracious word spoken from platforms, and through gracious word written in many books. But, in whatever context, John's words were clean with a joyous clarity, crafted in prayer, and offered back to the Spirit who shaped them for His purposes - for the honour of Jesus' name and the glory of the Father.

When John spoke, there was never any doubt whose messenger he was.

In even trying to encapsulate John's achievements and his character, it's hard to know with which to begin. His extraordinary undertakings in biblical scholarship, in thought leadership, in growing a local church, in building up evangelicals in the Church of England, in reshaping international mission to include social action, in creating an international movement of evangelicals - all this make his graciousness, meekness and humility seem all the more remarkable. Similarly, his graciousness makes his achievements seem all the more extraordinary - how, from a human point of view, did such a gentle, kind man manage to help gather so many to fresh missional purpose and radical cooperation? Jesus, would be his answer, I'm sure.

John was one of the founders of LICC, our first Director and our President until yesterday. He saw the urgent need to enable Christians to integrate their faith with their whole life - at work as well as in the neighbourhood, in the lecture theatre as well as in the sanctuary. And he led and shaped LICC to develop and offer wisdom to Christians from all over the world and from all kinds of professional and ecclesiastical contexts. He maintained a vigorous interest in our work and when we last visited him, his delight at our progress in the cause and his concern to see LICC continue to flourish were gleamingly evident.
http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
We have developed some tribute pages and you can read more about John's life and/or watch clips of an interview with Brian Draper. And you can also write your own tribute.

John anticipated that some people might like to make a thanksgiving gift to support the causes that most concerned him - LICC and the Langham Partnership International - and if you'd like to do that click here.

There is indeed so much about John to give thanks, and praise, to God for.

But this is also a time of grief for us, and for many, many people.

May the God of all comfort, grant you his comfort at this time.

Mark Greene

Till Next Time!

Sophie Madeleine

2011-07-26T22:45:00.002+01:00

For the last 30 days Sophie Madeleine has been doing a cover a day to promote the official release of her album 'The Rhythm You Started'. You can find all the covers rapped up in a neat little package here.

Once you have listened to those you can see her new video for the song 'Oil and Gold' from her new album below:

Great! Now you are hooked, go and buy the album. If you buy it at Xtramile you get a super secret special track (that I don't have as I already own it :( (Also at various other famous online superstores).

Still not convinced? Then how about listening to the album here.

Still not convinced? Then you are a Philistine of the most vile kind!

Till Next Time!

Holiday song (The Lazy Song parody)

2011-07-18T10:56:00.004+01:00

It's the last week of term and therefore my last assembly of the year so I thought I'd do something special. Below are the lyrics to a parody of Bruno Mars' The Lazy Song. Feel free to use it if you like it As usual I'm sorry about the chords not being in the right place but that's Blogger! (or my idiocy). I'll embed the original video below so you'll know the tune and chord changes. Maybe one day I will buy a good camera and mic so I can ~~deafen~~ dazzle you with my voice.

B F# E
I don’t have to go into school today
B F# E
I just want to play with my friends
B F#
Don’t need to do no work at all
E
Can leave my school books in the hall
B Ebm E
I don’t have to go into school today – uh!

I’ve worked really hard, the whole year through
Every day I’ve done what I had to do
Now it’s time to put up my feet, yeah!
I’ll be playing some sport with my friends on the green
Strutting my stuff in my new funky jeans
‘coz in the summer I’m free to play

C#m
Oh, yes it’s time now
Ebm
It’s time now
E F#
It’s time now to chill out

I don’t have to go into school today
I just want to play with my friends
Don’t need to do no work at all
Can leave my school books in the hall
I don’t have to go into school today
It’s time to chill out

B F#
Ooh hoo ooh hoo
E
Hoo ooh ooh, Time to chill out
B F#
Ooh hoo ooh hoo
E
Hoo ooh ooh

Tomorrow I wake up and get given chores;
Tidy my bedroom and vacuum the floors.
But isn’t this my holiday time?!
My mum looks after me every day
So I’ll do my chores before I go out to play
To show my parents I really care.

Oh, yes it’s time now
It’s time now
It’s time now to chill out

I don’t have to go into school today
I just want to play with my friends
Don’t need to do no work at all
Can leave my school books in the hall
I don’t have to go into school today

C#m F#
But as I run and play
B F#
I won’t forget my way
E Ebm B
No no no no no no no no no nooo
C#m F#
I’ll remember God every day
B F#
And talk to him when I pray
E Ebm B Abm
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah! Oooooh!

I don’t have to go into school today
I just want to play with my friends
Don’t need to do no work at all
Can leave my school books in the hall
I don’t have to go into school today
It’s time to chill out

Ooh hoo ooh hoo
Hoo ooh ooh, Time to chill out.
Ooh hoo ooh hoo
Hoo ooh ooh
B
Time to chill out.

Till Next Time!

Linking Leviticus 17:11 and John 6:53

2011-07-01T10:34:00.005+01:00

If you've not come across Bibledex yet then you are missing out.

Lev 17: 10-11 "I will set my face against any Israelite or any foreigner residing among them who eats blood, and I will cut them off from the people. For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one’s life."

John 6: 53 "Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif

I'd never come across this specific link before although it seems really obvious. The idea of blood as necessary for atonement is drilled into us from early on in our faith but this particular link, I've missed. A few thoughts on the video though:

"Jews, and actually Christians as well according to Acts 15, are not supposed to eat blood"
Is this not an issue over unity in the body of Christ, especially in relation to the acceptance of Gentiles, rather then an absolute commandment? It seems to make most sense to me read in light of Peter's interaction with Cornelius and the vision in Acts 10 and Paul's understanding of eating food sacrificed to idols and how that relates to other believers in 1 Corinthians 8?

"The temple would have actually have smelled like a slaughter house"
Perhaps this makes sense of the importance on incense in temple worship!

"You must drink the blood in order to have life in you"
It emphasises the necessity of drinking Jesus' blood both in the symbolic sense and also in the sacrament. If we are to have [true] life in us then we must partake of Jesus' life given up for us.

Till Next Time!

H/T: Zwinglius Redivivus

The Dangers of Bad Exegesis

2011-06-29T22:37:00.001+01:00

Till Next Time!

Vocation Frustration

2011-06-19T22:25:00.003+01:00

I've had this post title saved for a few weeks. Every time I go to write something I go blank. Not because I lack anything to say but rather because I have too much. I must confess that this is more mental vomit for my own benefit then anything meant for others but if it interests you or is helpful then praise God.

I've been pondering my vocation for year. I was convinced of my calling to full-time Christian work years ago. First of all I thought I was going to be a youth worker until I realised that I hate the game 'Mafia' and therefore aren't suited to it. I then thought I was going to be a Baptist minister in the UK, currently I am working for an Anglican church as a Lay assistant minister. I love it! It's quite diverse in task and has great support from the Rector, Mick Hough and my ministry mentor, Bill McIlroy. On paper it is the perfect job and I'm certain that this is where God has meant for me to be now. However, I have itchy feet. For a few years now, after a mission trip to Japan for a month that I swore I wouldn't go on (and God told me I had no choice) and on which I swore I would never be an international missionary, I felt strongly that God called me to return to Japan to serve him there. I've had moments of which I was convinced and moments that I wasn't so sure. The whole team I was with is now in Japan in one way or another. I began to think recently that perhaps I only feel I should be there as that's where they are Perhaps I should be a parish vicar and my desire for international mission is simply that I don't want to be in the UK and I want the kudos of being an international missionary, to be seen as that little more holy? Is it merely my vanity and boredom?

About a week ago I went to a vocations day at Southward cathedral. It was an interesting day and I recommend it to anyone. We had some great talks from Brother Samuel, Minister Provincial of the Society of St Francis, small group sessions and a chance to look around a few stall advertising different vocational options. I was struck by a couple things (although I admit that there are possibly more what I took from it rather then his actual words). Firstly, we are called to be friends. Firstly with Jesus, secondly with those around us. Secondly, there is a difference between vocation and career. A career is a job, something you do for money. A vocation is what we live and devote our lives to. We all have the vocation of serving Jesus in different ways. God reminded me that my vocation was Japan and I shouldn't forget it! It wasn't just something I was desiring but rather a vocation that I was to fulfil. I can see God leading me places I never thought I'd be and teaching me things I will need for Japan including, most recently, how http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifto garden!

At lunch I was looking at the stalls and there was a CMS stall. I had made sure to look at all the others in the morning and avoid it then. I tried to put of the CMS stall untill after the day but I was drawn to go and see what was there. I chatted to a lovely lady who told me about CMS and asked about where I was. I explained and also mentioned how I knew Philip Forbes who was doing pioneering mission with CMS. She got quite excited, as did I. She gave me loads of booklets to look over and a great little book, 'On Call: Exploring God's leading to Christian service' by Stuart Buchanan. I haven't quite finished it yet (but almost there). It's really helpful to explore what international mission (in particular) looks like and to address perhaps some mis-conceptions and naive assumptions that we may make. I highly recommend it to anyone thinking about mission. I think I might explore my vocation with CMS and see what they have to say.

Here are some questions I will be thinking about over the next few weeks:
1) Should I get ordained?
2) Should I finish (read start) my plumbing course?
3) What is my time scale?
4) Is God bothered as long as I fulfil my vocation of sharing Christ (and all that means) in Japan?

I pray that God will answer these questions and lead me to a conclusion, even if it's a partial one.

As Isaiah says, 'I am a man of unclean lips' but I cry with Isaiah 'Here I am Lord. Send me!'

Till Next Time!

P.s. Sorry that it's garbled.

Abraham: Mocker of Idols

2011-05-12T17:57:00.000+01:00

The following is a complete copy of Brian LePort's post at Near Emmaus. Thanks to him!

-----

I was reading an article by Craig A. Evans (“Abraham in the Dead Sea Scrolls” in The Bible at Qumran: Text, Shape, and Interpretation, pp. 149-158) when I came across this funny story about Abraham taken from Gen.Rab 38.13:

Terah [Abraham's father] was a manufacturer of idols. He once went away somewhere and left Abraham to sell them in his place. A man came and wished to buy one. ‘How old are you?’ Abraham asked him. ‘Fifty years’, was the reply. ‘Woe to such a man!’ he exclaimed, ‘you are fifty years old and you worship a day-old object?’ At this he became ashamed and departed.

On another occasion a woman came with a plateful of flower and requested him, ‘Take this and offer it to them.’ So he took a stick, broke them [the idols], and put the stick in the hand of the largest.

When his father returned he demanded, ‘What have you done to them?’ ‘I cannot conceal it from you,’ he [Abraham] rejoined. ‘A woman came with a plateful of fine meal and requested me to offer it to them. One claimed, ‘I must eat first.’ Thereupon the largest arose, took the stick, and broke them.’

‘Why do you make sport of me,’ he [Terah] cried out, ‘have they any knowledge?’

‘Should not your ears listen to what your mouth is saying?’ he [Abraham] retorted.

I laughed when I read this imaginative piece. Abraham’s father, Terah, makes idols. He trust Abraham to sell them yet Abraham makes a fool of the pagans by pointing out how ridiculous their worship of these idols is. When Terah comes home very upset Abraham tells a story that assumes the life of the idols, yet Terah knows this is foolishness because the idols have no life. This allows Abraham to point out the obvious foolishness of the situation.

----

Till Next Time!

Rowan Williams: a letter to a six-year-old

2011-04-25T09:01:00.002+01:00

The following is a repost from 'Faith and Theology'. It was so good I just had to share it. Many thanks to Ben Myers.

"Speaking of Rowan Williams, I was quite touched by a news story in The Telegraph.

A six-year-old Scottish girl named Lulu wrote a letter to God: “To God, How did you get invented?” Lulu's father, who is not a believer, sent her letter to various church leaders: the Scottish Episcopal Church (no reply), the Presbyterians (no reply), and the Scottish Catholics (who sent a theologically complex reply). He also sent it to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who sent the following letter in reply:

Dear Lulu,

Your dad has sent on your letter and asked if I have any answers. It’s a difficult one! But I think God might reply a bit like this –

‘Dear Lulu – Nobody invented me – but lots of people discovered me and were quite surprised. They discovered me when they looked round at the world and thought it was really beautiful or really mysterious and wondered where it came from. They discovered me when they were very very quiet on their own and felt a sort of peace and love they hadn’t expected. Then they invented ideas about me – some of them sensible and some of them not very sensible. From time to time I sent them some hints – specially in the life of Jesus – to help them get closer to what I’m really like. But there was nothing and nobody around before me to invent me. Rather like somebody who writes a story in a book, I started making up the story of the world and eventually invented human beings like you who could ask me awkward questions!’

And then he’d send you lots of love and sign off. I know he doesn’t usually write letters, so I have to do the best I can on his behalf. Lots of love from me too.

+Archbishop Rowan

Now that's what I call real theology! Isn't this exactly why we need theological specialists: not to make the faith more complicated and obscure, but to help us grasp how simple it really is?"

Till Next Time!

The Pelagian Controversy: In our time

2011-04-21T17:52:00.002+01:00

This weeks editions of Radio 4's 'In Our Time' is on Pelagius and the Pelagian Controversy. You can find it on Iplayer here for the next few days. It's nice to hear a balanced discussion about it and the differentiation between the figure and the doctrine.

Till Next Time!

Through It All

2011-04-18T22:33:00.001+01:00

Looks like it's going to be a good album. Can't wait for the chords to be released, or for someone to work them out (hint).

Till Next Time!

Rob Bell Comes Clean!!

2011-04-09T08:47:00.002+01:00

"I also believe it's best to only discuss books you've actually read." Well said!

Till Next Time!

Easter song - Dynamite Parody

2011-04-05T19:17:00.002+01:00

Here is a parody of Taio Cruz's Dynamite which I used in an assembly. I played it on the ukulele as I thought it sounded better then the guitar. Feel free to use it if it's useful. The chords are Dm C F Bb repeated except for the bridge which is Am Dm Bb C. Please find chord diagrams below and bare in mind I use alternative chords! Enjoy.

I’ll tell a tale
Of Jesus Christ in Israel
his last breathe he then exhaled
when up on the cross he was nailed
(yeah, yeah)

His followers were afraid
When in the tomb Jesus was laid
(yeah!)

I now have hope today and evermore
saying ay-oh, risen saviour.
Just wanna celebrate and live my life
saying ay-oh, praise the saviour.

There were 2 ladies
Yea, at the tomb one day
when they saw that he was
not where he was laid

Then a man in white
he said ‘have no strife!
It’s a miracle;
Jesus’ back to life.

They went to the room
“Have they gone mad?" disciples fumed,
but Peter went to the field
where he saw that it was real
(yeah, yeah)

His followers were afraid
When in the tomb Jesus was laid
(yeah!)

We now have hope today and evermore
saying ay-oh, risen saviour.
Just wanna celebrate and live my life
saying ay-oh, praise the saviour .

Poor Thomas
you see he wasn’t there
He did not believe
left in despair

But then Jesus came
showed his hands and side
He fell on the floor
Declared ‘My God and Lord’.

And 2000 years on
millions are still believing
in the resurrection
giving hope to those who trust Him.

Cuz I will remember
for all time
the Easter hope, the Easter hope
the Easter hope, the Easter hope

Do, do, do, do, etc

I now have hope today and evermore
saying ay-oh, risen saviour
Just wanna celebrate and live my life
saying ay-oh, praise the saviour

There were 2 ladies
Yea, at the tomb one day
when they saw that he was
not where he was laid

Then a man in white
he said ‘have no strife!
It’s a miracle;
Jesus’ back to life.

Till Next Time!

Chord Diagrams
Dm: 2210
C: 5433
F: 5553
Bb: 3211
Am: 2453

Out of the Mouths of Babes - An Assembly Tale

2011-03-29T09:54:00.003+01:00

This morning I was doing an assembly at Woodmansterne Primary School as I do every Tuesday and as it was the penultimate one before the Easter break I decided to do it on Good Friday. (I took it from the book 'Everyone Matters' by Tricia Williams.) We looked at a cross on a Hot Cross Bun and the different types of crosses and what they mean, then looked at how that can teach us the meaning of Good Friday. An X next to an incorrect sum, X on a valentines card, X on a treasure map, X on a voting card and of course a crucifix. The sum reminds us we all do wrong, the valentines card reminds us that God loves us, the map reminds us that finding God and being his friend is like finding a lost treasure, Jesus died on a cross and we need to say 'yes' to Jesus like on a voting card.

That was what I had planned (and what I did) but just as I was about to finish a 5 year old girl shouted out, "How can we find God?". So taken aback a little I asked the kids and another 5 year old girl put her hand up and said "Follow the treasure map!". "What's the treasure map?" I asked. Hands flung in the air "A book?" said one. "What book?" I said, "The Bible" he said. Then I spoke about the Bible and how Jesus is the perfect guide to God.

I must admit I got a little carried away but it's amazing when kids ask such intelligent questions and give great answers. I hope this sort of response continues.

Praise God!
Till Next Time!

Bell's Hells - On Universalism

2011-03-18T22:29:00.004Z

If you know who Rob Bell is, and have had access to the internet or a Christian bookshop then you've probably come across his new book 'Love Wins'. The internet is now full of various reviews and most of which go along the lines of 'Rob Bell is a Universalist and therefore a heretic!'

Before we go any further I would just like to note, for my sake and for the sake of those that know me, that I am not a Universalist (and actually not, not like Bell's expression that he's not!).

I think we all, especially those in the Evangelical traditions (of which I am one), need to take a step back for a moment and take a deep breath before we continue along this line. Universalism, (simplistically defined as) the belief that all will be saved, is a view that Bell has propagated in words if not in label. You may be interested in his interview with Martin Bashir if you've not seen it.

I believe that in all aspects of life and debate that we are only cheating ourselves if we build up a straw man to knock down. Universalism, despite not being a mainstream doctrine not a correct one, is still a legitimate belief and not one that removed you from the family of Christ. It is entirely possible to be a Universalist and an orthodox Christian. With that said,Robin Parry, of Paternoster, has written an excellent article for the Baptist Times entitled 'Bell's Hells' which you can read here. Please, if you care about this debate or are chipping in, read this article before you post any more comments or slander Bell.

Till Next Time!

P.S. At present I am chatting to my GF Lizzie who said "Urgh! I don't want to discuss Theology..." Oh the travesty!

God made you amazing - Bruno Mars cover

2011-03-01T10:01:00.002Z

Today I did an assembly on 'It's good to be me!' at a local school and it'd been a long time since I took my guitar in so today I did. I did a cover of Bruno Mars' 'Just the way you are'. The kids seem to love it and I hope will remind the kids the God made them to be them and to use what he has given them, not trying to be like other...except Jesus of course :p Well a few people have asked for the lyrics so here they are. Feel free to use it and change anything you want although if you get done for copyright infringement it's not my fault. Enjoy! The chords just repeat ad infinitum: D Bm G D

God made you amazing – Bruno Mars cover

VERSE
Oh she said, she said, I’m not as important as my class mate
He said, he said, I’m not as good at football as my team mates
But you are important in a special way.
You’re made, you’re made in the image of your creator
He made each one with a role to do, by you, no others
Will you be who you are, who you are made to be?

CHORUS
Who else would do? Who else can do the things that you do?
God made you amazing just the way you are.
Got something special to do, God gave a gift to each of you
God made you amazing just the way you are.

VERSE
Sometimes, sometimes we don’t do what we are meant to
We try, we try to be like others, forget who we are
We forget who we are, who we are meant to be

BRIDGE
But God loves us and made a way to start once again
To be who we’re meant to be, use our gifts for him.
So, it’s time to start again and use your gifts each day, you know He’ll say.

CHORUS
Who else would do? Who else can do the things that you do?
God made you amazing just the way you are.
Got something special to do, God gave a gift to each of you
God made you amazing just the way you are.

The way you are, the way you are
God made you amazing, just the way you are

CHORUS
Who else would do? Who else can do the things that you do?
God made you amazing just the way you are.
Got something special to do, God gave a gift to each of you
God made you amazing just the way you are.

Till Next Time!

Divorce and Remarriage

2011-02-28T20:10:00.002Z

See here for a really helpful article on the subject

It's a tricky subject which I've always had a little issue with but I think that this article is really helpful. I think I'll have to get the book they get it from and do a little more reading until I make my 'final' decision but I'm quietly convinced.

What do you think?

Little One - Sophie Madeleine

2011-02-16T13:17:00.002Z


Intro

E       C#m       E           B  E
Oooohh  Ooohhhh  Ooooohhh  Oooh Ooh


VERSE
C#m                                          B
Oh, little one I know you grow so bold and strong.. Ohh ohhh

C#m                                       B
Oh, beautiful there's no way you can go wrong... oohh oohh


CHORUS
    E
But tread in my footsteps follow my heel

C#m                             B
I'll provide a break, a shield ohh ohh

ohh ohh


VERSE
C#m                                              B
Oh, little one I know they'll be knocking at my door ohh...

C#m                                                     B
Oh, beautiful you'll go and you'll leave them wanting more...


CHORUS
     E    
But tread in my footsteps follow my heel

C#m                              B
I'll provide a break, a shield ohh ohh

C#m
Even when the cold wind's blowing right through

                                B
I'll cripple my back to shelter you....you...


BRIDGE

A             E            B
When they're calling your name

A      E                  C#m B
Don't forget what you're leaving

A            E          B            A
Cuz I'll be singing the same little song

E                       C#m  B
That I taught you this evening

A                E               C#m  B
By the fireside whilst you lay sleeping...

E
Little one..

E          C#m         E       B  E 
Ooooohhhh Oooohhhh  Oooohhhh Oooohhh


VERSE
C#m                                                B
Now my girl, you'll fall for the one who doesn't care... Oooh oohh

   C#m                                               B
And how he'll hold your heart, oh how he'll hold your stare


CHORUS
BRIDGE

Rocky and Balls: The Skills Song

2011-02-12T18:08:00.005Z

Those that know me know that I love the Ukulele (although love doesn't transfer to skill :S). Rocky and Balls however are skilled musicians and song writers who I highly recommend you listen to. Here is one of my favourites: The Skills Song. Please check out their website.

Here are the lyrics and (really easy) chords in case you wish to join in:
P.S. Blogger automatically justifies everything so you'll have to work out where each chord goes, sorry. Easy enough though!

A
So you want to take her to the dance
A
And have a fairy tale romance
D
If you don't think you stand a chance
E7
here's how you'll get into her ... heart.

A D A (x2)

Chorus:
A D A
Girls like boys with skills
A D A
Girls like boys with skills
A D A
If you ain't got these, you ain't gonna please
D E7 A
Girls like boys with skills

A D A
You gotta have beard growing skills
A D A
You gotta have Facebook poking skills
A D A
You gotta have mo wearing skills
Bm E7
Love cake making skills

D A
You gotta have fire lighting skills
A D A
You gotta have wood working skills
A D A
You gotta have rope tying skills
Bm E7
Tent erecting skills

CHORUS

A D A
You gotta have seed sowing skills
A D A
You gotta have strong ploughing skills
A D A
You gotta have weed whacking skills
Bm E7
Cherry picking skills

D A
You gotta have snake charming skills
A D A
You gotta have beaver stuffing skills
A D A
You gotta have spider taming skills
Bm E7
Pussy cat stroking skills

CHORUS

Instrumental A D A (x3) Bm E7

CHORUS

A D A
You gotta have hole drilling skills
A D A
You gotta have screw driving skills
A D A
You gotta have lawn mowing skills
Bm E7
Lead pipe laying skills

CHORUS (Clap) A

Biblical storytelling

2011-01-11T16:23:00.004Z

I love stories. There is something about a story well told that can touch one to the very core. I especially love hearing a story being told. I am convinced that stories are powerful and have a unique ability to touch, engage and even change people. For that reason I've been trying to gain a repertoire of good stories, particularly those with a moral that can be gained from it.

I'm currently reading "Oscar Wilde's Stories for All Ages". Each is introduced by Stephen Fry and are wonderful stories. I can recommend it highly, although each of the stories ends a little depressingly. I especially love 'The Happy Prince', 'The selfish Mermaid' and 'The Fisherman and the Mermaid'.

I'm also, as are most people, a fan of Aesop's fables. Another great source of stories is Youtube. There are modern stories as well as classic stories from all over the world, my favourite at the moment are Japanese and Native American stories. Here are two great stories:

The Wide Mouthed Frog

Why the Rabbit has a short tail

With that said there are a load of stories that are often passed over. Stories that have lasted millennia almost unchanged, that have survived occupation, genocide and spread across the world. I speak of course of Bible stories. The OT in particular is flush with stories as they survived as an oral tradition long before they were written down, although the NT has it's fair share.

Every week I go into the local school to do an assembly. This term their theme is 'Going for Goals' so we are looking at people God gave goals to. I've decided to join this with my love of stories and try to develop my story telling ability. So this morning I told the story of Moses. The funny thing is that when you tell someone that you are going to read a passage from the Bible their eyes glaze over and they switch off but when you tell the story of the prince who ran away from home after murdering a man, who came across a fiery bush that didn't burn and had a staff the turned into a snake, and who stood up to a wicked Pharaoh, then people love it. The kids this morning were gasping with shock, laughing with joy and saddened when the story finished. All that and they learnt something about God in the process.

Mark Griffiths, head of New Wine Kid's ministry, gave a lecture at New Wine 2010 (the only good part :S) and mentioned that in the past we struggled to find ways to make Bible stories interesting. Most people had heard them so many times that they seemed like old-hat. However, now most people in the UK are 3 generations removed from the church. This means that most kids don't go to church, nor did their parents and neither did their grandparents. This gives us an amazing opportunity to tell them these stories afresh. No longer is it the old, boring David and Goliath story but is now the amazing story of the boy who killed a giant with just a sling-shot. You can download a version of his evocatively titled talk, as well as a few other talks, here: One Generation from Extinction.

I look forward to furthering my skills in story telling. With that in mind, I look forward to the publication of "Teaching Through the Art of Storytelling: Creating Fictional Stories that Illuminate the Message of Jesus" in a proper medium. I.e. printed on paper like a book should be!

Till Next Time!

Candle - The Maccabeats!

2010-12-03T10:01:00.001Z

Thanks to Theological Scribble

Till Next Time!

Mary's first Christmas

2010-11-23T16:46:00.002Z

Introduction to Japanese

2010-11-20T19:46:00.002Z

A friend of mine has just told me that she is off to Japan with OMF this summer and asked if I could direct her to some helpful resources to learn Japanese. After writing the message I realised that I actually amassed quite a list so I thought I'd reproduce an (abridged) version here.
がんばってください (Try your best!)

I suggest the following for introductory phrases and words:

1) Japanese pod 101
You need to sign up to use it but the basic package is free. It's absolutely fantastic. These are the best Podcasts I've come across. Added bonus is that they are also on itunes so you can search for and automatically download (if you wish) all their past pods.

2) Learn Japanese pod
Another great podcast site. They are also a little more fun then 101 I think, so are easier to listen too, although not always as clear.

3) Speekit
This is very much like Rosetta stone but better and MUCH cheaper. There are tons of free lessons which should see you through but its really cheap to sign up if you find it helpful.

4) Byki
Great flash-card site. Pick a category and work though vocab. Check star rating though as some of them are wrong :S

5) About.com
All the 'about.com' pages seem really good, especially for learning vocab

6) All about teaching English in Japan
These are actually classroom phrases but will help when working with kids, or if you are going out as a teacher! Phrases like 'quiet please' and 'please sit down' will become your friend!

7) Google video (Gestures)
Gestures can be really helpful when you don't know the phrase. Be careful thought as some that we use in the UK are rude in Japan! (like 'come here')

8) Kids Web Japan
A great introduction to Japanese for those that have never come across any before.

That should be enough to keep anyone going for a short term mission or a holiday but for those a little more serious about learning I have a few more recommendations:

1) These websites all use/include Romaji which is Japanese in Roman letters. If you are just learning for a short trip this is ok but if you plan to carry on please, please, please learn kana (the 2 basic alphabets). For example 'Easy Japanese' will help you both read and write the characters. It will make your life a lot easier in the long run and make words make a lot more sense. Leave Kanji alone for a while though!

2) I recommend this book: Japanese for Busy people I: kana version

3) I recommend taking a course. All the book learning is great but it's hard to learn when you have no-one to practice with.

4) Anyone with a Nintendo DS (whichever version) can also use it to learn Japanese. I recommend 'My Japanese coach'. Of course you can use this for basics but it goes all the way through to intermediate level. Added bonus is it's great fun!

Happy learning,
Till Next Time

This is what happens if you misread Song of Songs

2010-11-20T17:33:00.004Z

FYI Song of Songs is NOT an analogy for Jesus and the church.

Till Next Time!

Inter-Religious Dialogue

2010-09-28T09:53:00.004+01:00

Over at 'A Thinking Reed' blog they have posted on 'Stendahl's Rules'. They are a set of three rules attributed to Krister Stendahl, meant for use with inter-religious dialogue. Supposedly they were formulated when he had dialogue regarding the building of a Mormon temple. The rules are:

(1) When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.

(2) Don't compare your best to their worst.

(3) Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Whether the are actually his or not I think these are a great place to start. Too often Christians go in all guns blazing trying to force Christ upon non-Christians and beat them into submission rather then acting with grace and as 1 Peter 3: 15-16 states; "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, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behaviour in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." (My emphasis)

I think that Acts 17: 16-24 is a great place to start in understanding a Christian response to other religions. Here Paul seems to do at least two of Standahl's rules. Here Paul is evangelising to the Athenians including Epicurean and Stoic philosophers who wished to know more so invited him to share. Here we see a genuine interest in communicating from both sides, rather then Paul just shouting at random people. Paul has, before this interaction, studied the iconography of the city (TO AN UNKNOWN GOD and studied the poetry of its adherents (Rules 1). I think it's not too much of a stretch to assume that Paul had learnt this from adherents and also since he uses it positively that he is using their best to compare with Christianity (Rules 2). For Rule 3 we need to move away from Paul and see that when Paul talked of the resurrection some of the philosophers stayed open (although it was contrary to their beliefs, and asked to hear more on the subject.

I'm not suggesting that we copy exactly what Paul did as he worked within their culture, (As Verse 21 says, "All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas"), but the concept are there I think.

With that said I think we need to add one more rule:

4) [Do not be] "ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile." (Rom 1:16).

Too often with inter-religious dialogue it seems that if people aren't at each others throats they are so concerned with finding similarities that they are ashamed, or at least refuse, to share the things which are unique and in the Christian case that is the good news that can save. What is the point of Inter-religious dialogue? I can only see two:

A) Bring about/ keep peace between differing groups

B) Evangelise

I believe both parts are important and all 4 rules are needed for a base point to achieve the purposes of inter-religious dialogue.

Till Next Time!

Things I love in England

2010-09-20T23:14:00.002+01:00

Those who know me know at least 2 things about me:
1) I live in the south of England and work for a church.
2) I love Japan and that is where my heart too often is.

The last few weeks I have been feeling home sick. The problem is that I feel like my home is Japan, not in England. Being that God has blessed me with such a great community and a wonderful job I feel that I need to ground myself here a little so below I am going to make a list of things that I love about England especially, but not exclusively, those that I won't get in Japan. (Not in any particular order)

1) Good Indian tea.
2) Good coffee.
3) Good cheese.
4) Having a conversation where I can express myself properly.
5) Fully understanding the culture and rules that come with it.
6) A 'Christian' culture even if it's mostly nominal.
7) Plenty of churches and Christians to interact with.
8) The loving community at St. Peter's, Woodmansterne.
9) My family which I so often take for granted but are important to me.
10) The NHS.
11) A rent-free house. (Or more generally, affordable rent)
12) Easy access to good books
13) Christian conferences and meetings
14) Pubs with British ales
15) Bread which doesn't make you think of marshmallows
16) Sandwiches that aren't made with fruit and cream :S
17) British humour
18) Friends
19) Multi-cultural society
20) English comedy

Please feel free to comment about that things you love about the UK below.

Till Next Time!

Let's Love Japan!

2010-09-16T11:33:00.002+01:00

Some of you may remember my post 'Wadaiko X Black Gospel Fusion' where I shared a video made by Paul Nethercott over at 'Worship and the Arts' blog. Well, praise the Lord, he's at it again. Please check out 'Let's Love Japan' where they are trying to reach the Japanese with the good news of Jesus through entertainment media including the 'Mobile Site Initiative!™'. A new Christmas video trailer had just been released and I for once cannot wait to see the whole thing. I can't repost it so please go here to watch it. I promise you won't have wasted your time.

Till Next Time!

Um, what do you want me to say?

2010-09-04T14:11:00.005+01:00

Anyone that has tried to learn a new language has come across this problem. Somebody has found out that you are trying to learn, or that you speak, another language so out comes the command, "Oh, say something in [target language]!" Then comes the panic. What do I say? It has to be something better then, "Hello. My name is..." but simple enough that I don't screw it up.

Over the last year I've been trying to learn Japanese with varying success. I try to fit it in where I can including on the bus and train, in parks and in cafes. Not long after I get my books out I get the inquisition and this week I think I've come up with the best response possible. Romantic enough to attract the ladies and scare off blokes, lol.

あなたは春の最初の桜より美しいです。
anata wa haru no saisho no sakura yori utsukushii desu。

In English that comes across as:
"You are more beautiful than the first cherry blossom of spring."

Warning: Don't just blurt this out a Japanese girls. The only response it will have is likely to be the opposite of what you expect it to!

What are your favourite phrases in your target languages?

Till Next Time!

Socks and sandals

2010-08-28T09:36:00.003+01:00

A dig in North Yorkshire by a British team has unearthed a Roman sandal with sock fibres on it suggesting that the fasion faux pas was trust upon us innocent Britons by them meddling Romans. Don't believe me? Have a look at this BBC article.

It may be too much to suggest that Jesus and the Apostles wore socks and sandals as the Middle East is slightly warmer then North Yorkshire but perhaps some of the greats such as Augustine may have worn the odd pair?

Do have a read of the article though because we all know:

Jesus Christ Action Hero

2010-07-23T17:29:00.000+01:00

Reposted from Scotteriology

Till Next Time!

Snails teach us about dating via Natural Law

2010-07-21T22:28:00.002+01:00

According to Steven Fry, though the medium of QI a snail 'dances and kisses' for 20 hours before mating. According to Wikipedia a snail lives for appoximately 2 years in the wild. Now Wikipedia also tells me that the average life span of an person in the UK is around 80 years. A human therefore lives 40X that of a snail. We can therefore work out how long a human should dance and kiss before mating. 20X40=800 hours/33.333 days. I wonder how long the everage person takes to rack up 33.333 solid days of dancing and kissing? Maybe worth a thought next time you are in a club! :P

Till Next Time!

Unveiling the French

2010-07-16T13:19:00.004+01:00

Today it has been revealed that the French Lower House has voted to ban the Niqab and the Burka in public spaces with a majority of 335/1! You can read the full story here. From what I gather that doesn't mean the law is passed yet but looks like it will be meaning that a woman cought wearing one will be fined £125, and any man cought forcing a woman to wear one will be fined very heavily.

If I'm honest I'm not completely sure what I think about it but my gut reaction is annoyance. The French are well known for thier atheistic society and I wonder whether they are using this as one step closer to ban or highly control religious though. May be I'm just being paranoid.

With that said I have some sympathy for the French. They, as do we, live in a society where we learn a lot about a person through thier face and genuinely see it a rude and uncomfortable not being able to see someones face. It also makes security very difficult; just think about being called to a police line-up with women in a Niqab. Fundamentalist Islam Guess who is a very difficult game!

However, I think it is a shame to say that the French has nothing to learn from wearing the Niqab. Nicole Ameline, a UMP MP, says in the video that she thinks this is a good message to the women of the world that France is clear on its values. I think she is awfully wrong. The message it give is that women must conform to thier ideals, not to thier own. I personally think there is a lot to be said for the concept of the Burka and Niqab. It goes too far I believe but the idea that a woman should be modest and valued for who she is, not what she looks like is to be admired.

I hope that a happy medium can be found; not a ban, nor a open field. I think education must play a part, both for those who wear the veils, but also for the rest of the French that they may understand each others views better. Perhaps a happy medium can be found for security too. Not so sure on what that may be but thats why I'm not in politics.

Till Next Time!

I write this this?!

2010-07-15T09:20:00.002+01:00

I write like
William Shakespeare

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

I put my latest sermon into this website and apparently I write like the bard himself! I shall remind my congregation if the ever complain too much. :P

Till Next Time!

Some Pictures of Me!

2010-07-12T23:54:00.004+01:00

Last week I went into a local school to give a talk on what I do at church. They drew some pictures of me and here they are. Enjoy!

Till Next Time!

Wadaiko X Black Gospel Fusion

2010-06-19T09:41:00.003+01:00

Paul Nethercott over at 'Worship & the Arts' has recently poured his heart out in a post where he writes that the way to be effective at reaching people (in his case the Japanese) for Christ is to follow your God-given passions. He says, 'Now I am making films. Filmmaking is not easy, it is one of the most challenging things I have ever done but it is also a lot of fun and, most importantly, a very effective means of communicating the gospel in Japan.' I think with the video that follows you will be as glad as I that he made that choice. Enjoy.

Wadaiko X Black Gospel Fusion Music Video from Studio Re: on Vimeo.

It made me think again however about how we share the gospel. I was once sent a message with a quote from a book in I think is rather apt:

"We should never have transplanted Christianity to Asia without breaking the pot in which the plant came...a church which has failed to strike roots in Asian soil because no-one dares to break the Greco-Roman pot in which, for centuries, it has been existing like a stunted bonsai."
[Pieris in Bosch, J.B (2009), 'Transforming mission: paradigm shifts in theology of mission', New York: Orbis books.]

I believe this to to particularly true in non-hellenistic societies such as Japan but I wonder for a moment to what extent that is true here too. In the UK we are obviously, by nature, hellenistic and therefore the Greco-Roman pot is in theory quite suited. With that said our culture has, and is changing, and unless we adapt to/with/in the culture can we really be suprised when people see church and Christianity as irrelevant? Not that the gospel is in any way to be changed but rather the way we present it. Being in an Anglican church makes one realise the extremely fine line between keeping and benefiting from traditions and scraping them for fresh expressions. I think the video above is a great example of mixing traditions and cultures, and I hope that they see fruit from what they are doing. Perhaps one day we too, in the UK, will find the balance to the glory of God.

Till Next Time!

Paul Nethercott / CC BY-NC-ND 3.0

Slum Survivor and 15 minutes of Fame

2010-06-05T22:24:00.003+01:00

They say that everyone gets 15 minutes of fame, well here is a little more fame for St. Peter's and St. Margaret's youth.....and me of course :)

Thanks to the Surrey Mirror for advertising our clause for free!

Till Next Time!

Jesus: the ultimate in horror genre!

2010-04-08T10:47:00.003+01:00

Do you think this is what Benny Hinn meant when he said that Jesus was Trinity by himself? I think that might be a little far, even for him.

Till Next Time!

Delirious? Not me!

2010-04-05T12:59:00.002+01:00

So, the news is out today. Delirious? have make it into the UK charts at 4 with History Maker. 'Wait' I hear you say, 'isn't that an old song?' Well indeed it is. Someone had the idea that it would be a good idea to push it. This isn't the first time it's been tried but the most successful attempt. I have two thoughts about this:

1) Couldn't they have picked a better song? It seems to me that in general people seem to think that to become a Christian means forgetting what good music is and putting Delirious? into the charts is not helping matters. I know they are famous and I'm in no way saying that they aren't a blessing to the church but we must be aware that if they were a secular band they wouldn't get very far! So perhaps they could have picked something like Switchfoot or Skillet. Well if that's too hard then perhaps they could have taken a song which expresses their aim better, to get the message of Jesus to people at Easter. Perhaps a Getty hymn such as 'See what a morning'.

2) Couldn't this be used for something better? Literally thousands of people would of had to vote to get it to 4th but what was the point? I hope I'm wrong but I don't see anyone becoming a Christian from it, and honestly I slightly ashamed to be connected to it. Not because I'm ashamed of the Gospel, but rather that the church that is meant to be making a difference in the world is instead being trivial. What if those people all spent time writing to thier MPs instead, or committed to serving their local community? I believe that we would see the world change quicker and more people come to God if people did that. I also find it slightly ironic that the song is called 'History Maker' when instead of getting it into the charts we could have actually been changing history.

May God bless Delirious? and the work that they did. I know they have blessed many people in their faith but come on church! Let's pull our fingers out and actually change history for the better.

Till Next Time!

Question and Answer

2010-03-25T16:17:00.002Z

One lady wrote in to a question and answer forum:
"Dear Sirs, Our preacher said on Easter, that Jesus just swooned on the cross and that the disciples nursed Him back to health. What do you think? Sincerely, Bewildered."

"Dear Bewildered, Beat your preacher with a cat-of-nine-tails with 39 heavy strokes, nail him to a cross; hang him in the sun for six hours; run a spear thru his side…put him in an airless tomb for 36 hours and see what happens. Sincerely, Charles."

It's funny the foolishness someone will spout to to shy away from the truth!

Source

Till Next Time!

C.H.O.P.S

2010-03-22T20:15:00.004Z

Do you ever come across anything that makes you wish for once that God was a God of wrath here and now? Or perhaps not that bad but perhaps makes you wish to smack the person around the head with a wet fish?

Well this evening I did. Please let me introduce 'lovegodsway.org' Now I get their intentions and for that I think they are to be praised but the way they are going about it just seems ridiculous. I spend ages trying to find something to confirm my thought that it was a parody but alas not.

According to the site "Homosexuality is a last-ditch effort of the desperate to fit in. We sincerely believe that satan created homosexuality to kill the human race. It is simple biology. There is no breeding through homosexual sex. We believe, also, that he uses music to propagate Homosexuality. Please browse our Gay Music section for further details. We believe that there is a Gay agenda in the Liberal Political Arena. We are here to STOP that message and put an end to the spread of homosexuality."

There are a few things in particular that made me bother to write this post.

1) C.H.O.P.S:
'CHANGING HOMOSEXUALS into ORDINARY PEOPLE'. Enough said.

2) Gay bands: There is a list of gay bands which apparently are corrupting our children and turning them gay. There are loads of them but here are my favourites: Coldplay, Frank Sinatra and the Jonas Brothers.

3) The music videos: Here and Here. The fact that they were from 'Funny or Die' made me think that perhaps they were parodies but alas I think that it's only because they are the only website willing to publish such horrors.

4) They are opening a store selling products to make you straight. Now I'm no expert but it seems to me that one cannot cure homosexuality through a special diet!

Let me be clear in case anyone is confused. I believe homosexuality to be a sin, however Christians are called to love and invite people to repent. Items like this make me understand why people think Christians are homophobic idiots. Sometimes the only appropriate reaction is to weep.

Till Next Time!

Homophobic or Faithful?

2010-03-22T19:02:00.002Z

Last week a gay couple were turned away from a B&B, run by a Christian Lady, Ms Wilkinson, in Cookham. The owners explained that they didn't not agree with Homosexuality so they would not allow them to share a bed but in theory would still be welcome to stay in separate rooms, however another room wasn't available. The gay couple, Michael Black and John Morgan, have reported the matter to the police and are considering seeking legal action.

Well who is in the right? Legally speaking Michael Black and John Morgan seem to be. (I say that without being a lawyer) Derek Munn, director of public affairs, said to the BBC: "Stonewall was delighted when the law changed in 2007 so that lesbian and gay couples could go on their holidays like anyone else. In open and shut cases of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation the law's quite clear - it's illegal for businesses to turn away gay customers or discriminate against them when providing goods or services, and this can't be overridden by personal prejudice."

However, does being on the side of the law make you right? I would argue not. Whether you agree with the views of Ms Wilkinson or not it seems common sense to me that a business owner should have the right to set down their own standards. That is not to say that they they should be able to refuse anyone service but rather that that service may have caveats. I think part of the problem here is the lack of information. If a B&B was allowed to it would make sense that terms of stay would be provided which may include such additions as separate beds for homosexual couples, or unmarried couples, etc.

Furthermore, there seems to be double standards here. Why do the rights the homosexual couple over-ride the rights of Ms Wilkinson? If we as a society say it is wrong to discriminate against people on grounds of ethnicity, sexuality or belief, why do we feel it's acceptable to force a woman to act in conflict with her beliefs on the grounds of not discriminating? Utter foolishness.

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge said: "Whether you agree with the Wilkinsons’ beliefs or not, a diverse society is one that respects diversity of opinion. Surely the world is big enough to let people disagree. Suing someone because you don’t like their beliefs is illiberal, undemocratic and has no place in a free society."

Perhaps this would be a better alternative. Instead of saying we must treat everyone the same, rather we should say that everyone must be treated fairly. Equality doesn't mean uniformity! There also seems to be a very odd trend that when someone disagrees with homosexuality they are Homophobic. Firstly it's a stupid term since I don't know many people that are afraid of homosexuals. Secondly there is a difference between disagreeing with a practice and hating those that do it. For example, I disagree with prostitution but that doesn't mean I hate prostitutes, however neither does that mean that I would let them practice in my B&B (if if owned one).

I was once described by a friend of mine who is a lesbian that I am Homophobic in Theology but not in practice, since I disagreed with homosexuality but welcomed her as a friend. I see what she was getting at yet I believe that this is what all Christians are called to do: To be firm in the truths that God has set before us, yet love those who aren't following his ways. After all this is what God did. As Paul wrote, "You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Rom 5:6-8)

You can read/watch the full story here. or you can read an alternative take here.

Till Next Time!

The Modern Church

2010-03-19T14:09:00.002Z

I think that the Naked Pastor has depicted the modern church rather well, unfortunately!

Till Next Time!

One Project

2010-03-18T17:00:00.000Z

Whether you've heard of this project before or not I urge you to keep reading. This is a great project that started just a few years ago selling bottled water to raise money for people who have no access to clean water and are now they are selling a range of products.

Right now however, they are not after your money but your support. So please watch the video, visit their website: www.onedifference.org and become a fan on Facebook.

If you have worries about the company I can personally tell you that it is honest and, as you can see in the video, is supported by big names. It has already done so much but with your help can do more.

It'll just take a moment and will save people from an unnecessary death.
Thank you for taking the time.

Till Next Time!

Youth Pastor Stereotypes

2010-03-17T22:42:00.000Z

Till Next Time!

Who you gonna call? Saint Patrick!

2010-03-16T10:58:00.002Z

Source

The Lost Tribe Of Israel

2010-03-08T18:44:00.004Z

So, according to the BBC the lost tribe of Israel has been found: the Lemba people of Zimbabwe and South Africa. According to the BBC, "They do not eat pork, they practise male circumcision, they ritually slaughter their animals, some of their men wear skull caps and they put the Star of David on their gravestones." and "Their oral traditions claim that their ancestors were Jews who fled the Holy Land about 2,500 years ago". They also have what they claim to be a replica of the Biblical Ark of the Covenant known as the ngoma lungundu (Pictured above). Amazing in itself yet rather easy to explain away until you read that genetic testing has been done on the priestly clan of the Lemba known as the Buba and have been found to be of Semitic origin, and with a "common ancestor who geneticists say lived about 3,000 years ago somewhere in north Arabia, which is the time of Moses and Aaron when the Jewish priesthood started"!

Rather amazing I think. However we must be careful not to jump to conclusions as there are various other, probably more likely explanations as to their genetics and traditions. That is not to say that it is any less amazing or interesting but rather that we shouldn't be shipping the back to Israel any time soon. (Yes America, I'm talking to you!)

I for one shall remain dubious.

If you want to read the full report go here.

Till Next Time!

The Wisest Words of a Football Manager......Ever!

2010-03-05T18:59:00.004Z

Those who know me will probably also know of my disdain for overpaid sportsmen, footballers particularly! Then yesterday to my surprise one of the biggest managers of football today (from what I can tell) appeared to agree with me.

Fabio Capello said, “It’s always the same. Young players, young boys, rich boys, this is the problem. It’s not only here. In Italy, in Germany, in Spain and in every country where football is so important. They have to be an example to the children, for all the fans. For that reason they have to stay careful and sacrifice something in their lives. It will be really important in this last period to be careful in their own lives. I ask them to take no chances.”

Perhaps if their wages were capped at something reasonable people would get into football for love of football and not just for money. Perhaps the rest of the money that the clubs would save could be invested in community projects. Imagine how much that'd be! The Times reports that 'Terry’s basic wage of £160,000 a week is the highest in the squad'. Now let's say then that instead of per week, he gets that per year (personally I'd be very happy with that wage). That would mean that a saving of £8,160,000 P.A. (assuming he gets paid every week), and that's just on one man! The club would benefit as the level of football would improve, at least that's what Capello says, and it means that the clubs wouldn't be in debt all the time. It also means that local communities would be improved by the extra funding available for say sporting facilities, improving the next generation of footballers both in behaviour and ability.

Although I wonder whether he'd agree that that should be applied to managers as well. Perhaps a reasonable basic wage with commission available for club performance. Anyway, I for one certainly hope he gets listened to!

Read the full story in The Times Online

Till Next Time!

‘Pastors aren’t Prophets: Some Unsolicited Advice for Newly-Minted Ministers’, by Rick Floyd

2010-03-02T17:41:00.004Z

The following is copied word for word from Per Crucem ad Lucem, who in turn copied it (as you will see) from Rick Floyd. It is a must read, especially if you are, or ever think you may be a minister:

Rick Floyd is a seasoned minister and a very astute theologian who has posted a wonderful and wise reflection on pastoral ministry for ‘newly-minted ministers’. I appreciated it so much that I’m going to re-post it here in its entirety. I reckon that there’s wisdom here that needs to be shared.

‘Too many of our new pastors in the mainline church leave the ministry after a few years. There are many reasons why this happens, but for whatever reason, it is not good. It’s bad for them and bad for the church, and it is bad stewardship to train someone who only serves a short time.

Some of these ministers should never have been ordained in the first place, and the gatekeepers didn’t do their due diligence. Some were lacking the necessary “gifts and graces” for ordained ministry, which doesn’t mean they didn’t have a different and effective ministry in the church.

There are far too many sad situations where a ministry fails for one reason or another, where hopes are shattered, and a young (or not so young) person is saddled with a financially crippling debt for the years in seminary they paid for in loans.

Being a pastor of a church is a hard job. I was one for thirty years. Despite the nonsense being promulgated by the “experts,” faithful pastoring is not a matter of working a certain number of hours (or “units” as they are now sometimes called.) It’s a vocation that takes up most of your waking hours,

When a congregant really needs you, it doesn’t matter whether it is your day off. If you asked me how many seasoned pastors are burned out to one degree or another, I would say, “All of them, if they are really doing their job.” That is why pastors need to exercise radical self-care, pray constantly, and accept the fact, that not being yourself God, you cannot do all that is demanded of you.

Now I readily admit that there is some truth to the whole boundary/take care of yourself/take time for yourself movement. But like all partial truths it is not the whole truth. The church once had a useful word, now much out of favor, for when one piece of the truth gets blown out of proportion. The word is heresy.

One of the modern heresies (but by no means the only one) of the contemporary mainline church, is that you can have something akin to a normal 40 hour a week professional life and be a faithful pastor. It isn’t true. A pastor’s life, and the life of the pastor’s family is necessarily involved in the community of their congregation in season and out of season. Sometimes, even often, it is wonderful; other times it isn’t. That’s the way it goes. It isn’t the Canyon Ranch spa. I often say being a pastor is the best vocation there is, but perhaps the worst job. If you are not called to it, it is something you really don’t want to do.

When I started as a pastor thirty-five years ago I was well trained and well educated and didn’t have a clue what I was really supposed to do. I learned quickly. One of the things I learned was that you have to love your congregants, even the unlovable, of which there are far too many, and who take up a good deal of your time. If and when you find yourself loving them, you know you are on your way to really being a pastor. Some of them you will just never learn to love, and you have to turn them over to God, who does.

I had been a anti-war and civil rights activist in college and seminary, and had gone to jail for my causes, but when I got into the pastorate I learned very quickly that you can’t be a prophet until you have earned the peoples’ trust. This means years of marrying and burying and sitting by sick beds and in hospital rooms.

If you do this well they may be ready to hear hard truths from the pulpit. They may not. Certainly Isaiah’s prophecies fell on deaf ears.

New ministers who have grown up in the church have a leg up, because they know its rhythms and customs, it’s “grandeur and misery.”

But today many of our ministerial candidates haven’t grown up in the church. Some of them turn out to be our best ones, but they are at a disadvantage. They don’t know the church’s music and it’s well-worn liturgies. They don’t know the joys of a community strawberry festival on a warm spring day, or the energy and agony of a capital-funds campaign to get a new boiler.

They often come to seminary or divinity school in a process of self-discovery, which is fine. Most of us did that to one degree or another. I recall from seminary that the ones who knew they wanted to be a minster since the age of six were best avoided, and probably needed therapy.

Now seminary is a good place to learn many useful things, like that David didn’t write all (or perhaps any) of the Psalms, that the Scriptures are thick and have a literary history, and that the heresies we see around us are as old as the church. If one is lucky, you’ll find a mentor or two, and be able to intern in a healthy church who will love you and teach you what it means to be the church.

What seminaries are not good at (because its not really their job) is forming men and women into Christians, much less teach them how to be faithful pastors. Christian formation is primarily the church’s job, not the schools, although they can help out.

There are many fine teachers and students in these schools, and I don’t want in any way to impugn their integrity or their faith.

At the same time, we are seeing too many newly-minted pastors who come to seminary, not only to find themselves, but with a passion for a social cause or causes, which is fine. I certainly had mine. In seminary the flame of their passion is often fanned by others who share it, which is also fine.

But if all you know of the faith is what you learn in divinity school you are at a distinct dis-advantage. And if the main reason you accept a call from a congregation is to promote your passion and cause then your soul is in danger, and so is the life of a congregation.

Because the congregation you go to may or may not share your passions. It can be dangerous either way.

If they agree with most of your views, be they liberal or conservative, the temptation is to self-justification and self-righteousness, and a tendency to see sin and evil as “out there” in your ideological adversaries, and not also in your own heart and soul. Then the great insight expressed by the Reformers’ axiom simul justus et peccator, that we are at the same time justified and sinners, is lost. This danger in the mainline church can exist in some ministers for their entire careers and they will never even now it.

The other temptation is perhaps more dangerous, at least in mainline churches. That is to go to your first congregation where they don’t share your passion for your social cause or causes, and you scold them for it. You do not learn to love them, and they do not learn to love you, and eventually your ministry fails.

Typically we are too polite to ever actually fire anyone (although it does happen), but there are other ways to get you to leave, the best one being to so discourage you that you lose heart and leave. Some, too many, of our new pastors actually seek out this kind of martyrdom, and when they are inevitably cast out, they can then turn and say how stiff-necked and hard-hearted their congregation was. But my sympathy for them is limited. Congregations can be stiff-necked and hard-hearted and even abusive. This is nothing new. Just go read Exodus or First Corinthians.

But congregations can be also be wonderful, supportive, gracious, and long-suffering, especially if they sense you are really trying to be their faithful pastor.

The late great Bill Coffin, a prophet himself, once told a bunch of us young ministers (about 1972) a story (which my version here will be only a loose approximation) about one of his students from Yale.

The young pastor was in hot water for his deeply prophetic views and fiery pulpit pronouncements on social issues (it was Vietnam time, and the nation was deeply divided.) The lay leaders wanted to fire him. As the discussion heated up, one of them, a banker, prominent member and very conservative, stood up and said, “You can’t fire him, he’s our pastor. It’s true that he’s a real pinko, and I can’t stand most of the stuff he says from the pulpit, but when my wife was dying he came to see her every day. He’s staying.” And he did. Bill went on to say that if you are a faithful pastor, your flock will give you great freedom to pursue your passions, be it peace and justice work, or collecting butterflies.

A dear rabbi friend of mine who is well up in his eighties told a bunch of us a powerful story last week. He had been an army chaplain in the Korean War, and, perhaps because of that, he was a firm supporter of the Vietnam War. But when our National Guard opened fire and killed some students who were peacefully protesting the war at Kent State University in 1970, he had a change of heart, and he changed his mind. And on the next High Holy Days in the fall, when he preached to the biggest congregation of the year, he apologized to them and asked them to forgive him, admitting that he had been wrong about the war. This story brought tears to my eyes.

He had been their faithful rabbi by then for fifteen years, and he stayed for another dozen or so. The Vietnam War by 1970 was very unpopular, especially here in what until last December was sometimes called by conservatives “The Peoples Republic of Massachusetts.” I am sure that many of his congregants had been hearing sermons they didn’t agree with for some time. But he had earned the right. And when he finally repented publicly, he was indeed a prophet with the full attention of his people. From then on, when he spoke out against the war, he had every ear.

So at the right time and place you can sometimes be both a prophet and a pastor. But you’d better be a pastor to the people first, because that is your primary calling. If you just want to be a prophet, I suggest you go work for a political action organization’.

Till Next Time!

Image source

NEEDTOBREATHE: Signature of Divine (Yahweh)

2010-02-28T21:07:00.002Z

Cathedrals have tried in vain
To show the image of your face.
But we are, by your design,
The signature of divine.

We'll always sing your name.
Forever and today.

Yahweh, Yahweh...
Great is your glory when you go before me
Oh, we sing...
Holy, Holy...
Your ways are lovely. So high above me.
Yahweh

The fortunes of kings and queens
Are wasted chasing what we've seen.
Cause we are, by your reprieve,
The beauty framed by your suffering.

We'll always sing your name.
Forever and today.

Yahweh, Yahweh...
Great is your glory when you go before me
Oh, we sing...
Holy, Holy...
Your ways are lovely. So high above me.
Yahweh

Take me, and pull me through.
Cause I can't move without you.
I won't leave you alone, you say.
It will be okay.

Yahweh, Yahweh...
Great is your glory when you go before me
Oh, we sing...
Holy, Holy...
Your ways are lovely. So high above me.
Yahweh.
Yahweh, Yahweh...
Great is your glory when you go before me
Oh, we sing...
Holy, Holy...
Your ways are lovely. So high above me.
Yahweh

Ancient of Days...
Yahweh!

www.needtobreathe.net

Till Next Time!

Holy Ghost Hokey Pokey

2010-02-24T22:37:00.002Z

Ok, so this is in every way weird. Now I'm not saying that God didn't use it, or that God didn't heal those people but I must ask why?! Why that song? In what way did that come about? The mind boggles. Can you imagine going to a church meeting and someone suggests that during the next service you sing the Hokey Pokey as a way for God to heal people? How is that meant to praise God? Healing, yes. Song, no! It's a good thing that God is not spiteful because if he was I'm not sure that Morningwood Church would have got off so lightly!

Till Next Time!

HT:Scotteriology

My Way: An Elvis Tribute

2010-02-13T23:22:00.002Z

I am ashamed. Ashamed I say! This evening I attended an Elvis tribute in my local church/village hall organised by Woodmansterne Operatic and Dramatic Society. I though I'd go along since I had nothing better to do and that I did. However, if I'm honest, I thought it'd be complete rubbish. How wrong I was!

This Elvis in question is Craig Jefferson who, as it turns out, was a finalist in the European Ultimate Elvis Contest 2007, winner of Porthcawl Elvis Festival 2007, winner of Rendezvous Casino Elvis Contest 2008 and 2nd Place in 'Britains Best Elvis Contest 2009'. Really good fun. He didn't take himself seriously yet was a top class performer. Oh dear! I hope that I haven't caught the Elvis big!

If you get a change then make sure you check out 'My Way: An Elvis Tribute'

Till Next Time

Is youth ministry killing the church?

2010-02-05T18:48:00.000Z

by Kate Murphy

After having worked for several years as a youth pastor, I recently accepted a call to be an interim solo pastor. One weekend, Sara, a beloved saint of the church, died after a long battle with Alzheimer's. On Sunday morning I was standing in the choir room discussing plans for the funeral when Jonathan—a high school sophomore—walked in. “Deanne,” he said to the music director, “I heard about Sara, and I thought you might need me to take Libba's spot in the bell choir this morning.” She gratefully accepted his offer and excused herself from our conversation to review the music with him.

It was a pretty mundane exchange, but I was blown away. It's remarkable enough to see a 16-year-old boy drive himself to church early to join a bell choir comprised of adults in their 50s and 60s. But even more intriguing was Jonathan's perceptiveness. Not only did he know that Libba was Sara’s daughter, but life in the church had taught him to anticipate congregational needs. He knew that Libba played with the bell choir, and he realized she probably couldn't play that morning. Unprompted—I checked with his parents—he offered to fill in.

This couldn't have happened at any of my previous churches—though it's not Jonathan's faith that's of a rare caliber. It's his connection to the congregation.

I've always met young Christians through youth programs. I've been hired by churches so committed to the discipleship of their young people that they've dedicated resources to creating specialized curriculae and activities. These churches expect regular events that are created exclusively to minister to young people.

But I wonder now if we're ministering them right out of the church. Unlike Jonathan, the kids I've previously pastored never sat around a table with adults at church-wide fellowship events—they had their own program options. They've never worked side by side with other members to put on a neighborhood vacation Bible school—they were off on their own mission trips.

When the youth were asked to contribute to the larger church, it was usually through manual labor, the only thing we thought they were capable of doing. Yes, we may have let them plan and lead one worship service a year, but we never dreamed of asking any of them to sit on the worship committee or serve as a regular worship leader. The message was that the church existed to serve them, not the other way around.

Kenda Creasy Dean and others warn that when our children and youth ministries ghettoize young people, we run the risk of losing them after high school graduation. I saw evidence of this in Jonathan. Over the years I've worked with young people as passionate and serious about their faith as Jonathan is. I think I've done youth ministry with integrity.

But I may have been unintentionally disconnecting kids from the larger body of Christ. The young people at my current congregation—a church that many families would never join because “it doesn't have anything for youth”—are far more likely to remain connected to the faith and become active church members as adults, because that's what they already are and always have been.

Kate Murphy is the interim pastor of Hickory Grove Presbyterian Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Copied from: Theolog.org

Mmmmm, food for thought!

Till Next Time!

Church is for girls!

2010-01-28T19:06:00.002Z

Reposted from The Times Online:

By Ruth Gledhill

"Real men don't like going to church because they don't want to "sing love songs to a man", because the "vicar wears a dress", because they feel like "mongrels on parade at Crufts" and because they want to be waited on by women rather than queue for coffee after the service.

A number of distinctly non-pc ways to get men back into church are among those being advocated by a charity, Christian Vision for Men, which has discovered that the Church has lost nearly half of its men aged under 30 because it has become too feminine.

The charity admits some of its ideas might not be seen as politically correct.

But on a questionnaire on its website aimed at finding out why so many men have left church, they suggest a number of ways of making men want to return to church again.

These include redesigning the interiors of church buildings to make men feel more at home.

Instead of the usual flowers and statues of the Virgin Mary, they suggest, "How would it go down to decorate with swords, or pictures of knights, or flaming torches?"

The charity continues: "Maybe it's not 'politically correct', but men quite like the attention of women! They also like to be waited on - so long as they are not made to feel guilty. Instead of having to queue for coffee, why not ask some of the women to go round with trays of coffee and biscuits or chocky bars? Coupled with a charming smile, many men would find that very attractive!"

Then there are the hymns, or modern worship songs, themselves.

Quite apart from the sheer embarrassment of having to sing out loud when the tune might go too high or be in an unfamiliar key, the charity advises clergy just to look at the words.

"Jesus, I am so in love with you," or "Beautiful one I love, beautiful one I adore," - many men wouldn't sing that to their wives, let alone another man, the charity advises.

It continues: "The image of church is 'women and children' - action songs or kid's plays just emphasise this. The decoration is often very feminine - flowers, embroidered banners. The vicar often wears a dress... It can be embarrassing to be next to someone in uninhibited delight of worship, or in tears."

Men don't want to feel brainwashed by reciting words that they don't believe: "The language can be offputting, even the word 'love' has undertones of the love of a man for his woman - they'd rather 'admire' or 'respect' another man. Think how they will respond if called to be Jesus's lover, or to be 'intimate' with him. Don't play into Satan's hands by using language that he has corrupted."

Among the changes recommended by Christian Vision for Men, a member of the Evangelical Alliance, is to use the World Cup to boost falling congregations. The charity wants vicars to erect big screens above the pulpit during this summer’s World Cup in South Africa and even serve beer during games.

Carl Beech, General Director of the CVM and Baptist Minister, said: “The World Cup is when pretty much every bloke in the country bonds over a common goal.

“Why can that not be done in a church? The decline has been steady for a while but has accelerated over recent years.

“The problem has become male culture versus church culture. Too many sermons talk about Jesus’ love, compassion and grace which are great but not male concepts. Men want to know about his great decision making and leadership. That is what they recognise. Churches are very pastorally driven whereas blokes are looking for decisions not discussions. The breakdown in most churches is now 70 per cent women to 30 per cent men.”

The charity, which also recommends subjects as "pornography" are discussed in church men's groups, has also launched two Christian-themed men’s magazines in a further bid to lock into male culture.

Bishop of Lewes Wallace Benn admitted there was a problem. “The relatively small number of men in our congregations is one of the pressing issues facing the church today.

“Within our Christian concern for all ages, both sexes and every ethnic group, we need to address reaching men with the good news of the Gospel as a key concern.”

The Church of England have tried to address the slump in the last five years by encouraging services to be held in alternative venues such as skate parks, coffee shops and pubs under their "Fresh Expressions" scheme.

A spokesman said: “It is of concern. We do know there appears to be a higher proportion of women to men in church.""

Till Next Time!

95 Theses Rap

2010-01-25T10:20:00.002Z

Thanks to Per-crucem-ad-lucem for posting this. The 95 Theses Rap from Bulldog Productions, of Yale University:

If you havin’ Church problems then don’t blame God, son …
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.

VERSE 1
Listen up, all my people, it’s a story for the telling
’bout the sin and injustice and corruption I been smelling:
I met that homie Tetzel, then I started rebelling
Once I seen the fat Indulgences that he been selling.
Now the Cath’lics of the world straight up disgracin’ me
Just because I waved my finger at the papacy.
My people got riled up over this Reformation …
That’s when Leo threatened me with Excommunication.
I warned y’all that Rome best agree to the terms.
If not, then you can eat my Diet of Worms!
You think you done something spectacular?
I wrote the Bible in the vernacular!
A heretic! [What?] Someone throw me a bone.
You forgot salvation comes through faith alone.
I’m on a mission from God. You think I do this for fun?
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!

CHORUS
Ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
If you havin’ Church problems then don’t blame God, son …
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.

VERSE 2
One Five One Seven… that’s when it first went down.
Then the real test was when it started spreading around.
Sixty days to recant what I said? Father, please!
You’ve had, what? Goin’ on fifteen centuries?
“Oh snap, he’s messin’ with the holy communion.”
But I ain’t never dissed your precious hypostatic union!
“One place at one time.” Well, thank you Zwingli.
Yeah, way to disregard that whole “I’m God” thingy!
Getting’ all up in my rosary … you little punk.
Your momma shoulda told you not to mess with no monk.
What you bumpin’ me for? Suddenly you sore.
Keep that up, you’ll have yourself another Peasant War.
You blame common folk for the smack they talkin’ …
You ain’t even taught them proper Christian doctrine.
With my hat, my Bible, and my sexy little nun,
I got ninety-five theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!

CHORUS
VERSE 3
When I wrote the ninety-five, haters straight up assailed ‘em.
Now they only care whether or not I nailed ‘em or mailed ‘em.
They got psychoanalytic. Now everyone’s a critic,
And getting on my case just because I’m anti-Semitic.
I’ve come back from obscurity to teach y’all a lesson,
Cuz someone here still ain’t read their Augsburg Confession.
I said Catholicism brings a life of excess,
And we all remember what went down with Philip of Hesse!
But you forgot about me and my demonstration?
Like you can just create your own denomination?
“We don’t like this part, so we’ll just add a little twist.”
Now we Anglican, Amish, and even Calvinist.
I gave you the power, you gone and abused it.
I gave you God’s truth, you just confused it.
Don’t you never underestimate the s*** that I done …
I got 95 theses but the Pope ain’t one.
Save me!

CHORUS
Shout out to Johann Gutenberg … I see you baby.

Till Next Time!

The Bible: A History

2010-01-24T13:58:00.003Z

Make sure that you are in at 7pm this eve in front of the TV. Channel 4's new short series, "The Bible: A History" is beginning and looks like its one not to miss. 'Each film is written and presented by a prominent figure with a particular interest or experience relevant to the part of the Bible being examined. They offer a personal interpretation of some of the best-known aspects of this ancient book, which still guides the lives of millions of believers across the globe.' Mark Goodacre (NT Pod) has been a series consultant and although I can in no way can guarantee what will be said I'm sure that it will leave us with something to ponder!

Till Next Time!

TV Evangelism

2010-01-19T19:22:00.001Z

Sometimes these are too accurate!

Till Next Time!

The Internet Bible: Adam and Eve

2010-01-11T21:39:00.001Z

Source

Till Next Time!

Translation

2010-01-11T16:32:00.002Z

"Translation is not a matter of words only: it is a matter of making intelligible a whole culture." - Anthony Burgess, quoted in 'Found in Translation', The Times, 11/01/10

Read the whole article here

Till Next Time!

Tasty Testicles

2010-01-08T23:59:00.005Z

I've been watching a BBC programme called 'Kill It, Cook It, Eat it'. The premise of the programme was to show the process of making various meats from the live animal to the cooked meat on your plate. It also shows you have the cheaper meats are made which was both interesting and disturbing. I strongly suggest you watch the episodes. They are available on the BBC iPlayer now, or visit here to see them all in one place. You must be quick thought as Ep 1 is only available for another 2 days. If you can't stomach the full lot I believe there is a best bits episode next week.

I particularly liked episode 5 'Offal Feast' where the usually wasted parts of the animals were made in to meals for the participants. These include, but no exhaustively: Ox tongue, pig tail, pig heart, pig head, lamb sweetbread (glands) and piglets testicles! Bon appetit.

I must say that I went onto the website after the episode to see if they had posted the recipes for the Offal Feasts but alas not. With that said I've decided that I'm going to attempt to cook with offal in the near future. I think it could be a penny saving and yet tasty experience.

Till Next Time.

It's certainly an effective way

2010-01-07T16:50:00.002Z

Source

Not quite sure if his moral compass was working but you can't fault the results, if it were true that is.

Till Next Time!

Facepalm

2010-01-04T18:26:00.003Z

Have you seen this? Words cannot even begin to explain my feelings towards this. Conservapedia, the self proclaimed "trustworthy encyclopedia" is an website much like Wikipedia but with a 'conservative Christian' bias. They set out to remove the liberal bias which they see as rampant in the mainstream media such as Wikipedia. They have gone so far the other side it's not funny. However they could be forgiven if it wasn't for this:

The Conservative Bible Project

It's awful. They have set out to re-write the Bible from a conservative point of view, or 'correctly' as they claim. Their site states:

"As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines:

1. Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

2. Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other feminist distortions; preserve many references to the unborn child (the NIV deletes these)

3. Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

4. Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms to capture better the original intent; Defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words that have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

5. Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots"; using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

6. Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

7. Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

8. Exclude Later-Inserted Inauthentic Passages: excluding the interpolated passages that liberals commonly put their own spin on, such as the adulteress story

9. Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

10. Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God.""

Honestly, it's enough to make one go crazy! How are we supposed to understand the Bible when people start with a bias and translate the Bible accordingly, or even in some cases leave out verses with a 'liberal bias' such as Lk 23:34; 'Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."' No, I'm not joking.

If you want to read some of what they have managed to abuse you can find the Conservative 'Bible' so far on their page (link above). I for one hope it dies a death, and quickly.

For further info BW3 has posted on this and even has videos!

Till Next Time!

The Magi and the Continuity of Faiths

2010-01-03T21:06:00.004Z

Recently I've been reading 'Seeking the Asian Face of Jesus' by Chris Sugden. It is a fantastic book and must be read by everyone, especially those who are looking at doing mission abroad. The only critiques that I can charge it with are that it is too short (at c.450 pages!) but then it was written as a PhD thesis so what could he do? And also there are so many typos, spelling mistakes and even occasionally missing words that I almost put it down.('Hypocrisy' they cry!) I'm glad I continued but I plead that it be edited by someone.

For part of the book Chris looks at the work of Wayan Mastra, a Minister in Bali, and particularly in relation to his critique of Hendrik Kraemer. Mastra was a native (although part of western education) and was brought up in the church initiated by Kraemer. Kraemer was a Dutch Theologian hired by the Bible society of Netherlands as the supervisor for Bible translation work in Java who concluded that since Bali was a intrinsically religious culture that it was incompatible with Christianity therefore when people converted they were kept out of their society. Mastra argued that this demeaned the Balinese Christians and the Gospel and therefore sought to integrate the two. He did so quite well in my opinion but I'll let you look closer as to his means yourself.

So what has this to do with the Magi? In Matt 2:1-2 we read that 'After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."' Has that ever struck you as odd that gentiles were practising Astrology and were lead to Jesus? Hadn't God forbidden the practice of Astrology? Why would he then use it to bring the Magi to Jesus? This was brought up at church today where we were lead to Matt 7:7-8; '"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.' Those who sincerely look will find.

It reminded me of what Mastra argues. He argues that the idea that God's grace isn't present in non-Christian religions (as Kraemer proposes) is to misunderstand grace. Mastra draws on the work of Karl Rahner and says, "Karl Rahner insists that is it quite wrong to consider the non-Christian as a man who has not been touched by the grace and truth of God.'[p. 91]. Mastra uses Acts 17 as an example of the continuity between Non-Christian religions and Christianity. Mastra notes that rather than criticising the Athenians beliefs he uses them to explain the Gospel through the means of the 'Unknown God' Statue, proof of their devotedness to religion and regard for God. It may also be noted that Paul quotes their philosophers who declare that 'We are his offspring'(V28).

This is not to say that other religions are to be celebrated, or that they are salvific but rather that they are a stepping stone to the true faith. In Acts 17 we see that Paul was 'greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols.'(v16) Mastra notes that as well as a continuity between faiths there is also discontinuity, a process of growth where continuity leads to ultimate differences. Mastra uses the image of a bridge:

"We start off on one side of the bridge which is connected to the river-bank on which we are standing...We set off on the bridge because is stretched right to the other side of the river...When we reach the other side we find ourselves on a new riverbank in a different country we left. But as we look back over the bridge, we see that the same bridge brought us to this new country as took us from the old one." (p.93)

Perhaps then this is what we see in the Magi. Not that they were being encouraged in their Astrology, nor that they were being justified by God, but rather that He was using their earnest searching to lead them step-by-step to the other side of the river, to the new country, to a true faith in Christ.

I must say that this is a subject close to my heart as I am in love with Japan and feel called there. Japan is also a religious culture of sorts and therefore I seek to find a way to witness to them which is firstly faithful to God and his scriptures, and secondly which is effective to those I witness to. I pray that I will, by God's grace, be able to do this.

Picture by He Qi

Till Next Time.

Great song

2010-01-03T17:13:00.003Z

A few years ago whilst at (New) Word Alive I was dragged along to a gig by some random guy called Andy Flannagan. Fortunately he was fantastic and I recently managed to procure his CD, 'Son', for 99p from Wesley Owen (along with Phil Joel's, of Newsboys fame,'The Deliberate People Album' and The O.C. Supertones 'faith of a child' for the same price!) . A highlight from his gig and the CD was the song 'See the Stars'. You can listen to a clip here. Here are the lyrics:

See the stars, hiding history
Feel the scars healing me
Your collage jolts my memory
Changing fast, yet at peace

The sky grabs for attention
Screaming on and on till

I hear the song you wrote
I see the stars
They've waited years to quote
Your words of power

See the stars, burning fiercely
Feel the fire from their core
God so far, yet so near me
Goes behind, and before

I fear there's mostly darkness
Black revealing white till

Now the words you speak will be my song
You have whispered quietly so long
Give me ears to hear what my eyes see
This God stretched out in front of me

I cannot help but wonder
How can I deserve this?

Till Next Time!

A great resource for the Creation/Evolution debate

2010-01-03T13:43:00.002Z

Which ever side you fall on I strongly suggest that you have a look at this paper by Tim Keller,pastor of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York: 'CREATION, EVOLUTION, AND CHRISTIAN LAYPEOPLE'

In it he argues that belief in the Bible and Evolution aren't mutually exclusive and looks briefly at 3 big questions which those who look to reconcile their faith and science will face:

1) If God used evolution to create, then we can’t take Genesis 1 literally, and if we can’t do that, why take any other part of the Bible literally?

2) If biological evolution is true—does that mean that we are just animals driven by our genes, and everything about us can be explained by natural selection?

3) If biological evolution is true and there was no historical Adam and Eve how can we know where sin and suffering came from?

It's very accessible and written with the layman in mind. I strongly suggest you all go there now and read it.

HT: JKDoyle.com who also provides a few excerpts and also a little constructive criticism.

Till Next Time!

It's Christmas......bored yet?

2009-12-25T00:07:00.002Z

First things first:

Merry Christmas

We all know it happens. We get to Christmas and we are very quickly bored. We've been to church, had our lunch, opened our presents and are bored by 3pm. Here's my list of potential things to do:

1) Listen to Bored-Again Christian. He has just released his latest pod-cast: The Christmas Sound. Its a good hour of alternative Christian music, in this case Christmas related, which makes you glad for once that Christians are allowed to make music. Make sure you have a listen to past posts too over the year.

2) Have a conversation. It's a dying art and should be practised more. Just make sure you have it before Auntie Mables 4th glass of sherry.

3) Go to Young Glory's blog. It's a Christian music blog by Matt Blick which brings you the latest and best music related info including videos and free (legal) downloads of big names new releases.

4) Be reminded of the free album "Advent Songs" by Sojourn which I posted on recently.

5) On your own or with other Christians? Whip out your bible and have a read, have some prayer time, maybe even pull out your trust, rainbow-strap laden guitar and have a musical worship session.

6) Have a read of the various Christmas/Advent related posts on Christian blogs. Not sure where to start? Try the ones on the right of your screen now.

Have yourself a Merry Christmas.

Till Next Time!

Music worthy of the season

2009-12-19T14:34:00.002Z

At last someone has made an album that you want to listen to in Christmas and Advent, and what's even better is it's FREE.

The album is 'Advent' by Sojourn. You can download it from here. The only catch is that you have to tell 5 friends about it, but it's so great you'll want to anyway.

Here is my favorite track:

Thanks to Photizo for the ht.

Till Next Time!

How many whats?

2009-12-11T02:17:00.002Z

Today I was watching an old quiz called 'Take it or leave it?' on Challenge TV. It's trash but quite good background TV. Anyway, I was watching it today whilst reading 'Christ and his people in the book of Isaiah' by David Parsons. About 10 mins before the end I got very distracted and had to watch the rest of the thing for the answer to the following question:

"Which of the three kings gave Gold to Jesus?" *I spit out my tea*

How riddiculous is that? There isn't even any source given. It certainly isn't the Bible which says nothing of Kings, 3 nor otherwise, visiting Jesus, let alone their names and who gave what to Jesus. Check out BW3's post, 'Star-Studded Wise Men: Rethinking the Christmas Story' for more eloquent thoughts on the matter.

Apparently the answer is Melchior (and not Gasper as they chose). According to the all knowing source the tradition is based on a 6th century Alexandrian text.

Personally I think they should have spat in his face declaring, "Citation needed" then handed him a Bible. Who knows?! Maybe next time he will think more carefully about the questions that are asked.

Till Next Time!

The Gospel according to whom?

2009-12-08T14:44:00.004Z

Who wrote the fourth Gospel? We traditionally say John but is that right?
In the book, 'The many Gospels of Jesus' by Philip W. Comfort and Jason Driesbach it says;

"Though John's authorship is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Gospel, the text itself points to his authorship. The writer of this Gospel calls himself "the one whom Jesus loved"[Jn 20:2] and identifies himself at the end of the Gospel as a disciple who witnessed the events he wrote about, concluding with the personal "I" in the very last verse [Jn 21:24-25]."

As they say above the author isn't clear and we must deduce who it is. Their reasoning is sound however I must say that I disagree with the conclusion. Perhaps there is more to it then I have given credit and am, as always, up for being informed and corrected. Traditionally the beloved disciple is identified as John however I would like to suggest that it is actually Lazarus and therefore should be The Gospel according to Lazarus.

Here is my reasoning:

- It is mentioned that Jesus loved Lazarus 3 times in Ch 11: 3, 5, and 36. This was also by 3 different people: Mary and Martha, the author and the Jews. Seems rather emphatic to me.

- Mary and Martha tell Jesus that the 'one whom you love is sick' and Jesus knows that they are referring to Lazarus.

- Lazarus is mentioned to have been among those who reclined at the table when Mary anointed Jesus' feet (12:3). Later on in Ch 13 the one whom Jesus loved is mentioned to be reclining next to Jesus (V 23). This could very possibly be Lazarus therefore as we know that he ate with Jesus and the other disciples.

- In 21:22-23 it is mentioned that rumours were spread that the beloved disciple would never die. Now surely this only makes sense in light on Lazarus' resurrection from the dead in Ch 11. It seems a rather random comment on Peter and Jesus' part otherwise.

- It was the disciple who was rumoured to never die who was learning on Jesus' chest mentioned in Ch 13. (21:20)

It's not water tight but it seems to me that the author of the Gospel was the beloved disciple, who is in fact Lazarus.

Special thanks, as is becoming usual, to Simon Woodman who first suggested to me the true identity of the beloved disciple. Also to He Qi for the image.

Till Next Time!

Morality Converters

2009-12-01T16:20:00.002Z

Have any of you seen this vid?:
http://www.cashconverters.co.uk/video/1/ex-boyfriend-sell-your-jewellery-for-cash

It's for cash converters. Basically a bloke cheats on a woman, but according to Cash Converters it's ok because you can just trade in the jewellery he gave you and use the money to go out and pull.

Not really got much to share on it, just that it annoys me.

Till next time!

Out of the Theological closet: I am an Annihilationist (Pt.2)

2009-11-29T22:16:00.003Z

So what are the key passages? I shall mainly be sticking to the NT as the OT is at best vague, although there are a few passages. Sheol seems to be completely interchangeable between a literal place, and a grave. Pretty much all of our understanding of Hell comes from the NT, and we use the OT as a secondary source, interpreted from the NT. I shall start by referring briefly to various OT texts before moving on to looking at specific NT texts.

Psalm 9:17, along with various others seem to suggest that Sheol is the place of the wicked. However there are other texts that suggest that the righteous are there too, for example: Psalm 16:10; Psalm 86:13. The issue then is not whether the righteous go to Sheol, but rather where is their final resting place.

Rev 20:11-15: Odd place to start? Maybe, but what this text say is that Hades gives up the dead and if their names weren't found in the Lamb's book of life (implies some names were) then they were cast into the lake of fire [Gehenna?]. What is interesting however is that Hades is also cast into the lake of fire, the second death. This proves that it cannot be the same place as Gehenna [Hell] as it is temporary and destroyed.

Matt 10:28: We all know the passage yet we seem to skim over the obvious interpretation for one that fits our preconceptions: "Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in [Gehenna]" God will destroy those who do not fear him. That is what fire does; destroy. One doesn't throw wood (Matt 7:19), chaff (Matt 3:12) or weeds (Matt 13:40) into a fire and expect them to burn forever, rather that they be destroyed. There are loads of verses that talk about God destroying the wicked, overwhelming amounts in fact. Look here for examples(although not all applicable). We will address the criticism to this in a moment.

Mixed images: This is not one passage but rather a criticism from various passages. If one is to take the literal view then how can Hell be both darkness (Matt 8:12) and have fire (Matthew 5:22)?

Obviously these are just a few examples, and there are as many as there are mentions of hell, as obviously the Annihilationist uses the same passages as all other interpretations. I would just like to address one moral question before we go onto address those passages which are often used to counter-act Annihilationism. My question (which I like to note can up after I held this doctrine) is this: If God punished sinners for all eternity is he just? Obviously there is a punishment to fit the crime, but once their punishment is dealt out is it just to continue. There are generally two rebuttals to this: 1) Sin is so bad that there is no end to the punishment. Is this however consistent with the picture of God as a just judge? 2) People continue to sin in Hell and therefore heap up unending punishment for themselves. Is God unable therefore to punish fast enough to end it or his he prolonging it out of spite? With that said, let us address some of the texts set against Annihilationism, and afterwards address any other criticisms facing it.

Luke 16:19-31: Often known as 'The Rich Man and Lazarus' we see a description of the rich man in torment (of fire) in Hell [Hades]. Surely this shows an eternal Hell? Well there are a few things to be said here: 1) It no-where says his torment is eternal, 2) He is in Hades, which we have already seen is destroyed, 3) I have already stated that there may be temporary torment in Hades, 4) It is a parable meant to encourage one to listen to the prophets and therefore look after the poor. (It is also possibly a cheeky mention of Jesus' resurrection, "they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.") There is no reason why this should be taken literally. Does this go against Annihilation? No, if anything it is against the 'traditional' view.

Luke 3:17; Matt 25:41; Isa 33:14: Unquenchable, eternal, everlasting fire. Surely these images prove that the punishment is eternal/forever? Well, oddly enough no. This was something that shocked me when I came across it too. Firstly, all these verses talk of the fire, not of the punishment. Secondly, these words are misleading in the English. Unquenchable is quite literal: Cannot be put out. Possibly denoting an eternal fire (See revelation), or possible a strong fire. Eternal is more interesting. We use it generally as a synonym for everlasting/forever, however it has more then one meaning in the Greek. It can also mean complete or strong. You will have to look that up yourselves as I don't have the space to use here. It is worth noting Jude 1:7 which says, "just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire."(ESV) Here it says that they underwent an eternal fire (obviously we know that since Sodom and Gomorrah aren't still burning) that this isn't used in the way we do. It is also worth saying that the word used here in these examples, as in some other examples, is 'Aionios'(Gk), lasting an age, literally 'age to age'. Eternal is a metaphorical interpretation and not literal. Similar can be said of 'everlasting fire'. Everlasting in this case is 'olam'(Hb), lasting an age. Everlasting is an interpretation and not literal.

Rev 14:9b-11:"If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name." Here we see a warning that those who conform to the beast, etc, shall face God's fury and be tormented, the smoke of which shall rise for ever and ever. There are a few things to note: 1) Revelation is cryptographical. That is it uses encoded images to covey messages. It is not to be taken literally e.g. Horsemen, lamb, sword from mouth, 144,000, etc. This suggests that the image of smoke rising for ever and ever is also a picture. The use of the concept of smoke rising for ever and ever is used else where in the Bible where the literal meaning is not intended. For example Isa 34:9-10 where Edom's smoke is said to raise forever, when it obviously doesn't. I would like to suggest that this too is a picture stating the justice will be served and that it will never be forgotten that God is just. 2) Even if it were literal the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever, it never says that the actual torment does. (On a side note I take the Beast to be Nero, the image to be a bust of him and the mark of the beast to be the document that proves you worshipped him.)

Rev 20:10: "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulphur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." Here we find an odd mix. Firstly, we must again note the Cryptographic nature of the book and therefore not take the images literally. Secondly, it is the devil, the beast and his false prophet that are 'tormented day and night for ever and ever', and not the average non-believer, however (as you can see from my interpretation above of whom the beast is) it is still people being tormented. I take this, as above, to be symbol of God's justice.

Mark 9:47b-49:" ...thrown into [Gehenna], where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched". Again this passage is used often to counteract this view. We have already looked at the concept of unquenchable flame to a point but I would like to look at it a little further and also at the worm. Remember what Gehenna is. Here Jesus is using the image of a rubbish tip: worms eating your flesh and fire burning your remains. It is an image, not literal. What is often missed here is that Jesus is quoting the OT: Isa 66:24, "And they [believers] will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." So those whose 'worm will not die, nor their fire be quenched' are dead bodies, not eternal living, tormented peoples. They are an everlasting sign of Gods judgement, not of torture.

Matt 14:42: "...there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth." I think this phrase is often miss-understood as meaning that the people are in pain. I was always taught this and thought so, however when I look at how the Bible actually uses the phrase it gives a completely different story. Look at the following: Job 16:9; Psa 35:16; 37:12; 112:10; Lam 2:16. In each of them the phrase is used not of torment and agony but rather anger, disgust or contempt. It makes sense that those who God casts out will feel anger, disgust and contempt for God.

Ok so those are the passages but what about further, logical criticism:

Does fire always destroy?: It is often said, and rightly so, that fire from God doesn't always destroy. Also, God is described as a 'consuming fire', yet we aren't consumed. So, in theory, the eternal fire could torment people forever without them dying (Ex 3:2; Dan 3:25; Heb 12:29), however the problem that this interpretation has is 1) In all the case that fire doesn't destroy it is either symbolic of God's power and justice, where people either are destroyed or are amazed they have survived: Deut 5:26; Isa 33:14;Heb 10:27;Rev 1:14. 2) Or it generally saves: Dan 3:25; 1 Cor 3:13. What I am getting at here is that one must take each case at a time: Where fire is used upon the wicked it destroys, where it is used against the saints, it refines.

Annihilation is good news for the wicked and prevents effective evangelism: Is it better news then eternal torment? Probably, but we must remember that God is just and fair! Is it good news however? Certainly not. How is an eternity without God good news? We have already seen that those cast out from Gods presence will gnash their teeth (anger and contempt) and weeping (extreme sadness). As for its effect on evangelism the 'Turn or burn' approach only really works if the person believes in hell in the first place. Secondly, aren't we calling people out of darkness and into light. Isn't it a relationship with Jesus we are after rather then an escape from hell? Imagine a wedding where the vows are being said, and after the groom has talked about his love for his bride, his bride turns as declares that it’s better then not being married. I find evangelism is much more effective if we preach that God has come to save us and redeem back to how it's meant to be, rather then that you're going to burn for all eternity unless you submit! Also, what has effectiveness to do with truth?

I think this will have to do for now. I have gone on too long already, however if you want to read further then I suggest this online article, "Why hell is not eternal torment. Why the "Conditional Immortality" doctrine is true and biblical." as a good starting point. It also contains further suggested reading.

Till Next Time!

Out of the Theologlical closet: I am an Annihilationist (Pt.1)

2009-11-29T13:35:00.005Z

Well, we have come to our final post in the 'series'. The likelihood is that I will post more on each of the subjects in future giving a little more depth and addressing some subjects that I've skimmed over or ignored all together (e.g. Christian Perfection in Wesleyan thought). So, on to today’s confession: Annihilationism.

I often get the feeling that when people hear that one doesn't believe in the 'traditional' view of hell they are spewing some hogwash akin to this (Thanks Contemporary Calvinist). I don't disagree with Hell because I feel that it is not possible to see this as consistent with God's character (although I admit it has some problems), nor do I see it as an affront to the mind, but rather because I believe that people today understand as hell is not what the Bible teaches.

I won't bother giving a 'traditional' (I use apostrophes as I do not believe this view goes back to Christ) definition beyond the following as it is not the point of this post: A literal place of eternal torment for those who reject God. Let me also give a quick definition of Annihilationism with which you can use to manoeuvre in this post: Annihilationism is the belief that ultimately those who are not followers of Christ will be destroyed. There are various forms of this (as with the traditional view) but I hold that this involves some form of punishment before destruction too. With that said, as has become common place; let me give you a little background.

I was raised with the common evangelical view of Hell and fervently kept this through University. I was quite emphatic about it and saw it as an important part of evangelism ("turn or burn", although not that crass). Things changed however, and this may sound odd, when I was looking at what the bible said about the soul. However what I discovered lead me to look closer at what hell is and how the two concepts tie together. We will look at this together in this post and a few of the 'key' passages in relation to hell and see where we get to.

Before I go any further I want to, yet again, knock a false view that some people can hold toward Annihilationism. I take this quote from DesiringGod.org:

"Dorothy Sayers, who died in 1957, speaks a wise and faithful antidote to this kind of abandonment of truth.

There seems to be a kind of conspiracy, especially among middle-aged writers of vaguely liberal tendency, to forget, or to conceal, where the doctrine of Hell comes from. One finds frequent references to the “cruel and abominable mediaeval doctrine of hell,” or “the childish and grotesque mediaeval imagery of physical fire and worms.”...

But the case is quite otherwise; let us face the facts. The doctrine of hell is not “mediaeval”: it is Christ’s. It is not a device of “mediaeval priestcraft” for frightening people into giving money to the church: it is Christ’s deliberate judgment on sin. The imagery of the undying worm and the unquenchable fire derives, not from “mediaeval superstition,” but originally from the Prophet Isaiah, and it was Christ who emphatically used it.... It confronts us in the oldest and least “edited” of the gospels: it is explicit in many of the most familiar parables and implicit in many more: it bulks far larger in the teaching than one realizes, until one reads the Evangelists through instead of picking out the most comfortable texts: one cannot get rid of it without tearing the New Testament to tatters. We cannot repudiate Hell without altogether repudiating Christ. [emphasis mine] (A Matter of Eternity, 86)"

Now I respect my sister in Christ but I must disagree with her. I do not believe that this doctrine came from God but indeed, as she rejects, that it came from the (probably well intentioned) church later on. I wish to demonstrate that by reading the Biblical texts with an open mind, and with a fair reading, we will see that this well intentioned doctrine of Hell is found wanting in the Bible.

So what is it that led me to look here? I was challenged, although I can't remember who, to look at what the Bible says about the nature of the soul. The standard view is that souls are immortal, and by their very nature, do not die when our bodies do but live forever. It as suggested to me that this was a later idea influenced by Plato. After looking into this I discovered that this was indeed true. I will admit here that my view of what a soul is can be rather puzzled. Is it a synonym for a person, a word to describe the fullness of a person? Is it a separate entity, a 'spirit' which indwells a body (I would argue but are inseparable)? Answer is I don't know and it seems to be a rather confusing mix. I'm quite open to being enlightened on the matter. However, what seems quite clear is that it is not ontologically immortal. Here are a few texts which address the subject:
Gen 3 ~ Eat the fruit and die. Seeing as they are only alive as God breathed (soul-same word) into Adam that may infer that his soul will die.
Ezek 18 ~ The soul who sins will dies. (Here soul seems to mean person)
This however, as I'm sure you're shouting now, is at best loose.

It also came to me that the Bible speaks of Immortality being granted to the believer as a gift granted to the believer? If that was the case then how can the soul (of an unbeliever) be ontologically immortal? Here are a few texts:
Rom 2:7 ~ Eternal life given to those who by doing good seek glory and immortality.
1 Cor 15:53-54 ~ Mortal clothed with (given) immortality showing that death has been swallowed up.
1 Tim 6:15-16 ~ Only God is immortal.
2 Tim 1:10 ~ Jesus has destroyed death and brought immortality through the gospel.
So here immortality is of God and is granted to those who accept the gospel. I think this makes clear then that the soul isn't immortal in itself but rather has immortality granted (redeemed?) through the gospel.

This obviously lead me to ask what this means for the concept of Hell. Either the 'traditional' view is incorrect or God must make people immortal so that he can punish them forever, which seems inconsistent with what the Bible teaches about immortality. What we will do in a moment then is look at the 'key' passages which relate to this debate. Before we do that we are going to address where the word Hell comes from. As with many concepts we use English words to translate Biblical concepts. E.g. Evangeline=Gospel, Ekklisia= Church. The same is true with Hell. It is a Pagan word, of Norse background and related languages and traditions (so Wiki tells me), to refer to the after life, the hidden place. Nothing wrong with that in itself as Jesus does it (Hades= place of the dead in Greek mythology) but what I am concerned with is that this one word is used to translate various works which signify different things. They are: Sheol (Hb)/ Hades (Gk), Gehenna (Gk) and Tartarus (Gk).

Sheol/Hades: Hades is the word that is used to translate Sheol in the NT (E.g. Acts 2:27 quoting Psalm 16:10). It is the place where all the dead go once they die, believer and unbeliever alike, till 'the day' when they will be resurrected and judged. A debate can be made for a separation of Hades (as in Greek mythology) for the good and the wicked, E.g. Luke 23:43 "Today you will be with me in Paradise") although its difficult at this word is only used 3 times and the other two are used to talk of Heaven/New Earth. I think there is a case for separating them however as 2 Pet 2:9 seems to suggest that the ungodly will be punished whilst being held: "if this is so, then the Lord knows how to rescue godly men from trials and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment". I must say I'm not set on this, but it is a possibility. Anyway, here are the words used:

Gehenna: Properly 'Valley of Hinnom'. A valley outside Jerusalem, which by Jesus' time was a rubbish pit used to burn rubbish in. In the OT it was a place where people sacrificed their children to Molech, built [temples] for Baal, and used fortune-telling, omens and sorcery, and dealt with mediums and necromancers. (2 Chron 28:3; 33:6; Jer 7:31; 7:32; 19:2; 19:4; 19:6; 32:35) Of particular note for out study now is Jer 7:32-33, "So beware, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when people will no longer call it Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter, for they will bury the dead in Topheth until there is no more room. Then the carcasses of this people will become food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away." It is also worth noting that it was here that criminals were thrown after crucifixion and probably where Jesus would have ended up if it weren't for Joseph asking for the body to bury.

Tartarus: The lower region of Hades where the Titans were kept in Greek mythology. It is only mentioned once in the Bible, 2 Pet 2:4, "...God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgment..." In Greek mythology the Titans, the sons of Gaia (Earth) and Uranus (Heaven) [N.B. Uranus was Gaia's husband and son!] were held here. (Anyone noticing a similarity with I Enoch?) Anyway, this is the place where the [fallen] angels were locked ready for judgement, and I do not feel if actually relevant to this debate so we shall not address this any further in this post.

TBC.....

Out of the theological closet: I am (for want of a better word) Egalitarian.

2009-11-26T17:00:00.006Z

"Jesus is lord" proclaims the new woman Vicar to the congregation. Immediately cries come from the congregation, "Heretic! A woman preaching to men, despicable." In this post we're going to do what I did: look at the few passages that even mention the concept of women preaching to, and having authority over men and see what they say. It is only women preaching to and having authority men mentioned as both sides agree that women can have authority over and preach to women and children (Titus 2:3-5; Prov 6:20). Obviously we haven't got space to do an in-depth study of each but rather shall be a few comments from which you can see how I came to this conclusion and hopefully from which you can go and look for yourself.

As per usual, disclaimers: Firstly, I obviously use this in the Christian sense. Secondly, Egalitarianism has certain connotations to it. Generally it is seen as being held by militant feminists who are convinced that they are as good as men. Strictly meaning it comes from the French, égal, meaning equal. It is the belief that we are all equal in God's sight and are all called to use our gifts to his service. Now I know that the majority of Complimentarians today would argue this to be true also: Men and women are indeed equal and both must use their gifts to the glory of God and respond to any true calling they have from God. They however would argue that women will not be called to minister to men. Thirdly, much thanks must go to Rev. Simon Woodman of South Wales Baptist College who taught me regularly at Cardiff University, who helped me via e-mail on this subject even after I graduated, and (before he does me for plagiarism, of which there is a lot) of who's essay, 'A Biblical Basis for Affirming Women in Ministry' I have borrow extensively from and based much of this post on. Thank you Very much Simon. So then, what position do I hold?

The sense I am using it in doesn't fit with either position really. What I mean by it is this: Women and men are equal in status and in the eyes of God, but that doesn't mean they are the same. I am not arguing for a Gnostic position of androgyny! I don't think that any Christian would argue that it is either what is true, nor what they would want; rather the Bible celebrates both men and women! I shall not get into what these roles are now however as it is rather complicated, as I'm sure you are all aware. What I am saying though is that there are no distinctions in Ministerial roles between the sexes. I.e. Women are allowed to teach and have authority over everyone, including men. It is also worth noting that I was a Complimentarian throughout most of my adult life, and only became 'Egalitarian' once I left university.

There are various places people go to defend their position, which often involves looking at Biblical female character and their calling, including Deborah (Judges 4:4-10) , Junia (Rom 16:7) and Prisca (Rom 16:3) among various others. These however tend to depend on ones views. For example, was Junia even a women and if so was she an Apostle, or just known to them? What we will do now instead then is look at the 3 passages which tend to be used as the major defence of the Complimentarian position: 1 Cor 11:2-16, 1 Cor 13: 33b-36 and 2 Tim 2: 8-15.

1 Cor 11:2-16
The key part to our debate here is verse 3, "Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God."(All references from ESV.) If man is the head of woman, in the same way Christ is the head of man then surely women cannot have authority over men, right? I will be honest here and say that of the 3 passages that this is the only one of which I am unsure of, however evidence leads me to conclude that the interpretation mentioned above is incorrect. Those who have looked at this passage before are likely to come across the debate on whether 'kephale', head, is to be translated authority or source. I would argue that the traditional translation of authority is incorrect; however it is not as clear cut as some make out. One must then understand what Paul means by this analogy. We understand head to mean 'authority', however at the time it meant source. The head was the place where nourishment entered the body. See for example Eph 4:14-16 and Col 2: 19 where Paul uses headship in this way. It is also worth noting that it may also mean, 'the head of the wife is her husband', and is indeed what some translations go for. This would make some difference but is not enough to bother too much about here. What Paul is getting at here is the interdependence of everyone. This is back up later in Vs 11-12 when Paul states, 'Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.’ It is also worth being aware of the fact that the orthodox position is that the father and the son are co-equal, and not that Christ is subordinate. (See John 1:1-3; 10:30; 14:9, 11; 16:15; 17:11, 21.) In fact John Chrysostom (Archbishop of Constantinople AD 398-404) used the word ‘heretic’ to describe those who would seek to understand ‘head’ in terms of authority, preferring instead to see headship as denoting origin and source. (Kroeger, Head, 1993, 377.)

What I do think is thoroughly important is the passage comes immediately before relating to not abusing our freedom in Christ to damage one another. That’s right people, context! Take particular note of 1 Cor 10: 31- 11:1, 'So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God, just as I try to please everyone in everything I do, not seeking my own advantage, but that of many, that they may be saved. Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ'. It seems to me then that women were causing issues in the Corinthian church by eating meat sacrificed to idol (with the men) and causing a social raucous by whether they covered their head or not, whether they ordained their hair and whether they listened to the men in the church. Perhaps they thought that as they have freedom in Christ they no longer had to listen to men, but Paul tells them otherwise, 'whatever you do....do it for Gods glory'! I would argue therefore that this passage, found in the section about orderly worship incl. head coverings and not abusing your freedoms, is about forfeiting your freedom for the good of the church and the glory of God. This passage cannot therefore be used to argue for a Complimentarian position.

11 Cor 14:33b-36
Again we find that this passage sit in the context of Paul talking about orderly worship, but this time in relation to prophecy and tongues. It has been argued that this passage was added in later since 1 Cor 14:26-33a and 36-40 are about prophecy and tongues, and yet 14:33b-36 is about women speaking. The shock may come here when I say I agree with Don Carson (a famous Evangelical Complimentarian) on this passage. (See his article, '"Silent in the Churches": On the Role of Women in
1 Corinthians 14:33B-36'). He argues that it is original and is therefore in this context for a reason.

Immediately we are on the defensive as it seems to contradict 1 Cor 11:4-5 which reads, 'Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.' So is a woman allowed to speak in church or not? Carson argues in the article stated above that, 'Paul has just been requiring that the church in Corinth carefully weigh the prophecies presented to it. Women, of course, may participate in such prophesying; that was established in chapter 11. Paul's point here, however, is that they may not participate in the oral weighing of such prophecies.... In that connection, they are not allowed to speak---"as the law says."' He then goes on to argue that by 'the law' Paul is referring 'to the creation order in Genesis 2:20b-24,{45} for it is to that Scripture that Paul explicitly turns on two other occasions when he discusses female roles (1 Corinthians 11:8, 9; [1] Timothy 2:13).' I agree with Carson here and shall say no more on this matter except that I disagree with him on the implications of referring to the law. It is also worth noting that it seems as if it was common place for people to shout out and ask questions, as it was with men in synagogues; however this seems to have been interrupting the service. Perhaps this too was a reason why they weren't allowed to speak. Perhaps the two are connect: Women were falsely weighing prophecies, and asking why others were interpreting them as they were. This too then refers not to whether a woman may speak in church but rather that she must place the church and the glory of God first. With that said Paul lays down a way in which women may in future be able to weigh prophecies in V 35, 'If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church'.

1 Tim 2:8-15
This is the passage that kept me as a Complimentarian for so long. It seemed clear to me that this cannot be cultural as the reason that women must not 'teach or to exercise authority over a man' was set not in culture but in scripture, 'For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.' However, thanks to Simon Woodman (once again) I was challenged to ask myself '...whether Paul is saying that all women are inherently more easy to deceive than men, and that therefore no woman is ever fit to teach. Or whether Paul is using the story of Eve to illustrate the particular situation facing the women in the church in Ephesus' No, not even Complimentarians would argue, I think, I hope, that women are more easily deceived. Rather it makes more sense that Paul is using this passage analogously, as he does in 2 Cor 11:3, to make a point. If we wrote it today it may go something like this, "Just like eve was deceived in her ignorance and lead Adam into sin, don't let the women in your church lead you astray in their ignorance'. Of course Paul didn't leave it there but rather, as he did in 1 Cor 14, left a way for this to ignorance to change in V 11. This then too is not, as with the others, teaching that women cannot speak in church ever, but rather that they should not teach in their ignorance in case it leads to error and leads the church astray, thereby dishonouring God.

It seems clear to me then that the very passages that are used to teach Complimentarianism do in fact teach the opposite. Paul was arguing that women should be educated and should listen in church, as well as ask their husbands at home (something that the pagans weren't allowed, and which women to an extent weren't allowed to in synagogues either), but until such time as they are ready they should forfeit their new rights and not speak in church for the benefit of other believers and the glory of God. It would have, of course, discredited the church is they allowed women to teach in a culture where women were inferior to men and therefore stifled evangelism. Of course today Christian women are educated in both a worldly sense and in the Gospel, and it is acceptable, if not required, that women are allowed to teach and have authority. One may in fact argue the reverse then, that we are sinning by not allowing women who are called into their role and indeed stifling evangelism by saying that women are not allowed to teach in a society where it is almost expected. We should then judge women on the same criteria as men: Are they able and has God called them?

Till Next Time!

Out of the Theological Closet: I am an Arminian (Ed.3)

2009-11-25T10:45:00.008Z

Firstly, I'd like to say that this post is not to be a thorough defence of Arminianism. I strongly suggest that for a thorough defence of the system that you look at the Society of Evangelical Arminians (Widget on the right hand side tool bar), and look at the fantastic Classical Arminianism blog. I also suggest you read the short tractate by John Wesley entitle, "The Question, "What Is an Arminian?" Answered by a Lover of Free Grace" and of course the works of Arminius himself, many of which can be read here. I will however be explaining what Arminianism really is, and dispel what some people claim it is, but is not. I will look briefly at some of the major objection. The manner at which I will be doing this on the whole is in comparison to the 5 points of Calvinism, often known as TULIP. It is not that these are complete opposites as some assert, quite the contrary in fact, but that it gives us a good base line.

As always here is a little of my background: I was brought up in a church which, from what I could tell at the time, was simply based on the Gospel and had no real affinity to any soteriological system (in this sense). I was however taken under the wing of one of the Deacons (or Elders: They were one post in this church) who was a Calvinist. I was obviously effected by this and came to call myself one also. I had done no real study into the subject at the time but simply took him, and his interpretation, at his word. Eventually I moved to Wales for University and began to realise that there the Calvinist/Arminian debate was huge so I decided to do more research on the subject. What I came to at first was that Calvinism was inconsistent with the core Gospel, and with who God had revealed himself to be. It was only gradually that I came to realise that Arminianism was the system which best explains how the Gospel works. If you are now screaming at the monitor the likelihood is that you are Welsh, or heavily involved in a Welsh reformed church. If however you can't fathom what the issue is then I suspect that you are not. Either way I invite you all to read on and decide for yourselves, with prayer, what is right.

So let's start with the negative. Arminianism is not Pelagianism, or Semi-Pelagianism. Pelagianism is a system propagated by an English monk, later deemed a heretic, who claimed that we are not effected by original sin and are therefore able to choose God on our own. Jesus was more of a good example, rather then a way of freeing us from Sin. Semi-Pelagianism claimed that we were in some way effected but there was a joint venture between us and God. This is often what Arminianism is falsely accused of. Obviously it is not Calvinism either which claims that God does everything, including pre-destining some to belief and other to reject. In other words we have no free will, no choice, in relation to our salvation.

A disclaimer before we go any further. Arminianism, as it is with Calvinism, is a varied system. Mine resembles that of Mr. Wesley more then that of Arminius. Also, the Calvinism I will be dealing with is a caricature used for literary purposes and doesn't necessarily express the views of those who hold it. So, with that said, what is Arminianism: Arminianism is a belief in God's grace first and foremost, with an acceptance of our God given free will and responsibility. Arminianism is the belief that we are all spiritually blind and are in need to God's grace. The difference comes in the concept of Prevenient (that which comes before) Grace. Arminians hold that through grace alone, and not of humanity at all, that God call each of us and enables us all to make a choice as to follow him or not. We are created in the image of God and have free will, however due to sin we are spiritually blind and therefore our free will is marred. Prevenient Grace is a form of common grace where in God allows us to see him and therefore choose with our restored free-wills. As Mr. Wesley says, "I only assert, that there is a measure of free-will supernaturally restored to every man, together with that supernatural light which "enlightens every man that cometh into the world [Jn 1:9].""(Wesley's Works, 8:52). Isn't our choosing taking away from Gods grace? Arminius explains, "A rich man bestows, on a poor and famishing beggar, alms by which he may be able to maintain himself and his family. Does it cease to be a pure gift, because the beggar extends his hand to receive it? Can it be said with propriety, that “the alms depended partly on the liberality of the Donor, and partly on the liberty of the Receiver,” though the latter would not have possessed the alms unless he had received it by stretching out his hand? Can it be correctly said, because the beggar is always prepared to receive, that “he can have the alms, or not have it, just as he pleases?” If these assertions cannot be truly made about a beggar who receives alms, how much less can they be made about the gift of faith, for the receiving of which far more acts of Divine grace are required!"(Works of James Arminius Vol. 1, Article 27) Arminians also hold, as do some Calvinists, that Jesus died to redeem all people, and not a limited, predestined number. Let us continue then with a comparison with the 5 points of Calvinism:

T - Total Depravity. This teaches that there is nothing in man that can save himself. He is spiritually blind and helpless due to the effects of sin. Obviously the reason given for this varies. I would argue that we are depraved by sin and therefore have a sinful nature, rather then the R.Catholic concept of original sin. (See Eph 2:1-10)

U - Unconditional Election. That we have nothing of ourselves that deserves election but rather all of Gods grace, and nothing besides. Arminians would disagree as to the meaning of this election. The key to understanding what Arminians mean by election is choice. I argue that God has elected and in will save those who he as foreseen will choose to respond to the Gospel (Molinism). The issue here then is not of the concept but of the how. i.e. not arbitrary (See Eph 2:8-9; 1 Pet 1:2)

L - Limited Atonement. This is where they differ. Arminianism believes that Jesus came to redeem all mankind and not just a few who he will later force to believe. Of course, to borrow a phrase, it is "sufficient for all and efficient for" those who believe. (See 2 Cor 5:14-15; 1 John 2:2; 2 Peter 3:9)

I - Irresistible Grave. They also differ here. Arminianism argues that due to Gods prevenient Grace mankind is able to either accept or reject the Gospel by being enlightened to the truth of the gospel. God will not force anyone to believe. God enables salvation by grace. (See Acts 7:51-52)

P - Perseverance of the Saints. This is a point of which even Arminians disagree. I believe that a believer once saved is able to reject God and loose their salvation. (See 1 Cor 10:12; Heb 4:1)

Till next time!

Out of the Theological closet: I am not a 6 day Creationist.

2009-11-23T18:42:00.003Z

A bit of background is always helpful I feel. I was, from my GCSEs till my second year of University, a strong 6 Day Creationist. From that period until now my view on this has gradually changed, and I'm sure is going to alter again as new evidence comes for and new ideas are presented. Where I stand at present is, I suppose, as an agnostic. Let me expand a bit further.

As I have already said I was for a long time a solid 6 day-er, mainly due to my views on Genesis. Not helped, as I'm sure everyone can empathise with, by those that taught (on both sides) that evolution kills God. This of course, due to my strong conviction in the truth of Christianity, lead me to take up and defend the position which I was convinced at the time showed God, and attacked that which I believed lead to a him being pushed out the picture, so to speak. I got all the books I could on the subject so that I could have a strong apologetical stance on the issue, which I believe I did. I was a big fan on Ken Ham, Monty White and Answers in Genesis ministries in general. Michael. J. Behe's book, 'Darwins Black Box' became almost Deutero-canonical for me.

So where did it all change? There were 3 real steps:
1) I was actively involved in the Cardiff Christian Union, whilst at university. I found that instead of aiding the God debate, creationism actually destroyed it. I had to make a decision on where to go from here. What I concluded at the time was that even though it was correct it was a red-herring and therefore is to be avoided where possible. What I found was that even when I made a strong case for creationism, the mere mention that I questioned evolution placed me as a nutter not to be listened to. I decided that it was Christ crucified that I was to preach, not God the builder.

2) I looked at the reason for Genesis 1-3. Seriously, I mean why is it there? A nice story for the kids? Why do we need to know the ins and outs of what God made and when? Wouldn't Genesis 1:1 be enough? Then we looked at Genesis as University and I was convinced of it. Genesis very closely resembles Babylonian creation myth: Enuma Elish (EE). Each generation of the gods of the EE myth parallel the days that God creates on. E.g. Generation 1: Apsu (the god of water) and Tiamat (god of chaos and bearer of earth and sky) parallels day 1 of creation (Gen 1:1-2). Now there are various reasons given for this but I believe it to be intentional. Something along the lines of, 'You worship creation as Gods but you are wrong. Our one God created everything, including what you believe to be gods and has in fact placed them under our control'. You will notice that much of Genesis is in poetic prose, and not as history. I believe that it is also to counter-act the theology of pre-determinism found in many pagan theologies. (Genesis 2-3)

3) Due to the points above I attempted to re-evaluate the evidence with an open mind. What I discovered was that the evidence was more tipped towards evolution then I had first accepted. However I was still aware that evidence doesn't lead to much unless interpreted, and that much of the interpretation was indeed biased. Of course we all know of falsified evidence (on both sides I might add) that means that we have to approach with a great deal of scepticism. One only needs to think of the peppered moth incident!

4) I looked at when the 6 day-ers began and the history behind it. What it came down to was that it wasn't even addressed until Darwin (as you might expect) and even then most of Darwin’s supporters were Christians. The idea of creationism as we know it now is an extremely late (1920's American) take on the Bible and is a minority view in the extreme. This period was largely influenced by the documentary "Did Darwin kill God?". You can see it here.

So where does that leave me now? Basically I’m on the fence. I have disregarded 6 day creationism on 2 grounds: 1) That it is an extremely late, extra-biblical concept, and 2) the evidence (and interpretation of it) is stacked against it. So am I an evolutionist in the sense used today? No, because: 1) God is certainly involved in creation. I think that is is very clear from simple observation and the idea that matter comes from nothing is scientifically absurd. It seems obvious that there must be, as Aristotle notes, an 'unmoved mover'. 2) There seems to be much evidence contrary to established evolution. The geographic columns are mixed up, people keep forging evidence which if it is so solid seems absurd, and both carbon and uranium dating are unreliable. None of these of course means that evolution is incorrect but rather that I'm not ready to put all my eggs into that basket yet. Perhaps in time my position will change but for now this is where I stand.

I think the Church of the Nazarene sum it up well when they say:
"The Church of the Nazarene believes in the biblical account of creation (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth . . .”—Genesis 1:1). We oppose any godless interpretation of the origin of the universe and of humankind. However, the church accepts as valid all scientifically verifiable discoveries in geology and other natural phenomena, for we firmly believe that God is the Creator." (Articles I.1., V. 5.1, VII.)

Till next time!

Out of the Theological closet: I do not ascribe the Bible with the title 'infallible', or the like.

2009-11-22T17:20:00.003Z

Before I get too deep I would like to make a couple of points through which you may interpret this, and subsequent posts: 1) I belief the Bible is important to Christians and is a gift of God which was breathed of him. 2) This belief is relatively new and many who know me will know the fervour with which I defended Infallibility in the past. 3) All of these 5 heterodox beliefs that I am commenting on (including this one) came whilst I believed in the infallibility of scripture. With that said, let us continue.

Belief in Infallibility seems to be a defining point of Evangelicalism. If you can remember my post on Doctrinal Basis you will hopefully remember my annoyance at how many Doctrinal Basis put the belief in the Bible (whatever that belief may be; though usually infallibility) before any other belief e.g. Christ. Not that it isn’t an important doctrine but rather that we must put things into perspective. Christians are not those, as is often said, who follow the Bible but rather those that follow Christ! The Bible has a very important place in our following Christ but is subservient to it. I.e. We read the Bible as we are followers of Christ, not the other way around!

Let me give you a little more background to how I am where I am. As I've already said I held inerrancy whilst I was coming to this conclusion and it is not something I've come to lightly, I promise you. I was looking at the prophecies in Ezekiel concerning the fate of Tyre (Ezek 26; 29). Problems with it were mentioned in passing in a comment of someone’s blog so I decided to look them up. I suggest you go and read them for yourself if you’re not sure what they say but a quick recap follows. It is part of Ezekiel’s oracles against the nations. In 26 Ezekiel reports that God talks about how Tyre is mocking the downfall of Jerusalem. God declares that he is the enemy of Tyre and will utterly destroy it through Nebuchadnezzar leaving just a bare rock. In 29 we read the God is now giving Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar because he fought Tyre yet neither he nor his army got anything for it. The Problems we have is that we know from history that 1) Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed the City of Tyre (that is on the Island, despite trying), only the coastal Tyre, and 2) that Nebuchadnezzar only, at best, gained control of part of Egypt temporarily (although this is less of a problem I feel).

This is not to say that there are no possible answers to this critique. The most common are that later on, Alexander the Great fulfilled this prophecy by conquering Tyre and destroying it. What I found however is that I wasn't letting the text speak for itself, nor for God to speak, but rather I was placing my belief in Infallibility of Scripture over and against the truth. To me the text clearly states that it is Nebuchadnezzar that would do the conquering, anything else is to stretch the text. It is also held that perhaps this is a prophecy about the return of Christ and the ultimate judgement of nations. This however seems unlikely as it is girded in the middle of prophecies which talk of literal events in time. I had to decide where I stood on this matter and I concluded that from what we know of the text and of history that I could not, with a clear conscience, hold that this passage was without any doubt correct. I had to abandon what I had always been taught about the Bible. I had to start again.

I started with the concept of whether the Bible has to be infallible for it to be any use to the believer. To be honest I had started asking this before I came to this position, brought on by questioning those who held what I now hold. I concluded that the answer was no. The Bible no-where calls itself perfect and infallible but is rather something we use to describe what had been observed by some. I also concluded no-where is it said that a believer must believe the Bible to be perfect to be a believer. In fact there is nothing that one must hold in regard to the Bible for one to be considered a Christian.

I took a closer look at the traditional passage people use for upholding this doctrine: 2 Tim 3: 16-17. "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." Scripture is therefore useful for us. It seems a rather weak word to use if it was perfect. It is also quite odd, if it were perfect and it was a required doctrine, that Paul (or for that matter, Jesus) didn't make more of a point of it. In the context he was instructing Timothy, giving him last advice, urging that he stick to sound doctrine. If it were that important one would expect that here, of all places, he would say so. I often get the idea from what people say of the Bible that it is either a part of the God-head to be worshipped (see sermon by Steve Anderson) or something akin to the Qu'ran where God personally wrote every word. It just isn't true! We know that fallible, finite mankind wrote the Bible and believe that God has inspired what they wrote.

I think it is also worth mentioning here where the Bible gets it's authority from. I think we often treat the Bible like a book of magic spells when in fact it is just a book. The power comes from the living God behind the book. I have in the past written of the fact that the Word of God is Jesus and not (innately) the Bible (see here).

I think the biggest problem is that of a syllogism: 1) God is perfect, 2) the Bible is from god, 3) therefore the Bible must be perfect. I used to think this too but I feel that it is actually erroneous. It would be the same as saying: 1) God is perfect, 2) mankind is from God, 3) therefore mankind is perfect. We know this not to be true, so why are we so convinced by the first syllogism and not the second? I now hold to a form of Divine Accommodationism: That God uses the imperfect to express the perfect. We hold that when it comes to the church yet seem to struggle when it comes to scripture. How can the finite fully express the infinite?

I'm not saying that the Bible definitely isn't perfect. I am open to being proved wrong as new evidence is brought forth. Perhaps the early sources we have about Tyre are incorrect and we may find something that proves that the Bible was right. If so then great, I have no problem with that at all! However I feel it rather dangerous to label the Bible beyond what it claims for itself; that is God-breathed. Till then I think that it is better to stick to what we definitely know about the Bible, that it is "useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I think that will do for now but before I go I must thank 3 people in particular for their support in this matter: Firstly is Mick Hough, the rector of my local church (St. Peter's, Woodmansterne). I had only just moved to the area when I started struggling with this concept. I met with Mick, who didn't know me, and talked about where I was. Thank you Mick for your support. Secondly I also Must thank Robin Parry of Theological Scribbles whom furnished me with a list of helpful books. Lastly I wish to thank James Hall, a friend of mine, who often puts up with my incomprehensible blathering as I search for the truth. This is not to say that they hold the same views as me, or nor, but rather they were a blessed light in a dark time. Thank you.

Till Next Time!

Thanks to Letters from Camp Krusty for the image.

Out of the theological closet!

2009-11-21T21:12:00.005Z

It seems as there is a theme in the blogosphere of outing ones theological....how shall I say?.....heterodoxy, so I thought I'd join suit. Of course it all depends on your starting point (N.B. that I have spent the last 4 years actively involved in Welsh Evangelicalism) but I pray that all those that are my siblings in Christ will treat me open minded and critically, but with love.

So there are 5 points I wish to make, all of which I will just mention here and will, in the near future, expand on in separate posts. Some of which may be new to any of my regular readers, and some not.

1) I am an Arminian. This is as opposed to Calvinism, Pelegianism and the like.

2) I am not a 6 day Creationist. I use the negative here as I'm not decided as to where I fall in the debate, but I am aware that I no-longer fit into this category.

3) I am (for want of a better word) Egalitarian. This is not to say that I think they are the same but rather that both men and women are allowed by God, as revealed in scripture, to undertake any role within the church.

4) I am an Annihilationist. This is not to say I do not believe in judgement for the wicked, but that their final place is that of total destruction and not eternal torment.

5) I do not ascribe the Bible with the title 'infallible', or the like. This is not to say that I don't think that the Bible is breathed of God, I do, but rather that we must not place scripture in a position that God, or the Bible itself, doesn't place it. (I ask for particular patience on this point.....in fact I will probably expand on it first.)

I reveal this not to be controversial but rather for a clear conscience. These five points have settled with me over the last year or so, and I have mainly hidden them from those I know out of fear. Fear of rejection from the community I love, fear of hurting and damaging the faith of those people and the fear that instead of bringing hope and help to those who struggle with similar issues I would instead just bring more people into that confusion. I have, however, come to realise that what is hidden will be revealed, so I pray that it will be of benefit. As Paul wrote to Timothy , "I have been reminded of your sincere faith, which first lived in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice and, I am persuaded, now lives in you also. For this reason I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God, which is in you through the laying on of my hands. For God did not give us a spirit of timidity, but a spirit of power, of love and of self-discipline." 2 Tim 1:5-7. So also then I hope to fan into flames the gift of God and not stifle it for any reason, sincere or otherwise. I also think that each of out Theologies should be open to the community of believers particularly, so that we may help and effect each other for the glory of God.

Till next time!

The Luther song

2009-11-09T11:22:00.004Z

Ok, so who was it who said that those who have no sense of humour quote? Well yet again I am forced to steal this post from Faith and Theology blog but it's so good I'm sure you won't mind. Enjoy.

Here's a little song about Martin Luther. It's sung to the tune of "Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious":

(Thanks to Natania's friend for the vid link)

Mirabile dictu!

When I was just ein junger Mann I studied canon law;
While Erfurt was a challenge, it was just to please my Pa.
Then came the storm, the lightning struck, I called upon Saint Anne,
I shaved my head, I took my vows, an Augustinian! Oh...

Chorus:
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation
Speak your mind against them and face excommunication!
Nail your theses to the door, let's start a Reformation!
Papal bulls, indulgences, and transubstantiation!

When Tetzel came near Wittenberg, St Peter's profits soared,
I wrote a little notice for the All Saints' Bull'tin board:
"You cannot purchase merits, for we're justified by grace!
Here's 95 more reasons, Brother Tetzel, in your face!" Oh...

Chorus

They loved my tracts, adored my wit, all were exempleror;
The Pope, however, hauled me up before the Emperor.
"Are these your books? Do you recant?" King Charles did demand,
"I will not change my Diet, Sir, God help me here I stand!" Oh...

Chorus

Duke Frederick took the Wise approach, responding to my words,
By knighting "George" as hostage in the Kingdom of the Birds.
Use Brother Martin's model if the languages you seek,
Stay locked inside a castle with your Hebrew and your Greek! Oh...

Chorus

Let's raise our steins and Concord Books while gathered in this place,
And spread the word that 'catholic' is spelled with lower case;
The Word remains unfettered when the Spirit gets his chance,
So come on, Katy, drop your lute, and join us in our dance! Oh...

Till Next Time!

I think my wife's a Calvinist

2009-11-06T17:31:00.002Z

Thanks to Faith and Theology for the original post. Please check them out for 2 more theologico-musicals, and much more.

A History of Christianity

2009-11-06T13:27:00.003Z

The BBC are currently broadcasting a new series presented by Diarmaid MacCulloch on the History of Christianity. It is a 6 episode series of which the first episode has been aired already and can be found here on iplayer. I only caught glimpses of the episode (of which I plan to watch in full asap) but it looks rather promising. It is aired at 2100, Thursday on BBC4.

His book, 'A History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years' has had raved reviews from people, including Rowan Williams, so I hope that this series will follow suit.

Till Next Time!

The Ehud and Eglon Song

2009-11-06T13:13:00.003Z

If you've not read it go do so now. Judges 3!
Then listen to a rather graphic Sunday school song.
Thanks to Beatthedrum for the link.

You can find the song HERE

UPDATE:
Also please see below as the author, Matt Blick, has posted where you can get the song chords as well as download some of his other work!

A modern lament

2009-11-05T19:29:00.002Z

I forgot about this song that a Christian band called Skillet did. Ok, so it's nowhere as near as dark as the Psalmists but it's one of the few modern examples I know of. Enjoy!

Where are the hymns of lament?

2009-11-05T16:40:00.003Z

I've noticed of late that there are no real hymns of lament!
'Abide with me' comes to mind then I get a stretched.
Anyone know any? Please post below if you do.

It seems like a rather big gap in our worship. Of course there are loads of Psalms of lament yet we seem to have ignored the genre today. If we are to worship at all times, and come as we are, do we not need, as the Psalmists at least seemed to, need to come and lament as to rejoice?

Even Jesus lamented, although in this case in words;

Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, "Sit here while I go over there and pray." He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. Then he said to them, "My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me."

Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."

Then he returned to his disciples and found them sleeping. "Could you men not keep watch with me for one hour?" he asked Peter. "Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak."

He went away a second time and prayed, "My Father, if it is not possible for this cup to be taken away unless I drink it, may your will be done."

When he came back, he again found them sleeping, because their eyes were heavy. So he left them and went away once more and prayed the third time, saying the same thing.

Then he returned to the disciples and said to them, "Are you still sleeping and resting? Look, the hour is near, and the Son of Man is betrayed into the hands of sinners. Rise, let us go! Here comes my betrayer!"
(Matt 26:36-46)

It seems to be looked down on in church now. You are expected to be happy and joyous all the time and if you're not then it is seems as you lacking something in Christ.
I think it's time that we re-established this genre in our worship and learn to mourn with those who mourn, as well as rejoice with those who rejoice.

Till next time.

I want this T-shirt

2009-11-01T21:00:00.003Z

From Inhabitatio Dei, via Sub Ratione Dei, from source Letters From Kamp Krusty. Obviously not just me that likes it then!

Till Next Time!

At last!

2009-10-29T00:20:00.002Z

So, I've finally got around to finishing Sanders tome, 'Paul and Palestinian Judaism'. I'm glad to have read it but I must be honest and say I don't think I know any more then I did already, which I suppose is more a celebration of the great lecturers I had at Cardiff Uni (of particular note in this case, Simon Woodman). The reason it has taken me so long to finish it is that I had to keep stopping and read other books so my brain didn't melt. It's not the most riveting of reads and at (regular) times feel very much like you're trying to cut through stone with a wooden toothpick however I feel that a book of such grandeur deserves the effort. Anyway, on to the next book selection:

The Voice of Matthew; Lauren Winner
&
The man Gospels of Jesus; P. Comfort and J. Driesbach

Till next time!

Hound of Heaven

2009-10-24T12:11:00.003+01:00

No doubt you are probably aware of this poem but I must confess to never actually reading it before. I don't usually get poetry but this struck a chord with me so I thought I'd post it here. Copied from elcore.net. Enjoy!
(Oh, and sorry about the rendering)

I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind; and in the mist of tears
I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
Up vistaed hopes I sped;
And shot, precipitated,
Adown Titanic glooms of chasmèd fears,
From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
But with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
They beat—and a Voice beat
More instant than the Feet—
“All things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

I pleaded, outlaw-wise,
By many a hearted casement, curtained red,
Trellised with intertwining charities;
(For, though I knew His love Who followèd,
Yet was I sore adread
Lest, having Him, I must have naught beside.)
But, if one little casement parted wide,
The gust of His approach would clash it to:
Fear wist not to evade, as Love wist to pursue.
Across the margent of the world I fled,
And troubled the gold gateways of the stars,
Smiting for shelter on their clangèd bars:
Fretted to dulcet jars
And silvern chatter the pale ports o’ the moon.
I said to Dawn: Be sudden—to Eve: Be soon;
With thy young skiey blossoms heap me over
From this tremendous Lover—
Float thy vague veil about me, lest He see!
I tempted all His servitors, but to find
My own betrayal in their constancy,
In faith to Him their fickleness to me,
Their traitorous trueness, and their loyal deceit.
To all swift things for swiftness did I sue;
Clung to the whistling mane of every wind.
But whether they swept, smoothly fleet,
The long savannahs of the blue;
Or whether, Thunder-driven,
They clanged his chariot ’thwart a heaven,
Plashy with flying lightnings round the spurn o’ their feet:—
Fear wist not to evade as Love wist to pursue.
Still with unhurrying chase,
And unperturbéd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,
Came on the following Feet,
And a Voice above their beat—
“Naught shelters thee, who wilt not shelter Me.”

I sought no more that after which I strayed
In face of man or maid;
But still within the little children’s eyes
Seems something, something that replies,
They at least are for me, surely for me!
I turned me to them very wistfully;
But just as their young eyes grew sudden fair
With dawning answers there,
Their angel plucked them from me by the hair.
“Come then, ye other children, Nature’s—share
With me” (said I) “your delicate fellowship;
Let me greet you lip to lip,
Let me twine you with caresses,
Wantoning
With our Lady-Mother’s vagrant tresses,
Banqueting
With her in her wind-walled palace,
Underneath her azured dais,
Quaffing, as your taintless way is,
From a chalice
Lucent-weeping out of the dayspring.”
So it was done:
I in their delicate fellowship was one—
Drew the bolt of Nature’s secrecies.
I knew all the swift importings
On the wilful face of skies;
I knew how the clouds arise
Spuméd of the wild sea-snortings;
All that’s born or dies
Rose and drooped with; made them shapers
Of mine own moods, or wailful or divine;
With them joyed and was bereaven.
I was heavy with the even,
When she lit her glimmering tapers
Round the day’s dead sanctities.
I laughed in the morning’s eyes.
I triumphed and I saddened with all weather,
Heaven and I wept together,
And its sweet tears were salt with mortal mine;
Against the red throb of its sunset-heart
I laid my own to beat,
And share commingling heat;
But not by that, by that, was eased my human smart.
In vain my tears were wet on Heaven’s grey cheek.
For ah! we know not what each other says,
These things and I; in sound I speak—
Their sound is but their stir, they speak by silences.
Nature, poor stepdame, cannot slake my drouth;
Let her, if she would owe me,
Drop yon blue bosom-veil of sky, and show me
The breasts o’ her tenderness:
Never did any milk of hers once bless
My thirsting mouth.
Nigh and nigh draws the chase,
With unperturbèd pace,
Deliberate speed, majestic instancy;
And past those noised Feet
A voice comes yet more fleet—
“Lo! naught contents thee, who content’st not Me.”

Naked I wait Thy love’s uplifted stroke!
My harness piece by piece Thou hast hewn from me,
And smitten me to my knee;
I am defenceless utterly.
I slept, methinks, and woke,
And, slowly gazing, find me stripped in sleep.
In the rash lustihead of my young powers,
I shook the pillaring hours
And pulled my life upon me; grimed with smears,
I stand amid the dust o’ the mounded years—
My mangled youth lies dead beneath the heap.
My days have crackled and gone up in smoke,
Have puffed and burst as sun-starts on a stream.
Yea, faileth now even dream
The dreamer, and the lute the lutanist.
Even the linked fantasies, in whose blossomy twist
I swung the earth a trinket at my wrist,
Are yielding; cords of all too weak account
For earth with heavy griefs so overplussed.
Ah! is Thy love indeed
A weed, albeit an amaranthine weed,
Suffering no flowers except its own to mount?
Ah! must—
Designer infinite!—
Ah! must Thou char the wood ere Thou can’st limn with it?
My freshness spent its wavering shower i’ the dust;
And now my heart is as a broken fount,
Wherein tear-drippings stagnate, spilt down ever
From the dank thoughts that shiver
Upon the sighful branches of my mind.
Such is; what is to be?
The pulp so bitter, how shall taste the rind?
I dimly guess what Time in mists confounds;
Yet ever and anon a trumpet sounds
From the hid battlements of Eternity;
Those shaken mists a space unsettle, then
Round the half-glimpséd turrets slowly wash again.
But not ere him who summoneth
I first have seen, enwound
With glooming robes purpureal, cypress-crowned;
His name I know, and what his trumpet saith.
Whether man’s heart or life it be which yields
Thee harvest, must Thy harvest-fields
Be dunged with rotten death?

Now of that long pursuit
Comes on at hand the bruit;
That Voice is round me like a bursting sea:
“And is thy earth so marred,
Shattered in shard on shard?
Lo, all things fly thee, for thou fliest Me!
Strange, piteous, futile thing!
Wherefore should any set thee love apart?
Seeing none but I makes much of naught” (He said),
“And human love needs human meriting:
How hast thou merited—
Of all man’s clotted clay the dingiest clot?
Alack, thou knowest not
How little worthy of any love thou art!
Whom wilt thou find to love ignoble thee,
Save Me, save only Me?
All which I took from thee I did but take,
Not for thy harms,
But just that thou might’st seek it in My arms.
All which thy child’s mistake
Fancies as lost, I have stored for thee at home:
Rise, clasp My hand, and come!”
Halts by me that footfall:
Is my gloom, after all,
Shade of His hand, outstretched caressingly?
“Ah, fondest, blindest, weakest,
I am He Whom thou seekest!
Thou dravest love from thee, who dravest Me.”

Francis Thompson (1859-1907)

Till next time!

Bargain of the century!

2009-10-20T18:29:00.003+01:00

Today I went to Wesley Owen to find a commentary on Isaiah (of which they had none in stock!). I did however come away with the following 10 books (with their RRP):

1) Complete Mission Praise: Music edition (£40)
2) Why I am a Christian: John Stott (£7.99)
3) Seeking the Asian face of Jesus: Chris Sugden (£29.99)
4) The many Gospels of Jesus: Comfort and Driesbach (£15.99)
5) Church History in plain language (2nd Edition): Bruce L. Shelley (£16.99)
6) The Pastoral epistles (Epworth Commentaries): Margaret Davies (£8.95)
7) Ephesians (Focus on the Bible Commentaries): Paul Gardner (£8.99)
8) The voice of Matthew (The Voice Commentaries):Lauren F. Winner (£6.99)
9) 1-3 John (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series): Marianne Meye Thompson (£9.99)
10) New Testament Life and times (Home Bible Study Library): Lawrence O. Richards (£14.99)

Anyone paying attention will have noticed that the RRP for todays shopping is: £160.87!!!!

That is quite a lot, however I paid nothing near that. The total cost for all 10 new, good condition books was: £20. How you may ask. Wesley Owen in Croydon are trying to clear space for new stock and are selling all their Bargain section books (old or surplus stock) at 5 for £10 (except for Bibles and gift items). I had to hold back but I suggest you try your local one or come down to Croydon because even with a train fare you are almost certain to make a saving!

Till next time!

Some musings on life

2009-10-20T12:03:00.004+01:00

I have been thinking the following recently and thought I'd write them down so they aren't forgotten:

- "A person with no purpose has no peace."
and
- "Time does not heal our wounds but it does eventually numb them. God is the only one that can truly heal."

Till next time!

Jesus in Japan

2009-09-29T21:25:00.004+01:00

According to legend Jesus visited Japan when he was 21 to study Theology then returned to Judea. Supposedly Jesus escaped crucifixion by letting his identical brother take his place and then returned to Japan. He lived out his days there as a Rice Farmer and fathered a family, a descendant still around today: Junichiro Sawaguchi. He claims that it's not true but people say he is. Jesus supposedly lived past 100, and is buried with his identical brother (not sure how he got there). Dan Brown eat your heart out!

It gets better/worse. There is an annual festival where people sing a folk song as they dance around the graves. Apparently this has not meaning in Japanese but is just sounds. Some think that it is distorted Hebrew!? If you are interested there is a museum there too where you can see 'Ancient' documents and artefacts, then enjoy Dracula Ice-cream and Jesus Sake, after which you can take home a souvenir mug!

You can read up on it and see more pictures here (BBC), and here (random article).

BTW, the picture at the top says 'Christ's Grave'. I particularly like that it's sponsered by Coca Cola!

Till next time!

Faith like a Sci-fi fan

2009-09-28T22:21:00.005+01:00

As the author of Hebrews (not a debate for now) tells us " Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Heb 11:1) Anyone who has ever seen a Sci-fi programme I'm sure will understand this perfectly. Case in point: Stargate. There are currently two different Stargate series (although there is about to be 3 where I'm sure the pattern will continue): SG1 and Atlantis.

In SG1 there is a rather geeky Doctor, Daniel Jackoson who in the original film hooks up with a native girl on the planet he visits called Sha're. Now Daniel is a wonderful fellow but is socially awkward and wouldn't win a Male beauty contest. Sha're on the other hand is a stunner, intelligent, fun, etc and yet they end up together! This whole thing happens later where she gets possessed by an Alien but that's beside the point.

In Atlantis there is a rather similar Doctor, Rodney Mckay. Again a delightful fellow but also socially inept, not winning any beauty contest himself ends up with may attractive ladies including the stunning Doctor Jennifer Keller (M.D).

Now you must commend them for their faith. Maybe I am naive, maybe Sci-Fi Convos are where the totty is but in generally I doubt it. If only I could have faith like a Sci-Fi geek perhaps then I'd be the greatest man of God alive!

Till next time!

Me likee McFlied Lice!

2009-09-22T21:16:00.003+01:00

McDonalds in Japan have a new advertisement campaign with one Mr. James as star. He is a stereo-typical Caucasian businessman in Japan and can't speak Japanese. Oh, Mr. James!

The adverts are on TV, billboards, flyers, on trays. Basically everywhere McDonalds can get, just like here. To me this is a very realistic example of someone trying to learn Japanese and quite funny. However a group in Japan called the Foreign Residents and Naturalized Citizens Association (FRANCA), has written an open letter (of which can be found here) to the McDonald's HQ in the US to shut down the ad campaign.

Among other points they say:
"To illustrate the issue more clearly, would McDonald’s USA (or McDonald’s in any other country, for that matter) choose to promote, for example, a new rice dish with a “ching-chong Chinaman” saying, “Me likee McFlied Lice!”? Of course not."

Personally I think FRANCA should just learn to laugh and get over it. It will blow over soon enough.

'The Escapist' (from whom I borrowed this post) said 'Baka gaijin!'(Silly foreigner) of Mr. James. Perhaps it applies to FRANCA more aptly?!

Till next time!

Worship for Dummies

2009-09-22T09:34:00.002+01:00

Thanks to Wesleyan Arminian for this.