More New Year's resolutions

Today is New Year's Eve. I've been wondering what resolutions I'd like to make and have come back to the perennial issue of having times of prayer and reflection each morning. I have never been particularly good at keeping these up but I feel that it is essential that I try harder.

I would like to make sure I set aside an hour each morning in order to read, write a reflection, read the Bible and pray. I intend to aim to do this every day apart from Sundays.

I'm conscious that I've taken on this new role of Eden Team leader and this is going to need much prayer and more spiritual maturity than I currently have. There is also a disconnect between my aspirations to learn and understand faith better and the amount of effort that I've been putting into prayer and Bible study.

Last term was great in some ways and challenging in others. The biggest challenge was a surprise to me - it was to my self-confidence. The problem was that I became overly concerned about how I was being perceived by others, I was perhaps too concerned to make a good impression. I must learn to trust more in God and to 'stand behind my poverty' as one of my tutors (Lincoln Harvey) spoke about. That means allowing God to be my PR man - if any promotion was needed! Asking God to direct my life and make opportunities for me to be used in the service of his Kingdom. Being relaxed in the company of anybody, knowing that my future depends on God rather than my ability to impress anyone in particular.

I hope taking a regular quiet time in the mornings (and recording my thoughts on this blog) will help me to deal with stress and self-identity better.

Social enterprise and Big Society

I asked a question at the 'Seek the welfare of the city conference' after hearing about social enterprise and finding that it started out more like a party political broadcast from Francis Davies. I wanted to know whether by taking assets out of the state, we are promoting right wing ideology to empower the self-serving middle classes and thereby disempowering the poor?
I phrased the question slightly more softly by saying "should we make a distinction between social enterprise in general and social enterprise from the church? The former being motivated by middle-class self interest and the latter by a desire to serve the most needy."

I was glad for this lecture on Social Enterprise as it seemed to me to be analogous to Big Society and answered some of the doubts I've had about it. I've been pretty sceptical about the idea of Big Society as it seems to be promoted by the Tories as a smoke screen or veneer for their ideologically driven cuts to the state. I've tended to remember Big Society by the acronym 'BS' as it seemed like a lot of BS to me when I first heard it.

And yet the concept of a more cohesive and generous society that seeks the common good is surely one to supported? What the realisation of of the distinction between social enterprise in general and as driven by the church showed me was that the key is 'motivation'. Where social enterprise (or Big Society) is driven by love and to serve the needs of the poor and marginalised then it is to be whole-heartedly supported. The church is well placed to lead the way in this regard (although will not be unique in this altruistic or generous outlook). Where social enterprise (or Big Society) is to serve the needs of the already empowered, as is the case when it is driven by the free market - opened up to any who have the means and opportunity - then it will tend towards widening inequality.

One example is that of 'Free Schools'. I've heard it suggested that Free Schools are a simple progression from the Academy programme. However, by opening up the investing and running of schools to the market Free Schools are seen to be opposite in their outcomes to the Academy programme. Where Academy schools aim to provide investment into struggling schools for the benefit of the most deprived, Free Schools provide opportunity for middle class parents to avoid the schools that are most struggling, thereby further condemning the worst schools to struggle with even less resources.

What are the motivations driving the changes? For Academies, we, the State, wants to improve the worst schools for the sake of the most deprived. For Free Schools, the middle classes are motivated by self-service.

The principles of Big Society do not need to be opposed to the state. Big Society is neither the preserve of the right nor the left. Having said that, Big Society would perhaps fit best within a leftist framework, finding its ultimate expression in a strong state which represents the will of the people and is fully accountable to the people. If we can begin to understand the state in terms of 'we the state' rather than 'them the state' then we will see that the state is the Big Society.

Preaching

"More of me and more of God": the role of the preacher Is not to say less of me and more of God. We need to bring God to people through relating to the gift of God in you.

Transparent to God - porous not poor at preaching.
'Truth through personality' not a license for self indulgence.
We must be rigourously humble showing God and not ourselves.

1 Corinthians

Started reading 1 Corinthians this morning. Here are some observations:
Interesting attitude to start a talk with (2:4) "my message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power"

3:16 "don't you know that you yourselves are God's temple and that God's Spirit lives in you? If anyone destroys God's temple, God will destroy him; for God's temple is sacred and you are that temple"
This seems to speak about murder.

3:21 reminder me of McClaren's Generous Orthodoxy: "all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world it life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and
you are of Christ, and Christ us if God"

Reading 4:17 in light of the previous verses it becomes: "I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who I'd la faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life [as scum of the earth] in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church."

Revolutionary Subordination

Is the title of this chapter in The Politics of Jesus.
Yoder highlights that the key point about the 'haustafeln' (house tables - ethical guides of early church in Col, Eph and 1 Pet) is not that they borrow from Hellenistic stoicism (which they don't) but that
"the subordinate person in the social order is addressed as a moral agent". The radical thing about the early church ethic is that it speaks directly to the slaves and women and gives "personal moral responsibility to those who had no legal or moral status."

Freedom for

"yet the freedom of this God is far greater than the idea of freedom as complete independence from others. The free, self-determined God is free for others."

Migliore

Infallibility

An interest link between two forms of infallibility and the Enlightenment:

"To the Roman Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the pope (1870), directed against the rising tide of modernity, there corresponds the Protestant doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible."

Migliore, 'Faith seeking understanding'

principalities and powers

In The Politics of Jesus, Yoder quotes from Berkhof who seems to understand Paul's 'principalities and powers' as forces at work in the world. Berkhof emphasises that Paul is really saying that in the church a new 'power' or 'force' has come into the world which stands opposed to the ways of the world. This is a more rational understanding of Principalities and Powers and it makes a lot of sense in the way that Christianity gives a new motivation and attitude to our living. Christ sets us free from a world driven by self-interest and greed. The structures of oppression and injustice do not hold the Christian who lives for the promotion of love and justice.

To what extent are Principalities and Powers spiritual? For as long as I don't fully understand the spiritual dimension of life (i.e. forever) I suppose that the best approach is to continue to pray against strongholds and to live the fight against material injustice.

Give and forgive

A God who wants to give and forgive, a world that wants get and forget.

Quote from Pete Greig.

Theological reflections on Israel

Here are the notes from the talk I recently gave at Holy Trinity Clapham:

Reflections on Zionism

So we've heard about some of the issues in this region – what should our response be as Christians? It's clear that this is a justice issue but from a Christian perspective, unfortunately it is muddied by theology, especially Zionist theology which can give rise to unwavering support for Israel and her actions. I'd like to take 5mins to consider how theology can shape our response.

I wonder what springs to mind when we think of Israel and the Philistines (Palestine = فلسطن)? Good guys and bad guys? As we begin we might also need to recognise how we may be bringing Sunday school prejudices into our thinking.

“We are anguished by the fact that countless Christians believe that the Bible gives to the modern State of Israel a divine right to lands inhabited by Palestinian people, and divine sanction to the State of Israel's policy of territorial acquisition.

Thus begins as statement endorsed by 5000 church leaders against Christian Zionism which uses Biblical promises and prophecy to justify Israel's right to the land. I would like to share why many Christians, including the official C of E position consider Zionism to be a Biblical distortion. Borrowing heavily from an article by Stephen Sizer and the work of Colin Chapman, I would like to use Biblical sources to counter this bad theology.

1) The Relationship of the Old Covenant to the New Covenant

As Christians, we can't jump from Old Testament prophecy to the present day, as if Jesus didn't come in between. We know from the scriptures that Jesus completes, fulfils and annuls the Old covenant between God and the people. e.g.

• Jesus' sacrifice removes the need for keeping the OT law and the sacrificial system.

• the giving of the HS to dwell in believer's hearts removes the need for the tabernacle or temple as the dwelling place of God.

• the NT opens up the concept of the 'chosen people' beyond the Jews.

Why would we cling on to notion of a particular strip of land in light of the bigger vision of the kingdom of God through Jesus?

Then how should we understand the promises to Abraham?

In our first reading today we heard God's promise to Abraham. The verse that stands out is v8:

The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.

When we consider the promises of God regarding 'the land', we should understand them in the bigger story which begins with the garden of Eden and ends with the new heavens and new Earth. Jesus is the turning point in that story.

Simply by seeing that Abraham did not literally take possession of the whole land of Canaan, we realise that this verse should be read figuratively and not literally. In Hebrews 11 we hear that, by this non-possession, Abraham learned to look forward to the city with foundations whose architect is God – the new heavens and earth of God's Kingdom.

The promise to Abraham is not just about the land but is intimately bound up with the covenant relationship with and blessings for all peoples of the world. To insist on an interpretation that now gives Jewish people an exclusive right to Palestine at the expense of the fundamental human rights of the Palestinians runs contrary to the promise itself whether from an OT or NT perspective.

So what of the OT?

A literal possession of the land was part of the story of the people of Israel and their relationship with God. It was a story where the possession of the land was never perfected and where the promise was not an unconditional right but a conditional gift. Zionists want to (mis)apply OT prophecies literally for today whilst simultaneously ignoring the prophetic demands for justice – the conditions of the gift – found in the OT.

We however can see that the divine mandate to conquer was a shadow of the growing Kingdom of God inaugurated through Christ.

As Christians who understand the promises of God to be fulfilled in Christ, what does Jesus have to say about possession of the land?

Jesus was a Jew living under Roman occupation in a highly charged political atmosphere, where revolts and messiahs sprang up to announce the liberation and restoration of the land.

There are less than five explicit references to the land in the gospels and these are all indirect. Jesus didn't call for the possession of the land but spoke about a Kingdom of God for the whole earth (some 78 times). In our reading today from Acts we heard:

"Lord, are you at this time going to restore the kingdom to Israel?"

Note Jesus' reply:

"It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth." Acts 1:7-8

Before Pentecost, the disciples held onto the prevailing Jewish understanding of their rights to the land, however, Jesus showed that the New Covenant and Kingdom of God would be the fulfilment of the blessings for all nations (as promised to Abraham).

Peter and Paul likewise understood the inheritance of the land to be an altogether greater thing in the Kingdom of God.

in interpreting the promises made to Abraham in Genesis, Paul insists:

It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. Romans 4:13

and in Ephesians:

This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise in Christ Jesus. Ephesians. 3:4-6

Conclusion:

Zionism ignores Jesus and the amazing way that he fulfils, completes and opens up the promises of God for the blessing of all people. It wouldn't be worth talking about if it wasn't for the fact that Christian Zionism is a major factor in the unquestioning support that Israel receives which enables her to act unjustly in oppressing the Palestinian people.

If we truly want to see peace in Israel then we must understand the place of Jesus in the fulfilment of the promises of God for the blessing of all people. Motivated by the Prince of Peace we must seek a just peace for Palestinians alongside peace for Israel.

There must be more than this.

As I cycled into college today I was reflecting on the way that I'd introduced myself previously to the group, saying that I have a passion for church. I then muttered something verging on coherent about a privilege to be the body of Christ.

I was reflecting on the fact that saying that I have a passion understated how I really feel. More often, the church is more like an obsession for me. I often find myself thinking about what it means to be church and what sort of church I would like to be a part of. It's an obsession like being in love for the first time. It's a kind of default mode for my thinking. Always wondering about how church is and how it should be.

It occurred to me that the song 'there must be more than this' fits with how I feel about the church. I suppose you could say that 'there must be more than this' can describe both the Spirit of Christ and the body of Christ.

impossible change of heart

Just started reading A J P Taylor's introduction to the Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels. He says that for Marx,

There was no need to postulate some impossible change of heart. Dialectical materialism* would compel men to live in Utopia whatever the promptings of their hearts.

This stood out as, from my limited understanding of the meaning of those terms, this view is the number one reason for the failing of Communism and for the rightful place of a socialist attitude with Christianity. Utopia is a heart matter more than a material one - without a right heart one cannot find or be in Utopia.

The new Kingdom that Jesus ushers in comes with an impossible change of heart. Impossible, of course, is what God can do.

Much more to comment here but first I need to be a lot better read on this.

*[Earlier I read that 'dialectical materialism' was Marx's name for a reverse of the Hegelian process of the dialectic. For Hegel, where there is conflict between a thesis challenged by an antithesis it gives rise to a new synthesis and so on. For Marx the conflict was not between the thesis and antithesis ideas but in the world and this conflict gave rise to ideas (rather than ideas giving rise to conflict).]

Reflections from Palestine

We had a fascinating time in the West Bank for a month. It was really eye-opening and I'm now feeling the need to start processing all the different opinions and facts that we came across.

The Israel-Palestinian conflict was something that we learned more about whilst we were in Tunisia (see http://www.timerime.com/en/timeline/356787/Israeli-Palestinian+conflict/ for a timeline). Both because the plight of the Palestinian people is something that many Muslims and Arabs feel passionately about and because we met some interesting international friends also plugged into the issue.

Whilst in Palestine we heard some various opinions on a few key topics relating to the troubles. The main headings that I want to consider are:

*Two state vs one state solutions

*Violence vs non-violence

*The political 'on-the-ground' reality in the West Bank

*Optimism and pessimism

I'll come back here and tackle these one by one.

kick off

Time for a new blog.

So here is a place for me to record some thoughts now that 'thoughts from Tunisia' isn't relevant anymore.

I enjoyed recording some ideas whilst we were away and you can have a look here: www.fromcarthage.blogspot.com.

That blog ended up being mainly a place for reflections on issues of faith and the church. There are a few comments on some controversial topics such as pacifism and creationism.

Having just returned from a month in Palestine, I suspect that this blog may become a mix of comment on faith and politics.