thought for the day

I've just listened to an excellent thought for the day from Giles Fraser (given on Tues 4th Jan). In it he highlights how religion can be guilty of scape-goating in order to find an outlet for public frustration and violence for the sake of societal cohesion. He gave the example of an African 'pastor' complicit in the torture and burning of a 'witch' in Ghana.

He justified his attack on 'religion' as a Christian Priest by saying that Jesus resisted the controlling and nefarious tendencies of the religious leaders of his day and that he sided with the different, and the marginalised (the usual targets of the persecution of the masses) ultimately absorbing the violence of the masses himself in his crucifixion.

Another interesting thought on the anti-religion of Jesus.

some hope

I've just read this tweet from John Piper:

"Palestinian hope. I will cut off the pride of Philistia. It shall be a remnant for our God--like a clan in Judah. (Zec 9:6)"

Since New Year his tweets have reappeared on my Twitter stream, despite my having stopped them previously because I was bored of his Calvinistic theology. Anyway, I don't know whether I've given him a bit more air-time again because I'm looking to be offended but I certainly found this latest tweet offensive.

It is offensive to suggest that the greatest hope for justice for the Palestinian people is for them to become a clan in Judah. I believe that this is bad theology, taking a verse out of context. The root of this bad theology seems to be a deterministic Calvinism - an attitude that looks to understand God's will and purposes from the observed facts on the ground, on the basis that everything that happens is God's will. Presumably Piper would see, in the current oppression of Palestinian rights and violent take over of their land, the outworking of God's will in returning 'his chosen people' to the land.

I can't see anything of God's will in injustice and violence. I want to say that God's will is not fully being done in Palestine. God's will is not fully done on Earth - that's why Jesus commands us to pray 'your will be done': not as a rubber stamp on the inevitable but because there is a real and ever present chance that our human choices will inhibit God's being done.

Am I entitled to say that God's will is never injustice and violence? I would say yes, where Jesus is my ultimate guide to God's will (as opposed to some prophecies taken out of their 6th century BC context.)

The real hope for Palestine will be when the world stands with them for their rights and justice - a movement that come significantly sooner if the Christian right in America start to pray for and live for God's will of love and justice to be done.

YHWH, YHWH

I've Just been singing a new worship song with the line "Yahweh, Yahweh; we love to shout your name". It got me wondering about the distance the church has come from it's Jewish roots. Would the Apostles have sung such a song? Expressing the unspeakable name in this way would be deeply offensive to Jews!

I'm not sure what the correct answers is. Inviting God to dwell within our hearts would also be offensive, compared to the High Priest approaching the Holy of Holies in the Temple once a year on behalf of all the people.

My opinion is that we do have liberty to sing such a line but maybe we also have a bit too much levity if we do so. Whilst we're free to sing 'Yahweh, we love to shout your name' we might do better not to. By choosing to use our freedom not to say the name of God like this we could make a point of reminding ourselves of the majesty, mystery and transcendence of God - a point that is easily forgotten in 'low' forms of worship.

1/1/11

It's the first of January. It's also about time I was in bed but I can't start off my new year's resolution to be more disciplined in writing a blog by not writing on the first of January!

The thought that I want to record now is the discussion that June and I were having about being a member of a church. We were considering the appeal of being in a more traditional congregation where there is lower expectation on involvement in serving during the gatherings. The appeal is because sometimes the responsibilities one has in a service can be sources of stress or burdens. It seems to be especially true of the Evangelical church that there an expectation that all members of the church should be serving in some capacity, whether as a children's worker, worship leader, intercessor, welcomer, etc. etc. This is positively motivated by a desire to develop everyone's gifts to serve and pursue 'Every member ministry'.

However, there is an issue where attending church can become a chore or an additional stress on already stressed lives. This is true of the church leadership where promoting involvement becomes an administrative challenge, putting together rotas and making sure all the responsibilities are covered. It is also true of those who are serving, whether the stress is preparing activities for children's church or just missing out on the experience of worship through being concerned about the aspect in which they are serving.

Clearly there is a good case to be made in terms of the importance of serving and not just developing Christian consumers. Of the way that we can grow in our discipleship through the humble service of others. Of the way that we can develop personally and spiritually through utilising our God given gifts for others.

However, I've just started wondering whether it might be better if our aim was 'every member mission' rather than 'every member ministry'. This would remind us that our priority is not just to run effective gatherings but is to follow Jesus through loving God and neighbour.

I'm not saying that there will be no place for serving in the gatherings. But just that maybe it would be good to start imagining how large gatherings could be more stripped down, freer, more organic (probably messier) and less burdensome in terms of their planning and delivery.

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.