False teaching

I am jot in the least proud to have to admit that I have spent years believing and teaching something false. I was thinking about something quite unrelated to the bible as I was driving home last night when the realisation suddenly hit me that something I have always said Jesus taught was, in fact, not what the bible shows at all.

I said and written on many occasions that Jesus gave us three commands concerning love: love the Lord your God…love your neighbour…love each other. The last of these is from Chapter 15 of John’s account of Jesus and could not be clearer: ‘My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you.’ He repeats this in the same chapter: ‘This is my command: Love each other.’ No one in their right mind could argue that Jesus did not command us to love each other. The bible tells us that Jesus said these things directly to his followers. These are direct commands. But what about the other two, the commands to love God and love our neighbours?

You may rightly infer that I am going to suggest that the bible does not tell us that Jesus directly gave his followers these two commands. Let me be clear, therefore, that I firmly believe that Jesus wants us to love God and love our neighbours. Where I have gone wrong in the past is not in teaching that he wants us to do so, but in falsely claiming that he worded this desire as two direct commands.

Matthew 22 tells us that:

‘One of them (the Pharisees), an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
 

Jesus replied: “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbour as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”’(1)

Did Jesus say the words “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, etc.”? Yes, of course he did. Did he say these words as a command? No! He was giving an answer to a Pharisee who was out to test his credentials and was certainly not one of his followers. His response that this was the greatest commandment from the Old Testament law demonstrates how important he thought it, but he did not give it as a command of his own. The second was likewise given as an answer, not as a command.

Jesus said, ‘All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments’ because he was speaking to those who remained under the Law. He was saying to the Pharisees, who constantly tried to trip him up with petty rules and misused quotations, that the Old Testament commandments were intended to encourage love, not to enslave people to rules and regulations. The message is, in fact, equally valid for those of us living under the freedom of the Spirit, but that is not the same as saying that Jesus stated these two commands. He did not.

I will no longer tell people that Jesus commanded us to love our god, Yahweh, with every fibre of our being and to love our fellow humans as ourselves. Instead, I will tell the truth, that Jesus wants us to do these things and described them as being exceptionally important. But we, who are under the freedom of the Spirit, love Yahweh through the person of Jesus, and love our neighbours not by following rules, but by sharing the love of Jesus. His only command was that we love each other (2), which he knew was not going to be easy when we have so many ways of disagreeing over so many things.

 

(1)   In reality, neither of these was accurately an Old Testament ‘commandment of the Law’. The first adds to the commandment; the second is a summary of several other commandments. This, of course, does not alter the importance of what we read, but we should be aware that Jesus was not a great one for quoting word for word. He placed more emphasis on the message than the letter.

(2)   I have believed and taught until now that he also commanded us to ‘Go and make disciples of all nations...’ He did not. It is true that he told us to do this and more, but he did not command this. Had he wanted to give a command he would surely have chosen to use the word ‘command’. This does not diminish the need for us to do all he asks of us, but we should not claim that scripture says something that it does not. Words are powerful and should be used carefully.

A new Archbishop of Canterbury - an old problem

So! A new Archbishop of Canterbury! Yippee!

Or, alternatively, so what? Will it change anything that actually matters? Will the Church of England and the Anglican Communion stop focusing on issues such as women bishops, gay marriage and economics? I doubt it.

The new man – and yes, of course it is a man – is no doubt a splendid fellow. He must be exceptionally talented to have risen through the hierarchy so fast. We might ask, however, what sort of talents we are talking about. I am not questioning his spirituality or beliefs – I have no evidence on which to do so and no right either – but it is surely not spiritual qualities that lead to the appointment of an Archbishop of Canterbury. His background before ‘going into the church’ was corporate business and it would seem that the qualities he demonstrated as a successful executive have brought him his new position. He is, after all, called to lead an organisation that is essentially a huge business with political and social influences far beyond its ostensible membership.

Will the new man refuse to wear those ridiculous mediaeval robes or end all the obsequious bowing and scraping? Will he advise those around him to focus on Jesus and him alone? Will he wash clean the gold-weighted hands, too heavy to lift in proper prayer? Will he rid the Church of England of its vast property portfolio, including all those cold, empty buildings that are nothing more than historic monuments to man’s folly and pride? Will he renounce his right to pass judgement on political, social and economic affairs, Caesar’s due. Will he stop discussions about Anglican policies and dogma and focus solely on his responsibility to proclaim Jesus?

I hope he will. I pray that he will.

We will know the true state of the new archbishop’s spirituality when we see the course he takes – a world-centred course or a Jesus-centred one.

Hurricane Sandy - God's wrath or bigots' excuse?

Why is it that natural disasters are picked on by certain groups as being demonstrations of God's displeasure? What really intrigues me is that God's wrath always appears to be aimed at those of whom these groups disapprove. I ask, with a tone of irony, could this be some remarkable coincidence?

As Hurricane Sandy moved inexorably towards the Atlantic coast of the USA the religious doomsayers crawled out of their holes in the wordwork. 'Sandy is judgement on the gays!' 'This is punishment for successive governments allowing abortion!' 'The strength of God's hatred of Islam is demonstrated in Sandy's power!' ' 'Repent! Sandy is at hand!'

What dribbling, babbling nonsense! Any divine judgement on gays and everyone else will be before the throne of judgement, not through a hurricane that only hits a small proportion of gays or anyone else in the world. Hurricanes happen in countries that do not allow abortion, happened before America allowed abortion, and the weather is normal most of the time everywhere, whether governments allow abortion or not. If God hates Islam so much you might think he would start delivering hurricanes to the Middle East, North and East Africa and large swathes of Asia, and presumably create mini tornadoes for smaller communities spread around the world.

Do those who shout about God's wrath believe that their message will persuade others to 'come to God'? It didn't seem to work in Old Testament times, so why should it do so now? The Israelites constantly repented and rebelled in a never-ending cycle; frightened by apparent divine punishment, they repented; basking in a land of plenty, they rebelled against the strictures placed upon them. The New Testament tells us, we are not able to keep the OT laws. Fear doesn't work except in the short term. It produces an immediate, but shallow, form of regret and encourages an attempt at reform. Lasting repentance - let's say that again, repentance that lasts - is only possible through the love of Jesus. Fear fails; love lives.

Now that the huricane has hit the coast we know that it is causing destruction and death. It is horrible, but it is the nature of the natural world. Let's explain it as it is, though, not offer explanations based on superstition. And let's tell people about the love of Jesus, not about indescriminate punishments meted out by a god who is oblivious of collateral damage and yet still persists in targeting those of whom I or you or some other religious fool disapproves.

In reality, Yahweh is very good at hitting targets, but it is with love, not hatred. Jesus came to save, not to condemn.

Haloween

Until the last few decades very little notice was taken of haloween in Britain. I guess it was films and TV, especially the latter, that spread the celebration from North America. Commercial interests too have pushed the idea and so gained greatly from another opportunity to sell special themed goods. Haloween is now a major date in the calendar in UK.

One major difference in UK, I gather, is that 'trick or treat' has taken a nasty turn. I am told that 'trick' is meant to refer to the idea that one should 'perform a trick', but in Britain, it has taken the meaning of 'if you don't give me a treat, I'll play a trick on you'. At its worst, this can mean chewing gum in your front-door lock or a scratched car. However rare, and I'm sure such incidences are very rare indeed, such stories coerce people into coughing up the goodies instead of allowing them the privilege of choosing to be generous.

Though disliking the very principle of 'celebrating' haloweeen, even I can appreciate the sometimes brilliant carving of pumpkins and the enjoyment of children dressing up. I am certainly not one to deny the right of anyone else to celebrate whatever they want (within reason!), but I do find the idea that it is all just 'innocent fun' incredibly naive. It is as innocent as Father Christmas and Easter bunnies; in other words, it is anything but innocent. Just as FC gives the impression to young and old alike that Christmas is really all about sentimentality, make-believe and presents, so haloween suggests that evil is really just a bit of fun.

I recall an advertisment for cream (I think) that used the line 'Naughty but nice', and far too many people associate the two as fitting together neatly. It is only a few short short steps to the common idea that 'If I'm not allowed to sin in heaven then I'd rather end up in hell'. (Mind you, I do love cream even though it's a bit naughty in health terms!)

But how should Christians respond to trick-or-treaters? Personally, my home is so isolated that they don't reach me. Problem solved! I guess our reaction should not be to tell them it's wrong or preach at them about Jesus. I think we should be welcoming and generous, and given the chance I would offer a treat of a trick; perhaps something such as a short, fun song about Jesus and a small picture book telling them that Jesus is for real - not like Father Christmas, not like the Easter bunny, not like the tooth fairy and certainly not like ghouls and ghosties and witches in pointy hats.

Should we tolerate gay bashing, racism and mass murder?

Yes, it's a crazy title for a post. Of course we should never tolerate such things. And that is why I object wholeheartedly to the suggestion that our society should be tolerant. It should not be tolerant, but respectful; not tolerant, but loving; not tolerant, but giving.

Politicians of all shades, moralists, and church leaders seem to spend half their lives praising the virtues of a tolerant society or reminding us of the need for tolerance in the face of some dreadful human act. However, it does not apply to all acts. After an arrest of suspected terrorists, politicians call for tolerance towards Muslims, most of whom, we are told, are decent and law-abiding. Yet, after rioting in various English cities last year, the same politicians promise a zero-tolerance approach to law and order. In other words, the very idea of tolerance is relative; it depends on what each person chooses as deserving of tolerance.

It is the relative nature of the concept that is the most serious, but there is a further issue. The word itself is begrudging. If I say that I tolerate something it is as if I am putting up with it despite other intrinsic faults. I love and like my wife overall, but she does (surprisingly) have faults – her habit of stealing the duvet is irritating, for example – but I tolerate it. When someone says that we should be tolerant of homosexuality, they are, in effect, saying that we should allow it even though it is somehow wrong. There is a negative undertone.

I would love to see the word ‘tolerance’ replaced with a word that is less relative and more positive. Although I am not a big fan of using Tudor translations of the bible in the 21^st century, the Coverdale translation of 1535 includes a word that would fit the bill; a word of immense power; a word that I wish were still in use today – lovingkindness. This word combines the inner motivation of love with outward actions of kindness. I love, therefore I give good things.

Is not this what we see in Jesus? Let’s be clear, Jesus was never tolerant! If something was wrong he said so, and in no uncertain terms, but he was never begrudging in his acceptance of people. Such was his love that he stopped a crowd from stoning a woman to death – a pretty risky interference, I would say! His love motivated his kindness, yet he by no means tolerated the woman’s crime and made sure that she knew it. Later, Jesus gave himself in the ultimate act of sacrifice, but only once he had overcome any begrudging of what was expected of him. He did not tolerate his death, but offered his life out of lovingkindness.

Well done, Myles Coverdale! I think it’s time for a campaign in favour of his word, except that it might be better to split it in two for modern understanding. ‘Loving kindness’ – I like it – in fact, I love it. Let’s end the era of tolerance and welcome in a new age of loving kindness.

Federer, Murray, church and hypocrisy

I "went to church" yesterday. What I mean by this, in particular the punctuation marks, is that I went to a "consecrated" building in which an "ordained" person called a "priest" led us in "worship", starting "on page 55". All three of us in the "congregation" were expected to repeat written "prayers", respond with the written "responses", stand or sit when told and listen when spoken to. My mind started rambling and has not stopped since.

I rather liked the lady in charge. She was welcoming, jolly, clearly loved people and was both keen and committed to serving the God of her denomination. Of her denomination?  I don't mean this unpleasantly, for who am I to know what is in her heart. She may be far closer to Yahweh than me despite the apparent reliance on religious observance and form rather than overt spiritual depth. If I may slightly digress, who would have thought during the Wimbledon final how much Federer and Murray cared?  Only after the match did we see the true depth of their commitment. Appearances can be deceptive. Yet, I wonder how an "ordained priest" can fail to mention Jesus except during the repetition of formal texts prepared by some distant theologian and agreed by committee. Does this sound like true commitment to the Christ?

We were told, with a tone of mild apology, that we were not to have a sermon, but instead a reflection. I expected a reflection on Jesus or something spiritual at least. But no! We received, on the day before the synod of the Church of England, a history of women's place in the church and a hope that Anglicans would see sense over the issue of women bishops. We received a reflection on the organisation of an institution; a history of the denomination; and a prayer that the synod would agree with the speaker's views. Some of those against the appointment of women bishops were, we were told, hypocritical for using the bible to justify their positions.

Now, I have to admit that I agreed with almost all that was said about the stupidity of denying women a proper and full role in church. But I find it hard to see how opponents of women bishops are any more or less hypocritical in their use of scripture than the speaker herself, whose justifications for calling herself an "ordained priest", for wearing strange clothing, bowing to a cross on the altar, and so on and so forth are no doubt taken from the bible. Let's face it, we can justify anything we want if we carefully select scriptures and then use them out of their full, original context. It is strange how often we all use the charge of hypocrisy against those whose behaviour is similar to our own!

In retrospect, one of the readings during the "service" was extremely apt on the day of the Wimbledon final. Paul talked about divine strength coming out of or replacing human weakness. Both players yesterday tried their utmost to win, but it was a little touch of sporting genius that enabled Federer to win. I am not suggesting that this was divine intervention, but there is a parallel. Christians are all normal people. We can make immense efforts and utilise all our experience and skills, but that isn't always enough and in some cases is a waste of time. We need the Holy Spirit to take the lead, to give us the edge and take us to new heights. In particular, we need the Holy Spirit to lead us to our God. We cannot do it in our own strength or ability. Following an order of service is like playing tennis on the practice court. It is routine and may have benefits in transferring practice into the arena. But it takes a special spark to lift our worship or win a title.

When Paul talked about running a race to win it, he was not suggestingt that we all train harder or worship with more passion, but that we should rely more on the genius of the Holy Spirit to guide us. He never said 'read the bible harder', 'be more obedient to rules', 'say your prayers louder', or 'be a bigger bigot'. Such ideas would simply lead to more hypocrisy. Working in our own strength may win many plaudits, but never the big title.

of gays, bishops and blogs

First, sorry to have been out of touch for so long. I have not only been very busy, but also had problems accessing Blogger. Pages of strange symbols instead of web pages!

Why is it that so many people are obsessed by homosexuality in relation to christian mattters? I sometimes get the impression that Anglican bishops, fundamentalist preachers, bloggers and those who frequent christian forums are more interested in homosexuality than Jesus. Debates rage around gay marriage, gay bishops, gays going to hell and goodness knows what else. What's the worry?

I can't find anywhere that the bible says we have to tell other people how to live their lives, even if they do so in a way that we think is prohibited. On the other hand, I can find plenty of places where we are told to love people and tell them about the love of Jesus. It is then up to them whether they do anything about their lives or not. It is between them and our great God. It is not for us to judge or condemn, but to follow Jesus' example, who did not come to condemn but to save.

And why is homosexuality specially singled out for constant condemnation? Why not christians' own hypocrisy? Why not legalism in the churches? Why not... well just about anything? No, it's always honmosexuality - never greed, pride, idolatry, selfishness or hatred. Oh, of course, such things are mentioned frequently, but the debate rages around matters that should be beyond christian debate.

We should first cast out the planks from our own eyes before we start condemning the splinters in others'. Let's deal first with our seeming inability to love each other, our reliance on self, the constant turning of our backs to Jesus and the use of worldly ways in our vain efforts to be spiritually better. Perhaps then we might have time to focus on those of whom we disapprove. But I have a shrewd suspicion that once we can see more clearly through our own clean eyes, we will notice that Jesus loves imperfect homosexuals just as much as anybody else and offers them the same gifts as the rest of us imperfect heterosexuals.

Bible belief essential to salvation?

Strange happenings. I hear that a man who has believed and followed Jesus for twenty-five years has got in trouble on a Christian forum by quoting from my eBook, Fibs, Lies and Scripture and daring to agree with some of what it says. He tells me that he has been downgraded from ‘believer’ to ‘seeker’ apparently on the grounds that he said he ‘preferred to place his trust in Jesus than the bible. Jesus told us that he was the way to salvation; he did not tell us that salvation came through scripture.’ I have looked at the forum to see his various posts and confirm the story.

The strange thing seems to be that he never suggested the bible was untrustworthy, merely that there is a difference between trusting something or someone and placing one’s trust in them. And he’s right! I trust my family, but I don’t place my trust for salvation in them. I trust the Oxford English Dictionary, but would not presume that it could reconcile me with Yahweh. I trust the bible, but only by placing my trust in the work of Jesus can I expect to benefit from the fullness of Yahweh’s promises. 

My guess is that the moderators on this forum, which I feel it would be wrong to name, think that their belief in the bible is an essential step to salvation. It is not.

I saw some interesting comments from Alan Hirsch today about the underground church in China. He points out that it grew huegly without ordained leaders, buildings and bibles. Millions of Chinese brethren never even saw a page of scripture before they came to know Jesus and accept his gift of life. And in many cases these brethren went to their graves having never seen a page of scripture. Did they miss out on the promise? I don't think so.

All right, then, I'll go to hell

  
This is a remarkable post. 

Rachel Held Evans | "All right, then, I'll go to hell”


It is horrifying how many people have been mistaught 'truths', misled by legalism and mistaken about scripture.  If only all followers of Jesus would obey the laws of love instead of  idolising the bible and preaching rules we would be a whole lot better off.

I am completely at odds with some of the practices to which Rachel Held Evans obvioulsy holds - giving and taking communion in a formalised way and setting, for example -  but these are things that make no difference. What matters is the direction of each individual's heart. Is it for Jesus or for rules? Is it for Jesus or for the bible? Is it for Jesus or tradition?

Above all else, Jesus taught us to love, love and love - love our father god, love each other and love our neighbours.  We are to tell the world about Jesus' love. In other words, we are to tell people that Jesus came to save, not condemn. That means that we too should not condemn. Whichever rules we may follow ourselves, however we interpret biblical statements about life choices and styles, and whatever we may personally feel about other people's behaviours, it is not our place to condemn. Our role is to offer Jesus. 

War Games

I have just finished a fascinating book – War Games: The story of aid and war in modern times by Linda Polman. It is worth quoting one sentence from the blurb to explain further what it is about:

From Rwanda to Afghanistan, from Sudan to Iraq, this devastating exposé shows how the humanitarian aid industry, the media and warmongers the world over are locked in a cycle of mutual support.

Now, this may come as no surprise to many people, and I have to admit both that I have always felt rather dubious about the advertising and staffing costs of some of the big charities and that I have suspected some truth in rumours of wasted and stolen aid. Nevertheless, this book has rocked my trust in just about every international aid organisation, including many that label themselves as ‘Christian’.

It appears that it is not only the big charities, which are run like multi-national corporations and focus mainly on contracts with the United Nations and various national governments, but also smaller organisations. In some cases, these amount to one-man operations, which are almost invariably evangelistic in one way or another, yet also do enormous damage in places they visit.

The problem is very simple. The rich West has the resources and desire to help the developing world. Some in the developing world can see the financial benefits of creating or exacerbating situations that require aid. The greater the disaster and the more tear-jerking the needs, the greater the level of aid and so the richer the pickings. Children are particularly good targets for cruelty as the West can be almost guaranteed to cough up when pot-bellied orphans appear on the television screen. Money and resources are syphoned off by local governments as taxes on imported foodstuffs or whatever the aid, and by warlords as tolls for passing through their territory or by insisting on the use of local labour, which they then tax. 

What is the local take used for? Partly for feeding those who hold power, but also for maintaining a state of war, which continues the need for aid to help innocent civilians. It is a cycle in which those who suffer most are generally least involved.

You may think that some of what I have written so far is callous; referring to pot-bellied orphans as if they are not real people in a real emergency situation. The problem is that in a way they are not. Instead, they are figures on a chart used by humanitarian organisations to win lucrative contracts and remote images on screen to tug at the heartstrings of comfy-living donors. I am not suggesting that aid workers in the front line or at desks may not be genuinely concerned for the welfare of those they help. For all I know, they may well be broken hearted as they carry out their work. But the aid organisations are part of a competitive industry and behave as such more often than not. You have only to look at the jobs advertised on charity job sites to see that they are after professional fund raisers, accountants, business managers, and so on. The bottom line is money and everyone who works for the organisation relies on it for their salaries. 

In the case of the small operations such as a small team of doctors from a local church who, during their two week vacation, fly to a disaster zone to treat the wounded, the motive is generally less financial. The results, however, can be equally disastrous. In some cases, these groups drop in, help a few people and then leave, without even thinking about who will carry on with the support upon which the locals now rely. 

Linda Polman ends her book by saying that she does not advocate ending all humanitarian aid to war zones, but that we should look at how the money and resources are used and take steps to correct abuses. I’m sure she’s right! The call to help everyone in need, whatever the long-term human cost, is hard to resist, but is ill used.

Those of us who follow Jesus are often suckers for the suffering of others. We too should be very careful with our charitable works. I cannot help but notice that the bible has absolutely nothing to say on the subject of humanitarian aid to all who need it. When Paul collected money, for example, it was for fellow believers in Jerusalem, not everyone who lived there. Jesus explained the concept of ‘neighbours’, and we are enjoined to love and help them, by telling the story of the Samaritan. He did not talk about people in far off lands, but those who lived nearby. We were told to go and make disciples, not take humanitarian aid. 

Should churches be collecting for Tear Fund, Christian Aid, Save the Children, Oxfam and the like? Should they be sending aid directly to emergency sites with small teams or individuals, who can wreak havoc with other relief work? Should we be using so-called rice evangelism, whether it be with food, tents or medical aid? Should our love be demonstrated through serving our neighbours or through responding to the sentimentalised challenges of far-off disasters? Should we exacerbate the problems caused by those who make war in order to take aid?

Christian abortion

The title seems to make no sense. Killing unborn babies? Christian? The two just don’t go together.

But what about killing those who are not yet born again? That is a sort of spiritual abortion and is an extremely common practice in ‘the Christian community’. To put it simply, many who call themselves Christians kill any desire of non-believers to be like them. I, like many others, was hugely discouraged from seeking Jesus because I saw Christians as hypocrites who were quick to judge others, arrogant in their inconsistent certainties, illogical in their arguments and self-congratulatory in their supposed burial of pride. 

Christians judge and condemn others by rules that are not and never were intended for those outside the knowledge of Yahweh. The ten commandments may be used to judge all at the end of this earthly period, but the minutiae of the Old Testament laws were for the Israelites, not the world at large. Christians claim to trust Jesus and all that he taught, yet fail to follow half of what he commanded. They are certain that he died for their sins, yet frequently cannot tell the difference between the sin of rebelling against Yahweh and the ‘sin’ of eating a cream cake. Yet they are certain of your sin on almost every occasion. Christians argue, in some cases, that the bible trumps science in knowledge of the world, yet then try to prove their own version of science. They determine that some pieces that appear allegorical are taken literally and that other parts be accepted as allegorical. Christians too often appear triumphant in ending a discussion with the words, ‘Well I know what I know and what God tells me.’ There are too many Christian versions of Uriah Heep. Many are so proud of their legalistic credentials that they are proud to call themselves bigots.

The crazy thing is that Jesus was never like this and never asked us to be so. In fact, quite the opposite! My observations tell me that the more certain Christians are about how they and other people should behave, the less they seem to be absolutely certain in their trust of Jesus’ saving work. And it is these Christians who most often carry out spiritual abortions. 

Christians should be good parents of new-born followers of Jesus. With every spiritual abortion they perform ‘in God’s name’ they blaspheme the Holy Spirit. They condemn themselves with the one unforgivable sin.

Baptism, ignorance and sending children to their deaths

I had the great privilege of baptising my daughter the other day. She has been a believer for many years, since she was a child, but came to the conclusion as a twenty-something that she wanted to demonstrate her obedience to Jesus as her lord and master. The baptism took place in the kitchen and was a simple case of one follower of Jesus baptising a person who had made a conscious decision also to be one. This is the biblical picture of baptism: a  decision to follow Jesus followed by a symbolic act of cleansing and obedience. No lessons; no special pool or vessel; no special meeting of the faithful.

I am thrilled that my daughter has made a conscious decision. It would be horrible if she were in the same dreadful place of imposed ignorance as the millions of people who have been baptised as infants.  She too could have grown up believing that decisions taken on her behalf as an infant actually meant something. She could have been fooled into thinking that a ritual in a special building was important and that the parroted responses of people, some of whom were probably atheists or agnostics at best, made her a member of the family of believers. Worst, she might have actually believed that Jesus' sacrifice was valid for someone who has not made a personal conscious decision for themselves. 

Parents who baptise their infant children do them an enormous disservice. They often believe, completely wrongly, that their children are somehow safer, but this is mere superstition.  Making promise on their behalf does not protect their children from godly wrath. The best thing to do for their children is to teach them to be inquisitive and loving.  This encourages them to seek for themselves and so make their own choices, which are the only choices that Yahweh will honour.

In matters of the spirit, ignorance is not bliss; it is death. Infant baptism encourages ignorance. Children can and do grow up thinking of themselves as part of a holy club. In most churches that practise infant baptism, they go through a further ritual at 'first communion' or 'confirmation', following a series of lessons that tend to focus particularly on the denomination's traditions. The entire process of growing up 'in the faith' is about indoctrination rather than questioning and fulfilling rites instead of making decisions. In other words, the emphasis is on maintaining ignorance. 

This last point is relevant also to many churches that do not practise infant baptism. Believers too often think that their children will be better off being indoctrinated, though no one ever calls it that of course, than in making their own choices. Children knowing facts about the bible, talking in religious terms that make parents go 'Ahhhh', and believing that they are part of a holy club are very common in churches that follow believers baptism. The legalism instilled in such churches is no different in Yahweh's eyes from any other form of legalism. Believers must make their own decisions and follow Jesus out of informed choice, not to please their parents or 'because it is right'. 

I have other children who have not made the same choice as my daughter. I hope that they will do so one day, but am glad that I have left them to make their own decisions as independent adults. I am glad that I did not train them to behave in such a way that they had the appearance of salvation without the substance. I am glad, relieved even, that I did not unwittingly instill ignorance into their malleable young souls.

 

Children don't know The Lord's Prayer

So, it has been revealed by a survey, about half the children in UK don't know the words of a prayer that Jesus used to illustrate how to pray without 'babbling like heathens'; in other words, how to pray without repeating the same old thing as if it is a magic chant. Well I say, Hurray! Why would we want to teach children words that they don't understand and don't mean. The mere parrot-fashion repetition of the prayer in school assemblies does not achieve anything other than teach children that they will be allowed to stop saying it when they are grown up. 

To cap it all, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, thinks it is a bad thing on the grounds that, 'This is something that's really, really important to lots and lots of people and can change their lives.' No it doesn't! Jesus can change their lives, but not a bunch of words that Jesus never suggested should be repeated verbatim. Rowan Williams also suggests that if children memorise the prayer then later on they can, '...make up their minds whether to use it.' Surely it would be better for children to make up their minds later on as to whether they are going to accept Jesus or not. They won't do that by relying on a memorised chant,  but by escaping the religious, legalistic frame of mind that insists on children (and adults) learning things about Jesus by heart instead of accepting him in their hearts.

The idea that anyone can ever truly understand these words without an innner, personal knowledge of Jesus is twaddle. For Rowan Williams to say that the prayer 'isn't a very big or complicated thing' is strange in the extreme. It baffles many Christians, including apparently, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to accept the words as having some form of intrinsic power and value.  Jesus taught simply, and his teaching was that neither words nor material sacrifice are  enough. Only by sacrificing our inner selves to him can we come into a good relationship with the great god above all gods, Yahweh. 

The words Jesus used in his teaching have been taken out of context and turned into a meaningless mantra. It is taught to people as if it is important in its own right; as if it holds power; as if it is an object of worship. The so-called 'Lord's Prayer' or 'The Our Father' has become for some people an idol. 

And we know what Yahweh thinks of idols!

Homosexual castration

So now we hear that in the 1950s a number of homosexuals were castrated in the Netherlands in Catholic psychiatric care. As if this isn't disturbing enough, we are told that for some of them it was also a punishment for daring to speak out about sexual abuse during their childhood in Catholic care homes. 

Now, I realise that the Catholic hierarchy has spoken out against child abuse and the physical mistreatment of gay people, albeit rather belatedly and under extreme pressure, but I have seen no sign of true repentance. The main response of the hierarchy, which is transmitted on to the millions of Catholic laity, is self protection. It's no good harping on about the past. We have changed. Let's look to the future. 

On the other hand, the Catholic hierarchy is happy to shout stridently on subjects such as the sanctity of marriage and the abortion industry. Can they not see their hypocrisy? Why should any sane person believe that they have any moral or spiritual authority? 

It sickens me that people who claim to be proclaiming Jesus behave in this manner. But then, perhaps that is what one should expect when commerce, politics and power are the main driving forces behind an unscriptural denominational institution. 

Paul had a tongue-in-cheek answer for those who were misleading the Galatians into legalism - the same sort of salvation-by-rules  seen in the Catholic and many other sects. In a side swipe at their insistence on circumcision, he said he wished they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves. But no doubt the Catholic hierarchy will take every care to ensure that the castraters of the 1950s are kept safe and in one piece.     

Bibolatry

There is a genuine word 'bibliolatry', which refers to worship of the bible. But I don't like it. It's awkward to say and places the emphasis on the first part. So here's a new word: 'bibolatry'. I reckon this is a much better word for combining 'bible' and 'idolatry' and should join the new lexicon alongside such terms as 'churchianity'.

I have just published a new book, which contains a chapter about bibolatry, although the overall content is much wider. Fibs, Lies and Scripture looks at some of the many ways that scripture is misused and abused. Give it a go!