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.