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.