The Pope - Conspiracy theories

After my last blog, I can hardly complain about conspiracy theorists doing their thing! Of course, as I broadly said of myself, suspicions of one sort or another are pure speculation from most of us. Few outside the Vatican (or within I'd guess) are privy to the machinations of such a powerful, multi-national enterprise.

It has surprised me that the first time I have seen any reference to conspiracy theories is in today's newspaper. Of course, I may have missed an earlier article, but the mainstream media seem to have focused so far on what a holy and lovely chap Benedict is, as well as speculating on his succcessor. Why the delay in what is so obviously a good story? The media isn't usually shy about promoting controversy!

In truth, serious journalists should probably ignore conspiracy theories about the pope's resignation and focus on the more enormous Roman Catholic conspiracies that directly affect millions of lives every day.

• Contraception - the conspiracy to maintain numbers, reduce libertarian education and keep a power base in the developing world; largely ignored in N. America, W. Europe and Australasia.
• Re-writing history - the conspiracy to make itself appear not only institutionally innocent but even persecuted in matters such as child abuse; the pretense that institutional failure and corruption is really just a few bad apples.
• Patriarchy - the conspiracy to keep women out of anything important; closely connected with the wider conspiracy to make scripture say whatever the institution wants about itself.
• Confession and the monopoly on forgiveness - the conspiracy to maintain control of congregants' lives, donations and speech.

 The list could continue, but I'm getting bored, as you are too, no doubt.  Why does the press not plug away at these huge conspiracies? Are they frightened?

Gay marriage and hypocrisy

 The debate in the House of Commons about gay marriage fascinated me.

 

I am still bewildered by some of the strange and twisted arguments used by those opposing the right for homosexuals to marry. How on earth (or in heaven) is gay marriage supposed to undermine my ‘conventional’ marriage? If marriage is for procreation, then why are marriages allowed between people beyond child-bearing age? In what alternative universe has marriage ever been anything other than a civil contract, controlled by the state?

In the last case, institutional churches may rightly claim to have carried out vast numbers of marriage services, but the words of the actual marriage section are purely legal. No marriage that takes place in Britain is recognised in law without the correct form of words being used in the ceremony and until various other legal requirements are completed. The churches’ claims are legal and financial, not spiritual or religious. There is nothing to stop Christians, or people of other beliefs, from separating the legal and spiritual aspects of what currently takes place in religious buildings.

If people choose to believe that homosexuality is wrong, then so be it. There are also plenty of people who believe that all spiritual beliefs are wrong or that social norms are evil. So be it. Each to his own. But none of these people has the right to deny others a reasonable degree of social, legal and emotional equality. 

It is not the job of Christians to tell other people how to behave, to hold the copyright on the meaning of words or to deny others the same rights of marriage as they enjoy themselves. The job of all followers of Jesus is to represent Jesus, who came 'not to condemn but to save'. How dare divorced MPs stand up and preach on the sanctity of marriage? 

They should look to themselves. Moats and beams! Splinters and planks! Yet more ammunition for critics to claim that 'christian' and 'hypocrite' are synonymous.

Papal retirement - am I just cynical?

I just can't shift the idea out of my head.

Popes don't retire; at least, not voluntarily.  

Of course, throughout the shameful history of the Roman Catholic sect there have been many forced retirements.  These have usually been the sorts of retirement employed by the Mafia - fatal.  In a few cases, the retirements have taken the form of forced exile.

What about this one?  Is the poor chap really simply too old and frail to carry on? He's not nearly as feeble or gaga as some within living memory. Perhaps he has more sense than most and wants to die with some degree of dignity instead of being kept alive as a puppet figurehead. Or perhaps he has been forced out.

Is there something in his past that is in danger of coming to light? Is it blackmail by those who oppose his papal declarations? Could it be a personal fear of potential embarrassment? Is 'mother church' worried about something popping out of the closet? 

All this is very unfair. The truth, of course, is that I am taking the view that there is no smoke without fire. But this expression is not true when applied to people. It would be more true to say that there is no hurtful gossip without empty speculation. And, yes, I have to admit that these thoughts I claim are inexcapable are purely speculation. I have invented the smoke out of my own imagination; out of my prejudices and pride. 

The one thing in all this that I know is true, is that no one should be in the position of being a pope or any other form of leadership that is, to all intents and purposes, unquestionable. This applies as much to archbishops, moderators, apostolic leaders or whatever titles people take. If the RC sect wants to act as the body of Jesus then now is the time to renounce the wordly, commercial, power-based model of leadership. 

Naturally, this is no more likely to happen than with the Anglican's recent change of archbishop. These denominations - all denominations - are the same, with each wanting to maintain its own  distinctiveness and hierarchy.  

This is the opposite of what Jesus said.

Is that surprising? Not really! Or am I being cynical again?

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.