Flirting With Your Fortress

When I started blogging back in 2005 on my (now pretty much deserted) MSN Space, I originally called the blog "Nick's Sanctuary and Fortress of Solitude". It wasn't long before I realised this was actually a bit of a mouthful and dropped the "Fortress of Solitude".

However, that didn't change the original reason I created my blogs - neither this one, nor it's predecessor. They were intended to be a place where I could explore my beliefs in my on head. It's there right before you in the blog description - "A safe haven for sharing my thoughts about my faith, my life and the universe in general". It's still very much a fortress... but I think I need to actually come to terms with what a fortress... a stronghold is actually for.

It occurs to me that maybe sometimes I've sat here and thrown witty remarks or missiles out at my targets from the battlements... but that's little better than the French in Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It doesn't deal with the wolf outside the door, it doesn't claim territory for your king... it's just a snug, cosy way of dealing with things. That is not what a sanctuary - a fortress is for... and something I read recently challenged me with regard to this.

Eugene Peterson referred to what he believed a sanctuary exists for... when referring to the time the Old Testament hero David, was a fugitive running from the maniacal King Saul (David went up to a sanctuary in a town called Nob to take refuge, you can read about it here). Peterson writes that:

"A sanctuary is... where I, like David, get bread and a sword, strength for the day and weapons for the fight."

I agree with him. If we stay holed up where it's safe, we make little headway. Every historical stronghold I can think of has at some point fallen to an attacking force... you can only hold out so long. In Lord of the Rings, King Theoden is trapped within his stronghold of Helm's Deep... it is about to fall... when he heeds the advice to gear up and take the battle to the enemy. This seemingly futile gesture is rewarded when Gandalf and the Rohirrim come charging into the fray, ploughing through the orc hordes and smiting all before them:

I'm not saying that we should never remain within the safety of the city walls... clearly in scripture there is wisdom in this also - Hezekiah was commanded by God not to leave Jerusalem... and an angel struck down the armies of the Assyrian king Sennacherib.

What I am saying is that although sanctuaries are places to protect what you value, they are also places to nourish yourself from hidden reserves, equip yourself for battle and muster your forces. They are also a place where you train for combat. The other day I referenced Smallville and it's been established in the series that Clark will have to go to the stronghold built specifically for him - the Fortress of Solitude, in order to complete his training as a superhero and the transition into Superman - the Man of Steel. In the clip below, we see him get a brief taste of this training:

My hope is that as I have continued to voice my concerns and beliefs on this site, that I have also learned to hone the skills and powers I'm going to need for what God calls me to. That is what this blog is for now. It's not just a place for protection... it's a launchpad.

Christmas Presence

I hope you all had a wonderful Christmas.

We had a bit of an interesting situation for ours. To explain, let me take you back a few days to when I was wrapping my presents. Most of them were done except for a few main ones that had no real bulk... I'd left them in a small carrier bag by the pile of wrapped presents and intended to wrap them last on Christmas Eve.

When I came home from work though,I discovered to my horror that they were missing. I searched high and low... I completely trashed my room looking for the bag. I had a familiar suspicion in my mind as to what had actually happened to them but I tried not to entertain that thought.

Fast forward to just after the Midnight Eucharist in the early hours of Christmas Day; the bag still hasn't shown up and I'm really bothered now.

Now my mother has a certain reputation... and my father is very quick to point it out. She has a habit of throwing out important things like ooh I don't know, cheques, bills and cold hard cash... into the rubbish. This had been my initial suspicion about what had happened to the presents... but it was Christmas and I had chosen to ignore it (it being the season of goodwill and all).

Nevertheless, when I came home from church after the morning service... Mum, true to form handed me a small plastic bag... and there inside were the presents for my sister, her boyfriend and mum herself.

So it was not under a pristine tree laden with gold and silver tinsel, flashing lights and baubles... that my mum's present was found. Nor was it wrapped in fine shiny paper. No... mum's present was found to be in the most unlikely of places... a smelly rubbish bin in the kitchen.

It got me thinking of a parallel with the Christmas story (well actually Epiphany, but seeing as most people tend to think of the wise men arriving at the Nativity, I thought I'd play on that a little.)

It also has a lot to do with what I was saying a few days ago about God's choice. First lets look at the scripture:

"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him." When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed. On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh."

Matthew 2:1-11

Jesus was not be found in the capital city... the seat of power from where king's reign. Nor was he to be found in a richly decorated palace - the magnificent home of a king.

No. Jesus was found in a sleepy rural backwater village that few people remembered or cared about... except when it came to taxing the people, making a census... or remembering the glory days of King David - Bethlehem's other great son. Again, God's choice was not man's choice.

So the question I want to ask today is... where do you look for your presents? Or more to the point: where do you find you Christmas presence?

Did you go to church expecting to find Jesus amidst the bells and smells - the pomp of the usual annual service? Did you come away disappointed? Did you come in search of meaning and find an empty box inside your wrapping paper?

I want to encourage you today that there is hope. Go and look in the garbage. Scary as it may seem, delve through all the banana skins and stink of superficial stuff... dig right to the bottom - I'm not talking about the bin in your kitchen...I'm talking about the human heart. We have a tendency to get bogged down by things that really aren't important... and we miss out.

However, God gives us this promise in scripture - that if we look for him with all our heart... we will find him:

"But if from there you seek the LORD your God, you will find him if you look for him with all your heart and with all your soul. When you are in distress and all these things have happened to you, then in later days you will return to the LORD your God and obey him. For the LORD your God is a merciful God; he will not abandon or destroy you or forget the covenant with your forefathers, which he confirmed to them by oath."

Deuteronomy 4:29-31

"You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart."

Jeremiah 29:13

I really encourage to find a quiet place and look for God in your heart through prayer.

May you find that place in your heart... and be overjoyed.

Christmas Conundrums

I decided to write this blog in response to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent comments on BBC Radio 5 as reported in the Times, with regard about the level of truth in the Christmas stories.

Before saying anything, I should point out that Rowan Williams actually does believe in the Virgin Birth himself, so his aim was not punch holes in the bottom of his own boat. His intentions were good - he was aiming to make the gospel message less hard to swallow for people on the outside.

Dr Williams is quite correct in his assertions about the Magi, we do know very little about them... and we have embellished who they were somewhat - but I do not doubt they made their accredited appearance; their gifts would have provided the resources necessary for Joseph, Mary and Jesus' time of refuge in Egypt. I also know that one of the reasons Matthew included them in his narrative, was that he was aiming to point out right from the very start that Jesus had come to be the Gentile Messiah as well as the Israelite one.

It's also true that we don't know exactly what was in the stable at the time of Christ's birth. I would hazard a guess that there were animals in there, because of the fact that Jesus was placed in their food trough upon birth.

It's also true that the weather in the Middle East is not the same as British weather...and that Jesus was not actually born at this time of year. The move to celebrate Christ's birth in December was a political one. However, you could argue that Jesus is like the British monarch, he has his actual birthday and an official one too. He is the King of kings, so it is totally appropriate as far as I am concerned.

As to stellar behaviour, the simple truth is we don't know what astronomical event was being observed, nor how the Magi with their background had decided to interpret what they had witnessed. The biblical narrative suggests that they reached Jesus later in his development, not whilst he was a baby. That doesn't mean that we have to dismiss the idea... we merely have to accept that there are other ways of understanding the star. Some are recorded here on Wikipedia.

However, the main controversy I wish to address is the issue of the Virgin Birth. Dr Williams believes in it... but according to a 2002 survey of 2000 Anglican clergy, many of them do not personally accept it, some do not even believe in the resurrection! I find that statistic quite disturbing, it is one thing to struggle with a theological concept as a believer... it is quite another to ask others to accept a belief you do not hold yourself. Some, like the chaplain who was denouncing the nativity as myth, are worse; they actively encourage people NOT to believe in the Virgin Birth. One wonders why they signed up in the first place. If you can't accept the basics of Christian belief... what business do you have shepherding a flock of Christ's sheep? It is being a blind guide to others. I sometimes think (whetther they are aware of it or not), that the reason behind some of these people's ministries is not divine calling... but self righteousness - "the Church is wrong, but I am right... I will show them". That is ego on the throne and not God.

Back to the Virgin Birth and I personally feel that it is pretty important.

If Jesus was born of a human union... there would be nothing to make him any different to us. He would be a sinful human because he would carry Adam's sin. He had to be perfect, he had to be supernaturally born in order to be free of the sin that he came to deliver us from. He also had to be human so as to be able to represent us. He had to be our righteousness and in his resurrection, our mediator.

The chaplain I spoke of yesterday and referred to above, spoke scientifically about our knowledge of conception and how it biologically works... but he missed the point. He was trying to rationalise the birth of Christ based on the observed scientific reproductive process with regard to a normal human child; not that of God translating himself into a human body. We have seen in cloning how genetic data can be completely removed from an egg and replaced with data from another being. There are so many different ways we could look at it scientifically and still not understand exactly what happened. You cannot reason everything out with God... sometimes you have to just accept it's above you... and run with it.

I disagree to an extent with Dr Williams. I do believe it's important to accept the virgin birth...I do agree that people who struggle with it shouldn't get hung up on it. Crucially what I am saying is that I don't believe you make Jesus Christ any more accessible by watering down who he is.

In 2005 Jamie Oliver had a problem with making school dinners. He wanted to replace turkey twizzlers and Frankenstein foods with real wholesome food... however he had to contend with school budgets. It came down to him saying something like "you could reduce the cost and get cheaper ingredients to a degree... but you could only do it so much. There comes a point where the end product isn't what you are advertising it as it anymore."

That's the problem the church faces if it constantly waters down the Gospel. It won't be proclaiming the Gospel any more... it'll be some other message; cleverly packaged but devoid of the power that only God could give it. I'm all for making the Gospel accessible - how many times have you seen me use popular culture or allegory here, in order to get the message across in a more understandable way? The one thing I won't do is change the essential message at the heart of the Gospel and that's because the message of the cross is God's wisdom and not man's. It is foolish to understand the Gospel on the world's terms, you have to accept it as God gives it to you. He took on human form and he died to deliver us from our sins.

Many of you here will go to church in the next 24 hours and hear the words from the following passage you hear every year... because it might be the only time of year you go, which is entirely your choice and privilege. However my challenge to you is to look at this passage and contemplate what it means to you personally, who is this child to you?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John testifies concerning him. He cries out, saying, "This was he of whom I said, 'He who comes after me has surpassed me because he was before me.' " From the fullness of his grace we have all received one blessing after another. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

John 1:1-18

May God bless you this Christmas. May you know him more deeply than you have ever known him.

Way Beyond the Red Line

Various things have happened to me over the weekend which are leading me to conclude that God is totally putting me through the ringer at the moment. I've been contemplating what my calling should be and the direction my life should be heading in for a while now; all of a sudden though, it's gone completely mental.... like riding a horse you thought was tame but then explodes off into a gallop at breakneck speed unexpectedly. I decided to write it down here, partly to share but also to make sure I do not forget.

It started off subtly. Earlier in the week, I had a dream where a deceased friend gave me a lift in his car to somewhere random... and upon waking it reminded me of a blog entry I had written - a blog entry that I discovered had been accessed later that day by someone who was searching for that friend's name on Google. It was this entry.

Then over the weekend,for reasons I don't need to go into, I was reminded very strongly of another post; one where I adapted a philosophical quote by the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi:

One night, Zhuangzi dreamed of being a butterfly — a happy butterfly, showing off and doing things as he pleased, unaware of being Zhuangzi. Suddenly he awoke, drowsily, Zhuangzi again. And he could not tell whether it was Zhuangzi who had dreamt the butterfly or the butterfly dreaming Zhuangzi. But there must be some difference between them! This is called 'the transformation of things'.

Back then, I reworded it to suit a more personal challenge:

"Are you the man of God who dreams of being a man with a normal everyday life... or are you the man with an everyday life, who dreams of being a man of God?"

I deduced that I was more the latter... but I didn't come to any hard and fast conclusions as to what that might in terms of calling or vocation.

I found myself in a position last night where my peace had been disturbed... but that's not a bad thing. We can get too settled with peace and become stagnant if we are not careful. It's a bit like hitting the snooze button repeatedly when you know you need to get up for work. During this time I was reminded of a passage in the Bible that I believe was a personal warning:

"Then he told this parable: "A man had a fig tree, planted in his vineyard, and he went to look for fruit on it, but did not find any. So he said to the man who took care of the vineyard, 'For three years now I've been coming to look for fruit on this fig tree and haven't found any. Cut it down! Why should it use up the soil?'

" 'Sir,' the man replied, 'leave it alone for one more year, and I'll dig around it and fertilize it. If it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down.' "

Luke 13:6-9

Upon waking this morning I caught the end of a debate about the realism behind the Christmas story (something I intend to cover myself), I was appalled that the man who most readily dismissed elements of the nativity as fable... was a Church of England chaplain; it was left to two doctors of theology to defend certain elements of the Nativity.

Then when I came to check my email, my Last FM player pipes up with a track from the Prince of Egypt:

This is a film that always evokes an emotional response from me, most notably in the sequence where God meets Moses from within the Burning Bush. That sequence can be found in the middle of this clip:

Interestingly, all the personal back references I have made are all interconnected.

Back to today... and I decided to set off on foot for my church 2.5 miles away. It's something I recommend, it's a great opportunity to communicate with God when no one else can distract you... and it was a very busy discussion today. The passage from the previous evening came back to my mind and I was also reminded of a vision I had a while back of an eagle stripping it's nest so it's young could fly.

I felt God say to me that he doesn't need to strip any more away from me in order for me to leave. I am ready and I am able, but he is frustrated that I have not been completely willing. Like Moses and Jonah before me, I have clutched onto the tatters of the nest in order to resist facing what is before me. God doesn't want to take anything else away, but by being stubborn I run the risk of forcing his hand... and anything I lose now is as a consequence of any reluctance I might have.

Then I was brought to thinking about Smallville. Yes that sounds pretty random but bear with me. I actually like the programme, but am frustrated with it. I was asked in my heart "What do you not like about Smallville, Nick?" The honest answer to that is the fact that it has been dragged out, it has gone on and on. The writers have found newer ways to stretch out Clark Kent's evolution into the Man of Steel. At the moment he's ready to do his training... but he's got to clear up his mess. Everything is set for him to become who he is destined to be... but he's still hanging round Smallville. Typing this reminds me very much of a scene from The Lord of the Rings, one that it now occurs to me I have also referenced in this blog:

"The man who can wield the power of this sword can summon to him an army more deadly than any that walks this earth. Put aside the ranger. Become who you were born to be."

Elrond - The Return of the King

So it seems I'm in the same position as Clark and Aragorn... remaining in the wilderness when I should be committing myself to who I really am.

I wasn't even safe when I arrived at church. The combined theme of the carol service, the readings and the talk was spiritual offering. And one of the things that was raised was calling/vocation. We were shown a picture of a statue - a monk standing cruciform and holding his possessions before him. It was quite striking:

It gave me a fair bit to think about. Then we were challenged to think about something we could offer God and wrap a stone that representing it in Christmas paper...and leave it at the manger. Three guesses what was on my heart and mind to put in there. While we were being asked to do that, my mind drifted to the carol "In the Bleak Midwinter", specifically the last verse:

What can I give him, poor as I am?
If I were a shepherd, I would bring a lamb;
if I were a Wise Man, I would do my part;
yet what I can I give him: give my heart.

It was not on the carol sheet for the service... but do you know what? The organist started playing it about 30 seconds after it popped into my head.

Finally after the service I spoke to a couple of friends who were visiting my church for the day. I told them what I was feeling challenged over and their overall reaction was pretty much "Oh Nick, it's about time!"

I chose the title for this blog entry because I feel that in such a short space of time I have been catapulted into a different place. I wasn't entirely comfortable with the sudden burst of speed. However I much prefer this to silence... and so whilst God has seemingly given me a lot to act upon, I am grateful for the activity.

God bless you all

Nick.

Hidden Wisdom

A couple of things have got me thinking lately about the difference between our opinions and God's sovereign choice. I know I've often reflected on this subject on my blog... but just recently it's come to the forefront of my mind.

In the Old Testament, the Israelites wanted a king and God though not happy with their wishes decides to provide them with one. So he pointed Samuel in the direction of an obvious candidate - Saul, son of Kish; a man without equal. Samuel anointed Saul as king and gave him the mission of delivering his people from the Philistine invaders. Yet Saul's reign is a troubled one and eventually God rejects him.

So did God make a wrong choice? I do not believe so; I believe he was making a point about the difference between his choices and our own. As I already pointed out, Saul was the obvious choice... however, he was not a man after God's own heart. He was not God's final choice. Some time after God rejected Saul as king, he sends the prophet Samuel to a little place called Bethlehem... to anoint a new king. We pick the story up there:

"The LORD said to Samuel, "How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king."

But Samuel said, "How can I go? Saul will hear about it and kill me."

The LORD said, "Take a heifer with you and say, 'I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.' Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate."

Samuel did what the LORD said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, "Do you come in peace?"

Samuel replied, "Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me." Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice. When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, "Surely the LORD's anointed stands here before the LORD."

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel.

But Samuel said, "The LORD has not chosen this one either."

Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, "Nor has the LORD chosen this one."

Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, "The LORD has not chosen these."

So he asked Jesse, "Are these all the sons you have?"

"There is still the youngest," Jesse answered, "but he is tending the sheep."

Samuel said, "Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives."

So he sent and had him brought in. He was ruddy, with a fine appearance and handsome features.

Then the LORD said, "Rise and anoint him; he is the one."

So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power."

1 Samuel 16:1-13a

When presented with a conveyor belt of worthy candidates, the difference between man and God is made abundantly clear. Samuel is straight away tempted to make the obvious choice again... despite everything he has seen. It takes a gentle prod from God to remind Samuel that he's not looking for man's choice; he's looking for God's choice. God passes over the strongman and anoints the shepherd boy.

It should be pointed out that Samuel was a decent man. He followed God closely and yet he was still fallible. Despite his close relationship with God, he was still as hopeless as the rest of us when it comes to making the right choice. We are fallen beings and so like it or not we have a tendency to judge things with entirely the wrong set of criteria. Even though we know God and have a relationship with, we still limit our options to the obvious choice and not accepting that sometimes God has chosen the abstract.

If you read the Bible, you soon realise that it's a point that God is keen to stress at great length. Most, if not all the great Bible heroes are the unlikeliest of candidates. They wouldn't make the grade in human standards and yet God makes it abundantly clear by his divine choices that he isn't at all interested in our way of assessing people:

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.""

1 Corinthians 1:5-31

Ultimately God's greatest "hits" all fly in the face of conventional wisdom and common sense.... and you and I are beneficiaries of that. It doesn't matter where we have or haven't been, or who we are. All he requires is a receptive and willing heart on our part.

You only need to respond to two things Jesus said to start this journey:

"Who do you say I am?" and "Follow me."

Look What I Received in My Email Today!

Dear Nick,

Thank you for writing such a wonderful letter! We have had a great year at the North Pole. The reindeer have been playing reindeer games to get in shape for the long trip Christmas Eve, and the elves have been busy getting my sleigh packed with lots and lots of toys.

Once my sleigh is packed and ready to go, I'll be off on my journey around the world. I'm reading your letter right now, and it looks like you've been a very nice boy this year. That makes me so happy. Keep up the good work!

While you are asleep on Christmas Eve, the reindeer will land my sleigh on your rooftop so I can hop down your chimney.

I see that you like cars and trucks. I like cars and trucks, too. They are lots of fun to play with, and we have some very exciting new cars and trucks this year. The elves have been very busy this year making many new and different cars and trucks for Christmas!

Well, I must get back to my workshop now and help the elves finish up the rest of the Christmas toys. We have to have them ready to go soon--we don't have a minute to lose!

Ho! Ho! Ho! Have a Merry Christmas!

Your Special Friend,

SANTA

Am I a "Cultural Polytheist"?

I have a confession to make.

As a child, I started to develop an interest in the myths and legends of the the ancient world - Greek, Roman and Norse. I used to love the stories. So I wonder... am I actually a cultural polytheist?

It should be pointed out that my love of these stories has not really shaped any of my mainstream beliefs. OK, so I have an outlandish theory that the ancient myths might in some way be related to the passage in Genesis that refers to the Nephilim... but I certainly don't believe in the pantheon of false gods from ancient polytheism.

For the record I don't consider myself a cultural polytheist, nor I am certain did C.S. Lewis or Tolkien (despite their great love of mythology), and neither did St. Paul (who actually quoted a few Greek hymns and altered their meanings... applying them to Christ). These people were all immersed in diverse cultures that they drew inspiration from. For Lewis and Tolkien, that was looking at how mythology worked as a precursor for the Gospel message. For St. Paul, it was assimilating the culture to make the Gospel more accessible to a wider audience.

Going back further into antiquity; in the Old Testament we have characters like Daniel who refused to even pay lip service when asked to worship a statue of Nebuchadnezzar. This resulted in him infamously being sent as a snack for the king's pet lions (a fate Daniel escaped by virtue of divine intervention). Why did he feel the need to do this? He could have just pretended... he knew that it was all nonsense, surely it didn't matter whether he feigned worship, for nobody would know. However Daniel wasn't built like that; as far as he was concerned, he would know and God would know... and that was enough for him. Whether you agree with that point of view or not, you seriously have to respect the man for sticking to his principles when the personal cost could have been the ultimate one.

However, lets not beat about the bush any longer. This article is not about whether I consider myself a "cultural polytheist"at all; in fact I'd laugh you out of the room if you suggested it. I consider it a pretentious label, with no real meaning. I am of course really referring to Richard Dawkin's recent assertion that he in fact is a "cultural christian".

He claims his willingness to sing Christmas carols is evidence of this... but that just makes him hypocritical in my book. If you don't believe the words you are singing... then you shouldn't be singing them. If you don't believe the sentiments and words of a prayer or creed, then you should not utter it. It is a dangerous game because words really do have power.

I have told you on record of the times I have altered a praise song's lyrics, or not sung a hymn because I disagree with the theology in them. If I don't believe something or agree with it... pretending isn't really an option.

Furthermore he claims that he does not want to stop Christian traditions. This must come as a massive disappointment to the National Secular Society (which he is an honorary associate of).

For they claim:

"Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged input into the political arena where history shows it to bring conflict and injustice."

So that's carol singing out the window then.

Not that I'm knocking Dawkin's claims. If he does not want to slap a ban on evangelism, that's fine by me. That's where the imbalance is you see... the most ardent secularists want to be able to peddle their views openly without allowing religions to have the same footing. If secularists want an open forum for their views, that's fine... but true free speech demands that they demonstrate the same level of respect to theists.

Lets examine that quote from the National Secular Society again.

Do they really claim that history has demonstrated that religion has nothing positive to offer in the political arena? Really?

How about Abolition? That's a pretty big hole in the argument... and what about racial civil rights? William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King must be spinning in their graves at that ridiculous assertion. Christianity was championing civil rights long before the National Secular Society came along and started stealing fire.

I would argue that in fact, it is neither religion, belief (two different things) or secularism that cause harm in themselves. I would say that the weight of history demonstrates that it is in fact the human condition. You can call it what you want... but I call it the sinful nature.

I don't think a person can really claim to be merely a "cultural christian". Ok, sometimes a man may have doubts about just where he is in the spectrum of faith... but when it all boils down to it, you are either a Christian or you are not. Christianity is not about mere religious practice. In truth it should surpass all this.

Christ came to transform us, that we may no longer conform to the sinful nature - the human condition:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Romans 12:2

He came to set us free from the very things that bind us to our willingness to hurt others. "Cultural Christianity" if it exists at all, is not equipped to do that, for it does not provide access to God - the source of all goodness. That is something only Jesus could do... and through Jesus we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, who equips us with the power and freedom to obey the Father.

Christmas is a good time to ponder where you are with regard to God. If you consider yourself a "cultural christian", I strongly encourage you to consider these words from Isaiah:

"The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men."

Isaiah 29:13

Is that you? Do you follow God by singing songs and saying words that you don't really engage with? I'm not saying you should abandon using those forms of worship... but I am saying that you should examine the words you are saying with your heart.

Venting in Advent

I caught a little bit of Question Time last night, specifically the "Christianophobia" debate.

It was Ken Clarke's comments on the subject that first drew my attention. He rightly pointed out that there are fringe groups of fundamentalists in every religion (he did not include atheism or secularism in that assessment - he should have), but that the vast majority of followers of a belief are actually not unreasonable (essentially, religion and belief are not the problem... but sometimes those who practice it are).

However it was the subsequent discussion on the "radical fundamental" side of Christianity that really grabbed me. First, Clarke himself suggested that Christians who reject Darwinism are among this group. Now I am a Creationist (though not in the stereotypical sense); I happen to think the ideas expressed by neo-Darwinism (i.e life without God) are foolish... I certainly don't disregard people for holding those views though. I also don't feel that we have to adhere to a literal 6 24 hour day creation period, because the Bible in the original Hebrew does not restrict Creation to that time period.

The most controversial statement was made by a member of the audience though. He challenged Clarke's assertion that people with radical views were in the minority, by pointing out that something like 44% of Americans believe that Christ will return in the next 50 years. Clarke conceded that, but pointed out that this was the UK and not the USA.

However at the risk of sounding a nutjob, I want to challenge the assertion made by that audience member myself. The idea of Christ returning in the next 50 years is only as ludicrous as it is sensible. The early apostles believed that Christ would be back within their lifetime and the sense of urgency that came from that belief, fuelled in part the enthusiasm for spreading the Gospel message. In truth, the "50 years" part of the statement is irrelevant though. He most likely raised it because he finds the idea of Christ returning ludicrous in itself... and do you know what? I feel sure a lot of churchgoers do to.

I don't.

I believe Jesus will return one day... because he said he would. Whether that is tomorrow or in the next 5 millennia - I wouldn't like to call it, but he will come back.

If you think that is outlandish and you are a churchgoer yourself, then you should consider that what I have just said is nothing less than what is uttered every week in various forms of the Creed... and if you hadn't realised that, maybe you should pay more attention when saying it.

Truth be known, I don't think the idea of Jesus returning within 50 years is ridiculous either. We know how big the Earth is now... and the Gospel is day by day reaching new cultures... even the remotest tribes. We live in an age when when the consequences of Adam's sin are maturing. By this I mean that man is growing very much to the point where he feels as a species that he is independent of God and has no need of him.

Many reject the concept of the Second Coming because of doubt in Christ's divinity and/or because of arrogance or complacency that the world will continue each day as it always has... and yet really irrespective of whether we acknowledge God... none of us is guaranteed another sunrise.

Jesus himself said the following:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and they knew nothing about what would happen until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding with a hand mill; one will be taken and the other left.

"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know on what day your Lord will come. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what time of night the thief was coming, he would have kept watch and would not have let his house be broken into. So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him."

Matthew 24:36-44

We merrily go about our business and rarely give a second thought to it, do we? The only times you'll hear mention of the Second Coming are as a joke when something surprises us... or as a comparison that something is a long way off. Yet this is advent, it is a time when the church assigns time to contemplate these things. It isn't just about waiting for the babe in a manger, it is about waiting for the king descending with the kingdom and manifesting it fully on Earth.

No one knows the day or the hour... oh it might be a million years away... but it might just as easily be tomorrow. Would you take that chance?

Would you really take that chance?

There's an old proverb that I've quoted here before. It might well be cliched... but I happen to believe it is something to aspire to:

"You should live as if Christ died yesterday, rose today... and is coming back tomorrow."

Maybe it's time we paid attention and started to get our houses in order.

You.

Me.

Everybody.

UnBEARable

I've been following the news with regard to the plight of Gillian Gibbons, with some interest this week.

It is utter madness.

I understand that in Islamic law, it is wrong to portray anything as Mohamed; we've been through that episode in Europe last year with the furore concerning the Mohamed cartoons. I recall commenting at the time that the principle difference between Jesus and Mohamed over personal slander, was that Jesus endured it... whilst Mohamed legislated against it (in my view, to preserve his public image).

We could talk theology here... but what is the point? The root of this argument is less about theology and more about the nature of children. Reports suggest that Ms Gibbons merely facilitated the discussion about what to name the "offending" teddy bear; the children drew their own conclusions.

The children no doubt chose to name the teddy after character they were familiar with... and why not? After all, we live in a culture where the name Mohamed is charting in the top flight of name choices; for a child, theology doesn't even enter their minds over such things.

Furthermore, Sudan is possibly one of the last places on Earth that could claim to be in a position to make moral life and death judgements. They need to get their own house in order and make sure the Darfur conflict is fully resolved before making such assumptions collectively as a people.

This kind of news story gets me riled because it plays directly into the radical secularists hands. I'm talking about the kind of people who practically come out in hives when you mention the words "religion","faith", "God" or even "spirituality". Yes... a lot of bad has been done in the name of God... but that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Godly people have been a force for positive change throughout history.

People might be reading this and saying "but if they said it about Jesus, you'd be the same".

No I wouldn't.

As I have stated before... Jesus did not legislate to protect himself, he came to endure the scorn of men... and redeem them despite it:

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53:3-5

Jesus wasn't concerned with how men perceived him because he knew who he was and his Father - God, affirmed it publicly.

I am utterly convinced that Jesus reaction would be completely different, because he understands the hearts, minds and souls of little children:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

Matthew 19:13-15

"He called a little child, whom he placed among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

Matthew 18:2-5

Jesus would never call for the death of someone over such a thing... he even said blasphemy against him (the Son), would be forgiven (not that it's an excuse for us to partake in it). T conclude on a lighter note, I'll say that the harshest thing he'd do would probably be something along the lines of what Captain Sheridan did when confronted with a similar situation in Babylon 5:

Space the offending teddy... and not a human being for pities sake!