The Voice

I'm not a big fan of reality TV and don't tend to watch any of them unless I am with other people who are watching it, or find myself extremely pushed for something to do. That said in recent weeks I've stumbled on the odd performance on the BBC 1 show, The Voice.

If you aren't already aware, the show's initial twist/hook is that in the opening rounds, the judging panel didn't get to see the hopeful contestants. The idea being that they could not make preconceptions on a person based on their appearance or any back story... but solely on vocal talent. This sets it apart from its main rival on ITV (Britain's Got Talent), where judges form their opinion on who to take forward with other criteria.

It got me thinking about preconceptions in the church, especially as in recent months the ongoing debate between liberals and conservatives on such matters as women bishops, gay marriage and the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury has become more and more amplified. It is a matter that may also strike particularly close to home because early next year, the minster I worship in will be looking to appoint a new vicar/head of ministry.

To be honest I'm fed up with it all... I'm exasperated!

Those who are most vocal on either side of the divide seem so sure of its own position in matters of theology and scripture and community. Each tries to either batter the other side into submission using rhetorical blunt force trauma, or wrong foot them by concocting elaborate schemes. 

While outspoken liberals and conservatives bicker, the rest of the Church suffers

When did we become so sure of what God wanted... that we decided we'd make His decisions for Him? I think there is a severe, ever present danger in each one of us - the danger that we mistake the reflection of our own ego and its preconceived ideas, as being God's. Or perhaps it is a lack of spiritual confidence/maturity. We are so scared that if we don't speak for God, there will be awkward silence and nothing will happen... and we will look foolish. I don't believe any one of us is truly immune to these threats, because each and everyone of us carries within us the potential to be selfish and insecure; each one of us plays host to a sinful nature that even though it has been crucified (for those of us who accept Christ's sacrifice), constantly craves to put "self" on the throne of our hearts either as a result of hubris or insecurity.

I think our fear of losing control directly feeds into this danger and I think that we rely so much on our own convictions that we neglect or lose sight of the most important factor in the guidance and direction of the Church...

... The Voice.

No, I'm not talking about Sir Tom Jones, I'm talking about allowing God the room to intercede and intervene directly in our debates. I think we get so wrapped up in our own earthquakes, winds and fires, that we become deaf to what God is saying. I want to share two passages that I believe demonstrate his willingness to intercede directly in changing the direction of his Church. The first is from the Old Testament. It is quite lengthy so I won't be pasting it, instead you can read the passage by following this link.

In summary, Elijah challenged his opponents to demonstrate to the watching people through an act of power, that their god was worthy of following. Despite all their chants and efforts (even cutting themselves), no such demonstration was forthcoming. After rolling around on the floor and laughing at them, Elijah then made it impossible for his own altar to catch fire... and then called upon the The Lord.

What followed was the biggest barbecue in history.

The god who answers by fire - he is God.

But that's Old Testament... surely I'm not suggesting God is in the business of burning up people at Church who get it wrong? Am I?

No I'm not. But I do still believe God answers by fire.

Which brings me to the second passage:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question. The church sent them on their way, and as they travelled through Phoenicia and Samaria, they told how the Gentiles had been converted. This news made all the believers very glad. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and elders, to whom they reported everything God had done through them.

Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”  The apostles and elders met to consider this question.  After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.  God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us.  He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith.  Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear?  No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:

  “‘After this I will return
   and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
   and I will restore it,
that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
   even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’—
things known from long ago.

“It is my judgement, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.  Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath."

Acts 15:1-21

Again it is a slightly lengthy passage but I think it makes the point eloquently. It demonstrates that God does still answer by fire - the fire of the Holy Spirit. When the Church hit a wall, a deep theological divide that threatened to split it or create a two tier system, they did not just argue amongst themselves and rely on their own understanding of God's Word... they left room for the Holy Spirit. Peter recounted his experience in the household of Cornelius, where the baptism of the Holy Spirit first came to Gentiles. Following this, Paul and Barnabas shared their similar experiences of the Gentile Christians they had encountered en route to Jerusalem... and how the Holy Spirit had been present then also.

There is a place for personal conviction... but it must take its place alongside the authority of scripture and the testimony of the Holy Spirit. We need to soak our churches in prayer... clothe ourselves in the Spirit and avail ourselves of all the fruit, blessings, gifts and tools God has to offer. As much as our humanity gets us into these situations... it is God's gracefully given divinity that will get us out of them. Conservatives who object to liberal attitudes need to remind themselves that you can't expect people to be refined by the Holy Spirit if you make it difficult for them to encounter him... by shutting the door to God's storehouses firmly in their face unless they change before they are convicted. Liberals need to be prepared to be honest and accept and respond to the Spirit's conviction if they find in their relationship with God that he is calling them to abandon something they otherwise understand or accept to be okay. We all have to do that sometimes... none of us "like" it, but spiritual maturity accepts God's discipline.

So all I'm saying in essence is that before we make any decisions about what God wants; let's open the floodgates and allow him free reign to make us into his people.

Liberal? Conservative? Let us not get hung up on these worldly positions, let us instead give God the floor. For when God answers... there is no longer any debate.

• How do you think the Church of England should resolve its issues?
• Have you seen the Spirit been poured out supernaturally in liberal/conservative churches?
• Share what happened if you are willing.

Militant Christianity

Today, during the ongoing trial over his murder of 77 innocent people on July 22nd last year, Anders Behring Breivik said something that one might think struck very close to the bone for people like me. Principally he said the following:

 "I am a militant Christian; to prevent the de-Christianisation of Europe is very important."

How do those of us who are Christians reconcile his radicalised statement with our own interpretation of the faith? After all, I dare say there are a few secularists out there who are rubbing their hands and nodding "knowingly" under a false assumption that this confirms what they have maintained all along.

As  far as I am concerned, the simple truth is that people like Breivik have no idea what a militant Christian actually is... and it is motives and actions such as his that threaten to de-Christianise Europe. For that matter... isn't "militant Christian" actually an oxymoron?

Well, the dictionary defines the word "militant" to mean "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause". Now to the world, that usually entails destructive acts and aggression. However the Bible teaches us this to the very contrary:

 "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Galatians 5:19-21

A good half of the acts listed above could be directly attributed to the behaviour exhibited by Breivik last year. In fact Jesus himself said that the behaviour we all manifest comes from our nature deep within. Good acts and thoughts come from those who have the goodness of God within them, whereas those who brood over hatred, fear and darkness exhibit actions that reflect those evils.

Having just left Holy Week behind, we have reminded ourselves of Christ's commitment to physical non violence.  Whenever a hint of physical revolt or rebellion was waved under his nose, he was quick as lightning to dismiss or defuse it:

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, ‘Lord, should we strike with our swords?’  And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.  But Jesus answered, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.  Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, ‘Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

Luke 22:49-52 

When things were at their darkest it was not in Jesus' mind to harm his oppressors or maim and kill those who thought differently... but rather to heal and reconcile instead.

"Those who live by the sword..."
Jesus calls us to abandon  violent lives, full of hate & fear.

It occurs to me that when the spiritual chips appear to be down, the deepest truths about who and what we are tend to be revealed to the world at large. Those who are rooted in fear will attempt to wrestle control back from the universe and assert their own designs on how it should operate. Those who are rooted in love do their utmost to hold the course despite their deep anguish.

It is easy to be seduced by the paranoid rhetoric that surrounds those who oppose multiculturalism... maybe not to the same extent that it appears to have warped Anders Behring Breivik, but there are dangers for us all nonetheless. In the midst of this, we must not forget that the Early Church shared none of these fears. Christ and the early Christians lived in a multicultural society. They lived under the secular rule of an Empire that had pantheons full of foreign gods. Even in Judea the presence of Roman culture was keenly felt even while Judaism was still tolerated. If the progenitor of our faith and his earliest followers, were able to be assertive about their own beliefs in the midst of  all the competing cultures that were geographically encroaching on them, then why would we be any different? If we accept God's kingdom is not of this world then why are we so obsessed with exerting cultural control through secular power? Is this the battle we should be fighting?

Which brings me to my main and final point.... what *I* believe a militant Christian is.

I believe that militant Christians are those that hold most fiercely to the Kingdom values - Those who are aggressive in their determination to be a compassionate follower of Christ - people who love unreservedly, who forgive utterly and who trust unswervingly. We do have an enemy... one we should fight relentlessly and aggressively without surrendering, conceding or capitulating, but our enemy is not quite who or what you might think.

Who is our enemy? I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear:

^"For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere."

Ephesians 6:11 (AMP)

Normally I use the NIV translation but I wanted to make certain there was no room for ambiguity about who the Bible identifies as the opposition. Is our enemy found in the faces of people who hold different beliefs and values?

No. Of course not.

I heard these words on Babylon 5 once and I have never forgotten them:

Every day, here and at home, we are warned about the enemy. But who is the enemy? Is it the alien? Well, we are all alien to one another. Is it the one who believes differently than we do? No, oh no, my friends. The enemy is fear. The enemy is ignorance. The enemy is the one who tells you that you must hate that which is different. Because, in the end, that hate will turn on you. And that same hate will destroy you.

Our enemy is fear, hatred and the spiritual forces that cultivate these destructive forces. We don't need to hate people and we mustn't hate them, no matter how different or alien they appear to be.  As much as the Bible tells us who our enemy is, it goes to even greater lengths to remind us of who our neighbour is... and who we should love, even if they don't deserve it.

So if there is a militant Christianity... where do we find it?

To that end, I leave you with this final thought:

Militant Christianity is not found on the blood stained sword; it is found on the tear stained cheek.

ABC... Easy as 1 2 3?

After reading about the Church of England's decision to allow open online consultation over the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and having read reactions from Vicky Beeching and the tongue-in-cheek folks at Ship of Fools, I felt inspired to write up my own "unique" look at some unusual alternative candidates who it might be worth considering.

Who Will succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?

If you are a regular follower of my blog... I think you know what to expect. A poll will follow at the end, which I would be honoured if you would please vote on... and remember it is just for fun. :)

Candidate 1: Gandalf the White (The Lord of the Rings)

As you are probably aware, throughout his tenure as existing Archbishop of Canterbury (and possibly even prior to this), Rowan Williams picked up the affectionate nickname of Gandalf. I even joked a few weeks ago that after his resignation, Rowan would return to the role as Rowan the White. However let us consider for a moment the possibility that the ACTUAL Gandalf inherited the role of Primate. Having one of Tolkien's Istari on board, would come in extremely handy. Apart from demonstrating powerful magical abilities, effective combat against the forces of evil and dispensing wisdom to the the peoples of Middle Earth, as Archbishop Gandalf would guarantee a world beating display of New Year fireworks along the Thames during his tenure. Oh and he already has a handy stick.

Candidate 2: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)

If beards are your thing and you want an alternative to Gandalf, why not choose old Ben? In an illustrious career only slightly marred by one pastoral failure with an apprentice (although... true, it did lead to the subsequent near extinction of his order), Ben Kenobi would be a great choice for a Church of England seeking to reach out to a generation yearning for action and purpose, that feels forgotten and trapped in a bleak environment. Furthermore if anything nasty should befall him, he'll just return with an eerie blue glow and hand out even more inspirational advice to the Anglican Communion.

Candidate 3: Ambassador Kosh Naranek (Babylon 5)

Perhaps an outside choice in science fiction circles, Kosh might just prove to be an important bridge between a church that is sometimes perceived as distant and disconnected from society. The Vorlons faced similar accusations (Kosh himself didn't help by implying they took no interest in the affairs of others), however to the very contrary they had a finger in every single pie and were very involved in the affairs of others. The Vorlons in general were bastions of order... but Kosh demonstrated a genuine care and compassion for the aliens he encountered that was unique. It is true that half the things he said would confuse even the best cryptic crossword solver, but you can't doubt his motives or his achievements.... and although shy and retiring... when he comes out of his shell his actions can be perceived to be angelic.  However... be very wary of the guy who follows after him.

Candidate 4: Spock (Star Trek)

Spock would surely have to be the logical choice.  Although half human and capable of emotion, his unswerving devotion to the merits of logic would ensure that personal feeling would not compromise any theological debates. Also... let's not forget that Spock himself has a certain level of insight into the meaning of great personal sacrifice and resurrection which are surely invaluable. However, it should be noted that whilst logic and theology have their place and might endear him to some traditionalists, a lack of emotion might equally isolate him from charismatics and liberals... and this should be borne in mind.

Candidate 5: The Doctor (Doctor Who)

"It's a mitre. I wear a mitre now. Mitres are cool!" He's defended the planet Earth from hostile forces an innumerable amount of times, he has gone face to face with demons and even the Devil himself. Having been compared to a god on several occasions, could the beloved time-travelling wild old man of the universe have a realistic role in shaping the Anglican Church of the future? It is certainly true that Christians should be like the TARDIS (living lives that are bigger on the inside than on the outside), however churches should definitely be the other way round - bigger on the outside (in the community), than on the inside (within its walls). The Doctor would probably take issue with forms of worship that didn't get congregations to think about and engage with what they believed in... he'd be very much against anything that lulled people into what he perceived as a mindless conforming pattern like the Cybermen. However The Doctor would be excellent at travelling across the entire length and breadth of the Church of England with his TARDIS (only missing important appointments by a couple of years every now and then), and he could offer something unique that other candidates could not - a personal pilgrimage to see events from the Bible as they happened. Some might question whether a Time Lord who is difficult to tie down in any place and time is fit for permanent office, but let's not forget he held the Presidency of the High Council of Gallifrey for a time.

So there are my amusing alternatives. Please do vote and if you have any other alternatives or serious suggestions, please do get in touch and comment below... I'd love to hear what you have to say...

Who Should Be The Next Archbishop of Canterbury?

First (and Last) Contact

Happy first contact day!

As any self respecting Trekkie/Trekker will be aware, April 5th is an auspicious day in Trek lore; this date marks the moment when for the first time, the human race made first contact with an alien species (the Vulcans).

Zefram Cochrane Greets A Vulcan in Star Trek: First Contact

Because the date falls in Holy Week this year, it has caused me to ponder the nature of first contact and how in some ways it relates to the great act of reconciliation performed by Christ on that terrible, precious and wondrous day, some 2,000 years ago.

"But wait!" I hear you cry, "Star Trek has nothing to do with religion. In the 24th century, humanity is completely secularised and has no belief in a deity".  I could cite several facts that dispute the absolutism of this claim from the show's own canon... but my aim here is not to say "Star Trek is religious" but rather instead to look at an event from Star Trek's timeline and look at how its subsequent effect parallels a spiritual truth. That said, if you want to read more about the case being made for religion in Star Trek, I thoroughly recommend the insights in this article by Chase Masterson, who played Leeta in Deep Space 9.

What really stands out to me about the first contact scenario in Star Trek, is that contact is prohibited with a species until they have passed a certain milestone... the achievement of warp drive (the rationale being that for a species to have acquired the technology necessary, they must have reached a certain level of intelligence and peaceful coexistence). Prior to April 5th 2063 in Star Trek's history, it is only through misadventure or villainy that humans encountered aliens at all... and they certainly don't have a day to day relationship with the visitors.

This to me is in many ways very similar to our spiritual condition and how we relate to God. In the ancient past God spoke to our ancestors and forefathers through prophets and teachers who were specially appointed by him. However we weren't able to broaden our horizons and have an intimate relationship with him, due to our brokenness and sinful nature (our way of life that was centred around selfish living and hostility towards God's desire for us to be dependent on Him). What we needed was a game changing event that drew us nearer to God... not a technological milestone, but a spiritual one.

In Star Trek, humanity finally passed the milestone of warp drive through Zefram Cochrane's development of warp technology and his first flight aboard his spaceship, The Phoenix. There was an irony in the design of the Phoenix... it's first stage engines were originally part of a nuclear missile... and so it was that a symbol of death and destruction became integral to the ushering in the dawn of a new age of peace and happiness on the planet Earth:

This for me is in many ways exactly what Jesus did for us on that other universally acknowledged symbol of death - the cross. It was Christ's willing sacrifice on the cross that made it possible for people to become close to God in a properly established relationship. Jesus Christ - The Alpha and Omega, the First and Last... became our first contact. The cross became the warp signature that lit up the night sky and brought us firmly into God's spotlight.

There are a couple of very important differences of course.  Zefram Cochrane was one man among many... if he had not invented warp drive, then it would certainly have been achievable by another character at some point in the future of humanity. Jesus was and is not just another human being. He was in his very nature, God as well as human.  There could never be another Jesus... only he was able to bridge the gap between man and God because of the fact that he was uniquely both.

Technology can be developed by many people but atonement was only achievable by The One.

As I previously mentioned, in Star Trek the achievement of warp drive is seen as an indicator that a race is refined and sophisticated enough to be worthy of contact by advanced alien species... but the cross exists because the very opposite is true. We are not worthy... we are not ready, but when God looks at the cross he sees us as ready because he sees us through the lens of his Son, Jesus.

As we move towards Good Friday, we remember the milestone that made our own personal first contact with God possible.... and just as the Vulcans descended to Earth to commune with those first humans, Jesus Christ stands at the threshold of each of our lives with the deep hope and intent that we too, will commune with him:

"Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me."

Revelation 3:20

The Most Important First Contact You Will Ever Make.

Jesus said that he had come that we may have life and have it in abundance... to the full!

In knowing him, may you live long... and prosper.

Things to share:

• Have you made "first contact" with God? What was it like for you?
• What are your thoughts about religion and Star Trek?

April Fool!

So in case you didn't realise, Sunday's article was a complete hoax. Hands up guv, it's a fair cop. A jape. A prank... APRIL FOOL!

April Fool!

This is what happens when the only church service you have on certain Sundays is put on at some ungodly hour which you miss.... it leaves you waking up with time to kill and unfortunately the Devil makes work for idle hands.

Basically I was thinking about my habit of subverting whatever random event Google has commemorated on Good Friday in the past by using it and turning their randomness back into a commemoration of Good Friday. It was then that it occurred to me. Why not do the same thing for Palm Sunday and April Fool's Day... after all, how often are they going to fall together in our lifetimes?

Although the entire article was a complete fabrication and the story itself was absurd enough, here are the humdingers that should have given it away:

1. Alhmar Dhryh is fictional. It is phonetic Arabic that translates to "Ass Shrine".
2. The Hebrew inscription פתי של האחד באפריל translates as "April Fool's Gullible".
3. The researcher I quoted (Prof. Ol Ali), is an anagram of April Fool.

In addition, the photograph of the excavation site was ripped from somewhere else in the Middle East and the photographed remains of the wall fresco is actually an image of some prehistoric cave paintings. Finally pray tell, what are the odds of such a story being timed to come out on Palm Sunday? Isn't it just a little bit convenient.

So congratulations if you dodged the bullet and saw through my little plan... and I won't reveal who included a reference to my post in a sermon on the same day - you know who you are... and your secret is safe with me. :)

However perhaps the last laugh is on me. When endeavouring to explain my elaborate ruse to a couple of colleagues at work, one of them was pretty insistent I should get suited and booted with a dog collar and join the clergy.

*Cue awkward silence in the office*

Time for you to share: 

• What April Fools tricks did you play on people?
• Were you caught out by anybody else's tricks or jokes on Sunday?

Palm Sunday Archaeology - A Timely Discovery

Archaeologists working in the Holy Land are reported to have made an astounding discovery in a tiny village located in the Palestinian West Bank, not far from Jerusalem.

The scientists were investigating in the area and looking for evidence of early Christianity near the settlement of Alhmar Dhryh. Having excavated many metres down in the ground, they uncovered remains of what appeared to be an early first century Christian chapel. What they stumbled upon amazed them and has the potential to revolutionise our understanding of the way early Christians may have worshipped.

The excavation site in Alhmar Dhryh

Many of the walls have not been very well preserved, but on one it is clear to see that there would have once been a fresco covering the entire surface area. The recurring design appeared to be based on palm leaves which would have once been a vivid green, although the passage of time has caused them to fade and discolour.

Faded wall paintings of palm leaves.

The archaeologists worked their way to the rear of the derelict church and eventually found a broken altar and a focal area of worship. What they discovered next, proved to be the most curious and controversial find.

Hidden within a recess in the centre of the altar was an ossuary containing what appeared to be crushed skeletal remains. The ossuary was marked with the following Hebrew inscription:

פתי של האחד באפריל

It was clear that the remains of whoever was inside this container, were of great importance to the Christians of first century Alhmar Dhryh. Scientists took the bones away for chemical and genetic analysis and were astounded to discover that the remains were not human but in fact belonged to a species of Middle Eastern donkey. Subsequent carbon dating tests have confirmed that the donkey would have been alive some time in the first half of the 1st century AD.

It is thought that the church was abandoned and fell into disuse shortly before the Romans put down the Jewish Revolt.

The chief archaeologist Prof. Ol Ali explained in a press conference on Thursday: "Remarkably, the nature, location and dating of these finds puts them tantalisingly close to the Gospel account of Jesus Christ entering Jerusalem in the first century BCE. Could it be that early Christians held reverence for the beast that carried their master into Jerusalem? Perhaps... I don't know. For many people, tactile contact alters our perception of things. Touch can connect you to an object in a very personal way, make it seem more real. Perhaps having been touched by the Christ, the donkey became elevated in a way we can scarcely imagine happening today and was regarded as an object of worship."

Did early Christians feel a special connection to the donkey that carried Christ?

The release of these auspicious findings, timed almost perfectly to coincide with Palm Sunday (the festival which Christians commemorate Jesus' triumphant entry into Jerusalem), are sure to leave experts scratching their heads for many years.

Perhaps Jesus knew more than he was letting on when he chastised the Pharisees for silencing the crowds on that day:

“I tell you,” he replied, “if they keep quiet, the stones will cry out.”

Luke 19:40

After all... isn't making stones cry out unspoken history what archaeology is all about?