Have you ever wondered why Luke starts his list of "Sermon on the Mount" blessings by saying "Blessed are the poor..." whereas Matthew (describing a similar time of teaching by Jesus) reports "Blessed are the poor in spirit"?
Tomorrow morning's sermon, at 8am in the morning (yes...8AM! Arghh!) tackles the differences between these accounts.
To read the sermon, PLEASE CLICK HERE
And do let me know what you think!
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
You Are What You Eat
I heard a little throw-away item on the News this morning, which intrigued me greatly. It was a survey of the most popular books to be borrowed from our public libraries. 10 years ago, the most popular non-fiction book was Stephen Hawkins' "A Brief History of Time". Now, it is "You are What You Eat".
As a snapshot of modern society (and little more than that, I agree) I find this a worrying report. No doubt we should all pay more attention to our diet (and perhaps our appearance). But I think there may be some deeper forces at work here.
At first glance, this rather dramatic change in our reading preferences indicates that we are replacing our human instinct for discovery (and for looking beyond ourselves) with a much more individual-centred way of thinking and being. We are, I suggest, in danger of becoming totally inward-looking. We place, it seems, increasing emphasis on our personal health and appearance - and have stopped looking outward. We are taking responsibility for our health and well being (which is a good thing no doubt) but at the same time ceasing to rely on God.
Belief in God, or even a non-theistic but still philosophical outlook, helps us to move beyond self, and into community.
Surely that is better than an inward focused, self-centred existence?
As a snapshot of modern society (and little more than that, I agree) I find this a worrying report. No doubt we should all pay more attention to our diet (and perhaps our appearance). But I think there may be some deeper forces at work here.
At first glance, this rather dramatic change in our reading preferences indicates that we are replacing our human instinct for discovery (and for looking beyond ourselves) with a much more individual-centred way of thinking and being. We are, I suggest, in danger of becoming totally inward-looking. We place, it seems, increasing emphasis on our personal health and appearance - and have stopped looking outward. We are taking responsibility for our health and well being (which is a good thing no doubt) but at the same time ceasing to rely on God.
Belief in God, or even a non-theistic but still philosophical outlook, helps us to move beyond self, and into community.
Surely that is better than an inward focused, self-centred existence?
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
A New Car - what a decision!
We ordered a new car today. It's been one of the more difficult decisions we've had to make in a long time. On one hand, how does one justify owning a new car when two thirds of the world is starving? On the other hand, I have need of a reliable car in order to fulfil my ministry. (It would be all but impossible, for example, to travel to meetings around the diocese, and to my regular commitment at Portsmouth College, without such transport.)
There is a large part of me that wishes I lived in a part of the world where I could travel by foot, bike, or unreliable public transport to just one meeting per day...a part of the world, in other words, where such slow progress was the norm (and where one would have many more hours for thought and prayer). But that is not the world I live in.
Tomorrow, for example, I will take a school assembly, in Emsworth. Then I will hack over to Clanfield, just in time for a tutorial for my degree course. I will dash back home for a quick bite of lunch, before going on down to our Church for our monthly 'meesy church'. After nipping home for tea, the evening already includes one funeral visit...and a return home to check the emails, open the post, and get to work on Sunday evening's sermon....which is already running late.
I'm not complaining...a enjoy life that is lived to the max. However, I am, I suppose, justifying to myself that to live this kind of lifestyle I need a vehicle that I can rely on - and which won't eat up my time in getting quotes and arranging repairs - and throwing me unexpected repair bills. My current car, which has been a faithful servant for the last 2 and a half years, is starting to need such attention (tyres, brakes and exhaust are all nearing the end of their useful lives). The new (smaller) car, on the other hand, has all new parts, a full warranty, and a set monthly cost.
So, I've made a decision - I've gone for reliability and financial dependability over the lottery of owning an increasing aging car.
But I suppose the fact I am blogging about this shows that I don't feel entirely easy about the decision. There's no doubt that there is an element of luxury about my new toy.
Those of us who have enough money to be able to afford choices have to make tough ones all the time. How much to give? How much to use? The balance between need and pleasure. Decisions, decisions, decisions....
...and none of them is easy.
There is a large part of me that wishes I lived in a part of the world where I could travel by foot, bike, or unreliable public transport to just one meeting per day...a part of the world, in other words, where such slow progress was the norm (and where one would have many more hours for thought and prayer). But that is not the world I live in.
Tomorrow, for example, I will take a school assembly, in Emsworth. Then I will hack over to Clanfield, just in time for a tutorial for my degree course. I will dash back home for a quick bite of lunch, before going on down to our Church for our monthly 'meesy church'. After nipping home for tea, the evening already includes one funeral visit...and a return home to check the emails, open the post, and get to work on Sunday evening's sermon....which is already running late.
I'm not complaining...a enjoy life that is lived to the max. However, I am, I suppose, justifying to myself that to live this kind of lifestyle I need a vehicle that I can rely on - and which won't eat up my time in getting quotes and arranging repairs - and throwing me unexpected repair bills. My current car, which has been a faithful servant for the last 2 and a half years, is starting to need such attention (tyres, brakes and exhaust are all nearing the end of their useful lives). The new (smaller) car, on the other hand, has all new parts, a full warranty, and a set monthly cost.
So, I've made a decision - I've gone for reliability and financial dependability over the lottery of owning an increasing aging car.
But I suppose the fact I am blogging about this shows that I don't feel entirely easy about the decision. There's no doubt that there is an element of luxury about my new toy.
Those of us who have enough money to be able to afford choices have to make tough ones all the time. How much to give? How much to use? The balance between need and pleasure. Decisions, decisions, decisions....
...and none of them is easy.
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
Why didn't Jesus write it down?!
Recently, during a seminar at Portsmouth College (where I am Chaplain) a student asked a most intelligent question. "Why" he asked, "didn't Jesus write any of his teaching down? It would have made it so much easier to know what the truth is".
I don't know what the religious background of that particular student is, but many of our students are Muslims - who regard the Qur'an as the very words of God - transmitted directly, and without human interpretation, directly through Muhammed. This is somewhat in contrast to the belief of most Christians who (rightly I think) regard the Bible as a collection of books which were inspired by God, but most definitely written by human hands. (There are of course some Christians who have a more 'dictated' view of the Bible...but that's a topic for another day.)
So why didn't Jesus write his teachings down? The stories we do have of him, in the Gospels, certainly indicate that he could read...and even if he could not write, he could have quite easily dictated his message. Why didn't he?
Perhaps Jesus realised that if he were to write his teaching down, it would quickly become the source of arguments between people of passionate view-points. Human language is such a limited medium...it is so often unable to carry the shades of meaning that a speaker wishes to convey. (I know of what I speak after many sermons!)
Perhaps Jesus wanted to leave enough space between his spoken words for the Holy Spirit to be able to do the job of interpretation...at a much deeper level than words alone can penetrate. Perhaps that is why he spoke so often in parables too: parables are fictional stories which contain truth...truth which can speak to our hearts not our heads.
Well...it's a theory. Have you got a better one? Click on the 'comments' link below to share it!
I don't know what the religious background of that particular student is, but many of our students are Muslims - who regard the Qur'an as the very words of God - transmitted directly, and without human interpretation, directly through Muhammed. This is somewhat in contrast to the belief of most Christians who (rightly I think) regard the Bible as a collection of books which were inspired by God, but most definitely written by human hands. (There are of course some Christians who have a more 'dictated' view of the Bible...but that's a topic for another day.)
So why didn't Jesus write his teachings down? The stories we do have of him, in the Gospels, certainly indicate that he could read...and even if he could not write, he could have quite easily dictated his message. Why didn't he?
Perhaps Jesus realised that if he were to write his teaching down, it would quickly become the source of arguments between people of passionate view-points. Human language is such a limited medium...it is so often unable to carry the shades of meaning that a speaker wishes to convey. (I know of what I speak after many sermons!)
Perhaps Jesus wanted to leave enough space between his spoken words for the Holy Spirit to be able to do the job of interpretation...at a much deeper level than words alone can penetrate. Perhaps that is why he spoke so often in parables too: parables are fictional stories which contain truth...truth which can speak to our hearts not our heads.
Well...it's a theory. Have you got a better one? Click on the 'comments' link below to share it!
Monday, February 05, 2007
Avian Flu Madness
I wonder if you, like me, are getting rather tired of the coverage being given to the outbreak of avian flu. Last night's BBC news devoted over 10 mins of its coverage, including having reporters on the scene, and long interviews with locals. One interview I saw was critical of Defra for (I quote more or less) "not providing enough information on what was going for people who don't have cable TV". In other words, this local was complaining to the nation about the vitally important fact that Defra had not, apparently, put leaflets through everyone's door. However, they pointed out, Defra was otherwise doing a very good job. (Well that's alright then).
Another reporter, was stationed outside a rendering plant to give us the up-to-date, vital information that a lorry full of carcasses had arrived about 15 minutes before, gone through some paper-work, and then entered the plant. Riveting stuff...I was on the edge of my seat!
In the meantime, in the real world, dozens of people have drowned, and 200,000 have lost their homes in Indonesian floods. 150 people were killed with a lorry-bomb in Iraq. The forests of Chile are on fire. And President Bush has submitted a $1.5 trillion dollar budget which includes $700bn of new military spending.
I am immensely frustrated at the 'Little Islander' mentality of the BBC over this bird flu outbreak. A bug was found, the birds have been culled. No-one is at risk. Good job, Defra. Now please can we move on?
Another reporter, was stationed outside a rendering plant to give us the up-to-date, vital information that a lorry full of carcasses had arrived about 15 minutes before, gone through some paper-work, and then entered the plant. Riveting stuff...I was on the edge of my seat!
In the meantime, in the real world, dozens of people have drowned, and 200,000 have lost their homes in Indonesian floods. 150 people were killed with a lorry-bomb in Iraq. The forests of Chile are on fire. And President Bush has submitted a $1.5 trillion dollar budget which includes $700bn of new military spending.
I am immensely frustrated at the 'Little Islander' mentality of the BBC over this bird flu outbreak. A bug was found, the birds have been culled. No-one is at risk. Good job, Defra. Now please can we move on?
Thursday, February 01, 2007
Things Jesus Never Said
"Accept Me As Your Personal Lord and Saviour"
Some years ago, an American missionary came to England and started to do some street evangelism in one of our shopping centres. People tried to walk around him, embarrassed - and pretended they couldn’t hear what he was saying. Eventually he managed to stop an elderly woman, and then he politely asked her, “Excuse me Madam - but have you accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Saviour”
The elderly woman looked up at him with deep loathing in her eyes, and said, “I should certainly hope not...I’m Church of England!”
I wonder if you’ve ever been accosted by someone who has asked you that question? It’s a very personal question...and almost seems designed to make one feel uncomfortable. We don’t really know what it means do we? And for those of you who are not Christians, I expect it makes you feel a bit excluded...as though there were Christians who have a little mini-Jesus inside them...something that the rest of the world doesn’t have.
It sounds a bit like - “Is Jesus your personal shopper?” Or, “is Jesus your best mate?”.
Well, what I want to do today is give you some theological weapons to use the next time some happy smiling "Jesus-freak" asks you whether Jesus is your personal Lord and Saviour - or whether you have accepted him into your heart.
-----------------
That's been the opening lines of a seminar I'm delivering tomorrow at Portsmouth College. Want to read more...then please CLICK HERE
Enjoy.
Some years ago, an American missionary came to England and started to do some street evangelism in one of our shopping centres. People tried to walk around him, embarrassed - and pretended they couldn’t hear what he was saying. Eventually he managed to stop an elderly woman, and then he politely asked her, “Excuse me Madam - but have you accepted Jesus into your heart as your personal Lord and Saviour”
The elderly woman looked up at him with deep loathing in her eyes, and said, “I should certainly hope not...I’m Church of England!”
I wonder if you’ve ever been accosted by someone who has asked you that question? It’s a very personal question...and almost seems designed to make one feel uncomfortable. We don’t really know what it means do we? And for those of you who are not Christians, I expect it makes you feel a bit excluded...as though there were Christians who have a little mini-Jesus inside them...something that the rest of the world doesn’t have.
It sounds a bit like - “Is Jesus your personal shopper?” Or, “is Jesus your best mate?”.
Well, what I want to do today is give you some theological weapons to use the next time some happy smiling "Jesus-freak" asks you whether Jesus is your personal Lord and Saviour - or whether you have accepted him into your heart.
-----------------
That's been the opening lines of a seminar I'm delivering tomorrow at Portsmouth College. Want to read more...then please CLICK HERE
Enjoy.
Philosopher's Book Club Part One
We held our first 'Philosopher's Book Club' last night. Five egg-heads and one confused curate (me!) did our best to tackle Plato.
I quite enjoyed it actually. If you've read my sermon of last Sunday (posted on Saturday) you'll know already that I rather like Plato's analogy of a Cave. (You'll have to read the sermon to know what I'm talking about). But more generally, I've enjoyed dipping my toe into the shallows of the great ocean of philosophy.
The word philosophy essentially means "love of wisdom"...and one of its prime functions is to make me think...to question everything that we usually take for granted, hold it up to the light of reason, and see whether it makes sense.
Of course, understanding God isn't always achieved simply through reason. In his first letter to the Corinthian church, (chapter 1), Paul described the Gospel as 'foolishness'...and rhetorically demands, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?" He goes on to say that "the world in its foolishness did not know Him" (referring to God). In a very telling phrase, Paul then goes on to state flatly that "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom".
The Gospel can, in fact, look foolish when you consider it from afar.
We have a heavenly king who was born in a stable.
We have a king who rides on a donkey.
We have a Lord who was nailed to a cross.
By his death, we have life.
In Paul's words, "God has made foolish the wisdom of the world".
Here is another delicious Christian irony, which should have an impact on the way we live our lives: "in his service, is perfect freedom". Jesus is the only master who promises his servants that by serving him they will find freedom.
There is, of course, much in philosophy that can aid us in living better lives as well. Plato believed that justice, knowledge and happiness were bound up in a virtuous circle.
Not a bad target to strive for!
I quite enjoyed it actually. If you've read my sermon of last Sunday (posted on Saturday) you'll know already that I rather like Plato's analogy of a Cave. (You'll have to read the sermon to know what I'm talking about). But more generally, I've enjoyed dipping my toe into the shallows of the great ocean of philosophy.
The word philosophy essentially means "love of wisdom"...and one of its prime functions is to make me think...to question everything that we usually take for granted, hold it up to the light of reason, and see whether it makes sense.
Of course, understanding God isn't always achieved simply through reason. In his first letter to the Corinthian church, (chapter 1), Paul described the Gospel as 'foolishness'...and rhetorically demands, "Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age?" He goes on to say that "the world in its foolishness did not know Him" (referring to God). In a very telling phrase, Paul then goes on to state flatly that "the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom".
The Gospel can, in fact, look foolish when you consider it from afar.
We have a heavenly king who was born in a stable.
We have a king who rides on a donkey.
We have a Lord who was nailed to a cross.
By his death, we have life.
In Paul's words, "God has made foolish the wisdom of the world".
Here is another delicious Christian irony, which should have an impact on the way we live our lives: "in his service, is perfect freedom". Jesus is the only master who promises his servants that by serving him they will find freedom.
There is, of course, much in philosophy that can aid us in living better lives as well. Plato believed that justice, knowledge and happiness were bound up in a virtuous circle.
Not a bad target to strive for!
Saturday, January 27, 2007
And the Greatest of These is Love...
I wonder how many times you've heard a sermon, at a wedding, preached on the subject of 1 Corinthians 13? It's a very popular passage!
If you fancy having a think about that chapter in a non-wedding context, tomorrow's sermon does just that. To read it CLICK HERE
If you fancy having a think about that chapter in a non-wedding context, tomorrow's sermon does just that. To read it CLICK HERE
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Catholic Adoption Agency Row
The Issue? The Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York have weighed into a debate between the Government and the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is fighting for an exemption to new anti-discrimination legislation which would force Catholic adoption agencies to place children for adoption with lesbian and gay couples. If they don't get their way, they are threatening to close those agencies.
The Problem. Once again I am going to studiously avoid making a statement one way or the other on the gay issue in general. This is not moral cowardice on my part - but a result of a genuine search for truth in my own mind...and a desire to listen to voices on all sides of the debate.
The Archbishops have argued - as I understand it - that to force Catholic adoption agencies to act outside their moral frame of reference is a form of discrimination against Christians. In other words, they seem to be arguing, we should not force Christians to act against their moral convictions.
What a very difficult dilemma! Self-evidently if would be wrong to force a Christian to murder (against his moral conviction). But in matters as finely balanced as the question of homosexuality...I can't help but wonder.
Christ's example (as I have learned from Rowan Williams - the very same Archbishop of Canterbury, in case you don't know) was one of utter self-emptying, and a refusal to stand up against his oppressors. I have on my book shelf a lent course written by Williams some years ago, on the way that Jesus is presented to us by the Gospels. In analysing Mark's account, Williams makes the point that the only time that Jesus was willing to admit to the title of 'Messiah' or 'Christ' was when he was at his lowest ebb, and most powerless - in front of the Temple Court. Jesus' example was one of not asserting his rights; and not resisting the oppression of the state. The result? By the Holy Spirit, the growth of God's good news across the face of the planet.
These things are finely balanced though. It was right of Christians to lead the campaign against the slave trade, 200 years ago. It is right for Christians to be at the forefront of campaigns for the release of world poverty.
The difficulty arises when Christians move their attention from standing up for the rights of others not to be oppressed, and begin to stand up for their rights to believe certain things (in this case, that Gay and Lesbian couples who want children are 'sinful' and should not be allowed). That's a fundamental shift - and one that I am, frankly worried about.
Of course, supporters of the Catholic church's stance will say that they are standing up for the right of children to be brought up in a 'normal' home, and 'as God intended'. The trouble is, if we follow that line, the logical extension is that we have to begin to define what is 'normal'. If, for example, a heterosexual couple adopt a child, and then one of the couple dies...should we take away the child from the remaining parent on the basis that theirs is no longer a 'normal' home?
I once knew a lesbian couple who had developed a relationship after the divorce of one of the pair. She brought her two children into the new relationship. I was naive enough, then, to ask how they felt about the lack of a male presence in the children's life. They told me that the children's father had been a wife and child-beater, and a chronic alcoholic who would not confront his problem. They told me that one of the reasons they brought the children to the YMCA (where I then worked) was precisely because they wanted the children to have contact with positive male role models.
I had to ask myself - which of the two situations the children had lived in was the better. The answer was obvious.
Ours is a messy world...and in many ways it is as much of a mess now as it was when Jesus walked among us. But his response to the mess was not to impose his own morality...but to tell people the good news of a better way...and leave them to make their own choice.
I have, in theory, no problem with Christians advancing their views about how we should live. But accepting that even among Christians there is no 'common moral stance' on a lot of issues (like homosexuality) - should we perhaps avoid forcing our views on others (by, for example, threatening to close our adoption agencies if we don't get our way)?
I'm dithering on this one...does anyone want to help me out with an opinion? Click on the comments button below to progress the debate!
The Problem. Once again I am going to studiously avoid making a statement one way or the other on the gay issue in general. This is not moral cowardice on my part - but a result of a genuine search for truth in my own mind...and a desire to listen to voices on all sides of the debate.
The Archbishops have argued - as I understand it - that to force Catholic adoption agencies to act outside their moral frame of reference is a form of discrimination against Christians. In other words, they seem to be arguing, we should not force Christians to act against their moral convictions.
What a very difficult dilemma! Self-evidently if would be wrong to force a Christian to murder (against his moral conviction). But in matters as finely balanced as the question of homosexuality...I can't help but wonder.
Christ's example (as I have learned from Rowan Williams - the very same Archbishop of Canterbury, in case you don't know) was one of utter self-emptying, and a refusal to stand up against his oppressors. I have on my book shelf a lent course written by Williams some years ago, on the way that Jesus is presented to us by the Gospels. In analysing Mark's account, Williams makes the point that the only time that Jesus was willing to admit to the title of 'Messiah' or 'Christ' was when he was at his lowest ebb, and most powerless - in front of the Temple Court. Jesus' example was one of not asserting his rights; and not resisting the oppression of the state. The result? By the Holy Spirit, the growth of God's good news across the face of the planet.
These things are finely balanced though. It was right of Christians to lead the campaign against the slave trade, 200 years ago. It is right for Christians to be at the forefront of campaigns for the release of world poverty.
The difficulty arises when Christians move their attention from standing up for the rights of others not to be oppressed, and begin to stand up for their rights to believe certain things (in this case, that Gay and Lesbian couples who want children are 'sinful' and should not be allowed). That's a fundamental shift - and one that I am, frankly worried about.
Of course, supporters of the Catholic church's stance will say that they are standing up for the right of children to be brought up in a 'normal' home, and 'as God intended'. The trouble is, if we follow that line, the logical extension is that we have to begin to define what is 'normal'. If, for example, a heterosexual couple adopt a child, and then one of the couple dies...should we take away the child from the remaining parent on the basis that theirs is no longer a 'normal' home?
I once knew a lesbian couple who had developed a relationship after the divorce of one of the pair. She brought her two children into the new relationship. I was naive enough, then, to ask how they felt about the lack of a male presence in the children's life. They told me that the children's father had been a wife and child-beater, and a chronic alcoholic who would not confront his problem. They told me that one of the reasons they brought the children to the YMCA (where I then worked) was precisely because they wanted the children to have contact with positive male role models.
I had to ask myself - which of the two situations the children had lived in was the better. The answer was obvious.
Ours is a messy world...and in many ways it is as much of a mess now as it was when Jesus walked among us. But his response to the mess was not to impose his own morality...but to tell people the good news of a better way...and leave them to make their own choice.
I have, in theory, no problem with Christians advancing their views about how we should live. But accepting that even among Christians there is no 'common moral stance' on a lot of issues (like homosexuality) - should we perhaps avoid forcing our views on others (by, for example, threatening to close our adoption agencies if we don't get our way)?
I'm dithering on this one...does anyone want to help me out with an opinion? Click on the comments button below to progress the debate!
Monday, January 22, 2007
Jesus' Purpose
There's a lovely image, in Luke chapter 4, of Jesus returning to his home town of Nazareth...and doing the Bible reading. After that, he preaches about what he has read...and nearly gets thrown off a cliff for it.
Read all about it HERE in the words of yesterday's sermon.
Enjoy!
Read all about it HERE in the words of yesterday's sermon.
Enjoy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)