What is the more?

Collecting Thoughts...

2007-04-17T21:56:00.000+01:00

An age has passed with really no comments on this blog. Well, no more! I have resurrected it! Ok, I know Mr Workman has posted sporadically over the last , um six(?) months, lol, but I claim the credit here as he has failed to :)

I was reading over some of our posts from this time last year - from when we started the blog and those first few months of writing and I came to this realisation - more than a year on I can say that, whilst a lot of changes have occurred in my life and I know in the lives of all of us, regarding faith and life in general, I don't know if I can say I have 'moved on' from a lot of these questions and discussions that we had a year previous. Is this a good thing or a negative thing? I have read a lot more on what being a follower of Jesus looks like in our emerging/postmodern society and experienced a lot through actively being a follower of Jesus, by living my day to day life and also through the course I have been doing with Vineyard (VIA), which has been an experience and a half...!, but have my thoughts moved along with all of this? In some cases I would have to say yes, in others, perhaps not...

The question is - how much does this actually matter? No, we will never answer all our questions or indeed find satisfaction most of the time with what we DO come across, but will we only make ourselves weary going over the same ground, or is there a need to keep coming back to the things which we feel need discussing, if only to verify where we are in 'the journey'?

I really thought that I would post A LOT this year, what with undertaking the discipleship year with the church, but I have found that busyness of life has somehow got in the way of this...The relationships I have developed with the rest of the VIA team however and living with two of the main commenters of this blog may have contributed to this!

Anyway, what is my point...?

This time last year, one of the issues being discussed was about trying to figure out what God wants you to do with your life, how to know if the choices you make are the 'right ones' or not and whether it really matters as such, as God can guide you into making the best out of whatever situation you may find yourself in (and indeed, guide you out of it if needs be). This is something I definitely spend a lot (ok, too much!) time thinking about. I always seem to find myself having to make difficult choices and sometimes both seem pretty good to me, which makes the decision-making process all the more difficult! So...what is the solution? I do find that usually, in some way or the other, God places people in my path to speak to me or my situation eventually changes (but only at the last minute..!) I know that I have to make my own choices in life - God doesn't force us to do anything, but sometimes, wouldn't it be easier if He did?! He gives us grace for when we make mistakes, supports us through friendships and people who have more life experience and wisdom than ourselves and is just simply always there for us when we need Him - if we only have the sense to ask for His help and guidance.

Ok, I think I may be going off on a tangent here (old habits die hard :) ), but this is an outlet for throwing out ideas and discussing things which are important/interesting which we have all forgotten about and it's time we started using it again! On a calmer note, lets get back to grappling with 'the more' - I know we're all still thinking these things, but are we communicating them?

In the words of Rob Bell - the painting is not yet finished...

PS Question: Define love. Godly love, human love, whatever. What do people think this is? How do they recognise it?

This question came from a program I was watching the other night. The character made a reference to it (I can't actually remember what that was, but it lead to a few of us discussing it).

Getting on with it

2007-01-26T23:51:00.000Z

Long time, no posts. Life is busy, what can I say.

I've been thinking recently about this whole thing of the simplicity of the gospel. It's amazing how much I and others haev made it out to be. Here are some ideas which have been buzzing about my head.

"Love God, Love others" as the basis of the kingdom of God.

In a book I'm reading (The History of Christianity), there is much discussion about the early/ancient church leaders and teachers and the debates they had over biblical canon, statements of faith, combating heresies etc. But in amongst it all, there is one chapter on the ordinary folks. They weren't so concerned with all the big ideas, but rather just trusting in God, and being happy in the hope of an increasing freedom (the coming kingdom of God versus the opression of the Roman Empire).

The house group I go to is brilliant. I don't have a lot in common with the folks that go there, but it's just so real. No-one there is pretending to have it all sorted, or even claim that they can. But they're all just relying on God. It, life, doesn't make sense a lot of the time, and there are hurts and whatnot, but God is there and there's hope for change trusting in Him.

Taking part in the great stage-play that is God's creation. I've recently read (here and here) this idea that the bible is like the first four acts of a five act play and we're the fifth act. It brings in the authority of the Bible (God's word), while allowing freedom of expression. Love it, love it, love it.

And finally, a posting from a new blog from an old friend (from Primary School, nonetheless!!). Worship = change. Simple. Read the article.

So, there you go. My problem in all this is that I'm still not spending time "in God's presence", or "resting in Him". I know the simplicity of it, but I'm not doing it. Messing about with the words and the thoughts is much too easy, rather than confront the reality.

Thoughts on building

2006-11-25T12:53:00.000Z

I've been reading through Luke again recently. I love Luke. I love the way he asks you to check your heart as you're reading it. I read it a couple of years ago and I would have said then that the big questions he asked was "Where is your heart?". I think he's trying to get us to hear that question from Jesus, from his teaching and from the things he did in life.
If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you'll also know that I've been asking a lot of questions to try and get to the core of what being a Christian is all about. So far I've been circling around "Love God, love others" - Velvet Elvis (Rob Bell) and a re-reading of 1 and 2 Corinthians spurred that on. So, when I'm reading Luke this morning, at a similar message of love comes up again, you can imagine the little neurons in my brain firing off again. It's something to sit up straight for and re-read.
So, Luke tells the story of Jesus choosing the 12 apostles (Peter to Judas), and then sitting down with all the disciples (a bigger group of all the people following him at this time, including the twelve), and teaching them. He starts by encouraging those who have nothing (the poor, the sick etc.) and berating those who have it all (the rich, the popular etc.). Then he goes on to tell them to love their enemies, not just those people who love them back; to give to those who can't pay them back; in short to love people for free, like giving presents just because. Only not just presents, actually doing things to help people. So, I suppose this relates to the rich and poor people, in that the rich people should be using their stuff to love others in this way. Isn't it a warning to them to get their shit together and start doing it?
Luke goes on. He tells how Jesus continued to teach them about their hearts, how what their hearts are like is how they will act. So, when he's talking about love, isn't he saying that love comes from the heart?
And then comes the surprise. Well, it's not so much a surprise as something I hadn't seen before. Jesus tells them the story of the two builders. One man builds on rock and his house stays standing. The other builds his house on sand and it falls down. It's a no-brainer really. When you walk on the beach your feet sink into the sand and leave footprints. A house has no hope. Jesus says the same thing happens with his teaching - it's like a rock to build your life on. Previously, I got this confused. When he said "teaching", I thought he meant a big list of rules and regulations and all that. It stressed me and felt heavy. I didn't feel light or free or even able to do it at all. When I read it again this morning, that rock screamed out love. "It's about love!! It's about loving others!!! When you're following Jesus you'll be loving others!! If you're loving others, you're following Jesus!!"
Let me clarify one thing, though. I still don't think I can do this on my own, but it's just so much simpler, and moves the focus from me to others. It's not about me making myself perfect by following the dos and don'ts. It's just about loving others and making a difference. In many ways it's a damn-sight harder, and probably even more impossible, but there's just something more free about being told you can and should make a difference. I don't have to be perfect and have myself sorted before I can do that. I can start now. If Jesus says that living life this way is like building a house on rock, then surely that's a good thing, and something that will last. Like dying with no regrets; living a life based on loving God and loving others could mean dying with no regrets. Otherwise, I have some sand and a house that's going to fall down.
Love God, love others. I joke with my friends here that my new mantra is "I don't give a toss" - the mantra of a new kind of Christian. It's a joke, have no fear, but I'm being a bit honest when I mean I'm kind of fed up with having to have it all so perfect and please other people. Stress, heaviness, depression. Being serious, a more suitable motto could be "love God, love others". Simplicity. A good solid rock to build on.

I met him

2006-11-15T14:51:00.000Z

yep that was it I met Rob Bell yesterday in person and had a nice conversation. I was so excited and couldnt wait to hear him speak. He was in Belfast for like 2 hours and then flew to england but im tellin you it was worth it.
I think the thing that excites me is that i see it working. He is a normal guy devoted to God devoted to his calling and it works. He wants to make a dfference and he does. What he is doing energizes me and encourages me to take it further to go for it.

But how do I make it happen? (by "it" I mean how do I live this life to the full)
Most of the time I am just not true to what I know is right and compromise or I am surrounded by people who just dont get it and that frustrates me.
LIVING WHAT I DISCOVER TO BE TRUE is hard. Its change, its pain, its confusion, its leaving people behind, its being real.
Will I ever ge there?
my friend has this song: "No more waisting time, the days are nearly over, the groom is quickly coming. He greets us with a kiss and says you have been choosen for such a time as this. I choose to follow you, forsaking all I know and taking up my cross. And if I die I die to find my life in you, Lord this is my cry!"
I will fall. I will make mistakes. But I will not give up!

Interdependence or family?

2006-09-28T01:12:00.000+01:00

I've been reading a book about marriage recently; the first couple of chapters have been examining research which supports marriage as opposed to singleness, co-habitation, single parents, divorce etc. The book suggests that since there are so many benefits for the individual which in turn benefit society, that it should be encouraged at governmental level as a preventative measure against society's darker aspects. I started thinking this morning how that ties into the whole idea of the individual in community thing that I was talking about. It made me think about the importance of focusing on supporting families in churches, but at the same time, it makes me wonder how we can include singles, divorcees etc. into churches and make them feel not just welcome but that they belong, that people like them. Because too often I feel like the focus is on getting you married off, rather than casting the vision of what families are about or living out so-called 'family values' in the community setting. Or perhaps it's a case of me liking my independence too much and not appreciating being paired off (at the same time, I totally succumb to it, and struggle against feeling of less worth because I'm single, and trying to find worth by seeking a partner). I don't know - what are your thoughts on it?

Elemental

2006-09-18T22:08:00.000+01:00

As we continue on in this, which I hope we will, I'm thinking this is something to bear in mind. That as we strip back all that surrounds our understanding of God, we don't form a new structure to take His place, but instead earnestly seek Him and revelation of Him (not just about Him), in our everyday lives. We need the real thing, the source, the core, the elemental, the essence."

Quote from a comment of mine on the last post.

So, tell me, dear reader, how do you find the real thing? What does the elemental God look like in your life? Pictures, experiences, books, music, people, knowledge, emotions - bring it all and let's see.

What is the need?

2006-09-06T16:18:00.000+01:00

Discuss.

ID

2006-08-30T02:29:00.000+01:00

Excerpt from another email...

"Had lunch yesterday with a guy from church who also works at Cisco. Ended up talking about faith and stuff (surprise!) and he was talking about how he's been spending the last couple of years trying to figure out Gods love in his life with respect to loving himself. Not the self-help kind of love, but more along the lines of trying to understand grace in the areas of our lives that we don't particularly like. He ended up suggesting two things - that grace and love abounds for these areas no matter that they change or not (think Paul's statement about doing what he didn't want to do etc. in Romans), and that when we don't like these areas, or feel ashamed, that we end up looking for good feelings to cover it up, hence addictions, or addictive habits.

"The way I see it is like me and God facing each other, and there's all this stuff around us which is my life. But everywhere I look I see pain and mess and hurt and problems caused by things that I've done, or motives I've had which have corrupted the good stuff he's given me. Yet, when I turn to him I see goodness and love and hands that will not corrupt or bring impurity, but hands that will fix and mend the mistakes I've made and continue to make. All the stuff around me can never take me where I need to be, and can never be something by which I should be known. What I have to be known by is God, and the effect on things he has through me. I can't see it clearly yet, but I want it to be that when I look around I can see things and people where God has worked through me. All the other stuff is what other people see, and is how they define me, and how they make their judgments about whether I'm cool enough or not, or whether I'm succesful enough or not. And in turn it's how I end up seeing myself, because if I'm good and successful with these things, then people will like and appreciate me. If, however, I'm just working with God, then it's painful because I have to let all the other stuff go, and I have to put to death the need/desire to have them, and mourn it, and just cling to him. "

To Write Love on Her Arms

2006-08-15T23:22:00.000+01:00

Wow. I'm amazed at the compassion that moves people to try and make a difference in the face of hopelessness. Check out his link to a blog article which has started a mini-movement in the US. It's the first I've heard of it today, but there is some of "the more" in it.

You can also find them on myspace at myspace.com/towriteloveonherarms.

Freeforming

2006-08-15T06:01:00.000+01:00

"I'm afraid of putting the audience in a mood, before they decide what their mood should be."
The cinematographer from Capote, quoting the director.

This is a bit of a backstep to a previous article. How possible is it to communicate without emotion? Is that what is meant here? The message in the screenplay, the message in the acting, the offering of words and movement is a presentation. The intention, given this statement, is not to control or manipulate, but to release the ideas, the thoughts and let them be received.

Is it that the reaction and the mood induced in the individual is unimportant? No. What is important is that they are free to begin to formulate their own expression. From this, dialogue becomes rich and interwoven with deep personal experience.

"I don't know" as the mantra of a Christian then becomes more than humility before God, but acknowledgment before others that life is not simply black and white. It is not a cry to abandon knowledge and the search for the "Deeper Magic" (Lewis, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe), but rather it is an honest invitation to adventure as a community.

Weird Emails from above?

2006-08-14T21:15:00.000+01:00

Here's an email I received from a friend recently about the need to question our faith.

"Have you read ['The Call of The Weird'] book by Louis Theroux?
Well worth having a look at - interesting from a belief/certainty in belief point of view.
It struck me that rather than consider our own Christian belief, certainties, doubts etc. it is perhaps easier to examine other folk who have fairly extreme views and learn from that?

In chapter 1 Theroux is talking to a guy who believes he can channel the thoughts of an alien in a different dimension - this is one of Theroux conclusions:

'It seemed obvious that anyone would doubt his own sanity if called upon by unseen voices to announce himself as the bearer of a message from another dimension. But Bob felt that merely to entertain the possibility of fraudulence was self-sabotaging and dangerous. I suppose, if I had been looking for evidence of bad faith, I'd found it here, in his defensiveness. It suggested a fragility on Bob's part that he wasn't more open to scepticism.'

I think a lot of Christain's are like Bob - so afraid to be open to difficult questions and doubt because they feel it could undermine their belief (of course many are not like this, but there is still a lesson here). There is also something to ponder here on the issue of a Christain repeating 'what God has told them'."

Wrestling for a name

2006-08-11T16:51:00.000+01:00

Another excerpt from a recent email...

"It's one of those wrestling things I've been realising/had revealed to me recently. I'm gonna risk going off on one here, and coming across completely ego-centric. For me, it means that although everything I touch messes up (panic not, I'm not having low self-esteem issues; I'm just being real about the fact that perfection is unobtainable, and being human I mess up all the time, at some level), that there is still me and God. At the same time, the whole labels thing, having to be certain types of people, all the stuff we were talking about before I left (remember the music maestro analogy [here and here), has to just fall to the wayside. Because at the end of the day, there is nothing good enough that I do, nothing good enough that I am by which I can be labeled. I am not Stephen the powerpoint guy, or Stephen the teacher, or Stephen the counselor (I wish), or Stephen the super model (there are bloke super models aren't there?), or even Stephen the super-Christian. Or even Stephen the guy that's a good friend to be with - being human, I am going to hurt people at some point. When it comes down to it, there is me and there is God. His love for me, a wretch, to quote Amazing Grace. Unless I'm living there, letting my identity be in that, then I'm gonna get side-tracked and my ego is gonna be fed on stuff it shouldn't be, and will swell up bigger than it should be. Success in humility."

God is speaking!

2006-07-29T15:36:00.000+01:00

I'm reading a Book "Power through prayer" by E.M.Bounds cant help but post the first chapter. its powerful guys. I love it! God i challenging me on it so much! Here ya go:

Men of Prayer Needed

Study universal holiness of life. Your whole usefulness depends on this, for your sermons last but an hour or two; your life preaches all the week. If Satan can only make a covetous minister a lover of praise, of pleasure, of good eating, he has ruined your ministry. Give yourself to prayer, and get your texts, your thoughts, your words from God. Luther spent his best three hours in prayer. -- Robert Murray McCheyne

WE are constantly on a stretch, if not on a strain, to devise new methods, new plans, new organizations to advance the Church and secure enlargement and efficiency for the gospel. This trend of the day has a tendency to lose sight of the man or sink the man in the plan or organization. God's plan is to make much of the man, far more of him than of anything else. Men are God's method. The Church is looking for better methods; God is looking for better men. "There was a man sent from God whose name was John." The dispensation that heralded and prepared the way for Christ was bound up in that man John. "Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given." The world's salvation comes out of that cradled Son. When Paul appeals to the personal character of the men who rooted the gospel in the world, he solves the mystery of their success. The glory and efficiency of the gospel is staked on the men who proclaim it. When God declares that "the eyes of the Lord run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to show himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him," he declares the necessity of men and his dependence on them as a channel through which to exert his power upon the world. This vital, urgent truth is one that this age of machinery is apt to forget. The forgetting of it is as baneful on the work of God as would be the striking of the sun from his sphere. Darkness, confusion, and death would ensue.

What the Church needs to-day is not more machinery or better, not new organizations or more and novel methods, but men whom the Holy Ghost can use -- men of prayer, men mighty in prayer. The Holy Ghost does not flow through methods, but through men. He does not come on machinery, but on men. He does not anoint plans, but men -- men of prayer.

An eminent historian has said that the accidents of personal character have more to do with the revolutions of nations than either philosophic historians or democratic politicians will allow. This truth has its application in full to the gospel of Christ, the character and conduct of the followers of Christ -- Christianize the world, transfigure nations and individuals. Of the preachers of the gospel it is eminently true.

The character as well as the fortunes of the gospel is committed to the preacher. He makes or mars the message from God to man. The preacher is the golden pipe through which the divine oil flows. The pipe must not only be golden, but open and flawless, that the oil may have a full, unhindered, unwasted flow.

The man makes the preacher. God must make the man. The messenger is, if possible, more than the message. The preacher is more than the sermon. The preacher makes the sermon. As the life-giving milk from the mother's bosom is but the mother's life, so all the preacher says is tinctured, impregnated by what the preacher is. The treasure is in earthen vessels, and the taste of the vessel impregnates and may discolor. The man, the whole man, lies behind the sermon. Preaching is not the performance of an hour. It is the outflow of a life. It takes twenty years to make a sermon, because it takes twenty years to make the man. The true sermon is a thing of life. The sermon grows because the man grows. The sermon is forceful because the man is forceful. The sermon is holy because the man is holy. The sermon is full of the divine unction because the man is full of the divine unction.

Paul termed it "My gospel;" not that he had degraded it by his personal eccentricities or diverted it by selfish appropriation, but the gospel was put into the heart and lifeblood of the man Paul, as a personal trust to be executed by his Pauline traits, to be set aflame and empowered by the fiery energy of his fiery soul. Paul's sermons -- what were they? Where are they? Skeletons, scattered fragments, afloat on the sea of inspiration! But the man Paul, greater than his sermons, lives forever, in full form, feature and stature, with his molding hand on the Church. The preaching is but a voice. The voice in silence dies, the text is forgotten, the sermon fades from memory; the preacher lives.

The sermon cannot rise in its life-giving forces above the man. Dead men give out dead sermons, and dead sermons kill. Everything depends on the spiritual character of the preacher. Under the Jewish dispensation the high priest had inscribed in jeweled letters on a golden frontlet: "Holiness to the Lord." So every preacher in Christ's ministry must be molded into and mastered by this same holy motto. It is a crying shame for the Christian ministry to fall lower in holiness of character and holiness of aim than the Jewish priesthood. Jonathan Edwards said: "I went on with my eager pursuit after more holiness and conformity to Christ. The heaven I desired was a heaven of holiness." The gospel of Christ does not move by popular waves. It has no self-propagating power. It moves as the men who have charge of it move. The preacher must impersonate the gospel. Its divine, most distinctive features must be embodied in him. The constraining power of love must be in the preacher as a projecting, eccentric, an all-commanding, self-oblivious force. The energy of self-denial must be his being, his heart and blood and bones. He must go forth as a man among men, clothed with humility, abiding in meekness, wise as a serpent, harmless as a dove; the bonds of a servant with the spirit of a king, a king in high, royal, in dependent bearing, with the simplicity and sweetness of a child. The preacher must throw himself, with all the abandon of a perfect, self-emptying faith and a self-consuming zeal, into his work for the salvation of men. Hearty, heroic, compassionate, fearless martyrs must the men be who take hold of and shape a generation for God. If they be timid time servers, place seekers, if they be men pleasers or men fearers, if their faith has a weak hold on God or his Word, if their denial be broken by any phase of self or the world, they cannot take hold of the Church nor the world for God.

The preacher's sharpest and strongest preaching should be to himself. His most difficult, delicate, laborious, and thorough work must be with himself. The training of the twelve was the great, difficult, and enduring work of Christ. Preachers are not sermon makers, but men makers and saint makers, and he only is well-trained for this business who has made himself a man and a saint. It is not great talents nor great learning nor great preachers that God needs, but men great in holiness, great in faith, great in love, great in fidelity, great for God -- men always preaching by holy sermons in the pulpit, by holy lives out of it. These can mold a generation for God.

After this order, the early Christians were formed. Men they were of solid mold, preachers after the heavenly type -- heroic, stalwart, soldierly, saintly. Preaching with them meant self-denying, self-crucifying, serious, toilsome, martyr business. They applied themselves to it in a way that told on their generation, and formed in its womb a generation yet unborn for God. The preaching man is to be the praying man. Prayer is the preacher's mightiest weapon. An almighty force in itself, it gives life and force to all.

The real sermon is made in the closet. The man -- God's man -- is made in the closet. His life and his profoundest convictions were born in his secret communion with God. The burdened and tearful agony of his spirit, his weightiest and sweetest messages were got when alone with God. Prayer makes the man; prayer makes the preacher; prayer makes the pastor.

The pulpit of this day is weak in praying. The pride of learning is against the dependent humility of prayer. Prayer is with the pulpit too often only official -- a performance for the routine of service. Prayer is not to the modern pulpit the mighty force it was in Paul's life or Paul's ministry. Every preacher who does not make prayer a mighty factor in his own life and ministry is weak as a factor in God's work and is powerless to project God's cause in this world

Lessons on Pyramids

2006-07-27T07:42:00.000+01:00

Is church the ultimate pyramid scheme?

A colleague from work invited me to a business meeting this week; a venture he is involved in, where a few hundred people meet regularly to focus on developing their corporate business. A charismatic entrepreneur led the event, and presented us with a path to develop a better lifestyle based on financial gain. Current members brought guests to the event who might be interested and they/we were evangelised with the good news of this wonderful way to happiness and security. Community is the basis for this business venture, where peers support each other and sponsors provide wisdom and energy for those who wish to improve. The aim is to grow the company by adding new members, and in turn grow the profits and ultimately the lifestyles of those involved.

In this meeting I was wary of manipulation and crowd management techniques - key people placed in the audience to raise excitement; buzz words to raise hope and downcasting to shun cautiousness or doubt. Forgetting the control aspect, the very goal of the team is to make money, which is proposed to bring happiness and contentment and freedom from the constraints of life.

How is this different from church? How often have there been church services where music and drama and clever speech are used to move the crowd towards joining up? Where signing the dotted line has become paramount, are the methods used any different to those of a typical pyramid scheme? Have we become a people who prey on those who need help with promises of fulfillment and healing and salvation if they'll just cross over the line? Our aim may be to bring real freedom, and truth and reality and grace to the world, but has the goal of increasing numbers taken over? Do we find our happiness and success measured by the number of new faces and new converts in the seats around us on Sunday morning? Or are we moved and exhilerated by lives that have been and continue to change and grow? Do we see hearts being healed, wounds with bandaids, the world around us changing, and the good news being good news?

Ultimately, the question is what have we to offer that doesn't need to be wrapped up in shiny paper and ribbons to be offered to the world? What is truly ours that is uniquely and directly from our Father in heaven?

lost without emails

2006-07-20T16:02:00.000+01:00

hey guys!

Just to let you know that I'm still alive! Arrived in Germany and can't cope with the heat... but don't worry I get used to it! :-) i forgot to take all my email addresses with me so unless you guys write me I cant write you.
(sorry lovely people but my english is suffering my german surrounding)

Anyway I just discovered that my absolute favourite clothes shop (H&M ... for those who still don't know....) is using children in the making of the clothes. Isn't it time to make a statement?

Reconnecting with God

2006-07-17T19:58:00.000+01:00

When you hear the word 'religion', what words immediately spring to mind? Don't think about it - just list them in your head. Some of mine would probably have included: 'organisation', 'old', 'serious', 'liturgy' and so on. Not overly exciting really.

I wonder if anyone (other than those who have read 'A New Kind of Christian'!), came up with 'reconnecting'?

I'm not sure if this is a surprise to anyone, but it was to me. When I previously thought of 'religion', the usual stereotypical ideas generally came into my head, but when I apply this meaning to the word (which is apparently its' original), it suddenly takes on a whole new and much more exciting meaning. It implies an active relationship - reconnnecting with God - and no longer has such static connotations.

Perceptions and understandings change. Mine just did. Is it for the worse? I don't think so.

Reading Brian McLarens' 'A New Kind of Christain' recently has been quite refreshing. He is on a parr with Rob Bell and talks through lots of interesting and relevant issues surrrounding faith today. We are in a stage of metamorphosis he claims, and I happen to agree with him.

I want to mention a question Magda posed a few months ago - 'Is my God the same as your God?' Obviously we all believe in the one God, but my 'mental picture' of who and how He is may well differ from yours, just as my idea of happiness could be different from yours. But that doesn't mean my idea is wrong does it? Just because it makes me happy to read lots of books and then write reams of stuff on the blog when perhaps you prefer shopping, doesn't mean that I'll be any more or less happy than you, because I think my concept of the word is somehow 'better'. It simply means I have an alternative perspective on how this translates, which may or may not match someone elses'.

In the same way, how we think of God can elicit varying viewpoints and opinions. One view isn't better than the other - it's simply different. And this doesn't mean that it's wrong.

The question is though - what causes each one of us to have a potentially different view of God in the first place?

I think B.McLaren offers a good response to this. Culture. The era we live and grow up in and our own personal experience of this era, is bound to effect how we approach and think of things, including God. And with every era generally comes new ways of thinking. McLaren describes how for eg what would have defined someone as a christian centuries ago would not allow for any of us today to be spared from the stake really, as we no longer 'fit the mould' for what this previously meant. We have progressed and moved on and continue to do so, as books like this one demonstrate. There comes a point when it feels necessary to reassess things according to where we are now and to 'move with the times', for want of a better phrase. And I agree with McLaren that this means for us to do this before we become stagnant and set in our ways and stop passionalety seeking God.

It's about moving forward, making mistakes, but constantly weaving more threads into the tapestry, incorporating more instruments into the orchestra, in order to bring us just that bit closer to God.

God

2006-07-06T17:03:00.000+01:00

I've thought about it. I've deliberated. And I've wrestled. And He's called me back to Himself.

I love the search, as anyone who reads this blog knows. I am empassioned by the glimpses of heaven and of God and His character which appear both as a overwhelming starburst and a flicker which leaves you craving for more. And in amongst this I've intellectualised, and meditated and philosophised, and I've met with God in new ways, stripping back tradition and culture and simplifying what I know about him. An attempt to move back to First Principles.

The Fact of all facts, as CS Lewis writes in Mere Christianity. I wrote in the last entry that I am wary of the phrase Core Truths. I still am, because I fear what people call Core Truths to be cultural baggage which brings weight and depression rather than freedom. At the end of the day, however, He is THE Core Truth. It is in knowing Him that we find ourselves - the facts, the figures, the theology, the learning are merely pointers to the ulitmate knowledge.

In my search for God I have to remind myself that He is already here, while being out there. I have to bring my mental faculties together and imagine myself with Him, because in some supernatural and mysterious way, He is. And He wants me, not all my clever thoughts and wise theories. Just me. And I need Him; not all the libraries in the world can bring me that. In a way, I have to surrender to Him, and let Him be present in the way He wishes. I am Stephen, He is God - submission is part of the deal, it simply cannot work any other way. I am dependent on His love, on Him lowering Himself to meet me. I am dependent on Jesus having come to earth and being Human for this to work. The glimpses can tell me about that, but they can't deliver themselves.

Liquorice Allsorts

2006-06-22T03:02:00.000+01:00

I want to write a bit from CS Lewis tonight. I've started reading Mere Christianity and I think it's fantastic. It's amazing to think that the ideas (or at least some of them) which are in Brian McLaren's books are already present in the writings of Lewis, and were present in his own head all those years ago. This is part of his journey. This is his reasoning, his wrestling and where it took him. Thank God for men like this, who weren't scared to tell others, to be humble and admit they struggled with the “accepted” knowledge. Thank God that they were able to pass it on.

What struck me tonight was the passage on the cross from Book II, chapter 4. I shall quote:

“It is obvious that Christians think the chief point of the story lies there. They think the main thing He came to earth to do was to suffer and be killed.”

“Theories about Christ's death are not Christianity: they are explanations about how it works.”

“What they [scientists] do when they want to explain the atom, or something of that sort, is to give you a description out of which you can make a mental picture. But then they warn you that this picture is not what the scientists actually believe. What the scientists believe is a mathematical formula. The pictures are there only to help you understand the formula. ... They are only meant to help, and if they do not help, you can drop them.”

Breath of fresh air or what! If analogies of Christ's death and resurrection do not help you, don't stress that you don't get it; just drop them and try another. The main thing is He died and rose again; the why is only something we can guess. Conversely, these theories cannot become the main thing – they are there to help us understand, but nothing more; they cannot become the belief themselves, but pointers to the true mystery.

So, Christ's death and resurrection show us perfect submission to God. They show us that the lifestyle that Christ taught cannot be overcome by death – we have hope. They pay the punishment for our sins, for our rebellion. They show us ultimate love for others. I'm sure there are loads of other theories, in fact Brian McLaren writes about five or six of them in “The Story We Find Ourselves In”. Like Lewis says, however, the theories are not the important thing. They are they to help explain Jesus' death and resurrection and our salvation through them.

Perhaps taking this into consideration, we should strive to bear with one another in love, respect our different and unique personalities and allow God's love to become alive to us simply the way it does. There is something deeper and more amazing about the cross which we just don't understand. Yet, we have glimpses, as if seeing different scatterings of light through a diamond, which show us a small part of what it's about.

This is hard teaching. How do you accept what someone else sees when you cannot see it yourself? How can you be ok with someone else's explanation of the cross if it doesn't resonate with yours? “Core truths” is an ugly phrase that I do not like, because it can be used and abused to remove flexibility and diversity. I suppose one could start with the point that the discussion is not whether He died and rose again and saved us for a better life, but why? And from there we can play with our theories and allow them to bring us to a place where we can grasp a small amount of our salvation.

What is important about all this? What is important is the fact that these different theories point to the same thing. They don't cover it 100%, but they can help to describe it. Like Rob Bell talking about his “Velvet Elvis” painting, they are different interpretations of the same thing, and they help to capture it, but they cannot capture it definitively. At least, this far in history they have not captured it completely. And we need to continue looking at these interpretations and coming up with new ones, not just for ourselves, but also for the mixed bag of candy that is the rest of the human race.

Holding on

2006-06-22T03:01:00.000+01:00

So this journey started with thinking about the bigness of God – the “more” – seeing how small I am beside Him. Looking at the God outside the box – “Contact”, Carl Sagan – I mean, how amazing, how awesome, how fear-worthy He is. And the bible and the cross are part of that, and they're so rich and full of meaning and mystery at the same time. Jesus died for us. To teach us by example. To pay a price for us. To take God's wrath. To face death and defeat it so we might live. To face murder and defeat it to pave the way for the kingdom, for goodness. To show ultimate love. More, more, more. And I don't understand it all. I don't get it completely. What I get is that God is big – and even though He's big and I'm small and unworthy and burn with pain at my own insignificance and selfishness and lacking, He loves me. He reveals Himself to me. He gives me glimpses of heaven, glimpses of the kingdom. And I am more awed than ever. This is why I will hold on. I do go it alone, and I mess up. This is not something that I will one day stop doing, this is part of being human – we're not God, but a lot of the time we think we are. But He still reaches out and picks us up. Our times are in His hands, quite literally – the creator of space and time, and the fabric that makes space and time, and the sparks that form ideas, He is in control, He is conducting, He is writing, He is composing. I can do nothing else but hold on. I will never understand, but I will still hold on.

I don't know

2006-06-03T18:55:00.000+01:00

Perhaps this is the mantra of a new kind of Christian. Knowledge follows study and research, and traditional methods, in every area of life, will tell you that you can understand something fully by this steady dissection. But experience teaches us different. One day the theory of relativity is the hottest thing around, and the next is Stephen Hawking's theories on black holes and quantum mechanics. One day a man says that there won't be a need for more than a dozen computers around the world, and the next they have become integrated in every area of life. One day a man says that the authority of the church on earth is the Pope, the next another man says it's the bible. We are constantly moving forward in our understanding, and along the way we can lose things and then perhaps recapture them later on, creating a constantly growing, very organic faith. Aware of this, we must have the humility to say "I don't know", for we can never fully or concretely know anything.

In Velvet Elvis, Rob Bell recalls the story of the apostles and early church leaders deciding what to do with the Gentiles, i.e. the non-Jewish people of 1st Century middle east. The argument was this, "Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Debate ensued, and both sides argued their points, coming from the positions of understanding the Jewish law and knowing the experience of these new Gentile Christians. "After much discussion", they sent a letter to the rest of the church, telling them that "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" that they shouldn't be burdened with extra requirements, beyond abstaining from food sacrificed to idols, blood, the meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality - just a few "core" things. No definites - "it seemed good". Rob Bell, in the audio version of the book, becomes quite animated at this stage, in the face of this vagueness and ambiguity. They cannot state for sure that this is what God wants. No-one is arguing that Gentiles cannot become Christians, but they are debating what they should be doing or not doing as the case may be. And yet, somehow, they are able to live in this "unknowing" state.

Brian McClaren, in "The Last Word, and The Word After That", begins a long discourse on Hell and our understanding of judgment and justice. He starts with the question of a graceful, merciful, loving God who, in our traditional, accepted view, sends everyone to hell to be burned forever. Throw in the fact that Hell in the New Testament is different to the place of the dead in the old. How does this all fit? Progressive revelation - did Jesus reveal some new truths to us? But isn't that a bit universalistic, opening the door for more revelation nowadays? And where does Hades, a Greek idea, fit in a Christian message? At the start of his journey to explore these questions, the main character, a church pastor, comes to the point of acknowledging his lack of knowledge. In a culture where knowledge is power and we speak of the information era and education for all, he reluctantly admits that he doesn't know.

I'm only part way through the book, so I don't have any more to offer about Hell, but I can offer those three simple, yet powerful words. Like a friend of mine said recently, we're just not God and that's all there is about it. We can never know fully know all of these mysteries. At each stage there is someone who comes along with a fresh viewpoint which may challenge or question what we know and bring the need to re-evaluate, forcing us to come back to God, and humbly admit we don't have all the answers and need him. "God, I just don't know, but you do. Help me."

To Being Unique

2006-05-22T15:16:00.000+01:00

Ok, this may not be profound (is it ever?!), but I have some time to spare and we really need more stuff on this blog, so I'm just going to share some thoughts about what we've been talking about recently!

I have been thinking again how amazing it is that we all have such personal and unique relationships with God. We all have a connection with Him in different ways - through reading, music, nature..., yet somehow this works and is meaningful and pleasing to God. He wants us all to be individuals and use our interests and passions in the best way we can - to make the most of them and enjoy what He has given us, and subsequently, worship Him in the process. As Alan was saying in the sermon on Sunday, we should do what it is we are best able to do - for Moses in the time of battle, as an old man, he was best able to help by meeting with God on the mountain, as opoposed to going in to fight at the ripe old age of 80(ish), where he would have been of little help! In the same way, there is no point in us trying to worship or connect with God in a way in which we are unsuited or find uncomfortable - this would almost be false and would give pleasure neither to us or more importantly, to God. We need to be individual in how we meet with God I think, and thus connect with Him on a more personal level. He made us all different on purpose - we all have unique qualities and personalities, so why should we all be expected to make like Stepford Wives and turn into clones when it comes to something as important as worshipping God and being with Him?! This is not at all to say that we forget the Bible and read it less, but in becoming closer to God on a personal level, we need to experience Him in what 'gets us' the most, because I believe that the reason certain things do click with us, is because God has tuned us into these things and wants us to experience His love through them. Meeting with God on the beach or in the pages of a book give us glimpses of God which are unique to each of us. It is not a substitute for the Bible or what this provides us with, but it is different in that whilst the Bible lets us experience how God worked in the past with other people, how this changed their lives and can change ours, how we can apply this to our lives today etc, meeting with Him outside of the Bible, brings that experience to the here and now in a more literal way.

I have always wondered how, even though God is omnipotent, He can be so personal with us and give each person so much of His time to develop a close relationship with Him. Ok, He's everywhere, but millions of people may be talking to Him at the same time - how can He really give undivided attention to each person? This brings up the question of time and what this concept is to God and how this may, or more likely may not, tally with what our concept of time is. It has been suggested that at the time of creation, the seven days in which God created the earth may not have indeed been seven days consisting of 24 hours - the time frame may in fact have been different - one day may have been thousands of years, or it could have been the 24 hour day. Who are we to question that God couldn't create such things in a normal week? (I'm not!) But, the thing is, He may not have - there is always the possibility that it was during a longer period of time. After all, time hasn't always represented what it does now.

I have of course been reading something recently, which, yes, happened to address all of this! (It 'may' have been C.S. Lewis...I'm not really obsessed with him, at all!) Anyway, he writes very insightfully about God and everything and was saying that the reason God is able to connect with each of us on a personal level is because He is not actually within time, or what we consider 'proper time' at any rate. I like what he was saying - i.e., that to God, all time is in the present. The example which Lewis gives is that if time is a straight line along which we travel, then God is the whole page on which the line is drawn. God contains the whole line and sees it all. He also suggests that God does not 'forsee' us doing things - He doesn't know what we will do tomorrow, He simply 'sees' us doing things, and the moment at which we do these things, is already 'now' for Him. This of course ties in with the whole idea of free will - if God knew what we were going to do tomorrow before we actually did it, then it eliminates the idea that we possess free will. This way however, God merely 'sees' us make our own choices, which is what we know He ahs given us the freedom to do - to choose our own path in life - with or without Him in it. It is slightly mind boggling, but then, that is God all over!

There is so much more I could write now that I've got started again, but I don't want to unwittingly repeat what's already been said, so, enough for now.

As Joanne would probably say - God is good, He loves us all as individuals - what more do we need to say?

Lets see if, with all our different harmonies, we can create a melody which delights the conductor and not worry if, now and again, someone plays a wrong note.

(Too far?)

The Truth Is Out There?...

2006-05-04T08:38:00.000+01:00

'Worldview' - "the grid through which one views the world around him...fluid, always in flux...neither right or wrong".

Quote:

"If our worldview is informed by the Bible (which we believe is truth), it's necessary that we agree with other worldviews because they could not exist if they didn't account for at least some of the truth. Put another way: the Bible agrees with the way things are. Other w'views must also agree to some extent with the way things are, or else they would be alien to our lives and our culture. To a point, a proper christian w'view should be comfortable around other worldviews, even find areas of agreement with which to make a connection.

As christains, we need to abandon the concept that we are right and everyone else is wrong. It simply is not true and it drives a wedgebetween us and those whom Christ has sent us. We need to be able to find areas of agreement with other w'views and also be open to where another point of view can inform ours....The real judge of w'view: it's not whether it is right or wrong, but whether it is true to the way the world is."

When I read this, I thought - how can we believe that it's 'necessary' to agree with other worldviews? Obviously we can't agree with evertthimg, as this would be contradictory, but if everything that people believe is based on a fundamental truth, or is derived from some sort of truth, then is this article saying then,, how can we not?! What is 'truth' to one person is not necessarily truth to another - Rob Bell says - "To be a christian is to claim truth wherever you find it" - therefore, yes, we should be open to other peoples' worldviews and we mauy look for and find truth in them - this we can then claim. However, I may not find what I call 'truth' in a worldview where my friend does - what happens then? Is there a right or wrong situation here? The suggestion is that there isn't. The view is simply stating a truth. You may agree or disagree - it'll still be what it is. A philosopher {Arthur Holmes} stated "All truth is Gods' truth", i.e. everything comes from God. But who defines truth? How do we know what comes from God?

C.S. Lewis discusses the idea of 'The Law of Human Nature' in his book 'Mere Christianity'. He suggests that innately, we all have a sense of what is 'right' or 'wrong' - i.e. people just 'know' what decent behaviour is meant to be like without being taught about it. This is also mentioned by Rob Bell, who writes how people who don't know anything about God are still able to do the 'right thing' on a regular basis.

Lewis' example of the war illustrates this point, and taken in the context of what I'm jabbering on about, I see it like this: the Nazis (for eg), had a warped worldview, but they had one nonetheless. This worldview, being what it is, has to have an element of truth in it somewhere, or else it would be alien to our culture, right? So, what is this truth? Where is the good and the holy? Is truth actually always 'good' and ' holy' ? Bad truth is still truth after all. What can we as christians claim here? (Is this actually making any sense to anyone?!)

Well, as Lewis points out, our 'truth' is found in the 'Law of Human Nature' - if there is no such thing, then what was the point of fighting at all? Is the 'good' then in the Nazis' worldview, the fact that by fighting against what our culture believed and held true, they were in fact reinforcing its' truth and subsequently defining right and wrong in this extreme way? i.e. is the truth here, the idea that a Law of Nature does exist? Is this what we are being taught about the world? That we have in our hearts a 'law' which governs what we do, be it for the good or the bad, the right or the wrong?

Can we find truth in some form at the root of everything? Should we look for it, or should we have the idea that some things are devoid of any truth? I know I may be coming across as a complete Nazi myself here (I assure you 100% I am not!), but the extremity of this example surely makes the suggestion that even in what we may dismiss as totally warped and polluted worldviews, there is the possibility of tapping into something more, something which teaches us about the world, explains to us how things are - tells us a truth. Truth can depict 'right' i.e the law of nature, or 'wrong'; we can like it or not.

Paul says to "test everything and hold onto the good."

Rob Bell says "Truth is everywhere, and it is available to everyone."

Lewis says we have the 'Law of Human Nature' to help us with this.

I say - time out!!

When all is said and done, if we bring everything back to the Bible, it will show/lead us to the truth and keep us on the straight and narrow. It is, after all, truth itself.

So - what you may ask, was the point of all this rambling?! simply, things I've been reading recently have all seemed to coincide with each other and although in my head this should have stayed, I thought I'd fry all your brains as well as my own!

P.S. Traditionally, 'truth' was simply 'given' via the church, the Bible, the teachers. Modern Enlightenment led to truth having the potential to be discovered and sought out by anyone (with or without faith), as there was now the means to investigate itfor oneself.

Postmodernism says truth "is a mirage" - everything is relative and subjective. Quantum physics incorporates uncertainty and relativity. This is accepted in our culture. It is hard to rephrase something which is said well to start with, so yet again I quote:

"If two seemingly contradictory things can be true even in physics, then the assumption goes, we should expect the rest of life to be full of paradoxes. This has a strong impact on faith."

P.P.S. Does anyone think I should just stop reading books?!

Ideas on Dust

2006-04-25T17:31:00.000+01:00

I have just finished reading the "His Dark Materials" trilogy by Philip Pullman. Amazing. What can I say? - this guy can write.

I have so much to say about it, and not enough time at the moment, but here are a few thoughts which may appear in future blogs...

Pullman's church and heavenly kingdom in the books are controlling empires, set up by false authorities, yet he leaves the door open (very slightly) for a true God of the multiverse. Although I don't agree that the church is a sham, and a front for a system of control (read previous article on the Matrix Reloaded), this may say something about the perception (and localised realities) of the church in our culture. For more on "God outside the box", I recomment "Contact", by Carl Sagan, and "The Cosmic Trilogy", by CS Lewis.

Right and wrong are confused ideas in the book. When I was lent the trilogy, my friend told me that I would be lost throughout the novels as to who was actually on the right side or not. This is in quite a contrast to my understanding of other fantasy stories ("Lord of the Rings" by Tolkien, Narnia, and "The Cosmic Trilogy" by CS Lewis, even "The Stand" by Stephen King), where although the characters are not presented as wholly good, there are on the right side. So, is this characteristic of a change in culture? I've heard this related to our view of war, where we were completely "in the right" during World Wars I and II, but controversy is very much present surrounding the Iraq war. Right and wrong may be subjective quantities in the books, yet personal sacrifice and selflessness are still exalted as noble acts.

That's all I have time for at the moment. More will undoubtedly follow. Comments, questions, please.

When is Disobedience Obedience?

2006-04-03T10:30:00.000+01:00

We all know that God wants us to obey Him. This is evident from the very first book in the Bible. If we obey God, we will experience true joy and reap our rewards in Heaven. Everyone knows of the ten commandments, of the law of the Old Testament, the new law in Jesus - to love God with all your heart, mind and strength and to love your neighbour as you love yourself. People throughout history, in the Bible, in the present, and those in the future, have all, at some point or another, struggled with obeying God, are struggling to obey Him and will continue to struggle to do so. Why? Because it's not always easy to do what God seemingly desires you to do. It can stretch you, irritate you, baffle you. On the other hand, it can also amaze you, delight you and bring great joy into your life. Either way, we usually know, when a choice is to be made, or when something significant happens in our lives, that Gods' will for us at that particular moment is the way to go. Whether we choose to obey His will or not is immaterial. At least we usually have a feeling of what we think He wants us to do - it's our decision then as to whether we decide to do it.

So, that's clear then. We either obey God and do what He wants us to do and in the long run end up experiencing great joy and Gods' love, or we disobey and don't get any of this. Right?

Well...

Just to throw a spanner in the works, lets consider for a moment the following extracts:

"The wrong kind of obeying itself can be a disobeying...There might be a commanding which he wished you to break".

This suggests the possibility that sometimes we may be meant to disobey God in order to learn/experience what He really wants us to. [Question: But how are we meant to know when to disobey or obey if this is the case?! And surely if we disobey, we're following our own will and not Gods'? (Or is it His will that we follow our own will sometimes?!)] Regarding the former part of this quote (and in the context of the book), it suggests that obeying God and waiting for Him to always direct us can be a bad thing too - should we 'feel our own way' as God may want us to then? (i.e. when He feels distant), rather than 'disobey His will' and wait for Him to lead us in times when He really wants us to lead ourselves?

So what is true obedience? Quote:

"I think He made one law of that kind in order that there might be obedience. In all these other matters what you call obeying Him is but doing what seems good in your eyes also. Is love content with that? You do them, indeed, because they are His will, but not only because they are His will. Where can you taste the joy of obeying unless He bids you to do something for which His bidding is the only reason?"

So, is true obedience obeying God because it is His will? For no other reason - not because we'll get something out of obeying Him or feel good. True obedience = obeying God simply because He wants us to. Therefore, is it only through true obedience that we can experience true joy? By obeying God purely based on our love for Him, and not by reasons regarding why we should obey (other than that we know He wants it), we are showing love to God and in return, will experience His love. I.e. Obeying God because we love Him and for no other reason = Gods' love for us.

It's easy to obey God when it coincides with what we also want i.e. when it 'falls into our plans'. But to obey God when this isn't the case, when His will seems completely cut off from what we want, is much more difficult - it is a true test of our faith, of our love for God, if we can obey Him when we can't see the immediate benefit of it for our lives. But, by doing so, we will be rewarded with Gods' love and true joy in our lives.

So. Can good come from 'disobedience'? Is it better to learn from our mistakes sometimes than to simply obey God first time around? Does God want us to always consistently obey Him? If life is a test, are there certain situations in which we are meant to 'disobey' in order to learn more, to move on? Is it too straight-forward to presume that God desires us to do everything He asks of us? If this is the case, then surely we would find it somewhat easier, in a way, to obey Him when certain of His command? I.e. If we know it's what God wants us to do and that He'll be pleased with us, why wouldn't we do whatever it was, no matter how hard?

Can 'disobeying God' sometimes still be obeying Him, but in a less obvious way? If it's Gods' will that we disobey in certain situations, then aren't we still being obedient? I know I got all these ideas from a book I'm reading, but it poses some pretty interesting questions. I'm not saying I think it's right, that we have to disobey God, but what if?...

Point to ponder.

"There's no 'Catch - 22'".

2006-03-22T13:34:00.000Z

We're told we're all shaped for Gods' purpose, that we all do this in our own individual ways, that we all have something to give. But life can sometimes feel like a 'Catch 22' - that is, the more you do, the more it seems is expected of you the next time and the next and so on. On the other hand, if God doesn't stretch us, how can we expect to grow?

With God I don't think there is a 'Catch - 22' - I don't think He wants us to overstretch ourselves - He simply wants us to explore all of our abilities and use them in as many ways as we can to glorify Him. There is always a need to do more and we sometimes find that the more we discover about ourselves and the more things we discover we can actually do, the more we end up trying to do, which isn't always a good thing.

This week we're looking at how we are shaped to serve God and how to use our abilities for the best. (The question is, how can we be sure that we really are?) Jesus says that "Anyone who begins to plough a field but keeps looking back is of no use in the Kingdom of God" and in Ecclesiastes it states that "those who wait for perfect weather will never plant seeds". So the idea is to look forward right? Keep going and don't wait for everything to fall perfectly into place before taking action in your life. There is a quote by Eleanor Roosevelt which says that "You must do the thing you think you cannot do". I think this sums up what God means for us as well. How do you know if you are good at something if you never try it? And if you don't try, then you just may be missing out on using a gift from God you never knew you had. Do what you think you cannot.

I have another question to throw out. There is a statement (can't think where I got it from!), which suggests that choice is "an illusion - created between those who have power and those who don't". I used to actually think there was an element of truth in this. I mean, if God, the one with the power, has already planned out our lives, then surely we have no real choices to make? That it's all pre-determined? However, I have now come to the conclusion that yes, although God has plans for our lives, it is ultimately up to us whether or not we choose to accept them. There is always a choice. Opportunities will arise in our lives which will help us achieve what God wants us to achieve and we may or may not recognise or choose to take them. The question is - will we always recognise a situation for what it is when it happens and if we don't, then will we be given the chance to make the same choice again in the future having missed out first time round? i.e. do we get a second shot at it?

These are some things I have been thinking from reading various books etc this week - it may or may not make any sense.

(Rambling over!)

More Anyone? part two

2006-03-14T11:56:00.000Z

The second part of the Matrix article is now up at AICN.

Check it out here.

The author is looking at the third film, The Matrix Revolutions, which I thought was the worst of the three and somewhat of a letdown, given the promise of II. Nonetheless, I am interested to hear what he has to say about the questions posed by the first one. I haven't read this yet myself - I find myself without the time at present - but please read on and comment.

Have fun!

More, anyone?

2006-03-10T11:21:00.000Z

Check out this review article on the Matrix Reloaded (number two in the trilogy). Since we're all looking at purpose at the moment, and this film deals with purpose and choice (albeit in the midst of many unnecessary and digressing scenes), it would be good to hear your thoughts on the ideas put forward.

For me, it essentially came down to the question of the reality of my faith. Neo has discovered a new world where he has purpose, but in Reloaded he is confronted with the possibility that it is another form of control; he is nothing more than a hamster in a cage, put there to manipulate and control the other hamsters. This rocked my world. Is this the same for what I believe(d)? I'm not suggesting some sort of global conspiracy, but it made me ask some pretty difficult questions.

Why are we "saved"? What has brought us to this moment? What maintains our beliefs?

Are we blindly listening to what we're told in church and relying on that teaching without questioning it? Is it something that is "our own", thoughts and ideas and wisdom which we have heard and then worked through ourselves? Are we living the cliche because that's just what you do, or is it real?

So, what are you waiting for? Let's wrestle!

[PS: The article takes a good 30 mins to read, so leave enough for it AND a comment.]

'Velvet Elvis' - enough said.

2006-03-07T10:25:00.000Z

This book is simply amazing - everyone must read it!! On a slightly calmer note (!), as we are currently discussing 'the more' to life, this book is ideal to read, as it takes this thought a step further and really delves into what it means to be a christian today, how we need to keep asking questions and "keep reforming the way christian faith is defined, lived and explained". It suggests that this life is really not the last painting. (Read the book if you don't know what this means!)

As a christain who really wants to know more and more about God, this is good to hear - that God in fact wants us to question Him and not "mindlessly accept" whatever comes our way. It means, to me, that when things happen, even seemingly mundane or unexciting things, we should question, 'Why has this happened?'; 'What is Gods' reason for this to occur in my life?' and ' What can I learn from it?' By questionning God, (which even Jesus did on the cross), we can become closer to Him and whilst we may end up with simply more questions, this surely just means that there's more that God wants us to learn - the journey is never over so to speak.

I think I may be going over old ground here, as I have probably mentioned this all before, but it does no harm to remind ourselves of this fact.

What I really intended writing about (yea, I am now getting to my actual point!), is that little thing called eternal life. To me, this is a major 'grappling issue' - the mind boggles at the enormity of what these two words mean for us (well mine does anyway). I have to admit that I have always found the idea of eternal life ever so slightly difficult to comprehend. How can it be that our life on earth, which seems to us a fairly lengthy amount of time while we're on it, is only a fraction, if even, of the life we will have when we are with God in eternity? This is very hard to comprehend, as we can only imagine what must be in store for us after our human lives are finished and no-one can really grasp eternity, as we haven't experienced it yet.

Anyway, I diverge. I have now even more to contend with on this issue, as what I never really considered before was the idea that for Jesus, eternal life wasn't something for us to 'look forward' to - it starts now. Of course, I know that how we live and act now affects how we will live in our eternal life, but I never actually grasped the fact that as we live now as christains, we are already living out our eternal life - we are there already, and as Rob Bell is saying, what we do now, how we live, will determine whether or not heaven comes to earth. How we start to live our lives as christians, a life of love for God and others, seemingly is the beginning of our eternal lives, and by living like this, we are bringing heaven here to earth, ready for God to come down and 'take up residence'. We aren't going to 'escape' from earth into our eternal life - we won't just be cut off from earth. Therefore, we need to make this earth a better place to live in now , so heaven, not hell, can reign.

This is fairly deep stuff I know (well, for me it is anyway!). But it's just something which hit me as I was reading...well, I think you know what I was reading! Anyway, to me, eternal life was always something separate from life here on earth - it was something better, something unattainable from earth, which could only be received through being a 'good christain' while you were on earth. What I'm really saying is, if we are currently living out our eternal lives, if we have in fact already begun that stage of our lives, then what we do now is even more important than ever before, i.e. loving others, worshipping God etc, and all that entails. We know we will be judged with regards to how we've lived our earthly lives, but if heaven is a continuation of this, then it is quite simply up to us how great that is going to be; how it will turn out. I always imagined heaven as somewhere completely set apart from earth - the childhood simplistic idea that it was almost some mystical place where all traces of earth and earthly lives no longer existed, where everyone who loves God would meet together finally and so on. I believed that no matter what state earth was in when we left it, heaven would be so much better - it would be perfect. But, if the state of heaven is left up to us, that is another thing altogether. It means we have to be so much more pro-active now and not just think - 'well, it doesn't matter so much if such and such happens - it'll be alright in heaven'. (I know I may be completely off course here by the way, but these are all ideas that are flying around in my head!)

Something which has just come to mind is what Stephen mentioned when he was talking about the 'heavenlies' in his book. One of them tells the main character that earthly things are "pointers to heaven" - so our love on earth for example, leads on in heaven, only in a better way. Does focusing our minds and energies on God now qualify therefore as 'pointers to heaven'? Is living a life solely for God, in everything we do, translate into a 'pointer to heaven'? Is ultimately the purpose of our lives to do good things which will give us an idea of what it will be like in heaven? C.S. Lewis draws parallels between heaven and Narnia in his series 'The Chronicles of Narnia'. He suggests that heaven is simply a reflection of earth (this is what I got from it anyway), only better. In heaven, everything becomes clear, i.e. in the final book, Narnia as the children know it appears to self-destruct and die, but they then enter a new Narnia, which looks exactly the same, only everything is much brighter, vegetation is lusher etc. It is the same but not the same. It's food for thought.

We have the power to make the world better or worse and, to quote a phrase, "with great power, comes great responsibilty".

I admit that although always fully intending to study Revelations in great detail, I have not, so it may be that everything I'm saying here is not new to anyone at all (in which case I'm extremely sorry for making you read it all!). I know Jesus will return to earth at some point, just as I know that the full extent of our eternal life will really then begin. But I have, through reading someone elses' thoughts on the matter and thinking more on the issue myself, come up with many more things that I want to know more about. However, I fully expect that God will reveal only so much to me, most of which will probably result in MORE QUESTIONS!!!

The search continues. The painting is not yet finished.

Formaggio!

2006-03-06T12:22:00.000Z

I thought I'd interrupt our usually serious discussions for a bit of light hearted banter.

What's your most favourite cheesy moment from 40 Days so far? What has made you laugh out loud, roll your eyes, or squirm in your seat? Anything from the Purpose Driven Life, the workbook, the videos, the discussion afterwards and even (dare I say it) Ricky's sermons. Good taste only please.

And why not categorise it with a real type of cheese. Is it as pungent as parmesan, or perhaps light and creamy like Camembert? Post your "cracker" comments (d'you get it?? Cracker! Oh so funny!).

PS: You can be serious as well, with the deep thought that allowed you to cut through the cheese (again, more puns).

But why isn't it about me?!

2006-02-28T12:13:00.000Z

It's all about God; we're exist to worship him, to surrender to him. Well, I just don't like it. Why should it be about that? Surely I can be a Christian and follow God and still have life the way I want it.

I know I'm being a bit over-dramatic here (moi?) but you get the gist. This is something which really feels like someone pulling a scab off my skin. It hurts and I don't like it.

I've also started reading The Great Divorce by CS Lewis this week. And I think there may be somebody trying to tell me something about giving it all up for God. I love reading Lewis's work, because he's pretty good at using story to get deep, philisophical messages across. I love this especially in his scenes of dialogue - he get's his characters talking or thinking and they work out their faith, while all the while you are helped to work out yours. I'm about halfway through, so I don't know what's going to happen to the main character, but at present he is in a group on the edge of heaven. The group is made up of dead people and those who have been in heaven for a while, the heavenlies, as I'll call them, who are offering heaven to the others; I say offering rather than trying to convince them to join, because while there is earnestness, there is no pressure or cajoling. The others are countering with their points of view, which cover many angles of needing to maintain what they have; material things, self-respect and pride, reputation, the need to be heard, the need to have a say in what goes on, etc. The heavenlies all the while are trying to show the others that there is so much goodness around them and they just need to move further in and leave all that behind.

I felt most uncomfortable reading chapter five, where an intellectual debates with one of the heavenlies. "Honest opinions fearlessly followed" are the bread and butter of this man; he has spent his life thinking and reasoning and arguing the whole time, including the Resurrection which "ceased to commend itself to the faculties which God had given [him]." The heavenly, who was himself an intellectual on earth, rebukes him; "We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful....Listen! Once you were a child. Once you knew what inquiry was for. There was a time when you asked questions because you wanted answers, and were glad when you had found them." Here, in this place, the answers are readily available, the answer, God himself is about, claims the heavenly.

How do I feel about this? I have written and spoken before about the chase, searching for God being what my faith is about. I catch glimpses, which Lewis also talks about, and they spur me on to find more, with the hope that one day I will see them all. But am I missing something? I don't like this because it suggests that you can be so worked up about reason and truth or truths that you forget about God himself. I feel defensive because I know that there is a need to think more about these things and be honest, but I don't like being identified or even moreso identifying with the intellectual in the story. Lewis himself is described as a great Christian thinker, so surely he's not de-bunking serious consideration of faith?

The heavenly assigned to the main character speaks of earthly things as pointers to heaven. Of love he says, "There's something in natural affection which will lead it on to eternal love more easily than natural appetite could be led on. But there's also something in it which makes it easier to stop at the natural level and mistake it for the heavenly." If life is about worshipping God, and worship is about bringing every part of life to God, then surely these things are worshipful if focussed on God. If deep thought loses its goal of finding God, then does it become meaningless? If loving one another is not about loving God, then is it pointless? And how does this relate to being ourselves? We talked last week about being the people God has made us and not trying to be anyone else. Is part of that bringing together all that we are, our personalities, our skills, our words, our stuff, and focussing it on God?

At the end, I don't like the challenge, but I know it's needed. Ideas let run rampant become arrogance, swelling up self image, damaging relationships around us now, and ultimately with God. But a mind focussed on the Creator, the ultimate, has to bring humility and a real sense of our insignificance, and at the same time the wonder of a God who would reveal himself and his love to mere nothings like us.

Beginnings

2006-02-19T20:44:00.000Z

Today started the 40 Days campaign at our church, Causeway Coast Vineyard. It's 40 Days that have been set aside for everyone in the church to discuss our purpose. Not to create a mission statement for the whole church, but to examine our lives individually - who are we? What is the point of it all? Why?

I'm reading a book at the moment called Ursula, Under by Ingrid Hill. The novel revolves around a little girl called Ursula who, while out for a picnic one autumn day with her parents, falls down an abandoned mine shaft. A full scale rescue operation is launched and the story is all over the media. Someone watching the news wonders why all the fuss, since the little girl is just "half-breed trailor trash". The author answers with a journey back through the generations of Ursula's ancestry, stopping off now and again to paint detailed pictures of people long ago who affected and influenced those around them, and in turn were changed by these relationships and life events. All of these stories lead to Ursula's grandparents and parents and eventually the toddler herself. I haven 't got to the end quite yet, so I don't know if she gets rescued, or even if she is alive at the bottom of the mine shaft. But I do know that this little piece of "trailor trash" has an exquisitely rich heritage, much of it unknown to those around her and indeed herself.

Perhaps if I were a literary genius I could describe in endless detail the purpose the author had in writing the book. What I see though is that there is more to this little girl and her family than what is seen on the surface. The intricate network of events and people which have led to this point is extremely complex - there is no doubt that had things worked out differently for one of her ancestors, had one decision been taken differently, that huge parts of history would have been different.

Is there more to our lives than what is on the surface? OK, we may not have rich, unknown dramas to our heritage like Ursula does, but is there more? Is there a reason to get excited about? And what is our part in the tapestry - which colour of thread are we and where do we fit in the bigger picture which is happening all the time? Is this even something we can know and if so, are we able to influence what happens and will happen around us?