Hopeful Ordinand

Remembering

2010-06-22T14:13:00.000+01:00

I'm not really into football; I can't say I've ever really understood the appeal. It is, however, hard to ignore the wash of red and white sweeping over the cars, houses and t-shirts around me.

With this sudden desire to display the cross of St George comes a harking back to the 'glory days' of 1966. Every four years, it will be 'our' year, and every four years the reasons why it is destined to be this time come out. The best one I heard was something to do with which teams were in Group 1 (or A) of the groups phases being the same as in '66. Suddenly, as a nation, we remember our glorious footballing past, and long for the days when England were top of the world - well, at least as far as football was concerned.

For the Israelites, their glory days were under the rule of David and Solomon. At the height of it all, 1 Kings records it like this:

During Solomon's lifetime Judah and Israel, from Dan to Beersheba, lived in safety, each man under his own vine and fig tree. (1 King 4:25)

From this point in Israelite history, things would only go downhill. In a very short space of time, Israel would be torn into two nations, conquered by various foreign powers. There would be moments where they would see what might have been: Nehemiah rebuilt the city walls and gates of Jerusalem; Ezra rebuilt the temple. This rebuilding never reached the glory of Solomon. When the foundations of the new temple were laid, there was much rejoicing, but with that, Ezra records another reaction:

But many of the older priests and Levites and family heads, who had seen the former temple, wept aloud when they saw the foundation of this temple being laid, while many others shouted for joy. (Ezra 3:12)

For all the joy at the new temple, it wasn't as good as the first temple. All this set the scene for what the Israelites were expecting from their Messiah. They wanted someone to bring back the glory days of David and Solomon, to bring peace to the land, and expel their enemies. David and Solomon were flawed, though. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and murdered her husband Uriah; Solomon was led away from God by his many wives. This golden period was itself merely a memory of what once was: the Garden of Eden. I suspect that Adam and Eve would have been weeping over this golden age, having seen the Garden of Eden, and experienced God's intention for the world. Instead of wanting the Messiah to bring back the days of David and Solomon, they should have been wanting someone to bring back the days of Eden.

The patriarchs couldn't do it, Moses couldn't do it, the judges couldn't do it, the kings couldn't do it; yet the prophets said it was going to happen. The requirement was going to be someone like Solomon, like David, like Moses, like Adam - except that this one would need to be better, someone who wouldn't sin, someone who was perfect.

Jesus fulfilled all of this, and on the cross he won the victory over death and sin. Now, Christians can remember Eden as the high point of God's relationship with people, and look forward to the new creation where God makes everything as it should be, where God will:

wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away. (Revelation 21:4)

One of the most memorable football phrases must be 'Some people are on the pitch. They think it's all over ... It is now!'. Jesus' last words on the cross were simpler: 'It is finished!' but they are much more important. The battle against sin and death was over, now man and God could go back to as it was in the beginning. We're not there yet, it will only be complete when Jesus returns, but it is a glorious hope to which the Christian can look forward. In communion we remember Christ's victory on the cross, and in the Holy Spirit we have a deposit which guarantees what is to come.

Unlike the England football fan, the Christian doesn't just look back to a glorious past with nostalgia - they remember the victory of the past but, because of that victory, they look forward with certainty to the glorious day to come.

Doing something I believe in?

2010-06-11T11:40:00.000+01:00

It's been an interesting few weeks. Once the paperwork and confirmation emails from the Bishop had arrived, I started to tell work that I was going to be leaving later this year. I'd been thinking that there would be a number of responses, ranging from 'you're crazy' and 'why are you doing that' through to indifference. I'd even wondered if there might be a more hostile reaction. Pretty uniformly, I got a response similar to, 'Sorry to see you go, but you've got to do something you believe in.' That surprised me somewhat.

I might just as well have told them that I was off to buy a plot of land, build my own house and live off the land (http://bit.ly/bR46qm). It wasn't indifference, but a more general 'follow your dreams' response. I even had people saying that they wished they had the courage to follow their dreams.

Clearly I do believe in what I'm doing, but it feels like it should warrant a different kind of response. I'm not after praise and acclamation - if I wanted that, I could just stay put. What I'm doing though, is raising a flag for something that should be offensive to many people. If you're not a Christian, you should think I'm absolutely bonkers for chucking in a good job to work for a church teetering on the edge of crisis, to proclaim a message that you think is pure fantasy. Your response shouldn't be something about doing what I think is right!

Having said all that, there were a few people who were completely stunned, and have been asking more and more questions about what I believe, and why I'm doing it. It has been great to tell them clearly and explicitly about the good news of Jesus Christ - which is, after all, what I believe in, and why I'm training for ordination.

New templates

2010-06-11T10:19:00.000+01:00

Shiny new templates from Blogger. I guess I'll try a few out and see which one I like best. Hopefully I'll settle on one soon.

What's in a name?

2010-05-28T16:03:00.004+01:00

In a thread on Peter Ould's blog (here), I was shut out of the discussion by a poster because I don't use my real name when posting, using the moniker 'Hopeful Ordinand' instead.

Two questions:

1. Is it reasonable to post under a pseudonym?

2. Is is reasonable to refuse to respond to someone not using their real name?

Is it reasonable to post under a pseudonym? Clearly, I think so, as I do. I think it's pretty fundamental to be able to post without necessarily revealing who you are. There are some caveats to this: in particular that illegal activities, abuse, threats, etc. should not be hidden behind the cloak of anonymity. However, reasonable discussion and expression of opinion should be perfectly acceptable for an 'anonymous' post. Essentially, I post as if under my actual name. It's probably worth pointing out that I'm not strictly anonymous; I have an email address, openid, blog and a twitter account. My comments are always attributable to the same identity, I even have an IntenseDebate account.

Why do I do it then? I don't so it to be rude, annoying, or to just troll. Partly I did it because when I started posting about ordination, the place where I worked didn't know I was thinking of leaving, and I didn't want them to find out via the grapevine. I do it now, because I want to be able to post without my 'real' name causing the discussion to be affected by assumptions as to my race, gender, age or anything else.

One other aspect to this is how we determine 'identity' on the web. The poster in question wanted my name and email address (which sounds a bit intrusive to me), in order to determine who I am. I don't think that's enough. I can get any email address I want (via services like Hotmail and Gmail), and give any name I want. How do I know that 'Canon Andrew Godsall' is who he says he is? Assuming that he is who he says he is, then I'm not sure it's a brilliant idea for someone about to start training for ordination to give his details to a Canon Chancellor, it just seems to be asking for problems.

Is it reasonable to refuse respond to someone not using their real name? Yes and no. You'll notice that anonymous posting is not allowed on this blog, but that 'real names' are not required. That's my choice, and my right as the blog owner; beyond that, rudeness, abuse and trolling are not welcome here, but opinion is - even (especially?) if it makes me think about my own opinion. If you don't want to engage, because of my anonymity, than please, don't post - but don't refuse to respond partway through a discussion. It is unreasonable to change attitude partway through a discussion - if your response is based on who I am, then it's probably not a very good argument anyway!

Finally, there's not really any such thing as anonymity on the internet, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't take that long to work out what my real name is - there's no prize for working it out!

Less hopeful?

2010-05-12T10:25:00.000+01:00

The Candidates Panel have met, and have informed my bishop that they think I can go forward for training. My bishop has sent me a letter saying that I can now proceed to training. Hurrah.

Racism?

2010-04-28T11:03:00.000+01:00

I was somewhat surprised by a news article about a boy of nine being put into isolation for 'racism'.

A couple of things before I say anything else: I don't know anything about the details of case, I know nothing about any of the children involved nor do I know anything about the school. I don't really want to comment on the idea of putting a child in isolation for two days (though that troubles me by itself), or that this incident may been on his permanent school record, and the details passed to the local authority.

No, what worries me are the following statements from the school's head teacher:

where something is perceived to be racist by a particular person to whom it is said, it has to be taken very seriously

Even if there is no real racist intent behind the use of certain language, or if things are said in ignorance, if the words are regarded as offensive it has to be recorded.

The school's policy is quoted as having this definition of a racist incident:

an incident which has been perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person

From this definition anything can be racist, because it is the perception of the 'victim' or any other person that determines whether it is a racist incident or not - even the lack of intent is not enough. Presumably (choosing my words carefully) a person from that ancient kingdom of Scotland could find Captain James T Kirk offensive for calling his friend and colleague 'Scotty', and thus this would be a racist incident?

Is it not the raison d'être of a school to combat ignorance? Ignorance about English, Maths, Science, etc., including ignorance about how to relate to other people, social interaction, what is acceptable, and what is unacceptable. If a school admits that a pupil might be ignorant, isn't that a tacit admission of failure as a school?

I'm not sure what the 'accused' has learned from this, but I wonder if someone has learned that calling something racist means that it becomes racist by definition?

Free Speech?

2010-04-20T11:02:00.000+01:00

When I think of free speech, there are a couple of quotes that spring to mind:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it (Voltaire)

and

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear (Orwell)

Do I then have the right to be offended by something someone says? Yes, absolutely! However, simply being offended is not sufficient reason to prevent it being said. I'm not proposing a free-for-all, so we still need laws covering defamation. The availability of free speech should also not be abused to provide a forum for those who would seek to prevent free speech by violence and intimidation.

So, I think I should be allowed to say 'Eating mushrooms is wrong,' but not 'We should kill people who each mushrooms.' Similarly others can say 'Those who dislike mushroom eating are out of touch with modern fungus preferences.' Each 'side' is entitled to it's own opinion, neither should be censored because of any offence perceived by the other.

Why is this an issue? Harriet Harman MP has promised that, if re-elected, the Labour government would remove the 'free-speech' clause from 'homophobic hate crime' laws. This amendment was added, in part, to allow 'religious people to question homosexuality' without fear of prosecution (source).

The risk with removing this free speech clause would require police forces to prosecute legitimate religious beliefs. Only last month a Christian street preacher was arrested in Glasgow for saying 'Homosexuals are deserving of the wrath of God – and so are all other sinners – and they are going to a place called hell.' Even Peter Tatchell disagrees with what happened to him:

Shawn Holes is obviously homophobic and should not be insulting people with his anti-gay tirades. He should be challenged and people should protest against his intolerance

He goes on:

The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality. Only incitements to violence should be illegal.

When one of the more prominent gay-rights campaigners is supporting the cause of a man charged with 'uttering homophobic remarks', isn't that a sign that something is wrong?

As someone who will have to, at some point, cover the clarity of the Bible on relationships, sex and marriage, I can't see that I will be voting for a party that wants to remove my right to believe it and to say it and which wants to be able to arrest me for holding orthodox Christian beliefs that stretch back 2000 years. Would turkeys vote for Christmas?

[Before the pedants pick me up on the Voltaire quote: it seems likely that he didn't actually say it, but S G Tallentyre uses the phrase to sum up Voltaire's attitude.]

Intense debate

2010-04-10T00:38:00.000+01:00

Seeing that someone has commented on a post, I thought I'd try intensedebate to see if it makes the commenting easier.

Social Action and Bribery

2010-03-24T00:17:00.000Z

What is the purpose of a church's social action project? As I see it, the purpose is the proclamation of the Gospel. That might not be overt, but proclamation of the gospel has to be the centre of what a church does. It's probable that the fruit of it might be the desire to get people to come to church - either on a Sunday, or a particular mid-week meeting. What do we do when they don't come? What do we do when the social action project is successful at meeting the needs of the community, but isn't successful at getting people to engage with the Gospel?

One option might be to close the project down as it doesn't meet the aim of proclaiming the Gospel. To do that would simply indicate that the church isn't really interested in the community, but only in getting them to church; the project was actually nothing more than a bribe. Imagine it was the other way around, that the church was offering a meal for the homeless, but only after they had attended a Sunday service. Would that be OK?

If a church's social project is meeting a need of the community, but not pointing people to the Gospel, then there is a problem with the project. The church understands the social context of the community, but might not be able to make their proclamation contextually relevant.

Mission and Proclamation

2010-03-21T05:00:00.001Z

I've come late to Tim Chester's excellent book 'Good News to the Poor'. When considering Social Involvement and Proclamation (Chapter 4) he makes the following three statements:

Evangelism and social action are distinct activities
Proclamation is central
Evangelism and social action are inseparable

It's proclamation, not preaching, that's central. What is proclamation? Like a lot of what I've been looking at recently, the context is important. What we say must sit with the people we say it to. That's not to say that the context defines the message, that is clearly wrong, but it must be part of meeting people where they are - with the unchanging message of the gospel.

What we say must also match what we do. If our lifestyle doesn't match our message, is it any wonder that people might not want to listen? Our lifestyle should make people want to listen to what we say (cf Colossians 4).

The words attributed to Francis of Assisi are wrong (and probably not his) 'preach always, sometimes using words'. My social action is simply not enough, at best all it does it provide an empty signpost, at worst, it points to me. My social action should provide a signpost, my words should make it point to Christ.

The power of facebook

2010-02-24T10:11:00.000Z

The Telegraph has an article about a bishop offering to pray via facebook. While it seems like a good way to integrate 'modern culture' with the church, I actually think it's a problematic development.

Bishop Robert Evens has invited people to submit prayers to him by email, text or facebook, and he will make those prayers in Exeter Catherdral during Lent. What's my problem with this?

We no longer need to have some to offer prayers on our behalf! When Jesus dies on the cross, the temple curtain was torn in two - we have direct access to God in prayer. When Jesus teaches his disciples to pray, he starts with 'Our Father'. We no longer have Old Testament-like priests who intercede on our behalf, we have access to God through the great high priest - Jesus.

It's a good thing to be able to engage with modern culture and society in ways that are relevant and appropriate, but lets not make our understanding of God driven by the world, let's have it driven by the Bible.

What Does The Bible Say?

2010-02-17T21:05:00.000Z

I wonder if Mark Oden knew what he was letting himself in for when he chose to preach on 1 Peter 3:1-7 at the end of January and the beginning of February? Was he expecting that he would make several daily newspapers, and have commentators lambasting him from both outside and inside the church? I suspect not. I would guess, though, that he would have anticipated some kind of response to the content of what he preached - after all, 1 Peter 3:1-7 goes against the grain of the post-modern, liberal culture we inhabit.

I've listened to both Mark's sermons (unlike, I suspect, most of the commentators). I found them encouraging and thought-provoking and the second one on 'Men and Marriage' was particularly challenging to me.

Why, then, has this got sections of the UK jumping up and down? I suspect because he preached faithfully, accurately and clearly from the Bible, and he made it clear what it meant to us as individuals, and that we have to view marriage from God's perspective, not ours. I'm not sure anyone really likes the idea of being told what to do by someone else, especially when you've not actually asked for their opinion!

The thing is, though, that marriage was invented by God. Would there be marriage, if there was no God? Why then, do we not want to listen to the maker's instructions? Because we want to go our own way, not God's. We want control over our own lives.

Back to the sermons. Should wives submit to their husbands; should the marriage service include wives 'obeying' their husband? Yes, and yes! We might not like it, and our culture might have a wrong understanding of 'submission' (which, incidentally, Mark Oden covered very well in his sermon), but that doesn't make it wrong. If we don't like the idea of 1 Peter 3:1-6, what gives us the right to impose 1 Peter 3:7? If wives aren't to be submissive because it's 'culturally inappropriate', why do we insist on the very next verse in the Bible? Once we start 'picking and choosing', where do we stop?

What this all boils down to is where I came in: Mark Oden stood in the pulpit (I assume), and preached from the Bible. In the words of his rector "Shock! Horror! Church Believes The Bible!".

I suspect Mark isn't reading this (actually, I suspect I'm the only one who does), but just in case. Be encouraged, remember Paul's words to Timothy:

²Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction. ³For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. ⁴They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths. (2 Timothy 4:2-4)

I look forward to hearing many more of your sermons.

Let the essay begin!

2010-02-09T17:07:00.000Z

After selection early last year, the Powers That Be decided that I was a suitable candidate for training for ordination. However, they added a condition that I spent time in two church placements, and then write a 4,000 word essay on 'Mission and Evanglism'.

After six months in placements, I can now get on with the essay part. 4,000 words might not seem a lot to some people, but I'm a scientist by training, so keeping things short and precise is what I do best (in theory).

How do you spell faith?

2010-02-09T16:55:00.001Z

This is not a trick question. Faith is spelt F-A-I-T-H!

Why then do Christians so often declare that it's spelt R-I-S-K? In 'An Island Parish' (s4e11), the Reverend Steve Wild also went for the R-I-S-K option. I really don't understand it.

The Christian faith is intended to be a certainty, not doubtful, not a risk:

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction ofthings not seen. Hebrews 11:1

If I'm not convinced or certain about my faith, what good will it do me? If I'm not certain, how can I rely upon God when things look rough? If faith is a risk, does it come down to statistics? I don't want my eternal salvation to come down to some kind of cosmic poker-player.

My salvation is assured, I have been chosen (Ephesians 1:11). I'm not at school waiting to see if I will be picked for the team (typically not), the team list went up before the world began, and my name was already on it - that's the kind of certainty the Christian has - it's no risk!

Now, I grant you that Christians do some pretty odd things, and that the world might see them as a 'risk' - giving up a decent job to train as a minister, for example - but it's not a risk. Scary, yes, but I don't think of it as a risk.

So, sorry Rev. Wild, faith is still spelt faith - if you really want to change it try something like C-E-R-T-A-I-N-T-Y, although I appreciate it's not quite as catchy.

A History of Christianity

2009-12-11T14:48:00.000Z

Broadly speaking, I've enjoyed Diarmaid's charge through 2000 years of the history of Christianity (I'm also enjoying his biography of Cranmer). There are a few places I felt he'd missed the point, or made generalisations that weren't helpful. I'm also sure that he said he wasn't setting out to do a theological history of Christianity.

This is where I think he made a mistake. Surely, the history of the Christian church is as much about it's theology, as it is about Roman conquest, and modern philosophy - and everything in between. The Orthodox split from Rome, and the Protestant reformation were, ultimately, theologically driven.

Frustratingly, he also ended the series focussing on a major theological pressure facing the modern church: same-sex relationships. Having admitted to being 'a gay man' and not a Christian, but 'a candid friend of Christianity', he then airs only one side of the debate - that from St Martin's-in-the-Fields, 'the scriptures say nothing about faithful same-sex relationships' what matters in between people is 'loving, faithful, honest relationships". He alludes to other churches proclaiming and evangelical viewpoint, proclaiming 'old truths'.

I wonder why the 'old truths' are apparently not worth discussing on air?

Decomposing George Michael

2009-12-07T15:45:00.001Z

I wanted to entitle this 'The Gospel according to George Michael', but I couldn't resist the musical pun.

The Virgin Child would always show you see
Just to save me (Just to save me)
There was always Christmas time
To wipe the year away

Jesus came at Christmas to wipe not only the mistakes of the year away, but all our mistakes. Christmas is when God comes to earth as a man. His sole purpose is Easter; he came to die so that 'all who believe in him might have eternal life'. Christmas is a great time for celebration, lets celebrate the beginning of the end of our slavery to sin. About 30 years after the first Christmas was the first Easter. This is the moment when Christ's victory over Satan was complete - when we are able to turn to Christ for our salvation.

So we should celebrate Christmas, and enjoy it, but don't forget that our sin, and need for rescue from destruction, means Christmas leads, inevitably, to the sorrow and joy of Easter.

Men!

2009-10-09T22:15:00.000+01:00

By dint of still being Hopeful, rather than Ordinand, I found myself at a seminar on why men don't go to church. Strictly speaking, it was a seminar on men and worship - but what it meant was men and church.

There was an interesting discussion about, what amount to, the feminization of church. Services full of sentimentality and the prevalence of 'My Jesus, My Boyfriend' type songs (not that it's always wrong). Church robes being effectively 'men in dresses' (or women in dresses, but I guess that's OK). Does women leaders in the church have an impact on men in church?

We looked at the biology and anthropology of the, general, differences between men and women. How men have testosterone, and are hunter-gatherers. They look to powerful images, and competition. They like tasks and goals. Women, on the other hand tend to relationship and conversation. Men 'worship' in groups of other men; consider the singing at a football match. Men like manual labour, they like building things.

Nowhere, though, was there any discussion about a theology of men. How do men understand their role under God? How do we take what the Bible teaches and apply it to our understanding of how men are men? Genesis shows God creating Adam first, and teaching him. God teaches Adam the only thing he needs to know,

The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:15-17

Then Adam and Eve are put to work, together, in the garden.

However we understand this passage, and however it affects our understanding of women in leadership/teaching roles, we can already see a distinction in how men and women are to be. Adam is to work in the garden - but so is Eve. After the fall, in Genesis 3, we see that it's Adam who works the soil, who toils to grow things. Here is man the hunter-gatherer, here is man working hard, making things, building things. Here is man providing for his family.

The theology of men and women should be our starting point for understanding (and I'm not claiming to have systematically explored it here!), not something we come up with at the end. If we don't start with a biblical understanding of male and female, but start with a secular understanding, how do we show that Christianity has anything to offer that's different from the world.

Killing Time

2009-09-23T11:50:00.005+01:00

When is it acceptable to commit murder? It would appear that it is now legally acceptable to kill someone at two points in their life: before birth, and if one is acting 'out of compassion'.

The Director of Public prosecutions has published interim guidance for the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether, or not, to prosecute those who assist suicide.

The value of life is now held in the opinion of the CPS who decide if the life taken was done out of compassion, of whether the person assisting is 'worthy of sympathy' rather than a criminal trial. The decision would seem to be based clearly on current societal morality, rather than any kind of absolute measure. For all that I find abortion abhorrent, there are at least clear cut rules and regulations for it (even if these appear to be routinely stretched beyond recognition).

The article in the Telegraph does raise the possibility of prosecutions for those who assist unlawfully. The example of the parents of 23 year old Daniel James paralysed from the chest down after a training accident, was mentioned as being possibly more likely to be prosecuted. As no one has yet been prosecuted under the 1961 Suicide Act, I won't be holding my breath.

For assisted suicide, there would seem to be 'public sympathy' as a factor to the decision. The DPP has said that,

those who assisted people who were terminally ill or suffering from a severe degenerative condition would be less likely to face prosecution.

and

key for Crown Prosecution Service lawyers in deciding whether to bring criminal proceedings was the motivation of the person who had assisted, whether they had acted out of compassion

Compassion, as currently used, seems to be inextricably linked to public opinion; we only need look at the Al Megrahi compassion case to see that.

How long, I wonder, before it becomes compassionate to say 'he had a good innings', or 'once you've broken one hip, it's downhill from here', 'she had a fall, the kindest thing to do is to let he go now, with dignity'? How long before we see the equivalent of a cleft-palate being classed as a serious disability for abortion?

How long before we see life as God sees it? We are formed by our creator, David talks about being God knitting him together in his mother's womb, about God knowing all his days before any of them had happened (Psalm 139:13-16).

Why has life become something to end because it would be inconvenient to us? Why is an unplanned child something to flush away? Why is an elderly, dying, relative something to be simply turned off?

Lord God, forgive us for taking your gift of life so lightly, help us to see all life through your eyes - both ours and that of others.

Of Job and Jonah

2009-08-28T21:45:00.001+01:00

I've been preparing a sermon on Jonah 2 recently. I was struck partway through about how Jonah and Job show two pictures of suffering.

Job shows a 'blameless and upright' man who has been richly rewarded by God; he 'feared God' and 'turned away from evil'. He's a man so concerned about hit children inadvertently sinning that once a week, he offers sacrifices in case they 'have sinned, and cursed God in their hearts'.

Jonah, on the other hand, is a prophet of God. He's almost certainly the Jonah in 2 Kings 14. He takes the, somewhat unwise, choice of deliberately running away from God. God says, 'Go to Nineveh.' Jonah heads for a boat to Tarshish.

What are the consequences of their actions?

We need to remember that Job is unaware of what is happening between God and The Accuser. As far as he is concerned, his world has just fallen down around his ears. His oxen, sheep and camels have all been carried off (and his servants put to the sword), and then the house his children are in falls down and kills them all. Job has had suffering come at him from all sides.

Jonah gets caught up in a storm. The experienced sailors fear for their lives, and pray to any God they can think of. Lots are drawn, and the sleeping Jonah is determined to be the cause of God's disfavour. They throw him overboard, and he's swallowed by a large fish. Jonah's situation isn't exactly great.

How do they respond?

Job refuses to blame God for what is happening to him. His wife encourages him to 'curse God and die' (Job 2:9); she sounds like great comfort to a man in distress! Job, though, covered in sores, sat in the ashes. His friends are so hit by this that they come to give him sympathy and comfort, but end up sitting with him and say nothing to him for a whole week.

Jonah realises that he's to blame for what's happening to him, and calls out to God. He know that he's done wrong, yet he still calls out to God for rescue, and God rescues him. Jonah knows that 'Salvation belongs to the LORD' (Jonah 2:9).

I suppose the question is, when I'm suffering am I Job or Jonah? Is my faith being refined, or have I strayed from God? How do I find out? Can I determine it? almost certainly not. Jonah was certainly capable of working out that he was in a mess because of his disobedience; Job needed God to speak to him directly, and I'm not anticipating that happening.

Both of them, though, needed to learn something. Job needed to learn that he wasn't in control, God was. That God didn't need to answer to Job, or explain himself. Job never finds out that there was a bigger picture than he could see.

Lesson 1: we might never know why suffering occurs, but we should be confident that there is a purpose, and that God is in control.

Jonah needed to learn a couple of things. Firstly that he can't run away from God, and secondly Jonah needed to learn mercy for those around him. God deals with both of them by showing his compassion to the undeserving Jonah. When Jonah calls out to God for rescue, he is rescued. When Jonah realises how much mercy God has for him, he works out that he needs to have mercy on the Ninevites.

Lesson 2: Suffering almost always has a purpose to teach something.

There are no glib answers to suffering and I'm not trying to answer all of the issues here. However, I feel much more capable to deal with it when I know that God is in control of it all, that there maybe a bigger picture that I can't see, and that there might be something for me to learn about God and his salvation from it.

A Confession

2009-07-06T22:17:00.006+01:00

I have a confession to make. I'm not quite sure how I'll be viewed after this, but it's a secret I can keep no long: I'm mushroomphobic.

I used to think that it was just that I didn't like them. The taste, the texture, the thought of eating fungus, none of that appealed to me. I have friends who like mushrooms, who really, really like them. I'm happy with that, I don't understand why they do it but I thought it was OK to tell them that I don't like mushrooms. I realise now, though, that not liking them, and telling other people that I think it's unnatural to eat fungus, has somehow crossed the line from a simple personal belief of culinary right and wrong, and has turned into mushroomphobic behaviour. If you feel that I've not been understanding of your like for mushrooms, I'm sorry. If I've ever told you that I think it's unnatural to eat mushrooms, I'm sorry.

Also, I'm not that keen on sprouts, but that's, apparantly, completely rational.

Christ like love and compassion

2009-06-24T09:44:00.001+01:00

I responded to Peter Ould's blog in his post on The Sexualisation of Heresy. As part of one of the responses to my post, there was the following:

Good luck in your bid for ordination, if successful, you will take on a vocation to care for others with a Christ like love and compassion yourself.

That got me thinking about what a 'Christ like love and compassion' might look like (incidentally, I'm not sure I'm 'bidding' for ordination, but I understand the meaning).

It's easy enough to think of 'love and compassion' as being nice to everyone, or accepting someone as who they are, what they are and where they are; being supportive and caring. That kind of thing. A quick search on the word 'compassion' in the Gospels produced some interesting results:

Matthew 9:36 'When he saw the crowds, he had compassion on them'. Why did he have compassion? Because 'they were were harassed and helpless, like sheep without a shepherd.' What's the context here? Jesus has been 'teaching ... and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom', then he sends the twelve out to proclaim that 'the kingdom of heaven is at hand';
Matthew 14:14 'he saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick'. Jesus is also concerned about the crowd's physical needs, and goes on to feed 'about five thousand men, besides women and children' (cf. Matthew 5:32), this miracle (like all the others) is designed to point them, and us, to Jesus as the Son of God;
Luke 7:13 'he had compassion on her and said to her, "Do not weep."' Jesus raises a man to life because of his compassion on his widowed mother. The consequence of this miracle is that the crowd 'glorified God' saying 'God has visited his people!'. Jesus compassion points to Jesus as God, and brings glory to God.

Do I want to have a Christ-like compassion? Yes, I do. What I see is that Christ's compassion was to point people to the Son of God, and by extension, God the Father. Why? So that they might turn back to God, be saved from their sins, and then to glorify God. How, then, can a hopeful ordinand do this?

Coincidentally, I've also been reading Richard Baxter's excellent work 'The Reformed Pastor'. Baxter's focus is on the pastor living a life that demonstrates the Gospel, and bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives in the cure of the pastor - that is, those in his parish (Baxter was writing in the 17th century, so they would all have been male ministers).

Baxter exhorts the minister firstly to ensure that they not only live in a state of grace, but that 'your graces are in vigorous and lively exercise'. The minister should be in a state of grace, and then he should live accordingly; he should not be living in the sin against which he preaches. Then Baxter urges them to 'labour for the conversion of the unconverted' and to 'build up those who are already partakes of divine grace'. The charge is to reach out to those who don't yet know Christ as Lord and Saviour and to build up those who do, to spur them on to greater things. Why? To bring Glory to God, not to ourselves.

Do I want to have a Christ-like love and compassion? Yes, I do. It's a model that I can never truly match up to. I don't always love enough to do the hard bits of telling my friends and family that 'being good' isn't enough, or that I'd rather keep them as friends now and not think about their future, and because, sometimes, I want the glory.

Underneath it all though, like Baxter, I do want to reach out to the unconverted, and to build up those who are already in God's eternal kingdom, and I think that is a 'Christ-like love and compassion'.

Cranmer on Advertising Abortion

2009-06-17T14:06:00.001+01:00

As ever, His Grace has put it better than I could:

For the first time in almost 50 years of their history, the UK’s Advertising Codes are being reviewed simultaneously.

...

And so it is proposed that adverts for abortion should be allowed on TV and radio, and that pregnancy advice services that do not provide abortion should have to state this explicitly in their adverts.

Cranmer has a problem with this.

A few years back, the pro-abortion lobby and abortion providers like BPAS and Marie Stopes promoted an effort in Parliament to change the law to ‘protect’ pregnant women from pregnancy advice services that do not provide abortion. The pro-abortion groups were worried that they were ‘losing customers’ to pro-life agencies. However, the law was not changed. The pro-abortion lobby now wants the ASA’s Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice to change the code of practice both to allow abortion providers to advertise on TV and radio and to impose on anti-abortion groups a restriction similar to (but more dictatorial than) the unsuccessful parliamentary amendment.

The objective is to reduce the teenage pregnancy rate, which is the highest in Europe. It is curious that, at a time when all advertising for cigarettes and tobacco is banned in order to avoid promoting and propagating the habit, the move is towards permitting advertisements for abortion. If there is correlation between advertising and increased numbers smoking, how can there not be between advertising and increased numbers seeking abortion?

...

But advertising abortion is to draw favourable attention to murder. It is to describe the tortuous process in pleasant and attractive terms in order to influence women and girls of its benefits and to promote its merits above its demerits. Why otherwise would providers spend money promoting their services if they could not recoup their investment and profit further still?

The Broadcast Committee of the Advertising Standards Authority is conducting a consultation on its proposals until 19th June 2009. It will issue its conclusions in the Autumn. As part of the consultation, the Broadcasting committee is seeking the views of the general public. This means that the views of Cranmer’s readers and communicants will be taken into account.

After Friday, if you have not made your point, it will be assumed that you are either indifferent or that you approve.

Cranmer exhorts all who care about this to email the Code Policy Team at consult@cap.org.uk.

Their website recommends that if you write to them, you should include a response cover sheet. If you wish to email them, the link to this is on their website, but for convenience, you can download it from HERE.