Much has been said in the media and on social networks in the past few month about the terrible events in Gaza. If anyone can see images of homes and families being made homeless and children being shelled, and not be saddened and angered, there’s something wrong with them. And so there was been an outpouring an anger against Israel’s conduct. They’re a democracy, they’re much stronger, they should behave better. That’s the general sentiment I’ve observed around the world. But locally, there’s this idea that we have a particular insight into the situation because of the Troubles and a particular right to lecture Israel because the RAF never bombed Dublin.

But anyone who thinks that is utterly naive. Let’s compare the two situations:

  • Israel is a bit shorter than Ireland and at its widest point, only half as wide and has a population roughly equal to the Republic of Ireland and Belfast combined.
  • The population of Gaza is roughly the same as the whole of Northern Ireland and lives in an area not much bigger than the Ards Peninsula.
  • Israel main airport, it’s largest city (Tel Aviv) and its capital (Jerusalem) are within an hour’s drive of the Gaza border and within range of rocket attack.
  • Mortar attacks by IRA in five-year period of 1990–1994: less than 70.
  • Hamas rockets fired at Israel in 2014 so far: over 3,000.
  • Civilians killed during the Troubles: 1,855.
  • People killed by the Islamic militants ISIS in Iraq yesterday: 1,500.
  • Membership of the IRA: about 10,000 over 30 years, no more than 2–2,500 in any given year.
  • Membership of Hamas: around 10,000
  • Borders of UK: Ireland, a stable, neutral government that was fighting terrorists.
  • Borders of Israel: Egypt (been at war multiple times in the past 70 years), Syria (hostile and in a civil war with Islamic extremists), Jordan (vulnerable to takeover by Islamic militants), Iraq (a mess and full of Islamic extremists), Palestinian Authority (corrupt, unable to stop money getting into the hands of terrorists).
  • The threat to Britain from handing over control of NI: would probably actually make Britain safer and save both money and lives.
  • The threat to Israel from handing over Gaza and the West Bank: staging area for terrorists, possibility of takeover by militants, whole country in dire peril.

Really there is no comparison between the Troubles and Gaza. Fighting terrorists is inherently more difficult and costly in terms of human life in Gaza because of the population density and the ineffectiveness of the government there. Hundreds of millions of dollars, along with concrete and wiring, all intended for schools and hospitals and the good of Palestinian civilians, have been taken by Hamas and used to build their terror tunnels and fund their terror campaign. They are far better equipped than the IRA, have more civilians to hide behind, and face no effective opposition from their own people. The scale of violence is greater than anything we have experienced even at the height of the Troubles (never mind the fact that many people on social media will struggle to remember the ’94 ceasefire, let alone the really bad days of the Troubles). And the existential threat to Israel from allowing terror and chaos to prosper on its land borders is radically different to the tiny threat faced by the island nation of the UK.

Events in Iraq, Egypt, Libya and Syria in the past 11 years have fractured the Middle East. Tyrants have brought down or severely weakened, but many worse people have gained power. Asad is an evil man, but would could replace him would be even worse. Saddam was an evil man, but Iraq has been a bloodbath since he was overthrown. We can tut and wring our hands from a distance, but the people of the Middle East are the ones really suffering and Israel has the most o lose from this continuing because militant Sunni Islamic extremists would be quid happy to see Israel destroyed.

Telling Israel to play nice while it is surrounded by chaos and hostility is idiotic and irresponsible. If the world really wants to be moral, not just give lectures on morality, then it needs to confront the problem of Islamic militants in the Middle East. If they aren’t dealt with, there is no way that Israel will have the confidence to change its behaviour. And abandoning Israel would set off a far worse conflict than what we’ve seen so far. What would a cornered, isolated Israel do to protect itself? What would confident, unstopped militants do to a cornered, isolated Israel? It would be a bloodbath and quite possibly a nuclear one.

So yes, Israel has in all likelihood done some awful things, but I’m not sure what better alternatives it has if it wants to continue to exist. I hope there are alternatives and that smarter people who know more about the region and the conflict and the people can find those alternatives. But criticising without any understanding of the situation, without any sympathy for the existential threat Israel faces, without any comprehension of how radically different the conflict is to the Troubles, has little value. I can’t see why anyone in that conflict would listen to a lecture from people who think they know better but evidently don’t understand the situation at all.

(I can’t help but wonder if on some level people are associating Israel with their supporters in the American Religious Right, who aren’t exactly popular over here, particularly with younger people on social media, and in some way equating their conflict with a view of the Troubles as a Protestant–Catholic religious conflict. Or thinking along the lines of: the Orange Order are bullies, they’re sort of Protestant fundamentalists like the Religious Right who support Israel, so we don’t like Israel either.)

What the western powers really need to do, in my (decided non-expert) opinion, is deal with the threat from Islamic militants, particularly in Syria and Iraq. If Israel feels less threatened by them, then perhaps Hamas by itself would be less of a worry and there would be a real possibility for peace.

Sources

I confess that in terms of statistics I have relied heavily on Wikipedia for the statistics here. I was inspired by the following  articles:

Some brief thoughts for Christians

Solidarity with Christians in Iraq

How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen? Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save? Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong? Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds. Therefore the law is paralysed, and justice never prevails. The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.

Habakkuk 1:2–4 NIV

Any Christians reading this will I hope be following the terrible events in Iraq which in all likelihood will soon be almost devoid of Christians. The Palestinians and Israelis need our prayers, but so do the Christians. The violence in Israel and Gaza needs to stop, but so does the violence in Syria and Iraq. And if it stops, then perhaps peace will come to the Israelis and Palestinians too. Read the book of Habakkuk where corrupt leaders are overthrown by even worse men of violence and people cry out to God for justice and rescue. Give thanks that Jesus came in answer to that cry and pray for the day to come when he will return to bring an end to injustice and violence and deliver his people, wherever they may be found.

We ought always to thank God for you, brothers, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love every one of you has for each other is increasing. Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.

All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels.

2 Thessalonians 1:3–7 NIV

Further reading

Open Doors has some helpful resources:

Other:


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/d9ed84  Tweet:

How long, O LORD, must I call for help, but you do not listen?
Or cry out to you, “Violence!” but you do not save?

Habakkuk 1:2 NIV

Like many of the Psalms, the book of Habakkuk asks questions of God. The good book often asks where is the evidence that God himself is good. Some of what Habakkuk says wouldn’t be terribly out of place in 21st Century Northern Ireland

Destruction and violence are before me; there is strife, and conflict abounds.
Therefore the law is paralysed, and justice never prevails.
The wicked hem in the righteous, so that justice is perverted.

Habakkuk 1:3–4 NIV

With a paralysed executive up on the hill and general agreement that there isn’t much justice around parades – even if no-one can agree what justice would look like – and violence perpetually on the horizon, Habakkuk could be standing on the Ardoyne, asking these questions of God.

And the questions keep on coming. He’s struggling not only with the lack of justice by Israel’s rulers, but the promise from God that the Babylonians are going to come and overthrow them. Sure, Israel’s leaders are a pretty rotten lot, but the Babylonians are a

ruthless and impetuous people, who sweep across the whole earth to seize dwelling places not their own

Habakkuk 1:6 NIV

God may as well be saying ‘I’ll bring down Stormont on the heads of those useless politicians… and bring in ISIS to rule in their place.’ Ask a Christian in Iraq how much of an improvement that would be.

There’s quite a lot that’s depressing about the the first half of Habakkuk. There’s an abundance of problems and an absence of justice. There’s judgement on bad rulers, but no sign of relief for the man on the street.

But there are glimmers of hope as the dialogue between Habakkuk and God goes on. God condemns those who oppress and exploit, and trample over the weak. He warns that their victims will rise against them. But most importantly, he warns that he himself is coming. We get the first glimpse of that in verses 15 and 16:

“Woe to him who gives drink to his neighbours, pouring it from the wineskin till they are drunk, so that he can gaze on their naked bodies.

You will be filled with shame instead of glory.Now it is your turn! Drink and be exposed!
The cup from the LORD’S right hand is coming around to you, and disgrace will cover your glory.

Habakkuk 2:15–16 NIV

There’s a cup coming for the unjust. Other prophets refer to this as the cup of God’s wrath (e.g. Isaiah 51:17, Jeremiah 25:15). It’s a cup that will be drunk by the nations who oppress God’s people in the final judgement at Christ’s return (Revelation 14:10). And it’s the cup that Jesus revels he will drink, as prays in the Garden of Gethsemane (Matthew 26:42, see also Isaiah 51:22). Jesus drinks it so that Christians will not.

In other words, judgement is coming on the unjust. And as Habakkuk moves from complaint to worship, he pictures the coming of the Lord in might and wrath.

You split the earth with rivers; the mountains saw you and writhed.
Torrents of water swept by; the deep roared and lifted its waves on high.
Sun and moon stood still in the heavens at the glint of your flying arrows, at the lightning of your flashing spear.

In wrath you strode through the earth and in anger you threshed the nations.
You came out to deliver your people, to save your anointed one.

Habakkuk 3:9–13 NIV

Destruction for the unjust. Deliverance for his people. A fearsome image yet a hopeful image. And by the end Habakkuk is moved to respond in two ways:

… I will wait patiently for the day of calamity to come on the nation invading us.

Habakkuk 3:16 NIV

…I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Saviour.

Habakkuk 3:18 NIV

He waits on destruction and rejoices in his deliverer.

There’s a lot of rejoicing in sport. (Unless you’re Brazilian.) A lot of tears, but a lot of rejoicing. When Brian O’Driscoll walked onto the pitch for his final rugby match, he was greeted by cheers and applause. That’s what happens when a star player comes on the pitch – their fans rejoice. It’s a wonderful scene, full of glory and encouragement.

But there’s an ugly side to sport too. A few months ago when Jared Payne was red carded in an Ulster Rugby match for tackling Alex Goode in the air, there were boos and jeers for Goode as he was carried off the pitch – there was a suspicion by some that he had played up the incident to get Payne sent off. And the boos continued throughout the match. It was ugly and dishonourable. It encouraged no-one and left a bad taste in the mouth.

But things could be worse. Imagine a crowd of supporters who don’t merely boo their opponents, but cheer when they are injured. People who rejoice in destruction. That would be worse than ugly. It would be contemptible. You wouldn’t want to be associated with those supporters and it would tarnish the reputation of their team. No good comes from rejoicing in destruction.

Habakuk calls us to wait on destruction and rejoice in our deliverer. But in this country too often people get this the wrong way round – they rejoice in destruction and wait on – actually they don’t wait on much at all. There’s not a lot of patience here.

Habakkuk calls us to wait on destruction and rejoice in our deliverer. But too often here, people rejoice in destruction. They take things into their own hands and multiply injustice and oppression.

Pray that this season, people would heed the call of Habakkuk. Pray for patience and pray that people would rejoice, not in destruction, but in our deliverer, the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the way of Habakkuk, the life of faith, and the aspiration of any true Christian.


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/8dd8d  Tweet:

I recently submitted a letter to a number of local newspapers. No idea if it will get published or edited. Given the number of letters they likely get, I doubt it will appear, so I thought I may as well put it here as well.

Letter regarding the Ashers Bakery controversy

There is a tragic irony that in the name of liberalism, tyranny threatens to descend upon those with a conscience and Christians, so often charged with being hypocrites, are being told to separate what they do from what they believe. I am of course referring to the recent furore over the stand of Ashers Bakery regarding a certain cake. There are a number of misconceptions and outright lies that form the basis of an illiberal reaction against the exercise of freedom of conscience.
Firstly, sexual orientation is being confused with lifestyle and moral causes. Like skin colour, sexual orientation is regarded as a matter of identity. A statement of fact. ‘I was born that way.’ So to refuse service on the grounds of orientation is equivalent to racism. Fair enough, but to my knowledge, Ashers have never had a problem with selling sausage rolls to homosexuals. But while there are no ground to discriminate on the basis of who someone is, a campaign to promote particular activities is something which has moral value – it can be viewed as good or evil – and so invokes the conscience. There are sincere conscientious grounds on which to oppose the activities and the campaign and therefore reasons to refuse service.

Others object that while business owners may have a conscience, businesses themselves don’t and therefore personal beliefs should not be projected onto services open to the public. Yet a few months ago, the new CEO of the tech company Mozilla was hounded out of his job for his private opposition to same-sex marriage. When the shady antics of big multi-nationals come to light, we judge the owners and directors as immoral for their action. Businesses exist only on paper. Decisions and actions are taken by real people with moral frameworks and consciences. It is bizarrely incoherent to hold people accountable for the way their business is run, yet not allow people to run businesses according to their conscience!

The reality is that there is nothing liberal about seeking action against Ashers. Can there be anything liberal about redefining discrimination as opposition to a lifestyle rather than hatred of an identity? Is it not instead tyrannical to impose such limits on men’s consciences? Is there anything liberal about restricting who can run a business? Especially one which is in no way essential to the functioning of society? We may soon see a society in which Muslims cannot be bakers lest be they be asked to produce a cake declaring that Jesus is God, Jews cannot be bakers lest they be asked to produce a cake celebrating the wonders of bacon, pro-choice feminists cannot be bakers lest they be asked to bake a cake with a pro-life slogan, and environmentalists cannot be bakers lest they produce a cake backing big oil. In short, business owners must be without creed or conscience. Is that the world we want?


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/87e84f  Tweet:

Some people have asked me for my thoughts on the Ashers situation and as a pastor in the Newtownabbey area where the company are based, it seems particularly relevant and appropriate to offer some thoughts and guidance. I'm slightly late in responding to this since I didn't have time to get on the Internet yesterday – I wasn't even aware of the story until last night! – but I hope that both Christians and secular liberals will find this helpful or at least provoke some thoughts.

There are three misconceptions I want to challenge, followed by some questions for liberals and encouragements for Christians.

It’s not about discrimination

There is a principle regarding discussions on the internet, that eventually every argument will involve a comparison to Hitler. this is known as Godwin’s Law and generally indicates the point at which further sane, productive conversation is unlikely to occur. After all, if you think someone is no better than a Nazi then you’ll probably not give their arguments much credence – including anything they might say to persuade you that they’re not a Nazi.

In any discussion about the ethics of a homosexual lifestyle, comparisons with racism are inevitably made and it is very difficult to have a sane, productive conversation beyond this point. After all, what could a racist possibly have to say about ethical conduct?

Godwin’s Law can quite deliberately be invoked to derail a conversation that should really never have anything to do with Hitler, Nazis or fascism. And sadly racism gets played as a trump card to ‘win’ debates about homosexuality even when it has nothing to do with the actual discussion. Racism is about discriminating against people on the basis of their skin colour. Homophobia would involve discriminating against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. This does indeed happen in the world and there are times when valid comparisons could be made with racism.

But not always.

There is no moral value attached to skin colour. It’s something you can’t do anything about and doesn’t lead you to do anything. By simply being black or white, you aren’t doing anything that has a moral value, so there is no room for conscience to declare you are doing something wrong and therefore have a principled reason to oppose action you are taking. It is simply a passive physical property of who you are. Therefore racism is wrong.

What about sexual orientation? Well let’s take the prevailing liberal view that it is not chosen, then you are born that way and that you cannot help being experiencing attraction to people of the same sex. Under that view, orientation is similar to skin colour and therefore homophobia is similar to racism.

But there is a difference. Skin colour is a physical property. It’s visible. Orientation is not. People don’t walk round with big flashing signs saying that they are attracted to the same sex. Orientation can only be known when people act or speak. Acting and speaking are active rather than passive. In many cases acting or speaking involves not simply passing on information, but promoting a lifestyle, directly or by implication. It involves assigning moral value to actions or a way of life. And as soon as you do that, the conscience is involved. When you are able to endorse something as good, others then have the right to conscientiously oppose it.

So for instance being black isn’t a matter of morality. Telling someone you are white should have nothing to do with anyone’s conscience. To refuse someone service on the basis of this information would be racist.

On other hand, promoting affirmative action for black people involves actions with moral value. Promoting white power invokes the conscience. Would it be racist to refuse to produce a cake with a slogan promoting white power? Would it be racist to refuse to produce a banner with a slogan promoting affirmative action? Not inherently. There could be a racist motivation underlying such a refusal, but there could instead be a reasoned, conscientious objection to the cause begin promoted, rather than a distaste for the customer’s identity.

Now if someone came into a cakeshop and asked for a birthday cake for a gay friend – or said they themselves were a lesbian, then there would be no principles ground to object. Refusing service would be homophobia, plain and simple. But what about a cake with a slogan promoting gay marriage? That is a cause with a moral value. It invokes the conscience. A baker could refuse service on the basis that they don’t like gays and that would be homophobic. It would be like racism. But they could also refuse on principled grounds of conscience. Just as a Christian baker’s conscience might compel to refuse to make such a cake, a gay activist baker’s conscience might compel them to refuse to bake a cake with a slogan opposing gay marriage.

As far as I can tell, Ashers refused to make the cake, not on the basis of the customer’s orientation, but on the basis of the cause the slogan would be promoting.

It’s not about businesses having no conscience

I’ve heard the objection, in other similar situations, that businesses have no conscience. Employees and owners might, but businesses don’t. And without a conscience, they cannot decline service on principled grounds. The actions of a business are not the actions of its employees and owners. They are not morally responsibly, so they cannot impose their conscience or their moral framework upon the actions of the business.

This concept seems to be very selectively applied however.

A few months ago, Mozilla – a technology company which produces an Internet browser – promoted an employee to be their new CEO. There was uproar over this because he had privately donated some money to promote a campaign in a vote about gay same-sex marriage, helping to fund those who believe it should not be legal. This was a private action. It reflected his personal conscience. But it was felt by many that this reflected on the company as a whole. And before long, he was hounded out of the job, resigning for the good of the company.

When a large-multinational engages in immoral (but legal) behaviour, the morality of bosses, directors, major shareholders, etc. is questioned. the actions of the company reflects the morality of those who run it. Their consciences, their moral frameworks, are not eld to be separable from the actions of the company. There’s a lot of sense in that because of a course a business is something of an abstract entity. It is something which exists on paper for legal and financial purposes, but a company can’t actually do anything. People do things. And so the actions of a company are the actions of people with consciences and moral frameworks. The decisions of companies are the decisions of people with consciences and moral frameworks. You cannot separate the actions of a company from the conscience of its owners and directors.

This is particularly true of small business or even large business with a small number of owners where the actions of the company really do reflect the conscience of a person, a couple, or a family.

If you cannot operate a business without exercising your freedom of conscience, then what does that do for the job prospects of Christians and indeed others who have strong consciences? Will they not be driven from many areas of business? In fact, is this not already happening?

What does it say about the sort of people who are permitted to run businesses? They must be law-abiding, but amoral. No strong conscience which would lead them to object to any philosophy, worldview, lifestyle, or behaviour.

Or more sinisterly, is the current action against Ashers saying that only people of a certain worldview, who uphold a certain set of values and a promote a certain way of living, are allowed to exercise their conscience and run businesses? What a chilling thought that is.

It’s not liberal

There are many who will insist that taking action against Ashers is about upholding liberal values. But is there anything liberal about redefining discrimination as opposition to a lifestyle rather than hatred of an identity? Is it not instead tyrannical to impose such limits on men’s consciences?

Is there anything liberal about restricting who can run a business? Especially one which is in no way essential to the functioning of society? Do we not see here an imposition of a certain worldview and an economic coercion against opposing views?

 

Questions for ‘liberals’

So-called liberals may cheer and celebrate the actions of the Equality Commission, but if the principles which provide the commission with its basis for action are given credence, what happens when the worldview in power becomes one which opposes you? Right now it may be one which serves your agenda, which promotes your views, but what happens when that changes? What grounds will you have left to oppose it? And in the mean time, how can you continue to call yourself a liberal when your worldview is imposed by economic coercion and tyranny of conscience?

Encouragement for Christians

This morning in my quiet time two of the passages I read were Philippians 1 and Psalm 12. And on Sunday I will be preaching on Habakkuk 3. I commend all these passage to anyone wrestling with how to endure in the face of threats and coercion, the probability of hardship for Christian businesses and the possibility some day of prison for the faithful.

There are two things which come to mind from these passages:

  • remain faithful because God is coming back to deal with the unjust and faithless
  • rejoice because God is our saviour

Here are some particularly pertinent quotes to mull over and stimulate you to pray.

Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance. I eagerly expect and hope that I will in no way be ashamed, but will have sufficient courage so that now as always Christ will be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death.

Philippians 1:18–20 NIV

Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ. Then, whether I come and see you or only hear about you in my absence, I will know that you stand firm in one spirit, contending as one man for the faith of the gospel without being frightened in any way by those who oppose you. This is a sign to them that they will be destroyed, but that you will be saved—and that by God. For it has been granted to you on behalf of Christ not only to believe on him, but also to suffer for him, since you are going through the same struggle you saw I had, and now hear that I still have.

Philippians 1:27–30 NIV

Though the fig tree does not bud and there are no grapes on the vines, though the olive crop fails and the fields produce no food, though there are no sheep in the pen and no cattle in the stalls, yet I will rejoice in the LORD, I will be joyful in God my Saviour.

Habakkuk 3:17–18 NIV


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/89044  Tweet:

There are some films I've watched more than twice. And would happily watch again and again. Casablanca, Harvey, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Kahn, The Princess Bride, most Pixar films. I know what's going to happen. In some cases I could extensively quote dialogue. But I would happily watch them again. Why?

Because a story is as much about experience as knowledge. More in fact. Some studies have even shown that knowing what is going to happen can increase enjoyment of a film because you start to eagerly anticipate what's about to happen. You can see that in action with toddlers demanding their favourite story books!

We're wired for story.

I'm thinking about that today because I've started into Reading the Gospels Wisely by Jonathan T. Pennington. In the third chapter he gives a list of various reasons why we need the gospels , which includes their power as stories

The most powerful discourse of truth is not abstract doctrinal propositions but stories and images and art because these engage our whole person, not just our minds. (p. 46)

I'm still mulling over whether 'powerful' is the right word, but he's definitely on to something here. Doctrine is great for precision, but if you want passion, then you'll get further with a story.

Fittingly he provides a story to illustrate his point:

Imagine that a man wants to take his beloved wife on a date to a romantic movie. At the last minute he decides that it would be far cheaper and much more efficient to go to Blockbuster, find the "Romantic Comedy" section, and together read all the synopses on the back of the DVD boxes. Why would that not have the same effect? Why would this be a failed date? Because it is the story – its setting, development, climax, resolution, and the fact that it takes time to experience – this is the film's power. The (often deceitful) summary on the back cover may guide one choosing a selection, but it cannot replace the experience of the story because story cannot be reduced to its content. If the narrative did not matter, then we could just have the synopsis and be done with it. (p. 47)

A great reason to spend time in the gospels. And a great reason to work harder on illustrations for sermons!

 


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/c9078e  Tweet:

We're in the middle of a week of prayer in Hyde Park. As with many (most?) churches, people are very nervous of praying out loud. And no matter how many times you promise that no-one will be asked to pray out loud at a prayer meeting, a Bible study, or a prayer service, the fear still keeps people away.

I've rather come to expect that though, and it doesn't discourage me in the way it probably would have in the past. I can remember when I would have been pretty terrified myself! Instead I hope that when some do come and have a good experience of the prayer meetings, they will go and encourage others – witnessing on my behalf.

So I've been thinking about how to make prayer accessible for people who are scared of opening their mouths and so far there are four things that seem to work:

  • asking people to write down prayer requests that you can then read out – this works great in prayer services
  • asking people to write down prayers to read out in advance – people seem a bit more comfortable with this when I let them know that about a third of my prayers are done this way (another third I do bullet points for and the remaining third are extempore).
  • giving permission to pray in silence then closing in prayer myself – it's encouraging when you speak to people afterwards and hear what they've been able to pray about in silence that they couldn't have if they'd had to open their mouths
  • praying in a small group – the fewer people there are, the less scary it is to pray. I've heard the most voices praying when there've been the fewest in the room!

Hopefully the more confident people get praying like this, the easier it will get to pray out loud. And when they find they can pray without the lurking dread of speaking in front of someone, hopefully they'll persuade fearful friends that prayer meetings aren't as scary or pressurised as they might imagine.


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/9f8c0e  Tweet:

Shellfish often seem like the Achilles' Heel for anyone who takes the Bible seriously. When an Atheist wants to challenge ethical positions based on the Bible, very often the issue comes back to 'So why do you eat pork and shellfish then? You're just picking and choosing!' Food laws can feel like a bit of a curse. It's easier to make that accusation than to take time explaining how Jesus made everything clean and then explain the different uses of the law for a Christian.

Even leaving aside discussion with others, what does a Christian do with the food laws? If Jesus has made everything clean, what should we think of these laws? Do they have any value for us?  This is particularly weighing on my mind at the moment because for the past couple of weeks I've been preaching through Luke's gospel, focusing on the meals Jesus goes to. Food laws have come up a few times and the way the Pharisees use them to exclude people from fellowship and implicitly from the kingdom of God, leaves a sour taste in the mouth. It's very easy to develop something of an antinomian spirit and start looking at the law in general, and the food laws in particular, in a very critical, negative light.

To counteract that, I've been reading through a portion of Psalm 119 each day. The longest chapter in the whole Bible, this Psalm rejoices in the law and it leaves me wondering how we can rejoice in laws that we are no longer under and in some cases seem to have been effectively rescinded because they served to mark Israel out as different to the unclean nations.

One thought occurred to me today: the existence of food laws that no longer apply shows us God's mercy in a way we wouldn't see if they had never existed. When the food laws were given, they helped differentiate between Israel and the other nations. They send a message that the other nations  who weren't following God were unclean. That's largely bad news, but it allows good news to be announced when Peter is told in a vision that in the light of the resurrection, all foods can be eaten, indicating that the nations are no longer unclean. If the laws had never existed, we wouldn't have this illustration of God's grace expanding from one nation to the world.

In 1 Peter we're told that the angels are envious of mankind having the experience of grace that is only possible because of the Fall. It is in some way better to have fallen and been redeemed than never to have fallen. I wonder if in a similar way, there is more joy in having a restriction that is lifted than in never having been restricted.


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/0d048  Tweet:

Tomorrow I'm preaching on the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet in Luke 7:36–50. It's a brilliant story, one of the cleverest I think in Luke's gospel. But the best line in the whole story is surely by Simon as he thinks to himself.

Luke 7:39 NIV When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is — that she is a sinner.”

This is saturated with irony and confusion about identity:

  • Simon thinks Jesus can't be a prophet because he doesn't know the woman is a sinner. But with Jesus' next words he shows he is God through his knowledge of Simon's thoughts.
  • He thinks that it's the woman whom a prophet would identify as a sinner, but Jesus' prophetic knowledge turns the spotlight firmly on Simon.
  • He thinks that the woman is acting like a page three model, with her scandalous behaviour, but  Jesus hold her up as a model citizen of God's kingdom.

Simon gets it wrong about all three characters. He doesn't even realise who he is himself. How wrong. How tragic. How blind we are without grace.


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/e08d80  Tweet:

I have fond memories, from when I was a child, of my mother baking. I would occasionally 'help' and one of the incentives to do so was that sometimes, before the final product was ready, I might be able to get a taste of it by licking the stirring spoon.
I don't know if anyone looks forward to my sermons except me (and sometimes not even that). But I'm going to try and put up a few thoughts that come out of sermon prep, before I preach each Sunday. You're welcome to come and lick the spoon, though I can't guarantee how digestible or palatable it will be.


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/787f1f  Tweet:

radioactive

In March 2011, the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan suffered a major accident in the wake of a large earthquake and tsunami. Over two years later, the situation still isn't under control and radioactive waste continues to leak into the ground and ocean. Hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent to try and contain the disaster and eventually decommission the plant.

A vital part of this process involves radiation counters. Some are placed on buildings and water tanks to warn about dangerously radioactive materials that need to be avoided or disposed of. Most of the plant and surrounding area is so radiative that it is only fit for burial somewhere out of harm's way. Other radiation counters are worn by workers at the plant to warn them if they're receiving an unhealthy dose and need to leave or get treatment.

This week I've been thinking a lot about Luke 5 in preparation for Sunday's sermon and it occurs to me that God's law is like a radiation counter. Everyone from a leper to the Pharisees to Jesus himself can use it to see who is a sinner. Unclean. Radioactive.

But you can use a radiation counter two ways.

  • You can use it to work out what to avoid and keep away from. Or rather, who to avoid and keep away from. You can use it to treat people like dangerous buildings and radioactive waste. Fit for burial. Best kept out of harm's way.
  • Or you can use it to work out who's getting a dangerous dose; who needs help. You can use it to treat people like… people.

Guess what Jesus did.

 


Short URL: http://tinyit.cc/e8e0ef  Tweet: