garden of sighs

On the eve of a 200th anniversary

2012-02-06T05:43:00.000-08:00

Studying English Literature in school can go one of two ways. It can lead some people to never want to pick up another book again in their lives or it can nourish a love of literature that lasts a lifetime. Often it depends on the material studied and on the teaching of it. Or it can depend on whether the immature teenage brain is capable of understanding the mind blowing nature of what it is taking in, rather than just reading Brodie's notes (remember them?)and desperately trying to remember key quotations for the exam.

I was very nearly put off reading the work of Charles Dickens when I studied Oliver Twist for GCSE. On reflection I don't think it was anything to do with the teaching which was very enthusiastic (to the point of reading dramatic episodes aloud and hamming it up ridiculously as Fagin). Rather it was due to the fact that I could not appreciate the revolutionary nature of what I was reading.

Thankfully I overcame my initial reaction to start reading some of Dickens' other work. His use of language to provoke a smile or a tear in his reader was second to none. He could lose his reader (and sometimes himself) in overlong passages of vivid description or wild tangents of social comment which did nothing to serve the plot but did everything to let you know what the author thought of the corrupt institutions of his day.

His personal life was a troubled one. Nobody could mistake Charles Dickens for a model husband and father and his attitude to women (both in real life and in his novels) was weird. But his novels shaped life in this country like no other works of literature could. Some of his characters were bland (Oliver Twist, Little Nell) but that only served to demonstrate the colourful character of many of the others (Fagin, Miss Havisham, Uriah Heep).

But why am I writing about Dickens in this blog? Not just because he is one of my favourite authors and Great Expectations is almost certainly my favourite novel of all time but because his (almost prophetic) voice is just as relevant to society today as it was when he wrote. We have plenty of satire today but none of it comes with the moral outrage so often contained in Dickens' writing. We have plenty of campaigners for justice but movements like the Occupy protests lack the imagination, punch and vicious sense of humour that made Dickens incapable of being ignored by the powerful and corrupt.

Maybe it is going too far and maybe Dickens himself would reject the idea but I think it is entirely possible to see him standing in the heritage of the Old Testament prophets who were stark in their criticism of power and who often delivered their message with biting satirical humour. (NB Hosea also had a pretty strange personal life!)Our society with all it's dissatisfaction at the perceived corruption of financial, governmental and ecclesiastical institutions is surely ripe for a new Dickens. There are many blurbs on the back covers of paperbacks that use that tag about an author. None of them live up to the hype. Perhaps we need to recover the old Dickens and ask ourselves what he would write about 21st century society. Would it be any less scathing than his opinion of 19th century Britain? I think not.

Perhaps it would be even better if we re-read some of those Old Testament prophets and began to apply their voice to our culture today and echo their cries for justice and mercy. In May the Presbyterian Church in Ireland will launch its theme for the year 2012-13 which calls the church to be a prophetic voice in our society. I suspect Mr Dickens would approve. He might even ask what has been keeping us?

If God is there why doesn't he prove it

2012-01-29T14:30:00.000-08:00

Big Questions

If God is there, why doesn’t he prove it?

This post is the text of a talk given in Ballygrainey on 29th January. It relies heavily on the work of much better communicators than me - namely Paul Williams and Barry Cooper ('If you could ask God one question'), Michael Ots ('What kind of God?'), Tim Keller (The Reason for God) and, of course, CS Lewis. If you find anything here that is helpful it probably came from one of them. Anything that you find unhelpful almost certainly came from me.

The Clues

I have no doubt that it is one of those stories that is told that has just grown and grown until every teacher in every pre-school classroom claims it happened to them but it goes like this. The teacher asks the pupils to sit down and draw a picture of what they did at the weekend.

They all happily go about drawing swimming pools and swings supermarkets and then the teacher discovers one child drawing something different. ‘What’s that Jimmy?’ asks the teacher. ‘That’s God’ replies Jimmy. ‘But no-one knows what God looks like’, says the teacher. ‘They will when I’m finished’, replies Jimmy.

And that is our problem. We don’t know what God looks like and so we end up coming up with all sorts of pictures for him ourselves. We start saying there are hundreds or thousands of gods, or we say that planet earth is a kind of god. We make God in our image.

The only way we can know what God is like is if he reveals himself to us. And we have a God who has done that and has left us with a number of clues to his existence.

I am going to talk a little about some specific clues God has given us to show that he exists and then, later on we’re going to look at the main way in which he has revealed himself to us.

I am going to deal with four questions about the universe, whose answers give us clues to the existence of God.

1. Why is there anything rather than nothing? Just about every scientist now aggress that the universe had a beginning. They call it the Big Bang, we call it Genesis 1:1. In his book The Reason for God, Tim Keller quotes Francis Collins one of the driving forces behind the Human Genome project; ‘We have this very solid conclusion that the universe had an origin, the Big Bang. Fifteen billion years ago, the universe began with an unimaginably bright flash of energy from an infinitesimally small point. That implies that before that, there was nothing. I can’t imagine how nature, in this case the universe, could have created itself. And the very fact that the universe had a beginning implies that someone was able to begin it. And it seems to me that had to be outside of nature.

The point is that if everything in the universe depends on the existence of something else, then the universe itself depends on the existence of something outside itself. This argument doesn’t prove that the God of the Bible exists, but it gets us to the possibility (or even probability) of a Creator. Either a creator outside of the universe started it all off or nothing just exploded into something.

2. Why is there life in the universe? Why is it that the universe is perfectly set up to support life, particularly life on this small blue-green planet called earth? Things like gravity, the speed of light, the composition of atmospheric gases on this planet all come together to support life. If any of these forces were out in even a tiny way, we could not exist. This suggests to many people that the universe was fine tuned by God in order to sustain life.

Atheistic scientists will come back on this and say that there might well be an infinite number of universes out there and we just happen to live in the one that supports life. There is absolutely no scientific evidence for multiple universes whatsoever and it almost certainly requires more faith to believe in that than to believe in a creator.

One philosopher called Alvin Plantinga, quoted by Keller, gives this example; Imagine a man in the Wild West dealing himself twenty straight hands of four aces in one poker game. As his companions reach for their guns, he says this, ‘I know this looks suspicious but what if there are an infinite number of universes out there so that for any possible distribution of cards in a poker game there is a universe where each one comes about and we just happen to be living in the universe where I always end up with four aces without cheating!’ What effect do you think that will have on the man’s fellow poker players? What effect do you think it will have on the man’s chances of making it out of the saloon alive?

It is possible that, purely by chance, we happen to be in the one universe out of trillions where life could exist but does it make sense?

3. Why is the universe ordered and regular so that it can make sense to a rational mind? Science itself depends on regular patterns in nature – gravity, speed of light etc. make sense to rational minds. To many people that suggests that there is a rational mind behind it. If there isn’t we have no justification in assuming that the patterns will keep going because there are, in fact, no patterns.

The interesting thing, when it comes to science, is that all science relies on these patterns to continue but, without God there is no guarantee that they will. Without God, scientists are just hoping that every day the patterns will keep working the same way they did yesterday and the millions of days before that. It probably doesn’t cause them to lose much sleep but it is what they are doing.

4. Why beauty? Here is one of the greatest clues of all. Somewhere out there is a work of art, a piece of music, a natural phenomenon or another human being who, when you look at them, they just take your breath away. Why do we find things to be beautiful and not just functional? And why is it that the things we find to be beautiful don’t satisfy our inner desire for beauty? For a moment, they take our breath away, but then we find something else that takes our breath away.

Could it be that our innate desire for beauty corresponds to something that will one day finally and fully satisfy that desire? Could that thing, in fact, be God?

From these four clues people have worked out that God is, at least possible. But then the atheists come along and say that belief in God is simply a part of the evolutionary process – that belief in the same God, even though it wasn’t true, was something that allowed communities to be formed and was, at one stage, helpful for natural selection. We don’t really need it any more but it has been hardwired into us by evolution for so long that it is hard to get rid of.

Here is what is being said; We cannot trust our minds to guide us into truth because all that our minds will do will be to guide us to what is appropriate for our evolution, even if it is not true. But hold on a minute. If we can’t trust our minds to guide us into truth, why should we trust the people that tell us through the use of their minds, they have discovered that atheism is true? Couldn’t their minds be deluding them?

Listen to what Tim Keller says about this; ‘It seems that evolutionary theorists have to do one of two things. They could backtrack and admit that we can trust what our minds tell us about things, including God. If we find arguments or clues to God’s existence that seem compelling to us, well, maybe he’s really there. Or else we could go forward and not trust our minds about anything. … It comes down to this: if, as the evolutionary scientists say, what our brains tell us about morality, love and beauty is not real – if it is merely a set of chemical reactions designed to passon our genetic code – then so is what their brains tell them about the world. Then why should they trust them?

But if God exists then our minds do work and we can trust them to work because he made them to work in such a way as to understand truth and process beauty and recognise love and discern right from wrong and reason things out. If God exists then the fact that the universe had a beginning and the fact that it works in a consistent, regular way and is fine-tuned in a way to sustain life, makes perfect sense.

None of these clues PROVE, in a scientific way, the existence of God. But they are clues. And I think that, together, they make a pretty strong case and certainly explain what we see around us better than the theory that there is no God.

But if there is a God, why doesn’t he show himself to us more clearly? Well, he did. And we’re going to see how he did it in a few minutes.

The Man

Michael Ots tells this story in his book ‘What kind of God?’ A friend of his moved away to university and quickly got to know everyone in his particular hall o residence. But there was one student who remained a mystery. Despite continual knocking on door D23, they could get no response. Soon, they began to query whether anyone lived in the room at all. But then the clues started to appear. There was a strange smell from under the door – something like food but not particularly appetising. There was strange oboe music coming from the room late at night and a strange sound of something dissolving in the sink. None of those things conclusively proved the existence of the student in D23 but they gave some indication that he existed.

In order to demonstrate his existence he would have to have come out to meet them. The clues on their own would not have been enough. The same is true for God. The clues by themselves are not enough. In order for us to know that God exists he has to come and introduce himself to us. And that is exactly what he did.

The Gospel writers and the whole of the NT are in agreement. God did show himself to us on earth. He did it convincingly. He did it authoritatively. He did it in such a way that he could be heard and seen and touched.

The Word, who was responsible for creating everything, who was God, became flesh and dwelt among us. That is the claim the gospels make. That is the claim Jesus makes for himself.

Don’t let people tell you that Jesus didn’t claim to be God. In each of the four most reliable accounts that we have of his life, he claimed exactly that. When he forgave people’s sin he was claiming to be God. When he said ‘I and the Father are one’ he was claiming to be God. That is why, as soon as he said it, the crowd picked up stones to throw at him.

When he said ‘Before Abraham was, I am’, he was deliberately using the name God had given himself when he appeared to Moses and applying it to himself. Make no mistake. Jesus claimed to be God and people wanted him dead because of it, but he kept on doing it.

If you are going to claim to be something you need to be able to back it up. I could claim to be a great undiscovered footballer with more talent than Wayne Rooney, Thierry Henry, Gary Lineker and George Best combined. After 30 seconds on a five-a-side pitch you would soon find out I was talking nonsense.

Compare that to someone like Muhammad Ali whose constant refrain was ‘I am the greatest.’ If you are going to say it you had better be able to back it up. And of course Ali could.

And that’s the point about Jesus. He could back it up and he did it back it up. All the time. Calming storms at sea, feeding 5000 people with a packed lunch, healing the deaf, blind and lame, raising the dead. The evidence of the gospels is that Jesus walked this earth as if he owned the place.

Here is the point. We do not believe in God because of the clues that he made the universe and sustains it all, even though those clues are amazing and even though we believe that he did create it all. We believe in God because of the man called Jesus.

Here was a man who made stupendous claims about himself and did things that no-one else has ever done, including rising physically from the dead. No-one at the time was able to conclusively disprove the resurrection stories by bringing out a body. No-one since has been able to come up with another more plausible theory.

If we find all the clues about God’s existence compelling, they should at least make us consider the possibility that he exists. If Jesus made the claims he did and backed them up the way he did and if the resurrection happened, then he would need to take seriously his claims about himself. There are a number of things that all these conclusions point us to.

First, God exists and has shown himself to the world in Jesus. Second, he is interested enough in us, not just to enter this world but to die for our salvation. Third, everyone who hears this has a response to make to him, he cannot be ignored.

Let me finish with that wonderful passage from CS Lewis’ brilliant ‘Mere Christianity’ because few people have said it better;

‘I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit on him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.’

What is evangelical?

2012-01-16T05:10:00.001-08:00

A few things have got me thinking this week about what it means to be 'evangelical'. Last week, in Texas, there was a meeting of 'evangelical' leaders to decide which Republican candidate they could wholeheartedly support for the presidential nomination. Also last week my attention was drawn to a couple of blogs by Krish Kandiah - one, a review of a book on theology and politics by evangelical theologian Wayne Grudem, the other a report on some comments made by Mark Driscoll about the (from his perspective) lack of young, evangelical leaders in the UK.

The term 'evangelical' has always been one with which I feel very comfortable and by which I have identified my own theological position but it has always been subject to some weird and not so wonderful redefinitions.

The twentieth century saw a revival of broadly evangelical thinking and leadership in both the USA and the UK. Much of that leadership, in turn, sought to encourage the growth of evangelical thought and teaching in the developing world. This has brought incredible fruit in Asia, Africa and South America. At the same time evangelicalism saw itself as increasingly different from fundamentalism which seemed to focus too much on end times theology, anti-intellectualism, biblical literalism and a theory of biblical inspiration which owes more to Mohammad and Joseph Smith than to the Bible's understanding of itself.

At the beginning of the twenty-first century there seems to be a new shake up of attitudes in evangelicalism, especially in America, although it has an impact across the English speaking world. The church planting movement has taken off and given us a new model of church which is both exciting and challenging. The culture wars which began in America in the 1990s have not resolved themselves and are being played out in the Republican campaign at the moment. Traditional evangelical beliefs such as substitutionary atonement and the idea of hell as an eternal conscious punishment resulting from human rejection of God have come under fire or been ditched by some who still want to claim the title 'evangelical'.

It could seem that the evangelical community is in danger of breaking up over some of these issues and dissolving into an unedifying spectacle of blame and counter-blame. I suspect that now is the time for evangelicals to once again focus on what is important about our faith and to respond to John Stott's call for unity in his 1999 book, Evangelical Truth. I want to suggest a few guiding principles which might help us here.

1. Your commitment to evangelical faith does not imply within it a commitment to any one political party or grouping of the left or the right.

2. The touchstones of evangelical faith are not found in your responses to ethical or moral dilemmas, which may legitimately differ, but in your commitment to the historic good news of Jesus Christ, God incarnate, crucified Saviour and risen and returning Lord. To be evangelical is to believe in a God who reveals himself, a Saviour who redeems a sin-sick world and a Spirit who regenerates those who place their faith in Christ.

3. As an evangelical you will not reject out of hand other types of learning (especially in the field of science)just because they might restrict certain economic activities to which you are culturally or politically committed.

4. Your disagreements with each other should be carried out in a spirit of humility because none of us has apostolic authority and all of us need to listen to other people. These disagreements have, in recent months, had a tendency to take place on blogs like this one.They have also led, at times, either to people's views being condemned before they are even officially published or to provocative marketing producing unnecessary and unhelpful debate.In his book John Stott claims that the 'supreme quality which the evangelical faith engenders (or should do) is humility'. If that is true some of us (including me) have some repentance to do.

Our culture desperately needs a clear and united statement of evangelical truth. It may be worded differently from such statements in previous generations but it will contain the same historic truth which evangelicals believe goes all the way back to the apostles. Our culture needs the gospel and, as their name implies,it should be evangelicals who are most committed to bearing witness to it. And to God alone(not my church or my parachurch organisation) be glory.

So this is Christmas...

2011-12-23T01:56:00.000-08:00

Well, here we are. The festive season is fully upon us. Shops are full of crazed shoppers buying food they will never eat and presents that not every recipient will appreciate and all the while being forced to listen to piped Christmas songs such as the one whose first line forms the title of this post. It is this mad rush that makes some of us sit back, observe the chaos and complain about the rampant materialism and commercialisation of the modern Christmas. It makes us long for times when Christmas was simpler - when chestnuts roasted on an open fire and you counted yourself blessed if you got a tangerine in your stocking and everyone remembered the real reason for the season.

But what purpose does our cynicism really serve? Do our complaints about the hassle and busyness and materialism really help us to focus on the Christ-child or do they just make us appear to be Scrooges?

Why does it have to be either-or? In the end, with all of our complaints about losing the meaning of Christmas in the mad rush of worldly celebration, most of us will still spend the 25th happily opening our presents, sitting down to a larger than normal dinner and watching (or Sky plussing) our favourite festive TV shows. Many of us will have been to church late on Christmas Eve or early on Christmas morning. There it may be the case that we will hear one last heartfelt plea to focus on the Christmas story over the course of the day itself but perhaps that is the wrong approach.

In the preceding weeks we will have been to carol services and nativity services. We will (hopefully) have had the opportunity to hear about the significance of the incarnation in an adult sermon as well as seeing it played out by our children dressed in dressing gowns and tea towels. We will have had the opportunity to contribute to causes that make Christmas that much easier for the less well off, either in our own country or overseas. And now we come to the day itself and we feel guilty because we haven't focussed enough on the child and another Christmas has passed without our expectations of the season being met.

Perhaps it is time to relax about all this. Observe all your normal traditions, whether they be food, presents and family time or serving Christmas lunch to a few homeless people or standing round the piano singing 'Hark! the herald angels sing' or watcing Doctor Who (or the Queen's Speech - sorry ma'am). God has given us many good things to enjoy and he intends us to enjoy them with gratitude in our hearts. All the gifts he gives us are brought to their completion and fulfilment in that one indescribable gift, given at Bethlehem.

Enjoy this Christmas season to the very best of your ability. If, for you, there is some sadness here with the absence of a loved one, don't cover it up or hide it away for fear of spoiling the day for others. Give people the opportunity to stand with you, pray for you and share with you the true meaning of Immanuel, God with us in every circumstance of life. Let that knowledge bring peace and, yes, joy into your heart.

He crossed time and space to be your Saviour. Enjoy that fact this Christmas by enjoying the day, however you choose to spend it. Happy Christmas!

Why the death of Christopher Hitchens is such sad news.

2011-12-16T02:07:00.000-08:00

Today it was announced that Christopher Hitchens, one of the leading lights of New Atheism had died from pneumonia - a complication of the cancer from which he had been suffering. He was obviously a very bright man and possessed a great intellect. He was also a scathing and provocative debater There will be many people who (like myself) disagreed profoundly with him and who will be tempted to celebrate or crow over his passing. PLEASE resist this temptation.

Hitchen's death is sad because he leaves behind a sorrowing, grieving family for whom we all should have compassion. His death is sad because it reminds all of us that whatever intellectual heights we achieve or whatever career success, status or wealth come our way, we are all subject to the inevitable statistic that one in every one person dies.

His death, like every other death, is sad because it reminds that there is something not right about the very existence of death. In the comments on his death on the BBC website many of his fans and followers were using the letters RIP, or talking about the loss of a great soul or even expressing the hope that they might meet again the next time around. No doubt some of this will have been deliberately tongue in cheek but not all of it was. What was certainly not tongue in cheek was the expression by many of a sheer disbelief that their hero was gone. All of this, to me expresses an inability, deep within the human psyche, to reconcile ourselves with death as something normal, natural and part of life. We simply cannot reconcile the thought that humanity is just a random and meaningless colection of atoms with the feelings we experience when someone we love, or by whom we have been influenced, dies. We cannot help but feel that there must be more.

Now, Christopher Hitchens' followers will eventually suppress those feelings and carry on the New Atheist struggle but for those of us who disagreed with him, we should resist the temptation to jump up and down on his death. Instead we should try gently to show those who agree with him that their feelings about the wrongness of death are not, themselves, wrong but point to the fact that their needs to be a better solution than the one Hitchens, Dawkins et al have come up with.

From that point, maybe we can point them to the words of the carols (which Richard Dawkins apparently loves singing as a 'cultural Anglican') which tell them that the solution has come in Christ who was 'born that man no more may die'.

I am deeply saddened that Christopher Hitchens has died from such an awful disease. I did not share his opinions. I believe that much of what he wrote was wrong and often deliberately offensive to people of faith but that only makes me all the more sad, both for him and for his followers. I would encourage as many Christians as possible to express themselves carefully, thoughtfully and compassionately today and to do so for not other reason than the one given by the apostle Peter; 'Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.'

Thoughts on a Tenth Anniversary

2011-09-02T11:33:00.000-07:00

At some point over the next ten days or so I will pluck up the courage to sit down and watch (for only the second time) Paul Greengrass's magnificent film about the September 11th attacks, 'United 93'. There is something about this 10th anniversary that makes me want to sit up and pay attention again.

Maybe it is the need to reflect on how the world has really changed since that awful day in 2001. We all thought, quite soon afterwards that the world had changed in some indefinable way. We all felt, as the magnitude of the events became clear, that 'nothing would ever be the same again'. In the intervening decade our world has been horribly transfixed by conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have been traumatised afresh by attacks in Bali and Madrid and London.

And yet life has continued. The world did not change so irrevocably on September 11th 2001 that people stopped getting married, having children, starting jobs or graduating. Human beings, especially those in New York, have demonstrated their remarkable capacity to just get on with life. Air travel has become somewhat more inconvenient and we have got terribly used to the images of coffins being removed from planes at military air bases but for most of us life has just gone on.

But for all the attempts to carry on as normal we are a generation that has been marked by those attacks. We do remember where we were when we heard the news that clear autumn day. (I was in my car travelling to Downpatrick and listening to Simon Mayo on Radio Five Live as he attempted to describe to his listeners what he saw unfolding on the monitors in front of him). The images of first burning and then collapsing buildings are seared on our minds. The recognition that something so evil could come literally out of the blue and devastate thousands of lives haunts our memories.

The evil that occurred on that day scarred the beginning of the 21st century the way the loss of Titanic scarred the beginning of the 20th. It made us (for however brief a time) recognise that we needed help just to survive on a planet where such things were possible. It made us look beyond ourselves to something or someone greater just to supply the ability to get out of bed the next day and face a world where such events take place.

But then we got used to that world again. We decided that we didn't need to look beyond ourselves any more. We shifted back into the comfortable routines that didn't include the need to admit our own mortality, our own finiteness. For that reason alone perhaps it is important to mark this 10th anniversary. Because we need to remind ourselves as human beings that we are human. We are finite. In our own strength we are intensely limited. It is only then that we tend to look for something greater, something infinite, something with the limitless resources to supply our needs even if we don't have the answer to every question.

And of course that something is not a thing at all but a person. Like the apostle Paul we might beg for the pain and the hurt and the confusion of this world to be removed from us but when we do, like Paul we will hear the voice say to us, 'My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.'

If the events of that day a decade ago made us feel powerless, weak and inadequate in the face of evil, then we need to know that the power of evil is already broken. It was broken by love. It was broken moments after the planes hit when people ran into those buildings to get people out. But in reality it was broken 2000 years before when a man hanging on a cross endured the uttermost depths of human evil and cried out 'It is finished.'

My heart goes out to anyone for whom every September 11th is a reminder of a missing family member. I have never lost a family member to violence and I cannot appreciate the experience of anyone who lost someone on that day or in the foreign wars that have followed 9/11 but I know this; evil does not have the last word. God has not allowed it. At the cross and the empty tomb we hear the words 'Death is dead, love has won, Christ has conquered.'

John Stott: an appreciation

2011-08-01T15:25:00.000-07:00

Others have written and will write more eloquently about the life and influence of John Stott but I wanted to record a personal reflection which is (I hope) a little more thoughtful than my Facebook post in the immediate aftermath of his death last Wednesday (27th July).

I was given my first book by John Stott when I was about 13 or 14 years of age. My eldest brother gave me a copy of 'Basic Christianity' which still sits on my bookshelf. It was the first 'grown up' Christian book I ever read and it had a huge impact on my understanding of basic Christian belief. When I was a student I read 'The Contemporary Christian' where Stott explained in detail the concept of double listening that so marked his thinking. I immediately felt a sympathy for this approach which took an ancient, unchanging but always relevant Word and determined to apply it rigorously to a modern and rapidly changing world which seemed to be growing increasingly out of step with Christian faith. The practical wisdom demonstrated in its pages helped me to relate what I understood about my faith to the world in which I was called to live it out.

Other Stott books have helped me since. 'The Cross of Christ' deepened my appreciation for that awful, wonderful sacrifice of the Son of God given for my sin. His contribution to the 'Bible Speaks Today' commentary series has been a constantly helpful resource as I have struggled to develop a preaching ministry which attempts (not always successfully) to relate that ancient Word to the reality of 21st century living and serving.

His last book, 'The Radical Disciple' is a call to live out our Christian calling in every area of life from our attitude to the environment to the constant call to die to self and ultimately be prepared for our own deaths.

I only met John Stott once. I was introduced to him on the steps of Union College in Belfast and spoke with him for all of about two minutes. But that doesn't really matter because his writing meant that he became a huge influence on my life and ministry without him ever knowing it. Last year, after reading 'The Radical Disciple' I wrote him a letter to thank him for his writing. I am glad I did. It cost me very little time, effort or money to do and while I am in no doubt that he received thousands of such letters it was important for me to do it.

Along with thousands of others I will be constantly grateful to God for the life and ministry of John Stott. I admit to being saddened on hearing the news of his death to the point of shedding a tear. I was sad that such a humble, gifted, godly man was no longer among us but that sadness quickly gave way to a deeper joy that a faithful servant has received his reward and heard his Lord and Saviour say 'Well done'.

Time for Truth

2011-07-13T07:33:00.000-07:00

Over ten years ago Os Guinness wrote a little book called 'Time for Truth; Living free in a world of lies, hype and spin.' This is how his book concludes; 'The West (and its lead society) are at a crossroads. In a world of lies, hype and spin, there is an urgent need for people of truth at all levels of society. There is quite simply no other way to live free. The choice is ours. So also will be the consequences.'

What choices has western society made in the intervening decade? We have seen the credibility of various institutions crumble largely because of a failure of truth. Governments, banks, churches and now the press have all been found wanting when it comes to acknowleding the truth. And we as a society have been reaping the consequences - led into a dubious war, sold a financial disaster, unwittingly protected corrupt priests and allowed journalists to do anything in pursuit of the celebrity tittle tattle we apparently can't get enough of.

Do we need any more evidence of the reality that truth itself has been consistently devalued in the western world? Instead of being valued for its own sake truth has been seen as a means to an end. If the truth will get my policies through parliament, secure my investments, keep people in my pews or sell my papers then it is of use to me. If it won't then it's not.

Furthermore, if a lie or a hype or a deception or an illegal act will get me further towards my goal than the truth will, then I will choose that instead. After all in a world where truth has lost its meaning, who cares about right and wrong? Who even knows what they mean any more?

Two thousand years ago, a politician in a small outpost of the Roman Empire with a few corrupt institutions of its own asked a cynical but profound question; 'What is truth?' What he did not know was that the man standing in front of him, bruised and battered and rejected by his own society was the very embodiment of truth. As has always been the case our relationship with the truth and our relationship with him are inextricably linked. We cannot claim to be in him and continue to give tacit acceptance to a world governed by lies, hype and spin.

So what will we do? There is only so much that direct action and protest can achieve. Lobbying the powerful is sometimes useful but in itself it carries the danger of giving into this same world of untruthfulness (the truth that serves my lobby group's aim is good but the truth which contradicts it is bad).

Surely the thing to do is to re-commit ourselves to being people of truth. We will often be inconsistent in this but when we are and our inconsistencies are pointed out we will recognise them, deal with them and thank the person who brought us up short. Even King David was eventually grateful for the ministry of Nathan the prophet because Nathan's message allowed David to become more of a man after God's own heart.

If we are going to be people of truth, the first thing we will do is recognise that everyone including ourselves is guilty. Politicians, bankers, journalists, clergy, celebrities, sports stars, business people all have the potential to lie and spin because we are all sinful. Orange and green, black and white, Tory and Labour, Christian, Jew, Muslim and atheist - we all stand condemned for not living lives of complete honesty, trustworthiness and faithfulness.

The second thing we will do is share the truth that has made a difference to us - the truth that every sinner finds grace and forgiveness in Jesus Christ. This is the truth. And this truth will set us free.

The Morning after...

2011-06-20T04:05:00.000-07:00

1982 - Gerry Armstrong and Alex Higgins. 1985 - Barry McGuigan and Dennis Taylor. 2010 - Graeme McDowell. And now 2011 - Rory McIlroy. All of these are names I will remember from my lifetime as representing great sporting achievements from N. Ireland. I don't remember Mary Peters' triumph and I didn't see George Best at his peak.

Rory's achievement ranks as one of the best for me and there are a number of reasons for that. For late night/early morning drama it compares to Taylor holding his nerve to pot that final black against Steve Davis, although of course Rory's victory was a lot more comfortable than that nerve shreddng night in 1985. For the background story of coming back from that horrible final round at Augusta where we watched one of our sporting heroes come apart at the seams it was simply a joy to watch. For the recognition that some times nice guys (and Rory seems to be one of the nice guys) do come first it was very satisfying. It was both funny and emotional to see him half-apologise for not buying a Father's Day gift as he presented his dad with the US Open Golf trophy.

Maybe this one is closer to home for me as well because I grew up in the same town as Rory and went to the same school as Rory. Of course, we were a considerable number of years apart. When Rory was swinging his plastic clubs as a two year old I was doing my A-levels.

But I think that one of the reasons why this has been so tear-jerkingly enjoyable is because of the wee country that we come from. Many of those bright sporting moments that I mentioned at the beginning came in the context of some of the darkest days of our history. Rory McIlroy has known very little of the deep darkness of the Troubles in his 22 years and he represents a post-Troubles generation that are not held back by the history of this place. Many people of my generation couldn't wait to leave this place. Rory can't wait to get back. Perhaps that sums up what has changed between the time I was 22 and now.

We still have our difficulties. There is still darkness out there on our streets and the destruction of another promising young life in the murder of PC Ronan Kerr should remind us that there is still some way to go. We are at the beginning of another marching season when there is the potential for N. Ireland's name to be broadcast around the world for all the wrong reasons again. Rory McIlroy has given us a reason to be cheerful and a reason to be (in the right sense) proud. Don't let's waste it. Let's enjoy it.

I hope that over the years to come he keeps giving us those moments although none will be as emotional and wonderful as his first major victory in Maryland. Don't put him on a pedestal that he will inevitably topple off some day. Just let him be what he is - an incredibly talented sportsman, with a good attitude to victory and defeat - someone we will support and be proud of but who we won't worship or idolise.

Over the last few days people have made mention of Rory's God-given talent. Wouldn't it be great if people really meant what they said? Wouldn't it be great if those same commentators and journalists actually took a moment to say thank you to a God who gives human beings skill to invent and discover and yes, provide enjoyment to millions of others? I don't know if this is an example of God's common grace but perhaps it is and maybe we should be thankful that in the midst of a dark and difficult world we can share in some good news born and bred in 'our wee country'.

Thoughts at the end of General Assembly week

2011-06-09T11:13:00.000-07:00

I have been trying to process some of my thoughts and feelings at the end of this week's General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. I think the best thing I can do is to state how I felt at different points and why.

On Tuesday I felt proud (in the right way I hope) to be associated with a Board of our Church (Youth and Children's) that was commended for its creativity, vision and inspiration. It has been a privilege to play a part in this board over the last seven years and it is a time which I will look back on with considerable fondness having stepped down as convener of the Resources Committee of the Board this week.

During the debate on the Presbyterian Mutual Society on Wednesday I felt grateful to God that he had brought our church through a crisis that could have so severely damaged our witness on this island. There are still lessons to be learned but there is much to be thankful to God for. Not least we Presbyterians should be thankful to God for providing us with a small group of committed and faithful people who have steered us carefully and sensitively through this difficult time.

That gratitude was replaced on the same afternoon with a feeling of real sadness as we discussed our church's response to the Church of Scotland's decison regarding the ordination of those involved in same sex relationships. I am in no doubt that the appeal which we made to the 'Kirk' to return to scriptural orthodoxy was absolutely right. I am sad that it was necessary. I firmly believe that this is not, at its heart, a matter to do with how we respond to homosexuality in the church, but rather it is about our attitude to the authority of Scripture over the church. I have said in other places that I would rather the battle over scriptural truth was being fought in another area but this is the area in which it has come to us and we must be prepared to take our stand on the life-giving word of God while still trying to work out how to reach out pastorally and missionally to those living with same-sex attraction.

I have also felt challenged this week as I have listened to that same life-giving word being preached by our moderator and three other ministers of our church. My vision of God has been enlarged. My confidence in God's infinite resources has been strengthened. My complacency when it comes to building relationships with those who are different from me has been confronted. I am grateful to all those who preached this week.
My final feeling at the end of this week is that the reformed, evangelical witness on display this week in the General Assembly can still be a real force for good and for God in this island. New challenges may face the church of the 21st century but new opportunities for mission and kingdom building are right here on our doorstep.

These are my thoughts. Those of you who weren't there or aren't Presbyterian might not be interested. Those of you who were there may have different thoughts but I hope that however you feel as you leave the assembly week behind you have a renewed confidence in the word as life for all who will hear and respond.

Dealing with evil men

2011-05-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

Wisdom and Evil men

Proverbs 24

For many people there was confusion about how to respond to the killing of Osama bin Laden. I mentioned on my blog how I felt a mixture of relief, remembrance, sadness and confusion about what had happened. For some there was no question but that this was a cause for rejoicing and they took to the streets.

And that reaction is understandable, especially if you were in New York or Washington or Pennsylvania on that terrible day 10 years ago. The wisdom of the book of Proverbs understands that kind of reaction clearly when it says this; ‘When the righteous prosper the city rejoices; when the wicked perish there are shouts of joy.’

But the same book then says this later on. ‘Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when he stumbles do not let your heart rejoice.’ How can those two ideas be reconciled? Don’t they contradict one another? How can they both be in the same Bible, never mind the same book of the Bible?

To understand this we need to understand a little more about the book of Proverbs. Proverbs is a collection of wise sayings, many of them attributed to Solomon. It is not telling a story like the history books or the gospels and it is not developing a argument like Paul’s letters. It is simply an anthology of wise words. These wise words have two functions.

First, some of the sayings of Proverbs simply describe the world as it is. They are a description of how life often works out. So you will find proverbs that say that lazy people won’t eat because they won’t work to earn money to buy bread. That is how things generally work out. Generally wicked people are punished and most people when they think about it will recognise that wisdom is a more enduring and fulfilling aim in life than wealth.

There are a few proverbs that simply but clearly state that life sometimes works in a way that seems wrong. So bribery sometimes works. This is not to say that bribery is right or good but simply that people who want something and are prepared to offer a bribe will sometimes get what they want. That’s life. That’s the world we live in.

But the second function of these Proverbs is to guide us so that we get the best out of life. There are some principles to follow if you want to increase your chances of living a good and fulfilled life in this world. Among those ideas are the thought that it is better to desire wisdom than to envy the wicked for what their evil has gained them. There is the encouragement to work hard so that you can feed yourself and your family. There is the warning to watch what you say so that you are not characterised as either a gossip or a liar or a flatterer.

There are long sections of the book of proverbs warning against the dangers of lust and adultery. There are also short, pithy phrases warning people against the misuse of alcohol and the dangers of drunkenness. Throughout the book there is a concern that justice is done for the poor and the weak.

I would suggest that the verse from Proverbs 11 about rejoicing over the demise of the wicked is simply a statement of the way things often are. Proverbs 24, on the other hand offers some sound advice about how to deal with enemies.

First of all we see that if you want to build something that will last you will do better to use wisdom than wickedness. Sometimes evil can achieve things quickly and spectacularly but those achievement rarely last. Wisdom leaves a legacy of understanding, knowledge and beauty behind it for those who will follow on. It may not be spectacular but it will last.

Following on from this idea is the thought that it is better to use wisdom and wise arguments out in the open than to plot and scheme behind the scenes. In our world today we generally believe that in international affairs it is better to use wise and persuasive arguments in places like the UN or the G20 or NATO or the EU than to plot and plan in secret. If you do make plans in secret without involving the rest of the world you will need wise advice in how to justify the action that you have taken.

You will still need wise words to bring to the city gate – the place where justice is done and the merits of cases decided. When President Obama gave his address on Sunday night, it was designed to make the case for the action that was taken. It was a well thought out address, delivered calmly and making the argument for bin Laden’s killing.

Proverbs 24 is also clear that when the strong use their strength they must use it wisely. They must be ready to use that strength in times of trouble but they must be willing to use it first and foremost to protect the innocent and put an end to slaughter.

While the world was caught up in the reaction to bin Laden’s death the city of Misurata in Libya was still coming under intensive shelling and bombing by Gaddafi. A ship carrying refugees from Misurata to Benghazi was attacked and shelled. The UN has resolved to use all means to protect the innocent of Libya. It seems to be finding it difficult to act in strength here.

At the same time in the Syrian city of Deraa and in the suburbs of Damascus unarmed protestors are being shot and killed by the security forces while the UN seems unable or unwilling to prevent it. Listen to the words of Proverbs 24:11-12; ¹¹Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering towards slaughter.

¹² If you say, But we knew nothing about this, does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who guards your life know it? Will he not repay each person according to what he has done?

God knows how the leaders of the world react or fail to react to the death of innocents. Those in positions of power have great responsibility. They will be held accountable for the actions they have taken or refused to take. They need our prayers that they will be guided by wisdom, especially in these days.

Here we also learn that a righteous cause will prove resilient; ‘though a righteous man falls seven times, he rises again, but the wicked are brought down by calamity.’ Here we have great encouragement to continue to seek justice and righteousness in our world.

On April 4 1968, when Martin Luther King was assassinated in Memphis it must have seemed like a tragic ending. It was, of course just the beginning, because others stepped in to take the cause forward and the cause and its leader were not forgotten. On Thursday at Ground Zero the pledge was made again never to forget those who had died in that place and we never should.

We should never forget any innocents killed in conflict or terrorism. We should never forget the likes of Constable Ronan Kerr either – those who are prepared to take a stand against evil for something better. They leave us a legacy to make sure that their cause does not die with them.

But in defending the cause of the righteous we need to know how to respond to the downfall of an enemy. The front page headline of the New York Post is shocking in its hatred and triumphalism but it only echoes what so many people felt on Monday.

We need to be careful and examine our hearts. Triumphalism over a defeated enemy is problematic for us as Christians. We need to remember whose enemy we were. We were God’s enemy and he does not rejoice over our downfall, he does not celebrate when we experience judgement. Instead he sends a saviour to rescue us from that judgement and save us from that wrath. At all times we need to remember that we do not get what we deserve from God – we get grace and mercy instead.

Although acts of evil are distressing and traumatic and leave deep, deep scars they are ultimately futile. The lamp of the wicked will be snuffed out, we are told and it is entirely possible that god in his sovereign wisdom used a group of US special forces to snuff out the evil of bin Laden.

But whether justice comes in this world or the next we should know that it will come. We do not need to fret over evil men. Evil, as we discovered this morning, has been defeated by Christ at the cross. We will trust in him.

Love and Evil men

The death of Osama bin Laden well and truly took over the news headlines from the other big event last weekend – the Royal Wedding. It now almost seems forgotten in the harsh bump back down to earth that we got from events in Pakistan.

But there was something that happened at the wedding that has a strange and eerie relevance for what we are thinking about tonight. During the service James Middleton, Kate’s brother read from Romans 12. It is a passage which focuses on the nature of love and it is easy to apply to two people getting married. The qualities that that chapter talks about, especially in verses 9-16, are very appropriate for a wedding day.

Qualities of love, patience, faithfulness, hospitality, empathy and humility are vital for a marriage and are equally vital in the life of the church – the situation for which Paul was writing.

But in the midst of the passage there are also some echoes of the way we, in love, need to deal with those who hate us and I want to briefly draw our attention to some of those.

In verse 14 Paul says, ‘Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.’ How do we respond when people curse us? How do we react when someone makes it clear not just that they disagree with us but that they hate us and everything we stand for? What do we do when someone makes it their life’s work to destroy us and our way of life?

Paul says we bless them. We seek their good. We long for them not to be so eaten up by hatred but to find a greater purpose worth living for. Those sentiments were expressed last year by Matt Baggott when talking about dissident republicans ''I ask God to take the scales off their eyes so they actually become people and their families have a future that is about anything other than violence and rage and bitterness and anger," he said.
''So they free themselves up to play their part in the right way in the future in Northern Ireland and I think that's a prayer that I share with many other people in Northern Ireland and many people in the South (of Ireland) and many, many churches here, but we should be praying for people who are trapped in the cycle of violence and anger.''

What he is doing here is not just praying that they would stop but that they themselves would be able to have a better life than their hatred and bitterness is allowing them to have at the moment.

Is this not the same sentiment expressed by a man on a cross who, as his enemies were hammering nails into his feet and hands was praying for their forgiveness?

Then he goes on to say we should not repay evil for evil. We have seen how the cycle of tit for tat violence destroyed normal life in this society for nearly forty years. We have seen how certain people consistently refused to learn the lesson that repaying evil with evil only ever escalates the conflict.
It has yet to be seen if the violent death of bin Laden will lead to escalation but in the meantime it is vital that world powers be seen to be behaving rightly and with justice. It is vital that we do all in our power to promote and build peace in the Middle East. In our own country we have got to be seen to be building a society in which the causes of conflict are gone and those who would drag us backwards are isolated.

This doesn’t mean that we should treat evil as though it didn’t matter. Rather it means that we should not follow the desire for vengeance through to its logical conclusion. Evil deserves to be punished but because our way of doing things is too often about revenge than about justice we need to step back and leave room for God’s wrath.

Wrath and judgement can be delivered here and now through earthly structures. In Romans 13 Paul says that God has given rulers power to judge and condemn evil. But even if earthly justice fails there is a day coming when God’s wrath will fall on all evildoers.

Instead of seeking revenge we are to serve our enemies. This striking poster makes the point of love for our enemies very well. This is not an optional extra in the Christian life. This is not for the elite Christians. We are all called to love and serve our enemies as Christ loved and served us.

And there is wisdom from the book of Proverbs to back this up. Feed and water your enemy and it is more likely to bring him to repentance than any act of revenge ever will. Does he deserve to be fed and watered by you? No. Does he deserve to be punished by you? Yes. But then what did you deserve from God? Punishment. And what did you receive? Grace.

Finally, says Paul, ‘do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’. Osama bin Laden was not defeated on Sunday night when he was shot dead. He was defeated on September 11, 2001 when firefighters ran into burning and collapsing buildings to rescue people they had never met. He was defeated when hundreds of New Yorkers rushed to the scene to give medical assistance, support and blood. He was defeated when those people chose to overcome evil with good.

Evil was defeated at the cross. When Jesus refused to retaliate, when he blessed his enemies, when he died to make peace and when he served us by bearing the force of God’s wrath against our sin, he defeated evil. The cross stands as testimony to that victory. It is our victory and it will never fail.

Osama Bin Laden - how to respond?

2011-05-02T09:29:00.000-07:00

When I got up this morning and turned on the radio it was difficult to believe what I was hearing. The man who ordered the event that has so far defined the global history of the 21st century was dead. It took some moments before I actually realised that they were talking about Bin Laden in the past tense and it will take me a lot longer to work out what my response to his death should be. Today I can only share some initial reactions.

My first response of disbelief was quickly replaced by a quiet remembrance of the lives lost nearly 10 years ago on September 11 2001. Then, if I am honest, there was a sense of relief that the man whose continuing threats have haunted so many was no longer around to be feared. That sense of relief did not last long, however, as the realisation sank in that not only are there already plenty of people prepared to take his place but that the very fact of his violent death may encourage and inspire a whole new generation of militants.

The exuberant crowds who gathered in the early hours in Washington and New York looked alarmingly similar to the crowds of Palestinians who cheered and celebrated the destruction of the World Trade Centre and I notice that in response to a Gospel Coalition blog one person who was there in the wee small hours has already wondered about whether it reflected a right response.

My mind turned to the response given by David when he learned that his arch-enemy Saul had been killed on the slopes of Mount Gilboa. Of course the situation was different. Saul was God's anointed king who David himself had refused to kill on at least two occasions. Nevertheless, you would expect David to rejoice at the death of his enemy even if that rejoicing was tempered by the death of his best friend, Jonathan. There is no such response from David. Instead there is a lament for both Saul and Jonathan. There is sadness and sorrow that it has come to this.

There will be few who will lament for Bin Laden and I don't think that it would be appropriate to lament the death of a man who caused such untold suffering for thousands of people. But neither do I think that we should rejoice. Perhaps our response should be calmly to reflect and remember and firmly to resolve to stand against evil and violence in whatever form it comes. Perhaps that reflection should be tinged with a sadness that the early 21st century seems worryingly similar to the 20th in terms of the prevalence of violence.

Maybe the right response is a lament at the state of our broken, violent world coupled with an unfailing trust in the God who judges evil and loves righteousness. Such a response is found in the middle of the book of Lamentations;
I remember my affliction and my wandering, the bitterness and the gall.
I well remember them, and my soul is downcast within me.
Yet this I call to mind and therefore I have hope:
    Because of the LORD's great love we are not consumed, for his compassions never fail.
    They are new every morning; great is your faithfulness.
    I say to myself, The LORD is my portion; therefore I will wait for him.

I do not have hope because my enemy is dead. I do not have hope because my country is greater and stronger than yours. I have hope because of the everlasting compassion, love and faithfulness of God. I do not need victory over my enemies. I do not need vengeance or even the guarantee of earthly justice being done to the likes of Bin Laden. The LORD is my portion. He is enough. I will wait for Him.

Rediscovering the only story that really matters - a review of King's Cross by Tim Keller

2011-04-15T06:59:00.000-07:00

In the period leading up to Easter I have been getting reacquainted with the pages of Mark's gospel. In our church we have been running a small Christianity Explored course and, as the course has been running I have been reading Timothy Keller's latest book examining the story of Jesus as told by Mark.

Keller's central idea in the book is that if the account given of Jesus' life, death and resurrection in the gospels is true, then it is the only story that really matters. It is the only story that makes sense of our humanity, our history and our destiny. He chooses to focus on the gospel of Mark because of its immediacy and up front statement of its purposes:

'In his very first sentence Mark tells us that God has broken into history. His style communicates a sense of crisis, that the status quo has been ruptured. We can't think of history as a closed system any more. We can't think of any human system or tradition or authority as inevitable or absolute any more. Jesus has come; anything can happen now.'

Keller goes on to divide his book into two halves, focussing on the themes contained in the two halves of Mark's gospel - the identity of Jesus (chapters 1-8) and the purpose of Jesus (chapters 9-16) - the King and the Cross.

Keller's style of writing is logical and well worked out but burning with a deep love for his subject. The result is a book which, after reading one chapter you realise that in your heart you always knew this about Jesus or the gospel but you have perhaps not heard it expressed in quite this way. To give an example Keller discusses the difference in between Christianity and religion in this way; religion, says Keller, is essentially 'advice on how you must live to earn your way to God. Your job is to follow that advice to the best of your ability.' By contrast the gospel isn't advice. It is news - good news that Jesus has already done all that is needed and offers us favour with God as a free gift of grace. 'The gospel is not about choosing to follow advice. It is about being called to follow a King.' This gospel becomes an offence to both religion and irreligon, both Jerusalem and Rome because it cannot be co-opted by either but stands as a challenge to both.

We are encouraged throughout the first half of the book to identify with the walk-on characters who encounter Jesus and have their lives changed as a result - the paralysed man, Jairus and the character who stands out for me, the Syro-Phoenician woman in Mark chapter 7. In Keller's discussion of this woman he carefully draws out the importance of how we respond to the gospel. We must be humble enough to recognise that we do not deserve anything from God's table but not so self-absorbed that we fail to accept the offer of undeserved grace he makes.

As he turns our attention towards the cross, Keller shows why Jesus' death is different from any other. As Jesus contemplates 'the cup' in the garden of Gethsemane the point is driven homw that it is the experience of God's righteous judgement against sin that Jesus is anticipating and dreading. It is the thought of this rupture taking place at the heart of the central relationship in the universe that makes the cross so dreadful. He contrasts Jesus' 'loudest desires' at that moment - to be free of the cup that is coming - with the 'deepest desires' of his heart from eternity - to save us. 'Jesus doesn't deny his emotions, and he doesn't avoid the suffering. He loves into the suffering. In the midst of his suffering, he obeys for the love of the Father - and for the love of us.'

As we come to the cross itself Keller offers us the picture of Jesus experiencing the deep darkness, isolation and disintegration that our sinful rebellion is taking us towards and doing it out of love. 'If you see Jesus losing the infinite love of his Father out of love for you, it will melt your hardness. No matter who you are it will open your eyes and shatter your darkness. You will at long last be able to turn away from all those other things that are dominating your life, addicting you, drawing you away from God. Jesus Christ's darkness can dispel and destroy our own, so that in the place of hardness and darkness and death we have tenderness and light and life.'

I remember being told that if people walk out of a church service and are discussing what a wonderful preacher they have just heard, then that preacher has failed. On the other hand if they are walking out discussing what a great Saviour they have, the preacher has done his job. Reading King's Cross along with Mark's gospel will give you a deeper appreciation of your Saviour. Read it and pass it on to someone who wants to know why Jesus is so important to you.

Language, Leaders and Love

2011-03-21T14:23:00.000-07:00

Let me make something clear from the beginning. I have not read Rob Bell's new book. It will not be published on this side of the Atlantic until the end of March. I have not read any of Rob Bell's books and I think I might have seen one Nooma video. So why bother blogging about it?

What intrigues me is not so much the book itself but the nature of the controversy prior to its publication in the US. The internet was (and no doubt still is) full of people commenting on Bell's 'universalism' on the basis of one promotional video. Not only did Bell's opponents feel able to comment on his position without having read the book but so did his supporters. Anyone who has seen the video knows that Bell's position on anything at all was pretty unclear and hardly worth arguing about. Yet despite this the arguments started and some of it got pretty nasty (as online arguments have a way of doing).

The online atmosphere was so heated that by the time a reasoned, thought out (and admittedly overwhelmingly negative) review by someone (Kevin DeYoung) who had actually read the book came out the time for reasonable, respectful, critically engaged discussion had almost passed. And still very few people had even read the book in order to form their arguments!!

I would like to suggest some things that might improve such debates in the future:
1. How about reading the material before commenting on it?
2. How about not putting out vague and unclear promotional material which is only designed to stoke the controversy (and sell more books, of course)?
3. How about learning to listen to each other?
4. How about learning to disagree with someone's arguments without attributing sinister motives or descending to personal abuse?
5. How about saying what you mean and meaning what you say so that people can discuss substantive ideas and not just vague theories or intriguing questions?
6. How about being conscious in our discussions of the pastoral impact of both bad theology and bad behaviour from leaders when publicly discussing theology?

Let me finish by saying that IF Rob Bell is promoting a universalist theology then I strongly disagree with that position and I don't think it can be supported biblically. He has stated in an interview with Martin Bashir that he is not a universalist but doesn't seem to be clear about what he is. There are times when we need to admit mystery into our theological discussion but when it comes to 'heaven, hell and the fate of every person who ever lived' I think we owe it to people to be as clear as we can biblically be.

We must speak the truth and where we believe the truth is being compromised or distorted we must speak out. But we must speak the truth in love. It is this kind of truth-telling that Paul says will build up the body so that we grow up into Christ, our Head. What worries me is that we seem to be able to speak the truth more lovingly to our Islamic or atheistic neighbours than to people who themselves claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

Perhaps in that way God might receive glory even in our disagreements both love and truth will win the day.

(PS Feel free to disagree with this post. I won't take it personally!!)

The Derby Fostering Case

2011-03-03T15:04:00.000-08:00

There have already been a number of responses to this case - some of them more kneejerk than others - but I would urge caution in any response to cases like this. First, I don't think it is a good idea to respond to the case simply on the basis of the reporting in the media. Inevitably the media takes what is a pretty complex legal opinion and boils it down to an easily digestible (and not always accurate) headline. Secondly, there seems to be some evidence that some of the legal support for the couple at the centre of the case has come from Christian groups who are quite keen to take numerous cases to court simply so that they can cry 'persecution' when the judgment goes against them. Not all of these groups are immune from using the same kinds of tactics as the popular press if it appears to suit their cause.
I have glanced (and only glanced) at the judgment. It is long and complex and no firm principle in law seems to have been established by it. The common law of England and Wales regarding fostering appears not to have been altered by this judgment although the Judeo-Christian basis of the legal system in England and Wales does seem to have been called into question by it.
I don't want to be accused of making light of this case. There are some serious concerns that it raises, not least the implicit rejection of any real objective basis for making law. But I think that to suggest that this was the day when Bible-believing Christians stopped being able to foster or adopt children is wide of the mark.
The days of the marginalisation of the church and the Christian message are here and they will continue but let's be careful not to be led into using the weapons of the world - media spin, excessive political lobbying and heavily funded court cases etc. to fight for the cause of the gospel.
Instead let us remain faithful to the truth of God's saving grace in Christ, speak out for the poor, dispossessed and marginalised and depend on God's power which, according to the apostle Paul is made perfect in our weakness.

Reflecting on Psalm 19 with CS Lewis

2011-03-02T13:46:00.000-08:00

‘I take this to be the greatest poem in the Psalter and one of the greatest lyrics in the world.’ CS Lewis

The heavens and the skies – the stunning beauty of a sunrise or sunset, the child’s wonder at the sight of a rainbow (or even a double rainbow), the awesome power of thunder and lightning (especially during the snowfall this winter), the quiet brilliance of a clear but moonless night in the mountains when every star seems to be visible, the vastness and apparent closeness of a harvest moon in late summer - all declaring the glory of God.

Day after day and night after night they speak the glory of their creator. It is as though their purpose is to produce awe in us that is then to be directed not to them but to the one who made them.

The mistake of the pagans is misdirected awe – worshipping sun, moon, stars and planets instead of their creator. The mistake of the secularists is misdirected awe – preferring to worship a random series of unrelated events than the person who brought it all together.

The voice or language of the skies is heard in every part of the earth where people can acknowledge it, ignore it or reject it. And then there is the greatest of the heavenly bodies – the sun – completely magnificent, utterly unequalled in the physical universe of the Hebrew believer and completely dependable – rising and setting more regularly than clockwork. Nothing is hidden from its heat – this isn’t the mild heat of an Irish summer – this is the strong, penetrating 40-50 degree heat of Israel. ‘…the cloudless, blinding, tyrannous rays hammering the hills, searching every cranny.’ (Lewis)

Turning to the law of the Lord is a natural link from the searching, penetrating rays of the sun to the searching, penetrating light of God’s word.

CS Lewis at first seems to struggle with the idea that someone could delight in the law as the psalmist says he does. He gives the example of a hungry but penniless man in a shop where he can smell freshly baked bread or freshly ground coffee who may respect and obey the law that says you shall not steal but can hardly delight in it.

Lewis suggests that someone can only delight in God’s law the more they read, study and meditate on it. It is as we spend time with God’s word that it becomes to us more precious than gold and sweeter than honey.

When I was at Dundee University I fell in love twice. Once was with Paula, the other was with the Bible. I was already a Christian but it was only through teaching and study and preparing for things like Hall Bible Study groups that I really began to see how much treasure is here. I truly believe that we want children and young people to get that long before they get to university age. And we don’t want to do it so that we can produce great theologians; ‘One is sometimes (not often) glad not to be a great theologian; one might so easily mistake it for being a good Christian.’ (Lewis again).

Look at some of these images of delight in God’s law

· More precious than gold

· Sweeter than honey

· Like feeling solid ground under your feet after ploughing through muddy fields

· Like pure mountain water

· Like fresh air after a dungeon

· Like sanity after a nightmare

Half a century ago Lewis gave us a description of the emptiness, uncertainty and general lostness of the society in which we exist today. It is a description of a society which desperately needed the solidity of God's unchanging word.

'Christians increasingly live on a spiritual island; new and rival ways of life surround it in all directions and their tides come further up the beach every time....Some give morality a wholly new meaning which we cannot accept, some deny its possibility. Perhaps we shall all learn, sharply enough, to value the clean air and "sweet reasonableness" of the Christian ethics which in a more Christian age we might have taken for granted.'

That was Lewis writing over 50 years ago. Tell me that this is not a description of the western world of the 21st century.

There is a danger here, (and Lewis recognised it) that we who recognise and delight in God’s law somehow begin to think ourselves superior to all those around us who don’t value or care about it. To guard against that danger we have the last few verses of the psalm.

Forgive my hidden faults – those things that the word relentlessly searches out.

Keep me from wilful sins – my constant tendency to do what I know is wrong (the Romans 7 problem). May they not rule over me – my unceasing ability to let pride or bitterness or disappointment or anger or pleasure take the place of God’s word in setting the course of my actions must be guarded against.

Above all v. 14 needs to shape all that we are and do. ‘The best have their failing, and an honest Christian may be weak. Nevertheless, the goodness and sincerity of their hearts will entitle them to pray the petition of this verse. No hypocrite or cunning deceiver can ever use this prayer.’ (Thomas Sherlock - Bishop of London mid-18th century).

Let the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in your sight O Lord, my rock and my redeemer. (ESV)

Welcome

2011-03-01T10:00:00.000-08:00

Having promised I would do this from September I am finally getting round to starting a blog. The title comes from the Bruce Springsteen song 'The Rising' where he talks about living in a garden of 1000 sighs. It inspired me as a good way to look at our world. There is so much that is beautiful, admirable and noble in our world but also so much that causes us to sigh or groan with the rest of the creation as we look forward to the day when everything is made new. I hope to reflect on some of the beauty as well as some of the pain of living the Christian life in the second decade of the 21st century. I can't promise regular posts yet (I'm new to all this) but I look forward to seeing if anything I do write strikes a nerve or maybe even helps someone.