Mandela: just a man but what a man

-->

Mandela: just a man but what a man

Cyberspace and the airwaves are today (6 Dec 13) buzzing with the death of Nelson Mandela.

Much of the commentary is adulatory (eg I have seen references to him as a Christ figure). In response, some push back with respect to his embrace of violence in the ANC armed struggle against apartheid.

I want to make a quick Christian comment under two headings.

1. Mandela; just a man.

Nelson Mandela was born with the creational greatness of every person of every colour. He was made in the image of God - and that is greatness (Gen 1:16-17).

But he was just a man. This showed in his creational limitedness, most recently visible in his aging, illness and death. It also showed in his sinfulness, for he too was part of the ‘all’ referred to in Rom 3:23. This showed in things like his initiation of the ANC violent struggle and the depths of that violence. It also showed in his part in a publicly dysfunctional marriage and family life.

So, Mandela had feet of clay like the rest of us. That’s no surprise to those who read their Bible, but it is worth mentioning on this day when hagiography abounds.

2. Mandela: what a man.

Jesus tells his people not to retaliate against their enemies but to bless them (Matt 5:38-47). The later Mandela embodied this to a remarkable degree and with far reaching global impacts.

From his birth in 1918 until about 1990 Mandela lived with the stigma of being a black man in a racist society.  This mean separate and unequal treatment, in which he was subject to deprivation and to the depravation of institutionalised white supremacism.

His moment of greatness came in association with his 1990 release from prison and his subsequent election as President of South Africa. Power was now his. However, this was an hour of grace and reconciliation not revenge. That is remarkable considering his sufferings under apartheid and his previous involvement in the armed struggle. It is also rare in a world where the ‘lest-we-forget’ way of the Balkans and the Middle East is expressed in endless cycles of hated and payback violence.

Mandela: indeed just a mortal and sinful man, but what a man in his generous grace.

Hosting a visiting gospel worker

Hosting a visiting gospel worker

The preacher was already away from home and had been in two beds over three nights. He had preached that morning and sat through a lengthy congregational meeting. Ahead of him was an evening sermon and then an hour's drive to another new bed and another new group of people. The hostess invited him (with others to lunch).  When he entered her home she showed him the bathroom and a spare room, commenting that she expected he would want an afternoon nap. Her family was introduced and a generous meal provided - with the invitation that he eat only as he desired and feel free to leave the table for the spare room whenever he desired.  The visitor's heart was warmed and he was well-rested to preach that night.

The Scriptures speak of the gift of hospitality as being important (Heb 13:1) and it is especially singled out as a quality of church leaders (1 Tim 3:2).

These passages have wide implications. For now I want to focus on the ministry of hosting at travelling gospel worker. In doing so, I note the words addressed to such people as to how they should receive hospitality (eg Lke 9:1-5). Put simply: the visitor should stay where they put and be content with what is provided.

I write as one who has often been a visitor in people's homes and churches and who is grateful for the hosts who make a thoughtful ministry from the act of hospitality. Of course, the Scriptures also give many examples of this ranging from the widow who housed Elijah (1 Kng 17:8f), to Aquila and Priscilla (Acts 18:2-3), the mother of Rufus (Rom 16:13) and not to forget those who received the Lord himself such as Mary, Martha and Lazarus (Jn 11:1-5).

The following points are derived from my experience. Each needs to be adapted to circumstances and some may just not be possible.

·       House the worker in just one home during a visit. Moving from home to home can be draining especially if the schedule is heavy and the guest is a more retiring type.

·       Provide a private room in a quiet part of the house with a clean bed and bedding.  If possible include a comfy chair and table where the visitor can sit to pray, chill out and work. Include hanging space and somewhere to hang clothes.

·       Offer clothes washing facilities - depending on length of stay.

·       If you have it, offer wireless facilities so your visitor can hook up to family, work and the wider world. Likewise for printing facilities.

·       Provide a door key and local information so your visitor can come and go as desired and explore the neighbourhood.  Can you include a travel card for local services?

·       Don't provide a different venue for every meal. Pity the worker who goes to a different place for every meal. Not only is the succession of new people to engage with tiring, but each host may act as though this is the only meal that will be eaten all day and provide meals whose richness and quantity leave the visitor gasping.

·       Ask about any dietary restrictions and honour them. Ensure good balance in healthy and tasty foods. Travelling can be a health hazard in more than one way!

·       Give your visitor the opportunity to sleep when wanted and be careful of late night conversations immediately after travel or ministry - or just before ministry.

·       If you are responsible for setting the schedule, include times of rest especially for extended visits.  Take are in adding extra ministries at the last minute and check that your guest is up to them.

·       When there are down times, ask your visitors what they would like to do and give a range of choices.

·       Include the visitor in family activities to the extent that they wish it.  Some will delight in engaging with your (grand)children and pets. Others may not.

·       Pray for your visitor and offer to pray with him or her.

Finally, on behalf of myself and other travelling gospel workers, I thank you for receiving us in the Lord's name.  Your service is not just a functional necessity but an echoing of God's hospitable gospel and a vital ministry in bringing it to others.

The Eden Project and Gaia theology

-->

The Eden Project and Gaia theology

The Eden Project (www.edenproject.com) near St Austell in central Cornwall is aptly named.  The Project attempts the reproduce the biodiversity of planet earth through a series of climate- controlled domes and gardens. What was once a disused quarry site that slashed the landscape with scars of human intervention is now a place of beauty and quite fecund with life.

The Eden Project is more than an exercise in regeneration after human use. In its own words:

Plants, gardens and horticulture

We are an educational charity and we have planted over a million plants from around the world to teach our visitors about humans' relationship with nature.

Our exhibits are designed to show that:

·         plants give us our food, fuel, materials and medicines

·         plants are part of a wider ecosystem that provides our water and air

·         the natural world can be beautiful, relaxing and inspiring.

As an educational charity, we also use gardening as a way of empowering, engaging and connecting people through special outreach projects. Eden's horticulture programmes focus on everyone from prisoners to the disabled, from local families to schoolchildren worldwide. (www.edenproject.com/whats-it-all-about/plants-gardens)

Much of this is great and Christian people can say a loud 'Amen'. The Scriptures tell us that we humans are at the peak of creation and are to use its resources and can eat other living beings (Gen..).  However, this command and permission is beautifully balanced by the command that we also 'care' for the earth (Gen 2:15).  As populations have increased and industrialisation has advanced and spread, the earth has suffered under our over-use and misuse. The present scientific consensus is that human behaviours have adversely affected the earth's very structures.  In short, it seems that the time has come to redress a balance through greater efforts to care for the earth as well as use it. 

In this sense the Eden Project is a good reminder of the breathtaking beauty of the earth's biodiversity, but also it's fragility, human interdependence with the rest of the planet and the impacts of human actions on the environment. 

There is a big 'however' over the Project and much of the present environmental movement that it represents. The 'however' is represented in a circle of stones and accompanying plaque in the Mediterranean dome with the Eden Project. The plaque reads: Our Medicine Wheel embodies Father earth, Mother Sky and Spirit Tree.

Here is an expression of a modernised earth-centric trinity reflecting a pantheistic worldview.  This goes far beyond a healthy respect for and care of the environment. It is a distinct worldview of a religious nature.  It is Gaia theology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_philosophy). Earth, sky and trees become divine and presumably are to be worshipped and invocation made to them. 

The Christian problems with this plaque are several-fold.

1. It is a theology not founded on the Scriptures.

2. It blurs key distinctions within the created order.

3. It substitutes idolatry for true religion.

Gaia theology does not come from the Bible and indeed contradicts it with respect to creational distinctions and the object of true worship.  It is an interesting question, but beyond my present scope, to examine from whence Gaia theology derives. 

With respect to 2, Gaia theology typically undermines distinctions that the Bible asserts. These include distinctions between creator and creation (directly undermined in the plaque) and also the distinctions between different life forms.

Gaia theology tends to work from a monist metaphysic where the interdependence of all things becomes an essential sameness between them.  On this score the Bible differs. The Bibles presents neither the sameness of all things (monism) not their radical separateness (atomism).  God is indeed separate from his creation (it is 'creator God' not Father Earth') and Lord over it, yet he is deeply entangled with it through his works of sustaining its physical being, providentially ordering its affairs and redeeming it through its Son. 

Again, the Bible asserts distinctions within the created order, for example as seen in the Gen 1 account.  Rocks are different to trees and trees are different from fish and so forth. In particular, humans are different to other beings also made animate by the breath of God, for we alone bear his image and have his mandate to rule, subdue, use and care. We are part of the creation yet not the same as other living creatures, plants, rocks and oceans. In short, God is not identified with his creation and people are part of the creation yet distinct within it.

With respect to 3., Rom 1:18ff tracks a downward spiral that includes suppression of the knowledge of God as creator and worship of created objects.  This is the idolising of creation and giving it what belongs to its maker. The plaque points us to worship the creation and not the creator, despite the evidence (even within the Project) of his fingerprint in the beauty, orderliness and utility of just the world of plants.

In short, the Project does a great job in lifting human vision from ourselves to the physical environment around us. Its just a pity that it stops there and encourages worship of the creation instead of the Creator who made so beautiful and who tells humans to rule, use and care for it as part of our worship and service to him.

I was a stranger and visited your church

-->

In the last several months I have been on the road. This includes visits to churches in Canada, Singapore, Thailand, England and Scotland.  These churches have been small and large; established and independent; and their services have been traditional, contemporary and more.  It has been a learning time on how to welcome visitors. I have seen it done well and poorly.

This reflection is written in the light of Hebrews 13:1-2. It is interesting that the first expression of brotherly love is to receive strangers well.  Behind these words there lies the old commands to care for strangers (eg Lev 19:34). Undergirding all this is the gospel grace wherein God shows hospitality to those who are strangers and even estranged from him (eg Rom 5:10). And finally, to welcome a stranger is akin to welcoming the Lord himself (Matt 25:35).

To you I am an unfamiliar face. It's not too hard to see that I am visiting as I may arrive well before the service or a little late. I don't walk in with familiar ease and may appear uncertain and tentative. I don’t know who sits where, what to do at different parts of the service, where the toilets are or what happens when the service ends. In short, I stand out from the regulars.

Who am I? I may be a committed believer who is passing through. Or a newcomer looking for a church home. Or I may be a local person enquiring about the faith. Or a desperate unbeliever seeking help and solace where I can find it. I may be on the edge of despair-driven suicide or it may be that walking into your service was a conscious choice to avoid a traveller’s temptation. Whoever I am and however long I stay, I am an opportunity for you to show God’s hospitality.

What to do:

• Give me a warm greeting as I enter, hand me any books or service sheets and help me find a seat (I didn’t know that seat was reserved for the elders!);
• Somewhere (handout, slide etc) tell me anything I need to know during the service, where the bathrooms are and any post-service arrangements ('behind the small hall’ is not a destination that I know);
• If you are sitting near me, say ‘hi’ and take an interest in me – take me over to the coffee venue and ask if you can help with information about the church or area;
• Have a welcoming team who watch out for visitors and assign someone of a similar demographic to link with me;
• Notice my name and use it when talking to me (I’ll try and do the same to you).

What not to do:

• Single me out during the service by asking visitors to identify themselves (I’m already uncertain about walking into your space);
• Come on strong with an overly heavy greeting and an evangelistic spiel when you first meet me (you don't know me yet);
• Try and sign me up for something unless I express interest (I don't like being pushed);
• Leave me standing by myself during coffee time (I’ll be the person lingering over the outdated notice board or bookstall or standing near the door).

If you don’t know what to do, just put yourself in my shoes. How do you like to be welcomed when you are the stranger and visitor?

Beyond the objectification of women

-->

Beyond the objectification of women

The sexual objectification of women is an often-discussed topic.

Women object to being characterised and treated as objects, and especially objects of male sexual pleasure and gratification. (See http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-objectification/ for a useful introduction.) There seems to be less discussion of the objectification of men (although note the brief mention in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_objectification).

I am writing this from a city that I am visiting. At times I wander down a main street for some shopping and to find food. I am frequently approached in both day and night. This is sometimes by a man waving a folder of photos and asking if I want ‘a young girl, young boy, anything?’. At other times the approach is by a female (a sex worker I’d guess) asking if I want a good time.

Who am I to these people? I am an object with body parts, desires and who is presumed to have cash to spend. I find it offensive to be thus treated and have no doubt that women find the same when they are treated in the same way.

Objectification is more than a female issue. It is also more than a matter of sexual objectification, whether of women or men.

Objectification can take many forms and be in many directions. The key thing is that a person is seen not as a ‘who’ but as a ‘what’. The objectified person is a route to some other goal. To a business, an opportunity of profit. To the demagogue, an opportunity of control. To the careerist, an opportunity of advancement. To the hero, an opportunity of feel-good heroics. The examples can be multiplied and go wider than we may expect.

The language of objectification is one of ‘I – it’, not ‘I – thou’, to use Martin Buber’s phase. It does not reckon with the personhood of humans. Nor does it reckon with the Bible’s view of humans.

In the Biblical view we are not objects or even animals, but we are creatures made in the likeness of God, bearing his image and entrusted with a delegated management of his creation (Gen 1:26-27).  God breathed his breath into us (Gen 2:7).  All this gives a high view of people, irrespective of their capacities, deeds, gender, race and such like. The seriousness of intentionally taking a human life arises because we bear God’s image (Gen 9:6). Our value as humans is further shown in God’s gracious act to send his Son Jesus for our redemption. The Son of God came to save people, not objects.

If we live out the implications of this Biblical view, we will treat people as people, not as objects to use as a means to our goals. At a basic level, it means courtesies such as greeting people personally (and by name where possible), thanking those who serve and help us (and looking for opportunities to reciprocate), giving people our time and attention when we have nothing to gain from them. At higher levels, it may mean changing family, workplace and community structures to give dignity and recognition to all people.

It’s easy to see and object to objectification when it is sexual, directed towards women and especially in gross forms such as pornography and prostitution. And it is easy to say no to the touts on the streets of a city. However, it is much harder both to see and eradicate objectification on these other levels.

I’m about to go to lunch. I guess I start by smiling at and thanking the person who serves my meal and then helping to clean my space before I leave the table. And if there is a tout, I can refuse their offerings in a way that treats them as a person and not as an object that is a means to my feelings of self-righteousness.

Film review: Ilo Ilo

-->

Film review: Ilo Ilo

Ilo Ilo (www.iloilomovie.com) is a 2013 Singaporean film about local family life. The film has received global recognition, winning the Camera d'Or award at Cannes 2013 and is nominated for other awards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilo_Ilo).

It is not the best film technically, which may be partly a product of the low budget ($500,000) and local inexperience in filmmaking. However, it is still worth a watch.

The film is set in the 1997 Asian financial crisis and features a family of mother, father and son who are under external pressure (lost jobs, school problems etc) and who also face issues internal to the family (parental tension and a wayward son). This stressed family life is changed when a Pilipino maid (Teresa) is hired to help manage the son.

The film explores themes of HDB life in the period and the complex family dynamics between husband and wife, parents and child and, especially, between Teresa and the initially hostile son.

My interest is in the worldviews displayed in the film.

Several worldviews are on view.

The host family is quite godless, as evidenced in an early scene when a neighbouring maid tells Teresa that ‘God is not here’ and that she should forget her rosary. This represents the rejection of theism.

In one scene the family goes to an ancestor’s grave for prayers and offerings and even Teresa is pushed into the rituals. This however seems to have little impact of their daily behaviour and functional worldview. This represents irrelevant traditional religion.

Meanwhile the mother’s desperation prompts her to attend a promo night by a motivational speaker whose credo is ‘hope is within you’. This is the gospel of self-reliance. Even this turns out to be deceptive when the speaker proves to be a con artist who collects fees and then tries to disappear.

What is the family left with? The son tries to manipulate and improve his world by carefully tracking and betting on winning lottery numbers. This enables him to ameliorate a school punishment in an amusing scene, but ultimately it fails as he tries to win the lottery to save the family finances and keep Teresa in Singapore. This pairing shows worldview of cosmic randomness or capriciousness.

Finally the family are left with themselves. There is some irony as the scammer’s message comes true among them. They do find some hope and comfort among themselves as truth, forgiveness and generosity arise within this tortured family. The film ends with Teresa’s forced repatriation due to poverty, but each family member has been changed for the better.

This is a warm ending, but a question that extends beyond the movie remains for me. Are our internal resources sufficient to cope with, and rise above life’s challenges?

Mucking about with words

-->

Mucking about with words[1]

Its playtime,

Time to dip into the box

Inspecting, rejecting and selecting

Seeking the right one for the spot.

But these are not tools for fools, nor toys for the boys (and girls),

Or, maybe the best toys and tools of all.

Wonderful words,

Cajoling, bemusing, caressing, carousing and more.

Words that transport to far off places and worlds beyond time and space.

Words that beckon, berate, bemuse and bestride the universe.

Nouns, verbs, adverbs and more,

Syntactically diced, marinated, stir-fried and baked to perfection,

Prepositions, conjunctions, disjunctions blending part to part,

Master Chef for the mind.

---

[1] Sept 2013 while watching my grandson Xavier play with his toys.

You know not the day nor the hour – a meditation on the nearness of death

-->

You know not the day nor the hour – a meditation on the nearness of death

Two things today made me think about death (not a topic that is often on my mind).

Firstly, I was on a plane that had three landing attempts at Manila airport aborted by post-typhoon storm conditions. As we suddenly surged back up and circled there was time to think about what could have been.

Secondly, I was talking with some missionaries from the south of the Philippines where a Muslim insurgency continues to take lives.

And meanwhile there are the folk who went shopping Nairobi and to church in Pakistan last weekend and who suddenly found themselves at death’s door.

People die while going about the ordinary business of life. The Lord warns that he will return at an unexpected time when life just rolls along (Matt 24:36-44). One will be on a plane whose landing is aborted, another will be shopping and yet another will be sitting at worship.

The reality is, none of us knows how or when we will die. Most can expect to die in an average age band and in a hospital of a known illness and with family surrounding. But none of us knows if that is our future or whether this is the day that we die.

So what do we do? It’s simple really: you also must be ready, for the Son of man is coming at an hour you do not expect (Matt 24:44).  Make a Will. Leave your affairs organised. Ensure your standing with God through a credible faith in Jesus Christ that is manifested in godly living. And then we are free – free to live and die in old age or free to die today.

In the event my plane landed safely and the event is fading from memory. Meanwhile news of the Kenyan shopping mall massacre will be replaced by sporting news or celebrity tales. And the Pakistani church killing barely made the headlines anyway.

Most of us will go on living as though tomorrow will have endless tomorrows and thinking that death happens to someone else. How soon we forget that day whose nearness and importance demands we give it attention now.

Derrida deconstructs

Derrida deconstructs[1]

Sometimes,

a falling leaf 

is 

Just a falling leaf

---

[1] Written 9 Oct 2004 – death of Derrida

How often? The celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

How often? The celebration of the Lord’s Supper.

I was recently part of a church that celebrated the Lord’s Supper weekly – a simple act within the regular Sunday service. At around the same time I visited a Christian college that celebrated the Supper twice within four days (once at a commencement service and another at a college retreat). I have been a pastor in churches that did so quarterly and another did so monthly.

All this prompts me to ask: how often should the Lord’s Supper (or Communion or Eucharist) be celebrated?

Christian practice varies from daily celebration, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually, spasmodically or never. A daily celebration is associated with the more liturgical churches and is probably linked to a view that forgiving grace is actually conferred in the sacrament. The Salvation Army does not recognise any sacraments. Some newer Christian groups celebrate the Lord’s Supper on no particular timing. These latter groups aside, regular celebration of the Lord’s Supper is common among Christians, however much they disagree in their understanding and administration of the event.

My Christian tradition is the Presbyterian and practice varies there. Calvin unsuccessfully sought a weekly celebration, John Knox wanted monthly and the First Book of Discipline (1562) set a rule of quarterly communion in rural areas and monthly in the towns. The latter suggests a degree of flexibility linked to the availability of authorised clergy. By the eighteenth century, an annual celebration was common. This constituted a communion season including a fast day (Thursday), a preparatory service where communion tokens were distributed (Saturday), Sunday Communion and a following thanksgiving service (Monday).

What do the Bible and early historical documents reveal?

1 Cor. 11:20 hints that the Lord’s Supper is associated with every coming together of God’s people. This is presumably a reference to the weekly meeting which had moved from Saturday to Sunday within the New Testament era (eg Acts 13:13-14; 16:13; 17:2 compared with Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2; Col 2:16-17; Rev 1:10).

A non-Biblical source (Pliny’s Letter to the Emperor Trajan, c112AD) refers to early morning gatherings of Christians on a ‘fixed day’ (presumably, but not necessarily, Sunday) at which various activities were undertaken including a later gathering to eat ‘ordinary but innocent food’. This sounds more like a common fellowship meal than the Lord’s Supper, but it may hint at something more.

Another non-Biblical source from the early-mid second century (the Didache) says: ‘But every Lord's Day gather yourselves together, and break bread’ and gives some instructions about the manner in which the Communion or Eucharist is to be kept. Assuming that ‘bread-breaking’ equates to Communion, this is evidence of a weekly celebration.

The Biblical and historical evidence noted above seems most consistent with a practice of weekly celebration. Much is to be said for this. A weekly celebration keeps the grace of the Cross, and thus the heart of the gospel, visibly before the congregation’s eyes, whatever may or may not be done to keep it audibly before their ears. The ritual (and I use the term carefully) involved with the Supper, when coupled with a weekly celebration, helps prompt a weekly examination of ourselves before Christ and a consideration of how we see his body (arguably, both the crucified body of Jesus and the body of his church – 1 Cor. 11:29).

So, there are both early precedents and arguments for a weekly celebration. Likewise, there are later precedents and other arguments for other timings.

Note however, that precedents are not precepts, however ancient they are. This is true even when the precedents are found within the Bible for it is dangerous to mount a simple argument that just because the Apostles did something (precedent) we should do the same (precept). It is wise advice to look for an independent word of Scripture before making the move from apostolic precedent to normative precept.

Although the precedent and arguments for a weekly celebration have force, care is needed on another ground. Weekly Communion may be helpful etc, but that is a far cry from warrant to enforce it.  Col 2:1-16-17 is relevant: Therefore let no one pass judgement on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. These words were written with respect to Jewish regulations, but also have application to Christian church order. Christ is the substance of our faith and compulsion in matters of ceremonies (even the ceremony most remembering him) easily undermines the gospel.

Pehaps it is best not to be doctrinaire with respect to the frequency of the Supper or judge those who timing differs from our own. Rather let us ensure that ‘as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup’ (1 Cor. 11:26) we share the body of Christ (1 Cor. 10:16), discern the Lord’s body (1 Cor. 11:29), serve one another (1 Cor. 11:20-22,33-34 and proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes (1 Cor. 11:26).

Business Principles Abandoned With Gay Pride

-->

I was recently in Charlotte NC, went for an afternoon walk and stumbled into an area where a gay pride rally was being held.

It was a multi-layered experience.

City streets were blocked and police were on hand to help manage the mostly young crowd. There was a lively, earthy and good-natured feel to the event. People were enjoying themselves.

At every turn there were people whose dress, chosen companion and behaviour revealed their sexual orientation. I’ve seen this before on a smaller scale and don’t find it especially disturbing.

There were booths from some churches proclaiming endorsement of the GLBT community. These were not just the Metropolitan Community church, but also an Episcopalian and a Presbyterian Church. Other Christians were there with a Cross and proclaimed repentance, faith and forgiveness. I admire their faithfulness and courage but wonder at the effectiveness. Yet other ‘Christians’ stood in front of this group with banners proclaiming GLBT support and citing the text ‘nothing shall separate us from the love of God’, presumably as an endorsement of the gay community. I take it that the church booths reflect knowing intentionality in their apostasy. I guess that that some of the other ‘Christian’ voices were naïve, deluded and ignorant.

For me, the most disturbing memory from the day was the booths set up by businesses. Companies such as the Bank of America and Norton software indicated their support for gay pride. These are not marginal businesses, but corporate America.

Whoa ... what is going on here?

To me it was a sign that the gay community is now mainstream. American business sees profits to be made and perhaps stands intimidated by the gay community. The key business principle seems to be that business is business.

The expected corollary is that Biblical Christianity may be increasingly marginalised and then persecuted through legal action for refusing the gay agenda. On the same day, I read a report that a court in New Mexico ordered a Christian photography business to pay a penalty for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony. I guess that we can expect more of the same.

Earlier on the same day I visited the Billy Graham Museum. The welcome was warm and the exhibits well presented with the latest available multimedia. The crowd was much older and subdued. There was an air of artificiality about The Barn, starting with the fake talking cow and ending with the Graham Brothers Dairy Bar selling the Billy Frank hot dog. I know this is America, but I found the whole scene hard to stomach!

To me there is a huge disconnect between the two scenes that day. The gay pride rally exalts in sin, but seems to represents the future and is on the streets. The Graham Museum exalts in righteousness, reflects the past and in housed in a fake barn amidst manicured surrounds.

For me as a Christian the day leaves many questions.

* How to position a protective perimeter against the expected wave of litigation?

* How to witness effectively at such events?

* How to maintain the rounded balance of 1 Cor 6:9-11:

 ⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practise homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

That’s a text applicable to every human being and certainly starting with me. However, it also applies to the gay community and to the corporations at the gay pride event.

The Facebook posts I should not make.

I think that Facebook is great.  My family and friends are scattered all over the globe and Fb is a wonderful means to keep track and keep in contact wherever I may be.

However there are appropriate and inappropriate uses of Fb. It's not the place for personal put-downs. Or divisive disputes.  Or the show-off kind of remark: 'thanking God for my new Ferrari' or ' checking in from the titanium lounge before my first class flight'. Or for things best said or seen in private between loved ones.

It's not hard to get it right on Fb.

Just remember that there are people made in God's image at the other end. Ask: 'how can I love the Lord and my neighbour in my post?'.  Or, use the Bible guidelines (here adapted) from the  Puritans: does my post glorify God; does it build others up in the gospel; does it avoid giving unnecessary offence; is it in decent and good order?

I thank God for the tool of Fb.  However, like all tools it's up to the user to use it in a way that reflects who we are and what we stand for.  Let's use it for good and think before we post.

Why I went where I went to church today.

I went to church today in Montreal Canada.

My church of choice was one I visited two weeks ago. Its a different tradition to my own, the congregation meets in an average building, the service is not highly polished, there are no musicians and the sermons are given by lay preachers of varying quality in the pastor's absence.

The alternate was a church I attended last week. It was of my own denomination, in a grand building on a prominent city-centre street. The service was presented with well-oiled precision, the pastor well-schooled, the robed choir was technically good and the thundering organ was magnificent.

So why go to the first church? Jesus is central, the Bible was taken seriously and there was a warmth between the people there and towards me, even though I had a taken a conscious choice to remain low profile. That's the kind of church to be.

Why I will go to church today.

Its Sunday morning. I am a stranger in a city distant from home and tired despite a night's sleep. Family activities are planned for the day and there are many things to do.

But it is Sunday and I shall go to church.

I have visited this church before. It is small, has no music and the preacher was faithful but struggling when last I visited. Its more a little company of God's people than a triumphant gathering of the heavenly assembly.

So why go? I have already read my Bible and prayed at home. Isn't that enough?

I will go because of Heb 10:25. Its part of me to meet with God's people and all the more important when other routines of my life are disrupted by travel. Its because my attendance may be an encouragement to those who attend ... that a stranger should bother to attend. Its a quiet witness to the unbelievers around me that I make church a priority today. And its an encouragement to me as prayers, songs, sermon and fellowship reinforce who I am and what I stand for.

In short, I go because Jesus has come and is coming again and my attending is a response to what he has done and an anticipation of what he will do.

Postscript (written after the service).
I'm glad I went. Its now my second time at Ville Emard L’église du Christ. Some people remembered me and engaged with me. The pastor is on holidays and an older Afro-American man preached from the passage quoted above about the importance of being in church and what we should do when there. It was a good word and I spoke with the preacher afterwards about the link to my personal text that morning and how his words were a good encouragement.

Space-time and the presence of God

Space and time are fundamental categories of humanity. We live in space-time locations and also think in them as mental categories.

IT enables a certain transcendence over space-time boundaries, but they persist as underlying realities. Its possible to wriggle around time zones for calls, but still frustrating to be at differing ends of the day and, of course, to be outside of the possibility of physical contact. Digital messages can be posted and received at times convenient to each.. That’s great but not as good as it could be.

All that presently strikes me as I am half a world away from loved ones for an extended period.

What a contrast then with access to God through Jesus and in prayerful fellowship. Space-time are irrelevant categories, for there is always and everywhere the same level of access to him. It’s a comforting thought for a traveller, but also a wondrous truth about God and our relationship with him.

Casting my vote (away)

-->

My country of  citizenship (Australia) has a national election on 7^th September. The election decides who will govern the country for following three years.

Australian elections are genuine contests and governments often change as a result. Present predictions are that government will change this time.

I am glad for the institutions of government in my country, for the comparative integrity of the election process, and for the vote I have. I have lived in a country with a far less developed democratic processes and this makes me appreciate those in my own place.

As a Christian of reformed theological outlook I believe that government is a blessing given by God, for which we are to be thankful and for which we should pray. I believe that no one constitutional arrangement ideally fits with Christian truth, but that almost all can be used by God, whether democracy or dictatorship. I also believe that Christian people are to engage with public life and its institutions as part of loving our neighbour and fulfilling our call to be salt and light.

I normally vote when elections are called. I try to do so as a thoughtful Christian and have voted for various parties over the years. I think that a ‘Christian vote’ is not just a case of voting for Christian candidates or voting for the party with Christian values on selected issues … rather it is a more complex process of weighting issues, comparing policies and leadership and asking what a Christian vote looks like in a post-Christian multicultural society. It’s complex rather than simple.

However, I will not vote in this year’s election.

But, first a side-issue. It is often said that Australia has compulsory voting. This is not quite so. What is compulsory is to register, attend a polling place (or make arrangements such as a postal vote), identify yourself to the official with the roll, take a ballot paper, not deface it, and return the paper to the ballot box. There is no compulsion to actually vote.

I will be overseas on polling day, so voting is more difficult, although not impossible. My reason for not voting lies deeper and is explained below.

Issues

Several issues appear on the election radar. The economy, education, disability policy, asylum seekers, environment and telecommunications are all trending as hot topics.

On some of these issues the two major parties can be differentiated (eg telecommunications). On others they have converged, whether from shared centre-right values or a shrewd tactic of neutralising potentially vote-losing views on matter not considered important.

The main alternate party to the two major ones is the Greens. I like their environmental activism and social compassion, but struggle with their aggressive endorsement of same-sex marriage and can never support their open-go on abortion. I especially like their humanitarianism towards asylum seekers. The Greens are economically naïve, but have a positive role as a party of balance to restrain a government of one of the other main parties.

So who to vote for? Christian conscience keeps me from the Greens on issues like abortion and same sex marriage. Of the two major parties, instinct pulls me marginally towards one party rather than the other. However, I abhor the race to the right in both these parties on asylum seekers. My weighting of this issue is so strong that I really could not vote for either.

Leaders

So what about leadership? One major party is led by a professed Roman Catholic who espouses traditional Catholic morality on some issues of interest to me. However, he appears to be an extremist I personality and I wonder if he has the nuance of views and actions to be a good leader in government. The other major party is led by a professed Anglican who shows a greater awareness of nuance, but who supports same sex marriage and whose personal style was a problem when he was previously Prime Minister. Both these leaders are hungry for power. That is no surprise in a party leader and is not necessarily a problem. However, both have displayed ruthlessness in that hunger, such that it seems to have become an idol for both.

Summary

So here is the problem that keeps me from voting. One some issues I could vote for any of the significant parties. On others, I have deal-breakers with each major party. I don’t have high confidence in each of the potential Prime Ministers, although I do prefer one to the other.

And so I choose not to vote. I will pray for the election to go smoothly, confident in the sovereignty of God, and I will pray for the new government to govern well. I will try to be a good citizen who cooperates with the government and obeys its laws. However, my Christian vote is too important a thing to be cast for policies and leaders that I cannot endorse. And so I will cast my vote away.