A Get Well Gift
51 minutes ago
Tuesday 20 December 2011
Sunday 18 December 2011
Friday 16 December 2011
knight in shining armour
Earlier in the week I was due to go to the Pantomime with the Guides and other Leaders. They'd organised hire of 2 minibuses to transport us all there and back. I was first to arrive at the meeting point. No sign of any minibuses waiting for us - they are usually outside ready for pick-up. I started to wonder if I was in the right place. Then another Guider arrived, so I felt a bit better... until she said 'Where are the minibuses?'
Off she went to get the keys, only to come back saying we only had one minibus (which was hiding round the back) as the other had an electrical fault. PANIC! How were we going to get the other 14 Guides to the panto? I had my car, another Guider had her car, a parent who was going was happy to take some girls, but that still left us a few spaces short. A quick phone call to mrPM and he agreed to be our knight in shining armour and take the remaining Guides.
He did get to see the panto (first he's been to in years) so there was some recompense for missing his tea (although I did give him a choccy biscuit at the interval).
Another step in my masterplan of turning mrPM into an honorary Guider ;-)
Off she went to get the keys, only to come back saying we only had one minibus (which was hiding round the back) as the other had an electrical fault. PANIC! How were we going to get the other 14 Guides to the panto? I had my car, another Guider had her car, a parent who was going was happy to take some girls, but that still left us a few spaces short. A quick phone call to mrPM and he agreed to be our knight in shining armour and take the remaining Guides.
He did get to see the panto (first he's been to in years) so there was some recompense for missing his tea (although I did give him a choccy biscuit at the interval).
Another step in my masterplan of turning mrPM into an honorary Guider ;-)
Monday 12 December 2011
What a good idea...
Yesterday we had a party. Not a Christmas party, just a 'get to know the neighbours' sort of get-together. We had the added incentive of MrPM's home-baking* to encourage people to come.
At 2.15 MrPM was worried. "What if no-one comes? We'll never eat all this ourselves," he said. ("I'm sure I could have a good try" I thought...)
By 3pm we had 10 adults and 6 kids plus mrPM and me, all tucking in to baking and conversation.
"What a good idea" people said, especially those who'd just moved in to the new houses across the road.
"What a good idea" people said as we found out who lived 2 doors away.
And the doors between our sitting room and kitchen got alot of comment too.
"What a good idea" said the people in our row, whose houses are either identical to ours or the mirror-image of ours. They'd all liked this feature in the show-home, but the builders had decided to take it out when they built our row of houses. It seems mrPM and I were the only ones who had asked if it were possible to get such a door put in when they were building the house. It cost us a bit extra, but we wanted the circulating space.
"What a good idea," mrPM thought after everyone had gone, and all the toys had been tidied up (apart from one piece of Jenga which remains missing...), "we've got the neighbours talking to each other."
"What a good idea," I thought, looking at all the baking still to be eaten... ;-)
* lemon dribble cake, cider honey cake, orange biscuits, brownies, lemon slices and chocolate almond macaroons
At 2.15 MrPM was worried. "What if no-one comes? We'll never eat all this ourselves," he said. ("I'm sure I could have a good try" I thought...)
By 3pm we had 10 adults and 6 kids plus mrPM and me, all tucking in to baking and conversation.
"What a good idea" people said, especially those who'd just moved in to the new houses across the road.
"What a good idea" people said as we found out who lived 2 doors away.
And the doors between our sitting room and kitchen got alot of comment too.
"What a good idea" said the people in our row, whose houses are either identical to ours or the mirror-image of ours. They'd all liked this feature in the show-home, but the builders had decided to take it out when they built our row of houses. It seems mrPM and I were the only ones who had asked if it were possible to get such a door put in when they were building the house. It cost us a bit extra, but we wanted the circulating space.
"What a good idea," mrPM thought after everyone had gone, and all the toys had been tidied up (apart from one piece of Jenga which remains missing...), "we've got the neighbours talking to each other."
"What a good idea," I thought, looking at all the baking still to be eaten... ;-)
* lemon dribble cake, cider honey cake, orange biscuits, brownies, lemon slices and chocolate almond macaroons
Friday 9 December 2011
carols
MrPM thinks only advent carols should be sung before Christmas. While I understand the sentiment, it does only leave 12 days to get all the Christmas carols in to, which isn't very long. So I'm waiting until he's not around, then playing my carol CDs to get in the mood for Christmas...
Here is one of my favourite carols - I sang it in choir when I was at school, then a group of us from our last church sang it a few years ago as a special Christmas item. It still gives me goosebumps.
Bethlehem Down
Here is one of my favourite carols - I sang it in choir when I was at school, then a group of us from our last church sang it a few years ago as a special Christmas item. It still gives me goosebumps.
Bethlehem Down
Monday 28 November 2011
new songs for old
I've just realised I'm getting old.
I've just received my copy of Songs of Fellowship 5 (music version) and was looking through it. The first thing that struck me is how many of the songs are actually old (and still fairly well-known hymns) which have been 'tweaked' ever so slightly. It appears that by adding an extra line or two, you can then re-copyright the song and get royalties for it.
So I found myself muttering that the old tunes were fine and didn't need anyone mucking around with them.
This is actually rather hypocritical as I occasionally come up with new versions of tunes for well-known hymns myself ;-)
However, when I got to 'Immortal invisible, God only wise' I spluttered to a halt. Why?
Because the first verse goes:
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inacessible hid from our eyes.
Most blessed, most glorious, the ancient of days,
Almighty, victorious, thy great name we praise.
But the chorus that's been added basically says 'there is none like you, Jesus'
Jesus immortal? Well, that has to be a yes and no.
Invisible? Hidden? Inacessible?
Like I said, I'm getting old and nitpicky
I've just received my copy of Songs of Fellowship 5 (music version) and was looking through it. The first thing that struck me is how many of the songs are actually old (and still fairly well-known hymns) which have been 'tweaked' ever so slightly. It appears that by adding an extra line or two, you can then re-copyright the song and get royalties for it.
So I found myself muttering that the old tunes were fine and didn't need anyone mucking around with them.
This is actually rather hypocritical as I occasionally come up with new versions of tunes for well-known hymns myself ;-)
However, when I got to 'Immortal invisible, God only wise' I spluttered to a halt. Why?
Because the first verse goes:
Immortal, invisible, God only wise,
In light inacessible hid from our eyes.
Most blessed, most glorious, the ancient of days,
Almighty, victorious, thy great name we praise.
But the chorus that's been added basically says 'there is none like you, Jesus'
Jesus immortal? Well, that has to be a yes and no.
Invisible? Hidden? Inacessible?
Like I said, I'm getting old and nitpicky
Friday 11 November 2011
essay
I've finally finished reading Jesus and the Victory of God by NT Wright. It was good, but didn't half take some getting through (all 700+ pages of it). So now I'm deep in other stuff, all so I can write an essay about the resurrection.
I thought it would be easy - believing the resurrection happened was (and still is) the cornerstone of my faith. I'm with St Paul on this one - if the resurrection didn't happen, then we are to be pitied. Not necessarily for still being dead in our sins, but for being complete idiots. The more I read, the more I realise what a stupid idea Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead is. Surely ANYTHING has to be a more sensible explanation than that?
So far the alternative explanations I've come across are:
1) Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the Muslim view - that Jesus was assumed directly into heaven (cf Elijah, Enoch) and someone else was crucified instead. God simply would not let one of His messengers get treated so disgracefully.
2) Jesus didn't really die, he revived in the tomb. The problem with the 'swoon' theory is that firstly Romans were pretty good at killing people - they had had alot of practice crucifying people - and secondly how would an almost dead Jesus convince his disciples that he was the Lord of life? I've seen people with major blood loss, and they don't exactly look bursting with health.
3) Jesus did die, but his body was tossed into an unmarked communal grave. It explains why the tomb was empty (no body there in the first place) and also why the body couldn't be produced. But it has to be combined with something else to explain why the disciples suddenly started preaching resurrection.
4) Someone stole or moved the body - Joseph of Arimethea, the disciples, the authorities - take your pick! Again, it explains an empty tomb, but not preaching resurrection.
5) some sort of hallucination/ vision. In this version, saying Jesus is risen means "I've had an experience of Jesus and he's still with me" and no physical resurrection is involved. Or it was a bereavement phenomenon. Stories about the empty tomb were later fabrications.
6) a combination of 5 AND either 3 or 4
NT Wright was really helpful in explaining that at the time Jesus lived, there was belief in a bodily resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time. Ongoing existence of the soul was not called resurrection. And there was no hint that any one individual would be resurrected before the general resurrection. So if that's the case, why would anyone interpret a vision as meaning Jesus was resurrected? Other visions in the Bible don't get interpreted like that, they are understood to be visions, and accepted as such. Similarly, when Rhoda opens the door to Peter after he gets out of prison, she doesn't conclude he's been resurrected, she thinks he's a ghost.
There is an unspoken imperialistic strand in alot of what I've been reading: "In our modern scientific age, of course we know better than to believe such stupid things. They were uneducated and lived in premodern conditions and therefore naturally believed all sorts of outdated things". Except, according to the gospels, seeing the empty tomb didn't make any one think Jesus had risen. They thought someone had stolen the body, or moved it elsewhere. When Jesus appears to them, he does things to prove he's not a ghost. Which to me, suggests that the disciples (including the women) knew that dead people stay dead.
Of course, you then get in to the whole question of how reliable are the gospels, when were they written, how much is hearsay etc etc etc
But alot of that discussion depends on presuppositions as to what is 'reasonable' and what isn't. As does the disussion about the resurrection. Ultimately it boils down to whether you think that if there is a God they might intervene in the affairs of the universe on occasion (ie perform a miracle). If you do, then the resurrection is more plausible than the alternative explanations. If you don't, then even being there yourself as an eyewitness at the actual moment of resurrection wouldn't convince you.
Any thoughts gratefully received (especially if you don't agree with me - just keep them polite ;-) )
I thought it would be easy - believing the resurrection happened was (and still is) the cornerstone of my faith. I'm with St Paul on this one - if the resurrection didn't happen, then we are to be pitied. Not necessarily for still being dead in our sins, but for being complete idiots. The more I read, the more I realise what a stupid idea Jesus being physically resurrected from the dead is. Surely ANYTHING has to be a more sensible explanation than that?
So far the alternative explanations I've come across are:
1) Jesus wasn't crucified. That's the Muslim view - that Jesus was assumed directly into heaven (cf Elijah, Enoch) and someone else was crucified instead. God simply would not let one of His messengers get treated so disgracefully.
2) Jesus didn't really die, he revived in the tomb. The problem with the 'swoon' theory is that firstly Romans were pretty good at killing people - they had had alot of practice crucifying people - and secondly how would an almost dead Jesus convince his disciples that he was the Lord of life? I've seen people with major blood loss, and they don't exactly look bursting with health.
3) Jesus did die, but his body was tossed into an unmarked communal grave. It explains why the tomb was empty (no body there in the first place) and also why the body couldn't be produced. But it has to be combined with something else to explain why the disciples suddenly started preaching resurrection.
4) Someone stole or moved the body - Joseph of Arimethea, the disciples, the authorities - take your pick! Again, it explains an empty tomb, but not preaching resurrection.
5) some sort of hallucination/ vision. In this version, saying Jesus is risen means "I've had an experience of Jesus and he's still with me" and no physical resurrection is involved. Or it was a bereavement phenomenon. Stories about the empty tomb were later fabrications.
6) a combination of 5 AND either 3 or 4
NT Wright was really helpful in explaining that at the time Jesus lived, there was belief in a bodily resurrection of all the righteous at the end of time. Ongoing existence of the soul was not called resurrection. And there was no hint that any one individual would be resurrected before the general resurrection. So if that's the case, why would anyone interpret a vision as meaning Jesus was resurrected? Other visions in the Bible don't get interpreted like that, they are understood to be visions, and accepted as such. Similarly, when Rhoda opens the door to Peter after he gets out of prison, she doesn't conclude he's been resurrected, she thinks he's a ghost.
There is an unspoken imperialistic strand in alot of what I've been reading: "In our modern scientific age, of course we know better than to believe such stupid things. They were uneducated and lived in premodern conditions and therefore naturally believed all sorts of outdated things". Except, according to the gospels, seeing the empty tomb didn't make any one think Jesus had risen. They thought someone had stolen the body, or moved it elsewhere. When Jesus appears to them, he does things to prove he's not a ghost. Which to me, suggests that the disciples (including the women) knew that dead people stay dead.
Of course, you then get in to the whole question of how reliable are the gospels, when were they written, how much is hearsay etc etc etc
But alot of that discussion depends on presuppositions as to what is 'reasonable' and what isn't. As does the disussion about the resurrection. Ultimately it boils down to whether you think that if there is a God they might intervene in the affairs of the universe on occasion (ie perform a miracle). If you do, then the resurrection is more plausible than the alternative explanations. If you don't, then even being there yourself as an eyewitness at the actual moment of resurrection wouldn't convince you.
Any thoughts gratefully received (especially if you don't agree with me - just keep them polite ;-) )
Friday 28 October 2011
quick joke
Not posted for ages as been away alot and busy. One of things I was away at was a pastors' spouses get-together, when the following joke was told, to sounds of rueful agreement....
What's the difference between a pastor's spouse and a wheelie-bin?
The wheelie-bin gets taken out once a fortnight....
What's the difference between a pastor's spouse and a wheelie-bin?
The wheelie-bin gets taken out once a fortnight....
Thursday 22 September 2011
the parable of the whirligig
Once a man put up a whirligig in his back garden. He watched to see which part of the garden got the most sun exposure, and duly inserted the whirligig spike into the garden as directed. All went well for a few months. Then he noticed the whirligig was leaning rather too much to one side. On further investigation, this was due to the hole the spike had made becoming larger. So he did a temporary repair by putting a small bit of wood in the hole. This worked until a few rainfalls later, when the hole enlarged again. After several such temporary fixes, he decided something more definite was needed, as despite all the bits of wood, the whirligig was still leaning rather badly. So off he went to the local superstore to get some magic concretey-stuff to cement the spike into place. "That'll fix it" he thought. Unfortunately, the next time he hung the washing out, it was rather windy. And it got even windier. The next time he looked out of the window, not only was it raining, but the whole whirligig had parted company with the earth, a perfect block of concrete still around the spike...
I'm sure there's a parable in here somewhere ;-)
MrPM has now reconcreted our whirligig. Hopefully it won't come out of the ground again.
PS a whirligig is an outdoor rotary clothes line
I'm sure there's a parable in here somewhere ;-)
MrPM has now reconcreted our whirligig. Hopefully it won't come out of the ground again.
PS a whirligig is an outdoor rotary clothes line
Thursday 15 September 2011
back again
Things got quite busy for a while, what with having visitors and two Guide camps on successive weekends (don't think I will make that mistake again!), so no blogging.
Now it's back to more usual life, so I am busy doing some more apologetics - next essay is about proof for the resurrection. I though it wouldn't be too difficult, after all, it's why I became a Christian in the first place: I couldn't come up with a more convincing alternative explanation of what had happened to Jesus' body; therefore I had to believe the resurrection had happened; therefore I had to take Jesus seriously; therefore I had to believe in God....
At present I am plowing through The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright. I suspect the information I really need is near the end of the book, but it's only going to make sense if I read the rest first. I've made it to page 360, which is about halfway :-( I'm finding it very interesting, but it does take a bit of wading through. It's much less entertaining for mrPM though - with some of the other books I've read, there have been regular explosions of 'Rubbish!' (no, that's not the actual word I used - any readers who know me in the flesh will know exactly which word it replaces) from the settee. It's going to be quite difficult to write an essay taking some of these views seriously...
Now it's back to more usual life, so I am busy doing some more apologetics - next essay is about proof for the resurrection. I though it wouldn't be too difficult, after all, it's why I became a Christian in the first place: I couldn't come up with a more convincing alternative explanation of what had happened to Jesus' body; therefore I had to believe the resurrection had happened; therefore I had to take Jesus seriously; therefore I had to believe in God....
At present I am plowing through The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright. I suspect the information I really need is near the end of the book, but it's only going to make sense if I read the rest first. I've made it to page 360, which is about halfway :-( I'm finding it very interesting, but it does take a bit of wading through. It's much less entertaining for mrPM though - with some of the other books I've read, there have been regular explosions of 'Rubbish!' (no, that's not the actual word I used - any readers who know me in the flesh will know exactly which word it replaces) from the settee. It's going to be quite difficult to write an essay taking some of these views seriously...
Tuesday 9 August 2011
pastorate
For those of you who know something of the saga, mrPM has had his meeting with the "high heid-yins" and they've given him the go-ahead to think about going back into pastorate. This did come with the proviso that he shouldn't be in too much of a hurry to get back...
Fair enough, we thought. We weren't in a huge hurry - we have no idea what God wants us to do, and we're also much more wary than we were before, but it was good to have mrPM's calling reconfirmed.
Fair enough, we thought. We weren't in a huge hurry - we have no idea what God wants us to do, and we're also much more wary than we were before, but it was good to have mrPM's calling reconfirmed.
Thursday 4 August 2011
apologetics
I've been busy reading in preparation for my next essay, which is on apologetics. The actual title is very long and rather woolly, but basically it comes down to what is apologetics? and how would you prioritize different things within it?
I've really enjoyed reading "Humble Apologetics" by Stackhouse, so much friendler in tone than many apologetics books. He has a rather tongue-in-cheek definition of apologetics as 'making the other person sorry they asked why you were a Christian'. ;-)
I hope I don't do that, but I suspect I do fit another definition Stackhouse had: 'explaining why you're sorry you're a Christian'....
So any other ideas for what apologetics means or involves?
I've really enjoyed reading "Humble Apologetics" by Stackhouse, so much friendler in tone than many apologetics books. He has a rather tongue-in-cheek definition of apologetics as 'making the other person sorry they asked why you were a Christian'. ;-)
I hope I don't do that, but I suspect I do fit another definition Stackhouse had: 'explaining why you're sorry you're a Christian'....
So any other ideas for what apologetics means or involves?
Tuesday 26 July 2011
update
We had a good time on holiday, including amazing weather for our trip to St Kilda. I'll post some photos once I've remembered how to do it...
Dad's op went well and his follow-up scan was OK
I finally got my work appraisal sorted and it's all over and done with (caused HUGE amounts of stress)
So things are going much better.
I suppose I should start thinking about my apologetics essays...
Tuesday 28 June 2011
back briefly
My dad's op went well, he got back out the next day and is now recuperating at home. It was good to see him and my mum, even though I spent quite a bit of time in bed with a cold :-(
So this is a temporary pitstop back home before heading off to the Western Isles for a holiday. If the weather permits, we're hoping to get to St Kilda. I'm off to buy Sea-bands and anti-sickness tablets, as it's around 4 hours out and 4 hours back on the boat.
Callanish is also on the list of places to go - hopefully we can get there when there aren't crowds of tourists. I'm not sure how it will compare to the magnificent standing stones we enjoyed on Orkney last year, but I'm looking forward to it.
So this is a temporary pitstop back home before heading off to the Western Isles for a holiday. If the weather permits, we're hoping to get to St Kilda. I'm off to buy Sea-bands and anti-sickness tablets, as it's around 4 hours out and 4 hours back on the boat.
Callanish is also on the list of places to go - hopefully we can get there when there aren't crowds of tourists. I'm not sure how it will compare to the magnificent standing stones we enjoyed on Orkney last year, but I'm looking forward to it.
Tuesday 21 June 2011
reality check
My dad's going for an operation on Thursday. I'm working tomorrow, so can't get to see him beforehand. MrPM and I plan to go down to my parents' on Thursday and God willing will see dad after the op.
prayers etc appreciated
prayers etc appreciated
Wednesday 15 June 2011
mono/henotheism
Mrpastasmissus is getting rather worried by my recent posts. He's been worried before when I've been writing essays on various heresies. Probably understandably when I come out with things like "When you see where Arius/ Nestorius was coming from, what they said is actually quite reasonable"...
So we got into a discussion about what the Bible says about the existence or not of other gods. I'm not sure if it's simply an issue over terminology. What I actually believe is in one God who is a tripartite unity who is the cause and ultimate end of everything. I also believe other spiritual realities exist - created beings and less than God - angels and demons being the standard terminology, but also known as principalities and powers etc. (MrPM is quite happy with this :-))
So when God refers to "other gods" I take it he is referring to these other spiritual realities, as well as to anything we might choose to put in God's place.
Can you apply the label "gods" to such spiritual relities, or is that just misleading? Can you draw a distinction between "God" and "gods"? Does referring to them as "gods" turn me into a henotheist?
So we got into a discussion about what the Bible says about the existence or not of other gods. I'm not sure if it's simply an issue over terminology. What I actually believe is in one God who is a tripartite unity who is the cause and ultimate end of everything. I also believe other spiritual realities exist - created beings and less than God - angels and demons being the standard terminology, but also known as principalities and powers etc. (MrPM is quite happy with this :-))
So when God refers to "other gods" I take it he is referring to these other spiritual realities, as well as to anything we might choose to put in God's place.
Can you apply the label "gods" to such spiritual relities, or is that just misleading? Can you draw a distinction between "God" and "gods"? Does referring to them as "gods" turn me into a henotheist?
Monday 13 June 2011
monotheism
Rather a long gap in writing here, partly due to working extra shifts to cover for a colleague being off sick. I've also been trying to process quite alot of thoughts that have come up following some of Jarred's comments.
So, here goes with the latest one...
Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I'd always thought that meant believing that only one God exists. But rereading the Bible suggests that other gods DO in fact exist. Maybe I'm more used to hearing them referred to as "principalities and powers" - in other words, some kind of spiritual entities that aren't as powerful as God.
So does being monotheistic mean believing in one ultimate God, or does it mean worshipping only one God?
So, here goes with the latest one...
Christianity is a monotheistic religion. I'd always thought that meant believing that only one God exists. But rereading the Bible suggests that other gods DO in fact exist. Maybe I'm more used to hearing them referred to as "principalities and powers" - in other words, some kind of spiritual entities that aren't as powerful as God.
So does being monotheistic mean believing in one ultimate God, or does it mean worshipping only one God?
Thursday 19 May 2011
God and jealousy
It always struck me as a bit odd that God was described as a jealous God. Doesn't that smack of insecurity? What could God possibly have to be jealous about?
Somewhere in the back of my head, there's the concept that there is only one God, and he goes by many different names. It's the classic all roads lead to the top of the mountain. So whatever name you call him, it's the same reality.
Except the Bible assumes the existence of other gods. Why else does God warn against having no other gods before Him if they don't exist? (Note, this doesn't have to mean they are as powerful).
But what Jarred said about some Pagans being eclectic got me thinking. Do Pagans believe in their gods as separate entities, or as human constructs? And if they are independent entities, then are they happy to share a believer with another god?
Suddenly the idea of God not being prepared to share believers with another god makes more sense to me.
Somewhere in the back of my head, there's the concept that there is only one God, and he goes by many different names. It's the classic all roads lead to the top of the mountain. So whatever name you call him, it's the same reality.
Except the Bible assumes the existence of other gods. Why else does God warn against having no other gods before Him if they don't exist? (Note, this doesn't have to mean they are as powerful).
But what Jarred said about some Pagans being eclectic got me thinking. Do Pagans believe in their gods as separate entities, or as human constructs? And if they are independent entities, then are they happy to share a believer with another god?
Suddenly the idea of God not being prepared to share believers with another god makes more sense to me.
Tuesday 17 May 2011
essays
Apologies for being a bit quiet recently, I got rather bogged down in my essay ("Ecclesiastes is a book for contemporary society". Discuss). But, thanks to help from mrPM "Just sit down and write it" I have sent it in, and have finished the OT writings module (hurray!)
Unfortunately, that means I need to get on with the next module which is "evangelism". It's a compulsory module (there's no way I would be doing it otherwise!) and I am not finding it at all easy. For starters, it assumes I'm part of a church, which I'm not really at present. MrPM and I have started going to another church where we fit much better than the previous one, but it is some distance away and I don't really know anyone there yet, so wouldn't consider myself a part of it yet. The other problem is that the whole module so far seems to be written from the standard evangelical perspective of "if you don't believe Jesus died for your sins, then you're going to hell. Oh, and by the way, God loves you." I feel like I'm an alien from another planet. So the most important thing is getting my sorry soul into heaven when I die?
The Bible says that Jesus went about PREACHING THE GOSPEL. This was BEFORE he died. So how can 'the Gospel' mean "Jesus died for your sins"??? Cause it wasn't what Jesus himself preached as the Gospel. He seemed to more along the lines of setting captives free, and bringing the kingdom of God to earth in the here and now. Surely we are supposed to do the same? Work with him to bring God's kingdom here and now? To give hope where there is none? Work for justice and an end to oppression? To help those who have no help? To love those who are unloved?
And I object to those who do these things in order to entice people so they can then 'preach the Gospel' and ask them to make a commitment. That's operating under false pretences, and cannot be compatible with following the one who said he was the Truth. I do these things because it's what I understand God did in Jesus. Sure, if someone wants to ask me about my faith, I'll talk til the cows come home. And yes, I do these things because of my faith, because this is how I live it out.
There's also the small matter of the rest of creation. If God so loved the WORLD etc, it's not just human souls that get redeemed, it's the whole of creation that is reconciled to God. How much anthropocentric individualism has the church syncretised with Jesus' teachings and is now teaching as sound doctrine?
In short, I'm going to have a nightmare doing this module and I suspect I may well be ranting here from time to time. Prayers/ good wishes etc gratefully received....
Unfortunately, that means I need to get on with the next module which is "evangelism". It's a compulsory module (there's no way I would be doing it otherwise!) and I am not finding it at all easy. For starters, it assumes I'm part of a church, which I'm not really at present. MrPM and I have started going to another church where we fit much better than the previous one, but it is some distance away and I don't really know anyone there yet, so wouldn't consider myself a part of it yet. The other problem is that the whole module so far seems to be written from the standard evangelical perspective of "if you don't believe Jesus died for your sins, then you're going to hell. Oh, and by the way, God loves you." I feel like I'm an alien from another planet. So the most important thing is getting my sorry soul into heaven when I die?
The Bible says that Jesus went about PREACHING THE GOSPEL. This was BEFORE he died. So how can 'the Gospel' mean "Jesus died for your sins"??? Cause it wasn't what Jesus himself preached as the Gospel. He seemed to more along the lines of setting captives free, and bringing the kingdom of God to earth in the here and now. Surely we are supposed to do the same? Work with him to bring God's kingdom here and now? To give hope where there is none? Work for justice and an end to oppression? To help those who have no help? To love those who are unloved?
And I object to those who do these things in order to entice people so they can then 'preach the Gospel' and ask them to make a commitment. That's operating under false pretences, and cannot be compatible with following the one who said he was the Truth. I do these things because it's what I understand God did in Jesus. Sure, if someone wants to ask me about my faith, I'll talk til the cows come home. And yes, I do these things because of my faith, because this is how I live it out.
There's also the small matter of the rest of creation. If God so loved the WORLD etc, it's not just human souls that get redeemed, it's the whole of creation that is reconciled to God. How much anthropocentric individualism has the church syncretised with Jesus' teachings and is now teaching as sound doctrine?
In short, I'm going to have a nightmare doing this module and I suspect I may well be ranting here from time to time. Prayers/ good wishes etc gratefully received....
Thursday 5 May 2011
cultural appropriation
What Jarred said about cultural appropriation got me thinking. So did the 'holding the bread too high at Communion' thing.
So is holding the bread up high (to at least face height) during Communion simply an irrelevance about which no-one in their right mind should be bothered? Or is it an example of an act which can be perceived as misplaced cultural appropriation?
If I go to a Catholic Mass, I expect the priest to hold the wafer up, the bell gets rung, and the theology is that at this moment the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. I personally may or may not believe this, but it's what I would expect.
In a denomination which has very much the view that 'the bread stays bread' and Communion is purely an act of obedience and remembrance, anyone can lead the service and break the bread.
So, in this setting, anything which carries overtones of (1) needing a priest (2) the priest offering a sacrifice (3) the bread becoming Jesus' actual body is seen as inappropriate.
Personally, I don't care - I've had communion with wafers, brown bread, white bread, teacake (bread with raisins in), poppy seed bread; wine, grape juice, Schloer, cranberry juice, raspberry juice, Ribena/other blackcurrant juice, non-alcoholic wine (which has the scary label "Not to be drunk as a beverage"!). I think the most moving communion I had was as part of a small group and we used crisps and Coke, because that was what we had.
But I do have to admit that seeing the bread lifted high in that particular church service jarred.
So is that inappropriate cultural misappropriation? Or just tradition?
So is holding the bread up high (to at least face height) during Communion simply an irrelevance about which no-one in their right mind should be bothered? Or is it an example of an act which can be perceived as misplaced cultural appropriation?
If I go to a Catholic Mass, I expect the priest to hold the wafer up, the bell gets rung, and the theology is that at this moment the bread actually becomes the body of Christ. I personally may or may not believe this, but it's what I would expect.
In a denomination which has very much the view that 'the bread stays bread' and Communion is purely an act of obedience and remembrance, anyone can lead the service and break the bread.
So, in this setting, anything which carries overtones of (1) needing a priest (2) the priest offering a sacrifice (3) the bread becoming Jesus' actual body is seen as inappropriate.
Personally, I don't care - I've had communion with wafers, brown bread, white bread, teacake (bread with raisins in), poppy seed bread; wine, grape juice, Schloer, cranberry juice, raspberry juice, Ribena/other blackcurrant juice, non-alcoholic wine (which has the scary label "Not to be drunk as a beverage"!). I think the most moving communion I had was as part of a small group and we used crisps and Coke, because that was what we had.
But I do have to admit that seeing the bread lifted high in that particular church service jarred.
So is that inappropriate cultural misappropriation? Or just tradition?
Wednesday 4 May 2011
syncretism 2
Jarred - it gets worse - in the denomination I am part of I've seen people upset because a preacher held the bread up TOO HIGH during Communion - the preacher no doubt thought it would be easier for those at the back to see this, unfortunately it's seen as a relic of 'Popery' and completely unacceptable... Interestingly enough, there's no fuss about using small white bread cubes and cranberry juice instead of unleavened bread and wine....
Are there similar problems among Pagans? I would imagine that people being people, there will always be some who want to mix and match, and some who think you have to stick to the old ways to do it properly? How do yous* cope with this?
* yous = generic/ plural version of you
Are there similar problems among Pagans? I would imagine that people being people, there will always be some who want to mix and match, and some who think you have to stick to the old ways to do it properly? How do yous* cope with this?
* yous = generic/ plural version of you
Tuesday 3 May 2011
syncretism
Fire girl's reply got me thinking about syncretism (which I understand to mean fusion of two different beliefs). Certainly, in the Old Testament, God had alot to say to the Israelites about being the only God, not worshipping other gods, and generally not taking on the religious practices of those around. They were to be different. Not that it seemed to work out like that alot of the time...
I have just started reading this book by Christoph Baumer about the Church of the East (also known as the Assyrian or Nestorian church). Reading about Zoroastrianism meant that some of the apocalyptic writing (such as Daniel or Revelation) and the whole concept of hell suddenly made alot more sense.
So, does that count as syncretism? Or is that OK as it was all a long time ago? Or is it OK because it's in Scripture?
I do wonder how much of what I think Christianity is about is culturally driven. To what extent is my Christian faith a syncretic mix of what Jesus taught and Western individualistic consumerism? It's difficult to work that out living in a Western individualistic consumerist society - I only manage to work out my own syncretism when faced with someone from a different background who has a different form of syncretism.
So I'm interested to hear from anyone else who either finds this a problem or practices their faith in a less traditional way (for want of a better way of putting it). And yes, that's partly because I'm nosy, but it's also in the hope that some of my own unknown idols will be exposed in the process.
Monday 2 May 2011
welcome to any Pagans
There's been a fascinating discussion over on Matt Stone's blog about how Christians should (or more to the point shouldn't) deal with Pagans.
My own experience of alot of Christians is that they are actually terribly insecure about their own faith, and worried that it won't stand up to any kind of questions from someone of another belief system. If you couple that with the standard evangelical concept that if you do not believe XYZ, then God will fry you in hell forever (because he loves you so much, of course!!!) and that if I don't tell you this, then when it happens it will all be MY fault (and what terrible things might God then decide to do to me????) you end up with a recipe for serious neurotic guilt.
I have enough problems feeling guilty about stuff that I am not responsible for - I've had depression for the past 20 years - and have had to learn NOT to take responsibility for things that are not my problem. Consequently I don't buy in to the above.
So, to be clear: I am a follower of Jesus, but I don't think it's my job to convert people. I love talking God-stuff with anyone daft enough to want to. I know very little about Paganism, but love hearing people's stories about their faith journey. So - maybe we can start exploring together?
My own experience of alot of Christians is that they are actually terribly insecure about their own faith, and worried that it won't stand up to any kind of questions from someone of another belief system. If you couple that with the standard evangelical concept that if you do not believe XYZ, then God will fry you in hell forever (because he loves you so much, of course!!!) and that if I don't tell you this, then when it happens it will all be MY fault (and what terrible things might God then decide to do to me????) you end up with a recipe for serious neurotic guilt.
I have enough problems feeling guilty about stuff that I am not responsible for - I've had depression for the past 20 years - and have had to learn NOT to take responsibility for things that are not my problem. Consequently I don't buy in to the above.
So, to be clear: I am a follower of Jesus, but I don't think it's my job to convert people. I love talking God-stuff with anyone daft enough to want to. I know very little about Paganism, but love hearing people's stories about their faith journey. So - maybe we can start exploring together?
Sunday 17 April 2011
Palm Sunday
I am skiving church today, and will be again next week. It might seem odd to deliberately choose to stay away during the most important time in the church year. But that's the problem. It's the first Easter time since becoming out of pastorate (Easter was earlier last year, and it was mrPMs last service - we had no inkling of that at the time.)
So I am going through all the bereavement stuff of the first whatever since it happened. It feels wrong not to be at the brief ecumenical Palm Sunday service which concludes with parading through the town with the local band, before dropping everyone off at their own places of worship. It would feel even more wrong if I were in a different church with different traditions. I don't think it would be fair on the people at whichever church I ended up at - I would just be resenting them for not being what we had before - which is totally illogical and unjustified.
At least after next Sunday, all the first 'whatevers' will be over, and things will begin to get a bit easier.
So I am going through all the bereavement stuff of the first whatever since it happened. It feels wrong not to be at the brief ecumenical Palm Sunday service which concludes with parading through the town with the local band, before dropping everyone off at their own places of worship. It would feel even more wrong if I were in a different church with different traditions. I don't think it would be fair on the people at whichever church I ended up at - I would just be resenting them for not being what we had before - which is totally illogical and unjustified.
At least after next Sunday, all the first 'whatevers' will be over, and things will begin to get a bit easier.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
theology course
I got my psalms essay back - not too bad, but it seems I sit on the fence far too much, and am supposed to give my own opinion. I suppose that's only to be expected as I come from a scientific background. Oh well, now I know...
Next essay on OT writings is on Ecclesiastes. I'm one of those odd people who likes Ecclesiastes - it cheers me up to know there's someone more depressed than I am - but I can only deal with it in small bits. Too much at once makes me more depressed. So it's going slowly.
In the meantime, I've started another module - Evangelism in contemporary society. (It's a compulsory module - no way would I be doing it otherwise!) It is going to be very hard going, as I seem to be coming from a different planet to the standard evangelical take on things. And it's not made easier by the word "evangelism" bringing me out in a (metaphorical) rash, and memories of a booklet called "Journey into life" - anyone else remember that? I loathed it with a vengeance then, and it seems to still be the standard tract model. In other words, the "gospel" is as follows:
God really really loves you, but you are so awful that he has to punish you in hell forever. The only way you can escape this is to accept Jesus as your "get out of hell free" card. There is nothing else you can do about the situation - only bloodshed and death will do. If you don't accept Jesus, then you know the consequences.
I've just read "Love Wins" by Rob Bell. And while there are bits of it I think are superficial, I really don't understand what all the fuss was about - he's not saying anything new. But the reason for bringing that particular book up is that he says we can have all the programs and trendy stuff we like, but if our concept of God is off, we will not reach people. And the idea that Jesus rescues us from an angry Father who is waiting to fry us (out of love because we deserve it, of course) is not the reality of God. Unfortunately it seems to be there in the background of so much of what passes for the "gospel".
Next essay on OT writings is on Ecclesiastes. I'm one of those odd people who likes Ecclesiastes - it cheers me up to know there's someone more depressed than I am - but I can only deal with it in small bits. Too much at once makes me more depressed. So it's going slowly.
In the meantime, I've started another module - Evangelism in contemporary society. (It's a compulsory module - no way would I be doing it otherwise!) It is going to be very hard going, as I seem to be coming from a different planet to the standard evangelical take on things. And it's not made easier by the word "evangelism" bringing me out in a (metaphorical) rash, and memories of a booklet called "Journey into life" - anyone else remember that? I loathed it with a vengeance then, and it seems to still be the standard tract model. In other words, the "gospel" is as follows:
God really really loves you, but you are so awful that he has to punish you in hell forever. The only way you can escape this is to accept Jesus as your "get out of hell free" card. There is nothing else you can do about the situation - only bloodshed and death will do. If you don't accept Jesus, then you know the consequences.
I've just read "Love Wins" by Rob Bell. And while there are bits of it I think are superficial, I really don't understand what all the fuss was about - he's not saying anything new. But the reason for bringing that particular book up is that he says we can have all the programs and trendy stuff we like, but if our concept of God is off, we will not reach people. And the idea that Jesus rescues us from an angry Father who is waiting to fry us (out of love because we deserve it, of course) is not the reality of God. Unfortunately it seems to be there in the background of so much of what passes for the "gospel".
a year on
It's a year since mrPM had to resign from pastorate. He was preaching for the first time since then on Sunday. It went well, despite half his notes falling on the floor part-way through the sermon. I assumed they were the ones he had already preached on, as he didn't stop and pick them up, but he told me afterwards that they were actually the bit he hadn't got to! Which I think confirms that this is something he should be doing.
I found it odd that he was preaching and I hadn't put the order of service together. We had got quite good at working together - he would give me a rough idea of his theme and I would put the order of service together, then he led it and I supported by playing piano. Although on paper it looked like the standard hymn/prayer sandwich, it never felt like that in practice - there was a starting point and then it all flowed through to the response at the end. That is something I do miss.
So how am I coping? Still not settled in a church, never mind a small group. Still talking to God (and even listening occasionally). Still taking the tablets and still feeling pretty wobbly alot of the time. And I still avoid going back to where we used to live - I meet friends who live there somewhere else. But I'm coping with work, which is something.
So now it's a case of waiting and seeing what happens next.
I found it odd that he was preaching and I hadn't put the order of service together. We had got quite good at working together - he would give me a rough idea of his theme and I would put the order of service together, then he led it and I supported by playing piano. Although on paper it looked like the standard hymn/prayer sandwich, it never felt like that in practice - there was a starting point and then it all flowed through to the response at the end. That is something I do miss.
So how am I coping? Still not settled in a church, never mind a small group. Still talking to God (and even listening occasionally). Still taking the tablets and still feeling pretty wobbly alot of the time. And I still avoid going back to where we used to live - I meet friends who live there somewhere else. But I'm coping with work, which is something.
So now it's a case of waiting and seeing what happens next.
Monday 7 March 2011
Barchester Towers
Mrpastasmissus and I have just finished watching the DVD Barchester Chronicles - a dramatization of Trollope's books 'The Warden' and 'Barchester Towers'. It was first broadcast in 1981, and I have dim memories of watching it first time round.
It's well worth watching to see Alan Rickman as the unctuous Mr Slope, and Geraldine McEwan as the unstoppable Mrs Proudie who is magnificent in full sail.
(Although it has to be said if I tried to behave like that to mrpastasmissus I would be in BIIIIIG trouble ;-) )
It's well worth watching to see Alan Rickman as the unctuous Mr Slope, and Geraldine McEwan as the unstoppable Mrs Proudie who is magnificent in full sail.
(Although it has to be said if I tried to behave like that to mrpastasmissus I would be in BIIIIIG trouble ;-) )
Sunday 6 March 2011
Sunday morning
I have a confession - I skived church this morning. But I have had a more productive time with God instead, so I don't feel bad about it.
Mrpastasmissus and I had a long chat this morning, talking about pastorate, and our fears and potential problems, and what we've learnt through what happened. We have realised we both have a whole new pile of buttons the other can now press unwittingly. It was good to talk through stuff together.
My exegesis of Psalm 84 which had ground to a halt had been looming over me from the bookcase all week. Unfortunately it's been a week when I've not had enough brain power or motivation to do anything with it. But this morning I felt I could get it done, and I now have!
So that's the first of my essays submitted :-)))
Off to celebrate with some chocolate (it's as good an excuse as any) ;-)
Mrpastasmissus and I had a long chat this morning, talking about pastorate, and our fears and potential problems, and what we've learnt through what happened. We have realised we both have a whole new pile of buttons the other can now press unwittingly. It was good to talk through stuff together.
My exegesis of Psalm 84 which had ground to a halt had been looming over me from the bookcase all week. Unfortunately it's been a week when I've not had enough brain power or motivation to do anything with it. But this morning I felt I could get it done, and I now have!
So that's the first of my essays submitted :-)))
Off to celebrate with some chocolate (it's as good an excuse as any) ;-)
Tuesday 22 February 2011
job
At present I'm supposed to be writing a 1000 word exegesis on Psalm 84, but have got rather bogged down in it. Having done a diploma in British Sign Language and Interpreting, I tend to get rather involved in the translation theory side of stuff, which I don't think is quite the point of exegesis. So I'm procrastinating by carrying on with the rest of the module on OT wisdom, which means I've got to Job.
I think I'd always assumed the book of Job was about 'why do bad things happen to good people?' or 'where is God when it hurts?' - which it doesn't really answer. But having read it again, it strikes me that Job is actually about the following questions:
Do I only worship God for what I get out of it?
How deep does my faith actually go? Will I still worship God when everything falls apart?
Thinking about what we've been through and my reaction makes me wonder. I'm not sure that worship is necessarily the right word for my response, and I certainly did not accept the situation gladly. However, my conviction that God is God and I'm not persists. And I have discovered an inner core of steel in my determination to do what I believe He wants regardless of the cost to myself. Because if my faith means anything, it has to mean everything.
I think I'd always assumed the book of Job was about 'why do bad things happen to good people?' or 'where is God when it hurts?' - which it doesn't really answer. But having read it again, it strikes me that Job is actually about the following questions:
Do I only worship God for what I get out of it?
How deep does my faith actually go? Will I still worship God when everything falls apart?
Thinking about what we've been through and my reaction makes me wonder. I'm not sure that worship is necessarily the right word for my response, and I certainly did not accept the situation gladly. However, my conviction that God is God and I'm not persists. And I have discovered an inner core of steel in my determination to do what I believe He wants regardless of the cost to myself. Because if my faith means anything, it has to mean everything.
Tuesday 15 February 2011
not me
For the past 2-3 weeks I've been keeping people at arms' length. A friend said that "I've not been me". Whereas I think I have been me, it's just I've been the part of me that I don't like and usually sit on rather hard. I know that inside me is a rather obnoxious part, that says things better left unsaid, upsets people very easily and doesn't really care. I normally manage not to let that part of me out, but I know it's there.
Recently I've just not had the energy to squash it. Consequently I've been avoiding people - I've found it's better to do that than to end up saying things which will cause upset and devastation (both to them and to me when I get back to normal).
But today I seem to be back to 'normal' - or at least what passes for normal with me - mrpastasmissus will be very relieved!
Recently I've just not had the energy to squash it. Consequently I've been avoiding people - I've found it's better to do that than to end up saying things which will cause upset and devastation (both to them and to me when I get back to normal).
But today I seem to be back to 'normal' - or at least what passes for normal with me - mrpastasmissus will be very relieved!
Wednesday 26 January 2011
Psalms
Well, I decided it was time to get back to doing some official theology study, so I've enrolled on an online course. Currently I'm doing a module on Psalms. Bits of it are quite interesting, other bits seem rather far-fetched (just where is the evidence for annual cultic enthronement ceremonies, Mr Mowinckel???) and some parts resonate quite strongly.
Certainly what we have been through has allowed me to appreciate some of the more 'vicious' psalms in a way I never had before. I recognised the desperate demand that God should do something, because (1) I was in a mess (2) all human resources had failed (3) we were trying to do what God wanted (4) we were in this mess BECAUSE we were trying to stay obedient, rather than give in to the demands of others (ie it was God's fault) (5) the situation was bringing God into disrepute (6) it would take a miracle, but the Bible is stuffed full of God doing miracles...
and then afterwards, the wish for revenge on those that had done this to us... (which I think I'm now over).
It has been good to read psalms of lament (or disorientation if you prefer). Getting cross with God and praying no hold barred is not something we usually experience in church. In fact, I've been told that it's disrespectful. I've never stopped praying that way when I needed to, just not done it out loud.
This quote seemed to sum things up: "This polarity of praise and lament is different from the familiar polarity of petition and thanksgiving in our modern prayers. The arc which the pendulum makes as it swings between the poles of lament and praise is much greater than that between petition and thanksgiving". (Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content and Message p11)
Is our praying anaemic because we're not really that bothered about most of the stuff we pray about?
Certainly what we have been through has allowed me to appreciate some of the more 'vicious' psalms in a way I never had before. I recognised the desperate demand that God should do something, because (1) I was in a mess (2) all human resources had failed (3) we were trying to do what God wanted (4) we were in this mess BECAUSE we were trying to stay obedient, rather than give in to the demands of others (ie it was God's fault) (5) the situation was bringing God into disrepute (6) it would take a miracle, but the Bible is stuffed full of God doing miracles...
and then afterwards, the wish for revenge on those that had done this to us... (which I think I'm now over).
It has been good to read psalms of lament (or disorientation if you prefer). Getting cross with God and praying no hold barred is not something we usually experience in church. In fact, I've been told that it's disrespectful. I've never stopped praying that way when I needed to, just not done it out loud.
This quote seemed to sum things up: "This polarity of praise and lament is different from the familiar polarity of petition and thanksgiving in our modern prayers. The arc which the pendulum makes as it swings between the poles of lament and praise is much greater than that between petition and thanksgiving". (Westermann, The Psalms: Structure, Content and Message p11)
Is our praying anaemic because we're not really that bothered about most of the stuff we pray about?
Tuesday 11 January 2011
virtuous
Just now I am feeling extremely virtuous. (That looks extremely strange spelling, but I have just checked it, so think it's right.) Having procrastinated for the last 2 days, and covered our living room floor in multiple piles of paper, I have finally done my tax return! And, even better, the tax man owes me money :-)
And I think that's my first resolution of this New Year - to do my tax return earlier next year. Of course, like all New Year's resolutions, I'm sure it will get broken, but at least it will take me the whole year to break it!
And I think that's my first resolution of this New Year - to do my tax return earlier next year. Of course, like all New Year's resolutions, I'm sure it will get broken, but at least it will take me the whole year to break it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
