off God...

Not posted for a while, partially due to other things (being busy and then a week's holiday), but mostly because I'm having an "off God" spell.
During such spells I still talk to God, but it goes under the classification of 'muttering at God' (MAG for short) rather than prayer. The whole point of MaGs is to allow me to delude myself into thinking I'm still communicating with God, while simultaneously ignoring Him.
You mean you've never heard one of those conversations where both people take it in turns to talk, but neither actually listens to what the other is saying? Although, presumably God still listens to my drivel...
Why am I off God? Partly it's just the way I am - I tend to go through cycles of being very intense and then not being particularly bothered. And, partly, I suspect, because I'm working on my current module: the Pentateuch. It has to be said that on just reading it all straight through, God really does not come out of it very well. I think 'genocidal megalomaniac' was the phrase MrPM used... There are bits where God does appear to be a kid having a tantrum who is going to take his ball home if he doesn't get his way ;-)

So what do I do about it? Being aware of it is a start. I'm arranging to meet up with a friend to pray (a proper pray involving vulnerability and listening to God) - not that I want to, but I know I need to. Said friend knows me well enough to hold me to account and not let me get away with stuff. And then, I go and read some fiction to get back to focussing on Jesus - probably the Penelope Wilcock 'The Hawk and the Dove' trilogy. Or the Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Both still makes me cry, despite having read them loads of times.

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

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".

universalist?

Catriona's comment got me thinking. Am I a universalist? Not really. I think there is such a thing as hell, and that if people choose it, then God will respect their freedom to make that choice.
(Although I do wonder if heaven and hell might actually be the same thing - being in the presence of God...)

What does make me extremely uncomfortable is that when I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus warning a particular group of people they are in serious danger of hell. Who is this group? The tax collectors? The prostitutes? No, it's the Pharisees. In other words, it's the ones who take God and His Scriptures seriously, do all the right things, believe all the right stuff and tell others to do the same, because that's what God wants. It's the ones who think they know the mind of God and are justified in telling everyone else that their way is the only right way, because it's what God himself has said.
And yet, Jesus says to them that they are actually missing the point and in greater danger of hell than the very people they are convinced are going there.

church - helpful or harmful?

So I am trying to settle in to a new church. It's not easy. The people seem nice (but so did the people in our last church, and it turned out to be a veneer for public consumption only with some of them). Our musical gifts are in demand, and I can be as involved as I want. So what's the problem?
Quite simply, the theology: There are 2 types of people. If you're a Christian, then you're saved and will go to heaven when you die. If you're not, then you go to hell.
I know this is orthodox theology. But I have problems with (1) a one-off decision being the be-all-and-end-all (2) 'saved' meaning rescued from the penalty of sin which God himself had ordained (3) 'heaven' being somewhere where you go when you die.
I have problems with these issues anyway, as my understanding is that Jesus calls me to follow him, to be transformed into his likeness, to share his path of suffering and to work with him in establishing the kingdom of heaven here and now. All of which is an ongoing process.

But at present, it's not just an intellectual problem, it's an emotional one too. Because of the events that led to me becoming the missus of an ex-pastor and because I have depression, it is very easy for me to start seeing God (the Father) as someone who is judgemental, vengeful and sadistic. So having God presented as a judge who demands death for everyone (for breaking a rule that He set up in the first place, KNOWING it would not be kept) really does not help. Oh yes, I forgot the bit that says 'but because he loves you so much he provided a way out, but unless you do it exactly right you'll fail'. Well, thanks! Why set up such a stupid system in the first place?
Telling me about a judgemental God and a forensic explanation of the atonement really does not help me. Tell me about a God who is passionate about the world he created, to the extent that he keeps it going even while it is in rebellion against him, and actually becomes a part of that world; a God who loves, makes himself vulnerable, humbles himself, and gives all of himself to his creation and I might start wanting to know Him again.

And if I left the service feeling like that, I wonder what the people who don't normally go to church but who had come especially for a family event made of it...

Jesus and God

When mr pastasmissus was applying to train as a pastor, he had to fill out some rather detailed forms. One of them asked for "short notes explaining your understanding of..." There was then enough space for about 3 sentences. The things they wanted you to explain included "the trinity".
We had some fun with that. My initial suggestion of "God is 3 and God is 1, and, no, I don't understand that either" may have been honest but was dismissed as not quite having the right tone. So I tried again "the tripartite unity of the Godhead is a paradox beyond human comprehension". That got dismissed as too pretentious!
I am always intrigued by how different people see God. For me, Jesus, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit have always been quite distinct. That's not saying I think they're separate, just that I react and interact slightly differently to each. And it's different again for God the trinity.
A consequence of this is that I am very careful when I pray, to know who I am addressing. I know that many other people I have spoken to about this can't understand why it matters - after all, it's all the same God. (Although, oddly enough, if you then suggest praying to the Holy Spirit, the same people often get very upset and start telling you why this is wrong - and the comment "it's all the same God" does NOT go down well ;-) ) But it does mean I have a mental disconnect when I hear communion prayers that start off "Father God" and then say "thankyou for dying on the cross" - I want to stand up and shout that he didn't....
It probably all stems from the image of God I had as a child - the critical parent/ teacher in the sky, who was big and scary and powerful, sitting on a cloud, armed with thunderbolts, just waiting to zap me if I did something wrong. Jesus, in contrast, was much more approachable, and on the side of the victims. At that stage the Holy Spirit was a rather unknown concept (never mind person). I'm not saying this is good theology, it's just where I started from.
When I hit problems with my faith, it all got blamed on God the Father. He was the one who could have stopped stuff from happening, but hadn't. Therefore He was the bad guy. I couldn't do that to Jesus - he had already suffered so much, I didn't want to add to it. And anyway, he knew what it was like to feel helpless and abandoned and let down by God. So even when I was having major issues with 'God', I was still committed to Jesus.
My understanding of God has changed alot since then and has become more integrated. But I am still very careful with who I am addressing when I pray.

holiday theology

The theology digressed a bit onto chocolate theology - something which I think would bear closer examination (and sampling!) - and yes, Angela, I'd be up for a joint project ;-)
So going back to the original post: while on holiday I read "Christus Victor" by vonAulen. I'm not sure I understood all of it, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...
Basically what I got from it is that the idea of atonement has different interpretations; and penal substitution, although very influential in Western thought actually did not occur as that concept in the early church or the Patristic period. In fact, the idea of penal substitution came out of discussing the sacrament of penance - if someone good did lots of penance then they could accrue extra Brownie points, which God could then transfer to someone else. So Jesus dying on the cross accrues megaBrownie points which can then get transferred to our account, wiping out what we owe God. It's an extremely forensic view of God, who seems to delight in keeping lists of every individual thing we do wrong, and who will only wipe it out if someone pays for it (in blood).
I've always had an issue with this, as for me it's very difficult to reconcile this image of God with the idea that God is love. But I never knew that it was rooted in the doctrine of penance, especially as developed by Anselm.
VonAulen says that this view of the atonement is too narrow in scope. Jesus dies for my sins. Yes, that is true. But in this model, only the fact that Jesus dies is significant. So why come as a baby? Why wait 30 years to start preaching? Why get raised from the dead? And yes, he dies for my sins, but is it only humanity that needs to be redeeemed? And using the idea of God having a list - Jesus might die to wipe the contents of the list off, but does that do anything to change my underlying sinfulness???
His view, which he says is that of the early church (and is still that of the Eastern Orthodox church) is that the atonement is God acting to reconcile all creation to himself, despite the best efforts of Satan. Christ lives life the way Adam should have (and didn't). By doing this, the result was that the evil which opposed him finally over-reached itself and claimed his life, although in reality it had no claim on him. Consequently Jesus broke the power of sin, death, hell and the grave. This reconciles creation to the creator and gives the possibility of a new way of being.

It made alot of sense to me, particularly in view of our recent issues. I had been feeling that the things that had been said about my husband were personal, and had been deeply hurt by them. However, this changed my perspective to see that all of creation is caught up in a cosmic war between God and evil and we simply have to decide which side we are on. In our church mess, hubby and I tried to do what we thought God wanted. Eventually, the evil present came to light. Unfortunately, we paid the price for doing the right thing. But what does it profit a man (or woman) to gain the whole world but lose their soul?

chocolate theology 2

I used to go to a church where the pastor's favourite verse was "The Lord delights in fatness".
I still remember him preaching a sermon about God's love, and one of his illustrations involved Kit-Kats. He described in great detail the process of unwrapping it, snapping it and biting into it - only to discover it was SOLID CHOCOLATE. There had been a 'happy accident' and somehow the biscuit had not made it into the Kit-Kat. And God's love was solid all the way through, but unlike the Kit-kat, it wasn't a happy accident, it was meant to be like that....

Just another random thought as to why God is like chocolate - I think it was T S Elliot who said that mankind could not bear too much reality. We can't cope with too much exposure to God - much prefer the watered down version as being more palatable. Me, I like the British chocolate that the Europeans don't think is chocolatey enough to count as 'chocolate'. I once made the mistake of getting some 90% chocolate and put 4 pieces in my mouth at once (yes, this is the way I usually eat chocolate!). I couldn't speak for quite some time, and suddenly understood why chocolate was seen as a dangerous stimulant when it first appeared. It was rather different to what I thought chocolate was.....

chocolate theology

Sorry to anyone waiting for the actual theology I read on holiday - this is a digression. Yesterday was not a particularly good day for me. It is extremely strange being in a church where I don't know anyone and have nothing to do, and the preacher isn't my husband. It WAS nice having him sitting next to me and passing tissues over at appropriate intervals...
So I spent the evening cheering myself up by overcoming the gates of hell. For the uninitiated, this means eating Toblerone chocolate...
This stems from a remark I made at a Bible study about how I had been very confused by an ikon I'd seen in Greek Orthodox churches in which Jesus seemed to be standing on two Toblerone bars. It took me a while to realise the two yellow things near the base of the ikon are actually the gates of hell!

I hope that might encourage some of you to do the same ;-)