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

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?

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?

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.

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....

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?

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