Civilian Affairs & Kingdom Dreams

I recently had a brief chat with a fellow Christian in the church I attend that revealed an interesting but potentially troubling view expressed in our movement. 

The brother recently attended an international leadership conference for our worldwide churches in the US, where one of the speakers shared about the urgency we must have in building the Kingdom of God. To underline the urgency, the speaker apparently shared (based on what the brother told me) that in a few years Islam will be the World's major religion and if it keeps growing at the current rate, it will be the dominant religion in the US. My immediate reaction was, 'so what?'. Why 'so what'?

Well it's not as if the World's major religion has been, or ever truly was Christianity as Jesus taught it, and I certainly wouldn't describe the US as a Christian nation (it's meant to be a secular nation actually). But if Islam was to dominate the World or the US, this is an American concern and perhaps a political concern, but not a Christian one. Even when Christianity dominated certain parts of the World it did so in some of the most horrific ways, not the ways Jesus taught. And the faith was even born at a time ruled by paganism and secular values, and thrived nonetheless. 

If we are to take Jesus and Biblical prophecy seriously then we know the Kingdom of God, "will itself endure forever" (Daniel 2:44), there's nothing to worry about. The only variable is who will endure with it. God is not in a foetal position in a corner of his office wondering what became of his country - after all he's not a conservative fundamentalist Christian American, or any kind of earthly citizen. In fact I don't think he has any interest in politics or nationalism of any kind. But we can appropriate God's image (thus committing some kind of divine copyright infringement) and have him represent our causes without his compliance, agreement or permission. 

If we're in God's army, the most dangerous enemy is usually within our own hearts, and where our hearts will be in a few years is purely up to us.

The Communion: Examination or Celebration?

The communion is Christendom's most holy 'sacrament', to borrow a Catholic term. Along with baptism, it's one of the few rites that Jesus actually told his disciples to engage in. Three, including prayer, if you want to be legalistic about it. But the idea is not to be legalistic at all, however, anything oft repeated has a way of either losing its meaning or gaining one that was never intended.

Jesus told us to '...do this in remembrance of me' (Luke 22:18-20), referring to the communion, and Paul chimes in with an admonition to examine ourselves before partaking in the same (1 Cor 11: 28). But what often happens during this rite is that we focus far more on our sin, shortcomings and weakness, and hence encourage guilt - because Jesus did so much for us and look at how we 'repay' him. The communion becomes the examination rather than a celebration. It becomes more a remembrance of what we have done (usually the bad) rather than the good Jesus did. The point of the examination is to be free to celebrate. 

We become like a freed slave who spends all his time musing at the chains that once held him. His now loosed chains take on major significance, and he spends more time with them than just enjoying his new found freedom. Paul asserts that 'It is for freedom that Christ has set us free' (Galatians 5:1). That's an odd but profound statement. Many only go as far as the 'forgiveness' part of the communion, but, and this will sound weird, Jesus didn't die for our sins - he died so our sins wouldn't be a hindrance to our lives! 

We need to get out of that small confining space of 'forgiveness' alone. Staying there implies that God's forgiveness isn't potent enough for our sin. Understanding that our victory is a fait accomplis will allow us to move beyond 'elementary teachings' (because we fully accept them) and move on to living profoundly free lives. 

Living in a Material World

While must approach our challenges and endeavours in this world with a spiritual attitude, not all problems and issues have spiritual solutions. 

At a retreat recently, the men got together to talk about some of their struggles and challenges in life. The majority of responses seemed to be 'spiritual', meaning folks were told to 'put God first', 'get spiritual' and 'stop being worldly' etc. Now in all things we certainly need to follow the preceding directives, but if someone is facing serious financial difficulty, burdensome work challenges, genuine emotional or psychological challenges or perplexing life choices some actual practical guidance and advice might actually help (that said, the spirit of challenge at the retreat was undoubtedly meant for the best, and only allowed for short responses rather than exhaustive solutions).

I am not saying that spiritual direction isn't necessary, but there are some issues where a financial advisor, a psychologist/psychiatrist/counsellor, or just a wise and insightful stranger or friend can help. We can offer very helpful spiritual insight without necessarily helping someone reach any closer to solving a problem or coming to terms with their issues. They may leave trusting in God - but no wiser regarding the issue. 

CS Lewis noted that God, '...wants us to be simple, single-minded, affectionate, and teachable, as good children are; but He also wants every bit of intelligence we have to be alert at its job, and in first-class fighting trim.' (Mere Christianity, 1952). In the same breath he cited Jesus admonition that his disciples be, '...innocent as doves and crafty as snakes.' (Matthew 10:16), we may be spiritual creatures but we are at least 50% human and living in a material world. We can't afford to be naive to the genuine challenges of life that necessitate a certain 'worldly' savvy and understanding.

Moses, and hence the entire nation of Israel and by extension, Christendom benefitted greatly from the very practical wisdom of a non-Jew (and obvious non-Christian) in the form of Priest of Midian, Jethro - his father-in-law. Jethro contributed to God's plan by devising a structure of governance for the Jews and the modern day Christian church when he advised Moses on how to administer justice by, effectively suggesting a discipleship structure (Exodus 18: 17-27). 

Now Jethro could have told Moses to 'get spiritual', but he went one better and told him to 'get smart' and showed him how. 

God Loves You...BUT

Yes, that must be the biggest ugliest 'BUT' known to man. Even bigger than Martin Lawrence's prosthetic butt in any of the Big Mamma's House movies. It's nasty.

Why do we use that ominous 'but' and what is the impact thereof?

I've heard and said that 'but' from the pulpit on many occasions - I cringe to think about it. Throughout Christendom we build up the unconditional love of God - how amazing it is, how deep and wide, how unending and unfailing, how all redeeming. And rightfully so because that is what it is. But too much grace makes people hard to control, so we must restrain the unbridled freedom with healthy doses of fire and brimstone or threats of disease and stroke, should this precious resource be abused and exploited. We attribute any misfortune to punishment and judgement. Nothing new really. We build up God's 'unconditional' love and then in one fell swoop tear it down with quid pro quos, provisos, clauses and lots of fine print all condensed into one small word. 

So what is the result of adding that small three letter word after 'God loves you'? The same impact it has at the end of any statement: it completely negates whatever comes before. That big ugly 'BUT' denies all the hard work of the Prophets, Apostles and Jesus himself. They've all wasted their time because of someone's oversized conjunction. We say something like, 'God loves you BUT if you don't repent you'll go to hell'. We imply that at some point God does not in fact love you. Truly the very epitome of false doctrine - if there's anything that satan or Rumpelstilskin would want you to believe, it's that God doesn't really love you - or he does but only sometimes. In fact, only when you're perfect. 

Romans 5:8 says that, 'While we were still sinners, Christ died for us' and 1 John 4:19 says that, 'We love because he first loved us'. God loved us at the height of imperfection, so those committed to at least aspiring to perfection are maybe winning some approval from God - but not more love. Everyone is privy to the fullest extent of God's love. Everyone. 

What some fail to realize is that punishment or discipline is not the absence of love. Consequence is not the absence of love, but that 'BUT' subtly suggests it is the end of love. 

For the Christians who read this and interpret every misfortune as punishment consider, 'There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love' (1 Jn 4:18). 'Punishment' is not in the Redeemed's vocab. Note it doesn't say 'perfect punishment drives in love'. Oh, and that 'perfect love' is God's, not ours. Let him worry about being flawless.

So what should we say? 'God loves you FULL STOP'. He loves you when your foolish choices blow up in your face. He loves you when you're hot on the trail to hell and when you hate him, yourself and everything else. He loves you when you've given up and packed it in. You may have even written God off, BUT....

If You're Going to Be an Atheist Do It Right!

Ok, to be certain I am a theist - and hence prepared for the onslaught of venom likely to be attracted by this missive. The idea is to express certain observations I have made through my exchanges with atheists and through the material I've read that's been generated by the atheist/theist debate. 

Take it in good humour too - that's how it's meant...at least in part.

1. If God doesn't exist then stop hating him. Truth: I've interacted with folks who claim to be atheists but hate God with a passion. Now if God doesn't exist why would you hate him? Wouldn't that be like hating Santa? Or hating the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Proper atheists just hate people who believe in God and/or religion. But hating God means acknowledging his presence which would render you a theist...and that won't work in the whole endeavour to not believe in God. Which takes us to point 2.

2. Since there is no God then everything is our fault. Right, as we proceed with hating and ridiculing everyone who isn't us (and we theists have fabulous experience doing this - I'm willing to give lessons...for a small fee) one must remember that religion is completely man made and therefore religion is not the problem at all, but mankind who invented it. So, the obvious solution to this religion business is to round up all theists into camps and systematically destroy...oh wait. Aright forget that - did that, didn't go down well. But clearly it's something to consider. Bear in mind that when it comes to culling you do have the White Supremacists, Doomsday Cults and the Hadron Collider to contend with so act fast before stocks run out!*

3. If everything is a product of evolution then so is religion. Let's be fair now. Evolution suggests that all we are is a product of what we were, and what we are is producing what we are becoming...or something. So, if everything we are, from our moral compass to our opposable thumbs is a product of evolutionary forces, why too isn't religion? And if it is then why be upset about it? One may as well be upset with a volcano for erupting. That's what is does - erupt. So religion is some kind of moral volcano, yes causing mass destruction and flight cancellations, but leaving in its wake a crusty foundation that eventually provides the basis for life and...R&B or snooker, among other things.

4. Kick a friend or stranger - it's ok! The absence of a final judgement is relieving even for a theist, I will admit that. With no objective morality imposed by God or after-death accountability, anything goes! Right and wrong are completely subjective and based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's. In fact, that POV that morality is subjective, itself is based on cultural mores, contexts and POV's and is therefore as valid as any other POV which makes all POV's equally valid and invalid, and therefore allows us to go and randomly kick someone! Further, folks who rape, steal and kill are simply acting in accordance to their specific genetic and cultural influencers - which takes us to point 5. 

5. Science has all the answers, so stay away from everything else. To be a proper atheist one must avoid all other frivolous pursuits and interests lest you find yourself engaging in some metaphysical consideration like philosophy, or even literature, history and Sesame Street, none of which are products of science (never mind that science is a product of Philosophy - that doesn't count...because I say it doesn't)! History is definitely not a science - you can't observe the past - and then you have to make up stuff about things like Stonehenge and the Easter Island Heads, which were probably just the teen hangouts of their time. Look at the sprawling malls of today. Surely they are destined to be considered Mecca's of worship and plasma TV's household gods by future archeologists (well after the nuclear winter has subsided).  It would also be appropriate to refer to one's child as 'offspring' and should be made patently clear to them that you really don't 'love' them per se, but are simply acting out one's genetic programming and endeavouring to perpetuate the species, it's nothing personal. They really shouldn't get all excited about 'daddy coming home'  as it offers negligible advantage in natural selection. 

6. Listen to nothing a theist has to say. Let's face it, theists are irrational. Only a set of lunatics would believe in an invisible all knowing, all loving, all powerful God and try to be 'better' and 'righteous'. Hence nothing a theist says or does can or should be trusted. If there is anything a theist invented, discovered or produced - DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE IT! This would only encourage them. If a theist shouts 'get out of the way a truck is coming!' at you, stand your ground they are chatting their usual groundless, irrational rubbish. Wait for an atheist, who is far more trustworthy, to warn you of the oncoming vehicle and then, and only then should you take evasive action. If no atheists are present then natural selection has done its work!

*If one seriously considers culling, the possibility that a pure blood atheist spontaneously believes exists, as some have been known to do. This can be easily remedied by culling all those who have the possibility/propensity for any faith-based approach. 

Underlying Meaning - a poem

Misery and his co-conspirators rub their hands in glee

A quick shoulder peep and a public whisper

Enough to draw suspicion from me.

Huddled sneers tip toe after good fortune.

Oblivious Collusion taps on my shoulder

Well-meaning and well mean, he offers outdated fantasy in lieu of well wishes

My demons need no assistance, thank you very much!

Just when I thought Murphy had lost his gangrenous touch.

So easily catching and contagious, this disease of the imagination

Disguised as faith it proposes to be canonised

The muddled herd only needs a moment of ear time.

One word is a word too many. 

I will not be written by another's fancy or things-to-do

There is simply not enough time for it

Not to deny the dents and obvious imperfections.

Do not tolerate the additional weight of another's broken perception.

Live By Faith Not By Imagination

I was told by a fellow Christian the other day, that some challenges I was facing were a result of my lack of commitment to  church activities, and suggested that God was disciplining me for such. He followed up by sharing how blessed his life was (a result of his superior commitment it was implied). This invented narrative does a few things (perhaps more, but these are the ones that come to mind):

1. Makes God out to be a manipulative, petty and abusive jerk
2. Suggests the proposer of the narrative has some inexplicable insight into God's intent behind misfortune or difficulty that no one else has
3. Implies that only good things happen to good people and all bad things are a result of bad behaviour

Job experienced this forced narrative when his 3 'friends' implied that his misfortune was a result of some unconfessed, unidentified or maybe even unconscious sin. We often engage in the same exercise when natural disasters occur, or perhaps personal misfortune in our own or others lives. We seek some reason for the misfortune and often settle on punishment or trial, and not without good reason: Hebrews 12 tells us to 'endure all hardship as discipline' and James 1 tells us to that trials exist to perfect our character. However, they don't tell us exactly why bad things happen, but rather how we should respond to the inevitability of 'bad things' (which as far as I can tell happen to pretty much everyone). 

To be sure, inventing reasons for trouble isn't living by faith, but living by second-sight. We create a 'reality' that doesn't require faith because we 'know' what is going on and why. We often take our cue from the Bible itself, mistaking descriptive narrative for prescriptive, projecting reported, after-the-fact explanations and descriptions on our own lives. We forget that the characters themselves were as confused, clueless, hopeful, discouraged, determined and faithful as we are when in the middle of pain. We have the privilege of a fully explained, behind-the-scenes view of events that the participants themselves never had - and we try to have that view of our own lives. But the best view we can have is wisdom and hindsight.

Job's 'friends' got a rebuke (please note, I am not even 1/16  the man Job was) for, of all things, misrepresenting God Himself. Chastising Eliphaz God says (Job 42), 'I am angry with you and your friends because you have not spoken of me what is right'. They made God out to be mean, abusive, petty, impatient and harsh. We like that God though, because it is easier to control people/situations (or at least have the illusion of such) with his regular and unpredictable smite-iness. It also makes those with the magical ability to 'know' the sole possessor's of life's meaning and God's will. This god however, leaves us hapless, insecure, guilt-ridden, indecisive but most of all, resentful of the true God who is always in our corner rooting for our inner success and growth. 

I made it clear to the Christian that I don't believe in 'that' god (and sincerely hope he doesn't continue to purvey the idea) and didn't bother to get into the problem of the other 'appropriately committed' church members who have illness, financial trouble, or challenged children. What was their sin? And how do you explain their misfortune given their greater commitment? Ironically, we spoke about an opportunity overseas that he was negative about, that could have been construed as a 'blessing'. But why bother?

All said, I have much to change being far from perfect, and appreciate the benefit of an active church life. Though there is no doubt that some actions have definite consequences, I have given up trying to decipher events in mine or others lives, and instead work on what I can - my character and faith. What would life be like if I engaged in some sick Spiritual Russian Roulette? I don't even want to imagine it.

Is Pat Robertson Making an Ass of You & Me?

You've heard the saying, 'when you assume you make an ass of you and me' right? Well Robertson seems to be good at  making some fairly arrogant assumptions regarding natural disasters and his perspective on murder and politics.

In 2005 he took it upon himself to propose the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez saying, "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," on Christian Broadcast Network's The 700 Club. He surmised that , "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with." The rationale? To prevent Venezuela from becoming, "...a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

What made him think he had the authority to even suggest this I don't know. But statements like that certainly put him in competition with the Pharisees that made 'pharisee' a bad word. The hypocrisy is palpable made worse by the public nature of his proposal and the cavalier disregard for human life. Nothing Christian about that and I can't think of a Biblical defence for his attitude.

His latest declaration is that Haiti's history of misfortune and current plight have been acts of Divine Judgement because the enslaved African descendants 'got together and swore a pact to the devil [saying] We will serve you if you will get us free from the French.' True story. And so, the devil said, 'OK, it's a deal.' " (Source CNN)

This latest proclamation convinces me that Pat Robertson is far more impressed with his own views than with Scriptural teaching. While he may be convinced of his mythical reasoning God doesn't seem to have his back. The first contradiction to Robertson's theory is found in Ezekiel 18: 20:

²⁰ The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him. 

This passage directly states that successive generations will not be punished for their forbears sins. Can't be clearer than that. So, if his little fable is true and the devil had a hand in freeing slaves, only those who sealed the deal would face the penalty.

The second rebuttal comes from Jesus himself in Luke 13: 1-5:

¹Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. ²Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? ³I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. ⁴Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? ⁵I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

The simple message seems to be that misfortune does not mean punishment, but rather we all must seek to walk righteously because we are all in need of redemption. One can also refer to the entire book of Job which seems to discourage the presumption that any kind of pain or misfortune means punishment for sin. Job's friends were famously wrong in their assumption that his suffering was a result of some sin.

The only thing I know for sure is that there was an earthquake and people are now in need. Robertson would do well to cast bread instead of stones.

Why 'In Jesus Name'?: The Rationale for a Mediator

Some folks question the need for a mediator between themselves and God. They wonder why they should pray 'in Jesus name' and why they would need some go-between to broker their relationship with God. The fact is, every relationship needs a mediator in order for there to be any meaningful communication.

There needs to be two things present for real communication to exist, 1. A medium of communication  2. A standard of communication.

Everyone communicates using a language of some sort: sign language, body language, French, German, English etc. By far the best means of communication is some language made up of words. It's no accident that John 1 describes Jesus as the Word become flesh. Jesus is God's language.

If you wish to communicate with a French speaker (as an English speaker) either you have to learn French or she must learn English (or you find an interpreter who speaks both languages). With God, however, you must speak his language in order to communicate with him. And that language is taught and exemplified through Jesus.

Now the standard. 1 John 3: 16 says, 'This is how we know what love: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.' We might like to think that love comes naturally. But there is hardly anything we do that isn't learned or taught from speech and walking upright to socially acceptable behaviour and relationships.  The tragic cases of feral children prove that there are a great many things we must learn in life, and one of those things is how to love. Suffice it to say, our world has many ideas of what love is and while an accurate definition of love is hard to find, the practice of an accurate definition is even harder to find. So Jesus came to show us how by being love itself.

One might react to this idea with a, 'But that's a ridiculously high standard! Who can live up it?'. Yes, it is a high standard 'laying down' one's life, but perhaps our general standard of love is also just very, very low.

Even as individuals we have our own personal standards for relationships and communication therein. We won't tolerate certain kinds of behaviour from others and despise being spoken to in a certain tone (condescending or demanding perhaps?), and may even choose to avoid usage of certain words in our speech. God is no different - he won't tolerate lies, for example. If we are to use The Bible as our standard and God 'speaks love' and 'God is love', then God's language is patience, forgiveness, gentleness, joy, mercy, gratitude, faith, hope and other virtues.

Praying 'in Jesus name' may have more to do with depending on his example, sacrifice and guidance in speaking/being the language of God rather than some legal  formality at the end of our prayers.

Outer Space & The Final Frontier

So scientists discovered a massive ring around Saturn recently. Made up of dust particles invisible to the naked eye, the ring is so large it would take '1 billion earths to fill it'. That's big. The significance of the discovery varies depending on who you ask. Some scientists are excited - sick uninsured people  or the homeless couldn't care less or may not even even know.

Still, everything has its place and indeed much of the effort to study space has led to inventions and developments that help us in day to day life on Earth. Like fireproof materials or satellite communication among other things. However, a debate around the importance of this discovery has begun, what with the many problems we face on terra firma like war, economic collapse, natural disasters and nuclear proliferation to name a few.

While there is no doubt that many answers to a better life on earth lie somewhere out beyond the blue, the answers derived thereof can solve only so much. They may help us to be healthier, greener, more efficient users of energy and make earth a better place to live - and that will surely have a positive sociological effect. One is heavily influenced by ones environment after all.

But the final frontier that is far from conquered is not the vastness of space, but the depth (or shallowness) of the human heart. It is from this mysterious place that the world of humanity comes into being, and from this place that our most serious problems and most powerful solutions arise. We may find an answer to famine and malnutrition, but will that cure selfishness? We may find the solution to clean and green energy - but will that rid the world of greed? Indeed, vices such as selfishness and greed are often the root causes of issues like deforestation, pollution, war and racial prejudice, a painful marriage or a lonely soul .

We must and should strive to build a better world around us, but it is in vain if we aren't building a better world in us. Science may make us healthier and smarter, but it doesn't have the power to make us kinder, happier, more peace loving or forgiving. We know that people can shine their brightest in the midst of poverty and hunger. And can plumb the depths of depravity in comfort and plenty. What would we be if we strove to perfect our hearts along with our minds?

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, "The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, 'Here it is,' or 'There it is,' because the kingdom of God is within you."

Who's Who? The Voice of God or Man Pt 2

Sorting out where messages come from - God or Man - can be hard. Made harder still when you add anger, resentment, pride or bitterness.

Having a great talk with a thoughtful and spiritual friend of mine made a difference, not just because he gave me helpful advice but pointed me to God rather than himself or other men. He reminded me that where there is man, there will be disagreement and divergence and yes, sometimes sin.

In truth when we set our hearts to find answers we can learn from a rock, a fool or even a wise friend. Good students can make almost anyone look like a wise teacher. We can learn what not to do from a fool. But wise teachers and good students make for a happy lesson - a happy life.

Sometimes we stop at the question, not expecting or perhaps wanting, an answer - being angry or distracted is enough. When we are sifting through the doctrines, voices and opinions it's so easy to forget what - or who - this hulabaloo is all about.

I realize that when God isn't my focus I can begin to resent men for their intrusion, perspective or unsolicited advice. But even if they aren't being sincere or are just pushy or legalistic, if my goal is God I won't add to the confusion. I might not be able to solve it - but I can walk away without joining it.

Who's Who? The Voice of God or Man

Have you ever felt like everyone else seems certain about God's will except you? Not his expressed will through the Word, like 'give to the poor' or 'pray for your enemies', but the one that is discovered, or sometimes invented, like where you should live or whether you should take this or that job.

I've always been both baffled by and slightly envious of those who seem to know exactly what God's will is for their lives. Baffled because I wonder what makes them so sure - envious because I can't relate.

I used to wonder such things, but now I think God doesn't spend his time telling us what to wear, where to live and where to work - I think he leaves it up to us. As long as we are righteous and serving him - anything goes. I do think that some occupations, living situations and even dress habits might get us into more trouble than others, and can invite sin to come knocking. Either someone else's or our own. But otherwise than determining what is wise or foolish, good or better we can easily begin to think that God wants to make all our decisions for us. But that is far too easy.

Some folks seem to think that at every point in life (whatever measurement you use to determine a 'point' in life) God has a specific plan that you must discover. If we follow the Bible, we could wrongly conclude this - but he often worked around choices and through people. When Lot chose the plain - Abram by default chose the mountain. It could have gone either way, as much as we can say it was Lot's laziness that made him choose the plain (and hence Sodom and Gomorrah).

Certainly Jesus' life was more pre-determined than ours will ever be, but even if we choose to become 'slaves of righteousness' we don't become slaves of fate. At least, I don't think so. It is a fast track to bitterness handing your dreams or goals to an extremely realistic god lookalike that is essentially our own imagination.

This becomes particularly annoying when someone else is completely convinced of what God's plan is for you. That's where things get tricky. It becomes more annoying when they get angry at you for not seeing how their idea is directly from God himself (aka them). We often, and perhaps too frequently, get God mixed up with ourselves or someone else - depending on who can shout the loudest.

Sorting out the many voices in your head can be an exhausting task and I wish you luck with it. After all I've only added on more voice to contend with. But if it helps, God is a very good listener.

I Think Therefore I...Freak Out? Faith & the Mind

 ³⁴"Be careful, or your hearts will be weighed down with dissipation, drunkenness and the anxieties of life, and that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap. ³⁵For it will come upon all those who live on the face of the whole earth. ³⁶Be always on the watch, and pray that you may be able to escape all that is about to happen, and that you may be able to stand before the Son of Man."

                                                                          Luke 21: 34-36

About 40 million people in the US are affected by anxiety disorders - that's about a third of the population. Such disorders are linked to things like substance abuse, depression or other illnesses or behavioural dysfunction. 

When Jesus spoke these words he almost sounds like a qualified psychotherapist, counsellor or doctor. Certainly the National Institute of Mental Health seems to concur with his recommendation to stay away from negative thoughts and habits (like substance abuse). His warning, 'that day will close on you unexpectedly like a trap' sounds so much like Generalized Anxiety Disorder or panic attacks. I think Jesus was well aware of how we function as spiritual, emotional and psychological beings.

People with generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) go through the day filled with exaggerated worry and tension, even though there is little or nothing to provoke it. They anticipate disaster and are overly concerned about health issues, money, family problems, or difficulties at work. Sometimes just the thought of getting through the day produces anxiety.

It has long been my belief that Jesus teachings are holistic and in no way arbitrary. They are not random rites taught just for ceremony and tradition. Rather, Jesus came to heal the whole man, from the inside out in a very practical, real world way. Matthew's record of the 'do not worry' lesson elaborates on the danger of anxiety, and the cure thereof.

Paul also offers a practical approach to our mental health in Philippians 4 :

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

 Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. Whatever you have learned or received or heard from me, or seen in me—put it into practice. And the God of peace will be with you.

This 'peace of God' is no accident and neither is Jesus' claim that his 'yoke is easy and his burden is light'. After all some of our heaviest burdens are not the ones we carry on our backs, but the ones we carry on our hearts.

Psalm 139 - 2 Sides to the Divine

Psalm 139 is a beautiful ode to both God and mankind. It pulses with appreciation for the beauty of man (as a created and evolved being), the wonder of nature, and the majesty of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and loving God.

I see two distinct sections to this Psalm, bisecting its 24 verses very nicely indeed. Let's look at verses 1-13,

¹ O LORD, you have searched me
       and you know me.

 ² You know when I sit and when I rise;
       you perceive my thoughts from afar.

 ³ You discern my going out and my lying down;
       you are familiar with all my ways.

 ⁴ Before a word is on my tongue
       you know it completely, O LORD.

 ⁵ You hem me in—behind and before;
       you have laid your hand upon me.

              ⁶ Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
                  too lofty for me to attain.

 ⁷ Where can I go from your Spirit?
       Where can I flee from your presence?

 ⁸ If I go up to the heavens, you are there;
       if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.

 ⁹ If I rise on the wings of the dawn,
       if I settle on the far side of the sea,

 ¹⁰ even there your hand will guide me,
       your right hand will hold me fast.

 ¹¹ If I say, "Surely the darkness will hide me
       and the light become night around me,"

 ¹² even the darkness will not be dark to you;
       the night will shine like the day,
       for darkness is as light to you.

¹³ For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. 

This is an observation of the relationship we all have with God, whether we like it or not. It is not based on choice, desire or even intent, it is the 'default setting' for the Divine/human relationship. God knows our past, present, future, thoughts, desires and geographical position. We can hide nothing from him and cannot escape his knowledge or influence. We can do nothing without his will allowing it to be so, whether we are aware of it or not (though the psalmist clearly is). Now the second half,

 ¹⁴ I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made,  your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

 ¹⁵ My frame was not hidden from you
       when I was made in the secret place.
       When I was woven together in the depths of the earth,

 ¹⁶ your eyes saw my unformed body.
       All the days ordained for me were written in your book
       before one of them came to be.

 ¹⁷ How precious to me are your thoughts, O God!
       How vast is the sum of them!

 ¹⁸ Were I to count them they would outnumber the grains of sand. When I awake, I am still with you.

 ¹⁹ If only you would slay the wicked, O God!
       Away from me, you bloodthirsty men!

 ²⁰ They speak of you with evil intent;
       your adversaries misuse your name.

 ²¹ Do I not hate those who hate you, O LORD,
       and abhor those who rise up against you?

 ²² I have nothing but hatred for them;
       I count them my enemies.

 ²³ Search me, O God, and know my heart;
       test me and know my anxious thoughts.

 ²⁴ See if there is any offensive way in me,
       and lead me in the way everlasting.

Verses 13-24 get personal. This is the chosen or optional Divine/human relationship. Here the language moves from observation to appreciation and worship. The psalmist acknowledges and indeed rejoices in God's role in man's unique design. The psalmist values his own complexity, and wishes for an exchange of knowledge between himself and the Divine. 

The writer volunteers his thoughts, emotions and attitudes for examination and not only embraces God's omniscience, but treasures Divine thought as well. So much so that his search for God reveals the immeasurable magnitude and depth of the Divine Mind. The psalmist's passion leads him to an emotional expression of disdain for those whom disdain God, and he ends with a verbalization of his desire to have his inner self changed to be more like the  divine mind of which he is in awe.

This beautiful Psalm is a powerful illustration of the kind of walk God wishes to have with each of us. Even though he may know all, he wishes for us to willingly offer our friendship (thoughts, feelings, aspirations etc.) and to desire his. It is one thing to be 'found out' and another to confess, as the case may be. God doesn't want a one-sided affair. One of the most notable implications in this Psalm is that man is worth being known by God. That God is worthy of our knowledge is obvious in this discourse, but too often men see themselves as worthless when it is apparent God doesn't share the sentiment. 

Surely there are more gems to be found in this Psalm. Please feel free to share the ones you have found.

Jesus Wasn't A Christian

CS Lewis, renowned Christian apologist, one time atheist, charts his journey to faith in Suprised by Joy with characteristic rationality and dispassionate, amazingly self-aware observation. It is a book I highly recommend for believers and non-believers alike only because it shows that faith is not based only on, well faith, it is also based on reason, philiosophy, objectivity, appreciation of beauty and intellectual reflection & curiosity. That said the aformentioned are not usually associated with faith, rather irrationality, emotionalism, subjectivity, zeal minus knowledge and an avoidance of inquiry and practical interpretation.

Christianity is often portrayed through the filter of Western thought. The Roman Catholic version of the faith, though on the wane, has been the predominant representation and experience for many. Its history of ceremony, pedophilia, politicization of God and religion have contributed to giving faith a bad name as have the many sexual and financial scandals, ravingly angry and judgemental sermons, closed-minded and under-informed proselytes and racism and prejudice associated with various denominations throughout Christendom.

But when you think about it, what did Jesus call what he taught? Did he call it 'Christianity' or 'Judaism'? Jesus never gave a name to what he taught - he just taught and lived his teaching, and his teaching was very practical and easily understood. Today, we often teach that we should obey 'because the Bible says so' but we place less emphasis on why the Bible says what it does and the inherent common sense in the teaching.

My own personal experience saw my Church (and myself in many ways) move from teaching people to be disciples to telling them to be the same. There is a massive difference between teaching and telling. One encourages inquiry, thought, explanation, research, engagment. The other only requires obedience. Close mouthed and closed minded obedience. But this is often the way of any organization. What often begins as a community of independent but like-minded individuals, for the sake of administration and as a result of a growing divergence on some issues, becomes a homogenous group controlled by a few opinon leaders. The control begins out of a sincere desire to see people be righteous. But when one sees the danger of free choice - and that free choice can and does lead to very bad choices - then one wants to intervene for the 'sake of the flock' and tell the sheep what is best for them. First on a communal level then on a more personal level.

Jesus forced no one to listen to or obey his teaching. The choice was up to the audience - if they chose to be an audience. But he did point out that every action has a consequence; temporal and eternal (the rich fool, the rich man and Lazarus, the Prodigal Son). But if we focus wrongly on the the eternal we can easily forget that all we have are our minds and bodies right now. We experience life in no other way and in no other place but on earth 'in the now', as Cesar Milan likes to say.

That Jesus didn't name his teaching gives it a universality that Christianity takes away from it. It becomes a religion rather than life itself. As Christians we can even defend the position of Jesus as if it belongs to us rather than to the reality of the Universe itself - which is what I believe it to be. As a result, righteousness is wherever it is found. It does not belong to me or religion, it belongs to God - and God '... is over all and through all and in all'. 

I am not suggesting that God is therefore accessible through any path in any way of a person's choosing. Jesus clearly demonstrated his Godly qualities and taught that these Godly qualities are the way to true life. How could forgiveness not be beneficial, liberating and unifying in its effect? This is not to say it is easy, but you get my point. 

We can take Jesus teachings and claim them as our own, as if we ourselves created them and exclude others by our privileged knowledge. That others by nature come to the same conclusions as Biblical text is no surprise to me - John concluded that 'God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.', many have proclaimd the power of love from many platforms because we all have, I believe, an innate understanding of it. Solomon attested that 'God made mankind upright...' and 'He has also set eternity in the hearts of men', our search for Him is no accident nor is our desire to be righteous in any cultural context or religion. That expression and 'programming' isn't always carried out in the best of ways - but that occurs when we begin to create God in our image  claiming Him rather than allowing Him to claim us.

I do believe that Jesus is the living Word of God. But I also believe that Word to be more far-reaching than religion and Christianity paints it. CS Lewis' illustration of the Bible as a map is poignant. He asserted that the Bible is no more God than a map of a nation is the nation itself. There is an obvious difference. One is representative the other is the thing represented. We shouldn't mistake one for the other. One is the exposition and the other is the experience. Doubtless, one cannot navigate a strange country without directions - and directions can ensure a clear pathway once read correctly. But a map does not tell you where an accident is going to happen or if someone is waiting behind a buiding to rob you. That you have to prepare for yourself. And preparation necessitates character - indeed the unwritten things are what build character and bring life to the theory.

It is important to remember that we look at all of Christianity and its Judaic history after the fact. It can be easy to see many of the resolutions of conflict and judgments of God as prescriptive. However, the participants themselves never had our knowledge of outcomes and we forget that the faith itself was evolutionary, especially during Paul's time as he literally wrote the book on our faith through his letters. At one time the Bible was non-existant, but God himself and faith in him were living and active. 

What teachings, did Abraham and Enoch follow those many years ago? What was it that Jesus came to do the many years after these men? One thing is for certain, Jesus had a problem with what man did to God's law and the contravention then has been repeated many times since. The codification of God's teaching is, to some extent unavoidable, but the canonization of man's teaching is avoidable and must be avoided. It may mean frequently stepping back to consider the value we place on our necessary contextual laws versus the heart of God himself. It would be dangerous to stop thinking because one holds that the Bible does all our thinking for us - but equally dangerous to assume that we must 're-write' the Bible and hence mold God according to our immediate needs and biases.

In the end I have decided that the following rules should and must be followed in order to please God from the heart and without error:.....gotcha! ;O)

Women in the Church: Hair Tomorrow, Gone Today?

1 Timothy 2:8-15,

I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.

I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God.

A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

This is a teaching that has always been a prickly issue within the Church. Now clearly it is a non-issue in some movements and denominations as they have female preachers, elders, bishops and so on. But that is not the case across Christendom and perhaps largely due to this passage.

As I understand it, Paul wrote this letter to Timothy who was leading the Church in Ephesus. Like many of Paul's letters it was meant to address specific issues in the Church, and comes with a context that can bring a deeper understanding of his writings, if not a modicum of certainty on this issue.

A major problem that arose in the early church was false doctrine in the form of Gnoticism. The most vulnerable to false doctrine would naturally be the least learned in scripture. Because of culture and tradition the least learned tended to be women who were not permitted to learn scripture. However, this changed with the advent of Christianity and women began to learn scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.

One theory is that Gnostic teaching found its way to the fledging female students (perhaps intentionally targeted by gnostic proselytes), and this along with their new found freedom (even enthusiasm) led some to assume the authority of a teacher rather than student. But even if gnostic teachings didn't influence some women, it is theorized that the over-eager neophytes began to share their knowledge and interrupt religious services out of turn.

Now the role of Teacher in the Church is no small responsibility (James 3:1) one must prove a thorough knowledge of scripture, ability to convey such knowledge with clarity, accuracy, humility and gentleness and of course, be an example of ones own teaching. New converts or new students are ill-recommended for such a post. Yet some women were over-stepping their knowledge and teaching others - and perhaps passing on the heresy of gnosticism in the process.

This may be what Paul addresses when he insists on the silence of women and the prohibition of a women teaching a man. Young students/converts are simply not equipped to teach, and at this time in the church most women would be young students.

There is also some suggestion that general disharmony and disunity was affecting the Ephesian Church ('I want men everywhere to lift up holy hands in prayer, without anger or disputing.') and the contentious women only made it worse. So, Paul's admonission might be part of a general appeal for unity and respect among the members of the Church dealing with the problem issue by issue.

There is no doubt that women played an essential role in the early church. Note Dorcas, Priscilla, Phoebe and others as well as Paul's assertion in Galatians 3:28 of equality within the church. Certainly, women posses a natural intution that is closely associated with their gender, but also possess the ability to learn and teach as well any man. But one shouldn't teach just because one can. Ability is not the only pre-requisite, as mentioned before.

Paul seemed to be concerned with behaviour appropriate to the context and correct attitude to authority, learning and teaching. Showing respect for culture may have been another issue with regard to the male/female relationship. Local culture certainly contributes to a church's doctrine and practice, and should be respected - what may be fine for a Christian church in the US may be completely inapproriate for a branch of the same church in India, even though they may share identical convictions on core doctrinal issues.

On the issue of dress - surely we can relate in today's society, though it may not have been an issue of sensual under-dressing but rather extravagant female fashion rivalry. Surely this is in the realm of the familiar in today's society - what with the surfeit of celebrity designer bodies and fashion. The refrain of 'inner beauty first, outer beauty second (or third)' is nothing new, but the challenge of putting in to practice still remains. Perhaps even more so. So it's not about the hair, jewels and designer labels but an inner attitude that can't be bought, borrowed or stolen.

Modern day churches devise all kinds of local codes of conduct that are extra-biblical because they need to address a unique need or problem. Our challenge is to discern between what is doctrine for now and what is doctrine for always. I am not claiming to know what this is - but surely with research, logic and faith we can work it out. But absolute rigidity is unrealistic for changing times as much as amorphous standardless doctrine.

Context is important in this passage as it is in any, and perhaps should have some influence in dealing with such issues. All the same, interpretations have a lot do with agendas and any movement to extreme patriarchy or feminism wouldn't be smart. But the important lesson might be in the appropriate and temperate response to potentially volatile issues. This discussion actually underlines the importance of competent Teachers who will not mislead their audience by intention or error, and hence Paul's insistence on propriety in worship makes even more sense. Perhaps this scripture rather than silencing women for all time, as some seem to think it does, was an example of the liberation and empowerment that the early church brought to women. No doubt - we need to hear their voices and I have personally benefitted from the teaching of my wife and other women of wisdom and profound spirituality.

As for the references to Eve and the issue of childbearing, I leave two links for your own research. I recommend Douglas Jacoby's site - he is a REAL Teacher, I'm just a wannabe. The Biblegateway.com is also quite useful. I suggest you do your own reading - don't take my word for it - and even then 'be careful how you listen'.

It is important to say that I do not claim to be a Teacher or expert on Biblical issues. I share my opinion and try to share other sources to show research and references on the issues discussed.

Men & Women

Childbearing

Who does God Love More, Republicans or Gays?

I thought the title would get your attention. It is a contraversial topic that I will try to deal with sensitively - but don't be surprised if you disagree with me. This argument is from the Christian point of view and makes some assumptions that are not here argued (primarily the rationale behind the right/wrongness of homosexuality).

While conducting a Bible discussion recently a brother professed his support for former President Bush. I was initially baffled because I very rarely met any non-American or Black person who supported Bush. His reasoning was faith-based; Bush opposed gay marriage and Republicans are statedly pro-life in the abortion debate.  The developments in California in particular have shown that many Christians (and Afro-Americans as the case may be) will support the conservative values espoused by the Republican party.

This was kind of a shock at first - I couldn't imagine supporting Bush under any circumstance. The fact that he may share a couple ideals that reflect the position of some faiths or individual religious adherents, just isn't enough for me to jump on his band wagon - I suppose I should tell you why.

Firstly, politics is not all about faith, and the brand of democracy and capitalism practiced by the Bush administration was about nothing more than money. In fact, money seemed to be so important that an unjust war was started to get more of it, or so it would seem. The lack of credibility and integrity of the Bush administration supersedes any moral stance he may take. It's like a accepting a rotten banana split with maggots and raw fish because it has fresh whipped cream on top...kinda.

If you asked me what I prefer - married gay people or the Iraq War - I say ring the wedding bells! Some Christians might have been happy about Bush's anti-gay position but consider which has done more harm - gays or the War? The gays in question are consenting adults - the Iraqis who have been killed had no say in the decision to invade their once sovereign nation. Oil companies have posted record profits (spurred on by the instability created through the Iraq war) and American contractors (Haliburton and Blackwater for example) have made millions through reconstruction projects in Iraq. And Bush went on to cut taxes for oil companies only increasing their profit margins.

In my opinion, to support Bush on two points is to ignore a great deal of very questionable decisions and positions that are distractingly un-Christian. Further, politics itself is not a happy partner for religion, and while I have my own personal convictions I have no right to force others to abide by them.

But more on gay marriage. I am not particulary opposed to it for a couple reasons. Gays marrying each other won't make them more gay or more wrong according to Christian doctrine. Christian doctrine teaches that homosexuality is wrong - that is the sin. If they marry each other they won't be comitting an extra or bonus sin, but they will have rights available to them that are now withheld. Gay marriage, in my mind, is not a moral battle but a social one about rights and equality under the law. The spiritual aspect would need be dealt with in the appropriate context. I don't believe I have a right to judge those who make no claim to my faith. The only point where I feel I have authority to challenge someone on their morality with regard to changing behaviour, is if they claim to adhere to Biblical teaching or wish to adhere to it.

This points to another issue: the dehumanization of homosexuals. I am not here challenging Biblical doctrine on homosexuality but the attitude toward homosexuals often demonstrated by the Church as a collective. This may shock some but here goes: homosexuals are human too! Angrily condeming a community from a distance is easy - but put a face, name and relationship to that community and the game changes, especially if said face has never uttered a negative word about your faith and beliefs and is a really generous and good natured person. Am I saying Christian doctrine should change? No. I am saying that attitude should.

I cannot relate to homosexual desire and that fact may colour my view of the sin as more repulsive than others. But does God grade sin the way we do? Does He struggle to love homosexuals but look at George Bush and say 'well he doesn't like gays so he can't be all that bad'? I don't think so. If we are to imitate God we have to deal with people impartially. The notion that all gays can be 'cured', for example, can be more harmful than helpful to those who may wish to convert. Doubtless some have left the behaviour and desire behind while others may find it a part of themselves for life. Either way, grace is offered to them in the same portions as any heterosexual with the according desires.

A note on the 'causes' of homosexuality. I believe to say that no homosexual is thusly oriented due to some biological disposition is as simplistic as saying all are. I don't consider the orientation natural - if it was it would be more common than 10% of the population - but I do think there are times when it is far more complex than we understand. I do think there are a variety of issues to consider (social, psychological, relational, biological etc.) and a combination thereof. To oversimplify the issue may also lead to oversimplifying the approach toward the people involved.

More can be said on the issue and while we may disagree it doesn't mean we have to be hostile about it. If my brothers and sisters wish to support Bush or a Republican stance it is their choice to do so - that should not divide a spiritual family. In the end, as surprising as it may seem, God loves us all unconditionally and equally; gays, straights and yes - W - which might be harder to believe than anything else. ;O)

What's So Narrow About God's 'Narrow Way'?

Between Matthew 7 and Luke 13 Jesus tells us that a 'narrow' or 'small gate' or 'door' is the way to go because it leads to a 'narrow road' which then leads to life. Now as familiar as this story is I couldn't help but wonder recently what the road/door/gate actually is, why it's narrow and why 'few find it'.

It might seem obvious - but what do you think it is? Let me give you a full quote:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. (Matt 7:13-14)

He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, 'Sir, open the door for us.' "But he will answer, 'I don't know you or where you come from.' (Luke 13:23-25)

It sounds like a club. You know the kind where you have to have some intangible coolness to get in and Jesus is the Almighty Bouncer. Now the obvious answer is the door is the Kingdom of God - you enter and get on a road. A road?  In fact, you just get in for a chance to go on the road that 'leads to life'. Life isn't a done deal. And given the narrow roadiness it might not  be a completely happy ride to the life at the end.

Now Bibles you can get anywhere. Churches are as common as itchy elbows. So why would the Kingdom be so hard to find? And then if 'the Kingdom is within you' (Luke 17) then is the narrow door within you too? And wouldn't that make you the road? Are you a narrow road...even with the love handles and spare tyres?

What is the hardest thing for us to find, apart from our keys when we're really in a rush? It's usually ourselves. I often wish I always knew the right thing to do, and even then doing what we know is right presents its own challenges. But the most difficult challenge is being. An act is an event. You can get away with doing something you don't like. But qualities of character can't be faked. It takes being to turn the other cheek or love your enemy and to pursue such ideals every day. 

Ecclesiastes advises us,

Do not be overrighteous, 

       neither be overwise— 

       why destroy yourself?

             Do not be overwicked, 

       and do not be a fool— 

       why die before your time?

            It is good to grasp the one 

       and not let go of the other. 

       The man who fears God will avoid all extremes.

It's easier to be extreme. Especially when it comes to matters of God and faith. Extreme, dogmatic and fervent conviction is easily applied to issues, and people can be conveniently categorized beyond sympathy and respect. Then solutions are equally easily applied with no need to consider context or character. Morality led purely by documentation means quick fixes.

You can well imagine the challenge in finding the balance of forgiveness and punishment, mercy and justice, indignation and understanding. It's a fine line - a tight rope walk - a narrow way. Such things take time and are best suited for issues that have no quick fix, for people who want to become not just accomplish. Others may know it as the Middle Way or The Tao, and surely those who are able to find balance of character, emotion and thought have found life. Sounds hard, no wonder few find it. But I suspect beginning the search is at the very least entering the door and starting on the road.

(Thanks to RWG)

Party Favour: Why We Have a Problem With God's Grace

Ever have the feeling that God's grace was for the lost, but not for the saved?

The lost, represented by the Prodigal Son get a party, but once you're 'in' it's work, work, work. And you'd better work or lose your favoured state! Perform or get kicked out of the grace club. This parable has always taught us a lot: that God is so gracious he will not just embrace the lost, but those who were found then lost, then found again. But it also suggests that even the favoured can lose their gratitude for the privilege of being a 'son'.

While our mindset is primarily our own responsibility we don't attain the attitude of ingratitude purely on our own. As a former full time minister I can relate to the desire to see everyone righteous. Why? Because it makes your job easier. Because it makes you look better. Because it's God's will, and a blossoming church full of righteous people surely means major points on the cosmic scoreboard. 

What does this mish-mash of motivation lead to? Well, it leads to a cautious offering of grace from the pulpit. Too much grace, and people will indulge in sin and ruin the church. Ruin your job. Mess with your track record. So, it becomes easier, at least in the short run, to tell people to be disciples rather than teach them. That would mean leaving them to grasp an understanding of grace themselves - and who knows what that could lead to? Independent thought maybe? And independent individuals are harder to control.

So, we must shore up God's grace with some (un)healthy and regular doses of conditions and threats. Threats of hell, loss of blessings and ultimately grace. We end up teaching people to earn God's grace after the initial complimentary grace only offered to first time customers.

Apart from a paranoid and controlling leadership, the cause of this grace-for-works programme is the saved individual himself, but not necessarily because he is ungrateful, but because he is forgetful,

"The older brother became angry and refused to go in. So his father went out and pleaded with him. But he answered his father, 'Look! All these years I've been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!'

 " 'My son,' the father said, 'you are always with me, and everything I have is yours'.

 One thing we often forget to do as the saved is throw ourselves a party. We wait for God to do it when he's saying you have all the party favours, the venue and even food. If you wanted a 'fattened calf' you could have just gotten it yourself.

It should also be noted that the father made no threat to either son. The implication is that we suffer at the hands of our own attitudes and choices - not at God's all too eager application of punishment and discipline. The Kingdom as a wedding suggests we are invited as guests - not that we are invited as guests and when we get there are immediately commanded to serve the wine and wash the dishes. This bait-and-switch Christianity is a fast road to bitterness. Jesus came so we could 'live life to the full' (John 10)  and we hear that, but feel behoved to qualify it with a myriad of conditions and quid pro quos lest we enjoy life too much.

I'm not saying that we should wait to be served by others - no. But we should allow ourselves to enjoy the service of God's grace through Jesus. He washed Peter's feet and is trying to wash yours. The message in short is that the party doesn't end at the gate, that is where the party starts.