Who dares to kiss the frog? A call for peaceful transformation

When the princess kissed the frog it turned into a prince

I grew up by the seaside and every summer the Punch and Judy cabin would appear on the beach and enthral groups of children with outlandish puppet action. Punch and Judy has all but disappeared now not least because we rightly consider wife-beating to be an inappropriate topic for children’s – indeed also adults’ – entertainment.

Unfortunately, the legacy of Mr Punch has lived on in political debate and social media. The referendum campaign was for many people a new low point in national life – marked by sometimes vicious and hysterical accusations, claims and counter-claims many of which were by the very nature of the issue speculative and thus subject to exaggeration and over-simplification. Many people have voiced their concern at the depths to which the tone of the debate sank.

The brutal murder of MP Jo Cox for her views – and the subsequent reminder that numerous MPs have received threats of various kinds – was an additional grim reminder that we are becoming a less patient and more polarised society. Slogan shouting and direct action has replaced considerate and balanced discussion. The outpouring of sympathy for Jo Cox’s husband Brendan and their children was touching; dare one hope that it might be more than a temporary reaction and lead instead to a popular rebuttal of Punch and Judy politics – which Jo was herself opposed to?

Now though we are faced with living in a divided nation – 51.9% in favour of leaving the EU is hardly a substantial majority – and for a short while at least divided political parties and a leaderless government. There will be plenty of scope for bitter recriminations, for poisonous arrows of blame and triumphalist darts of “told you so” to be fired across the divide in both directions. Probably there will be years of wrangling internally and internationally, with more bitter exchanges, as the consequences are worked out by MPs and civil servants. Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic face additional and potentially divisive dilemmas.

Five years ago former MP, now columnist and broadcaster, Matthew Parris, wrote a piece in The Times under the heading “Bring down the curtain on Punch and Judy”. In it he claimed that members of the public don’t like party games and brawling in politics. He listed some key words for political debate: “dignified; courteous; grave; generous in argument; calm; quiet; undeclamatory.”¹ Writing just before the referendum however he admitted that “insult and abuse is part of the culture of politics” but also warned that it is easy to rise to the bait and “overstep the mark, go sour”². Nothing has changed. Yet.

Could it? Back to childhood: there’s a fairy story about a princess who kissed a frog. She did not turn into a frog as a result. Instead the frog turned into a prince. The moral is that care, acceptance, gentleness and love can have positive transforming effects. That, too, is the message of faith and the Bible.

The call to peace

Speaking at the Coventry Cathedral “Faith in conflict” conference in 2013, Archbishop Justin Welby said that “reconciliation is recognition of diversity and a transformation of destructive conflict to creativity.… Grace filled reconciliation begins with hospitality.”³

In 1976, the Queen said in her Christmas message, “The gift I would most value next year is that reconciliation should be found wherever it is needed. A reconciliation which would bring peace and security to families and neighbours at present suffering and torn apart. Remember that good spreads outwards and every little does help. Mighty things from small beginnings grow as indeed they grew from the small child of Bethlehem.”

The road to rebuilding trust and co-operation in society begins with each person rebuilding trust and co-operation with their acquaintances. The road to conciliatory and thoughtful debate, to replace the strident posturing that shouts at people without ever truly engaging with them, begins with individuals listening carefully to each other and demanding that their elected representatives do the same. The road to a more unified society begins when we reject the partisan headlines of a campaigning media and demand instead a balanced coverage of the facts from both sides of any given argument.

Why not? “We need an immunization program, one that injects people with respect, dignity, and quality, one that inoculates them against hatred,” wrote Palestinian surgeon Izzeldin Abuelaish from Gaza. “Peace is respect.” Despite having worked happily alongside Israeli doctors in Israel, his Gazan house was targeted by Israeli troops and two of his daughters and a niece were killed. “I vowed not to hate and avoided rage because of my strong faith as a Muslim,” he wrote.⁴ If he could do that without the benefit of the New Testament ethic, then banishing Punch and Judy battering in politics and religion in the so-called Christian west should be a piece of cake. Here’s some ways we can kiss the frog and transform our conversation.

Biblical steps

1.  Think about the common good before you consider self-interest: Romans 12:10; Philippians 2:3-4.

2.  Recognise your own imperfection and that of everyone else, and thus become more understanding of people and more aware that our views are always at best partial: Matthew 7:1-5
3.  Banish bitterness and embrace compassion: Ephesians 4:31-32
4.  Rediscover the power of love by seeking to welcome and do good to people who we have regarded as enemies: Matthew 5:38-48
5.  Be gracious: Colossians 4:5-6
6.  Pray for peace: 1 Timothy 2:1-4

Think and talk

1.  Look at Matthew Parris’s list of words above. How might they become part of our daily conversation? (“Dignified; courteous; grave; generous in argument; calm; quiet; undeclamatory.”)

2. Use Coventry cathedral’s Litany of reconciliation:
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
The hatred which divides nation from nation, race from race, class from class, Father, forgive.
The covetous desires of men and nations to possess what is not their own, Father forgive.
The greed which exploits the labours of men, and lays waste the earth, Father forgive.
Our envy of the welfare and happiness of others, Father forgive.
Our indifference to the plight of the homeless and the refugee, Father forgive
The lust which uses for ignoble ends the bodies of men and women, Father forgive.
The pride which leads to trust in ourselves and not in God, Father forgive.
Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.

References

1.  The Times, 17 September 2011

2.  The Times, 18 June 2016
3.  Address given 28 February 2013; www.coventrycathedral.org.uk
4.  Izzeldin Abuelaish, I shall not hate, Bloomsbury 2012, pp. 196f, 232, 227.

Future blogs will deal further with the way we converse. There is also extended material on this in my next book THE JUDAS TRAP – WHY PEOPLE MESS UP which is to be published by Instant Apostle on 21 October 2016.

Beginner's approach to the Bible

Beginning work on revising one of my earlier books has just sent me back to basics: how do we use or approach the Bible in determining what is God’s view of anything? Many of the old debates about scripture and authority have faded. I find many contemporary church members and Bible readers are confused by the scale and scope of the Bible, how the books relate to each other, and how the varied material should be interpreted and applied.

It can’t be read as a continuous narrative, or its topics consulted as a reference book. Nor is it like an oracle or horoscope with handy advice for daily situations. So here’s some reflections on a few basics for people who are confused by, or new to, the Bible, written from the perspective of someone who values the whole Bible greatly as the primary source for Christian faith and conduct, but is under no illusions about its complexity!

The nature of the book

The Bible is a compilation of 66 books, from at least 40 different authors and written over at least a 1200 year time span. Learned groups of believers in the distant past have prayerfully concluded that these documents, unlike many other contemporary documents, are the authoritative texts through which we can discover the truths we need to know (not all that we would like to know) about God and how we are to relate to and live for him in every generation and culture. The final cut was not made by any one council or committee, though, but evolved slowly over time. Indeed no-one is sure exactly when the Old Testament books (the Hebrew or Jewish Bible, which Jesus used) were finally agreed.

However, there is still some disagreement among scholars and church leaders over which books are “canonical”. There are 15 additional books gathered into the Apocrypha and which are included in a separate section in some editions of Protestant Bibles, and are occasionally read from in the Church of England lectionary. In Roman Catholic versions seven of these books are spread among the Old Testament books and one other, the Additions to the book of Esther, is dotted through the biblical book of Esther. All 15 apocryphal books are included in the Bibles used in some Orthodox churches.

This is confusing for unsuspecting readers but for our purposes we focus here on the basic 66 common to all Christian traditions. They are gathered into sections according to their genre, which are not entirely chronological in either content or date of final compilation. In Bible order, these are:

·         The Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy)
·         Historical books (Joshua to Esther)
·         Poetry and wisdom books (Job to Song of Songs)
·         Prophets (Isaiah to Malachi, sometimes sub-divided into 4 major and 12 minor prophets)
·         The Gospels
·         Acts
·         Paul’s letters (Romans to Philemon)
·         Other letters (Hebrews to Jude)
·         Revelation

The prophets slot into various points within the historical books, and some of Paul’s letters slot into parts of Acts. The Psalms appear to come from a very wide range of times, some relate to specific historical events but others are more general. Some books, like Jeremiah or Proverbs, are a hotch-potch of writings in no particular order.

The nature of the writings

Although Christians believe that the ultimate author of Scripture is God, the Bible’s own view is that it wasn’t dictated by God to the human authors. Rather, it was breathed out by God (the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16). That’s a much gentler process, more of a nudge than a shove, which never over-rides the personality and understanding of the authors but rather enables them to encapsulate important truths and messages without necessarily realising themselves the significance of their work.

Therefore literary styles and authorial viewpoints differ through the Bible, as of course does the cultural background. The former Chief Rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, who ought to know something about the Hebrew Bible (the Christian Old Testament), offers a perceptive insight which western Christian readers often overlook in their anxiety to extract abstract principles of theology and conduct from it.

“We owe virtually all our abstract concepts to the Greeks,” he writes. “The Hebrew Bible knows nothing of such ideas….When the Hebrew Bible wants to explain something, it does not articulate a theory. It tells a story.”¹  Which, of course, Jesus (also a Jew) did frequently.

It was St Paul (also a Jew but steeped in the Greek culture of the non-Jewish world he sought to evangelise) who began to systematise Christian theology in letters such as Romans and Ephesians, although generally his letters addressed random topics according to the pastoral needs of the churches. Since his time our western, Greek-like analytical approach has systematised biblical theology. That is no bad thing, so long as we recognise that our concepts are not to be thought of as if they were simple mathematical formulae or proven facts. They are more like multi-faceted diamonds, and our task is to discover the sparkle as we contemplate their many nuances that together defy ultimate definition. For example, we can find a number of elements which together help explain the reasons for, and effectiveness of, Jesus’ “atoning” death.

Furthermore, the prophets, like the psalmists and wisdom writers, used images and literary and poetic devices to make their points vivid – they were more like impressionist painters than news photographers. Just read Ezekiel if you doubt it! (There is also the matter of language, too; ancient Hebrew contains no vowels so the reader has to think very carefully about what a set of consonants might be in their context: is the word spin, span, spun, spoon – and which of several possible uses or meanings of each is intended?) The text was to be pondered and discussed, not taken as a definitive statement. Modern translations focus on the most likely intention.

A cultural and corporate history

The historical writers did not set out to produce comprehensive impartial narratives. They were not modern academic researchers or investigative journalists. They were preachers, polemicists, propagandists, even. They selected anecdotes and incidents to convey a message and make a point regardless of “balance” – they’d never be employed by the BBC today! The books of Chronicles, for example, which overlap with 2 Samuel and the books of Kings, focus exclusively on the Davidic dynasty and the southern kingdom of Judah for a specific reason: to encourage the exiles who returned to Jerusalem from Babylon in the late sixth and early fifth century BC.

The cultural background of the authors is very evident. They wrote (and spoke) about current affairs and local customs and couched their insights within the thought-forms of their own time. So Jesus’ parables about losing sheep and storing fresh wine would have been very familiar to his hearers but need some background awareness on the part of modern readers if we are to grasp their nuances. A good study Bible (with notes on the text) will provide enough background information to help readers at least begin to grasp what the Bible writers meant in their own day. It’s a fundamental principle of biblical interpretation to ask what did it mean originally, before asking what might it therefore mean today.

It’s also important to remember that almost the whole Bible was written within the context of communities, and one specific and small community in particular. The Old Testament is concerned with the community development of the ancient Israelites. Individuals found their identity and meaning as members of the community. So, for example, one man’s sin causes devastation for the whole group (Joshua 7). Our 21^st century western habit of focusing on the individual is foreign to the Bible, and by over-personalising it we can distort it. The New Testament is still rooted in a similar cultural context. A major source of division in Christian churches has been over the household baptisms of Acts (eg 16:31-34); culturally, if the head of the household converted then the household followed, but it’s a moot point as to whether each member had what evangelists today would call “personal saving faith”. (Which raises many other issues!)

A slow unveiling

One of the frustrating things about God is that he takes his time. Jesus was not sent into the world to reveal God’s character and provide a lasting remedy for spiritual waywardness as soon as the need became apparent. He came “when the time had fully come”, centuries after human sinfulness wreaked havoc (Galatians 4.4).

It’s important therefore to recognise from the outset that the Bible appears to be inconsistent simply because throughout its millennium-plus period of writing and compilation people were slowly learning more about God: his revelation was gradual, not instant. So while Abraham and Moses, for example, had real experiences of God, they did not have the fuller understanding that Jesus brought and the apostles discerned.

Commentator Leon Morris wrote, “There is progression in the Bible. Earlier revelation is filled out by later. We must not expect and we do not find the full revelation at the earlier time. But progression and development are not the same as error.”²

We must be careful, therefore, not to treat older beliefs or instructions as being on the same level as those in the New Testament without carefully considering their context and comparing them with the later, clearer revelation. But neither should we dismiss them. Rather, we are to look for seeds of understanding that lie within them. It’s a bit like the difference between studying GCSE subjects and doing post-graduate research: the former provides an important foundation but it’s built on and replaced by the latter.

Job – a case study

The biblical book of Job is a story. There are similar stories in other cultures, and whether it’s based on fact or not is irrelevant to the story and to one’s views about biblical inspiration – Jesus’ parables weren’t reports of incidents but recounted familiar general scenarios to make a single point.  Job was a godly, righteous man who lost everything through no fault of his own. Not unnaturally, he asked why God had allowed the calamity, as one does.

Along came three friends, joined later by a fourth, who proceeded in various ways to trot out the established theology of the day: God punishes sinners, good people thrive. Therefore Job must have sinned. He protested his innocence until God stepped in. God rebuked the friends; they were talking nonsense. Suffering was not a matter of personal deserts. But he also rebuked Job for assuming that personal integrity is a guarantee of wealth, health and happiness. The world isn’t like that.

As a result, neither Job nor the reader is given reasons why people might suffer, but we are given a loftier vision of who God is and the reassurance that he is worthy of worship regardless of our good or bad fortune. Moral: don’t takes the friends’ views as “inspired” scripture! The book as a whole contains a single, simple inspired message.

The story doesn’t end there. We don’t know when Job was written in its present form although there are suggestions that the story is ancient. But people did not learn and apply its lesson straight away. Fast forward to the New Testament. Jesus meets a man who was born blind. It’s Jesus’ disciples, not his enemies, who ask him the really dumb question (in the light of Job): “Who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” Jesus’ response is unequivocal: “Neither” (John 9:1-3). That’s not how it works.

The penny still hadn’t dropped. God’s revelation through the story of Job had not entered general consciousness. It still hasn’t. We still feel a sense of injustice when things go wrong. That could be because we know the world shouldn’t be like this, that something has gone wrong which is a basic Christian belief. Iit doesn’t mean God has a downer on us personally.

The search for truth

None of what is said above alters the basic premise that the Bible is the ultimate authority for all matters of Christian belief and behaviour. Nor does it detract from the belief that scripture is “God’s Word”, or that it contains some fundamental principles of faith and action which are true for all time. All it does is remind us that the Bible is not a systematic workshop manual; it requires study, searching and interpreting. It also assumes human responsibility: that we apply biblical principles thoughtfully and prayerfully in our own contexts.

There are many published and internet aids to help us find some guidance or insight on what we need to know in different situations. Although the Reformation principle of each person being able to read and interpret scripture for themselves (as opposed to being told what to believe or do by the church) is important, the consensus of learned, prayerful judgement developed over the centuries is not to be taken lightly.

Today the risk of scripture lies in each of us taking what we want and saying, that’s what I believe, of developing a pick and mix approach to the Bible. The challenge of scripture is to submit ourselves to its judgement and to the understandings of previous generations of Christians who may also have been gently blown along by the Spirit of God as were the original authors.

It is also tempting to find in scripture confirmation of what we already think. “If we only use the Bible as a mirror to see ourselves, we may wind up seeing more of a reflection of our own self-interests than a revelation of God’s interests. Given our capacity for self-deception, our personal appropriation of the Bible can be an abuse of the text to promote our own agenda.”³

 

Handle with care! The Bible is a powerful tool for transforming self-serving people into God-serving people. Its challenges, rightly handled, are not to be ignored. We’ll learn more of God and his purposes revealed in scripture by meditating on it slowly, than by treating it as a spiritual fast-food snack.

Think and talk

1.  God reveals himself in many ways: see Psalm 19:1-4; Acts 17:26-28; Romans 1:18-20; Romans 2:14-15; Hebrews 1:1-3.
2.  God reveals himself gradually: 1 Corinthians 13:11-12; Galatians 3:24; Galatians 4:3-4; Hebrews 11:39-40; 1 Peter 1:10-11.
3.  God reveals himself through the scriptures: 2 Timothy 3:14-17; 2 Peter 1:19-21; 2 Peter 3:15-16.

References
1.  Jonathan Sacks, The great partnership, Hodder & Stoughton 2011, p.44.
2.  Leon Morris, I believe in revelation, Hodder & Stoughton 1976, p.139.
3.  G. Walter Hansen, “Words from God’s heart”, Christianity Today 23 October 1995.

© Derek Williams June 2016. This article forms part of a potential future publication and should not be reproduced in any form. It may be circulated electronically in its entirety without any cuts or alterations for small group use.

My next book coming in October: The Judas Trap published in the UK by Instant Apostle. Based on what we know of Judas Iscariot, it examines why people mess up – and how to avoid joining them.