The creed in plain words: (1) The nature of God

"You created my innermost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb"
(Psalm 139:13) - an example of God's powerful attention to detail

We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is, seen and unseen.

The Irish comedian Dave Allen used to end his shows with the pay-off line “May your god go with you”. He wasn’t implying that there are many actual gods but rather suggesting that each person fashions an image of God according to personal taste. He was partly right.

“No-one has ever seen God,” John 1:18 reminds us, before claiming that Jesus has made God known. Because God is unseen he is beyond our imagination, and human imagination can run riot. We need a framework of understanding if our faith and life is to be authentically Christian, and not a pick and mix bag of hopeful ideas or a caricature which is easy for others to dismiss.

The ancient Nicene Creed based on New Testament teaching, provides such a framework which we shall explore here over the next few months.

One God…the Almighty

Almost every people group in history has had a “faith” in supernatural powers; most have believed in many gods. The ancient Jews were an exception. They believed in one supreme God (although they struggled to maintain it; neighbouring religions with many gods offered great attractions). So they had to be reminded regularly that “I am the first and the last, apart from me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6) and that home-made “idols” were worse than useless.

“Almighty” means all-powerful, an important encouragement for the struggles of daily life. It is illustrated in the Bible by two major events. At the Exodus God assisted a down-trodden group of people to escape slavery and begin a nation through whom he planned to show his purposes to the world. (Unfortunately, they didn’t always live up to their calling.)

And secondly in the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ God demonstrated his power by opening up a new way for human beings to relate to God personally. But as powerful as God is, he is not a bully; he never forces his ways on anyone. He is not an uninvited meddler in or manipulator of human affairs. He does not automatically snuff out suffering and evil. Instead he waits for us to willingly associate ourselves with him. Loving power is also patient. Pope John Paul once said that “There is one source of power that is stronger than every disappointment, bitterness or ingrained mistrust, and that power is Jesus Christ, who brought forgiveness and reconciliation to the world.”

The Father

Dave Allen’s line was marginally better than the catchphrase of Star Wars: “May the force be with you”. God is personal, not a force. A force cannot love or choose, but a person can. “God so loved the world that he gave…” (John 3:16); a blind force cannot love or willingly give, but a person can. A force cannot communicate with people, but a person can. Human language is limited, though. “Person” is the nearest we can get to describing one who is (in C.S. Lewis’ words) “beyond personality”. We faintly reflect God’s personality; we have not projected ours onto him.

Generally, God is described as “he”. But God has no gender. We have no word in English to describe personality that isn’t gender-specific. Jesus taught his followers to regard God as a caring “Father”, with whom they could have a real personal relationship. “Father” is used because God sows the seed from which everything else – our life and personality included – springs. Not surprisingly, you will find places in the Bible where God displays what we would call “feminine” characteristics as well.

It’s not God’s fault that some people have used this as an excuse for excessive male dominance in the world, instead of developing and valuing the gender partnership which God intended when he created human beings.

Maker of all

Interpreters of Charles Darwin (and some Christians) have a lot to answer for because of the confusion they have created by pitting “science” against “religion”. The Christian doctrine of creation simply claims that everything that exists owes its origin to God. It is a statement of faith which can neither be proved nor disproved. The alternative to divine creation is blind chance. Many find “chance” unbelievable when faced with the complexity of sub-atomic particles and microscopic organisms, living, thinking humans and the rhythmic patterns of the planets.

For example, no-one knows how many stars like the sun exist in our galaxy, the Milky Way; estimates vary from 100 to 300 billion. And the Milky Way is only one of maybe 200 billion galaxies in the universe. At the other end of the scale, if all your veins and blood vessels were lain end to end they would stretch for 60,000 miles. And every second your body makes 17 million new red blood cells.

You can’t prove that God exists from observing our amazingly complex universe. But if you accept that God does exist, then examples like this from the natural world provide one picture of what he is like: powerful enough to set stars in space, yet caring enough to give attention to tiny details on earth.

Biblical poets don’t worry about how God fashioned everything. The account of origins in Genesis is more about the nature of God than the method of creation. Bible writers simply reckon that if God is powerful enough to oversee all that exists, then he’s powerful enough to see us through the troubles we face in life.

Think and talk

1.  What do these passages tell us about the power of God compared with the impotence of human fabrications: Isaiah 40:9-31; 44:6-20?

2.  A “god” is what we put our hope and trust in. What today might take the central place of God in our approach to life? (See 1 Timothy 6:17,18 for one example.)

3.  How might these “feminine” characteristics of God help us to view God without a gender emphasis: Deuteronomy 32:10,11,18; Psalm 57:1; 131:1-3; Isaiah 40:11; 49:5,15; 66:12-13; Matthew 23:37?

4.  Why do you think some people feel more comfortable viewing God as a force rather than as a person?

5.  What can we learn from these passages about God’s generosity? Psalm 104:10-18; Matthew 20:1-16; Luke 11:11-13; Acts 14:16-17; 1 Timothy 6:17?

6.  What do these verses tell us about God’s presence with us? Psalm 139:1-12; Isaiah 57:15-16; Jeremiah 23:23-24; John 14:15-20; Acts 17:26-28.

 There wiil be a series of six posts on the creed, roughly one per month April--September 2015

©Derek Williams 2015

 

 

 

 

Keep the global perspective

Athletes and their national flags at the London Olympics 2012

National pride and support is natural and normal in the sporting arena. We want our team or our athletes to do well. But when national pride becomes nationalism, when boundaries become barricades, when attitudes harden into my country right or wrong, problems can start to mount. It can lead to feelings of superiority that in turn can lead to various forms of discrimination or even persecution.

The Scottish referendum, shortly to take place as I write, has evoked a wide range of reactions, polarised into the desire to be independent and the desire to remain within a larger entity that potentially offers greater security.

And around the world, there has been a trend over the past quarter-century for specific cultural or ethnic groups to assert their independence. The former Russian federation and the former Yugoslavia split into separate states, for example – with Russia now apparently regretting the fact and exerting pressure on some. There is also a growth of tribalism in larger states, as factions and single-issue political groups clamour – sometimes violently – for their cause. Disenchanted with globalisation, in which every national group becomes increasingly dependent on others and especially on multi-national corporations and financial institutions, there is a grass-roots longing for smaller, more self-contained units.

There can be no Christian or biblical “position” on such matters except, perhaps, where powerful leaders or groups cause mayhem in pursuing their dreams of either independence or dominance. The issues are usually complex and in a democracy each person must vote according to their reading of the current and future prospects. But whatever the outcome in Scotland, there are some biblical principles that can determine the way anyone thinks about nationhood.

The first is that nationhood was invented by God. Paul says as much in Acts 17:26, echoing the Old Testament view in Deuteronomy 32:8. The interpretation of both is problematic because the text is unclear. Paul was speaking to Athenians who believed they were the only true Greeks. He punctured their pride by pointing out that they and everyone else had a common ancestor. And the “exact places” could be national boundaries (but they are often changed by conquest, and is God really behind all military expansion?), or perhaps more likely the natural boundaries of land and sea.

The Deuteronomy passage refers specifically to the ancient Israelites, and the Hebrew is so confusing that the original Greek translation of the passage (along with one of the Dead Sea Scrolls) introduces the idea of guardian angels. It’s not a verse to hang a doctrine on.

God also invented internationalism. Despite the Old Testament focus on gaining a specific territory and maintaining the purity of Israelite religion by not importing practices from other nations, its writers are not entirely xenophobic.

Refugees and immigrants are to be welcomed and supported, not sent packing, because God loves them too (Deuteronomy 10:18f, 24:17f; Isaiah 56:1-8).The mission of the Israelites was to be a blessing to all nations, in our terms to take God’s message to them (Genesis 18:18; Isaiah 55:4f). Jonah was sent to preach to a nation often considered Israel’s enemy. Indeed, intense national pride – the arrogance typified by the Athenians – is clearly anathema to God (Deuteronomy 7:7-9; Ezekiel 16 offers an allegory of a nation nurtured and cared for only to grow proud and self-willed).

In the New Testament Jesus drew out and applauded the faith of a gentile woman (Mark 7:24-30) and a Samaritan woman (John 4). We are given a vision of a multinational church which transcends political boundaries on earth (Galatians 3:28) and in heaven (Revelation 7:9) and a hint (no more) that mega government – the whole world or a large part of it coming under the control of a single group – is a bad thing.

And above all human structures lies the supreme mystery of God’s providence and ultimate sovereignty over the nations and their histories. He seems to guide the hand of history (Isaiah 44:28 – 45:7) yet also call the nations to account for their actions (Matthew 25:31f).

So while in practical terms we do have to decide how practical governance is devolved to national, regional and local leaders, there is a biblical mandate never to lose sight of the bigger picture: God’s vision of a trans-national co-operative society for whom political boundaries and cultural differences are secondary to a concern for the common good. Even if we do continue to cheer for our own sports team.

Think and talk

1.  What are the causes of “tribalism” or factions in large societies?

2.  How can we promote greater unity among disparate peoples?
3.  Why has racial or cultural discrimination continued even within some churches?
4.  Make a list of all the potential enrichments which can result from exposure to different cultures and customs.

© Derek Williams 2014

 

Someone is always watching

I recently discovered that less than half of speculative telephone sales calls are blocked by the UK’s Telephone Preference Service. I have had to pay £30 to a commercial company to hopefully block the rest. Paying to preserve privacy seems harsh.

The issue or privacy is never far from the surface. In November 2013 Britain’s three security agency chiefs appeared before a Commons Select Committee to explain their wish to monitor and store email and phone traffic. In the summer of 2014 the UK government rushed through a bill to allow police and security services to continue to access data as to who calls or emails who and when (but not the content of those messages) as part of the armoury against terrorism.

Protests against such “a snooper’s charter” are loud but the need is strongly defended by security experts. “I always felt uncomfortable eavesdropping on private phone conversations or covertly watching people at home,” a former Chair of the Cobra intelligence group has said. “We never did it lightly,” he added, and concluded that to deny security services “the ability to match the technological advances of the criminals and terrorists they are up against is like allowing detectives fingerprint technology but forbidding them DNA. It is to condemn our security services to fight the last war.” ¹

In fact they don’t have the resources to do more than track a small number of people who are known to be a potential threat and have to ignore the billions of innocent messages flashing around the world every day. (Although there has been a more worrying “Big Brother” pilot scheme in China in which citizens of one city were individually trackable.²)

But as the co-founder of the Carphone Warehouse, Sir Charles Dunstone, has said, our anxiety is very selective. Large companies know more about us than we realise. “Everyone is up in arms about GCHQ looking in emails to see if someone is saying ‘semtex’ and ‘jihad’, but they are completely relaxed that Google reads all their emails and tries to sell them stuff based on the words they put in them.”³ To say nothing of the personal data about our tastes and finances that is collected and shared through store loyalty cards and finance institutions.  

There’s another inconsistency, too, in that many people choose to waive their privacy in reality TV shows, in films posted on YouTube and revelations written on Facebook and Twitter. Balanced against the human desire for privacy is a desire to be noticed by the world. Of course, we have some control over what we reveal voluntarily, but the exhibitionist or opinionated tendency seems often to outweigh common sense and personal decorum.

Like many, I personally dislike cold sales calls and spam email and targeted marketing which use social and commercial data to reach me. In many ways it’s more invidious than surveillance for security purposes yet rarely attracts similar opprobrium. We learn to ignore it as best we can, just as we rarely notice the ubiquitous security cameras on every street corner, the proven benefits of which are statistically very small.

Biblical angles on privacy

The debate sent me, as any debate does, back to the principles enshrined in the Bible which should at least inform (if not determine) a Christian response to a problem that obviously didn’t exist in the same way in the ancient world. And three things stand out.

First, individualism. While the Bible recognises that each person is accountable for their own actions, it knows nothing of the intense individualism of western society today. Herded as we are into close urban and suburban environments, we jealously guard our individuality against the impersonal nature of a mass society and react strongly to intrusion into our private space; I am a man not a number. Biblically, however, the emphasis is much more on the individual as a responsible and active member of a group (village, tribe) which itself is part of the wider community. It is the interests of the community that take priority and personal interest and conduct is subservient to them.

Secondly, fear. There is a strong climate of fear and suspicion within western society. We are anxious that others will harm us in some way. We suspect their motives. We no longer welcome strangers and “entertain angels without knowing it” (Hebrews 13:2). It stems from a variety of causes but it reinforces our efforts to protect our own interests and to build a protective shell around us. Of course on rare occasions a corrupt person might take advantage of information about us, but that is not a reason to trust no-one but ourselves.

Thirdly, God. We can’t hide anything from God. The story of Adam and Eve kicks off a Bible-long theme that in the spiritual realm there is no privacy. God misses nothing. That’s not intended (generally) to instil fear although it can do when we consciously disobey basic commandments; rather it is a message of loving care. He watches, because he cares; he grieves when we go astray; he applauds our puny efforts to serve him and the world.

For me, meditating on that puts the current debate into a much wider perspective. I become more concerned about what God sees than what some human database records. Yes, Scripture warns us not to take advantage of each other, and some data gathering in the commercial world seems close to doing that and should rightly arouse social concern. But it also tells me not to fear what people might (and equally might not) do to me personally, because there is a bigger picture and a greater concern to focus on.

Think and talk

1.  Discuss the extent of both individualism and fear in your society, and how it affects our attitudes to other people, to government and to institutions.

2.  See how secrecy can’t exist in the spiritual realm: Psalm 90:8; Psalm 121; Psalm 139; Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:23-24. What comfort, encouragement and challenge do these passages bring?
3.  There are promises that at the end of time that all will be revealed. How do you feel about that? Luke 8:17; Romans 2:16; 1 Corinthians 14:25; Revelation 20:12.
4.  What effect might such awareness have on our lives? 2 Corinthians 4:2; Ephesians 4:17-5:2

References

1.  Colonel Richard Kemp, The Times, 7 April 2012.
2. See David Landrum, “From Big Brother to Big Society?”, The Bible in Transmission, Bible Society, Summer 2010.
3.  Interview in The Times, 30 November 2013

Why did he do it?

Crosses on the hill outside Lee Abbey, Devon

OK, it’s past Easter and I’m late in terms of topicality – except that the question as to why Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus is always topical. Because people do it, or something similar, every day. We (which I prefer to “they” because none is totally exempt) betray our own principles, we turn against people who were once colleagues or friends, we do or say things behind people’s backs we would not repeat in front of them.

As Oscar Wilde once put it, “Yet each man kills the thing he loves, / By each let this be heard, / Some do it with a bitter look, / Some with a flattering word. / The coward does it with a kiss, / The brave man with a sword!”¹ 

The reasons, though, are usually complex. Social psychologist Philip Zimbardo admits that “Human behaviour is complex, so there is often more than one reason for any given act.” He notes that “Just when you think you understand someone you know only the smallest slice of their inner nature derived from a limited set of personal or mediated contacts.”² So with Judas; the reasons for his actions were probably complex. But let’s examine the usual theories.

MICE and the man

The FBI has an acronym for the most common reasons for betrayal: MICE. It stands for Money, Ideology, Compromise, Ego. We can see if any apply to Judas.

Money: He was paid for his information (Matthew 26:14-16; Luke 22:1-5). He was also said (after the event) to have had his hand in the till – he stole from the disciples’ common funds (John 12:4-6). So he might have been greedy, or in debt, or he just bent the rules: they’ll never know, never miss it.

Although the money motive has been the traditional allegation against Judas, it doesn’t totally add up. Although Matthew says he asked the authorities for something, it was more likely a token sum to seal the deal rather than (say) a hard-up man seeking to pay off his gambling debts; it wasn’t a huge amount. Besides, he gave it back when Jesus was executed (Matthew 27:1-5); clearly his intention wasn’t Jesus’ death, nor just to line his pocket.

Ideology: There are two distinct possibilities which are often put forward as the most likely single reasons for Judas’s actions. One is that he had become disillusioned with Jesus. Perhaps he expected Jesus to lead an armed rebellion against the occupying Romans and had belatedly realised that Jesus wasn’t that kind of Messiah (the other disciples appear to have been under the same illusion even after the resurrection, Acts 1:6). Frustrated and angry, he turned against his friends. Anger can do that to a person, but again his reaction to the crucifixion suggests he was far from glad at the outcome of his action.

The other option is that he tried to force Jesus’ hand by engineering an encounter with the religious authorities. He was getting impatient, and felt that Jesus was pussyfooting around: he needed to declare his Messiahship and work with the authorities to bring about change. So what better way than a private audience with the High Priest? This too is unlikely on its own, not least because the authorities had been intransigent opponents of Jesus almost from the start of his ministry.

Compromise: This is rarely levelled at Judas. We have no evidence that he was blackmailed into his actions as a contemporary spy might be; if he was being so pressured, there would have been no reason to offer him money. There is also no suggestion that he was an “agent in place”, planted by the religious authorities to report back on Jesus’ movements. Judas was one of the original twelve disciples and there was no indication in the early days that Jesus would prove such a thorn in the authorities’ side that they needed to keep track of him.

Ego:  Now we’re getting closer, and again there are two but not mutually exclusive possibilities. The Bible is clear that “Satan entered Judas” (Luke 22:3) but also that whatever that meant, Judas was still responsible for his actions (Luke 22:22); he did not suddenly become a demented demoniac.

A more modern explanation (which does not exclude malign spiritual influence) is that he was a “driven man”. Driven by ambition, desire and perhaps much else, his view of the situation became blinkered and he blundered on regardless until it was too late to turn back.

Mixed up mindset

There may have been other factors involved, too, that are not always taken into account. For example, Judas’s surname “Iscariot” almost certainly suggests that he came from the southern village of Kerioth. Most if not all the other disciples were northerners. Judas would have talked differently, and had different values to the rest. Was he perhaps too conscious of his “outsider” status, was he teased by the others, however much in jest, and this led him to exert himself: “I’m as good as (or more knowledgable than) they are”? Did he in fact suffer from a sense of inferiority or superiority and a desire to prove himself that had a disastrous effect?

Perhaps the biggest failure of Judas was not stopping to consider that there might be unforeseen consequences of his actions. He could see only what he wanted to see. He could imagine no outcome but the one he wanted (whatever that was). He consulted no-one else on the apostolic team; so far as he was concerned, his judgement was right and all others’ wrong.

Driven by powerful emotions, yes; motivated by an inadequate or inaccurate understanding of Jesus’ mission, possibly. The process smoothed, perhaps, by the warm feeling of extra cash. But most certainly, he was in the same position as Michael Bettany, an MI5 officer who passed secrets to the Russians in the 1980s: “There was no simple motive. It was a cumulative process,” he told his interrogators.³

And therein lies the warning. Most betrayals, most falls from grace, follow an incremental course. They don’t suddenly happen. Personality, circumstances, other people all contribute to a hardening of attitude, a changing mind, a determination to act in a certain way. The real question is not why did the final act occur, but what were all the small steps that led up to it. Might they have been avoided?

“If only”. We’ve all said that. Probably Judas did too as he tied the noose on his improvised gibbet. There but for God’s grace go many people. The moral is donlt go too far, too quickly.

References

1  Oscar Wilde, The Ballad of Reading Gaol

2  Philip Zimbardo, The Lucifer Effect , Rider 2009, p.365, 167
3  Christopher Andrew, The defence of the realm, Allen Lane 2009, p. 720

Think and talk

1  We’re often quick to judge people, whether we know them personally or by repute. Look again at Philip Zimbardo’s comments in the third paragraph. How might observing the truth of his words modify the way we criticise or judge others?

2   How might Judas’s loose attitude to money have affected his judgement? What does that tell us about how we should view and use money?
3  Judas may have been blinkered in some way because of his set beliefs. Many of us have strong beliefs. How might we balance these with keeping an open mind?
4  When we become convinced that we should embark on a certain course of action, what should we do before taking the final irrevocable step? Whom should we consult?

 

Weather watch: we all can pray

In mid-February 2014 the UK seems to have woken up to the fact that the effects of ongoing extreme weather events amount to a national emergency and are not just a small local crisis. Floods and coastal storms have destroyed homes, devastated livelihoods, and decimated the infrastructure.

Those of us less affected watch the TV footage with a sense of helplessness. A few volunteers have travelled to assist with the rescue and rebuilding work. But there is no Disasters Emergency Committee appeal for funds; the government has promised its own funding although how adequate that is remains to be seen. So we can’t even donate cash.

But there is one thing everyone can do: pray. It sounds trivial, impractical. It’s certainly not meant to minimise the trauma experienced by many people. They deserve the wholehearted support, care – and prayer – of the rest of us.

There is enough anecdotal evidence to suggest that prayer can make a difference. People facing difficulty who know that others are praying for them will sometimes say that they have felt carried through and supported in their crises. It’s something all can offer.

The good that prayer does

The Bible is clear that prayer does not immunise us against the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. Trouble can hit anyone, of faith or no faith. The weather is no respecter of persons. Nor does prayer offer an instant or easy way out of difficulty. It won’t dry soaked carpets or restore damaged railway tracks. So what good does it do?

Fundamentally, prayer seems to dredge the channels through which God’s Spirit flows to work in the world. In the current circumstances, this is what is needed. Victims need God’s help to keep going; agencies need God’s wisdom to tackle complex issues. There’s a prayer below if you find it hard to know quite what to say to God.

“Intercession is not a technique for changing God’s mind, but it is a releasing of power as we place ourselves in a relationship of co-operation with God…Prayer is action, because God’s energy is released into a situation. Prayer leads to action because we cannot with integrity pray for something which we are not also prepared to do something about.”¹ 

We’ll come back to that last sentence later. But prayer can have other effects too. It aligns us with God’s purposes and opens us to discover them more clearly; you can’t pray “your will be done” and then not respond to some fresh understanding of God’s will.

Prayer transfers our anxieties and concerns to one who is better placed to discern the wood from the trees. It makes us more receptive to his help as we negotiate the path ahead.

It is also an expression of our human frailty and limited abilities. We’re all control freaks at heart but we can’t control everything. Stuff happens. Confessing our weakness (especially in the face of the elements) can lead to a greater respect for, trust in, and dependence on, God. Currently, our corporate pride has been punctured. Spiritual health is often improved by a dose of humility.

And finally, we can ask God to bring an end to the battering. There are biblical examples of prayer related to weather extremes. He is, after all, the creator and sustainer of all that is. Part of that prayer, of course, is to seek forgiveness for the part the human race has played in exacerbating the fury of natural forces and our casual approach to minimising their effects.

A time to ask questions

Not “why does God allow suffering?” – it’s endemic in life as we now know it – but rather “is God trying to tell us something?” through recent events. You can’t link floods and tempest to specific actions, as one foolish politician tried to do by saying they’re God’s punishment for allowing gay marriage. He seems to have overlooked the fact that extreme weather events this winter have not been restricted to the UK; in January there was the polar vortex which crippled the US while intense heat suffocated Australia.

But you can link extreme weather to three wider actions. One is our unrelenting contribution to global warming which has been known for decades to disturb weather patterns and trigger extreme events. Governments have been tardy, to say the least, in committing to and legislating for a reduction in greenhouse gases.

Another is our management of land, especially as we pave over natural rainfall catchment areas so that there is greater or faster run-off into rivers. And a third is the short-termism of modern government which rarely looks beyond the next election, and of modern commerce which rarely looks beyond next year’s profits. Flood and coastal defences should have had, and indeed now must have, the sort of long-term investment that goes into (say) the armed forces whose government-sponsored selective sorties into foreign lands don’t always seem to be in the best interests of ordinary people.

But that too is a matter for prayer. “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercessions and thanksgiving be made for everyone – for kings and all those in authority, that we may lead peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness” (1 Timothy 2:1-2).

A prayer

Almighty God, we bring to you those people whose lives, homes and jobs have been devastated by recent weather. We ask that you will help them not to lose heart, to keep faith, and to draw on the power and guidance of your Spirit as they deal with the aftermath. May they know even in their darkest moments that your love has not deserted them. Fill with compassion and wisdom those who are in a position to help: the staff of insurance companies, banks, shops and suppliers, the statutory and voluntary agencies, emergency services, military teams, commercial businesses, churches and community groups as they each lend resources and personnel to deal with the short term alleviation of suffering and the long-term rebuilding of homes, livelihoods, and infrastructures. Grant all of us a spirit of generosity and care, a willingness to give and not to count the cost, as we seek to serve you and your Kingdom by serving others who are in need. Through Jesus Christ, our Lord, Amen.

Think and talk

1.  Just pray for people suffering from the latest calamities. Imagine yourself in their shoes and ask God to do what you would want in that situation. And pray for all the agencies and groups trying to help them: they need energy, stamina, wisdom and compassion.

2.  Look at the thoughts in “A time to ask questions” above. What can you do personally, and how should we be urging government to act, to deal with the long-term issues?

3.  Look at James 5:17,18; 1 Kings 8:35-40. We can pray for God to alter the weather. But what are the conditions for such prayer being responded to positively?

Reference

1.  Stephen Cottrell, Praying through life, Church House Publishing 2003, p.28

 

Global persecution is a fact of life

The narrow way of discipleship:
a gorge (chine) in the Isle of Wight

I am writing this at Epiphany (early January), which in the church calendar celebrates the first manifestation of Christ to non-Jews (the wise men who followed the star to the infant Jesus). It concludes a fascinating fortnight in the calendar. Because apart from Christmas day, a series of commemorations all focusing on suffering and death follow each other in quick succession.

December 26 remembers Stephen, the first Christian martyr (Acts 6,7). The next day recalls John the apostle, exiled for his faith to the island of Patmos. Then on 28^th the Holy Innocents are recalled, the toddlers slaughtered by Herod in his quest to eliminate his supposed rival as king of the Jews. Epiphany comes on January 6, after which the wise men had to find a fresh route home to avoid the unwelcome attention of the paranoid Herod. There are some minor saints in between, including the reformer John Wycliffe (December 31) who didn’t suffer martyrdom but did incur strong opposition to his theological views.

Whether by accident or design, the ancient designation of saints’ days, drawn up long before Christmas became a three-month commercial fiesta, convey an important truth. They remind us that the baby in the manger “did not come to bring peace, but a sword” (Matthew 10:34) – not deliberately as an aggressor but by default as the purveyor of a radical message and lifestyle that would divide communities and invite hostility.

While there have been some well-reported court cases in which some Christians have alleged discrimination on the part of their employers (and all but one were dismissed by the courts), there are far more less-reported cases of real persecution seeping into public awareness.

In October 2013, The Spectator magazine published a lengthy article headed “The war on Christians” which quoted research showing that 11 Christians are “killed somewhere in the world every hour, seven days a week and 365 days a year, for reasons related to their faith. In effect, the world is witnessing a rise of an entire new generation of Christian martyrs.”¹

And in December, Tony Baldry MP, who speaks in the House of Commons for the Church of England, said that “200 million Christians today are at threat of persecution, loss of their faith, livelihoods, homes and even their lives. This is not acceptable.”² While many of the attacks on individuals and churches are in the Middle East, Burma, Nigeria, North Korea, Congo, Eritrea, Indonesia, and Pakistan have all witnessed significant violent attacks on Christians in recent years. The Spectator article suggests discrimination against Christians in some form took place in 139 countries between 2006 and 2010.

There are two practical responses to this. One is that Christians who enjoy considerable freedom could be finding out about, praying for, and perhaps through various agencies supporting, their less fortunate brothers and sisters in Christ around the world. The other is to take seriously the Bible’s teaching about what Jesus called “the narrow path”, the sometimes lonely route of discipleship that may result in hardship and sacrifice. There are some Bible passages to study below.

Think and talk

1.  Some Christians have alleged persecution because they have been disciplined for (say) refusing to work on Sundays or remove a lapel cross from their work uniform. Other Christians, however, are content to take their turn on shifts and do not feel the need to advertise their faith with a badge. Discuss the principles that might apply to such situations, using such contrasting passages as Luke 9:23-26 and 1 Peter 2:13-17.

2.  Read Paul’s catalogue of his sufferings in 2 Corinthians 6:3-10 and 11:22-33. Make separate lists of the voluntary sacrifices or consequential deprivations made for the sake of his mission, and the unsought aggression and persecution by opponents of his message. Then read again Luke 9:23-26 and also Matthew 7:13,14. What does discipleship inevitably involve? To what extent do you reflect more of your contemporaries’ non-Christian lifestyle than that envisaged by Christ?

3.  Jesus frequently warned his disciples that they would face persecution. Read, for example, Matthew 10:17-35 and 24:4-14. What are the causes of antagonism towards Christians? In what ways might we minimise these without compromising our faith?

4.  There are a number of agencies working with Christians who face hardship or opposition in various parts of the world. One is Christian Solidarity Worldwide (http://www.csw.org.uk/home.htm). Why not discover more about the suffering church, share the stories in a group and pray for both Christians and their oppressors? At the same time, think about the issues of religious freedom generally; we cannot ask for Christians what we are not prepared to offer to others.

References

1.  John Allen, “The war on Christians”, The Spectator 5 October 2013
2.  Reported on the BBC website, 3 December 2013

© Derek Williams 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mandela's Christmas wisdom on human relations

"Coexistence": poster for a peace exhibition I saw 
in Belfast some years ago

Whatever else he was and whatever else he did, the late Nelson Mandela proved to be a master of reconciliation. As the commemorations of his life now fade from the news agenda, it’s still appropriate to reflect on some of his words as we enter the Christmas season of peace and goodwill. Mandela offered peace and goodwill towards people who had opposed and imprisoned him.

In his autobiography Long walk to freedom¹ he writes of things he learned as a child. “I learned that to humiliate another person is to make him suffer an unnecessarily cruel fate,” he wrote. “Even as a boy I defeated my opponents without dishonouring them” (p10). Another lesson was gleaned from tribal meetings, where everyone had a say. “I have always endeavoured to listen to what each and every person in a discussion had to say before venturing my own opinion” (p21).

Those principles – honour your enemy and listen to those you disagree with – were the foundation of his much later work as the first black President of South Africa. So, with good cause, perhaps, to want to wreak revenge on others, he emerged from prison knowing that his freedom did not give him the liberty to take others’ freedom away from them, and that “the man who takes away another’s freedom is a prisoner of hatred, he is locked behind the bars of prejudice and narrow-mindedness” (p617).

“In prison, my hatred towards whites decreased, while my hatred for the system grew. I wanted South Africa to see that I loved my enemies even while I hated the system that turned us against each other” (p559). And writing of the then President De Klerk, who he had previously criticised heavily, “I never sought to undermine Mr De Klerk…To make peace with an enemy, one must work with that enemy, and that enemy becomes your partner” (p604).

Nelson Mandela has given us a lot to think about as we reflect on our relationships with and attitudes towards others. But he was doing no more than applying in practice what Jesus had taught almost 2000 years before.

In the sermon on the mount Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect” (Matthew 5:43-48).

That teaching is echoed by the apostles. “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Do not repay anyone evil for evil….As far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay'….Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good’’ (Romans 12:14-21).

But there’s an even greater reason to take the example of Mandela and the exhortations of Jesus and Paul seriously. It is that reconciliation is what God himself is all about, which is also at the heart of the Christmas message. Paul writes, “God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them.” And, he adds, he “gave us the ministry of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:18-21).

The Christmas image of the baby in the manger can sometimes obscure the fact that the Christ child came into the world with a mission to bridge the moral gap between erring humans and a perfect God. Perhaps Mandela’s death just before Christmas could be seen as God’s gentle reminder to a conflict-ridden world that the event we celebrate contains a call to adopt a peace-making lifestyle all year round.

 

Think and talk

1.  Look up the full Bible passages from which the passages above are quoted. Make a list of all the implications they have for the daily life and relationships of ordinary people.
2.  Think of situations where you either need to seek reconciliation with others or where you can seek to act as a peacemaker (Matthew 5:9). Make these situations a matter for prayer, and then look for opportunities to exercise a ministry of reconciliation.

Reference

1.  Nelson Mandela, Long walk to Freedom, Little, Brown and Company, 1994