The creed in plain words - (4) The everlasting presence

This oak has seen and will see many human generations.
Use such images as a reminder that Jesus lived,
and will live, for ever. 

On the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures; he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead, and his kingdom will have no end.

“My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known…friends and relations who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future when they die.”¹ The writer A.N.Wilson has long had an on-off relationship with Christianity and his theology is hardly orthodox (he has just written a strange book on the Bible), but his experience highlights a truth that will not go away: Jesus lives.

This section of the creed is like a cereal variety pack; three different ideas united in a single brand: Jesus is alive and active for ever. The resurrection is the core of practical Christian faith. “If Christ is not raised, your faith is futile,” wrote St Paul (1 Corinthians 15:17). It reminds us we are not alone in the universe and it gives us hope for the future.

If Jesus was God in human form, the creator and sustainer of all life, then almost by definition he had to defeat death. God is the author of life; “he gives all people life and breath and everything else” (Acts 17:25). Whatever human beings did to his incarnate body, they could not destroy the (in his case) immortal spirit that animated it. His resurrection was even hinted at in the scriptures which his disciples at the time didn’t understand, and he told them often enough that it would happen (e.g. Matthew 16:21; they didn’t understand or, frankly, believe that, either).

The nature of his risen body is unclear and there have been many suggestions as to what happened to his bones. Interestingly, his tomb never became a place of pilgrimage as happened with saints in later years; everyone at the time knew that the body really had gone. St Paul directly addresses the question, “How are the dead raised?” by suggesting that there are different kinds of “body”. The physical body, he suggests, is transformed into something different and imperishable.

In our age it isn’t so hard to understand as it might have been in the past. We know that matter cannot be destroyed but only transformed – burn something, and you turn it into energy; all the atoms that exist today existed when the earth was formed. They are just recycled into different shapes. And now quantum physicists exploring “dark matter” and sub-atomic particles have shown that what we think of as solid matter is a much looser collection of spinning atoms than hitting one’s head against a brick wall might suggest. There really are different kinds of “matter”. So the possibility that someone could be transformed into something which behaves differently to common matter (like suddenly appearing in a closed room) yet be physically visible is perfectly plausible.

Jesus’ final resurrection appearance was the “ascension”. It was a visual demonstration to the disciples that from then on Jesus would be universally available; wherever they were, he would be too. It wasn’t so much that he went “up”, as the stained glass windows love to depict, but that he went away, beyond space and time. (Going up in the world is, of course, a common idiom for going to a better place or role, and the idea was current in ancient times as well as modern.)

It also signalled the resumption of his role “at the right hand of the Father”, the place of authority over all creation. Jesus is (and always was) Lord, before whom all creation shall bow in homage and service. One day, we’ll have no choice but to do so when he “comes again in glory to judge the living and the dead”.

That will be the end of the world as we know it. And end it must, as physicists tell us, whether with a bang or a whimper. Their projected timescale is millions of years but ignores the possibility of sudden catastrophe. God’s timetable is unknown and Jesus ruled out any kind of speculation (see Matthew 24:36) although sadly that hasn’t deterred some Christians from speculating to the point of causing major church divisions. In any case, we don’t know when our personal residence on earth will end, as accident and disease as well as old age take their toll. But with our death the opportunity to encounter the living Christ on earth also ceases. What happens after that is covered in a later clause of the creed.

Meanwhile, a person’s relationship with the risen Christ on earth can be a foretaste of the future experience of eternity, and therefore well worth working at and developing (see John 10:10). Jesus is for life, not just for Christmas and funerals.

Think and talk  

1.  Look up and meditate on the verses quoted above. What can you learn about the nature of life from them?

2. Jesus has promised to be with us for ever For what purpose? Matthew 28:20; John 14:18-19; Hebrews 4:14-16, 7:25, 13:8. How does that make you feel?

3. What difference should his constant presence make to the way I conduct myself each day?

Reference

1.  Quoted by Alison Morgan, The Word on the wind, Monarch 2011, p.102.
 
© Derek Williams 2015

The material in these posts may be freely reproduced for private and small group study, with due acknowledgement.

 

The creed in plain words – (3) The great rescue plan

Crucifix in St Mary's Church, Peterborough

For us and for our salvation he came down from heaven, was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man. For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate; he suffered death and was buried.

When we look at the vast expanses of space and recall that an infinite God is even greater than an infinite universe we may wonder with the Psalmist “what is man that you [God] are mindful of him?” (Psalm 8:4). And when we see the headlines about crime and corruption, war and violence, we may cry with the prophet, “Why do you make me look at injustice? Why do you tolerate wrong?” (Habakkuk 1:2).

The creed offers a clue: “for us”; “for our salvation”; “for our sake”. God is people-centred. He has our interests at heart. Jesus wept over social corruption and religious distortions and over the indignity of death and bereavement. He gave immoral women a fresh start, restored hope to grieving families, warned a rich man to give rather than hoard and told pompous clergy to stop harassing faithful worshippers.

He did it for us, but not as some might wish. God made one attempt to summarily rid the earth of wrong-doers through the almost total destruction of the flood. He then vowed never to repeat the exercise. Instead he used a more subtle and costly approach. Over centuries he sought to woo people back to himself before finally becoming human to show as well as tell what he is like and what he requires.

The death of Christ

In order to rescue a human race drowning in a turbulent sea of self-will God himself jumped into the water to offer a lifeline. In the process, the waves pulled him under and he died in the attempt.  “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son…” (John 3:16). By doing so he fulfilled the Old Testament religious requirements (“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”, Hebrews 9:22). The sinless God-man, judicially murdered by jealous leaders, made it possible for fallen humans to be reconciled to a perfect God. There’s no easy way to explain how his death “atoned” for human beings in this way, but it was the way God chose to demonstrate the extent of his love.

The creed names Pontius Pilate, who cynically washed his hands of the affair and allowed the man he believed to be innocent to be crucified in order to avoid further conflict with the baying crowd of local leaders.  It reminds us that these events took place in real time in recorded history. Pilate is known from other sources; he was later sacked for misgovernment, which is saying something in the ruthless Roman empire.

The birth of Christ

The previous clause may give us problems: “incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary”. The Christmas crib is one thing; virgin birth another (technically it is “virginal conception”). There are other hints in the New Testament that Jesus’ birth was unusual. The Pharisees called him illegitimate and he was described as “Mary’s son” which was derogatory in a patriarchal community.

Virgin birth is not unknown in the animal kingdom but usually results in female offspring; the Y chromosome needed to develop a male foetus is passed only through the male parent. There are rare cases of genetic abnormalities with women carrying the Y chromosome yet remaining fully female, and of men without it yet who are fully male (although sterile).

A person born normally has two natures but is a single person: he or she contains the natures of both parents derived from the union of their chromosomes. If Jesus was the pre-existing Son of God, fully human yet also fully divine, a simple divine exercise in genetic engineering or special creation would perfectly fashion the unique person of Jesus and demonstrate the fact. He would have both human and divine natures, fused into one person. It’s the sort of thing God would do to enable a one-off intervention in history. For us.

Think and talk  

1.  How New Testament writers explain Jesus’ death: Mark 10:45; Romans 3:21-26; 5:6-11; Colossians 1:15-23; Hebrews 7:26-27, 10:19-22; 1 John 2:2.

2.  Suggestions that rumours about Jesus’ unusual birth were circulating: he was accused of being illegitimate, John 8:41; he was called Mary’s son, Mark 6:3 (but in parallel passages in other Gospels the paternal line is noted without comment; note too Luke 3:23, “he was the son, so it was thought of Joseph”); Galatians 4:4 refers to Mary, not Joseph. Ignatius (about AD 110) also refers to the virgin birth.

3.  “God waits for the chances we give him to show his great generosity” (John Chrysostum, 4^th century Archbishop of Constantinople). “God often visits us, but most of the time we are not at home” (French proverb). Why are we slow to respond to the Gospel challenge to trust Jesus because of his loving sacrifice?

© Derek Williams 2015

Material from these posts may be reproduced with appropriate acknowledgment for local and small group study

 

 

It’s your vote – use it with faith

Which way to turn? The dilemma of voting

The comedian and social activist Russell Brand has described western democracy as a “flimsy paddock…which so evidently isn’t functioning or representing anybody.” He came close to discouraging his many followers on social media and beyond from voting in the May 2015 UK elections, by calling it a “greetings card to nowhere with an X on it.” He said in an interview “Who are you voting for and for what reason? What is it about that person and their policies that are going to affect your life – this emptiness, this malaise, this disconnection, loneliness and inequality?”¹ A short while later he gave Labour leader Ed Miliband a video grilling in what for the politician was a calculated gamble to turn youthful apathy into energetic action.

Brand isn’t the first, and won’t be the last, to suggest that voting is a waste of time. Even faith leaders have spoken against it. Some Moslems have said that voting is un-Islamic. And some Christians regard politics and social involvement as needless compromise with or distraction from the allegedly primary task of Christians to “preach the Gospel”. However, biblically “the Gospel” is not only about personal salvation; it is also about building the Kingdom of God and bringing God’s concerns and values for all aspects of human life into the world.

Democracy does not of course have any biblical (Old or New Testament) roots; it was the Greeks who introduced it some 400 years before Christ. But every vote does count, for two reasons. First, the society we live in is organised through the ballot box and when we are given the chance to participate in it we should; not to do so is to say we don’t care about our world. Secondly, there is no such thing as a wasted vote even if the person you vote for is not elected. The number of votes sends a signal about the relative support for people, parties and policies. It warns elected MPs that there is a significant proportion of their constituents who do not share their views; some may even be elected by a minority of the total votes cast, such is the downside of a first-past-the-post system. It may be important to remind them of that when they support measures we disagree with; letters and emails are another way of engaging democratically in the system.

Reasons to vote

1.  Apathy is the seed from which anarchy may grow. If we don’t exercise privilege, power may be misused.

2.  People (especially women) have suffered or died to give us the opportunity to have a say in the way we are governed. Their sacrifice should not be overlooked; using our vote is a way of thanking previous generations.

3.  God is concerned with communities, not just with individuals. The Old Testament story is of the development of a community of faith with its customs and laws; the New Testament sees the inauguration of a new community, the church, which is meant to be a model for all and as such an influence on the wider community: “salt and light” to preserve goodness and illuminate righteousness (Matthew 5:13-16).

4.  Jesus promoted compliant citizenship exemplified by paying taxes whether or not people agreed with the authority to raise them or the purpose for them (Matthew 17:24-27, 22:15-22).

5.  He was also unafraid to stand up to secular leaders and question their actions (Luke 13:31-33).

6.  Jesus taught that his followers are “not of the world” (that is, they have a different set of values and aims) but he also sent them into the world with a mission to change hearts and minds, attitudes and therefore actions (John 17:14-19; cf. Matthew 28:19-20).  

7. The apostle Paul likewise did not advocate withdrawal from “the world”, but rather continuing to rub shoulders with people whose lifestyles Christians might disapprove of (1 Corinthians 9-11).

8.  In his famous comments about the state which at the time was increasingly hostile to Christians, Paul recognised that secular authority has been delegated to human communities by God for the well-being of all. That such authority was misused was not a reason for withdrawing from it (Romans13:1-7).

Who to vote for

In British politics no one party can claim to be authentically Christian. Generally (and thankfully) we are spared the highly selective reasoning of some in the USA who claim that only one party can be supported by Christians and that not to do so is to compromise or deny one’s faith. (That such advocacy also may include a commitment to the right of individuals to hold firearms seems to many of us this side of the Atlantic to be a glaring blind spot for followers of a non-violent Messiah.)

In Britain, there are committed Christians in all the main parties and each one passionately believes that the party they stand for best represents the values they espouse. They disagree on where the emphasis should be placed and what practical steps should be taken to deal with important issues. Out of the public eye, they can and do enjoy Christian fellowship together in parliamentary and other Christian groups.

Because the 2015 campaign is closely run, there has been an avalanche of possibly wild promises from all sides. Tax freezes or cuts, spending on health and education – such promises appeal brazenly to our self-interest: Russell Brand’s question echoed that of millions: “What’s in it for me?” Christians have to step back from that. The two basic commandments are to love and serve God and to love and serve our neighbour. So each voter has to ask, which party is closest to my understanding of what is involved in building the Kingdom of God and which is most likely to be helpful to my “neighbour” (who, by definition in scripture, is usually someone less fortunate than myself).

The likelihood of course is that party A has some things in its favour and party B has other things in its favour. It makes the case for some form of proportional representation (such as the single transferable vote) stronger, as does the probability that we will have hung parliaments for the foreseeable future. But we don’t have that system yet, so here are some issues to be thinking about and they are not in any particular order of priority.

1.  What is the long-term vision, rather than short term quick fixes, on offer?

2.  Peace and security: the purpose of government is to enable us to live quiet lives without fear.  

3.  Wholeness and wellbeing: these have become fashionable words among the generally well-off parts of society but are relevant to all. Materialism alone doesn’t create a rounded humanity. Culture, work-life balance, living wages – these are important factors in human welfare. As of course are ready access to healthcare and a rounded education-for-life rather than just for exams.

4.  Co-operation and harmony: One of the worst aspects of current UK politics is the ceaseless personal attacks on opponents and shrill rubbishing of their policies that is reminiscent of playground barracking and teenage bitching. A willingness to give credit to others, to work together for the common good, should be an open desire, not a last resort of compromise to stay in power.

5.  Care for the less fortunate. This is fundamental to the biblical concept of human society and is a priority for Christian concern. From the charge in Deuteronomy 10:16-20 to care for the poor and refugees to the parable of the good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) there is no escaping this responsibility. The assumption that growing prosperity in one sector of society will trickle down to others simply hasn’t worked; even if it did, the trickle is so slow that people suffer while they wait. The same principle applies to overseas aid: the richer nations are their brothers’ keepers and should help both in crises and longer-term development needs.

6.  Care for the environment. God put us in this world to care for it (Genesis 2:15). Care is not the same as exploitation without thought for the actual or possible consequences for people and the future well-being of the planet. Being careful, cleaning up the mess we may make, is a creation mandate, not a side interest for a few keen conservationists.

7.  Sensitivity to people’s beliefs. Freedom of expression is rightly valued in western society. I don’t mind people questioning my faith or making jokes about it so long as they do so from knowledge rather than ignorance. But at the same time elected governments and public officials as well as entertainers need to treat people of faith with respect. Notice how Paul remained sensitive to people’s consciences and was prepared to modify his own behaviour even though he did not share their views in 1 Corinthians 8:1-13, 10:23-33.

Five-point checklist

Finally, here’s five broad Christian principles with which to gauge party promises.

1.  Justice. No party should discriminate in favour of one section of society.

2.  Righteousness. A party should be putting what is good ahead of what is popular.

3.  Truth. Do candidates really mean what they say and acre about the people they represent or are they cynically trying to seize power?

4.  Charity, in the former sense: graciously dealing with people and their needs, a genuine care for human beings everywhere.

5.  Humility. Biblically, leaders are to be servants. The concept of public service is fast fading from commercial “service industries”. May it not disappear from politics and national leadership.

Think and talk

1.  About all the above!

2.  Take the opportunity to vote, not only in local and national government elections, but also in the clubs and societies, the unions and trade associations. Become an active participant in your world.

Reference

1. The Times, 11 April 2015.

 © Derek Williams 2015

Material on any of these blogs may be reproduced for private or small group use with appropriate credit. See “Me and my blog” tab.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The creed in plain words: (2) Jesus is who he said he was

The ascension of Jesus depicted in a church window
in Edith Weston, Rutland

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one Being with the Father; through him all things were made.

If you want to know what God is like, look at Jesus. That is really what this huge mouthful of theological shorthand is saying, although historically it was crafted for a different reason.

The early church struggled to define the nature of Christ (and hence the relationships within Trinity). Some people (called Docetists) said that Jesus only appeared to be fully human. Others (later called Adoptionists) claimed that a human being was “adopted” by God as his Son. Some settled for Christians believing in two gods (after all, much of the rest of the then known world was polytheistic). Even today Jehovah’s Witnesses may claim that orthodox Christians believe in three gods. The rest struggled to maintain the difficult (and orthodox) view that Jesus was a unique being who was both fully God and fully human at the same time.

We can’t comprehend it, of course, but the closer we can get to expressing it may help us to enter more fully into the practical riches of faith. The early church wrestled with words like person, substance and matters came to a head in the fourth century AD when Arius reverted to the belief that Jesus wasn’t fully God. He was opposed by theologians such as Athanasius and the Nicene Creed was the result as the church officially took the both/and view.

But that wasn’t the end of the story. Disputes about words continued and in the fifth century the eastern churches wanted to stress that Jesus had one whole nature, not two (divine and human). Western churches begged to differ and a split resulted. That split might be on the way to healing. In 2014 an “Accord” was reached between Anglicans and representatives of eastern Orthodox churches. It stated that “Christ has one incarnate nature” that contains “two natures distinguished in thought alone”.¹ So that’s clear, then.

Fully God

Back to the Nicene Creed, which stresses (at length!) that Jesus is fully God. This is what really matters and which can make a big difference to personal faith. Jesus is worthy of spiritual worship as God, not merely hero worship as a great man. The term “Son” differentiates Jesus from the Father but doesn’t imply that he is an offspring. He has existed for as long as the Father existed; long before he emerged from Mary’s womb, long before the Big Bang. He’s not like the children of the mythical Greek gods.

There is only one God, comprising three persons (the third appears later in the creed). So Jesus is “one Being with the Father”: the same God who is revealed to and experienced by us in different ways. Any analogy is flawed, but for most of us any analogy is probably better than none. So for example I am a son, a father, and a husband (and several other things too). I appear or act differently in each role, but I am still fully “me” in each “person”.

The Trinity is important for two reasons. First, it tells us that God is multi-dimensional. Like a ball, we can see all sides of God in one glance. Like a multi-faceted diamond, we see God from different angles at different times and each one sparkles with colour and surprise – but none can be taken in isolation but seen as part of the whole. And secondly, God is a “community” in himself. He does not exist in splendid isolation; he was never so lonely that he had to create humans to keep him company but did so out of love and a desire to share his riches; and he is a model for human community: unity in diversity.

The creed labours the point about Jesus’ divinity. Jesus was eternally “begotten, not made”. The word is important. What we beget is the same nature as ourselves: our children are human, not less than human. Jesus was God, not less than God. What we make, like a home or a model, has a different nature; God made the universe and it is separate from God, it has a different nature. On earth Jesus claimed to be equal with God even though he was in certain ways distinct from the Father. Ultimately that was why he was crucified. Occasionally of course he demonstrated divine powers through his miracles, and his true nature was most clearly seen in the transfiguration and resurrection.

C.S. Lewis put it memorably in Mere Christianity: “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come up with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”²

And that is the relevance of this theological complexity. Jesus really is the human face of God; the creator who became one of his own creatures; the author who took the lead role in his own drama; the king who allowed himself to be his own subject. So when we want to know what God is like, Jesus is the image to focus on. For a creator to become a creature – to descend from the sublime to the subordinate – in order to help the rest of creation out of the hole it had dug for itself is by any standard an extreme action that can only be described as love, especially when it resulted in God experiencing the full horror of a painful and undeserved judicial murder at the hands of the very people he came to help.

Think and talk

1.  What do these passages tell us about Jesus’ pre-existence before he was born as a human being? John 1:1-5, 8:54-59; Colossians 1:15-17.

2.  What do these passages tell us about Jesus’ claim to be fully equal with God? Matthew 26:63-64; Luke 22:66-71; John 5:18, 10:30, 14:6-11; Philippians 2:5-7; Colossians 1:18-20; Hebrews 1:1-3.

3.  References to the Trinity as such are rare in the New Testament (it took centuries for people to even start to get their heads round it). Each “Person” is seen as acting in a specific way. But there are a few places where all three are mentioned as acting in a co-ordinated manner. What might these tell us about how God works in our lives? Matthew 28:19-20; John 14:23-26; 2 Corinthians 13:13-14; Ephesians 2:17-18, 4:4-6; Revelation 1:4-6. Notice too ow they work together in Romans 8:1-39.

4.  Why do you think we always want to bring God down to our level and size rather than embrace the mystery of a multi-dimensional God who is beyond human understanding? How might this limit our view and experience of God?

References

1.  Reported in The Times, 1 November 2014

2.  C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Fontana books 1973, pp.52f

 

© Derek Williams 2015

 

 

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