Prayer is relating, not begging

Lovelocks in Bakewell, Derbyshire: couples use them to
affirm their commitment and symbolise their relationship

Prayer is always on the agenda. Many people pray, probably most often when conscious of some personal need or confronted by news of a major national or international tragedy. It’s a kind of natural, spiritual reflex. But a frequent and provocative question is “Does prayer work?” The answer is either yes or no, depending on what you mean by “work”.

There have been unconvincing experiments comparing the recovery rates of people who were, or were not, prayed for. But prayer can't be tested in a lab. It isn’t another kind of treatment for human ills. It doesn’t “work” like that.

It certainly doesn’t work (at least, not consistently) if it is a shopping list of me-related requests, however laudable they are. Christians are regularly disappointed when their prayers are not answered as they hope they will be. A desired outcome to prayer is never guaranteed. Prayer is not a force we can learn to manipulate in order to get what we want. God is not our personal butler whose sole purpose is to make us comfortable and handle the difficult logistics of daily life.

But prayer does work, in a different way, if we regard it as aligning ourselves with the living God as we deal with those logistics. Prayer is consciously including God in all we do, think and say. It is making space for God to speak, act, lead, support, heal, empower, deliver, encourage and yes, rebuke. Prayer is nothing more or less than relationship. Joanna Trollope, in her novel The Choir has a bishop declare, “There’s no need to say anything when you pray. Just take time to look at God. And let him look at you.”¹

That’s how friends and lovers behave, whatever circumstances they face. So Bishop Stephen Cottrell suggests that “Prayer is the lover coming into the presence of the beloved and saying, ‘I love you’.” He adds that in that kind of prayer God also comes into our presence and says the same to us.² Prayer is “keeping company with God”, as a fourth-century writer Clement of Alexandria put it.

Prayer at its essence is “remaining”, or “abiding”, in Jesus’ love, which in turn determines what we shall ask him for (John 15:7). Such requests will be more to do with his long-term activity in the world than with our transitory wants. This kind of prayer doesn’t come easily to western Christians; we prefer the more business-like immediate transactions of requests and responses, after which we give God relatively little thought as we get on with “our” lives. But they’re not ours, of course. “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19,20).

As in any love-relationship, prayer is primarily an attitude, not merely an action. Jesus called his disciples friends, not servants (John 15:15), and the 20^th-century American Baptist minister and prolific writer Harry Emerson Fosdick made much of this. In The meaning of prayer (originally published in 1915 and still available) he wrote of “an overweening desire to beg things from God, and a corresponding failure to desire above all else the friendship of God himself.” He continued, “friendship is…a life to be lived, habitually, persistently – and its results are cumulative with the years. So prayer is a cumulative life of friendship with God.”³

And that does not sit comfortably with the contemporary rush to find quick answers to a rolling programme of needs. Friendship cannot even begin if one party is always begging from the other and sees them as a soft touch or a means to an end. Friendship depends on recognising the other party’s intrinsic worth and not on the exchange of goods and services.

When Jesus confronted Peter after the resurrection, he didn’t rebuke the apostle for having denied him. Nor did he ask him if he was sorry for his failure. They were friends. Their friendship could handle Peter’s failure. So Jesus just asked, “Simon, do you love me?” And when he received an affirmative answer, he gave Peter more work to do (John 21:15-19).

That’s why the many promises of answered prayer in Scripture are almost always in the context of spiritual enrichment and church growth: of developing the relationship. “You may ask for anything in my name, and I will do it,” said Jesus (John 14:14). “In my name” is not a mantra, but a condition: it means, “in accordance with my character and purposes.” So, for example, prayer “worked” in the early church when Christians threw off the straightjacket of personal desires and material possessiveness and focused on the bigger picture of building God’s Kingdom. Then, as they prayed, “the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved” (Acts 2:42-47).

Some of the Psalms capture this God-focused attitude within daily life that many of us find hard to adopt. When one writer felt downcast, rejected and oppressed by circumstances he (or she) developed a passionate longing for God himself, not just a restoration of good fortune: “As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, my God” (42:1). Prayer is thirsting for God himself, not for what he can do. It is an active component of building a closer relationship whatever our circumstances: “Though he slay me, yet will I hope in him” (Job 13:15).

This sort of prayer changes us before it changes other people or circumstances. “To pray is to let Jesus come into our hearts,” is how the Norwegian pastor Ole Hallesby opened his classic book on prayer.⁴ When we do that we begin to discern what he wants to do in the world and therefore how we should act, how we should intercede and what we should ask for.

Then we can become Kingdom-focused, as was the early church, so that our immediate personal concerns for comfort and success become less significant in our minds. So when setbacks occur, our faith doesn’t crumble; God hasn’t abandoned us, but is just doing or allowing something we didn’t expect.

This is not to say that the details of daily life are of no interest to God. They are; he loves us where we are and how we are. But it is to say that these should not be the main focus of our “prayers”, but that prayer-as-relationship should be our way of life. When it is, we start to pray more for others than for ourselves. And when we do that, in some mysterious way prayer seems to enable the “wind” of the Spirit to blow his renewing grace into both our lives and the lives of others more effectively. That is when things “happen”. That is how prayer “works”.

Think and talk

1.  What can you do to turn your prayer life into more of a relationship of love and trust than a series of transactions?

2.  Paul tells us to “pray constantly” (1 Thessalonians 5:17). What steps can you take to de-clutter your mind in such a way that God isn’t crowded out and you remain aware of his unceasing presence?
3.  Read James 4:1-8. What can you learn from it about attitudes to God, the world, and to prayer?
4.  Look at these promises of answered prayer. What are the conditions attached to them which prevent them from being guarantees that we’ll always get what we want? Matthew 7:7-12; John 14:13,14; 15:7-8, 16-17; 16:23-24; James 5:13-16.

References

1.  Joanna Trollope, The Choir, Bloomsbury 1988, p.76.
2.  Stephen Cottrell, I thirst, Zondervan 2003, p.131.
3.  Harry Emerson Fosdick, The meaning of prayer, Association Press 1917, pp. 23,27, his italics.
4.  O. Hallesby, Prayer, Inter-Varsity Fellowship 1963, p.9.
 

Humility fertilises human growth

Plants need humus in the soil to grow;
people need humility to grow spiritually

Lent, during which this is being written, is traditionally a time when we are encouraged to adopt an attitude of humility towards our own shortcomings. Some recent comments from leading secular figures suggest, rightly, that humility should characterise all human life and endeavour, all the time.

            In December 2016 the scientist Stephen Hawking pleaded for “the elites, from London to Harvard, from Cambridge to Hollywood, to learn the lessons of the past year. To learn above all a measure of humility.”¹        He was writing specifically with reference to climate change (2016 was later confirmed as the warmest year on record) and the urgent need to protect the only planet which human beings are currently able to inhabit.

            In March 2017 an American professor of psychology and neuroscience, Mark Leary, suggested that “the virtue of intellectual humility should be taught in schools” because “most people tended to be too confident that they were right”. He defined intellectual humility as “the degree to which people accept the possibility that their beliefs and attitudes might be wrong.”

The report found no downsides to the virtue but acknowledged that “it is possible that the arrogant may get further in life by the simple expedient of never being around to take the blame for the fiascos they cause.”² Humility, in other words, has a wider horizon than personal advancement but may have a narrower outcome in terms of personal achievement.

            Such humility is meant to be the basis of scientific research – no thesis is accepted until it can be proved, and all such proofs are subject to review and possible revision. Such humility is the mark of true humanity. The universe and all it contains is far bigger than our minds can conceive, so just as our lives are temporary our understanding is approximate and our actions fallible. It is also the basis of Christian discipleship; without humility we cannot begin to discern the purposes of God.

Thinking big, growing small

The English word humility comes from the Latin humus which means “fertile soil”. It is the seedbed from which fruitful, useful lives can spring.

            “US President Theodore Roosevelt used to go on camping trips with his friend the naturalist William Beebe. When they had struck camp for the night, the two men used to sit and gaze up at the stars, and in the vast expanse of the night sky used to look for the constellation of Pegasus. Then they would locate a tiny pinprick of light next to it, and together they would say, ‘That is the spiral galaxy in Andromeda. It is as large as our Milky Way. It is one of a hundred million galaxies. It consists of one hundred billion suns, each larger than our sun.’ Then Roosevelt would say, ‘Now I think we are small enough. Let’s go to bed.’”³

            The spiritual writer Thomas Merton suggests that, contrary to popular opinion, “Humility is a virtue, not a neurosis. It sets us free to act virtuously, to serve God and to know Him. … Humility sets us free to do what is really good, by showing us our illusions and withdrawing our will from what was only an apparent good.”⁴

            The 2008 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Martti Ahtisaari, was virtually unknown outside his native Finland where he was once President. Yet for three decades he was one of the UN’s top trouble shooters. He was pivotal in bringing peace to Namibia, Kosovo, Indonesia and elsewhere. The key to his diplomacy was retaining the humility of a low profile. He did not seek credit for himself, although his work was eventually recognised publicly. Jesus commended unsung heroes too, of course, even if their reward for “doing the right thing” was post-mortem (see Matthew 25:31-46).

            Writing at the beginning of the 20^th century, the Catholic essayist G.K. Chesterton said that in the past “a man was meant to be doubtful about himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert – himself.”⁵

            Indeed, humility can be a key to success. The leadership guru Michael Heppell, who describes successful entrepreneurs and leaders as having “the Edge”, found in his research that “Humility was one characteristic of most people with the Edge and a constant search for knowledge was another.”⁶

            So what does it look like?

The growth hormone of the human spirit

Without humility, there can be no “fruit of the Spirit”: love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control (Galatians 5:22f). None of those virtues can co-exist with pride, self-assertion, self-satisfaction and self-seeking.

            Humility treasures service to others, not status for itself. It cherishes obedience to God and truth rather than the obeisance of others to feed its esteem. Humility relinquishes its own rights and relishes the love which cares freely for others. Humility openly values others and does not vaunt its own achievements.

            Humility is the enemy of greed. Humility asks, “do I need this?” Greed insists, “I must have this.” Humility is related to generosity. Humility asks, “do I need this?” Generosity replies that I don’t. Humility willingly tackles the tasks others refuse, without regret, complaint or bitterness.

            Humility listens and considers; it does not speak or act in haste. It maintains an open mind and never jumps to conclusions. It recognises its own shortcomings and does not draw attention to the shortcomings of others. Humility admits its mistakes and does not attempt to gloss over them.

            Humility “does nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, Rather… it values others above itself, not looking to its own interests but to the interests of others. It has the same mindset as Jesus, who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather he made himself nothing by taking the form of a servant. … He humbled himself by becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross!” (Philippians 2:3-8, slightly altered.)

Think and talk          

1.  In what areas of modern life do you think humility is most required today?

2.  What can you do to model and foster it within your own life and circles?
3.  Who are most likely to win God’s approval and help? See Proverbs 3:34 (quoted in James 4:6 and 1 Peter 5:5f); Isaiah 57:15, 66:2; Luke 18:9-14.
4.  What does humility achieve? See Proverbs 11:2; Matthew 18:4.
5.  What did the apostles say about humility? See Romans 12:3-8, 15:1-7; Ephesians 4:2; Philippians 2:1-13; Colossians 3:12; Titus 3:2; James 3:13; 1 Peter 5:5.

References

1.  The Guardian, 1 December 2016
2.  The Times, 18 March 2017
3.  Simon Coupland, Spicing up your speaking, Monarch Books 2000, p. 46; the original source is not recorded but the story is said to be adapted from John Ortberg’s Dangers, Toils and Snares, Multnomah Books 1994, p. 102.
4.  Thomas Merton, Thoughts in Solitude, Burns & Oates 1975, p.63.
5.  G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, The Bodley Head 1908, p. 41.
6.  Michael Heppell, The Edge, Hodder & Stoughton 2013, p.5.

© Derek Williams 2017. This article may be reproduced for private or small group study with full acknowledgement.

 

Hope in uncertain times

The rainbow is  symbol of hope in the Bible

As the calendar flips from 2016 to 2017 the world seems in dire need of a fresh injection of hope. There is much uncertainty, not a little threat, and considerable suffering. But that isn’t the whole picture.

Yes, a maverick US president-elect ignores experts and announces policy in 140 inflammatory characters. The UK government understandably refuses to declare its Brexit negotiating hand but in so doing leaves its citizens fearful for an unknown future. Russia and North Korea are becoming more bullish. Terror threats are high. The resources of essential services are squeezed to the bone. Housing and living costs are rising faster than incomes pushing millions of people “Just About Managing” closer to or over the edge. Millions more starve in Yemen and Nigeria; large areas of once bustling cities in Syria are now piles of rubble.

But there is also much to celebrate. There is, arguably, still more good in the world than bad.

There would be so much more suffering and unhappiness if it were not for the armies of volunteers who staff and resource children’s, youth and old people’s centres and activities; who raise funds for charities providing services the state cannot afford; who organise food banks and credit unions; who become street pastors, prison visitors, and the like. There are international aid and rescue agencies clearing up the mess left by power-crazed national and tribal leaders. And millions of ordinary people do what they can to care for their relatives and neighbours, protect the environment and support their community.

We should never let the bad news overshadow the often unsung acts of peace and goodwill that last all year long. There is reason to be hopeful even when clouds gather on the horizon. “True hope is honest,” says Christian writer Philip Yancey. “It allows a person to believe that even when she falls down and the worst has happened, still she has not reached the end of the road. She can stand up and continue.”¹

Hope is not wishful thinking

Yancey offers a simple definition of hope. “Hope means simply the belief that something good lies ahead. It is not the same as optimism or wishful thinking, for these imply a denial of reality. Often, I think those of us who stand alongside suffering people tend to confuse hope and optimism.”²

It is hope that drives research to find cures for diseases, to discover more effective technology, and to develop more nutritious strains of crops. It is hope that inspires people to devote themselves to community service and fuels the dedication of the caring professions and development agencies. It is hope that fires the determination of people in difficult situations to survive against the odds. It is hope that gets most people out of bed in the morning.

By contrast, the lack of hope can have devastating physical and mental consequences. We need to see where we are going. Circumstances may be difficult but for as long as we can see at least a short way forward we can usually cope. But when all we can see is a long dark tunnel or an apparently dead end, despair and depression soon set in and with them comes the sheer physical inability to fight back and take initiatives. The person caught in poverty may find their confidence is drained and that it is impossible to seek more or better work; their life stagnates or even spirals downwards. The elderly person in a care home, perhaps far from family and former friends, sees nothing to hope for except further degeneration, and having no reason to live slowly fades away.

Hope is a factor in the well-known placebo effect, in which a patient’s belief that (say) a pill will cure an ailment appears to reduce their symptoms even if the pill happens to be inert. (Doctors admit to sometimes prescribing such “drugs” to the “worried well”, and there are concerns that clinical drug trials may not reveal the true effects of new drugs because of the placebo effect. In one trial an established drug (diazepam) was found to be completely ineffective when given to post-operative patients who were not told what it was for.³)

Less well-known is the hope-­less “nocebo effect”, a variant of the worried well or hypochondriac syndrome in which people can become unwell, or not recover as they are expected to, because they have, in effect, lost hope. In a famous but tragic case in the 1970s, a man was diagnosed with end stage liver cancer and told he had six months to live. He died within that period but an autopsy showed that he had only a small tumour that was not spreading. A doctor commented, “He didn’t die from cancer, but from believing he was dying from cancer.”⁴

This is hardly a new discovery. Centuries before Christ, a wise man wrote, “Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life” (Proverbs 13:12).

The nature of Christian hope

The Christian gospel is full of hope, but not the kind which cynics may accuse it of. Christian hope is not primarily about renewal and restoration in a perfect setting after we die. That promise is there, but biblical hope is as much to do with this life as it is with the next. That is because it is centred on a God who is always active in the world and who purposes the renewal of all creation. We are not passengers on the platform waiting for the delayed train to heaven, but co-workers with the living God in making his world a better place – to be people of hope who bring hope to a troubled society. We are certainly waiting for the return of the resurrected Christ, but all the while we’re called to be making the world and ourselves ready for the perfect makeover he will inaugurate.

So Paul encourages the stressed Roman Christians, “May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit” (Romans 15:13). Indeed, hope itself is bred from the experience of living faithfully for God in trying conditions: “We know that suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy spirit, who has been given to us” (Romans 5:3-5).

The author of the letter to the Hebrews describes the work of Christ to bring forgiveness, new life and direct access to the living God as a hope which is “an anchor for the soul, firm and secure” (Hebrews 6:19). One commentator said on this verse, “We are moored to an immovable object”⁵ – there’s hope for you! We cannot be blown out of the water or dashed on the rocks.

With God, there is always a tomorrow. With God, there is always something to do and to discover. With God, there is always help on hand (even if only to endure). With God, there is always guidance for the future (if only to press on into the unknown). With God, there is always love (even when I feel alone or abandoned). With God, there is always hope – now, as well as in the longer-term future.

And that hope is an inspiration for living in the present. Theologian Stephen Travis declared, “Living in hope is a life of adventure, of openness to the future with all its hidden possibilities.”⁶ Or, as Jurgen Moltmann, another theologian, put it, “Hope disposes the believer toward change. Hope is oriented toward what is coming tomorrow. In hope we count on the possibilities of the future and we do not remain imprisoned in the institutions of the past.”⁷

Biblically, hope is closely related to faith (trust) in God and love (for God, and for others), as in 1 Corinthians 13:13. “Biblical hope is never to be confused with a feeling that things are going well, or even that thay might turn out well. It is properly a habit of obedience. Like love and faith, hope is both received as a free gift of God and expressed as a deliberate attitude and disposition.”⁸

Maybe it’s time to revive the old freedom song, this time in the name of Christ, and declare that come what may, we shall not be moved. More than that, we shall overcome by the way we live and speak and work in the world, full of hope in the God who lives, however much the nations rage.

Think and talk

1. What do these Bible passages tell you about hope for people who are struggling? Isaiah 40:29-31; Jeremiah 29:10-14; Lamentations 3:19-24.

2. What do these Bible passages tell us about the source, nature and purpose of hope? Romans 8:22-25; 15:4,13; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 1 Timothy 6:17.
3.  Hope does concern the next life as well (1 Corinthians 15:19; Colossians 1:27; 1 Thessalonians 5:8; Titus 2:11-14); how may we keep this in balance with hope in this life?
4.  Discuss how hope can be lost and recovered, and the effect this can have on people's lives.

References

1.  Philip Yancey, Where is God when it hurts? Zondervan 1997/2001 edn, p.211.

2.  Op.cit. p. 210.
3.  Michael Brooks, “Placebo Power”, in ed. Jeremy Webb, Nothing, Profile Books 2013, p.59.
4.  Helen Pitcher, “When mind attacks body”, in ed. Webb, Op.cit. p.135.
5.  A.B. Davidson, quoted by F.F. Bruce, The epistle to the Hebrews, Marshall, Morgan and Scott 1967, p.131.
6.  Stephen Travis, I believe in the second coming of Jesus, Hodder and Stoughton 1982, p.214.
7.  Jurgen Moltmann, Theology of hope.
8.  Markus Bockmuehl, “Hope and optimism in straightened times”, Rediscovering Hope, The Bible in Transmission, Bible Society Winter 2013.

(c) Derek Williams 2016. Material from these blogs may be reproduced for private or small group use with full acknowledgement.

Truth is for living

"In respect of things eternal life is vayn and mortal" -
inscription on Lamport Hall, Northamptonshire.
A reminder that truth is bigger than we think. 

“What is truth?” Pontius Pilate’s cynical, rhetorical question was flung at Jesus shortly before the Roman Governor of Judea condemned the Jewish preacher to death, at the behest of a noisy demonstration, despite ruling that he was innocent. It has recently taken on a fresh significance.

Oxford Dictionaries have named “post-truth” as their word of the year for 2016. The term means that objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than emotional appeals. It suggests that “the public” is interested more in their view of what reality should be than in what it actually is.

It is a development of the word popularised by US comedian, talk show host and one of Time magazine’s 100 most influential people of 2012, Stephen Colbert. For him, “truthiness” is preferring one’s wishes to be true rather than those that are factually true.

It has long been the case that many newspapers, magazines and some broadcast channels gear their coverage to the assumed interests – and prejudices – of their audiences. It is also the case that we buy, or tune in to, the media which conform to our established opinions. Apparently, we are less interested than ever in being willing to have our opinions modified or even changed. What I believe is true, is true.

We should be concerned. Public debate on complex issues is degenerating into blinkered and emotive slogans, exaggerated or imagined threats, sweeping generalisations, counter-assertions rather than careful answers, and personal attacks on the integrity and motives of both protagonists and opponents. Fake news spread on social media becomes imprinted on minds and is difficult to delete from memories. When objectivity declines, anarchy or extremism rises. The mob rules. And civilisations crumble.

In Barack Obama’s words, “It’s easy to make a vote on a complicated piece of legislation look evil and depraved in a thirty-second commercial, it’s very hard to explain the wisdom of that same vote in less than twenty minutes.”¹  And who has 20 minutes to consider anything these days?

Not a new problem

Cultural changes do not happen overnight and the seeds of “truthiness” and “post-truth” thinking (if it can be called thinking) were sown long ago. In the 1960s Aldous Huxley had already noted that the political spin machine was speeding up: “The methods now being used to merchandise the political candidate as though he was a deodorant, positively guarantee the electorate against ever hearing the truth about anything.”²

            That was the era when traditional constraints and beliefs were being questioned widely, and increasingly overthrown. It was a time when the ability of science to solve human problems was being questioned. And above all the idea that “truth” is relative – what’s true for you may not be true for me – was gaining popularity, especially with regard to human conduct and morality. It’s hardly surprising; it’s more comfortable to do one’s own thing than to toe party lines and do what other people expect of us.

            Christian thinker Harry Blamires summarised it thus: “Where intellect and feeling were in conflict, where wisdom and whim collided, it became the smart thing to reject the intellect and wisdom because they belonged to the sphere of rule and regulation, of fixities and demarcations, while feeling and whim inhabited the ever-changing environment of the fluid, the environment of the Age of Aquarius.”³

(The “Age of Aquarius”, thought of as the age of freedom, is an astrological assumption made popular by the 1960s hippy movement and the song from the musical Hair “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius”; in fact many astrologers don’t think it begins properly until at least the 22nd century. Ironically, the current period has also been dubbed “the Information Age” in which more people have access to more facts than ever before.)

An exponential rise in medical and scientific discoveries – think about the boundary-pushing Large Hadron Collider – has created an assumption that “truth” is a temporary thing, a summary of what we know now which may be disproved later.

The ancient Athenian mentality has grown in academic circles: “All the Athenians…spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas” (Acts 17:21). That has its plus side, of course: it’s good to explore and learn new things, to develop our understanding about the world, and even to challenge some traditions. But truth also has its boundaries; it is not eternally elastic. Some things are not true, and no volume of conspiracy theories or Facebook “likes” can make them true.

When a crowd becomes infected by a false “meme”, a rumour or belief that causes a group to act as one (usually violently in vocal terms, if not in riotous terms), the foundations of civilisation and human decency can be shaken. Not long after Paul’s discovery of the Athenian love of novelty he was hauled into the huge amphitheatre in Ephesus by a howling mob stirred up by influential business owners who saw Paul’s preaching as a threat to their profits. Luke, the narrator, notes that “the assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there” (Acts 19:32).

Or, as the 19^th century nihilist Friedrich Nietzsche put it, “Nothing is true, all is permitted.”⁴ 

Pursue truth in love

There are two remedies for the potential evils emanating from a post-truth world. One is for individuals to seek political, social and even scientific truth even if it threatens to overturn our previously-held opinions. Cautious consideration rather than hasty acceptance or rejection should be the hallmark of rational humanity. Or, don’t believe that everything you read in your newspaper is unbiased and objective.

            In practice, that means taking such steps as:

·         Learn to distinguish between proven fact and disputable allegation
·         Check the facts on both sides of an argument
·         Be measured in voicing opinions
·         Don’t jump on bandwagons and repeat allegations without checking them carefully first.

            The second is to learn to live truthfully, which is easier if we also recover the mindset that recognises that some truths are eternally valid and non-negotiable. They provide a basis for living in the world. These include the existence of a just and loving God and the teachings and redemptive actions of Jesus Christ who is God’s truth embodied in human form. And they form the basis for truth-full living.

            Of course, there is the risk of elevating some Christian traditions and biblical beliefs to the level of indisputable truths or required behaviours when there may be scope for discussion. Our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the works and wisdom of an infinite God. So even with the scriptures in our hands, we are required to listen carefully to others.

Bishop Lesslie Newbigin once wrote, “We are missionaries, but we are also learners, only beginners. We do not have all the truth, but we know the way along which truth is to be sought and found. We have to call all people to come this way with us…”⁵

So take some time to look at the biblical references to truth below, and resolve to walk the way they point to.

Think and talk

1.  Look at these warnings or examples of unfounded rumours and their consequences in the Bible. 2 Kings 7:5-7; Jeremiah 51:46; Matthew 24:4-8,11,23-28; John 21:22-24. What can we learn from them and what similar examples of false rumours, allegations or beliefs that have caused problems in your country or local community?

2.  What is the source of truth? Isaiah 45:19; John 14:6,17; 15:26; 16:13. (Note Jesus’ frequent use of the claim “I tell you the truth” before his pronouncements; in some Bible versions this is “verily, verily” or “truly, truly”.)

3.  What is the effect of truth? Psalm 15:1-3; Proverbs 16:13; John 8:32.

4.  How is truth to direct our lives? Psalm 51:6; John 4:23-24; Ephesians 4:15; 6:14; 1 John 1:6-8.

5.  How has truth been distorted or discarded down the ages and with what effects? Jeremiah 7: 27-29; Romans 1:18-23; 2:6-8; 2 Timothy 4:3-4.

References

1.  Barack Obama, The audacity of hope, Canongate Books 2008, p. 132.

2.  Aldous Huxley, Brave new world revisited, Chatto & Windus 1966, p.84.
3.  Harry Blamires, The Post-Christian mind, SPCK 2001, p.8.
4.  Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus spake Zarusthustra, George Allen & Unwin 1932, p.313.
5.  Lesslie Newbigin, Truth to tell, Eerdmans 1991, p.34 quoted by Henry Knight, A future for truth, Abingdon Press 1997, p.137.

© Derek Williams 2016. Material may be reproduced for personal or small group study with full acknowledgement of the source.

Tolerance is not a dirty word (nor is it the best word)

A contrast: a tree speaks of patience;
a bowman of intolerance

Tolerance has been in short supply this year. There are signs that intolerance – towards specific people -groups and ideas – will continue for some time to come. The toxic campaigns leading up to the EU referendum and the US presidential election were marked by ruthless intolerance and intemperance, and characterised by wild and exaggerated claims that had only a shallow foundation in truth, if that.

Yet tolerance is a virtue prized by the liberal majority. Not long ago tolerance was the working philosophy of all but a few people holding extremist views, used to mean “live and let live”, “each to their own”. Now quiet acceptance of other people has been overtaken by the noise of protest and clamour.

“Tolerance” has become a dirty word. In the social and political spheres, it suggests “going soft” on border controls, employment prospects and crime. In some Christian circles, it smacks of compromise in matters of faith and conduct, the thin end of a wedge which, it is claimed, will lead eventually to “anything goes”.

In fact, you won’t find the word in most English translations of the Bible. It was used once in the original edition of the NIV, in Romans 2:4, where Paul writes of God’s “kindness, tolerance, and patience” (all different words in the original Greek). In later editions this was changed to “kindness, forbearance, and patience”.

It was probably a wise alteration; “tolerance” is such a loaded word that it may be taken to mean indifference and it misses Paul’s more restricted and nuanced meaning. It’s a good example of how difficult it is for translators to reflect subtle usages of words in one language which don’t have a simple equivalent in another.

The word in Romans 2:4 (chrēstos) can mean goodness, uprightness, excellence, and kindness depending on the context. In its few New Testament occurrences it is generally translated “kindness” although this hardly does justice to it.

Only on one other occasion in the NIV is it translated “forbearance”. Significantly it replaces “patience” in the list of the Spirit’s fruits in Galatians 5:22 where it’s reinforced by, and distinguished from, related words: “love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.”

The 19th century commentator Archbishop Trench called chrēstos “a beautiful word for the expression of a beautiful grace”. It was a favourite word for God’s patient kindness used by the translators of the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament).

Forbearance is not a common word today but it does capture precisely what Paul was trying to express. It means “restraint”, “holding back”. It’s more specific than our general use of “tolerance” and stronger than our normal understanding of kindness (which is being considerate and pleasant) and even of patience (keeping calm under pressure).

In the Romans context, Paul is saying that God holds back from driving forward his judgement on an errant world. It will come, but not yet. The idea lies behind some of the other occurrences of the word or its derivatives where the English is rendered “kindness”. Its use in Galatians suggests that Christians are to be restrained (not repressed!) people, slow to anger and slow to speak as James 1:19 urges.

But there’s more. In Luke 5:39 the word is used of mellow, mature wine; from that we can think of a forbearing person as unhurried and wise in judgement and action. In Matthew 11:30 it’s used of a well-fitting yoke, so a person exhibiting forbearance is comfortable in their own skin, willing to submit to the constraints of discipleship rather than leaping on high horses every time they or their views are offended.

And so God calls us to hold back from driving forward our agendas which might seem right and good, yet which may result in pain to others. The time will come for action, but it may not be yet. That is “tolerance”; not overlooking wrong but holding back on immediate reactions, patiently looking, working and hoping for a change of heart.

Similarly, it means restraining our language about and reactions to situations and people who we dislike or disapprove of. Our problem is that whatever we want, we want it now. The world moves faster than committees. The needs are too great to dawdle over and must be met now. Our voice must be heard and that requires us (we think, wrongly) to shout louder and more caustically than our opponents.

The media and the markets never sleep. We’re caught up in the infernal rush, and drive on. Or get angry when we can’t, and are liable to lash out. But fools rush in where angels fear to tread.

Like the world, God never sleeps. Unlike the world, God never rushes. He forbears. He reserves judgement. He acts when it’s appropriate, which isn’t always when we think he should. It’s one reason why Jesus didn’t charge to the rescue as soon as Adam and Eve disgraced themselves and were thrown out of the garden.

It’s why God seems in no hurry to bring the world to an end despite the evil and destruction that desecrates it. God is waiting and seeing; so should we be. (And his restraint has no time limit, no rule about three strikes and you’re out. Forgive your brother 77 times, meaning without limit, Jesus said in Matthew 18:22.)

Think Abraham: he waited decades for his promised son, who didn’t arrive until the old man got his centenary birthday card. Or Moses: called as an energetic young man to be a leader of the captive Israelites, who failed to forbear and snatched at an apparent opportunity, and then was banished abroad to become a rural farmer for 40 years where he learned what true restraint, forbearance, really meant.

Or Paul: a driven man if ever there was one, called to be an apostle yet learning forbearance by patiently working as a tentmaker and part time minister in Turkey for 14 years before the time was right to start his church-planting travels.

And then think Judas Iscariot. He too was a driven man but he never learned forbearance. His disclosure of Jesus’ whereabouts to the authorities was probably the climax of a perfect storm of conflicting desires in his mind. Convinced of his own rectitude, perhaps wanting to impress and achieve, his plan became an obsession with its doubly fatal consequences.

Judas couldn’t (or wouldn’t) wait. Human beings are brilliant at self-deception. We know what we want to do. We find evidence to support it. We treat counter-evidence sceptically, and dismiss it readily. “Praying about it” is not enough; often we don’t really want to hear the whispered “no” or “wait”, so take the silence as a shouted “yes”. That’s when we mess up, big time. God’s ways aren’t always our ways.

Forbearance requires that we step back from desires and decisions sufficiently to allow God, over time and through other people, to transform personal obsessions into corporate, practical wisdom. The same applies to our reactions to other people’s misdemeanours. Our judgements are partial – we rarely understand why they act as they do. We can’t get inside their heads. Harsh and hasty reactions do not serve God’s purposes. They may add to people’s suffering.

Forbearance is imitating God and the practising caring love. It exercises restraint in word and action. It listens carefully to people, takes on board criticism, considers how to accommodate objectors, is willing to modify plans, and waits patiently for God’s time to act.

It’s not compromise, nor is it inaction and it doesn’t prevent progress and change. Rather it ensures that we keep in step with the God who is forbearing towards the weaknesses and errors of fallen people. Including our own, and whose plans span centuries, not just our lifetimes. Then we’ll be ready to speak and act in a world that is crying out for alternative, better, ways of living.

Think and talk

1.  What do these passages, all using the same Greek word mentioned above, say about God’s forbearance? Luke 6:35; Romans 11:22; Ephesians 2:7; Titus 3:4.

2.  Similarly, what do these passages say about the forbearance which is required of us? 2 Corinthians 6:6; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:12.

3.  What situations can you think of today, in your own situation and in the wider world, where forbearance is required?

Derek Williams latest book The Judas Trap – why people mess up (and how to avoid joining them) is published by Instant Apostle, ISBN 978-1-909728-54-7, RRP £8.99, and is available from Christian bookshops or online.

Welcome to my latest book

Over the years I have written, edited, or contributed to a number of Christian books and publications. However, I have produced very little for the past dozen years because, working as an official spokesperson and bishop’s administrator for a Church of England diocese, I believed strongly that the messenger should not become the message.

However, those days are now behind me and I have brought off the back burner a project which has been simmering there for some 30 years. The figure of Judas Iscariot in the Bible is intriguing. So little is known about him yet he played such an important – and infamous – part in the Jesus story. And what emerges, as we consider all the possible factors that lay behind his final, fatal actions, is that everyone is liable to mess up in very similar ways.

Each of the factors that may have contributed to his betrayal of Jesus’ whereabouts to the authorities are factors which can cause any one of us to stumble.

So I set about exploring those factors, discovering parallel examples from the lives of famous and ordinary people, and examining the research and the conclusions of experts in the relevant fields. And then thinking about how to both prevent and cure the weaknesses thus exposed. The result is The Judas Trap.

I took it to a small and relatively new British Christian commercial publisher, Instant Apostle, partly because they could offer a swift turn-round and partly because I liked their philosophy of largely (but obviously not entirely!) giving a platform to new authors. I also discovered, to my surprise, that their professional thoroughness in editing and proofreading far surpassed what (to judge from the grammatical and printing errors one finds in many recent books) appears to be a corner-cutting trend in publishing generally.

Below is the Foreword to the book written by a lay Christian woman who doesn’t have a theological background. It serves as a useful summary of what the book is. I asked her to do this because while the book is packed full of Bible stuff and carries commendations from two senior Anglican clergy, it’s written for thinking people like Hilary who don’t have the theological background I’ve been privileged to amass over the years.

Below her contribution are the other commendations and the practical details of the book for anyone who wants to buy a print or Kindle copy.

Foreword to The Judas Trap

The Judas Trap is a fascinating challenge to us all. We are challenged to understand what made Judas Iscariot deliver Jesus Christ to the Roman authorities, as described in the New Testament. Judas is a very important person in the story of Jesus for Christians, as he is considered to have "betrayed" Jesus. Judas is the person who started the process of Jesus being crucified. So, it is important to face the challenge that any one of us may have done exactly the same, if we found ourselves where Judas was.

Derek Williams gives us clear, possible explanations for why Judas did what he did, all backed by referenced evidence from the literature and lots of easy to read examples, both historical and contemporary. He has done a thorough job of investigating his topic of The Judas Trap. Maybe the reasons Judas did what he did can apply to all of us. We are challenged to think how we might be at risk of falling into one of the same traps, even 2000 years later.

The explanations use theories from many disciplines: psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, and more. Derek uses the evidence well. He uses it to support his proposed possible explanations of Judas' behaviour. Each chapter addresses a single possible explanation, starting with a clear, brief summary of what is in the chapter (what an invaluable aspect of this book), an apposite quotation, a description of the "trap" factor to be discussed, then the evidence and anecdote. But there is more. Each chapter then challenges the reader on whether we may fall into this specific trap, and then gives practical suggestions on what to do now to avoid doing that. Perfect!

We are led through the process of thinking how awful it was for Judas to do that; how, maybe, there was a reason why he did it; well, maybe, we sometimes behave a bit like that, too; but here's how we can avoid doing it any more. Phew!

This book challenges the reader to think. However, it is easy to read, well signposted and very engaging. You may want to read it one chapter at a time and have a pause between chapters to think. I suggest your thinking will be interesting. You will have been charmingly, gently challenged. Do accept the challenge and see where this excellent book takes you.

Dr Hilary Hearnshaw

Associate Professor Emeritus of Clinical Care, University of Warwick

What reviewers say:

“I highly commend this refreshing and engaging book in which Derek Williams uses Judas Iscariot, that unfortunate icon of betrayal, to challenge us to a better understanding of ourselves and more generous consideration of others. Williams’ accessible style, richly combining Christian reflection with telling historical and contemporary references, provides a realistic yet encouraging view of humanity, leading us to more gracious living.”

The Venerable Richard Brand, Archdeacon of Winchester

“Here is practical wisdom on how to protect against our in-built tendency to go wrong. Derek Williams is readable, thoughtful, brave, startling, challenging, encouraging: take this book seriously, and you will grow as a disciple of Jesus Christ. I recommend it highly.”

The Rt Revd Donald Allister, Bishop of Peterborough

Details of The Judas Trap

The Judas Trap – why people mess up (and how to avoid joining them) by Derek Williams is published by Instant Apostle and is available from 21^st October 2016 at Christian bookshops, bookstores and on-line retailers. ISBN: 978-1-909728-54-7. Non-fiction. Paperback 192pp £8.99. For Kindle readers, see online.

For review copies and media enquiries contact Manoj: info@instantapostle.com

 

The spiritual world of 'Alice'

'If men could not distinguish between frogs and kings,
fairy stories about frog-kings would not have arisen' (Tolkien)

Since human beings first walked on the earth, they have told stories. Long before writing was invented, wall art and oral stories entertained people, conveyed ideas about existence and passed to other generations the traditions, values and beliefs of the family or tribe. The Bible is packed with stories, to convey truths that are too big for cold conceptual statements.

Today, we tend to treat stories as escapism, but while they should entertain us, they serve a bigger purpose than that. They can also make us think. We see different characters reacting to situations in ways that we might approve, or disapprove, and we wonder how we would fare in similar circumstances.

Stories feed our imagination, stimulate our mind, illuminate the world, introduce us to fresh ideas and outlooks, and enable us mentally to encounter the kinds of people and situations we could never hope to meet in reality. Storytellers don’t usually set out to teach something (didactic novels are usually contrived or boring), but their imaginations reflect and illustrate their view of the world and its challenges.

For Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist, the storyteller at their best should provide ‘a clear, definite and fresh view of the universe’. To the American novelist Henry James, the storyteller is a ‘“watcher at the window” whose consciousness works on all it sees and presents to us its own version of reality’.¹

Recent research by Toronto University Professor Keith Oatley suggests that stories can improve our empathy with others. ‘Fiction can be thought of as a form of consciousness of selves and others that can be passed from an author to a reader or spectator, and can be internalized to augment everyday cognition,’ he suggests.² That may be asking too much of ‘airport novels’ – the chunky romances or action adventures we take to while away the hours on holiday. But it’s not too much to ask of others.

C.S. Lewis’s Narnia stories have charmed several generations and which begin with the strongly Christian themes of the conquest of evil through death and resurrection. He claimed that fantasy stories about animals led him ‘back to the real world with a renewed understanding of it because the story presented such realities as “food, exercise, friendship, the face of nature, even (in a sense) religion….The whole story, paradoxically enough, strengthens our relish for real life. The excursion into the preposterous sends us back with renewed pleasure to the actual.”’³

J.R.R Tolkien, the creator of Lord of the Rings wrote that the best fairy stories deal largely ‘with simple or fundamental things’.⁴ In another essay he wrote that ‘creative Fantasy is founded upon…a recognition of fact, but not a slavery to it. So upon logic was founded the nonsense that displays itself in the tales and rhymes of Lewis Carroll. If men really could not distinguish between frogs and kings, fairy stories about frog-kings would not have arisen.’⁵ So let’s look at the (allegedly) children’s stories about ‘Alice’.

Alice in Bible land

Lewis Carroll, the 19^th-century author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass, was no fool. He was clever and talented. His real name was the Revd Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. He wrote the Alice books initially to amuse the daughters of the Dean of Christ Church, Oxford, where Dodgson was an accomplished lecturer in mathematics.

He wrote other ‘nonsense’ stories and poems such as ‘The hunting of the Snark’ but also published several important academic papers on maths and logic. He wrote on broad philosophical and religious issues, too, was a proficient musician and entertainer, an inventor, and a noted portrait photographer. He was an ordained Church of England deacon and referred to his deep Christian faith in his diaries and letters. 

Having been brought up in a parsonage in the Anglo-Catholic (high church) tradition, which was also espoused at Christ Church, it is possible that he was never fully comfortable with its emphasis on ceremonial and preferred a simpler evangelical faith. This may explain why he was never ordained as a priest, although he used a speech impediment as his stated reason.

He wrote to a friend, ‘Most assuredly I accept to the full the doctrines you refer to – that Christ died to save us, that we have no other way of salvation open to us but through his death, and that it is by faith in Him, and through no merit of ours, that we are reconciled to God; and most assuredly I  can cordially say, “I owe all to Him who loved me, and died on the Cross of Calvary.”’⁶ 

So it’s not impossible to regard the Alice books as more than the strange fantasies of a diffident and self-conscious academic. Indeed, they have long been regarded as satirical, and he was a contemporary of other fantasy writers at a time when the genre was becoming a popular vehicle for stories with a moral. Among them was George MacDonald, his friend and mentor, who was also a major literary influence on J.R. Tolkien (Lord of the Rings) and C.S. Lewis (the Narnia stories). Charles Kingsley, another Anglican minister, was also a contemporary, with his moralistic fantasy The water babies.

The Alice stories are full of clever puns, word plays and allusions to writers and ideas some of which would have been beyond the comprehension of even a well-educated seven year old (the age of Alice in the books) in Victorian England. Through the Looking Glass is based loosely on a series of chess moves, which the author summarises at the start of the book (although he cheats with the order of play).

The Wonderland adventures begin with Alice shrinking in size in order to get through a door at the base of the rabbit hole. One of Jesus’ sayings was, ‘Make every effort to enter through the narrow door because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to’ (Luke 13:24).

Entry into Looking Glass World is through a mirror. St Paul noted his own limited understanding of God: ‘For now we see only a reflection,  as in a mirror, then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known’ (1 Corinthians 13:12). But there’s more, softer, allusions to theology and philosophy.

Alice becomes an allusion

Beyond the looking glass, Alice discovered a very strange world. To begin with, everything was back to front. She soon got used to that, except when trying to cut a cake. The cake had to be eaten before it could be cut. There’s a lot in Christian faith that’s back to front as far as conventional wisdom is concerned, like valuing giving before getting.

Once she got her bearings, she realised the creatures she met viewed her very differently to how she viewed herself. To the gossipy flowers, she was just another plant with peculiar petals whose looks and views existed only for the onlookers to pass judgement on. They are the embodiment of today’s gossips on street corners, school playgrounds, social media, reality TV programmes and in magazines and newspapers.

To the shop-keeping sheep, with its limited experience of the world, she was a goose, the only category of creature it could conceive that walked on two legs and flapped its arms. We’re very fond of categorising people according to our knowledge, not according to their real selves. Humpty Dumpty thought she looked just like all the other humans. We often fail (or refuse) to see that people are different: ‘Men! They’re all the same!’ Actually, they’re not.

As for the unicorn, he didn’t believe she existed at all. Most of us have encountered unicorns. They inhabit some government departments, commercial call centres and web system algorithms. These unicorns tend to regard people as a homogenous mass and not as a varied collection of individuals. They tend not to regard disembodied voices or electronic keystrokes as emanating from living humans with feelings and needs, but just as a number to be crunched or a case to be unpacked. They’re trapped in a mythical database.

Then there was the small matter of the Red King’s dream. Was it Alice who was dreaming about Looking Glass World? Or was she just a figure in the Red King’s dream, so that when he woke up she would disappear, just as Tweedledum and Tweedledee so confidently predicted?

That of course is a long-standing and deep philosophical question. Do we really exist at all?  Is what I perceive actually real, or just a freak combination of neurological sensations? Or is someone else (a god, perhaps) imagining it all, or controlling a game in which we’re just helpless players? Are there, as some physicists are now suggesting seriously in ideas once restricted to sci-fi books and films, parallel universes in which we or our doubles live differently?

Besides, in Wonderland, Alice considers (more than once) who she really is. As she seems to change with alarming frequency, she asks, ‘If I’m not the same, the next question is, Who in the world am I? Ah, that’s the great puzzle!’ Let’s face it, each of us is a different person in different situations. (If you doubt it, just think how you live at home compared with how you operate at work.) The question of personal identity has become even more acute in our impersonal clockwork society than it was in Carroll’s era when the industrial revolution and scientific discoveries were taking off.

Of course, each reader will see in a story something different, but if we gloss over the allusions we can be missing a point. They illustrate – they simply show, without the author having to describe – an important and unique part of being human. We have an imagination and we can roam way beyond the confines of our bodies without ever leaving our minds. So far as we know, no other creature can do that. And that mental agility is closely related to our spiritual faculties.

Leland Ryken, a former English Professor at Wheaton College in America, suggested that ‘My conviction as a Christian is that to explore the world of imaginative literature is to explore part of God’s created reality…. Studying that world will tell us things that are just as crucial to human well-being and to God’s glory as an exploration of the physical world around us is.’⁷

Think and talk

1. Why did Jesus tell stories? See Matthew 13:10-17 and ask what is he really saying about human imagination and the nature of spiritual truth. Is he deliberately misleading some people, or being deliberately obscure, or do his words mean something else more profound about human nature?

2. Why do you think the author of Judges spent so long on the trivial pursuits of the tribal leader (and rogue) Samson? See Judges 13-16. Note also the general introduction to the book in Judges 2:6-23.

3.  Read Romans 15:1-7. What sort of things can we expect to learn from past events about God, about human nature and human behaviour?

4. When did you last read a story (of any kind) and discover thought-provoking ideas and insights? Share them with your friends and find out what they have learned from stories too.

References

1. Miriam Allott, Novelists on the novel, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965, pp. 116, 131.
2. Keith Oatley, ‘Fiction: Simulation of Social Worlds’, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp.618–628, August 2016.
3. Leland Ryken, Triumphs of the imagination, InterVarsity Press 1975, p.96. He is quoting Lewis ‘On stories’ in Essays presented to Charles Williams.
4. Quoted by Ryken, Op.Cit.
5. J.R.R. Tolkien, Tree and Leaf, Unwin Books 1966, p. 50.
6. Stuart Dodgson Collingwood, The life and letters of Lewis Carroll, T. Fisher Unwin 1898. It is cited in the Wikipaedia entry on Dodgson.
7. Ryken, Op.Cit. p.77.

© Derek Williams 2016. Material in this post is part of a book in preparation and should not be reproduced in part or whole without the author’s permission.