Mind your language!

The tongue is like a fire, says James.
(Paralympic flame at London 2012

The good news is that the UK police are setting up a new unit to deal with on-line hate crime by “trolls”. The bad news is that barely a week goes by without some widely-publicised example of extreme trolling in social media. People – often anonymously – post hate-filled messages, or start false rumours, aimed at public figures or others they dislike. Trolling forms a part of bullying in school, college and work-place.

Beyond social media, politicians are famed for their insulting, almost incriminating, gaffes made on the record. Among the most recent was US Republican politician Mike Folk’s tweet that Hilary Clinton should be “hung on the Mall in Washington”. He later denied that it was a death threat, as did presidential hopeful Donald Trump when he told the US gun lobby “they knew what to do” to defeat Clinton. He said he meant “at the polls” but the innuendo was either deliberate or the mark of a thoughtless and very unstatesman-like rabble-rouser.

When arguments become passionate, people frequently resort to ad hominem statements . ‘Ad hominem’ is Latin for ‘against the person’. It accuses someone of hypocrisy or ridicules their opinions, not by countering their argument with facts but by deriding the person.

Combine that with sweeping generalisations and you hear whole groups of people being written off as sub-human. The British MP who called refugees “cockroaches” clearly is unable to imagine what it must be like living in a city where many dwellings are reduced to rubble, food is scarce, services are cut off and civilian hospitals are being bombed or shelled. Would she stay somewhere like that?

Facts don’t come into it. That was noticeably the case during the bad-tempered EU referendum campaign in 2016. Extreme negativism is easy to employ and hard to resist. But often it has the effect only of reinforcing the feel-good factor of the speaker and their supporters. Thus it panders to pride, and excuses us from the more difficult task of engaging creatively and positively with whatever issues are at stake.

It’s a cheap form of rabble rousing that adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge or the growth of human understanding. It clouds the truth rather than unveiling it. It obscures the fact that the uniqueness of the human race is our ability to reason and to empathise, to think and feel our way into other peoples’ points of view. That’s something trolls just don’t get.

As US President Barack Obama explains, ‘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 That’s a sad commentary on civic and political processes, but not an excuse for verbal abuse.

The hurt caused to victims of verbal abuse and their families is well documented. The pain can be worse and longer-lasting than physical abuse. It can be debilitating and lead to lost confidence. Several people commit suicide every year because of online bullying. People accused of crimes for which there is no evidence have their reputations permanently tarnished, their careers damaged.

Looking on, we like to think that there’s no smoke without fire. More often, though, it’s a case of smoke and mirrors, of often malicious deception or distortion, stemming perhaps from anger, hatred or jealousy, or the perverse desire of someone who feels good by exercising power over someone famous or popular.

Speech is central to discipleship

It’s not a new problem. There’s far more attention paid to the way we speak to and about people in the Bible than we might imagine. In fact, to Jesus and the apostles, it was a central part of Christian discipleship.

Jesus condemned abusive anger, likening it to murder. “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca’ [a term of abuse, roughly ‘dumb idiot’], is answerable to the Sanhedrin [in effect, to God, the highest court]. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ [a term of contempt] will be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:21-22).

Jesus highlights the psychological link between anger, hatred and murder. He’s saying that treating someone as contemptible is wrong whether it’s done with words or a weapon. It achieves nothing, except to bolster our inflated sense of superiority and to perpetuate the cycle of hatred.

The Apostle James explains why it’s so serious. “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people, who have been made in God’s likeness. My brothers this should not be” (James 3:9-10). The victims of our verbal tirades, like us, are made in God’s image and therefore deserve the same respect as we hope to receive ourselves. They are precious people loved by God despite their imperfections, just as we are.

Paul reinforces the command not to slander people with a positive alternative. “Don’t let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen,” he says – and note that “unwholesome talk” is anything negative, anything not conducive to well-being, rather than merely “bad language”. It grieves the Holy Spirit, he adds, thus hindering the speaker’s relationship with and service for God.

He goes on, “Get rid of bitterness, rage, anger, brawling, and slander. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you” (Ephesians 4:29-31). God slanders no-one, so neither should we. God is kind and compassionate towards us, so we have no right to be unkind or inconsiderate to others.

But we still love to set others right and exert our alleged superiority. Martin Laird, a writer on prayer, observes that: ‘The jaws of our convictions lock so tightly around people that we actually think we know what life is like for them, what they really ought to do or think, as though we know their innermost hearts, as though we know only what God knows.’²

That is why praying for people who offend us is likely to be more productive for everyone than slagging them off behind their backs (or to their faces). But before we leave this, note how subtle our verbal sins can be. A study by Cambridge University Press of newspaper articles covering the 2016 Olympics has shown that “women’s personal lives are far more likely to be picked up on than their athletic prowess”³. Freud had a point when he suggested that our words betray our true inner thoughts and interests (echoing Jesus, in fact, if you look at Mark 7:20-23).

So here’s some tips for controlling your tongue which, James says, is like a spark that can set off a forest fire.

• Recognise your “opponent” is human too.
• Don’t react immediately.
• Don’t return like with like.
• Sleep on a response before sending it.
• Don’t re-tweet or ‘like’ a claim about someone: you don’t know it’s true.
• Walk away (literally) from a situation that is getting out of hand.
• Do a Bible study on the uses and abuses of the human tongue (below).

Think and talk

1.  Look at Psalm 5, said by some to be one of at least 20 attributed to David in which his “enemies” are gossips and slanderers rather than military opponents. What form do the attacks take? (vv. 5,6,9,10)? What is his reaction (vv. 1-3, 7-8,11-12)?

2.  What is wrong with slagging people off and why should we avoid it? See  Psalm 15:1-3; Psalm 50:16-21; Colossians 3:8-10; James 3:9-10, 4:11-12.

3.  What is the ultimate source of vitriolic abuse and what should we do about it? Mark 7:20-23; Ephesians 5:1-2, 8-9, 15-21; Colossians 4:5-6.

4.  How should we respond to verbal abuse? Proverbs 15:1; Isaiah 53:7 (cf. Mark 14:61, 15:5, Luke 23:9); Romans 12: 17-21; 1 Corinthians 4:12-13.

References

1.  Barak Obama, The audacity of hope, Canongate Books 2008, p.132.
2.  Martin Laird, Into the silent land, Darton, Longman and Todd 2006, p. 124.
3.  Reported in i 2 August 2016.

This post is based on material from The Judas Trap – why people mess up and how to avoid joining them written by Derek Williams and to be published by Instant Apostle on 21 October 2016 (ISBN 978-1-909728-54-7).

© Derek Williams 2016. Material may be copied for personal and small group purposes with full acknowledgement.

 

 

 

 

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

When the princess kissed the frog it turned into a prince

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

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

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

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

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

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

The call to peace

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

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

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

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

Biblical steps

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

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

Think and talk

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

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

References

1.  The Times, 17 September 2011

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

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

Beginner's approach to the Bible

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

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

The nature of the book

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

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

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

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

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

The nature of the writings

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

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

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

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

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

A cultural and corporate history

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

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

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

A slow unveiling

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

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

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

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

Job – a case study

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

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

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

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

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

The search for truth

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

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

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

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

 

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

Think and talk

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

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

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

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

Don't polarise at Pentecost!

Not many things annoy me (apart from those plastic seals under milk or sauce bottle lids with a tag so small only a child can grasp it and a seal so strong that only an Olympic weight lifter can move it). But my real bugbear is the habit of polarising ideas or viewpoints.

One allows for competition in sport – there can only be one winner of a race or a game. But you see it in adversarial politics when everything one party stands for is good and everything the other one stands for is rubbish. You see it in the adversarial nature of some court cases in which QCs treat victims of crime as if they were the criminals. And you see it among Christians getting vitriolic towards people who question their pet beliefs or views.

We know what we’re comfortable with and we don’t like to face the possibility that we might have to change our views. So we attack or belittle those who challenge them.

The apostle James wrote, “With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in God’s likeness…This should not be” (3:9-10). And that applies in all aspects of human interaction, not just in religious debate. Discuss, yes; abuse, ridicule, dehumanise, ostracise, no. “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt,” said Paul (Colossians 4:6) – and by seasoned he meant make it tasteful.

Polarisation or fossilisation of beliefs or ideas, and slapping down people who want to explore them further, is a handicap to discipleship, and a weight dragging down spiritual and church growth. American writer and speaker John Ortberg has said “overconfidence can be a problem. It may sound strange but some people would be better believers if they had a little more doubt”.¹

This is the Pentecost season, when we celebrate the coming of the Holy Spirit to launch the Christian church on its Christ-given mission. Pentecost (or at least the Christian doctrine of the Holy Spirit) often provokes mystification, and as a result polarisation. We can just about conceive of the Father or Creator; we can almost visualise Jesus on earth, born, teaching, dying. But the Spirit – coming as a wind, a fire, making people speak in unlearned languages – what is that all about?

Use the right brain



Imagine!



Think for a moment of what we know of the human brain. The way its billions of neurons and trillions of synapses interact makes us the people we are, and because of those interactions we are all different in personality and understanding. The brain is immensely complex but one generalisation is helpful. It is that the left hemisphere of the brain (which controls the right side of the body) is also the main seat of language, ideas, analysis and concepts. The right side of the brain is more involved in meanings, imagination, creativity, intuition and feelings.

An emotionally and spiritually healthy human being should have both sides of their brain in relative harmony. We should be able to analyse issues and understand words but also intuit meanings and body language. In practice, each of us tends to veer more to the left or the right. At the extremes, people on the autism spectrum are heavily left-brained; people who are illogically impulsive are heavily right-brained. Part of the discipleship task, part of growing in maturity, is recover a balance.

However, our culture is predominantly left-brained, while the Hebrew culture of the Bible was predominantly right-brained. The former chief rabbi, Jonathan Sacks, helpfully explains this in his book The great partnership on science and religion². He points out that middle-eastern languages are written from right to left and engage the right brain, while western languages are the opposite.

That’s perhaps why in the west we analyse theological ideas while the Bible tells human stories and is almost devoid of any “systematic” theology. And why therefore we tend to focus on the word and ideas which we can either accept or reject (as in science), while the Bible focuses on the Spirit, the meanings, experiences and images which we need to mull over (as in art) and which may have multi-layers of meaning.

It may also be one of several reasons behind the frustrating inability of western countries to understand governments and cultures of the east. We assume that they think as we do, and cannot understand why they do not welcome western trading standards and democratic systems.

So when the Holy Spirit came to the apostles he was experienced as a wind because he is a breath of spiritual fresh air, renewing those parts the precepts of logic cannot reach. He came on the day when the Jews celebrated the giving of the law to Moses because God is breathing – blowing – new life into his people and establishing a new law and covenant. He came on a day which was also a harvest festival because his arrival is the culmination of the previous three years of the disciples’ life with Jesus, showing what all that was about, just as harvest is the culmination of a year of agricultural preparation, showing what the toil of ploughing, sowing and cultivating was for.

The Spirit is God as he is to be experienced, not as he is to be analysed. That’s why, as Jesus said, the Spirit blows where he wants (John 3:8) and we can’t work out what he’s about. But the Spirit is also the author and inspirer of the word (1 Timothy 3:16), the one who speaks to admonish or encourage through prophets.

Micah was an 8th century BC prophet speaking to the erring northern kingdom of Israel. The Spirit of God gave him insight into the social and spiritual situation which he articulated to the people. So he says “I am filled with power, with the Spirit of the Lord, and with justice and might, to declare to Jacob his transgression, to Israel his sin” (3:8). He discerned something unarticulated by the Spirit, and he put it onto words to address a specific situation. No conflict. No polarisation. Both-and. And with it a call to change their selfish ways.  

An excessive emphasis on the left-brained word can lead to a dry and dusty formalism. An excessive emphasis on the right-brained Spirit can lead to flights of fancy not always closely connected with the teaching of Jesus and the apostles and more often confirming with what a person fancies. We need both. We need to use both sides of our brain. In the whole of life.

Be prepared for change

Change means leaping out of the comfort zone

Without the Spirit, the word is dead. Without the word, the Spirit is disabled. We need both. They’re never to be separated. And they always precipitate change.

Just think what an upheaval that first Pentecost was. For three years the disciples had had their lives turned upside down by the teaching of Jesus which challenged so much of what they’d been taught. Just as they were looking forward to a new era, Jesus was killed and their new world fell apart. Some like Peter tried to pick up their old life, and went fishing. Then suddenly Jesus was there again. Only he wasn’t, not in the same way. They endured six weeks of utter confusion.

One day they saw Jesus graphically leaving them for good. What next? What was going on?

And then the Holy Spirit filled them in a fresh way, and their lives and future changed again. They’d experienced more changes of belief and viewpoint and practice in three years than most of us do in a lifetime.

The spiritual writer Henri Nouwen once wrote that “Essential for mature religion is the constant willingness to shift gears, to integrate new insights and to revise our positions.”³

The call to change is made even more dramatically in what is known as the Gentile Pentecost. In Acts 11 we meet Peter after the event when he’s gone back to his base in Jerusalem. He’s had an amazing time in Caesarea on the coast. He’s seen God working in people’s lives in a way he never imagined could be possible. He must be full of it. And what’s he met with? The grim faces of people locked in their polarised world.

Not joyful celebration but stern accusation. “You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them.” The news – the gossip – had beaten him back to the capital. Controversy always spreads quickly – and it usually gets garbled or taken out of context, and polarised in the process. Good news is tucked away on an inside page or left for the “And finally” upbeat (or off-beat) last item on the TV news bulletin.

Remember, Jesus was a Jew. The first Christians were Jews. They saw their new faith in Jesus the Messiah as the fulfilment of their Jewishness. The church was a denomination of Judaism. Jews would not mix socially with non-Jews for fear of becoming ritually contaminated. To eat with them risked consuming food that wasn’t kosher or prepared in the so-called proper way. You did what? What were you thinking of Peter? How dare you – and you a leader!

And so Peter patiently explains what has already been recorded at greater length in chapter 10. The repetition indicates how important and significant Luke, the author of Acts and a Gentile himself, saw this in the context of the whole story of the early church.

Peter explains his vision and the message God was clearly giving him. He wasn’t to regard any of God’s creatures unclean or inferior, least of all human beings from another cultural, racial and religious background. All are equally made in God’s image and all equally deserving of time, attention and respect. All are loved and cared for by God and embraced freely in his plan of salvation.

The right-brain visions given to both Peter and Cornelius must have been extremely powerful because neither man was in any doubt. So when Peter saw the evidence of God at work as the Holy Spirit transformed his Gentile hearers, he said “who was I to think that I could oppose God?” So he baptised them.

Notice that he didn’t also circumcise them. He confirmed their Christian faith, he did not impose his religious culture. He abandoned his natural left-brained desire to polarise. Here was something totally new. And so it seemed to the Jewish Christians in Jerusalem when they listened to Peter: “So God has granted even the Gentiles repentance unto life.” We can’t blame them for being so surprised. This was a huge culture shock. A massive transformation.

But it didn’t last. The old polarisation crept back in. Left brain logic took over from right brain intuition. Judaism was a protected religion. The church as a branch of Judaism was secure. Outside it, it was vulnerable to arbitrary persecution. In the next chapter of Acts James was murdered on the orders of King Herod, who saw that it pleased the Jews.

Many Christians decided not to rock the boat, to keep their heads down. So we find Peter later refusing to eat with Gentiles (Galatians 2:11-16). We find the whole church debating how to handle Paul’s ministry to the Gentiles in Acts 15. Old habits die hard. It takes a long time to change opinions.

Now read this, from a commentary on Acts published way back in 1901. “If Peter required a divine vision to open his eyes, it is not surprising that it should take some years for the hidden principle to be fully understood and accepted by the Jewish church. Nor is this slowness peculiar to the apostolic age. It is almost more inconceivable how in the 17th century a good protestant English captain could be praying and reading the Bible on deck, while beneath the hatches he was carrying a cargo of negro slaves to work on American plantations. Nor must the church today throw stones. In foreign missions it is still difficult in practice to recognise the equality of the converting and converted races: while in America there are practically two churches, one for the coloured and one for the white people, it is hard to believe that the principle that God is no respecter of persons has been fully realised as yet.”⁴

Obviously we’ve moved on from those days but if that author was writing today, I wonder what examples he would give of contemporary polarisations that the Spirit might want to challenge. Might he, I wonder highlight attitudes towards people with gender identity issues who wish to follow Christ?

Or people with severe learning difficulties who make uncontrollable noises in church services or the odiferous man who sits in my church most days during the week given a rather obvious wide berth by others? Or those on the autism spectrum who are stand-offish, blunt, unable to cope with spontaneity or understand humour? Or people with the hidden illnesses of a mental or neurological origin who feel unvalued, and are unable to take initiatives to join the ranks of that terrible current mantra, “hard working families”?

The fruit of the Spirit, wrote Paul, is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self control. Actions which speak louder than, and either reinforce or give the lie to, words. No polarisation there. Just a breath of fresh conciliatory air much needed in our increasingly polarised society. Spirit and word combining to show, and not just tell, the Good News of Jesus, of which we still have much to discover.

Think and talk

1. Look up the Bible passages in the text and meditate on them. Especially read Acts 11 and consider how huge the changes of attitude were.
2. Consider ways in which our speech and conversation dehumanises or belittles people. Why do we do it?
3. Think of how you, and people around you, over-stress left or right brain thinking. How might you work to restore a better balance?
4.  Polarisation on many issues is endemic in western society. How might we forge a more conciliatory way of debate without sinking into lowest-common-denominator compromise?

References

1. John Ortburg, Faith and doubt, Zondervan 2008; quoted in an extract in Christianity, January 2009.
2.  Jonathan Sacks, The great partnership, Hodder & Stoughton 2011; especially pp. 40ff.
3.  Henri Nouwen, Seeds of hope, Darton, Longman & Todd 1989, p. 46.
4.  Richard Rackham, The Acts of the Apostles, Methuen & Co 1901 pp. 163f

There is more about brain function and Christian thinking in my forthcoming book The Judas Trap, to be published by Instant Apostle in October 2016.

 

(c) Derek Williams 2016. Material from these posts can be reproduced for private or small group use.

All I want for Christmas

A 12 year-old girl in the Midlands has apparently saved her pocket money for a year in order to buy over 200 presents for children who would otherwise receive none. She was reported as saying that it wasn’t fair that some should go without.

Indeed; “out of the mouths of babes” comes simple but profound truth. Sadly, though, she will probably discover as she grows older that there are many things in the world which are not fair. Some we cannot avoid: the accident and illness that affects old and young, good and bad, alike. But others are of our own making.

So here’s my letter to Santa, repeated in a prayer to God, for a sack full of fair deals, with suitable Bible texts to back them, and in no particular order. Unfortunately, current laws prevent me from nailing my theses to the door of number 10 Downing Street or tying them to the railings of Westminster.

All I want for Christmas is:

·       For politicians to stop saying “Yes but” whenever they are presented with unpleasant facts such as one million people accessing food banks. People need bread today, not the promise of jam tomorrow that assumes current policies will actually bring universal change. Matthew 5:37

·       For internet trolls and pub philosophers to start respecting people with whom they disagree instead of slagging them off or even threatening them. Such behaviour causes distress and contributes nothing to sensible debate about often complex issues. Proverbs 10:18; Matthew 5:21-22

·       For customer service and public service personnel to recapture afresh the true meaning of service, and to view their role as actually being to help people in need rather than assume they are stupid, time wasters, or on the make. Mark 10:45

·       For the media, and the tabloids in particular, to refrain from sowing discord and hatred through exaggerated or nuanced reporting based on what they think their audience wants to hear and which that audience is simply not equipped to see through. Matthew 5:37; James 3:5-6

·       For a widespread recognition that acquiring more stuff is neither necessary nor conducive to greater happiness. Matthew 6:25,31-34

·       For a grassroots movement to denounce and resist the demonic power of “market forces” which is merely a synonym for greed, so that more people can actually afford to rent or buy homes where they wish instead of being condemned to pay rip-off private rents so that they are unable to raise a deposit for their own small pad. Isaiah 5:8; Amos 8:4-7

·       For a greater sense of international responsibility so that people made homeless and hungry for whatever reason in other countries are supported by the surplus readily available in the west. Galatians 6:10; Ephesians 4:28

·       For proper long-term public investment in public transport and renewable energy to reduce toxic emissions and road congestion, especially in cross-country road and rail routes, and an end to Nimbyism which mostly focuses on personal preferences, a dislike of change, and not on the common good. Numbers 20:14-21

·       For the Christian churches to offer short, simple seeker-friendly worship and teaching opportunities, especially in town and city centres, on weekdays at times when people are naturally out and about. 1 Corinthians 14:9-12

·       For the care of the elderly to become a laudable vocation once again, instead of a profit-making, low-resourced enterprise it is increasingly becoming. Leviticus 19:32; Matthew 15:3-9

·       For all kinds of work to be seen (by everyone, but by Christians especially) as building blocks for the Kingdom of God, and not simply a means to a personal end. Colossians 3:23

·       For international peace and co-operation among “allies” rather than competition between nations. Micah 4:2-5

·       For a major reduction in waste, a determined resistance to a throwaway culture, and a fresh embracing of the value of contentment. Philippians 4:11-13

·       For a universal recovery of joy in the small and simple things of life, for the beauty of nature and the wonders of science and its discoveries, not just at Christmas but all year round. Psalm 104:10-26

·       For us all to learn afresh how to “think on these things”: “whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy….And the God of peace will be with you.” Philippians 4:8-9

Pope Francis has declared that 2016 should be a year of mercy, a jubilee year which began on 8 December 2015. “Mercy is not an emotion, but a practical response to need.”¹ May we indeed have a peaceful Christmas and a merciful new year.

Think and talk

What else might you add to this list?

Reference

1.  R.T. France, The Gospel according to Matthew, IVP 1985, p. 172 (commenting on Matthew 9:27; see also Matthew 5:7)

© Derek Williams 2015. Material in these blogs may be reproduced for personal or small group use with due acknowledgement.

Stop the shop early for Christmas!

Thinking about wasted food, dumped goods 
and spiritual priorities may enhance our Christmas

This is the time of year when most people’s thoughts turn to Christmas. Black Friday and Cyber Monday are almost upon us when it is estimated that UK consumers will spend some £2bn over the weekend on bargains and Christmas presents.

But there is also the news that one-third of consumers will borrow money for Christmas presents (the majority using credit cards), and one-fifth needing to borrow money for Christmas food. Somehow, that doesn’t feel right. Especially when one takes into account the fact that suicides and family splits tend to peak in December-January, as the dark cold days of winter exacerbate the dark cold facts of debt.

Along with that are the startling revelations on Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall’s recent TV programmes on waste. One third of all the UK’s edible food is dumped much of it by supermarkets and largely for cosmetic reasons (wonky carrots and the like).The rest is dumped by consumers whose eyes are bigger than their stomachs. Remember that when you buy the sprouts for Christmas that no-one eats (and there’s a bumper crop this year).

Hugh found a charity making 80,000 meals a day from just two per cent of the edible food dumped in the UK. And that at a time when it is said that 13m people live in low-income households¹ (many of whom who are struggling to find enough to eat) and school meals are facing financial cutbacks.

He also highlighted the seven tonnes of garments dumped every ten minutes across the UK, with the associated energy, labour and transport costs wasted. Many clothes are only worn once or a few times before being discarded for something new that hasn’t featured in a selfie on Facebook. Charity shops and re-processors could give it all a new life.

Of course, at this time of year there is also a traditional chorus of complaint about the commercialisation of Christmas, but this isn’t part of it. We can’t blame the shops for that. They only stay in business if they sell us stuff, and it’s their business to sell as much as they can. But we can do four things: we can think about why we overspend (and not just at Christmas); we can examine some biblical principles about using our resources wisely; we can make a pre-Christmas resolution to be more careful and circumspect; and we can join Hugh’s war on waste (see below).

Why we overspend

Consumer spending is a political necessity. The west is locked into a market philosophy which considers that continuous economic growth is necessary for public welfare. To grow the economy, people need to spend money. So while government isn’t telling us what to buy, it sends regular subliminal messages that Spending is Good, and regularly talks about policies that put money into people’s pockets.

Added to that is the subtle social pressure of keeping up with trends. No longer do we wear clothes until they fall apart. No longer do we retain electric and other goods until they wear out, but we replace them with the newer and (allegedly) the better models just because – why? Because we want to keep up with “everyone”? Because we’ve lost the simple art of appreciating what we have? Because we’ve been conned by advertising that tells us we must have the new model? Why must we?

We binge-spend at Christmas because we always have, perhaps. It’s the thing to do, according to false social assumptions. Or because we think people expect us to (do they really?). Or perhaps we don’t want to be thought mean or reveal just how hard it is for us to make ends meet. Or because we think that children will be happier with the most expensive and “latest” craze toy than with something more basic. (Ever seen a young child play with the paper rather than the gift? Children of all ages need love, not luxury, and to learn that they can’t necessarily have what others also have.)

Perhaps it is time that more of us challenged false assumptions and stood up to the pressures even if we have to face down work colleagues or relatives who thoughtlessly expect more of us than we can afford. Perhaps we simply need to be upfront about what we can spend; truth is as important as prudence. Some others may be grateful that we have the courage to do what they would like to do but feel they can’t. We might even set a trend: shop wisely for Christmas. We certainly do not need to miss out on fun by being more frugal.

Back to basics

Social psychology studies have shown that the more we have, the less satisfaction we gain from each item. This is not a modern insight; it was recognised in Old Testament times: “Whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with his income. This too is meaningless”.² Of course it is; as Jesus warned, there is much more to life than getting and spending. “Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; a person’s life does not consist in the abundance of their possessions.”³ But somehow, over the past few decades especially, we have been conned into believing that more is always better.

Certainly what we have is intended to be shared rather than stored, handled wisely rather than being hoarded, used rather than admired.⁴  We can’t take it with us into the next life (although people in some cultures obviously hoped they could, to judge by the goods found in ancient tombs).

Just spend less

There are some simple things that we can do to buck the trend, reduce the risk to ourselves, and perhaps even make a small contribution to reducing waste and pollution.

·         Set a budget for Christmas – so much per person for gifts, so that you do not have to use a credit card or. If you have to use credit, budget in advance for what repayments (plus interest) you will need to make in the months after Christmas which will add to your monthly outgoings, so that what you spend now is affordable and the debt doesn’t drag on.

·         Use charity Christmas cards and local delivery arrangements organised by charities in many towns to reduce costs.

·         Avoid the pre-Christmas bargains unless you really do need a new gadget / dress / whatever because the old one is broken beyond repair (not just because it is so last year’s model). “Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.”

·         Plan your Christmas food needs carefully; rather than just piling lots into your trolley. Work out what each person is likely to eat and stick to that.

·         Likewise budget for alcohol so that you don’t have so much that everyone drinks more than they need to “because it’s there”.

·         Research creative and nourishing ways to use left-overs (Sainsbury’s is one of the supermarkets with specific ideas for this on their website).

·         Join the war on waste: http://www.wastenotuk which includes a petition to supermarkets and tips on how to avoid waste and how to recycle food and goods.

Think and talk

1.  Consider the suggestions above and ask yourself honestly what is realistic for you?

2.  Talk to family, friends and work colleagues about making a pact to reduce needless spending. The more people who do so, the happier everyone will be: it reduces stress and increases gratitude with what we do have on a community level rather than just a personal level.

3.  Do some Bible study and take the ancient wisdom seriously:

·         How to be content what you have: Psalm 62:10; Proverbs 22:1; 30:8; Jeremiah 9:23; Philippians 4:11-13

·         The negative effects of striving for, or getting, more: Proverbs 23:4-5; Ecclesiastes 5:10-12; Matthew 19:21-23; 1 Timothy 6:9

·         Put God before gain: 2 Chronicles 1:11-12; Proverbs 3:9; 15:16; Matthew 6:19-21; Luke 12:13-21

References

1.  “Monitoring poverty and social exclusion” report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 23 November 2015 - https://www.jrf.org.uk/mpse-2015

2.  Ecclesiastes 5:10

3.  Luke 12:15

4.  See for example 1 John 3:17-18 and Matthew 6:19-21.

 

© Derek Williams 2015. Material in these posts may be reproduced for private of small group use.