Jesus is the Word of God
.
Here's the audio of my talk on the subject
All this began here.
Then I had some initial thoughts on the usefulness of comedy here
There's an excellent CS Lewis quote here
Here is a very expanded early version of the talk: part one, part two, part three, part four.
Then some follow up thoughts on blasphemy here and here.
.
I’ve been listening to some thought-provoking lectures by Vishal Mangalwadi on how the bible has shaped the West. This one entitled, “Why Are Some Rich While Others Are So Poor” speaks of how traditional cultures have handled wealth. Those without the influence of the bible have only known two responses. Either you horde it or you display it. You either stock-pile it for a rainy day or you show-case it for prestige. In neither case will your economy grow.
But, in the west, Christians did this new thing – they re-invested it. Mangalwadi points to things like “the parable of the talents” or the injunction to “love thy neighbour” as giving Christians this new idea – to put wealth to work. He also points to the impact of the priesthood of all believers, releasing believers to work at all things “as unto the Lord.” This gives rise to the protestant work ethic and incredible wealth-creation.
I’m sure all those ideas should go into the mix. But I wonder whether the Protestant Grace Ethic needs to have a hearing here. The bible is always linking grace and money (see these examples in Ephesians for instance). It is the peculiar “idea” of the gospel that heavenly wealth comes down upon us not so that we may boast, nor that we might keep it to ourselves. (And not even that we should repay the Benefactor (some kind of spiritual feudalism?)). We are given an overabundance of undeserved grace in order that we might overflow. Isn't this the most fundamentally liberating "idea" to grace the West?
I love long-haul plane flights. No kidding. Love them.
It's 24 hours where no-one expects anything from you. You slouch in your seat and play video-games while long-suffering helpers serve your merest whim. It's like being a teenager all over again.
And the guiltiest of all pleasures - you allow yourself to watch Truly Terrible films.
And so to Eat Pray Love. Emma lasted about 20 minutes. I very nearly walked out. But I endured to the end. And now I know why Mark Kermode's review was four words: Eat Pray Love Vomit.
The thing is Eat Pray Love should be a little slice of heaven. As Jonathan Edwards almost said, Heaven is a world of eat pray love.
The trouble with Julia Roberts' eating, praying and loving is that all the verbs are in the reflexive. And so it's a vision of hell.
Roberts' character (Liz Gilbert) divorces her hapless husband for no particular reason other than his geeky romanticism. She then decides she needs an extended period of me-time. She eats in Italy. Prays in India. And finds love in Bali. But the object of all these activities is most definitely herself.
Using ground-breaking technology, the dialogue was written using Google's Random-Sanskrit-Aphorism-Generator. But the translation breaks down fairly regularly, e.g. phrases like "quest dynamics" and "To lose balance sometimes for love is part of living a balanced life". But those with a passing knowledge of the Oprahic languages should catch the gist.
Perhaps the film hits its nadir with its advice towards the end:
"Never let anyone love you less than you love yourself" - truly the spirit of antichrist.
The most disturbing scene comes from Richard Jenkins' character in India. His advice to Liz throughout has been to stay at the Ashram until she learns to forgive herself. But it's a lesson he's found impossible to apply to himself and so we hear a genuinely moving account of his alcoholism and family break-down. He's flown across the world and put himself through a thousand spiritual disciplines in order to find forgiveness.
The gospel has bad news and good news for him. Bad news: forgiveness is outside him. It cannot be self-bestowed. Good news: Christ freely gives it.
But the film painfully portrays the prison of self. And no-one escapes it. By the end, everyone is richer, fatter and more Satanic.
There's only one saving grace. The film is so utterly grotesque it ought to wake people up to the bankruptcy of its vision.
I've only caught snatches of the BBCs Nativity, but two scenes interested me.
When Gabriel appears to Mary he doesn't tell her the news. There are no words from on high here. No, no, that would be oppressive and authoritarian. Instead he invites Mary to look within to the Holy Spirit, and the Spirit gives her an experience of the truth. A very modern (or should that be 'post-modern') take on revelation.
And faith? Well the Magi (from a very brief viewing) seem pretty much in the dark about the whole thing. Only one of them has any kind of certainty about what they are seeking. And even he keeps his cards close to his chest. They seem a lot more sure about the astronomy than about the Child. And what really matters is the journey.
Now, back to preparing our own nativity...
.
From my sermon this morning (Isaiah 9:2-7).
Don't have the spirit of Scrooge.
Don't have the spirit of Winterfest.
Don't have the spirit of Santa.
Look again to the manger.
Text below...
.
They've posted up the video of last week's panel discussion. Download video here. Original page here.
(If you don't have Windows Media Player (eg if you have a Mac) you can download VLC Player and paste in this URL: http://www.eastbournelive.org.uk/faithforum2010.wmv)
We didn't know the questions in advance and we were given 90 seconds each, so this was my off-the-cuff effort. There are a few things I'd say differently now and next time I'll remember to sit on my hands, but... here it is.
UPDATE: Here are my answers as short youtube videos.
The questions were as follows (you can fast-forward to my answers at the times given below):
If a believer thinks their faith has a monopoly on the whole truth how can they respect any other?
My answer 4:57
Should there be Bishops in a reformed House of Lord?
My answer 11:50
Do the Adherents of your faith represent your faith accurately to the world?
My answer: 26:00
How can we know God?
My answer: 31:16 (I pick up on the Muslim panelist’s comment that “we know God through God.”)
In inter-faith discussions, do you think there is a danger of slipping into a subtle form of intolerance i.e. to think that there are no real differences and that what you believe is just another way of expressing what I believe?
My answer: 46:43
In the past 4 decades we have seen great change in the faith structure of Britain with major immigration to the UK. From the faith perspective, can and how can serious conflict be avoided in the next 50 years?
My answer: 51:00
Do faith schools encourage greater tolerance and understanding between faith communities or are they more divisive?
My answer: 1:03:40
What is your faith’s view of women?
My answer: 1:19:05
What is your faith's view of other religions?
My answer: 1:23:58
Some other questions I've been considering recently are here:
Is homosexuality wrong? What is your position on gay marriage?
How should ‘faith schools’ be treated in a multi-cultural, multi-faith society?
Should there be blasphemy laws? Who should they protect?
Can there be a place for Sharia law in our multi-cultural society?
What common ground do you share with the other panelists?
Does your faith community represent your faith well?
How do we avoid war when the religions just can’t agree?
How do we avoid the dangers of religious extremists?
.
There's nothing like hindsight. Here's how I wish I answered one of the questions...
Does your faith community represent your faith well?
........................................................................................................
No faith community represents themselves very well. Just tune into Sky's religious channels to see that!
But for the Christian there's a very easy test you can apply to see whether they're representing their beliefs - Do they look like Jesus? If they don't, then they're not representing Christianity, no matter how much they might claim to be Christian.
But Jesus does give the world permission to judge Christianity by looking at His followers. That's a scary prospect for Christians but it's true. Jesus says "By this will all people know that you are my disciples if you love one another." The quality of Christian love on display to the world will witness to Jesus. So how does our faith community show the love of Jesus in Eastbourne?
In Eastbourne there are 70 congregations, averaging around 125 members. In addition there are 26 specialist agencies run by Christians helping people with unemployment, debt, homelessness, elderly care, Beachy Head Chaplaincy, Street Pastors, St Vincent de Paul, etc, etc. Every week in Eastbourne, Christians run 372 activities for the community! 372! The council couldn't even begin to provide that kind of service to the community. This is not bible studies and parish council meetings and Christian stuff for Christians. This is activities run for the community to which everyone is invited regardless of faith or lifestyle. To run these 372 mid-week activities we give 2200 volunteer hours per week. Again, this is not about Christians serving Christians, it's Christians serving the community. And this is just one little town in one little corner of the British Isles. Around the world the story is repeated again and again, the risen Jesus living His other-centred life in believers all over the globe.
The church is the one organisation that exists for the benefit of its non-members. We are church for the world. And in this way we represent our Lord Jesus who lives and works not for Himself, but does everything for us.
.
Peter Owen Jones seems so at home with this newfangled technology called ""a camera"". Must be all that BBC training. I, on the other hand, seem utterly bemused by it all.
So anyway, just come back from Question of Faith. Thanks for all your help and prayers.
Reflecting with an older wiser Christian afterwards, we noticed that the watchword of the night was "tolerance." This was the Absolute Good and that which no-one dare speak against. But interestingly, my friend made the point that the history of religious toleration was very different to how we use the word today. So, for instance, the Act of Toleration in 1689 was the granting of liberties by a strong majority to a weak minority (the non-confromists). It was not, as it is assumed to mean today, the decision of equals to get along together.
I think that's a fascinating point. True tolerance is a strong incumbent majority who nonetheless accommodate themselves and stoop to serve the weak. The truly Tolerant One is the Lord Jesus who makes Himself Servant of all. And He wouldn't be more tolerant if He stopped insisting on being Lord. He can be Lord and the most tolerant all at once (when tolerance is properly understood).
Anyway, that's one reflection.
My answers were as Twitter-like as I could make them. We got 90 seconds maximum, so there's not a great deal that can be said. I had the very best questions from some teenagers who came up to me at the end of the evening. They appeared to be with their mother. There was no pussy-footing with the teens: "So you think the other panelists are going to hell?" etc, etc. It was definitely the most fruitful time of the evening. At one point I tried to make fun of the omni-being of philosophy: "You know that nonsense they teach in religious education, 'God is omniscient, omnipotent, omniverous, ambidextrous'." They laugh nervously. I think it's because I'm deliciously drole. Then the woman introduces herself: "Hi, I'm their RE teacher..." Oh.
The evening was video'd and will be up on the web in a week or so. I'll link to it when it's available.
Once again, thanks! :)
.
Continued from here.
Should there be blasphemy laws? Who should they protect?
............................................................................................
Sometimes when people find out I’m a clergyman halfway through our conversation they clap their hand to their face and say something like, “Sorry for the swearing.” And honestly I don’t care one little bit if you’ve turned the air blue with a tirade that would make a sailor blush. Really, I could care less. But if you use the name of my Lord who bled and died for me as a swear word – that pains me a great deal. I don’t care about your morality, I don’t care about ‘clean language’, but I do get offended when the Prince of Peace is dragged through the mud. I think blasphemy matters. I think it’s wrong. But what should be my response? Call the cops? Sue you? Take you to court? When you speak against my God, to whom should I appeal? The state?
While other Christians may disagree with my position, I think it’s one thing to call blasphemy a sin, it’s quite another to call it a crime. Yes it’s wrong. But it’s not wrong because it’s against the laws of the land. And I’m not an advocate for getting the state involved here.
How should we react when Christ is blasphemed? Well Romans 2:24 is an eye-opener. Paul (a former blasphemer himself, 1 Tim 1:13) reflects on both Isaiah and Ezekiel and says: “God’s name is blasphemed among the nations because of you [people of God!]” Why is there blasphemy? Not because of those blasphemers – those wicked heathen. Because of you – God’s own people. It’s the way God’s people have acted that’s led to the blasphemy. So perhaps our first response to blasphemy should be to come before Jesus and confess our part in bringing dishonour to His name.
Secondly we should respond with Christ-like grace. In the face of a false portrayal of Christ, answering that with cheek-turning Christians will be the best portrayal of Christ possible. This rarely happens though. When Stewart Lee and Richard Herring wrote Jerry Springer the Opera they portrayed Jesus in breath-takingly and deliberately offensive ways. Of course Christians can get offended by that (they’re meant to!). Of course they can complain when their license fees are used to fund it. But from the hate mail Lee and Herring received from Christian protestors, there was another false and offensive Jesus being portrayed. The way the blasphemy was answered by some Christians was not Christ-like and was therefore itself blasphemous.
At this point some Christians will complain that I’m advocating a soft policy that will make Christianity an easy target for ridicule. But of course the same argument is always used against ‘turning the other cheek.’ Yet still, it’s what Jesus commands.
The whole world was waiting to see how the Muslim world would react to the Danish Mohammed comics. Those who reacted violently confirmed every fear the comic was based upon.
The whole world also looks to Christians to see how we will respond. Undoubtedly the blasphemies which Christians have to put up with are hugely greater than anything Muslims have to endure. But the world is watching. And there is, on some level, an expectation that Christians will react differently. There is an expectation that forgiveness will be part of our response. And that’s a good thing. I realise that some Christians say “That’s the problem, these iconoclasts target Christianity because they know we’ll put up with things others never would.” Well yes. But that weakness is precisely our strength. May we go on being the only group on the planet that can actually handle ridicule and answer with grace. Because that’s how Jesus handled the blasphemies that were hurled at Him. And the only way to answer false portraits of Christ is to show them true Christ-like grace.
........................................................................................................
Once again, I'd love to hear your thoughts, corrections, additions...
.