Uneasy feelings..

I’m disturbed today.  To some extent because I’m tired. – I need to find some rest this week.

I’m also disturbed because some carefully made plans have been easily undone by taking my eye off the ball.   I now have to make more difficult choices than they needed to be, if I had managed situations more diligently. – I feel foolish because plans however detailed and well intended come to nothing unless they are executed and maintained.

I’m disturbed because there is a rising tide of humanistic, new-ageism that is gripping the hearts and minds of disenfranchised  people, and those who have become battered by how we do church. ‘the secret’, ‘desteni’, Law of attraction, Abraham-hicks, IALAC, Oprah spirituality and other universe/self/resonance centric mysticism infiltrates well meaning people who want to see broken lives healed and churches make a difference and are lured in by their desire to make happen what God “seems” unwilling or unable to do directly.

I’m uneasy when I hear and see people being told not to think for themselves. Not encouraged to read, learn, enquire and test instead to ‘experience’, trust, accept. This is the doorway to manipulation and control.

I’m uneasy when leaders [in whatever capacity] are more interested with being followed than by giving a lead that is easy to understand, is exemplified by their own life/actions, and does not require ‘do what I say because I’m a leader’.

I’m concerned about the capitalistic need to be monetarily superior, all the while never feeling satisfied.  This endless dissatisfaction with what we have causes terrible decisions that impact far more than our bank balances. What we eat, where, consume should cause us to be uneasy, and I’m uneasy that it’s so easily put to one side for the sake of personal convenience.

Other than being tired, there is no connection between these items… they are just some of the things that are on my mind that I thought I’d get onto virtual paper.

Feelings are fickle, they cannot always be trusted to be accurate bell-weathers but that doesn’t make them unimportant. We feel fear when we are frightened. We feel nervous when we are unsure. We feel love when we are held and made secure. We feel safe when we are not threatened or on familiar ground.  But they should never be allowed to overule the head as fear can be irrational, nervousness can be normal, love can be misplaced and safety an illusion.

Now about spiritual gifts, I don’t want you to be ignorant

 

I think the Holy Spirit gets a bum wrap.

1. He’s important, often ‘neglected’ [except for what we can get from him], and misunderstood because he’s poorly spoken about and we look for evidence for him and his interactions with us in poor places.
2. I believe that the fruits of the spirit are helpful, wonderful and central to being a Christ follower.
3. I believe the gifts of the spirit are relevant [for today] and helpful, but finding evidence of authentic ones and using the gifts appropriately is difficult.

in regards to the spirit and how we interact with him..

• I’m often scared of him (not in a holy fear kind of way) but just scared because I don’t understand what’s going on sometimes.
• He seems to be presented so different and out of control than ‘Jesus’ – or probably who I’ve made Jesus to be in my head? - But perhaps it’s not the holy spirit I’m scared of but rather people supposedly affected by the spirit?
• Totally comfortable with the fruits of the spirit “love, joy, peace, patience, faithfulness, kindness, gentleness, goodness, self-control” (note ‘self-control’) no-one could disagree that these are great characteristics.
• I couldn’t get through the day without the direction of the spirit or the ability to have his help to examine my motives/actions/thoughts…
• Though I get that in an attempt to be helpful we have talked about him living in my ‘Jesus shaped hole’ (think about that mental image for a minute) – I am uncomfortable with the ‘go on being filled’ if that means anything other than ‘maintain and enjoy / seek out a relationship’ with this person of the trinity.
• I don’t get why we do ‘spirit filling stuff’ [at the front] in church meetings (almost as a spectacle) when we cultivate our relationship with Christ in private, but share his effect on our lives publically.
• being filled with the spirit isn’t a ‘sign and wonder’ as far as I can tell (anymore than God is, or Jesus is)
• I don’t know what the shaking, screaming, laughing, wobbling is.. (I mean I know how we describe it, but I don’t think I have any measure to discern what it is when I see ‘it’ occurring) and I’m uncomfortable with it. – especially if it doesn’t lead to more of the ‘fruits’ of the spirit being displayed in our lives. 
• The filling of the disciples/apostles at Pentecost didn’t require the ‘laying on of hands’ to be filled, and though they acted pretty weird, they were fully able to say what was happening to them.
• If the only time I was aware of the spirit was in meetings it would be like ignoring one of my children except on their birthday. Surely, either we accept and worship the spirit as the third member of the trinity, be as focussed on him as we are on Jesus and God the father, or our understanding and our worship is lacking?

 

In terms of gifts.. 

• Speaking in tongues. I get that. it makes sense, let the heart speak without the hang up of words.
• Speak to edify yourself
• Speak to build up others (praying in/with the spirit)
• Speak to strengthen the church – don’t know how this works, but if it does, fine.
• pray in the spirit, by the spirit’s prompting – seems to make sense and be helpful.
• Interpreting tongues.  this seems to be helpful if the church is to be built up
• Does God speak to us in tongues?  Seems like an extraordinary hurdle that is unnecessary. – rather like when the catholic church only spoke in Latin…
• If he doesn’t generally speak this way, why are interpretations of tongues often phrased as if God is speaking?
• The potential for abuse of tongues then prophecy combo is huge, and though I generally trust our leaders and the people to be well intentioned, I wonder if we ever really correct things that are spoken that assume an authority that is not required, given or appropriate?
• How do we assess if someone has the gift of interpretation?
• Anyone with knowledge of scripture should be able to efficiently and intelligibly speak to remind us of it’s words without attaching to a tongue,
• I wonder, if what is interpreted is speech from someone to God or someone to the church the ability to interpret may be more easily recognised and validated! 
• Though a speaker might not know themselves the words they speak in another tongue, surely they would know whether the interpretation is consistent with what they feel or believe? 
• Or that what they are speaking about is something they have never thought about or are concerned about?
• Prophecy, I get that – if God is alive and well, he’ll surely speak, won’t he?
• Either God speaks or he doesn’t.
• if he speaks, we need to learn to listen to what he says and more importantly do it!.
• If he doesn’t speak, what on earth is all this stuff we hear ‘God’ saying?
• I don’t get a lot of the language that we use when we prophecy.  Sometimes I think we use prophecy as another way of being ‘opinionated’ or to show how ‘holy’ or ‘close to God’ we are.
• So much of prophecy seems very namby pamby.
• I struggle to believe that the God who told Noah what wood to use and how to build an ark would speak so vaguely or so restrictively to those who are attempting to follow his lead.
• Jesus spoke in parables, and though the meaning may be unclear, the holy spirit is supposed to be our helper/advocate.  in which case one would expect his communication to be intelligible, clear and helpful?
• So I’m not at all sure that much of what we hear is prophetic.  Inspired, maybe.. Prophetic? I’m not certain.
• But if we agree that God does speak to us directionally, what do we do with that?
• Authority is an elder function – so what do we do when prophets speak ‘authoritatively’? 
• I worry about the ability to pose and move ‘agenda’s’ by using prophecy. 
• I wonder just how much God really cares about some of the things we think are important? [his ways are higher than ours afterall]
• When we talk to people about how to hear God, why do we often limit their expectation of God speaking [to those without a confirmed gift of prophecy] as saying Yes, No, wait?   This doesn’t seem scriptural or helpful.
• Can you learn to prophecy, or practice it? 
• If it’s a gift it should come from the spirit.
• Understanding if you have the gift perhaps takes the wisdom and discernment of others? 
• Learning when to prophecy is helpful?
• Prophecy workshops?  what are those?
• That we both seem to highly revere prophecy, but not to include it as canonical but also need to weigh it [I’m not clear on who should weigh], AND that we ensure that nothing is considered prophetic if it is not consistent with existing canonical scripture seems a difficult balance to maintain for Christians who just try to live for Christ as well as they can.
• healings, This is always awesome when they are genuine. That God the creator has power to heal and wants to, how can anyone find that difficult. 
• There are pranksters, charlatans and people who just want attention out there. In that regard, Derren Brown clearly makes a great point and i am thankful he exposes the trickery some have clearly used… Hands up anyone who wants authenticity, not showmanship in our meetings where healings are purported?
• Whether a provable physical healing takes place, or that someone no longer complains of an affliction but accepts they have one (and is therefore made more ‘content’) seem to me to both be healings. I don’t know if the emotional healing is given as much credit as it deserves, and surely it is up to God to choose how he heals us?
• I’d love to see more physical healings.  It demonstrates as clearly as a life totally turned around that God is alive and is powerful.
• Discerning of spirits. I don’t really know what this is.
• There seems to be a lot of talk about demons and angels and spirits of the age but I don’t think I’ve really heard good teaching on this subject to be able to know what this discerning really is and how we can evidence it’s operation.
• There does appear to be a lot of nonsense talked about where we see demons in and on people who belong to Christ. I don’t see how this can be possible. If we are new creations, the old has gone the new has come. We now belong to His kingdom, and sin and evil has no dominion over us. If Christ and his spirit is ‘within’ us, how can a demon also be resident?
• I think we confuse demons with sinful actions we chose to do, and use demonic forces as an excuse to not take responsibility for the good we fail to do and the evil we chose to do.
• Wisdom.  Everyone needs more of this. this has to be a good thing
• Get wisdom, get understanding…   if we need the holy spirit to illuminate the scriptures to us, then I hope this is a gift we all have.
• Of course wisdom is nothing if it doesn’t affect our actions.
• it’s hard to be wise unless we read, learn and grow.
• Is the gift of wisdom something more than understanding what is wise?
• Knowledge. it’s surely a wonderful thing if God gifts us with knowledge supernaturally.
• Just because we know something doesn’t mean everyone needs to know.
• surely God speaks to us about more than ‘joe blogs has a dodgy knee’ – I haven’t in recent years observed much of people saying God told me about ‘situation’… I hope though that this is exactly what IS happening..
• I wonder do we maybe get knowledge confused with Prophecy?
• I don’t know how we recognise this gift, nor how we enable the benefit to be used widely.
• Faith.  How rarely do I talk about or ask for this as a gift of the spirit?
• Salvation itself requires faith.  is this gift of faith somehow different?
• surely one evidence of a gift of faith is that miraculous stuff is able to happen…
• mountains leap in the sea
• situations are miraculously altered
• is another evidence of a gift of faith the ability to impart faith into a situation where someone (else) is faithless?
• Seems to me, more than any of the other gifts, this would be a fabulous one to persistently ask God for and practice?
• Miracles:  Signs and wonders:  I guess this would have to be the ‘staff’s into serpents’ and ‘water to wine’ and stuff?
• I haven’t heard of ANY cases of anyone doing these things in modern day. 
• We see miracles as healing (and salvation) only  but what has happened to the signs and wonders stuff that perhaps to our eyes would seem more like ‘magic’
• I’d really like to be able to turn water into wine (the best stuff that people will want to drink)

 

Why have I written these things down?

It’s because if I who have been around church and Christ followers, and have attempted to follow Christ myself for much of my nearly 40 years can be concerned and confused about things of the spirit, how much more might we need to explain to those who observe us?

Isn’t it refreshing when leaders admit what they don’t know as much as what they do?  Surely it gives those who journey with us hope that they are not ‘hopelessly lost’ or incapable of contributing in the family of God whilst they wait to be with Him?

We have real questions to answer when we start talking about the spirit. I cannot be alone in having concerns and worries about what I observe [maybe I am?], but we have nothing to fear about being truthful and open about what we understand and what we don’t. 

We have to accept that there have been terrible abuses and follies. We have to be honest that we don’t always know what’s happening. We have to be clear that the Holy Spirit is God and we’re still learning how to interact with him appropriately.  (and maybe those who do have wisdom on such things, need to help those of us who don’t)

I would like to think that we are word and spirit people.  I cannot ignore this person of the trinity because some things make me uncomfortable. I cannot ignore his prompting, and I mustn’t for the sake of ignorance attempt to squeeze him out of our worship of God. Where i struggle, I want to be open to believe, have faith and know/experience more.  Where I understand, I want to grow in stature and live well.

Thinking about marriage

There’s always been a bit of a furore about marriage and sex in Christian circles. I wonder is it possible that we confuse our biblical understanding of marriage, betrothal, engagement and responsibility when looking the lens of [western] legal marriage concepts and societal expectation and if so how easy is it for us to separate what we have practiced as the norm from what the bible actually says?

For a whole host of reasons, I’m not offering an answer to that question – this is after all a blog which captures some of my struggles to understand and live right and I wouldn’t want to knowingly or unknowingly [Rob Bell like] lead any reader to conclusions I don’t support - but I share below some of the questions that have challenged my assumptions/perspective…

• Hypothetically: If it could be proved that Jesus had a sexual relationship (with Mary Magdelene ) would that challenge His divinity, or our understanding of sex[ual sin]?
  • If Jesus did ‘kiss Mary on the mouth’ (as suggested in gnostic gospel of Philip), and ‘loved her more than the other disciples’ (as Philip and gospel of Mary Magdelene suggests) does that redefine what we might see as appropriate loving contact ‘prior’ to marriage [if we assume that had Jesus have been married it surely would have been recorded?]
• Might the growing trend towards co-habiting, civil partnership and alternative lifestyle choices in our communities require us to redefine how we speak about marriage so that we are clear about what we communicate is God’s plan? If indeed God has but one blueprint for the way in which each of us should live.
• In cultures where plural marriage is permitted by law would we define God’s understanding of marriage differently? (Does God actually care how many wives/husbands we have (or had?). Is it important that the Trinity is 3 not 2 persons? Do we speak of responsibility to wives rather than singular wife? Do we promote divorce as a method of ‘making right’ something which is ‘wrong’?)
• In cultures where there is no marriage ceremony but where there is an understanding of ‘belonging’ would we define sexual activity within that relationship to be sinful?  If not, how do we respond to co-habiting couples in the West? – ie what exactly are we communicating is biblically sinful? (sex without legal contract? sex without clarity of exclusivity?)
• Is it right to conclude that faithfulness is not about how many wives or concubines a husband might have, but how you care for them? 
  • Is marriage then more about faithful responsibility (provision and offspring) not sexual monogamy?
  • What then is the biblical definition of adultery? Since if one even looks with the eye at another he has committed adultery in his heart (even before a sexual act has taken place!)
• Paul seems to suggest [1 Corinthians 7:32-33] remaining single is preferable to marriage, and that marriage is reserved for ‘if you can’t control yourself’… [1 Cor 7:36] So is God for marriage or against it?
  • For elders and deacons is it essential they are married?…
  • or if they ‘are’ married essential for them to only be married to one woman (presumably at once)?  
  • What then do we make of ‘it is not good for man to be alone?’
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of men available to sire children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, wives and sex subtly change?
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of women available to bear children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, husbands and sex be different than if men were in short supply?

 

What I’m pretty certain of is:

• Marriage is a good thing for lots of reasons. Some biblical, some practical. some personal
• Taking responsibility for each other is serious and important.
• Providing stable environments for child rearing is essential.
• Loving relationship (as an antidote to brokenness) is always on God’s heart.
• How we speak about how people live demonstrates to them what the kingdom of God is like.
• I don’t think Song of Song’s is primarily about God and us,  nor am I certain (from the text) that the sexual activity was exclusively post marriage. [but then I voted for the Alternative Vote so what do I know :) ] .

You may find some answers to the questions above in some of these links: (* determine for yourself their validity to speak on the subject) better still do your own research / ask your elder..

• http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/whats-wrong-with-sex-before-marriage.htm
• http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
• http://www.thelivingwordtbc.com/1cor23.htm
• http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/07/is-john-piper-okay-with-polygamy/

Is Newfrontiers abandoning it’s commitment to Male Leadership?

 

In 2008 Mark Driscoll addressed the Newfrontiers leaders conference and commended our movement for holding to the biblical principle of male Eldership. Following the conference a critique of Newfrontiers position by a methodist minister, Dave Warnock suggested that our understanding of scripture on this matter was incorrect and several of our newfrontiersbloggers attempted to clarify and explain the position.

To answer my principle question, I do not believe at this time that there is any credible suggestion that Newfrontiers is abandoning it’s commitment to male leadership, but in my own recent research looking at the media download sections of several UK Newfrontiers churches it is clear that our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 differs widely enabling nearly 40% of our churches to [occasionally] permit women to teach when the full congregation is assembled.  (Teaching is assumed to be an eldership function, and as such the preserve of men)

Among my research, I found even  Wendy Virgo addressed an assembled congregation in Horsham on Mothers day (though interestingly CCK in Brighton – until very recently the longtime home for Wendy and Terry - is not one of the congregations that has permitted a woman to take to the pulpit on a Sunday) and in the first minute of her talk she taught that  “we don’t usually make a habit of women preaching on Sunday’s but we do feel that at time’s it’s appropriate”.    I found that this statement was somewhat odd. Either, we have a ‘habit’ [Note: not a biblical principle] that prevents women from exercising their gifting to teach, preach and encourage or we believe that preaching and teaching to a congregation that includes men requires authority that is provided by church government which is exclusively male led.

However I don’t want to get into the discussion that would require greater theological mind(s) than mine to probe questions such as: what exactly is teaching, what  is someone doing when they speak from the assumed pulpit on a Sunday, can women speak formally as long as they don’t teach, is the teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 something that is in reference only to her husband, can single women then be free to teach since they have no ‘head’ in the home, can elders delegate their authority to others, can those that have been delegated to set direction and all such other questions… as these are not the subject of this post… .

The nub of my question is, since a number of our congregations draw the line of where women can teach in different places sufficient to allow some to teach the assembled church, and with many church denominations already opening governmental positions to women, does that mean it’s only a matter of time before one of our congregations elevates someone to the leadership team (beyond children’s or women’s ministry) and enables them to have a directive or authoritive role (rather than a complementarian influential one) in church governance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven’t seen the vision and values statements or who haven’t been following Terry Virgo’s series on these statements here’s the relevant ones to this topic.

7. A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed.

8. A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship with trans-local ministries.

Contesting the incontestable: No2AV/Yes2AV debate

 

It is undeniable that the Alternative Vote (AV) system produces a result that is different from first past the post (FPTP) in constituencies where there isn’t a clear favourite among that electorate.   That AV doesn’t favour (nationally) either of the main parties (as FPTP does) is to its credit because it levels the playing field on which parties with broad support can compete.

• Voting to keep FPTP (because you don’t like AV or you would prefer Proportional Representation (PR) is saying to the government that you are not interested in electoral reform and support the current demonstrably unfair system
• FPTP is unfair in a race with more than 2 candidates, because in nearly every election, the winning candidate will only gain the support of around a 1/3rd of the electorate that bothered to turn out. In FPTP a candidate wins with a minority. 

 

According to the Telegraph.. Twenty MPs from the new intake – ten Labour and ten Conservative – have listed ten incontestable objections to the Alternative Vote system.  (Telegraph points in Italics, my response in normal case)

1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea
1. It is correct to say that AV is only in use for national elections by three countries, but even in the UK there are many different forms of alternative voting that take place for different ballots.  In that regard AV is not obscure, but actually favoured for some elections including the election of the conservative leader!
2. The banality of this argument is obvious though… and one of principle, like saying that we shouldn’t have an NHS because other countries don’t.
   
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
1. Alternative votes only come into play if there isn’t a candidate that passes 50% of the turnout in the constituency AND because their first preference is eliminated.
2. I understand that there will be a threshold in which the votes for fringe parties will be reallocated in the event that none of the candidates reaches that 50% in the first place.
3. This position assumes that those who might vote green or UKIP or even BNP would choose to show a preference for any other party than their own… or at least another one that might raise enough support across the constituency…  In the case of extremist politics, I think that’s highly unlikely.
4. In reality everyone’s vote in AV is counted the same amount of times in the constituency until there is a clear winner. What changes is the allocation of the vote preference. (your principle vote for a labour candidate or a conservative one will most likely be counted in every round against your first choice candidate)
5. In relation to the existing system, FPTP national elections are decided by a small number of marginal constituencies. All this proves is that with each proposed system there is some level of unfairness to some, the question is, is AV more fair than what we have now or less?
   
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone’s fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone’s else’s first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with’ another.
1. No, AV treats someone’s second or third choice with a similar importance in the event that no clear winner is determined.
2. The truth is under AV EVERY voter has an equal chance of influencing the result. – This cannot be said about FPTP.
3. In FPTP, everyone who tactically votes is likely to be voting for who there 2^nd ,3^rd , 4^th etc choice.
   
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL’ THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
1. Though the Jenkins report suggested that AV could produce IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES even less proportional results than the current system, the recommendation was that the best system for Britain was AV+ where 80-85% of constituency members would be elected ordinarily through AV whilst the remaining 15-20% would be elected on a corrective top-up basis. But regardless, the general point is moot because neither AV nor FPTP claim to be proportional.
2. AV isn’t proportional representation, nor does it claim to be.  It is simply a method of enabling more people’s vote to be ‘FOR’ a candidate or candidates, reducing the amount of wasted votes and enabling more people to be engaged with politics, and the result.
3. The reality is that the result will reflect the choices people actually make.  In recent history the most likely outcome is more seats for Liberal Democrats. (if you consider the actual share of the vote nationally)
   
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE’ – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
1. This is nonsense.  With FPTP with more than 2 parties and electoral constituencies with massaged boundaries the only predictable thing about FPTP is that the result won’t reflect the will of the majority of the UK.
2. The reality is that democracy, when allowed to be truly democratic, is unpredictable. I think that is a good thing, because it will return politics to issues.
   
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”.
1. What is not wanted is AV to be the system that endures, but nearly all see AV as a stepping stone towards PR.   The likelihood is that if we don’t vote against FPTP by voting for AV, you will not get another chance to change the electoral system in the UK.
2. If AV is not wanted, then that is what the outcome of the referendum should decide.  But I want it (over FPTP) and so do lots of others. So the general statement is not only incorrect, it is also premature.
   
7. AV IS NO-ONE’S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
1. The Liberals would prefer PR to be on the ballot paper. It isn’t.  Given that the only options are FPTP and AV, AV is the first choice.
2. NO ONE voted for the coalition manifesto. That doesn’t mean the same as No one wants electoral reform 
3. The referendum is on which is BETTER, not which one is perfect.  I can’t see that FPTP is better than AV.. though I can certainly see faults with both.
   
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
1. This is a nonsense too.  In Australia after AV was introduced the turnout rose.. This was BEFORE they introduced compulsory voting.
2. Anyone who can count to three can vote in AV. It takes no explaining.  Rank your preference 1^st choice, 2^nd, 3^rd.
3. I agree that voting should be compulsory (even if people only spoil their paper)  but with turnout being voluntary no-one really knows if it will increase or decrease.. wouldn’t it be interesting to try?
4. My own view is that anything that rewards peoples action to vote is likely to encourage voting.
   
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won’t be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
1. This has already been refuted.  Manual counting is not just possible, but possible in similar time. 
2. Where there is a clear winner, the count will be exactly the same
3. In the event of reallocation of votes, the second and third rounds will take much less time because only some votes are being reallocated.
4. The benefit of electronic means of recording or counting the vote is a separate issue to be addressed whichever system of voting is used.
   
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That’s why it’s a shame that we’re about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
1. I agree that other reforms are needed. But that doesn’t mean this one isn’t needed, and this is the one before us on May 5^th.
2. Do you think it is likely that the Government will offer further reforms if we don’t turn out to vote?

What does a Christian need to be for lesbians and gays?

I am becoming convinced that the language and intent we use to talk to people (especially in existing gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgender, swinging, polyandrous or liberal communities) needs to change to be consistently crystal clear on:

• God's love and OUR love for PEOPLE,
• the redemption Jesus offers through the cross to everyone who believes ,
• the acceptance and support provided by a church community towards anyone wanting to follow or find God,
• what sin is and it's effects on our ability to be right with God, (why we all need to change)
• sexual orientation/preference is not the sin, it’s what you do that matters
• and our personal assurance, integrity and openness that we have no room to judge what others struggle with

… because

• we all struggle in different ways and seasons to eradicate sin and live up to who God made us to be.
• it is next to impossible to say to someone in a supportive like-minded community to switch to an unsupportive, judgmental church community
• it is up to God to change people’s hearts, it’s our delight to celebrate and encourage the changes
• conviction is a work of the holy spirit, not the judgements of our own intolerant hearts
• if we have been unconditionally accepted by God, wouldn’t we want to extend that same acceptance to each other?
• we cannot compromise on what the bible calls actions that are sin, but neither must we compromise on continually loving each other and extending mercy, forgiveness and grace

Why I‘m voting YES to AV on May 5th

 

There are several reasons why I’m voting Yes to the Alternative Vote (AV) on May 5th 2011 that I’d like to share with you.

I’m REALLY tired of politicians being elected by less than a third of the people who turned out to vote.    This major factor means that nearly everyone can complain they haven’t got who or what they voted for, and gives cause for them to disengage with the political process and opt out of responsibility.

Here’s the results table for Cannock Chase 2010

Name	Party	Votes	%	+/- 2005
Aidan Burley	Conservative	18,271	40%	10.1%
Susan Woodward	Labour	15,076	33%	-17.9%
Jon Hunt	Liberal Democrat	7,732	17%	3%
Various	Other Parties	4,480	10%	5%

In Cannock Chase District, in 2005 Labour won with 51% of the vote. Under AV that result would stand without a second round. In 2010 Conservatives were elected with 40.1% of the vote, leaving 33% voting for Labour and 17% voting for Liberal (on a 61% turnout).  The voting majority of Cannock Chase (nearly 60%) did not appear to want a Tory MP as their first choice but that is what they got which to my mind is clearly unfair.  First past the post (the current electoral system) works really well in a 2 horse race, but with the vote as fragmented as it is between more political parties it just doesn’t make sense to use a system that can elect a person/party without a true majority of support.

AV is all about MAJORITY PREFERENCE. Under AV, If there is a clear winner (50% of any vote) that person is elected straight away with no second round count.  This means that it is as easy as ever to remove a dodgy MP, but it’s also as easy as ever to ELECT a person we think might do our county good. But because a prospective MP (or returning MP) has to get 50% of the vote to avoid second round counting, they have to work hard for us for more than the 6 weeks before an election.  They cannot just rely on their party affiliated supporters to see them through, they must win over floating voters and those from other parties by their actions.   That to me seems a jolly good.

If you only want ONE vote to be counted against your candidate, then you can choose to ONLY mark ONE box on the form. There is no compulsion for you to vote for more people than you want.  So if you can determine that the values and policies of only one politician are ones that you can support then you can continue to exercise your vote in the way you do now.  In the last election, I found that I was most in agreement with one party, somewhat in agreement with another, and definitely opposed to the policies of another.  It would have been likely under AV that I would have exercised my first and second choice only.    In the 2010 result, if I had voted for either Conservative OR liberal, then given the coalition government that was formed I should feel that my vote really made a difference in who is running the country.

However, I think one of the greatest benefits of AV is that for the first time in a long while you can actually vote for who/what you want, not for what you don’t want.  Your first choice will count towards the first round just like now. If you however have also indicated that you would be happy if another parties candidates policies were successful  then if there was not 50% of the vote, your primary vote can be reallocated to a second round candidate.

We have no way of truly knowing what might have happened In Cannock Chase but given that 60% didn’t want a conservative candidate where could the remaining votes have gone? Would there have been enough residual support for Labour to elect them in the second round once they had a bloody nose from the first?  Would Liberals have captured a popularist surge from people who would normally vote Conservative or Labour (because they had more chance of winning) but feel more comfortable with Liberal policies? Or would the Conservatives have won over those who were making protest votes with minority parties in the first round but would feel comfortable that Conservatives had a workable plan to put us on a path to recovery?    We can debate that forever and a day, and we will never really know.. but I would have liked to have found out.

Certainly AV is a change in how we vote now.  How we approach change in our lives is really important.  Often we approach it with a mixture of fear, nervousness and sometimes excitement. There may be many questions you have about what AV is and what it isn’t, and you may think that there are some things you don’t want to have happen that will force you to vote against AV.  One of those thoughts is that AV could allow the BNP to be elected, but let me ask you, just how likely is that? Remember, they would have to get 50% of the population believing that their policies are helpful sufficient to get 1st, 2nd or third round votes allocated to them.  In the last election only 2,168 people in Cannock Chase voted for the BNP, so how likely is it that another 20,612 people would be convinced enough to add them as a second or third choice sufficient for 50% of the vote from those who turned out?  I don’t think very likely at all, even as a protest vote.

I have given you some reasons for voting for AV you can find out more from the Yes2AV campaign. The No2AV campaign will provide several reasons for you to fear the Alternative Vote system, what I would ask you to think about is, what is it you want, rather than what you don’t want.

Easter Live?

Anyone planning on getting involved with #EasterLive this week? 

http://www.easterlive2011.com/

The idea is that you tweet or facebook the easter story ‘ as it happens’  throughout Easter week..   Those with a bit of time on their hands or enjoy telling stories might well enjoy contributing..

What is death?

I find some scriptures really confusing.

The bible uses the word death or dying in a number of places and it is not always clear whether it’s talking about physical death, spiritual death, eternal separation, decay, what happens to our old man when we accept Christ.

I’m not a studier of Greek or Hebrew, so I have no idea what word is being used and in what context other than from the translation provided by hopefully learned folk who have attempted to translate the text faithfully into a language I sort of understand.

This morning then I was reading in John 8. There is a discussion between Jesus and the Jews which culminates in Jesus explaining that not only does he know Abraham (despite being less than 50 years old) he has spoken with him. [Presumably eluding to eternal life and to recognisable states of existence in the after earthly life]

So far so good…

But the bit that confuses is what is to be understood by John 8:52

⁵²The Jews said to him, "Now we know that you have a demon! Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, 'If anyone keeps my word, he will never taste death.'

• Are they talking about the same death?
• Is Jesus suggesting that people who hold to His teaching never cease to breath the air of this blue/green sphere?
• Is the death we won’t taste that Jesus is suggesting the same as the one in Matthew 16:28?
• Or what about Hebrews 2:9? What death did Jesus suffer for all of us so that we don’t all have to ‘taste death’?

Is the Church really the hope for the world?

The developing thought stream on Martin Charlesworth’s blog and his observations through to part 4 of  Jesus's manifesto resonated with me deeply, but I was caught off-guard by the inclusion of Bill Hybel’s quote that "The local church is the hope of the world". I haven’t read where that particular quote comes from (though Bill's twitter page includes a quotation that embodies a similar theme), but as I read it, and connected it with Martin's observation of Jesus's mission in manifesto part 4, I thought ‘surely, Jesus Christ is the hope for the world?’

I fully appreciate that in any Christian quiz unless the answer is a squirrel, it is always Jesus, and it is so in this case isn’t it? When the church with it’s projects and activities, becomes more important than Jesus, when our actions are tempered not by his grace and mercy, but by our missional objectives, don’t we begin to believe that our program is what will save people, rather than salvation being a sovereign work of Christ by grace through faith?  [When we think of our Catholic brothers isn't our observed criticism that it's their tradition that has replaced relationship with Christ? That format and function has replaced action and purpose?]

Secondly, though Martin affirms "that the life of the church should naturally spill over into the society within which it is set", he appears to miss that the reason “social activists feel marginalised in local church” is not because the church doesn't provide programs, but because the church refuses to legitimise their participation in anything that is not church branded/run (as if church meeting or project participation is the only contribution that matters). 

Don’t we have to cease the somewhat childish pursuit of identification through branding? Isn't the identification of being 'follower of Christ', 'salt and light' enough?  It is surely wholly irrelevant whether a member of our community serves in our local church project or in some other (church or secular) project, so long as we have contact with those in need and are able to help, expressing the love of God as we go? Isn’t it true that where 2 or 3 are gathered there he is amongst us? If 2 or 3 are serving, isn’t church existing and visible? If the only way we can accept that the church operates in social action is in function, project and structure we surely miss the countless thousands of souls who would pass by our buildings and projects unaffected because we wouldn't step outside our paradigms to meet them.

Martin is right though to highlight that church leaders have a pivotal role in empowering it’s social activists, and I appreciate too that he hasn’t in this post (or yet in this discussion) outlined the ways in which that empowering might occur - so he may be coming to observations similar to mine, but I sincerely and humbly hope that he agrees with me that unless Church leaders legitimise life giving activities outside of the four corners of their building [and continue instead to attempt to squash God given passions into the restrictive shoes that the leader provides or his programs enable] we will not recover the everyday social action that was prevalent in the early church.

Finally, though I’m in danger of standing on my soap box ranting… the western middle class church has become clunky and unwieldy, stylised and way too comfortable and ineffective [reminiscent of the churches many of us left 30 years ago!]  It’s almost as if we need to hear Christ tell each one of us to ‘sell our possessions and give to those in need’ before we will be confronted with just how far we have moved from the early church life and the love and care they expressed to each other in the course of their daily life. When we are giving only from our plenty it is costless to us. When a Basic’s bank for example is established, it is not food from our table that we are sharing with the poor it is too easily Pharisaic-like wealth that we are showing off. May the Lord have mercy on us and preserve us from our church branded 'plenty' schemes for we know not what we hypocritically do to further damage people or damage the name of Christ however well intentioned our actions.

1 Timothy 4:7-10 (Amplified Bible)

⁷But refuse and avoid irreverent legends (profane and impure and godless fictions, mere grandmothers' tales) and silly myths, and express your disapproval of them. Train yourself toward godliness (piety), [keeping yourself spiritually fit].     ⁸For physical training is of some value (useful for a little), but godliness (spiritual training) is useful and of value in everything and in every way, for it holds promise for the present life and also for the life which is to come.     ⁹This saying is reliable and worthy of complete acceptance by everybody.     ¹⁰With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] ^[a]suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Saviour (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him).

How can we be culturally relevant?

I have been thinking a lot about the expressions of Christianity that seek explicitly to be culturally relevant to the people around us, but I am uneasy about how some describe how they have adapted themselves to become culturally relevant, and here’s why.

We’re supposed to be different. 

• Matthew 5 says we are salt and light. That means we shine light on situations and leave our saltiness wherever we go. 

We’re supposed to be loving, not selfish.

• The culture I see around me relates more to what can I get, rather than what can I give.  If we emulate that, how are we different?

We’re supposed to stand for righteousness, not abandon it

• If our contemporaries and neighbours are pursuing hedonistic activities, don’t we need to redeem them not join them?

We’re supposed to be instantly recognisable

• I have some sympathy with the ‘dress like those you want to reach’  and ‘use lingo your hearer will understand’ argument, but no-one will look more ‘out of place’ than me wearing a pair of Nike’s and a hoodie and talking slang. I’m not afraid of doing odd things or feeling uncomfortable, but surely better to be ‘myself’, genuine, passionate, interested and loving than attempt to pass myself off as ‘one of them’?  Doesn’t it look too ‘try hard’ to attempt to emulate them?

 

My Wonderings:

All things to all men

• So what on earth do I do with Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 9??
• To reach the Jews he became like the Jew. – Does that mean to reach a muslim I need to be like them? live like they do, act like they do?
• To reach those under the law, he became like one under the law – Do I need to keep ceremonial activities? be ‘religious’ to the point of bondage?
• To those not having the law, he became like one not having he law – Did he become lawless other than Christ’s law?  Did he break the law of the land to uphold the higher law of Christ?
• To the weak he became weak.  Did he starve his body? Did he not use his intellect? Did he speak differently?
• I think this is more about going where they go, doing what they do (to an extent) to show openness to understanding their life.

 

Isn’t it about relationship?

My grandparents were culturally relevant to me, not because they dressed like me, drove like me, used technology or spoke like me (other than mother tongue) no, it was mainly because I was important to them and they were important to me. We were connected relationally. They loved me because they chose to, and I spent time with them because I loved them… I wonder then isn’t that how to be culturally relevant?  Finding things in people who are different to you that are similar enough that you can connect with them?   Isn’t that how we show them we love them?

When we need people, don’t they feel good?  We can love endlessly, but if we don’t actually care about the needs of the people we are loving, if we don’t need their love and care and interest in return, then it’s NOT a relationship, its a project or a work.  It always bugs me when I see people in caring professions talk intimately to their other colleagues over the person in their care.  It always makes me feel desperately sorry for the ignored PERSON that is right there.  I understand that it’s easier to talk to those you have relationships with, but that’s exactly my point… if we build relationships with people, not just ‘ministries’, aren’t we then able to meet that other side of wanting in us (and them) to be needed?  I wonder how much easier it is to minister to someone’s lack of self worth when they see that we need them?  How much more loved someone feels when we seek out their friendship to support us?  How much more part of the kingdom of God they feel when we include them in shaping our plans and dreams?

So what Culture is important?

I don’t yet know then whether the extremes of inexclusivity of some of the emergent folks or the ultra tolerance and inclusiveness of the Shane Clairbourne’s of this world demonstrate is something I can identify with, though there’s a massive way to go from where I am today towards their world/kingdom view that I’m somewhat embarrassed by the faltering steps I’ve taken so far… But I’m reasonably certain that our task is to bring the culture of heaven, the kingdom of heaven down to man.  I don’t think this means counting people who have not chosen Christ as ‘included in His book of life’, but it does mean expressing Christ’s love to them, loving them with my heart and actions, because their life depends on it.

If you have thoughts or comments about this, PLEASE COMMENT, because I’m thinking this through.  If you’re going to be at the everything conference tomorrow and you bump into me, say hi and tell me what you think BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW.

Effect of Budget on church giving

 

• All donations up to £5000 can be eligible for gift aid without forms being completed.
• Gift aid forms will be moved to being done ‘online’ in the future..

Helpful?

Details to follow from the budget report…

Charitable Giving:

1.137 The Government wants to encourage charitable giving and philanthropy and to support the voluntary sector.

1.138 Building on the 10 point action plan for philanthropy, the Government will encourage giving by the wealthiest by:

• reducing the rate of inheritance tax by 10% for those estates leaving 10% or more to charity, from a rate of 40per cent to 36 per cent. This will reduce the cost of giving to charity through bequests. The relief is designed to that the benefit of the tax saving is reflected in the bequests received by charities and not in payments to other beneficiaries;
• increasing the Gift Aid benefit limit from £500 – to £2500 from April 2011 to enable charities to give ‘thank you’ gifts to recognise the generosity of significant donors; and
• consulting on proposals to encourage donations of pre-eminent works of art or historical objects to the nation in return for a tax reduction.

1.139 Building on the Giving Green Paper, this budget will support the voluntary sector by:

• reducing bureaucracy for charities through the introduction of a new system of online filing which will bring Gift Aid into the 21st Century; and
• introducing a Gift Aid small donations scheme. This will allow charities to claim Gift Aid on up to £5,000 of small donations per year without the need for Gift Aid declarations.

1.140  The Government will also explore how to increase the take up of Payroll Giving, which allows individuals to five through their pay and reduce their income tax bills.

How do you read controversial books?

Thomas Stanley’s blog post has been twittered in the #lovewins stream because he suggests 5 tips for reading controversial books, and Rob Bell’s Love Wins: A Book About Heaven, Hell, and the Fate of Every Person Who Ever Lived specifically.  You can read his post here.

His five points are:

1. Chew the meat, spit the bones
2. Don’t discount the 2000 years of thought
3. Don’t believe it just because it’s Rob Bell. Don’t ignore it just because it’s Rob Bell
4. Use this book as an opportunity to deepen your perspective on this issue
5. Consider the larger perspective

I read the list yesterday and felt uneasy about it… but couldn’t quite figure out why… having had time to sleep and reflect, here’s some thoughts…
Assume for a moment that there was no controversy surrounding Bell's book, should the advice be the same?  I think it wouldn’t be and here’s why.

1) It’s the Holy Spirit’s Job to illuminate truth

What is the role of the Holy Spirit here?  If we approach a book simply with a subjective 'take what is good' approach, aren't we in danger of doing that with the Bible too?  wouldn’t the net effect be that the things we find difficult to understand/apply we would simply reject?
And how is someone to know what is good and what isn't?  Imagine for a moment that we're talking about a book on occultic practices. Now imagine that as part of that book there was a chapter on meditation and centering, which got you to breathe in a certain way, and open your mind to the possibility that what you know is real, isn't and that the consequence of spending time in this state would be a greater appreciation for your fellow man. Now image that book had been given to everyone in your christian community. Can you still take what is good?

2) Major Doctrines have been debated and decided already

Church history is littered with theological branches right back to 4AD.  There is some academic interest in reviewing the what and why's of these arguments, but isn't it preferable to start from a thorough knowledge of what is established doctine/statement of faith now?  Since Bell doesn't paint one, it's difficult to reflect backwards.  What the church suffers from is clarity of belief expressed in communicable action.

3) It’s the narrow gate that leads to life

I mainly agree here, but what concerns me isn’t that Rob Bell wrote this, it’s what it says or doesn’t say.    We don’t need more skeptics, we need more believers.. who can clearly communicate the loving Gospel.

4) Perspective isn’t it… it’s what you believe that matters.

• Scientific research suggests you start with a hypothesis which you rigorously try to disprove. Only when you can't disprove it do you consider it can be true and try to confirm it.  If you can both not disprove it, and reproducibly prove it, the probability of it being true increases.  
• Christian research however starts with a belief. That belief is by faith, built on your understanding of the bible, illuminated by the spirit, and experienced through relationship with the risen Christ.  

While we can approach some validations of scriptural truth scientifically, the key element required for ‘belief’ is faith. Faith needs to be built on what is dependable.  Perspective isn’t faith.

5) Perspective of what?

We can change the actions of christian culture where we have become lax in applying sound biblical doctrine. Certainly I could agree [with Bell] that we should be more loving and more serving in our dealings with people, and certainly less closed off to the world..  But when we’re talking about christian culture aren’t we really talking about ‘what the kingdom of God looks like?’  In that regard, shouldn’t that be based on dependable truth?  Such as we all have sinned, we all deserve punishment, that punishment is total permanent separation from God, But Christ who was fully God, fully perfect, took on himself the penalty of sin for us all as the sacrificial, substitutionary, atonement. In taking the punishment, He defeated death and enabled a restoration of relationship with God which, if we respond to his forgiveness, justice and mercy, enables us to enjoy that relationship with Him forever?  Isn’t that the Gospel that nearly all of us subscribe to who call ourselves part of the kingdom of God?  And isn’t it from that understanding that our hearts and our actions are compelled to live differently (if imperfectly)?  

Finally, I would not encourage new Christians to read any book that is not consistent with mainstream christianity and to be read ‘within’ the context of membership within a church community. There is a place and time for debate around issues and it's important to have that debate, but movement leaders need to be clear to be giving direction, straight answers to questions and being crystal clear on beliefs and conclusions.   The apostle Paul encourages us to 'have a reason for the hope we profess' and this reason shouldn't come from what you've read from Bell, McClaren, Piper, Keller, or the Daily Planet but should come from the Bible, illuminated by the Spirit.

Growing old and growing up

My eldest daughter recently turned 17, and with it came an appeal to learn to drive a 4 wheeled motor vehicle instead of the two wheeled one which has served valiantly for the last 6 months.

Several things struck me instantly with this request which for her sake I won’t elaborate here, but along with the now substantial cost, the increase in my grey hair and the peril I might be unleashing on the unsuspecting motorist I have to consider what the overiding principle is.

What I mean is…    Parents have to be faithful with the small, so that they may be entrusted with the large. 

In many ways our families are the first small God entrusts us with. He’s looking to see that we are responsive, pre-emptive, forgiving, restoring, nurturing, compassionate, instructive, supportive, enriching, encouraging, consistent, loving, trusting, resourcing, valuing and sacrificial for those in our care… and that means today I’ve added her to our insurance policy for our Nissan Micra.  I’ll skip over the moan about the insurance now costing 4x what the car is worth, and the secondary moan about the EU removing the benefit to my three daughters insurance (which may have offset some of the cost their eventual weddings may have cost me, !!) and just enjoy that I am coming towards the end of the sustained input into one of my fledglings. 

Perhaps then as I watch my daughter grow up, maybe I too am doing more than just growing old?