Struggling with Struggling

Life is a struggle.. 

Anyone who has taken an intentional breath notices the resistance of their flesh to the desire to inflate one's lungs. It requires exertion, an effort, and more so if encumbered with tight clothing or artificial restraint. How easy the breath when we are asleep (by contrast). Or the breathing we do when we are distracted by some other activity, why are such breaths not seemingly laboured or difficult..? Why is an intentional breath so much harder work?

This entire blog has been about wrestling with some thought, idea, conviction, position, application, meaning, existence, intentionality and my place in it. I note that in the passage of some nearly 10 years, I have not progressed much in my comprehension or indeed compassion of the various states on which I have reflected. I find the world as confusing and contradictory now, riddled with paradox and incongruity as I ever have and intellectually at least I have strayed further away from what many would consider to be central convictions of faith, creed, theology and practice. It is as if skepticism has replaced any sense of certainty of belief (as I've tried to resolve the absolutes of being 'in Christ' with the observations of my hypocritical life) and my pursuit of wisdom and understanding has only led me further to the conclusion that I am stupid, naive and ignorant. Oddly there is some comfort in this.

I see long known friends wrestle with physical and mental illness, attempting to hold on to 'truths', denying the power of the chains that bind them and seeing their bondage as only temporary compared to the eternity of worshipful freedom that they anticipate. The 'now and not yet' of salvation that dominates much of our understanding to attempt to hold in tension the contradiction of our reality with the truth of the transformative work of Christ in the regenerated heart. Yet the reality is our regenerated heart is still sick. It is not whole. It is not pure. It can and does still sin, and even Paul testifies to the tension when he laments that the good he wants to do he cannot do and more the bad or evil he does not want to do, he does all the more.. . It would in scientific terms at least be regarded as anything other than regenerated. yet, the contradiction of conversion suggests that we wouldn't even feel that contention (and struggle) unless our heart was regenerated, inclining our will towards God/holiness.. It seems like a circular argument, verified only with itself - (simul justus et peccator, anyone?)

Some of my friends note that I distress myself with incessant thinking. They couldn't think like I do, "isn't it exhausting?" they cry! Yet I respond, the thinking is what I am driven to do. it is how a mind works and I am surprised you spend so little time actually doing it, being content to bumble along without care, burden, certainty, conviction, knowledge, understanding, reference, critical analysis, evidential rationalism or indeed any sense of reason for the actions they undertake,...  'how do you know what you're doing is helpful to you?'  Don't you need to be convinced you are not 'wasting your life?' Are you instead a follower of fatalism or simply being tossed about by every wind of tickling ear doctrine? (to mash metaphor) How can you 'test and approve' if you neither can articulate what you think you know let alone have no criteria for verifying it?  Indeed to gain wisdom or understanding, surely one has to think?   How does one even begin to live with this 'new life in Christ' without thinking about the applications of what would be different?

One doesn't achieve a goal or state by simply an act of the will alone..  instead one takes an aspiration, determines what achievement of that aspiration looks like, creates plans to achieve that success and undertakes a discipline to action the plan, else all that is left is an aspirational target with no ability to attain it. 

What at least I try to do, is think constructively.. have a purpose about it.  It is a struggle, but it is not simply 'over thinking' as if random thoughts pervade and have no purpose or ability to settle into the complex tension of previous thoughts in their logical or philosophical positions.. instead there is an intentionality about it, to find meaning or peace by settling a matter (or parts of a matter) sufficient to be (at least) somewhat 'certain'... If I am to have any hope at all, I need to find a reason for that hope and to be able to  'always have an answer... '  If I do not have an answer I cannot fall back on 'I just trust that is it so' (for to do so I must have implicit trust in the authority of the source of the idea, which requires me to know what the source is, and verify that it is indeed considered to be the authority on the matter - and empirically that cannot be that the source matter determines itself to be the authority on a subject, as that too would be a circular argument and indeed one of the detractors for me in determining that the God-man Jesus should be authoritative in confirming the Word-Flesh scripture. )

Indeed, so many abuses have occurred also by fallible humans in positions of authority or influence in our lives [we are all hypocrites] that it is easy to imagine that there is no-one person capable of being sufficiently authoritative to enable us to take 'at face value' anything they say without having at least a cursory ability to see for ourselves. And yet faith requires us to hope in what we do not yet see.  So maddening is this position, as it is similar to the twisting winds of post-modernism where little seems to mean what it did, all truth is subjective and if you're confused about what you know, yet unbelievably intolerant of anything you disagree with, you're probably doing it right! I have so much sympathy with Thomas, who at least was able to touch the wounds of Christ to verify for himself what he could scarcely believe with his eyes let alone his heart.

But to answer my friend's rhetorical pronouncement from the earlier paragraph, the other seemingly truthful answer is 'Yes, it is exhausting'. Struggling is tiring.  Work requires effort. Energy is expended.  Anything worthwhile generally is. Ironically, metaphysically and practically - the struggle is real.

Still, I am angry and disappointed, at myself and with others.  I am sad, upset and broken, but do not want to be fixed - and certainly not fixed to be 'just like the unthinkers' in their blissful acceptance and blatant ignorance. I am not placated with platitudes and homilies nor personal stories of confirmation-bias which attests to why your 'truth' is right especially where there is denial of my reality or indeed contra evidence in your own life that you fail to accept exists. I don't want to discredit your truth, but I neither wish to accept it nor have it override my own.  Reality is too precious a thing to simply wave it away to whimsy or paradoxical tension in a 'now and not yet' way.  And yet...

I am somewhat envious of those who delight in their blissful ignorance, or blind, faithful, trusting subscription to an ideology or education without any understanding of why they believe it is so.  - that many cannot construct any personal creed stating a source (authoritative or not) for their opinion and yet can be certain of their truth is as inspiring as it is baffling. The level of 'self-belief' required for contentment in 'not knowing' is surely worthy of merit if not respect from others and indeed myself.   And for all I think I think I know, for all that I apply myself to applying, for all I hopefully hope in, I am still stupid, naive and ignorant.  The struggle with struggling is unending until death, and even then what is attained is lost and what is achieved makes little difference when righteousness is imputed by faith, through grace..

So what of the comfort in the struggle...?  

1. I am not mad.   - Deluded, confused, mislead, baffled, contradictory and purposeless maybe.  but not mad.  To struggle at all seems to conclude that one recognises that there is a reason for struggle..   who has known the mind of God? 
2. I am probably in error.   - to recognise that we are understanding metaphorically things we cannot conjure for ourselves, with our thinking shaped by our education and relative understanding of our world and our corporeal nature.  To perhaps accept that whatever we believe we have come to know is still little of what there is to know.   At this juncture we are 2000+ years after Christ and we're still debating and working out what his words mean, let alone others who have contributed to the canon of our scriptures.  We may be governed by theistic absolutes such as 'eternally consistent nature of God' yet there are many a matter that creates a bit of sucking of teeth as we struggle to resolve it within the consistency we acknowledge.. perhaps then I can give myself a little break that better minds than mine have not resolved some things sufficiently?
3. It is ok that the struggles of others are different to my own. Indeed if all of our struggles were exactly the same, how can we ever offer any real comfort that the struggle is worth persisting? - none of us would be able to attest to being at peace about any such thing!   Moreso that within the body we are all different parts.. We are not aspiring to all be 'the same' in skills, gifts, works or honour - indeed, how easy it is for us to overlook v 24 in 1 Corinthians..?    instead for proper functioning of the body we need our members to struggle with different things
4. I am not well read even though I've read plenty.  Sometimes to unlock something, some one says or has written something that conceptualises the conundrum and expounds a solution in such a way that scales from our eyes seem to fall. but my quest for understanding is unmatched by my ability to read let alone identify to be read, let alone having the time to read many such volumes in search of answers.  There are many (let me suggest) professional theologians and thinkers who have devoted many hours to many subjects (or just one!) and have gifted successive generations with their insight.  I have but many questions, and few solidly researched answers. This returns to the question of authoritative sources, and I'll at least add weight to arguments provided by those who have dedicated themselves to reasoning beyond my meager contemplations. 
5. Eventually my struggle will be over.  We all die. Striving will cease - whether for wisdom or righteousness.. Rest will come.  my ignorance will neither enable or prevent whatever might come later, and while it might be preferable to leave this mortal coil with some certainty about what the 'not yet' is, ultimately my preponderance of evidence makes no difference to what actually 'is'. 

Being quiet

I’m quite a loudperson.  I don’t usually need a microphone to be heard in a room, I’m confident to speak to several or few (though I struggle to mingle in a crowd), and I usually have thought through (or can think through quickly) common subjects and discussion topics.  I like to think, enjoy a good debate (political, social or theological), engage with opinionated people who are iron to my iron regardless of view and I ask lots of questions and appreciate the answers.

I find being quiet really hard.  Listening for the still small voice is easier in the quiet than in the noise of an active mind. For me, to be quiet takes extraordinary amounts of effort and patience, and usually people who know me ask ‘what’s wrong’ because their perception is that it’s abnormal (for me).

All followers of Christ are charged with communicating the gospel of Christ, and living a life which displays his radiant glory (words & actions) yet also require humble service and quiet obedience. This dynamic is interesting to present when humble, quiet, obedient, service is by definition almost unnoticed and is certainly obfuscated by verbal communication and demonstrable conviction. I wonder about where blogging fits into the mix.  In many ways it’s a loud activity, communicating to any who stumble upon my musings, and perhaps it gives a glimpse into my heart or head for those with an eye to delve behind the words to the motivation for them.  But is the still small voice evident in the words? is it actually helpful to any cause? Is it quiet, humble, obedience too?

And what of the struggles with my marriage? Surely a man must first lead his household well? – Yet, even when that leading isn’t going to primary plan, does that mean for that season we’re totally useless to God, lest we become hypocrites, believing one thing and doing another?   If I can lose the way here where I have spent most effort, and invested so heavily, isn’t it all the more possible to lose the way in other areas? Shouldn’t that cause me to be silent for now?  - but if a gift is given surely it is to be used – not left unexercised?  It seems to me that if God is the same, yesterday today forever, and if his primary calling to us remains unchanged, and if we’re to be honest with each other as we do life together, then struggles alone do not disqualify us, and disqualifying ourselves only places ground into enemy hands.  We needed saving because we were sinful and we still need his spirit because we are weak. His strength is made perfect in weakness so perhaps I need to be all the more vocal of my own weakness so that He may be glorified in me?  Or have I misunderstood what Paul was talking about?

I need to find the quiet voice that leads the way. There are times I’ll need to be quiet to do that. But perhaps I also need to continue to be noisy in declaring who God is, the extent of his grace, the provision of the cross and the call to his kingdom?  I cannot fear man, what can they do to me? if they kill me, do I not still gain the prize? So death holds no barrier to action..  only my own stubbornness or embarrassment does?

Changing roles of marriage and sex

 

The variety of ways our society adapts marriage to accommodate different outlooks and desires is as complicated as it is numerous.   I came across a diagram by Franklin Veaux that perhaps exemplifies some of the more common approaches that we might discover if we are to probe beyond the venear of ‘married’ sorts to see what lies beneath.

 Click here to open a very large version of the Map, with labels.

 

Many of the people who are involved in so called alternative lifestyles  often describe themselves as ‘spiritual’ and are therefore prime candidates for us to introduce to the ‘God they don’t yet know’. But for many, their sexual identity is as important to them as their spirituality and many of us will struggle to get beyond our feelings about their sexual lifes to see the person with spiritual needs beneath.

There are (or should be) many similarities between people who are living any sort of radical life, so we should be able to find a great deal of common ground on which to open conversations

For instance:

• Communication, Forgiveness, honesty are integral to sharing and being open.
• Community [‘belonging'] and acceptance [common ground] is shared between many people who practice similar lifestyle choices
• These relationships take a great deal of work to keep together (just like any marriage)

however, many Christians will struggle to deprogram their judgement that sex outside of marriage is wrong sufficient to enable any such dialogue to open up easily.  It is quite natural for those in these lifestyles to feel ‘different’, ‘outside’ of our expectations (the very term alternative suggests not ‘mainstream/normal/acceptable’ to many…) and the challenge to us is to know how to be loving towards these very different yet searching people.

People not projects:

I think one of the reasons we struggle is because we can’t projectise reaching these communities.  It’s hard to imagine church missionaries going into swinging clubs, disrobing and attempting to get on ‘their level’.  While we can meet prostitutes on the streets as they go about their work without being one, we can’t very well turn up at a couples home pronounce our judgement and then expect them to listen to us telling them how they should be living their lives.  So clearly designing a project to tackle the problem is NOT going to work.

But relationship evangelism, seeing a person and loving them… could that work?

If we can see people as people ‘not projects’ or ‘unsaved’ then we have an ability to love them.   What we would perhaps naturally do with our friends, we would be able to naturally do with people who are different to us.. ? As with all our neighbours, it starts with starting to talk.. Say hello. Invite them for coffee, talk about your life, talk about theirs. Don’t condemn, judge or give opinions. Listen and understand what their life is like. What makes them tick. What’s important to them. Talk about what’s important to you. Find common ground.

If someone were to come to our church meetings, we will need to be more careful.  Pastors and welcomers have a supremely important job to protect people under their care.  That care can be temporary (for the time they are in the building) or extend towards offering services (counselling, practical help) and SHOULD include keeping at bay well meaning but ungracious/unskilled people.  It will have taken amazing amounts of courage or a significant need to cajole someone so obviously different in lifestyle to walk through our doors, and the way we approach them should not be left to chance.

People who are naturally good at making friends should be introduced especially if there are things in common such as employment type, children, geographic location or history. But their remit should be specifically to grow freindship, not to counsel.

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/

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?

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).