paul and corinna and lucas' blog

Watching Lucas grow up doesnt half make me think of how preciuos life is.
Every milestone Lucas has i realise how quick life goes by and how meaningless some things can be.
Like having a nice house, good Job, nice clothes. they are all meaningless in the grand scheme of things.

I want my life to count.
I want to be a blessing to others lives
I want to look back in years to come and think... i gave it everything i have got!
I dont just want to measure myself by what i have but rather than who i have become.
stuff is stuff.
I want to make an impact on this generation, changing lives and making a real differernce.

This year i have been on the academy course at church.
It has caused me to dream bigger and think higher.
To understand how God sees me.

i am excited about my future and want to be a history maker.
I want to express and show God to everyone i meet.

i want my little boy to be proud of me, and make a way for him to be a blessing to his generation too.

So the saying goes, “When I was a child [or shortie if you're a gangsta], I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.”

A lot of people seem to think maturity is to do with age – “a year older and a year wiser” – but I've noticed that personal growth isn't automatic. You have to deliberately put effort in, it doesn't just come naturally. (Unless by nature you're a natural 'grower', but that's rare. Most of us prefer the comfort of familiarity and routine and no change over relentlessly pushing ourselves into bigger and harder things.)

As a birthday card I saw recently put it: “Ageing is inevitable, maturing is optional!”

Being immature isn't life threatening, and it can seem like it's not causing any harm because the harm isn't immediate or obvious. But it hurts those we do life with as well as damaging ourselves. It can rob you of happiness and even health. And the tragedy is how it limits us – it keeps us living a 'small' life that can only handle 'small' things – so it robs you of your potential too. Whether you believe it or not, no matter how old you are, we all have bags of potential, but it is impossible to achieve it without maturing.

If you're a christian, immaturity can stop you fulfilling God's plan for your life, and hold you back from reaching all the people you were meant to reach, so you can understand why God's not neutral on growth!! One problem is, immaturity doesn't immediately present itself as sin. We know God wants us to keep growing, but we still see it as optional. Don't get me wrong, rest is fine, in fact it's an essential part of growth (as any gym devotee will tell you) but God doesn't look too kindly on permenent rest! (Parable of the fig tree, parable of the talents, etc.)

I'm not claiming to be 'Mr. Mature' or anything, but here are some examples of the kind of thing I see in mature people that's lacking in immature:

• Are still growing. Mature people keep growing – they are maturing rather than mature. They didn't reach a point and stop growing. They're teachable, open to new things, they try to learn from everyone, etc. Immature people think of themselves as better than other people. They don't like to be challenged. They prefer to keep busy so they can avoid looking at themselves.
• Takes responsibility, especially for the consequences of their own actions. They just get on with fixing the problem, and maybe later look at improving the process. Immature people prefer to look for people to blame when something goes wrong. When things need doing, mature people get on with doing them. But you can't rely on an immature person because they buckle under pressure or procrastinate.
• Difficult to offend. Immature people get upset at others easily and hold on to it for ages – they don't really 'get' forgiveness, even for tiny things. In fact, they sometimes actively look for things to get offended about. They love to keep score and have an automatic defensive attitude response, whereas mature people 'keep short accounts' and would rather be productive than take part in pointless bickering. (Admittedly I had a headstart on this one because it's nigh on impossible to upset my parents!)
• Does things deliberately. Mature people don’t just react to whatever life throws at them, they don’t just do whatever they feel like at the time. They do things thought through and intentional, they make decisions and stick to them. For example, they quit strategically. Sure, there are times when you have to bring something to an end, lots of things have their season, no use flogging a dead horse! But mature people quit things on purpose because it fits in with their plan. Whereas immature people quit out of reaction when the going gets tough because they just want to ease the pressure.
• Understands investment. Maturity says "if anything's worth doing it will be hard work", immaturity says "if anything's hard work it's not worth doing".
  • Mature people are willing to sacrifice in the short term for a future gain, immature people only want the easiest immediate route. They go for the easy choice, but mature people look for the best choice.
  • Mature people realise that if they're going to get anywhere in life, they're going to have to work for it. Immature people expect other people to do everything for them. In christians this often comes out as expecting God to do everything for you.
• Doesn't live stressed. Everyone has to deal with stress sometimes, but immature people get stressed out over small things, and as a consequence, can spend a lot of their life stressed out. But it takes much bigger issues to cause stress in a mature person. They are comfortable with asking "what if ...?" and deal with things when they happen, whereas immature people worry about about all the things that haven't and probably won't happen.
• Thinks highly of others, not just in terms of value, but also in terms of frequency (i.e. often) and 'how can I help that person'. Immature people are quite often self-centred.
  • Appreciates others for who they are. Immature people love to manipulate and control others for their own benefit, through things like guilt trips and emotional blackmail.
  • Loves it when others succeed. They encourage others and even help them achieve. But immature people often have that selfish ambition – they want to be seen as much better than everyone else so would rather they don't succeed. Some enjoy watching others fail because it makes them look good. They love to talk themselves up, self-promote. They want to be the big cheese. They would rather be the 'big fish in a small pond' than 3rd or 4th in a team. I’m not saying recognition is evil, but immaturity can make you preoccupied with it.
• Open to risk. It's a subtle one, maybe counter-intuitive, but I think the maturer you are, the more willing you are to take more and bigger risks, but as you do so, you also get better at knowing which risks are worth taking. And even when things don't turn out as you hoped, maturity learns and grows from the setback. Whereas immaturity doesn't want you to take any risks at all, and therefore can't learn which risks are worth taking because it never takes any!
• Can follow leaders. Immature people make difficult employees because they refuse to be led, don't want to be there, or have major problems with authority. It can be the same in church. It's so easy to say "I follow God" when he's so easy to ignore! But it seems very difficult for a lot of people to follow their unignorable, entirely fallable, in-your-face sinner, God-placed leaders. They would rather 'read the bible' (and ignore all the bits that describe how God almost always works by using humans to lead others). Or if they do try to follow their leaders, and it gets too challenging, some maintain their immature independence and skip on to the next church...
• Trustworthy/reliable/dependable. You might not know how they'll choose to do it, but you can trust the mature with £billion decisions; the immature scofts at the decisions they make but you can't trust them to make your cheeseburger!
• Stable. Immature people are unstable even when there's no turbulence!
• Prefers the spirit to the letter of the law. Immature people love enforcing petty rules, hiding behind policy. In the church, this comes out as a religious spirit. Mature people live with God's way 'written on their heart', immature people try to see what they can get away with.
• Sees something working in their own life before they teach it. Like the 'speck in someone else's eye', immature people love to point out where others are going wrong and what they should be doing instead, when it doesn't even work in their own life. Or they spout theories that they haven't actually tested or experienced and don't know if they even work.
• And there are probably loads more, say: how they deal with inconvenience, how they focus on important things whereas immature people focus on trivial things, how they see the harm in gossip, how they have confidence without being over-confident or having no self-confidence...

My theory is a lot of immaturity is linked to insecurity. If you're secure in yourself, you're not easily offended, you aren’t threatened by others, you worry less, and see things more for what they are, etc.

So I guess the moral of the story is, we might as well grow up because life's better for everyone there! This is a constant challenge to me because I want that better life.

(And for Christian leaders, Ephesians 4 is pretty key on this. Our purpose is “to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature … we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ”. So it’s our job to get people to grow up!)

I'd add Love does not delight in failure but rejoices with success.

"if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move"

I see mountains as challenges (see Conquering Snowdon). They are problems to be solved, obsticles to be overcome – and we're meant to be overcomers. They say when a person is squeezed, what's inside comes out. Or you could say, when you look at someone facing a problem, you'll see a more accurate picture of who they really are. They may even see a more accurate picture of themselves.

There's a great story of two guys in The Sixty Minute Father (thanks again Anna!). One has a bad day at the office, stressful, and the stress spills over into his home life – when the only real consequence was he got a slap on the wrist for some late paperwork. Then the book constrasts him with someone who had to cope with 3 major national and international crises that day, but by 4pm was relaxed and playing golf (the US President). The moral of the story was something else entirely, but I think it's a great example of this too: Your level of stress is determined by who you are rather than what you're going through.

I think it's often human nature to want an easy life, to want to follow the path of least resistence, but we shouldn't actually expect life to be easy. I've often been asked to pray for someone because they want their circumstances to get easier. My response is: it doesn't work like that. (Yes, Jesus prayed something along those lines, but he was about to deal with torture – I'm not so cold-hearted as to expect people to grow bigger than pain.) Yes, God may occasionally move a mountain for you (move the problem out the way or make it smaller) but those are exceptions. 99.99% of the time he would rather move the mountain in your head from 'I need someone else to do this for me' to 'I can do this' – with faith, your mindset can be changed. God is more interested in increasing your capacity than giving you an easy life.

I think one big problem is we, even good people, focus so much on our own lives and what's happening immediately around us, to the point where we lose real perspective. Everything in that mini-world takes on super-inflated importance. I become the centre of the universe.

Combine the two (tiny capacity and self-focus) and that explains why someone can be facing a tiny insignificant obsticle (i.e. something that makes no difference to their own life or anyone else's) yet be so stressed about it, as though the fate of the entire world depends on it! Try comparing your troubles with someone who has real problems!!

"Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same" – The Fray

Although our church is involved in shedloads of stuff (and I mean shedloads – we even have ministry guides because there's such a bewildering array), it's decided to focus on 10 specific Community Action ministries (as far as publicity goes), and ours is one of them! Woohoo! We even get our own page, so if you have no idea what we've been doing for the last 3 years, see that! (Although it says Monday, sometimes it takes over the whole week!)

We watched this Reinhard Bonke short film at church tonight: Lost at Sea (at DVD quality of course). Not quite Hollywood, but it makes a good point. I particularly like the guys theorising about lifeboat design: "so have you actually ever been in a lifeboat?" [quickly changes the subject] "this weather..." (And why is the baddie always English? He he...)

"A volunteer is worth twenty pressed men." – English proverb

Ha ha, Chris Moyles on Radio 1 was just comparing himself to Moses because he's single-handedly saving thousands of lives by raising £740,000 from 7 million listeners for Comic Relief... That puts our £879,554 from 2500 into perspective!

"Whatever you make a habit of determines what you'll do with most of your life." (Paul Parkins)

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." (Martin Luther King Jr)

Some people have an in-built reluctance to saying yes – they may be busy with more important things, or too focused on themselves and their own desires, or whatever, but their automatic default response (before you've even asked) is no (or a reluctant yes if you have influence).

I have the opposite problem, my default is yes. When I'm asked to get involved in something, I'm gritting my teeth to hold back a yes. Some people get this because they don't want to upset the asker, or feel like they're letting someone down, or worry about getting a reputation as a 'no person'. I don't think those are an issue for me (though they probably play some part – I am too polite sometimes). I think it's more because I just want to get involved in new and exciting things. I get a kick out of serving. I enjoy being useful and it's worship. God wants cheerful givers, not reluctance (2 Corinthians 8:12, 9:7). I want to be generous with my time, experience and wisdom, and help others succeed. The problem is these things can cause me to not think about the consequences of saying yes fully, which leads to getting overloaded.

Of course Jesus said 'let your yes be yes and your no, no' – within the context meaning don't swear on things, but it's also 'just say what you mean'. If you mean no, say it! He also said it's better to give than receive, maybe he would have extended that with: sometimes it's better not to give than to give. I mean, by saying 'no' you can sometimes do the asker a bigger favour than they think a 'yes' will be. He also told the story of two sons (Matthew 21:28-32): the dad asked them both to do some work, one said no but changed his mind and did it, the other said yes but didn't. Who was he pleased with? So logically 'no' is the better answer in general. (Under-promising and over-delivering and all that...)

On the practical side, here's a few things to ask yourself before saying yes:

• Is it your responsibility?
• Does it align with your vision? (Or does it dilute your focus?)
• Does it operate within your strengths?
• Do you have the capacity to follow through on it?

And here's a few tips on how to say no:

• Listen. Acknowledge you understood and considered the request: people who are listened to are more willing to accept disappointment.
• Don't decide on the spot. Give yourself time and space to make a clear decision, and respond on your own terms. "I'll have to check my schedule. Let me get back to you later."
• Be polite but direct. Get "no" in within the first sentence or two. Being overly kind can unintentionally invite the asker to push for a yes rather than signal your refusal.
• Only express regret if you mean it or they'll come back to you later.
• Give a reason but avoid details. Too much detail sounds like you're inventing an excuse, or the asker might quibble or try to take something off your plate. "I would help you out, but I am just fully committed for the rest of the week."
• Ask questions. If it's from a boss, ask them to prioritise this new project – it may remind them of some things they've forgotten you're doing, and get them to think about how to best use your time.
• Offer an alternative. "Fred enjoys that kind of thing, maybe he can help." (Though only if Fred might actually be interested!)
• Set clear boundaries and stick to them, e.g. family time.
• Beware small commitments. A 10 minute chat can spiral into hours.
• Avoid email. It can easily be misinterpreted as more hostile than intended.

Warren Buffet cited his ability to say no as the secret to creating his fortune: "I sit there all day and look at investment proposals. I say No, No, No, No, No, No – until I see one that is exactly what I am looking for. And then I say Yes. All I have to do is say Yes a few times in my life and I've made my fortune."

References: When "No" Is The Way To Go, John Maxwell, Getting To No, Hannah Clark, The Three Great Gifts of a Positive No, William Ury.

Our church's offering last week for our Champions Centre came to £879,554 ish (including gift aid, cash on the day and 12 month pledges) – wow, this is Bradford we're talking about – the heart of penny-pinching Yorkshire!

Churches fume over 'no smoking' signs: "It is such nonsense. One is bound to ask, when did you last hear of somebody smoking in church?" Oh, of course, because people who smoke wouldn't seen anywhere near a church? Har har...

Recently this thought has been pressing on my mind, and no matter were I go or what I do, I seem to see this thought in everything and everyone. It wasn't till a couple of years ago that I started to discover the answer to this question myself.

When you first become a Christian, life for the first time makes sense, "This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2 v3-4) We discover the truth and the truth indeed sets us free. It sets us free to have a personal, wonderful relationship with the living God. It is full of wonder, excitement and utter joy, and should continue throughout your life. It's a time of real self discovery and God discovery that is likened to the relationship to a man and wife (e.g. Song of Solomon).

This all began for me when I was 14 years of age, I somewhat had my own little Damascus road experience and turned my life over to God – since then nothing has been the same. The first years of this relationship were wondrous, I was passionate for Jesus sharing him with friends, involved deeply in church and youth group activities. I began to understand who I was in Christ and was sold out for God. All I wanted was to be with him and he with me, to relish the relationship between us.

Then throughout my late teens, early twenties I began to feel empty inside, what I had just wasn't enough. I was still spending time with God, still involved deeply in church, still trying to reach my friends for Christ, however something vital lacked in me and I couldn't quite work it out. Others thought my lack of satisfaction was coming from my relationship with God, and my lack of relationship. This was so not so. I had never before been so desperate for him, on my knees praying, pleading for more of him than before. I had not withdrawn myself from him or he with me.

Looking back now it all seems so understandable with what was happening. Throughout this time God gave me this passage that at the time, I really didn't understand:

Deuteronomy 8
Do Not Forget the LORD
Be careful to follow every command I am giving you today, so that you may live and increase and may enter and possess the land that the LORD promised on oath to your forefathers. Remember how the LORD your God led you all the way in the desert these forty years, to humble you and to test you in order to know what was in your heart, whether or not you would keep his commands. He humbled you, causing you to hunger and then feeding you with manna, which neither you nor your fathers had known, to teach you that man does not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of the LORD. Your clothes did not wear out and your feet did not swell during these forty years. Know then in your heart that as a man disciplines his son, so the LORD your God disciplines you.

Observe the commands of the LORD your God, walking in his ways and revering him. For the LORD your God is bringing you into a good land – a land with streams and pools of water, with springs flowing in the valleys and hills; a land with wheat and barley, vines and fig trees, pomegranates, olive oil and honey; a land where bread will not be scarce and you will lack nothing; a land where the rocks are iron and you can dig copper out of the hills.

I truly believe that throughout this time God wanted to prepare me for the next part of our journey together and in order to do so he needed to teach me things he could only do in a dessert like experience.

The land were God was speaking to me about was the land I am possessing now, full of honey and lacking in nothing – however this land comes at a price, not only the price of the years I felt frustrated but the price of a deeper more committed relationship with God.

God has seriously stripped away a lot of garbage that I was holding onto in order for him to get out of me the next stage of life he has for me.

Going back to my original thought – what are we saved for? It is the for that has in the past niggled away at me: "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." (1 Corinthians 13v11) Many Christians never move away from childish things, they enjoy the pleasure of being with the father spending time playing with their life, crying and moaning about what they haven't got and what they wish they had. That is all well and good when they are in the beginning stages of their walk with God, but there comes a time were God asks you gently to grow up and start to take responsibility, like any responsible father would do.

This is when the answer to the question what are we saved for? comes into question.

Now I can only speak of my experiences and as we all know, we are all different and carry different responsibilities in our life, depending on the heart (the person) that God has give you/made you to be.

There are many natural abilities God has given me, the ability to sing, play an instrument, put up with naughty kids 6 hours a day etc… but there are also God given abilities that he has given to everyone, like Compassion, love, selflessness, patience, kindness, these (gifts of the spirit) are for everyone, as long as they wish to pick them up and use the in there lives.

As part of any natural growing up there comes a time where you break away from the self-orientated "I want what's best for me – and only me" to the realisation that life isn't just all about your needs, wants and desires. That there is more to life, and that fulfilling your own needs can only fill you up so much.

For years I was like this, going to church to get what I wanted from it, reading the word to see how it could fulfil me, Spending time with saved friends to fill me up. Me, myself and Corinna, as long as I was happy and fulfilled by God that was ok with me.

Then God started to do an amazing work in my life, a painful and deep internal work.

Moving from Scarborough we found ourselves at the Abundant Life Church. I hated it at first, hate probably a strong word but quite fitting. It made me question everything I thought Christianity was. For months I battled inside (and with Paul) about going to this sacrilegious excuse for a church. Eventually as any humble wife would do I humbled myself to my husband and accepted that whether I liked it or not, that is where we were going.

Looking back now it makes me laugh at how blind and stubborn I was, not only that but steeped in religiousness, full of pride and quite ugly at that.

I am so grateful now for this time of my life, it was as though God put a mirror in front of me that I couldn't look away from. "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known." (1 Corinthians 13v2) Everything that ALC stood for was in opposition to my own "Christian life". There I saw real people living their lives for others, whether in church or outside. I saw freedom, from religious piousness, it was ok to be you, and not perfect, God will deal with that in time. I saw real truth, being thrown out from the pulpit, truth that could hurt as it challenged the very depth of who I am and who I wanted to become. My life leaped to another level of thinking, living and loving God.

But most of all, my life has become and is becoming less of me-oriented, which has meant that my time my love my compassion has/is spent on others, whether at school, loving and nurturing the children I teach, at home loving and assisting my husband in life, or just as importantly, changing the lives of others who are overlooked, in need, desperate for Gods love and acceptance. These people are all around us, at work, our neighbors, all around our community.

Through a Community Action Team that we are involved in we have seen lives that are in need of fathering, mothering, sistering and brothering. Most of the kids we have the privilege to come in contact with are without fathers and mothers, and if they have had one they have taken advantage or not loved these individuals in the way they ought to.

I have one friend who now calls me his big sis. That may sound really sweet but to me it's the call of God on all our lives. It touches the deepest part of me, as I know that this person has no-one, his father died without really knowing him his mother has nothing to do with him, his life has been carted around from one childrens home to the next. I count it an utter privilege to know and to love this person and see him through the eyes of God.

"'For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'" (Matthew 25 v34-40)

This selflessness, unreligious Christianity of reaching out, however uncomfortable at times has/is giving me a closer walk with God and a much more fulfilled life. I love the way The Message puts Galatians 2:20:

It is no longer important that I appear righteous before you or have your good opinion, and I am no longer driven to impress God. Christ lives in me. The life you see me living is not "mine," but it is lived by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. I am not going to go back on that.

Is it not clear to you that to go back to that old rule-keeping, peer-pleasing religion would be an abandonment of everything personal and free in my relationship with God? I refuse to do that, to repudiate God's grace. If a living relationship with God could come by rule-keeping, then Christ died unnecessarily.

What are we saved for? Well quite simply to help and to serve others.

P.S. I hope you know what you are saved from

"Courage is contagious. When a brave man takes a stand, the spines of others are stiffened." (Billy Graham)

Continuing from my earlier post: if you can't be bothered to read up about it all, here's a PBS documentary about kiva (click on 'watch video' - it's only 15m45s). These things are easier to watch than read about...

It's quite reassuring to see it actually happening. Just reading some text doesn't really give you the same confidence. Forgive the ultra basic explanation for the first few minutes, it gets better. (Though that's good if you know nothing about it.) We get to meet the team behind kiva, some of the 'field partners' and some success stories.

Initially I thought kiva helps people who have no access to any capital, but turns out they do, but at extortionate interest rates (around 35% from the local bank, or around 300% from the village moneylender, and I've read reports that that can go up to 1000%, though actually I've come across people who have similar stories here too).

The only question mark in my mind is interest. The local partners charge interest, which is not such a bad thing in itself (they are working for a living too), but there is no indication of how much they charge. Kiva says it knows the figures and won't work with any that charge exorbitant rates. It's 'a fraction of the cost'. (But 99/100 is a fraction, and so is 500/100 for that matter...) Apparently they are compiling a list of the interest rates (I thought they already knew them?) and will publish them on individual field partners' pages shortly, so that should put that issue to rest. Also kiva are about to start charging 2% to cover costs too. I guess that's unavoidable. They are still 'non-profit', and a large part of your money will still directly benefit the people you choose.

One point of view I've read is that microfinance doesn't work because those who get loans would probably have got their business off the ground anyway, and it doesn't help the people below a certain line of ability/skill level (who probably need more help). I disagree. You can do a lot more if you have the capital - it can accelerate a business by years. And as the video shows, if you help one person you help the community. One lady on there has taken on employees and is now a field partner getting the whole community involved in entrepreneurship. In general, employees build up knowledge and experience and may later expand into their own businesses too, so just because you're not directly putting cash in their hands doesn't mean you're not helping them (perhaps that is the best way to improve the lives of the lower skilled group - putting cash in their hands could do the opposite and ruin them!). In my view, people who hold this objection probably don't understand the complexities of economics.

I still think it's a great idea. On the part of the entrepreneur it increases accountability and the sense of responsibility to actually make the thing work. (They have someone chasing them up regularly after all!) It's really helping them to help themselves. On the lender's side, it's like an investment with what they call a 'social return'. It's a real win-win thing. You can take your money out once it's repaid but the beauty is you can reinvest it somewhere else. Your donation could one day be establishing a brick making business in Kenya, the next a peanut butter business in Uganda! Even if you can't go to those places, your money can keep travelling all over the world! And going back to economics for a sec, it's not like you're pouring heavy foreign money into their fragile economy (it's small amounts and they have to pay it back) for a quick fix. You're helping their economy to grow itself, which is a long process, not an event. (Not that I'm against traditional charity, they're just different tools for different jobs.) And you're not just pouring money into problems either, but releasing potential.

I've heard Christians say "neither a borrower nor a lender be" - which sounds like it could come from the Bible doesn't it? But no, it's from Shakespeare's Hamlet, who is not particularly known for his Biblical exegesis anyway, let alone a character's opinion in a work of fiction! Perhaps sound advice in some circumstances but as a principle for life? No, the Bible does not agree with this at all (see Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:35-37; Deuteronomy 15:6-8; Psalm 37:25-26; 112:5; Matthew 5:42; Luke 6:35). Turns out that lending (done properly) is generosity, and not lending is "hardhearted or tightfisted". And with reinvesting, think of the return: £20 reinvested 25 times is £500's worth of generosity! (Makes me think of the parable of the 10 talents.)

Plus with this great offer we've got on US$ at the mo (buy one get one free), your donations can go even further...

The Danger of Raising Nice Kids: I will get the book at some point, but I like this extract:

... we need a perspective that is transcultural and not simply a product of our culture. We need a perspective that has a long-term view and is not obsessed with a short-term payoff...

Have you ever thought of parenting as discipleship? ... The motive of discipline is to have the child obey. The motive of discipleship is to nurture the child toward maturity. Compliance isn't enough in our culture that will chew up and destroy teens and young adults who are not mature...

External-focused parenting produces kids who look nice on the outside. If our emphasis as parents has been on the outside, then we should expect to have kids with an external focus. They will have learned from us how to act ... They've learned how to play the game, but they aren't prepared for life — yet their parents may think they are.

And while on the subject, from another article:

It reminds me of the guy who comes home with a big pile of work he needs to finish. His little kindergarten daughter looks at the pile and asks him why he's working so hard and why he always has to bring work home. The father looks at her and says, "The problem is, I just don't get it all finished at work so I need to bring it home and get it done here." The daughter looks up at him and says, "Daddy, I think they should put you in the slower group."

Hey this is cool: you can get involved in microloans really easily on kiva.org. It's non-profit, you can use paypal (no fees), and choose who to loan to. It's the gift that keeps on giving - you could end up re-investing the same donation loads of times!

Har har - our pastor's always saying, "There's more people in IKEA than church this morning, and I can't blame them, at least they come away with something useful!" (In a lot of other churches he means, not ours of course...) and it turns out people have more faith in IKEA than the church too!   :)

Sacrifice. It's not a popular word. It may take you back to the Old Testament with its rules and regs and animal sacrifices. Of course, Jesus put an end to all those requirements, so for a Christian it's easy to see yourself as living within his sacrifice - he was a sacrifice so you don't have to be... But hang on, that wasn't the point. Jesus' death was the ultimate once-and-for-all no-need-for-any-more sacrifice for our sin, but was it the no-need-for-any-more sacrifice? How come Paul is still talking about living our lives as "living sacrifices"?¹ Looking back at the Old Testament, sacrifices were not just about sin, they were about worship.

Granted, the method has changed (thankfully!) but worship and sacrifice are still different labels for the same thing - 'worship' that costs you nothing is not worship and it doesn't mean anything to God.² On the flip side, that means anything that costs you is worship, and it's not just about money. Jesus brought it right down to the level of even just going out of your way and pouring a drink of water for someone.³ Paul puts it, living as a sacrifice is your worship.¹

I love this because it is so ridiculous:

you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, "Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!" and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup - where does that get you? Isn't it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?⁴

The words do not cost you anything, but the coat and soup do. Or there's a similar passage here which basically says, if you see a need and you have the ability to do something about it, you now have some responsibility for it; "let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth". Again, the words do not cost you anything, but the actions do.

What am I getting at? It might be something as simple as giving a lift to someone. (Though someone reminded me the other day, never underestimate the importance of transport - people can miss out on their potential for no more complex reason than they couldn't get to the right place.) Going out of your way to give them that lift is worship. Not with a reluctant or irritated attitude, but God wants you to want to do it and enjoy it!⁵

I'm not making it sound particularly enjoyable am I? Well, I guess it's not that attractive on the face of it, but Jesus was right when he said it's better to give than receive.⁶ (Or you could read that as, it's better to sacrifice.) I certainly didn't believe that when I was a kid, I much preferred receiving! But as I've matured, I've realised the wisdom in what he said, it's so much better than receiving. The look on that person's face when you give them that really thoughtful gift; being able to make something that's difficult for someone easier; helping someone improve their life; giving peace and solidarity to someone; even just recording a TV programme for someone and loving the fact that you're helping them! If it costs you something, it's worship.

This is a nifty idea: donate to charity from Amazon's profits! (Or quite a few other big retailers for that matter.) See easyfundraising.org.uk (that link defaults to Mercy which is a worthwile cause). You may even get a discount on what you were going to buy anyway!

The Global Rich List is quite nifty. I like the little people animation.

Skipping past the main issue, I spotted this in this article: "About a third, or 7,000, of all state schools in England have a religious ethos, mostly Christian. Four fifths of the top 200 secondaries are faith schools." Implying a strong correlation between religiousity and academic results (assuming by 'top' they mean top grades). An interesting effect of religion, makes people more academic? (Ho ho, I just noticed what the last thing I posted was...)

Oh and I meant to say a while back, on The One Show (I wouldn't normally watch it, it was on while I was making tea... Honest!) they had an interesting feature on Diffusion of Responsibility: The more people there are, the less inclined you are to help someone in distress, for example because you assume there will be people around who are more qualified than you to help in that situation. Also, you're much more likely to help people if you're in a happy mood. People who are not are presumably engrossed in their own troubles. Interesting...

There was even a case where there were some church ministers on their way to preach on the good Samaritan, and those running late would not stop to help anyone! (The irony!)

I was playing around with Premiere a little yesterday and made this 2m video: Light of the World (7mb - though being wmv it can stream as well). You have to turn the sound up loud (esp bass) and full screen mode is recommended. (At least play it at 100% size - wmp insists on resizing it to its own default window size.)

The start is very reminiscent of star trek! But that's completely unintentional - I didn't realise until I'd done it. Those who know the audio will notice I've hacked it around quite a bit. Don't worry, it's meant to be blank at the start and in the middle. I guess I could have put more in, but I quite like the visual emptiness. Lets you reflect or imagine.

conviction -> behaviour -> routine -> habit -> tradition -> ...
A conviction starts off inside you. It may have been triggered by something external, but the substance of the thing is internal. Obviously, if it's a real conviction, it affects your behaviour - you start to act differently and make different choices. Over time those different things become the norm for you, so they get incorporated into your routine, and eventually become habitual. When passed on to the next generation, habits become tradition. It's just a natural law.

That is not to say that things like routine, habit and tradition are inherently bad - they can bring a kind of comfort, and they can be a powerful force for good. But by the time something gets like that, it's very possible the thing has lost its original conviction, so what was intended for good can become dangerous. I say dangerous because tradition without conviction is meaningless, empty, distracting, even destructive. It forms a boundary that hems people in to something they were never meant to be. Like a herd of sheep in a pen - there was life in it originally, but once they've eaten all the grass there's no life left there, they must break free and move on or they will die of starvation. What fed them earlier will not sustain them indefinitely. Each generation must find its own convictions, not mindlessly repeat the previous generation's traditions. (This means both have to play their part: the old guiding the conviction journey, not imposing externals; the new applying some thought and action, not clinging to the familiar.)

It's easy to see how this plays out in families and at work. "Why do we have to do X like that?" you'll ask. "That's how we've always done it" they'll say, or "It's just like that". An example from the Bible is the old testament law. Initially it meant something to the people - internally. But they did not 'write it on their hearts' so it became externalised. They passed on the behaviours, not the convictions. By Jesus' day, the law had been reduced to a set of boundary markers so people could easily identify whether you were 'in' or 'out' of the religious club. So by that definition, there are still plenty of externalisers who love to turn the church into a religious club today. Anyway, I'm going off on one...

What does this mean? If you find yourself doing something because that's what you're 'supposed' to be doing, or when you were growing up someone told you you must do it, or it's what's expected of you, or that's what someone in your role has always done, ask yourself, why? And when you find the truth, stand with it. If it reinforces what you're already doing, great! If the season for that tradition has passed, you must be true to what you believe. God is not bothered about traditions, but what you did with what you knew.

There has been a lot said about identity at church recently (and even before that, I have been thinking about it on a personal level). It has both challenged me and made a huge difference in my life. So I wanted to share a few thoughts on this for those of you out there that have struggled in this area like myself. Now I'm not a preacher, or even very good at trying to explain things so I hope you can forgive me for that, and I pray that God helps me to explain this simply.

When Jesus was baptised, the Bible says "a voice from heaven said, this is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." (Matt 3:17) As I said I'm not a preacher, but I want to share from this to help you understand. Before Jesus got baptised he knew who he was, he knew his identity. But God confirmed it over his life when he got baptised. Why? Probably because Jesus needed to hear these three things from his Father:

• this is my Son - identity (who you are)
• whom I love - acceptance
• with him I am well pleased — approval

We all strive for these three things in our world, from our family, friends and close relationships. While on holiday I read Wild at heart. It's about the need for a man to know he's a man. What was interesting and thought provoking for me was that it said we all search for these same three things from our fathers (especially men).

God is going to bless who he called you to be, not who you decided to be. To be able to be that person, you might need to delve back into your hurtful past to challenge what has tried to define you; family, friends, circumstances, absent fathers, hurts, pains and fears.

Someone recently explained it like this and I like the analogy because it's simple! Imagine a beam in an old farm house that has been painted again and again over the years. It has layers upon layers. Imagine that is you - people have coloured you this and that because of what they thought you were/are (or should be). Then a new house owner comes along (God) and wants the beam (you) back to how it was intended (what it really is), so he begins to peel away at every layer until he finds the true beam - the God you, the person he always destined you to be.

I have struggled with this throughout my life and have had seasons where I've tried to be this person or like someone else because I saw great gifts in them and had very little self-belief in who God made me to be.

I want to leave you with this thought: God doesn't want you to strive to please him. What you do isn't who you are, even Hitler probably did one good deed in his life.

God is drawn to real people. People are drawn to real people.

We finished on Friday, and the Abundant Life Leadership Academy graduation was last night, and we had a great time. It felt like a real celebration (to me anyway). I'll post some photos and video when I get them. It's the end of one season and the start of a new one, whatever that is - I still don't know what I'm doing yet. But that's ok, I'm in transition. I just had a text: "Academy reunion today at 9:30am. Just kidding." He he... (9:30 is when we started lectures on a morning.)

I've added a Dead Simple Intro to the Bible I just wrote.

Just to agree with what Corinna was saying, we have a rule (he he... not a rule, more of a saying) that whoever spots it does it. None of this "someone should really do something about X" or complaining to your leader "you need to do something about X". If you're spotting it, maybe God is asking you to do something about it! So if you see someone no-one is talking to, you talk to them. It might be a sweet wrapper on the floor or the unmet needs of a whole people group. Think about it as a child of God. How pleased is a dad when his kid spots a used cup (that he did not use) and takes it to the kitchen! So to extend the definition a bit, a good servant spots and meets needs.

My Mum used to tell me that my "attitude stinks" and lately I have been thinking about how God sees us and our attitudes.

You can have an 'attitude' towards children, your husband/wife, your family, job and circumstances, whether:

• Good or Bad
• Positive or Negative
• Right or Wrong

Paul said, writing to the Philippians:

[our] attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death - even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:5-8)

It's the attitude of being a servant that I want to focus on:

[Jesus] made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.

One of the definitions of a being a servant I found was:

To meet requirements or needs.

Jesus' role here on earth was to serve people so much so that he gave the most ultimate sacrifice, himself. I believe the key to a happy fulfilled life is a heart of service and servanthood, whether in employment, at home, or through the local church. Pastor Kevin Gerald recently spoke at our church and made my point in a nutshell. As Christians:

We are not just called to be saved,
we are called to be a contribution.

I think a lot of Christians forget that once they have a nice house, job, car and are settled into their seat of complacency. They are too busy 'receiving' from God that they forget about the whole purpose they were saved: to give back in whatever way to our Saviour.

So how can we serve? Well I think like anything, service starts at home, if you can't get it right at home then you won't get it right anywhere else.

Home
Sounds very simple but just doing little things around the house for your spouse, without complaining ladies! (I just know this is something that I have struggled with!!) It could be picking up your spouse's shoes and putting them away, making the bed, or washing the dishes, if these are done with the right attitude then God will see it. You don't need to remind your spouse of all you do for them, do it as an act of love and appreciation for one another.

Church
There is a thought in the church that to do anything it must be 'your gift', we all are part of the body and have an area where God has placed us. I don't actually disagree with that, what I do disagree with though is the idea that in order to be a blessing to one another we must wait until we find our gifting and that anything else is not good enough. To reiterate the dictionary definition of a servant:

To meet requirements or needs.

Why then when we see a need do we wait for the person that is gifted in that area? "I couldn't possibly clean the toilets, it's not my gift", "I couldn't possibly ask a lonely person around for tea, I don't have the gift of hospitality", etc., If we all had that attitude nothing would ever get done!

Community
It's the same concept within the community, when you reach out to someone unconditionally, with a servant attitude to bless them, to meet their needs and requirements, it's then that God's power begins to shine and move mountains that were once there. A little gift however small, perhaps to do the shopping for someone who's ill, to buy some food for someone in need, breaks away the enemy's barriers that are up.

This act of kindness has been illustrated recently through the life of a good friend of mine. My friend is very ill and has a life threatening disease, she is so weak that she cannot do anything for herself; even walking to her kitchen can be too much for her. Since she has been ill quite a number of people from the church who don't even know her that well have shown a real servant attitude:

• One has done her shopping
• Another washed her floors
• Another cleaned her spare room
• Another put flowers in her pots outside
• And others did more

All simple acts, all unconditional, all with the right attitude.


So where does this leave us, are we too busy to look up from our daily lives to notice any requirements or needs? Are we too selfish to bother with giving our time, thought or money to someone? Do we say, "that's not my gift, why should I? So-and-so will do it." Do we just look after our own, i.e. people in the church, or is our heart towards everyone and anyone? Sometimes it's what seems the simple things in life that we most struggle with. I used to think that it would be great (even if hard) if God sent me to be a missionary, now I realise that it's in those simple things in life that God can allow you to minister to thousands right on your doorstep.

I hope this has been an encouragement to you.


Corinna.

To give you a feel for what I did for part c) of the assignment, I turned the chapter into questions and asked them of myself. Here's the questions I made for the People Development chapter:

• Do you try and do it all yourself?
• How many people do you develop?
• How big are your dreams?
• Do you value people?
• Do you make other people feel important/worthwhile?
• Do your statements and questions show you value that person?
• Are you committed to people?
• Do you give people your time?
• Do you give yourself away to the most important people?
• What standard do you expect from people?
• Do you have positive assumptions about people?
• What do you see in people? Do you spot negative things all the time? (Cynical?)
• What prejudices do you have?
• Do you encourage people?
• Do you see their potential (overrate them) or take them as they are?
• Do you believe in them?
• Do you bring out the best in people?
• Do people buy into you, or do you feel like you have to use your position for authority?
• Do people believe in you?
• Are they buying into your dreams?
• Do you give loyalty or expect it first?
• Are you helping people to understand success?
• Are you out to help them achieve success?
• Are you helping people achieve success?
• Are you aware of de-motivating things?
• Are you active in trying to stop them happening?
• Do you give people the chance to be part of something significant?
• Do you allow people to join in when setting goals?
• Do you try to harness dissatisfaction as a motivation for positive change?
• Do you give people credit for their achievement and appreciation/recognition for their contribution?
• Do you set expectations clearly?
• Do you empower with authority as well as delegate responsibility?
• Do you belittle people?
• Do you manipulate people?
• Are you sensitive to people?
• I.e. responsive in conversation, not preocupied or in a hurry.
• Talking or listening?
• Do you discourage personal growth in people or give them opportunities to try new things and aquire new skills?
• Do you feel threatened by the success of others? (followers) or do you believe all will benefit through one person's growth?
• Are you building people or building your dream by using people?
• Are people more important to you?
• Do you care enough about people to confront?
• Do you confront appropriately?
• Do you listen for more than just words?
• Are you a good listener?
• Do you make people feel listened to, respected and understood?
• Do you look for a person's strengths, or make them work in areas of personal weakness?
• Do you move people into areas they are stronger?
• Do you recognise ability?
• Do you see their work as important?
• Do you show the value a person will get from relationship with you? (Who is getting the better deal?)
• Do you give away ownership of things?
• Do you give people every chance to succeed?
• Do you add value or just try to use their existing value?
• Do you allow time to develop people?
• Do you have people skills?
• Are you able to get people to help you?
• Can you get on with a wide variety of people?
• Are you sensitive/tactful?
• Or are you tough, abusive, sarcastic, aloof, unpredictable or insensitive?
• Do you model what you want to see?
• Do you look at things through other people's eyes?
• (Do you give other people the benefit of the doubt?)
• Do you care for people before you try to develop them?
• Do you look for opportunities to build people up?
• Do you steal their ego food? (...)
• Do you give credit for suggestions?
• Do you correct grievances?
• Do you encourage?
• Do you criticize in front of other people?
• Do you ask people for their opinion?
• Do you give feedback on progress?
• Do the people you lead feel like they've done it themselves?

The assignment I just did is based on this book. For each of five chapters, we had to a) summarise the chapter (100 words), b) isolate the most important principle in it (150 words), and c) apply it to ourselves, identifying strengths and weaknesses (250 words). I thought I'd post a few of my answers to a) and b) - bear in mind that we had very limited word limits...

Integrity
Integrity is consistency. It means you are who you are, no matter where you are or who you are with. Your words and deeds match up. You are single-minded and have nothing to hide. Your system of values directs every part of you, and determines how you will respond to something before it even happens. If you are consistent, your followers will respond consistently — they need a model to follow, not a motto to say. Integrity gives credibility which in turn gives confidence and therefore greater influence. It goes beyond what people think you are (your image) to what you really are. But it is hard work to achieve and maintain because your standards are so high.

Most of the chapter is about the theory of integrity — its meaning, effects, how difficult it is. But tucked away at the back is a nugget of practical wisdom on how to achieve integrity: You will only become what you are becoming right now. Which means if you want something in your future, you need to start building it into your life now (or at least be following a plan to get there). It doesn't even relate directly to integrity but I think it's said in this chapter because integrity is not something you 'do', for example when an issue comes up. It is something you have to build into your life so that it becomes one of your attributes — you are consistent. Then when things happen, your integrity determines what your response will be.

Attitude
Your attitude is one of the things you can control, so you are responsible for it. It is your most important asset — it stands out and influences how your followers think and feel. It determines what you see (we see what we are prepared to see) and how you handle your feelings (whether you allow them to control you). Expectations determine attitudes, and attitudes affect behaviour. A good attitude is essential to reaching your full potential. It's not what happens to you that matters but what happens in you. Bad attitudes can be replaced with good ones through a process.

There are many things we go through in life that are beyond our control. Some are good gifts from God, some are attacks of the enemy, some are caused by people, others 'just seem to happen' with an unknown cause. Many people are on the rollercoaster of being happy when things are going well and depressed when they are not. But it's not what happens to you that matters but what happens in you. A truly happy person is not someone with a certain set of circumstances, but someone with a certain set of attitudes. Though we may not always determine what we go through, we choose how we go through it. This is the most important principle in the chapter because it gives a new perspective on everything in life. It replaces the victim mentality and empowers you to take control of what you're responsible for. It puts more faith in God, acknowledges the reality that is more real than what we perceive, and results in supernatural stability.

People Development
What you assume about a person is what you look for, so positive assumptions stimulate positive leadership. Some good assumptions are: everyone wants to feel important, everyone needs and responds to encouragement, people buy into you before they buy into your leadership, most people do not understand success (they think it's luck or an event or never failing), most people are inherently motivated until something de-motivates them. Are you building people or building your dream using people? Do you care about people enough to confront them? Do you listen to more than just words? Do you look for people's strengths? Do both sides get a good deal from your relationships? Take opportunities to build people up and be a model they can follow.

To paraphrase Maxwell's principle: the more you develop people, the greater the extent of your dreams. If you develop no one, you will not achieve much. If you develop yourself, it's a start, but your dreams will still be confined to what one person can achieve. But Maxwell taught in the previous chapter that the effects of a leader are multiplied by his followers, and so it is with dreams: if you develop others, you multiply growth and potential. And the more people, the bigger the dream boundary. Though it is important to remember that people come first — as Bono said, "their lives are bigger than any big idea". To be honest, I don't have a good explanation as to why I chose this principle as the most important — there are so many great ones in this chapter, and they are important in different ways.

For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

This is usually quoted to mean 'where you put your money shows your heart' (often in the negative because of its context). But I heard it as this recently: if you want your heart to go after something, put some money into it - so simple but so true!

At one point in a book I just read it says something along the lines of 'if you are consistent, your beliefs will be mirrored by your conduct'. That's a bit out of context, but anyway, it kicked off a thought. If you assume for a minute that you are entirely consistent, you can determine what you really believe by looking at your behaviour (not just what you think you believe, or what you believe in theory).

So, trying to ignore what I think I believe, I asked myself questions like: what do you spend your time doing? What do you spend your money on? What shortcuts do you take? How far into grey areas does your conscience allow you to go? What do you put your trust in?

So basically, if all you had to go off was like a police surveillance report list of externals, what would your profile look like? And how closely does that resemble what you think you believe?

I was thinking the other day about how great it is for Christians to be school teachers, if you have the skills and desire that is. You have such massive potential to change the world.

For a start, your influence is received so much more readily by kids than by adults. And you're influencing lives at such a crucial time in their formation. Any influence you do have on them will make such a big impact. And then combine that with the time factor - they have so much of their little lives left to live. How you influence a child affects generations of people. If Corinna changed a 7 year old's direction even by only 1°, think how much of a difference that would make to their life 30 years down the line, and all the knock on effects for people they do life with and the family they create and shape.

But teachers have so much more impact than 1° - they invest so much time and so much of themselves into these kids. For a primary teacher it's the same children for many hours a day, five days out of seven - that's a big chunk of their lives! Either way, teachers are a key influencer in their lives, possibly the key influencer in some. Especially if they like you. I can see Corinna turning some of her kids from a bearing of destruction to one of contribution.

Not only do you have all this influence, but you are paid to use it! And the pay is decent (though you have to spend a big chunk back on teaching resources because the school won't). And you get to work alongside some of society's shapers - imagine how much influence a school has on the thousands of pupils it invests years into!

And a lot of the kids and parents and teachers you spend all this time with are people you would never normally meet or do life with. Over 95% of the kids in Corinna's school are Muslims, Hindus or Sikhs. The funniest thing is that the kids are a captive audience! They are forced to be there, har har!

Back in November we had a visit from a guy called Dan. A year before, his four years old son Josiah had been diagnosed with an inoperable malignant brain tumor and given a 30% chance of surviving a year, 5% for two. He gave me the URL for his blog and I've not been able to check it until recently. Within a month of his visit, Josiah died. It's very moving as you read about him wrestling with faith and pain. I thought about quoting some here but I think the context is too important. I started reading here in August (this is when he visited us). There's also an article about Josiah on another website here.

Only yesterday I was reading a different guy's story (ok, maybe exchristian.org isn't a great place to hang around, but I'm researching my next assignment). He thought himself a Christian and was even in his "third year of Christian college" (whatever that is) but losing a close friend in a horrible car crash was too much for him. "Why did God let this happen? ... As the years went by I saw many of my other friends suffer meaningless torment as they suffered everything from bad marriages ... to cancer ... to various greater and lesser physical ailments." Understandably, one of his greatest frustrations was "the only answer anybody could give me was 'God knows best' ... [the sufferers] felt obligated to bear graciously because 'God has plan for our lives and it's not for us to question.'"

A good friend of ours who is going through some very tough times at the moment asked us to explain this "God never gives us anything we can't handle" thing he keeps hearing. Not having time to think I blurted out something like "I'm not going to explain what I believe, maybe the question is better for you right now than any answer I can give". (Afterwards I realised that was actually pretty wise - Prov 17:28!)

I'm not suggesting these three are comparable. It may seem like yet another pious cliché, but we are all on a journey. Dan is going through his hell at the moment. His blog offers a strange privilege.

I've been listening a lot to Delirious' "The Mission Bell" (thanks Matt) and one song starts with:

40 million babies lost to Gods great orphanage,
It's a modern day genocide and a modern day disgrace
If this is a human right then why aren't we free?
The only freedom we have is in a man nailed to a tree.

100 million faces, staring at the sky,
Wondering if this HIV will ever pass us by.
The devil stole the rain and hope trickles down the plug,
But still my Chinese take away could pay for someone's drugs.

(The rest of the album is a bit more cheery, it has to be said...) Quoting numbers does not capture the level of suffering and pain experienced, true, but it sets us up for the great discord that happens when the chorus kicks in, repeating:

Our God reigns, Our God reigns,
Forever your kingdom reigns.

The truth is that our God has all the power that exists, but he does not stop suffering. There are horrendous things happening in your city. I know some people immediately jump into explaining that away with enlightened theological logic, but it sounds so cold. These three are finding the best way they can of dealing with it when it actually matters.

From Dan's latest entry: "Your walk is different when you've been through suffering."

It wouldn't be fair to finish there without adding some balance. I know it's difficult, but the good news is that suffering does not invalidate belief in God. So many people think it does, but if you're there, please persevere. We can only see life on one level, but there is another level (see 2 Corinthians 4:4-18).

After dropping Corinna off at school next week I'll be going to school myself. Everyone on my course (45 of us ish) are going into secondary schools in and around Bradford warning about the dangers of volatile substance abuse (e.g. glue sniffing) for the Chantelle Bleau Memorial Fund. There are more VSA deaths among under 18's than any illegal drug (70/year in the UK - more than all the illegal drugs put together in fact I think). However there have been zero in Bradford since Chantelle's death which is a real victory. (There was one not long ago but he didn't have a CBMF lesson because he was just above the age when they started.)

We are doing lessons in pairs, I'm going in with Matthias who's a real larf so we're going to make it a lot of fun. Here he is sporting James' shades and a lovely hairclip:

He's Dutch so one of our gags will go along these lines:

Paul: This is Dr. Hutte who has come all the way from Holland to give this lesson to you. His English is not very good but I am a fluent Dutch speaker so I will translate. Dr. Hutte...?

Matt: Iets werkelijk lang winded in het Nederlands, iets die gaat voor leeftijden en leeftijden en u werkelijk zal maken denken ik zeg een maar u is binnen voor een verrassing.

Paul: 'Hello.'

Matt: Dit is iets anders dat ik zeg.

Paul: 'I have just arrived in England and I already hate it. The weather is abysmal and I can't wait to go home.'

He he, something like that anyway. We'll see how it goes...

The most egg-citing bit of the lesson (sorry) is a game called Egg Roulette. Based on Russian Roulette, there are 5 hardboiled eggs and one raw egg in a carton. Two kids take it in turns to pick an egg and smash it on their forehead. It gets quite messy. It has them hooked as you can imagine, and it sticks in the mind for a long time. The message is 'playing with solvents is like playing with a loaded gun'. The thing about VSA is that unlike normal drugs which kill you off long-term, it could kill you instantly whether it's the first or twentieth time you've tried it.

We're doing six lessons so that means we'll impact around 180 kids, and that's just two of us. They reckon in total we'll hit around 12k kids with the message, wow! (That's with some people doing assemblies in case you were working out the maths.)

There are loads of great things about doing these lessons. Mainly it's that we're keeping people alive! I think it at least shows you care about people and not just "conversions". And anyway, if you think about it those terms, how could they hear about Jesus if they're dead before they even get a chance?

I have been reflecting lately about how my life has changed so dramatically over the last two years and why. Two years ago this month Paul and I walked into the Abundant Life Church not sure what we might encounter.

Being there at first was very uncomfortable for me. I was out of my comfort zone and things were done very differently compared with the churches I had known up until that point. It took me a good few months (and Paul putting his foot down) for me to trust Paul and God that we were in the right place.

I remember quite vividly Paul Scanlon speaking in those first few weeks about how ALC was a greenhouse^* for people; an environment where they could thrive and change. Back then it sounded like a nice theory but because of my lack of trust in church and the pastor, I swept it away and thought nothing much of it.

Two years later I am a testimony not only to what Paul said that Sunday, but to the life changing power of Jesus. Up until that point I never really had confidence in Jesus. My confidence had been placed in the people around me and my circumstances. My thoughts were about myself: my needs, my wants, my desires. Looking back, I believe it was a way I protected myself from getting hurt as my confidence was in myself. For many years this led me to have a very unhappy and selfish life.

But blessed are those who trust in the Lord and have made the Lord their hope and confidence. They are like trees planted along a riverbank, with roots that reach deep into the water. Such trees are not bothered by the heat or worried by long months of drought. Their leaves stay green, and they go right on producing delicious fruit. (Jeremiah 17:7-8, emphasis mine)

This passage was the main turn-around in my life. My eyes are no longer on me and what's best for me, they are (turning, still a way to go) on those around me - not just family and friends but those who are in need.

Jesus said,

Then they will reply, 'Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?' And he will answer, 'I assure you, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.' (Matthew 25:44-45, emphasis mine)

I believe that as Christians we are here to show Jesus to others. Many people focus on the telling bit, which is important too. But getting into someone's life and changing it for the better (without any conversion agenda), that is truly the gospel of Jesus Christ. To "Love your neighbour as yourself" (Matthew 22:39). To be a walking testimony of the LOVE of Jesus, embracing all people of all kinds, all religions, without criticism or judgment. Jesus did not say I am sending you to judge the world.

Since Paul and I have been married especially, we have never been in want of anything. We have had more than enough, which got me thinking the other day. Something deep within me has been telling me that God has given Paul and I these things (time, money, and the love that we experienced growing up) to lavish on others. They are not to be held onto but rather shared purposefully, to be a tool for Jesus to use.

Life has been challenging over the last month in particular, those who know me will know of the difficulties I have been having in my new job. It has been a time for learning and a time for conformation. A month before these difficulties I was really challenged with the passage I quoted earlier from Jeremiah. God had been speaking to me about where my confidence was lying, in him or myself:

But blessed are those who trust in the Lord and have made the Lord their hope and confidence. They are like trees planted along a riverbank, with roots that reach deep into the water. Such trees are not bothered by the heat or worried by long months of drought. Their leaves stay green, and they go right on producing delicious fruit. (Jeremiah 17:7-8, emphasis mine)

I found that the answer at the time laid with me and during that month I determined to put my confidence, hope and trust into God. Then the storm "heat" came. I was given an option loud and clear, to look at my circumstances and wallow, or turn to God and soar.

It has been an amazing month. I am not in any way saying that I have found things easy, but God has been my anchor. I have seen God work through what seemed a hopeless situation and turn it around. It has been a testimony to everyone around me, especially at school. Though at every stage I have had to make sure that my eyes were on Jesus and that my attitude was correct. Through this time I have been able to be myself with people more, and I have gained new friends. I have witnessed verbally and physically through my actions and reactions. I know that two years ago I would have gone to pieces, my eyes would have been on myself and God would not have been glorified.

I want to go back to my original comment about ALC: a greenhouse for people; an environment where people can thrive and change. It is very difficult to put into words the amazing impact this church has had on our lives. I believe that like with any plant, one trip to the greenhouse will have very little effect on how you grow. A plant needs constant heat, light and protection. And that is why I can say from having two years of being in the environment of the greenhouse, that it has accelerated my growth as a Christian. I was in the garden about to start wilting, then God brought me into his house and my life has changed dramatically.

It would take me all day to go into the ins and outs of why this church is so different and amazing; maybe I will get to that one day. I just hope that what I have said has given you inspiration to look to Jesus, not to focus on yourself, but make him your hope and confidence.


^* greenhouse: A glass or transparent plastic structure in which plants that need heat (tough times), light (Jesus) and protection (God) from the weather are grown.

Well, I've been on my course for 6 weeks now, or as someone said the other day, we're a sixth of the way through - a sixth already?! That's gone quick! (Ok, it's technically 7 weeks now but I didn't count this one as it's reading week... Ahh, the benefits of being a student!)

I have to say, I'm so glad we made this choice. It's such a great feeling waking up excited about what I get to do today! I wake up on a Monday and can't wait to get going! I can't remember when I last felt like that.

I've done all sorts of things like driving vans all over Bradford, and as far as Harrogate and Nottingham, driving minibuses round Bradford and Leeds, moving thousands of chairs (literally), meeting loads of people, carrying loads of heavy gear and boxes and stuff, directing cars around, painting, arranging a buffet, serving coffees, helping someone start their car, fixing computers, helping out with the recording of our youth band's 2nd live album, and more stuff than I can remember... Even cleaning and hovering! Wow. I'm a changed man! He he...

We had our Stronger conference which was awesome, though I spent most of it locked away in the sound room working 14 hour days! He he... (Some people use their holidays so they can work harder at church than they do in their jobs!) I've mastered tens of CDs and I'm training up more people to do it. I've carried on working with homeless and excluded kids in sheltered accommodation. I've been having lots of ideas. My 'to do' list is getting longer and longer! I've bought lots of books and read some of them (and lots of websites too). I've written pages and pages of notes. I finished my first essay the other day - 4500 words on God (well, 6 things about him), and I should be working on my second rather than writing this!   :)   That's the first essay I've enjoyed writing ever I think. I was so inspired that rather than do what I would usually do - leave it till the last minute - I started on it a week early!

Man, it's been a lot of fun. So much stuff packed into those 6 weeks. Some things may seem insignificant (like what skill does it take to carry stuff?) but I've seen value in all of them. Not just building character, though they do that. I'm helping people, I'm making life better for someone. They all need doing so I'm freeing someone else from having to do them as well. And I really enjoy helping out anyway. One man's kindness is another man's miracle and all that.

Oh yeah, and lectures too! We've had some excellent teaching from ALC people and guest lecturers on things such as God, the Bible, prayer, worship, the Church, how ALC works and how it got where it is, reaching people, the heart of a good leader, and heard some amazing testimonies too. We've started on the more pastoral subjects like the introduction to Christian counselling, and had speakers on helping kids in the community (mainly schools so far) and in church.

I'm learning so much. It's not like I'm new to a lot of this stuff - I've been a Christian for many years, I've even done a theological course before. But I just love the way things are done at ALC. God has been speaking to me personally about a whole load of things, some of which are:

• Ownership. Not borrowing other people's convictions, enthusiasm, worship, courage, joy, interest, gifts, but owning my own. And taking responsibility. Which relates to:
• Be comfortable with who you are. Not trying to copy someone else, but find out who you are and be him. Bring out what God has put inside you. Don't be embarrassed of what you're good at.
• Faithfulness. Be faithful with the little you've got now - use it. Show initiative.
• Don't limit God. He is so much bigger than you can imagine.
• Dependence. I'm completely dependent on God anyway - we all are whether we know it or not - but there's nothing like giving up your job to clarify your thoughts! It tests your trust. By nature I'm a very practical kinda guy. I like to just get things done, but that means I tend to rely on myself too much, which leads to:
• Prayer. Self-reliance also means I tend to see limited value in prayer. I think it's a sign of maturity that I'm not always bugging God, but unless you talk to him a lot how can you build a decent relationship with him? Prayer is two-way too, as in I don't necessarily lead the conversation, which I tend to forget. I've been learning a lot from how Jesus prayed as well. And it's working because I'm communicating with him better.
• My past is useful. I tend to be very forward looking and like to forget what's gone before (sometimes that's a good thing!) but it also means I can miss out. For example, bad things I've been through mean I can help someone who is going through that now. Good things like my computer skills God will use for the kingdom (somehow).

And many more things besides. I'd be here all day. But it's a lot to do with heart and character so it's hard to express anyway. And it's not like the words are new, but I'm growing in the meaning behind them. (I've noticed old messages keep coming to mind and teaching me new things too!)

A cool thing I've discovered is skim reading. I mean it's not new - I do it with other things, but I always thought it was irreverent to do it with the Bible, like I must survey every word. But I could feel that leading towards religiosity, I would get bored easily so there are large parts of the Bible I've never read before. One thing I've done for a few years now is listen to the Bible on tape which is good, adds an angle. That allowed me to focus on the content and my imagination could kick in better. We were told to skim read the Bible alongside our Bible overview course and it really adds another perspective. It gives me a lot of freedom and I've found it really refreshing. I wonder why I've never done it before? I've found myself reading the Bible loads - I have never loved my Bible as much as I do right now. I even bought a Bible so I could highlight bits - very unlike me usually!

I knew signing up for this course would involve a lot of sacrifice (e.g. this and this) but I can honestly say it's all been worth it. If the course were to finish now it would have been worth it. But I have another 5/6ths to look forward to! Yay!

I feel very inspired. ALC is such a great place to be. There's so much going on all the time and there's such a great atmosphere. I'd be down there all the time if I could!   :)

One of the central concepts in our church that people least seem to 'get' is people empowerment. Rather than trying to control people, they are equipped and enabled to bring out what's in them. I had a realisation about this a month ago and finally got round to writing it up, so here goes - it may be obvious but whatever... realisations usually are!

Talking to a powerful person, Jesus said "You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above." So all power originates in God and flows downwards from him. He has all the power and he chooses to give some of it to people, who in turn give some to others. So why is it so many church leaders act like recipients of that power rather than channels? Who are we to decide where the power stops?!

This is not limited to church either - it's in business, politics, families, etc. Those at the top keep all the power and try to control everyone below. There are constant 'power struggles' and striving for titles and position. It's the way of the world - managers dictate - but we should not be conformed (Rom 12:2).

But even then, smart business people realise the benefits. Google have built empowerment into their structure! Their people are given time to do whatever they like with, and in the process they create ideas that generate masses of new business and market share. I remember an aerospace company that empowered people to come up with ideas for savings in their designs. Because they offered 5% of the savings as an incentive, one guy made a fortune by suggesting they use a few less rivets! There are lots of these stories in the business world.

Yes giving power away makes you vulnerable, you feel weakened, but that's precisely when God can do amazing things (2 Cor 12:9). It feels like chaos, but it's not because God is still in control. You are just rejecting your own control over people, situations and things - and trusting God instead.

It breaks frustration too. I used to be frustrated in church. I was being encouraged plenty, it wasn't that, I just felt controlled - like a small group of people held all the power and my destiny was to work for someone else's dream. The only way to be empowered was to grab a title or a top spot for yourself. There's a better way!

I thought about it from a different angle. What kind of job is most successful? By successful I mean in general where people have the highest earnings, job satisfaction, freedom, personal success, love for their work, that kind of thing. Doctor, solicitor, estate agent, pastor?! He he... No, I'm not thinking of a particular type of work, I'm thinking self-employed people. They are the ones most empowered to do whatever's in their heart. Ask a self-employed person if he'd want to go back to being a regular employee and I think I know what his answer would be! (Very short and probably not printable.)

"But a lot of small business fail!" someone will object. Yes, that's true. I'm not saying empowerment is perfect and always works. Sometimes people have bad or impossible dreams, or misread the times. It's risky and hard, but I think empowerment is the only way to big success. God and the church are bigger than just me. As leaders our dreams should be bigger than just me could control. God has not just more power than me, but more power than I could possibly control. His ways are impossibly higher than mine. I don't want to limit the church to just what I can dream or do or control.

If businesses and churches are finding it works, and God does it, why do we prefer to retain control instead of empower? (rhetorical, he he...)

Event and Process: He he, I just saw that Paul's latest article is Events vs Process. I notice the links I used before no longer work after the website refurb. Just go here and here. Some got removed though unfortunately...   :(

On Sunday Paul Scanlon (our pastor) spoke about having confidence in God, not in people, situations or circumstances. God really spoke to me through Paul and helped me to realise that I do put my trust in things other than God. The same day as Paul brought this message I had previously read this scripture:

But blessed are those who trust in the LORD and have made the LORD their hope and confidence. They are like trees planted along a riverbank, with roots that reach deep into the water. Such trees are not bothered by the heat or worried by long months of drought. Their leaves stay green, and they go right on producing delicious fruit. (Jeremiah 17:7-8 NLT)

It was so amazing to read this again and to realise that when I am going through a time of drought or heat for whatever reason, God is always my strength and hope. He is our sustainer and I (we) should ALWAYS look to him.

I was randomly surfing earlier and came across this post, so I added a comment. His first complaint was over our pastor's Lexus. I already commented on that a while ago. But I mentioned a couple more things:

I know exactly where you're coming from. I know because that's where I came from. I had the same thoughts. And I grew up in a culture that teaches the same thing you're saying. But my view has changed over the last couple of years. I realised that I was following the crowd and not really thinking it through myself.

I now don't think money or possessions are the problem. It's more your attitude towards wealth that matters. And that's a much harder thing to judge because it's internal. You can't judge someone's attitude simply by the car he drives.

I think the thing about Paul Scanlon a lot of people don't get is generosity. God is generous and we should be likewise. Paul's view is that everything is 'just passing through' your life, so don't hoard or hold on to things. But that doesn't mean neglect yourself.

Take the second most important commandment, to love people as you love yourself. For years I read that as "love people more than you love yourself". But that's not what God said. That "as" connects how you treat yourself with how you treat others. It's clear that God wants us to love others, but he also wants us to love ourselves. And in this case we're talking about generosity - we should be generous with others, but we should also be generous with ourselves. It's not just one or the other, but both, at the same level.

Another thing is that Paul doesn't want to settle for bargain basement. He tries to do everything with a spirit of excellence. He wants to be the best he can be. (And he's trying to set that example.)

The guy's second complaint was a new(er) one: turning the church into a business. "The problem is the sole purpose of business is to make a profit, gain earthly wealth and the sole purpose of the church is to be a witness to God and the spiritual world. Could anything thing good come out of mixing the two?" My reply:

I also understand your other issue about the business side of things. I guess you're thinking about Jesus driving out of the temple people who were buying and selling (Matthew 21:12-13). But Jesus' complaint is telling: "you are making it a den of robbers." I think Jesus was not angry about business but extortion and abuse.

My personal view is that since Jesus, people are the church and the building in which they meet is not so important. It's just a building. So I don't think a church building can be defiled in the same way as a Temple. It's the difference between holy and sacred - subtle but there is one. The other thing is that I think business itself is not evil or unholy. It's not 'dirty' business. A lot of people think it is - probably the 'pursuing worldly wealth' thing above. But I don't think so.

Funnily enough, Paul talked recently about generating more wealth (as you put it). He was looking back at cathedrals. These things took like 500 years to build, some more! When you think about it, that's generations and generations of people, devoting their lives to something they would never see the benefit of. That in itself is a massive point, but we're talking about resources here.

To build a cathedral does not just take time, there's materials, labour, skilled tradesmen, etc. You need lots of resources to be able to support such an effort. Not only do you need resources to use, but think about it - if you have something that still has another 400 years left to run, you also need to be generating resources to replenish those you're using, but also to make sure there will be support for it in the future, when your children's children are working on it. So they looked towards business to generate resources for the long term.

Obviously what we're building here is not a cathedral, but we have to think of ourselves on a long term project. If we only think and plan for our lifetimes what will we have left for the Christians in 2100? We may well be the last generation, but it seems irresponsible (towards the following generations) to act as though we are. Imagine what it would be like for our children if we could give them a head start, rather than just living for our generation?

So in that sense generating more wealth is a good thing. It allows us to do things in the long term that we wouldn't be able to do without those resources.

It's a different mind set to where we came from so I can understand your caution. But I think that's a good thing. It shows you care.

This is a good read: I want my name to be remembered.

So you drive into into the car park at work and pull into the first free bay. It happens to be right next to a gorgeous Mercedes price-of-a-house-type car. Only a couple of months old. Obviously the prized possession of someone, probably someone with a lot of influence in the company.

You switch off your engine, go to open your door and notice a dent in the side of the merc. Looks like it was made with the end of a car door, and there is some paint around it that exactly matches the colour of your car. And to make it worse, as you get out you notice that the dent lines up exactly with the end of your door. Then you remember you also have some paint on your door (from before you bought it) that happens to match the colour of the merc.

So although you know it wasn't you, it looks like it was. Even you would confidently pronouce you guilty with that kind of evidence. So what do you do?

Do you move the car back a bit so the dent and door don't line up? Do you go find another bay? Or rather than trying to cover it up, do you leave the car where it is and risk being misunderstood, being accused of something you haven't done, and having bad feelings directed at you rather than someone else? (Or do you just hope the owner already knows about it?)

(That was a theoretical situation by the way - hasn't ever happened to me yet, though I did park next to a nice car this morning...)

The final bill for an adult life is £1.5m. It's funny how they measure a life by summing up the costs. But the figures are still interesting reading. We spend a large part of our lives (time and energy) earning this money. So what we're effectively saying is, what does the average person spend their life on?

(based on spending at today's prices)

Investments are counted as spending too? I thought they were meant to make money... Or are they just another way to spend money? "Other significant costs include a £63,414 bill for a smoker who does not manage to kick the habit". The breakdown by age is good too:



Some of the names of those ages sound like an old 5 point sermon!   :)   One thing that doesn't show though is people spend roughly £21k/year between retirement age at 65 and their death (based on today's value of money and current mortality rates). So they conclude retirement is almost twice as expensive as any of the other ages!


Anyway, I was thinking, these figures show that most of life is just to do with life. Sounds silly when I re-read that, but what I mean is, most of it is for the immediate or near future, ourselves and immediate family.

At church we've been doing a series inspired by the Cathedral builders. They took like 500 years to build, so these people were willing to spend their lives building something they would never benefit from directly. Something that would not be finished for tens of generations. The quote is something like "society prospers when men plant trees under whose shade they know they will never sit."

Luke 4:18, the NLT version:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim
that captives will be released,
that the blind will see,
that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors

And the NIV version:

The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed

I was just reading this scripture and it suddenly dawned on me that these days a lot of Christians focus, and seem to put more emphesis on the "preaching of the gospel" bit than the healing the broken hearted and setting people free.

I think Jesus was just as bothered about a person's physical and mental side as he was their spritual, and he treated every part of a person.

I believe that being a friend to those in need in whatever way, is just as important if not more than trying to convince a stranger or a friend about God.

The law against religious hatred is — in effect — an invitation to it.
Good point. Yeah, I agree, it probably is. (Isn't that what Paul says in Romans 7?)

I've always thought I could just start my own religion, make up some laws, and impose them on other people. Like something that allows me to wear jeans at work.   :)

I thought this from the article was interesting though:

I have been talking to an evangelical Christian minister who works in north Manchester. ... He believes that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, and goes round with his small flock preaching this to all and sundry, including Muslims. One day, two policemen in body armour turned up on the doorstep of a couple of his parishioners. They produced a pamphlet that the couple had helped distribute, aimed at the conversion of Muslims to Christianity, and told them that this constituted a serious crime of incitement to racial hatred that might carry a seven-year jail sentence. The racial element, they explained, came from the fact that the leaflet was produced by white people and was targeted at Asians.

The clergyman took over the case from the terrified couple. It took seven weeks for the police to lift their threat, eventually writing a letter to the minister admitting that there was nothing racial in the pamphlet. But what will happen to this little Church if incitement to religious "hatred" becomes a crime? As might be expected from literalist Christianity, the pamphlet is expressed in uncompromising terms. Seeking to draw Muslims' attention to the belief that Jesus Christ atoned for the sins of all, and that Islam has no such idea, the pamphlet speaks of "Slaves of Allah" (intended to represent in English how Muslims regard their own submission to God), "slaves of sin", "slaves of shame". Its aim is clearly to convert, not to abuse, but naturally there will be Muslims (and maybe others) who find it insulting. Are we to have the courts clogged with cases objecting to this sort of thing?

And if we do, will they also be clogged with the same thing the other way round? The same minister told me that one day he handed out one of his pamphlets to a Muslim whom he describes as a "lovely, dignified, old gentleman". The Muslim said to him that their two faiths essentially pointed in the same direction, but when the minister, as tough Protestants do, pointed out that there was a fundamental difference, because Christians believe that Jesus was the Son of God, the old man said, quite seriously: "Oh, sir, please do not say that again, or I shall have to kill you: it is such blasphemy."

For once in his life, the reverend gentleman seems not to have pressed his point further. But if he, who already feels unfairly treated by the authorities, finds his most cherished belief described as blasphemy (and not always by a kindly old man), might not he, too, seek redress if a new law permits it?

In other words, this law against religious hatred is, in effect, an invitation to it. It incites each faith to take offence, and ensures that the most zealous can make the most trouble. Surely wisdom teaches that the law should let sleeping dogmas lie.

Email Tony!

I have come to see politeness as a virtue and impoliteness as bad. Although I hate the extremes of political correctness, I generally agree that the current definition of tolerance (don't offend people too much¹) has some truth and goodness about it. Because I believe that, it shows through in my behavior, i.e. I'm quite polite and I don't offend people. (Not as far as I know anyway!)

Something occurred to me yesterday though. It's not anything new. It's funny because I've even been discussing the logic of it for quite some time now (e.g. this, this, this, this and this). But my actions didn't reflect what my head understood to be true. I had one of those realisation moments when it goes from 'knowing' to something deeper.

I realised that I didn't get my politeness from the Bible or God. I couldn't think of any instance in the Bible where politeness is commended. And sure enough, when I did a search for the word 'polite' there are no references in the Bible². There's no politeness in the Bible! :)

When you look at Jesus in the gospels, he was never polite. He loved people deeply. He spoke to some people gently, some harshly, but he was never polite. Far from it.

It's not rocket science, I know.

I think growing up with polite parents and in a culture of Britishness was one contribution. But I think somewhere along the way I also sub-consciously learnt that if you never cause offence, life is easier, there is less stress and hassle, and so on.

So mixed with a genuine desire to not hurt other people was a selfish desire to make my life easier. Notice how Jesus was willing to love people even if it meant he had to hurt them to do it (or offend someone else). He never loved people superficially. He was willing to make his life so much harder to really love people.

Footnotes:

1. Though this isn't what the word actually means.
2. I'm not sure of the word's origin though - is it newer than the Bible? Anyway, I did find one reference - The Message's version of Luke 6:46 - Jesus saying "Why are you so polite with me, always saying 'Yes, sir,' and 'That's right, sir,' but never doing a thing I tell you?". It's interesting that the word only shows up in a contemporary language translation. And even so, Jesus is not exactly encouraging politeness is he?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not one of these people who thinks all anger is wrong. We're even in the middle of a series at church on complaining! I.e. there are valid complaints; complaining about something doesn't make you a negative person; in fact, your complaint is related to your life's plan and purpose (i.e. your vision is fuelled by something that is wrong and needs fixing).

So I don't believe anger or complaining is intrinsically wrong. (Which you may have deduced from the fact that I'm complaining now.) What I think is wrong with these protesters (apart from their more extreme actions - publishing personal details is inexcusable) is they have been distracted (one of the devil's prime methods). They have been distracted from meaningful, important things that do need complaining about. Things that really need action.

I agree it makes sense from a human point of view to defend yourself and to want to protect those you love (i.e. God in this case). It's a persuasive argument. But God clearly shows in the Bible that we should persevere under persecution. God works by (what Yancey calls) 'atrocious maths' - i.e. it may not make perfect sense to us but we should trust him and act how he wants, not just 'do what comes naturally'.

It's funny how people are so ready to jump to a judgment about something they only know through hearsay. And then go on to vocalise that judgment so loudly as well!

And where is this imaginary line people have drawn between acceptable blasphemy and that which needs protesting about? I've seen incredibly blasphemous things on TV before now and didn't hear a whisper of protest about them...

Just to labour the point a bit, I happened to read 1 Peter 2 last night, and in that one passage alone it says:

Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God ... it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. ... Show proper respect to everyone ...

For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.

He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. (NIV)

That's just one example, and it's echoed throughout the New Testament.

Seems like my post on 20/12/04 was quite topical with all this "Christian" outrage over Jerry Springer: The Opera. But in my opinion it is very un-Christian outrage indeed.

The peak as far as I know was Christians to sue BBC over Springer show 'blasphemy' with a great pic of "Christians Against Blasphemy". Actually no, that's wrong. The peak is later in the article:

The BBC has been consulting police over possible action against Christian Voice, which published home addresses of 15 senior corporation executives and producers. ... The corporation said it had been forced to adopt security measures akin to those it had used in the past after programmes dealing with the far Right.

Christian Voice remained unrepentant over the tactics it had employed. ... Admitting that his organisation had published private contact details, Mr Green said: "It reflects that we have no confidence in the current channels of complaint. These people are public figures and the information is in the public domain."

It was even hinted that the executives had been threatened, though I'm not sure how true that claim was. We know how good these people are at twisting what was actually said.

Anyway, as I was saying, these attitudes and actions are very un-Christian. I have to repeat, I don't see God telling us anywhere in the Bible to defend him. In fact, that vulnerability to abuse is at the heart Christianity. The New Testament was written in a time when Christians were under intense persecution. But they weren't encouraged to look to physical or legal recourse. No, Jesus and the New Testament writers told them to endure.

I've heard their complaint so many times and in various forms: "The BBC would not have done this if it had been Muslims or Sikhs, but because we are Christians we are fair game.". And it's true, and it's very convincing and suggestive. But the New Testament tells us go against our instincts to fight back, and endure instead.

Look at Jesus in the gospels. He didn't defend himself or the Father when he had many opportunities. His most important act was one of massive endurance in the face of emotional and physical pain (on a scale that we can't understand). He told us to love people anyway, even if they do try to hurt you or God.

Where do these protesters get their outrage from? It's not a Biblical thing, that's for sure. It could be an immaturity thing, or maybe a modern Western 'rights' culture kind of thing I guess.

But that's not even my main objection!

Who is any of this actually helping? Is it helping to save anybody? Does it give Christians a better name? Is it protecting any weak? Is it clothing any naked? Or is it just a big distraction from more important things?

Instead of assuming the job of Morals Police and judging others, I think Christians should direct their outrage and effort at real issues like poverty and abuse. That way we might actually make a difference.

I agree with Matt that the Telegraph's headline sensationalised Williams' comments. But to play devil's advocate, in their defense they did give him the platform to make his comments in the first place, and at least they are willing to print that they were wrong: "though he did not say, as the original headline on his piece mischievously suggested, that he himself doubted God's existence" (from this article).

Another article by our pastor has been published: Levels of Life. Some previous ones I'd recommend are Life Responds To Who You Are, Not What You Do, First the Natural, Relationships are Spacial (sic) and Live Full but Die Empty. The index is here.

Continuing my earlier post's theme on PCness, and with Beckham and Beckham's nativity scene being defaced and the Sikh protests this week, there was an interesting discussion on Radio 5. Should we have the right to offend people or should our free speech be limited?

We seem to have a scale of acceptability: from racism which is totally unacceptable, to religious offence which varies between both extremes depending on the religion in question, to things like ageism and royal-family bashing.

Vulnerability to offence goes hand in hand with freedom, but then as I said earlier, curbing freedom with things like 'political correctness' just leads to further offence. And people who go to the other extreme and claim there should be no limit easily have their double standards uncovered too.

Obviously free speech is limited by current law (e.g. obscenity, libel and racial) and apparently an 'incitement of religious hatred' law is on its way. I wonder how this will be enforced. I guess the law will try to put itself above religion in that case.

I think all of this is open to abuse though. It would not be hard to just invent a new religion and then claim everything you disagree with is religiously offensive. (I guess that's actually what a lot of us do, setting ourselves up as the main object of worship.)

So where do you draw the line? There must be one somewhere.

Speaking personally as a Christian, I agree with the agnostic caller when he said religions should be able to stand for themselves. I don't see God telling us to defend him. In fact, that vulnerability to abuse is at the heart Christianity. I'm not sure getting the state to defend each religion is quite right.

Having opinions nowadays is like walking through a mine field. I can understand why people just give up and go with the flow. It does introduce a lot of unreality though, with people being highly judgemental of others and being careful to project a 'more PC than thou' image, but not considering their own behaviour in any judgement.

I was going to say something else, but I forgot what that was now... Doh!   :)

Interesting documentary on last night, What Ron Said, about Ron Atkinson and his racial slur earlier in the year. He said he wasn't racist, but then not many who are would. He came across as ignorant rather than racist to us though. But it was quite clear from the programme that:

• the level of some words' acceptability depends on the colour of the speaker's skin; and
• 'Political Correctness' in practice just seems to divide people further and encourage intolerance.

From yesterday's telegraph: Spiritual Britain worships over 170 different faiths. The complete figures from the 2001 census are now available.

Also, I've been listening recently to Natasha Bedingfield's album, Unwritten. Some songs are really good, especially the new single, Unwritten. Similar in style to her bro's.

If I could speak in any language in heaven or on earth but didn't love others, I would only be making meaningless noise like a loud gong or a clanging cymbal.

If I had the gift of prophecy, and if I knew all the mysteries of the future and knew everything about everything, but didn't love others, what good would I be?

And if I had the gift of faith so that I could speak to a mountain and make it move, without love I would be no good to anybody.

If I gave everything I have to the poor and even sacrificed my body, I could boast about it; but if I didn't love others, I would be of no value whatsoever.

Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. Love does not demand its own way. Love is not irritable, and it keeps no record of when it has been wronged. It is never glad about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.

Love will last forever, but prophecy and speaking in unknown languages and special knowledge will all disappear. Now we know only a little, and even the gift of prophecy reveals little! But when the end comes, these special gifts will all disappear.

It's like this: When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child does. But when I grew up, I put away childish things. Now we see things imperfectly as in a poor mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity. All that I know now is partial and incomplete, but then I will know everything completely, just as God knows me now.

There are three things that will endure - faith, hope, and love - and the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13, NLT)

Doh! After writing all that rant I realised I didn't get round to answering the question I started with...

Is it ok for a Christian own a Lexus?

I think yes, but I wouldn't do it in my circumstances.

It think people who disagree have lost sight of the fact that everything is relative. If they, in their circumstances, bought a Lexus it would very selfish. But if Richard Branson were to buy a Lexus, it would be overly modest. These people judge others based on what would be acceptable in their own circumstances, and that is wrong.

Also, to be able to judge accurately in cases like this, you need to know a lot more than just a single fact. You need to know a person's motives, what else they spend their money and effort on, their priorities. Obviously that kind of information isn't easy to come by (for us humans). But these people make judgements based on a single fact, and that with virtually no context. They are bound to be wrong. Judging without knowing all the facts is wrong.


On a lighter note, a month ago I got an email from Lycos Tripod saying any sites they host that don't get enough hits will be removed. I had already moved all my stuff over to my new domain at that point, so I wasn't too bothered. But today I received an email from them saying:

Congratulations! Your site is one of the most popular on Lycos Tripod

During the last 30 days, your website achieved 241 pages impressions. This makes your site one of the most popular of the Tripod community in United Kingdom.

Ha ha! I wonder who's still using the old site!?

(Doh! I had to re-type this because blogger lost it when I posted it. Must remember to copy it before hitting Publish Post. It's never the same second time around...)

I've been meaning to post something on this for a while but work has been very busy, one important release deadline after another. Still, I've found some time now so here goes...

Is it ok for a Christian own a Lexus?
As a joke, my dad used to say something like "if I had a Ferrari, I could do all my pastoral visits in half the time!" We laughed because the idea seemed rediculous to us, extremely indulgent. (He was far from being serious about it though!)

The spark for this post was this: Our Senior Pastor, Paul Scanlon, owns a Lexus convertable and more recently a Harley Davidson too. A while back, Corinna sent me a link to a discussion about it¹. I found it amusing that she sent me it (unknowingly) just a couple of days after I read a chapter called "Can a Christian own a BMW?"² (hence this post's title, which I've successfully plagiarised).

Just on that site the topic has been raging for a long time. This discussion alone includes 10 large pages of posts. And that is just one website, and websites are just one discussion medium! So money is clearly a very important topic for Christians. Everyone seems to have strong feelings about Paul's purchases anyway.

I have three things to say first, not directly about the topic itself but about people's approach to it:

1. Bad attitude. It didn't take long for this to creep into the discussion. It quickly decended into a mix of (unrightous) anger, mis-representation, unfounded accusation and mindless point-scoring, with a dash of petty name-calling thrown in for good measure. And those weren't all from just one 'side' of the discussion either.
   
   You don't have to read much of the Bible before you realise that this really isn't how God's people should be behaving. I do understand why (the combination of this being a really big deal, and the frustration of not being understood or agreed with) but it's still very wrong. In the same way as Paul reproved Peter for treating people wrongly, some of these people are not acting in line with the truth of the gospel. Christians are to be despensers of God's grace, but some of these people are shoveling large amounts of ungrace (to use Yancy's terminology).


2. Judgementalism. Related to (1) but I figured it was important enough to warrant its own point. Why is it that Christians can be more polite and gracious when dealing with unbelievers than they are with believers? Is Christianity some kind of licence to be rude? Yes Paul said "judge those inside the church" (1 Corinthians 5:12) but this was in extreme circumstances. It wasn't a general licence to be judgemental. Elsewhere he said "Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls. ... Let us stop passing judgment on one another." (Romans 14).
   


3. God. Christians generally believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and the final authority in "all matters of faith and conduct". We would say the Bible captures something of God's mind, His thoughts and views, things that excite and upset Him. And by recording things like Jesus' actions, emotions and words, the Bible even lets us in on how God physically thinks and feels about our world³. Most would also add that the Holy Spirit will guide us into His truth.
   
   That being understood, it seems strange to me that I didn't read a single reference to the Bible or the Holy Spirit in that discussion⁴. Every post is about how people feel - no-one seems to consider how God feels. Strange. Especially when you are aware of how relative human morality is compared to God's absolute, and that the discussion is ultimately people wrestling over what God's morality is! So wouldn't it make sense to consult Him?

I think the frustration you can sense in the discussion comes out of what ALC teaches about money. We believe something different to a lot of Christians, and that causes this tension. I have heard us accused of 'prosperity theology' but we believe nothing of the sort. Prosperity theology is 'God will make you rich if you do this or that', promoting a selfish love for money as though pursuing it is good⁵. ALC teaches nothing of the sort as you will see below. These are my views so they cannot be taken as ALC's standpoint, but I think I represent the church pretty well.

So on to the main point...

It is ok for a Christian to have money?
In a lot of churches rich people are not accepted because people think they have 'sold out' to worldly wealth. It's no wonder rich people wouldn't be seen dead in those churches. Jesus might have well have said "How hard it is for rich people to enter a church!" But Jesus attracted rich followers, so why should they be repelled by church nowadays?

Many of the people in the Bible who had a special relationship with God were rich. Some massively so. Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and so on. God had something special going on with these people, not because they were rich, but them being rich certainly wasn't a barrier for God. Look at Job. God said of him "he is the finest man in all the earth - a man of complete integrity. He fears God and will have nothing to do with evil." (Job 1:8). Yet Job was very wealthy too.

Yes, Jesus portrayed rich people negatively in some of his stories (e.g. Luke 16:19-31) but he also portrayed God as a rich person (e.g. the father in the prodical son story had to be wealthy enough to give up half of it), and as a wealthy king in others, so he can't have had that low an opinion of rich people because of their money.

Just to labour the point, many people believe Jesus was poor therefore we should follow his example. But he wasn't. He was born in a stable not because Joseph and Mary didn't have any money, but because there was no room left in the inn. Why would they even ask for a room if they didn't have the money to pay for it? He had a successful family business which was established for over 30 years (Joseph was a carpenter before Jesus was born). During his 'ministry' phase Jesus even appointed an accountant so he had enough money/income/expenditure for it to need someone to manage it.

Jesus' disciples and followers were from a whole range of backgrounds, and this included rich people. Successful businesspeople, officials, military leaders. If you had been healed or brought close to God, or your dying daughter had been saved from the cluches of death, you would feel grateful and want to help the person who did it right? Well one natural way rich people did that was by contributing money to help support Jesus and what he was doing (e.g. Luke 8:1-3).

So Jesus attracted and accepted rich people, he himself was not poor, and money did not get in the way of God having a special relationship with certain people. So clearly it is ok to have money. Money itself is not an issue.

Poverty is not a virtue.
It's your attitude to money that's important. Many people believe the Bible says "money is the root of all evil", when it actually says that loving money is the problem. It's an attitude thing. If you love money you can't love God, if you serve money you can't serve God. Money itself does not get in the way, but your attitude to it can.

Jesus was not weak in condemning the love of money, but some people interpret this as him condemning being rich, which isn't true. One prime example is Luke 18:18-27. Jesus sensed this rich person loved his money and so challenged him to give it up, to test where his priorities were. Jesus was right (of course) and showed that this man loved his money too much. He was highlighting that you can't love both money and God. It was his attitude to money that Jesus was challenging.

He went on to say "How hard it is for rich people to get into the Kingdom of God!" not because their money gets in the way, but because it poses a big temptation to love it. Yes he said it is difficult, but it is no more or less difficult than for poor people when you realise it is impossible for both. It doesn't matter how big a number you multiply by zero, you will always end up with zero. Only God's grace can get us into his Kingdom. That's why he said "What is impossible from a human perspective is possible with God."

But some people have misunderstood and treat this as a principle to live life by: we should donate all our money and possessions to the church and live in poverty. These people think poverty itself is a virtue, i.e. it makes you more like Jesus, removes the temptation to love money, and so on. This became popular in the 13th Century with Thomas Aquinas (e.g. this extract from one of his works). He believed Jesus lived in poverty and told others to do so too.

For example, "though [Jesus] was very rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that by his poverty he could make you rich." (2 Corinthians 8:9). That only makes sense if Paul's talking about spiritual riches, but these people misread it. And even if it did mean financial riches, it says he has made us rich!

As (our) Paul would say, ask someone living in a gutter how virtuous they feel, how close to God they are because of it, how much they appreciate the opportunity. It's just silly. Where is the virtue in not being able to help or bless people because you're always broke?

I don't think Jesus told people to live in poverty. He was concerned about attitude; who you love more, God or money. As Paul said, what's important is learning to be content whatever your circumstances, "whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want." Note that in Philippians 4:10-18 Paul has lived in both. He did not say one was better than the other, but that the important thing was being content and trusting in God. In fact, the purpose of this passage is to thank the Philippians for their repeated financial gifts to support him. Their being able to give and actually giving is a virtue. Their gifts are "a fragrant offering, an acceptable sacrifice, pleasing to God." (Sacrifice meaning giving something up, not poverty.) They could only give that gift because they had the money to give.

Money can be a natural consequence of living a better life.
Godliness is not a means to financial gain but sometimes it is a natural consequence. The distinction is subtle, too subtle for some people who are suspicious and equate wealth with a pursuit and love of it.

But what employer wouldn't want to hire a loyal, hardworking person? Who wouldn't want to give a promotion to someone who was committed, growing and becoming less selfish. These are all attributes of a godly person, someone who is becoming more like Jesus. It's just that a world that runs on money sometimes appreciates those attributes. Therefore, sometimes money is just something that happens when you're living a better life.

In 1 Timothy 6 Paul is urging people to live a better life because they are Christians, but not so it's "just a way to get rich". He repeats again that contentment is the important thing. And this is where the 'love of money' quote comes from: "people who long to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is at the root of all kinds of evil. And some people, craving money, have wandered from the faith".

Excellence/being generous.
Underlying all this is the desire to do everything to an excellent standard. Do things better than expected. Be more generous than expected. Put in more effort. Be more selfless. And so on. That's what Jesus did and is telling us to do.

We should not try to hoard or stockpile anything, especially not wealth. We should be generous. ALC is a giving church. Just recently a £52,000 gift was given to a brilliant thing in the US working among the dregs of society there. Every year £1000s are spent on gifts, especially at Christmas. We are actively giving clothing and food to people who need it. Here is an article from back in 1998 on the church giving money for the new building: Super Sunday!, £600,000 given from the church, £160,000 of which came from the leaders. For some it meant "handing over £15,000 and for others £20. And about 100 children pooled their pocket money to give £1,000." There was that gift to help keep Bradford FC alive a while back (see this and this). These are just a few things, but the list is long.

I'm running out of time and I'm starting to rush so I'll wrap it up now...

Having said the above, personally I wouldn't spend that much on a car and bike. Not that I wouldn't like them but so as to not irritate other people as much as it does. I would probably feel pressure to get more 'reasonable' transport. But I know Paul has given up on trying to please people and has decided to just do what he thinks is right. You've got to admire his courage.

A lot of people don't do what they preach anyway. In the West the vast majority of people are fabulously rich but don't acknowledge it because they measure wealth by relative standards, the people immediately around them. In real terms they are wealthy beyond much of the world's dreams.

Footnotes:

1. An xalt forum starting here, an interesting read. (The "Jesus Who?" in the title refers to a recent TV programme of that name which included a piece on ALC.) That's the one I started to read anyway, but it is clearly just a continuation of earlier discussions, such as this one. I haven't read all of these. I haven't even read all the discussion I'm talking about yet, which may be a genuine failing of this post, but I'm busy and I felt there was too much to read and process over a few dinner times, and after a few pages, these discussions always go round in circles and repeat themselves anyway. There is a kind of infinite loop when people who are equally stubborn try to discuss their divergent views. (Another discussion google threw up was one on Kange West! He uses Lexus in one of his raps...)  :)


2. From the book I was reading at the time: 20 Hot Potatos by Tony Campolo. (BMWs were more prestigious when this book was written, so a Lexus is probably an accurate contemporary equivalent.) I have some respect for this guy, so it was interesting to read his view point. He talks about loads of other things too; homosexuality being the most interesting. Some other topics are showing their age though, like women pastors, which most of the church has realised the error of her ways. There were some interesting things he discussed which I didn't think even deserved talking about (until I read what he had to say), like sports.


3. In fact, I read somewhere that someone counted up the references to money and possessions in Jesus' sayings and it was a significant percentage (something like 25% of all he said). I should verify the exact figure somehow, but the point is money - in relation to us humans - is clearly important to God as well.


4. Except for one or two weak allusions, but I couldn't call those real Bible references because they were in no way attempting to find or express God's views, but just being used as extra ammo for mindless finger-pointing or backing up someone's point.


5. When I was on holiday recently I happened to flick over from Christian TV onto a channel called Wonderful. Why it is lumped with Christian TV I have no idea! On there was a guy who told people to send him a load of money, for which God would in turn make them rich (a kind of religious pyramid scheme I guess). Of course this was tarted up in King James Biblical language, but the meaning was clear.
   
   He showed clips of people who had done this, and were now enjoying their new-found wealth. This included one person who was over $60,000 in debt. He was told to put himself another $1,000 in debt (when he obviously couldn't afford to) and send the money to this guy.
   
   Clearly this is an example of thoses teachers who have become twisted and corrupt and think that godliness is a means to financial gain (1 Timothy 6:3-10); financial gain in his own life, and (possibly, though I am doubtful) the lives of those he uses to be the means to his financial gain. I find this personally offensive, no, disgusting.

An excellent post by Corinna there. I love the phrase 'prayer excuse' (an original, coined by her own pen apparently), a great exposé of what it really is.

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2 v15-17)

Recently and especially while I was on holiday in Spain, I have been feeling really challenged about my role as a Christian towards people who are categorised in society as "lower class"; the unemployed, drug addicts, homeless, criminals, prostitutes and so on.

My theory is that these people are thought of as unlovable, but they are actually just unloved.

Our church are, as I'm sure many other people are, trying to do something about this. We have lots of great stuff going on to try and reach out to these people one way or the other, e.g. giving out food to the homeless on Tuesdays and Thursdays, clothing people with stuff given by people in the church, visiting drug addicts and encouraging them to get into rehab.

A lot of churchy people think these 'ministries' are for those who have a 'heart' for those people. I agree. Certain people are more passionate about certain things than others, perhaps working with children, disabled people or feeding the needy.

My point, or rather the unsettled feeling I have, is not about those few but the rest of us who have other gifts.

Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2 v15-17)

I'm thinking about our inclusiveness.

Our Pastor, Paul Scanlon, has been confirming recently exactly what I was mulling over:

James is saying, if someone comes into your church and they're hungry and have no clothes and you look at them and say, "We bless you, we love you, and our hearts are for you. Be clothed in the name of Jesus, be blessed, We will pray for you!", this is a violation of how this whole thing is supposed to work on the planet.

He is saying, if you are spiritual towards a man, loving him in word and theology, but fail to follow though to change his circumstances, then you are ignoring the fact that their circumstances are there for you to be aware of, recognise and to respond to.

This is my problem, too many of us react in a way that says "We bless you, we love you, and our hearts are for you. Be clothed in the name of Jesus, be blessed, we will pray for you!" but are just not willing to get off our behinds and do something about it!

As James said, "If one of you says to him, Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed, but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it?"

Too many of us go through life with (spiritual) blinkers on, making a 'prayer excuse', saying "I'll pray about that situation" when the answer is right there in front of them, something that they can actually do!

Sometimes there are situations that we can't just 'fix'. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where we can do practical things for others, however small or large. Even if it was just sorting out some clothes or food to give away, inviting them for lunch or something.

I know it's not easy in our middle class church culture. I guess that's why nobody does it. That's what I'm being challenged about. I want to change my attitude and start doing something to help those who need to be shown love.

I'm currently reading Developing the Leader Within You by John C. Maxwell. At first glance it looks like a cheesey 90's American yuppie management book. But after a few chapters, you realise he actually talks a lot of sense... And it's not all about 'leadership' either, it's a lot to do with just people in general.

One thought I had recently was I know tithe means 'tenth', but a tenth of what exactly? Wasn't it originally a tenth of everything? (i.e. possessions not income) Looking back at the OT though, although Abram did originally give a tenth everything, the language of the law introduced later does seem to refer to income instead. I guess the theory is that if you give a tenth of income, you will be giving a tenth of everything you could have owned, and usually things do not need re-dedicating. I recall that Jews were not restricted to setting aside a tenth though, they often 'gave' far more (e.g. Leviticus 23:22). I also remember someone saying that the poor weren't expected to do a full tithe but did whatever they could (somewhat in harmony with 2 Corinthians 8:12 I guess).

Thought two: I have sometimes thought of 'offerings' as above and beyond the minimum limit of the law, i.e. an optional extra. But when you read things like Malachi 3:8 offerings are not optional.

Thought three: I have heard various people discuss whether we are, as Christians (i.e. under Christ's 'law' rather than the OT law), still expected to tithe. One school of thought (typically not Church leaders) say it went out with the sacrifices. While thinking it over I decided to tithe anyway just to be careful to do what is right in the eyes of others. However, I'm coming round to the orthodox view anyway (we should still tithe). E.g. things like this hit me the other day when I was listening to Jesus giving the Pharasees a dressing down:

you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices ... but you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practised the latter, without neglecting the former. (Matthew 23:23)

Jesus is clearly more bothered about justice, mercy and faithfulness, but He slips in that we should continue to tithe as well.

On the way to work this morning I saw an advert for beer with the slogan "passion beyond reason". I'm not sure whether they were trying to say 'you will have passion beyond reason if you buy our beer' or 'our beer is made with passion beyond reason' - personally I tend to think they actually meant 'our advertising campain has passion beyond reason'.  :)

Still, I thought it was a nice concise way to describe things like faith, e.g. Christian faith = belief beyond reason. Not that faith is unreasonable, but that it goes beyond what can be proved (which give reason to believe).

Even Christians have problems with this; I remember my bro telling me about someone who just couldn't understand his actions or his choices, not because they were unreasonable but they seemed to go beyond the visible reasons. He was just being faithful in what he thought God wanted, but this other person couldn't understand it. I guess we have to keep reminding ourselves to be open-minded.

Doh! We only found out last night that it's today our church is on ITV1 again: 11:00am (in our region anyway). Check it out if you're interested.

Another year another Fantasy Football season... I had loads of players playing yesterday and I counted I only got 3 points! Argh!!

Just a few thoughts from me :)

A few weeks ago I read a book by our Pastor Paul Scanlon "Battle for the Loins" It discusses the three generations of Christians i.e.
First generation would be the first person to become a Christian in a family
Second would be the child, third the grandchild
Paul [Parkins] and I are both second generation Christians which can come with many stumbling blocks along the way.
Being brought up in a Christian home is a wonderful thing, don't get me wrong, it is safe and secure place where God and the things of God are always there and you are free to express your faith openly. However there is flip side to all this.
Christianity can become to a second generation Christian something very superficial, full of just theory and basic facts and not the deep relationship that their parents have. It can also be really hard to establish your own relationship with God. You are brought up knowing the facts and sometimes that kind of waters down the real meaning, especially when you go to church week after week hearing the same stuff.
What I am trying to say is that it took me walking away from all that stuff for 6 months and doing my own thing to realise what I was missing out on.
I guess different people come to a relationship with God in different ways, Paul seemed to drift into it slowly where as I needed a big kick up the backside to turn my life over to God.
It's funny but over the last couple of years although I am a Christian and have been for over 10 years now, I have gone though a real time of searching and questioning everything. Why do I believe this that or the other, is it because I have heard it as FACTS or because I know it as TRUTH.
I am glad that I have done this as it means I am actually growing and wanting to know God more and not just happy to go along blindly in my faith.

I have also just started a book by Mark Greene, never read any of his books before but this one "Thank God it's Monday" is great, It talks about a Christians ministry in the workplace.
I'm just going to leave you with a little thought from his book

Christ at work
"In developing relationships, Christ's example is instructive. His behavior was often startling at odds with the culture surrounding him. For example, three things non-Christians believe about Christian
1) They go to Church
2) They don't drink
3) They choose their friends wisely
But what did Christ do?
1) He was accused of breaking the Sabbath
2) He drank wine
3) He went to parties with publicans and sinners" Mark 2V15-17

I've found a site that does streaming GOD channel: www.streamingfaith.tv (that's streaming, not screaming...) so even if you haven't got Sky, you can see our church's programme. Apparently we're on the GOD Channel on Tuesdays at 18:00 and Sundays at 09:30, and on GOD2 on Saturdays at 18:30. You may see us in the crowd! I really can't vouch for some of the other stuff that gets broadcast on those channels tho.

And I found links to the ads for a couple of our conferences: Sex in the City and The Matrix (yes, that was the Church criticised over gun video thing), he he...

I couldn't find the T&A's article on-line, so here it is:

Church's £5,000 for 'soul of City'

Cheesey cheque-handing-over photo

A Bradford church has moved the Save Our City Appeal a step closer to its target with a massive donation of £5,000. The Abundant Life Centre's Pastor, the Reverend Paul Scanlon, said the church wanted to show its commitment to the club and the city of Bradford.

Mr Scanlon said: "We have never made a donation like this before to something like a football club. But the club is the heart and soul of the city of Bradford as well as being a business. We wanted to let the city know we are committed to Bradford and to the club. We have been here for 30 years and we want to see the club do well like everyone else. Wayne Jacobs is a member of our church so we know what this means to him. But we are also worried about all the staff and their families."

Bradford City star Wayne Jacobs has been a member of the Abundant Life Centre, in Wapping Road, for the last three years. He said he was amazed by the size of the donation: "The church is there for everybody and they know what the football club means to the people of this city. I think the appeal shows how the people of this city respond in the face of adversity. I have been in Bradford for ten years and they are a pretty resilient bunch. When the chips are down they rally round the cause, they are fantastic."

As I'm sure you're aware, Bradford City FC is in trouble, dire financial trouble. They need 100 grand before July. Our church has donated £5,000 to show that we are not only concerned with our own (although one of the players is in ALC) but we are looking out for everyone. Football, and BCFC specifically, is an important part of the city and we want it to succeed, not just for people's jobs, but the whole community benefits when the club does well.

The T&A who are running the "Save our city appeal" ran an article on it earlier in the week including interviews with our pastor and Wayne Jacobs. Haven't managed to find it on-line yet. Other donations that I'm aware of are £10k from the club's main sponsors, JCT600, £10k from the newspaper itself, and £20k from the council. See this. Sounds like they're not too far from being saved now...

The ALC programme on ITV1 yesterday was really good. The music was a bit warbley for us, but that was almost definately caused by us watching it from an old VCR & video. Hopefully it was good for everyone else...

It went really well though. I think everyone was a bit on edge, but that's understandable if you know that you're being filmed to be broadcast to the nation...

It was quite strange to see people you know on telly! We think we pop'ed up on there a couple of times, but thankfully we were out of the way of the cameras most of the time!

The testimony and preach were excellent. No doubt there'll be a flood of letters and emails as always.

For people who missed it, there's another one on later in the year. You can borrow our video if you're desperate, but the quality's not great.

This Sunday morning our church is doing a programme on ITV1 called My Favourite Hymns, check local listings for when exactly, but it should start around 10:55am or so.

Don't be put off by the name - it's not a bunch of old women singing ancient hymns - someone must have just thought that was a good generic name for a churchy TV programme. Hmm...

What it actually is is just a normal service from our church. If you haven't seen ALC before, you won't have ever seen a church like this! Please check it out. (May I also recommend The Premiership on a bit earlier at 9:25am, that is if you want to see Man U trash Chelsea...)   :)

Well, that Jesus Who? programme last night was a bit lame (to use Corinna's words). Still, we got on there for a couple of minutes and it was good to not get the usual 'trashing'. But it's a pity people feel they must focus on money when they come to ALC as though it's somehow wrong for Christians to have any.

Just the other day I listened again to the message that was given the day they came to record for this programme and it's all about Jesus and the real meaning of Easter. It's a pity that this (what I thought the programme was supposed to be about) was largely ignored and instead we got a programme that seemed to focus more on Wakeman! See the BBC article on the programme, that's the same (no mention of us tho). (And it was Moses that coined the phrase "love your neighbour as yourself", not Jesus...)

Wakeman was ok though but obviously still very old school. I guess that's understandable seen as though he's pretty ancient. I hope the (Christian) representation of Christianity on TV this Easter isn't soley from one type of Christian. The guts of our message was really ripped out by this one.

Still, I had better hopes for the ITV programme on May 9th anyway...

Just in case I forget to say tomorrow, that 'Jesus Who?' programme is on BBC1, Tuesday 11:05pm: "Rick Wakeman searches Britain to find out if any of Jesus's messages have survived in an age when the significance of Easter has moved from the Crucifixtion to confectionary."

Set your VCR to stun, ahem, I mean record... I don't know how long our church will be on there for, but if you want a glimpse of what its like, see that...

And another thing, The Passion of Christ is amazing and a must see. True portrayal of the Bible and what really happened!!
Cx

Just to back up what Paul said, Church was brill yesterday. The teaching there is relevant, biblical and full of truth. I feel like I have learnt more about God and myself in the last couple of months than I have in all of my life time. I have had to re-assess my past beliefs and attitudes about God and Christianity.

This time last year I was at breaking point. I felt completely bewildered by Christianity mainly I think because I had taken my eyes off God and was looking at situations and people. The God and Christianity that I had read in the Bible just wasn't what I was seeing around me especially in my life. I longed for the truth, I longed to see who God really was. I know that since this time last year I have had to surrender a lot to him. Even when I have had no idea where he was in my life he felt so far away and out of reach. I can see now though that all this just made me hunger after him and the truth more.

Since I became a Christian at the bonnie old age of 14 I had listened to everything and everyone about their view of God without really finding him for myself. I had known him personally but religious ideas and false doctrine got in the way of really knowing him. Since being at ALC I feel that my spiritual eyes have become wide open to truth (that word means a lot to me as I truly believe that God from day one put in me this desire for truth). I wouldn't say it was all down to ALC though. Moving here and starting anew was difficult. Although this is where I am from originally, change doesn't come well to me, so experiencing a change of Church, home and life (i.e. starting a new course) was hard. All I could do was to come close to God and ask him to show Paul and I what he wanted from our lives.

Just being in the presence of God at Church, at home, anywhere is great. What Paul (Scanlon) preaches about did not at first sit well with me. It wasn't until I was willing to surrender my thoughts, my past conceptions and my life back over to God. Now I just can't wait to be in God's presence again. There is something about being with other Christians and corporately worshiping God that is so amazing and powerful. Last night's worship was a brilliant example of that. I felt I could touch the hem of Gods garment, that he was right there in front of me. We are truly blessed. C

Also, Church was excellent this weekend (partly as a result of The Passion I guess). Which reminds me: our church, ALC, is on a BBC programme (not sure whether 1 or 2?) on the 6th April at 11:05pm called "Jesus, Who?". It's not a programme about ALC as such, but about Church in the 21st Century, why some churches are growing while others are in decline, that kind of thing. So I don't know how long we will be on there for (it could only be a minute) but as they recorded the whole service and did some interviews afterwards, you'd hope it would be more than just a few seconds.

Anyway, if you want a glimpse of what our church is like, see that... There will be a fuller treatment by ITV1 in early May, but more details of that closer to the time...

The other thing of note we did at the weekend was to go see The Passion of the Christ. I couldn't say I "enjoyed it" at all because it's very tough watching, but it's very powerful. It's difficult to give a summary of what it means to me, but as a Christian it really brings home even more what he did for me.

I can't understand the controversy surrounding it though. It's as anti-Semitic as the Bible (which after all was written by 97% Jews). I suspect that all those people who have been shouting out against the film made up their opinion about it well before they had seen or heard anything about it. To them I'm sure it's the content they are against rather than this particular film (e.g. the Bible, Christianity in general and the Christian Jesus and God).

(Yes, there are a few bits in there that aren't in the standard Bible as such - Gibson is a traditional Roman Catholic, so some minor things came from traditional stories - but they certainly weren't out of place. And just because they are not in the Bible does not make them false - there are plenty of true things not mentioned in the Bible. But even if they didn't actually happen, as long as it is in keeping with the truth, there's nothing wrong with trying to imagine how things were, and a certain amount of this is necessary anyway if you're going to produce anything at all. And it's good to see things from a different perspective too. One thing we were particularly touched by - which is included no doubt thanks to Gibson's RC beliefs - is the relationship between Mary and Jesus but I'll leave you to come to your own opinion on that.)

At the same time as not being able to understand the controversy, I'm quite thankful for it. After all, if there had been no controversy, far fewer people would be going to see it now. As Paul said about something that happened to him:

... what has happened to me has really served to advance the gospel ... It is true that some preach Christ out of envy and rivalry, but others out of goodwill. The latter do so in love ... The former preach Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing that they can stir up trouble ... But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice. (Philippians 1:12-18)

Unknowingly, these controversies are really just serving to advance the gospel. Those who argue against the film are indirectly preaching Christ! There were people at our showing that I wouldn't have expected to see there at all (not wanting to judge by 'covers' or anything, but you know what I mean...) and I'm sure they wouldn't have been there if there were no controversy - so a big thank you to everyone who complained!

Well, I've volunteered to help out with the Mastering process at church: the talks are recorded straight on to hard drive and someone edits it (you know, to bleep out expletives and that... Only joking! :) ) before it gets burnt onto CD. It's not too difficult, the software takes care of most things for you so that's good...

Another thing that struck me (yes, it's another post about that programme) was how peace-loving everybody in the discussion was. Regardless of religion, they all said that their people wanted to live at peace with everybody else. I don't know why it surprised me. I guess I must have been expecting something else with all the terrorist propaganda that's going out right now linked to the fringes of some religions.

Some people cannot believe in a God because of wars and terrible atrocities have been/are being committed "in his name" (for him). But I have long held the view that the world's main religions are all essentially peaceful. The only genuine examples of that kind of war I know of are in the Bible's Old Testament, and they only happened as a provoked reaction to wrongdoing. All other atrocities done in the name of God (that I know of) have all been examples of hijacking: Religion is used (in the worst sense of the word) to achieve some political agenda by manipulating the people (e.g. to enhance the sense of nationalism, or to provide a banner or excuse to allow exploitation, or whatever else).

Just look at Northern Ireland which is supposedly a struggle between Protestants and Catholics. What a load of rubbish! By their actions, the terrorists prove they are not Christians. The religious connotations are just thrown in to unite people under a nationalistic banner of 'us verses them', or to somehow excuse or hide their evil intent. It's ridiculous. It's a farce. It's just a selfish battle over land: one group says "We want that land" the other says "It's ours, get lost". That's all it is (said with more than just words obviously).

The same goes for Osama Bin Laden and his bunch (though they are more 'religious' than the Northern Ireland terrorists). They are still just using religion to manipulate people to achieve their own political agenda of hatred. They know that religion has power over people and if they sneak in a few alterations (like redefining 'inner struggle' to mean 'hatred and physical war against America') they will be able to achieve at least some of their agenda.

It's quite ridiculous. The problem is it's also quite believable. If you are already a firm believer and your trusted, well-respected religious leader has some new message "from God", or says that God has "revealed something deeper" to him, it carries a lot of weight and you are inclined to believe it. This is where people like Osama get their power, and 'religious atrocities' find their cause.

Oh yeah, and I wanted to say something else about that scientist too. (Doh! I didn't mean to get started on this one...) I find it really annoying when people assume that because they are scientists they are somehow experts at everything scientific! What rubbish!

Scientists (by definition) are very focused on a specific narrow field of research, concentrating all their effort on a very specifc problem - that's how people get 'deeper' understanding of something. So yes, they are very knowledgable about their specific field of research. However, just because they are knowledgable in that field does not necessarily make them experts in any other field, even closely related fields...

For example, people often see me as a computer expert because I work with them everyday and have done for years (nearly a decade!). In that sense you could say I have a lot of knowledge about computers, and from the outside (to a non-computer person) I must seem like an expert in everything to do with computers. But it's just not true. I write software, I hardly ever touch hardware. And there are even lots of areas of software that I don't go anywhere near. I may have some knowledge of those other areas (e.g. from college/Uni courses) but by no means am I an expert. Pretty much anybody could spend a few months researching hardware and they would easily out-expert me!

And this is what it comes down to. The stuff I know about hardware is more 'basic general principles' than any kind of specific detail. I wouldn't have a clue about how to actually design a computer chip, but I do know the rough general principles. In fact, the stuff I know about hardware is bascially what was state-of-the-art 20 or 30 years ago, or maybe even 40 years ago. Now that doesn't sound too long compared to other scientific fields does it? E.g. physics has been around hundreds (or thousands?) of years. But in computing, 30 years is a huge amount of time. Remember computing itself is only about 50 or 60 years old. So my knowledge on hardware is the computing equivalent of a 16th Century view of physics!

Therefore, my point of view on even closely related fields of research is entirely out-of-date. The same is true of neurologists. She may have been an expert in the highly-physical medical domain of the brain/nervous system, but when it comes to psyschology (which I admit is related to the brain) or some distant field like physics, she is not an expert at all - far from it! She may have some background knowledge on those subjects (e.g. from a basic course in psychology at Uni) but that knowledge is entirely out-of-date and at that point she no longer talking as an expert but is merely putting forward her opinion from her point of view.

Don't get me wrong, scientists are entitled to their opinion. They can think whatever they want, I don't have a problem with it. And I'm not saying that I have a problem with scientists because they don't know absolutely everything. But what really gets my back up is when their opinions are put forward as scientificly proven facts (sometimes expressed as though it was based on their own knowledge/research). As though their opinions are somehow undisputable. And some cases are far worse than others...

Some scientists are as guilty as the media for this, e.g. the lady last night was quite happy to put forward her own views as fact. It's just not on! Everybody should be open and honest, and distinguish between things they have properly researched (even if research just means researching other people's writing) and things that are just opinion.

Phew... got that out of my system (for now)...

Doh! I forgot to mention before about a programme that went out on BBC2 last night: What the World Thinks of God, a live 90-minute discussion about belief and faith between Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Secularists and Atheists (not many Seeks or other minor religions though). They also had people who used to believe, a token scientist, the poet laureate, a comedian, etc. There must have been about 20 people in it! The BBC had done a survey of loads of people from whole a range of countries (USA, Nigeria, Lebanon, Russia, UK, South Korea, Israel, India, etc., it was a good spread of all continents and levels of prosperity) to find out things like:

• Have you always believed in God?
• How did you come to believe in God?
• How often do you pray?
• Will your actions be judged by a higher power after death?
• Is death the end?
• Does belief in God make for a better human being?
• Is your God the only true God?
• Do you blame the other religions for much of the trouble in the world?
• Would you die for your God?

They discussed the results of the survey and went off at tangents at some points. It was a full hour and a half, but it could have gone on for much longer (in fact it only seemed to last about 45 minutes, but that's probably because I was enjoying it). There were lots of people and they could have gone into a lot more detail, but I think the BBC handled it pretty well and quite impartially. They only brushed past the "which is the true God?" discussion though, but that was probably wise! (though some people did subtly try to advertise their religion...)   :)

To be honest, I found it really refreshing. There was none of the usual 'poo pooing' of religion as you find so much in the UK media. There was a secularist or two on there, but unlike the media, they weren't controlling what was being put out. It was a genuine (if a little light) discussion. They basically just gave a voice to genuine believers to discuss faith, and with the introduction of statistics from their survey, they discussed how faith affects people. I don't usually go in for the 'multi-faith gathering' kind of thing - you wouldn't find me going to a 'multi-faith service' (where everyone prays to their own god) - what's the point of that? But this was a genuine discussion so I really enjoyed it. People were open-minded (genuinely so - it wasn't anywhere near a heated argument at all) and not extreme (there weren't any 'fundamentalists'). It was a gentle discussion and a good advert.

I have to say Christianity wasn't particularly well represented, but it was ok still. Reasonable. There was a Nigerian guy and a Southern Baptist, so they made up for it a bit. But it was just so good to see religion taken seriously, or at least that it is acceptable to believe in God. The UK is so different to the rest of the world. It seems like it is a social offence to discuss God here - in our culture religion must be kept private. It's a lie that's been fed to us by secularists and British people believe that now! The rest of the world (with they exception of Asia - Japan, Korea, etc.) is massively religious, and faith is more than just accepted, it is respected. The UK really does stand out as one of the most non-believing nations in the world (possibly 'in time' as well...). See the BBC's article interpreting the results of the above survey, tying in with the programme: UK among most secular nations (it also has a link to a PDF of all the results at the bottom too).

Two other groups of people that weren't well represented in the programme were young and old people. It seems like the faith they were discussing was in mature but not old people (e.g. 35-60). I think that reflects something of our culture again: the programme was made for that age group, so that was the main focus for the discussion. Presumably old people are all in bed by 9:30 so wouldn't watch it, and young people aren't interested in religion or wouldn't want to watch a programme on it anyway. I think that's too big a generalisation, but still, I don't think it was too detrimental to the discussion. But it would have been interesting to see how age affects faith in the survey. They broke the results down by religion and country (pointing out some general trends, which was good) but they didn't break any results down by age.

The only thing I was really disappointed by was the views of the only younger person (that I noticed anyway) that made it onto the programme. (They briefly broke up the discussion with mini-snippets of interviews with people on the street - you know the type where people get asked something off-guard while they're shopping). It wasn't him I was disappointed in, but the view he expressed which is common in the UK: "If you believe in science and evolution, you can't believe in God" - What a lie! There are loads of books out there (I have read two or three, I'm reading one right now actually) that show how science and religion are in harmony! There are lots of examples of scientists who find their research strengthens their faith - they are finding out more about the creator of the universe! There are even examples of scientists who set out determined to prove faith is wrong, who have been convinced there is a God by their own research... Science in itself is not anti-God at all. However, some secularists try to use it to push their own beliefs.

It was annoying that the only scientist they had on there was a non-believer. She was the stereotypical 'religion is all in the mind' type person who loves to fuel the UK's poo pooing of faith. I just find it irritating. That's why I thought bringing in people from other cultures was a BBC masterstroke. The discussion was so much better for it...

Anyway, I would highly recommend watching it. Apologies for not mentioning it before, but apparently if you have access to the BBC World Service, it is being shown again on that channel on Sunday at 13:06 (GMT). Also see their website for it: www.bbc.co.uk/whattheworldthinksofgod.

You had to laugh at the very last bit: just for the UK they finished with the survey results for "Who is more influential in your life - God or David Beckam?"   :)

These are interesting articles from Friday's telegraph:

• Human cells cloned: babies next?
• Opinion: Cloning human cells is not the beginning of the slippery slope

And the book I'm reading at the moment briefly discusses this too. It seems like it really doesn't matter what arguments are applied against advancing a certain technology, the research relentlessly continues. Someone always ignores what everyone else says and forges ahead. And with all positive advances in technology, you're always going to get people who want to exploit them.

The argument around this topic seems to be about the view of the embryo:

I cannot truly consider an embryo a full member of the human race. I cannot mourn for its loss as for, say, the death of a six year-old child, nor can I feel the same outrage at its deliberately induced demise as for an old lady brutally done to death in her own home by a glue-sniffing youth. Indeed, if anyone claimed to be able to do so, I should think him either a humbug or madman.

That may be true, but just because you don't feel exactly the same level of outrage, does that mean there is nothing wrong with it? So that's not really an argument. And there's the:

I don't think anyone who has seen someone die of [Parkinson's disease] would doubt for an instant that if it could be cured, it ought to be.

... at any cost whatsoever? So if it cost £500billion or someone else's life, or it gave them a worse disease, it still "ought" to be cured? No, obviously there is a limit. Doubtless everyone wants rid of disease, but even that has its limit at which the cost becomes unacceptable.

And there's the "once we've done this, we won't do anything worse - we can control it, honest!" argument:

unless we believe that we are not masters of our fate ... this is not a slope we need slip down, at least with proper regulation

but as I said earlier, there are always people who will exploit (even positive) advances in technology, regarless of "regulation". And who's to say people will want to stop once they get there? This attitude is very short-sighted indeed.

Is an embryo a full member of the human race? I don't know. But they are currently growing them to the 100 cell stage. It's only a matter of time (in the natural world) before they would become babies. At what point does an embryo cease being an 'object' and assume rights of its own? And is it therefore acceptable to do anything we like with them before that point? I.e. there is a point before which it (what would constitute torture to a baby) can be classed as valid research. What is this point and who is qualified to make such a judgement?

Phew! I've nearly finished reading Unlocking the Bible by David Pawson. It's taken me 3 months because I don't read particularly quickly, but it is a big book! In fact, it feels like I've read 5 or 6 books, but that's probably because it was originally published as 8 books - this is the Omnibus edition... I think in this form it's meant to be more of a reference than a normal book to read cover-to-cover, but what the hey.

With reading more and more of the Bible, I thought it would be a good idea if I actually understood some of it! And it does help, it's quite a good book. Obviously, I don't agree with everything he's said, but it is good as a thought-starter and introduction to some books in the Bible I haven't really touched in the past. It also gives a new slant to some of the books I thought I knew! And at nearly 200 pages per £1 (if you get it from Amazon), you can't complain at value for money! :)

The only other book of his I've read is The Challenge of Islam to Christians which is a good introduction to Islam (if you don't know anything about it) and its attraction, source, etc. contrasting it with the central concepts of Christianity.

I've also got The Normal Christian Birth but I couldn't get into it as I found it a little dry, but then I didn't give it much of a chance really as I had other things I wanted to read first. The general idea is that four things are necessary for a healthy Christian birth: Repentance, Believing in Jesus, Water Baptism, and Receiving the Holy Spirit. Although they are not all necessary for salvation, the absence of them will cause stunted growth as the Christian tries to mature.

I met him about a year ago and we chatted for about an hour. He's a really nice guy actually. Because he's quite elderly, he has a lot of wisdom to impart! I subsequently asked him a few questions by letter and he always replied gracefully and in detail at times. Unlike some 'famous' people who can't spare you 2 seconds, you feel like he always has time for you. Nice guy.

What Theologian are you?
Apparently I'm Augustine:

"God will not suffer man to have the knowledge of things to come; for if he had prescience of his prosperity he would be careless; and understanding of his adversity he would be senseless."

You are Augustine! You love to study tough issues and don't mind it if you lose sleep over them. Everyone loves you and wants to talk to you and hear your views, you even get things like "nice debating with you." Yep, you are super smart, even if you are still trying to figure it all out. You're also very honest, something people admire, even when you do stupid things.

I don't mind the "super smart" bit... :)

I've been trying to find stuff on the web about our Church, ALC. Just interested to see what's out there. Anyway, here's links for what I've found so far:

• A good article giving some background on ALC and some detail on its values (by a Christian Magazine).


• There's the rather amusing 'Church criticised over gun video' story (they couldn't have chosen a worse photo!). The 'gun video' they're on about was a Matrix-style trailer advertising a Men's get together that was coming up: it was a joke! It wasn't meant to be taken seriously at all! This article is based on a BBC (Yorkshire?) current affairs programme called Inside Out. I saw it when it went out (even though it was before we moved over here) and to be honest, it was very silly. It was filled with insinuation, but although they had obviously done lots and lots of research, they weren't able to actually accuse the Church of anything. They were just trying to stir up something that wasn't there, or at least give the impression that something wasn't right.
  
  Only in the last 5 minutes of the programme - as though it was some kind of concession - did you actually get to see what the Church stood for: building up people, helping other Christians, helping the homeless and the needy, the prostitutes and the prisoners, and so on. I love the final paragraph of the article:

  By helping the disadvantaged Abundant Life believes it is serving God as the gospel intended, but it all requires cash.

  ... as though the Church should somehow produce the necessary funds magically out of thin air!
  
  I love the interviews they did with Church leaders from around the area too, though only one made it into this article: Canon Derek Jackson of Bradford Cathedral. He said he was "shocked and distressed" and it was "not Christian to see a pastor with a gun and a high speed car." He he... Some people just can't take a joke can they! Does he think Jesus is a wooden high-priest type person? Should Christianity be boring and deadly serious? No! Jesus is full of life and fun! People were attracted to him while he was on Earth precisely because he was full of life! And there is evidence of Jesus joking and having fun in the gospels too. (Albeit not so funny to us now, but the first time it was heard, when it wasn't over religiousised, apparently the idea of a camel going through the eye of a needle was hilarious! And there are other examples too...) But it was obvious, especially from the other interviews in the programme, that some Church leaders from around the area feel:
  
  
  • threatened by this new kind of Church; and
  • envious that it is successful.
  
  ... as though it is threatening to make them and their hard work obsolete somehow. In truth, it is the fact that their Churches are irrelevant to certain types of people that has given birth to this new kind of Church.
  
  But it's such a shame they feel like that! I don't see any reason why these different styles of Church cannot co-exist - God loves variety (just look at the natural world) so we should too! Why should we all be conformed to a single type? Or are we supposed to lose ourselves and become copies of just one type of person the instant we become a Christian? (Remember sanctification is a process not an event...) I certainly don't want to become the type of Christian who puts other Churches down because they are successful or they don't work in exactly the same way as mine!


• The inevitable Gareth Gates biography and the Times' reaction to the Pop Idol vote: 'Christians urged to worship pop idol' (with a bit of "Christianity is against gays" nonsense thrown in for good measure... Great headline though...). :)


• Praying through pain of infertility: an interview on one of our leaders, Charlotte Scanlon-Gambill, who was thought to be infertile for a long time.


• Interview with Lara Martin our worship Pastor (scroll down to the section entitled "Spotlight Abundant Worship"). I think this interview happened around 2002? Not sure...


• Details of our sound system. Not terribly interesting, but it's something I found, so I thought I'd mention it in case anyone is interested in that sort of thing...


• These are some recent articles by our Senior Pastor, Paul Scanlon (basically just transcripts of sermons):
  • Life Responds To Who You Are, Not What You Do
  • First the Natural
  • Relationships are Spacial
  • Live Full but Die Empty


• Here's a list of some of the things ALC is doing in the community: Community Action Teams (the definition of CAT is at the top, scroll down a bit to get to the list).


• And obviously, there's the ALC homepage.

I also came across this list of 'Biblical Inconsistencies' as well, the logic being:

• a perfect God would see to it that humans totally and perfectly understand with little effort any communication from him to us
• the Bible when analysed literally does not appear to be consistent in places
• therefore the Bible (and God) are false

I find myself going back to the point about Garry Kasparov. Why must God make everything so simple that a superficial review will reveal everything you could possibly want to know about it?

There are a lot of "inconsistencies" listed there, but of the ones I've looked at all of them are one or more of the following:

1. a misunderstanding of what was actually being said (or reading too much into what was said)
2. references to two different times between which things have changed (e.g. just because God is all-knowing doesn't mean he isn't allowed to change his mind)
3. references to two different events
4. a difference of literal quotes out of their context (i.e. the two are actually talking about different things, but their context has been ignored)
5. something that is impossible. It's true that some things require a certain amount of faith to believe, but if the Bible is right, nothing is impossible for God
6. a valid difference, caused by things such as
   • imperfect human memory (the Bible is inspired by God, not dictated word for word - the authors brought in their own imperfections, they were not just typewriters made of flesh and blood!)
   • one thing being emphasised in one place, and a different thing in another. Both being true, just different aspects of the same truth but a literal comparison makes them appear to contradict each other (whereas they are actually totally in harmony)
7. differences between the culture of the bible and the culture of the reviewer - the Bible was written in a mixture of cultures thousands of miles away and thousands of years ago! People think in a fundamentally different way now and here

I'm not saying I expect to be able to explain away all "inconsistencies", in fact I would have expected to find at least a few that weren't clearly not inconsistencies (given that it is a huge list), but so far I've not come across one. You've got to admire his perseverance though!

The problem is, this guy is so focused on desperately trying to find anything that looks like an inconsistency that he's totally ignored what is obviously consistent. For example, does it really matter whether our place in heaven was prepared before the universe was created or when Jesus went back to heaven? What matters is there is a place in heaven waiting for us! (I would say that's not an inconsistency anyway because Jesus returned to a place outside of our universe, so our concept of what is 'before' or 'after' certain events doesn't have any meaning there).

Finally! I've been meaning to read this for a while: Why I am Not a Christian by Bertrand Russell. He's supposed to be a famous 'positive' atheist, but I've only just come across his article (by accident).

Not that I'm into dis'ing Christianity, far from it. As you can see from our FAQ (which we're currently writing extra stuff for, see the menu on the left) I am a Christian myself. But I don't think I can claim Christianity is 'the right way' unless I've considered the arguments against it.

It's funny to see how much trouble Russell has in just tying down what a Christian actually is. That tells you something about it, doesn't it?

I did start to write a reply to each of his points, but to be honest, I got half way through and couldn't be bothered finishing it. I can't disagree with a couple of his counter-arguments but the rest of his reasoning was quite poor. Not the highly logical rebuttal I was expecting at all. Maybe it's just that he wasn't able to go into as much depth as he wanted, with it being just a lecture? But I doubt it, I think more depth would just be more of the same.

His counter-arguments for the existence of God basically come down to this:

• I don't understand what God is or how he could possibly do what people claim
• therefore he can't possibly be real

How weak is that?? He accuses other people of a lack of imagination, but he is totally closed-minded himself! It's just a fact of life, there are many things we don't understand, e.g. the brain, vitamins. But we know they exist. More importantly, they exist whether we acknowledge them or not! The same is true of God.

It's like I was saying to a friend recently, I couldn't possibly understand one of Garry Kasparov's middlegame chess moves unless he explained it to me (which would probably take a long time!). Likewise, God's thinking is far more complex than ours. He may simplify some things for us at times, but that doesn't mean that we must therefore always understand everything straight away. So just because something doesn't immediately make sense to us, it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong!

His counter-arguments based on The Character of God are just as weak. He shows a deep lack of understanding for what Christians actually believe and he misinterprets Jesus' words to make his own points. Jesus never taught (or stated that he believed) his second coming would occur before the death of the people living at that time. The two supporting quotes Russell uses clearly refer to Jesus' resurrection and the 'Kingdom' - neither refer to the second coming at all.

Russell also thinks:

• Jesus' teachings are excellent
• Christians do not follow his teachings perfectly
• therefore Jesus is "partly responsible" for their actions
• therefore Christianity must be wrong

What?! Why should Jesus be "considered partly responsible" for the actions of Christians? We are all fallible humans after all! (If a Christian still sins, does that mean Jesus promotes sin? Of course not!) Or because I say I follow Jesus must I therefore be perfect?? And who's to say that someone who claims to follow Jesus is actually a genuine Christian? I would quite agree that Christians don't live up to Christ's standard, and yes, there have been some terrible atrocities done by people in the name of God. But why is God responsible for people misunderstanding him, or people using (and abusing) his name for their own personal gain? Russell is saying that people who call themselves Christians must be perfect because Jesus was, and because they are obviously not, Christianity itself is false. That's clearly wrong.

Russell also finds the idea of absolute justice personally offensive to his relativistic morals. I can understand what he's saying if he just finds it difficult to accept, fair enough. But if he thinks that because absolute justice doesn't fit in with his relative understanding of justice, Jesus must be wrong, he is much mistaken! If I was caught stealing a car and I lost my court case, I may feel that it's unfair because in my skewed judgment I believe theft is perfectly acceptable. Does that mean the judge is actually wrong in declaring me guilty and punishing me accordingly? No. Similarly, if God is perfect, he cannot possibly make a wrong judgment. So why would the perfect creator of the entire universe feel like he has to bow to one of his imperfect creations' skewed ideas of 'fairness'?

According to Russell, other people believe because early childhood associations have a deep hold on them for the rest of our lives: "Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason." This may have been the main reason in his day (remember this was presented in 1927) but I very much doubt it is now, nearly a century later. And it certainly won't be the main reason in the near future (when we've moved on one more generation). Apart from the oldest of today's generations, people just aren't Christians because they were raised to go to Sunday School anymore. Our culture is increasingly God-less. It won't be long before the vast majority of people are raised to believe that God doesn't exist.

"The next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God." That is a good point, and I'm sure that does play a part in some people's thinking. However, just because something gives safety doesn't mean it must not exist!

In conclusion, Russell only makes two decent points in the whole of this lecture:

1. If God is the creator of everything, how did he come to exist?
2. Psychological factors affect people's belief (which goes without saying because it is true of absolutely everything in life anyway).

One thing I found amusing that Russell has indirectly demonstrated though is this: although proving God exists and Christianity is 'the right way' is impossible, it is even more impossible to prove they are not true! (if anything can be more impossible)

Been reading Mother Teresa's autobiography recently, she was full of love, wisdom and inspiration.

Her answers to the question "What is Life?" are:

Life is an opportunity, avail to it
Life is a beauty, admire it
Life is bliss, taste it
Life is a dream, realise it
Life is a challenge, meet it
Life is a duty, complete it
Life is a game, play it
Life is costly, care for it
Life is wealth, keep it
Life is love, enjoy it
Life is a mystery, know it
Life is a promise, fulfil it
Life is sorrow, overcome it
Life is a song, sing it
Life is a struggle, accept it
Life is a tragedy, embrace it
Life is an adventure, dare it
Life is Life, save it.

Talking to Matt in a coffee place in town on Saturday resurrected the discussion on God being 'in control' of everything. We all agree that the world is capable of goodness, but it is essentially an evil world. So how can it be an evil world if he is in control? Does he really have all that power or is there some limit? If he is all-powerful, why doesn't he fix everything that is wrong?

Well, Yancy went down the route that yes, this life is bad, and yes, God is able to do anything He wants. But it's not so much that he is unfair (for not helping in the way we want) it's more that life itself is unfair: He is not looking down at our pain, he's going through it with us. He doesn't fix all our problems with a click of His fingers because, for some reason we don't fully understand (or appreciate), unfairness in life produces something that has more value to Him than he would get by just fixing everything.

God wants us to love him, not to just be programmed to love him. Real love involves conscious, deliberate, free choices to love rather than reject. So real love cannot be born or exist if there is no possibility of rejection. So for us to be able to really love God, there must be the possibility of rejecting him and choosing something else instead. That's why something that is not of him (i.e. evil) has to exist.

And that's why Job was tested. The devil said to God, 'he only loves you because you have given him such a great life - you take it away and he'll curse you just like everyone else'. So God allowed Job to be tested. It's not that God didn't care about Job's pain (not at all, far from it: he felt the pain very much and went through it himself with Job), but Job's resulting faithfulness despite horrific circumstances was of more value to God than the pain was.

So that's where the view that God is somehow holding back the effects of his holiness comes from. We agree that evil cannot exist in God's presence, but evil does exist in the world, so God is just tolerating it. But that's the point - he is tolerating evil so we have the opportunity to choose him or reject him: "Don't you realize how kind, tolerant, and patient God is with you? Or don't you care? Can't you see how kind he has been in giving you time to turn from your sin? But no, you won't listen. So you are storing up terrible punishment for yourself because of your stubbornness in refusing to turn from your sin." (Romans 2:4-5).

We've had ITV filming at our church today for a programme that's going out in May and another one later in the year. Not sure when exactly. It was a little artificial in that we had to do a few 'takes' of just us standing and clapping then sitting down, but the rest of the meeting was pretty much as per usual, and it didn't bother me too much anyway. A necessary evil I think, and the end (what should be a fairly accurate look at two of our services, on a good TV channel, distributed to the whole of the UK) totally outweighs the cost of a few minutes of awquardness. You just can't even imagine the difference something like this could make in people's lives. It does feel a bit odd to be 'on show' though.

In the morning Paul Scanlon spoke about habits, and how we effectively choose to stay in the circumstances we're in by conceding to our habits. In the evening he was talking about the relevance and credibility (or lack thereof) we as a Church have in our society, and he used that message to encourage Christians, but mainly to try to make the Church more accessible. I look forward to the when the programmes come out...

Did anyone else watch the late night showings of Red Dwarf over Christmas? They were classic series 4 and 5 episodes. We've videoed them and watched them sometime later. I remember them from when I was much younger. They were hilarious then, but I've found this time round I seem to be reading morals into them.

In one episode, the Red Dwarf spaceship is visited by a powerful being called the Inquisitor. Each member of the crew in turn has to explain the meaning of their existence: what they have contributed, why the universe would be worse off without them, and so on. So it's a kind of Scrooge story in reverse, but with an added twist: if their self-justification isn't good enough, the Inquisitor will erase their existence entirely - wipe them off the face of history and replace them with someone else...

But how should the Inquisitor get round the problem of measuring goodness? And where should he draw the line between unacceptable and 'good enough'? Does he have a universal scale of goodness on which a 5 or higher is acceptable and anything less than a 5 is unacceptable? Well, no (there would be problems with that anyway), so instead the Inquisitor applies a relative morality, not relative to any particular society as we would expect (e.g. the one he is part of), but relative to the individual:

Each person is judged by themselves. The Inquisitor somehow takes on the form, personality and the morality of the judgee, so each of them effectively judges themselves.

This was obviously where lots of humour crept in, and the writers had lots of fun playing with the idea. And I know it doesn't apply directly, but I couldn't help thinking back to Luke 6:37-38 (and 2 Corinthians 9:6 and Matthew 6:14-15); how we judge others affects how we will be judged, if we are more generous to others, God will be more generous to us. God will show more mercy if we are more merciful: "Whatever measure you use in giving - large or small - it will be used to measure what is given back to you."