Honest Faith

Moving on to pastures new

2010-06-16T17:44:00.003+01:00

I set up this blog as a way of expressing my views, frustrations etc on the Christian faith, of which I was very much a part in the beginning. Now that I have "come out" as an atheist, however, I can't really keep blogging under the title of "Honest Faith", so this blog has come to the end of its useful life.

I have no plans at present to delete Honest Faith, so anyone who's interested can still read my old posts and follow my journey through, and ultimately out of, Christianity.

I will still be blogging, but with a somewhat different focus. Anyone who is interested in reading my musings (yes, both of you!) will find them at my new blog, Atheos. To all my regular readers, whether or not you have any interest in reading the musings of an atheistic ex-Christian over at my new blog, thanks for reading Honest Faith and for enriching my life over the past few years with your comments.

Dear John

2010-06-14T23:03:00.001+01:00

What if...?

2010-05-15T14:33:00.005+01:00

One thing that has always been important to me is truth. One of my co-workers describes me as "a black-and-white kind of guy" and to some extent that's accurate. I don't just like to take other people's word for things; rather, I like to investigate things for myself and find out for myself whether or not they are right, true or beneficial. One thing I don't like much is the grey area of not really knowing; I prefer certainty if it's available, though of course I understand that certainty isn't always possible.

One thing that has come out of this is that I am willing to question anything and everything. There are no untouchable areas that are beyond being questioned, because I strongly believe that if something won't stand up to scrutiny then it's not worth believing anyway.

I mentioned earlier that I don't like taking other people's word for things, but that's exactly what I've done all my life with regard to my Christian faith, and even my basic belief in the existence of God. I was brought up nominally Christian, and the existence of God was always an assumption in my family and my wider community, to the point that for most of my life it never even occurred to me to question it. It was one of those unspoken cultural things that I just took for granted as self-evident. That assumption became even more strong following my conversion experience 21 years ago. Now, though, I'm questioning those assumptions to see if they hold up in the face of doubt.

At the moment, as I've said before, I'm agnostic but with a leaning towards theism as a default position. Depending on which way the questioning leads me, I could end up going either way, but I'm comfortable with that.

So the question I'm asking myself at the moment, and which I'd like to put to anyone who still reads this blog, is this: What if there is no God?

If you were to discover, conclusively and with absolute proof, that there is no God and never has been, what would your reaction be? How do you think your life would change as a result - or would it change at all?

From the archive: Speaking in Tongues

2010-04-11T01:44:00.003+01:00

[This is an edited version of a post from Monday 2nd July 2007. I wanted to post up the YouTube clip, which I stumbled across by accident today, but needed some context to put it in. The video is at the bottom of this post.]

“See my tie, see my tie shin up a drainpipe. I’ll have a double Bacardi and a Kaliber shandy. A lass with a Calor gas heater can seek a man’s coriander, but she came on a Honda.”

Does that sound familiar? If you’ve spent any amount of time in a Pentecostal or charismatic church, it probably does. This post is all about speaking in tongues, or glossolalia to use its technical name.

If you listen to most “speaking in tongues” as practised in Pentecostal and charismatic churches, it is usually an unintelligible babbling made up of pseudo-words or even disjointed sounds with a lot of repetition. This is regarded by Pentecostals (of which I used to be one) as the initial evidence of baptism in the Holy Spirit.

Unfortunately for that point of view, speaking in tongues has been recorded in other religions as well, including some shamanistic religions and voodoo. Is it evidence of the Holy Spirit in those cases? I would think not.

As I understand it, the word “tongue” in the New Testament generally refers to a language. A real language, not an ecstatic babbling. That is why there is so much emphasis in the Bible on interpreting what is said “in tongues”. The gift of tongues, to me, is an ability to speak languages other than one’s own by the power of God. Certainly in the most famous incident of speaking in tongues, when the Holy Spirit was first given in Acts chapter 2, the people from all over the known world who were present each heard the believers speaking in their own language.

In the early years after I first began to follow Christ, I was part of a Pentecostal church. A lot of people kept telling me about the baptism in the Holy Spirit, this amazing “second blessing” in which I would be filled with the Holy Spirit and speak in tongues. I was not so much encouraged to seek for this as pressured into it, but either way it was something I desperately wanted, as I was told that it would take me to a higher level and enable me to live a more godly life. I wanted it so much, I regularly prayed and prayed for hours to receive this wonderful gift that I had been told was mine by right, and eventually one day I began to speak in tongues. Years later I gradually began to realise that what I was doing was more the result of wishful thinking, self-delusion and pressure from others in the church than real spiritual inspiration. At that point I stopped, but it took me a long time to reach that point. At first, for many years, I was convinced that I was speaking in other tongues by the power of the Holy Spirit and I am certain that many other Pentecostals and charismatics are similarly self-deluded, thinking that their speaking in tongues is the result of a miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit when really it may be just a product of their own desperate desire to do so.

I have met several Christians who spoke in tongues and were convinced that they were speaking Hebrew. Well, I studied biblical Hebrew for two years and have a basic knowledge of modern Hebrew and I can honestly say that although I have heard a great many people speaking in tongues, I have never yet heard anyone speaking Hebrew while doing so. I have heard monoglot English-speaking Christians speaking in tongues who included half-remembered snatches of the Welsh prayers their parents knew (as a Welsh-speaker, these things stand out to me). I have heard people speaking in tongues whose utterance consisted of one or two syllables repeated endlessly, such as “oolalalalalalalalalababala, oolalalalalalalalalalalababababalala.” I regard all these as suspect, though in my experience all these people have been totally sincere in their belief that they are “speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gives them utterance.”

To me, the touchstone that proves whether or not the gift of tongues is genuine is this: does the “tongue” have the characteristics of a real language, or is it perhaps recognisable as such by someone present who understands the language being spoken? If not, I would suggest that it is not genuine, in which case the real gift of tongues is rather rare these days. However, it is often counterfeited unknowingly by people who desperately desire this gift as proof that they have been filled with the Holy Spirit.

[The views expressed in the following video clip aren't necessarily my own, but I found it interesting enough to share on here.]

Truth hidden in criticism?

2010-02-08T15:18:00.002Z

This YouTube clip is a recording of a comedian who appears to be an atheist. He is very critical of religion in this clip, and I know that the first reaction of many believers to such things would be to retreat behind the battlements and ready the Bible Cannon to blast him into oblivion (in love, of course).

However, as believers, how should we respond to this? Like it or not, this is actually how we are viewed by a fair proportion of the non-believing population (though of course, it is milked here for comedic effect). What do you think? Is this a fair reflection of how we are perceived? Is it actually in some way a true reflection of us? If so, what (if anything) can be done about it?

The "Good Christian Man" revisited

2010-01-30T23:54:00.003Z

I've blogged before about the myth of the "Good Christian Man" here, here and here. It seems that I forgot one important aspect of the myth of the Good Christian Man, namely that a GCM never lusts and has overcome his sexual urges.

The fact of the matter, of course, is that a man can no more overcome his sexual urges than he can overcome the urge to breathe. Being a Christian should not mean denying the very thing that we were created to be: a sexual being with natural desires and inclinations.

I could go into depth on the subject here, but John Shore has already covered it on his blog much better than I could have. So if you're interested in the subject, please read John's thoughts on the matter and comment there.

Does God cause suffering?

2010-01-05T00:46:00.002Z

I've been going through a tough time lately. I've been very ill and off work for almost four months now, and although there has been some improvement in that time the illness shows no signs of going as yet.

With that in mind, I posted a comment on my Facebook profile to the effect that I've pretty much run out of optimism.

Next thing I know, a no doubt well-meaning acquaintance of mine (we were often theological "sparring partners" in college) tried telling me that my illness is basically God's way of testing me. Those of you who are my Facebook friends can follow the conversation there if you have a mind to.

Anyway, after a theological discussion that I never wanted to get into (seeing as I was - and am - pretty despondent about the whole long-term illness thing) I wrote this:

OK, imagine this scenario. A friend of yours is pointing a gun at a child and says he's going to kill her. You could easily prevent him from doing so - in fact, a single word is all it would take to bring him to his senses - but instead you stand by and allow him to pull the trigger and either kill or horribly injure the child. Are you not as much to blame as the man who pulled the trigger?

How then can you draw a distinction between God causing suffering and merely allowing it? Either way a person's suffering and the means of causing it are sanctioned by God. Can you really not see how terrible that would be - what an uncaring monster that would make God?

So what do you think? Is suffering caused by God, whether actively or passively? Or is it, as I believe, usually just a random thing that has no meaning or purpose whatsoever?

Happy Christmas!

2009-12-24T22:12:00.000Z

But the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God. You will be with child and give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end."

(Luke 1:30-33)

A very happy Christmas to you all!

What religions do you find most interesting apart from your own?

2009-12-10T00:18:00.008Z

Erin has tagged me with Matt Stone's meme "What religions interest you apart from your own"?

List three "religions" (i.e. religion/belief system/philosophy/irreligion) :
1. which, if any, "religion" you personally identify with
2 & 3. two other "religions" that interest you.

If you're brave, explain why the other religions interest you.

Hmm, OK. This does, of course, mean that I have to find a term that adequately describes my personal beliefs for part 1.

1. Christian agnosticism

I believe that it is not possible to know for certain whether or not God exists, but that it is very likely that he does and that he is in fact the God of the Christian Bible. I subscribe to a non-literal interpretation of the Bible and I believe (tentatively) in universal salvation. I am also, as an agnostic, open to the possibility that there may in fact be no God, but I regard this as the less likely possibility.

(As a side-issue, I seem to be becoming more comfortable with the term "Christian" these days.)

2. Judaism

Jesus was a religious Jew. His earliest followers were religious Jews. That's a strong advertisement for Judaism in itself. It seems that Jesus never set out to create a new religion, but to reform Judaism. The Hebraic mindset of the original Bible writers and earliest followers of Jesus was rapidly replaced by a Hellenistic version in historical Christianity, which was not necessarily a positive development. I also like the Jewish emphasis on orthopraxy rather than orthodoxy (right actions rather than right beliefs). There is a lot of mileage in interpreting the New Testament in the light of the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament"), rather than the reverse which is far more common today.

3. Islam

If Jesus can give us a new revelation on top of the Hebrew Scriptures, why couldn't Muhammad give us a newer revelation on top of that if God wanted him to? OK, I don't believe he did, but I can understand the rationale behind it. There is a lot to be said about the Islamic emphasis on community, and the Qur'an makes interesting reading even for an unbeliever like me. The discipline of Islamic prayer is also one of Islam's strong points. Indeed, I have borrowed it on more than one occasion - using the forms and wording (translated into English) of Islamic prayer, but leaving out references to Muhammad and anything else that contradicts my belief in the biblical God.

******************************************************************

If I were to stop there, it would seem as though I was only interested by the Abrahamic religions. In fact, there are aspects of many belief systems that appeal to me. The reverence of the natural world in neo-paganism; the ancestral heritage of Celtic paganism for me as a Welshman; the emphasis on rational thought of atheism; the hospitality of Sikhs. All these I find appealing. It just goes to show that no one religion or belief system has a monopoly on truth, and we can all learn from each other. We should recognise that which we share and that which we can learn from each other, while at the same time being open and frank about the things on which we disagree. Surely that's a much better alternative to the religious conflict that tends to arise from demonisation of other belief systems.

I won't tag anybody specific for this meme, but if you want to take part, go ahead and post it up on your blog and leave a comment to let me know.

Bible parallels

2009-11-02T01:12:00.011Z

Warning: History Geek alert!

OK, now the warning is out of the way I can continue :o)

I mentioned in the comments to my last post that the story of Noah and the Flood has parallels in other Ancient Near Eastern literature besides the Bible. For those who are interested, here are a few parallels to biblical stories in other Ancient Near Eastern texts, which you can look up if, like me, you find this sort of thing interesting. The links will take you to online versions of the texts.

The Flood

Biblical passage: Genesis chapters 6-9
ANE parallels: The Atrahasis Epic, the Gilgamesh Epic and the Sumerian Flood Story

Monotheistic praise

Biblical passage: Psalm 104
ANE parallel: The Great Hymn to the Aten

Wisdom literature

Biblical passage: Proverbs 22:17-24:22
ANE parallel: The Instruction of Amenemope

If you want to learn more about the Ancient Near Eastern documents here, information about all of them should be available on Wikipedia.

Halloween silliness

2009-11-01T00:54:00.007Z

I'm always amazed at how over-the-top some people can be where Halloween is concerned. This video clip gives a very good example. You'd think I'd be used to such craziness by now, but it never fails to amaze me that some people actually believe this stuff!

(The original article to which this refers can be seen here.)

The dark side of the Bible

2009-10-30T14:45:00.005Z

Back in my childhood days, I used to go along to Sunday School at the local Pentecostal chapel every week. I was taught Bible stories, we sang songs - it was great. The whole thing was led by a dear old lady whose love for children was clearly obvious. I went regularly until I was about 14, when going to chapel became distinctly uncool, and I didn't go back until my conversion experience at the age of 16.

At Sunday School, as I said, we were taught Bible stories. I'm sure you can imagine which ones - Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, David and Goliath, Jesus' parables - the usual ones. What I am increasingly coming to realise, though, is that many of these stories have a hidden dark side that was not only glossed over when the stories were told to us children, but (perhaps as a result of that) tend to be glossed over by adults when they read the Bible too. We've been taught to look at these stories in a particular way, and we tend to pass them on with that particular interpretation in mind as well. I'm as guilty as anyone of this. The thing is, these days I've begun to wonder whether we may actually be doing the next generation a disservice by only teaching them a nice, safe, sanitised version of the Bible.

So what are the dark sides to some of the famous Bible stories often told to children? Here are some examples; I'm going to bypass the question of whether or not these stories are factual, simply because they are usually taught as factual. These are in no particular order.

Noah's ark

We're all familiar with old Noah and his big ship, with lots of animals on it (I've often wondered how biblical literalists account for the woodworms and termites, but that's another story) escaping from the flood because Noah was righteous.

The dark side: This means God decided to drown every single person and animal on earth, other than those on the ark. Would every single one of those individuals really be worse sinners than Noah and his family? We ignore the supposed drowning of most of the world's population in the telling of this story. Far from the cutesy version offered in most children's books, this story is actually quite horrific.

David and Goliath

The usual meaning we give to this story is that if you obey God he can do great things through you, even if the odds are against you. The dark side: this duel led directly to the wholesale slaughter of the Philistines.

Joshua and the Battle of Jericho

Another story used to tell children that we should obey God and we will be victorious, no matter how strange the instructions may seem (marching around the city and blowing trumpets is an unusual assault tactic). The dark side: genocide. Every man, woman, child and even animal inside Jericho was killed. This feat was repeated many times in other cities. Why is it that we condemn genocide in the present day but excuse or even condone it in its biblical context?

The Exodus

"Let my people go!" This is a powerful story about God's care for his people in bringing them out of slavery and leading them to their Promised Land. The dark side: why did God allow them to become slaves for 400 years in the first place? Why did God torture the whole population of Egypt with the ten plagues, culminating in the merciless slaughter of the innocent first-born son of every Egyptian family, because of the hard-heartedness of one man (Pharaoh)?

Sodom and Gomorrah

The story of how God rescued the one righteous man in the city, Lot. Isn't it odd that we tend to gloss over the fact that Lot offered his own daughters for the men of the city to rape and abuse?

***********************************************************

I don't really have any ground-shaking comment on the above examples; it just struck me as odd and slightly worrying that we tend to ignore the darker side of the Bible.

(The following video has nothing to do with this post, other than the song's title. It just popped into my head as I was writing this, and it's a great song so I thought I'd post it up.)

Choices

2009-10-27T11:28:00.005Z

Lately I've had quite a few discussions with people about what I do and don't believe. One of the major themes has been science and religion, specifically (but not exclusively) the evolution / creation debate.

One theme that seems to come up again and again is that people seem to think I should choose to believe what the Bible says (meaning, presumably, that I should choose to believe their literal interpretation of what it says). Belief is presented as a choice.

The thing is, if you take a step back and look at that statement, it's nonsensical. How can someone choose what they believe? As Tim Milligan (who I discovered by random during my blog-browsing today) says: I can't control what I believe is true. If you walked up to me and paid me a large sum of money to believe that the sky is red, I might say "Okay, the sky is red", but inside I would be believing the sky is blue and lying to you for the money.

The whole idea of "don't question, just believe" (or "God said it, I believe it, that settles it") makes no sense. I can't just believe something without having some sort of evidence for it that can change my mind from my current beliefs on the subject. In my recent conversations this has been applicable to the whole idea of literal creationism, but it could apply to a whole lot of other things, both in terms of religious belief and in wider terms. I'm a thinker; "because I say so" has never been a good enough reason for me to accept something.

Someone even said to me recently: "Is Dawkins really more credible to you than God!" (This was in the context of a discussion on creationism). My response was: "Of course not - but he is a great deal more credible to me (on some subjects at least) than many of the people who believe they speak for God. There is a world of difference." The person with whom I was debating seemed to dismiss all Dawkins' ideas out of hand because he is an atheist. To me, that's just closed-mindedness. It's fine to dismiss someone's views once you've given them a fair hearing, but not to dismiss them because you don't like their views on another topic. And yes, I've given creationism a fair hearing - I was a creationist myself a long time ago. Anyway, to get back to the point, what I'm saying is that the debate isn't between science and God, but between science and some people's interpretation of the Bible. There's a very big difference. If God appeared and told me in person to believe something, I would of course believe it, but of course that hasn't happened.

I can no more choose to believe that creationism is true, or that there is no doubt about the existence of God, than I can choose to believe that my left foot is a submarine. In the case of creationism, there is no evidence for it; in the case of God's existence, evidence is lacking for both positions. Belief is based on perception, not on choice - and that perception, for me at least, is based on evidence.

Hypnotists for Jesus?

2009-10-22T23:33:00.004+01:00

Here are several video clips of hypnotic induction, i.e. people in a highly suggestible state being put into a state of hypnosis. If you watch them all I'm sure you'll see the point I want to make much more clearly than if I used words.

I'm sure you can see the overall theme here.

Bible myths

2009-10-16T14:20:00.004+01:00

You may have noticed that I'm posting more regularly here lately. Being off sick from work for the last 6 weeks has given me too much time on my hands, but at least I can still think and type!

Many myths have sprung up over the years about the Bible. These are my thoughts on just some of them.

Myth #1: You must read the Bible every day.

Isn’t it strange that we tend to hold up the early church as an example of how to follow Christ, while conveniently glossing over the fact that they had no New Testament at all for a long time and most had infrequent access to the Old Testament? Almost none of them would have had their own copies of the scriptures. In fact, for most of the history of the Church, the vast majority of believers did not own a copy of the bible, yet they still managed to follow Christ. Of course, reading the Bible every day can be a good habit, but I see no reason why it should be a requirement.

Myth #2: The Bible contains no contradictions

Oh really? So who was Jesus’ “grandfather” on Joseph’s side – Jacob (Matt 1:16) or Heli (Lk 3:23)?
Who succeeded Josiah as King of Judah – Jehoahaz (2 Chron 36:1) or Shallum (Jer 22:11)?
At Jesus’ trial, did they put a scarlet robe on him (Matt 27:28) or a purple one (John 19:2)?
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point.

Myth #3: Jesus is on every page of the Old Testament

Believe it or not, this is something I used to hear all the time. I’m so glad all those begats point to Jesus! Actually, this is demonstrably false. It only makes sense if you read into the text what you want it to say – in which case I suspect you could make just as strong an argument for Jesus being on every page of the Oxford English Dictionary.

Myth #4: The Bible is a clear and plain instruction book and source of morality

The morality of some of the things in the Bible would be very suspect (to say the least) by today’s standards. Unless, of course, you believe that keeping slaves (Leviticus 25:44-46) and stoning Sabbath-breakers to death (Numbers 15:32-36) are still acceptable courses of action. Taking every word of the Bible literally without recontextualising it can lead to all sorts of problems.

Many of the commandments in the Bible have a solid moral basis. However, there is a darker side to the Bible. To give a very stark example, in the Old Testament genocide is not only acceptable, but actually commanded by God (1 Sam 15:3). We teach children about Joshua and the Battle of Jericho, as an exciting story about obedience to God's instructions, but we usually skim over the part (Josh 6:21) where it says, “They devoted the city to the LORD and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.” In both the above cases, the Israelites committed genocide, killing men, women and children. Not only that, but God actually commanded it. Take a moment for that to sink in - in the Old Testament, God actually commanded the killing of babies. Is the moral basis for this acceptable today? I would argue strongly that it isn’t. So where does that leave the “Bible as moral compass” assumption?

Myth #5: Every word in the Bible comes from God.

I strongly disagree. The Bible is useful for teaching us about God, but the historical contradictions and mistakes alone show that if God wrote it, he must be pretty forgetful. No, it was written by fallible human beings, giving their best explanations from their perspective within their own culture(s). That’s not to discount the Bible being inspired by God, of course (could we perhaps view this as the Bible being “commissioned” by God?) but he didn’t write it, nor did he tell the various authors what to write.

The Simpsons on Creationism v Evolution

2009-10-14T00:28:00.004+01:00

As I'm currently reading Richard Dawkins' excellent new book The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution, this seemed both topical and funny. I couldn't resist posting it on here!

A letter to my younger self

2009-10-08T16:34:00.006+01:00

Dear Me aged 18,

I know you think people twice your age are a bit old and irrelevant, but trust me – you’ll be this age one day.

In the process of getting to double your current age, you’ll learn a few things about life. Some are good and some are less so, but all are valuable.

Firstly, you are worth a lot more than you’ve been led to believe by so-called “friends”. You will make something of your life and make a difference to others’ lives while experiencing the wide world outside of the Valleys. Most of your so-called “friends” won’t. Oh, and you’ll realise that open, unguarded friendship is actually possible, and that real friends accept the real you. The loss of those who don’t won’t bother you in the slightest, and will actually be a good thing.

You will start listening to heavy metal and classic rock music again in your late twenties, and you won’t feel guilty. Forget what you’ve been told – it’s not the devil’s music. You may not believe me now, but in a decade or so you will feel stupid for smashing up your records. Especially the limited-edition picture discs. You will one day realise what part of you knows already, i.e. that most Christian music is a poor substitute for the stuff you actually like.

Ah yes, Christianity. Your current favourite subject. You will fulfil one wish, in the sense that you will study theology and learn a lot more about God and Christianity. The flip-side of that is that you will also realise that the more you learn, the more you realise you don’t know. You’ll end up with many more questions than you have now, not least because you will realise that it’s actually a good thing to question things rather than believing everything you’ve been taught from the pulpit. Yes, even preachers can be wrong. Some of them are wrong most of the time, in fact.

You will spend a lot of time in evangelism, and even gain a college diploma in evangelism, despite your natural introversion. You will also, much later, realise how silly it made you look because your hidden agenda wasn’t really all that well-hidden, and people could spot it a mile off. Trust me, it’s better to let people see God in you than to try to ram him down their throats, however sincere you are. You know those Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons that you always look down on when they knock your door with their leaflets and sincere expressions? To non-Christians, you’re in the exact same category. Lighten up a bit.

You will learn that Pentecostalism does not have all the answers. You will later realise that neither does Christianity. No, that’s not a denial of Christ. It’s a recognition of the limitations of those who claim to follow him. You will still believe that God exists … probably. (You will also understand that certainty is not nearly as easy to come by as you currently believe.) You will have atheist friends, pagan friends and gay friends. You will not feel the least bit guilty for this. You will even still have Christian friends.

You will marry the girl of your dreams. No, you haven’t met her yet, but trust me, she’ll make a big impression when you first meet her. You will find out that marriage is simultaneously the most difficult and the most rewarding thing you will do in the next eighteen years. Oh, and she’s English. Yes, even a Welsh nationalist can fall for an English girl; the two aren’t mutually exclusive, you know. You won’t be a father, but you will have an input into the lives of a lot of children because you’ll become a teacher. Yes, that’s right. Not a geologist or a pastor, but a schoolteacher.

And now the bit that will make you think this whole letter is a hoax: you will learn to dance, come to love doing it and enter (and win) dance competitions. No, really. Would I lie to you?

Enjoy the next eighteen years!

Regards,

You aged 36.

(Inspired by this.)

The Amazing Do-It-Yourself Bible Version

2009-10-06T17:46:00.006+01:00

If I decided to write my own Bible, I suspect it would have a worldwide readership of 2 (me and my wife, who would probably laugh at me for writing it). So how about this for an idea: rather than write my own Bible, I'll do my own "translation" of the present one, but before I translate it I'll decide in advance what it should say and ignore what the original actually says and means. I'll make sure it conforms to every one of my own political and religious prejudices, and I may even leave out some of the bits that don't support them.

Yes, of course the above is a stupid idea. And I would never do it. However, it seems that some people (American ultra-conservative Christians, naturally) have decided to do that very thing. For once, I am lost for words.

Christianity and science

2009-10-04T19:53:00.006+01:00

I had a friend request on Facebook today from someone I used to debate with a lot at college. Basically he was (and still is) a young-earth creationist, while I believed (and still do) that all organisms achieved their current forms by a process of evolution. We had many a debate over meals in the college dining hall, and not only about this issue.

Without wanting to get too much into that particular argument here, as I've already covered it in an earlier post, it did make me think a bit about creationism, and in particular those people who make it a major focus of their lives and thought.

(By "creationism", in this context, I mean the narrower definition - namely the belief that God created every living organism in its present form and that evolution of species has not occurred. It is quite possible to believe in God as creator without falling into this narrow definition.)

Basically, I have never come across anyone who is a creationist because the physical and biological evidence has led them to adopt that position. On the contrary, they all seem to be creationists simply because they believe the first chapter of Genesis is literally, factually, historically accurate.

Think about that for a moment. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever become a creationist based on the actual evidence.

If I am wrong, and anyone reading this actually did become a creationist based on evidence (i.e. before they heard and believed the first chapter of Genesis), please let me know. I'm not going to hold my breath.

When we base our scientific beliefs on a book that was never intended to be a scientific textbook, and indeed was written well before humans developed any real scientific understanding, we are on very shaky ground indeed. No wonder there has historically been such a stand-off between science and religion. To my way of thinking, if the physical evidence contradicts our understanding of the Bible, then our understanding of the Bible needs to be re-evaluated. To think otherwise is to put the cart before the horse.

Science should be based on evidence, not on dogma. To do otherwise is at best misguided, and at worst intellectually dishonest. Perhaps this is why so many thinkers and intellectuals shun Christianity; "Creation science" just looks laughable to them, and is an extremely poor advertisement for Christian beliefs.

Coming out of the closet

2009-09-01T16:17:00.004+01:00

I realise that I’m likely to receive some criticism for writing this, but the title of this blog is Honest Faith after all, so I’m just going to say it.

I no longer believe that it is possible to say with certainty that God is real.

This is an odd statement to make when you bear in mind that I still pray and still think through (and read about) theological issues that relate to Christianity, but it’s true nevertheless. Now I’m not saying that there is no God; far from it. I’m just not saying that I believe without question that there definitely is a God. Those two statements are not the same.

The thing is, there are plenty of arguments as to why there is a God, plenty of arguments for a Creator, plenty of subjective evidence based on personal experience. I get that. However, one important thing is missing: proof. It is simply not possible to prove that God is real. Of course, the flip-side is also true: it is also impossible to prove that there is no God. People on both sides of the debate can come up with strong arguments for their beliefs, but both sides lack the essential ingredient of objective proof.

In other words, this is me “coming out” as an agnostic. Agnosticism is not a lack of belief, or a lack of certainty, as some would paint it. Rather, it is a firm belief that it is impossible to know for certain whether or not God exists.

The way I see it, there are three kinds of agnosticism. There’s apathetic agnosticism, which takes the lack of proof one way or the other about the existence of God and concludes that it’s not worth worrying about one way or the other. God is an irrelevance to people who think this way.

Then there’s atheistic agnosticism, where the lack of proof one way or the other leads to an assumption that there probably isn’t a God, or there would be irrefutable proof. People in this group live their lives under the assumption that there is no God.

Thirdly, there’s theistic agnosticism, which assumes that although there is no firm evidence one way or the other, it is very likely that there is a God. People in this group tend to live their lives in the assumption that God is real, even though they can’t be certain. This is how I would describe my current way of thinking.

The next question, of course, is this: even assuming that there is a God or gods, what evidence is there that Christianity is right about who God is? Why not the Hindus, or the Zoroastrians, or the Wiccans, or the Deists…. You get the idea.

Why do I believe in Christianity rather than any other religion? Is there really any more to it than the fact that I was raised in a culture in which Christianity is the dominant religion, and I was raised with cultural assumptions that favour Christianity? If I’d been born in Saudi Arabia, for example, would I now be a strong believer in the irrefutable truth of Islam? Whatever the reason, Christianity it is, for me. Assuming God is real, of course.

So there you have it. I'm a theistic agnostic and I'm out of the closet.

(For a bit of fun, have a go at this test. I came out as "theistic agnostic" so for me, at least, it was accurate.)

Truth in parody

2009-08-03T12:49:00.001+01:00

Yes, these clips are intended to ridicule - not maliciously, but for comedy purposes - but there is a lot of truth in parody.

Why does God allow suffering?

2009-07-16T18:26:00.003+01:00

Traditionally, Christianity has believed two key points about God: he is benevolent (well-meaning and wanting the best for us), and he is omnipotent (all-powerful, capable of doing absolutely anything he wants). Of course, we all know there are many more than just two key beliefs about God, but those are the two I want to look more closely at here.

Saying that God is both well-meaning and all-powerful does, however, lead to a problem. This is THE biggie: the problem of suffering. It is an undeniable fact that suffering exists in the world, and most (if not all) of us taste suffering to a greater or lesser extent at some point during our lives. So why does God allow it to happen?

With that in mind, there seem to be several possibilities. You can choose for yourself which if these you think is true. If you can suggest any other possibilities, please feel free to outline them in the comments section.

1. God is both well-meaning and all powerful.

Stop right there. This position makes no sense to me. The existence of suffering disproves this, because why would an all-powerful and loving God who wants the best for us allow us to suffer? Why would such a God allow innocent people to be tortured? Why would he allow genocide and starvation? Why would he allow all kinds of unpleasant disease, natural disasters, and many other causes of suffering? An omnipotent God would be capable of preventing all of these; a benevolent God would want to prevent all of these. So to me, God can't possibly be both.

2. God is well-meaning but not all-powerful.

According to this theory, God loves us and wants the best for us, but for whatever reason he is unable to prevent us experiencing suffering, i.e. he is not all-powerful. A good case for this idea is made by Gregory A. Boyd in his book God At War. This theory provides an explanation for the existence of suffering while still defending the Christian belief in a loving, benevolent God.

3. God is all-powerful but not well-meaning.

According to this viewpoint, God is capable of doing anything he wants, but he does not have our best interests at heart and thus does not want to prevent suffering. This view of a remote, disinterested God is at odds with pretty much all Christian teaching. Basically, it's deism. Either that, or it leads one down the same twisted road as Fred Phelps and Westboro Baptist Church (I'm not dignifying them with a link - if you've never heard of their "church", look it up on Google) with their belief that God actively hates people.

4. God is neither well-meaning nor all-powerful.

I have never heard of anyone who holds to this view, but I had to include it for the sake of completeness. A God like this would be pretty much irrelevant to us, and probably completely unknown too as he would have no interest in humans. Either that or he would be a major thorn in our flesh if he was actively hostile towards us.

5. God does not exist.

This is another possibility that has to be considered. It satisfactorily explains the existence of suffering - if there is no God to prevent it, why shouldn't it exist?

So there we have it: I can see these five possible solutions to the question of why God allows suffering. What do you think? Are any of them right in your opinion?

What the...?

2009-06-01T23:00:00.002+01:00

Some people really do believe the weirdest things!

In case you think the picture is a mock-up, click here to see the original news story. If you've never heard of Marmite (and believe me, you're not missing anything - it's foul stuff!), click here.

There are some strange people in the world. What next - divine salami, perhaps?

Sorry, but I'm not interested.

2009-05-25T13:20:00.009+01:00

Recently I've been invited to various events in churches. One common thread that links all these is that the people who have invited me have taken the view that what they are inviting me to is something interesting, cutting-edge or relevant. I, however, tend to take a different view. What those within the Christian subculture view as interesting or attractive is usually not what those outside that subculture, whether believers or non-believers, view as interesting or attractive. The former group compares it with the usual activities of their church and finds it more exciting, while the latter group has a much wider set of activities with which to compare it and usually finds it either sub-standard, bland, irrelevant or just "churchy" with a thin veneer of "coolness" that can be easily seen through.

Am I trying to dump on the church again here? No, not really. I'm just pointing out the problem. I used to look at all this stuff from the other side of the fence, but since taking the red pill my eyes have been opened and I find I'm not remotely interested in the things to which I get invited.

I'm not interested in "youth bands". There is much better music to be found elsewhere. The fact that they are either made up of, or aimed at, young people doesn't make any difference.

I'm not interested in going to listen to a preacher. No matter how famous he may be, or how insightful people may think he is, his opinions are not the be-all-and-end-all that will set everyone on the right path. Even the best and most fashionable preachers can be wrong. I'd rather read a few books, thanks. That way you get far more detail and have more time to digest it before making up your own mind what you think of the material being presented.

I'm not even all that interested in listening to people's testimonies (there's a Christianese word if ever there was one!) of how God has worked in their lives, because God tends to work differently in each of our lives. Plus, of course, there is no way of checking the truth of what is said - Christians have always been prone to exaggerating the "good bits" and ascribing to God what could easily have come from some non-divine source.

I'm not interested in going to listen to someone with a healing ministry. In my experience (and I've had plenty) these people tend to be either complete charlatans using parlour tricks such as the "making your leg grow" trick, or they unconsciously use suggestion to make people think they are healed, without realising that's what they are doing (obviously, as it's done unconsciously - duh!). Only very rarely are there actual healings, although I do still believe that these are possible and that they do occur from time to time. I also believe that God doesn't need some "anointed healer" to do the job for him if he's going to heal someone.

I'm not interested in going to a "crusade" or listening to an evangelist. I'm already a believer and I'm not interested in being part of the Christian "rent-a-crowd" that usually gathers at such events. If that was what I wanted I'd just go to church, not wait for a special event.

I'm not interested in going to an "informal Bible talk" in a pub - these are rarely two-way discussions and opinionated monologues bore me. Including this one, so this seems a good place to end.

Songs that mean something

2009-05-13T22:42:00.002+01:00

I was in my car driving home from work today, listening to my iPod on shuffle. A song by Steve Taylor came on. I hadn't listened to it for ages, but it brought back to me just how great a songwriter Steve Taylor was/is. It's a pity he seems to have given up making music.

I went through a phase, when I was new to Christianity, when I listened to a lot of CCM (that's Christian Contemporary Music, for those not familiar with Christianese). That was back in the days when I swallowed the lie that "secular" music was inherently sinful and should be avoided at all costs. Nowadays, most CCM makes me cringe. In my experience it tends by and large to be a poor imitation of secular music, with cheesy Christian lyrics thrown in.

There are, however, exceptions. There are some artists - some of them in the Christian mainstream, some of them more on the fringes of Christian culture - who write songs with good tunes, humour and thought-provoking lyrics. If only there were more.

Here's one of them. This is Steve Taylor with I Want To Be A Clone.

Yes, that music may be a little dated these days, so here's a more recent version which sounds much better

Here's another classic from Steve Taylor: Jesus Is For Losers.

Here's David Bazan with Foregone Conclusions.

Here's Martyn Joseph with He Never Said.

(Click here for my favourite Martyn Joseph song - embedding is disabled for this vid.)

Tribes

2009-05-11T21:44:00.002+01:00

I'm back! I'd almost forgotten what Honest Faith looked like!

Anyway, here's something interesting that caught my attention after an old college friend posted it on Facebook. Watch, learn and enjoy.

I'm not dead...

2009-03-30T17:34:00.000+01:00

...just in case you were wondering. I've just had too much other stuff on my plate to keep up with blogging. I hope to be back to it in the near future though, hopefully with good news regarding my job. I should find out this week what's going on in that regard.

Redundancy looms

2009-02-13T17:46:00.001Z

I work in a primary school in South Wales which teaches children aged 4-11.

Yesterday we were told that, due to falling pupil numbers, it will be necessary to make two teachers redundant this year. It could be any of the ten of us who aren't part of the school's senior management team who get the chop.

The atmosphere of the school has now totally changed. People have been close to tears, everyone is worried about their futures and staff morale and motivation have gone out of the window. None of us want to be made redundant, but equally none of us want to see two of our colleagues - people we like and respect - get the axe either. We're all in a lose-lose situation here.

Prayer would be appreciated. The final decision on who is to be made redundant, assuming nobody volunteers, will be made on March 11th.

25 random things about me

2009-02-07T03:31:00.001Z

Take a look HERE.

Brother Barry the preacher

2009-02-03T20:07:00.006Z

I've just been sorting out some old papers and things, and I found the notes and OHP slides from the last time I preached in my old church. Unsurprisingly, since I left the church, invitations to speak have dried up somewhat!

The title of my talk was Honesty and Realism in Faith, and I started off with the picture on the left, from the story The Emperor's New Clothes. I talked about our tendency as believers to be gullible and believe anything we're told from the pulpit. I referred to The Emperor's New Clothes and said that Christianity is about reality rather than just believing anything. I talked about not being afraid to ask questions, about not being afraid to ask questions without having preconceived answers, and about testing the truth of the teaching we hear (even mine). I talked about the differences between received faith and mature, personalised faith. The key point was that wes hould work through hard questions and doubts, and help others to do the same, rather than just telling them that they're wrong and telling them what they "should" believe, which would lead both us and others from a shallow, received faith towards a deeper, more mature, personalised faith.

Regular readers of this blog will recognise the theme as something very important to me. I've even blogged about it in the past. If Christianity is to have any credibility, any real value at all, it must be based on reality, on honesty and on the truth. Anything else is just a fantasy at best, and a spiritual snare at worst.

It was only a few months after I preached this that we left the church. I don't think my message had much effect, if any, but then I don't believe preaching (i.e. lecturing with a spiritual veneer) is an effective teaching medium in this day and age, so I'm not really surprised.

Anyway, I finished with a responsive prayer (a very unusual thing in Pentecostal circles, where any form of liturgy is frowned upon):

Lord, give us courage to ask hard questions about our faith and to accept that we don't have all the answers.

All: Lord, give us strength and help us to grow.

Give us wisdom to support those who are working through doubts and questions rather than simply tell them what they should believe.

All: Lord, give us strength and help us to grow.

Help us to move from received faith to strong, mature and personalised faith.

All: Lord, give us strength and help us to grow.

Amen.

Life

2009-02-03T08:48:00.006Z

Following on from my last post, which was all about death, how should we respond in this life?

Note that I've been deliberately avoiding talking about life after death here. We believers often spend too much time focusing on that aspect of things to the detriment of other aspects, so I want to redress the balance a little.

We know that life is short, and then we die. How can we best make our lives count? Sometimes people are so caught up in the day-to-day necessities of earning a living, providing for their families, bringing up children and making sure they spend at least some quality time with their families, that they don't have time to do any of the "great" things for which some people are remembered.

My thought is this: providing for your family, bringing up children, doing a good job in your chosen career, spending quality time with your family and struggling on even in the face of adversity are the great things in life. As Dewi Sant (St. David) is reported as saying: "Gwnech y pethau bychain." ("Do the little things.") Investing ourselves in others (which includes our families), in whatever way, and setting a good example for others to follow, to me constitute the highest "calling" of all. We will not last more than 70-80 years on average, but we can make sure that the next generations have at least some of the resources, values and knowledge they will need when we are no longer here.

Death

2009-01-14T21:25:00.012Z

When I left work today I decided to visit an old chapel, high on a hill, that is familiar from my childhood. Like most churches and chapels of a certain age, it is surrounded by a graveyard. I quite like visiting old cemeteries because there's something peaceful about them, and it's a good thing to be reminded of mortality occasionally. Sometimes the older graves have a verse or a poem on them as an epitaph.

The above picture is the gravestone of Thomas Morgan of Llaniddel (Llanhilleth), who died in November 1896 aged 55. The language is Welsh, which was the language of the majority of people in this area when Thomas Morgan was alive. The epitaph (with poor spelling!) reads:

MEDDWL DDYN WRTH FYNED HEIBIO,
FEL 'R WYT TITHAU MINNAU FUO.
FEL 'R WYF INNAU TITHAU DDEUI,
COFIA DDYN MAE MARW FYDDI.

Translated into English, it means:

Think, man, while going past,
As you are I used to be.
As I am you will become,
Remember, man, that you will die.

It struck me that every single grave in that graveyard contains the mortal remains of someone who once lived, loved, was loved, laughed, cried, worked hard, experienced joy and suffered hardship. They were just like me, with their own daily challenges and, undoubtedly, a love of life equal to my own. And now every single one of them is dead. The only signs that they were ever here at all are the fading scars on the landscape caused by the coal mining industry in which most of them were employed, and a collection of lichen-spotted gravestones in various stages of erosion.

When Thomas Morgan of Llaniddel died, no doubt there were grieving family members and friends who felt his loss keenly. I know he was married because his wife, Jane, is buried in the same grave, having died at a later date. No doubt she loved him and treasured his memory after he was gone. However, Thomas Morgan's wife and friends all died as well, one by one, as the world grew older and time marched on. With them gone, the only memory of Thomas Morgan is an inscription on a slab of sandstone written in a language that few people in the village of his birth now understand.

Death has no meaning. Death has no nobility. It is cruel, merciless and final. No-one escapes it. It's possible (though by no means certain) that I could live another forty or fifty years, but one day, sooner or later, I will die. Eventually there will be no memory that I was ever here. All the joy, sorrow, love, heartache, work and play that now characterise my life will, at that point, be meaningless. As far as this world is concerned, I will no longer exist.

Will I go to be with the Lord after I die? I believe so, but there is absolutely no proof. The atheists would say that I will simply cease to be when I die. There is as much evidence for their position as there is for mine, which is to say none at all.

Whether death really is the end or not, in earthly terms it is absolutely final. Our life here is cruelly short. Nobody gets out alive. Many people I once knew, some of whom I loved dearly, are lost to me because of death. I will never see them again in this life. Death may have been robbed of its final victory by Christ, but its sting, at least for those of us left behind, is still very real.

What should we make of all this? My thought is this: life is short and those we love are with us for all too short a time, so make your life count. Focus on living a good life in the here and now, and on being as good and kind and loving as you can to those who enrich your life now, because neither they nor you will be here forever and once you're gone, you will all too soon be forgotten.

A morbid preoccupation with death may be unhealthy, but it's a good thing to remind ourselves occasionally that this life doesn't last forever.

MEDDWL, DDYN, WRTH FYNED HEIBIO ...

God of nature

2009-01-12T00:16:00.003Z

I've blogged about this before, but it's something I've just been reminded of by reading an unrelated post on Heather's blog. I posted a comment there, and it made me start thinking about the natural beauty of the area in which I live.

I'm very fortunate to live in an area that's surrounded by beautiful Welsh countryside. I only have to open my door or look out of the window to see just part of the wonder of God's creation. The best thing of all, though, is actually getting out in it. And now my chest problem seems finally to be leaving me alone, it looks like I'm going to be able to get out on my mountain bike again soon, perhaps even this week. Yay! But I digress.

When I'm out in the countryside, away from concrete and brick and surrounded by pasture, woodland, scree slopes or whatever else the great outdoors has to offer, I always feel deeply appreciative of the wonder and beauty of it all. It's a work of art that makes even the likes of Da Vinci and Michelangelo look lame. And you know what? I never feel like I'm looking at it alone. I always feel that God is there with me, looking at it with appreciation and whispering in a satisfied voice to anyone who may be listening, "I did that!"

I always feel much closer to God when surrounded by the natural world, outdoors. For me, God is not the God of church buildings and officialdom; he is the God of nature. He is the God of the forest, the God of the wooded valley, the God of the hills. Woodlands to me are "thin places" where the barrier between heaven and earth is less pronounced. And mountains are the nearest thing to heaven on earth.

(The mountain in the picture above is Yr Wyddfa, or "Snowdon" in English, the highest mountain in Wales and a masterpiece of divine art.)

Merry Christmas

2008-12-21T15:33:00.002Z

I'm currently suffering with 'flu, so my forays into Blogworld may be limited for a while to the times when I'm feeling slightly less crappy.

Anyway, in case I don't post much over the next few days, I'd like to wish you all a happy Chanukah and a merry Christmas.

Proselytising

2008-12-18T23:33:00.002Z

I came across this clip on Bill Kinnon's blog. It certainly made me think. This atheist has more of an insight into one of the basics of Christianity than many of us who profess to be believers!

Dialogue with a conservative evangelical

2008-12-18T01:08:00.004Z

I had an interesting experience this evening.

Sam and I went out (I know, it's a big deal that Sam was able to get out, even in her wheelchair) with an old friend, her daughter and her new man this evening. We had never met him before, but it was good to meet him and start to get to know him a bit.

Anyway, later in the evening we got onto the subject of our religious beliefs. He describes himself as a conservative, cessationist Baptist. He believes in a literal six-day creation. He's a Calvinist. In other words, he and I are pretty much polar opposites with regard to theology. However, that's not really the point. The point is this: he disagrees with some of my beliefs and theological convictions, and is quite open about why, but he may well be the first ultra-conservative Christian I've met who manages to disagree with me respectfully and without trying to club me over the head with "the truth" until I see things his way. Believe me, I found that very refreshing, particularly as it's so different from all the encounters I've had with people of his theological persuasion before. I'm sure we'll have a few frank discussions and debates about various things at some point, but I'm looking forward to that. I enjoy theological debate; it's just arguments and listening to monologues that I don't like.

He did mention that he's read this blog from time to time, so if you're reading this, D, feel free to comment on any of the posts here or over at the Open Bible Blog. We may disagree strongly on many issues, but another perspective is always welcome.

Have you found Jesus?

2008-12-09T00:47:00.002Z

(HT to Sue.)

Time to move on?

2008-12-06T20:34:00.002Z

I've been out of the institutional church for more than a year-and-a-half now. I've got over most of the hurt that was caused, even though just driving past my old church recently made me feel distinctly uneasy. Forgiveness is an ongoing process, but it's something I'm working on, with God's help.

I still feel a certain antipathy towards church, probably because I associate that word with everything that turned bad about the church to which I used to belong. Yet I do want to be part of a community of believers, not just online (though the online community I've found myself in has certainly been a healing influence on me) but in the flesh-and-blood, real-time, sitting in the same room sense. I don't want anything to do with a church like my old one, but I'm aware that I'm still left with a lot of options. Or rather, we are left with a lot of options, as this affects my wife too.

The only way for me to get over my antipathy towards church is to experience the other side of church - and in the first place, actually go to one. Nothing will be achieved by staying away. So I've decided to start visiting churches again.

I'm not going to start until the New Year, because I want to see what the churches I visit are really like away from all the Christmas activities. I'm sure I'll have some negative experiences, but hopefully a few positive ones too. Maybe even a church where Sam and I will be accepted for who we are and not have to project a false, "Christian" persona. That's the hope, anyway. Rest assured that I'll tell you all about it on here.

Darkness is where the stars are

2008-11-26T18:26:00.004Z

I received the following email from someone linked to my old church today. It's about something that's caused a bit of a media frenzy here in Wales, namely Patrick Jones' new book of poetry, Darkness is Where the Stars Are.

From: XXXXX [mailto:XXXXX@XXXXX.com]
Sent: 26 Tachwedd 2008 12:46
To: [various recipients]

Hi my friends, I have recieved this from a fellow Bible college student. I don't know if you have already heard about this or if you have already signed the petition. If you haven't could you please add your name to the petition & forward it to the people in your address book.
The Lord bless you,
XXXXX.

YYYYY wrote:
From: YYYYY
To:
Subject: Don't let the Welsh Assembly insult Jesus Christ!
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:04:09 +0000

Dear friends this is a link of a 'Petition Against Insulting Jesus in the Welsh Assembly' - i am not prone to send these items out, but this ones concerns our common faith and more importantly out Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

A petition against Peter Black's invitation to the'poet' Patrick Jones to insult the Lord Jesus Christ in the National Assembly of Wales - and call for
churches to be closed!

The event is due to take place in the Ty Hywel NAW building at 12 noon on Thursday 11th December.
Lorraine Barrett, another Assembly Member and also a member of the extremist
anti-Christian National Secular Society, is co-hosting the event.

The Petition is HERE

God bless YYYYY

Of course, me being me, I had to reply. This is what I wrote back:

Have you actually read or heard any of the poems, XXXXX, or are you just passing this on on the strength of hearsay?

There's a common view that Christians only want to ban things and stop things they don't like. Making a fuss over a book of poetry only strengthens that view. Especially if the protest is by people who haven't even seen the thing they are objecting to (cf. Monty Python's Life of Brian, which inspired a similar reaction but was actually not about Jesus). We're often so angry about atheists and agnostics saying things that we perceive to be insulting to our beliefs, while we are happy to ignore the fact that many of the things we publicly say may be just as insulting to atheists and agnostics. It works both ways, and the flip-side of us having freedom to express our beliefs is that others, with whom we may disagree, should also have the same freedom. (The fact that Patrick Jones sent out samples of his poems to Christian groups shows that he is actually expecting just the sort of knee-jerk reaction with which we have so readily provided him, which gives him loads of free publicity while simultaneously proving him right about Christians.) As Jones says himself, the theme of these poems is the abuse of power and controlling tendencies, something of which the church has unfortunately not exactly been innocent over the years.

Anyway, the following links are to video clips of Patrick Jones reading some of his poems. You may or may not like the poems (you won't like the last one, I'm sure), but at least after watching them you will be informed about what they actually say. Context is everything - don't focus on the "offensive" words, but focus instead on the message of the poem and what he's trying to convey by using those words.

Here are the actual poems, read by the poet himself at a recent event in Caernarfon. Make up your own mind - should they be protested against? I personally think not. But as I said in the email, even if you are so offended by these poems that you do think they should be protested against, at least after hearing them you will be able to do so from a position of being informed and knowing what you are protesting about. I very much doubt whether the majority of the Christian protesters who picket Patrick Jones' poetry readings could say as much.

So I went past my old church...

2008-11-22T23:53:00.004Z

Last night (Friday) I went to a dance. There's nothing particularly unusual about that, as it's what I usually do on a Friday night. It wasn't one of my usual venues though, and to be honest the dance itself wasn't very good. I rapidly got sick of couples with no idea of floorcraft bumping into me, accidentally elbowing me and stepping on my toes, all because they weren't being careful enough on the dance floor. But that was the least of my worries.

The dance venue was literally about 200 yards away from my old church, which I and my wife left about a year-and-a-half ago. It was in the same street. I've been to quite a few parties in the same venue - weddings, engagements and birthdays of church members, mostly. And now I was going there for a dance.

I thought I was over the whole church thing. I really thought going back to that venue would be OK. Little did I know that as we drove past the church, both on the way in and on the way back, that my stomach would be in knots and I'd feel a familiar sense of foreboding that I've not felt since we left the church. Even when we got into the dance venue and I was putting on my dance shoes, a lot of memories of people I used to associate with and things we used to do together came back to me. Most of them were good, but some were bad. In particular, many memories of the man who did more than anyone else to poison our church experience came back to haunt me.

Thankfully I was able to put this out of my mind and dance, but driving past the church on the way home, I was again surprised by the knot that appeared in my stomach. Even thinking and writing about it now, the knot is back again. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised - all wounds leave scars, even after they've healed.

Funny

2008-11-17T20:52:00.002Z

This snippet is from the Gwent Gazette. Tidy Trev is the local recycling service.

Can you top this collection?
Nov 13 2008 by Jamie Robins, Gwent Gazette

WELL-MEANING churchgoers spent weeks thinking they were collecting bottle tops for charity before realising they were recycling them among themselves.

The collectors belong to four different Ebbw Vale churches and started collecting plastic bottle tops understanding they could be given to charity.

In fact they were just passing the same bottles tops around the four churches.

Beryl Jones, who attends the Apostolic Church in Ebbw Vale, was one of the confused collectors.

“It all started when a friend rang me and asked if I could collect bottle tops for charity,” she said.

“I mentioned it at church and it wasn’t long before people started bringing them in.

“When we collected a bag-full I would pass them on to my friend Angela, she added the tops from her church and passed them on to her friend Jackie Price at another church who gave them to Sharon Hayden who goes to a different church.

“When they all got to Sharon she phoned me and said: ‘I’ve got a load of bottle tops for your collection’ and passed them on to me.”

The whole process went on for a number of weeks before the friends realised what was going on.

They are now left with bags full of bottle tops and have nowhere to send them.

“We are actually looking for anyone who is collecting these bottle tops for a good reason,” she added.

“If anyone is, we will be more than happy to pass them on, if not they will probably end up going to Tidy Trev.”

Enough!

2008-10-31T20:29:00.006Z

I have a fairly large number of blogs in my feed reader, most of which are Christian/religious in nature. In my recent wanderings in the Godblogosphere, I've come across a lot of speculation about the upcoming US election. Rightly so, I suppose - after all, most of the bloggers in question are American and will thus be affected directly by the outcome of the election, while the rest of us will no doubt feel the indirect effects of whoever is elected to the American presidency.

Even so, I'll be glad when it's all over and no longer dominating the blogs and even the news here in Wales, a whole ocean away. It would be nice to hear about something else for a change. It would be different if we in Wales had any say in this election, but as we don't it seems silly to me that it's given so much air time over here. Just tell us the result when it's all done and dusted and that will be enough, thanks.

What I find absolutely alien and hard to understand is the American tendency to make politics a religious battleground. It seems that what matters isn't a candidate's policies, opinions, track record and suitability for the job; rather, it's their religious beliefs. Don't believe me? Try to imagine the likelihood of a candidate who was openly pagan, Muslim or ("worst" of all) an atheist being elected, even if they far outstripped all other candidates.

I've seen YouTube clips of people on stage in mega-churches giving "prophecies" about the upcoming election, trying to control how their sheeple vote. How is this right? Has the world really gone that mad, or was it already that mad and I just didn't notice before?

I'll be glad when the election is over because it's had (IMO) too much coverage over here, but I'll be even more glad to see the back of all the religious silliness surrounding it. When the election is finally decided (and assuming we don't have all those interminable news reports about "hanging chads" and recounts again), will the Christian supporters of the losing candidate admit they were wrong and didn't correctly discern God's will? Somehow I doubt it.

Men in the church

2008-10-27T21:21:00.005Z

Why are there so few men in the church, and what can be done about it?

I found this interview interesting, with that question in mind. Click on the picture below to watch it.

I certainly found that, even after 18 years in the church, I couldn't relate directly to many aspects of middle-class church culture. I learned to fit in with it, but it never became mine, if you know what I mean. I think a lot of men, particularly those who, like me, come from a working-class background, would have similar issues.

My thoughts on the myth of the "Good Christian Man" are HERE and HERE.

Jehovah's Witnesses

2008-10-27T01:31:00.004Z

I had a pair of Jehovah's Witnesses knock on my door this afternoon. Normally I would have taken the time to talk with them, but I was in the middle of cooking a meal so it was a bit inconvenient. I actually enjoy discussing the Bible and how its interpretation affects our lives, and that includes discussing with Jehovah's Witnesses on my doorstep occasionally (they've never yet accepted an invitation to come in and discuss things further over a cup of tea).

A lot of people, particularly some Christians, seem to be quite antagonistic towards the JWs, but I don't share that view. While I do believe that their beliefs are wrong in some quite important areas (and even dangerous, should someone need a blood transfusion), and I don't think joining their religion would be a good idea for anyone, the fact of the matter is this: according to their beliefs, I and my neighbours are headed for hell, and they are doing their best to help us avoid that. How can I hate or deride anyone who is giving their own precious time for that purpose, even if they are actually in error?

A journey into God

2008-10-15T19:42:00.003+01:00

Have you ever tried a labyrinth-type meditation? It's worth doing. Set aside some time when you won't be disturbed, kick off your shoes and CLICK HERE to begin your journey.

An open letter to God

2008-10-14T01:46:00.004+01:00

Dear God,

Your son is on record as saying words to the effect of, "Ask, and it shall be given to you."

I used to accept that without question. It was so obviously true that whatever we asked for, believing, you would give to us. However, that was before I had such a deep and personal need for you to give something that I asked for.

I've been asking for my wife to recover from her various illnesses for years now. I believed you would answer and heal her, Lord. I really did. Yet, to date, you have not done so.

I was taught that healing was provided for in the atonement. I no longer believe that, as the evidence would seem to show otherwise.

I feel betrayed - whether by you or by the people who taught me that you always give us what we ask for in prayer, I am not entirely sure. But in the meantime, despite my accumulated, hearfelt, fervent and sometimes even desperate prayers over the years, my wife's health continues to deteriorate and I see no sign of you intervening.

In what way is this fair or just, Lord? Just when we feel we've reached the end of our rope, we drop a few more inches. Whenever we see a glimmer of hope in the distance, it disappears just as we approach it.

If you truly are a God who answers our prayers, who delights in giving us what we need, then may I respectfully ask you to do so. Please prove my pessimism wrong, because at the moment all I can see ahead is darkness.

Your imperfect servant,
Barry.

Bible Fight

2008-10-11T20:49:00.001+01:00

Go and play Bible Fight now!!!!

(HT: Brother Maynard)

Titus

2008-10-10T00:47:00.002+01:00

We're studying Paul's letter to Titus over on the new Open Bible Blog. Please take a look and leave your comments (or, in Emergent-ese, add to the conversation).

Announcing the Open Bible Blog

2008-10-08T22:24:00.003+01:00

I've created the new Bible study blog and called it, not too originally, the Open Bible Blog. Basically, it does what it says on the tin: provides a forum for open discussion of the Bible.

Steve and Erin, I'll add you as contributors straight away as I already have your email addresses. If anyone else is interested in contributing (I know Happy is - anyone else?) please leave your email address in the comments or email me at glan dot islwyn at btinternet dot com.

If anyone doesn't know what I'm going on about, read my previous post.

Community idea

2008-10-05T23:29:00.003+01:00

Just a thought I'm throwing out there: would anyone in this corner of the Blogosphere be interested in contributing (as and when, not at specific times or frequencies) to a group blog based on short Bible studies?

The idea is that whoever fancies posting to the blog writes their thoughts and opinions about any passage of scripture. It could be as short or as long as you want it to be. I'm just thinking that it might be interesting to have a few Bible discussions with the interesting people I've come across in Blogland. Of course, anything posted would be open to comments, questions, debate and discussion. No opinions (from conservative evangelical to out-and-out atheist) would be banned or censored, provided they are expressed with respect for others.

So who's up for it? Anyone? If people are interested, I'll set it up and add you to the contributors list.

Deconstruction - been there, done that?

2008-10-05T14:58:00.003+01:00

It's occurred to me recently that church subculture and ways of doing things, once so familiar and comforting to me, are now completely alien and I can't relate to them at all. More than that, the whole thing no longer feels like something I have to react against. It no longer feels like it's a threat to me in any way. It's become merely irrelevant, rather than the raw wound it used to be. I even find that I can respect people's choice to remain part of that system, and even see some of its benefits and positive aspects, even while I know for certain that it's not for me any more.

Does all this mean that I'm through with the "deconstruction" or "church detox" phase? I hope so. The question still remains though: where do I go from here?

I am a believer. Leaving the church didn't mean leaving my faith; on the contrary, in some ways it saved my faith and strengthened it. However, I can't continue to define myself by reference to something that I have left behind. I am no longer willing to define my beliefs by comparing them to the beliefs of my former church. My beliefs are what they are, based on my understanding of the Bible as informed by my perceptions of the world I live in.

So how do I move on? Deconstruction is a transient phase, and when you're approaching the end of it you realise that you're in a place that you can't really stay in for long. Metaphorically, I'm out of prison, so what do I do with the rest of my life? Re-offending is not an option.

New blog

2008-10-05T02:41:00.002+01:00

Just a quick note to let you all know I've started a new blog over at Bywyd Un Dyn / One Man's Life.

I will still be posting here on Honest Faith; I just wanted another blog that was less about my thoughts on religion and more about me personally. Inevitably there will be some cross-over, but if you want to know more about me personally then check my new blog out from time to time.

Still here

2008-10-04T22:16:00.002+01:00

I'm aware that I've not been posting much on this blog lately. Rest assured that I haven't suddenly decided to become a tree worshipper or an atheist, nor have I decided to give up blogging. It's just that a lot of "life stuff" has been taking up my time lately, not least because my wife has been extremely ill for the last few months. My time, and my thoughts, have of necessity been employed elsewhere.

Keep me in your feed reader, though - I'll be back and posting again as soon as I can.

Large Hadron Collider - see science in action!

2008-09-17T23:33:00.002+01:00

There's a couple of webcams HERE monitoring the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) in CERN. Well worth a look - watch scientific history being made before your eyes!

Popular Christian fallacies

2008-09-07T00:17:00.003+01:00

Have you ever noticed that once an idea becomes popular, it becomes "self-evident" to many and those who believe in it don't bother to check its accuracy?

Well, I thought it would be an idea to list a few of the fallacies of this kind that I've come across. Please don't think I'm being negative towards my fellow-believers here - this seems to be a universal phenomenon, not just restricted to Christians, and I've been as "guilty" as anybody else at times.

Not all of these are exactly of earth-shattering importance - whether the apostle was named Saul, Paul or both won't exactly change my life - but they are all things that niggle because they seem to have gained popular assent without being questioned.

I'll put the fallacies in italics, and my comments in normal type.

OK, here we go.

1. Saul versus Paul

When Saul of Tarsus became a believer, his name was changed to Paul.

Actually, the Bible never says that he changed his name (or had it changed for him). The clue is that he was both Jewish and a Roman citizen (Acts 22:27). The name "Saul" is Jewish, the name "Paul" is Graeco-Roman. Both were probably his names from birth. Acts 13:9 simply notes that Saul was also named Paul, not that he changed his name. The fact that thereafter in Acts and in his letters he is referred to as "Paul" is probably due to the fact that his ministry was primarily among the gentiles, and as such he would have been more well-known by his Graeco-Roman name.

2. Science versus Religion

You can either believe in God and the Bible, or you can believe in science. The two are not compatible in any way - in fact, science is the enemy of faith.

I was in a Christian discussion on YoVille (a fun "virtual community" application on Facebook - check it out) recently, and someone asked me if I believed in science or God. He couldn't accept it when I said I believed in both, as he subscribed to the popularly-held view that the two are diametrically opposed.

Science is simply the collective name we use for the theories and inferences we draw from our observation of the world around us. For example, it is noted that things tend to fall down when dropped, so the theory of gravity is inferred from that.

Science tells us what happens and attempts to explain how things happen. It deals with cause and effect. What science does not, cannot and does not claim to do, is explain why things happen, in the sense of their meaning and purpose.

If you believe, as I do, that God made this universe we live in, why should we not want to learn more about it by scientific analysis?

Yes, scientists are wrong sometimes, but the point we so often conveniently forget is this: so are Christians. Even well-known, respected ones.

3. Heaven and Earth

If we believe in Jesus, we will go to heaven when we die.

Not so. The Bible talks about the dead being resurrected and judged. It talks about believers being rewarded with eternal life. However, it does not say we will go to heaven. As far as I can see, we will be resurrected to live on the earth, which will be brought into line with God's original design plan with the final defeat of evil.

4. Bible basics

Every word of the Bible is divinely ordained, and it contains no contradictions. The divine origin and perfection of the Bible is self-evident.

This is another one that came up in a discussion on YoVille. Now, I do happen to believe that the Bible was inspired by God, but that means different things to different people. I certainly don't believe that every word was was dictated by God and I see no evidence to support that idea.

As for "no contradictions", the first thing that comes to mind is this: the genealogies of Jesus given in Matthew 1 and Luke 3. The second thing is the quite different orders of creation given in chapters 1 and 2 of Genesis. In both these cases there are some quite obvious discrepancies. Not that I believe this is a problem when it comes to understanding the important things in the Bible, but it does make the point that absolute factual inerrancy is too strong a claim to make for the Bible.

As for the divine origin and perfection of the Bible being self-evident, I've heard similar claims being made by Muslims about the Qur'an. Just saying it doesn't make it true. It is not at all self-evident, or everyone would believe it. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not true - but it doesn't, in and of itself, make it true either.

So, any comments? Does anyone else have any popular fallacies to add to the list?

Close shave

2008-09-04T21:57:00.005+01:00

I had a lucky escape earlier. You may notice a nice red bruise across my chest in the picture. Well, I'm expecting it to get bigger and more livid by tomorrow, despite me icing it every hour.

I was out on my mountain bike with two of my cousins, and we were tackling a pretty technical downhill section. It's been pouring with rain here for weeks, so everything was really muddy and slippery. There were plenty of wet rocks and roots to contend with. At one fairly tight turn my back wheel completely washed out from under me, sending me flying straight into the top of a fence post, which connected squarely with the centre of my chest.

In case there's any doubt: I do not recommend hitting the top of a fence post with the centre of your chest.

At first I thought I'd at least broken a few ribs, and possibly hurt myself even worse. It was agony, and I could hardly move. Luckily, it eased off enough for me to first stand, then walk, then eventually ride after ten minutes or so. It turns out I've just got a nasty bruise, and nothing feels like it's broken, thank goodness.

Someone up there is looking after me - it could have been much worse. If I'd been going faster, it would have been.

Full Gospel

2008-08-27T21:32:00.007+01:00

All my life, or at least since a very early age when I was first sent to Sunday School, I've heard people talking about the gospel. The gospel was always impressed upon us as a very important thing, the very reason Jesus came to earth. It was THE big thing that Christians should communicate to others. I remember going to "Full Gospel Roadshows" and other similar events.

What was the definition of the gospel I absorbed from my background? It's probably familiar to most people reading this. In a nutshell it goes like this:

We have all sinned and deserve hell.
We can't get to God/escape hell on our own.
God loves us so he sent Jesus to die, taking our punishment so we can be saved from hell.
If we accept Jesus into our hearts, we will be saved and go to heaven when we die.

Leaving aside the fact that I'm not too keen on the term "gospel" anyway (it's old-fashioned Christianese that means little to most people), I have big problems with this view of the Good News. I don't believe it's anything like the "Full Gospel", despite our love of that label.

First of all, it seems to assume that Jesus only came to die. Even a cursory reading of the biblical Gospels shows us that the crucifixion actually only takes up a small amount of space in the narrative. The Gospels devote most of their narrative to discussing episodes in Jesus' life and his teachings. I don't believe that emphasis is just coincidence.

Surely Jesus came to be an example to all of us, to show people how they ought to live and to teach them about who God is and what he expects of them. To my way of thinking, that is as much part of the "Good News" as his death. Otherwise the biblical gospels would be a lot shorter, with a focus firmly on the crucifixion.

Then, of course, the emphasis on Jesus' death is only telling half of the story. As we know, he didn't stay dead for very long. Two days later (on the third day) he was alive again. Surely that's part of the Good News, and at least as important as his death. Everyone dies. It's not generally newsworthy when it happens. What made Jesus so special? Well, the fact that God raised him from the dead shows he was pretty important. Otherwise he'd be just another dead first century rabbi. We should emphasise the resurrection as much as the crucifixion, for that reason.

Another problem I have with the definition of the gospel I learned as a child is the emphasis on escaping hell and getting to heaven. Apart from the fact that the Bible doesn't say we'll go to heaven (we will be resurrected and live on earth - look it up), escaping hell is not really a good motive. For one thing, it encourages a one-off "conversion" rather than a commitment to being a disciple and following Christ as an ongoing thing. I've come across too many people who think "getting saved" or "accepting Jesus into their hearts" is the end of the process, not the beginning.

I'm not a big fan of the term "accepting Jesus into your heart" either. It's not biblical, and it's pretty meaningless. Perhaps it became popular because it sounds easier than being a disciple or a living sacrifice, but I don't recall the Bible promising us an easy ride. God's grace may be free, but it's not cheap.

The Good News, to my way of thinking, is that God sent his son to us to teach us, to be an example for us, and to make a way for all of humanity to return to relationship with him. It's as much about fixing the world as it is about fixing me. It's not just about us as individuals, but it shows us that we are part of something much bigger than we are. Jesus didn't die for "me", but for "us" - and he was resurrected for us as well.

The whole point of the gospel is not to save me from hell, but to bring US into discipleship and ongoing commitment to follow and serve him.

Anything less than this is only a pale reflection of the gospel / Good News.

Will the last one out please turn off the lights?

2008-08-23T21:09:00.004+01:00

For those of you who haven't figured it out yet, I'm Welsh and proud of it.

If my country, Wales (overseas readers please note: although Wales is part of the United Kingdom, it is NOT part of England) has any reputation among Christians, it is as a land of revival, a stronghold of nonconformist Christianity.

I read the following report on the state of Christianity in Wales, and in particular the nonconformist chapels, in the newspaper (Western Mail) today. It makes for sobering reading, especially from its opening paragraph: "The future of chapels in Wales is simply a question of keeping the doors open until the last members die." Is this really to be the fate of churches and chapels throughout the nation?

Please read the article and form your own conclusions.

Another quote from the article: “From the high point of the 1904 revival and the 1914 Welsh Church Act, where as many as three-quarters of the Welsh population were regular church or chapel-goers, Wales is now experiencing the most rapid and deepest rate of religious decline in the UK."

Nowadays, only 12% of the people of Wales are regular churchgoers, and Wales is arguably the most secular nation in the UK, according to this report. Whereas my own experience shows that people who drop out of churches and chapels don't necessarily lose their faith, clearly something is badly wrong.

Those of you in other countries, take note: if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.

Future bleak for Welsh chapels, says academic

Conservative evangelicals need not apply?

2008-08-23T01:41:00.005+01:00

An interesting point has been raised by jON in the comments to my last post. In a discussion about the possibility of creating a truly inclusive community of believers, he said this: "in many ways, we have it here. with the exception that we have a hard time accepting those of a more conservative evangelical nature."

That made me stop, think, and look at myself. HARD.

The truth of that statement should act as a warning to all of us in this particular corner of Blogdom.

We talk about wanting to be accepted by other believers, but so often we ourselves are dismissive of our more conservative fellow-believers.

We put together an eclectic mix of ideas, theology and traditions from all corners of the church - but we avoid those originating in conservative evangelicalism or Pentecostalism like the plague.

We talk of loving God and his people, but then because we've been hurt by someone from the Evangelical/Pentecostal group we left behind, we think it's OK to pay back evil for evil and attack them in turn.

I know I've been overly-dismissive of people's comments on here sometimes because they came across as "too" conservative. The question I have to ask myself is : Why, when I'd be likely to have a completely different attitude to someone from a different branch of the church asking the same questions or making similar comments, even if I disagreed with them?

Yes, I've come out of a rather conservative Pentecostal/Evangelical background. Yes, I was hurt. That doesn't give me the right to write off all those good people who still identify with that branch of the church, or to ignore their traditions, ideas and theology as irrelevant. Though I may differ with many of them on many issues, they are still my brothers and sisters and we have much more in common than we do differences.

So if you are reading this and of a more conservative persuasion, and if you think I have been too dismissive of your views, I apologise. I do have my own beliefs, they will differ from yours sometimes (whatever your theological persuasion) and I will stand up for my beliefs in debate; but please call me out on it if I am less than courteous in such debates.

My conservative evangelical and pentecostal brothers and sisters (and, of course, everyone else who follows Christ and reads this blog): I need you. We are all part of the same family, all followers of the same Lord. Let's learn from each other.

A confession

2008-08-17T21:59:00.005+01:00

As jON has pointed out in a comment here, my musical taste will drag me down to the fires of Heck.

So I feel that it is time to confess some of the things that I do, whether regularly or on occasion, which I have been told are sinful by my brothers and sisters in Christ at some time or another.

I have been known to:

Not go to church on Sundays
Visit the theatre
Visit the cinema
Drink beer
Frequent pubs
Drink beer with pastors (leading the shepherds of God's flock astray)
Utter profanities
Listen to heavy metal, blues and hard rock (all the devil's music)
Play in a heavy metal/punk/rock band
Play loud, distorted electric guitar
Not have a quiet time every morning
Not read the Bible every day
Have long hair (a LONG time ago!)
Watch TV on a Sunday
Watch TV on any day
Play games or sports on a Sunday
Buy things on a Sunday
Associate socially with non-believers without the explicit purpose of evangelising them
Criticise preachers
Visit a Catholic church (albeit only once so far)
Question fundamental doctrines

All the things listed above are ways in which I have broken actual rules that people have tried to impose on me at some time or another during my journey of faith.

There is actually a serious point to this. My cousin and I went for a long walk up the mountain today with our dogs (Jac, my spaniel, is completely worn out now) and one of the things we ended up talking about was the church subculture and the little rules we create for ourselves (and each other) that really have nothing to do with biblical Christianity but have come to be accepted by many people as essential to true faith.

Both of us have experienced this, albeit from different perspectives. My cousin, who regards himself as a believer and has never regularly attended a church, finds the whole subculture threatening and alien. Even I, who spent years in the system, find much of it alien (and did when I was still in, too).

The point of this post is this: Why do we feel the need to create all these little extra rules for ourselves and then make them universal so that everybody has to obey them? What would a community of believers in which petty, unbiblical rules are not imposed look like? Is such a thing even possible?

This picture was taken on our walk today - my cousin took a shine to this bull for some reason!

Dante's Inferno Test

2008-08-13T01:34:00.004+01:00

Apparently, I'm bound for Purgatory:

The Dante's Inferno Test has sent you to Purgatory!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	High
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	High
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	Moderate
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Very Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	Very Low
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	Very Low
Level 7 (Violent)	Low
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Moderate
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	Very Low

Take the Dante's Inferno Test

The site gave a bit more information about where I'm heading:

You have escaped damnation and made it to Purgatory, a place where the dew of repentance washes off the stain of sin and girds the spirit with humility. Through contrition, confession, and satisfaction by works of righteousness, you must make your way up the mountain. As the sins are cleansed from your soul, you will be illuminated by the Sun of Divine Grace, and you will join other souls, smiling and happy, upon the summit of this mountain. Before long you will know the joys of Paradise as you ascend to the ethereal realm of Heaven.

Personally I have issues with my results, as I scored "very low" as far as being a heretic is concerned ;o) Anyway, speaking of purgatory brought a song by my favourite band to mind, so here's Purgatory by Iron Maiden.

Literary humour

2008-08-12T18:42:00.003+01:00

With apologies to Alexander Cordell, I give you....

THE GRAPE OF THE FAIR COUNTRY!

More on scripture - or more scriptures?

2008-08-10T02:08:00.003+01:00

Further to my last post, in which I touched on the canon of scripture among other things, I thought it might be useful to give a few examples of books that either are, or were, disputably part of the canon of scripture. I've included links to all of them, so you can read them at your leisure. They're well worth a read.

First, some books that nearly made it into our Bibles, as they were accepted as inspired scripture by some sections of the early church:

Acts of Paul
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Apocalypse of Peter
The Epistle of Barnabas
The Didache

Of course we need to mention the deuterocanonical books, not accepted as part of the canon of scripture by all, but included in many editions of the Bible:

Tobit
Judith
Additions to Esther
Wisdom
Sirach
Baruch
Additions to Daniel:
* Song of the Three Holy Children
* Susanna
* Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees

Then there are the Apocrypha found in some Protestant Bibles, which in addition to the above deuterocanonical books also include the following:

1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Prayer of Manasseh

In addition to this list, there are a good few non-canonical books that are quoted or referenced in the Bible.

Also worth a look is the Gospel of Thomas which, although leaning toward Gnosticism, nevertheless may contain some genuine sayings of Jesus.

It's also interesting to note that the canonical status of the following books was disputed at one point or another in their history (in other words, they nearly didn't make it into the Bible):

Song of Solomon
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Proverbs
Ezekiel
Ecclesiastes
James
Jude
2 Peter
2 John
3 John
Revelation
Hebrews

Food for thought, indeed. I hope someone finds these links interesting and/or useful.

Bible inspiration

2008-08-08T16:31:00.002+01:00

I was always taught in church that the Bible was the inspired Word of God.

OK, at face value that seems fair enough. The trouble is, it quickly became apparent that in practice what was meant by that was, "The Bible was directly dictated by God and every single verse is totally inerrant and contradiction-free."

It will come as little surprise to regular readers of this blog that I very strongly disagree with that position.

An interesting quote comes from the first anonymous comment here (which I later found out was left by a good friend of mine - I'll leave him anonymous unless he chooses to identify himself). He said this:

I don't think that the Bible is inspired by God. I see no reason to believe this. I can see how, over time, that certain writings grew in importance and slowly became "inspired". That is normal. All religions have their "inspired" texts, I think though that this says more about human nature rather than reality. I could be wrong, may the Bible is divinely inspired, I just don't see it. I also can't remember hearing a single convincing argument for believing it either.
I don't conclude that the Bible therefore does not contain history or truth. I believe that what was written about Jesus in the Gospels was broadly true, and the other writings are a witness to the early Christians experience of him, but I believe that they are just their writings and experiences, not some inspired, infallible text directly influenced by God.
I often wonder what the New Testament writers would think themselves if they knew that the Church believes that their letters and Gospels were now given the status of "divinely inspired infallible" texts by the majority of the Church. Would they be pleased or would they think this was blasphemy? Would they agree with all the creeds and doctrines that have developed since or would they be shocked? Who knows. I don't think anyone can give a simple answer to this. Human nature at it's core wants certainty. We hate being insecure about things and "not knowing". This, I believe, has a large part to play in doctrinal formulations and concepts of "inspiration". It would be interesting to study the history of the Church from a purely psychological point of view.

I'm not sure that I'd want to go as far as my friend in saying that the Bible is not inspired by God, though I do have some sympathy with his position.

I certainly don't believe that God dictated or directly inspired every word of the Bible. It was written by (mostly) Jewish men who had a profound understanding of God, and I believe that they wrote out of that profound understanding, which is what was inspired by God. I believe the words themselves came from the various authors, not directly from God. So the authors were inspired, not the texts they produced. That being the case, it's not beyond the realms of possibility that further writings could be regarded as on a level with scripture if produced by someone who has that same deep understanding of God.

Before I get burned at the stake as a heretic for saying that, think about this: the canon of scripture was not fixed for the first few centuries of the church's existence. Some books that used to be regarded as part of the scriptures by some sections of the church were later rejected by the majority, while some that were rejected by some parts of the church were later accepted as part of scripture by the majority. The Bible that we have today (which, by the way, contains different books depending on whether you read a Catholic or a Protestant Bible) took its final form as a result of the majority decisions of groups of church leaders. Yes, the same sort of fallible humans who lead churches today.

The thing is, we tend to apportion more credibility to something if it comes from antiquity. The older an idea is, the more likely we are to accept it. To my mind, though, the early church fathers were just as prone to error as we are. Their councils, creeds and writings have certainly left us with a legacy of much wisdom, but they are no more infallible than the writings, councils and pronouncements of any group of church leaders you might care to name today. So why do we accept their conclusions on the canon of scripture as infallible?

Anyway, back to the Bible. I don't believe the apostles would be too impressed at their letters to various churches becoming regarded as divinely-inspired Holy Scripture. They would probably be shocked and offended, as scripture to them meant the Old Testament.

All of which makes it astounding to me that the Bible seems to have overtaken God himself as the object of our devotion in too many cases. See here for my thoughts on that.

To my way of thinking, the Bible is not divinely-dictated, and it is not infallible. To use a cliche which nevertheless contains a lot of truth, it is "The Word of God in the words of men." It does contain contradictions, it does contain inaccuracies and downright fabrications. Nevertheless, it is the best source of knowledge about God and it is useful for all sorts of purposes. In that sense, I believe it is "God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16-17, which incidentally doesn't refer to the New Testament).

OK, that's what I think. Let the heresy trial begin.

Silly songs

2008-08-07T13:02:00.004+01:00

Heather has recently written a few posts about hymns and some of the more questionable content that is often found in them.

Reading Heather's posts got me thinking. Another problem with so many hymns is that they use metaphors, quotes etc that make perfect sense to those who were either brought up in, or have spent a lot of time in, the Christian subculture, but actually make no sense at all to anyone else. In fact, some of them look absolutely hilarious out of context! Some, of course, are just nonsensical or even scary out of context.

So let's see, what ones can I remember?

There is a fountain filled with blood
Drawn from Immanuel's veins
And sinners plunged beneath that flood
Lose all their guilty stains

We'll bind their kings in chains and fetters,
We'll bind their nobles tight in iron,
To execute God's written judgement -
Ride on to glory, sons of Zion!

And my personal favourite, which made very little sense to me even as someone within the church subculture, as it only makes any sense if you read it in it context in Isaiah:

You shall go out with joy and be led forth with peace,
And the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you.
There'll be shouts of joy and the trees of the field
Shall clap, shall clap their hands.

And I won't even start on all the militaristic hymns that make it sound like we're going to wage holy war on the heathens!

So, has anyone else got some beauties they'd like to share?

Churchgoing

2008-08-03T00:05:00.004+01:00

Church Going

Once I am sure there's nothing going on
I step inside, letting the door thud shut.
Another church: matting, seats, and stone,
And little books; sprawlings of flowers, cut
For Sunday, brownish now; some brass and stuff
Up at the holy end; the small neat organ;
And a tense, musty, unignorable silence,
Brewed God knows how long. Hatless, I take off
My cycle-clips in awkward reverence,

Move forward, run my hand around the font.
From where I stand, the roof looks almost new-
Cleaned or restored? Someone would know: I don't.
Mounting the lectern, I peruse a few
Hectoring large-scale verses, and pronounce
"Here endeth" much more loudly than I'd meant.
The echoes snigger briefly. Back at the door
I sign the book, donate an Irish sixpence,
Reflect the place was not worth stopping for.

Yet stop I did: in fact I often do,
And always end much at a loss like this,
Wondering what to look for; wondering, too,
When churches fall completely out of use
What we shall turn them into, if we shall keep
A few cathedrals chronically on show,
Their parchment, plate, and pyx in locked cases,
And let the rest rent-free to rain and sheep.
Shall we avoid them as unlucky places?

Or, after dark, will dubious women come
To make their children touch a particular stone;
Pick simples for a cancer; or on some
Advised night see walking a dead one?
Power of some sort or other will go on
In games, in riddles, seemingly at random;
But superstition, like belief, must die,
And what remains when disbelief has gone?
Grass, weedy pavement, brambles, buttress, sky,

A shape less recognizable each week,
A purpose more obscure. I wonder who
Will be the last, the very last, to seek
This place for what it was; one of the crew
That tap and jot and know what rood-lofts were?
Some ruin-bibber, randy for antique,
Or Christmas-addict, counting on a whiff
Of gown-and-bands and organ-pipes and myrrh?
Or will he be my representative,

Bored, uninformed, knowing the ghostly silt
Dispersed, yet tending to this cross of ground
Through suburb scrub because it held unspilt
So long and equably what since is found
Only in separation - marriage, and birth,
And death, and thoughts of these - for whom was built
This special shell? For, though I've no idea
What this accoutred frowsty barn is worth,
It pleases me to stand in silence here;

A serious house on serious earth it is,
In whose blent air all our compulsions meet,
Are recognised, and robed as destinies.
And that much never can be obsolete,
Since someone will forever be surprising
A hunger in himself to be more serious,
And gravitating with it to this ground,
Which, he once heard, was proper to grow wise in,
If only that so many dead lie round.

Philip Larkin

(If you liked this poem, click here for another, more famous Larkin poem.)

The trials of a worship leader

2008-07-27T02:00:00.003+01:00

I found this at Evangelicals Anonymous. Those who are or have been part of an Evangelical/Pentecostal/Charismatic church should recognise the character portrayed in the video. It certainly made me smile, as a former worship leader!

Trinity

2008-07-26T16:54:00.006+01:00

I'm going to revisit an age-old question here.

These days, pretty much all Christians take the doctrine of the Trinity for granted. God is eternally existent as three persons.

The idea of the full divinity of Christ was one of the main points of contention at the Council of Nicea, which led to the Church adapting as official doctrine the following statement:

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;

Before the Council of Nicea, this doctrine was not universally held, and yet those who held that Christ was less than fully divine were still accepted as part of the Church.

The doctrine of the Trinity (i.e. that not only is Christ divine, but so is the Holy Spirit, and that although the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate persons, yet they are also one God) is most fully expressed in the Athanasian Creed. I won't quote the relevant section here as it is very long and detailed, but CLICK HERE to read it.

The original creed adopted at the Council of Nicea included clauses anathematising those who disagreed with the Council's conclusions about the nature of Christ;

But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable' — they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.

After that point, the ammunition existed to remove anyone who preached against the conclusions of the Council.

So far, so historical. But can such important matters really be settled in a Council? What if they got it wrong?

I've struggled with the concept of the Trinity on and off for years. If there is one God, as the Bible clearly states, how can we say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all God? Basically we're saying that 1+1+1=1, which makes no sense. Or if there are indeed three persons of the Deity, how then can we claim to be monotheists and believe in only one God? And if we go down the path of claiming there are three gods, we then have the problem that we contradict the clear teaching of the Bible.

Jesus himself seemed to regard himself as subservient to, not equal to, God:

"Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good—except God alone.
(Mark 10:18)

The Bible tells us that there is only one God:

Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
(Deuteronomy 6:4)

My mind isn't made up on this. I'm not saying I believe or disbelieve in the Trinity. I am definitely not saying that we have three gods. I believe strongly that there is only one God, as the Bible teaches. How that concept can be reconciled with the Trinity, I don't know.

Obviously trinitarian doctrine is not explicit in the Bible. It was only formulated centuries later. Does that mean it's a later invention, or does it mean, as most Christians claim, that the concepts are there in the Bible but just not made explicit or fully explained? I wonder.

Anniversary

2008-07-24T13:28:00.002+01:00

Four years ago today, the beautiful woman in the picture above became my wife. Silly girl!

Happy anniversary, Sam. I love you big much.

The God of real life

2008-07-23T23:06:00.004+01:00

In my last post I wrote the following:

I want a deeper experience of the real God in my life; not in exterior, superfluous "ministry" and actions, but in my everyday, mundane life.

What do I mean by that? Well, let me explain.

Throughout my time as a believer, or at least until I left the church, experience of God was always an extraordinary thing. It was the sort of thing you could only get at special occasions, such as in really powerful, highly emotionally-charged prayer meetings, "ministry times", a powerful sermon, or whatever.

Now of course I knew that God was with me all the time, but the only times I was actually aware of his presence was in those extraordinary times. If you like, I had a spirituality based on the spectacular.

The problem with that sort of spirituality is that the spectacular, highly-charged occasions are comparatively rare. That left me unaware of God's presence in the majority of situations in which I found myself. My spirituality had (has?) little to say when it came to work, everyday home life, dancing, caring for my chronically ill wife, leisure time etc.

I'm looking for a more real experience of God. If God is with me all the time, I want a spirituality that embraces mundane, everyday life. I want to be aware of God's presence with me when things aren't all happy-clappy and wonderful. I want to know the real God more deeply. That's the God who is with me when I'm cooking dinner and when I'm asleep; the God who cares for me as much when I'm lying in bed and farting as when I'm doing something "virtuous".

I'm not looking for the feelings I used to get from the highly-charged worship meetings. I'm mature enough to recognise that feelings can't be trusted, and that they can often have much more to do with very human excitement and expectation than with the presence of God. Rather, I want awareness of God in all aspects of my life.

Is this actually attainable? I honestly don't know, and I have no idea how to get it even if it is. It's something I need, though, because anything less just seems flat and empty.

Meaningless?

2008-07-21T23:26:00.006+01:00

I've been a believer now for over 19 years.

In that time I've done all the following and more:

* Read and re-read the Bible.
* Done 2 years' full-time Christian youth work.
* Run Christian lunchtime clubs and done many assemblies in various schools.
* Gone to seminary and come out with a degree in Theology and a Practical Diploma in Evangelism.
* Run a church-based youth club.
* Preached in various churches (Pentecostal, Baptist, Congregational and non-denominational)
* Joined in many Marches for Jesus.
* Learned to appreciate free-form worship.
* Learned to appreciate liturgical worship.
* Participated in street evangelism, door-to-door evangelism and "friendship evangelism".
* Prayed a lot, both in private and with groups of people.
* Led worship in churches many times.
* Officiated at communion services.
* Loved, liked, disliked, argued with and submitted to God.
* Loved, liked, disliked, argued with and submitted to my fellow believers.
* Joined a church.
* Left a church.
* Blogged about matters of faith.
* Earnestly sought after God.
* Asked questions of God.
* Become weak in my faith.
* Become strong in my faith.
* Led and participated in countless Bible study discussions.
* Felt far from God.
* Felt close to God.
* Fed homeless people.
* Visited old people and hospital patients.
* Driven in aid convoys to help orphans and handicapped children in what was then newly post-communist Eastern Europe.

As I said, I've done all that and more. This isn't a boast; it's a fact. And yet now I'm asking myself: "Is this really all there is?"

In the overall scheme of things, what do my beliefs, my life and my actions really matter? The writer of Ecclesiastes got it right when he said that everything was meaningless, and you might as well be chasing after the wind. Yes, the things in the list above either are or have been of importance to me personally, but after I'm gone what will any of it matter? Even if I live to be 100 years old, my life is just a tiny span in comparison to all that's gone before and all that is to come.

It seems to me that everything I've done, much of which would count highly in my favour with many of my fellow-believers, is irrelevant. It's meaningless and empty. I want a deeper experience of the real God in my life; not in exterior, superfluous "ministry" and actions, but in my everyday, mundane life.

I'm really starting to understand where Paul was coming from in Philippians 3:

But the very things that I used to regard as gains, I have come to regard as loss for Messiah’s sake. Indeed, I carry on regarding everything as loss because of the much greater value of the knowledge of Messiah Jesus, my master. Because of him I have lost everything, but I regard it all as shit so that I may gain Messiah and be found in him; not having my own righteousness which is from the law, but that which is from God, through Messiah’s faithfulness, based on faith. I want to know him, along with the power of his resurrection and sharing in his sufferings; being continuously conformed to his death if, somehow, I may reach the resurrection from the dead.

(Philippians 3:7-11)

Interesting quote

2008-07-20T04:02:00.003+01:00

Here's something I happened to come across today:

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
- Buddha

There's a lot of wisdom in that for those of us who follow Christ, too.

Wedding vows

2008-07-17T02:01:00.007+01:00

This time next week will be our fourth wedding anniversary. Almost four years ago I made this vow:

I, Barry John, take you, Samantha Helen,
to be my wife,
to have and to hold
from this day forward;
for better, for worse,
for richer, for poorer,
in sickness and in health,
to love and to cherish,
till death us do part,
according to God's holy law;
and this is my solemn vow.

Well, four years on we're still waiting for half of those things to come to us. We've had more than our share of the "for worse" and "in sickness" bits. For over three years out of the last four, we've had to deal with various illnesses that have hit Sam and taken away her strength and energy. Right now she's the worst I've seen her for two years, health-wise. As it's keeping her off work, "for poorer" is looking likely to raise its unlovely head before too long as well.

Of course, we're not just two individuals; we're a married couple, and what affects Sam also affects me. So we're both finding it hard going right now.

Why do we carry on? Well, for two reasons. Firstly, because we love each other despite the difficulties we've had. In fact, if anything our troubles have made us closer. Secondly, because we promised that we would in the presence of our God, our families and our friends. We promised "to love and to cherish" each other, whatever conditions we have to endure. So far we've managed to do that. With God's help, we plan to continue "till death us do part".

I just hope we have a decent taste of the "for better" and "in health" parts before too much longer. "For richer" wouldn't hurt either.

Not long before we got married I asked God to teach me patience. Boy oh boy, did I not realise what I was asking.

My prayer

2008-07-13T00:08:00.001+01:00

Batter my heart, three person'd God; for, you
As yet but knocke, breathe, shine, and seeke to mend,
That I may rise, and stand, o'erthrow mee, and bend
Your force, to breake, blowe, burn and make me new.
I, like an usurpt towne, to another due,
Labour to admit you, but Oh, to no end,
Reason your viceroy in mee, mee should defend,
But is captiv'd , and proves weake or untrue.
Yet dearely I love you, and would be loved faine,
But am betroth'd unto your enemie:
Divorce mee, untie, or breake that knot againe,
Take mee to you, imprison mee, for I
Except you enthrall mee, never shall be free,
Nor ever chast, except you ravish mee.

- John Donne, Holy Sonnet XIV.

Doctrine and bibliolatry

2008-07-12T21:40:00.004+01:00

Most of this post is based on a comment I left on jON's blog. Please go and read his post - it's a good one, discussing the tendency of some Christians to believe that all the debates regarding doctrine are done and dusted, and our job is simply to believe what's been handed down to us.

If there's one thing studying theology taught me, it's that there is no such thing as the one, correct interpretation. We were encouraged to read theologians with widely differing beliefs and emphases, and I discussed and debated with people from a wide variety of denominations and traditions. This opened my eyes as I had come from a very narrow sort of church, which basically had the attitude that other denominations were Christian (apart from the Catholics) but weren't as good as us because they didn't believe what we believed. I actually believe that God meant us to see different emphases in scripture, to discuss, to disagree and to debate; otherwise he wouldn't have given us a book. It is in the discussion and debate that we learn more about God. I certainly learn a lot more that way than I ever would from a thousand sermons.

I think another problem when it comes to doctrine and beliefs is our attitude to the major source of those beliefs, namely the Bible. There is a tendency in some church circles to almost worship the Bible in place of God. Reading the Bible becomes an end in itself and it becomes divorced both from the God to whom it is meant to point, and from everyday reality. To my mind, this is a rather unhelpful situation. When the Bible becomes our focus and the object of our devotions, that is bibliolatry. This can lead to some rather unhelpful doctrines and beliefs that distract believers from their supposed main aim of following Christ. The King James Only debate, to give one obvious example, has always generated much more heat than light.

I must confess that I don't read the bible as often these days as I used to. I know what's in it, having read every book in it several times, so these days I tend to read it only when the whim takes me, or when I want to check something. I was always taught in church that we should read the Bible every day, but while that may be helpful for some, it doesn't work for me. After a while it can get like a novel you've read a lot; you need to leave it alone for a while before you can re-read it and get something out of it again, or see it with new eyes.

I've actually read the Qur'an more often than the Bible recently. Why? Because I haven't read all of it yet and don't know what's in it, so I find it interesting. (For anyone who's suddenly concerned that I'm about to convert to Islam, I should point out that studying other religions has been a major interest of mine for years, and that my bookshelf is groaning with primary and secondary works on other religions - everything from the Qur'an to Gerald Gardner's Witchcraft Today.)

My take on Bible reading is this: as the Bible was inspired by God (however you define that) it's worth reading it through a few times and believers should definitely try to become thoroughly familiar with it, but reading the Bible should never be an end in itself. The focus of our worship and devotion should be God himself, not a book.

Dancing

2008-07-07T01:00:00.007+01:00

I didn't mention it last weekend because other events had suddenly taken priority, but I actually won a dance competition for the first time ever last weekend (well, Friday night, but that counts as the weekend to me).

It was only a local Dance With A Stranger competition, at which you are assigned a random partner, but winning it was a big deal to me as I've never won anything dance-related before. I've come second and third, but never won. And for a brief time before my wife got ill, I enjoyed my moment of glory.

I had different partners in each round of the competition, which meant that I actually danced with 3 different partners. When I got through to the final and I saw that I'd been paired with Stella, the lady in the picture above, I knew we were in with a chance of placing - she's an excellent dancer. Even better, her husband won third place, so they now have two trophies to display at home!

Relapse

2008-06-28T13:58:00.003+01:00

It looks like my wife has had another major relapse of her Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (also known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or M.E.). She could hardly lift a spoon to her mouth to eat her breakfast this morning and couldn't get up the stairs without my help. I haven't seen her this ill since her relapse last year.

Your prayers would be appreciated. This affects every aspect of both our lives, and has done for the past two years.

Watch this video clip for more information.

Wordle

2008-06-27T00:18:00.005+01:00

Here's what Wordle made of this blog. HT to Heather for this.

(Click on the picture to see a larger, clearer version.)

A foot in both camps

2008-06-22T11:34:00.004+01:00

I spent a couple of days this week at a conference with a bunch of other teachers of Welsh - to give it its full title, Cynhadledd Genedlaethol Arweinyddion Cwricwlwm Cymraeg Ail Iaith (National Conference of Welsh Second Language Curriculum Leaders). As most of us spoke Welsh it was natural that most conversations were in that language. It was great to be able to work and socialise in Welsh again, and of course I came away with some useful ideas and resources to use in my own work.

On Friday I came back home to the mainly English-speaking area in which I live. It took me the best part of a couple of days to adapt fully to speaking and thinking in English again.

I like being bilingual. It means I have access to two different ways of thinking, two different cultures and two different bodies of literature. It means I have a foot in two different camps, so to speak. Plus it's a definite advantage to me in a professional context, as part of my job entails being responsible for the teaching of Welsh as a second language to children (and some adults) in a primary school.

Comparing that to other aspects of life, I suppose it could be said that I'm spiritually bilingual as well. I speak and understand the language of the church, while also speaking and understanding the language of the outside world. I'm sure there must be advantages to that, but as yet I'm not sure what they are, at least in my own context. In my experience, most people speak the "language" of either the church or the "world", and never the twain shall meet. The church sees the "world" as profane while the "world" sees the church as irrelevant. Those who speak both "languages" and have a foot in both camps tend to be dismissed by both sides. There's got to be a way forward that maintains the links with both groups, but at the moment I can't really see what that would look like.

Military metaphor

2008-06-09T00:55:00.004+01:00

Anyone who's been a follower of Christ for a while will have come across the military metaphor that is so often used to describe believers. We're soldiers for Christ, part of the Army of God, he's our captain, we dress in the full armour of God, and so on. Bring the armour of God up to date (the Kevlar body armour of righteousness and the assault rifle of the Spirt, perhaps) and the military metaphor can still be quite useful in many ways.

Yes, we are part of God's army, engaged in a spiritual war against the forces of darkness. My question is, what happens to the individual soldiers who are part of that army? In a war, armies gain and lose ground while individuals put their bodies on the line to fight and die.

We've all heard the stories of venerable old warriors who survived every battle and skirmish and were eventually called home to receive their victory parade. I'm sure we all either aspire or have aspired to be one of them, one day. What about the others, though? Just like in a real (by which I mean physical, earthly) war, the victories get all the publicity while the less savoury aspects of war are played down. Everyone loves a winner, but the wounded and dead are kept out of the public eye and the recruiting brochures.

These are a few outcomes of war that also have their equivalents in the Army of God. Do you recognise yourself in any of these categories?

Some soldiers are accidentally killed during training.

Some soldiers are blown up by enemy artillery as soon as they reach the battle zone.

Some soldiers are killed on their first patrol into enemy territory.

Some soldiers operate behind enemy lines.

Some soldiers survive any number of battles but carry the wounds and scars of battle - some big, some small.

Some soldiers are blown to bits by friendly fire.

Some soldiers are killed accidentally by their own weapons.

Some soldiers survive battle after battle, only to end up in hospital minus several limbs.

Some soldiers have to suffer the consequences of poor command decisions.

It's a rare soldier indeed that can survive a whole war on active duty on the front lines without being wounded in some way. In the army of God, how good are our field medics? Where are the surgeons, doctors, nurses and counsellors to help the wounded after the fighting? Is there actually any care at all for the wounded?

I think a lot of the people who read this blog regularly would identify with the wounded soldier, for whatever reasons. Can those of us who have been wounded in battle be patched up, rehabilitated and made ready to fight again? Is it possible for us to re-assigned to a new and improved unit to fight once again the battles that we know must be fought?

These are important questions. In a long enough war, pretty much everyone gets wounded.

God is ...

2008-06-08T19:13:00.005+01:00

I've seen a few blog posts lately about God's love.

It's one of those stock sentences that Christians tend to throw around easily without really thinking about it: God loves us.

The thing is, when a word, sentence or phrase is used too often in a religious context, it can easily lose its meaning. We all know God loves us - or do we? Do we understand what that actually means, or is it just a religious expression?

I'm reminded of something written in a book I read long ago, by Adrian Plass.

Adrian Plass is an English Christian author who has written humour, gentle satire, serious stuff, devotional poetry ... the works. He's not what you would call heavy reading by any means, but some of the things he says are no less profound for that. I can't even remember which book of his I read this in, but for me it really sums up what it means when we say "God is love":

God is nice and he likes me.

Yes, of course there are things such as our sin and God's judgement in the mix as well, but those things don't define who we are. Yes, God hates sin, but he loves us. My sins are not me. Plus, my sins are forgiven in Jesus. They're gone, totally out of the picture. God is nice and he likes me.

I think I need to re-read my Adrian Plass books.

New Clothes

2008-06-08T15:17:00.003+01:00

Loth as I am to give too much more time to blogging about Todd Bentley, I had to link to this one.

Here's another great cartoon from The Ongoing Adventures of ASBO Jesus:

Read this article!

2008-06-07T16:32:00.005+01:00

David Hayward at Naked Pastor has written a post that gives an interesting perspective on the charismatic excesses that occur at some big meetings/"revivals".

If you have any interest in charismatic phenomena, you need to read the article.

Let me be clear here that I'm no cessationist, and I believe God can do all sorts of out-of-the-ordinary things, but I also believe that most of the out-of-the-ordinary things we see in the church today have human origins, not divine.

Just in case you missed it, here's another link to the Naked Pastor.

The Pied Piper of Lakeland

2008-06-05T22:14:00.003+01:00

Do you remember the story of the Pied Piper of Hamelin? If you remember, it ends with the Piper playing a merry tune and all the children of the town following him, enthralled by the tune he is playing and completely oblivious to the fact that they're actually being led away from safety, away from their parents, never to see them again. Not once do they stop to question the blindingly obvious.

There's a version of this story being played out right now in the USA. Step forward Todd Bentley, focus of the "Florida Outpouring" or "Lakeland Revival".

First, check this clip out. Notice how he's working the crowd here - they're already excited and he's whipping them up even more. They're eating out of his hand. The Pied Piper is playing his tune and they're all dancing along.

A few choice quotes from this video clip:

"We still haven't had a chance to verify this..."

You don't say!

"My dear brother sat up in the coffin, praising God and Reverend Todd Bentley."

Quite apart from the false claims of resurrection (want to bet it'll never be verified?), does anyone notice anything wrong with this sentence?

"He heard our beloved Reverend Todd and his voice, pulling his spirit out of heaven."

So this is all about Todd Bentley now, rather than God? Oh wait - yes, I forgot, that's nothing new.

Still think Todd Bentley is on the level? Watch this next clip.

It seems that either Todd Bentley is a liar or God is a sadist. My money is on the former.

I wonder what would happen to me if I publicly admitted to kicking an old woman deliberately in the face? And if I claimed I did it because God told me to? I hope some of my friends would come and visit me in the mental institution.

(HT to The Thinklings for the video clips.)

Prayer request

2008-06-02T01:07:00.003+01:00

For some reason my health has not been quite what it should be ever since the chest scare back in November. The costochondritis (cause of the chest pain - very painful) keeps coming back and causing me trouble, and I've somehow managed to hurt my back, causing an old injury to flare up. In the midst of all this I somehow have to work, as I've had far too much time off due to sickness over the past few months and it's not gone unnoticed by those higher up. I literally cannot afford to take any more time off, even if I'm half dead.

Your prayers would be appreciated.

On a different note, it's been half term this week, so I've not been at work (I'm a teacher). I've enjoyed having more time to post here and comment on other blogs, but normal (less regular) service will resume from Monday. Don't think I'm ignoring you if I don't respond to your comments straight away - it's just that I'll have less time for blogging so it may take a while.

Jesus is for losers

2008-06-01T15:57:00.003+01:00

Jesus Is For Losers by Steve Taylor

If I was driven
Driven ahead by some noble ideal
Who took the wheel?

If I was given
Given a glimpse of some glorious road
When was it sold?

So caught up in the chase
I keep forgetting my place

Just as I am
I am stiff-necked and proud
Jesus is for losers
Why do I still play to the crowd?

Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

If I was groping
Groping around for some ladder to fame
I am ashamed

If I was hoping
Hoping respect would make a sturdy footstool
I am a fool

Bone-weary every climb
Blindsided every time

Just as I am
I am needy and dry
Jesus is for losers
The self-made need not apply

Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall

And if you're certain
Certain your life is some cosmic mistake
Why do you shake?

And if you're certain
Certain that faith is some know-nothing mask
Why do you still ask?

They don't grade here on the curve
We both know what we deserve

Just as you are
Just a wretch like me
Jesus is for losers
Grace from the blood of a tree

Just as we are
At a total loss
Jesus is for losers
Broken at the foot of the cross

Just as I am
Pass the compass, please
Jesus is for losers
I'm off about a hundred degrees

Just as I am
In a desert crawl
Lord, I'm so thirsty
Take me to the waterfall

© 1993 Warner Bros. Records Inc.

(Thanks to Rob for reminding me how good Steve Taylor's songs are.)

Will the real God please stand up?

2008-06-01T02:58:00.004+01:00

I've just been watching an interesting documentary about Muslim beliefs about Jesus. It's interesting to note that the stories of Jesus found in the Qur'an and other Muslim sources have so much in common with the biblical accounts, yet also differ in very important ways.

One thing that really struck me hard as I was watching, though, is how deeply people believe what their religious tradition tells them. The Christian scholars they interviewed believed totally in the Christian version of Jesus' life and mission, while the Muslim scholars believed the Islamic version with equal sincerity. They can't both be right, but both are convinced that they are.

Take that one step further and apply it to God in general. Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Pagans - all are convinced that they are right about who God is, or at the very least are happy that they have found an explanation that works for them. On what basis do we decide who is right? Am I a fool for believing in the Christian version of God just because I happen to have been brought up in a nominally Christian culture? Did I really have a choice? And what about people brought up in Muslim cultures - do they really have a choice about what they believe?

It does seem rather harsh that we are required to choose between a bewildering array of alternative religions and beliefs concerning the nature of the divine while we pass through this life, and will then be judged according to what we chose to believe (and what we did as a result of that belief). Is that really fair? On what basis can we be said to have a fair choice? If it were possible for a person to be brought up with absolutely no religious (or anti-religious) instruction and for that person then to be presented with the various religions and philosophies in all their bewildering variations, would he be able to pick out which one is true? If not, then what chance do the rest of us have?

I have faith in the God of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, and I don't believe in Allah as revealed in the Qur'an or in the various gods of the Hindus - but what if it turns out that I'm wrong? The fact that I believe something doesn't make it real, and there's an awful lot at stake. Or is there? Could the universalists be right? How do we decide?

Will the real God please stand up?

Healing and miracles or hype and suggestion?

2008-05-31T17:03:00.006+01:00

We interrupt Honest Faith's new, positive outlook to bring you this.

I've been hearing a fair bit about Todd Bentley and his supposed revival in Lakeland, Florida over the past few weeks. Now there was a time when I would have been jumping up and down at this news, and wishing I had the funds to get there to "catch the fire" and share in the blessing. These days, however, I'm older and wiser (or more cynical, depending on your perspective) and I take claims of revival with a pinch of salt.

Most regular readers will know that I come from a Pentecostal background. I've been to a fair number of big meetings with big-name speakers in my time, and I've seen (and participated in) my share of "ministry times", altar calls, prayer ministry, etc. People falling over "slain in the Spirit", speaking in tongues, prophetic utterances, animal noises, shaking uncontrollably, holy laughter - you name it, I've probably either experienced it myself or seen it happen. Which means I also know, now that I've been able to take a big step back and look at it all more objectively and dispassionately, how very easy it is to manufacture these things. All you have to do is get the crowd in the right mood with the right music, whip up an atmosphere of expectation and get someone with a charismatic personality to lead the whole shebang, and before you know it you have pretty much all the phenomena I just mentioned happening right before your eyes. It seems to those who are in the congregation, and (to be fair) also to those leading the meeting, that God is moving - but what is really happening is nothing more than the result of suggestion and high expectations.

Anyway, I was interested to see for myself what the hype was about, so last night I did something I rarely do. I switched on God TV and watched Todd Bentley doing his thing.

Sure enough, there was the hype. Bentley's tone of voice (permanently excited) seemed to keep the crowd whipped up pretty nicely. The constant testimonies (all uncorroborated by independent experts), including claims that people have been raised from the dead and prophecies that some pastors would see the dead being raised regularly in their ministries, kept the excitement at fever pitch.

If they can provide independent proof that people have been raised from the dead due to their "revival", I'll happily jump on the bandwagon and praise God for it. However, I very much doubt that will happen.

It's very easy to make claims of the dead being raised, illnesses being healed etc. on stage in front of a crowd of adoring fans (oops, I mean a congregation). It's quite another to provide proof in the cold light of day. And isn't it a bit too convenient that none of the miraculous disappearances of tumours etc. ever seem to happen in front of the cameras?

After watching Bentley spouting his stuff for half an hour or so, I found myself actually shouting at the TV, "You LIAR!" It's a wonder I didn't wake my wife up. (I knew there was a good reason why I rarely watch the God channel!) As I said before, I do tend to give most Christian leaders the benefit of the doubt, in the sense that I think they themselves really believe that these things are of God, and they don't deliberately try to manufacture them. It's more of a subconscious thing. However, with high-profile preachers like Todd Bentley who no doubt rake in millions of dollars through these "revivals", I'm far less likely to give them the benefit of the doubt. To me it looks more like blatant fraud. The emperor is naked but he's made everyone believe he's dressed in all his finery.

If and when there is a genuine revival, a genuine move of God, I will praise and thank him for it. When instead I see manufactured pseudo-revivals running on nothing more than hype and suggestion manipulated by clever religious con-men, it really makes me want to vomit. This is exactly the sort of thing that gives Christians a bad name, and inoculates people pretty effectively against the real gospel and the real promptings of God's Spirit. Sickening.

Don't take my word for it, though - click here to see for yourself. And while you're at it, click here to read an eyewitness report from someone who has actually been there (thanks, Michelle).

A few more links, this time to my own previous posts:

My thoughts on revival.

My thoughts on faith healers.

My thoughts on Christian fakes.

Wiki Bible

2008-05-29T02:46:00.004+01:00

It seems there's a Wiki Bible project in existence.

The idea is that people with a knowledge of Hebrew or Greek "claim" a book or chapter then translate it into English. Those who don't want to commit to translating, or don't know Greek or Hebrew, can check the English translations. (Presumably a knowledge of Aramic would be useful too, or the book of Daniel has had it - it looks to me as though the part of Daniel thus far translated is based on the Latin Vulgate translation rather than the Aramaic original.)

On the face of it this seems like a good idea, but given that there are so many Bible translations already available, do we really need it? Also, what's to stop sectarian bias, mistranslation by those with a poor grasp of the source languages, or just plain internal inconsistency creeping in?

I'm all for "open-source" fellowship - Wiki Church, if you will - but I can't say I'm in favour of "open source" Bible translation. I don't think translation of God's word is necessarily something that should be open to all, regardless of how sketchy or non-existent their grasp of the source languages may be.

What do you think? Click here to go to the Wiki Bible project and see it for yourself.

Guess the scripture

2008-05-27T01:03:00.004+01:00

Can anyone guess which scripture I'm quoting below? No concordances or web searches allowed (that would be too easy). Most Christians aren't familiar with it, and some are even afraid of it. Respect to anyone who gets it right. If nobody guesses it, I'll put the answer in the comments section.

Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment,
We worship you alone; we ask you alone for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom you have favoured;
Not the path of those who earn your anger nor of those who go astray.

Autistic Spectrum Quotient

2008-05-26T17:04:00.002+01:00

I've just done an online test called The Autism Spectrum Quotient. I came out with a score of 29, which apparently is above average but still below the score a high-functioning autistic person would typically get.

It could be interesting to see how other bloggers (especially my fellow introverts) score on the test. Anyone going to try it?

Ten random things that make me feel happy

2008-05-26T15:44:00.007+01:00

The latest tag-fest comes from Rob at The Spyglass and seems to have started here. The title is pretty self-explanatory.

My list is in no particular order.

1. My wife.
2. Feeling the wind on my face.
3. Mountains.
4. Hearing children speaking Welsh.
5. Knowing that God loves me despite everything.
6. Dancing with a good partner.
7. Watching my ferrets bounce and play with each other.
8. Reading a good book.
9. School holidays.
10. Playing with my dog.

I'm not going to tag anybody specific but if you want to take part in this meme, consider yourself tagged and go ahead.

A manifesto for church

2008-05-25T17:23:00.004+01:00

These are just some of my thoughts on what a good church would look like. In fact, I think I'll try tagging a few others to see what their thoughts are.

Rules:
1. Post to your blog on the subject "A Manifesto for Church", outlining your thoughts on what an ideal church would/should be like. Posts can be as detailed or as short as you like.
2. Include a copy of these rules.
4. Put a link to your post in the comments to this post.
5. Tag at least 4 other people.
6. What happened to rule 3?
3. Ah, here it is.

BARRY'S "HONEST FAITH" MANIFESTO FOR CHURCH

Leadership

The leaders of a good church should be:

* Chosen from among the members, by the members in an every-member election, held every few years.
* First among equals rather than a special, "higher" priestly/pastoral class.
* Facilitators rather than managing directors.
* Open and accountable to the other members.
* Open and accountable to one another.
* Accepting of views that differ from their own.
* Secure enough to allow for doubt in themselves and others as an essential flip-side of faith.
* Subject to discipline if they play power games or are abusive towards members.

Every-member ministry

The ministry of a good church should be:

* Outward-looking, seeking to serve the wider community as well as its own members.
* Not regarded as a euphemism for preaching.
* Based on people, not programmes.
* Meeting people's needs rather than trying to answer questions they aren't asking.
* Utilising the efforts and skills of every member rather than a few specialised individuals.

Teaching

The teaching of a good church should be:

* Holistic and based on the whole of the Bible rather than a few favourite texts.
* Characterised by more discussions and less lectures (sermons).
* Relevant to real life outside the Christian ghetto.
* Humble and openly admitting that we don't have all the answers.
* Facilitated, rather than dominated, by those with theological training and/or leadership positions.
* Patient and accepting of those with different theological positions, or who haven't yet made up their minds on an issue.
* Accepting of doubt and uncertainty.

Members

The members of a good church should be:

* Allowed to be themselves.
* Of all ages and all social strata present in the local community.
* Encouraged to be involved at every level of the church's ministry.

Social

A good church should put great emphasis on social activities, both organised and informal. This is the true meaning of the term "fellowship". Communal meals should be a regular feature. Church members should be as familiar with each other's homes as they are with their Sunday (or whatever day) meeting-place.

Worship

The worship in a good church should:

* Be regarded as an aspect of every activity of the church, rather than a euphemism for music and singing.
* Recognise that life is about more than "happy happy, isn't life wonderful thanks to God".
* Allow for the fact that some members will be going through hard times, and making these as much a part of worship as good times and happy feelings.
* Involve both liturgy and "open" worship.
* Be inclusive and open to input from all members rather than just being led from the front by specialists.

General culture

A good church should be:

* Small enough to be personal. When the church gets above 50 members it should split and form a new congregation. This should be seen as a natural part of growth.
* Accepting and non-judgemental.
* Tolerant/loving/accepting towards those who only want to be on the fringes of the church.
* God-centred rather than self-centred.
* Open and welcoming to all.
* Based on people, not on buildings. Hugely expensive building projects should be a thing of the past.

I'm going to tag the following people:

Erin
Nate
Heather
Michelle
Steven S

What Christianity and the church should be

2008-05-25T17:19:00.003+01:00

I was challenged by StevenS's comment on my last post to post about what I think Christianity and the church should be, rather than just attacking what's there at the moment. That's a fair point - I can sometimes be too negative about things - so I'll attempt to redress the balance a little over the next few posts.

Anti-Christianity rant

2008-05-21T23:25:00.004+01:00

Consider the following.

Multi-millionaire televangelists living in mansions and asking the gullible for money to buy the latest private jet.

"I need $10,000.00. I claim it Lord!"

Churches that should be salt and light to their communities whose only real involvement in the community is to judge it.

The rampant hypocrisy among so many Christians who demand to take out the speck of dust from your eye while ignoring the Giant Sequoia tree in their own eye.

"Leaders" who are led by their own selfish ambitions rather than by the Spirit of God.

"Pastors" who are willing to trample underfoot the people they should be caring for, in order to boost their own egos.

A church system that makes it easy for the last two to thrive.

The evangelical mindset whereby it is more important to be right than to show love.

The rigid intolerance of mistakes made by fallible believers.

Pushing people to the floor so they think they've been touched by the Spirit.

Bogus healing claims and false hope.

Anti-intellectualism and intolerance of genuine questioning of doctrines and practices.

Unquestioning "sheeple" who are unable to comprehend that others can disagree with them without being hell-bound reprobates.

"One-track wonders" who never miss a chance to browbeat people with their version of the gospel and thus thoroughly innoculate them against the love of God in Christ.

And some people wonder why (and judge me because) I won't call myself a Christian any more!

If this is what Christianity has become, I want no part of it.

I know that some people will quite rightly tell me that the above examples don't hold true in every church, and that not all Christians are like that. Fair enough. I wouldn't want to argue with that, as I've met many wonderful people who self-identify as Christians.

However, the sad truth is that in too many cases this is what the church is really like.

The whole vile, stinking system makes me want to vomit.

Let me repeat it here, in unashamed anger at what I see the church has been reduced to in so many cases:

**** I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! ****

I try to follow Christ, I believe in the Bible, but may God preserve me from ever going back to what I was. I'm still far from perfect, but at least now I'm free to admit it.

The Porpoise Diving Life

2008-05-11T01:10:00.005+01:00

I've contributed an article as a guest writer to this month's Porpoise Diving Life E-zine. It makes a change for my ramblings to be published somewhere other than on this blog!

Click on the following link to read it:

Real Man or GCM?

Click here to read the rest of this month's articles.

God City

2008-05-09T23:37:00.003+01:00

It must be meme season in the world of Christian blogging!

I've been tagged by Heather (A Deconstructed Christian) for this meme, which was started by Abmo at Windblown Hope.

Basically, after reading an earlier post of Heather's (view it here), Abmo said:
The part that stayed with me was this sentence. “We’ll take this city for Christ.” It’s a sentence that I’ve heard a lot during the past 6 months and it’s definitely been around since I said it 20 years ago

Then a thought hit me over the head. How would a town/city look like when it’s been won for Jesus? What kind of a town would it be? This could be fun. What do you think a town/city would look like, if it’s been won for Jesus?

My first thought is that I don't think such a feat (the wholesale conversion of the population of a whole city to true Christian discipleship) is possible. Certainly not by human effort, at least, and God doesn't seem to be in the business of "taking" whole cities or communities for Christ because becoming a disciple of Christ is a personal commitment that can't be enforced on people. The very term "taking the city for Christ" has martial connotations that are, to my mind, totally incompatible with true discipleship.

So to me, "taking the city for Christ" actually means taking it for the church. Now this has been attempted, many times, through the course of history. Read up on the Crusades and the Inquisition, to name just two examples, if you need any evidence that such campaigns are not a good idea.

To my way of thinking, a city which had been taken for the church, even if by non-military means, would be like hell on earth, much like Iran under the Ayatollahs, where everything is controlled by the religious elite and dissension is not tolerated. Spiritual abuse would be rife, but on a much larger scale than that previously experienced in certain churches. I would hate to live in such a place, not least because I'd probably end up being tied to a stake and surrounded by piles of burning firewood.

If you think all this sounds far-fetched, read up on European church history. This sort of thing has happened before.

Of course, in the unlikely event of the population of a whole city actually genuinely becoming disciples of Christ, I think a lot of churches would be shocked at what it would look like. For one thing, most of the people wouldn't go to church, but would meet in homes out of necessity as there wouldn't be enough pew space. Secondly, their money would be put to use for God rather than being given to the churches. Thirdly, there would be a mass exodus as the citizens took the message to the rest of the world. Fourthly, many pastors and preachers would be shocked into resigning as they realised that their congregations, who had previously responded to their preaching and teaching, had also converted, and were now Christ-centred instead of institution-centred.

What do you think?

I'm not going to tag specific individuals this time, but if you're reading this and have a blog, consider yourself tagged. It would be interesting to read different people's perspectives on this.

Six word memoir

2008-05-08T00:52:00.002+01:00

I've been tagged by Erin to participate in the Six Word Memoir meme:

1. Write the title to your own memoir using 6 words.
2. Post it on your blog.
3. Link to the person that tagged you.
4. Tag five more blogs.

Here's mine:

Looking for answers, finding more questions.

I'll tag the following people:

Heather
Happy
Nate
Steve
Michelle

Christianese for beginners

2008-05-08T00:12:00.005+01:00

One of my many roles in life is that of language tutor. Every Thursday after work I teach the Welsh language to a group of my colleagues. They're all progressing well enough, but as they haven't been learning for long it will be a while before I can have a conversation in Welsh with them and be understood fully. They need to learn the language first.

It's often struck me that we could sometimes do with a few language tutors to teach basic Christianese to people so they can converse freely with Christians in their own language.

So how about posting some of your favourite Christianese words, phrases and idioms in the comments section with an English translation? Or even, just for the fun of it, start a similar thread on your own blog and post a link back here?

I'll start us off.

(Format is Christianese : English)

On a bed of sickness : unwell
Witnessing : telling people about something we didn't actually witness
Sow into X's ministry : throw good money after bad to make X rich.
Prayer chain : gossip line
Anointed : persuasive
Anointed : has got rich from people sowing into his ministry.
Anointed : has a good singing voice.
Anointed : whatever we want it to mean!
Binding the devil : telling the devil we don't like him (or possibly giving him constipation).
Let's pray for the sick of the church : Let's pray for those who really are sick of this church!
Come around the Lord's Table : stay where you are while we give you a crumb of bread and a thimbleful of grape juice.
Share the peace : Uncomfortably invade each other's personal space.
X will bring us God's word : X will tell us what to think.
Amen : I can't think of anything else to say
Hallelujah : I can't think of anything else to say
Lord : I can't think of anything else to say
Just really : I can't think of anything else to say
Hymn : Worship song either written before 1960 or long and sombre in tone.
Chorus : Worship song written since 1960 (can have verses, instrumental sections, the full works - it's still called a chorus)

OK, who has more to add?

"A mighty revival is coming!"

2008-05-02T14:29:00.006+01:00

Something about a recent post over at Heather's blog brought back to mind a meeting I was at back in the early nineties. At the time I was so impressed with the speaker, I bought the tape. I listened to it a fair few times over the next couple of years, so some bits of it have stuck in my memory.

The speaker was a typical excitable, whip-the-crowd-up Pentecostal preacher. I can't remember what his main point was offhand, but I do remember at one point, when he had the congregation eating out of the palm of his hand, he said with a deep, authoritative voice, "How many of you believe that a great revival is on its way?"

Every hand in the room went up, including mine.

Then he asked, "How many of you are willing to be used by God to bring it about?"

Every hand in the room went up again.

Of course, the speaker wasn't really asking a question, although it was framed to sound like a question. What he was really doing was telling us that a great revival was on its way, and relying on the dynamics of a crowd in the midst of a carefully whipped-up religious fervour to ensure that we all showed our acceptance of what he was telling us, though at the time I'm sure we all thought we were just answering a question. That "How many of you believe X" question seems to be a common practice among preachers, and its implication is, "Of course we all believe X - it's beyond doubt and shouldn't be questioned."

Many preachers before and since have expressed similar convictions that revival is on its way. In fact, here in Wales, I'm sure that people have been confidently predicting an imminent revival since the last one in 1904. As yet it hasn't happened, and it doesn't look likely to happen any time soon. What the preachers conveniently ignore about revival is that it's as much dependent on social factors as it is on divine action. During the last revival, Christian beliefs were the norm. Most people went to church or chapel at least occasionally, and preachers' opinions had weight among the general populace. The people were mostly oppressed, poorly-paid working class people with a low life expectancy and a high reliance upon their religion. That made fertile soil for a religious revival to happen. Compare and contrast this with the present situation: nowadays the standard of living is better, wages are higher, believers are in the minority, the vast majority of people never set foot inside a church and the opinions of preachers are generally regarded as irrelevant at best or as the ravings of the lunatic fringe at worst. Hardly fertile ground for people to start rededicating themselves en masse to the God they don't really believe in.

Do I believe a "mighty revival" is on its way in the near future? Absolutely not. I see no evidence that anything of that kind is likely here. I'd love to be proved wrong on that issue, but I don't believe I will be.

What does all this revivalist preaching really do to believers? I believe it leads to people abdicating responsibility for carrying out God's work, as they're expecting God to do it himself in revival. Paradoxically, it also leads to self-doubt when revival doesn't happen, as "we can't have been praying hard enough / living righteously enough / doing the right things for it to happen." So on the one hand if it does happen we're expecting God to do it all, but on the other hand when it doesn't happen we blame ourselves. Surely that's not a healthy place to be in.

Instead of investing ourselves so heavily in revival and berating ourselves when it doesn't happen, I think we should concern ourselves instead with getting on with our lives, being the people God made us to be, serving God in the little things and leaving the big things for him to worry about. At least then when revival doesn't come we will still be doing God's work rather than wasting our time and his, waiting for something that may well not happen.