Part 2

He looked at the door.  Nothing.  The window:  also nothing.  No noise.  For the umpteenth time that night, he restarted normal breathing, lay back and looked at the ceiling.  Which wasn’t there.  What was there was dawn, breaking over a forest of pine trees gently dusted with frost.  His world shifted ninety degrees, as his prone position became  vertical, and the bedroom wall, with its walk-in cupboard, became now the horizontal axis of the world. Mind you, wall and cupboard were no longer visible beneath him, but rather a lot of nature instead.  The bed covers were gone, and he found himself stepping, not into the cupboard, but onto frosty ground.  He turned, but was already pretty sure of what was behind him:  more trees, no bed.  He gave a sigh.  It wasn’t as though he were a stranger to strange things – anyone with a reindeer which can hit 25,000mph without combusting  has seen a thing or two.  But this was magic out of his control, not at his beck and call which was the way he preferred life.  Plus it was on this most inconvenient of nights.  Most disturbingly, if this followed the traditional route, he was about to be confronted with something from his-

“Past!  Correct!” said an accented and abrupt  voice.

Twenty paces away at the edge of the nearest rank of pines stood a man swathed in dark robes with a floppy black beret affair on his head.  He was a little on the plump side, with slightly hooded eyes and an unshaven and...well, a bit of a knobbly face really, if Nick were honest.

“Are you...” Nick began, took a deep breath to cover his unease, and started again. “Are you the, ahem, Ghost of Christmas Past?”

“I don’t do ghosts.” Abrupt and forceful seemed to be his style.  “But this is the past.  Come on.” He turned on his heal and walked into the woods.  His accent was middle Europe somewhere, Germanic perhaps.

“Where are we?  When are we?”

“I have no idea what it’s called now.  It was Saxony once. Or later, rather.  Things change.”

They were crunching through the woods at a good pace, over frosted needles, the light staying bright and crisp even through the layers of branches.

“It’s very...Chrismassy here,” said Nick, hopefully.

“This is Christmas past.  You’re here to see the True Meaning Of Christmas, what it is when all the fripperies are removed”.

“Oh! Like I haven’t heard that before.”  Cynicism and the weariness of the season got the better of any fear. “That’s all I ever hear, why bring me here to hear it again?”  Frosty fronds were poking his face and leaving sparkles in his beard, none of which helped his mood.  “Hang on, it’s not one of those confounded school nativities, is it?  Done outdoors for realism and atmosphere?”  He waved his hands and wriggled his fingers dramatically as he stomped along, warming to his theme. “Same thing every year – half an hour of Christmas-is-nearly-here, dancing snowflakes, crackers singing about presents and damn stupid reindeer falling down chimneys.  Then ‘Ooh, but what’s the T-MOC?’ And wham! Suddenly we’ve time-travelled to Bethlehem via some idiot magic fairy, and “Ooh a kid in a trough, now we know the T-MOC! It’s not about presents after all! Now we can gorge ourselves on cholesterol and empty the industrial output of the Far East into our loungeswith a clear conscience!” And then back as quick as a flash to the dancing puddings.”

The man stopped, turned and fixed Nick with piercing eyes.  “I like nativities.” This was delivered as a statement of fact universally to be accepted, not a preference. “And no we are not visiting a nativity”.  He turned and continued walking.  Nick followed, more subdued. He knew he could obliterate this man with one well-aimed belly-flop, but instinct warned this would be a Bad Idea.  

Soon his attention was distracted from his mixed feelings of righteous indignation and impending doom. Through the trees he caught sight of some kind of building.  As they drew nearer it became apparent that a clearing had been formed in the woods, and on a small rise, a wooden structure had been erected.  Rough hewn wood formed a building big enough to provide stabling for maybe six of his own reindeer.  As they neared the fringe of the clearing it became apparent no reindeer were involved, but there were animals.

A crowd of people were forming – ordinary peasants by the look, but here and there someone grander. That is to say their robes were not so ragged, and the glint of gold adornment could be seen.  Nick was unsure on specifics, but he knew this Past was a long way back; he couldn’t remember seeing people quite like this, although his memory was patchier these days.   None of the people seemed to be able to see Nick or the Guide, but this was hardly unexpected under the circumstances.  A handful were bringing animals with them, a few sheep and goats, a pig over there, and maybe that was a donkey coming through the trees.  A wooden building, people gathering with a look of happiness (well some of them), sheep?  Nick knew what this was;  apparently spectral Guides were not compelled to be entirely honest.

Dalrymple: bad reasoning for making it legal

It is of course true, but only trivially so, that the present illegality of drugs is the cause of he criminality surrounding their distribution.  Likewise, it is the illegality of stealing cars that creates car thieves.  In fact the ultimate cause of all criminality is law.  As far as I am aware, no one has ever suggested that the law should therefore be abandoned.  Moreover, the impossibility of winning the "war" against theft, burglary, robbery, and fraud has never been used as an argument that these categories of crime should be abandoned.

Our Culture... p225

A Christmas Story, part 1

A year ago I wrote a short story in great haste, and really enjoyed the experience.  I've tidied it up a little bit since them, and will now inflict (in several episodes) it on the world (all 3 of you) for nostalgia's sake...


Nick's Carol

Nick sat on the edge of the bed, in the semi-darkness of his own special room.  The cushioning movement of the mattress was inviting but the creaking and sagging under his considerable weight was alarming, so he sat very still for a moment and just sighed.  This time of year he slept alone, and in all honesty on this particular night he was quite relieved at not having to talk.  He just wanted sleep, now and badly, and he could only afford a few hours before starting work again.

It was tricky pushing off first one boot and then the other using only his feet, but there was no way he was going to risk bending down, for both his sake and the bed’s.  He had hung his coat on the bedpost, but was there any point in taking anything else off?  Not really: he would hardly be asleep long enough, and he’d be wearing these trousers for the next forty eight hours anyway, so a few hours in bed would make little difference.  They’d be fine, he thought, as he pivoted round, raised his legs onto the bed and flopped backwards.  The bed made a sound suggesting that it had been holding its breath at the sight of the approaching mass but was now having its last breath squeezed out,  to the accompaniment of someone cutting taut piano wires.  Nick lay fearfully still for a moment, but the bed, the floor, gravity and Newton, all seemed to be holding a truce, so he relaxed, staring dreamily at the shifting shadows above him.  Outside, the moonlight was sparkling on the ice, and inside the ceiling looked like a monochrome reflection of a babbling stream.  He watched the shimmering light, moving his eyes across the ceiling and down the wall, until the strobing disappeared behind the dark hillock of his own belly.  He gave it a quick jiggle, just to make sure he could, and shut his eyes.  A thirty-six hour shift in the workshop had taken its toll and although his eyes ached with the strain, and the noise of the nightshift just reached the edges of his perception, he was soon asleep.

And then he was awake. Suddenly, and he didn’t know why.  A noise, somewhere, or a song or maybe a word.  Something...

There it was again!  But no song; instead a shuffling, a dragging, and with it a tinkling, a clanking, somewhere in the building.  It was drawing closer, along the corridor towards his door.  No one should be out there at this time of night, not on this night!  Nick’s sleepy mind was back online.  The proximity of the worrying sounds suggested that whatever produced them was now merely a few steps from his room. Where was security?  The Gate-Elves knew no one was allowed anywhere near this corridor, let alone his door.  But it transpired that the door was irrelevant, as first a hand, followed by its arm, a torso, and then the whole figure of a man passed through as though nothing physical stood in its way.  Given the relative transparency of the form now stood before him, eyes shining in the night, it appeared to be the man and not the door that had a loose relationship with physics.  Nick’s hand, which had been on its way towards the panic-button under his pillow (there had been time when ‘fans’ had come a little too close for comfort) slipped away as, at a subconscious level, he realised two things:

First, Security was probably useless in dealing with a man that can walk through walls.

Second, he recognised the figure before him.

By now, Nick was upright on the edge of his tortured bed, staring at the unnerving form before him – through whom he could still just make out the panelling of the door.  Although the details were necessarily hazy, he registered the long, brown, worn robe; the sandals protruding from its ragged hem; the balding dome, with incongruously well-kempt hair over the ears, flowing seamlessly into a long, grey, beard. Hanging low on his chest was a simple cross of grey metal, and in his left hand a small, bulging hessian sack, the source of the tinkling and clanking.

“Oh, really?” said Nick, fear momentarily suppressed by recognition and the long-practised habit of keeping the upper hand when dealing with trouble.  “The bag and everything?”

The spectre remained impassive, but his mouth opened and instead of the dry, dusty and distant voice Nick had been expecting (he’d read plenty of books, he knew how this ought to go) there came the same deep voice which Nick remembered and had comforted so many in years gone by.  Tonight, not so much.

“Are you really in any position to criticise the exploitation of the symbolism of legend?”

Uh oh, he could see which way this was going.

“Don’t start on me. We went through this over 1500 years ago.  It’s not going to change anything tonight.”

“It doesn’t even trouble you that I have returned from Beyond to visit you?”

“I live at the North Pole without freezing, in an invisible citadel, surrounded by magic elves and singing penguins.  Exactly how disoriented were you expecting me to be?”  This was all essentially true, but also masked a deep sense of unease that threatened to spill over into anxiety that something fundamental to his life was coming under threat.  “It’s hardly original, is it Nicholas?”, he continued in a tone that was meant to sound relaxed yet picky, “And where’s your bit of cloth to keep your jaw shut?  You missed it.”

“The trappings of death are unnecessary where I have come from.”  For a moment the gauzy shape held a rich glow, then faded.  This troubled Nick more than the previous few minutes.

Nicholas continued, “I know that the way things have developed were often beyond your control. But you have such resources, such power, such opportunity – and what do you do with it?  You’ve lost your way. You have hidden...you have forgotten.”

“Oh I see, we’re going to have some lessons in the T-MOC, like I haven’t heard them a thousand times before.”

“I’m not sure you would recognise the T-MOC anymore, not if it bit you.” Nicholas, paused and held Nick in his gaze, as if he were considering whether what he had to say next was too painful to verbalise.  “You will be visited tonight by three Guides...”

“You have got to be joking – “

“Three visitors, and they will deal with you.  Watch for the first at midnight.”

Nick opened his eyes.  He was lying in bed.  The ceiling was flickering as usual.  He looked at the door – no one there.   He realised he’d been holding his breath for some time, exhaled quietly, and started breathing regularly; the bed joined in on percussion.   Why tonight of all nights, on Eve’s Eve, would he dream of someone he hadn’t seen in centuries, dead and buried a hundred generations ago?  Well, when he said ‘dead’...technically anyway, to all intents and purposes.  He was part of the past, not the present, in more ways than one.  He had no right turning up in his dreams, not tonight.  Him, with his dogmatic commitment to ethereal hopes, to living forever, now fifteen hundred years six-feet under, dead, dead as a doorna-  no, don’t say that.  And the bag of gold, what was that about?   No academic believed the coins and chimney stuff.

Overwork and too much adrenalin.  Penguin coffee.  That was the problem.

A bell began to strike midnight.  Nick went rigid, eyes staring at the ceiling.  It was not simply that the dream gave the bell an ominous sound - he didn’t own a clock.  Clocks were a pretty vague concept in a place where the only regular event was annual;  the nearest was a quarter of a mile away, and it didn’t have a bell. It had a big flower (in the centre of a dial surrounded by animated carvings of gnomes) the petals of which unfolded once a month, when a clockwork fairy popped out and said “PoopPoop! It’s February!” or whatever.  There was no other clock.

But the bell of the clock that wasn’t there continued to toll.  Nine...ten...eleven...twelve...

Dalrymple: freedom

The idea that freedom is merely the ability to act  upon one's whims is surely very thin and hardly begins to capture the complexity of human existence; a man whose appetite is his law strikes us not as liberated but enslaved.  And when such a narrowly conceived freedom is made the touchstone of public policy, a dissolution of society is bound to follow.  No culture that makes publicly sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can long survive; a radical egotism is bound to ensue, in which any limitations upon personal behaviour are experienced as infringements of basic rights. Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticise received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.

Our Culture... p224.

Dalrymple: art is more

"It has always been the job of artists," writes Norman Rosenthal in his grossly disingenuous essay...it would be difficult to formulate  a less truthful, more wilfully distorted summary of art history, of which a small part - and by no means the most glorious - is mistaken for the whole, that the unjustifiable may be justified.

"Artists must continue the conquest of new territory and new taboos," Rosenthal continues, in prescriptive mood.  He admits no other purpose of art: to break taboos is thus not a possible function of art but its only function.  Small wonder, then, that if all art is the breaking of taboos, all breaking of taboos soon comes to be regarded as art.

Of course he doesn't really mean what he says;  but then for intellectuals like him, words are to express propositions or truth but to distinguish the writer socially from the common heard, too artistically unenlightened and unsophisticated to advocate the abandonment of all restraint and standards...

...a taboo exists only if it is a taboo for everyone: and what is broken symbolically in art will soon enough be broken in reality.

...when respect, hatred, love, loathing, and contempt all call forth the same artistic product, then our sensibility, our power of discrimination, has been eroded out of existence.

Our Culture..., p146-8

Paul Tripp - repentance

...I have often been struck with the reality that the man sitting in front of me lacked accurate knowledge of himself. And you can't grieve what you don't see, you can't confess what you haven't grieved, and you can't repent of what you haven't confessed.

Paul Tripp

Dalrymple: the good of humanity as motive

Almost every intellectual claims to have the welfare of humanity, and particularly the welfare of the poor, at heart;  but since no mass murder takes place without its perpetrators alleging that they are acting for the good of mankind, philanthropic sentiment can plainly take a multiplicity of forms.

Our Culture..., p77

Dalrymple: what new atheism misses

Just a link to a fascinating article by Dalrymple, himself an atheist, on what new atheism has obscured.

Dalrymple: cost and context of choice as king

Written in 2004, long before the economic crash, and of the riots of 2011:

The consequences to the children and to society do not enter into the matter:  for in any case it is the function of the state to ameliorate by redistributive taxation the material effects of individual irresponsibility, and to ameliorate the emotional, educational and spiritual effects by an army of social workers, psychologists, educators, counselors and the like, who have themselves come to form a powerful vested interest of dependence on the government.

So while my patients know in their hearts that what they are doing is wrong, they are encouraged nevertheless to do it by the strong belief that they have the right to do it, because everything is merely a matter of choice. Almost no one in Britain ever publicly challenges this belief....

...Ultimately the moral cowardice of the intellectual and political elites is responsible for the continuing social disaster that has overtaken Britain, a disaster whose full social and economic consequences have yet to be seen.  A sharp economic downturn would expose how far the policies of successive governments, all in the direction of libertinism, have atomised British society, so that all social solidarity within families and communities, so protective in times of hardship, has been destroyed.

Our Culture..., p.17&18

Differentiated Engagement

People often highlight the tension between Peter's calls to resist and submit.  But Peter, argues Volf, is giving 'an example of differentiated acceptance and rejection of the surrounding culture'.

That is, foreigners dwell respectfully in their host nation but participate in culture only to the extent that its values and customs coincide with their own that they wish to preserve. In this way the salutation of the letter introduces a concept of differentiated engagement with society...of neither full assimilation nor complete withdrawal.

Tim Keller summarises:

Unlike models that call for a transformation of culture or call for a Christendom-like alliance of church and state, Peter expects the gospel to be always highly offensive, never completely embraced or accepted by the world.  This is a caution to those evangelicals and mainline Christians who hope to bring about an essentially Christian culture.

And unlike models that call solely for evangelism and are highly pessimistic about influencing culture, both Peter in 1 Peter 2:12 and Jesus in Matthew 5:16 expect some aspects of Christian faith and practice ot be highly attractive in any pagan culture, influencing people to praise and glorify God.

Quoted in Everyday Church, Tim Chester and Steve Timmis, p60-61

The Books #8 - Amusing Ourselves to Death

Cor me and Dickie have really let this one go....

Anyway, not a Christian book or even a religious book this time, but I think one of the best books I have ever read with profound implications on how we live as humans, Christians, and Bible teachers.

Neil Postman's book was published in 1985, which means he misses the entire internet age.  But this study of media, entertainment, and the trade-off that new technology always produces, is so timeless it feels utterly relevant now (that's not to say I would not, if one appeared, immediately buy a study on the internet produced by Postman.  I would.)

Postman is a writer of clarity extraordinaire, and no words are wasted in this volume as he reveals how a shift in technology (primarily TV here) produces a shift in the way we think and live - but usually we don't notice and go blindly on. 

Prepare yourself for revelations galore about the way you view the world because of the technology you appropriate.  Sheer brilliance.

Luther: this is priceless!

The defects in a preacher are soon spied; let a preacher be endued with ten virtues, and but one fault, yet this one will eclipse and darken all his virtues and gifts, so evil is the world in these times. Dr. Justus Jonas has all the good virtues and qualities a man may have; yet merely because he hums and spits, the people cannot bear that good and honest man.

Tabletalk

Quick review: Our Culture...What's Left of it

A friend bought me this one and despite the alarming cover, it makes for an interesting read.

It's a collection of articles from the late 90s up to 2004 by a man who has travelled widely (he doesn't let much time pass without reminding us of this) but spent most of his years as a doctor in difficult situations (inner city, prisons etc) which has given him, in many ways, a view of life not dissimilar to that of traditional Christian morality, but developed from the hard knocks of real life rather than the Bible (an interesting point in itself!)

And that's what makes the book interesting:  he places himself in distinction from the liberal intelligentsia (they come in for a hammering) who pontificate from the security of their upper/middle class environs without bearing the true consequences of their philosophy; whereas he has been engaged in an almost futile struggle to help those at the bottom of the heap who end up playing out the true meaning of relativism in their damaged and disastrous lives.

The essays cover a lot of ground from why criminals get fatter in prison to the Lady Chatterly trial (lots of quotations of profanity here, just to warn you - but the essay puts the case in a completely different light from the popular conception).

So, powerful social comment from someone who has seen the dark-side; nicely and eloquently debunks much of what has passed for tolerant enlightened thinking.  But lacking in hope, because he honestly can't see how things will change (and one can understand why), underlined by his career decision which is revealed in the very first article.

NB. being a doctor in some very brutal situations, and having travelled to some very nasty places, there are descriptions and words here which don't make for pleasant reading (especially late at night - eg. his essay on Rosemary and Fred West).

700!

Cor that came round quick (Schaeffer's fault).  As always thanks to that great centenarian, Dickie Mint.

Dalrymple: the frivolity of evil

...the frivolity of evil: the elevation of passing pleasure for oneself over the long-term misery of others to whom one owes duty.  What better phrase than the frivolity of evil describes the conduct of a mother who turns her fourteen year old child out of doors because her latest boyfriend does not want him or her in the house?  And what better phrase describes the attitude of those intellectuals who see in this conduct nothing but an extension of human freedom and choice, another thread in life's rich tapestry?

Our Culture... p12

Luther: a good preacher

A good preacher should have these properties and virtues: first, to teach systematically; secondly, he should have a ready wit; thirdly, he should be eloquent; fourthly, he should have a good voice; fifthly, a good memory; sixthly, he should know when to make an end; seventhly, he should be sure of his doctrine; eightly, he should venture and engage body and blood, wealth and honor, in the Word; ninthly, he should suffer himself to be mocked and jeered of every one.

Tabletalk 400 (or 397 depending which one you look at!)

Dalrymple: medical happiness

There is something to be said here about the word "depression", which has almost entirely eliminated the word and even the concept of unhappiness from modern life.  Of the thousands of patients I have seen, only two or three have ever claimed to be unhappy:  all the rest have said they were depressed.  This semantic shift is deeply significant, for it implies that dissatisfaction with life is itself pathological, a medical condition, which it is the responsibility of the doctor to alleviate by medical means.  Everyone has a right to health;  depression is unhealthy; therefore everyone has a right to be happy (the opposite of being depressed).  This idea in turn implies that one's state of mind, or one's mood, is or should be independent of the way one lives one's life, a belief that must deprive human existence of all meaning, radically disconnecting reward from conduct.

Our Culture, What's Left of It, p9

Luther: don't torment them!

I would not have preachers torment their hearers, and detain them with long and tedious preaching, for the delight of hearing vanishes therewith, and the preachers hurt themselves.

Table Talk

Without eternity...

Just two points from Paul tripp's article on Eternity Amnesia:

3. Asking too much of people. When we fail to live with forever in view, we will unwittingly and consistently ask the people around us to provide the paradise that our hearts crave. The people around us do not have the ability to give us that constant inner peace and satisfaction that we will only ever experience in eternity. Asking the people in your church to give what they cannot give ends in disappointment, frustration, conflict, and division.
4. Being controlling or fearful. In ministry, why do we tend to swing from fear to control and back again? Because, in our eternity amnesia, we feel as if somehow, some way, life is passing us by. It's important to remember that our unfulfilled ministry longings do not so much announce to us that this world or our ministries have failed us, but that we were designed for another world. Peace in our present life and ministry is found only when we live with the coming world in view.

Caution, historians of Providence

A Christian has to affirm Providence, but a Christian historian should not assume to know the mind of God about most particular events. In fact, there are all sorts of bad examples in history where people have falsely made that assumption. In the modern world, there aren't too many examples of Christian historians who have employed particular examples of Providence well.

For most historians, I think it's wiser to affirm a general sort of Providence and yet not presume that you as an individual can know what God intended for any particular situation in the past.

Mark Noll

Pastor Yusef: spritual tests

Many attempt to flee from their spiritual tests, and they have to face those same tests in a more difficult manner, because no one will be victorious by escaping from them, but with patience and humility he will be able to overcome all the tests, and gain victory.

Yusef Nadarkhani
Lakan Prison in Rasht
2/June/2010
(currently facing possible execution in Iran)

Quick-review: Love Wins

I have written a much longer thing about this book for other purposes, but really just want to make a few much briefer comments here.  This is partly because it won't be a "quick" review if I don't, and partly because of Jon Dyer's timely article "Let not many of you presume to be bloggers" which was posted at the height of the blogging frenzy about 'Love Wins'.

What is Bell trying to do with this book?  I think it's this: soften the edges of the 'traditional' view of judgment so as to make the Christian faith more appealing to non-Christians and less problematic to Bible-believers.  And if we're honest, who has not been tempted to do so?  We're all looking for the way to make it more...well, comfortable.  But from an evangelical position, such a wish cannot be the dominant force in how we look at what the Bible has to say.  Which leads to a number of concerns about the book - all of which I give as provisional, in that it is possible I have not read the text closely enough, and perhaps were Rob Bell here to comment he would show me how I have erred.  However, as it stands right now, what bothers me is this:

1. It's pretty dull.  It promises to deal with the biggest question facing humanity, but manages (for me) to make that unexciting.
2. Contra Tim Keller's maxim that we should present the opposing view as well as we possibly can, Bell presents the 'traditional view' as something incoherent, positing concepts that are complementary or held in tension as competing and irreconcilable.
3. On the plus side he does ask some useful questions which probably many Christians struggle with and we need to develop better answers for them.
4. The most infuriating thing is how checking out his argument is routinely obscured: no footnotes, no interaction with other interpretations, not even complete Bible references.  This is very worrying when bearing in mind younger Christians who might struggle to followup many of his (controversial and sometimes tenuous) claims...
5. ...which is very important for when he fires off a magazine of verses to prove a point but without context - eg.in pulling together many texts to show God's justice is always corrective (p.85ff) he largely draws on verses promising restoration after the Exile: texts which neither refer to eternal punishment nor even, by and large, to individuals who were corrected, as most of them died in Babylon.
6. Is he a universalist?  Maybe, but having given several reasons for presuming most people will be saved (ie.  hell is an offputting idea, God's love beats any other criteria for deciding how God might react to sin, God's judgments are always restorative) he then leaves the door wide open to assume pretty much everyone will be saved, maybe even post-mortem (p.76).   Or maybe not (p.115) as, having led us up to edge of universalism, he basically says "But who knows?  And we don't have to decide".
7. There are also, sadly, many unqualified assumptions and interpetations of Biblical texts (pp.26, 51, 85 for example) that are occasionally quite odd.
8. Again, on the plus side, he does eventually emphasise the cross - but even here in a way that suffers from vagueness.

I'm really loathe, in light of the outrage its publication caused, to be harsh - and indeed have cautioned against hard responses to Rob Bell on several occasions.  But it really isn't a great book.

Interestingly, my wife pointed out a paragraph in an unrelated blog written by someone who has moved away from the 'traditional' view.  It's interesting because of its gut-reaction factor: the writer was concerned about the apparent kidnapping of a small child that had just occurred:

And I cried in the kitchen, pouring out cereal, and (my husband) quietly admitted that it is in these times that he really, really wishes there was eternal, conscious punishment, the worst of any hell, for men like this because anything else seems not-enough for what that poor boy might be going through, for even the act of making a child ask for his mama and then keeping him from her is a sin beyond any I can fathom.

Hell is a hard thing to contemplate, and like CS Lewis many of us would remove the doctrine if it lay in our power to do so.  But that is hardly the last word or the only deeply felt and authentic response to it, as that quote shows.  And it certainly isn't the way to govern how we interpret the Bible.

Spiritual father

In Christianity Today Brett McCracken writes, "In order to remain relevant in this new landscape, many evangelical pastors and church leaders are following the lead of the hipster trendsetters, making sure their churches can check off all the important items on the hipster checklist." Including:

"Show clips from R-rated Coen Brothers films (No Country for Old Men, Fargo) during services.

"Sponsor church outings to microbreweries.

"Put a worship pastor onstage decked in clothes from American Apparel.

"Be okay with cussing."

I'm not against cultural awareness and engagement. For most people today, pop culture is their culture, so it can be an act of love to learn it. But to be a spiritual father means you are definitely not Wholly Relevant. Dads are, by definition, older and not hip. This one hurts. I spent much of my forties not wanting to accept my age, not wanting to lose my place among the popular and the trendsetting.

However, to pursue relevance is to lose your spiritual power. When all you read, watch, and listen to is what everyone else is reading, watching, and listening to, you have nothing to say.

Chris, a young guy in my church who moved to Manhattan for grad school, explained to me: "The highly relevant pastor is bro'. There's certainly a place for pastors to be in tune with culture and to be relatable. But where do I find a man of God who will nurture my spiritual life? That's what's I need. Relevance is easy to find. But when I stumble in that same old sin that I keep slipping in, I need someone with wisdom and maturity to go to. It's fine if that person also happens to know about some great new indie bands, but in those moments, I need something else. I need depth."

Leadership

Quick-review: Cry the Beloved Country

Standing in a century-long line between Uncle Tom and To Kill a Mockingbird, Cry the Beloved Country explores similar territory but with a distinctive voice.  Unlike Mockingbird, it does not leave a warm glow as was generated by the way Harper Lee communicates a Southern childhood in spite of the harsh reality of racism.  This is not a failure of writing, but a necessary effect of a different kind of book.  Here there are real, fallible, loveable characters (Kumalo, Msimangu, Jarvis) but the canvas upon which they are painted is vast; it is the size of a nation.  And the tragedy of that nation's peoples is too complex and great for a 'happy ending'.  Alan Paton was writing soon after WWII and the solution to South Africa's problems were still half a century away, and so there is no sweetening of the tragedy encapsulated in the novel.  But for all that, it is suffused with hope, even though its fruition is admitted to be so far off as to be unknowable.

In 1948 an ageing Zulu parson travels to Johannesburg to search for his sister and his son who, like millions of others, left the devastated countryside and crumbling tribal culture (both victims of complex factors, but predominantly exploitation by the white minority) to find a new life.  His journey of discovery reveals perhaps the most significant character in the book, South Africa itself, and the complexities of a divided nation, with a fearful minority in control, and a devastated majority looking for hope.

A truly profound and moving book, written in a style which initially takes some getting used to, but also helps to produce an immediacy of effect.

Wangerin: pay attention! (the blessings of affliction)

Surely it's high time -  isn't it? - that we pay as much attention to the blessings of a long affliction as we do to the pain for which we curse it.  Please: it's not a man's peculiar interpretation or a woman's particular gift for a long-suffering patience which enables each to live the sickness better than another person does.  It's a faith available to everyone.  (Though there always is, of course, a learning curve.)

Pay attention!

In the Lakota tongue:  wachinksapa yo! - which meaning is closer to "Be attentive" than to something we do sporadically.  Be ever in a state of attention.

Wangerin, Letters,  p196-7

Wangerin: no longer rushing into the future

I don't look forward so much any more, dashing to grasp the future.  I look left and right.  I've the Time, you see, to scrutinise all that is. And what is companions me.  The trees can't list their roots and move.  A single motion fills a season.  Well then: let me abide by them awhile.  My toes, my roots.  A good rain can linger almost forever.

The shorter the time, the vaster my scope.

Wangerin,  Letters, p.195

Wangerin: little krill and death

I find myself somewhat sorrowful to lose the riveting focus which death;s likelihood provides a sick old man.  Now, together with my resprouting hairs, there rushes back a sea-tide of all the little things that hector daily living - the krill that clouds and crowds the waters once the whale is gone.  Perhaps that indicates another benefaction which I ought to draw from the previous seven months: stick, Wally, to the sense of the proximity of death in order to recognise (at some spiritual and perdurable level) how little are the little krill - even as little as dying (always, always) is near. Here.

Letters from the Land of Cancer, p.124

Wangerin: Robert Siegel's Rinsed with Gold

I'm very old fashioned (actually, Milton would take issue with this and accuse me of being modern a cheap) but I do prefer it when a poet has spent a long time working in rhyme to the finished item.  So it has to be really striking for me when he doesn't.  Robert Siegel hasn't hear, but his imagery has such rhyme I found this wonderful:


Let this day’s air praise the Lord—
Rinsed with gold, endless, walking the fields,
Blue and bearing the clouds like censers,
Holding the sun like a single note
Running through all things, a basso profundo
Rousing the birds to an endless chorus.


Let the river throw itself down before him,
The rapids laugh and flash with his praise,
Let the lake tremble about its edges
And gather itself in one clear thought
To mirror the heavens and the reckless gulls
That swoop and rise on its glittering shores.



Let the lawn burn continually before him
A green flame, and the tree’s shadow
Sweep over it like the baton of a conductor,
Let winds hug the housecorners and woodsmoke
Sweeten the world with her invisible dress,
Let the cricket wind his heartspring
And draw the night by like a child’s toy.

Let the tree stand and thoughtfully consider
His presence as its leaves dip and row
The long sea of winds, as sun and moon
Unfurl and decline like contending flags.

Let blackbirds quick as knives praise the Lord,
Let the sparrow line the moon for her nest
And pick the early sun for her cherry,
Let her slide on the outgoing breath of evening,
Telling of raven and dove,
The quick flutters, homings to the green houses.

Let the worm climb a winding stair,
Let the mole offer no sad explanation
As he paddles aside the dark from his nose,
Let the dog tug on the leash of his bark
The startled cat electrically hiss,
And the snake sign her name in the dust

In joy. For it is he who underlies
The rock from its liquid foundation,
The sharp contraries of the giddy atom,
The unimaginable curve of space,
Time pulling like a patient string,
And gravity, fiercest of natural loves.

At his laughter, splendor riddles the night,
Galaxies swarm from a secret hive,
Mountains split and crawl for aeons
To huddle again, and planets melt
In the last tantrum of a dying star.

At his least signal spring shifts
Its green patina over half the earth,
Deserts whisper themselves over the cities,
Polar caps widen and wither like flowers.

In his stillness rock shifts, root probes,
The spider tenses her geometrical ego,
The larva dreams in the heart of the peachwood,
The child’s pencil makes a shaky line,
The dog sighs and settles deeper,
And a smile takes hold like the feet of a bird.
Sit straight, let the air ride down your backbone,
Let your lungs unfold like a field of roses,
Your eyes hang the sun and moon between them,
Your hands weigh the sky in even balance,
Your tongue, swiftest of members, release a word
Spoken at conception to the sanctum of genes,
And each breath rise sinuous with praise.

Let your feet move to the rhythm of your pulse
(Your joints like pearls and rubies he has hidden),
And your hands float high on the tide of your feelings.
Now, shout from the stomach, hoarse with music,
Give gladness and joy back to the Lord,
Who, sly as a milkweed, takes root in your heart.

Quick-review: Letters from the Land of Cancer

In 2005 well-known Christian author (and professor and pastor) Walter Wangerin was diagnosed with cancer.  And complex, difficult to treat, no-cure cancer.  He did what, I suppose, many of us who think through our pens, would do: he started writing.  So he wrote letters to friends and family periodically, from diagnosis through treatment, declining strength and ultimately to the point when the tumours stopped getting worse.

This realism, the real-time reflections and Wangerin's genuine ability to write (face it, not all Christian writers can write) give the book a revealing, thoughtful and yet calm ability to explore cancer, life, death, hope, the medical system, the past...and to see from inside a man's head what I have had to watch, in my 'professional' capacity, from outside on far too many occasions.

What do I take away from this book?
- how communicating with those who care about you, to know they are there and listening, is a vast help in horrendous times
- the importance of living in the now and how imminent death restores that childlike ability to dwell in the moment
- and that when the moment comes, when we are now facing what we at least believe to be the end, what we feared we would fear, how we feared our faith might fail, that we might dwell with constant panic - does not necessarily have to be the case at all.

Word-clouds

My friend told me of word-clouds
So I went outside to look:
The sky was crinkled with pages,
Wallpapered with a book.

The light fled and rain fell from
the Gutenberg dome aloft,
so I waded back to my house
through commas and full stops.


(composed today in 5minutes, so excuse any corner-cutting)

Quick-review: The Vicar of Wakefield

...by Oliver Goldsmith.

Originally sold for publication by Samuel Johnson in order to keep Goldsmith from debtor's prison, the book feels like a staging post on the way to Jane Austen.  That is to say, the cultural feel, the matters of class and decency, the misunderstandings, and revelations of fortunes all appear.   But it is written in a simpler style,  much briefer, and has the advantage over Austen that, quite often, something actually happens.

I suspect much of the humour and (probable) satire was lost on me:  I felt often as if it were happening but I lacked the cultural knowledge to pick up on it.  But the story itself was nice enough: the tale of a clergyman for whom everything goes horribly wrong and then ultimately is restored (Job style), with several philosophical digressions (some of which are very poignant for our day) and occasional poems.  Plus the slightly self-involved main character who really becomes quite loveable by the end.

A pleasant read but I suspect some knowledge of social history would increase its impact.

Piper: pastoral problems and pain

God has made plain to us one of the reasons for which pastors must suffer.  Paul tells us in 2 COR.1:6: "If we are afflicted it is for your comfort and salvation."  A sermon on this text would have as its main point:  "The afflictions of the Christian minister are designed by God to achieve the comfort and salvation of his flock."

...No pastoral suffering is senseless. No pastoral pain is pointless.  No adversity is absurd or meaningless.  Every heartache has its divine target in the consolation of the saints, even when we feel least useful.

...2COR.1:9: "That was to make us rely not on ourselves but on God who raises the dead."

Piper, Brothers,  p139-40

When anger sneaks up

When anger is intense, we may not initially know, or even want to know, that we have become angry...It is not that we are unable to step back and consider whether we want to go along and act on our anger.  Rather, we are not even aware of being angry, even though we are speaking angry words and engaging in angry actions.

Paul Ekman, Emotions Revealed,  p121

Pascal: greatness and wretchedness

Man's greatness is so obvious that it can even be deduced  from his wretchedness, for what is nature in animals we call wretchedness in man, thus recognising that, if his nature today is like that of the animals, he must have fallen from some better state which was once his own...Man's greatness and wretchedness are so evident that the true religion must necessarily teach us that there is in man some great principle of greatness and some great principle of wretchedness.  It must also account for such amazing contradictions.

quoted C John Collins, Did Adam and Eve Really Exist?,  p102

Quick-review: Gladstone

Gladstone, by Roy Jenkins

Several years ago I read Jenkins' Churchill, which I really enjoyed.   have to say Gladstone wasn't quite so compelling.  Perhaps because the grandnarrative of WWII which held anticipation throughout Churchill was absent, along side events being more distant.  But also because his style seemed more verbose and smart-alec.

Even so I'm glad I pursued it (small type and many pages) to the end.  Here's why:

1. So many events in his time connects with ours, sometimes creepily so:  solving the "Irish problem" and dealing with terrorism; attempts to develop a 'moral' foreign policy; war in Afghanistan; balancing budgets and so on.
2. It pulled back the image of arrogant Victorian Imperialism.  Whatever idea we may have of Gladstone he believed: the empire was too big to manage and British gung-ho jingoism needed to be nailed; he despised war and expansionist foreign policy;  he attempted time and again (and indeed wrecked his government over the issue) to solve the humiliating mess of Ireland - and his proposals were incredibly close to what actually came to be in the 1990s.  Given that he was probably the most sincerely religious PM ever, this gives the lie to Christianity driving imperialism.
3.  His unstoppable energy, which only failed him in his 80s (he cut down his last tree - tree-felling being his equivalent of Churchill's brick-laying - in his early 80s) inspires to achieve more;  but also reminds most of us aren't made like him with his boundless force - so maybe we should get on and do the things we always said we would, because maybe we won't be tree-felling in our 80s.

Catch the allusion

Perhaps every English department should keep a Christian around just to catch Biblical allusions that his or her colleagues won't recognize. 

Alan Jacobs on Text Patterns via link at Mintie's

A kink in one's theology

"I hope they won't call Mr Baxter from East Grafton here, anyhow,"said Anne decidedly.  "He wants the call but he does preach such gloomy sermons.  Mr Bell says he's a minister of the old school, but Mrs Lynde says there's nothing whatever the matter with him but indigestion.  His wife isn't a very good cook it seems, and Mrs Lynde says that when a man has to eat sour bread two weeks out of three his theology is bound to get a kink in it somewhere..."

Anne of Avonlea, by L.M. Montgomery, p203

Big Brother algorithm

At last month's TEDGlobal conference, algorithm expert Kevin Slavin delivered one of the tech show's most "sit up and take notice" speeches where he warned that the "maths that computers use to decide stuff" was infiltrating every aspect of our lives.
Among the examples he cited were a robo-cleaner that maps out the best way to do housework, and the online trading algorithms that are increasingly controlling Wall Street.
"We are writing these things that we can no longer read," warned Mr Slavin.
"We've rendered something illegible. And we've lost the sense of what's actually happening in this world we've made."

BBC

Determination (again), risks and growth

Growth comes when we stretch past our comfort zone. The big reason many people (especially high-achievers) plateau is because they don’t like to fail. Instead of taking on challenges that will help us grow, we stick with routines that we know we can successfully do. To protect our ego, we’d rather do the wrong things correctly, than do the right things wrongly. This aversion to risk is a recipe for plateauing.

AoM

Schaeffer: what is church for?

What should the Church consciously be, then? The Church consciously (and my emphasis is very strongly on the word consciously) should be that which encourages its members in the true Christian life, in true spirituality—in that which we have set forth in this book. It should encourage them in freedom in the present life from the bonds of sin, and in freedom in the present life from the results of the bonds of sin. It should encourage substantial healing in their separation from themselves and a substantial healing in their separation from their fellowmen, especially fellow Christians.

...Each group must  operate on the basis of God's individual calling for them—financially and in other matters—but there is an absolute rule, and that is that if our example does not teach faith, it is destructive. There can be many callings but there cannot be a calling to destroy the teaching  of faith. The church or other Christian group that does not function as a unit in faith can never be a school of faith. There is only one way to be a school of faith and that is consciously to function by faith.

The Church or other Christian group must also teach in word the present meaning of the work of Christ. Then as a corporate body it must consciously live on this basis. It must not think that just because the Church or group is legally right, its corporate Christian life will come automatically. It never will; God does not deal with us automatically. Any Christian group must function moment by moment by conscious choice on the basis of the work of Christ, through the power of the Holy Spirit, by faith.. It is not that the group just calls its individuals to so live, but that the group as a group so lives. It is death to think that things are going to come automatically just because of past legal decisions, even though they were right. There must be the present choice, a moment-by-moment choice, a conscious choice of operating on the basis of the work of Christ. 

TS p148-9

...and who doesn't like them?

Likewise, the age group that views evangelicals most negatively may also be counterintuitive. It turns out that it is old, not young, people who hold the strongest anti-evangelical attitudes. In 2007, when the Pew Forum released its most recent data on the question, 45 percent of non-Christian respondents ages 50 and over expressed unfavorable opinions of evangelicals. This was meaningfully higher than the 36 percent of young respondents (ages 18-29) and the 32 percent of middle-aged respondents (30-49) who said this. While popular discussion focuses on young peoples' attitudes, the story here isn't "losing the next generation" but rather "what Grandpa is cranky about now."

...

But what happens when people view their own group negatively, as many evangelicals seem to? According to Tajfel, this situation creates emotional and mental tension. Since people are driven to see themselves in a positive light, and our self-concept is tied to our group memberships, then feeling bad about our group makes us feel bad about ourselves, and something's got to give.

Tajfel identified four strategies that people use to reconcile this type of situation: (1) Work to raise the status or quality of the group to which you belong. This can take the form of protest or other collective action. (2) Hide your association with the group, so as to avoid any stigma associated with it. (3) Distance yourself from the group or leave it altogether. (4) Disengage from non-group members, spending more and more time with members of your own group, by whom you feel affirmed.

 ...Some evangelicals today, meanwhile, are strongly advocating that Christians reform their image in the world by acting more Christlike. No doubt we should act more Christlike, but an emphasis on "acting better" to create affinity between evangelicals and others might be misguided if that affinity already exists; it potentially overstates and even creates social barriers and conflict. Furthermore, this emphasis might actually deter evangelism, reduce commitment to Christianity, and even drive some Christians out of the faith.

CT (again)

What is an evangelical?

What do people think of when they hear evangelical? Ron Sellers, president of Ellison Research, wanted to find out, so in 2008, he asked 1,007 randomly selected Americans a simple question: "In your own words, how would you define exactly what an 'evangelical Christian' is? Please be as specific and complete as you can in your answer."

In the most common response, 36 percent of the respondents reported having no idea what the term meant. This alone cautions us about relying on this label in research. Another 8 percent made a negative comment but without giving a substantive definition. The remaining answers were all over the map—including people who thought that "evangelical Christians" meant any Christian who evangelized, was devoted to their faith, was politically conservative, or relied on the Bible. In all, only a little over half of the respondents (56 percent) could offer any type of substantive definition—even a wrong one (like very strict Catholics or angel worshipers). Some of the respondents described evangelicals in harsh language, using terms such as "psychos, stupid, narrow-minded, bigots, idiots, manipulative, fanatics, and greedy." Yet some of the harshest language came from people who couldn't even define what an evangelical is—they just knew they didn't like them.

Ellison's findings harken to a classic sociological study of racial and ethnic discrimination. In the 1940s, sociologist Eugene Hartley asked college students about their attitudes toward different groups. However, his list of groups included several fictitious or otherwise unknown groups, such as the Danireans, Pirenians, and Wallonians. A good portion of the respondents reported having antipathy toward these fictitious groups. So they didn't like people who not only had they never met, but who didn't even exist.

CT

The Books #7

I am soooo far behind on this!  And what's more I'm not really doing a book, but books - that is: there are a couple of people whom I have read extensively, and whilst one book on its own may not have revolutionised my life, the cumulative effect of multiple volumes over several years has been huge.  So, apologies out of the way:

I know the verdict has gone from "Beware!" in reformed circles to uber-cool in recent years (ie via Keller, Piper etc) but I have been reading Lewis since...well probably early teens, well before I became a Christian.  In fact, as with many, I suspect some of Narnia will have introduced ideas and concepts which later enabled resonance when reading the Bible for the first time.  Verbal creation ex nihilo, substitutionary atonement, temptation, virtue...

Later, the science fiction trilogy enhanced a feel for a personal universe, good and evil, the Fall.

And then the mountains of essays.  Firstly for the way they were written: clarity, precision, the mathematical dissection of the opposition's contention.  If only we could all express ourselves that way.  Secondly, the content: piercing, relevant, profound, memorable.  And especially when communicating heaven and hell, and the profound simplicity of everyday life.

Of course the warnings about Lewis were also true: too often when encountering a problem in the Bible, he would process it via intellect much more than Scripture, and was prone to wandering off in some very odd directions.

But he could still write nonsense better than most true blue evangelicals can write truth.

And he gave me a sense of warmth in theological writing that seemed absent many other places (especially in my early days), and he said it was OK to have an imagination, and he taught me the power of story, and that the motif of redemption turns up everywhere.  And, by accident, he taught me not to put my Bible down and go off on my own.  And if it were not for fear of cancer, I'd probably buy a pipe too.

Instead of productivity

HT (see I said it) to Minty.   Comments towards the end of an article on what to do when attempts at productivity are going wrong - I put these here to remind me someone said them when I'm doing the opposite:


You could:

• Re-examine your definition of productivity. Spending two hours reading a great book in a coffee shop could well be more productive than spending two hours staring at your computer screen. Taking care of your kids could be one of the most productive things you’ll do in your whole life.
• Plan some down-time. Take an afternoon off – or a whole weekend. If you plan ahead, you’ll have it to look forward to (and you’re more likely to actually hold yourself to it).
• Find leisure activities that you really enjoy. Sometimes, we get caught up in productivity – whether that’s at work or in the home – because we don’t really have anything else to do. Join a club, take up a new hobby, or plan a date night with your partner.
• Get away from it all. It can be hard to “switch off” from work at times. By getting physically away – to a different city or even a different country – you create a real break from your regular life.

Piper: Baptism in perspective

I think we need to teach our people the meaning of baptism and obey the Lord's commands to baptise converts (Matt.28:19), without elevating the doctrine to a primary one that would unduly cut us off from shared worship and ministry with others who share more important things with us.

Brothers, p135

Lucado: questions

When a person first asks you a question, are they just testing to see if you can be trusted?

Yes, a person's first question isn't really the question. Their first question is kind of like tossing the tennis ball into the air. It's a practice swing. They're just testing to see if I am listening to them or not.

So I make a habit of following up the first question with a question of my own: "Can you give me an example of that? When did that last happen to you? What effect has that had on you?" When I do that, I find that I hear them better.

If I answer too quickly, my odds of providing a good answer diminish. Sometimes people don't want an answer; they just want to be heard. They just need to get something off their chests.

I heard a counselor once say, "Try to find the question behind the question." That's good advice for pastors. Even when people come at you and they're a bit antagonistic, I'll sometimes be so bold as to say, "Now, what's the question behind this question? What do you really want to talk about?"

 Leadership

Schaeffer: the church exhibiting God

Ever since the fall rebellious man has been this way. And the Church is called out of this humanity, in order to be humanity before a lost humanity...

It is not only that the individual should so think and live, but the whole group as a group should be attuned to living consciously, moment by moment, in the reality of the supernatural. Then there is the exhibition; then there is the result there should be.

The Church should represent the supernaturally restored human race in reality, and as such it is very obvious
that there must be the proper legal circle of those in the Church in distinction to those not in it.

The matter of the proper legal circle, the battle against false doctrine and sin, will never come to an end in this life. But the proper legal relationship, while right in itself, should be only the vestibule to the reality of a living, personal  relationship, first the group with God and then between those who are in the Church. Really to glorify God, to enjoy him, and to exhibit him, can never be mechanical and can never be only legal, but personal. When the Church of Christ functions on less than the personal level, it is exhibiting less than what God is, and therefore it is less than the Church should be. There should be an exhibition of redeemed human personal relationships.

TS, p146-148

Schaeffer: divorce

Modern multiple divorce is rooted in the fact that many are seeking in human relationships what human relationships can never give.

TS, p142

Schaeffer: value and apologies

So it is not such a low  door after all, because all it involves is being willing to admit our equality with the one we have hurt. Being his equal it is perfectly right that I should want to say, "I am sorry." Only a desire to be superior makes me afraid to confess and apologize.

If I am living in a real relationship with the Trinity, my human relationships become more important in one way, because I see the real value of man, but less important in another way because I do not need to be God in these relationships any longer. So now I can go up to a man and say, "I am sorry for such and such specific harm I have done you," without smashing the integration point of my universe, because it is no longer myself, but God.

TS, p139-40

Schaeffer: love the individual

...every time I come into a place of eminence of office, I am to do it with trembling because I must understand from the word of God that eventually I will give account of my stewardship, not only in regard to my proper legal relationships but on the basis of my personal relationships.

One of the problem with humanists is that they tend to "love" humanity as a whole - Man with a capital M, man as an idea - but forget about man as individual, as a person.  Christianity is not to love in abstraction, but to love the individual who stands before me in a person-to-person relationship.

TS,  p138