Tentative Venture...

I've decided to try blogging on lots of topics instead of just religion for a while...

This is probably a bad move as I know even less about politics, education etc. than I do about religion...but my new blog is not supposed to be an expert analysis of things, but rather just some (seemingly drunken) rambling which you are free to pick apart (as long as you're nice about it).

So feel free to check it out!

http://asgrey89.wordpress.com

Thanks for all your support!

The Human Jesus

Today, as most Christians will know, is Maundy Thursday. It is traditionally the day in which Christians commemorate the Last Supper, and reflect upon the night in which Jesus died.

Thinking back to the night in which Jesus ate his last supper with his friends, and prayed in the garden of Gethsemane, I am struck most by the humanity of Jesus at this time. Whether one thinks Jesus is/was the Son of God, an inspired man, a moral teacher with no divinity whatsoever - it is his humanity which is most prominent in this stage of his life.

The Gospel accounts of the Last Supper are fairly straightforward. They basically say the essence of what Jesus said and did. Now, this is not a criticism - how do I know what the evangelists were attempting to achieve with their accounts? It is quite possible that they did not intend to offer any more information than the bare essentials.

But when we read these infamous words, do we ever think about what on earth must have gone through Jesus' head on this night? To share bread, saying "Do this in remembrance of me". To talk about himself as a deceased person. To realise what he was going to face. And to point out that one of his friends, the 12 people to whom he was closest in his life (excluding, of course, his family and potentially a few of his other dear friends, female and male), was about to hand him over to be crucified? Did that break his heart? Would he have felt hurt?

Presumably fear struck him; as he prays in the Garden of Gethsemane this becomes evident. He admitted to his friends: ‘I am deeply grieved, even to death...' (Matthew 26:38).

And after this, the one thing he asked of his friends, they let him down in: 'could you not stay awake with me one hour?' (Mt 26:40). It may have seemed a small thing to some: falling asleep when it's late at night and one is exhausted; but Jesus was facing death and at a point like this, with emotions truly heightened, it must have felt as if the people he loved most repeatedly neglected him.

Luke 22:44 suggests that Jesus' sweat became like drops of blood. Jesus is more than aware of what is going to happen to him and he is probably more frightened than ever before. He is about to face public humiliation, torture, excruciating pain and a slow, agonising death.

So what's the point here? The point is that Jesus suffered immensely in the run up to his crucifixion, not just during it. In less than 24 hours he would have experienced hurt, disappointment, fear, anxiety and anguish. Yet he pursued his call to the end and faced what he had to. From this we can take both inspiration and comfort: inspiration to pursue what we believe is right at whatever cost, and comfort in knowing that at those times when we feel low, hurt, betrayed, scared or anxious, Jesus does not simply sympathise or look on from a distance - he empathises, saying "I've been there too".

A more miserable society

"Research suggests that despite having much more materially than previous generations, the country is no happier than it was half a century ago."

So writes Murray Wardrop of the Telegraph. This is, of course, not entirely shocking, despite the phrasing of this paragraph. To quote the very old cliché, "money can't buy you happiness".

Every day newspapers, news bulletins and blogs are filled with sad or depressing news: more cuts are being made, another young person has lost their life due to mindless violence, or another disaster or dictator somewhere abroad has wrecked thousands of lives.

What is the cure to this? If everyone were to suddenly become a bit richer, would this make society much happier? Somehow I strongly doubt this. We in the West are, despite rising unemployment and so on, incredibly fortunate. To have permanent homes, regular food and clean running water puts us in a very fortunate minority. To have cars, televisions, computers, mobile phones and iPods makes us really incredibly wealthy. As a country we've been fortunate enough to enjoy such benefits for many years; yet this hasn't really made us much happier.

So, is it time for a big rant about how we're terrible people for having homes and food and gadgets? And money in general? Well, I'm not going to. Material things aren't, in my belief, intrinsically evil. On the contrary; food and water are necessities and the fact that we are privileged enough to enjoy them almost obliges us to use them - though sensibly and with unceasing gratitude.

They become problematic, however, when people seek from them happiness and fulfilment (as seems to be implied by the shock that material increase hasn't made us happier). Such ideas can also be found in the New Testament. Paul did not condemn money itself, but writes:

'the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil...' (1 Timothy 6:10)

Money itself is not necessarily the source of wickedness, therefore, but the love thereof. Preceding this well-known verse is a warning about the desire for wealth:

'But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction.' (1 Tim 6:9)

Jesus also warns that one cannot serve to masters - both God and wealth. Again, this is not necessarily a condemnation of wealth, but of the idolisation of wealth, or the prioritisation of money above all else.

So I've rambled on about not falling in love with money and not looking to it for happiness and fulfilment...but what is the solution? If I could give a definitive answer, I feel I would be famous by now. But a few suggestions of things to contemplate can be found from the source of wisdom that is the Bible. What did ancient Israelites claim would bring them happiness?

"Happy are those who find wisdom, and those who get understanding" (Prov 3:13)

"O Lord of hosts, happy is everyone who trusts in you" (Psalm 84:12)

"Happy is one who finds a friend, and one who speaks to attentive listeners" (Ecclesiasticus 25:9)

"Happy is the husband of a good wife; the number of his days will be doubled" (Ecclesiasticus 26:1)

Clearly these ancient writers in much more primitive and less materialistic societies could actually grasp something of what led to happiness. I would not attempt to suggest that here lies the solution to all happiness; but pursuing such things as listed here - God, wisdom and knowledge, love and friendship - is far more likely to bring about a sense of fulfilment and lasting satisfaction than anything material.

Jesus the Radical

From time to time it really hits me just how radical Jesus was: in his words, in his attitudes, in his behaviour.

The passage from John's Gospel set as today's lectionary reading really brings this home. It's the passage in John 4:5-42 in which Jesus visits a well and asks for a drink from a Samaritan woman, leading to a discussion about the water of eternal life.

In focussing on the message of water in eternal life, it strikes me that there are three major aspects of this reading which could easily be overlooked, yet speak volumes:

1. Jesus was human.
   It's quite something when John makes a point of describing Jesus in a human way, for he usually takes great pains to emphasise the divinity and high status of Christ - far more so than the authors of the synoptic gospels. But in this passage, John specifically states:
   'Jesus, tired out by his journey, was sitting by the well' (Jn 4:6).
   It's especially important to remember when reading John that Jesus is not some alien figure; like every other human being he experienced pain, fatigue, anger and a whole other array of human emotions.
   
   
2. Jesus overlooked race boundaries.
   For centuries Jews and Samaritans were divided; Samaria was in the northern kingdom, Judah in the southern, and since the united monarchy they had been separate. The divide was deep: children of Samaria grew up with the understanding that they didn't associate with people from Judah, and likewise those from Judah learnt very quickly to avoid Samaritans.
   
   But for Jesus, this wasn't going to happen. He was in need of a drink, and a Samaritan woman was present. Connecting with another human being on the human level was far more a concern than long-standing cultural animosity. The woman, however, is clearly taken aback when he asks her for a drink, for she asks: ‘How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a woman of Samaria?’ (Jn 4:9).
   
   Clearly Jesus envisaged a kingdom of God which did not exclude anyone - certainly not on the basis of race.
   
   
3. Not just race boundaries, either...
   The fact that this lady is Samaritan is not the only shocking thing here...she is, of course, a woman! To the twenty-first century reader, of course, this wouldn't raise an eyelid; but one must put oneself in the cultural context. It's 1st century Palestine...and women are effectively considered second-class citizens. Women would have had certain domestic roles, including of course as mothers - but this would have been their main domain. It would have been quite shocking for not just any man, but a man like Jesus who was revered in some circles, to have been in conversation with a woman. Yet Jesus time and time again is found talking to women and even defending them (cf. Matthew 26:6-13).
   
   In this passage, John explicitly states that: '[The disciples] were astonished that he was speaking with a woman' (Jn 4:27). He also tells us of her fundamental role in spreading the good news of Jesus: 'Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman’s testimony' (4:39).

What is abundantly clear from this passage, therefore, is that Jesus envisages an inclusive kingdom where people of all races and genders are not only welcome, but also valued, having an important role. Perhaps churches and church leaders who attempt to exclude people from leadership or even membership would be well-advised to consider this.

Mass exodus?

It appears that there will soon be a mass exodus of Exodus International applications from iPhones - an application which Apple initially approved.

I've been reading about the whole application here: http://exodusinternational.org/

It appears that Exodus International is an organisation which promotes certain strands of Christian teaching and one of those areas regards conservative interpretations of Scripture on homosexuality. (I won't go into my take on these, as I've done it about 100 times already).

The picture being created is of a homophobic and hateful organisation promoting the 'curing' of people from their homosexuality through many means, one of which is an iPhone application. If this picture is correct, then Apple are correct in withdrawing it: irrespective of one's personal beliefs, it is entirely irresponsible to promote an application which could be damaging and hurtful to thousands of people on the basis of an element of their nature which they neither chose nor invented. Such an application would be as unacceptable as one attempting to cure people of their skin colour.

However, it seems that this isn't quite the case. The organisation quite clearly acknowledges that one cannot be 'cured' of one's sexual orientation and claims to approach the subject with compassion and consideration.

What the organisation attempts to do therefore is to encourage those with conservative Christian beliefs and homosexual orientations to seek to discipline themselves not to act on them.

Do I agree that what Exodus International encourages is correct? Absolutely not. Do I think that they are taking the right approach? Probably not. Do I think that their beliefs are agreeable on the whole? Not really.

But, despite their beliefs being highly conservative and some of their claims regarding homosexuality highly questionable, it is not entirely clear that their views are hateful and homophobic. For that reason, it does not strictly seem to be necessary that the application is

withdrawn.

And, unfortunately, the result of such an action is invariably the protests of conservative religious believers that the devil is at work, persecution of Christians is on the rise and most Western citizens are on their way to hell. Oops, no sooner had I said it....

Christ in Christmas?

I grew up hearing annually the complaints of other Christians about the Christ being taken out of Christmas...whether it was from people's (misinformed) objections to the use of the word 'Xmas' or myths being spread about the whole nation apparently replacing 'Christmas' with the term 'Winterval' (something which was in fact one campaign run by the Birmingham City Council in 1998).

After some reflection I've decided to argue that Christ is still very much present in Christmas in 2010 and that He shall continue to be.

It is of course true that Christmas is heavily commercialised (is it really necessary to sell Christmas cards in September?) and that dinners and snowmen and more the emblems of Christmas than a manger or wise men for many people. The approach I'm going to take will not be to deny this, but instead to reconsider what we mean by Christ being in Christmas.

Presents are one of my favourite parts of Christmas. I love that feeling of getting something you want - and perhaps even more that feeling of someone opening your present and their face lighting up. There is something truly satisfying in knowing you've made a person happy, helped them in some way, given them something they desired.

Some Christians might protest that presents are a commercial tradition and embody society's materialistic culture. However, one must not forget that presents originate from the tradition which says that Magi from the East came and brought gifts to the newborn baby Jesus. Of course, that isn't the thought in everyone's mind when they're giving presents - and I'm not going to try suggesting otherwise. But the fact remains that, for whatever reason, this tradition has continued.

Furthermore, giving presents is still a shift away from the individualistic culture we seem to have. I believe it is more than just a product of materialism; I believe it is a simple practice that represents people's inherent love, fondness of others and joy in the company of others. A lyric from Louis Armstrong's What a Wonderful World for me encapsulates this idea:

'I see friends shaking hands saying how do you do -
They're really saying I love you'

This act beyond shaking hands for me is this way of people expressing their gratitude for one another - a thankyou for friendship, or for the joy they have brought as a parent, child, partner, mentor.

Let it not be forgotten also that many people also give gifts through charities, help the homeless and work in soup kitchens, and take in people who would otherwise be alone at Christmas.

Why is this significant? Because this was the kind of attitude that Christ preached and lived by. Feeding the hungry, helping the needy, showing love to others - even one's enemies. (Here's where I also recall that Christmas is often a time of reconciliation.) Christ is not just present when we sing carols or attend Christmas church services. He is also present wherever people show love to others - be they relatives, friends, enemies or total strangers.

So, in summary - I'm not despairing just yet. Commercialisation and materialism may seem to be the dominating forces - but let us not forget two things: firstly, God is not bound by statistics. There is surely meaning in every case where an individual person who believes that Christ is central to Christmas; and secondly, that Christ is present not just in carols and churches, but in homes where presents are exchanged, in soup kitchens where the hungry are fed and where acts of charity and forgiveness and reconciliation abound.

A Brilliant Article

http://www.theonion.com/articles/god-angrily-clarifies-dont-kill-rule,222/

Just read it. A superb little piece.