Damning with faint praise...

I went to a church I'd never been to before last night. It was fine. There was a good number of folk, the music was well played and all the congregation sang along. The sermon was fine too, reasonable points, well made and fairly interesting. The folk were friendly and welcoming. I really can't find any particular faults in it. But I won't be going back again.

Just as there was nothing specific in the service which would drive me away, there was nothing particular that would make me want to go again. While I might have looked like I fit in on the surface (most of the congreagation were in jeans & a jumper, just like me), I didn't feel like I would fit in in practice.

Maybe some places are just 'not me'.

Having said that, there was a period of 'open prayer' in the service and I really appreciated that - I haven't been to a church where they do that in a very long time. It was one of thise things that I didn't realise I'd missed it until I saw it again.

The search for a church where I 'fit' continues...

The revelation of Abram

I read the story of Abram this morning, from his first revelation from God (Genesis 12) through his name change to Abraham to the birth of his son Isaac (Genesis 21). I also flicked through a few of the surrounding stories.

What I noticed was this: Noah had direct revelation from God. Abram did too, but this was over 300 years later. The bible does not record any direct revelation from God between the two.

If you look at the biblical history stories later on in the bible, you will notice that the people are quick to turn their backs on God, be deceived, be confused and follow false religions (or perversions of the real one) mere moments after the revelation has been received. Just look at what happened when Moses went up a mountain for a few days - he comes back and the whole nation are worshipping a golden calf! If that's how far people stray in a few days, how far must folk have strayed in 300 years? How confused must the peoples' belief systems have got?

A few days ago I blogged about the character of the Most High God. It seems to me that as Abram went on his travels he encountered folk like Melchizidek, a priest of the 'Most High God' (Genesis 14) and others who worshiped 'Jehovah' and still others who worshiped 'El-Shaddai' and so on - I wonder if these were perceived by the Canaanites as being distinct gods?

That being the case, Abram had a great revelation - that the 'Most High God' and 'Jehovah' were one and the same (Gen 14v22) and further, God directly revealed to him that He was also 'El-Shaddai' (Gen 17v1).

It is hard to think back to Abram's day. He did not have any of the bible that we have, he did not have the same theology that we have, he saw the world in a totally different way to how we perceive it. But he heard the call of God and followed.

---

I believe that (for lack of a better term) the Christian 'religion' has evolved over the years. It more-or-less started with Abram and the few things he knew about the God who called him. Over the years it has grown as different beliefs have been added on - some by revelation, some by deduction, some through experience and so on. Occasionally some of these deductions have been wrong and experiences have been misinterpreted, these mistakes have often been corrected by new revelations and prophecies. However, I expect some errors are still in the mix today. While we worship the same God as Abram, we have a totally different understanding of Him - hopefully this is a more mature understanding in many ways, although that sometimes doesn't seem to be the case.

What is my point here? That belief is a dynamic thing - it will change with new revelation, deduction and experience. We will see further than those who went before us, because we do stand on the shoulders of giants (as it were). That doesn't mean our forefathers were wrong, only that they saw things differently.

God has revealed himself to us in discrete chunks. I believe that revelation must be ongoing, because there is so much more to learn!

In some ways its kind of like a jigsaw - Abram put the first few pieces together. Moses assembled a few as well, and so on. By the time of Jesus there were many sizable chunks of the picture already assembled. The cross was the missing piece which united all these assembled chunks together. Once the cross was in place the picture could mostly be seen. But I don't think the jigsaw is finished yet - there are still pieces to be added.

We still need more revelation today.

Charge / Discharge

This post is not a doubt or a question. But some folk (hello Chris!) have occasionally commented on the lack of positives on this blog, so here goes...

I was at St. Mungo's church on Sunday night. It was all in all a truly amazing church experience (if you happen to be in Edinburgh, go along on a Sunday evening, 6pm, Balerno High School, it is always good). The worship was excellent, the sermon was spot on (download it here - should be online soon, I guess called '2007-02-18-pm.mp3', for a limited time only) and, most importantly, God was there and active.

In St. Mungos they have a ministry time where everyone gets prayed for (unless folk choose to opt out and sit at the back) and during this time, two folk prayed for me. Occasionally when people pray for me I feel like I am being filled up or recharged. On this occasion I felt much more charged up than 'usual' - I was almost unable to sit or stand still afterwards, I was so full of the Spirit. I was buzzing. (And folk who know me will know that I am not usually that animated - I am generally very able to 'chill' at every opportunity). I knew I was being charged up for a reason - but what did God want me to do?

Mere moments passed and I noticed that the person next to me (who I know quite well) was not buzzing. Not even looking very happy. Quite the opposite in fact. As the worship turned from 'intimate' to 'celebratory' this person was clearly not in tune with what was going on. Out of the blue they asked me a really profound question. I can't go into details here becuase all of what was said here was private. But over the next twenty minutes or so (as the worship went on around us) we had a very significant conversation. And the Spirit of God discharged through me. I can't really put it any other way. After 20 minutes I was completely discharged!

Amazing.

You see, God can still use doubters like me. Hallelujah!

The Most High God

Deuteronomy 32v7-9
Remember the days of old; consider the generations long past. Ask your father and he will tell you, your elders, and they will explain to you. When the Most High [Elyown] gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he [Elyown] set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel [or 'sons of God' in several of the earliest manuscripts]. For the LORD's [Jehovah's] portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance. (NIV)

If you read this passage from a modern monotheistic perspective, the meaning of the text is clear; God divided the nations but kept Israel as his own.

However, if you read the passage at face value, with no presuppositions, the meaning is totally different. Here you read of one character 'Elyown', the Most High God, who splits the nations of the world and gives each to one of his (many) sons. 'Jehovah' is only one of those sons and it is he who gets the nation of Israel as his inheritance.

That is the meaning that would have been understood by most readers in the polytheistic times that the words were originally written in.

Archeology has uncovered several ancient artifacts which clearly show that the ancient Canaanites worshipped Jehovah as one of many gods, not as the only God, and combining this text with that evidence suggests that there was believed to be a God even higher than Jehovah - 'Elyown' - the Most High God.

So who do we worship today?

Is 'God the Father' really 'Elyown' and 'God the Son' (Jesus) really 'Jehovah'? What about the other 'sons of God', what happened to them?

Whatever happened to Mary?

Mary the mother of Jesus plays a huge role in the early gospel story (obviously). She then pops up occasionally in the gospel stories, during Jesus's Galilean ministry and again at his Crucifixion. She was with the disciples between Jesus's ascension and the Pentecost.

Then she vanishes and is never referred to ever again in the bible. Acts 1v14 is the only reference to her outside of the gospels. Paul never mentions her, Peter never mentions her, James (supposedly her own son) never mentions her.

Where did she go?

As it happens, no other Mary is referred to outside of the Gospels either...

Revelation to only one

I listened to an interview with a Raelian the other day. Raelians base their system of beliefs on the stories told by one man. This guy, Rael, claims to have had a revelation in 1973 (and again in 1975) - he claims that the aliens who made us contacted him (and only him) to spread the word about them; that there is no God, that we were created by aliens and that we should live in peace and harmony.

Most of what they believe is, of course, nonsense. It denies modern science in a way that even the most fundamentalist of creationists does not - for example, they believe that the seven races of men were independently created by the seven races of aliens who visited us (these aliens are called 'Elohim' by the way).

The main issue I have with this belief system is it all comes from an alleged revelation made to only one man. Nobody else had the revelation, or indeed any proof of the things that were 'revealed'. Everyone else who believes has been won over by the persuasiveness of that one man.

The same, of course, applies to the Mormons - their beliefs are all based on an alleged revelation to only one man, Joseph Smith. He allegedly found the ancient book of Mormon and he alone was able to translate it (with some special glasses he was given) into English. Once again, nobody else had the revelation, believers were taken in by his persausiveness, and by the persuasiveness of those who followed.

It is easy to pick out other cults or religions that were established through the alleged revelation to one man (I can't think of any that were revealed to a woman). Indeed, I can't think of a religion, who's origins aren't lost in pre-history, which doesn't owe its origins to the teachings of a single man. Muslims believe the revelation was made to Mohammed, Buddhists believe that the Buddha discovered the path to enlightenment, and so on.

Can you trust a belief system or way of life which is based on revelations only made to one person?

I would say no. Why wasn't the revelation to more than one? Why no proof? If any way of life is based on the sayings of one man only, as a result of revelations he has allegedly had, I would exercise extreme caution - even if the way of life seems to work and there are no apprently negative aspects of it.

But is Christianity any different? Our faith is based largely on the teachings of one man too. This man was held to be the Son of God by his followers (although, apparently, he called himself the 'Son of Man'), but the followers didn't seem to receive any direct revelation at first, did they?

Some skeptics claim that Christianity was actually founded by Paul - who had a revelation experience on the Damascus road - and that it was his persuasiveness that got the whole thing started. Could that be the case?

Or is Christianity the 'religion' that is different? Was the revelation actually to the initial twelve disciples, and then to Paul, and also to Peter and John the divine later on, and so on? Have we assurance that it is not simply through one man that we are persuaded?

And does Christian revelation happen to people today?

Ministry time

Over the last week, for various reasons, I've been in three different churches, with three different styles of 'doing church'.

The most noticeable difference between the three approaches was in the way each of the three offered ministry - that is, the opportunity to have someone pray for you or pray with you.

In the first (the most traditional), the opportunity 'to have someone pray with you' was offered right at the end of the service. As most of the congregation went to get a coffee, three folk remained near the front, one who wanted to be prayed for, the other two to pray for her. The 'prayer ministry' was carried out seated, with the lady who was to be prayed for explaining what her need was before the other two proceeded to pray for her.

In the second, after the sermon, the pastor said 'we want to pray for you' and explained how, in the next section of the service, the various (badged) members of the prayer team would circulate round the congregation and pray for everyone - if you didn't want prayer you should make your way to the back of the room where a couple of rows of chairs were designated as a 'no go' zone for the prayer team. During this ministry time the band played quiet worship songs, but the words were not up on the screen, so it was clearly not intended for the congregation to join in the singing, even though several folk did. During this time members of the prayer team would approach people (of the same gender) and simply start praying for them - they didn't ask for any particular need, they mostly prayed that the person would experience the Spirit more. There was quite a lot of shaking going on, some falling over and other external phenomena. At the end of this time the pastor asked if anyone who wanted prayer hadn't had it yet, and those folk were prayed for before the band returned to leading the congregation in worship.

In the third, after the sermon, the pastor simply said (with no explanation for outsiders) that it was 'ministry time' and asked the congregation to stand. He then 'invited the Spirit to come' and made a few (brief) comments about 'the Spirit of God drawing near' and about receiving from Him. Shortly after this, a few members of the congregation went to the front and spoke, quietly, with the pastor. After a moment of silence the pastor named two folk in the congregation that he 'sensed the Spirit was resting on'. Then the six folk who had gone to the front, in turn, explained the 'pictures' they had been given and suggested an explanation which may be relevant to one or more folk in the congregation. The pastor then invited folk from the congregation, who felt the 'words' might be relevent to them, and the two folk he had named, to come forward for prayer. The folk at the front prayed for those who came forward, standing. There was no significant external phenomena (shaking, tongues, etc.). Then the pastor declared that the service was over, although several remained at the front in prayer for a while.

I have mixed feelings about each of these approaches. In many ways, I prefer the latter two because they both have an expectation of God's presence and an expectation that he will actually do something, whereas the first seems to want to distance most of the congregation from actually interacting with God - prayer ministry is only for the few, and only for those with specific needs. But I'm not sure how I would feel about taking a non-believer into either of the latter two settings. Without a lot of pre-explanation (which would probably be off-putting) I don't think a non-believing visitor would be particularly comfortable in either setting.

In the third church, the clear expectation was that 'God will have something to say to us (through the medium of 'pictures' or 'words of knowledge') at every service'. But what if God said everything he wanted to through the preacher? And how can we know if the 'pictures' or 'words' expressed by the members of the congregation came from above or simply out of an active imagination. Indeed, one of the 'pictures' shared this week was of a car advert - one that is on tv fairly regularly - it wouldn't take the involvement of the Spirit to bring that picture to mind, merely an aimlessly wandering thought process. If God wants to speak in such a way to that group of people on a weekly basis, does he also want to say such things to the first church, but they're not listening? Or is He not speaking loudly enough?

I'm not totally trying to dismiss seeing pictures or having words of knowledge - I have experience of receiving both myself - but not on demand or on a weekly basis. How can we be sure of the origin of these words?

Words and pictures were also shared in the second church (indeed, I have heard them occasionally shared in the first church too, but not every week or even every month) but there they seemed more like an added bonus rather than an expectation. The attitude there was much more 'we expect to be filled with Your Spirit, and if You choose to speak to us we will be listening'.

One of the things about the third church that was notable was that there was no music or other emotive thing going on during ministry time. People were not coerced into any particular state of behaviour. I liked the fact that nothing was forced, but I actually found the silence uncomfortable. In the second church it is much easier to claim that there is some emotional manipulation going on in the environment (gentle music, dimmed lights) and that some of the phenomena could be a purely emotional response, although there is certainly real stuff going on there too. Here, at times, the noise was uncomfortable.

Having recounted all this, I don't think I really have a point to make. I certainly am not saying that one way is 'right' and the others are 'wrong'. All three have some value, but I can see negative aspects of all three too. I couldn't even say which style I preferred (although I might incline slightly towards the second, due to the fact that everyone is prayed for and due to the music). This is just me thinking out loud. If anyone reading this has any insights I'd love to hear them.

Now and then

I listened to another atheist podcast on the train this morning. I probably shouldn't do this as it just frustrates me. The 'Infidel Radio' podcast featured an interview with Nicholas Everitt, author of the book 'The Non-Existence of God'. Nicholas Everitt seems like a nice person and made a number of well reasoned arguments in defense of the atheist position. Fair enough.

What annoys me, though, is the unstated assumption that runs through all of the arguments for and against the existence of a deity - that the battleground between theism and non-theism is entirely in the realm of creation or the origins of the universe. Its all 'then', its never 'now'.

The greatest claim, not merely of Christianity but of all theistic positions is that God is. Not that 'God is [something]' (like, perhaps 'God is omniscient') but that God is a reality in the present.

Debates about what happened six thousand years ago or billions of years ago at the time of creation / origin are fine, but they only deal with then, not now. If there is no god now, then what's the point of arguing about then.

So many of the theistic arguements that Nick Everitt knocked down relied on 'God is [something]' reasoning. Thus, if it can be shown to be reasonable that a god cannot be [whatever] then it logically follows that (the specified) god cannot exist. QED.

But none of the arguments even attempted to address the 'God is' issue.

I truly believe that God is. Not because I was raised this way, not because I reasoned my way towards it, but because I have experienced God and cannot find any other reasonable explanation for all the experiences I have had. Sure, some may have been emotional response, some may have been psycological and triggered by the power of suggestion by clever motivational speakers, but not all. Some were due to the real God.

God is - of this I am convinced beyond reasonable doubt.

Of course I still have loads of doubts:
God is omnipotent? Not sure...
God is omnipresent? Could be...
God is the creator? Room for doubt there too...
and so on.
But God is.

Epiphany

I've been good. I've not been doubting any of the Christmas stories over the past few weeks. Well, not doubting them in public anyway. But now we come to Epiphany and the visit of the Magi...

Who were these guys? And most importantly, did any wise men from the East actually come and visit the baby Jesus having followed a star to Bethlehem? Or is this just a myth?

On the face of it, it sounds like a myth. For a start, three of the gospel writers make no mention of this incident, only Matthew includes it. Then, there is the oddity of the star - the wise men see it and travel to Jerusalem. Only after they've asked about the baby king and are told to go to Bethlehem, does the star apprently give any guidance.

Also, if you look into it, you'll find that the pre-Christian god Mithras was visited by Magi from the east at his birth. Given that there are an awful lot of similarites between the stories about Mithras and those told about Jesus, might it not be that some stories had been muddled together in the oral tradition, and by the time Matthew heard it the story said that Magi visited at the birth of Jesus?

But supposing it did happen... Who were these guys? Not Jews, that's for sure. If they were star-gazers from the East, chances are they were Zoroastrians. Or possibly Hindus or Buddhists.

I read an interesting (and highly dodgy) book some time ago called 'The Lost Years of Jesus' by Elizabeth Prophet (new-agey type, her husband was possibly a cult leader) which supposedly presented the evidence that Jesus had gone on a pilgrimage to the east duing his lost years (the gospels say nothing of him between the ages of 13 and 30). Most of the book is nonsense, but there was one slightly compelling bit of reasoning why this should be. The reasoning went as follows: if the Magi came to see Jesus as a child, surely they would have come back to check up on him in later life. Apparently there was a tradition in certain Buddhist circles of identifying the 'chosen one' (who will grow up to be Dali Lama or equivalent) at birth, but not taking them away from their home for training until they are about 13. Perhaps Jesus was identified as a chosen one and trained in the east before returning for his ministry... This would explain some paralles in the teaching of Jesus with some earlier Hindu texts (although the parallels all fall in the gospel of John, so maybe John knew the Hindu texts, not Jesus). Anyway, I'm not totally convinced by the reasoning in this book, even if it was interesting. But the point remains, why don't the Magi return later in the gospel story?

Anyone got any insights here?

Salvation on other planets?

This post is a bit more 'out there' than most of my musings, but please stick with me...

Larry Norman once sang these words:

"...and if there's life on other planets then I'm sure that He must know and He's been there once already and has died to save their souls..."

Song: 'UFO' from the album: 'In Another Land' (1976)

The bible was written in a time when the world was flat, the sun orbited the earth and stars were small lights that lit up the night. The very concept of other planets, let alone other planets capable of supporting life, had not yet been conceived. Everything in the bible relates to us - earthbound humans.

But what if there is life on other planets?

We know that 'Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God' (1 Peter 3v18). But does Christ's sacrifice on this planet atone for the sins of the whole universe? Or is it like Larry Norman says, that Christ will have had to die on all other inhabited (and fallen) planets to save them too?

I'm pretty sure that there are other inhabited planets out there in the universe, probably loads of them. Has Christ died loads of times?

Or is it like C.S. Lewis describes it in his 'Out of the silent planet' trilogy - where only earth has fallen and all other planets are in harmony with God?

I realise there is no way we can actually come up with a definite answer to this question, but I'm interested in the opinions of my regular readers (I know some of you read sci-fi, so you must have opinions on such things...), so what do you think?

---

My take on it is this - it must be a once for all sacrifice. If there are beings on other planets in need of salvation then Christ must have been incarnated there as well - at the same time - and all the various incarnations of him must have been crucified (or whatever the local execution method might have been) simultaneously. However, I don't hold to this opinion very strongly, I'm sure I could be persuaded out of it by intelligent reasoning... ;o)