Atheist pastors within the church...?

I've recently discovered the "Life after God" podcast. This is what Ryan Bell of "Year without God" fame started after his year without God ended and he decided to carry on with the rest of his life without God.

I've only listened to the first three podcasts so far, so am the best part of a year behind, but the first couple of interviews on the podcast have intrigued me, and confused me.

The first interview comes in Episode 2, and features Gretta Vosper, a minister from the United Church of Canada who is an atheist, and yet still leads a congregation within the United Church of Canada. Hang on, what?

That's right. The United Church of Canada employs an atheist pastor to lead one of their congregations. 

The short version of the story is that Gretta didn't start out as an atheist pastor, she started out as a liberal Christian pastor, and along the way came to realise that she didn't believe in a personal God. She started expressing this to her congregation in 2001 and found (to her surprise, I think) that she wasn't immediately thrown out as a heretic. Over the course of the next decade the focus of her church changed and there was a general outflow of Christians and a small inflow of skeptics, doubters and outright atheists. In 2013 she went the whole hog and finally admitted to being an atheist. The congregation carries on being a place for people of all beliefs. Last year, the United Church of Canada began a process of looking into this ministry to see if they should get rid of her or not. As far as I can tell, she's still there for now.

I'm kind of with the Church here. The Church exists to worship God and preach His (with a capital H) message and it seems to me to be entirely reasonable that the Church should seek to root out and remove people within its ranks who do not follow this agenda, indeed, who go entirely against this agenda.

What surprised me about the conversations on the Life After God podcast was the attitude of Ryan Bell (the host), Gretta Vosper and David Hayward (the "Naked Pastor", interviewed on Episode 3) to this situation. All of them seemed surprised that the Church should be seeking to remove an atheist pastor from post! All of them seemed to think she should remain in post. The argument seems to be that the atheist pastor is doing a good work... but I think that this good work is entirely at odds with the agenda of the Church. Why are they surprised? Why is Gretta intent on remaining a pastor within a Christian organisation, when she doesn't accept the divinity of Christ, or anyone else for that matter? I just don't get it.

Yes, I understand how hard it can be for someone who has served as a pastor in the church for their whole life to find something secular to do after leaving the church, but I don't understand them fighting for the right to remain a pastor within the church. 

It sounds like Gretta has a largely non-believing congregation anyway, so they are presumably financially able to pay a reasonable salary for her if they left the United Church. So why don't they simply leave and form an atheist community somewhere outside the Church? The whole thing strikes me as very odd.

Interesting to listen to the discussion on the podcast though, so I'll listen to a few more shows at least.

Seekers and the pearl of great price

Matthew 13:45-46

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it."

This parable bothers me. It is a story that has clearly been distilled down to its essence before it ended up in the gospel, but even given that, this is only half a story. What happens next? The merchant has nothing but a pearl. No food, no house, no clothes (other than those he is wearing, I suppose), etc. Nothing but a pearl. The options are basically that either the merchant goes on to sell the pearl (at a profit, this is his job, after all!) or he keeps the pearl but has nothing to live on and so, ultimately, dies. Neither of these options are the point of the parable, as it is preached in many sermons, and probably as it was originally intended. The point, surely, is that the pearl is worth giving everything else up for. But it is actually a pretty poor parable for that. The immediately preceding parable in Matthew is much better as there the man in the story finds treasure in a field, buys the field, and hence becomes rich. This one doesn't really seem like a well thought through parable, not very divinely inspired.

But it leads me on to thinking about 'seeking' and 'finding'. Have you ever been in a 'seeker friendly' church? The word 'seeker' is generally used in a positive sense by Christians to refer to a non-Christian who is looking for spiritual fulfilment. A seeker friendly church is one which avoids anything which might put the 'seeker' off the idea of church, so is welcoming, modern, warm, avoids too much ceremony, generally plays contemporary worship music, etc. Behind the idea is that once the seeker finds Jesus, they will stop seeking, and stay in the church.

In some ways, I think I'm a seeker who has carried on 'seeking' beyond the church. The church can't really cope with that, of course. It assumes that there can't be anything greater or better, but it has never actually looked. Once upon a time I found a pearl of apparent great price. But ultimately I found it to be unsatisfying, and very possibly a fake - although a very attractive and impressive fake. I don't want to sell the pearl on, but I've come to realise that there probably is a greater pearl out there, somewhere else. The merchant in the parable doesn't know if the pearl he has found is the greatest pearl there is, he doesn't look. 

Surely, in the quest for truth, even if you think you have found something of value, you never know if you have found everything, so you have to keep seeking? Anything else is just giving up.

I looked under chairs
I looked under tables
I'm tryin to find the key
To fifty million fables 

They call me the seeker
I been searchin low and high
I won't get to get what I'm after
Till the day I die

The Who - The Seeker (1970)

Why suffering?

I just listened to last week's Unbelievable show on the subject of 'Why Suffering?'

The show followed the usual format of a Christian, in this instance Sharon Dirckx, author of "Why?", and an atheist, Alom Shaha, author of "The Young Atheist's Handbook", but this week also featured two short interviews with Christians who have had to deal with great suffering in their own lives.

What the show failed to do was really engage with the 'Why?' question. Which is a big shame because that suggests to me that Sharon Dirckx's book also fails to get to grips with it. I have to say that Alom's issues against God, in the light of suffering, were far better expressed and thought through than Sharon's fairly standard apologetic arguments in favour of God. It became clear to me, in the final interchange between the two, that Alom had won the debate.

But anyway, what interested (and frustrated) me more in the programme was the two interviews with suffering people. 

The first was with a guy who had lost his wife and toddler son in a car accident (he wasn't in the car), but his young daughter (who was in the car) had survived unharmed. By his own admission he was a nominal Christian when the accident happened, but he turned to a much stronger faith following the accident, and spoke of the strengthening he experienced through God and the support he received from the Christian community. He also spoke of how he is blessed now with another wife and three more children.

The second interview was with a woman who has suffered with MS for the past 12 years, and has a fairly hard time looking after her daughter as a consequence. What seems to have helped her through all this is the help, support, and assistance from people in her Church, and a feeling of hope for her future - in heaven - which she believes comes from God.

The thing that struck me about both stories, was that they could both be retold in the context of a different deity and a different religion, and the stories would still ring true.

The guy, faced with death, thought "this can't be the end for my son", refused to believe the secular take on things, saw a religious symbol (in his case he saw a cross on the wall of the mortuary), and decided to investigate the faith of his ancestors, in order to find meaning. He found meaning, hope and support in a religious setting. I have no doubt that exactly the same process could happen for a nominal Muslim in Pakistan, or for a nominal Hindu in India, or whatever. All religions offer community, support, hope, and meaning. The problem is they cannot all be true. In this instance, there is no clear evidence that supports the Christian faith up against any other faith. Its great that the guy found the strength and support to carry on, but his story offers no evidence that Christianity is any more true than any other religious claim.

In the case of the woman, while her story was very different, the same could be said. For her it was the support of the religious community and the hope that her faith provides which has enabled her to cope. But I'm sure you could play out the same scenario in a Muslim, Hindu, or whatever, setting and the same processes would work. You don't need a 'real' God behind the system, what you need is the promise of hope and the assistance of friends. These are available in all religions. 

Of course, this is where 'secular humanism' fails. While it can (sometimes) offer the help and support of like-minded individuals, it has no promise of hope for the future.

But maybe we need the promise of hope, even if that hope is false. Maybe its the promise, not the reality, that enables us to continue through the tough times.

Oddly enough, I listened to this podcast just after reading a chapter in Valerie Tarico's book "Trusting Doubt" (proper review to follow, once I've finished the book) which was basically on the subject of the shared values of most religions. Which probably explains my thoughts above.

The 14th Dalai Lama apparently said:

"Every religion emphasises human improvement, love respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion has more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal."

I'm not totally sure that's 100% true, I'm sure some religions are founded on other principles, but in general terms, the main, popular, religions all endorse these values. Generally religious people of all religions strive to be humble, charitable, and trustworthy. So in almost any religion, a suffering person should find a community to support them.

What these people have found, in their suffering, is not the love of God, but the support of humanity. Just because they have found it in a religious context does not mean that the religion is in any way true.

So the question remains. Why suffering? This show certainly didn't answer the question. And I'm unlikely to read the book that the show was promoting. But I still find it very hard to reconcile the Evangelical view of God with the fact of suffering. A God defined by love, and unlimited in power would do more to help those he loves. I have yet to hear a decent apologetic response to this.

The great schism...

And so it begins.

On Monday last week, St George's Tron Church in Glasgow formally left the Church of Scotland because of the stance on homosexuality (particularly in the clergy) adopted by the General Assembly of the kirk. This is the first church to leave the CofS over this issue, and I suspect others will join them soon.

This doesn't surprise me. Indeed, what surprises me is that its taken so long. I can distinctly remember having a conversation about this circa 1995 when I was fully expecting things to come to a head over this issue and the breakup of the kirk to begin.

According to Wikipedia, there are at least 62 CofS congregations who are members of the "Fellowship of Confessing Churches" (who have a website, but it seems to be dead at the moment), who are united in their disapproval of the CofS stance on gay clergy. The ministers of many of these churches are also part of the "Crieff Fellowship" (who have almost no web presence, but you can download their sermons here), which is an informal network of 'conservative evangelical' churches in Scotland (mostly, but not exclusively, CofS, I think) which dates back to the golden era of the 1970s when Willie Still was minister of Gilcomston South Church in Aberdeen, Jim Philip was minister in Holyrood Abbey Church in Edinburgh and George Philip was minister in Sandyford Henderson Church in Glasgow.

You'll note the surname Philip is prominent here. Willie Philip (sorry, the Rev Dr William Philip; but I've known him since I was a boy, so he's still 'Willie' in my head), who is minister of St George's Tron is the son of Jim and nephew of George and, I suspect, named after Willie Still.

With St George's Tron leaving the CofS, I think it won't be long until Holyrood, Gilcomston and others have jumped ship too. I'll be interested to see if they form their own new denomination of if they stay independent. Accountability is important to these folks, so I think an organisation will form sooner rather than later.

But are they right to jump ship? I have a whole heap of mixed feelings about this.

I've made several comments on my opinion on the whole homosexuality in the bible debate on this blog in the past (here, here, here and probably elsewhere too) and my opinion hasn't really changed much since I wrote the old posts. So I'm broadly in favour of what the CofS is doing, and broadly against the attitudes of the Fellowship of Confessing Churches.

But (and this is a big but) I am also in broad agreement with what St George's Tron Church have just done, and agree with their reasons for doing it. You see, the CofS has crossed a line in the sand. It has said, in essence, we will allow contemporary culture to guide us in reinterpreting the message of the bible. Of course, they don't say that in so many words, but that's effectively what they are doing.

Changing your stance on an issue is fine, if you can justify why you have changed your stance. But the CofS seems to be changing stance on their opinion on the bible without admitting that they have done this. St. George's Tron have decided not to change their stance, and so they have to part with the CofS. The real issue here, for them, is the attitude to the bible, not the attitude to homosexuality. I approve of the attitude of St George's Tron, even if I no longer hold the bible to be as inspired and foundational as they do.

Anyway, I'll be intrigued to see what the fall out of this split is over the coming months and years.

Unity

John 17v20-23:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one—I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

I've been listening to a fascinating sermon series from The Meeting House in Canada over the past few weeks. It's called 'One Church' and each week, for the last 8 or 9 weeks, they have invited leaders from different denominations to their own to come and explain the basic beliefs of that denomination and to preach a short message in The Meeting House. So far I've listened to talks from the perspective of the Anglican Church, The Brethren in Christ (which is the denomination of the Meeting House, not to be confused with the Brethren), the Salvation Army, Presbyterians, Catholics, Pentecostals, the United Church of Canada, and Harvest Bible Chapel. There was a sermon by Philip Yancey in the middle there too.

In addition to that, the pastors of The Meeting House do a separate podcast called the 'Round Table' in which they delve deeper into some of the issues raised in the Sunday sermons. I've listened to a few of those too. Highly recommended.

The aim of the series, as expressed many times in the podcasts, is to try and learn from 'other parts of the body of Christ'. They say that there is unity in the body of Christ, even though it is split into many denominations.

And yet, when you listen to the discussions between the various denominations, it is clear that several of them (perhaps not all) have the underlying viewpoint that 'we are right and you are wrong, and your way of being Christians is fundamentally flawed'. In other words, they speak of unity, and yet it is clearly not there in any real or tangible way.

Last week, they read the passage quoted above, where Jesus prays for unity among all believers. It had never really occurred to me before, but now it seems clear to me that here we have an example of a prayer that Jesus prayed which simply, in the past two thousand years, has not been answered.

Sure, parts of the church have shown unity at various times in history, but the history of the church is largely one of schism and disunity, not one of communion and unity.

The disunity in the church has always bothered me. But I'd never noticed before that the disunity is evidence that God didn't answer Jesus's prayer. The implications of that are huge. And I think I'll leave it until another post before I unpack that one...

Am I a hypocrite?

There was some discussion of a minor issue in a bible passage at housegroup on Thursday. Doesn't really matter what the passage or issue was.

I have my own personal opinions on the subject under discussion, some honest doubts that are really quite technical and not really suitable for the level of discussion we were having in housegroup.

But I also knew the 'orthodox' answer. And so when the discussion started to get messy, I stepped in, quoted the appropriate verses from the appropriate passages and resolved the discussion to the satisfaction of the group.

Thing is, I have some serious issues with the passage I quoted and (along with some proper bible scholars) am reasonably convinced that it is a very late-written passage, written by someone other than the person it claims as author. Basically, I'm not sure that the passage has any right to be included in the canon of scripture. Thus the reasoning I used is (in my opinion) false.

Does that make me a hypocrite?

In my defence, I did it 'for the sake of the weaker brother'. It was the appropriate way to deal with the discussion and it probably helped boost the faith and understanding of some of the group. But I do feel a bit of a hypocrite.

I wonder, do ministers often have this feeling? Presenting the opinion that the congregation needs to hear, even if they personally disagree? If you're a minister reading this, please let me know. Anonymously (or, preferably, pseudonymously) if you like.

Homosexuality in the clergy (again)

Several years ago the issue of (practicing) homosexual clergy threatened to tear the Anglican church apart. I blogged about it at the time. Now the same issue has landed in the Church of Scotland (the denomination I grew up in) and is similarly threatening to tear that church apart.

Having just re-read what I wrote nearly four years ago, I find myself more-or-less in agreement with what I wrote back then.

There are two camps here:

First there is the 'Conservative' camp who say "homosexual practice is a sin, it is condemned in the Bible, therefore we should not allow practicing homosexual clergy". Of course, many of this group eat pork and wear mixed fabrics and somehow justify doing these things - which are also listed as sin and condemned in the bible.

Then there is the 'Liberal' camp who say "some people are made gay, God wouldn't make them that way and then bar them from Christian ministry". Of course, the same reasoning would not apply to folk who were naturally inclined towards lying, stealing or psychopathic behaviour.

So what have the Church of Scotland done? Well, they've done something interesting. First of all, they voted in favour of the appointment of one, specific, practicing homosexual minister. Then they resolved not to appoint any other (known, practicing) homosexual ministers for at least two years, in which time a committee would look into the issue and write a report.

I almost approve of this plan of action.

But I have two questions, one for each camp.

To the liberal camp I must ask: "Why are you not pressing for homosexual marriage?" The bible is quite clear: sex outside of a loving, committed, monogamous, married relationship is not what God intended. So if God did create some people gay and intends for them to be that way, then the message the church should be sending out to homosexuals is twofold - abstain from sex until you find the right person for you, and don't have sexual relations with that person until you are married. Promoting any other message regarding sexuality is creating an inequality with heterosexuals.

To the conservative camp I must ask: "Why would homosexual practice (within the confines of a gay marriage) be a sin?" Basically, as I see it, there are things condemned as sin in the bible that are no longer considered sin today. Could this not be one of them? I don't believe that God creates arbitrary rules for no reason. Therefore, if homosexual practice is a sin, there must be a good reason for this - it must be bad for the individual, for society, or for our communion with God.

[Slight digression] I tend to favour the implied beliefs of C.S. Lewis with regard to 'forbidden fruit', as expressed allegorically in 'Perelandra'. There the 'Adam and Eve' characters were forbidden from doing a certain thing and, unlike Adam & Eve, they managed to abstain from it. Later, they were commended for their actions and given permission to do the forbidden thing. There was nothing wrong with the action, God was merely testing their obedience.

What if 'that was then, this is now' is a valid argument? When the original commandments were given, ensuring the growth, continuity and racial purity of the Israelites was a high priority. Mixed marriages with other races were forbidden, failure to produce offspring was frowned upon. In that context, of course, a homosexual relationship would be seen as a bad thing. It would not serve the continuity of the race. But our priorities have changed since then. We don't frown upon childless couples.

The original biblical principal is this: "It is not good for [a] man to be alone." (Genesis 2v18) - I wonder if it is less bad for a man to be with another man (within the confines of a committed gay marriage) than for a man to be on his own.

What is more important here, gender or relationship?

Some would argue from the point of view of design 'it is obvious [biologically speaking] that God made man to go with woman...' but that doesn't take orientation into account. To the homosexually oriented person it is obvious that they should be with another man.

I still don't know. I hear what both sides are saying, and I think they're both wrong - at least in part.

I doubt this will be the last post on this subject...

Grace and peace.

Premillennial

A few people I know are in the process of planting a church. They're doing this under the banner of an American church-planting organisation (I hadn't realised that such things even existed), and I'm totally supportive of the plant. But I had a read through of the 'statement of faith' of the parent organisation (on their website) and it managed to include the word 'pre-millennial'...

Why?

I'm not an expert on the theology of Revelation, but as I understand it, there are four reasonably common interpretations of the text (see below), two of which include the 'pre-millennial' return of Christ. However, the text isn't totally clear. Any of the four readings of the text(s) are plausible.

For what its worth, on the basis of this graphic presentation of the four options, I'd probably fall into the 'amillennialism' camp. But that's not really the point here.

The point is, why make this statement?

By specifying 'premillennial' in the basis of faith, the organisation is drawing a line in the sand that I do not believe has to be there. By making that statement they are -effectively- saying "only certain types of Christians get to be part of our church". And by making the statement they are acknowledging that there is another opinion; and rejecting it.

There are certain things that should be part of a statement of faith. "Jesus is Lord" is kind of central in all streams of Christianity, the bible is unambiguous on that. But why should a church take a definite stance on one side of an issue on which the bible is ambiguous?

Can we not have the grace to say "we don't know" on certain issues? Can we not graciously allow differences of opinion on non-central issues to exist within our churches? Can we not be a bit less dogmatic on our statements of faith?

The skeptical position and the apparent miracle

I've been meaning to state my skeptical position on this blog for a couple of weeks now, but hadn't found the time to write it down before I was overtaken by events yesterday, and now feel I have to comment on what I saw yesterday, but prefix it with a brief statement of my position.

The Skeptical Position

I've noticed in a few discussions online and in the real world recently, that the idea of taking a 'skeptical' position on an issue is frequently perceived as meaning taking a 'non-believing' stance. But this is not the case.

Suppose that something 'miraculous' happens, or appears to happen. The 'believer' will tend, by default, to see it as an act of God and will dismiss other theories. The 'non-believer' will tend, by default, to see it as a fake and will dismiss all possibility of 'supernatural' activities. One side sees the event as white, the other sees it as black. The true skeptic, however, must remain open to the possibility that either side could be true, or even that there are more possibilities out there. The skeptic should remain agnostic on the issue unless there is good evidence (not necessarily proof) to support one hypothesis over the other(s). The skeptic, therefore, sees the issue not as black or white, but only in shades of grey.

This is where I often find myself. For example, in the discussion on miracles which went on last week [here and here on my blog, and here on Chris's], I find myself stuck in the grey area in between two opinions [within the church!], that of:

1. The Meeting House: "big, obvious miracles and healings, of the kind performed by (or through) the Apostles in the book of Acts, are not possible today." [my paraphrase]
   
2. The 'Modern Evangelical' View: "God has not run out of "miracle-juice", nor has it become watered down over the millennia. He is the same awesome miracle working God today that he was two-thousand years' ago." [quote from Chris's blog]

The grey area I find myself in is that I can see no reason (biblical or otherwise) why opinion 1 should be the case, but I see little or no evidence to support opinion 2. So I remain skeptical of claims of healing, but open minded.

That is my position. Now my experience and observations from yesterday...

"Healing on the streets"

Our church (that's the Almond Vineyard in Edinburgh) were host to a couple of visitors from the Causeway Coast Vineyard in Northern Ireland this weekend. Both have been involved in their 'Healing on the streets' initiative, one of them started the initiative in 2005. Basically, a team from their church goes out onto the high street in their town -every Saturday- and offers prayer for healing to anyone who wants. They say the public response has become quite favourable and the claim to have seen quite a number of people being healed of various ailments.

Now while I am skeptical (as in open minded, but unsure) about what can be achieved through prayer for healing in this way, I am convinced that - at the very least - people can sometimes experience relief from pain, reduction of symptoms and occasional remission through this activity. A few folk from our church are involved in this kind of ministry in Edinburgh on a semi-regular basis, and I support them in this. It is a good thing. I haven't been brave enough to participate yet, but I might in the future.

So, the guy from 'Healing on the streets' preached at our church yesterday, spoke a bit about his experience 'on the streets' and in the church in Northern Ireland, and then offered to pray for healing for people. Several people were ministered to and prayed for. He specifically called for anyone who has 'one leg longer than the other' to come for prayer, and invited 'anyone who wanted to see a miraculous healing' to gather round and watch. I watched. Something appeared to happen.

This left me inclining toward the lighter greys, I have to say. It was convincing.

But then, when the next two people who came for healing, claiming back pain, appeared to also have one leg slightly longer than the other, my inner skeptic alarm bells started ringing. Having one leg longer than the other is not particularly common. If you counted the number of people who apparently had this complaint at church yesterday, it would appear to be about 5-10% of the gathering, but most of them were unaware of this 'complaint' before the healer identified it.

And I began to remember hearing someone talk about 'debunking' a 'leg lengthening miracle' before. The skeptical needle began to incline towards the darker greys.

The 'Leg Lengthening' Scam

Later on I Googled it and was reminded that it was (professional magician and paranormal fraudster debunker) James Randi who I'd heard talking about it. He even discussed the 'scam' at length in his book "The Faith Healers" back in the 1980s.

If done well, the person being 'healed', as well as the audience, are completely unaware of the scam. The trick is, when getting the patient seated and settled, to gently pull the heel of the shoe on the 'longer' leg. Now, when the audience is gathered around, they will clearly see a small difference in the relative positions of the person's two heels. As the healing takes place, the focus of the interest of the audience (and the patient) is on the 'short' leg, so they're not looking at the foot on the long leg as the healer slowly slides the shoe back to its original place, making the 'short' leg apparently grow relative to the long leg.

That is the scam. I'm still not sure if that's what I saw yesterday, but I'm inclining toward believing that that is what was going on.

Its interesting that in all cases, the 'short' leg was made to grow, the 'long' leg was never made to shrink. That would be a harder one to pull off...

What I now find myself wondering is whether it is possible for an entirely genuine person to have stumbled onto a 'technique' which seems to work for people during prayer ministry and remaining entirely unaware that they are perpetuating a fraud. Or is it always a deliberate fraud? In other words, was the guy misguided or a charlatan?

I really don't want to believe the latter, as the guy appreared to be a nice enough guy. And he works in a Church full of good people. But, of course, a good con-artist will never appear to be a con-artist.

There is one way of possible verification, of course. Someone was there yesterday who I know has one leg a bit shorter than the other. She was prayed for by the guy. If her leg did get longer, I'll have to stop being so skeptical. I'll be keeping my eyes open...

---

Due to inexplicable spam on this post, no further comments are being allowed.

Trans-gression

Bear with me on this one, as its a real issue, not like some of my more speculative posts.

There is someone who I interact with on an occasional basis who is going through the transition from female to male. (S)he has already adopted a male name, dresses as a man and will eventually have gender reassignment surgery.

Not that (s)he's the church going type, but I wonder what the various different parts of the church would make of the situation. How would they relate?

You see, until recently she was a heterosexual female with identity issues - the sort of person that many churches would welcome with open arms. He's now going through the transition to being a homosexual male, someone who I imagine would not be half as welcome in most churches.

I'm not quite sure what to do (if anything). WWJD?

Can I wear jeans?

Great idea for a website this. Rather than simply providing a list of churches in any given area, the intention is to get reviews of churches across the world that ask the important questions, like "Can I wear jeans?" - why not review your church online now?

http://caniwearjeans.blogspot.com/

ps Jon, the guy who runs this website also has a funny blog called "Stuff Christians Like"...

Doubtful fame...

Its not often I get named and quoted by preachers in their sermons. And I don't think this blog has ever been advertised in a sermon before. But last Sunday my friend Dave Meldrum (that's him on the right there), who is Associate Minister at St Michaels Southfields in London did both in a sermon entitled 'Living with Doubt'.

You can download it here or subscribe to their podcast.

Very good, well worth a listen.

And it does contain some great insight from Dave's 'friend with a blog' - whoever that is ;o)

Itching ears...

2 Timothy 4v3-4

For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

As I said in my past blog posting, I've been listening to a lot of sermons from The Meeting House church in Canada over the past few weeks. The majority of these are preached by Bruxy Cavey, author of the book I just finished reading, The End of Religion. An excellent book which everyone should read (but more on that in another posting, soon). I'm highly impressed with his preaching and on the way he approaches the bible, Jesus, religion and church. Its great to find a preacher who is interesting, relevant, doesn't shy away from the tricky issues (both in contemporary life and in the bible) and seems to have a real passion for Jesus, while actually agreeing with many of my doubts and questions.

The thing is, have I just found someone who preaches what my itching ears want to hear? Or have these guys got it right? How can you tell?

Creeds and divisions

I'm currently reading 'The End of Religion' by Bruxy Cavey. I'll post a longer article on the book when I'm further into it, but its raised a few issues in my mind which I'll comment on in a few posts here.

In the chapter I read last night, he spoke about the council of Nicaea, the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed in passing. And made two points which I'd never thought of before.

I'd always thought that the point of the creeds was to affirm the common beliefs of Christians, to reinforce our unity in Christ. And I suppose both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles' Creed do this, but go back to 325AD. There were many Christians, each trying to follow Christ in some way or another, and they had some form of communion with each other. OK, so they may not have agreed on every point, but they were all Christians and (as far as I can tell) generally viewed themselves and each other as such. Then the creed was devised and agreed by the majority of folk at the council. This instantly marked a minority of those present as heretics. All of a sudden, two Christians who agree on almost everything relating to how to live and how to worship their Lord are divided. One becomes a heretic, the other is affirmed. Is this a good thing?

Are any of the creeds good things if they underline divisions and separate Christians into two groups, the orthodox and the heretics?

If someone is seeking to follow the example of their Lord, live according to his teachings and is filled with his Spirit, does it actually matter if they consider him to be not of the same substance as the Father or not? I suspect not. And yet, this was one of the things which separated the orthodox from the heretics back then.

Another thing that I had never really noticed about the creeds is that they say nothing about what Jesus said or did during his life on earth. They jump straight from 'born of a virgin' to 'suffered under Pilate' - nothing about Jesus's life at all in there. That seems a bit lacking to me.

The Presbyterian Prayer

I was back in the church that I grew up in again last night. Its a Presbyterian Church of Scotland. And it was particularly stereotypically Presbyterian last night (that's not necessarily a criticism, by the way. The sermon was quite interesting - if a bit hellfire - and the hymns were very rousing...).

The thing that struck me was the prayers.

Despite the fact that the minister has changed since I grew up there, and they have a 'band' playing the music for three of the songs, the format of the service has not changed since I was young:

1. Hymn
2. Prayer
3. Hymn
4. Bible reading
5. Hymn
6. Offering and notices
7. Hymn
8. Sermon
9. Hymn
10. Benediction

OK, so the third hymn was a 'modern hymn' - one of those wordy Stuart Townend ones - but aside from that, the content was pretty much as it would have been in the 70s.

Its only when you go away from a place like this and experience the wider church that you question things when you come back. What I found myself wondering last night was:

Who is the opening prayer for?

The opening prayer at this church, like a great many presbyterian churches I have attended, was a long and wordy thing. Must have been at least 7 or 8 minutes long, maybe more. In most of the churches I have attended since leaving home, the prayers have been shorter. Jesus said explicity that it is not because of long prayers that you are heard. So why is the presbyterian prayer so long?

I found myself thinking about the style and content of the prayer, and I began to question the history of this format of prayer. I'm not saying that the current minister believes this of his congregation, but I wonder if the original idea behind this kind of prayer was to pray on behalf of a congregation who didn't actually do any praying themselves. Faced with a congregation of folk who were just there on a Sunday because that was the done thing, the ministers of old felt the need to do all the praying for the congregation. The thing is, this is definitely not the case of the congregation who were there last night. I've known many of them since birth and they're a prayerful lot. Most of them are at the prayer meeting on Saturday night too. And yet the established pattern is to have this long prayer at the start, which more-or-less contains a second sermon, speaking of the great things of God.

But what does God get out of this? On reflection, I can't help but think that God would rather have more of his people involved in speaking to him, rather than one speaking and eighty sitting there nodding quietly. I'm all in favour of 'open prayer' in a church service setting (not just in the prayer meeting), yet I have rarely experinced this lately (in any church except this one). But I think open prayer in the main service is a long way off in this church, if they ever get there at all.

But of course, no church is perfect, and when we finally achieve perfection is won't be one denomination, but the entire universal church, prepared as a bride... Sometimes that still seems a long way off.

The First Christians

Acts 11v26b

It was at Antioch that the believers were first called Christians.

I must have read that verse loads of times. It always struck me as an interesting footnote in history, but nothing worthy of major study.

But I listened to a sermon from Mars Hill Bible Church the other day on Acts 11 and the preacher (Doug Pagitt) dug into it a bit deeper and asked the one question that I'd never really asked before:

Why?

The disciples had a collective name already before this time, they appear to have been known as followers of 'The Way'. Why should they suddenly gain a new name?

The thing that I'd never really thought about was that there must have been something distinctly different about the disciples in Antioch from the others to merit the use of a new name. These guys were culturally different from the church in Jerusalem, perhaps they did things in a different way from the church in Jerusalem. Perhaps what we see here is the first denominational divide...

The word 'Christian' is based on the word 'Christ' which is a Greek word. Not a Jewish word. There is a cultural difference here. These guys viewed the world in a different way from the Jews, is it too much of a leap to wonder if they did Church in a totally different way? Hence the need for a new name. Hmmm.

But for all that, the next interesting thing is that the first recorded act of this new denomonation was to send aid to the other denomonation. We don't really see this today - sometimes denomonations appear to be rivals rather than simply different parts of the body.

Hell freezes over!

I was at the evening service in the church that I grew up in last night. The church is a 'conservative evangelical' Church of Scotland (Presbyterian) and quite traditional. When I was there, a 'modern hymn' was considered to be anything written after the first world war, and modern 'choruses' were really considered as only fit for the children in the Sunday school to be singing.

When the 'new' minister was inducted in the mid/late 1990s, I predicted that the congregation would be singing 'choruses' within 5 years. It turns out I was wrong. Five years after he took the charge, the music was still firmly grounded in the 19th century. Hymns, organ, that's it.

Imagine my surprise last night to discover not one but three 'choruses' being sung. One of them as even less than 15 years old! (Matt Redman's "I will Offer")

OK, so they still sung them as if they were hymns, but its a step in the direction of the 21st century - and they were even played by a band (piano, guitar, sax, trumpet and even vocals (gasp)).

But for all that, I still felt that the church has a long way to go. The music and sermon were fine and were God centred, but there was no sense of meeting with Him, no sense of an interaction with the Spirit. Which is a shame.

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...

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!

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.