index

High Self Esteem and David Beckham

Mon, 20 May 2013 08:56:09 +0100

So David Beckham is 'hurt' by the fact some people say he'll be remembered more about the brand than the football. Maybe he doesn't have such a high self esteem as we'd thought? You'll know that he's just announced his retirement from the game after being a professional player at the very top of his chosen career. In Alex Ferguson's Man Utd team he won the English Premier League medal six times and the European Champions League medal once. He represented his country 115 times and was captain for a period.

Brand Beckham

During this time, of course, brand Beckham certainly took off, no doubt helped by being married to Spice Girl Victoria. There were the hairstyles, the tattoos, the adverts, and, don't forget, his own cologne. However, having carefully cultivated an image through all this activity he's now concerned about his legacy.

Identity

The thing is few of us are actually able to manage how others see us. As people get to know us they will form an opinion as to who are and what we're like and no amount of public relations will change that opinion once it's formed. It's one of the ways this world can be so cruel because if we're unhappy with how others see us there's not much to be done.

That's why it's so crucial for us to have a positive self-image. When we're happy with who we are then it won't matter what others think. Getting to that place is a bit of journey though, isn't it?

How do you think others see you and does that bother you?

Pentecost Sunday and Church Revival

Fri, 17 May 2013 08:45:27 +0100

With Pentecost Sunday upon us it's time to post my second article on the subject. In last week's post I suggested that the event that is recorded in Acts 2 was not the first ever revival in the church. It's often portrayed as such - mainly because of the three thousand supposed converts. But in my view they weren't converted to anything - though the event was surely a vital one in their lives.

Second Pentecosts

Let me turn today to the second phrase I wanted to challenge: 'church revivals in history are second Pentecosts'. Again I want to say that I disagree with this thinking. The suggestion made by this oft-repeated phrase is that each revival in the history of the church (and there have been many in Wales alone) are somehow repeating what happened in Acts 2. I don't believe this is the case and here's why: Pentecost in Acts 2 was a unique event in history. Just like the crucifixion and resurrection of the Messiah, Pentecost cannot happen again.

Something changed

Something happened on that day that has not been undone and does not need to happen again: the people of God became the temple of his presence. Up until that point they only had his presence with them. That in itself was amazing, of course. On Sinai, in the tent of meeting, in the grand temple at Jerusalem, and most magnificently of all in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the called-out people of God had his presence with them on their journey through history.

But at Pentecost something fundamentally changed. From being a people with the temple of his presence, they became the temple of his presence. I believe this happened over three separate days/events as recorded in Acts 2, 8 and 10 (when Jews, estranged Jews, and Gentiles were given the Holy Spirit). But it cannot happen again. It doesn't need to happen again - it hasn't been revoked.

What do we believe?

Now it's a fair question to ask why we don't see the full power of his presence working in us and through us if the above is true. And I have to be honest and say I don't have an answer. It may well have something to do with the fact that in general the church stopped believing that this was true and began to believe that the temple was associated with buildings again - something that happened partly as a result of Constantine's church building programme. There will be other reasons that we need to identify I'm sure, because we desperately need to be people who make a creation changing difference - though we should never dismiss what is already going on around the world.

As a revival historian I have the utmost respect for the great outpourings in the history of the church. It is not a history that we should dismiss nor forget - though we surely need a correct understanding of what happened. But however great they were - and still are - they were not a second Pentecost.

I pray you will know of God's presence in you this Pentecost Sunday as you celebrate what God did two thousand years ago.

Homosexuality and the Fall of the Roman Empire

Wed, 15 May 2013 08:48:45 +0100

Why has homosexuality become such an issue of concern for Christians? It seems to be a subject that stirs more passion than any other. Let's assume that it is a sin for a moment (not a position I now hold) - why should this sin deserve any more consideration than anything else?

It's a worthwhile question to ask especially because the Bible has relatively little to say about the matter. There are a handful of verses that refer to homosexual acts in the Old Testament; Paul has a couple of references; and Jesus is silent. I fully understand the traditional stance on these verses but still one has to wonder where all the fury comes from.

A danger to society

I want to suggest that the traditional biblical view isn't the only cause of all this consternation. Neither am I willing to just shout 'homophobia' - though there's probably a lot of that in the mix. No, there's more going on here. I'm wondering whether one major factor is the cultural view that somehow homosexuality is a danger to civilisation. It seems to be a common opinion - especially the further along the conservative wing you go - that homosexuality will somehow gnaw away at a civilisation from within, eventually leading to the downfall of a nation.

No doubt many Christians would say that such a view is fully in line with biblical teaching, pointing to verses about 'righteousness exalting a nation' and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Though Sodom isn't about homosexuality at all and the general point about righteousness surely refers to far more than just sexual morality. So again the question has to be asked, why the fury?

The fall of Rome

Could it be that the seed about homosexuality destroying a nation was planted in our collective national mind over two centuries ago? In 1776 the English historian Edward Gibbon first published his The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. During the next few years he was to republish many times - that is, just at the time when the British Empire was being built into the greatest empire the world had ever seen. Gibbon's work was considered a masterpiece in its day - though it is hardly seen as an accurate historical record today. In it he offered his opinion as to why the Roman Empire fell - and one reason presented was homosexuality. This 'sin' claimed Gibbon weakened the empire from within and eventually led to its failure.

Nationalism

Though Gibbon offered many other reasons - including accepting Christianity as an equal religion - it is the homosexuality point that has stuck with us. Type 'reasons for the decline of Rome' into Google and see how many times this issue appears. We may not know the detail of Gibbon's work today - maybe many have not even heard of its existence - but the seed planted is still there.

This is highly speculative on my behalf but I'm wondering whether the anxiety about homosexuality isn't really about sexual morality but is actually grounded in nationalism.

Christian Views on Assisted Suicide

Mon, 13 May 2013 08:39:27 +0100

'Where could the practice end up if the door is opened to it?' is a question on the minds of many Christians as they think of assisted suicide. Today two people are in court seeking judgements on this very issue. Many are concerned about the potential outcomes if the judgements fall in favour of the two, fearing it could lead to a significant change in law as it stands. The 'slippery slope' argument is a powerful one in such matters and in a recent survey conducted by YouGov those Christians who are against a change in the law cite this as a main reason why it shouldn't happen.

Majority favour change

The most fascinating fact in the survey, however, was that most Christians are actually in favour of a change in the law. Among those who self-identify as Anglicans, for example, a whopping 72% supported such a policy (56% RC, 62% Methodist, only Baptists were against, but still by only a 2% margin). Even when it came to those who 'actively participate' in church life there was a majority in favour (Anglican 59-25; RC 44-42; Methodist 49-40). In fact the only group who was opposed among this cohort were the Pentecostals (6-78).

Life is sacred

There was a third category among respondents, those described as 'strictly religious' (conservative probably describes them better) and they were very much against a change - unsurprisingly. The reasons why, however, are worth noting. For those in the middle group (i.e. actively participating rather than self-identifying or strictly religious) it was the slipper-slope argument that was important. So reasons like 'there would be pressure on those who are vulnerable' and 'it places too much burden on those who are ill or on the one doing the assisting' were high on the list. But within the 'strictly' group the top reason given was 'the sanctity of human life' (80% of respondents said this). That is, they look at such social policy issues through the lens of absoluteness. This is good because it ensures that all people are treated the same, since the deciding factor in any such policy for them is what God or the Bible has to say about it rather than what the public mood is at any given time.

Compassion

But there is also a negative to it. Those in favour of a change cite their reasons as being the compassionate desire to stop the 'drawn out suffering' of an individual person. This hardly gets a mention within the 'strictly' cohort, making them appear rather harsh and uncaring of suffering individuals. For them this is a black and white issue - where theology appears to trump compassion. I don't believe they do lack compassion but the absoluteness of their position draws them in this direction.

On a day when two people are hoping the courts will rule in favour of their own assisted suicide this is very much a live issue. And maybe this is how these things should be decided - on a case by case basis where every angle can be evaluated - both the absoluteness of the issue and the suffering of real people. So while the law should stay as it is, it should be applied with compassion and with a detailed understanding of each case.

Pentecost and Revival

Fri, 10 May 2013 08:37:07 +0100

'Pentecost was the first revival in the church / Revivals in the history of the church were second Pentecosts.' I have read and heard these statements many times in my study of Welsh revivals. As we approach this year's Pentecost Festival I want explore whether they are true or not.

The first revival

The idea that the Feast of Pentecost recorded in Acts 2 is somehow the church's first ever revival is a common belief among those Christians whose main interest is revival. The tongues of fire, the quickening of the disciples, but most of all the three thousand converts all point to this being a major revival event in the history of the people of God after Easter. I don't agree and here's why.

The three thousand people who were impacted on that day were not converts - certainly not in the way the word 'convert' is understood and used by revival enthusiasts and most other evangelicals today. The OED offers this definition of the word 'conversion': 'a spiritual change from sinfulness, ungodliness, or worldliness to love of God and pursuit of holiness.'

Devout men

But here's what Acts 2 has to say about these people: 'There were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation - both Jews and proselytes'. There were not unbelievers, nor were they backslidden. They were faithful Jews and they were in Jerusalem in order to celebrate one of the main Jewish festivals. At that point they may not have believed that Jesus was the Messiah - but they believed in a Messiah and they expected him to come. Since they were visitors from other lands to the city they may not have heard about Jesus until that day.

Starting again

If they were so devout why did Peter call upon them to repent? Well for the same reason as Jesus called on his fellow Jews to repent during his ministry: to call his people back to the original vision and purpose God had for them - to be a holy nation that blessed the nations by being a vehicle of his presence. Israel had taken a wrong turn somewhere in its past and missed what God wanted to do in and through them. Jesus tells them, 'Look, in me your King has returned to you and is calling you to fulfil your mission once again. Repent and start afresh.' Peter's message was the same: the Messiah is Jesus, he was killed but he resurrected, now let's start again as God's called-out people. And that's what the three thousand did.

This isn't a revival. It's much bigger than that: it's a re-formation of God's people.

Next week I'll look at the second phrase: 'Historical revivals in the church are second Pentecosts' and suggest that this cannot be true as the original Pentecost was a one-off, never to be repeated event.

Pastor Mark Driscoll and his SUV

Wed, 08 May 2013 09:21:35 +0100

For students of social media it's the perfect Tweet. To the green lobby, however, it's a train wreck - or should that be a car wreck. In less than 140 characters Mark Driscoll has managed to give us a comprehensive insight into his theology. Last week he Tweeted: 'I know who made the environment, He's coming back and going to burn it all up … so yes, I drive an SUV.' Well if nothing else you've got to admire his chutzpah. Let's unpack the Tweet and find out what he believes in.

Praxis

First off, he's making the general point about how theology affects the way we live our lives. We have no arguments with him on this one surely. If you believe that God is in the business of destroying his creation in one final big bang then there's little point in looking after that same creation in the here and now. Drive your SUV and be done with it. We live what we believe.

Burn, baby, burn

Second, he's telling us that creation is doomed. This beautiful planet with all its stunning detail and intricate life forms, it's all going to be destroyed and chucked away. Presumably all those who haven't prayed a particular prayer will be joining creation in this destruction and a few, a lucky few, will find their eternal future secure in a beyond-the-stars heaven. What's good about this news I'll never know for ultimately creation has no value whatsoever.

Absent Father

Third, he's declaring that God is missing from creation. He's coming back mind you, but he's not here today. And his coming back is only temporary. This leave of absence belief is puzzling in the light of Pentecost but nonetheless He's not here and while he's away we can live how we like as far as the planet is concerned.

Connected world

Fourth, outside their eternal salvation he has little concern about people's lives. Harming our environment at home leads to misery for millions in other parts of the planet. Not all environmental disasters are natural - many are man-made. There is also the harming influence of oil security on international relations. But the only question that matters to Driscoll is, 'Are they saved?'

It's all Greek to me

Finally, probably without realising it Driscoll is telling us that his theology is thoroughly dualistic and is actually based in Greek philosophy. Spiritual is good; material is bad. Let the earth burn, for the lucky few will end up in (Plato's) heaven. How close is this to Jesus's Hebrew roots?.

None of us live a life that is totally sensitive to our environment but living it according to this theology can only make things worse.

The Temple

Mon, 06 May 2013 10:04:07 +0100

The Bible begins and ends with a temple. I'll unpack that first phrase a little later but I want to suggest in this post that we can best understand the Bible as a whole by referring to the idea of temple. The temple, or God's dwelling place, is a common thread that runs throughout both Old and New Testaments. It gives us a unifying picture for the totality of the Christian Scriptures.

The cosmos as temple

Let me go back to that opening phrase: the Bible begins … with a temple. It's hardly a new idea, but there is plenty of evidence to suggest that what Genesis 1 is painting is not a picture of how the cosmos was created but why. For the past 200 years or so we have allowed ourselves to be cul-de-saced in a sterile debate about the factual/literal basis of the creation account. Let's make a nifty three-point-turn and find a different street shall we; one that actually goes somewhere?

Genesis 1 is a passage that explains to us that God created the cosmos as a dwelling place for himself. For a detailed explanation of this interpretation you can read John H Walton's The Lost World of Genesis One (2009) or for a much shorter explanation watch this clip of Tom Wright being interviewed for the BioLogos site. Clues as to how we arrive at this conclusion are to be found in the strikingly similar phrases used both in the creation account and the passage from Exodus 39-40 about Moses building the tabernacle. As is clear the tabernacle was the moveable temple of ancient Israel and the language used is so similar to the creation account that it leads some to conclude that Genesis 1 is also referring to the construction of a temple. Another pointer to the creation-as-temple interpretation is the fact that other cultures in the Ancient Near East had made the same link between the cosmos and their own temples. It would appear that this was not an uncommon theme in the region in that period.

Creation restored

If the Bible begins with the creation of a temple for God to dwell in, then it ends with another picture of a temple, this time the eschatological temple descending to the new Jerusalem. The Book of Revelation is, of course, highly symbolic in content but its final chapters talk of a new heaven and a new earth - a re-creation long promised through Israel's prophets (Is 65:17). The traditional thinking about God rescuing some to a beyond-the-stars heaven while abandoning his creation is directly challenged in passages such as these.

A key symbol in Revelation's final chapters is the temple. However, this temple is not to be a physical construction like the temple of old Jerusalem. Rather chapters 21 and 22 paint a picture of God dwelling with his people and filling the new Jerusalem, i.e. the new creation. Just like the original creation, the new is to be God's temple, his chosen place of rest.

God with us in a structure

If the Bible begins and ends with a temple, then what about everything in between? The tabernacle may have been the first constructed meeting place between God and man but long before that we have all those simple places of worship in Genesis. Places where a patriarch lays down a stone on a significant spot and acknowledges God's presence (e.g. Gen 28:18-22). Then there is Sinai - like the temple, divided into three parts: the foot of the mountain, to which the majority of the people were restricted (Ex 19:12); then some distance further the elders were allowed to go (Ex 19:22); and finally the top of the mountain was restricted to Moses himself (Ex 24:2) - a holy of holies where God and man communed.

An immovable stone structure was not what God desired as a dwelling place according to the story (2 Sam 7:1-7) but it was David's desire and God relented. Designed according to the principles of the earlier tabernacle the Temple in Jerusalem was to become a potent symbol of Israel being God's own people. Both structures speak to us of a God who wants to be with his people in creation.

God with us in a person

The same theme is picked up in the New Testament and the person of Jesus - the 'Word who became flesh and dwelt among us' (John 1:14). The verb 'to dwell' in that verse is the Greek for 'pitching a tent' or tabernacle and reminds us of the tabernacle of God's presence in the OT. Jesus now carries the presence of God within creation and it is to this fact that he must surely have been referring when he talked of destroying the temple and rebuilding it in three days (John 2:19).

So far we've noticed how God's presence has gone from filling creation to being in a structure and then to a single person. But at Pentecost things open up again for it is then that the re-constituted people of God are filled with the Holy Spirit and in effect become the temple. G. K. Beale makes a compelling case for interpreting Pentecost as the time when the people of God actually become the temple of his presence. Many of the NT letters take up the theme, with Paul for example, talking about us being 'God's household' and a 'holy temple in the Lord'. That he should say this to the church at Ephesus is particularly relevant since that city was dominated by the Temple of Artemis, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

Conclusion

Undeniably there is a great emphasis on God dwelling within his creation in the Bible. Indeed I believe we would be safe in saying that the cosmos is his dwelling place and was designed and created to be so. It is his mission for it to be so again and in his plan of restoration we his people play a key part. We have become the temple of his presence - through which his restoring work is on-going.

This post first appeared on the BigBible site.

Noel Moules on Identity

Fri, 03 May 2013 08:13:32 +0100

'I am Fran, why do I have to be anything else?' This is a question Noel Moules introduces us early on in his book Fingerprints of Fire … Footprints of Peace. It comes as part of a story about a multi-faith group discussing peace. Part of the discussion involves people sharing about themselves, with one person saying they're a Christian, another saying they're a Buddhist etc. This is when one person - Fran - interjects with the above comment.

Who am I?

Noel Moules begins his book about our spiritual journey and how it affects the world around us, therefore, with the issue of identity: who am I? It is a crucial question as who we are affects our environment more than anything we do. Indeed what we do comes out of who we are.

We are reminded by Noel that God introduced himself to Moses with the phrase 'I am who I am'. 'This means God's identity is only found within itself. It doesn't depend on any other source.' If God is like this, says Noel, then why should we be any different? This was certainly true of Jesus whose 'sense of identity was striking'. He was entirely comfortable talking to the chief priests in Jerusalem and to the lowest beggar in Galilee. It culminates in his ability to lay everything down and serve others - from washing his disciples' feet to his death on the cross.

From this place of strong identity - independent of all that he had and all others wanted to put on him - he was able to change the world. This is our calling and it begins with our identity.

A challenge

To many this isn't much of a challenge. They know who they are and it is not determined by anything outward. But for some of us this is a real trial. Our identity is bound up with all kinds of externals and for a sense of wellbeing we find ourselves dependent on job, title, relationship and so on. This has certainly been my experience which is why I find Fran's question so testing: Why do I have to be anything else other than myself?

Is this your experience too? How have you dealt with it?

Noel Moules, Fingerprints of Fire … Footprints of Peace: A spiritual manifesto from a Jesus perspective (Circle Books: 2012). I shall be blogging on the book on a regular basis.

The Welsh Revival: What Happened Next

Wed, 01 May 2013 08:40:04 +0100

The Welsh Revival of 1904-05 was one of the most important outpourings of the Holy Spirit in the history of the church in Wales. Tens of thousands were impacted and gave their lives to Christ and the churches were stirred with a passion that had not been seen for a generation.

What happened next?

But what happened when the revival ended? How did the leaders of the churches that were so affected react to the aftermath of revival?

This is what I tackle in my new ebook (9500 words). It forms part of the research I conducted during my MTh degree at Bangor University and tells the story of how the leaders felt in the years 1906-1914.

Available on most e-reader formats. Click here for more details.

Christian Church Leaders and Control

Mon, 29 Apr 2013 09:17:35 +0100

We know (don't we?) that religion isn't about keeping the rules but about our relationship with God in Jesus. Why is it then that most church leaders have the personality of the enforcer? The news comes from a recent survey of 80,000 people worldwide. Apparently they completed one of these psychometric tests and of those who identified themselves as 'religious workers' most found themselves to be an 'enforcer' type.

Angels and judges

The survey - from MoralDNA - categorises people into a number of categories, e.g. angel, judge, enforcer, according to their personality. If you're an angel you're caring; if you're a judge you like for everything to be done right. If you're an enforcer you're the one who makes sure the others are keeping to the rules. The person responsible for these tests, a Roger Steare, commented on this finding, "Generally speaking, there is a leader to whom you are answerable. Dissent is frowned upon. Even though they care more than average, they are more obedient than many. Obedience will overcome that sense of care."

Shaped and shaping

Now you'd think that most church leaders would fall into the angel category, all caring for the flock etc. So why isn't this so? Is there something about church that attracts people who tend to want to help others keep the rules? And what shapes what - does the leader shape the church, or is the church shaping its leaders? Of course many dismiss these tests as bunkum and as having no value, but it's interesting nonetheless.

What do you think? Is your church run by led by an enforcer?