Abolishing the Law

An ex-New College friend of mine asked me if I could do a follow up to the blog „A Christian Land“, a comparison of the laws, attitudes and behaviour of the English, when measured against the ten commandments. [click for link].

He suggested that I might use Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5 – 7), as the basis of a similar comparison. So far, I have failed to distil the Sermon on the Mount to a few essential points (12 or less is my rule), but I am open to suggestions. However, I was inspired to reread these three chapters and as usual was struck by a couple of points that I had not previously noticed.

In the initial part of the sermon, Jesus states that all those who are normally pitied, despised or sneered at in the world, are the possessors of the Kingdom of God.  We are mostly familiar with that. He lists nine types of people, whom we might feel sorry for, keep our distance from, or if we admired them, would never really wish to emulate them. Plenty of room for all kinds of discussion here.

After a four verse filler, He then moves on to tell his listeners that He had not come to abolish the law and the prophets.

I was curious about this in two respects. In the first instance, I am not sure why he was telling his listeners this. They were not concerned about the law and the prophets. They wanted to be freed from the Romans. Their interest was very worldly. In their eyes, the job of the Messiah was to deliver them from the Romans. He was to become King of the earthly Kingdom, Israel. Who better to do this than someone who could perform all kinds of miracles?

So if the crowds turned up for reasons, such as seeing or even participating in miracles and hopefully seeing someone who would lead them against the Romans, they would have been firstly disappointed and then surprised at what they heard. It was like nothing that they had heard before. Matthew 7.28, 29 tells us that the crowds were astonished at His teaching. I am not surprised.

As for not coming to abolish the law and the prophets, in one sense that is exactly what He had come to do. The Old Covenant with all its rituals and regulations was never effective, in any spiritual sense, in being able to draw people nearer to God.

However, as one reads on through the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus barely touches on ceremonial law. Where He does, He describes how the current practice was unspiritual (e.g. fasting), and in some cases (e.g. making an oath), He said that it would be better if it were not done at all. Jesus did not so much abolish the ceremonial law, as just ignore it. It was irrelevant.

In a sense, Jesus made a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law, without directly stating this. Like so many of His statements, He regarded it as self-evident and it did not require an explicit statement.

For the most part, He expanded considerably on some moral laws, how we should behave towards each other. (“e.g. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”), where the standard is raised very high.

The crowds may have been amazed, but everyone deserted Him at the end and may even have been part of the crowd that shouted “Crucify Him”. He wasn’t going to free them from the Romans. They were comfortable with their ritual and certainly did not want to love their enemies. He simply wasn’t what they wanted.

So if He wasn’t talking to the crowds, as their interest was very transitory, who was He talking to? Is it obvious? I am not sure. Perhaps He was talking to us and the spiritual laws that He explained were for our benefit. These can be pretty hard to take, difficult to understand, and on many occasions, contrary to our experience.

The Church of England can debate world peace and whether women may become bishops. I don’t think that this is what Jesus meant when He said that we should be the light of the world. Perhaps the ceremonial and theoretical are always easier to debate and practice than the spiritual.

Peter’s Step of Faith

I had set myself a small project to look up the references to “The Kingdom of Heaven” or the “Kingdom of God”, in the Book of Matthew (the first book in the New Testament). As so often happens with this type of project, you start with one objective and end up seeing something else.

Anyway, I was reading the passage in Chapter 14 and story of Pete and Jesus walking on the water a few weeks ago (verse 22) [click for link].  For those of you unfamiliar with this passage (and I assume that really this is none of you), I shall attempt to summarise.

Jesus had just finished feeding the five thousand, starting with only five loaves and two fish, ending up with 12 baskets of leftovers – You must know that story. His disciples got into a boat to go to the other side, but Jesus decided to take a short cut, by walking across the lake – yes – you remember it now, don’t you.

Peter, on seeing Jesus, decided that it might be a pretty cool idea to join Jesus on the water. So naturally, (cutting a long story short), he stepped on to the water, promptly found himself up to his knees in water. Peter cried out for help, whereupon Jesus took him by the hand and they returned to the boat.

The usual thoughts on this are a mixture of limited amount of praise for the initial act of faith. Actually to me it looks on the surface like an act bravado or stupidity? – How would you have advised him to do this, if he had asked your opinion? “Oh yes – this sound like a pretty good idea – let’s all drown”.

It is not clear to me what Peter’s motivation was and I do not recollect having heard any ideas on this. Whatever it was, it was an individual one. Perhaps he had been drinking too much Galilean coffee and had a caffeine rush. Perhaps he was just plain impulsive (and there is some evidence that his character was of this nature). Perhaps it was just something that he wanted to do.

Perhaps he wanted to put Jesus to the test to see if his faith in Jesus was really justified. Peter might trust Jesus, but could he trust himself to know what he should do here?

But Peter’s motivation in leaving the boat was not initially my central observation. Rather it was the view we have formed of Peter’s cry for help, on seeing what he can got himself into.

Commentators are very patronising about Peter in this story. He cried for help, when he saw the wind and waves after which he began to sink. I was struck by the commentary in my bible, which said that Peter had only “beginning faith”, whatever that means. (I don’t like the commentary in my bible anymore – If “Beginning Faith” means that you step out on to the water in the middle of the storm, this will do for me).

Well, of course, he began to sink and had the water up around his knees. There was a storm going on. And of course, he cried for help. What was he supposed to do? (“Jesus, I think that I am going to drown, but that’s fine by me”). Even if he had been looking direct at Jesus (which is the normal lesson of this story), he would still have seen the waves.

My thought here is that he sank or at least thought that he was sinking, not because of lack of faith – whether he sank or not was Jesus’ doing. The extent or lack of his faith was shown in his response, in crying ”Oh Lord, save me”. Is this a good cry or not? Is it an example to follow or not? Did this show faith or lack of it? If he had had more faith, then what would his response have been?  Would a man of more faith have been silent?

But I have been here before [click here] with another story involving storms.

But back to the opening point. Why did he do this in the first place? His motivation was probably a combination of a number of the possibilities that I put forward. And what equivalent events is this meant to represent in our lives? If Peter was just putting Jesus to the test, it seems that there is little to be learned from this. Equivalent might be: “I think that I will run across this motorway to see what happens”. Putting God to the test for its own sake was something for Jesus rebuked the Devil in the temptations in the wilderness.

But putting God to the test for something that has purpose or meaning is another question. We could wait for God to tell us what to do. Sometimes we need out own convictions to show us where to go. But we worry (not unnaturally) that I might be wrong (“The waves”). Suppose that I have deceived myself (“The wind”).

The decision was Peter’s. He had the conviction and the (beginner’s!!??) faith to do this, and despite the wind and the waves, Jesus kept him and brought Peter back to the boat.

Two Thousand Years is a Long Time

I am going to take another diversion, to add yet another blog in between my Core Beliefs and to build the suspense. This time, I am going to tread on unusually dangerous and uncertain territory.

The thoughts / problems of unfulfilled prophecies had been running around in my mind (as well as the more general sludge that swirls around inside my head). Prophecy, whether fulfilled or unfulfilled is an interesting pastime for many. What would it like to be able to tell the future?

It could be for gain, to know the stock-market, or the results of horseracing, or out of curiosity about one’s own life (not a good idea in my opinion). Even if not taken seriously, it is a way of passing some time around the dinner table.  There is a whole industry of horoscope telling, fairground fortune tellers, astrologers and others with which I am not familiar or knowledgeable, except to ignore or steer clear of them. (Is Mystic Meg still around?)

I could also imagine a sense of power over others in knowing the future, especially when it concerns disaster. The image of the windswept Prophet in the desert, announcing doom and destruction, is a powerful one. (Have you noticed that they are never skinny weedy types and normally very hairy, so no chance for me here).

The Bible has its own history of prophecy, quite naturally. Well, what would you expect? God uses his prophets to speak to His people and to other nations of the consequences of their actions. On occasions, specific events are foretold (Isaiah and Cyrus). In other cases, passages in the Old Testament are used to demonstrate general prophecies about the life and nature of Christ.

In the New Testament, Christ talks about his Second Coming, a time when He comes again, to call His people and when all men will see Him. After this comes the end of earth and the end of time.

Christ told his disciples that they would see this happen in their lifetime. The letters written by Paul and other apostles reinforce this same point. This was something they should expect and for which they should prepare before they die. Christ describes some of the events that will occur in the Last Days. 

Throughout the last two thousand years, books have been written interpreting historical events, past and present, to show how the Second Coming is imminent. The Church teaches that these events are about to happen. Furthermore, we are to act in accordance with this and Christ himself taught his followers to live as though He were about to come again.

So have the Christians of the last two thousand years been living under a deception? We are instructed to believe something that is not going to happen, in order to have a reason to behave in a particular way. This certainly seems like a deception, even if it is for good reason. And most Christians do not seem to worry about this, because it is believed that this time it really is going to happen. The political “Signs of the Times” and general world chaos are seen as pointing this way.

So as you might have guessed that this blog puts forward an alternative proposition on prophecies and leans in a different direction (But of course, in keeping with Grumpy’s brother’s general policy, without conviction). It is not the thought of whether it really is going to happen this time that occupies me. It is rather that if Christ (or a prophet in another part of the Bible) makes a prophecy which did not come true for a particular generation, then what is the purpose of that part of the Bible?

If Christ’s prophecy about His second coming has been valid for every generation of the last 2,000 years, then these stories could have an alternative and direct meaning, unless it was always Christ’s intention that people should believe something that was not going to happen in their lifetime.  

To put it another way, a part of the New Testament might look like a prophecy about the last days. These events might or might not happen in my lifetime, but if they do not, then the passage must have some other meaning, an alternative meaning for me, to use in my lifetime. Perhaps it is about the immediate future or even the present.

Christ often misled his listeners, even his own disciples. “Beware the leaven of the Pharisees”, he said, leaving his listeners reeling in confusion about the subject matter, and making them feel ignorant for not understanding what he meant. I will not repeat here what I wrote in the Blog “Changing the conversation” [click forlink]

So what are we to make of Jesus’ prophecies on end of the world?  Matthew 24, 25 [click for link]  It hasn’t happened, but the passage has some relevance. Assuming that we are not intended to act on a deception, the story of Christ coming again with his angels (for example) must have some current meaning for us.

What that meaning is, is for us to find out.  Perhaps He has already come and we were just looking in the wrong direction?

 

Is the work that we do for God special?

I wonder what people make of St. Paul or how would they describe him? A tireless and energetic missionary and worker for God, perhaps. In our minds, we might put him at the top of a league table of Christian Saints. Perhaps there is a special place in heaven for him and others like him, near to God’s seat. We certainly admire his work. He seemed to have limitless energy, always on the move, preaching both to the Christians and non-Christians. He was always looking for new countries and places where God’s word had not been preached, and he himself boasts (albeit in an ironic sense) of his achievements. Even when imprisoned, he preached to his guards.

As if that were not enough, he wrote many of the letters of the New Testament (some of which were written while in prison), which expressed and crystallised the doctrine of being righteous before God by having faith in Jesus Christ. 

There will be other Christians, whose work we may admire. Some of these may be historical figures, who took Christianity to a new land or founded an order.

They may still be alive, perhaps people from our own church or simply well-known Christian figures. We admire these people. They might be given as example of lives to be copied and we may have been encouraged to emulate them.

Most of our lives are much more humdrum. Families, spouses and partners, children, mortgages, jobs, money, children’s education, trips to doctors and so on. We feel disheartened when we simply do not have the time, energy or motivation to do what is necessary to emulate these examples that have been given to us. Perhaps we even feel a sense of guilt that we should be doing something else. Or perhaps we feel that we should be sacrificing more time and money to God’s work and we stand accused by our consciences and by the Bible, the very book that is meant to encourage us.

I am not sure exactly how we arrive at this point. The Old Testament lay very few obligations on the People of Israel, except to love and obey Him, although, having said that, they were largely incapable of doing even these two things.

The New Testament seems to lay more specific obligations on Christ’s followers. Go and spread the Good News is a command of Christ to his followers, and the Letters of the Apostles lay down a number of regulations for Church and Christian life.

We take these to heart and feel the constant inadequacy of our own efforts, through the distractions of daily life, despite the knowledge of forgiveness.

I am not sure why feelings of guilt and inadequacy form such a large part of the thinking and emotions of the Church or at least the protestant church. I suppose as sin, judgement and repentance forms such a large part of the protestant church’s message and teaching, it is hardly surprising that we regard ourselves in this way.

So how is all this measured “at the end of the day” (as footballers say as a standard phrase) and anyway, does God regard work done in His name more highly than that done by, well, a Banker?

As a different but related question, is the relationship closer between God and one of his people where that person is doing God’s work?

I need to declare a personal interest here. I am from the banking profession, which is now regarded, with some justification, by the general public and press, as something not far removed from the mafia or prostitution. Being concerned solely with money, the very substance of the “world”, it is about distant from God’s work as can be done, even when it is being done legally.

So after all the weighing up and “refining” has been done, how does God assess the value of work? Certainly the work done processing banking customers’ orders and improving the operational flows of my area doesn’t seem to score highly on this score.

Perhaps the purpose of our secular lives is to provide context in which we find God. We find Him in the humdrum or at least, Gods reveals himself to us in the humdrum. If this is the case, then this humdrum stuff is pretty important. We can look for God in the day-to-day. God is to be found in the “world” (perhaps even in banking).

Finding God in the world has one major difference over finding Him in religious activity. It is just you and Him. There is no “spiritual” noise or second hand religious views.

But exactly what He says to us is for us to find out, but only if we listen.

 

Peace on Earth

Barak Obama has been in office for nearly four years now and I recollect being struck by part of one of his early speeches as President. The part that I remembered went something like “…and peace on earth, which is God’s will for all men”.

I had been meaning to write something about this for some time now, but had not got around to it, until earlier this year, when The Church of England held its annual conference (“Synod”).

I do not remember the specific nature of the Synod debate, which I only followed for a few minutes. However, in that time, I was reminded how divided the Protestant Church is, or at least appears to be, on so many questions. The particular thought that struck me at the time was Church Unity. The members will, no doubt, have prayed for Church unity, which they will have regarded as self-evidently God’s will. This brings me back to Barak Obama.

Christians would probably consider both matters to be “God’s Will” (“Peace on Earth” and “Church Unity”) and as self-evident. Obama has biblical back-up for his statement (although there is a large amount of empirical evidence against it), with, for example, the Angel Gabriel’s announcement to the Shepherds, on the birth of Jesus. In this case, Gabriel added “peace to all men,….with whom He is well pleased”.

If these two matters are God’s will, then He is not having much success at the moment. Actually it is questionable whether He has ever had much success in these areas. There are plenty of other examples.

Of course, it is right to pray about these matters, but looking at the history books, one wonders why there is so little external success. The 20^th century set a historical record when it came to deaths and suffering in wars, under dictators of various kinds. The 21^st Century so far has some way to catch up, but there is plenty of time yet.

My purpose here is not to discuss the effectiveness or otherwise of prayer, rather to make the observation that God does not seem to be involved in these areas. I baulk at suggesting that He might be indifferent as to the outcome (Jesus made almost no comments about the secular set-up of the world). And we hesitate to think that they are not God’s will, but if they are not, then what is His Will?

I tread on very difficult and dangerous territory here. Christians spend a lot of energy praying about these and other matters, and then apologising for God and making excuses for Him (and blaming themselves), whether these are in relation to personal matters and matters that touch us directly or whether these are general matters in the world at large.

As citizens of this world, we attach a great deal of importance on what goes on generally. But what if we have misunderstood the nature of this world? What if this world is only context for our own lives?

He created us for his own pleasure and not the other way around. He has chosen us, and not the other way around. My thought is that in praying for matters that matter to us, but never happen, we fail to understand the nature of God’s purpose. I am not sure that I know what His purpose is, but it does not appear to be Peace on Earth or Church Unity.

So I’m looking somewhere else. While I am trying to find out what my job here on earth is, I remind God (very humbly, you understand) that some things are His job and that if He doesn’t do them, then I am not trying either.

There’s a cop-out for you.

 

Changing the Conversation

I am told that women can hold more than one conversation at a time when talking with each other. They can effortlessly slip between topics, without any signal as to the change in the topic. Men on the other hand, have to signal the subject in rather heavy handed and obvious ways, such as “To change the subject….” Or “Going back to what we were talking about earlier,…..”

I am told that a woman would regard such statements as totally unnecessary and you have to admit that the elimination of all these unnecessary signposts has a certain efficiency.

So it is no wonder that Jesus’ disciples, being all male, and other onlookers (mostly male) had such trouble on occasions in following his train of thought.

For example, Jesus and His disciples were at the temple at Jerusalem. The Jewish leaders asked Jesus what sign He would give them. Jesus said “Destroy this temple and in three days, I will raise it” (John 2.19 – (click for link)  Now Jesus was referring to His own body and everyone else thought that He was talking about the temple building.

On another occasion, the disciples were hungry and had no bread. This was just after the feeding of the four thousand, and the Jewish leaders (Pharisees) were demanding a sign from Jesus. Jesus told his disciples to “Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees.” Matthew 16.6 (click for link)

Once again there was confusion as to the subject of this statement, with the disciples thinking that this had something to do with food and Jesus, actually referring to the teaching of the Pharisees.

In John 4, Jesus was talking to a Samaritan woman and the disciples reminded Him to eat. Jesus tells them that He has food that they do not know about. They assume that he is talking about food (and why wouldn’t they?), when Jesus is talking about His relationship to God (“My food is to do the will of Him who sent me”). (verses 31 - 38)

Generally, Jesus became a bit annoyed with them, asking why they were discussing the fact that they had no bread.

On the other hand, you would have thought that the disciples would have become somewhat irritated at having Jesus change the subject. I would have been. After all, if they were talking about one thing, why did He have to change the subject or be so obtuse in his answer? I certainly would not have followed these conversations, and would have gone back to reading my newspaper.

It is one thing to tell parables and stories, so that some people “hearing, will not understand”, but it is another thing to confuse His own disciples.

Of course, I am assuming that it was deliberate and that He knew the effect it would have, but I don’t have any single good thought as to why He did this.

He was certainly single-minded. His passion was the Kingdom of God, to the exclusion of all else, and perhaps that is all He thought and spoke about. Not a lot of small talk here. He wouldn’t have been great dinner table company, if you had wanted to talk about the 2012 Olympics or if you did, He would no doubt turn the subject around.

He was not greatly concerned about the day to day things that concern and pre-occupy us (and me), nor was He greatly impressed by grand buildings and the earthly order of things.

Perhaps He was also trying to keep the thoughts of His disciples focussed. It could have been a type of rebuke. What was implied is “Why are you talking about these things? Why are you concerned about them?”

You would have thought that, with such a one track mind, and religion at that, he would have been the party bore, with people trying to avoid him. But the opposite seems to have the case. People were drawn and attached to him, whether for a good argument to defend the status quo or for people looking for alternative ideas to the poverty of the current religion practices, or just plain curious.

Would He have the same effect now if He were here or are people just indifferent to religion? With His one track mind, would He find a way to capture people’s interest?

But I have strayed into another subject, as usual. It’s time for me to close this blog and get something to eat.

 

A Christian Land

I think that it was the Prime Minister, David Cameron, who, on the occasion of the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, back in December 2011, reminded his listeners of the influence of this Book in the culture and laws of the land (“…. shaped our country….” and “… we are a Christian country…”)

More recently in one of my blogs, as an aside, I asked if my readers if they could remember the Ten Commandments and in particular, if you could remember their order. (Exodus 20 – link)

Without wishing to enter into the debate as to the accuracy of David Cameron’s words or have a debate on the nature of a Christian country, I thought that I would have a crack at looking at these commandments and seeing how they are practiced in the life of the country.

To get the positive side, you need to start in the second half of the Ten Commandments.

Commandments numbers 6, 8 and 9 are directly applicable. You shall not kill (No. 6); you shall not steal (No. 8) and you shall not bear false witness (No. 9). Perjury is still a criminal offence, even if it seems a somewhat strange commandment to have in your top ten.

So that is three out of ten. What about the rest. Let’s finish the lower part of this group of ten (Numbers 5 to 10).

There are two “family commandments”. Honour your mother and father (No. 5) and you shall not commit adultery (down at No. 7). I have no statistics on the first one. It is not enshrined in law or the culture in any way. Most people make efforts to maintain a close relationship with their parents, although I am not sure whether this has anything to do with “our being a Christian Country”. At least there are no laws saying that we should despise our parents, so 1/2 point for this one. 

No comment is necessary from me regarding Number 7, except to note that most people would regard a law criminalising or attaching any sort of blame to adultery, as being at the very least uncharitable and uncaring and quite possibly unchristian. The “I can do whatever I want to” culture that describes a large part of the English culture sits very comfortably with this.

I should try to deal with Number 10, which is about coveting, or rather “not coveting”. This is a slightly tough one, if only because it is not a word used very much these days. We are not supposed to covet or “wish longingly for” (per the American Heritage Dictionary) anything that belongs to our neighbour.

I am not sure that I have ever wanted to have the specific object that was currently owned by (say) my neighbour or a friend. I have been encouraged to think about acquiring something that I had not considered before. Actually taking it, covered by Number 8 (stealing) and taking your neighbours wife is already dealt with under Number 7 (Adultery).

But Commandment Number 10 here looks at the emotions of “wanting” something that we have seen elsewhere, and tells us that this is wrong.  It tells us to be satisfied with what we have. If that is the case (and I not sure that it is), then there is not much public data as to how much “coveting” goes on in England. It is said that we are “a consumerist society”, so I would assume that quite a lot of “coveting” goes on, so I am going to give us a zero for this one.

So we are left with this first four. This is unfortunate as they are all to do with God / Religion and England is not a very religious country. I will continue as I started and work backwards.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Number 4). I exaggerate the point when I say that this has been transformed to “The Sabbath shall a day of shopping”. For most people, Sunday is still a day when we do not have to go to work, and the buses do not all run on a Sunday, so maybe 1/2 a point for this one.

Number 3 reminds us not to take God’s name in vain. Definitely no points here. At least 80% of the population, who regularly use a variety of expletives, religious and secular to cover eventualities, such as hitting thumbs with hammers or missing a train or just as additional words to be used in normal everyday sentences. Furthermore, any laws to forbid and punish the use of such words would be regarded as laughable and probably an infringement of our civil liberties.

Number 2, “You shall not make a graven image (of God)…….” perhaps just does not apply. As most people in England have no particular belief in God, it is hard to see how they might make a graven image. I will assume that this applies mainly to those who recognise Commandment Number 1, “You shall have no other God besides me”).

The statistics on church-going show that England as a nation in slow but steady religious decline. What it does not tell us, is what people believe privately. The 2001 census in the U.K. indicated that just less that 50% of people believed in God. Presumably this means that nearly 50% of the population does believe in God. I think that this is good enough for half marks on numbers 1 and 2.

So all in all, that makes 4 ½  marks out of ten. Teacher says “England could do better, if he (or she) tried.”