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.”

More Moaning

I like having a moan. You have probably worked that out for yourself, if you read the earlier blog on the subject of moaning. [Click for Link]

Not real complaining, you understand. Not real constructive complaining that is designed to lead to some kind of useful outcome, such as getting your money back, a better table at a restaurant or just an apology. No, just background moaning and muttering about usual things that cannot be changed, such as the English weather, the English football team and the neighbour’s dog that doesn’t stop barking.

In that blog, I stated that I was, at least partly, on the side of the moaners. A further point occurred to me as I was writing this earlier blog, that all the moaning and grumbling of the People of Israel in wilderness was directed at the wrong target. I had wanted to include this random thought which was charging around inside my head, but a limit of 800 words for a blog imposes some restrictions.

For the most part during the journey out of Egypt and their wanderings in the wilderness, the People of Israel, when the going got a bit tough, complained to Moses. Why Moses? What had he done? He was just the messenger and of course, like so many messengers, he was the one who was shot at.

So why didn’t they take their complaint direct to God?

For a kick-off, Moses was the natural “complaints department”. Of course, he was the guy giving out the instructions and was the man on the spot. They obviously thought Moses was the right intermediary. They presumable believed that he had it within his power to sort these problems out.

Perhaps they believed that Moses himself was the “fixer”. If the problem wasn’t resolved, then it must have been his fault. It might explain why they became restless when Moses disappeared up Mount Sinai for longer than expected. “Moses has done a runner. Let’s have a tribal symbol” and promptly made the Golden Calf.

Moses was at a disadvantage, being the nearest target to hand. The People of Israel’s understanding of God seemed to be so minimal or even non-existent, that their complaint would be directed at the most obvious and visible cause. Moses brought us here. He must be part of the problem and he must solve this.

In one sense, they might have been correct, if you can imagine that they had never caught on to the fact that God was behind this whole adventure in the first place. The more you think about it, the more natural, if incorrect, this becomes. They just never saw beyond Moses, just as we, by the way, often do see beyond the church.

I know that most of the readers of this blog would turn to God, in difficult circumstances or in a serious situation, for example in the situation of a threatened lost job (which is fairly topical and painful at the moment). However, most people would not think of this. They would rant and rave, at the most obvious target e.g. the employer, government etc. If God does not really feature in their thinking, then He will not be asked. People end up trusting in things that they can see or have made themselves.

But I am straying as usual, so back to the main story. As you may have worked out by now, one of my thoughts is that the People of Israel never really believed in this God person at all and believed that this was all Moses’ doing. The Old Testament prophets later explain this in terms that they “hardened their hearts against God”. I find this interesting as it is described as a deliberate act by the People of Israel. The Old Testament prophets assert that the People of Israel made a choice not to believe and look to God. There is no cop out here, “Oh, we didn’t understand” was not a defence that stood up in God’s eyes.

Finally, it is worth looking at the great complainer, Job. The book of Job, in the Old Testament is just before the Psalms [link to Job]. Job’s complains of God’s dealings with him (which were pretty harsh) and his so-called “friends”, tell him of some wrong-doing that he must have committed, and that he should repent of these unspecified sins. Job rebukes them and says that his complaint is to God (Job: Chapters 26 – 31)

My point here, if there is a point, is that Job did at least get the target of his complaint correct. It was to God himself, who reveals himself to Job, puts Job in his place and then restores him to his previous health and cirmcumstances. (Job 38 – 42) Click for Link 

If you are going to complain, then at least get the target right. Complain to God himself.

Something Moral

In my general wanderings of religious and spiritual thoughts, I ought to say to say something about Morals / behaviour. You can tell that I am not convinced. I think that this is a topic that someone else suggested. It certainly was not on my original list, which must say something about me and my views.

It has often been suggested that one reason why “Religion is a good thing” is that it makes people behave better. Apart from religion-based civil wars, this is probably true, although I am not sure how I like the idea of a “deception-based” code of behaviour. “If you don’t clean your teeth tonight, they will fall out in the morning”, may be effective as a way of enforcing bedtime discipline in the short term, but has long-term effects on credibility.

But we like rules. This might be a particularly English thing. We sometimes pretend we don’t, but faced with a social problem (e.g. litter or dogs chasing swans), there are calls for rules. We don’t necessarily like keeping to them, and there is a great deal of special pleading: “Those don’t apply to me in these circumstances” and motoring seems to bring out the “special pleading” in the English.

Leaving all that aside, when it comes to morals, I am not on very good ground. Although, I am not a serial criminal, fraudster or otherwise serially dishonest, I cannot point to a string of good deeds, or even individual ones for that matter, and say that I did these. Having made that personal disclaimer (i.e. do as I say, not as I do), we can get on with the subject.

The whole things starts, I suppose, with the Ten Commandments. Hands up, those of you who can recite all ten. All Ten. (Add an additional 10 points, if you get the order correct). Hands down – not many of you then.

Apart from the Ten Commandments, and a lot of instructions on how to build temples and arks and which food could be eaten or not eaten, we do not get a lot of specific help from the Old Testament on these points.

This is not entirely true. Leviticus, the third book in the Bible (click here) has a large amount of ritual and ceremonial law, which does not seem very relevant today. However, some moral laws are embedded in here (although how you determine which is ceremonial and which is moral is not always as clear as you might think).

However, a general theme emerges in the Old Testament of what it means to obey God and follow Him in a practical way. As this only appears from time to time, you have to pay attention.  A blog from March earlier this year, [click here] describes some of behaviour that God requires from us, and these are very general “Love Mercy, not Sacrifice”. (A bit like “Drive Safely”, as opposed to “Do not drive faster than 30 mph”)

The Book of Proverbs (somewhere is the middle of the Bible, just after the Psalms) [click here] gives a huge amount of specific moral advice in the form of what is wise and sensible, rather than as a set of rules. It sets out these pieces of advice in the form of “Actions” and “Consequences”, with consequences being of both the earthly and eternal varieties (but mainly earthly).

But the New Testament is more specific. The New Testament gives us plenty of instructions on these points, for example on the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 [click here]. For example, we are to give to him who begs; we must not think bad things about someone else; we must love our enemies.

On the other hand, later there is the statement that we should love our neighbour as ourselves, followed immediately by the famous parable of “the Good Samaritan”. This is fairly general and it is left to us how to interpret this, but it seems a pretty high target to me.

Then of course, there is Jesus’ encounter with the young rich man, who wished to obtain eternal life and was told to sell all he had, to give the money to the poor and follow Jesus. (Mark 10.17)  [clickhere]

These are daunting statements and if not daunting, then at least puzzling– well, at least I find them puzzling. What are we to make of them? We do our best to wriggle out of taking this literally. (We are in trouble if we do take them literally, but we wrestle with the English tendency to take rules literally, before finding a reason why they do not apply to us – see above)

Then, the letters of the Apostles contain large numbers of moral rules. For example, the Book of James [click for link] reads in parts is fairly angry tirade against breaches of moral rules and he warns of the punishment to come, especially against Bankers (well, sort of against Bankers).

As a final and completely disconnected point, there are some community “rules”, which are made for our own individual and joint benefit. Preserving Sunday as a “Day of Rest” is for our individual and Man’s overall benefit. We have made it into a “Day of Shopping”, although this does not appear to have brought down fire from heaven, at least not yet (or has it?)

A blog with no conclusion, I’m afraid.

Something about Eternal Life – Core Belief Number 11

I suppose that no set of religious beliefs would be complete without some thoughts on what happens in the hereafter. What happens when we die? In that respect, this becomes Core Belief number 11.

Earlier this year, Martin Mosse challenged me to describe my views on “What’s it all about?” So far I have made two attempts to start it. At the second attempt, I made more headway, but it is still definitely “Work-in-Progress”, but let me have a third attempt.

I guess that the starting point has to be that I believe that something happens when we die. It is not all over. To expand this statement, we continue in some form, although what that form is, is a matter of considerable debate, even in the inner workings of Grumpy’s brother’s mind.

If there were no after-life, then almost every prophet and writer in both the Old and New Testaments would be wrong on this point, in which case we can throw the Bible away and start looking for inspiration on the back of Cornflakes packets. The prophets and writers all indicate some form of after-life.

Secondly, this after-life involves seeing God in some way. I do not know what this means exactly, and I cannot imagine what form or shape God takes. But I’ll leave this statement as it is, with all its ambiguities and unknowns.

Thirdly, this after-life involves some form of comprehension of “What it has all been about” (to misquote Martin Mosse), a moment when it all seems so obvious and when we recognise that that much or most of what we believed beforehand will seem to be ridiculous.  

Fourthly, I believe that the Earth as we know it will not play any part in our after-life. Whether the earth and universe etc. will carry on or not or the whole universe closed down as having served its purpose, I don’t know. But it was only context in the first place. (It does seem such a profligate waste, doesn’t it.)

On this point though, the evidence from the Bible leaves me reeling in terms of possibilities. I will not try to justify this particular belief from the Bible, as there are other views, probably all equally supportable from the Bible. So I will stick with my personal preconceptions and prejudices.

Of course, the question that preoccupies us is what happens to us. We only rarely ask the question of what does God get out of all this? Why did He do all this, because the answer to what happens in the here-after is bound up in God’s objectives in all this. This is really a puzzle.

Does God’s work really finish what this world is over? 13 billion years (or whatever the latest figure is) to get to this point, 50,000 years of man and that’s it? ….and then eternity, which seems to me like a very long time, even compared with 13 billion years.

Perhaps, we are not really meant to know just yet what it is all about.

I am (partly) on the Side of the Moaners

In the Book of Exodus, the people of Israel get a bad press (Exodus is the second book of the Bible, concerned mainly with the Israelites being led out the land of Egypt). Click for Link.

The People of Israel were minding their own business as slaves in Egypt, when Exodus gets going. They complained, of course, about their mistreatment and oppression at the hands of the Egyptian Pharaohs and his people, but generally that was like the English complaining about the weather, or the trains. It’s what people do. Then along comes this chap, Moses, saying that they need to leave and go to “A land flowing with milk and honey”.

Moses then proceeds to make himself and the People of Israel so offensive to the Egyptians that they get thrown out of Egypt. Actually, quite a lot happens on the way, so you need to read the story yourself.

As if this were not enough, far from going straight to the promised land, they end up being trapped between the Egyptian army and the Red Sea (of “Moses and the Red Sea” fame – yes, the very same), and threatened with annihilation. “Are there not enough graves in Egypt…..?” seemed a reasonable and eloquent response to this. As it turned out, they were not annihilated, and the Egyptian army was drowned instead. (Exodus 14)

And instead of the Promised Land, the next stop was the desert. There was nothing to eat. Had God brought them to the desert to starve them to death? Plenty of moaning and general protesting to Moses was required before a proper regular supply of food was provided. (Remember “Manna from heaven”?) (Exodus 16)  

After that, there was no drinkable water, and so lot more moaning and general protesting to Moses was repeated, demanding to know whether God had brought them here to die of thirst.  O.K., so water then appeared and that particular crisis was averted.  (Exodus 17)

No sooner had they got the water sorted out, than a local tribe attacked them. Pretty frightening, but with Moses praying to God, locals were defeated.

So it all goes to prove that unless you moan and groan and generally complain to God, nothing much happens. I am not sure if that was the intended lesson from these four encounters, but the people of Israel certainly saw it that way. Still, I expect that moaning to God is better than not talking to Him at all, especially if you have not been in the practice of recognising God’s hand (or even His existence).

Now I admit that it all then got a bit out of hand when Moses went up to the top of Mount Sinai to collect the ten commandments and plenty of other ceremonial and moral laws. He was gone longer than expected, so the People of Israel decided that Moses had been a big illusion and proceeded forthwith to make a “Golden Calf” their God. (Exodus32)  How anyone can think that something they have made is “God” is quite beyond me (and was quite beyond Moses as well). I think that the People of Israel would have said something like “Well, every other tribe has one”.

Perhaps they had gone too far this time with their moaning and groaning.

It all came to a pretty pass some time later, when God showed them the Promised Land and they decided that it was just too difficult. Well, some people never learn. The result of all this was that they tramped around the desert for 40 years, until they had dies out and the next generation was ready to carry on. (Number 14)

Now the point of all this is that I am on the side of the moaners, at least for some of the time. It takes a few demonstrations of God’s ability for the point to get through to His People (or, in the case of the People of Israel, not to get through). Actually the Old Testament shows us that they never really got the point at all, which is quite astonishing really.

Even more astounding is that God never gave up on them, not because he thought “they had it in them” if He just gave them one more chance. Rather it is in His nature not to give up.

Personally, I think that having a good moan from time to time is warranted. After all, we do not ask to get into some of the earthly scrapes that we end up in, especially when we think that we are on course generally. (Was Lack of Faith Rewarded? click forlink)

Can it be completely wrong to put God on the spot? “You promised ………”

What were People Expecting? (and John the Baptist)

Last autumn, I made some notes on John’s gospel. My original intention was to see what claims Jesus made about himself, but in the event I ended up looking at what people were expecting and who they thought Jesus was.

For example, it became increasingly less clear to me what people meant when they said to Jesus “You are the Messiah.” The writer, John, does not expand on what did they meant by this or what they thought that the Messiah was going to do.

If this is an omission, then either it must be deliberate or the answer to this can be derived from elsewhere.  I will not expand on this here, but put forward a hypothesis later.

In my notes, I separated the types of people (or in one case, a single person) that Jesus encounters into five groups. All are recognisable from John’s gospel. You may categorise them differently, or find sub-types, but in whatever way they are categorised, it is sometimes easy and sometimes not so easy to see the corresponding people in the 21^st century.

In this blog, I will further expand on just one of these “types”.

1.  John the Baptist – Here is the “Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world”.

2.  Ordinary people, who begin to understand (a glimpse, a shadow of) the truth

3.  Ordinary people, who want to see an earthly King and expected that the Messiah was an earthly liberator

4   Pharisees generally, who didn’t want to see any change

5.  Some Pharisees who did want to change (Nicodemus / Joseph of Arimathea)

As this blog is only allowed to run to 800 words (a self-imposed restriction), I will limit myself to describing further just one of these types. However, before I do this, I will make the observation that none of the people (with some notable exceptions) who declared Jesus to be the “Messiah” or “The Son of God” were there at the crucifixion.

John the Baptist

I found it interesting that there was only one person, John the Baptist, who understood so profoundly who Jesus was and expressed it so concisely. He had an advantage that, as Jesus’ cousin, they had known each other for 30 years. The Bible does not tell us how his views were formed and at what point in his life, John the Baptist understood who Jesus was and what his own role was to be.

One thought from this perhaps is that it takes many years to know Christ / God. Our initial encounters are important (and are meaningful) and it is hard to accept that those views will be incomplete. But they are incomplete and they take years to grow and mature.

John’s message was totally uncomplicated. Firstly to the Pharisees (the religious leaders) and people generally was “Turn away from your wrong-doing, and be baptised as a sign of this” and regarding Jesus, it was “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world”.

There is something enviable about a faith that is so uncomplicated. I suspect that our religious opinions and faith become cluttered with various views that are not central to the plot. This may be because that it probably takes 30 years (if it ever happens), to discern what is important and what isn’t.

However, I was disappointed by my failure to identify a corresponding person in today’s world. I may have been looking in the wrong place, of course, or having seen him, simply failed to recognise the person. Actually, I am not sure if I would recognise him if he came. How would one recognise him?

I was not sure whether John’s lifestyle was important. On balance, I think that it was. His lifestyle was so simple that his message was unspoiled by accusations of ripping people off or exploiting his followers, and the other types of accusations that can contaminate a spiritual message.

Was John the Baptist a one-off, never to be repeated? In the sense that his mission was to announce the coming of Jesus, and to proclaim who Jesus was, then it was definitely a one-time event. Perhaps that is why I cannot find the 21^st century John the Baptist. Alternatively, one could consider that the role of the Church collectively has that role. To point out to men that God is there and to insist that we turn to him is similar if not identical to John the Baptist’s and is an admirable calling.

Is the Bible about Truth?

In my last blog, I set out my belief that it was God who caused the Bible to be written. He did this in order to explain something of Himself, his method of dealing with men (and women), and to use it as a vehicle through which He can speak to us individually (even if I do not understand how this works).

Towards the end of this blog, I said that there was one element that I had left out. I pointed out that I did not use the word “Truth”. I added that the Bible is used to support various contradictory views and doctrines.

What are we to make of the fact that God inserts stories in the Bible that provoke disagreement (English newspapers would say “controversy”).

Consider the story of Adam and Eve in the early Chapters of Genesis, right at the beginning of the Bible. Was the world was created in seven days, and Adam and Eve the first people, or is it an allegory? I chose this this example because it arouses debate in some places, but is less contentious than it once was. (I have decided that I do not have an opinion on this, but can imagine either to be true.)

Closer to home, the differences in doctrine within the protestant Church concerning Baptism (child or adult) is a matter of conviction to Church-going insiders and completely baffling to outsiders. What is clear is that any one party will be able to demonstrate that their belief is consistent with the Bible and can be derived from it.

More contentious at the present time is the matter of women priests and bishops. This is a serious practical matter. If it can be put as a matter of “Sides” (like a football match), one “Side” looks to the literal writings of the Bible and the other “Side” would say that the Bible should be interpreted in the light of modern day practice and custom. (A bit more complicated than that, I know, but it will do for an 800 word blog). Again, as a practical matter and moving away from the main plot, the outside world looks on and regards the whole thing as slightly bizarre.

Whether it is “Adam and Eve”, “Infant or Adult Baptism” or “Women Priests”, “Pre-destination or Freewill” (to mention another question) or any other belief, they are discussed by the respective parties as matters of Truth. I use the word “Truth” with a pinch of irony. It is inherent in the way that we approach questions to look for the “Truth”. When we have found the “Truth”, we regard its opposite as “Not True”. (I share Martin Mosse’s view on this point – see footnote). Whether or not this is a “Western” or cultural thing, I do not know.

As if to reinforce this approach, we think of Truth as being “Carved in Stone”. One can use this expression to describe the fact that a “Truth” is eternal and unchanging. However, we often use it to express the sentiment that there is no disagreement to be had with this.

The Bible is not a series of individually true statements, which stand alone and are eternally applicable. It is not a book of beliefs and doctrines. Neither is it a book of rules and regulations, whose main purpose is to tell us what we must do and what others must do.

It is something more personal than all these things. It is a vehicle through which God speaks to us about Himself and ourselves. In John 5.39, Jesus says that the Bible speaks about Him. Click here for Link.

It speaks to us personally about God, as well as our relationship to God and our response to Him. In our concern for Truth and correct doctrine, we can easily lose sight of the fact that, if this existence of ours has any eternal meaning, then it is primarily about our own standing and relationship before God. We will not be judged on whether or not we have correct doctrine or know the “Truth”, but whether we have listened to God’s voice in our daily lives.

Finally, I refer you to Martin Mosse’s website “Brainwaves”. http://www.brainwaves.org.uk/ “Brainwaves” is a series of articles and papers, on both religious and secular topics, designed to encourage people to approach questions from alternative points of view to those conventionally followed.

In January 2009, he wrote a paper, Healing of the Church. (click on link)  

Amongst other themes, he considers some of the apparently conflicting views of the Catholic and Protestant church. This is in itself an interesting theme. What readers might also find interesting, as I did, is the proposition that opposites might both be true.

God gave us the Bible – Key Belief Number 10

This entry starts with a bold and unsubstantiated assertion. God gave us the Bible. It is often described as the “Word of God” and amongst Christians, this is one of the less disputed statements.

Exactly what the expression “Word of God” means is altogether another question, but that it is inspired by God is generally not disputed.

Amongst non-Christians, and non-religious people, the opposite is true. It is just a book. It might be regarded as a moral and good book, or on the other hand, as something designed to mislead people away from their own self-directed destiny.

However, I doubt that most non-Christians have even read the Bible. It is, after all, a very long book. (Actually, many Christians have not read the whole of Bible. Although I do not know what the percentage is, my expectation is that it is more than 50 per cent). My version of the Bible is 1,885 pages. That is a lot of pages, especially if you are really not very interested in the subject matter (and much of it is very puzzling).

It is not my intention to debate these views. That has already been done better by others, and I do not suppose that I can add anything to this. The purpose of this Key Belief 10 is for me to describe my views (without, I should add, having to justify them).

Firstly, God tells us about Himself through the Bible. We can understand something of His Power just by looking at the world and what we know of the Universe, but the Bible tells something about the character of God. This can also be a puzzle, as the Old and the New Testaments describe different aspects of God’s character that can appear to be in contradiction. But we’ll leave that question for the moment.

Secondly, the Bible teaches us about God’s dealing with men, both individually and collectively. The Old Testament, in particular, is almost one long story of God’s dealings with the People of Israel and how cared for them, despite their faithlessness towards Him. Some of these dealings are fairly harsh, and certainly uncompromising. The New Testament, however, emphasises God’s love for his People, and shows God reaching out to individuals.

For example, if we read Isaiah 36 – 39, we can see God’s dealing with King Hezekiah, when he laid a problem before God. Click for Link   (This whole story is one of the great stories of the Old Testament and I could not resist including it).

These two statements are fine, as far as they go. However, they could both be taken in an academic sense. One could study the Bible and write theses and academic papers (both of which are worthy tasks) or just acquire knowledge.  But is this not enough?

This leads me to my third statement that the Bible is intended to speak to our hearts, as well as our minds. (I use the word “heart” very loosely here). The Bible is intended to show us how we should respond and behave personally towards God, and in doing so, to change us. It was given as a vehicle for God to speak to us individually. I am not sure whether this is an undisputed statement or not and I certainly do not know how God speaks to us in this way.

Fourthly, through the Bible (and the New Testament, particular), God teaches us how we are to behave towards each other. One famous example is the story of the Good Samaritan (Go to the bottom of the class if you do not know this). Luke 10.29 - 37. Click forLink

Lastly, and therefore fifthly, the writers of the Bible frequently encourage us to read and absorb the stories and writings of the Bible. Its teaching should become embedded in our minds and souls. In Joshua 1.7 - 9 [Click for Link]  (Joshua is the 6^th Book in the Bible), God encourages Joshua, the newly appointed leader of the people of Israel, to read, learn and meditate on the “Book of the Law” (for “Then you will be prosperous and successful….)

As an afterthought, you may realise that I have left out one element in all this. Over the centuries, the Bible has been used to support a multitude of statements and doctrines, by different parts and sections of the Church. Many of these are contradictory. I do not intend in this blog to discuss how these views and opinions are to be reconciled. However, if I can get my head around the subject, I will have an attempt at this in a later blog.

Was Lack of Faith Rewarded?

In recent years, I have become less certain that I understand the point of the story of Jesus calming the storm. The bible story is well known enough and is repeated in all three gospels. I will use the story as described in Mark 4.35. (click here)

In summary, the disciples are in the boat with Jesus, when a storm brews up. Jesus is asleep, and they wake him up, demanding to know whether He is going to let them die. Jesus calms the storm and criticises them for their lack of faith. 

I am intrigued by a number of points in this story, but I will try to keep to just one of these. This question could be represented by “Were they rewarded for their lack of faith?” After all, by generally panicking, Jesus saved them; If was not the appropriate response, what should their response have been? How would Moses, for example, have reacted if he had been on the boat?

One of the lessons that is typically given from this story is that we should have more faith and trust in God. This is a good lesson. When things get tough, we should turn to God, but not in a desperate panic like the disciples “Are you going to let us die?”

One possible implication of Jesus’ criticism is that the response should have been to wake up Jesus, but in faith.  Would Moses even have bothered to wake up Jesus? The answer based on this line of thinking is “yes”.

I put forward five possible responses, including the response shown by the disciples:

1. Prayer with panic and lack of faith.

This is the response of the disciple and Jesus rebukes them for this. However, it is considerably better than nothing, has the benefit of being generally effective and has plenty of examples in the Old Testament, when the People of Israel “Cried to the Lord”, usually when they were being disciplined or punished for turning away from God.

2. Prayer with a request. This might be described as “I trust you, Lord, but I don’t like it and want to get out of here”

This has the benefit of honesty, even if the starting point is ourselves and what we want. This has a good biblical precedent in Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane “Lord, deliver me. But not my will, but Yours.”

3. Prayer with acceptance. This is trusting and also active. The question “Lord, do you want us to drown?” could be asked as a genuine and neutral question. i.e. “If the answer is yes, then that is fine.”

This is not a common experience among Christians that I know, although not unknown. Also I could not find any good examples of this in the Bible. However, I could imagine that sometimes it is the only way that we can deal with extremely difficult circumstances. 

4. “God, I do not know what is happening. What are you saying to me here? What should my response be?

That God uses difficult circumstances to challenge us and speak to us is probably a generally accepted truth. However again, the Bible does not give us many examples, so we should be cautious about this. The one example that does come to mind is from the “Book of Job”, and explained in the last 4 Chapters.

5. No response, not even a prayer, with complete acceptance. “Lord, I can accept whatever you want and whatever you do to me”. In this scenario, we do not even wake Jesus up, in which case, I guess, we drown. We don’t like this, as it is completely passive.

This is an interesting one and has the appearance of spirituality. It may have its place on some occasions, but examples of this in the Bible are in short supply. The only one that I could think of that supports this is one of the most famous verses from Psalm 23. “Even though I walk through the darkest valley, I will fear no evil, for you are with me.” God’s presence is sufficient.

---------------------------------------

Note: Other points which are worth some thought are:

- The disciples were experienced sailors. Why were they afraid? Whatever the answer is to this, what is the lesson?

- Did Jesus calm the storm to show his power? What is the purpose of this “Showing off”?

- Is the panic amongst the disciples significant?

- What happened to the boats that accompanied them? (Mark 4.36) (My son-in-law’s point)

He is a Jealous God (and He feels the pain)

Just in case you have been following the overall storyline, this is Key Belief Number 9.

I remember going to church as an 11 or 12 year old. Dragged might have been a better word. Our Sunday morning visit to the 10.30 service and then quickly back home for Sunday lunch, usually with plenty of shouting and screaming, probably from me.

My weekly visits to church service were disconnected from anything else that went on in my life. In fact, at the end of the service, to the extent that I prayed at all, I would say “See you the same time, next week, God”. It seems rather humorous or ridiculous in retrospect.   

But the absurdity of the statement was not at all obvious to me at the time. Actually, I do not know how it could have been obvious. Church was a compulsory event, like Latin and History. They had to be fitted into the diary, and dealt with before I could do the things that I wanted to do, such as watch television or play cricket. It was an obligation, which was dropped at the first opportunity.

And I do not suppose for one moment, that I was unique in this respect. What God made of all this, I have no idea. It could be patronising amusement, indifference or anger at the whole charade. I have no idea whether I ever learned something. I do not remember anything at all from this, although some chants from the “Sung Eucharist” still go through my head, when recalled from deep memory.

The whole thing had about as much to do with God, at least for me, as a game of cricket. God was remote and of no practical relevance. It had no relevance to either of us, I guess.

We could have had a fairly comfortable co-existence, God and I. Going to church on a Sunday these days is no longer “de rigor” from a social point of view, so I am not so sure what the benefit to me would have been. But God would have had another public supporter.

Of course, the whole thing is quite absurd. God has no interest in such a relationship. Neither would another person. “See you next week”, indeed. On the other hand, perhaps it is not so absurd, or at least many people might not feel that it is absurd. Perhaps that is how they live, in so far as God ever has a place in their lives.

It is one of my themes in these blogs that people, to the extent that they think of God at all, think of him as a kind of Father Christmas. He should do nice things generally and in particular do nice things for us. To the extent that he does not do this, then the response is “I could not believe in a God, who …..”

The Bible describes another side to God. He wants us for Himself, full-time, not part-time. The concept is not so strange, although people may find it difficult to conceive this in the context of God. The concept of jealousy in an established relationship, whether in marriage or in a partnership, is well understood and experienced by most adults. Marriage, in particular, is centred on faithfulness, rights and exclusiveness, at least as far as many aspects of the relationship as concerned. No one else, other than the one person in question has these rights.

When this relationship breaks down or one side is let down by the other side, the feelings of jealousy on the other side are easily aroused.

We don’t think of God as being jealous. I am not sure why not, but I can imagine that the word has overtones with which many people are uncomfortable. I described separately in an earlier blog, the thought that God requires us to obey him. Click here for Link.

The act of obedience can be seen in Father / Child relationship; or Employer / Employee relationship. The relationship here may be “I say; you do” and need not involve anything emotional.

But Jealousy is altogether different. God wants us for himself. This is not ownership of a thing, in the sense of “This is my car”, but in the sense of “This is my wife / husband”, together with the emotional pain when this is not returned. God feels the pain.

He wants our hearts. He wants it all. He insists on it. The Old Testament records God’s statement to the people of Israel and is the 2^nd of the 10 Commandments. Exodus20. 4-5. (Click for link). "You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God."

It doesn’t get much clearer than that.