The Weekend before Christmas

I am busy preparing the different orders of service for tomorrow. The following is another Christmas sermon I preached a few years ago.  It was on Christmas Eve when we get a lot of visitors and so I was trying to enagage with people who might not yet be Christians, but who were interested enough to turn up.  I have to say it was not appreciated by some of the regulars, but did seem to interest some of the younger memebers of the congregation in their teens.  See what you think!

Design: The Existence of God

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, I used to teach a very simple introduction to the Philosophy of Religion.  One of the essential parts of this was to examine the traditional arguments for the existence of God.  There are several, classic arguments that have been used in an attempt to prove or establish the existence of God.  One of them, however, has caused the greatest exasperation.  Perhaps I can attempt to explain it now.  Please forgive me if you know it already. 

It was first developed by St Anselm, who was Archbishop of Canterbury in the twelfth century.  Anselm began by asking what we mean by God.  Most people think of God as the greatest possible Being: ‘than which nothing greater can be conceived’.  This surely seems reasonable.  This does not mean that we believe he, she or it exists just that if we want a God at all, and especially if we want one we can worship, then he, she or it needs to be pretty special. 

Now, said St Anselm, a Being that does exist is greater than a Being that does not exist.  Again, that sounds logical.   However, said Anselm, if God’s the greatest, and existence is greater than non-existence, God, logically, must exist.  Most students feel this cannot be true, without being able to say exactly why, and feel somewhat frustrated as a result. 

I had a similar feeling recently as my students must have had when reading an article by Nick Bostrom.  He is the British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy at Oxford University, and writes extensively about the philosophy of science.  In what is an important article, he puts forward a significant philosophical argument.  Let me try it out on you.  This is my version of it and all errors are mine!  Let me begin with three questions. 

Firstly, do you think that we will continue to develop ever more powerful computers?  I think we probably will.  There is a saying that the moment you buy a computer it becomes obsolete.  

Secondly, do we want to develop ever more realistic computer games?  Well, yes, the answer to that seems to be that we do.  Take for example, SIMS 2.  Let me read the manufacturer’s description to you: 

‘In the The Sims™ 2, you direct your Sims over a lifetime and mix their genes from one generation to the next.  You set your Sims' goals in life; popularity, fortune, family, romance or knowledge.  Give them a long, successful existence or leave their lives in shambles.  Take them to extremes, from getting busted to seeing a ghost, from marrying an alien to writing a great novel.  Unleash your creativity with the all-new Create-A-Sim, new building options, and the new in-game movie camera. Get ready to mix their genes, fulfill their dreams, and push them to extremes.  What do you want to do with your Sims' lives?' 

Thirdly, how do you know you are not in a computer simulation?  We may prefer not describe it as a game, but how do you know that you are not part of a computer generated virtual world? 

Bostrom argues that we will continue to develop ever more powerful computers and that there is at least a possibility that the human race will survive to build very powerful computers indeed. 

He also argues that we would like to simulate reality. 

So, he asks, how do we know that another race has not got there already, before us, and we are the product of their success?  To put it another way, are we a version of the SIMS, a computer game, or, if you prefer, a simulation? 

By now you may be thinking that the pressure of Christmas has got a bit too much for me.  So it is worth asking you how many of you will be watching one of the Matrix Trilogy this Christmas.  The Matrix is after all based on such a story line.  And yes, I agree it could all be dismissed as science fiction were it not for the fact that scientists at the cutting edge of scientific research are also arguing just this. 

It is relatively easy to dismiss philosophers such as Bostrom.  Philosophers are known for playing mind games.  Personally, I think that Bostrom weakens his case by saying that being in a simulation should not make any difference to us.  He tells us that he has had people, who have read his article, writing to him in support claiming to have seen pixels in their bathroom mirrors.  Bostrom just dismisses such people as mad as you may wish to dismiss him. 

However, when the person suggesting that we are a simulation is the Royal Society Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University, that is, Sir Martin Rees   Things get a little more serious.  He has said recently on British television (in a UK Channel 4 television programme): 

‘Over a few decades, computers have evolved from being able to simulate only very simple patterns to being able to create virtual worlds with a lot of detail. 

If that trend were to continue, then we can imagine computers which will be able to simulate worlds perhaps even as complicated as the one we think we’re living in. 

This raises the philosophical question: could we ourselves be in such a simulation and could what we think is the universe be some sort of vault of heaven rather than the real thing.  In a sense we could be ourselves the creations within this simulation.’ 

We are not now dealing with philosophers and their seemingly mad ideas.  We are in the case of Sir Martin dealing with one of the very best scientists in the world.  Why should such scientists have such fantastic ideas?  Well, it is all to do with a question that scientists find hard to answer. 

Why is the universe so friendly to producing life on earth? 

Scientists are at a loss to explain why the laws of nature have been written to enable you and me to emerge. 

I freely admit to not being a scientist, but take an example all are agreed upon.  Carbon.  Carbon is the basis of all life.  But carbon was not in the Big Bang that most scientists believe gave birth to the universe.  Instead, carbon has been cooked inside giant stars that have exploded and spewed soot all over the universe.  However, the process that generates carbon is a delicate nuclear reaction.  If the force that holds atomic nuclei together were just a tiny bit stronger or a tiny bit weaker, the reaction would not have worked properly and life may never have happened. 

The late scientist and astronomer, Fred Hoyle, was so struck by the coincidence that he described the Universe as a ‘put up job’.  But put up by whom or what? 

All this is somewhat new to the scientists.  Theologians and philosophers, however, have been wrestling with precisely these sort of questions for millennia.  For in addition to Anselm’s argument, which maybe does not convince, there have been others, which perhaps do.  Theologians, many centuries ago, noticing the incredible design of the universe argued that design implied designer in other words: GOD. 

To put it another way: if you walked out of the church tonight and found an instrument like a watch lying in the car park, you would not conclude it was the chance product of a gust of wind while you were in church.  No.  Things as complex as that have to be made.  For most of the 20th century, philosophers and scientists tried to resist the logic of this argument.  In a famous quote, Nietzsche, who died at the 20th century’s beginning, announced: ‘God is dead.’  To which has been made the wonderful response: ‘Nietzsche is dead.  God.’  

Now, however, it is scientists, not just philosophers and theologians, who are having to wrestle with design and its implications.  The Sydney Morning Herald in printing a report about scientists believing that we are in a computer simulation commented: 

‘Isn’t it amazing that scientists have finally had to admit that the design of the universe is so perfectly crafted so as to indicate intelligent design and yet they still try to avoid any explanation which includes the word God.’ 

Now I would not normally see the Sydney Morning Herald as an authority on these sort of issues, but I must admit that this seems to be bang on target. 

Indeed, I would suggest that rather than seeing the death of God, the 20th century ended with God very much alive, and that now at the beginning of the 21st century, it is atheism that has the intellectual problem.  One of the philosophers who championed atheism the most in the 20th century was a university professor of philosophy called Anthony Flew.  He has just announced at the age of 81 that he has been wrong all his academic life and that he does now believe in a god.  It is worth quoting him: 

‘I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature.’ 

Frankly, if the choice is between a computer simulation and God to explain the complex design of the universe, then call me old-fashioned, but I am going with God.  Nevertheless, there is still a problem.  If, as Flew now thinks, there is a God, does not that make communicating with this God, the most important question there is? 

Strangely, one of the most popular books of the 20th century was Douglas Adam’s, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.  It was the fourth most popular book on the BBC’s list of the top 100 books in English.  It is at present being made into a film.  In it, a computer, called Deep Thought, is asked the answer to the ultimate question of ‘life, the universe and everything’.  It comes up with the answer 42.  It is then they realize that they have to find out what the ultimate question is to which the answer is 42.  To do this, Deep Thought designs another computer greater than him.  That computer is the earth.  Unfortunately, the earth gets destroyed before it can give the question. 

Let me tell you tonight: the question and answer to the secret of life, the universe and everything is God.  Everything else is commentary. 

St Paul, quoting the Greek philosophers, said: ‘for in him we live and move and have our being.’  (Acts 17:28)  And as for communicating with him, we need not worry.  He has taken the initiative and communicated with us.  And that is what tonight is all about.  It is what we are here to celebrate: 

            ‘O holy night, the stars are brightly shining.

            It is the night of the dear Saviour’s birth.’ 

For God did not just design the universe and leave it to get on with it, keeping an eye on it as we might keep an eye on a computer programme, nor does he play with it as we would with a computer game.  In a passage of sublime poetry, philosophy, and theology, St John tells us: 

 ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came in to being.’ 

Yet St John goes on to tell us: 

‘And the Word became flesh and lived among us …’ 

The designer has become part of the design.  We see the face of God in the face of a baby and the meaning of life lying in a manger.  St Cyril of Alexandria, a theologian in the fifth century wrote: 

‘… but we say that the Son of God , while visible to the eyes, and a babe in swaddling clothes, and still at the breast of his Virgin Mother, filled all creation as God …’ 

This is the staggering message of Christmas.  The cards, the trees, the parties, the presents, the food and the drink all fade into insignificance in the light of this amazing truth.  In the person of this baby lies the answer to all my questions, all my hopes and fears, all my longings and aspirations.  He is the meaning of everything.  O holy night, indeed! 

But there is a twist.  For on this most holy night, God wants now to ask you a question.  What is your response to this amazing event?  Philosophers, theologians, and scientists may each question God, but tonight God in the form of this baby in the manger questions each one of us and demands a response.  It is the most important question we will ever be asked, and our answer to this divine questioning will be the most important answer we have ever had to give. 

This is not a baby about whom God will allow us to remain neutral.  We can dismiss him as many were to do during his life on earth or we can believe in Him.  To those who believe in him, God offers the greatest of Christmas gifts: 

‘But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God …’ 

What is offered to us is a relationship with not only the Designer of the Universe, but the One who sustains it and keeps it in being.  It is the chance of a lifetime and may only come once in a lifetime.  It must not be ignored.  Tonight, for our sake, heaven and earth meet in Bethlehem and extend their presence to us here: 

    O night divine, O night when Christ was born!

O night, O holy night, O night divine!

Christmas Sermons

On the theme of Christmas sermons, I don't normally write up sermons, but one or two I have.  This is one from 2004.  It was preached at the traditional carol service.

This Sunday, we have our Sunday School Nativity Presentation in the morning and the Carol Service in the evening.  I will try and write up the sermon for it!

God rest you merry gentlemen

A somewhat surprising bestseller this year has been Lynne Truss’ book on punctuation.  On the back, there is a story about a panda that gives the title of the book.  The panda walks into a café.  He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.  On his way out, the confused waiter asks him why.  The panda produces a wildlife manual.  ‘I’m a panda,’ he says.  ‘Look it up.’  The waiter does:  

Panda.  Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China.  Eats, shoots and leaves. 

The point being that the comma makes all the difference.  This came to mind when I was going over the carols for tonight.  The choir have sung a popular traditional English carol as their third carol.  It begins, ‘God rest …’  I have deliberately refrained from punctuating it in your Order of Service.  I wonder where you would put the comma.  Most people, I think, would put it after you :  God rest you, merry gentlemen.  This seems to suggest that the meaning of the beginning of the carol is that a group of somewhat inebriated men are being wished a good night’s sleep, presumably to get over the effects of the drink. 

In fact, it should be: God rest you merry, gentlemen.  In other words, it is an exhortation to rest merry or happy and in good cheer.  The gentlemen thus addressed are to let nothing cause them dismay.  Why?  Because Jesus Christ our Saviour was born upon this day.  And as we have heard sung, the carol goes onto recite the events of that first Christmas.  It is because of these events that they and we should rest merry. 

But how can the events of this first Christmas have any affect on us here in the present?  How can they make our gentlemen rest merry?  L. P. Hartley begins his novel, The Go-between, with these words:  ‘The past is a foreign country.  They do things differently there.’  Historians have quoted these words to show how hard it can be for us to enter the past.  Some would even say it is impossible for us to do so.  It is so different. 

This applies no less to this first Christmas.  Its events are history now.  They seem so distant, so foreign, so unreal.  It is true that some things have not changed.  The fear and the violence, for example.  However, so many things have.  Mary after all rode a little donkey, she didn't travel in a car or on a bus!  Our world is very different now to then. 

How then are we even to begin to understand the events we have had read for us this evening?  And even if we don’t despair of understanding them entirely, how can they have any relevance for us living now as we do in such changed times?  Don’t they belong firmly in the past of no more relevance than other pictures from the past.  Are they not like those old pictures that we see around Hong Kong?  A reminder of how Hong Kong used to look in the past, but will never look like again.  Is this what our service tonight has been about a chance to look back in fondness, and then to get on with real life in the present? 

To put it another way: what difference does it make to you? 

One of the most influential theologians of the 20^th century, Bultmann (whose first name has a wonderful resonance at this time of year – Rudolf!) said: 

‘It is impossible to use electric light and the wireless and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries and at the same time to believe in the New Testament world of spirits and miracles.’ 

So is that how it is?  Christmas must be consigned to the past to be brought out once a year, but is too foreign to be of any use to us for the rest of it? 

I wonder what your favourite carol is?  We have sung many of the favourites this evening.  One I find myself returning to is Phillips Brooks’, ‘O little Town of Bethlehem.’  I confess that I never used to like it.  It seemed a bit too sentimental with its talk of ‘dreamless sleep’ and ‘silent stars’.  And yet, it has some powerful lines that were to eventually win me over despite the apparent sentimentality of the carol as a whole.  Lines such as, ‘The hopes and fears all the years are met in thee tonight.’  What I did not realize is that there is a powerful reality in the sentimentality too. 

For Phillips Brooks wrote this carol after journeying on horseback from Jerusalem to Bethlehem to assist in Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve in 1865.  He both describes and reflects on that experience in his carol.  There is one line in particular that I would like to draw your attention to tonight: ‘be born in us today.’   In context, it is:

O holy child of Bethlehem, descend to us, we pray;
Cast out our sin, and enter in, be born in us today.

During Advent, we have been thinking about salvation and what it means.  If our hope of salvation lies in us being able to journey back, then no matter how good our imagination, it is always going to be elusive.  If our hope of salvation lies in believing the right things, then we are always going to be vulnerable to doubt and prone to changes in theological fashion.  If our hope of salvation lies in our ability to do the right things, then who can be saved? For all of us are mortal, inclined to sin and weakness.  No, we all sit here as failed human beings no matter how we try to disguise it. 

But the good news is that it doesn’t depend on us at all.  Our hope of salvation lies in the unrepeatable birth of Jesus being repeated in us. 

In other words, because Christmas really did happen, because Christ was born of Mary, the world can never be the same.  And if we open our lives to him our world will never be the same again either.  For Christianity is about an encounter with Mary’s child, an encounter which makes possible knowing Him in a way that transcends knowledge, historical or otherwise. 

Before he wrote the words, ‘be born in us today’,   Brooks wrote a verse that we normally leave out of the carol:

Where children pure and happy pray to the blessed Child,
Where misery cries out to Thee, Son of the Mother mild;
Where charity stands watching and faith holds wide the door,
The dark night wakes, the glory breaks, 

and Christmas comes once more.

This service has been about that.  In telling the story of the first Christmas, we have attempted to travel back to Bethlehem to visit that foreign land and to hear again the message of the angels.  But now, it is time for Bethlehem to travel back with us.  It is time for the dark night to wake, the glory to break, and Christmas to come to each one of us once more. 

And as the Christmas story becomes a part of our life and experience, then God rest you merry – Ladies and Gentlemen – and in the midst of all life’s traumas, nothing will you dismay.

Countdown to Christmas

It is really incredible to think we are coming up to Christmas and to the end of 2008.  My biggest concern at the moment is preparing my sermons for Christmas.  What is there to say that hasn't been said many times before and far better?  And yet, this is surely one time in the year when we all desperately need reminding of the meaning of the mystery of the incarnation.  So this is the challenge: to express the inexpressible and do so in a away that isn't glib, cliche-ridden, or gimmicky.  It's going to be quite a challenge!

Here is the final talk in my latest series of radio broadcasts!

Talk Five: Different Choices 

‘God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us’, St Paul tells the Christians at Rome.  The way we serve God now is not based on the Law, with its rules and commandments, but on love; love which is given to us by the Holy Spirit as we seek to become like Christ himself. 

In the first place, this is about character, not actions.  Simply because someone does not murder, steal, lie, or commit adultery does not mean that they are like Jesus.  Becoming like Jesus means a whole change in the direction of our lives and its motivation.  Of course, it means, for example, that we won’t murder, but as, Jesus says, it means that we won’t hate as well.  We will want to get our inner attitude right as well as our outward behaviour. 

It is possible to do the right thing and still be wrong.  Getting it right as a Christian in the way we live involves much more that getting it right on certain ethical issues and moral choices.  Doing what God wants is not confined to ticking the right boxes on a moral questionnaire.  Paul tells us that adultery is out for a Christian, but so is quarrelling and jealousy.  We are to be kind, tender-hearted and gentle.  Too much moral discussion in the Church focuses on the difficult ethical issues: homosexuality, war, abortion, and such like as if getting it right on these big issues defines the Christian life.  It doesn’t: it is only when our character is being conformed to the image of Christ that we are living the Christian life irrespective of our position on difficult ethical issues. 

But what about the issues and what happens when Christians disagree?  In chapter 14 of Romans, Paul deals with one ethical issue that was troubling and dividing people in his own day.  Some ate meat and vegetables, others only vegetables!  This is not an argument over vegetarianism!  The Law gave strict regulations about what could and could not be eaten and how food should be prepared and served.  Meat in Rome would often have previously been offered in sacrifice to pagan gods and so would not fulfil the requirements of the Law.  Some felt it was just easier not to eat meat at all.  Others felt that it didn’t matter now.  We were freed from the Law in any case. 

Paul believed this himself and ate meat without worrying about where it came from.  But in Romans he argues that each person needs to be persuaded in their own mind.  The one who eats meat is doing it in service of God and the one who doesn’t eat meat is also doing it in service of God.  Paul doesn’t try to persuade people to his way of thinking.  But what he does say is what matters is not what moral choice you make, but the effect that choice has on another member of the Church. 

If my decision to eat meat hurts another Christian, then I should be prepared to forgo what I consider my right so as not to hurt another Christian.  What matters is not being in the right, but having a right attitude to my brother and sister in Christ for whom he died.  Each one of us will have to give an account of ourselves for our own life and the choices we make, says Paul.  We would do better then, he tells them, not to argue with and judge another person and their behaviour, but to worry more about our own.  As long we as are seeking to honour God in what we do and can offer our actions to God, it is not for anyone to judge us or for us to judge them.  We need to stop worrying about someone else’s behaviour and start worrying about our own.

For some, this all seems too tolerant and permissive.  Are there no moral absolutes?  Is there nothing that we must insist on when it comes to Christian behaviour?  In fact, there is one thing that Jesus does insist on absolutely and on which there can be no moral compromise:  forgiveness.  We are not only not to judge one another; we are to forgive one another.  Instead of arguing, criticising, and condemning, we are to forgive.  Not seven times, but seventy-times seven!  This is what we are doing when we pray the Lord’s Prayer: forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us. 

If it can be said of a Church that it is a place where people forgive one another, then we will be well on our way to becoming the sort of moral community God wants us to be.  

However much we may disagree on various headline moral issues. 

Advent Sunday

Thank you again to you all for your good wishes, prayers and thoughts on the death of my dear brother David.  I want now to get back into the routine of blogging and thought the best way was to post the next in my series under the label Romans!  As it happens, it fits in quite well with the theme of Advent!

Talk Four: The Way of Love 

St Paul tells the Roman Christians that they are to give themselves totally to God’s service and calls on them to ‘wake up’ and live the sort of life that God wants them to live.  He tells them: 

‘Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your minds, so that you may discern what is the will of God—what is good and acceptable and perfect.’ 

Knowing what is and what is not good is not always easy.  Daily we are confronted with difficult decisions in our own lives.  At times, we are faced with ethical choices in which it is hard to know what is right and wrong.  In my own Church, at the moment, there is much argument and division over the issue of homosexuality.  Some think it always wrong, others believe it is a valid way of life if based on faithfulness in relationships.  How are we to know?  How are we to discern God’s will?  How do we know what is good and acceptable and perfect? 

Before Christ came, discerning God’s will was in principle relatively straightforward.  If you wanted to get it right and do what was right in the sight of God, then you kept the Law, that is, the Law of God in Old Testament.  Certainly, the Law needed to be understood and interpreted, but it was in the Law that God revealed his will for his people and showed them what was required of them. 

After Jesus’ death and resurrection the Church had to decide what to do about the Law.  Most did not think there was an issue.  Of course, they should go on keeping the Law.  It was, after all, God’s Law.  If the Ten Commandments had been God’s commandments before Jesus came, they were still God’s commandments now that he had.  When it came to people who weren’t Jewish and had not kept the Law before they became Christians, then clearly they should keep it now that they had.   

Paul had himself been devout in keeping the Law before he became a follower of Christ.  He describes himself as having been zealous for the law and blameless when it came to keeping it.  In Romans, though, he takes a very radical view.  He argues that when someone becomes a Christian they die to the Law and are freed from it and from its demands.  They don’t serve God that way any more.  The Law was alright in its time, but it has had its day, its time is up.  We don’t serve God that way any more. 

Paul doesn’t argue that Christians have died to and are freed from parts of the Law, but that they are freed from all the Law.  Paul wants Christians to serve God in a new way.  A way not based on rules and regulations, but on love.  Love, says Paul, is the fulfilling of the Law.  The Law pointed to the way of love and now in Christ the way of love has arrived, the Law can bow out of the picture its job done. 

St Augustine said: ‘love God and do what you want’.  This has been taken up in popular culture where people believe it is ok to do whatever you like as long as you don’t hurt anyone:  ‘What I want, I have should have’.  And not to get what I want is to risk psychological  damage.  St Augustine’s point, however, is that if you love God, you will want to do what He likes and that our likes, wishes and desires, will be His.  It is this sort of love that is the will of God for us.

But how are we to love this way?  ‘Put on the Lord Jesus Christ’, says Paul.  Our way of life as Christians is now based not on the Law, but on a person.  We are to conform our whole lives to Christ, to seek to live like him and be like him.  This is no easy task.  Indeed, it is far harder and far more demanding than keeping commandments and Laws.  This is why, Paul tells us, God has given us his Holy Spirit.  The Holy Spirit is the power of God to enable us live in the way God wants us to live.  

It is the Holy Spirit who makes the way of love possible.

Thank You

A big thank you to all who have contacted me after reading of the death of David.  Your thoughts and prayers mean a great deal to me and are appreciated more than words can express.

My other brother Charlie, who is also an Anglican Vicar, is much involved in the Woodland Burial Trust and was instrumental in setting it up.  The idea behind woodland burial is to provide a burial in an ecologically sensitive way.

Some of you may be interested in the website which explains more about it:

www.woodlandburialtrust.com

The Death of My Brother David

The past couple of weeks have been particularly sad for me and my family.  My dear brother David died suddenly and unexpectedly just under two weeks ago.  He was only 38.  I have just returned from attending his funeral in the UK.  David was buried in Bedford at a woodland burial ground nearby.  It was raining hard and we all got soaked, which only added to the sense of tragedy.  

Long time readers of this blog will know my views on death.  It is a great enemy that only comes to rob us of life and of those we love.  Death is no friend of the Christian.  Nevertheless, for the Christian there is always hope.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord,

and let light perpetual shine upon him.

Being Thankful for Harvest

I have just returned from conducting an assembly where I spoke on the financial crisis and the wake-up call it provides to us all.  I used the verse from 1 Timothy. It really does sound like a commentary on the present situation:

'But those who want to be rich fall into temptation and are trapped by many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ...' (1 Timothy 6:9-10)

Sunday was our Harvest Festival Service, as I imagine it was in many churches.  A time to remember that most of us in the developed world are still considerably better off, the financial crisis nothwithstanding, than those in places like Darfur.

Paul immediately before these verses has said that if we have 'food and clothing, we will be content with these'.  Living as we do in a more complex world financially it is, of course, less straightforward, but the principle is sound.  The past ten years or so have been for many a time conspicuous consumption and excess.  Indeed, just before Lehman's went bust two directors each received a multi-million dollar pay-off.  

The present situation challenges us as Christians to get our values sorted out.  A real wake up call, indeed.

Below is the third in my series of recent talks based on the closing chapters of Romans.

3. Wake Up! 

I dislike being late which means that very often I end up instead being early.  My biggest fear is to forget that I have a meeting altogether.  If ever I am away from home and staying in a hotel if they ask me at check-in whether I want an early morning alarm call, I always say yes!  Needless to say, I then wake up before the call. 

Having urged his Roman readers to offer themselves in the service of God and having given examples of what this means in practice, Paul issues an alarm call: 

‘Besides this, you know what time it is, how it is now the moment for you to wake from sleep. For salvation is nearer to us now than when we became believers; the night is far gone, the day is near.’  (Romans 13:11-12) 

Their appointment with the Lord Jesus is getting near and they need to wake-up.  Waking up in this context means getting their lives in order and being prepared to meet Jesus.  If you have an important interview, not only do you want to be on time, you want to look your best.  You want to be completely ready.  It is worth asking how ready are we to meet Jesus? 

John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, used to tell people to live every day as if it were their last.  This sentiment has been taken over in popular culture with books on 100 places to see before you die or whatever.  The idea being to get as much out of life as you can before you die.  This is not what John Wesley meant and it is not what Paul meant. 

The New Testament is not concerned in the first place with how fulfilled we are.  Indeed, the whole modern day philosophy of self-fulfilment is rather alien to the teaching of Jesus who talked about losing our lives, denying ourselves, and making sacrifices for the Kingdom of God.  Paul tells his readers ‘to make no provision for the flesh to gratify its desires’.  This is not a message which sits well with the ‘do what you like, get what you can’ attitude of present day culture. 

No, what Paul and John Wesley meant was that we should live every day as if it were the day we would meet Jesus.  Paul has already explained that when we meet Jesus, we will be expected to give an account of our lives and behaviour.  Why we have lived the way we have, done the things we have, and been the sort of people we have.  Don’t let Jesus find you asleep, Paul says.  Instead, make sure you are ready, living the sort of life that you will have no cause to be ashamed of, serving him as you should. 

This is a demanding message.  Most of us would be very embarrassed indeed, not to say ashamed, if a video of our lives were played for everyone to see.  It is easy to become worried and caught up in guilt and fear.  This is not Paul’s motive.  He has already explained at length how God loves us and forgives us, and has freed us from the burden of all that would condemn us.  But this is no excuse for us to think that how we live doesn’t matter, that we can do what we like, and God will just ignore it. 

How we live does matter.  We are called to a life of service.  But it is the service of a Lord who loves us, died for us, forgives us, and seeks to help us as we respond to his love in love of others. 

Jesus calls us to a life of selfless service of God and our neighbour, even if this means going without or giving up what we want for ourselves.  Modern culture is obsessed with being happy.  People chase happiness whether it is through work, pleasure, sex, or even a pill.  We want to feel fulfilled and that we are getting the most out of life.  The Bible instead places the emphasis not on being happy, but on being holy.  On living lives that are pleasing to God and that are committed to his service.  Ironically, when we do this we discover a happiness that most people can only dream of.  Or as Jesus said: 

For those who want to save their life will lose it, and those who lose their life for my sake will save it.  (Luke 9:24)

National Day

Tomorrow is national day and so we have a public holiday which is nice!  It is also a bit cooler here (still high 20s), but much better than it has been.  It makes the idea of going out tomorrow more attractive!

Here is my next talk!

2. Living Sacrifices 

In his great letter to the Christians in Rome, Paul begins by explaining that the Christian message is for everyone who has faith and all that is required of people is that they have faith.  He has to do this because many in the Church felt that while everyone could indeed join the Church, once they did they had to behave the same way as those who followed Jesus, but were of Jewish birth.  This meant obeying God’s commandments in the Old Testament.  Paul takes a very radical position.  He believed that all that God requires of people is faith and that this requirement applies equally to Jew and non-Jew alike. 

For the first eleven chapters of his letter, he tries to explain why this is the case.  Jew and Gentile are both sinners, both stand condemned because of their sin, and both need saving.  The only way out of the mess is by faith.  The commandments in the Old Testament won’t help us because we are incapable of keeping them.  Fortunately, God doesn’t expect us to any more.  He sets us free from any obligation to keep them when we have faith in Christ. 

This means that Paul has to explain why God gave the commandments in the first place if we are unable to keep them.  Has God changed his mind?  And if all are in the same position with regard to their need and how that need is met, does this mean that there was no advantage being a Jew?  And what about Israel?  Did God have any future plan for her?  He wants to deal with the implications of saying it is by faith and answer any objections and misunderstandings.  He concludes: 

‘For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.’  God’s plan is to show mercy to all, Jew and Gentile on the same basis: faith. 

In chapter 12, he appeals to the Roman Christians to respond to this mercy.  Having explained in general terms what his commitment to faith means, he draws out now the implications of this for those who have faith and for the Roman Christians in particular.  He begins: 

‘I appeal to you therefore, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.’ 

In the same way that the a priest in the Temple would offer a dead animal in sacrifice to God so they should offer their bodies – by this he means their very selves – as living sacrifices to God.  This offering is not the basis for securing the mercy of God, but their response to the mercy of God that they have already experienced in Christ. 

Paul’s themes have been big ones and have focused on what has been God’s plan for those who were his people in the past, the Jews, and those who are now his people, that is: all those who have faith, Jew and Gentile alike.  Here he shows how this plays out in the daily lives of those who have faith.  He gives examples of how they should live and what they should do.  In doing so, he gives a definition of worship.  Worship, he says, is not about going to the temple and offering sacrifices.  It is not even about singing hymns and saying prayers.  It is not about special services at all.  It is about our daily service of God in every aspect and dimension of our lives.

All of us who have faith in Christ may experience the mercy of God regardless of who we are or where we come from.  All of us.  Paul invites us as he did the Roman Christians to respond to the mercy of God in Christ by giving ourselves totally to the service of God.  This clearly has consequences for the big decisions we need to make in our lives about career, family, children, and planning for the future.  It also has consequences for how we live our lives each day in our jobs, at home, at school or in the office.  Everything we do should be an act of worship, something we can offer in thankfulness to God.  Or as Paul puts it in another letter: 

‘Whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all to the glory of God.’

Romans on the Radio

I am about to record a new series of talks for broadcast on the Radio.  They pick up where the last ones left off!

I am also teaching Christian Ethics this term at our Theological College so they reflect some of my thinking about that.

Romans 

Of all the works of theology that have been written since the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, none have been as important or more influential than a letter St Paul wrote to Christians in Rome in the mid-50s AD and which is preserved in the New Testament.  The Church’s greatest theologians have all been massively influenced by it and there is still a constant flow of books all seeking to interpret, explain, and apply it.  It is frequently read in Church services all over the world. 

St Paul wrote the letter to a Church he had not yet visited.  He hoped soon to do so, however, but was concerned about the reception he would receive from these Christians, most of whom had only heard about him and never met him.  This was a problem because Paul wasn’t universally popular; indeed, he was anything but.  Paul believed that God had given him a special job to do as a Christian apostle and that was to take the Christian message to Gentiles, that is, non-Jews, throughout the Roman Empire. 

This was not quite as straightforward as it might sound.  Apart from being a demanding task in its own right, the Church at this time was still trying to make its mind up whether it wanted Gentiles to be members at all and, if they were to be allowed to join the Church, on what basis they should be admitted. 

It is very easy today to forget that the Church started as small sect within Judaism in Palestine.  The first followers of Jesus being themselves Jewish, as was Jesus himself, not unreasonably assumed that their message was mainly for other Jews.  It proved, however, to be extraordinarily popular with those who heard it who weren’t Jewish, and it was not long before Gentiles were asking how they could join the Church.  At first, the Jewish believers were reluctant to let them in at all as it would mark a significant change of focus, but it soon became plain that this wasn’t going to work.  And so the Church had some serious thinking to do! 

Some thought that it was very simple.  Gentiles could join the Church if they also lived as the Jewish believers did obeying the Old Testament commandments.  God hadn’t changed his mind, they believed, and what God had required of people in the Old Testament still applied to anyone who wanted to serve him.  Yes, Jesus was God’s Son and believing in him was essential, but you still had to keep the Ten Commandments. 

The reason Paul became so unpopular was he suggested an alternative and that was that the Gentiles did not have to keep the Old Testament Law, and while it was ok for Jewish believers to go on observing it if they wanted to, it wasn’t this that established a relationship with God, a relationship which would ultimately save them.  This was explosive stuff.  Jews had died in the past because of their obedience to the Law and the last thing the Jewish believers wanted was for fellow Jews to think that the new faith in Jesus was an attack on the Law and all their history.  All sorts of rumours circulated about what Paul did or did not teach and believe.  

Paul believed that Rome was going to become an important base for his work in the future.  It was vital then for him to explain just what it was that he taught and to clear up any mis-understandings that might arise from it. 

Paul begins by declaring where he stands on the issue of who can become a member of the Church.  The Christian message is for everyone who has faith in Jesus whether Jew or Gentile.  It is faith in Jesus, he declares, that matters most not your birth or behaviour.  It is a very simple message, but one that many people found it hard to accept then and still find it hard to accept today.

Sunday, ****** Sunday

Normally I like Sundays.  Normally.  Today is different.  I have to go to one of those events, so typical of Churches, where if I don't go it will lead to criticism of myself (which I can live with) and of my Church (which is always more complicated).  I am expected to be there.  As are members of my Church.  

What the hard pressed parents of my Church have been doing in the few hours they have today with their children after a demanding week, I don't know.  Personally, I have been trying to use the time before I go to do what I would normally do.  Except there just isn't time.

Sundays after services have finished are for me about planning; the only time I get in the week just to think, as opposed to think about something. 

I have changed my mind about a lot in my ministry, the one thing I haven't changed my mind about is the number of completely pointless and purposeless events and meetings that we pressure people to attend.

At the end of the day, I am paid to go to these horrible events. I just wish there were fewer of them.

The Church talks a lot about supporting families.  It could make a real contribution to family life by not dividing families and by not asking one or other of the parents to go to unnecessary meetings and events.

Am I being unreasonable?

Oh and I forgot to mention, these events cost a loy of money at a time when normal people are struggling just to survive.

I am sorry if I sound annoyed: I am!

The gods of Wall Street

Yesterday was a public holiday here.  It's officially known as the 'Day following the Mid-autumn Festival'!  Being in a relaxed mood, I switched on the morning news.  There were pictures of the devastation caused by Hurricane Ike in Texas, but the hurricane that was getting the most attention was the one threatening the imminent demise of Lehman Brothers with speculation that it would soon devastate Merrill Lynch and AIG, not to mention other banks and financial institutions as well.  For those in Texas who have lost their homes inevitably it's the damage caused by Hurricane Ike that matters most, but this hurricane which has just hit Wall Street looks like it will leave devastation everywhere across the world.

For someone like myself, who is not particularly knowledgeable about economics, the hardest thing to grasp in all this is the utter stupidity of those who have brought this financial crisis on us all.  Those who were meant to be the best of the best when it came to financial management and investment engaged in business involving billions of dollars the like of which most of us wouldn't have even risked in a game of monopoly.

Sadly, this isn't monopoly.  People have lost real homes, jobs, and livelihoods.  For most of us in the western world the past few years have seen incredible financial growth.  It's as if we have been celebrating the victory of capitalism as the only credible philosophy and way of life. Yesterday the party finally came to an end.  Now there is only the clearing-up to do.

For the Christian seeking to comment on these events there is both a temptation and a challenge.  The temptation to be avoided is the temptation to gloat and adopt an 'I told you so' attitude.  For those on the verge of losing everything to be told that there is more to life than money is cold comfort.  Christians sounding superior is not what we need at the present time.

The challenge though is to provide some kind of ideological and moral leadership that seeks to step into the vacuum left by the demise of communism, which recognizes the need for financial growth and development, but which rejects the idolatry of capitalism.  For the past ten years or so it has seemed that only Islam has been capable of providing a coherent world-view as an alternative to capitalist idolatry.  Maybe this is because too many of us as Christians have allowed ourselves to be caught up in the worship of the gods of Wall Street.  We need a Christian theology that isn't so other-wordly that it has nothing to say to people in the real world in which we live and do business, but which isn't so in thrall to the gods of this world that it becomes just a religious version of capitalism. 

In the meantime, we can only pray for those made unemployed, bankrupt, and homeless by human greed and love of money.   

Strong Meat

This coming Sunday will mark a special Sunday for me.  It will be 8 years since I was formally inducted as Vicar of Christ Church, Kowloon Tong.  It will also mean that I am the longest serving Vicar in the 75 year history of Christ Church!  This is not something I intend to dwell on in the service, but perhaps something I can mention here!  It is also on the way to becoming the longest time I have served in one post since ordination.  So far the longest I have stayed in one position was while Chaplain and Tutor at Bedford.

I always hoped that I would spend 8 years here, but now I am looking beyond that and am concerned that in staying in my present position, I shouldn't fall into a rut.  There is a danger, I think, when you have been at a place for a while of getting into a routine in a way that you don't attempt anything new.  Given that, as regular readers will know, one of my constant concerns is the way in which church life can suffocate what it is we actually are called to do, I am anxious that the next few years should not just be more of the same.  Quite what they should be is another question altogether!

Strong Meat

For the past two Sundays, I have preached on Romans 12 and 13, the set readings for the day. As I wrote yesterday, I will be preaching on Romans 14 this coming Sunday.  In Romans, Paul writes for eleven chapters about salvation, sin, the law, righteousness, and the place of Israel in the purposes of God.  He concludes what he writes by focusing on the greatness of God's mercy to all, both Jew and Gentile.

In chapter 12, Paul appeals to his readers by these very mercies to offer themselves completely to God's service.  In the way that a priest in the temple would offer a dead animal in sacrifice to God, we are to offer our own bodies, that is our very selves, as living sacrifices to God.  Paul then continues to spell out what this means in practice.  He concludes with a call to believers to wake up and serve the Lord in love.

How does he follow all this in chapter 14?  He discusses whether we should eat meat and vegetables or just vegetables!  This seems an amazing anti-climax after his theological discussion in chapters 1-11 and its rousing application in chapters 12-13.

I was reflecting on this when listening to Barack Obama, the democratic contender for the Presidency in the United States, on TV earlier today.  On Tuesday, Barack Obama said in a speech attacking his opponents in the race for the White House that 'you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig'.  This led to Republican outrage claiming that it was an offensive and sexist reference to Sarah Palin.

The Democrats have responded that no such slur was intended and that John McCain, the Republican contender had used a similar line earlier in the campaign.  The problem, of course, is that last week at the Republican convention in her acceptance speech of the nomination as the Republican Vice Presidential candidate, Sarah Palin had made a joke asking what the difference was between a 'hockey mom and a pit bull'.  The answer: lipstick!  The answer was delivered with a gesture pointing at her lips.

The crowd listening to Barack Obama's reference to pigs and lipstick clearly took it as a reference to Sarah Palin.  Obama denies he meant this and in righteous indignation has complained that when America is engaged in two wars, is facing rising unemployment and an economic crisis, not to mention the problems of global warning, we should not be focusing on comments about lipstick!

Whether Obama intended them to refer to Sarah Palin or not, they were certainly unwise.  What gave them meaning for those who heard them was the context in which they were uttered.  And after Sarah Palin's joke last week, it was impossible for them to be understood any other way.  Either way, Obama appears either nasty or naive.

His reaction to the complaints about his comments that this controversy is just silly and trivial also misses a very important point.  The seemingly trivial issues are symbolic of much more serious and important issues.  It may be about lipstick on the surface, but underneath it is the whole issue of male-female politics and what is and what is not acceptable in political debate. Interestingly, ordinary people seem to get this better than professional politicians like Barack Obama and his team.

Many of us find it hard to express and put into words deep philosophical ideas.  It doesn't mean though that at some level we don't get them.  What we do is to express them in ways we can understand and articulate.  People may not be able to give a philosophical explanation of sexism and the rights of women, they do know, however, that appearing to describe a woman as a pig is wrong in the same way using similar language to describe a black man would be wrong.  

The debate in Romans (don't worry I have forgotten it!) about meat and vegetables may seem trivial to us and almost unworthy of a place in a great letter like Romans, but, to those affected by it in the Roman Church, the debate reflected and illustrated the very issues that Paul had been dealing with in the first eleven chapters of Romans.  Paul's response to how the debate should be handled reflects what he says about the need for love of one's neighbour in chapters 12 to 13.

As in the controversy over Obama's remarks about lipstick and pigs, what gives the discussion about meat and vegetables its significance is its context.  The context in Romans is the relationship between Jew and Gentiles that Paul has been so focused on in Romans.  For Jews and for many Jewish-Christians what you ate or did not eat showed who was in and who was out. In Galatia, Peter had withdrawn from eating with Gentile-Christians when Jewish-Christians had arrived.  In a different situation in Corinth, eating meat offered to idols demonstrated how strong your faith was.  There those who thought themselves the most spiritual despised those who refused to eat meat offered to idols.  The 'what you eat or don't eat' debate wasn't so much a debate about food as a debate about theology.

A popular saying tells us 'we are what we eat' and that was certainly true theologically in the first century.

Paul understands all this perfectly well.  He responds to the issue in the Church of Rome in two ways: 

1. He makes it clear where he personally stands.  Those who eat meat are indeed 'the strong'. They have understood all that Paul has said in Romans 1-11 about faith and the Law and have drawn the right conclusion.  He doesn't see those in Rome who refuse to eat meat, probably because of scruples based on the Law, as more pure, but as weak.  Whatever else it meant, Paul would certainly have seen dying to the Law as meaning that the Christian was free from the Law's dietary requirements!

2. Paradoxically though, this does not mean that everyone in the Church in Rome should eat meat.  Drawing on what he has written in 1 Corinthians, Paul won't allow the strong to despise the weak.  They may be weak, but they are still brothers and sisters in Christ.  The strong at Rome need to understand not only the argument in Romans 1-11, but also the argument in Romans 12-13 where Paul reminds them that we are to love our neighbour as ourself.  What is more, our neighbour in this instance is a brother or sister for whom Christ died.

In other words, what I believe about what God has done for me in Christ means that I can eat anything, but what God has done for me in Christ means that I shouldn't if it hurts someone else for whom Christ died.

It's not just about lipstick and wasn't just about meat!

A Marriage made in ...

One thing that happened over the summer was the marriage of Alan, the fictional Vicar of Ambridge, to Usha, a local lawyer, in the BBC radio drama the Archers.  Actually, they had two marriages, or at least, two services.  The first a Hindu ceremony, the second the Church of England version.  What little opposition there had been in the village to the union melted away being exposed as bigotry and racism.  Everyone, well nearly everyone, was really happy for them.  As a member of my congregation said, the script shows us how the script writers would like us to see things.  It conveys accurately the values, if not of a real village, then at least of  influential people in the media and society.

There is undoubtedly a view, a view in the Church as well as the world, which would see any resistance to the idea that it is alright for a Vicar to marry a Hindu as the reaction of misguided fundamentalists.  Alan may be fictitious, but he is alive and well in pulpits all over the globe.  The view is steadily gaining ground that what matters most is to be spiritual and that how you express that spirituality is less important than that you do.  Christians can be Christians, Hindus can be Hindus, and the only thing we will not tolerate is intolerance of our opinion.

We are back to a theme from yesterday: tolerance, but on certain terms and conditions.  It isn't real tolerance at all, of course, but a new form of bigotry masquerading as openness.  A real wolf in sheep's clothing if ever there was one.

The truth is, of course, that if Alan and the non-fiction versions of him really believe the Creeds they recite in their churches Sunday by Sunday then by definition all religions cannot be equally valid.  This does not mean that we shouldn't listen to one another and try to understand one another.  It does mean that we shouldn't pretend we are all saying essentially the same thing.

We are not.

Autumn in Hong Kong and Sarah Palin in America

Well, the summer has come to an end.  Not that you would know it from the temperature here in Hong Kong, which is in the mid-thirties centigrade.  The fashions here have gone autumnal as the Fashion Houses roll-out their Fall/Autumn collections.  It is a bit strange seeing people in Central Hong Kong wearing European autumn dress in such hot temperatures, but that's fashion for you!

It was good to be able to get back to the UK to visit family and to have a break.  But now the Schools are back and it's pretty much business as usual.  This Autumn, I will be teaching another Christian Ethics course and as I only found out about it over the summer, I am having to move quickly to get ready!  I imagine that some of my thoughts and opinions will creep on to this blog.

This Autumn will see the US elect a new President and Vice-President and no matter where we live in the world, we will be affected by the American voters' choice.  The campaign this year is making headlines over all over the world.  We all know about Barack Obama having watched him for the past 18 months or so during the primary campaign.  But now there is the surprising choice of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice-Presidential candidate grabbing the headlines.

Like many, I don't much about Sarah Palin.  We will get to know more about her over the next two months.  I do know, however, that there is something very nasty about some of the press coverage and comment that there has been about her.  Liberals seem to hate the fact that it was conservatives that picked a woman.  And they hate the fact that Sarah is not their sort of woman.

On the BBC's 'Any Questions?' programme in the UK this week, a feminist contributor unleashed an amazing tirade of personal abuse against Sarah and all she stands for even criticizing her hair-style.  The intolerance of those who claim to be champions of tolerance and inclusiveness can be breath-taking.  We will include you as long as you are one of us.

Sarah Palin may not be everyone's cup of tea.  She may or may not get elected.  Surely, however, she is entitled to the same sort of respect that she herself showed Hilary Clinton whose views were more to the liking of those who are so venomous toward Sarah.

Sarah has not made her faith part of her campaign.  And yet at the moment she is being subjected to some of the nastiest comments I have seen simply because she used to go to a Pentecostal Church and is a committed evangelical Christian.  Again, tolerance doesn't seem to apply when you actually believe in something unfashionable like God actually being active in our world.

Anyone who knows me will know that I am not a Pentecostal Christian, but I think Christians need to be very careful before joining in the attacks on a sister in Christ just because they don't like her particular brand of faith.  This coming Sunday, I will be preaching on the set reading, Paul's words in Romans 14.  Paul talks about those whose faith is strong enough to allow them to eat what they like and those whose faith is weak so that they avoid eating meat that may be ritually unclean.  Paul is clear that he agrees with the strong, but says that he would rather never eat meat again if it hurts a fellow-member of the body of Christ.

Instead of joining with unbelievers in their attacking Sarah for her faith, we should be praying for her, not that she gets elected necessarily, but that God will watch over and protect her as she is assaulted for the nature of her faith in Him.  We need to pray that her faith will stay strong in the test she is facing.  We can only hope that her opponents will stick to the issues and legitimate arguments over policies.  

Sadly, that doesn't seem likely any time soon. 

And those of us who believe in tolerance, inclusiveness and openess to others need to avoid the hypocrisy of believeing in it only when it applies to those people we like and get on with.

An Experience of Life being Transformed by God

I have been asked to write a short piece on the above title. I thought I would blog it here to mark my return! Those who have read the personal Journey series of blogs will recognize some of it!

An Experience of Life being Transformed by God

‘Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.’ (St Matthew 7:7-8)

Isobel Selina Miller Kuhn was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada on December 17, 1901. She graduated from university with a degree in English and qualified as a teacher in Canada before attending Bible School in the States. On October 11, 1928 she set sail on a passenger ship from Vancouver to China as a missionary with the China Inland Mission. She was to marry another misssionary and together they served in Yunnan in south-west China until forced to leave by the Communist authorities in 1950. She went on to serve in the north of Thailand until she contracted cancer dying on March 20, 1957.

Isobel was to have a ministry far beyond China, however, through the various books she wrote both about her own spiritual journey and her missionary experiences. The most famous of these is, By Searching. Little would she have known the effect it would have on one young teenager from Liverpool some 12 years after her death. I grew up in Liverpool and first started thinking seriously about Christinaity as a student at secondary school.

As a teenager, I was looking for answers and yet there seemed to be more questions than answers. It just did not seem to be working for me. Then one day while looking for something in a cupboard at home an old battered book with no covers fell out onto the floor, literally right in front of me. I picked it up and started to read. In it, Isobel spoke about how we find God ‘by searching’ and that God reveals himself to those who seek him and who go on seeking him. It was a message I needed to hear, and it encouraged me to continue my own personal search for God.

I never thought that my search would lead me to China. I had always assumed that my ministry would be in the UK, but as Isobel wrote we never know where our seeking after God will lead us. Isobel had one rule in life that guided her on her own journey and it was ‘in his will is our peace’. It is only when we are on God’s pathway that we will have peace: wherever it may lead.

A Prayer

Almighty God, in whom we live and move and have our being, thou hast made us for thyself, so that our hearts are restless until they find rest in thee; grant us purity of heart and strenght of purpose, that no selfish passion may hinder us from knowing thy will, no weakness from doing it; but that in thy light we may see light, and in thy service find perfect freedom; through Jesus Christ our Lord. (St Augutsine)

Back!

This has been a long break. I am sorry to have been away for so long. Life has been very demanding over the past month. I hope that I can now begin to pick up the threads again.

June was the wettest month on record here in Hong Kong and the rain has taken its toll especially on buildings like ours, and I am confronted yet again with various leaks. The trouble is it continues to rain so it is not easy to get them fixed. All very time consuming and frustrating.

This time of year is also very full of school activities. Graduation events, services, interviewing for new teachers and all the normal activities. I have no more news about the Corruption case, but will post when I have!

At the moment, I am trying to clear the desk ready for a holiday return to the UK and then, I hope, back to some routine! Thank you to all those of you who have kept visiting. I hope there may be something new for you to read from now on!

One thing I certainly am going to be watching over the Summer is how the Lambeth Conference goes. This is a ten yearly gathering of Anglican bishops from all round the world. This year they have many challenges to face not least talk of a serious split in the church.

Update on Alleged Corruption

Regular readers of this blog may remember how, when I was on holiday last summer, one of our teachers was arrested, accused of corruption. More specifically that she was allegedly taking bribes to secure places at the School. The teacher concerned has left the School, but we heard yesterday that she is now, 10 months later, being charged. I have to be careful what I say for obvious reasons, but below is the Press Release issued by the relevant authority. (For the original details see under the label Corruption).

Ex-teacher charged for allegedly deceiving $700,000 from parents over admission applications (06.06.08)

The ICAC has charged a former primary school teacher for allegedly deceiving over $700,000 from parents in relation to their applications for admission to the school.

Ms X, 37, former senior teacher of Diocesan Preparatory School, faces six counts of fraud and two of attempted fraud.

The defendant will appear in Kowloon City Magistracy at 9:30 am next Wednesday (June 11) for mention.

The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above alleged offences.

The six fraud charges allege that the defendant had falsely represented to four parents that they could show their sincerity to the school in relation to their applications for admission of their sons to the school; and that the school would refund the payments to them irrespective of the outcome of their applications.

It is alleged that the defendant, with intent to defraud, had induced the parents to give her a total of $630,000.

The remaining two charges allege that the defendant, with intent to defraud, had attempted to induce one of the above parents and another parent to give her a total of over $70,000 for the same reason.

The alleged offences were said to have taken place between July 13 and 20, 2007.

The management of the school concerned had rendered full assistance to the ICAC during its investigation.

The defendant has been released on ICAC bail, pending her court appearance next Wednesday.

Going Green

June is here and with it very heavy rain. The good news is that it has done the trees the world of good. The trees around the Church were looking rather sad, but they are now a luscious green. We are fortunate in this district of Hong Kong to have quite a few trees around and about.

Green, of course, is also the liturgical colour for the next few months and yesterday at Christ Church we dedicated a new green Chasuble. We use vestments in our worship here. While they attract less controversy than they used to, I know that some Christians are uneasy about using them. The neighbouring Anglican Church, for example, doesn't always bother with any form of clerical dress in services.

I remember when I was first ordained, some ordinands objected to wearing even a stole for the ordination service seeing it as symbolic of a Catholic approach to priesthood. I didn't feel particularly strongly either way, but equally, I didn't really give the matter much thought. However, when I found myself in a situation where vestments were the norm, I did find myself thinking more seriously about their use and came to the conclusion that there was in fact quite a lot to be said for them.

Not only do they provide a link with the past, (vestments, after all, have been worn in church services for many hundreds of years), they also provide colour and physical beauty. Such colour and beauty can enhance a liturgical service. The argument against them, of course, is that they imply that the wearer is somehow separated from the rest of the worshippers. They also suggest that something special is happening at Communion. I certainly don't feel separated from the congregation when I wear them, but I most certainly do think something special is happening!

I think there is room in the Church for diversity of practice. There are plenty of Churches that do not use vestments for people to go to if they that offended by their use. However, for those of us who value liturgy, they are an additional way of engaging all our senses in worship. Vestments also provide a way to celebrate the artistic gifts and talents of those who make them.

All this means, of course, that there is no place for worn-out and badly kept vestments. God deserves the best of us in our worship whether we wear vestments or not. Hence yesterday's new chasuble!

And, I am pleased to say, we have more on order.

A Wet Weekend

I am sorry to have been off the radar for a couple of weeks. A case of system overload I am afraid. But I have missed blogging so will try to get back into a regular routine!

The news over here has, of course, been dominated by the earthquake in Sichuan. The authorities reacted extremely quickly and efficiently to what was by any standards a horrific disaster and it still goes on.

In the newspapers today are the comments made by the actress Sharon Stone to a Hong Kong TV Channel during a visit to the Cannes film festival:

'And then all this earthquake and all this stuff happened, and I thought, is that karma - when you're not nice that the bad things happen to you?'

She also said that she was 'unhappy' with the way China was dealing with Tibet.

Two thoughts come to my mind. Firstly, when Christians have made this sort of link in the past they have been heavily criticised in the press. Rightly. 68,000 have died in this disaster so far and millions have been made homeless. Ms Stone should perhaps stick to mouthing the words of others in the scripts she is given.

Secondly, why do the trendy types care so much about Tibet's independence? This selective compassion has always puzzled me. The most appalling cruelty, slaughter, and inhumanity in Africa goes without comment from celebrities, and yet they love to talk about Tibet without, it has to be said, knowing very much about it.

As Christians, we should be prepared to bring a theological perspective to world events. Ms Stone's thoughtless comments, however, serve as a warning that any comment we make needs to be thoughtful, informed, and, above all else, compassionate.

Tonight promises to be a first for me. I am having dinner with not one, but two Archbishops! Not on my own, of course, but with other clergy. Our Archbishop is hosting a dinner for Archbishop Njongonkulu Ndungane, the Archbishop of Capetown. We have an amber rainstorm warning in place at the moment and it is very wet with more rain promised over the next few days. The biggest challenge tonight is going to be getting to the dinner without getting soaked!

It's good to be back!

Alan and Usha - The Latest

The story of Alan, the fictional Vicar of Ambridge in the BBC Radio production the Archers, and his fiancee, Usha, has seen some developments. A report about their intended marriage has appeared in the local paper much to their distress. Now it is a time for recriminations as they try to work out who has said what to the local paper. Interestingly, the script-writers have all the main characters in the drama supporting the marriage. The general line is: this is the 21st century so what's the problem?

I imagine in real life, as opposed to the fictional one of Ambridge, most people would feel the same. So why do I still feel uneasy about the idea? One possibility is that I when I first became a Christian as a teenager, I was told that Christians should not go out with non-Christians. 2 Corinthians 6:14 was often quoted:

'Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership is there between righteousness and lawlessness? Or what fellowship is there between light and darkness?'

Of course in the Old Testament the people of God are strictly forbidden from marrying people of different faiths and nations.

This all sits uneasily in the current cultural climate both in and out of the Church. Usha is, after all, an intelligent, genuine, caring, and likeable person. Why should the fact she is a Hindu be a problem?

Well, it's for everyone to work out for themselves, but at the bottom of why people don't think it's a problem is the belief that ultimately all religions are valid and that there is nothing unique about Christianity. On this view, what Jesus should have said is, 'I am a way ...' and not, 'I am the way ...' I would suggest that if you are one of the few who still believe that Jesus is the way, then no matter how nice and charming Usha may be, there are certainly problems with the Vicar marrying her. Hard though that might seem.

Anyway, I print below the Press Report as it is meant to have appeared in the local paper. This is taken from the Archers' web-site!

Devoted To You

Ambridge split over inter-faith marriage plan

This quiet rural community has been rocked by the news that its vicar, the Reverend Alan Franks, has become engaged to marry his lover, Asian lawyer Usha Gupta.

While neither the Church nor the Parochial Church Council would condemn the engagement, there is a substantial degree of unrest among parishioners, both in public and behind closed doors.

A member of the pastoral team revealed that, in the early stages of the controversial relationship, the diocese received written complaints, believed to be from within in the parish, including at least one anonymous letter.

While there appears to be a degree of support from non-churchgoers over the love which brought Bombay to Borsetshire, members of the congregation expressed great unease about the proposed match:

"I've nothing against them personally", said one. "If they want to have a relationship, fine. But as for them getting married, it just doesn't seem right to me. I don't think it's appropriate for him to marry someone from another faith. Alan's supposed to be our spiritual leader. It's his job to help us re-affirm our Christian beliefs"

Anonymous parishioners agree that by marrying a Hindu, the passionate parson is setting a bad example: "Even if Usha comes to church - which she hasn't done much so far - she's not a Christian and she's not confirmed, so she can't take holy communion. There's few enough regular communicants as it is. It's hardly going to help fill the church, is it?"

The Echo asked the couple for their view of embarking on a mixed-faith marriage in a small, rural community. Ms Gupta, a partner in the Felpersham firm of Jefferson Crabtree, was unavailable for comment and Rev Franks remained tight-lipped:

"Our marriage plans are a part of our private life, and we'd rather not have them made public", he said.

Pentecost Sunday

I am sorry not to have blogged during the last week. Hopefully this week will be different! At the moment, I am getting ready for our mid-morning service. Today it will be broadcast on RTHK Radio 4. It can be listened to on their website at any time after it has been broadcast.

This morning I am not preaching. It is a strange feeling not to have had a sermon to prepare as I have had a long run of preaching every Sunday. Those of you who preach regularly will know that it can be quite a strain. The last thing I want is for my sermons to be just the same old thing!

Anyway, I wanted to let you know I am still here and hopefully will be back very soon!

Church Council Night

I am sorry not to have blogged much last week. It was one of those weeks and I needed more time to work on the next in the current series on Paul. I will try to catch up.

I have a Church Council meeting tonight. One day I will learn to love them. But the truth is I don't. Church Council meetings make everyone formal and tense and not in a good way. Not here especially, just anywhere you use this model of Church governance. As the local elections in England last week illustrate all too well, a Council is a place where you have different sides, parties, and arguments. All great fun, of course, but not, in my humble opinion, the best way to run even a city, let alone a Church.

The epistle reading for the coming Sunday reminds us that we are the body of Christ. A metaphor of intimacy and inter-connectedness. You inflict pain on your body at peril. On the contrary, you nurture and care for it and avoid strife and conflict and anything that would harm it. Surely a better way to run a Church than the way of secular politics? But the Church has always followed secular models of government - to its own great cost.

The Biblical images of the Church, apart from 'body', are ones such as 'family' and the 'temple of God'. Apart from anything else, they somehow seem much friendlier and nicer than images drawn from the world of confrontational politics. I would much rather prefer, at a Council meeting, to be addressed as a brother, or if you will, as a father, or friend than as Chairman. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts, but even more, beware of Christians honouring you with titles!

I will let you know how it goes!

Thank you for patience.