Today I post the final in my series on Calvin (for previous posts see under Calvin).

Talk Five: God’s love is inclusive

God is in control and God loves us in Christ. These are two of the themes that I have identified in the theology of John Calvin, the 500th anniversary of whose birth is celebrated this year. The third, and the last one in these talks that I want to focus on, is that God’s love is inclusive.

This is not, perhaps, a theme that many people would associate with Calvin’s teaching. Calvin is all too often portrayed as stern and harsh: someone more likely to exclude and reject people than include and accept them. The most controversial aspect of Calvin’s theology and the one that many think, wrongly as it happens, was his main emphasis is the idea that God chooses some and not others. As I have been trying to argue, there is much more to Calvin than this particular idea. Equally, there can be no doubt that Calvin believed and taught it as one idea amongst many.

Now whatever you may think of this idea, and I imagine that many may find it difficult, to put it mildly, there is no question that it has its roots in the Bible and in Biblical language. No-one would dispute that the word, elect, meaning chosen, is a Biblical word used in the Gospels by Jesus himself. It is used throughout the New Testament to describe those who believe.

Calvin, in other words, did not invent the idea that God’s people were chosen, he was simply trying to understand and explain it. Many before and after Calvin thought along similar lines. It may be repugnant in our own day and age when we hate the idea of anyone making decisions on our behalf and like to deceive ourselves into thinking that we are in control of our own destiny. Previous ages have been more realistic about the limits of human freedom and power.

Still, even if we don’t want to go all the way with Calvin, it is perhaps worth seeing the positive side to what Calvin is saying rather than focusing all the time on what his critics see as the negative side. Calvin asserts God’s freedom of choice. God’s choice is not dependent on human standards and is not in any way influenced by them. In fact more than this, God’s choice, challenges and contradicts human wisdom and prejudice.

To put it another way: God’s elect opposes human elites. The alternative to God choosing is us choosing, and human choice always gravitates to those who are powerful and popular, rich and connected, famous and fabulous. It is not God who rejects people, but us, even us who claim to be God’s people who follow the example and teaching of Christ.

St Paul wrote the following words to Christians who were making judgements about people based on appearances and background:

‘Consider your own call, brothers and sisters: not many of you were wise by human standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, things that are not, to reduce to nothing things that are, so that no one might boast in the presence of God.’ (1Corinthians 1:26-29 NRSV)

All too often we exclude people on the basis of human wisdom and prejudice. We create churches where your face has to fit if you want to belong. Calvin would encourage us not to worry about what other people think. It doesn’t matter if you are poor or socially insignificant, unconnected or uneducated, weak or ugly, it only matters what God thinks of you. But it also follows from this that all that should matter to us is what God thinks. It shouldn’t matter to us what school a person did or did not go to, how they speak or do not speak, what job they may or may not have, whether they are rich or poor. All that matters is that they belong to Christ.

This then is the teaching and theology of John Calvin: belief in an all-powerful God who loves us unconditionally in Christ and whose choice challenges the false values of power, position, and prestige embracing us – just as we are.

In my series on Using the Bible in Ethics, I now turn as promised to the difficult issue of divorce. In this the first part, I want to look at the texts in the New Testament. In the second, I want to look at suggestions that we have misunderstood Jesus' teaching. Finally, I want to move on to how we should apply Jesus' teaching, whatever it was, today.

6. Using the Bible in Ethics: Divorce (Part One - Texts)

I have been contrasting two types of approach amongst those who wish to give the Bible a prominent role in arriving at ethical decisions. The first focuses on the actual text of the Bible, while the second seeks to identify broad themes within it that are then applied to specific ethical issues. This is done even if the application contradicts or appears to contradict individual texts. (See previous posts in this series under Using the Bible in Ethics)

One area where these two - texts and themes - would seem to come together is over the subject of divorce. In the New Testament, at least, our Lord no less, seems explicitly to forbid divorce giving the theme or principle upon which he bases his prohibition (see Matthew 5:27-32, 19:3-11; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18). Even the more sceptical scholars seem to agree that Jesus took a strict, rigorist stance when it came to divorce based on his understanding of God’s intention in creation.

There is one problem, of course, the so-called ‘exceptive clause’ in Matthew (Matthew 5:32, 19:9). Jesus forbids divorce ‘except for unchastity’. Mark and Luke, however, do not allow any exceptions in their version of the text as it stands. So did Jesus say it, or is it, as many argue, an addition by Matthew to soften Jesus’ otherwise strict demands?

And then there is the problem of what the word translated in the NRSV as ‘unchastity’ actually means. Some take it very narrowly to mean something like marriage within the forbidden decrees of the Old Testament, so that the text would mean that you could only divorce if you discovered you had married a close relative. The obvious question is why you would only find out you were closely related after you got married! Others take it more broadly to mean that divorce is allowed if the partner has sex outside of the marriage.

So even though we may conclude that Jesus was strict in his approach to divorce, we are still not sure how strict he was. If we take the position that he allowed divorce for adultery, then it is interesting that Mark does not include the permission! If he did not allow divorce at all, then we have the interesting position within the Bible itself of one evangelist feeling able to modify Jesus’ teaching, perhaps in the light of pastoral realities in his own church community.

Again, the text based approach runs into some difficulty and may have done so from the beginning. Jesus’ theme seems clear enough: that God’s original purpose in creation was that man and woman should live together as one flesh. Given that God has joined the man and the woman together, no-one should now divide them. The problem remains of how rigorously to apply it: strictly, as in Mark or Luke, or less so, as in Matthew.

This ‘no divorce’ teaching has, of course, led the Church into difficult pastoral situations. What do you do when one of the partners in the marriage – usually the woman – is physically abused by their husband? Even Christians wanting to stick to the letter of what Jesus said, have accepted that the wife should separate from her husband, even if they would not let her marry again. But why stop with physical abuse, what about mental cruelty? And what constitutes evidence of mental cruelty?

Jesus’ teaching was found to need further explanation from the very first. Even if Matthew does have Jesus’ original words, Paul found in Corinth that he had to do some serious pastoral thinking about separation, divorce and re-marriage (see 1 Corinthians 7:10-16). Jesus’ context was that of Israel, where people were expected to keep God’s law. He was, after all, speaking to those who historically were God’s people. Paul, however, is dealing with a Gentile context. Paul seems to have been asked by the Corinthians about separation and divorce, in general, and more particularly about separation and divorce when one of the partners was not a Christian. In some of the marriages one of the partners in the marriage is an unbeliever. In general terms, Paul feels it is clear. Paul repeats the Lord’s teaching, making it plain that he is quoting Jesus: believers should not divorce, but if they do separate they should not remarry.

When it comes to marriages in which one of the couple is not a believer, Paul makes it clear that what he has to say is his teaching and not that of Jesus. He doesn’t mean by this that what he says isn’t authoritative, but rather that this is his teaching in the light of what he knows Jesus to have said. He is applying Jesus’ teaching to a situation and context that Jesus had not addressed.

His teaching is that in marriages where one of the partners is an unbeliever, the believer should still stay married and not divorce his or her partner. However, if the unbeliever separates from the believing partner, says Paul, the believer is not bound. Divorce, in other words, in this situation is allowed. A new pastoral reality, not addressed by our Lord allows Paul to adapt our Lord’s teaching to the changed context. Now it is clear that Paul isn’t keen on divorce and wants to avoid deviating from our Lord’s teaching, but he does recognize, as may have Matthew, that changed pastoral realities may require an interpretation and application of it.

The weather here in Hong Kong is at last a little bit cooler! We are now getting ready for some big events over the next few weeks not least our Feast of Christ the King on November 22 when we celebrate the founding of our Church.

Today I post the fourth in my series of radio talks about Calvin.

Talk Four: Loved in Christ

Calvin’s theology defies easy summary despite attempts in the past to do so. Certain themes do occur regularly, however, themes which are often neglected in the preaching and teaching of the Church today. One theme is that God is in control. No matter how hard life may seem and how bad things may get, God remains in charge and is able to bring good out of evil.

People often accuse Calvin of being hard and cruel and of projecting these characteristics onto to God himself. So that, it is said, in Calvin’s theology, God becomes distant and unforgiving. I think, sadly, that this may have been true of some versions of Calvinism, but it is certainly not the God of Calvin himself, the God he devoted his life to serving and worshipping. The God who is in control is for Calvin the God who loves us in Christ.

When was it that God first loved us? Scientists tell us that the universe came into existence some 13 billion years ago. St Paul in his letter to the Ephesian Christians writes that God chose us in Christ before the creation of the world. It is all too easy to read words like this without grasping what they are saying. Think for a moment about this means. It means that before everything went bang, before the stars were born, before the dinosaurs roamed this earth, before the emergence of human life, before we were even a thought in our parents’ mind, God loved us.

Jesus said that ‘no-one could come to him unless the father drew them’. We didn’t choose God, he chose us in Christ before we were born, and then, at the right time, he called us to himself. This ought to give us massive reassurance. God loves us absolutely and unconditionally. He knew from before the universe began what we would look like, think like, and behave like. He know everything there is to know about us. He knows even those things about us that we don’t want to admit to ourselves and certainly not to other people.

And yet knowing all this, he still loves us and goes on loving us. No wonder then that St Paul asks, ‘if God be for us, who can be against us?’ We need have no fear of being rejected by God and no fear of anything getting in the way of us being loved by God. This is the point of that wonderful passage in chapter 8 of St Paul’s letter to the Romans:

‘For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.’ (Romans 8:38-39 NRSV)

The Bridget Jones books and films have deservedly been very popular, and I am delighted to learn that another is in production. Renee Zellweger is brilliant as Bridget. Bridget is very susceptible to the opinions of others. She is constantly trying to please people. She worries about how she looks, what she wears, what she weighs and tries, normally unsuccessfully, to change to win approval. An amazing moment for her comes when Mark Darcy, played by Colin Firth, tells her that he loves her just as she is. Just as she is. She doesn’t have to be someone else or pretend to be someone she isn’t. He loves her just as she is.

If we wonder whether God loves us and accepts us or not, the absolute assurance that we have is that he did so a long time ago and nothing can change this acceptance. Jesus in his life showed us the love of God. He accepted the very people that the society of his day marginalized and rejected. He reached out to them no matter who they were, where they came from, or what they had done. God knows us better than we know ourselves and in Christ he reaches out to us still – just as we are!

It's Friday and I am very excited that my brother, Charlie, and my sister-in-law, Corinne, have come to Hong Kong for a visit. Charlie will be preaching at Christ Church on Sunday. You will be able to listen to his sermon on the Christ Church web-site.

Below I post the third in my radio talks on John Calvin. Coincidentally, in it I mention an incident that happened over the Summer when we were on holiday together!

I notice that Paul Helm has a series of posts on John Calvin on the Guardian newspaper web-site. They are excellent and complement what I am trying to say. Read them here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/series/how-to-believe

I am about to have a cup of coffee now and listen to the Archers!

Have a good weekend!

Talk Three: God is in Control

Calvin’s ‘big idea’ to use the words of one Calvin scholar was that we know ourselves when we know God and we will come to know God when we know ourselves. In other words, the secret to finding the meaning and purpose of life lies in finding God.

It is common for people to sum up Calvin’s theology using the acronym TULIP. This is supposed to give us the five points of Calvinism. So taking each letter in turn: T stands for Total Depravity: the idea that we are all infected and affected in every aspect of our being by sin. U stands for Unconditional Election the idea that God chooses those he wants to save and know him without any reference to who they are or what they have done. L is for Limited Atonement: Christ died for those God chose and not for everyone. I is Irresistible Grace: those so chosen and for whom Christ died are called by God in such a way that they cannot resist his calling. And P, the Perseverance of the Saints: those called by God will be kept by God in such a way that they cannot and will not fall.

These ideas are certainly to be found in Calvin, but this summary describes Calvinism better than it describes Calvin. It may sum up the beliefs of his followers, but it is totally inadequate as description of the theology of the person who wrote the Institutes of the Christian Religion one of the greatest works of Christian theology in the history of the Church. Calvin’s theology defies easy summary and simple acronyms. Rather than attempting to describe it, I would instead like to pick three themes from his theology that I think speak to us today.

Teenagers I know use the word random to describe things. As in, ‘Ross that was so random’. It is used somewhat pejoratively to describe something that seems to have no meaning, something out of context and unexpected. For many this is what life itself is like. It’s so random. It is an idea constantly reinforced by the media. Life is portrayed as being unpredictable. The spirit of our age tells us that life has no ultimate meaning. There is no grand plan. No great purpose. You have to make up your own story, find your own meaning, make the most of now. After all, life is not a dress rehearsal.

And life can seem very random. Sickness, tragedy, death: what’s the point? Where’s the meaning? In the Summer, I went back to Scotland on holiday. On the way home from Scotland I was driving on the motorway. Suddenly and without warning, while driving, I got a puncture. Fortunately, no-one was hurt and nothing was damaged - apart from the tyre that is! We were, however, severely held up. We had been in the middle lane. We weren’t going particularly fast. There was nothing we could have done to prevent what happened: it was so random.

For some this is a metaphor of what life is like. You never know when it is going to go wrong and there is nothing you can do to prevent bad things happening. Some versions of Christianity seem to go along with this. God, they say, has given us free-will and leaves us to get on with it. We make our own luck and write our own story. Yes, of course, we try to follow Christ’s teaching, but essentially it is up to us.

Whatever else this is, it’s not Biblical Christianity. In the Bible, God is the God who moves nations around and even when they are at their most powerful and evil, he uses them to achieve his will and purpose.

In all he wrote and taught, Calvin emphasized above all the greatness of God.

St Paul writes: ‘We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him’. Let us make no mistake. Pain is pain and it hurts. Sickness, tragedy and death are all horrible. In this world we have suffering, and we weep and we cry and so we should. But no matter how bad things may be and at times they can be very bad, nothing can thwart God’s plan for his creation and for us.

No matter what the appearance to the contrary may be, it’s not random: God is in control.

5. Using the Bible in Ethics: An Aside

I am currently reading for pleasure a biography of one my favourite writers, Somerset Maugham, by Selina Hastings. Maugham described himself as in 'the front row of the second rankers'. In his time, he was immensely popular as a writer, but was never regarded as quite being up there with the literary greats: the sort who get their books listed on university English Literature courses. As I find most of these often incomprehensible and, frankly, boring, I do not see this as a particularly bad thing.

One thing you can be sure of when you read Maugham is that his books are very readable and never dull. His stories, for he was essentially a story-teller, translate easily and effectively to the big screen. The latest adaptation, the Painted Veil, is of special interest to me being set as it is in China! My recent shoulder injury required me to hang around the physiotherapist's for quite a while each week. To pass the time, I read a volume of Maugham's short stories. I came to look forward to those sessions of enforced idleness! Our Lord himself was, of course, known for his gifts as a story-teller.

What has struck me most so far in the biography, however, is how much the world changed during his lifetime. Maugham was born in 1874 and died in 1965. He lived through a period of incredible social, political and industrial change. Maugham himself wrote of this when 'looking back' on his life:

'In my long life I have seen many changes in our habits and customs.

The world I entered when at the age of eighteen I became a medical student was a world that knew nothing of planes, motor-cars, movies, radio or telephone. When I was still at school a lecturer came to Canterbury and showed us boys a new machine which reproduced the human voice. It was the first gramophone. The world I entered was a world that warmed itself with coal fires, lit itself by gas and paraffin lamps, and looked upon a bathroom as a luxury out of the reach.'

I was born in 1955 and I suppose my memory kicks in at about the time of Maugham's death. In the years from then to now, change has continued at a constantly increasing pace. I was watching Fawlty Towers not long ago and the thing that struck me was how they used a typewriter with not a computer in sight and this only 3 decades ago.Maugham himself was a great traveller. It is one of my many reproaches against myself that I always resisted the idea of travelling when I had the time and freedom to do so. It was said of the Beatles that it was a big deal for them to make the journey from Liverpool to London. It was! I made the same journey just a little later and was not in any mood to go further. Now living in Hong Kong and, in the past ten years having travelled more than in the rest of my life, I wish I had travelled more and regret what I have missed. Yes, I know God willing, it is not too late to travel, but it is too late to see what life used to be like in different parts of our world even just a few years ago. (See under: Personal Journey)

When I visited the Taj Mahal in India a few years ago, I was able to ring my mum from it on my mobile phone. To me, this still seems incredible, but not to any of the young people I know and minister to for whom the worst crisis in life is their mobile phone going dead or not being able to access their Facebook. But I am beginning to get nostalgic.

My point (yes, there is one) is that the world we now inhabit has, over the past 100 years or so, changed beyond recognition from the world of the Bible. This was the point that Bultmann was making when he famously 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.'

I don't as it happens agree with him, but living in the world we now inhabit does make it harder than we realize to understand the New Testament world and even harder to know how to apply the New Testament to ours. It also raises the question of whether rules which were designed for and worked in such a different world still work in the one we live in today.

The first commandment God gave human beings in Genesis after their creation was to 'be fruitful and multiply' (Genesis 1:28). It was also the first commandment he gave Noah and his family after the flood (Genesis 8:17, 9:1, 9:7). Most of us would, I think, feel that while human fertility is a great gift, it now needs to be controlled in a way it didn't in the past. We do not hesitate to over-ride God's most fundamental commandment to men and women because of changed social conditions. What was right then is not right now. What other commandments in the Bible are there, I wonder, that were right then, but are no longer right now?

Anyway, I recommend Somerset Maugham's writing to you if you want a really good read!

St Luke's Day

It's Sunday afternoon and I am trying to catch up on the backlog from the week. Taking a break I came across this report about the Hadron Collider in Switzerland, which broke down not long after being switched on:

'In an article worthy of the mantle of truth being far stranger than fiction (science fiction or otherwise), the New York Times writes of two prominent physicists who propose the setbacks at Hadron — and the failures of other physics facilities intent to seek out the same physics holy grail, the Higgs boson — may not be accidental at all (just a bit strange for us lay folk to wrap our minds around).

It goes like this:

The Higgs boson, a proposed but not yet documented elementary particle, is theorized to be that which gives matter its properties of mass. But physicists Holger Bech Nielsen and Masao Ninomiya speculate that the particle is, to put in vernacular terms, not a toy.

As the Times’ Dennis Overbye writes:

"A pair of otherwise distinguished physicists has suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather."

The pair fully understands how batty it all sounds, and that neither the recent Hadron failure, nor the U.S. pulling the plug on its large collider project in the 1990s, provides proof of anything. That’s why they did the math, showing all their work, indicating the theoretical viability of their strange sounding notion.'

After something of a frenetic week, I am grabbing a few moments to continue my random series on Using the Bible in Ethics. So below is a post picking up on some points in the last post in the series about themes and texts. I realize that there is some repetition in these posts, but I did say they were going to be somewhat random! In the next post, I want to look at an issue that the Bible does discuss and where themes and texts seem to come together: divorce.

4. Using the Bible in Ethics: Two Types of Approach

I have been trying to identify some of the problems facing those of us who take the Bible seriously when it comes to using it to make ethical decisions. I realize, of course, that for many Christians the Bible just isn't that important, and you solve the problem by not letting it be a problem. Instead, you just get on with making decisions without worrying too much about where the Bible fits into the picture. Many of us, however, whether evangelical or not, feel we cannot just dismiss the Bible this way, and so for us there is a problem.

To generalize, there are two types of approach amongst those trying to use the Bible to make decisions today:

1. Firstly, there are those who feel it is a question of identifying texts and then applying them to whatever the issue may be. The trouble is those who adopt this approach are not always consistent in the way they do this. For example, there are those who reject the validity of homosexual relationships on the basis of specific Biblical texts, condemning homosexuality while at the same time accepting women's ordination, even though specific Biblical texts seem to tell against it.

2. Secondly, instead of focusing primarily on texts, there are those who prefer to identify themes within the Bible and then to work out their logic, even if that means contradicting specific Biblical texts. So, for example, the theme of 'equality in Christ' is taken to justify women's ordination, even though Paul, who champions the theme, did not himself apply it in that way and even though Christians for nearly two thousand years didn't apply it that way either.

Now I accept that there are some Christians who are entirely consistent in their attempts to apply texts to today's ethical challenges even if it puts them in a minority amongst other Christians. I think Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church in Seattle is probably an example of someone who takes this approach. Where, of course, people like Mark run into problems is when they are confronted with an issue that the Bible simply does not address, issues such as genetic engineering, medical research, nuclear power, and so on. Of course, for many in this camp, ethics is primarily about sex and so this is not so critical - or this a cheap shot on my part?

I also accept that some of those who take a thematic approach simply do not care whether Paul or anyone else has seen the implications of what to them is glaringly obvious. What matters is not whether anyone has seen or applied a theme in the past, but whether we do so in the present. Most liberal Christians, for example, would feel such freedom.

I, however, start from the position that while we do indeed need to understand the themes of the Gospel message, the way we work them out also needs to be consistent with the text of the Bible and with the way the Bible itself works them out.

As an orthodox Christian, I would also argue that in applying the themes and texts of the Bible, we need to listen more to the saints and teachers of the Church in the past and less to the prophets of the secular society in the present. It remains a nagging suspicion in my mind that had non-Christian society around us not adopted certain positions on certain issues, it would never have even occurred to the Church to do so.

What I am suggesting is that in many areas, it is not that we are trying in the Church to apply either themes or texts, but rather to find them so that we can bring our attitudes and behaviour more in line with the accepted wisdom of society around us. I know that many Christians would not have a problem with this. I am afraid, however, that I do!

Yes, Christians have to accept that the world has changed and we shouldn't do this hesitatingly or reluctantly: change is neither necessarily good or bad, it is just inevitable. This means we have to ask how we behave and what our attitudes should be in such a changed world. This is the hermeneutical challenge that faces Christians in whatever age they live and especially in ours. But asking how we should think and live today in a world much changed from that of the Bible is very different from manipulating the Bible and its teaching so that we can live lives in our world that are fundamentally no different to anyone else's.

Using the Bible in Ethics demands that we take seriously the difference between our own age and the age in which the Biblical texts were produced, but it also means taking seriously the Biblical texts and the themes which emerge from them, rather than trying artificially to force them to justify ideas and beliefs that we have arrived at, not from Biblical study and Christian theology, but from society around us.

One thing the Bible should teach us is that God doesn't like it when his people follow the customs and manners of the nations surrounding them. If we want to be pagans, then that is an option open to us. What we certainly should not do is to try and dress paganism up so it looks like Biblical Christianity.

Deliver us ...

I took delivery yesterday of two books. The first, The Indelible Image is by one of my favourite writers, Ben Witherington. It is the first volume in a two volume work on New Testament Theology and Ethics. As I teach Ethics and with my main interest lying in the New Testament, it is a book which brings together my two principal concerns. As is to be expected, Ben's book is scholarly, well-written, full of insights, and devout: the fruit of many years of research and study. I expect to not only enjoy reading it thoroughly, but to be referring to it for many years to come.

What to say about the second? It is the Deliverance of God by Douglas Campbell. At 1,218 pages, it certainly is not a light read, but it is, nevertheless, getting rave notices on the Internet. Many are claiming, including Campbell himself, that it will revolutionize our understanding of Paul's theology and change Pauline studies forever. You get the idea.

The book clearly covers a great deal of ground tackles many difficult and controversial areas and, again, represents a large amount of research. I am always worried, though, when people claim to be the first really to understand Paul or some other part of the Bible. I find that a bit difficult to believe and not a little arrogant! Campbell basically dismisses most other interpreters of Paul as simply wrong and mistaken. He alone has decoded the mystery which is Paul.

I am looking forward to reading it fully, if only to see what all the fuss is about. I have, however, read parts of it and am a bit bemused. You will know the story of the Emperor's new clothes. How a group of tailors convince everyone that they have made the Emperor a magical new set of clothes that only the wise and clever can see. Everyone pretends that they can see the clothes not wanting to appear foolish. It takes a little boy to shout out, 'The Emperor has no clothes on!' before anyone realizes the deceit.

I wonder if this book may be an academic set of Emperor's new clothes. Campbell in interpreting Romans, for example, claims that in Romans 1-4, Paul is, in fact, saying precisely the opposite to what basically everyone has ever thought that he was saying. Paul, Campbell alleges, is arguing with a 'Teacher' in Rome (although Paul never actually says this is what he is doing) with whom he disagrees and in doing so quotes his argument at length. So, for example, Romans 1:18-32 is a 'speech in person', that is, Paul is giving the Teacher's argument not his own.

Now I know that there are some things in Paul, which, as Peter puts it, are hard to understand, but if Campbell is right then Paul is not only hard to understand, but basically impossible. It would mean that for 2,000 years no-one has been reading the most important work of Christian theology in anything like the right way. If this is the case, then I would suggest that we just abandon all study of the Bible as a waste of time and get on without it.

I don't think it is the case, however. The book is clever, no doubt. Just as the tailors who made the Emperor's clothes were clever. But the joke is on us if we let ourselves be convinced by such extravagant claims.

A fantastically busy week!

Here is the second of my talks on Calvin.

Talk Two: Calvin’s Big Idea

This year is the 500^th anniversary of the birth of the French born theologian and reformer, John Calvin. I expect some of you, at least, will have read Marilynne Robinson. She is a prize-winning American author. Her latest book, Home, has won the 2009 Orange prize for fiction. She has also written Housekeeping and Gilead - all books I would recommend if you are looking for a good and thought-provoking read. She has written and spoken of the influence of Calvin on her and on her writings. She is an example of a modern day Calvinist turning up in an unexpected setting.

There is on the BBC in the UK a radio programme called Desert Island discs. It is a long-running and very successful one. A guest each week is invited to choose 8 discs that they would like to have with them if they were to be marooned on a desert island. At the end of the programme, they are also invited to choose a book apart from the Bible and Shakespeare, which they are given anyway, together with a luxury item. It is a simple, but effective format, and a good game to play at home with friends. It tells you quite a lot about someone!

Certainly on my shortlist of books to have on a desert island would be Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is Calvin’s most influential piece of writing. It underwent several revisions before reaching its final form. Calvin intended it for pastors to teach them about the Christian faith and to be used by them as a resource for teaching their congregations. It begins with what one Calvin scholar has described recently as Calvin’s big idea. Let me read it:

‘Nearly all wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern.’

What Calvin is saying and what he continues to elaborate on is that we can only know the truth about ourselves and find our place in the world when we know the truth about God. And we will only seek to know the truth about God when we know our own inadequacy and need of God. This is important. For Calvin, knowing ourselves, does not mean what it means in self-help books where we are encouraged to tell ourselves each day how great we are. Rather it is about knowing how great our need of God is.

For Calvin, it is the greatness of God that is the focus of his writing, theology, and worship. For some people, this is something that he takes too far, but even if we don’t want to go all the way with him, this is surely a message that we need to hear today more than ever. God in too much that passes for Christianity is no more than a genii in the lamp: there to serve us and to grant us what we wish for. Someone to make us feel good about ourselves and wanted. For Calvin, the truth is the other way round. Calvin believed that everything begins and ends with God and that we will only understand ourselves and the world in which we live when we come to know God.

Calvin was an admirer of another of my own favourite theologians, St Augustine, who said: ‘you have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in you.’

We were created by God for God and can have no peace without God.

We desperately need to rediscover this truth today if our lives are to have meaning and our existence is to have purpose. Too many of us are drifting, not knowing where we came from, why we are here, or where we are going. We sense that there must be more to life than frequent visits to the mall and greater goals in life than owning the latest designer handbag or the newest gadget, but how to find what it is alludes us.

Calvin encourages us to get back to basics. To come to know the One who created us and loves us and wants us to know Him. Strangely, it is when we lose ourselves to find God that we come to know our true selves and find real meaning and purpose in life.

Sunday morning and the first of October. It is till very warm in October not the weather I used to associate with this time of they year. Next week is our Harvest Festival! Today I post the text of the first of my radio talks on Calvin.

Talk One: Calvin

This year is the anniversary of the birth of one of the most influential Christian theologians. The 500th anniversary to be precise. His influence has been immense and reaches far beyond the Church. Indeed, some credit the movement that he gave rise to with being the source of modern capitalism. His name? John Calvin.

John Calvin was a 16^th century French theologian who alongside such people as Zwingli and Luther worked for the reform of the Church in Europe. Calvin and those like him believed that the Church had become corrupt and infected with error. He is particularly associated with Geneva where he worked and was based for many years.

Originally from France, he was heading for a career in law when he was converted to the cause of those protesting against the state of the Church. It is, of course, from this protest that we get the word ‘protestant’. He never sought fame, indeed, it was an accident that saw him drafted to the protest and the cause of reform although for Calvin there was nothing accidental about it. He felt God was calling him.

Calvin’s influence was to be far more lasting than that of the other reformers. For Calvin was the theologian par excellence of the reformation. He is a theologian whose thought and writings continue to be of influence even today. Calvin wrote profusely. He lectured. He preached. He wrote a commentary on almost every book of the Bible. He preached at one time 5 sermons a week, many of which are still in print. His letters fill many volumes.

Calvin himself was a deeply humble man and insisted that upon his death he be buried in an unmarked grave so that the place of his burial could not become a shrine. After his death, though, his writings and theology were to have a profound effect on the Church throughout the world and not just in Europe. The 39 Articles of the Church of England, which are the theological foundation of the Anglican Church, are deeply indebted to Calvinism – embarrassing though this may be to Anglicans today who do not always wish to acknowledge their indebtedness to him.

Why should anyone be embarrassed to be connected with such a theological giant and genius? Well, even in his own day Calvin was a controversial figure as well as an influential one. After his death, he attracted many critics as well as many admirers. And it has to be said that he has not always been well served by his followers. Calvinism has acquired the image of a hard, austere, demanding and often joyless form of Christianity. And it has to be said, there is some truth in the accusation.

In Scotland, where I ministered before coming to Hong Kong the dominant form of Christianity owed much to Calvinism and it could be very judgemental and exclusive. No matter how sincere its adherents may have been.

Despite this, I confess to being one of Calvin’s admirers. I may not always be drawn to Calvinism and those who claim to be following Calvin, but Calvin himself is one of my theological heroes. This is not to say that I agree with everything Calvin said and did. I am not even sure had I met Calvin I would have particularly have liked him. I am almost certain he would not have liked or approved of me. But there is in Calvin and his writings a profound theology that transcends such considerations of personality and celebrity.

Christians are called to follow Christ. Knowing how to do so, can at times be difficult and challenging. The New Testament tells us that one of the gifts of God to his Church is that of a teacher. All human teachers have their faults and weaknesses. No-one is infallible – a sentiment that Calvin would certainly have agreed with. But we do well to value the gifts of God and hear what he is saying to us through his servants. The wisdom of people like Calvin is something we can still learn from today.

It has been the busiest of few days and I am now drawing breath and looking forward to end of the week, which, in addition to being my birthday, is also mid-Autumn Festival and National Day. This means that people around me get to celebrate the birth of China and of me all at the same time!

3. Using the Bible in Ethics: Inconsistencies

Can I stress that in this post I am not arguing for or against a position on any of the issues mentioned (slavery, women's ordination, homosexuality) rather I am trying to look at how the Bible is being used at arriving at decisions on them as well as looking at the process by which we reach a decision.

Let me begin this post then with three simple statements:

1. In the past, some Christians led the campaign to abolish slavery, even though the text of the Bible seemed to support it.

2. In the past, some Christians accepted the ordination of women even though the text of the Bible seemed to be against it.

3. Today, some Christians, who support the abolition of slavery and accept the ordination of women, even though the text of the Bible seems to be against it, are opposed to homosexuality because the text of the Bible seems to be against it.

Isn't there an apparent inconsistency in this last statement that at the very least requires some explaining on the part of those who hold it?

In fact, the text of the Bible seems to have far more to say in support of slavery and against the ordination of women than it does about homosexuality. Now I am not here arguing that the Christians concerned are wrong in their convictions on any of these issues. I totally accept the sincerity of those involved in the campaign against slavery, for women's ordination, and against homosexuality. What I am trying to do is understand how the Bible is being used and interpreted and in what way it is authoritative for making decisions today about what is right and wrong.

A question I am also trying to answer is, if it is alright to ignore specific texts when it comes to slavery and the role of women in the Church, why must they be rigidly adhered to when it comes to homosexual behaviour? Quite simply, I suspect that the decision about all these issues is being made by all the parties concerned on grounds, possibly perfectly valid ones, other than the Bible and before the Bible itself is brought into the debate.

In using the Bible in ethics, there is amongst Christians of all varieties, a liking today for an approach that seeks to understand and follow the implications of the bigger theological message of the Gospel rather than being bound and limited to individual verses in the Bible. Themes then which emerge from the Gospel are more important and authoritative for helping us decide what is right and wrong than specific texts. So the theme that 'all are one in Christ' is more important and determinative for the Church than 1 Timothy 2 which says women shouldn't teach.

Furthermore, it is argued that, simply because the New Testament writers didn't work out the logic of the themes that they themselves teach, doesn't mean we shouldn't. There may have been all manner of reasons why they couldn't see the logic of what they preached: human weakness, a lack of time or occasion to do so, cultural limitations, prejudice, opposition and so on. It is the Gospel that we are bequeathed in the New Testament firstly, by Jesus himself, and then by his apostles that serves as our authority. Yes, of course we can learn from how the apostles and their followers applied this in their own setting and, yes, we should listen to what they themselves have to say, but we are not bound to their interpretation and practice and, indeed, sometimes we must do the opposite to it.

Now I can see the attraction of this 'themes versus texts' approach, but I remain unconvinced about it as the basis for using the Bible in ethics. I will return to why in future posts, but for the moment two problems come immediately to mind:

1. I am suspicious that the significance of these themes, in two of the areas we have considered, weren't spotted for a very long time. (18 centuries for slavery and the best part of 20 for the role of women in the Church.)

2. And, seriously and logically, is it true, for example, that the theme of 'equality in Christ' means that women should be ordained?

Isn't the truth rather that trends and themes in society at large have led Christians to take a different stand now on some issues than they did previously? Now this isn't a problem for those who believe that this is how God speaks to us today. It is a problem, though:

1. For people who, knowingly or unknowingly, have accepted that this is how he has spoken to us on some issues, but won't let him speak to us in this way on others.

2. And it most certainly is, I suggest, a problem for people who think that the Bible should be our guide and authority in these issues and not values and ideals which originate outside of it.

As an observation, I think those who accept slavery, think women should not be ordained, and reject homosexual relationships have ON THE SURFACE OF IT the greater claim to being both Biblical and consistent.

Even if I don't personally agree with them myself.

I thought I would post another blog in this random series before the weekend! It promises to be a busy weekend with a large wedding on top of various other activities.

I am also preaching on Sunday. The Gospel reading this week picks up on last week's reading about Jesus' using a child as an example of discipleship. The point of what Jesus is saying is not so much that we should welcome children (which, of course, we should), but that we should be more like them as his followers. The immediate occasion in Mark's Gospel of this teaching was the disciples argument over who was the greatest amongst them. becoming a child then means rejecting the search for power, position, and prestige that is all too common in our Churches.

Wherever you are and whatever you are doing, I hope you have a very good weekend!

2. Using the Bible in Ethics: Whence the Themes?

It is over 200 years since the Atlantic slave trade was abolished. Many in the Church have rejoiced that the heroes in getting it abolished were people like John Newton, a former slave-ship captain who became an Anglican priest, and the so-called Clapham sect, a group of evangelical Christians including Wilberforce. Newton also wrote, of course, the hymn, Amazing Grace, after which the 2006 film about the abolition of the slave trade is named.

It is important to remember that the abolitionists didn't just campaign for slaves to be treated more humanely. They campaigned for an end to the slave trade and of slavery itself. They are often portrayed as people who on the basis of their study of the Bible campaigned against something that the Bible taught them was wrong. As Dr Richard Burridge points out, however, the Bible teaches no such thing. Certainly the Bible would not encourage cruelty and the sort of conditions slaves were kept in, but, if anything, it can be said to support the institution of slavery itself.

One of the first things that happened after the flood was for Noah to make his grandson a slave (Genesis 9:25-27). Abraham, the father of all who believe, is blessed by God with slaves. Exodus and Leviticus provide for slaves and how they should be treated (Exodus 21 and Leviticus 25) and the New Testament makes no effort to challenge the social and economic system of slavery upon which the Roman Empire was based.

I have heard Tom Wright argue that Paul in his letter to Philemon placed a time bomb under the institution of slavery. All I can say is that if he did, then it took a long time for it to go off: 18 centuries to be precise, during which time the Church and prominent Christians in it had slaves themselves. It perhaps needs to be remembered that Paul sent Onesimus back to Philemon and in 1 Corinthians 7 urges Christians to stay in the state in which they were called.

It is true that Paul tells masters to treat their slaves fairly, but he orders slaves to obey their masters 'as they obey Christ' (Ephesians 6:5-8; Colossians 3:22-25). In Titus, slaves are told that they are to be submissive so that they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Saviour (Titus 2:9-10). The attitude to slaves in Paul is repeated in Peter who goes even further telling them to obey their masters not only when they are kind and gentle, but also when they are harsh. Furthermore, they are to accept pain, seeing it as being to their credit, if they suffer it unjustly (1 Peter 2:18-19).

The abolitionists were undoubtedly good, honest men who acted from the best of motives, but the way they use their Bibles to justify their beliefs is a long way from the way it is often used by many of those who see them as their spiritual heroes. Quite simply, the text of the Bible seems to offer support to slave owners not to abolitionists. As with women's ordination, it can, of course, be argued that the thrust of the Bible's teaching is against slavery: it's just that no-one in the Bible seems to think that it is.

It is hard to avoid the conclusion that with slavery as with women's ordination beliefs reached on other grounds are being used as the basis for subtracting themes from the Bible that otherwise wouldn't have been seen. And that the themes so reached are then being used in a way that appears to contradict the actual text of the Bible itself.

I am not arguing that it is necessarily wrong to reach conclusions about what is right and wrong on the basis of convictions arrived at from sources other than the Bible, just that we need to be honest that this is what we are doing.

I would like to begin a series of blogs about using the Bible in Christian ethics. They are somewhat random, but let's see where they lead!

1. Using the Bible: Themes not Texts

When I first became a Christian, I was encouraged to see the Bible as having all the solutions to life's problems. If there was any issue at all then it was to the Bible that we should turn for a definitive answer. It was a question of a text for every occasion. It didn't take too long to see that there were difficulties with this approach. What about issues that simply weren't around when the Bible was written, nuclear power for example? This difficulty was admitted, but the Bible was still considered as having answers to those issues that were issues then as well as now: sex and marriage, for example. And I have to say that many people I knew were far more worried about people having sex than they were about nuclear destruction!

In fairness, evangelicals at least, were reasonably united on this approach and largely agreed on what the answers were that the Bible gave to the questions we face.

This consensus began to break down, or so it seemed to me, over the issue of women's ordination. In my own church, for example, in the debates leading up to the vote in the General Synod of the Church of England in 1992, evangelicals were seen to be divided over how to interpret the Bible on this issue. For some it was very straightforward, the Bible did not allow women to have authority over men so that was that. Others tried to argue that the Bible did support women being ordained and that the texts had simply been misunderstood and misinterpreted in the past. I always felt that those taking this approach sounded as if they were arguing that black was white.

The approach that carried the day was that while indeed there were texts in the Bible that, taken literally, would not allow women to be ordained these were culturally limited, did not represent the spirit of the Gospel, and did not apply today. The thrust of New Testament teaching, it was argued, led to the conclusion that women should be ordained, regardless of what specific texts did or did not say.

Not all were happy with this approach, of course, but it has, I suggest, become the majority view amongst evangelicals in approaching the issue of women having authority in the Church, irrespective of which denomination they happen belong to. I single evangelicals out solely because of the emphasis they make, theoretically at least, on seeing the Bible as the authority for decisions within the Church.

There has been a general movement from a 'text' based approach in which texts are found for or against on an issue to a 'theme' based approach in which Biblical themes are seen as what should be followed, even if there are specific texts pointing in the opposite direction. So when it comes to women's ordination, the Biblical theme that 'in Christ all are equal' means that women as well as men can be ordained, even though 1 Timothy 2, taken literally, seems to suggest otherwise.

I realize, of course that the whole issue of women's ordination is far more complicated than this, but I hope you get the point about what I am saying about how the issue is being approached by those who want to allow the Bible a significant role in making a decision.

Back to Normal

It's been a long time so hello and thank you to all who are still reading.

The Summer heat here goes on forever. It is still in the 30s and probably will be for some time to come. It was rather good then returning to the UK for a couple of weeks to enjoy temperatures of around 20! Although the heat goes on, Summer itself, of course, does not everything is now settling down after the Summer break. Schools have started, the various organisations are back to normal, and we are planning the run up to Christmas (hooray!)

There is much to do before then, of course, and the next major event is Harvest. Here it is in two stages: first, we have the mid-Autumn Festival in Hong Kong, which is a public holiday, and then the Church's own harvest festival. Usually, we involve the schools in the celebrations, this year, however, there is some doubt as to whether we are going to be able to as human swine flu has taken quite a hold in our school communities. We are fast coming to the conclusion that the sooner we all get it the sooner we can get back to normal.

Swine flu or not, I am just thankful that my shoulder injury has now healed. Last term was challenging to put it mildly, but apart from the odd twinge now and again, I am largely over it. Thank you to all who sent good wishes!

I am also back this term at Ming Hua, our theological college, teaching Christian Ethics. I am doing this against the background of the ongoing crisis in the Anglican Church over the issue of homosexuality. I find it both distressing and incredible that we Anglicans are prepared to tear ourselves apart over this. St Paul writes:

For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself." If, however, you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another. (Galatians 5:14-15)

Well there is a lot of biting and devouring going on at the moment, and I doubt that anyone will win except, of course, the Devil.

This ongoing dispute, however, has encouraged me to focus more on how we use the Bible in ethics and apply Biblical teaching to issues today. The Reverend Dr Richard Burridge has written on this, and his book, Imitating Jesus, gives food for thought. I intend to blog on this issue as I get back into the swing of blogging!

Yesterday, I recorded 5 talks for a series of radio broadcasts on RTHK in October. They are for the Minutes that Matter slot on Radio 4. This year is the 500th anniversary of the birth of John Calvin and this is my own small contribution to it. I will post them here beginning next week.

As I say in the talks, I am not sure I would have liked Calvin if I had met him and I am sure he would not have liked or even approved of me, but to allow such concerns to influence one's opinion of someone's theology would be to reduce Christian theology to the level of celebrity and personality. What matters surely is truth and there is I think much in Calvin's writing that can help us understand God's truth more.

See what you think of my take on Calvin anyway!

Homecoming

I have been catching up this week after returning from a family holiday. Last week, I was preaching at my brother Charlie's two churches in Bedford. Anyone interested can listen to the sermon on their web-site (www.thisischurch.com).

I am preaching this weekend here at Christ Church. The second reading contains a favourite verse:

'Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ has forgiven you.' (Ephesians 4:32)

I hope you are all well!

Losers for Christ

I won't bore you with all the details of my sermon this morning. Suffice it to say that it was on 2 Corinthians 12:2-10 where St Paul says that God's grace is made perfect in weakness and that God's grace is sufficient for him. If you are so disposed, you can hear the sermon online on the Christ Church website thanks to the good efforts of Samuel who looks after these things for us.

This has always been a favourite passage of mine. I remember when I was 17, walking home late at night going through moments of late teenage angst. This passage not only came to mind, but became from that point forward a text that has been with me all my life. I used to have a picture on my bedroom wall with it written across: 'My grace is sufficient for thee.' I still used the Authorized Version in those days!

Anyway, my sermon this morning, which could never hope to do justice to what St Paul writes, simply stressed that relying on anything other than God's grace was a recipe for disaster and that riches, power, prestige and position were illusory and unreliable. I think, as a matter of pure fact, that this is what St Paul says, irrespective of whether you agree with him or not!

I was hoping to offer some hope to members of my Church, who, I know, are dying and/or who are going through great distress at the present time. God may not always take our 'thorns in the flesh' away, but he does give us his grace to cope - or so I believe.

I had expected people to say either 'that's not my experience', or 'how do I experience this?' What caught me somewhat off-guard was the reaction of a long-standing member of my Church and a very committed one at that. This person said, and I am trying to quote as accurately as I can:

'You are only saying this because you are a failure and don't earn a lot of money. You can't do any other job other than this poorly paid one and are just jealous of those who have done better than you. You are trying to justify your failure and make yourself feel better using theological language.'

Now I have to confess that I was tempted to immediately engage in self-justification. As it happens, all I have ever wanted to do and be is a priest. But, thank God, I managed to control myself. For whether true or not, and God alone knows what my motivations are, this is how many think, even those in the Church. When we as preachers argue for a different way to the way of society around us, they just don't think we mean it and are sincere.

While, doubtless, I will get over it, I have to admit to being more than a little hurt.

St Paul's words, and, indeed, those of our Lord's himself, just sound like idealistic nonsense to most people - Christians included. And those of us who try to honour them are seen as just losers.

I am challenged, saddened, and very disturbed. But I hope and pray that, whatever else, I really do believe what I said this morning. I am convinced that this is at the heart of the Gospel. We preach Christ crucified. Still, it seems, a stumbling-block.

No matter how great the temptation to doubt oneself may be.

Wet and Weeping

One of the projects that we have started here at Christ Church recently is the renovation and reordering of the building to the side of the Church in order to create a multi-function space for different groups to use. Today the builders were going to start work on laying new drains. Needless to say, today turns out to be one of the wettest so far this rainy season. It is really very wet!

I am hoping that the rain will go off soon - not for the builders, but because we have a funeral in Church this afternoon of a long-standing church member who, sadly, died a few days ago of cancer. I am sure other priests and pastors will know what I mean when I say how hard it is to take the funeral of someone you knew reasonably well.

As priests and pastors, we often get asked to take funerals of people we never or only barely knew. I would like to think that we do so with sensitivity and sympathy, but when you knew the person and are yourself part of the grieving community, it is always that much harder. I have always made it a rule not to take the funeral of close family. This rule was pushed to the limit in my previous parish when there was a time when I was regularly taking the funeral of parishioners who had become good friends.

It is a reminder that important though things like building work are in a Church, the real work of ministry is to 'rejoice with those who rejoice and to weep with those who weep'. Regular readers of this blog will know that I regard death as always an occasion for weeping, even though as Christians we look forward to the day when God will wipe all tears from our eyes.

Until then, he entrusts us with the task of wiping each others eyes for him.

Lies, **** lies and road death

After all that has gone on this term. I am really looking forward to having a break in a few weeks time and, in particular, to going back to the UK with my family to see my family - if you see what I mean. This will involve me driving greater distances than I have since last time I was back - shoulder rehabilitation permitting.

I was, then, very interested to see a report on the BBC web-site telling us that road deaths in the UK are at their lowest since 1926. This is the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8118341.stm

This seemed very counter-intuitive to me. I find UK roads terrifying.

But then, I am one of those who wishes that the internal combustion engine had never been invented and who regards the car as the creation of the Devil. I find it hard to think of any argument in its favour.

Incredibly, in London, traffic moved at the same speed in Victorian England, if you rode a horse, as it does now, if you drive a Ferrari. This may expalin why everyone goes speed mad on the motorways when they are not blocked by road-works or accidents. But I digress.

How, then, to explain the corrspondence in deaths between 1926 and 2008. I think the answer lies in another statistic. The number of people both killed or seriously injured in 2008 was 28,567.

In other words, it is not that accidents don't happen, it is just that we are better now at keeping people alive afterwards. Headline statistics like this feed what we want to believe. As car addicts, we want to be told that cars are safe, even though they are not.

The one good thing to come out of the present world-wide recession is that car purchase is declining. Sadly, I don't think it will be long before we take up our addiction again. We haven't got off the trip, we just lack the money at the moment to finance it.

I also noticed the other day in the news that India is planning a big expansion of its road network. Ironic, as another item in the news was that train operators in the UK want to expand the railway network. Perhaps the two countires should talk to one another.

Especially since the UK gave India its railways and India is now buying up the UK car industry.

Getting back to Normal?

It's been a long time since I blogged seriously. So in this blog, let me bring you up to date!

First of all, thank you to all who sent me good wishes after my accident. It needs to be said that I am aware that many people have a lot worse to deal with than a few broken bones! Nevertheless, it was very painful. The worst part was not getting any sleep for a few weeks because every time I moved, I got a serious amount of pain that kept waking me up! Trying to keep working after not sleeping for days on end was not easy. It helps you understand why unscrupulous regimes use sleep deprivation as a form of torture!

Thankfully, the shoulder fracture has largely healed and the pain mostly subsided. I am now undergoing physiotherapy to get the use of my shoulder back. There are a whole range of movements I still cannot do, but it is improving!

Secondly, life goes on, of course, and the biggest issue I have to deal with at the moment is swine flu. It was quite some time after the first outbreak in other countries that Hong Kong had its first local case. But it has spread rapidly since. Primary Schools and Kindergartens have been shut for two weeks and the government announced this week that they would remain closed now until September. This has affected all the end of term activities and it is particularly sad for those who have been rehearsing for end of year performances and the like.

My own doctor's practice wrote to its patients yesterday about the swine flu making a number of points:

1. It is very infectious.

2. The actual number of cases is likely to me much higher than those recorded because many doctors (themselves included) do not test for swine flu. They just treat the symptoms.

3. Following on from this, they don't think the flu itself is very serious.

This makes it very difficult for those like myself charged with making decisions about what we do and do not cancel. On the one hand, the government is urging us to be as careful and as vigilant as possible. On the other, we are being told that there is nothing much really to worry about.

What doesn't help is that after the schools closed all that has happened is that parents have started taking their kids to activities such as ice-skating at the local mall instead. If the kids are going to congregate in malls, they may as well be in school.

The problem is that every-one is worried about what would happen if people did become seriously ill or even died. Or to put it more honestly, who would be blamed. I received advice yesterday that even though the risk of anyone getting seriously ill at an event we were organizing was small, I should not go ahead with it because if anything did go wrong, the School was liable to be blamed and would not be covered by our insurance.

It is a difficult choice: to go ahead with an event that everyone wants, knowing that the same people would be the first to criticize if there was the spread of infection, or to cancel it and spoil everyone's fun.

My own point of view (in case anyone is interested) is to play safe. Given that all are agreed that the disease is very infectious, I think it is better not to take risks. While this present flu strain may turn out not to be serious in its threat to health, no-one quite knows for sure. We certainly don't know what may happen in the winter. So I am in favour of doing what we can to contain the spread of infection, but suspect that it may be too late!

I confess to being more than a little surprised that people I know who were panic-stricken during the SARS outbreak here a few years ago seem totally unconcerned about swine flu. I hope I am wrong, but I fear this particular illness may turn out to be more serious than some seem to think. But I am just a Vicar so what do I know?

I do know that I get very annoyed when people tell me that they are worried about taking communion in Church! Our policy, which I am sure is the same in most churches, is to allow people to decide for themselves whether they receive just the wafer at Communion, both the wafer and wine, or neither. I am convinced that there is no risk at all - just as well given that I, as the priest, consume what remains at the end of Communion.

But even if there was a high risk, doesn't it say something if we unprepared to take that risk? Either Communion is important or it is not. If it really is, as St Paul says, a 'participation in the body and blood of Christ', then surely the risk is worth it?

I hope it won't be as long before the next blog. Stay well!

Hooray!

I have now started physiotherapy, which means I have begun the road to recovery.  

It is very painful, though.  There is, however, some very positive news: I am so pleased that we have our Archbishop to preach tomorrow.  I have told you about him before.  He is one of the good guys!

As, indeed, is my colleague Eric who has supported me and helped me to focus over the past few weeks.  It has not been an easy time.

I will tell you all about it when the pain eases.

Have a good Sunday!

And thanks for keeping with me on this blog.

Thank You

Thank you to all who have prayed and thought about me over the past few weeks.

This has been a difficult time that I will tell you all about - eventually.  

I know that many of you have suffered much pain physically and spiritually in your lives, much more than me, but this has been the most physical pain I have experienced.  I have tried not to let it affect my work, but inevitably it does.  My congregation have been very forgiving of me not being at my best.

I hope to be more cheerful in the next post.

I am sorry to have gone off the radar recently!  On Maundy Thursday, I had a fall and landed awkwardly, badly breaking my shoulder and collar bones as well as getting somewhat bruised.  I managed to cope with the Easter services, but the recovery time is quite long and, in the meantime, I am in quite a bit of pain! There is little I can do except to be very careful I don't do anything to cause more damage than I have.

I hope I will get back to posting in the near future!

The past couple of weeks have been very intense with all sorts of important meetings not least my Church's AGM last Sunday.  The AGM is not that long, but getting ready for it takes ages! Thankfully it went smoothly with people in reasonably good heart. Last night was the last in my series on parables for our Lenten Studies.  We were looking at the Parable of the Pounds (Luke's equivlaent to the Parable of the Talents).  Now it's time to get ready for Easter!

Here is the last in my series of talks for the radio on Creation.

Creation Talk Five: Through Him and For Him   

In the UK, a little book called the Penny Catechism used to very popular amongst Roman Catholic Christians, in particular, for learning about the Christian faith.  It is so called because it used to cost a penny and teaches the faith by asking and then answering a series of questions.  It begins like this:

Who made you? 

God made me. 

Why did God make you? 

God made me to know him, love him and serve him in this world, and to be happy with him for ever in the next.   

In other words, we are not the chance product of a random process.  We are not accidental beings who live for a few years on this planet then merely to vanish without trace.  We are spiritual beings created for a purpose by a loving Creator.  We may exist for only a short time in this world, but there is a future for us beyond it.  It is the Bible’s contention that the biggest obstacle to that future lies in ourselves, in our rejection of the One who made us, and in our desire to go our own way.

This desire has led us to wage wars, to inflict harm on others, and to torture each other.  It has resulted in hatred, violence, cruelty, discrimination, selfishness, and all the many other acts of wickedness that we shut our minds to.  Evolution suggested to us that things could only get better; in fact, they only ever seem to get worse.   

In Christ, God offers us the chance to get back on track, to find him again and so rediscover our purpose both in this life and for the next.  Salvation makes it possible for the creation to achieve its original purpose.  But the question remains, why did the uncreated God who is beyond the creation, create.  What was his purpose?   

The answer the Bible gives is one that frequently gets overlooked even by Christians!  Christians rightly focus both on God’s supreme act of love in becoming one of us in the person of Christ and also on how through Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, he both reveals himself and saves us.  From the very beginning, Christians realized that Christ was no ordinary man.  He was indeed fully human, but he was also divine.  Accordingly, they worshipped him as God.   

As they reflected on what this meant, however, they came to see that Christ’s earthly existence was only a part of the story.  They came to see that he was in fact in the beginning with God, God’s eternal Son who had always existed alongside God the Father in perfect love and harmony.  This recognition led them to formulate what we know as the doctrine of the Trinity: One God in three persons; three persons in One God.  It is for this reason that Christianity is rightly described as Trinitarian religion.   

From this, they drew the boldest of conclusions.  God the Father had brought the creation into being through the Son.  The Son was the agent of creation.  In the Gospel we read at Christmas it says: ‘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 into being.’    

Everything has been created through Christ.  As if this wasn’t enough, the early Christians went even further.  Everything had been created through him, but everything had also been created for him.  The creation was the Father’s gift to the Son.  Before anything came into being, God had determined that when it did, its purpose would be to produce people in his own image who would be part of the family of Christ.   

When everything went bang, the future was already clear.  The creation is not an accident, and nor are you and I.  We were created to know God in Christ and when we do, we discover our own purpose in existing.  At the same time, we become more fully and truly ourselves.  Without Christ we are missing out on becoming who, from the very beginning, we were meant to be.   

The world we live in me may as a result of human sin be less than perfect.  Human beings may fail and turn their back on God.  But God remains as committed to his creation and to his purpose in creating as he ever was.    

And Christ remains at the centre of all God’s plans for you and me.