The IDYLL of the IDLE

This is what happened when I got woken up at 1.40am with a leg cramp. Then I couldn't get back to sleep and my brain started working. Then, at about 3.30am, I had to get up and write stuff down, which lead to this thought.

If we live an IDLE Christianity.
Entranced by an IDYLL of Christianity.
Does it lead to an IDOLATROUS Christianity?

Which lead to this.

When I was in my late teens. I had two vans, sort of. One was a poster of one of those 70's custom van's. Custom airbrushed paint job, mag wheels, big V8, chrome pipes, bucket seats, padded velour interior, state of the art sound system. A Party House on wheels.

This was my IDYLL, the kind of van I dreamed of having.

Then there was the van parked in my driveway. It was beat up, the paint looked like it had been put on with a broom. The stereo was cheap and tinny. The wiring questionable, no upholstery and two seats that were anything but, bucket. But throw in a crate of beer and it was still a party house, of sorts.

On some level, it probably had the potential to become something like the van in the poster. It was after all, a van.

The problem was, I was idle in regards to that potential. I was a lot like the man in Proverbs 19:24.
A sluggard buries his hand in the dish; he will not even bring it back to his mouth.
I had at my hands a measure of ability and potential, but did nothing to gain or benefit by it.

I was quite simply, "idle".

There is a small part in an automotive gearbox, and it doesn't really do a lot. It's called an idler gear. This little gear does have a purpose. But most of the time it just sits, idle. When does this little gear come in to play? When you want to go in reverse. Manual gearboxes are called synchromesh. All of the gears have a level of engagement, they all turn together. As they are engaged, one by one they contribute to the forward motion of the vehicle.
For the little idler gear to become engaged, everything has to come to a complete stop. You have to select neutral, and then reverse. That's right, that little gear can only make the car go backwards.

For the idle Christian it can be pretty much the same. Just sitting there, unengaged. If they do need, or try to engage, things can just get slowed down.

The same can be seen in the long term unemployed. If they become accustomed to being idle, unproductive habits develop. In order to re-enter the workforce they have to be coaxed in, they have to learn new, or re-learn old habits. Sometimes to the point of completely retraining.

But what happens to the idle Christian if they don't engage? Where does that lead to?

An idle Christian life (as I define it), is one with knowledge and experience (small or little it doesn't matter) but no practise, and therefore no power. Because of a lack of power, faith and confession begin to atrophy. Disillusionment sets in, they lose their capacity to believe. Disconnection sets in. The comfort zone is settled and occupied. They have become like the person Paul spoke of in 2Tim 3:5, "having a form of godliness, but denying its power".

Now we are left with a Christian, (in name only) that is trying fill the empty God space with other things (this comes under the general heading of backsliding).

And sometimes our ideal of Christianity gets shattered. We have an expectation of people, and of Jesus. So when people don't behave as expected. When our experience doesn't match up with others. When we don't see God move.

That's when we hear those little whispers, "Has God really said?"

Anything we put in our lives, anything we place before our eyes. To replace or perhaps to shut out the empty God space in our lives. Anything we attempt to do to add meaning into our lives, when we have lost our meaningful God relationship.

That is called an idol.

Our idleness has removed us from our idyll.

We have become idolatrous.

The "other" uncomfortable Jesus.

A few weeks ago, I was shown this poem by G. Betty Hares.

IDENTITY

Conceived out of wedlock,
Born in an outhouse,
Laid in a make shift bed of unsterile straw.

Let's trim it up a bit,
Make the cows gentle,
Add a sky of soft velvet and bright twinkling stars.

Let's accent the romance.
Forget the reality;
After all it did take place a long time ago.

We know such things happen,
But this must have been different,
This was the Son of God crying and cold.

Deep down I've a feeling,
He refused to be different,
That his birth, like his death, was as bad as could be.

If it's different I've made it so,
Heaven forgive me!
And that's why I'm blind when I meet him today,
In the addict, the drop out, the homeless, the hungry.
And that's why they often don't meet him in me.


I like this poem, because it challenges the way we have so often mythologised our concept of Christ.

We prefer to create for ourselves a "comfortable" Jesus, one that is easy to live with.

There is a dual nature to the person of Christ, and I think that most of us tend to gravitate towards one aspect of his nature or the other. Some of us like the idea that Jesus was kind-hearted and healed people. But we're not too sure about cursing fig trees and storming the money changers tables with whip in hand. We like the gentle, meek user friendly image of Jesus. Oh yes, we understand that he will sit in judgement one day, but lets not dwell on that now shall we?

Atheist Richard Dawkins has said that he finds the story of the crucifixion utterly abhorrent. But he quite likes the beatitudes. So he is comfortable with one idea of Jesus, but not with another.

Then there are those that gravitate to the more authoritative Jesus, those powerful images of storms going out at the breath of his words, warnings of judgement to come. For them, power is embraced at the cost of mercy.

We need to see and understand Jesus in his completeness. Because if we focus only on the "nice" Jesus, then we bypass judgement and accountability. But if we focus only on judgement and authority, then we shut people off from grace.

So how do these two natures sit in balance? Here are some clues.

Matthew 10:16b Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.

Psalm 85:10 Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other.

Ephesians 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head even Christ.

Throughout the scriptures we see this balance happening. Where truth, judgement, wisdom, righteousness, are paired together with peace, love, innocence, mercy. In the verse in Ephesians, Paul is telling us that obtaining this balance is the key to growing into Christ. And I particularly love the picture of intimacy between righteousness and peace.

We sing a song in church at the moment, that speaks of God's FURIOUS LOVE  being poured onto the cross. It is a confronting idea that God, in that same moment, poured out BOTH, his WRATH and his LOVE.

Richard Dawkins rejects the idea of the cross. Because he cannot reconcile the compatibility of these dual natures.

The poem I began with speaks of an inability to see Jesus in the needs of others, and the inability of the needy to see Jesus in us. We pray and cry out for more of him. But maybe what we really need is all of him. When we embrace both his regal nature as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, and his submissive nature as the Lamb of God. When we understand what it means to exercise judgement and mercy together, then we will be more like him.


Footnote. As I was working on this post, I got all excited about this idea of "The Lion and the Lamb laying down together". Because we quote that all the time right? Except no such verse exists. I thought for certain that it was in Revelation. Wrong. It does in fact come to us in mixed up form, from a verse in Isaiah 11:6 The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them.

And, I was so excited because I was going to work this idea into the post. I was certain I would astound you all with this killer of a point. Which brings me back to how easily we get carried away with our mythologised views of Christ.

A favourite preacher of mine, Charles Nieman once said, "If you're going to preach the Bible, then preach the Bible, at least find out what it says."

That's good advice.

The Priestly Robes

Have you ever wondered what it was like, when the priests in the Temple brought the sacrifices to God?

To me the scene is almost unimaginable, the most bizarre of spectacles. The shedding of blood, bullock after bullock, goats and sheep for the slaughter. Carcasses burnt to charcoal on the altar. Fat fires flaring under the hot Judean sun.

It would have been unbelievably messy, sweaty, smelly back breaking work. It was sacrifice.

But this is just one aspect of the Priestly office. Their main purpose was to represent God to the people, and the people to God. Until recently I don't think I had ever really seen this in action. That is, until I stepped in to the 2015 Hillsong Conference.

It was on the Tuesday evening after the main rally had ended. Joel Houston, with the United band, stepped onto the stage to lead the final worship session of the night. As I have seen him do on previous occasions, Joel brought nothing of himself to the microphone. On this night, as he introduced the song "Prince of Peace" I saw Joel, metaphorically, put on priestly robes.

It was the role of the High Priest to carry the burden of the people of Israel. Symbolized by the graven stones sewn into the priests ephod.

Joel, with faltering voice, reached out to the crowd to talk about the struggles we face in life. He invited us to lay them before God, to open our hearts and trust Him just a little bit further. To lay them on the altar.

But not only a priest, Joel became a shepherd, leading his flock to drink from still waters, inviting us to dine at a table, laid out in the midst of our struggles.

Not everyone in the Christian Church likes this style of worship. The style that is typified by Hillsong, United, Jesus Culture and others. I recently read an article by one such critic. You can read this article by Mike Livingstone if you want. I agree with  some of his points. I agree that the one thing a Christian should never do on any platform is to point to them self. But I can't help wondering, when I read articles like this, if maybe the issue is just that they don't like the method.

On more than one occasion, I've heard the words "Christian Rock" spat out of the mouth like an expletive.

Later in that same week of Hillsong Conference, I had the joy and pleasure of sitting in on a worship set led by Martin Smith, the former front man for Delirious. I have loved this mans music for many years now. In particular I was thrilled to hear him play a favourite song from the Delirious playlist. The song is called "Obsession".

My connection is not with the song, and it is not with the man. The words of the song speak to my human condition, my personal struggle to walk out my beliefs. It points me to Jesus. This song was for me a beautiful moment lost in surrender, arms stretched wide. In the midst of the song, the lights, the video screens, the people around me, there was an invasion of stillness.

Is the scene on the modern church stage really all that different to the scenes of the early temple?
With loud celebratory songs of praise, the smoke and flame of the sacrifice, the sun bouncing and glinting off burnished bronze and polished gold, off the jewels on the priestly garments.

As I stood in the midst of that auditorium. As waves of sound crashed over me, I had a thought.

Some people, Christians, will point and say. "THAT'S NOT WORSHIP".

But sometimes.

It just is.

Go Set a Watchman

"Every man's island, Jean Louise, every man's watchman, is his conscience."

Brief History of the Book.
The history of this book is well documented so I will keep this part short. Go Set a Watchman was the first book written by Harper Lee. It was at the behest of a publisher that Lee wrote, To Kill a Mockingbird. It covers in greater detail a portion of the back story that we see in Watchman.
The Manuscript was found in a safe deposit box only recently. Harper Lee is in assisted care, her mental state, following a stroke, was in question, but supporters of Lee were adamant that she was enthusiastic for the book to be published. So now we have it.

Style of the book.
Some of the initial reception for the book has been unfavourable. Some of the critics have complained that the story, "meanders" there are other complaints, but they have little to do with the way this story has been written. And that's what we have to ask here, is it a good story, is it well written?
As for style, I have been reading a book called "The Irresistible Novel" by Jeff Gerke. In it, Gerke explains that many of the reasons submissions for publication get knocked back, is down to personal taste. It is usually about style, narrative, point of view, plot devices. Here is the problem with Watchman so far as critics go. It was written in the 1950's. It has not been re-written. Style has changed since then. Anyone trying to compare this book by todays publishing standards, is in danger of missing the story completely.

Importance of the context.
This, as I have said, is a book written in the 1950's. It is about a post WW2 generation. It precedes the civil rights movement, but hints at it's early rumblings. The story has a strong sense of personal biography to it. Harper Lee's father, just like Atticus Finch, was a lawyer. Lee herself grew up in Alabama, the same US State these stories are set in.

The story has a very strong sense of reminiscence. It is a return to the idyll of childhood, a yearning for simpler carefree times. We visit that childhood often. But it clashes with a present reality that counterpoints those memories. If the book seems to meander, it is because there is so much backstory. We have to remember, this book was written first. Mockingbird was written second. We need the backstory, as well as the internal dialogue, to understand the all important context of this story.

Because the central character of Jean Louise (Scout) discovers the truth of her fathers racism.
It is a rending of the heart. Atticus is the last family Scout has left. We are given a sense that maybe, his court defense of the young negro in Mockingbird, is one of expediency rather than of altruism.
But we want to reject this possibility. Because we, as 21st century readers and movie lovers, are equally in love with Atticus Finch. The champion of the down trodden.
But Atticus Finch has feet of clay. Or does he?

This is what is left for Scout, and for us to discover. The truth about this heroic father figure, and about herself.

"I did not want my world disturbed, but I wanted to crush the man who's trying to preserve it for me"

This is a great book, it's characters are richly developed and realized. There is humour and conflict. It is well paced, even as it meanders. You simply have to trust the author to tell the story. My great disappointment was not with the book or the story. It is with the Author. Because Harper Lee a Pulitzer Prize winner, was a writer of undeniable talent, and these are the only two books she has written.

As I read this book I also had the feeling of a metaphor. This is a story for America. Post war America. That has lost the idyll and innocence of it's youth. Times are changing, and America must change with them. But will the change be enough, or soon enough? Oddly, this is a story for today. Because the story resonates with current issues and questions, that America is once again facing on the subject of race.

Was this book written 60 years too soon? Or was it published 60 years too late?

In a 2011 interview, Harper Lee was quoted as saying, "I have said what I wanted to say, and I will not say it again."

In that case, I have to ask. Have we been listening?

Mariage, Definitions and Disputes.

In a follow up to my previous posting, Same Sex, Same Jesus? I was also thinking about our current definitions of marriage. This again is hotly disputed territory. So it may help if we try to understand what we're talking about, what we're thinking and why we think it.

I have done a small amount of research on this subject in the interest of clarifying some of my own definitions. However, most of what I write here are my own understandings of the subject at hand. i.e. How do we define marriage?

Let's start with the simplest and most common term of all. Holy Matrimony.

Straight away we have a problem, because I seriously doubt that many people, and possibly this is especially true of Christians from a traditional denominational background, have a correct definition of what it means to be "Holy".

Most readers will automatically have some idea of purity or piety, maybe even celibacy. Even an idea of a man with god like status. Perhaps some notion of someone so close to God that they are nigh on unapproachable. (Such a view is actually borderline idolatry) This is most likely the product of traditional church thinking/teaching. It perhaps stems from images of Moses, his face shining, coming down from the mountain with the ten commandments. Blend in with this the idea that we are all essentially sin-stained and unacceptable to God.

Most of this however is false, or at best a bad interpretation of the truth. It is why we have a problem with verses like 1Peter 1:16 and Lev 11:44-45, "be holy even as I am holy". Given the above (mis)understanding. This is of course impossible. Because of our fallen nature we can never, in this life, be pure and sinless as God is. So what does holiness mean?

Holiness is best described as "separation to God's purpose". In it's simplest terms, the Holiness of God refers to his dedication to seeing his word come to pass. Of all the things that God could be doing today, his primary focus, is you. He is unswerving in that, wholly committed, unshakeable. He has devoted his existence to the benefit of mankind, reconciling man unto himself. This devotion, this holiness was fully expressed on the cross. The work of that cross, the salvation of humanity, restoring us into relationship with himself is his primary focus, this is his holiness, the task he has separated himself to. So when God asks of us to be holy, he asks that we unswervingly dedicate ourselves to his purpose.

The Biblical concept of marriage is properly found in the language of the "covenant". I am going to address this topic in a post to follow later. So I won't spend too much time on it here. Suffice to say that a covenant was an "equal" agreement. Both parties to the covenant agreed to lay something of their-self aside in order to benefit the other. That is why in the marriage vow, it is often said, "forsaking all others". It is the wholehearted commitment to the other, the laying aside of self, that makes the union "holy".

There is however another problem with marital terminology. It is the idea of sanctification from sin. This is largely due (I believe) to the teachings and practices of the medieval church. Where sexual intercourse was seen as sinful, the result of our base and lustful human nature. The only way to sanctify the act was in the marriage bed, a concession thrown to the uneducated masses, held in the thrall of the all powerful priestly elite. This was again the result of the misinterpreting and misapplication of scripture, in particular the writings of the Apostle Paul and his statements about marriage. Yes, biblically speaking, sexual intercourse outside of marriage (fornication) is a sin. It represents the benefits of the covenant, without the commitment to it. It is self serving. But marriage itself doesn't save us from sin. The medieval interpretation was quite simply, an abuse of power.

So how should we view marriage?

Essentially marriage is intended as an image, or reflection; of the unity and harmony of the Trinity. Also, of the relationship between Christ and his Church (the bride of Christ). This is all a bit tricky now as Paul describes these things as mysteries. I fear a lot of people are uncertain of how to describe the relationship of the Trinity. Let alone reconcile the idea of us all becoming one heavenly corporate body described as "a Bride". Most simply, it is the language of unity, harmony, agreement, oneness with Christ, "he in us and us in him". Eternal, unbroken fellowship.

Now there is a third problem. The dilution of the meaning of marriage.

Over the years divorce has become more common place, de-facto relationships are the norm, in certain countries you can get a temporary marriage license. Try it for five years and if you don't like it you, have a "get out of  jail free" card. No divorce, no lawyers, you're free to try it with someone else. Much of society now views marriage as an archaic unnecessary formality. Even in the church, some statistics would suggest that divorce rates are very similar to those in secular society. From my own personal experience. I have seen two divorces in my own family. Many of my friends, probably about 45%, that married more than 20-25 years ago are now separated or divorced. I have one friend now in their fourth marriage. Many of my friends have divorced parents. Sadly, the idea of "two becoming one" is increasingly lost. Marriage is more and more the simple co-habiting of two individuals.

So if this is all true, then why all the hue and cry over same sex marriages? Why is there such vigorous lobbying for something that is viewed as archaic, outdated and temporary? Mostly it's about legal rights to medical consent, pensions and inheritance etc. They want the same legal protections over wills and such like as other couples. Even a co-habiting de-facto relationship has legal standing after just three months. It has more legal recognition than a same sex union of ten years. Unfortunately, there is the more militant, highly vocal and litigious side of this debate that wish to pursue the issue purely on the grounds of discrimination. This element does more harm than good to their cause.

I read this article by Amanda Vanstone today on this very subject. Mostly it is about party room politics and conscience votes. But she does make some salient points and observations on the decline of marriage values. I don't necessarily agree with all of them. But she does defend the right for religious institutions to refuse a wedding ceremony on the grounds of their beliefs.

Society has been bombarded with assault after assault on the institution of marriage. It's meaning and symbolism has been eroded. You can have an Elvis impersonator marry you at a drive through booth in Las Vegas. We see courtship and marriage as prime time T.V. "reality" entertainment. The Bachelor(ette), The Farmer wants a Wife. Bridezillas and others that are much worse. What was once sacred and special is itself now base, ordinary, the subject of public derision. More effort is put into planning, or rather staging, elaborate ceremonies, than is put into developing the relationship.

Perhaps, for so many people, the reason a same-sex marriage looks no different? Is because we have lost sight of what it is, that makes marriage so special.