91 years

91 years ago today, the Armistice was signed, peace declared and the “War to End All Wars” was at an end.

And yet we’re still fighting, not least Afghanistan, recently Iraq. We’ve had Falkland, and of course the first Iraq, and Suez, not forgetting (how could we) WW2 that resulted in the deaths of tens of millions globally.

On Remembrance Day, the Church stands in front of a memorial and honours the dead. Often, the Church also prays for a just war, for God to bless our military adventures.

In our beatification of those who died in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘freedom of speech’ and ‘human rights’, we forget that the First World War was the one to end all others. In our incessant bloodlust, we glorify the act of killing and being killed in the name of national boundaries. We bow our heads at the courage of violence for borders.

We do not, however, learn.

We do not stop to examine why we kill.

We do not honour an idea of courageous love.

We do not think that talking of peace, of compassion, is acceptable at this time of year. Afghanistan is a war of revenge and domination, not freedom. Democracy imposed at gunpoint is not democracy, it is a lie.

The really courageous thing to do in the face of terror is not to react with military action, but to react with love. To NOT fight back? How much more courage, strength of ccharacter, resolve does that take?

Remember the dead today, the soldiers and civilians.

Remember that every death in war is a failure of imagination, of courage, of strength, of love.

Grace and peace,

Ed

 

Schismophrenia

There are times when everything sounds negative; it usually turns out to be a small part of the picture.

Right now, if you mention the Church of Scotland, all you hear is the potential for schism (Anglican? Church of England on the ordination of women?) over the ultimate divisive issue – gay ministers.

It seems we don’t get to hear about the work with schools.

Or prisoners.

Or the elderly.

Or aid sent overseas to those in direst need.

Or working with young people.

Or ministering to people in hospital.

No, all we have room for in our newspapers is how this is splitting things up; how there is a gulf seperating the rational compassionate ‘liberals’ from the belligerent, trogolodyte evangelicals.

Now, a couple of points.

Firstly, ‘evangelical’ is the wrong use of the word – it has been taken away from it’s meaning to imply a traditionalist, narrow and intolerant outlook, which is just plain wrong. Evangelical is a good word, and should have positive connotations, but like so many other words in our language (like ’special’, which now means stupid) it has been hijacked to marginalise people.

Secondly, why are the papers and the radio stations (and some wackjob bloggers) so desperate to encourage schism?

They should examine their motives – I doubt those who talk so openly about schism are aware of the fullness or the implication of their rhetoric. I dare say a large number of them are not even part of the church, either Scottish or the catholic body.

And lastly, just a quick non-specific rebuke to the name-callers within the church:

You are brothers and sisters in Christ. Your disagreements with one another MUST take place face to face, as brothers, motivated by mutual love and respect. You MUST NOT direct personal attacks through the newspapers, name-and-shaming one another.

Seriously, go and read your Bibles.

Grace and peace,

Ed

The Error of New Clothes

A bad start is still a start.

I’ve started this blog because there’s something I want to do; and I reckon by blogging I’m at least accountable to the internet.

The thing is this – I don’t want to buy any more new clothes.

For various reasons, political, religious and ethical, I’ve felt guilty everytime I’ve bought something new. And aspirational reasons too, because every time I buy a new shirt it fails to make me look as attractive as the models, my belly fat is still there and I still have a slightly awkward walk (for which I will answer to my mother – sorry).

The allure of new clothes is perhaps the most difficult challenge, and one I’ll explore over the coming days and months – and I’ll tell more about the other reasons too.

But for now, the bad start I referred to. My friend Chris is a really talented designer in London (http://www.mr-mr.co.uk), and did some t-shirts with big hairy paws on them. He was hoping to sell the last few, so I bought one of those.

The big hairy paws unfortunately accentuate my fat moobs. Once again, clothes have failed. But it’s a fiver in a friend’s pocket, so not all bad news.

Grace and peace,

Ed

Challenge of money

Found Scott Bissenecker’s blog after a friend mentioned the New Friars concept, and there’s a challenging entry on finance:

http://www.urbana.org/blogs/blog.main.leastofthese.cfm/2009/6/11/The-Ethic-of-Simplicity

What’s up with the gospel of prosperity, richness and wealth in… Jesus’ name?

Grace and peace,

Ed

Compassion

This week’s hot topic following the release of al Megrahi (I’m not going to try and write his whole name because I’ll just spell it wrong.

Amongst the loud voices we’re being told that Megrahi didn’t show compassion to the 270 victims, and so should receive none.

That sounds a lot like revenge.

That sounds like a people who are prepared to make a ’special case’ to avoid the due process of law.

That sounds like mob rule.

That sounds like ‘righteous’ anger.

Destructive, violent, escalating rage.

You hurt me, I will hurt you right back.

It’s a cycle; on that has never resolved things, one that has only ever led to escalated violence and anger. The rage perpetuates itself in boring rotations under the false banner of justice.

Compassion is different from absolution. Compassion is not even forgiveness. Compassion is the ability to regard the criminal as human.

Regardless of the welcome Megrahi received in Libya, it was the correct decision to free him.

The loudest voices are coming from the USA.

Just a few months ago, President Obama granted immunity to CIA agents complicit in torture. To then accuse another country of poor regard for justice is bare-faced hypocrisy.

Splinters in eyes, logs in eyes.

Grace and peace,

Ed

Flu, Faith…

Disappointing isn’t the right word use, but I feel the global swine flu pandemic isn’t quite as scary as the headlines have suggested. It’s not the apocalyptic attack the world seems to expect.

Just recently on the TV news a spokeswoman was being interviewed on the government response for pregnant women worried about flu.

Given the near hysterical reporting over the past few months (Pandemic? How terrifying is that word?!), I was expecting to hear that government boffins in a secret research lab had developed a precise and clinical laser-powered bomb in space called the Fluinator or Virus-B-Gone.

But no, it was to wash your hands with soap, and sneeze into a hankie.

What a letdown. We love a heroic struggle, like in Terminator or The Matrix, where a few fearless and self-sacrificing heroes overcome terrific odds to save humanity at the last second. This was more like defeating Darth Vader by effective flossing.

I think in life we want a big show; my non-Christian friends always ask me if God is so real, why doesn’t He write His name in a glacier, or appear in the sky to settle the argument once and for all? They don’t accept that little gestures give little glimpses of the Kingdom of God, His power and greatness. How can, they ask, feeding a hungry person possibly explain His deity?

Of course, it can’t, but like washing your hands to stop a pandemic, the small actions make a world of difference.

Grace and peace,

Ed

Matthew 5, Luke 6

Love Your Enemies

Grace and peace,

Ed

Codex

Yesterday te Codex Sinaiticus went online (http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/), for all the world to see and study.

This was a pretty mammoth task, and one that has helped scholars gain new insights into the Bible and the hsitory of Christian faith.

Though not being a Greek speaker, it’s all, well, Greek to me.

One thing struck me particularly though, and that is the book of Barnabas.

Which isn’t in my Bible.

Which leads to questions.

Like, where did it go? Who decided not to include it in the Authorised Version, or the NIV, or the Message? Why?

And is the Bible the true, inerrant and accurate word of God?

Because if it is, then we’ve done a hatchet job on it, which would seem to me a little sinful at least.

And if it isn’t, then aren’t many of us on shaky ground?

It makes the concept of Biblical literalsim and Biblical truth seem unstable.

Perhaps there are other ways of reading the Bible other than literal truth; allegory for example.

And perhaps there’s a way of looking at our faith that says there are not necessarily absolutes, that maybe our faith is tricky and unstable, and causes tension, and questions, and we don’t have all the answers.

Grace and peace,

Ed

Iran

The recent protests in Iran have served to focus the mind on belief.

And not in terms of the theism/atheism debate, but the concept of belief itself.

Thousands of protesters who marched facing prison, beatings, persecution, death.

How many of us would truly give up our lives for something we believe in?

It’s an uncomfortable thought that I could recant my faith at gunpoint, as if this life is the be-all and end-all. That’s what Peter did when he denied Jesus.

Thankfully there’s always grace to overcome our weakness.

Grace and peace,

Ed

Killing in the name of justice

The other night, I heard a prominent Christian columnist on TV advocating hanging for murder. The crowd cheered.

Execution is a popular thing amongst certain sections of the public, but for my money I can’t imagine how it is reconciled with following Jesus.

In the Law, the instruction is to give an eye for an eye. Now this throws up two points.

First, it was an instruction to limit retribution. You will not take back more than was taken from you. It forbids escalation in revenge.

Second, Jesus clarified the position in the episode with the adulteress. Let him that has no sin throw the first stone, He said. Only those who are perfect are able to carry out punishment on sinners. And since none of us are perfect, it means we can’t do it.

He doesn’t excuse the sin. He tells the guilty to sin no more. But He doesn’t take their lives from them. There will be consequences for this woman; divorce, shunning, a bad reputation, but Jesus offers mercy then mercy then mercy.

And execution for murder also depends on having levels of sin, that some crimes are worse than others. Again, for Christians the idea of levels of sin are anathema; all sin is equally abhorrent to Him. So if you bring hanging in for murder, then you should be consistent and have it for parking tickets and fraud.

My last thought would be that taking the life of a criminal is to deny the possibility of redemption. Grace dictates that redemption can come to any (look at the apostle Paul!). Refusing to grant even the chance of redemption or rehabilitation is to refuse forgiveness.

Grace and peace,

Ed