Saturday, May 24, 2008

Crumbs from your table

So 'revival' is hitting Florida and Dudley (!!). The blogosphere has created the usual difference between those who love it and those who just hate it. There have been some gently sceptical posts that have been much more balanced, such as Phil Whittal and Terry Virgo.

I remain pretty suspicious of the whole thing for a number of reasons.

1. Todd Bently talks about this angel called 'Emma' who apparently ministers in his revival meetings. See here.

2. The Gnostic overtones of special knowledge and revelation.

3. The seeking after 'blessings' - it seems to distract from the 'business' of being the body of Christ to a needy world. I am reminded of the words of U2:

‘You speak of signs and wonders/well I need something other/I would believe if I was able/but I’m waiting for the crumbs from your table’

I'm not sure - I don't want to judge, but I am concerned that we will all get pulled off track from doing what is really important - helping the poor and needy, loving the lost, caring for each other etc.

Thursday, May 22, 2008

What does it mean to be Christian in the UK?

This post was partly inspired by Phil's comments on the recent debates on embryology and abortion in parliament this week - see here for more info.

It got me thinking - I always feel really uncomfortable by much of the Christian response at times like this - especially the alienating, strident and above all, apocalyptic tone adopted by Churches and Christian pressure groups - something is always the 'thin end of the wedge'.

I have to be honest, I cannot help but think that these issues are more nuanced and subtle than we give them credit for. I am naturally a non-scientific person. I distrust the grand claims of science to solve the ills of the world, and also for it to be free from moral control as if it were beyond morality (think Hitler). However, I do find myself out of step with the loudest Christian voices on many issues:


Abortion is always a terrible thing. In most cases it is an absolute wrong with no grey areas (there may be some exceptions to this). However, we do not live in a world where everyone will think like this. The experience of women who were forced by familial pressure (or their own desperation) to seek an illegal abortion is enough to persuade me we want to avoid that. So - I guess I do support limited early termination - not because it is right at all - it is very wrong - but as a very unsatisfactory sticking plaster to prevent two evils being commit ed instead of one. This really pains me - legislation the ending of a life is something I find repulsive, but it may be the lesser of all the evils.


Hmm - I am pretty sure the bible condemns homosexual practice - the greek word is pretty specific but I blush to describe it here!. It does not condemn homosexual orientation (whatever that is), homosexual feelings, or being in a loving (non-sexual) life-long same-sex relationship. As far as I can see. However, the Church should have the right to hold this position. It does not have the right to dictate how the rest of society behave, and nor should it. It this country decides to allow gay marriage then that is up to that society. Why is Gay marriage making a country that has done so much harm to so many people during the last two centuries LESS Christian? Also, is a life-long gay relationship really as sinful as a serially monogamous heterosexual one? Is it not hypocritical to allow married divorcees full membership in the church and not those in a gay partnership? I'm not sure but I do wonder.


This is an emotive issue - and I do worry that we have a situational ethical approach here - "anything is ok if it can one day help someone" sort of thing. That frees science from moral accountability which leads to what C S Lewis called 'scientism' where the scientist becomes the dictator of behaviours within society. However, research on embryos that are only a few days old is a moral, but not a practical, wrong. The ten day old embryo has no nervous system, cannot feel pain, is not suffering. In that sense it is very different from mid to late term abortion. But if we accept life already exists then it is a moral wrong. BUT - it is not in the same league as mid-to-late-term abortion, where there is real suffering, and we weaken the argument on that by equating them

Anyway - my rant over - I am just trying to sort through these issues.

What are we here for?