Food for thought

I've been looking again at the writings of Blaise Pascal, probably best remembered now for Pascal's Triangle. I worked in a school in France for a year named after him, in the town of his birth. Interestingly, in light of the last post, he was a devout Roman Catholic, and he has some great insights on the relationship between reason and faith, amongst other things. Anyway, here's a quote for the day:

There is enough light for those who desire only to see, and enough darkness
for those of a contrary disposition.

Is Benedict's visit a blessing?

Ok, so this may be controversial....but I've been trying to ponder how to respond to the Pope's current visit to the UK and the media coverage it has excited.

It seems that evangelical Christians veer (publically at least) from an ongoing tendency to Catholic bashing in some circles, fighting the battles of 400 years ago as if they're still top priority today; to an uncritical acceptance that it must be a good thing that the Pope has come to the UK as it will raise the priority of Christian faith.

So far, Benedict's pronouncements about the dangers of secularism have no doubt struck a chord with many Christians of all persuasions, and probably others too. And there is much to commend and admire in the Catholic church's willingness to risk unpopularity in order to uphold traditional Christian teaching. But, for all that I've no wish to doubt the genuine faith in Jesus of many, probably most, Catholics, I can't help but struggle still with many aspects of Catholic teaching - not just the bits about condoms and the role of women, but more fundamenental things like the official (at least) Catholic view of how we're saved, what happens when we break bread, how authority is to be exercised in the Church, and where it comes from, the role of Mary and the saints...to name a few.

So, while my starting position with individual Roman Catholics is to assume that they are my brothers and sisters, on the same side, and while I admire the sense of history and catholicity (note small 'c') implicit in the Catholic (large 'c') church, I have to be honest and say that I struggle with it as an institution. Hence, while I pray that there may be good things coming from the Pope's visit, my fear is that many secular people will identify what they see on their TV screens as what Christianity is all about. And for me as a Pastor, that is a concern. So, back to the original question: I think at best Benedict's visit is a mixed blessing; but I'd love to be proved wrong.

The Power of a Preposition

Just came across this article in the always stimulating Leadership journal. It's particularly talking about children's ministry, but, it seems to me, the basic point could equally apply to youth work, and to adult ministry in church. The big question: are we ministering to, for or with? And my slightly tentative follow-up: are there circumstances when each one of these would be appropriate, in which case the trick would surely be to know what is right in each situation?

Let's hear it for the BBC!

Well. it's nearly a month since I last posted anything, and now I'm going to post about the trivia of television. But it is August, so I'm sure you'll be understanding.

There seems to be a murmuring from time to time about the BBC; it's wasteful, biassed, dominated by a liberal clique etc. Well, maybe I'm just showing my true socialist tendencies or something, but I think the BBC is great.

Sherlock was a fantastic series - witty, clever, suspense-full, modernising an old text without ruining it. And Rev provided amusement on a Monday evening, was well researched and observed, and seemed to take faith itself with an unusual degree of seriousness for a sitcom (see Johnny's review here).

But for me the beauty of the BBC isn't even in programmes like these; it's in the simple pleasure of watching without advertisments, of not being bombarded by the market every 15 minutes. Yes, the TV License is basically a tax. But at least you see what you're getting for it. And it's a demonstration that there are ways of funding quality other than by market forces. I'm not naive, of course the BBC is under pressure to become more commercial; product placement no doubt still happens in some way, shape or form (I got perhaps alarmingly excited by the fact that in episode 2 Sherlock was using the same BlackBerry as me). But, even if there is waste at the BBC too, perhaps that should remind us of part of its significance - as a symbol of a world where the financial cost of something doesn't necessarily determine it's value. If that's part of what the BBC and it's funding system is all about, long may it continue!

Heart of the Matter

Came across this from Jack Hayford, American Pentecostal Pastor - unlikely source perhaps, but good point all the same:

It is almost unimaginable to most 21st-century followers of Jesus to think
that three-fourths of the history of the Church, believers had no copy of the
Bible. Even following Gutenberg's development of movable type, it was more than
two centuries before sizable portions of the population could afford a Bible.
Yet for all those centuries, the Church worshiped, the Person of Christ was
exalted and the testimony of salvation through His cross was maintained. It is
because New Testament worship had a center (sic) point - the Lord's table.

The accessible, readily available and mobile resource of
bread and wine - established by the Lord of the Church Himself as the
foundational ritual His people would observe - has, inherent in its elementary
simplicity, a...cluster of worship essential that, to this day, make His table a
universal gathering place...

Football crazy...?

Well, England are through to the last 16...and all through Jermain Defoe's goal, and he has, in the past at least been credited as having a Christian faith.

This piece from The Guardian makes interesting reading - apparently Wazza now can't do God publicly; is it because football is now meant to be our national faith? I'm tempted to say, heaven help us if so!

Discipling for disagreement...

Have been thinking recently about how full the early church was of disagreement; Paul confronting Peter to his face, or falling out with Barnabas over whether to take John Mark on his 2nd trip, the seemingly constant disputes between those of Jewish and Gentile backgrounds, Paul pleading that Euodia and Syntyche should agree and so it goes on.

Which all tends to fly in the face of the idealised picture of the early church we sometimes have. At a most basic level, the fact that the New Testament is so full of exhortations to love each other, consider others better than yourselves etc is most likely because it wasn't always happening. So, how do we accept and allow for the fact that we are likely to see things differently, get frustrated with one another and at times fall out like any family without diluting the high standards for relationships between Christians that the New Testament encourages us towards? Should we be discipling one another to get hurt and get over it, and keep loving, or is that an admission of defeat? It seems to me the reason that people at times become disillusioned with church life is because it promises so much - and it's right that it should. The challenge is to allow too for our humanity and weakness, without letting ourselves off the hook too lightly.