My Lucky Dime

OK, I admit it – I wrote that title just to be annoying.

The other day I was in a shop, and pulled out some coins to pay for something. I suddenly noticed that something wasn’t quite right. And one of my “ten pence pieces” turned out, in fact, to be a Quarter (US $0.25)

Now, if that was all there was to the story, I’d happily admit to being the world’s most boring blogger – even though the competition’s pretty fierce for that. But when I read the writing on the coin, I was quite taken. Compare and contrast a US coin’s inscription with a British one:

A quarter says six things: the country, the date, the denomination of coin. So far, so dull. But it also says:

- Liberty
- In God we trust
- E pluribus unum (“from many, one” – the Great Seal of the US)

The most famous British coin with an inscription is the pound coin, carrying an engraving along the outside edge. Incredibly, it reads Decus et Tutamen – a marvellous quote from the Aeneid, translating as ... wait for it ... An ornament and a safeguard

Even a ten pence piece just has a pretty paltry declaration about Her Majesty The Queen: Elizabeth II D G Reg F D – which, for the uninitiated, equals to Dei Gratia Elizabeth II Regina Fidei Defensor (By the Grace of God, Elizabeth II Queen and Defender of the Faith). Some might say this was quite a bold claim.

Now, perhaps it's just because I'm unfamiliar with the coinage - and let's face it, unfamiliar denominations are quite often challenging! - but there’s enough on a Quarter to make you think about the Kingdom of God for a week. How He calls us to be one people from the many. How we can and should trust in Him. How we are called to lives of freedom. You get the gist. Every time I pull that quarter from my pocket, I think on at least one of these things. In that sense, at least, it is a very lucky quarter indeed. On the other hand, the British currency just left me thinking that we view money completely the wrong way – “an ornament and a safeguard”!?! Or just as part of a ridiculously subservient nation state.

I have to say, it’s the currency of this country that leaves me feeling more than a little short-changed.

OK, now to rise to the challenge of Chris's post - foundational doctrine. If I maintain that laying on of hands isn't foundational doctine, then what is?

OK, how about this:

First, it's what's in the Nicene Creed, which I have pasted below.
Second, it's the Confession from Chalcedon - affirmation that Jesus was fully man, yet lived sinlessly, and fully God.
Third, that his victory over sin means we can have fulness of life in Him;
Finally, that God is living and active today - through His word, His Spirit, His people and His Church.

I agree that there are other issues that are important. But these are more to do with the "how" than the "what" - or, if you prefer, the processes of faith, rather than the objects of faith. So, "how" we worship is quite important; but finally, it is "whom" we worship that is foundational.

Nicene Creed

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.

We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.

On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come.

I have been praying a lot recently for healing.

One of the people I enjoyed praying for is a friend who lives several countries away. This is only a short post to share that, once again, I realised something incredibly obvious: it is God who heals, not us. We don't need to be next to someone, laying hands on them, for them to be healed. God heals them! The Roman centurion didn't even need Jesus, of all people, to come and look at his son, still less to lay hands on him. His son's healing was a reward for his faith. In laying on hands, we do not impart some special magic. And yet, sometimes, we can sometimes think of ourselves as "necessary agents to God's agenda". We think we need to be in the right place, at the right time, doing the right thing, for God's Kingdom to come.

It's true enough that God has a plan that actively involves us, and if we make ourselves open to His voice, He will guide our steps. Being in the right place, with the right words, can be a source of comfort, healing and strength to our brothers and sisters. But again, I find myself far from convinced that this is the whole story. We can flatter ourselves that we are indispensable. But really, it's God's mercy to work with us - to allow us to be His co-workers - rather than His need. He can "raise up sons of Abraham from [...] stones". But He chooses instead to show His love by drawing alongside us, bearing with us, encouraging and strengthening us, guiding and steering us, chiding and blessing us. How strange that He should choose to do this. But how wonderful, too.

Let's be encouraged by the call of God to be His co-workers.

Genesis 39vv.2-5 The LORD was with Joseph and he prospered, and he lived in the house of his Egyptian master. When his master saw that the LORD was with him and that the LORD gave him success in everything he did, Joseph found favour in his eyes and became his attendant. Potiphar put him in charge of his household, and he entrusted to his care everything he owned. From the time he put him in charge of his household and of all that he owned, the LORD blessed the household of the Egyptian because of Joseph. The blessing of the LORD was on everything Potiphar had, both in the house and in the field.

Building on my blog a week ago or so, Joseph’s been on my mind recently. It’s not that I have had any “earth-shattering” revelation about what his story tells us – but that it has come home to me once again as a great example of God’s improbable faithfulness, no matter how much the circumstances appear to suggest otherwise.

Before we even reach the passage above, Joseph has:

- had dreams about a great future ahead of him;
- wisely or otherwise, told his family of his dreams;
- nearly been killed, but sold into slavery instead, by his jealous brothers; and
- been mourned by his father as dead.

I don’t pretend to know what was going through Joseph’s mind at this point, but I wouldn’t blame him for thinking that his dreams weren’t going to come to much. No matter that his success was visible to all, and that it was clearly God-inspired; being the servant of a senior official was hardly the same as the auguries of his dream. Was this really something approaching fulfilment of the dream? Apart from anything, his family thought him dead – how could they bow to him?

Even so, he remains faithful to God. Not only does he remember God in refusing the overtures of his master’s wife – my master has withheld nothing from me except you, because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against God? – but he diligently serves his master and his God.

I’m sure you all know the rest of the story. But it’s this midpoint I find fascinating. We all feel we have promises from God, and we all long for their fulfilment. The question is, how do we deal with their deferral? How do we respond to travelling a path where God, seemingly, is taking us away from the very thing He’s called us to?

Well, it’s testimony time. Today, I had an unexpected interview for a job. It’s a terrific job, doing just the kind of thing I love. If I were God, I’m pretty sure I’d make sure that I got this one. It’s the biggie! Surely I was born for such a time as this! This job, in short, was something a large step along the way towards the fulfilment of my equivalent of Joseph’s dreams

But the more I prayed about this job, the more I had a sense of peace. Peace that God is in charge. Peace that God’s kingdom will come, not through my accomplishments or talents, but through His reigning and ruling. Peace that God’s call on my life does not depend on the things that I measure, but on my response to His call.

I’ll let you know whether I get the job or not. (If I do, you’ll probably hear me shouting anyway…) But if I don’t, no matter. God’s in charge, and that is enough to inspire us to a proper response. As the prophet Isaiah said:

But for those who are righteous, the way is not steep and rough. You are a God who does what is right, and you smooth out the path ahead of them. Lord, we show our trust in you by obeying your laws; our heart’s desire is to glorify your name. Isaiah 26vv.7-8

Vision – our challenge

I hope devoted readers (yes, both of us!) will excuse my “e-Sabbath” yesterday. I’m sure there is some spiritual etiquette around blogging, but if there is, I haven’t worked it out yet.

Today’s topic is an unashamed cross-reference to Chris Williams’s blog. If you haven’t checked it out yet, I’d recommend it. Anyway, his first entry refers to the vision of London Community Church, which he summarises as follows:

A gathering of believers in North West London, aiming to model the Christian life as taught by Jesus, reaching out with the good news message of forgiveness, love and healing that we have been commissioned to tell to those around us.

So what’s the purpose of a vision? My own definition is probably not very inspiring: a statement of an organisation's priorities and objectives, on whose delivery energy and resources can be focussed. I checked to see if there were any better online definitions of “vision”, with vastly differing results. Take your pick from:

- A compelling and inspiring image of a desired and possible future that a community seeks to achieve
- [Because a vision is idealistic], it may never be realized by the organization. Rather, the vision should serve to inspire the organization to move towards the ideal state.
- The direction of the data warehouse – what it is intended to accomplish.

So which of these do we prefer? For me, it’s definitely the first. I love the use of language like “compelling”, “inspiring”, “desired” and – yes – “possible”. The fact that a vision is achievable does not mean it is not ambitious. Look at God’s plan for the world, for example. Starting with a small, rather mixed bag of men and women, Jesus commanded us to preach the good news and make disciples of all nations.

I assume only geeks will prefer the third option. Any geeks like to shed any light on what “data warehousing” is, and why its “direction” is important?

So that just leaves the second as an alternative. But I think any vision starting off by admitting it’s idealistic deserves to fail. How will people build towards something that they can never hope to see finished?

So, where do we stand – both as a church and as individuals – in relation to the LCC vision? Are we:

- gathering with believers?
- modelling the Christian life as taught by Jesus?
- telling those around us the good news message of forgiveness, love and healing?

If you are, congratulations – and please keep it up! It will not only advance the kingdom, but it will encourage and inspire other co-workers.
If you’re not, is there a reason? Perhaps you disagree with the vision; or perhaps you would welcome encouragement / strength to do these things; or perhaps you’re focussing your energy on other things that seem more important? Whatever the answer, if you find yourself wanting to “press on towards the goal to win the prize for which God has called [you] heavenward in Christ Jesus” (Phil 3v14) then you needn’t worry about what has stopped you in the past. Just focus on how you can change that in the future.

With a few sold-out souls – LCC is about six- or seven-fold the original “mixed bag” to whom Jesus entrusted the Kingdom’s growth – just think what we could do!

The consumer’s revenge

OK, revenge isn’t a pretty word, so I invite gentle readers to look away now…

I have been exercising my rights (after a fashion) pretty intensively of late, and I will give praise where it’s due and name and shame where necessary. Consumerism seems to bring out the very best and the very worst in me. First, the hall of fame:

Green & Blacks: not only is their chocolate delicious – I particularly recommend espresso flavour – but their customer service is second to none. A friend (Jo Khinmaung) bought Hils and me a bar of their cherry chocolate as a present. When we opened it, it was ginger. Nothing wrong with it – it, too, was delicious – but I thought I’d drop them a line. They were horrified! In response, they explained that an error had happened on the production line. They told me exactly what had happened, “sent off their staff for retraining” (can’t pretend I felt too good about that), and sent £15 of vouchers! Cheers for the present, Jo!

Yeo Valley organics: I bought some cheese, and it went off. I threw it away, and dropped them a line. I didn’t expect to hear anything from them, as I had no evidence. To their credit, they sent me a postal order for £5!

Brent council: Brilliant. They pay for my freedom pass, giving me free transport across the whole of London. What’s not to like?

Now, the hall of shame:

Orange: rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. They had debited my account twice over for 12 months, albeit for a relatively paltry sum of £3. When I drew this to their attention, they told me that they would reimburse me for three months’ worth, but no more, as I should have noticed sooner. I asked them if this was policy or an actual thing they could not do. They said it was policy. When I challenged them to reimburse me the full £36, or lose me as a heavy-use customer, they just let me go. Ah well, their loss.

Amazon.com: well, they’re a mixed bag. I quite like them sometimes. But once, when they sent me a wrong order, it went a bit wrong. They claimed – and possibly correctly – that the error was mine, and refused to take the order back. As my way of venting my spleen, I decided to start a set of bogus reviews – see http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A3ICTDGDPJUEHB/ref=cm_pdp_about_see_review/102-2356432-6548141 if you’re interested. Particular fun, I find, is to poke fun at occult books – occultists do seem to be an awfully serious bunch.

HSBC: where to begin? Having been a customer of theirs for 20 years, I assumed they’d take me vaguely seriously. Sadly, no. Not only did they not offer me a mortgage (everyone else did!) because I didn’t have a student bank account, but they insist on applying penalty charges to my bank account. I have decided to leave £1 in my account, and not to use it. It felt almost poignant after 20 years…

OK, I admit it, these things probably provoke me excessively. But it is time for consumers to stand up and be counted, even when it runs contrary to our pacifistic demeanour. Give it a (good-natured) go – always maintaining civility to the poor, underpaid and undervalued call-centre staff – and see how you get on.

Towards a mature ethics

I was browsing the Christianity Today website recently, and noticed that they were selling some discussion material based on 24 – the hit series featuring Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer. Now, I found this almost irresistible. I love 24. More than that, I love trying to work out how it fits onto a grid of Christian principles (or “into the Christian metanarrative” if you want to get poncey about it…)

24, like most films and series originating in Hollywood, is pretty clear about where its morality lies. In any given series, some person (or people) is partway through a plan to destroy life on a large scale. They are BAD GUYS writ large. The CTU (Counter-Terrorism Unit) is alive to this plan, and has Special Agent Jack Bauer on the case. Jack is GOOD. From the moment we join the action, Jack has literally 24 hours to save the planet (and, invariably, his daughter, his mistress, his idiotically naïve President, or whomever).

Let’s be clear. Jack is ludicrously hard, and achieves superhuman feats. As a child, Jack Bauer’s first words were “There’s no time!” Superman wears Jack Bauer pyjamas. When Jack Bauer once forgot where he put his keys, he spent the next half-hour torturing himself until he revealed where they were. You get the idea.

Aside from the suspension of disbelief that 24 so obviously requires, it’s very good. It doesn’t matter that we know Jack will win through in the end. The interest is both in the how he does it, and (as always happens in this series) which characters will turn out to be duplicitous, unreliable, or … ahem …. dead. The black-and-white approach to morality inherent in the series isn’t specific to 24, of course. Christians always seem to be deconstructing Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code, but the same rules of engagement apply to Snow White. “Bad” is in some eternal conflict with “good”, and “good” almost invariably wins.

Although 24 is not without its own moral ambiguities, it never wavers from its bottom line. If Jack tortures a terrorist to find the location of a bomb, we may find his methods terrible, but it’s all in a good cause. If Jack shoots someone, that person deserved it. No matter that his methods sometimes slip below our moral radar, he remains fundamentally "good".

Here’s where my slight confusion comes in. I think most Christians would say that this is fine as a TV programme. But transpose the facts to real life – litmus test Guantanamo, say, or object to the removal of civil liberties – and we become hugely uneasy. The flow of rhetoric begins. The end does not justify the means. There are some boundaries we ought not to cross.

But where does this ends/means debate fit on the Christian grid? What scriptures are we turning to, to defend our starting point? I wonder if God sees things in such a civil libertarian light as we sometimes appear to. Let’s start from the only place we can: the cross. Did God “go soft” at the point of ultimate decision? No. He could not have.

He could have elected not to save mankind – and this would have been unimpeachably just of Him. He could have done as He chose to do, and allow Himself to be separated from His Son in Jesus' unbearable death. To God’s mind, the end justified the means. But the one thing He could not have done, was to “go soft” – to suspend the requirement for the price of sin to be paid, and hope that everything worked out OK in the end.

Maybe this one needs some more thought.