Blind Faith

As noted on my ‘currently reading’ list I have been reading Ben Elton’s latest book, Blind Faith. My Gran gave me the book with a wonderful note attached: ‘To Amie. A subversive book from a subversive Gran.’ My Gran is consciously atheist and no doubt wished to expand my thinking beyond that of my faith. Quite right. Always in favour of expanding my thinking (and quite frankly, being short of a good novel to read) I took up the challenge with enthusiasm. It is a very post-apocalyptic story which in many ways reflects the direction of our current society. The main character, Trafford, asks a question that is the pinnacle or point of the whole story. His question is this:

“Wouldn’t faith itself be more valuable if it was arrived at through question and doubt? What’s the use of blind faith? Seriously, it’s not difficult saying you have faith if the alternative is being burned alive. But does that mean you really have faith?”

A valid question, I feel.

Coming from a Christian background and church based up-bringing I would further that question by asking, “Do we allow ourselves to question and to doubt? Do we allow others to do the same?” Having a lot of Christian friends I have seen many of them (and myself) struggle, facing sometimes what can be a deep crisis of faith or a need to challenge what they have always believed. There can be a tendency to try and make people avoid this, to take their questions and throw back the answers that we feel they should already know. Is this helpful in maintaining their relationship with God or is it simply promoting blind faith? It is easy to be scared that if people begin to question or doubt what they believe in that they will find other answers or some other truth – one that is far less desirable. However, I know from my own times of crisis or from questioning my own values and beliefs, that very often I come back to the original conclusion but with a far better understanding of what I believe and why I believe it. Sometimes I have also come to the conclusion that the things I had being doing were pointless and yes, based on blind faith but of no real benefit to my relationship with God or others.
Job was as guy who really questioned God. He remained faithful through significant trials and did not speak a word against Him despite the hardship that he faced. However, there came a significant point where he could not go undoubting any longer and with some fervour, really question his faith and his God. The book of Job reflects a conversation between Job, his friends and God. He questions what he has been doing and believing in for so long. His friends are not of much use. They give him the kind of answers that just attempt to shut him up and stop him from challenging things. They provide the kind of answers that yes, are based on scriptures and true on many counts but they’re given in a know-it-all nature. They stand on the other side of the fence telling Job how it is. Their answers do not seem to come out of any kind of compassion or even admission that they do not know the answers either. They provided all the religious wisdom they could muster and yet had no impact on bringing Job closer to God in his time of suffering. In the end, it was God who provided the answers and God alone who could reveal any truth to Job. Not only did he reveal the truth but he rebuked Job's friends for spouting rubbish and speaking untruths about God when they really hadn't a clue.
I am not suggesting that when our friends are doubting or questioning that all our attempts to bring scriptural truths or our own words of wisdom to the situation will be futile or worthless but I do feel that, rather than standing at the side shouting out the answers, we should attempt to walk with our friends through their challenges, to give them freedom to ask questions and explore new territories and remain faithful in prayer for them throughout. God may use us to bring people to (or back to) faith through our relationships with them and we should be ready for that.
If a person is really seeking the truth of God we should trust that God himself can and will reveal what needs to be known in His own time, which we cannot second-guess. Surely if we believe that God is all-powerful and the only real truth in this world, we know that he can reveal the answers that people need to restore their faith. We should journey with them and help them to build a solid foundation of understanding rather than a life built around a lack of questioning.

So, from this line of thought what is the challenge for me? To provide my friends with support, freedom, comfort and, where I can, wisdom in their times of doubt and questioning. Questions are dangerous, oh yes, but are they any more so than blind faith?

Teaching was my boat - Ministry is my storm.

Today I visited my tutor at the Centre for Life Long Learning to discuss my independent study assignment. I am taking this to help make up the credits to graduate early and the very fact that I was doing so brought around the reality that I really am giving up teaching, despite the fact that my applications for ICC have not even been posted. It is, as I have been constantly reminded since making this decision, a big risk to miss out on my honours year.

Risk. A word people are reluctant to explore. It involves taking chances and the implications are often huge. There is uncertainty, a wide variety of possible outcomes and often throughout the risk-taking process a lack of security in the days ahead. Taking a risk is not something we often choose. Jesus was good at taking risks and encouraging his disciples to do so. He sent his followers out to minister and as he sent them he commanded them to take no food, no money, no staff and no robe. This was a big risk. No food meant no provisions for the journey; no money meant no security. Going without a staff meant that they had no defence against attacks and to go without robes meant no protection from the cold nights. Sometimes from this passage it's easy to think that Jesus was a little mean. However, in sending them out unequipped for the long journey ahead, Jesus was in fact enabling his disciples to learn to rely on God. If they did not have any of the essential things they needed, they were taking a risk. They had to have faith that God would provide.

'If You Want To Walk on Water You've Got To Get Out Of The Boat' is one of my favourite books, written by John Ortberg. Here Ortberg explores the passage in Matthew 14 where Jesus walks on water and calls Peter out of the boat. I never thought you could get so much encouragement and challenge out of such a short passage. The whole story encompasses the risk we take as Christians in our daily walk with Jesus. Here Peter takes a life-threatening, faith-making risk. He is required to leave the safety and security of his boat and step out on to a tossing sea, in which he is almost certain to drown. Never the less, when Jesus confirms his calling, Peter goes. He actually has the courage to climb over the side and take his first few steps across the water to Jesus but as his fear gets the better of him and he begins to sink. Jesus holds out his hand and pulls Peter in saying, 'Why did you doubt?'. Why did he?
The boat is our comfort zone. Jesus is our goal. The storm is everything in this world that may prevent us from reaching that goal.

Teaching is my boat. Ministry is my storm.

If I did my honours I would have a professional degree and my future could be secured. But God called me. Giving up my honours seems to deplete my security. Taking up children's ministry presents a degree of uncertainty and an element of risk that there is no guarantee for my future. However, if I have learned anything from the ministry of Jesus it is this: When God calls you, it is a risk: but you go. Jesus called to his disciples, "Come and follow me." so they dropped their nets and they followed. The disciples accepted the risk of persecution and rejection throughout their ministry. Over and over again they took risks which required immense faith. In each and every case, God remained faithful to his word and he provided. God is a God of providence. If I begin to doubt that, I too will sink.

So, a challenge for those who are insistent that I should have teaching as a backup:
There is nothing wrong with having a plan B. It is practical and it is helpful but when God has called us to go... we go. If there is concern that by missing out a year of university I am throwing away my future security, I have to call in to question your faith. Do you have so little faith that you doubt God will provide? Or do you have so little faith in me and believe that I am bound to fail?

Matthew 6:33 "Steep your life in God-reality, God-initiative, God-provision. Don't worry about missing out. You'll find all your everyday human concerns will be met. Give your entire attention to what God is doing right now, and don't get worked up about what may or may not happen tomorrow." (MSG) v.34 So do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will have it's own worries." (NCV)

Not only does it make sense that we trust God given the biblical evidence that he will always provide but the bible commands us not to worry. This is our assurance that where God will lead us he will be true to his promises. We sing the words of Psalm 23 where we profess that God leads us to quiet waters and green pastures, that he is our protection through the darkest path. We sing, 'I will trust in you alone.' Heaven forbid that we should sing such songs for the moment and not apply them in our daily lives.

It takes faith to take a risk. I will take it and I will not worry about tomorrow.

Teaching was my boat. Ministry is my storm. Jesus called me. Do you really think I'd just sit in the boat?

Exodus

Last night I finally got around to watching 'Exodus' - the television film directed by Penny Woolcock based on the second book of the Old Testament. I am at the best of times sceptical of bible-to-film productions especially where they are rearranged in to a 21st Century context. After watching the film my initial thoughts were as follows:

- The setting, visual elements and cinematography were brilliantly done. It had a very apocalyptic feel to it. The use of amateur actors, especially those with special needs, was wonderfully effective.

- It was far too long and the script was poor. Film-wise it was on the same wave as Titanic, too much time for not a lot to happen.

I did a little research of the piece on the net to see what other people thought and found a review from the Telegraph saying this:

"More surprisingly still, Woolcock retained the central religious element of the original version – although not in a way that religious viewers will necessarily have found comfortable. Indeed, by sticking so close to the biblical story, Exodus reminded us just how brutal that story is. "

Source:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/11/20/nosplit/bvtv20last.xml

This brings me to my third thought regarding the film which is this: The whole production completely misrepresented and betrayed the relationship between Moses and God. When reading the bible it was clear to me exactly how direct God was with Moses. God appeared to Moses in a face-to-face encounter and throughout the story there is a conversation going on between them. The relationship portrayed in the film was far too subtle and indirect. The whimsical voices gently speaking to Moses were nothing like the powerful experiences depicted in the bible. Not once in this film did Moses fall to the ground in fear.

I always allow room for creative licence but I didn't feel that in this case it was justified. Interestingly, I wonder if this is why the article above stated that 'religious viewers' (whoever they might be) may have found it uncomfortable. If by 'retaining the central religious element' they mean that yes, God was mentioned once or twice and his presence merely hinted at then they are clearly mistaken. The main point of God being in this story is that He leads his people to freedom and how He uses a mediocre guy like Moses to lead an entire nation out of slavery through deep political minefields and what could be classed as spiritual warfare. The film portrayed Moses as the hero and showed very little input from God which I found altogether disappointing.

However, despite that slight setback, the film did mange to bring some reality to the story for me. It can at times be very difficult to make even such a powerful bible story come alive when simply reading it. Through the film my eyes were opened to to exactly how intense the whole experience was for the people and for Moses. It is tempting to think of him as the Great Leader of the Israelites, wandering around with a staff and a beard being very docile throughout the whole thing. The film helped me to capture the reality of his plight including his role as a father and husband along with the frustrations of leading a people who were volatile and zealous.

Although the film may have been a successful political statement regarding terrorism, 21st Century warfare and the treatment of refugees in Britain today, in my opinion, it could not be classed as an accurate reflection of the biblical story it sought to portray.

Did anyone see it and think otherwise?

A Soft and Fluffy Jesus

I am a harsh critic of Sunday Schools or "Children's Church" as the terminology goes these days. It frustrates me. There are many elements including teaching, training of volunteers, the planned and unplanned curriculum and the investment in resources, which all frustrate me. However, I'm not going down that road today. Today I want to contemplate the warning bells which have been ringing in my mind recently. Those bells are bringing to surface my concern that in our Sunday schools or "Children's Church" today we are painting for our children a soft and fluffy Jesus. Even more concerning is the thought that we may be painting a soft and fluffy easy-reading bible which has become a book of helpful hints for Christian living. Do we white-wash our stories and leave them devoid of any unpleasant reality to make it more than digestible to our sensitive youngsters?
I grew up in the church with the stereotypical image of Jesus that plagues many non-christians today: He was a nice guy who loved everybody, did miracles and had great hair. While our children may be too young to understand the social, political and cultural implications of what Jesus did in great detail, neither must we lead them to underestimate just how radical his actions were.

It was only in my teenage years that I began to understand how radical he was. In a video interview my friend described Jesus as radical, "someone who always makes us think outside the box and challenges us to do things differently". In all my years of Sunday school I never thought of Jesus like that - I thought he was just a really nice, gentle, loving guy who died a gruesome death to save us from our sin. (This is not a debate on how graphic our projection of that death should be as our children grow up - that again is a discussion for another time.) Never did I realise then that his ministry and the life he lived as told in the gospels was every bit as radical as the death he died. I thought that he caused a little upset here and there but everyone loved him. Again, I didn't realise that he caused huge political and social shifts where-ever he went and was extremely unpopular for breaking social taboos and defying the political pressures of the time. My concern is that we bring up our children in the church, whether consciously or not, to put Jesus in to a nice fluffy box, portraying him as the guy that everybody loved and that in turn may cause them a struggle to unpack such images later in life.

One small step...

Following my recent post about sundays, their purpose and a day of rest I made a small step of progress. That is; I didn't go to church on sunday morning. I didn't simply opt not to go and waste my time doing nothing - that would achieve little and be a pointless exercise. Instead, I chose to have morning coffee/lunch with my best friend as she was home from Dundee for the weekend. Sunday morning was the only time I could really see her. Usually my response would be 'Well I'll see you at church' and we would try to squeeze in some time for chatting before and after. However, this time I decided that quality time with my closest friend seemed more important at the present moment. It was wonderful. We had lunch, relaxing and chatting and for me, actually resting before the business of the rest of day commenced. For once, I didn't feel guilty. I am not ruled by the sabbath - my sense of urgent obligation to attend church is slowly being released. I have not lost interest in church and neither am I become slack in my attentiveness to the teaching of the gospel. I am simply learning to rest.

The Here and Now.

I've recently been blogging on PebblePad - a wonderful system but I fear I'll lose my account when I leave Strathclyde. Therefor I have opted to blog here instead. I thought I'd do the old 'copy and paste' of some of my previous blogs to fill the space between where I was and where I am so that future blogs have some sort of context and make (I hope) some sort of progression and sense.

05 November 2007

Mark 2:23 - 28 : This would be yet another occasion where the Pharisees are trying to trip up Jesus, to take a snatch at his integrity and find a loophole in his teachings. I've recently been challenged with church quite a lot. I find myself to be challenging my priorities and reviewing the purpose of all my activities on a Sunday and for the church throughout the week. My Sundays... busy, hectic, from one place to another, frequently running or rehearsing for an event. Day of rest? I don't think so! Since being a young child I could count the number of Sundays where I have not been to church on two hands - literally. I grew up in the sort of mind set that to miss church was unchristian and showed lack of commitment. Yet recently I have begun to challenge that. The thinking started by reading the blog of my former minister Stuart Blythe. His post, 'Easy like Sunday morning' flags up the issue of what we do with our Sundays and the role that church plays in that. Having prayed and thought further I came across the passage above. One sentence in particular struck a chord with me,

'Then Jesus said to the Pharisees, "The Sabbath day was made to help people; they were not made to be ruled by the Sabbath Day." '

I wonder how often the Sabbath day rules me. I think that in the context of the passage, the Pharisees were questioning Jesus working on the Sabbath (and not for the first time - see the passage of Jesus healing on the Sabbath.) and breaking Jewish law. It was a day of rest where absolutly nothing classed as work was to be done - perhaps to an absurd degree.

However, what is a Sunday for? For rest? For spending time with family? In church are we simply there for community or duty? Should I in fact spend all my Sunday working for the church - especially when I do so every other day of the week? Yes I want to contribute to the life of my church, to engage with my friends and be part of the fellowship but to what extent should I make every aspect of being in church a working one? I believe that when we come to church we should be prepared to work - worship and participating in the ministry there should not be passive, but perhaps I have in fact deprived myself of a 'day of rest' entirely since I work for uni every day and work 9-5 on a satuday. Perhaps as the bible commands I should find a day of rest. It doesn't necessarily have to be a Sunday... but it would be nice if it was. It would seem that my priorities need shifting.




Following on from the previous entry...

12 November 2007

As previously mentioned, I've felt challenged recently about my lifestyle and my priorities, especially where people are concerned. More and more I'm getting the feeling I spend so long working in and for the church that I'm missing out on witnessing to the 'outside' world.
(Is this ironic since I'm going in to ministry? Hopefully not as I hope to be engaged in mission and evangelism throughout.)
In both the services I was at today the speakers talked about witnessing, seeking the lost and saving lives - not by waiting in church for them to come to us but by going out and reaching them. I cannot spend time socialising with non-church people because I am always working in, around and for the church. I see it as noble and a good witness that I do so but then... if I'm so wrapped up in a church-based-bubble what kind of witness is that?

The pastor at KBC this morning told us of a lifeguard who asked his trainee guards, "If was drowning would you come and save me?". Their reply was an enthusiastic, "Of course!"

The pastor then asked us, 'If I am lost will you come and find me?'. He compared this to the story of Zaccheous in Luke 19 where we are told that Jesus came to find 'what is lost'. We are told that God is a seeking God and so we ought to be a seeking people. Am I really seeking? Or am I simply working with whoever will come along to my church, my territory, my comfort-zone? Zaccheous himself was seeking Jesus, despite being the epitomy of someone with a focus on self-gain and loose morality. How his life was changed because Jesus responded to his search; not by inviting the man to church, but inviting himself to the house of Zaccheous. Jesus went to the seeker, he did not just say 'come and find me'. Just as we should be seeking the lost, so we should not just wait for and overlook the lost who are seeking. We need to put down the invitation to church and pick up the invitation to 'their place.'

In the evening Gary talked about How To Save a Life based on the song by the Fray and linked to Romans 10:14-16. We are told in this passage that people are saved when they believe, they believe when they hear, they hear when they are told, and they will only be told if someone is sent. Therefor we are to go out to save lives and seek what is lost. Jesus has sent us out. As I have said before, I feel I am not seeking, I am waiting.

My priorities need to actively change.

The Great Teacher

While as academics we study the educationalist, the philosophers and the proffessionals who have done the research and written the books, there is one great teacher that very often we miss. Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey and Bruner - well recognised names in the educational world, each known for their philososphy and approach to teaching and learning. Very often in lectures and so forth we are asked to consider which of these amongst others we are most like in our approach to teaching, learning and education. However, I have found a significant other who has inspired my approach to teaching- one less familiar to the educational masses and yet whose approach was significantly forward thinking for his time. Jesus. Jesus is often referred to as 'teacher' by his disciples and many others. This made me pause and think, maybe I could learn something from somebody else who seemed to be involved in teaching and learning. Jesus very often began his teaching with the people, their knowledge, their experience and their needs. He started where they were at. He told them stories that related to their existing knowledge and experience. At first glance to those unfamiliar with the bible, stories of shephards, sheep, kings and servants may not be as hard-hitting and cutting edge as we might imagine, but they related to the lives and experiences of the people at the time. He helped them to make the connection between old and new information. He had captive audiences of thousands who would sit and listen to his stories, hanging on every word. How often do we wish for that in our classrooms? When people questioned him he often illustrated his points by looking at their experiences and their lifestyle, tapping in to the knoweldge and cultural capitol of the individual. He used questions carefully, making people think and reflect on what they already knew in a way that would lead them to expand their thinking and reach new conclusions. Vygotsky thought he had something new to say? Think again. Jesus often used scaffolding with his disciples - teaching and training them by building up their knowledge a little a time. He not only told stories and gave the information, he backed it up using scripture and more importantly he lived it out, giving the ultimate example of what he was trying to teach. In a very curriculum-for-excellence type of way, Jesus focused as much on the 'doing' as he did the 'telling' - much like the philosophy of Dewey - and made sure he addressed the needs of the whole person, spiritual and intellectual needs included.

So in conclusion, His was a people-centred teaching approach aimed to benfit the thinking and development of the whole person, starting with where they were and what they knew. He tapped in to the culture of this surroundings and used the interests of the people to get along side them. I think it would benefit many of us particuarly those involved in teaching to learn a little something from one of the greatest teachers ever known.