oakleys.org.uk

Earlier this week I had the privilege to take the funeral of a man who had been a lion-tamer. (I regard the taking of all funerals as a privilege, not only because I am asked to be involved in a very difficult time in people’s lives, but because they give me an open opportunity to speak to the unchurched about God.)As I said in the service, whatever else one heard about this truly interesting man, it was hard to get past the lion-taming. Of course, for some people this would be very hard to accept as a legitimate occupation. Needless to say, the man concerned had very strong views on this and ‘animal liberation’ generally.Perhaps some indication of what this meant in practice, however, can be gleaned from the fact that when his children were young, they would eat breakfast with a fully-grown lion lying in the same room, which they would ‘shoo’ away if it became an obstruction.Of course this must have entailed risk. But it was a risk which the family evidently thought both acceptable and minimal.I am rather reminded, now I think about it, of the household set up by the Director, Ransom, in the third of C S Lewis science fiction trilogy, That Hideous Strength, a key member of which was Mr Bultitude, the bear (who, as it happened, had been rescued from a circus, of the kind of which my subject would have entirely disapproved).The point Lewis was making was that the animals in the Director’s household had come under an influence which had, as it were, ‘brought them out of themselves’. As Mrs Maggs says,... if the Director wanted to have a tiger about the house it would be safe. There isn’t a creature in the place that would go for another or for us once he’s had his little talk with them.Mr Bultitude was thus treated as a legitimate occupant of the house, albeit one whose bulk and stubbornness could be inconvenient, such as when lying in front of the fire with Pinch, the cat.Those who share the viewpoint of Mr McPhee, the rationalist Ulsterman in the story who nevertheless is also part of the Company, will explain away human behaviour in relation to animals as just some kind of quid pro quo, usually (these days) with some sort of ‘Evolutionist’ gloss to finish it off.The Christian, however, will see something else, which is why I chose as the Bible reading from which I preached at the funeral Isaiah 11:1-9. The second part of this contains these words,The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper’s nest. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain, for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea. (NIV)The taming (rather than merely the domestication) of animals is a feature of the coming kingdom, just as the final removal of ‘harm and destruction’ reflects the character and holiness of God.I was reflecting on this the other day after reading something by a modern-day rationalist to the effect that the animal kingdom is one great mass of fear and terror, as all of them feed on one another. And perhaps there is indeed such ‘emotion’ (albeit in some animal form to which we cannot be entirely party).But if that is true, it must also, logically, be possible for animals to feel joy and elation. Thus the birds which sing in every dawn chorus are not, on this argument, simply marking out territory in some biological-machine-like process. If they feel fear at the approach of the hawk, why may they not also feel joy at the arrival of the dawn — or, if they are early enough, at the catching of the worm?And into all this, we must factor the human element. For in our best moments our instinct is to overcome the warring elements in nature. Sometimes this creates an obvious dis-pleasure, such as when I have rescued birds or mice from our cat. The cat’s disgruntlement on such occasions is impossible to ignore. Nevertheless, it may be argued that what I am doing on a small scale is what Isaiah prophesies on a grand scale — transforming nature from being ‘red in tooth and claw’ to being something which corresponds to a very different principle.Thus, as I said to the funeral congregation, when we pray together, “Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven,” we must remember that this means a transformation of nature such as we see occasionally on earth already. What we see is partial and incomplete, but it is a sign of something better yet to come.John Richardson
1 September 2010
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Derek Kidner has an interesting comment on today’s Bible Gateway verse of the day. The NIV renders it,Train a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it. (Proverbs 22:6)The principle demand, read thus, would be to teach the child what is morally and socially right: the way he should go.Kidner, however, writes,The training prescribed is lit. ‘according to his (the child’s) way’, implying, it seems, respect for his individuality and vocation, though not for his self will (see verse 5, or 14:12). (IVP OT Commentary, 147)Literally, the verse reads something like, “Train a child in the mouth of his way ...” — an idiom that clearly needs some interpretation before we can reach an application!What is important to realize from this slight ambiguity is that there is more to raising children than simply given them instructions and making sure they follow them. The book of Proverbs is very much concerned with what the young should learn in order to be wise — especially from their parents.Wisdom lies, first and foremost, in the knowledge of God. Proverbially (1:7), “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge ...” (NIV). But true wisdom is not found simply in learning and applying rules. The child is expected to following instructions: “Clean your teeth, tidy your room.” The adult should have some understanding of the principles entailed in these instructions, and our whole process of child-rearing should be a preparation for the independence of adulthood.The archetypal ‘mature child’ in this sense is surely Christ himself, who, on the one hand did only what he saw the Father doing (John 5:19), according to the Father’s will (John 6:38), but to whom the Father had committed his own authority (John 5:22).This is surely the model we should follow in parenting, and in responding to being parented. The ultimate goal is the entirely trustworthy child to whom all things can be entrusted.John Richardson
1 September 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The source of today’s Bible Gateway verse of the day, Psalm 95, will be familiar to older members of the Church of England as the Venite, from the Latin version of its opening exhortation: “Come!”It continues in praise to God, the creator and saviour:Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. 2 Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with music and song. 3 For the Lord is the great God, the great King above all gods. 4 In his hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to him. 5 The sea is his, for he made it, and his hands formed the dry land.So far, so positive, and then come the further words which form today’s verses:Come, let us bow down in worship, let us kneel before the Lord our Maker; 7 for he is our God and we are the people of his pasture, the flock under his care. (Ps 95:6-7, NIV)What an encouragement it is, to realize that we are God’s people — the sheep of the Good Shepherd. But of course, the Psalm does not stop there, and neither should we! For v 7 continues into vv 8-9:Today, if you hear his voice, 8 do not harden your hearts as you did at Meribah, as you did that day at Massah in the desert, 9 where your fathers tested and tried me, though they had seen what I did.Thus exhortation and encouragement become admonition and warning — and warning turns finally into denunciation:For forty years I was angry with that generation; I said, “They are a people whose hearts go astray, and they have not known my ways.” 11 So I declared on oath in my anger, “They shall never enter my rest.”Indeed, so unpalatable does the message become by this stage, that later versions of Anglican liturgies have made vv 10-11 optional, as if we ought to block our ears or stop our mouths when God speaks words of judgement!On the contrary, we absolutely must hear these words, for the writer of Hebrews picks them up in Hebrews 3:7-11, declaring that they are the words of the Holy Spirit and apply directly to us, especially the word ‘today’ in v 7: “Today if you hear his voice ...”Hebrews continues with more words of warning, spoken to the church:See to it, brothers, that none of you has a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God. (Heb 3:12)For the message of Psalm 95, according to Hebrews, is to treat ‘today’ as the day when God calls us to press on towards another ‘day’, which is the Sabbath rest of the people of God. Psalm 95 is indeed an encouraging word, but it is an encouragement to persevere in faith, rather than to fall away in unbelief, just as Hebrews says,There remains, then, a Sabbath-rest for the people of God; 10 for anyone who enters God’s rest also rests from his own work, just as God did from his. 11 Let us, therefore, make every effort to enter that rest, so that no one will fall by following their example of disobedience.John Richardson
31 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Not sure what's going on here. The garden has had a bad year due to the dry weather, and now we've grown what my wife immediately dubbed a 'demon tomato'.

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The image of the body, which occurs in today’s Bible Gateway verse of the day, is familiar to many Bible readers and — at least in theory — informs our understanding of the Church. We all understand the first point since we all share the same experience:Just as each of us has one body with many members, and these members do not all have the same function ... (Rom 12:4)Indeed we do have such a body, and indeed our various limbs and organs have various functions, from which we are led to the idea of ‘every member ministry’ in the church.But the point Paul stresses here is not, in the first instance, the variety of ministries but rather that the ‘members’ of Christ do not all have the same function. And the emphasis is not on what we are able to do, but on the fact that we are not able to do everything.In v 3 he writes, For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought ...This is important, because our question is so often phrased in terms of what we can do, or ought to be doing, for the church to take our share of the work. Ironically, this is partly because the church developed a pattern of ‘ministry’ which very much overlooked exactly what Paul was saying, so that we wound up with just one kind of ‘minister’, and very often just one minister per church. And in this case, we must have a minister who is thought of rather too highly, at least by others if not by himself.Paul’s word, however, is to all of us:... but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you.And what we must think of ourselves is this: “I cannot do everything. In fact, I can do only those things God has equipped me to do. Therefore I am dependent on other Christians.” Thus our ‘verse of the day continues,... so in Christ we who are many form one body, and each member belongs to all the others. This is yet another reason why you cannot be a Christian apart from the Church. To do that would require that you are omni-competent. More dangerously, it would also require you to think that you were so good at being a Christian that you did not need the contributions they would make.In fact, though, as vv 6-8 go on to say, each of us has strengths and weaknesses:We have different gifts, according to the grace given us. (v 6)So some of us are good at ‘prophesying’, others at serving, some at teaching, others in leadership, and so on. Sometimes we still forget what this means and we berate ourselves that we are not great at something we see others doing. The message of 1 Corinthians 12 is not that we should make greater efforts, or ask God to enable us in this area as well, but rather accept that this is why there is a Church at all. Relax and rejoice!John P Richardson
26 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Once again, the Bible Gateway ‘verse of the day’ gives us words of encouragement drawn from a context of discouragement. The first word of this section of Psalm 119 (which begins with the Hebrew letter ‘shin’ and thus follows the acrostic pattern of the whole psalm) is ‘rulers’ (sarim, v 161) — and it is these rulers who make life difficult for the psalmist.As Derek Kidner writes, ... the prevailing temper [in the psalmist’s day] seems to have been a religious scepticism ... ranging from the non-committal ... to the thoroughly profane ... (IVP OT Commentary, 422)We may be inclined to respond, ‘Not much change there, then.’ And we may equally be inclined to say that the psalmist nevertheless finds strength in God.Simply to put it that way, however, would be to miss almost the entire point of Psalm 119, for the focus is not on God per se as an object of contemplation, so much as God’s word as a vehicle of communication: “Rulers persecute me without cause,” writes the psalmist, “but my heart trembles at your word.”It is not just the idea of what God is like that sustains the psalmist, it is the specifics of what he regards God as having said: his word, his promise, his law, his statutes, his precepts. It is these which produce in the psalmist trembling (v161), rejoicing (v162), love (v163), praise (v164) and, of course in v 165, calmness and inward security:Great peace have they who love your law, and nothing can make them stumble.Surely, if we know and love God, we ought to find the same response in ourselves towards God’s word as we also have received it in Scripture? Indeed, an awakened awe of Scripture — a trembling at God’s word — is one sign of spiritual regeneration. We may not always comprehend what the Bible says, but we will always be eager to discover the truth of God’s word and to follow it. And therein lies salvation. As the psalmist concludes,I wait for your salvation, O Lord, and I follow your commands. I obey your statutes, for I love them greatly. I obey your precepts and your statutes, for all my ways are known to you. (vv 166-168)John Richardson
25 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Bible Gateway verse of the day today is Psalm 116:1-2:I love the Lord, for he heard my voice; he heard my cry for mercy. Because he turned his ear to me, I will call on him as long as I live.Before we consider the significance of this verse for ourselves, however, it is helpful to reflect on its occurrence in the New Testament. In 2 Corinthians 4:13, Paul quotes the LXX of Ps 116:10, in a way that at first glance might just look like an almost-arbitrary snippet. He says,It is written: “I believed; therefore I have spoken.” With that same spirit of faith we also believe and therefore speak ...But Paul has in mind two things. The first is the Christian experience of weakness, carrying the treasure of the gospel in ‘jars of clay’ (v 7). Thus: “We are hard pressed ... perplexed ... persecuted ... struck down” (vv 8-9), carrying around in our body the death of Christ, and constantly given over to death for the sake of the gospel (vv 10-12).Yet what sustained him, keeping him speaking out the word of faith, is in v 14:... we know that the one who raised the Lord Jesus from the dead will also raise us with Jesus and present us with you in his presence.It is this that allows him to conclude, “Therefore we do not lose heart” (v 16). And it is the latter thought, as well, which surely leads him to words from the Psalm, for after affirming that God calls him, the psalmist writes,The cords of death entangled me, the anguish of the grave came upon me; I was overcome by trouble and sorrow.Moreover, his experience of human opposition is profoundly discouraging (v 11),... in my dismay I said, “All men are liars.”But he looks to God who watches over his suffering people (v 15):Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of his saints.And this same God will finally bring his people into his Temple presence:I will fulfill my vows to the Lord in the presence of all his people, in the courts of the house of the Lord— in your midst, O Jerusalem.(v 18-19)In the same way, knowing the resurrection of Christ, Paul writes (2 Cor 4:17-18) that,... our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen.God has already heard our cries for his mercy, and will ultimately deliver us even from death itself.John Richardson
24 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

By day the Lord directs his love, at night his song is with me— a prayer to the God of my life. (Ps 42:8)Today’s Bible Gateway verse is one of those potentially deceptive quotations that absolutely does need to be read in context. It would be very easy to take it as simply a statement of God’s wonderful love and his abiding presence, and the security of our relationship with him: He loves me, and I respond in prayerful song.But either side of this verse, all is uncertainty. In v 7 the Psalmist laments, “all your waves and breakers have swept over me.” And in v 9, “I say to God my Rock, ‘Why have you forgotten me?”Indeed, there is much more in the Psalm about anxious searching for God (“As the deer pants for streams of water, so my soul pants for you, O God”) than there is about dwelling securely with him.We must never make the mistake of imagining that life with God is easy. There are times when faith is about hanging on to what we have experienced of Him in the past, (v 4, “These things I remember as I pour out my soul: how I used to go with the multitude ...”), rather than what we know in the present (v 5, “Why are you downcast, O my soul? Why so disturbed within me?”)The substance of faith must often be the future hope, (v 11) “Put your hope in God, for I will yet praise him, my Saviour and my God.”Faith and agony of soul sometimes depend on the same experience of reality (v10): that God’s presence is neither immediately felt, nor outwardly demonstrable. That is why we must not then add feelings of guilt about this to our other problems!John Richardson
21 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Bible Gateway’s verse today is Romans 8:32, “He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all —how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things?”The emphasis is on God’s giving: of his Son for us, and, eventually, of all things to us.The point of the verse is that God’s attitude towards us, and therefore our ultimate security, is shown in his action for us, revealed and expressed in Christ. Nevertheless, we must not overlook the prior statement that God did not spare his own Son.The word elsewhere (Acts 20:29; Rom 11:21) means ‘to keep from trouble’, even ‘to have mercy on’. And in the context this is important, for Paul is addressing the issue of “our present sufferings” (v 18), reassuring us that these are part of God’s plan and purpose.Thus whole world is “subject to frustration”, but “by the will of the one who subjected it in hope” (v 20). And we ourselves groan, yet in “hope for what we do not yet have” (v 25), helped in our very groanings by the Spirit (vv 26-27).Moreover the point and purpose of this is that we might be “conformed to the likeness of his Son” (v 29). But how did God treat his Son? He did not spare him. Our hope, then, is not that God will spare us from trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword” (v 35), but that he will enable us to be, like Christ, “more than conquerors” through these things.John Richardson
22 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The Bible Gateway verse of the day is Psalm 94:18-19:When I said, “My foot is slipping,” your love, O Lord, supported me. When anxiety was great within me, your consolation brought joy to my soul.What caused the Psalmist to utter these words? The answer lies in his difficult circumstances. The one whose foot slips has experienced calamity (Dt 32:35; Ps 8:16). No wonder he is in great anxiety!And what is the cause? The answer, in the first instance, is the wicked — specifically the wicked who get away with their wickedness (vv 3-7). They say, “The Lord does not see; the God of Jacob pays no heed”, (v 7) because their wickedness meets no obvious response from God. “Rise up,” says the Psalmist (v 2), “pay back” those who are jubilant, arrogant and full of boasting, as they crush and oppress God’s people (his inheritance), ruthlessly targeting those whom the Lord deems especially worthy of his care: the widow, the alien the fatherless (v 6).As we contemplate the world today, ought we not to feel the same concern? Yet do we not also feel a hint of the same anxiety felt by the Psalmist, the same sense of disorientation, as people mock with impunity the apparent absence of action on God’s part?We want to say with the Psalmist, God knows, God hears, God sees, God punishes, God corrects (vv 8-10). But we have so little evidence for this. Therefore we must learn faith and patience, and the value of God’s discipline (v 12). One day, “Judgment will again be founded on righteousness, and all the upright in heart will follow it” (v 15), but meanwhile it is hard to stand against the evildoers armed only with our faith in God (v 16).Yet the very fact that we can continue to do this is evidence of God’s help, without which we “would soon have dwelt in the silence of death” (v 17).And so the Psalmist can praise God, as he does in vv 18-19.Nevertheless, the opposition is powerful, potentially going to the very top: the “corrupt throne” which “brings on misery by its decrees”. And does this not also remind us of our own circumstances in an increasing post-Christian culture? We may easily fear the outcome of v 21: “They band together against the righteous ...”.Our only answer is reliance on God and faith for the future:But the Lord has become my fortress, and my God the rock in whom I take refuge. He will repay them for their sins and destroy them for their wickedness; the Lord our God will destroy them. (vv 22-23)With this in mind, we must remain faithful, remembering the warning of Hebrews 10:37-39,For in just a very little while, “He who is coming will come and will not delay. But my righteous one will live by faith. And if he shrinks back, I will not be pleased with him.” But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved.John Richardson
23 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

It has been a long time coming, but a mainstream denomination in these islands has finally authorized the elimination from one of its liturgies gendered language referring to God.The body in question is the Scottish Episcopal Church, and the changes, which affect its 1982 Eucharist liturgy, have been permitted by its College of Bishops, pending a complete revision currently in hand.The list of alternatives is quite short:“God is love and we are his children” may become, “God is love and we are God’s children”.“We love because he loved us first” may become, “We love because God loved us first”.“Heal and strengthen us by his Spirit” may become, “heal and strengthen us by the Holy Spirit”.“Peace to his people on earth” may become, “peace to God’s people on earth”.“It is right to give him thanks and praise” may become, “it is right to give God thanks and praise”.“Give thanks to the Lord for he is gracious” may become, “Give thanks to our gracious God”.“And his mercy endures for ever” may become, “whose mercy endures for ever.”Moreover, references to the Father have been allowed to remain. Nevertheless, this covers every usage of gendered language for the godhead as a whole. And though the changes may seem small, we should be in no doubt as to their significance.There will be those who would regard this as no more remarkable than the ‘de-gendering’ of language for humankind (which is also addressed by the same permissions). However, whilst undoubtedly arising for much the same reasons, the two issues ought not to be confused, for in the one case we are talking about ourselves, in the other we are talking about God.And the differences between the two are not merely of scale, or even of theological importance. Rather, first and foremost, I would suggest they are differences of what may be known and how we may know it.If we say something about anything we ought first to establish that we have a reason for doing so — that, in simple terms, we know what we are talking about. In this regard there is some justification for saying that we are more aware today of the equality of men and women than were previous generations, and that we seek to reflect this awareness in the language we use. (I happily concede there is room for debate, but I simply wish to establish the correlation between language and understanding.)But on what grounds can we say that we know something about God in this regard that was not known, for example, by the compilers of Scottish liturgies way back in 1982?Can we point to new knowledge? And if so, where, and from what source does it arise?One of the first appeals in such cases tends to be to the Holy Spirit. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is being credited today with many innovations in the church’s understanding and practice. (I am not saying that this is what drove the findings of the Scottish bishops. Actually they seem to have gone more on what was said by their clergy in response to a questionnaire.) Yet I am unaware of any means by which the Spirit may verify that these claims are true.Surely we are entitled to know how we can know what the Spirit is saying to the churches, most especially if it seems to differ from what the Spirit formerly said.There are others who will say that the difference between using “his” and “God’s” is trivial. Yet if that is the case we must ask why it would then be necessary. Still others will say it reflects our greater awareness of feminine imagery used for God in Scripture. To them I would say both that this imagery is rare and that Scripture nevertheless uses unrelentingly ‘masculine’ language about God, from which we can only deviate by consciously distancing ourselves from Scriptural usage.Above all, we must recognize the fact that the masculine language Scripture uses about God does actually say something. Indeed, the fact that language says something is surely the whole point of this innovation. What the language currently says is no longer regarded as adequate. Instead, it is felt we must be saying something else.The problem, which scarcely seems to be recognized by the Scottish College of Bishops is that if we say something else we are either saying something more than Scripture or making a contradistinction from Scripture.Either way, we are into fundamentally serious theological territory, and therefore we may, once again, ask how this is justified.The real danger is that God is being refashioned into something which we — or at least the clergy and bishops in Scotland — find more agreeable than God as previously made known. There is a word for this. It is ‘idolatry’.John P Richardson
21 August 2010 Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

The other day, rather to my surprise, I cracked the eight minutes per mile barrier for a middle-distance run — an achievement which, at sixty years of age, I’d honestly begun to think was forever beyond me.However, I nearly didn’t. Most of the route I’d been with my running mate Ross, which had helped keep the pace up, and at the five-mile mark I noted we were on 40' 08" — just a fraction above what was required. But my legs were going, so I told Ross I thought I’d slow down for the last bit.As soon as I’d said it, though, I realized this was my best opportunity all season, and perhaps the last chance I’d get ever, for the magic sub-8 minute pace. So instead of slowing down, I speeded up.The next half mile actually wasn’t too bad. It was the last bit that really hurt. I’m glad no-one was with me at this stage, because the noises I was making were pretty strange! On this particular route, there’s a downhill and then a very steep uphill at the end. On the downhill, I felt physically sick. On the uphill I must have looked and sounded like a man in labour.But despite everything, I did it. And very satisfying it was, too.Yet here is the question I asked myself later in the week: If it hadn’t been so horrible, would it have been so satisfying?In other words, was the pain of the moment a necessary part of the pleasure of the achievement?And the answer I have to give, for myself in this particular situation, is that without the pain, there really would have been no gain in terms of the satisfaction achieved. Indeed, the more I have reflected on this, the more it seems to me that there is some ‘pain’ which is most definitely a good thing.Now in case anyone gets the wrong idea, let me immediately say that most pain — and here I am talking about physical pain — is decidedly unwelcome and unpleasant. To give a trivial example, the other day I stubbed my toe whilst walking round the house bare-foot. It hurt like stink, the toe turned green and it is still sore now.When C S Lewis wrote his classic The Problem of Pain, it was these sorts of pains he addressed — the sorts of pains from which we understandably shrink, the pains for which painkillers and anaesthetics were invented, the pains which cause us to question the existence (or at least the character) of God.Such pains range from the mildly irritating (as with my toe) to the utterly devastating. Yet even the most bearable is a blot on our experience. As to extreme pain, it is hard to comprehend its having any point or purpose.Yet would my recent running achievement have been the same for me if it had involved no discomfort at all? The answer is clearly no.The same thought crossed my mind when reading a review of a book about a disastrous expedition on K2. Why, I found myself asking, would anyone put themselves through such an experience? Why not just sit at home in the warm and watch telly? But ask yourself this: Which would you rather be, the person who stayed at home, or the person who climbed K2?Now of course the problem is, you might just wind up as the person who fell off K2 and died. But isn’t that the whole point? You can only be ‘the person who climbed K2’, if you can also be ‘the person who might have fallen off K2 to a horrible death’.On a much smaller scale, I can only be the ‘me’ that cracked the 8-minute mile because it was thoroughly uncomfortable doing so. I could have run the same route at a much slower pace and still be as physically fit (indeed arguably fitter, given the injury possibilities), but I’m not, and I’m glad for it.And this brings me to the theological point.There is, as the market for Lewis’s book shows, an almost universal assumption that pain is bad. This assumption, moreover, is found as much (if not more so) amongst the irreligious as amongst the faithful. To the unbeliever, the existence of pain is a disproof of the existence of God, and if there is any acceptance of pain by those who believe, it is generally couched in terms of pain being something that may edify us through being endured, but which is an aberration which is ultimately to be transcended.Yet I find myself convinced that this is much too simplistic. Of course I don’t want to be in pain. Much less would I want anyone else to be in pain. Yet pain which is embraced for the sake of achievement, pain which is voluntary — though none the less real for all that — enables us to become something which would otherwise be impossible for us, something which, without pain, we simply could not be.And that raises the question of pain and eternity. Admittedly, the book of Revelation speaks of the coming kingdom as a place where there are no more tears, crying or pain. And that is surely to be welcomed. But will this be a situation where there is no more room for effort — where we cannot ever be faced with the choice to go on or go back? Actually, I hope not.To those who are thinking at this point that this is to trivialize pain, let me simply invite you to join me on a run. Or if that sounds too much (or too easy), find something else which challenges your physical capacity. Believe me, the pain is real enough! Of course it is voluntary. Of course you can choose it or not. But have you ever wondered why, if it is such a light thing, so few people make that choice? And have you ever wondered if maybe there’s a lesson there somewhere?Chris Rea’s Tell me there’s a heaven is, I think, one of the most powerful and moving demands for a theodicy ever penned. And I am not suggesting that the answer is simple. But I am suggesting that the apparently obvious alternative — that a world without any pain would be a better place — is itself simplistic.It is not true to say, in an absolute sense, ‘No pain, no gain.’ Yet it is, I would argue, undoubtedly true that there are gains which are impossible without pain, and that therefore the pain in such cases, whilst real, cannot simply be dismissed as bad.John Richardson
19 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

George Gittoes, who painted the picture on the front of my 'Revelation Unwrapped', remains one of the most interesting people I have ever had the privilege to meet.

Here he is, speaking (on what I think was a German TV programme) about the supernatural aspect of war. What you have to remember is he was there at the Kibeho massacre and knows what he is talking about first hand. Yet he was, when I met him, a profoundly spiritual (though slightly scary) man - someone I would love to have got to know better.



Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

My contribution to the Guardian's Comment is Free thread can be read here

Earlier this month, Anne Rice announced that she was stopping being a Christian – but that she wouldn't give up Christ. Does this make sense? Can you have one without the other? Could you cling to the prophet and abandon Islam? More generally, should anyone be held responsible for the crimes of their co-believers?

Should they hold themselves responsible?

It may be that the answer for Christians and for other religions is "yes", they can and should. Monotheistic religions aren't just matters of personal preference, but of collective effort. They command the believers to build a better society. So do many forms of atheism. So if the building turns out to be slaughterhouse, or a jail, perhaps it's right to leave the work crew. But must you then repudiate the ideals that you have seen betrayed?
Whatever it is that Anne Rice sees in the figure of Christ is the same thing as fuels her revulsion from her fellow Christians. So, how to deal with the problem?
Monday's responseJohn Richardson: I can understand Rice's position. But her desire to set herself apart, I would argue, owes a lot to pride
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Robert Van Der Weyer is, I seem to recall, something of a maverick. Nevertheless, I also remember him as a stimulating speaker at a conference I attended many years ago. Recently he has written a piece for New Directions which is, to say the least, challenging. I cannot, unfortunately, vouch for his understanding or otherwise of Church law, but he has suggested that legally a diocese or province is a voluntary association of parishes, and that therefore any group of Anglicans could set one up pretty much when they want. Here is the beginning of his article, and you can read the rest by following the link.
When the idea of a new province in England for traditionalist Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals emerged a few years ago, it was assumed that only General Synod could institute it by means of legislation. In fact, this is legally incorrect, and contrary to historic precedent. Traditionalists have the right to form their own province without reference to General Synod; and this seems the moment to exercise that right.

English ecclesiastical law contains no definition of either a province or a diocese. But Halsbury’s Laws of England, an authoritative commentary, defines a province as ‘the circuit of an archbishop’s jurisdiction’ [vol. 14, para. 428], and a diocese as ‘the circuit of a bishop’s jurisdiction’ [vol. 14, para. 454]. Thus a diocese is a voluntary association of congregations that choose to put themselves under the oversight of a particular bishop; and a province is an association of one or more dioceses placing themselves under an archbishop.

The voluntary nature

The voluntary nature of dioceses, and by implication provinces, was confirmed in 1841 by the Bishops in Foreign Countries Act (still in force), which gives permission for such ‘Protestant congregations as may be desirous of placing themselves under [a bishop’s] authority’ [s2]. Thus the thirty-six Anglican provinces outside England formed not because the convocations of Canterbury and York passed laws allowing them to do so, but because congregations chose to form them. Once created, a province can devise its own constitution and laws. Read more
Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

Is it me, or is some of the reaction in traditionalist quarters of the Church of England in the last few weeks regarding the introduction of women bishops rather reminiscent of Chicken Little — she of the sky is falling in fame? OK, there are reasons to be upset. Existing and workable (if not ideal) compromises are to be dismantled, trust has been betrayed whilst calls are being made to trust those doing the betraying, and looming in the background for those with ‘ears to hear’ are the next items on the agenda, to do with theology and sexuality.But the world is not coming to an end, and the sky is not falling in, for in the Church it was ever thus. Read the letters to the seven churches in the book of Revelation, and you’ll find false teaching and teachers, syncretism, immorality and compromise aplenty.Yet always the call to repentance is addressed to the church: ‘He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’ And always there is also the promise to the faithful hearer in those same churches, however corrupted they may be: ‘To him who overcomes, I will ...’Certainly things are looking bad, but they have never been very good. This would not be the first time the Church of England has deliberately opted against compromise at the expense of losing members and ministers (remember the Great Ejection?). As to embracing theological error, this is the Church of England we’re talking about, right? And yet, as a famous evangelical speaker once famously remarked, this is the church to which we choose to belong, so what must we think of the rest?No, the disappointment in the past few months has not been from the revisionists, who stand in a long tradition of their own, but from those who regard themselves as the faithful remnant.Let me start with the Anglo-Catholics, even though in many respects I disagree with their version of what the truth is.The Anglo-Catholic movement as we know it began (correct me if I am wrong) with a protest at the state’s involvement in spiritual matters and a recall to a ‘primitive’ ecclesiology in the face of institutional compromise.There was no expectation that the law-makers would come to the rescue of the faith delivered to the saints. On the contrary, there was a willingness to challenge, and even break, the law in the interests of upholding the faith. As to expecting the bishops to deliver the Church in its hour of peril, even whilst upholding the essential nature of the historic episcopate the early Anglo-Catholics were rather notorious for treating their own bishops with something close to contempt.But where is that spirit today? Actually I have no doubt that the offer of the Anglican Ordinariate has done much to enfeeble, rather than strengthen, Anglo-Catholicism. But where are the men like Keble, to say nothing of those who were later imprisoned for their actions? We hear much from Anglo-Catholics about the Church not wanting them. Did Keble and his successors think the Church of England wanted them?The Catholic movement did not get where it did by waiting for the Church to enact legislation to provide what it wanted. Yet today it has four dedicated bishops and a dozen or so sympathizers, hundreds of clergy, a multitude of buildings and a host of people. Why, then, is it so much on the back foot? Now for the Evangelicals. Our problem is simply this: many of us don’t really want to be Church of England, and it shows. As a result, we’ve never organized ourselves to be an effective force within the institution. Instead, we’ve laughed at bishops and ploughed our own individual parish furrows. We’ve never had a vision for the Church of England, because we’ve never really had heart for it. Indeed, for some of us, the prospect of ‘ejection’ is greeted not with gloom but elation, confirming as it does all our prejudices.Yet there are many things we could do, if only we would act together to do them. Here are just a few suggestions, old and new:1. Passing Resolutions A and B and petitioning under the Episcopal Ministry Act of Synod 1993. Well, of course it’s a bit late now — but we could at least repent for the fact that we didn’t do it.2. Giving As Partners. I’ve explained in a paper how it is entirely possible, and legal, to channel diocesan quota to parishes and ministries of your own choice without protest ‘quota capping’, thereby making the present system work in our favour. This was proposed years ago, yet outside our own diocese, where it worked quite well for a time, nothing was done.3. Pulpit exchanges. Most of our congregation members have very little awareness of the ‘constituency’, which is largely an ‘old boy’ network of clergy. An exchange of preachers amongst ourselves would break down some of the barriers and create a sense of mutual belonging and awareness. Where are the invitations, though?4. Re-emphasising the Thirty-nine Articles. I have just been reading J C Ryle’s Warnings to the Churches, and was impressed by how often he appealed to clergy not only to be aware of the Articles themselves (which in those days most of them were), but to urge them on their people. Today, however, even many so-called Conservative Evangelicals have little, if any, knowledge of the Articles.5. Increasing our familiarity with the Prayer Book. The BCP is not perfect. It is, nevertheless, better than much of what is on offer today, and remains the liturgical ‘gold standard’ of the Church of England. We ought to know it, and make sure our people know it, and we should be aware of its doctrinal standpoints and the modern departures from them.6. Re-affirming the Declaration of Assent. People accuse Evangelicals of compromising on the Declaration of Assent when it comes to the liturgy, and there is some truth in that. But even worse is the far more widespread compromise on doctrine that seems to be accepted as the Anglican norm. The Declaration of Assent is on our side.More than all this, perhaps, every evangelical group in every place should be asking itself, ‘How can we strengthen evangelicalism in this diocese and how can we make our diocese more evangelical?’ The answer will always come down to money, ministry and doctrine. We just need to work out how to use them better.We are not chickens, and the sky is not falling in. Let us then, by contrast, ‘quit ourselves like men’, stop flapping and start doing.John P Richardson
8 August 2010Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

PRESS RELEASE
BY THE INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE MISSION
ON THE NURISTAN EYE CAMP TEAM
(7 August 2010, Kabul, Afghanistan)

We have been informed that 10 people, both foreign and Afghan, were murdered in Badakhshan. It is likely that they are members of the International Assistance Mission (IAM) eye camp team. The team had been in Nuristan at the invitation of communities there. After having completed their medical work the team was returning to Kabul.

At this stage we do not have many details but our thoughts and prayers are with the families and friends of those who are presumed killed. If these reports are confirmed we object to this senseless killing of people who have done nothing but serve the poor. Some of the foreigners have worked alongside the Afghan people for decades.

This tragedy negatively impacts our ability to continue serving the Afghan people as IAM has been doing since 1966. We hope it will not stop our work that benefits over a quarter of a million Afghans each year.

When we have more news on what has happened we will inform you via this webpage. Again, our thoughts and prayer are with those affected at this time. Link

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

At the risk of inviting a resumption of spamming, I've re-enabled 'anonymous' commenting, so you no longer have to have a Google Account to post here. However, I do ask that people leave a proper name and location. We're all God's children and there's no real justification for anonymous, pseudonymous of semi-onymous posting, unless you really do have something to hide!

Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

It appears that the whole 'Blogger' system has suddenly been hit by 'spam' comments, despite word verification systems being in place, and that some blogs are even being locked out or deleted as a result.

I have had over seventy spam comments this morning and in order to try and avoid losing the blog I have reduced comments to allow only people with Google accounts to comment on the blog.

I'm sorry for this inconvenience. If it doesn't work, I may have to disable comments entirely until the issue is sorted.

John Richardson


Anonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.

If you haven’t thought about it already, now would be a very good time (if you are eligible) to consider standing for election to the General Synod of the Church of England.

Any adult lay member of the Church may stand, and most members of the clergy. However, nominations must be in by noon on Friday 3rd September.

There is an entire website devoted to the subject, so I won’t bother giving you the details.

Much of the work of the Synod is mundane, and it is very demanding in terms of the amount of reading material sent out. However, for reasons which will be familiar to most readers of this blog, the make-up of the next Synod will be crucial to the future of the Church of England.

One thing that is important to get right, however, is your election address, and there are experienced people willing to help with this. If you would like to be put in touch with one of them in the Diocese of Chelmsford, please contact me via the e-mail address at the bottom of this blog.John RichardsonAnonymous users wishing to paste in the comments box need first to select 'preview', then close the preview box. When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may be deleted.