• 0

on earth as in heaven

It happened again today as I was was on my way to meet with someone over coffee (again!!).

I was stopped by two strangers who were on for a chat.

The subject heaven and a woman who posts on youtube about her many and varied experiences in heaven.

According to this person there are Hotrods, Harley’s  (among other things) and even a flying school, which Christopher Reeves is the CEO of?

The drift is that what ever your passion in this life, your wildest dreams will be realised in ‘heaven’ and your passions continue, only on steroids!!

Having spent sometime thinking about it it occurred to me that we have some ‘out there’ ideas on stuff like heaven, Angeles Demons and the like based on little knowledge or true understanding.

I grew up in an era where ‘end -times’ books, speakers and people with graphs and models ruled the world, at least in ‘Christian’ circles.

What always intrigued me was no one ever mentioned things that won’t be ‘in Heaven’ like poverty,  abuse, exploitation, sexism and so on.

I could be wrong…perhaps we need to put what Jesus said in perspective and not take ‘literally’  or personally what  said when it comes to the poor, marginalised, prisoners, children,the other, outcast,exploited and abused?

Moreover these are the things we ought to strive for now, no waiting for Heaven!!
‘your will on earth as in heaven;!!

Perhaps it’s all hotrods and Harley’s in heaven,,,,,,,but I think not,  its much more, so lets make a bit of heaven here and now and wait to be pleasantly surprised by ‘heaven”!!  I hope there is cheese in heaven!!!!!!


  • 0

What the?????!!!!

 It’s been a while since I last wrote anything here.  In that time there has been much of the ‘stuff of life’ going on. So much in fact I’m not sure where to start, what to say and what to leave unsaid.

Journeying with people as they begin married life, others who are laying loved ones to rest and hearing stories of injustices endured by indigenous peoples, and those who have endured loss due to decisions made to become the person they believe they are.

I often feel inadequate in many of the situations I find myself in, sometimes its a stranger who engages in conversation.

 One of those took place today.

As I was parking the bike a person approached as blurted out How can there be a God when the world is so shit??   (a reasonable question)

What followed was a comprehensive list of what is wrong with the world, conspiracy theories and the like.
The conversation, which was one sided, concluded with ‘well I have enough of this shitty world, so everyday i throw myself in front of trucks and buses because I’ve had enough’.

Where is a person supposed to go after a conversation like that? (to the pub????)

So whether we ourselves are experiencing darker moments or we are journeying with others through dark times, may brighter days await us.

Sometimes the words of others best help us understand the darker times.
These words from an Elder at Parihaka (NZ)

After the shades os darkness comes the dusk of dawn, 
whilst  before lies the shimmering glory of a fair day.
(he maru ahiahi kei muri te
maru awatea he pakiarohhi kei Mia)

…then this line from a song called..we’re all in this together

we’re all in this together walking the line between faith and fear…..
(not sure of its origins but heard it on a cd by old Crow Medicine Show)


This from the good book in Psalms, read at a funeral recently.

He shall cover you with his feathers, under his wings shall you trust:his truth shall be your shield and *buckler.

(*a smaller shield fitted to the wrist for added protection?)




  • 0

Love Others Radically

Love others so radically they wonder why.

This weekend it was announced by the Prime Minister that he wants to pass a law that says that anyone who has tried to come to Australia, illegally,  by boat since 2013 will NEVER be allowed to enter the country. It is being done as a “sign to the people smugglers of how serious we are” about border protection. That’s great , Mr Turnbull, but it’s not the people smugglers who are being effected by this, its the little people desperate to find a new life away from tyranny and oppression – they won’t find it here apparently. (Yes, I know that some of the boat people are trying to jump the queue and beat the system but the (documented) majority are trying to escape terrible lives. Just think, what would have to happen to you and your family to make you jump into a boat and risk your life? It’s not a decision that most of the people make lightly.)

I was listening to the radio yesterday morning and a politician (I don’t remember her name) confirmed to the interviewer that if someone has tried to come to Australia to seek asylum by boat, even if they are found to have a legitimate claim, they will not be allowed to enter the country EVER! My friend (who works for the United Nations as a lawyer) cannot work out how many U.N. statutes  and Internation Laws this new law (if passed) will contravene. Where is our nation’s compassion? Where is our love for our neighbour? When we will stop singing the National Anthem that says, in the second verse, “For those who’ve come across the seas, we’ve boundless plains to share”?

Please don’t think I’m advocating that we do away with our immigration laws – I’m not. I went through the system to be allowed to live here, it was fair to me. I am questioning the fairness and justice of a law that contravenes many International laws and treaties for those legitimate people who have been so oppressed in their own country that they have had to make the difficult decision to flee and will be denied the right I have because of the way they travel; for many the boats are the only way they can get out. (And I’m very aware of the amazing privilege I have to be able to write this blog, granted to me because I do live in a ‘free’ country.)

The sign this week speaks of the Christian value of love – that love that Jesus speaks about and shows to others. To those who, in the eyes of the government of his time, didn’t deserve love; to those that did him all manner of wrong; to those who oppressed him and, eventually, killed him.

This ‘radical’ love is what we, as Christians (I would say decent humans), should strive for; a self giving love that sees others as equals; a love (and a way of life) that doesn’t judge the worth of others by what their job is, or where they come from.

Love one another because love is from God – to quote a book a read from time to time.

A very appropriate meme!


  • 0

I will not stay silent so you can stay comfortable

Not long before I left for my holidays someone came up to me and said that the sermon I had preached had made them uncomfortable and I shouldn’t preach like that again.
I wasn’t quick enough at the time to say that that is what the Gospel does – make people uncomfortable. Christianity is not meant to make people feel like everything is ok – following Jesus is meant challenge us into action, revolutionise what we think, say and do.
It has always been like this, form the beginning – as a reminder of what sort of faith we have here are just a few (of many) sayings of Jesus that always make me squirm a little as I think about what they actually mean and how I can make them relevant in my life….


“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.” Matthew 5:11


“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Matthew 6:24


“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear … “ Matthew 6:25


“Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,’ he said, “Why did you doubt?” Matthew 14:31


“If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.” Matthew 18:8


“Love your neighbour as yourself.” Matthew 22:39


These are just 6 quotes taken from Matthew’s Gospel. Think about these and if they don’t make you slightly uncomfortable then read them again as you may not have have completely understood them first time. And remember there are a lot more quotes in Matthew as well as another 3 Gospels.

Christianity certainly isn’t for those who want to be comfortable…


  • 0

Every book you’ve ever read is just a different combination of 26 letters

WOW!

Think about that – Charles Dickens uses the same letters as Justin Bieber’s song writers! Abraham Lincoln and Donald Trump use the same alphabet.

Your favourite author and mine, as different as they are, use the same number of letters.

I have no amazing religious truth to draw from this – it just made me think…


  • 0

When someone told me I live in a fantasy land I nearly fell off my unicorn.

Last month someone said to me that God doesn’t exist and that I’m living in and preaching about a fantasy world. I nearly fell off my unicorn. 

The thing that really annoyed me about that conversation was that the person who accused me was just re-iterating what he had heard from other people and had not thought about the ideas for himself.
A few days ago I was talking to a born again Christian about the idea of marriage equality. We disagreed on the idea (and that’s fine) but the thing that really annoyed me about that conversation was that the person with whom I was taking was just re-iterating what she had heard from other people and had not thought about the ideas for herself.

I have said many times I do not mind what people believe about faith (among other things) as long as they have thought about why they believe what they think. A lot of my friends are not Christians but we have great discussions about faith because they have thought about why they do not believe. It is a conscious choice for them not to believe as it is also a conscious choice for me to believe.
Some may think I do live in a fantasy world where God makes rainbows and bunnies and I ride a unicorn but do not condemn me for that if you haven’t thought why you live in a world where God does not exist. 
I believe what I believe because I have thought about it, studied it and have come to decision that God exists and Jesus is his son. Do you have to agree with me? No, you don’t but if you’re going to challenge me at least think about why you believe what you do. Don’t just tell me I’m living in la-la land or I’ll get my unicorn to stab you! 

Category : Uncategorized


  • 0

The meek may inherit the earth…

This week is a huge week for sport in Melbourne.

The Storm (our rugby league side) are in the Nation Rugby League grand final on Sunday and, of course, there is the small matter of the Australian Football League grand final on Saturday. (The Western Bulldogs v the Sydney Swans, in case you’ve missed who is playing.)

There is nowhere you can go this week where you will no see evidence of the biggest day of sport in our city (yes it’s bigger than the Melbourne Cup, if you ask me.) We even have a public holiday on Friday because of the Grand Final Parade. What other country (in fact what other city) has holidays for a sporting parade and a horse race?

Our sign this week is a quote from an AFL coach Mick Malthouse. He is, apparently, famous for his quotes and especially for his quotes of other people’s quotes. A quick search finds Mick quoting, or paraphrasing, Confucius, Mao Tse Tung and Jesus.

“The meek may inherit the earth but they will never win games of football.”

In some Bible translations the word ‘meek’ is written as ‘powerless’ (and the Greek word has both meanings). In a society where the Roman invaders dictated every aspect of life this translations of Jesus’ words can make a great deal of sense.  He was saying to his listeners that even though it seems that you can do nothing; you will prevail; and read your history books – where are the Romans now?

In a world where 1% control almost everything from media to banking and beyond it is easy for all of us to feel powerless and sometimes even useless. It is true that we may never change the world by our own individual actions but we can change the world of individuals. We are not powerless to alter the reality of people around us – a word, a smile, a offer of help can make the difference in people’s lives. I was in the city the other day, waiting to catch a tram – ahead of me in the queue to get on was an older lady with her bags of shopping. As she was getting onto the tram one of her bags split and cans and packets dropped everywhere. The first two people there to help her were two young men; they looked as if they were too cool to help an old lady but no, on their knees they scrambled about and picked up all her shopping – more than that they sat with the lady on the tram and chatted and laughed and shared time with her. It was lovely to see. When she got off they sat together and I heard one say comment on how lovely the lady was.

There were four people who had their views changed that day – the lads found out that not all older people are uncool; the woman found that not all young men in big baseball hats and baggy jeans are thugs and I saw that we are not powerless to make a difference in people’s lives.

Mr. Malthouse may be right; the meek will never win games of football but they will change the world.

p.s. This week most of Melbourne will be hoping that the Doggies will  head out on Saturday to beat the Swans to win the Grand Final for the first time in 1000 years (or nearly) and the Storm can win the NRL final on Sunday. A big week for Melbourne sport, c’mon the Doggies and the Storm.


  • 0

Jim’s sermon on marriage

A ‘Biblical’ view of Marriage??
Matt 22.23-33 Ephesians 5.21-33

A momentous decision is facing our society – ‘marriage equality’/same sex marriage. The Government has decided to seek a plebiscite.Opinion polls suggest the plebiscite is likely to be carried. The very path forward is contentious: Many people would prefer Parliament to make the decision. Will the plebiscite unleash a torrent of abusive language and socially divisive  tensions? Even the terms we use to describe it are loaded: advocates prefer “marriage equality” and opponents prefer to talk handout “same-sex marriage”.

Many in the churches remain firmly opposed to any change in the law to enable same sex marriage and some support it. But we are going to have to face up to the question:

each of us on the electoral role will have to vote if the plebiscite goes ahead, so we have to decide personally what our view is.
if the law does change next year, or the year after, our Church and our Ministers will have to decide where we stand on the issue and what our decision is going to be. Our denomination has never faced a change in the law like this so we don’t know how we will respond to it. Will the Connexion (through the Gymanfa) make the decision for all of us and decide ‘Yes’ or ‘No’? Will we involve the church meeting and give the local churches a say on what happens in their chapel? Will we leave room for the conscience of the Ministers? Will we do nothing and just let the State determine where we stand on marriage?

These are big questions. We need to be preparing ourselves and thinking and praying through what our attitude is. I am going to preach today and next Sunday on this issue to give you some perspectives on the theological issues involved. This week: marriage. Next week: same sex relationships.

Obviously I have a view and I think most of you will know I am for a change in the marriage law and I would be quite comfortable with leading a same-sex marriage. The irony is that I can’t, even if the law changes, because the Baptist Union of Australia won’t permit any Baptist minister to conduct such a service and my registration to conduct weddings is with the Baptist churches.

Now, and this is the most important thing I am going to say today or next week, so if you hear nothing else hear this:

It’s OK to be in agreement with same-sex marriage and it’s OK to be against it.

People can hold different views with integrity and fairness and honesty. You can still be a Christian and celebrate gay marriages and you can still be Christian and say “I’m sorry but that is just not right. I don’t agree with it”. What matters is HOW you hold your view: If you are FOR same-sex marriage because these days anything goes and there’s nothing special about marriage anyway? Then your position doesn’t have integrity. If you are AGAINST marriage because you are frightened of homosexuals and hate anything to do with gay culture, then your position doesn’t have integrity.

The second thing to say is this: I don’t necessarily want you to agree with me. The One you need to agree with is Jesus Christ and you need to ground your view on the Word of God. And if you believe that the Word of God and the Spirit of Christ call you to oppose gay marriage then you must oppose it. But you should think about it and pray about it and find out what the Scripture really says. Be Biblical in your thinking, but bring your thinking to the Bible.

That’s where were going – I am taking you on a tour of some of the Biblical material.  Printed copies of this sermon are available for you to take home and read and reflect on the Biblical passages yourself.  Today I’m presenting an overview of Marriage and next week a look at Biblical teaching on same-sex relationships.

The Marriage Act of this country defines marriage as “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.

It is this definition of marriage that conservative forces, including the churches, are seeking to defend:

a man and a woman
to the exclusion of all others  – cf. polygamy, polyandry, polyamory
voluntarily entered into – cf. arranged marriage, forced marriage as still happens in some parts of the world
for life –  cf. old ideas of marriage being indissoluble (“what God has joined together …”)

Many people think that this view of marriage is that of the Bible. Let’s have a look at what the Bible actually says:

Genesis 38: Levirate marriage: involuntary marriage of man to his brother’s widow in order to continue the family line (still theoretically current in Jesus day – question from the Sadducees (Matt 22.23-32

Deuteronomy 22.28-29 — a virgin woman who is not engaged automatically becomes the wife of her rapist, who is then required to pay the victim’s father 50 shekels for the loss of his property rights. This marriage is indissoluble.

Numbers 31.17-18  A male soldier is entitled to take as many virgins as he likes to be his wives from among his booty but he must kill the other prisoners.

Deuteronomy 21.11-14 marriage is made by selecting a beautiful  woman from among the spoils of war, shaving her head and trimming her fingernails. These marriages are dissoluble if she fails to please, but you can’t then sell her as a slave.

the marriage of the prophet Hosea to Gomer, “Go and take for yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord”. So Hosea married her, she engaged in adultery and then gave birth to children that Hosea named “Not Mine” and “Unloved/Unpitied”. (Hosea 1.2-9)

Concubinage, taking women in long term relationships that are less than marriage: Abraham had a wife and two concubines. Solomon: among his wives were 700 princesses and 300 concubines ( I Kings 11.3)

Marriage: “the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”.  Does that sound like what I have just described from the Old Testament? And I am not being selective. The variety of marriage customs, the convoluted personal histories of the heroes of the Bible in their marriages and their personal lives just goes on and on.

We can see this in the opening words of the New Testament – the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1: there are four ‘mothers’ among the long list of ‘fathers’ of Jesus right back to Abraham:

Tamar: married to two of Judah sons. (Genesis 38) Both died and Judah refused to give her to his youngest son. (If she’s seen off two of your boys it sounds like a precautionary thing to do). So Tamar disguised herself as a prostitute, seduced her father in law, got pregnant with twins and then publicly exposed him as the incestuous father of her unborn children before all the elders of the town.

Boaz’s mother was Rahab, the prostitute of Jericho, who had a child by Salmon. (Joshua 2.1-21)

Ruth the Moabitess went out the threshing floor and ‘slept at Boaz’ feet’.(Ruth 3.1-18). I have always heard that preached as a kind of chaste gesture of self-control. In fact its a euphemism for the exact opposite: she slipped down to the workplace and showed him a good time.

Then there’s Bathsheba, the mother of Solomon, but Matthew emphasises that this marriage grew out of an adulterous relationship by naming her “the wife of Uriah” (2 Sam 11-12).

And this isn’t a collection of lurid failures and reprobates: it’s how Matthew chooses to present the family tree of Jesus!

“The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”?

Where does this leave us?

Marriage customs have changed enormously over the time that the Bible was compiled. Views and laws of marriage changed, to reflect social circumstances just as the Marriage Act was changed ten years ago Australia, and may be changed again in the future. There is nothing unchanging in marriage as we see it in the Bible.  All of those stories and laws point to two great truths about marriage in the Bible:

1. Marriage is there to manage and stabilise the vagaries of human desire. The Bible has many romantic stories – Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Rachel – but also tales of adultery, rape and betrayal that have also been woven into the tapestry of redemption that is the story of the people of God.

2. Marriage is there to stabilise the social order and provide security and justice for those who are vulnerable – mainly (in the Bible) women. In a world of violence and war in which women had little independence or legal power the OT laws of marriage are there to protect women taken as wives: a woman you have taken through rape cannot be discarded; a woman taken as a wife through capture in war can be divorced, but is not then a slave to be sold, she is a free woman.

Far from there being one pattern of marriage in the Bible there is a patchwork of rules and structures and family patterns than reflect the unpredictabilities of human desire and the need for stabilisation of the social order and the protection of the weak. That patchwork reflects the social realities and pressures of the day.

Now it is true that over the history of the Bible there is a gradual emergence of an ideal of marriage. The element of marriage being voluntary is important and this has only come about gradually. Arranged marriages were common in Europe hundreds of years ago and are still common in many parts of the world. Forced marriages of young girls against their will still occur in some places. Our ideals of marriage say this is not right. Marriage should be something that both parties enter into freely and voluntarily.

Marriage should be between two people only. So-called polyamory (established relationships between three or more people) have been around for millennia – there’s plenty of evidence of that in the Bible but our ideal now is that it should be between two people, to the exclusion of all others. The current debate is not about challenging or changing that ideal.

Marriage should be for life. The ideal is an enduring, life-long partnership. That is an abiding, established, defined element of marriage. Now we know it doesn’t always work out that way, and we have liberalised divorce laws in living memory. Whether you are for or against liberalisation of divorce, we all acknowledge that it changed marriage in our society. In some ways the principles of ‘for life’ and ‘voluntarily’ can be opposed to each other. What if you no longer want to be in a marriage? Is the ‘for life’ principle more important than the ‘wanting to be married’ principle? Different people will have different answers to that, but our family courts have been empowered to manage the dissolution of marriage in a way that serves justice, protects the vulnerable and reserves as much as possible the fabric of the social order.

I close by engaging the two readings in our service this morning. A full exploration of the NT theology of marriage would take us in great detail into the teaching of Jesus and Paul, and other New Testament writers, but I point only to these two passages.

In Matt 22 Jesus is faced with a trick question about marriage – a question aimed at disproving the Resurrection. The Sadducees invoke the law of Levirate marriage (the obligations of six brothers-in-law to marry in turn a childless, widowed sister-in-law). Jesus answers the question by separating marriage from our heavenly destiny: in the Resurrection we neither marry nor are given in marriage. In Resurrection we move into another realm which transcends marriage. This doesn’t mean that we are not reunited with our loved ones, but we move into another order of being in which marriage as we know it is no more. Jesus says that marriage is very important but it is not ultimate, not a part of the deep structure of spiritual reality that is the destiny of the world. It is part of the human ordering of things. Contrary to the popular metaphor, marriages are NOT made in heaven! They are made on earth and are part and parcel of our human struggle to order this earth for justice and wholeness and human flourishing. Marriage is important, and sublime and deeply fulfilling, but it always a temporary thing, “ ‘til death us do part”.

In Ephesians 5.21-33 we have one of the best known Bible passages about marriage, usually invoked to metaphorically beat wives into submission to their husbands. You can tell this reading because to usually starts with vs. 22 (“Wives submit to your husbands…”) But the reading should start with vs 21 (“Submit yourselves to one another out of reverence for Christ”). In the social world of Ephesians everyone knew that wives had to submit to their husbands – that was commonly accepted. What was new and radical was that submission was mutual, that couples should submit to one another, that husbands should love their wives, deeply and sacrificially and in a way that makes them holy and splendid. The love of a husband should be modelled on Christ and his love for the church. The writer ends his teaching with a quote from Genesis about a man leaving his father and mother and clinging to his wife and the two become one flesh. He then says “This is a great mystery, and I am applying it to Christ and the church”. If Jesus says that marriage is an earthly thing that does not carry over into heaven, Ephesians says it is a profoundly mystical thing that points us towards the mystery of the love of Christ for his church. At its most profound level marriage is not about men and women leaving their parents, becoming ‘one flesh’ and starting new families: it is a model for the love that Jesus Christ has for his church. It’s about everything Jesus taught and did. It’s about the Cross and the deep meaning of love and commitment that is found in the Cross. It’s not about sex, of having children, or “a man and a woman”, it’s about Christ’s self-giving for the world and his sacrificial, life-giving love for the church, for you and me.

These two passages reverse the usual way we think about marriage from a spiritual perspective: we tend to take marriage and project it into the spiritual world. But Jesus warns against this. And Ephesians suggests that the meaning works the other way – that marriage is actually a reflection of the relationship between Jesus and the Church.

As we think about marriage and who it is for, we dare not romanticise our own experience, or be sloppy in pointing to a modern definition of marriage and saying this is what the Bible holds to be marriage. We need to reflect on Christ’s love for the church, His love for us, and ask what does this mean for every human being whom Jesus Christ loves, and for whom Jesus Christ died, and whom he longs to bring into relationship with God and membership of the Church?

Revd Jim Barr
Melbourne Welsh Church
18th September 2016


  • 0

Irony

Christian
Non-Christian
Oh, the irony
Before I go on I must say that the person mentioned in this blog does not express the views of all Christians or, for that matter, all non-Christians.
I had the dubious pleasure this morning of listening to a prominent church leader (an archbishop, I think) chime in with his ideas on the marriage equality debate. It was an entertaining few minutes, I actually laughed once or twice. Then it sunk in that this man was representing to the radio audience the views of the whole Christian Church and that horrified me because what he said is certainly not my view nor the view of most of my Christian friends (and non-Christian friends as well.) 
The two things that will stick in my mind from his, most illuminating, speech were these – 

  • that anyone who supports the proposed marriage equality laws is not ‘a whole person.’ 

and

  • there shouldn’t be a vote in parliament on the marriage equality debate because it is too important an issue to be decided by politicians. 

I have to admit that this is not an ridiculous idea, or so I thought until the speaker followed up, answering a question, with the idea that yes, politicians have been given the mandate to start wars but not change the marriage laws, they shouldn’t be allowed to change the marriage laws as they are not qualified to do so.
If these weren’t such stupid statements I’d laugh. 

How can someone say that anyone who supports the proposed marriage equality laws is not ‘a whole person’? Does that mean that the 73 years old grandmother of 5 I was speaking to yesterday, who supports the idea of marriage equality, is not a ‘whole person’. According to a recent poll 72% of all Australians are not ‘whole people’ because they support marriage equality. 

I’ve heard the view about who is a whole person before from (primarily) Roman Catholic clergy and I’ve read the same view in (primarily) Roman Catholic publications, but it has always been aimed towards gay people. The Roman Catholic Church seems to view all LBGTQi people as not whole but never before have I heard it expressed that ANYONE who supports marriage equality is not a whole person. 

It seemed to me that I have to agree with the speaker on everything to be considered a whole person. I don’t and yet I feel quite whole but then again am I qualified to speak about that? Which brings me on to the second point.

Politicians are not qualified to make a decision on marriage equality.

What qualifications do they need? Is there a test that politicians should take to work out which laws they can change? 

They have the power to send our military away to die but they are not qualified to decide if legislation needs changing. From the way it was worded by the archbishop this morning it seems that it’s not just the marriage equality legislation they can’t change, it’s all legislation. They are unqualified. 

How does it work then? If they are able to drive a car can they debate the traffic laws (which relate to cars but not trucks obviously, unless they can drive a truck)? What about the laws on adoption and fostering – if they haven’t adopted a child should they abstain from the debate? Do they have to surf the internet to take part in a debate on the N.B.N.? They are elected to do this stuff. It’s what they do and, despite what I say sometimes, they do it quite well on the whole.
But this isn’t a blog about politicians, this is about Christians and how some of them don’t seem understand irony especially the irony about preaching one thing and yet doing another. I could go on and on about this but I’ll end with a short story and a Bible verse to demonstrate what I mean.
I have a friend in the U.S. (who happens to be gay). She works in a bar/restaurant and is given Sunday mornings off by the atheist owners to go to church because she is a Christian. One Sunday she went to one of the big churches they have over there. After the service the pastor came up to her and asked her not to come back to his church as he doesn’t want “her kind” in his church. The passage he had just finished preaching on was the words of Jesus in Matthew 10:40 – “Whoever welcomes you welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me.” 
She feels more welcome in the atheist’s bar – 
Oh the irony.


  • 0

Spread love as thickly as you would Nutella

Here’s another “What would Jesus say today?” blogs.

2000 years ago Jesus said; “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.”

In 2016 I would like to think he would say something like “Spread love as thickly as you would Nutella.”

This is not a new concept – this ‘love another’ stuff has been around for millennia. The church has been proclaiming it for as long as here has been a church. The work of loving our neighbour is what we should be doing. This is what the church is about (and by the church I mean the people that make up the church, that is you and me!).

Loving your neighbour is a simple concept – read the story of the Good Samaritan – the idea is that everyone is your neighbour and we should lavish as much care on them as we would do on ourselves. Easy idea – you’re already understood it, after just reading that sentence.

Now do think about doing it – think out spreading love around the place as thickly as I spread Nutella on bread (I at least need to see teethmarks when I bite it).

Think about treating people the same way you would treat yourself. Think about caring for someone, anyone, that person walking past on the street right now, as you would yourself.

Not so easy now is it? The concept is simple – the reality is anything but, the concept is really difficult.

But just because it’s difficult it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it to the best of our ability. Let’s be honest – we should strive for, but we will never manage, to love our neighbour as ourselves. We will attempt, but never quite, spread the Nutella as thick as we would for ourselves.

But let’s give it a go. Spread that stuff – love each other, love your neighbour who ever he or she might be.