Last weekend Therfield Chapel had its annual Harvest Festival service. Our Pastor Joshua Jones was preaching and it fell to me to lead the service and prayer time. As I sat at home considering appropriate prayers for inclusion at a harvest service it occurred to me that there are many harvests in our world, and not just ones of food, as important as these are. I touched on some of these 'other harvests' in my prayer time & now I would like to think further about this in my blog.
It is important to remember that a harvest is when we reap what we have earlier sown, and only a cursory glance at the world around us tells us that what we are reaping today is far from all good. Seed is not always good and in my view our world is reaping the harvest of sowing much bad seed down the years. I have chosen only a few bad seed to look at, not because these are the only ones, but because this is a blog and not a book.
The seeds of pride and power I will take together. According to the bible pride is the original sin and indeed this is at the heart of all the bad seed sown. Pride and the wanting of power is at the heart of all dictatorships & warlords that blight so many countries today. They cause so much poverty that is completely needless. Somalia, Libya and Syria are examples of just three of these nations.
Our country is not immune of course. We may not have open warfare between pride filled, and power hungry groups, but pride is at the heart of much in our country. Do our politicians always do what they believe to be the best for the nation, or the best for their party and hence themselves? Do our business leaders really care at all for their customers, or is it all about the bottom line? And us, as individuals, do we really care for those around us? Are we willing to build them up even at our expense?
This brings me onto the next bad seed and that is 'I'. I don't just mean myself of course, but the cult of individualism that has taken over our nation. I am reminded of the run up to the last election where I lost count of candidates telling us to vote for selfish reasons, for the party that will give 'us' the most (them). It was all party ideology and no time for proper cross party discussion as to what our country really needed. I am not being naïve as I didn't expect this, not with our current worldview.
The philosophy of our age is to be concerned with the individual, be selfish. We are to be inward looking, concerned with only things that effect us, our friends, and immediate family.
The next seed is, believe it or not, freedom. I foresee a few raised eyebrows at my inclusion of this. Is not freedom a good thing, what people have fought for and laid there lives down for. Of course freedom can be a good thing, a very good thing, but we must look a little closer at what we mean by freedom.
My bible teaches me that we were never created to be little gods. The true creator God never meant us to have absolute power over our lives, even if this is actually possible. We were never meant to be inward looking, concerned only with things that effect us, but to be outward looking. The bible teaches us that Christians are part of the body of Christ. This is a picture showing believers as parts of the body, but with Christ as our head, our leader.
As parts of the body of Christ Christians should let the head rule, just as it does in a real body. This means we voluntarily give up some of our freedom to Christ, and accept Him as the ultimate power in our lives. Our nations worldview encourages us to be masters of our own fate. Christianity says this is not possible (the subject of another blog perhaps), and true freedom comes with a lessening of the 'I' and an increase of Christ in our lives. It is actually a fallacy that we can be completely free. As someone once wrote 'No man is an island', and indeed as soon as we acknowledge another person then there has to be compromise.
The results of these and other harvests of the world are found in the UK as a nation that no longer has any true basis for its values. Hence just about any belief system, or philosophical view is allowed. Absolute truth went out when our nation ceased to truly follow Christ. With no absolute truth our countries worldview tells
us to be wary of anyone with claims of truth. In fact it is very intolerant of any faith/view that disagrees with its interpretation of tolerance. Irony abounds.
In such a world the next casualties are free speech and the freedom to proclaim your faith to any who would listen. The later will only concern some, but the former should worry everyone.
If you are happy with the harvests of the world then fine. I believe that Christianity supports freedom of speech as our Lord never forces Himself into the lives of anyone, and hence you have a right to your views, even if I disagree with them. However if you think that there must be a better way then I urge you to consider Christianity. You might find it a little more radical than you thought, but millions of people down the years would testify to its ability, (or more accurately Christ's ability) to change lives.
Friday, 29 September 2017
Wednesday, 23 August 2017
Are you worth as much as Neymar?
You don't have to be a football fan to be aware of the hottest football news of this summer as it has been in all the media. It is of course the transfer of Brazilian superstar Neymar from Barcelona to Paris Saint Germain (PSG) for the princely sum of £198 million pounds.
On top of the transfer fee PSG will have to stump up Neymar's salary + add on's + tax which gives a sum over 5 years of approx £450 million. This not only beats the previous record of Paul Pogba to Manchester United into second place, but smashes it into oblivion.
As I watched this eye watering transfer unfold in the media I was incredulous. Along with many other people I was gob smacked. Is Neymar really worth that much? Then in the back of my mind a question was raised - How do you measure worth?
To most of us it seems obvious that doctors, nurses and teachers etc have more inherent worth than footballers, and even as a life long football fan I am inclined to think that way. But clearly PSG think differently. To them footballers are worth more than doctors etc as I bet that their medical team get paid a fraction of what Neymar earns
So am I right or are PSG? How do we measure worth? Is there a coherent way of measuring worth? Are some people worth more than others and if so why?
If doctors are worth more than footballers then is our worth dependent on what we do? Does our job or lack of one dictate our worth? Certainly if the media presents the truth then some politicians think like that as 'contributing to society' ie paying taxes and not claiming benefits, seems of utmost importance to them. In other words are those who get on in the world worth more than those who don't?
I don't agree with this thinking. The bible does teach the importance of work, but it doesn't teach that our value comes from this. If it did then it would mean that the old, the handicapped and the low paid would be worth little or nothing and that is not what I read in my bible.
There has to be a better way of measuring worth and indeed we find it in that well known bible passage John 3 v 16
'For God so loved the world that He gave His one & only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'
Everyone wants to matter, and this passage tells us that we all matter to God and crucially equally. So are you worth the same as Neymar? Of course you are, as I am. We are worth the life of Jesus Christ.
On top of the transfer fee PSG will have to stump up Neymar's salary + add on's + tax which gives a sum over 5 years of approx £450 million. This not only beats the previous record of Paul Pogba to Manchester United into second place, but smashes it into oblivion.
As I watched this eye watering transfer unfold in the media I was incredulous. Along with many other people I was gob smacked. Is Neymar really worth that much? Then in the back of my mind a question was raised - How do you measure worth?
To most of us it seems obvious that doctors, nurses and teachers etc have more inherent worth than footballers, and even as a life long football fan I am inclined to think that way. But clearly PSG think differently. To them footballers are worth more than doctors etc as I bet that their medical team get paid a fraction of what Neymar earns
So am I right or are PSG? How do we measure worth? Is there a coherent way of measuring worth? Are some people worth more than others and if so why?
If doctors are worth more than footballers then is our worth dependent on what we do? Does our job or lack of one dictate our worth? Certainly if the media presents the truth then some politicians think like that as 'contributing to society' ie paying taxes and not claiming benefits, seems of utmost importance to them. In other words are those who get on in the world worth more than those who don't?
I don't agree with this thinking. The bible does teach the importance of work, but it doesn't teach that our value comes from this. If it did then it would mean that the old, the handicapped and the low paid would be worth little or nothing and that is not what I read in my bible.
There has to be a better way of measuring worth and indeed we find it in that well known bible passage John 3 v 16
'For God so loved the world that He gave His one & only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.'
Everyone wants to matter, and this passage tells us that we all matter to God and crucially equally. So are you worth the same as Neymar? Of course you are, as I am. We are worth the life of Jesus Christ.
Wednesday, 26 July 2017
Hello Ladies and Gentlmen
I take it as given that all of us want to feel welcome wherever we go, be that amongst our friends, work colleagues or in society in general. Hence I understand why Stonewall champions the rights of the LGBT community. How gay people were treated in decades past was terrible and I oppose anyone or any organisation that would seek to cause harm to the property or person of any homosexual or heterosexual. All of us ought to be able to live safely in our homes or go about our business without the threat of harm.
But just because I wish no harm on any homosexual person doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that Stonewall stands for or seeks to do. For example the issue of gender neutrality. A seemingly innocuous article in my newspaper caught my eye on the 14th July 2017. It was in the i newspaper and was titled 'End of the line: Goodbye Ladies and Gentlemen.'
The above article informed us that transport workers across London have been told to stop using the words 'ladies and gentlemen' in public address announcements in order to comply with a city wide bid to become more gender neutral. Apparently LGBT activists have appealed to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to change what they called 'outdated language'. TFL (Transport for London) boss Mark Evers said that TFL wants 'everyone to feel welcome on our transport network' and 'we have revised the language that we use in announcements & elsewhere and will make sure it is fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London.
For some people, just me querying Stonewalls actions would be enough to label me as homophobic which is not true. I do not like the term homophobic as it seems to be used to belittle any who disagree with the party line. If the government were to do this then we would all be up in arms. Democracy means dealing and debating with those you disagree with. Calling them names is childish. All those who did not vote for the Tory party in the recent elections are not toryphobic. Perhaps homophobic could be used for right wing bigots who hate homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals.
As I said earlier I support Stonewalls right to represent the LGBT community. As a Christian I also call upon the church to reach out and show the love of God to gay, transgender and intersex people, but also to question their lifestyle. This already happens with heterosexuals so why not homosexuals? In this blog I do not intend to bible bash and indeed I hope to be as fair and neutral as I can. My intent is to question the subject of gender neutrality as I see it in society and particularly as I found it in this article.
TFL cite ' a city wide bid to become more gender neutral.' Now I am not a resident of London so I am not aware whether Londoners have been presented with details of the above bid. Neither am I aware whether they have been presented with the arguments for or against this, or whether they have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on this policy. If they have then fine, but if they haven't then why not? A city wide policy effects all Londoners & the mayor needs to heed all views and not just those from one side of the argument.
In the article activists state that 'ladies and gentlemen' is archaic language which is nonsense. I may not be in the first flush of youth, but I still use the term. I admit that thee, thy, thou and forsooth have dropped from my vocabulary and may be confined to history, but 'ladies and gentlemen-COME ON.
I understand that TFL want everyone to feel welcome on their transport network and I should hope so to. What I fail to understand is why 'ladies and gentlemen' should be seen as anything other than a fully inclusive term. There have been times when I have had to stand up in front of others at our chapel, and call everyone to order because something is about to start. I can assure you that on those occasions my words of 'ladies & gentlemen' were meant to include all those present.
Historically 'ladies & gentlemen' is a term of inclusiveness so why does Stonewall want it removed? Gay men are still men, gay women are still women. Your gender does not dictate your sexual orientation in our society. Even transgender people were born as one sex, but then choose to live as another. Of course there is the case of 'intersex' people whose sex can be unclear, but I do not think that they are the issue.
I have been fighting against accepting the following conclusion as I dislike conspiracy theories and don't want to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. However I cannot deny that there is pressure put on us by society to accept certain views and beliefs. The use of the term homophobic is one example. If you disagree with me then ask yourselves the following. When did you last see the homosexual lifestyle questioned anywhere in the media? When did you last see any debate on gender neutrality? All we get are films, programmes and newspaper articles that promote the homosexual lifestyle as championed by Stonewall. Whilst we should not gloss over the injustices done to gay people in the past, never the less unquestioning support of homosexuality/gender neutrality is not the way forward. Articles such as in the i newspaper give support to gender neutrality, but they fail to give reasons why this is a good thing.
As a Christian I believe that men and women should celebrate their maleness or femaleness rather than accept the pressure to, in some way, hide it. I am not talking about gender stereotypes which are a social construct, but a recognition that both sexes have worth because they are Gods construct.
To be candid I don't really care how TFL make their public announcements. What does bother me is that a relatively small pressure group can get TFL to change a perfectly up to date, and inclusive term for their own reasons.
So Ladies and Gentlemen let us oppose this gender neutrality pressure. There is no reason why anyone should think that this term is anything other than meant to be inclusive and hence no reason for anyone to be offended or feel left out.
My prayer is that going forward we will have meaningful debates in society. I want to hear Stonewalls arguments, and I also want those who disagree to be able to do so. I ask for more democracy, not less.
But just because I wish no harm on any homosexual person doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything that Stonewall stands for or seeks to do. For example the issue of gender neutrality. A seemingly innocuous article in my newspaper caught my eye on the 14th July 2017. It was in the i newspaper and was titled 'End of the line: Goodbye Ladies and Gentlemen.'
The above article informed us that transport workers across London have been told to stop using the words 'ladies and gentlemen' in public address announcements in order to comply with a city wide bid to become more gender neutral. Apparently LGBT activists have appealed to the Mayor of London Sadiq Khan to change what they called 'outdated language'. TFL (Transport for London) boss Mark Evers said that TFL wants 'everyone to feel welcome on our transport network' and 'we have revised the language that we use in announcements & elsewhere and will make sure it is fully inclusive, reflecting the great diversity of London.
For some people, just me querying Stonewalls actions would be enough to label me as homophobic which is not true. I do not like the term homophobic as it seems to be used to belittle any who disagree with the party line. If the government were to do this then we would all be up in arms. Democracy means dealing and debating with those you disagree with. Calling them names is childish. All those who did not vote for the Tory party in the recent elections are not toryphobic. Perhaps homophobic could be used for right wing bigots who hate homosexuals. I do not hate homosexuals.
As I said earlier I support Stonewalls right to represent the LGBT community. As a Christian I also call upon the church to reach out and show the love of God to gay, transgender and intersex people, but also to question their lifestyle. This already happens with heterosexuals so why not homosexuals? In this blog I do not intend to bible bash and indeed I hope to be as fair and neutral as I can. My intent is to question the subject of gender neutrality as I see it in society and particularly as I found it in this article.
TFL cite ' a city wide bid to become more gender neutral.' Now I am not a resident of London so I am not aware whether Londoners have been presented with details of the above bid. Neither am I aware whether they have been presented with the arguments for or against this, or whether they have had the opportunity to voice their opinion on this policy. If they have then fine, but if they haven't then why not? A city wide policy effects all Londoners & the mayor needs to heed all views and not just those from one side of the argument.
In the article activists state that 'ladies and gentlemen' is archaic language which is nonsense. I may not be in the first flush of youth, but I still use the term. I admit that thee, thy, thou and forsooth have dropped from my vocabulary and may be confined to history, but 'ladies and gentlemen-COME ON.
I understand that TFL want everyone to feel welcome on their transport network and I should hope so to. What I fail to understand is why 'ladies and gentlemen' should be seen as anything other than a fully inclusive term. There have been times when I have had to stand up in front of others at our chapel, and call everyone to order because something is about to start. I can assure you that on those occasions my words of 'ladies & gentlemen' were meant to include all those present.
Historically 'ladies & gentlemen' is a term of inclusiveness so why does Stonewall want it removed? Gay men are still men, gay women are still women. Your gender does not dictate your sexual orientation in our society. Even transgender people were born as one sex, but then choose to live as another. Of course there is the case of 'intersex' people whose sex can be unclear, but I do not think that they are the issue.
I have been fighting against accepting the following conclusion as I dislike conspiracy theories and don't want to be labelled as a conspiracy theorist. However I cannot deny that there is pressure put on us by society to accept certain views and beliefs. The use of the term homophobic is one example. If you disagree with me then ask yourselves the following. When did you last see the homosexual lifestyle questioned anywhere in the media? When did you last see any debate on gender neutrality? All we get are films, programmes and newspaper articles that promote the homosexual lifestyle as championed by Stonewall. Whilst we should not gloss over the injustices done to gay people in the past, never the less unquestioning support of homosexuality/gender neutrality is not the way forward. Articles such as in the i newspaper give support to gender neutrality, but they fail to give reasons why this is a good thing.
As a Christian I believe that men and women should celebrate their maleness or femaleness rather than accept the pressure to, in some way, hide it. I am not talking about gender stereotypes which are a social construct, but a recognition that both sexes have worth because they are Gods construct.
To be candid I don't really care how TFL make their public announcements. What does bother me is that a relatively small pressure group can get TFL to change a perfectly up to date, and inclusive term for their own reasons.
So Ladies and Gentlemen let us oppose this gender neutrality pressure. There is no reason why anyone should think that this term is anything other than meant to be inclusive and hence no reason for anyone to be offended or feel left out.
My prayer is that going forward we will have meaningful debates in society. I want to hear Stonewalls arguments, and I also want those who disagree to be able to do so. I ask for more democracy, not less.
Wednesday, 28 June 2017
Grenfell Reflections
The pictures of Grenfell Tower on fire on the 14th June will sear the memories of all who witnessed it for the rest of their lives, that I am certain. I vividly remember the haunted faces of fire crew resting after attacking the blaze. Also the harrowing stories of people banging on windows, unable to escape the flames, or throwing children into the arms of people several stories beneath before they succumbed to the fires.
Before Grenfell I had thought that stories such as this only occupied disaster movies. Tower blocks did not burn up like some sort of towering inferno in the real world. My first reaction was to think that I was witnessing some sort of terrorist atrocity, but no, and in some ways worse, this was no attack.
As more and more information came to light it became clear that a whole catalogue of events had transpired to cause this disaster. We could look at length at the dangerous cladding, the lack of sprinklers, proper fire doors or escape routes, but whatever the reason we as a society allowed people to live in an unsafe building at risk of fire. And has transpired in the two weeks since Grenfell there are many, many other buildings that are not safe as well, and not just because of the cladding.
Now I am a born again Christian and I believe in a God who created and loved the residents of Grenfell tower. Because of this every last resident had worth. There was no unimportant person in Grenfell that fateful night be they black or white, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, British or not, English speaking or not.
Now I don't know why God allowed the fire to take hold, but clearly He did. It certainly wasn't because He doesn't care or understand. He understands loss as it was his Son Jesus that died on the cross which means He can really empathise with those who lost loved ones at Grenfell.
The God of the bible is not only a God who loves, but is also a God of truth and justice. So He will understand the residents desire to get to the bottom of what caused this tragedy, and I hope and pray that the truth will out. The police are already investigating this tragedy and if some sort of wrongdoing or negligence is proved then the culprit or culprits ought to answer to the courts.
For me though the ultimate answer to what caused the fire in Grenfell is a system that equates worth with money and power. Those who do not have much of either are herded into low cost accommodation where low cost maintenance and low cost protection awaits them.
The bible calls this the sin of materialism. Sin is not a word that is used much today, and in today's parlance appears to either refer to eating too much chocolate, having elicit sex, or a word reserved for the actions of paedophiles, rapists and the like. But for the purposes of this blog it refers to going against God. In the case of Grenfell going against God means not looking after His creation people, not giving them the worth that beings created and loved by God deserves.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Why was there so much smoke in the corridors and stairwell when fire doors should have been fitted? Why couldn't the residents escape down a fire/smoke proof stairwell or outside stairs? Why did the cladding appear to catch fire? Why wasn't there sprinklers provided? and these are just off the top of my head.
Someone has to answer for what happened at Grenfell, and I hope that the legitimate quest for answers will not get hijacked by outside political forces who wish to stir up trouble for the government and will use Grenfell as a means to an end.
Now the bible does not teach that having money or possessions is wrong per se, but warns against the love of money as it corrupts.
Now I do not know whether there has been any corruption involved with Grenfell, but never the less we as a society should use Grenfell to examine how we do things. For governments and councils this includes the provision of quality and safe social housing.
Someone once wrote (and I paraphrase) that the mark of a civilised nation is how well it treats its weakest members. With each new tower block failing fire tests (over 75 at the time of writing) our civilised nation is looking more and more shame faced.
Before Grenfell I had thought that stories such as this only occupied disaster movies. Tower blocks did not burn up like some sort of towering inferno in the real world. My first reaction was to think that I was witnessing some sort of terrorist atrocity, but no, and in some ways worse, this was no attack.
As more and more information came to light it became clear that a whole catalogue of events had transpired to cause this disaster. We could look at length at the dangerous cladding, the lack of sprinklers, proper fire doors or escape routes, but whatever the reason we as a society allowed people to live in an unsafe building at risk of fire. And has transpired in the two weeks since Grenfell there are many, many other buildings that are not safe as well, and not just because of the cladding.
Now I am a born again Christian and I believe in a God who created and loved the residents of Grenfell tower. Because of this every last resident had worth. There was no unimportant person in Grenfell that fateful night be they black or white, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist, British or not, English speaking or not.
Now I don't know why God allowed the fire to take hold, but clearly He did. It certainly wasn't because He doesn't care or understand. He understands loss as it was his Son Jesus that died on the cross which means He can really empathise with those who lost loved ones at Grenfell.
The God of the bible is not only a God who loves, but is also a God of truth and justice. So He will understand the residents desire to get to the bottom of what caused this tragedy, and I hope and pray that the truth will out. The police are already investigating this tragedy and if some sort of wrongdoing or negligence is proved then the culprit or culprits ought to answer to the courts.
For me though the ultimate answer to what caused the fire in Grenfell is a system that equates worth with money and power. Those who do not have much of either are herded into low cost accommodation where low cost maintenance and low cost protection awaits them.
The bible calls this the sin of materialism. Sin is not a word that is used much today, and in today's parlance appears to either refer to eating too much chocolate, having elicit sex, or a word reserved for the actions of paedophiles, rapists and the like. But for the purposes of this blog it refers to going against God. In the case of Grenfell going against God means not looking after His creation people, not giving them the worth that beings created and loved by God deserves.
We have to ask ourselves some questions. Why was there so much smoke in the corridors and stairwell when fire doors should have been fitted? Why couldn't the residents escape down a fire/smoke proof stairwell or outside stairs? Why did the cladding appear to catch fire? Why wasn't there sprinklers provided? and these are just off the top of my head.
Someone has to answer for what happened at Grenfell, and I hope that the legitimate quest for answers will not get hijacked by outside political forces who wish to stir up trouble for the government and will use Grenfell as a means to an end.
Now the bible does not teach that having money or possessions is wrong per se, but warns against the love of money as it corrupts.
Now I do not know whether there has been any corruption involved with Grenfell, but never the less we as a society should use Grenfell to examine how we do things. For governments and councils this includes the provision of quality and safe social housing.
Someone once wrote (and I paraphrase) that the mark of a civilised nation is how well it treats its weakest members. With each new tower block failing fire tests (over 75 at the time of writing) our civilised nation is looking more and more shame faced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)