not a blog of my own

Haven't really had much chance to blog recently but just read this article on the Rubicon and thought it was worth sign posting to some of you who read this blog.

I suppose it fits in with thinking on identity recently and I can certainly relate to where the writer is coming from.

http://therubicon.org/2009/12/war-to-the-teeth/


I also have anecdotes I could add to some of the examples in the article which are equally ridiculous relating to just how specifically you have to wear the uniform.  But I'll save those for another time.

I should really be going to sleep now

Pure Evil?

I've heard this term being used to describe a couple of people convicted in court cases that have made the news this week.  It's left me with a few questions really.  What is pure evil, does it even exist and if it does should it ever be used to describe a person?

Chatting with my wife and brother in law in the car last night on the way to a carolling gig we pretty much all had the same feeling about this question.  We all know evil exists, we've seen it or experienced it but pure evil is evil on a whole other level.  To say something is pure, surely means that is free from anything that taints it.  Pure gold is 100% gold, nothing else, no other element are present.  The best difinition I found for 'pure' was 'free from discordant qualities'.  It is made up of only one element, one thing, there is nothing else present that taints or dilutes even to the smallest degree.  Pure evil has no potential for good at all there is not even the slightest hint of anything other than evil intent.

Does Pure Evil exist?  The only thing we could agree on that could be given this label was the devil.  And even then there was a glimmer of doubt.

To label a person as Pure evil though is another matter.  We agreed that even though we had seen or heard of people that had done evil things in their life times, people though history and those in the news recently.  Even if we would find it hard, near impossible to forgive their actions.  To say they were pure evil would be to say they are without hope, without even the glimmer of a possiblity for change and repentance.  To say a person is beyond forgiveness is to limit God.  The fact that we are all part of His creation as well, has to mean that there is some good in all of us, not matter how small it might be.  So when I hear someone described as pure evil, I can't agree with that level of condemnation.  I have to believe that there is to potential for change in everybody no matter what.

Legends

Listening to radio 5 this morning I was interested to hear the debate about what makes someone a sporting legend.  On a weekend when Ryan Giggs was voted BBC sports personality of the year and Joe McElderry won the X factor i've been thinking about what makes someone a legend. 

The thing that interested me the most about the debate was whether the morality of an individual was important or not.  People talked about Tiger Woods' fall from grace this week and questioned whether his indiscretions would take away from his Legendary status.  Some said that the rascal/scallywag characteristics of some sporting greats like George Best help to give them legendary status.  To our knowlegde Giggs has led a 'good' life, he's in the papers for the right reasons and you rarely if ever see any negative press flung his way.  He's married with 2 children and has maintained his family unit without scandal or rumour.  For a sportman at least how important is being a good example of the playing field to being a legend.  Or does your ability on the pitch allow you to live the worst possible life and still be considered a legend in your field.

And what about Joe (I thought he was the right winner by the way)?  How does he become a legend in the music industry.  does simply winning a comepetition over 200000 other people elevate him to legendary status?  What more does he have to do/acheive.  He's already got a huge fan base through the X factor show, people changing their names to "vote Joe" in fact.  Does over 5 million voters establish him as a legend to those people.  Will they be talking about him in a year, 5 years, 10, 20 years time?  Will people pass one stories of Joe, or Ryan down from generation to generation.

The dictionary defines a legend in a few ways.  A couple of the most relevant definitions are these:

• 
  
  One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.
  
  
  
• 
  
  a person whose fame or notoriety makes him a source of exaggerated or romanticized tales or exploits
  
  
  
• 
  
  A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times
  
  
  

In some cases I think the term 'Legend' can do people an injustice especially if they are considered as myth or that their acheivements have become romanticized.  Legend status can allow you to conveniently overlook the negative aspects of someones life because they are good at something.

I think about some of the people we look up to at Church, 'legends of the faith' if you like.  Booth would be considered by many in the Salvation Army as a Legend.  He probably has achieved legendary staus, however I would hate to think that his vision and prophetic ideas were considered myth or just romanticized folly. 

I suppose the other danger with Legends is; at what point to they stray into idol territory.  By placing someone so high on a pedastal they can obscure our view to what our true focus should be.  It's not wrong to look up to people and have people who inspire us to great things but we do have to be careful who makes legendary status in our lives and the reason we look to them as role models. 

You're Welcome

Two posts in a week, now there's a turn up.  Mind you I'm starting to get into the habit of seeing something and writing about straight away rather than thinking about it for a week than forgetting what I thought in the first place.


Driving back to the office from the lunch club at the local school I saw a wayside pulpit that read "You're welcome to come and worship God with us!".  On the surface, it seems like a very welcoming suggestion but it reminds me of a few conversations I've had recently.  At best that sign is an innocent invitation by a Church trying to say that Church is a place that welcomes all.  At worst it's another example of the Church entrenching itself and saying "God's in here".

The Church can be in danger of monopolising God.  You can come to God but only in this building and only in a way that works for us.  That's a phrase I keep seeing, "...works for us".  The problem is that it's not about us as Christians, it's about everyone else.  As a Christian I believe we are called to sacrificial living, we live all aspects of our lives for the benefit of other people.  I think that extends to our Church experience as well though.  That's not to say we can't do things we enjoy, infact it's probably beneficial to all involved to use the things we enjoy as a means of evangelism.  Sport, music, knitting, walking, canoeing, singing, whatever.  I hope that's not too contradictory?

Again it's a theme running through a number of conversations and blogs that I read, but the Church has got to get out of the habit of saying "come to us", thinking of programmes that get people through the doors.  The gap between many people and the established Church is growing and I don't think we've got much to offer to start to bridge that gap.  Even something like Alpha or Cell groups are huge leaps for a lot of people.  Keeping with the bridge ananolgy maybe the Church is trying to build bridges but their starting from the wrong side. 

At some point I'm going to have sacrifice what I want from Church in order to spend more time with others in a context that is relevant and comfortable to them and not necessarily to me.  By Gods grace I am saved and I will do what I can at Church to continue my discipleship at a level that is deep enough for me.  the rest of my time though must be given over to creating and developing relationships with my community and circle of friends.

Who am I?

Just to pre-empt this, I've just realised that there is no spell check function on Blogger now, so I apologise in advance for any spelling mistakes as there are probably more than a few.

I've been meeting to blog about this for a few days now.  A theme that keeps coming up at the moment is Identity, particularly when talking about The Salvation Army.  I was at an interfaith family service this weekend and all the religions that were there could be easily identified by some form of clothing (apart from the Christian group).  Then there was me who could be easily identified by my Uniform as a Salvationist at least.  The Jewish guy leading did say when I met him "We have 5 faiths here today, 6 now that you're here", to him the fact I was a Salvationist did not identify me as a Christian.  I wonder if that's the case with more of the public today

So what makes me a Salvationist? Is it the Uniform or the fact I play in the band, is it because I walk through the doors of a Salvation Army building several times a week? Obviousley there will be some of you reading this asking if it even matters, what identifies as a Christian? Trust me I ask that question as well because for 95% of my time I don't wear anything that would define me as a Salvationist or what my religion is. So that must mean that to be identified as a Christian it has to be down to my behaviour and actions and at that point it doesn't matter what denomination I am affiliated to.  So to be identified as a Christian it has to be about something deeper than what I wear or what programmes I am involved in?  But what makes me want to be a Salvationist more than a Catholic, or a methodist, or a pentecostal?  Is it the style of worship?  That's specific even to which SA Chuch I belong to.  Is it the band, or the uniform that makes me want to be a part of this Church?  Or is it something deeper again than these reletively superficial aspects of the Church?



There have been 2 other instances recently that have made me think about this issue of identity partucularly with regard to the SA.  Firstly on an SA training course about mission, the outside speaker suggested that to some entering our centres and Churches, the uniform and pledge of no alcohol might be a barrier to becoming part of the Church.  This was met with fervent response surrounding a loss of identity if these were taken away.  Secondly a letter of response in the Salvationist this week also claimed that if certain symbols and groups were taken away (flag, uniform, sections, etc) we would lose our identity and effectiveness.

Now there is a whole other blog about the effectiveness thing but it's this question of identity that interests me.  You walk into my SA Church and it's obvious before you even step into the building that it's SA, The Crest and flag outside let you know what you are coming into.  Inside you see uniforms, band, songsters, another Crest, several flags, and just incase you still needed confirmation there's a big picture of William Booth on the wall.  But what about the Corps and centres that don't have these things, and I'm not just refering to the Church buildings.  What makes Corps, that don't have any or all of the things I've mentioned, part of the Salvation Army?  I think particularly about new plants that might not even meet in a Church building but a school or Coffee Shop?  They might not have anyone in Uniform, or a band, or a choir.  Are they still The SA or should they be a new denomination?

Please be careful not to think that this is a get rid of uniform or anything else rant.  If that's what you;ve thought to this point then you have missed my point all together.  I just wonder, that when everything is striped away that easily tells people I'm a member of the Salvation Army, what it is about me that makes me a Salvationist.  Because I don't want to rely on my uniform to do the job for me? 

It's funny how things work out sometimes. Conversations I've been having with a few people how revolved around the need for the Church to stop saying "come to me". Whenever we talk about evangelism all we ever talk about is how to "get them in". Then the cartoon on todays ASBO Jesus was this, appropriate non.

I thought I would way in as well with my opinion. Don't really know if it's that much of an opinion as much as an agreement though. Be helpful if you picked up the thread from my friends blog actually. http://mattelsey.blogspot.com/2009/10/back-to-church-part-2.html

I agree with Matt that the Church needs to get out more rather than be concerned with what programme we need to put on to bring people into our buildings. I agree with David as well that actually it's about individuals being in world and the importance of how we act and live while we're not at Church. This idea of a duplicitous life, I think, is a symptom of a sacred/secular divide. We can be in danger of compartmentalising our lives into bits that are part of our Christian life and bits that aren't. It comes back to something I heard Rob Bell say in "Everything is Spiritual", he says 'To label one thing Spiritual is to label something else not spiritual', the gist being that God has a part in everything and why should should we divide things up into spiritual/holy/sacred/Christian/of God and by default other aspects of our lives that are not.

To some extent I think is is reinforced as well by having groups for Christians only, Christian football teams, bands, or clubs that take us away from so called secular versions of the same thing. Why be part of a Christian football team, would it not be more effective to be part of the local team with mates from work or school. Potentially a more controversial suggestion would be that of brass bands, would it not be more effective for us to join an outside brass band as well or instead? Or even open sections up to the local community where faith is not part of the criteria for being a member? I know this is a contentious issue and there would be strong feelings both for and against, however it is not my intention to start a debate about Army sections but more about questioning all the aspects of our lives that we are involve ourselves in. I think we forget sometimes that these are bigger issues than just about Salvation Army protocol, and regulations. There are bigger questions to ask here and we need to see the bigger picture. We can busy ourselves so much with Church programme that we take ourselves out of the "real world" which then begs the question what programme should we keep, start, or get rid of, if we are to have programme at all?

Maybe that's a completely different blog altogether. I really should get on with some proper work!

...It's a nice thought!

Been quite a good weekend really. I got 25 minutes a left back for the Aspley Beacon this Saturday who continue their 100% record in all competitions. Left back is not my position but to be honest if it means I get a run out then I'll do pretty much whatever I'm asked.

Sunday morning some of the band went to the hospital to accompany the singing at the weekly Church service. We do this the first Sunday every month and it's always a really interesting experience. I question at times the value of us being there in terms of the mission of Church but maybe that's for another blog and another day. What jumped out at me this time was something the pastor said during his sermon. When talking about what would happen to him when he went to heaven he said "I don't really know the theology, but it's a nice thought". How often do we appease ourselves with nice thoughts about faith so that we don't have to face up to what can be hard truths. It usually revolves around the more "controversial" subjects like the afterlife, or who will go to heaven, or spiritual gifts, angels, and the Devil. I'm guilty of it myself at times of not really searching for the truth when a nice thought keeps me happy and protects me from something I might not be ready to accept or agree with.

I continued this conversation with a couple of others and we felt that this was a problem with some teaching that we hear preached. I wonder if there is too much anecdotal preaching in churches so that those listening aren't made to feel too uncomfortable. It's not a criticism, just an observation. Maybe it's down to the length of time "allowed" for sermons (I don't believe this is just true of the Salvation Army). If a sermon is longer than the allotted 10 minutes then we get restless but how is 10 minutes ever long enough to seriously discuss something in any depth, so we just skim over the top with "nice thoughts" instead of real theology.

It's a huge challenge to me as I become to speak and teach more and give sermons especially when I become tied by the same time restraints put on others. It's a challenge to everyone as well I think to not blindly accept what is preached from a platform or pulpit. We are all theologians in our own right and we should question and apply the teaching we receive. We'll probably learn more that way anyway.