Purity and Power

I've just been listening to this month's "Defining Moments" Leadership Audio Journal from Willow Creek. It is called "Spiritual Transformation of the Next Generation." Nancy Beach, from the Willow Creek Association, interviews Bill Hybels, Willow's Senior Pastor, and Shane Farmer, who runs their Senior High ministry.



It's all rather intimidating - the organization they have in place at Willow Creek for Senior High ministry. Designed to operate in three complementary phases, the ministry includes large group worship held on Sunday morning, at the same time as regular worship (I see some issues there); medium sized group gatherings happen on Sunday afternoons with multiple leaders and the opportunity to break off into small groups based on specific High Schools; and then there is the student-led ministry in those High Schools, which seems to operate rather like Young Life. Very interesting, especially the intentionality behind the development of spiritual disciplines and spiritual gifts.

There was an informative and thought-provoking section about the value of camps and mission trips. Nothing surprising there, except for the emphasis on letting local leaders do most of the teaching. Willow sees these events as opportunities to build community among small groups. This goes against the flow, but I think it's a good idea. In our context, camps usually break up our party and place kids in small groups with people they don't know. An outside speaker is usually charged with presenting some kind of challenge. This is quite a risk, especially when the speaker is from a predominantly liberal denomination; often they have an agenda to impart to the kids, and we have to pick up the pieces. The other thing is that, by splitting up our party, at least for some of the time, we create a false environment which can't be replicated at home, and we miss an opportunity for deeper fellowship with our kids.

One thing that really caught my attention, however, doesn't really have anything to do with youth ministry. Toward the end of the discussion, Shane Farmer was asked what he would like to pass on to other student or youth leaders who might be listening. In response he said that leaders need to nurture their own walk with Christ, because if they neglect that they will find it almost impossible to lead. And then he said something like, "Concentrate on purity, because power follows purity." Now that is quite a thought.

What if the power and blessing of the Holy Spirit are more easily channeled through those who seek to live according to God's will? What if there really is a link between the effectiveness of our ministries and our pursuit of personal holiness? And what if one of the reasons why the Presbyterian Church seems to be so devoid of power, is that we have institutionalized sin? If that is, indeed, the case, then our continued alignment with those who deny both the orthodoxy and the orthopraxy of the Gospel is a severe detriment to the work of the Kingdom. If power does indeed follow purity, then the source of our problem is that we have, repeatedly, failed to seek biblical purity. In fact, as the recent General Assembly proves, we are still trying to make acceptable that which the Scriptures condemn. There's a lesson there for more than youth ministry.


By the way, this sin't quite the type of purity I had in mind...

The Jesus Boat

The Sea of Galilee Boat looks, from its cover, like a dry-as-dust academic report. It is nothing of the kind. Published by Perseus, Shelley Wachsmann's book reads more like a thriller. It is a step-by-step account of the discovery, excavation, identification, and preservation of the remains of a fishing vessel from about the time of Jesus.

In January 1986, two brothers took advantage of an exceptionally severe drought to comb the mud flats around the Sea of Galilee. They discovered the remains of a fishing vessel whose timbers had been preserved in the mud. A story of typical Israeli ingenuity ensues in which, against the odds, the boat was successfully excavated. It is now on display at the Yigdal Allon Center, just a mile or so from where it had slept for two thousand years. When news of the discovery got out, many people started to call the find The Jesus Boat. It's true that the little fishing boat could well have been used on Galilee at the time of Jesus, but that doesn't mean that it was one of the two boats we can identify from the Scriptures. Powered by four oars and a square set mast, steered bya rudder oar, the boat could easily have held a dozen or more disciples. There would even have been a place for Jesus to lay down to sleep, only to be awakened during a storm. A poor man's boat, made up of largely reclaimed timbers, it probably had a life of less than twenty years. With the remains of at least two other boats it was left in the shallows, not far from Migdal, until it settled, forgotten, into the mud.

There is another possibility for an historical connection. The Jewish Roman author Josephus tells of a military operation against some rebellious Jews that took place within the same time frame (100 BC - 100 AD), in which Roman soldiers defeated the inhabitants of Migdal in a battle on the lake. An arrowhead was found inside the hull, which could indicate that this boat was one of those used by the Jews. However, it's little more than conjecture.

It's a compelling tale, told in a narrative form that brings light to the story of the New Testament. There are even local connections: the chemical used to preserve the timbers, which is a type of penetrating wax, was donated by the Dow Chemical Company, of Freeport, Texas; and, one of the first experts to vouch for the authenticity and antiquity of the boat was a professor from Texas A&M University. If you are interested in Bible times, and enjoy a good (if lengthy) read I commend this book.

Forgiveness

I grew up on P.G. Wodehouse. The world of Bertie Wooster and his "gentleman's gentleman" Jeeves gave me enormous pleasure. It was a world far removed from the privations of the industrial North of England, so I suppose it was escapism in a way, but I soon saw for myself that Wodehouse was a master of character and dialogue. He is, for me, the most entertaining author of the century (as well as one of the most prolific). Even today, some of the names remain with me: Blandings Castle, obviously, but who wouldn't remember, with mirthful joy, the adventures of Stilton Cheesewright, Oofy Prosser, Pongo Twistleton-Twistleton and the immortal Gussie Fink-Nottle. "What-Ho, chaps!" and all that.

There's an interesting story in Joseph Connolly's biography of Wodehouse. During the war years, Plum (as Wodehouse was almost universally known) was arrested by the Germans in occupied France. At this time, approaching the age of 60 and still working feverishly, Wodehouse seems to have hardly noticed that there was a war on. In fact, one of his most enduring characteristics was an other-worldliness, bordering on ignorance. Plum didn't take the world terribly seriously. He'd never been good at holding grudges, so didn't do it. The fact that people could actually lob bombs at one another rather horrified him, despite his service during the First World War. At any rate, Wodehouse was arrested as a citizen of a belligerent nation (belligerent to the Nazis, that is), and taken to a variety of rather unpleasant jails. Naturally, whilst in confinement, Plum continued to write, producing a series of novels, and a memoir of his experiences. Unsurprisingly, he titled it How to be an Internee without Previous Training.



A couple of months before his 60th birthday, when he was due to be released, Wodehouse found himself held in a former sanatorium in Berlin. He rather enjoyed being in a padded cell because it gave him the peace and quiet he needed to work. But, for some reason, the Germans decided to release him. Someone remarked that he had written about his experiences, and next thing, the German broadcasting authority was asking him to read excerpts on the radio. Wodehouse agreed. He gave five performances, largely to allay the fears of those of his readers who, hearing of his fate, had sent letters to his prison. Wodehouse thought little of it. His release had not been conditional upon his agreeing to do the broadcasts. No editorial control was exercised over him. He was not paid.

However, in Britain, the newspapers got hold of the news that Wodehouse had given these talks. They noted that this was the same station that had broadcast Lord Haw-Haw's traitorous comments on the war effort. They were incensed. Stories were published about Wodehouse selling his soul to the Germans. Details were invented about Plum being fetted with luxuries and showered with champagne. Questions were asked. Wodehouse was condemned as a traitor. This was gutter journalism at its worst, raising the hackles of the nation with half-truths and innuendo.

Wodehouse had absolutely no idea about the furor his actions had brought on. Later, he admitted that his actions had been foolish. He had been trying to reassure his friends; inadvertently, he had given credibility to a corrupt regime. Perhaps his main crime was that he failed to hate the Germans, as expected. He saw them as human beings simply doing a job, following orders. Wodehouse was probably incapable of hate.

Then, after the war, Wodehouse happened to be in the same city as one of his detractors. This man had come close to destroying Wodehouse's career. The question was raised, "Would Wodehouse like to meet this man?" Perhaps a severe dressing down would be administered. Perhaps Wodehouse would do a Wooster, and call him a "dirty cad." Nothing of the sort happened. Wodehouse met the man for lunch, and apparently enjoyed himself. It was as if he had forgotten the whole thing.



William Sangster once said that the essence of Christian forgiveness is that, eventually, we forget the offense. Perhaps it is the innocents abroad who learn this lesson best.

Marie Antoinette

Recently, I finished Evelyne Lever's monumental biography of Marie Antoinette. I think it's even better than Antonia Fraser's book, which has been around for quite a while now. Lever, who lives in Paris, traces the story of the Austrian princess through her idyllic childhood, and the heady days of her marriage to the Dauphin, to her eventual decline and fall. Lever gives us a fascinating insight into the self-absorbed, almost narcissistic world of the Hapsburg royalty.

The little princess was surrounded by fawning courtiers and given every opportunity to enjoy a carefree childhood, even though she was dominated by the imposing will of her mother, the Empress Maria Theresa. It was only when she reached her teenage years that she began to understand that she had a duty to her family that would dictate her destiny. She was obliged to make a favorable marriage. Like a pawn in a political chess game, Marie Antoinette was sacrificed to her mother's grandiose designs on France. There, she was affianced to the quiet, bookish Dauphin.

Following the death of Louis the Fifteenth, Marie Antoinette's husband (as he had become, by this stage) took upon himself the mantle of divine kingship for which he was almost totally unsuitable. Happier riding with the hunt than dealing with affairs of state, Louis XVI relied too much on ministers who did not always have his best interests at heart. Versailles, the seat of government, became a web of intrigue, most of which seemed to go unnoticed by the immature monarch. His wife was not much help. Marie Antoinette was hounded, constantly, by representatives from Austria, encouraging her to do her duty and to influence the King in favor of her mother's empire. But the Queen had discovered the delights of royalty and had no intention of ruining her day with politics. She was a foolish girl, in many respects, not realizing how many people she was offending with her silly games. The balance of power shifted, subtly, as she played off one former favorite against another, setting ancient families against each other. One gets the impression, from Lever's description, that the Queen was not the most intelligent of women. She could be as haughty and imperious as her mother, but without the guile. Despite the ineptitude of her husband, she eventually managed to become a mother. Her playfulness continued, but at least it was tempered by a maternal instinct. Marie Antoinette, very much against the traditions of her age, became an involved and interested parent.

Eventually, however, financial ruin began to stalk the kingdom. To a large degree this was as a result of France's involvement in the American War of Independence, but a series of poor harvests and some appallingly badly timed reforms combined to bring the realm close to bankruptcy. The Queen seemed hardly to notice, at first, continuing to give lavish balls and spend much more than her very large allowance. She was perceived, popularly, as a representative of a foreign power. Designated "L'Autricienne" she was blamed for France's political woes as much as for the shortage of bread. She did not understand that her unpopularity was destined to have fatal consequences.

When the Revolution finally came, both King and Queen were caught up in a rapidly moving maelstrom of events. There were several points at which decisive action could have saved them, and possibly the kingdom, but Louis continued to vacillate and all was lost. It was when she finally had to face the invective of the mob that Marie Antoinette came into her own. She fought for her family, and for a weak king whom she did not really love. She died, unrepentant, the symbol of a bygone era, swallowed up by nascent democracy. Except that it was not democracy that triumphed, it was unrestrained terror. There can be little doubt that Marie Antoinette was executed in order to placate a blood-thirsty mob. Her trial was a sham. The accusations were totally unsubstantiated. In effect, there was really no trial at all, simply a condemnation.
Following her death, and the eventual restoration of the monarchy, Marie Antoinette received a veneration that she did not really deserve; but, then, neither did she deserve to meet her death at the hands of Madame Guillotine.

Edmund Burke, the British politician, observed events across the Channel with growing concern. He correctly predicted the downward spiral into violence, and the necessity of war. He feared that radical reformers in Britain would be encouraged to revolt by what they heard from France. His fears were well founded. Liberty, when it is totally unrestrained by Law quickly turns into Tyranny. Without the moderating influence of commonly held moral beliefs, revolution destroys much more readily than it creates.