Thursday, February 25, 2010

Divorce

“It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”
Matthew 5:31-32

There is disagreement among scholars regarding the exact meaning of Jesus’ words regarding divorce. The problem is that they have to be seen against the background of the general prohibition of divorce under the Law of Moses, and the liberal interpretation which had become commonplace by the time of Christ. The Law forbade divorce except under the most extreme circumstances. It was punishable by death for the partner taken in adultery,[1] and only then was the remaining partner free to remarry. By the first century AD, the death penalty was no longer carried out, but its effect was still in force – only the innocent party was free to remarry. It was as if his or her spouse was actually dead. But if the original intention of the Law had been to protect marriage, by the time of Jesus, the scribes had interpreted the Law in such a way as to make divorce much more readily available. They made the Law say the opposite of what had been intended. As a result, women were getting a very raw deal. The interpretations were all written by men, so men benefitted. Men could, and did, divorce their wives on the slightest of pretexts, often leaving the “wife of their youth”[2] virtually destitute as they found a younger bride. Society was suffering as a result of widespread divorce. Jesus’ response was to emphasize the inner meaning of the Law, not just its legal application. Faithfulness is a matter of the heart, not of nominal adherence to an external decree.

With all this in mind, we need to be very careful not to apply Jesus’ words to our culture without first understanding their context. At the very least, there are several things that cannot be questioned. First, Jesus deplored divorce[3] and the destruction it caused. We have no good reason to question this belief. Second, the reason for this belief is clear: God’s design for human relationships is a lifelong, faithful commitment to the covenant of marriage. Rather than argue about its failure, perhaps we would do better to commend its benefits. But in all of this, we must not forget that our God is a God of forgiveness. Though we may fail, He is always ready to bring us to the place of repentance and restoration.

Heavenly Father,
Your faithfulness is a gift beyond measure.
Though we have played the fool and wandered far from Your paths,
You have kept faith with us and welcomed us home.
May our commitment to one another always reflect Your patience,
Your faithfulness, and Your love.
Amen.




[1] Leviticus 20:10
[2] Malachi 2:15
[3] Matthew 19:8-9

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Mortification of the Flesh

“If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go to hell.”
Matthew 5:29-30

Job knew a great deal about the dangers of looking at temptation. “I have made a covenant with my eyes,” he said, “not to look lustfully at a girl.”[1] Job accepted that sin consisted not only in deeds but also in desires. He understood that a lustful look also needs to be confessed and brought under the judgment of God.

Jesus takes the matter further. He tells His disciples that, if the eyes are the source of our sin, then we should pluck them out! If our right hand leads us into temptation then we should cut it off! Later, in repeating the same advice, Jesus adds the feet that lead us to the places of sin.[2] How are we to understand Him?

Jesus did not mean His words to be taken literally. Some early Christians did, indeed, mutilate themselves in response to what they took to be a divine command, but the practice was soon outlawed. The problem is that we fail to see, and to appreciate, the idiom in which Jesus spoke. Aramaic, like Hebrew before it, is rich in hyperbole and dramatic figures of speech. Jesus was not talking about self-mutilation but about the mortification of the flesh. We are to respond to temptation by avoiding it, and by making sure that we do not lead others into sin. If we develop the habit of watching those things that will corrupt us, then we should remember that the eyes are the windows of the heart,[3] and we should act as though our eyes had been plucked out. If our feet are tempted to stray to places where we have no business being, then we should act as though our feet had been cut off. Jesus’ advice is really very simple: don’t look, don’t touch, don’t go! This is clearly appropriate for our generation. There may be many sources of temptation that we cannot avoid, but there are plenty of others that we can. To argue, as some do, that we need to be involved in our world, to read every new book and to see every new movie, is to ignore Jesus’ words. What is better, to be culturally disconnected, or to risk losing everything you hold dear? There are some aspects of modern culture that are diametrically opposed to the Gospel. Sometimes, the best way to be faithful is simply to avoid them.

Lord God,
Through the rocks and snares and quicksands, keep me safe.
When danger threatens on every side, keep me close.
By Your Spirit, fill me to overflowing,
so that there will be room for nothing and no one else,
save Christ my Lord.
Amen.

[1] Job 31:1
[2] Matthew 18:8,9
[3] Mark 7:20-23

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

Adultery of the Heart

“You have heard that it was said, “Do not commit adultery.” But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
Matthew 5:27-28

Human imagination is a wonderful gift. It is one of the gifts that distinguish us from the animal kingdom. We have the capacity to dream. Surely, this is God-given? We may dream of childbirth without pain or of engines that will fly, and our dreams are stepping stones of creativity. Without imagination, our lives would be bland and repetitive. We are blessed to be able to dream.

However, as with every other gift from above, dreams can be dangerous. Unless we exercise God’s gifts responsibly, the blessing can soon become a curse. The so-called seven deadly sins are a good example. Every sin is the corruption of something good: appetite becomes gluttony, confidence becomes pride, love becomes lust. This is exactly what happens when we indulge in adultery of the heart.

Jesus widens the application of the sixth commandment by teaching that unrighteous anger falls under the same condemnation as murder. He deals with the seventh commandment in exactly the same way. The scribes and Pharisees interpreted “You shall not commit adultery” in a very narrow way. Jesus broadens its scope. To have the Law written on one’s heart is to know that a truly lustful look is, essentially, no better than an immoral act. Both are condemned. This is obviously a word for today. Society seems to be insatiable in its desire for sexual imagery. Advertisers take full advantage of the attraction of the risqué. Sex sells magazines. Movies and TV dramas pump their story-lines full of illicit relationships. As we watch, our imaginations are corrupted.

Admiration for beauty is one thing; adultery of the heart is another. Jesus gets to the heart of the matter. If we allow our imaginations to be fed by sights that lie beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable in the Kingdom of God, then we should not be surprised when our imaginations get us into trouble, and we fall. It is better not to look at all.

Father God,
I praise You for the good things in life,
for the food upon my table,
for the company of friends,
for the lifelong companionship of the one I love the most.
Help me to honor these gifts by living faithfully.
May every other attraction fade as I fix my eyes on Jesus.
Amen.

Monday, February 22, 2010

Put Things Right

“Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First, go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift.
“Settle matters quickly with your adversary who is taking you to court. Do it while you are still with him on the way, or he may hand you over to the judge, and the judge may hand you over to the officer, and you may be thrown into prison. I tell you the truth, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny.”
Matthew 5:23-26

Jesus gives two illustrations of the need to act quickly to put things right. In both, He assumes that we are in the wrong. His point is clear – you may argue over the finer points of the Law, if you like, but it still applies, and if you know that you are in the wrong, don’t spend forever making excuses, because you will only make matters worse. Instead, act swiftly. Follow the spirit of the Law. Put things right.

Both illustrations use situations that would have been very familiar to Jesus’ listeners. The first involves a man who suddenly remembers a disagreement with a brother just as he is about to present a sacrifice in the temple. There may be an element of humor in the description. What do the listeners think will happen to the animals or birds brought for sacrifice, if the owner suddenly abandons them as he goes to apologize? Jesus is pointing out that the Law that is written on our hearts directs that we do the most important thing first, no matter how inconvenient. If we have had a dispute with a brother, we may be in the middle of worship when it suddenly comes to mind, but it doesn’t matter. As soon as we possibly can, we should do whatever is necessary in order to put things right.

The second example transfers this principle from a brother to an adversary. If we have had a dispute with someone and are being taken to court, we would do well to settle the affair as quickly as possible, without going before a judge, or we will suffer the consequences. The implication is that, not only will the judge take a dim view of our behavior, but so will God.

There is to be urgency about our actions as we seek to reconcile with one another, or as we try to make amends. So often, this is not the way of the world. Disputes drag on for years and infect entire generations. Sometimes, arguments are perpetuated long after the original parties are dead and buried. On occasion, the reasons for the dispute are long forgotten. This is not to be so among us. Nothing is gained by delaying. Don’t put off until tomorrow what conscience requires should be done today.

Father God,
You are not hesitant in offering forgiveness.
You don’t keep me waiting, just because I deserve it.
Your love is urgent; Your compassion has wings.
I do not need to wait in order to know Your mercy.
May those whom I have wronged not need to wait for me.
Amen.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Murder

“You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.”
Matthew 5:21-22

Jesus came, not to destroy the Law, but to deepen its demands upon our lives. Take, for example, the sixth commandment, “You shall not kill.”[1] What does it mean for us to have this commandment written upon our hearts? Jesus demonstrates that it is possible to reinterpret this commandment without diminishing it. When it is understood as more than a legal prohibition, the sixth commandment becomes a value of the Kingdom that is governed by grace.

The sixth commandment was never intended as a total prohibition of the taking of human life. After all, the same Law of Moses also requires the death penalty in certain circumstances.[2] In effect, “You shall not kill,” really means, “You shall not commit murder.” There may be times when the taking of life will be justifiable, for example, in order to secure the lives of the innocent during a time of war. But what can never be justified, in God’s sight, is the taking of the life of another for personal gain. We may defend ourselves and our loved ones, because all life is precious, but God’s people cannot be murderers.

There are, however, ways to murder people that don’t involve blood. We can murder someone’s reputation by spreading lies about them. We can murder their self-confidence by constantly putting them down. We can destroy their future by subjecting them to a daily barrage of abuse. These actions are not, strictly speaking, condemned by the sixth commandment, but as interpreted by Jesus, they are clearly wrong.

We do not really know what the insults mean that Jesus identifies as being unacceptable. “Raca” seems to refer to a person’s intelligence, like calling someone “empty-headed.” “Fool” (more in the Greek), may be a transliteration of an Aramaic word meaning “apostate.” It appears to mean “You scoundrel!” Certainly, it cannot be the same word as the one Jesus used to describe the Pharisees.[3] But whatever the terms actually mean, Jesus’ intentions are clear. Those who belong to God are to have nothing to do with character assassination.

This is a word that many of us need to hear. We slip, too easily, into the ways of the world. Our words become weapons. We forget the winsome loveliness of Jesus. But, as Christians, we cannot afford to forget.

Lord Jesus,
Hold me to a higher standard.
Don’t let me forget Your commands.
Don’t let me ever say, “At least I didn’t do this, or that.”
There, but for Your grace, go I.
Instead, strengthen me by Your Spirit.
Write Your Law upon my heart.
Amen.

[1] Exodus 20:13
[2] Exodus 21:14
[3] Matthew 23:17

Fulfilling the Law

“Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:19-20

Having seen that Christ did not come to abolish the Law, and that we have the responsibility to seek to live according to its precepts, what does it mean to say that the Law has been fulfilled? Are there parts of the Law that do not apply? Frankly, yes. Although the principles enshrined in the Ten Commandments are timeless, there are some aspects of the Jewish Law that do not apply today. Believers no longer need to be circumcised; no longer are we required to offer animal sacrifices; we are not condemned when we fail to observe the Jewish Sabbath. In these, and in many other ways, the Law has been fulfilled and is now superseded.

The ceremonial aspects of the Law no longer apply because Christ, the sacrificial Lamb, has been offered, once for all. No further sacrifice is necessary. Jesus paid it all, so the whole corpus of ceremonial Law has been fulfilled. In the same way, the national aspects of the Law have been superseded. The special relationship with the people of Israel has been replaced with the New Israel, the Christian church. The Law is no longer restricted to a particular ethnic or national group in the Near East. Now, people from every tribe and tongue belong to the Kingdom because of their shared allegiance to the King. Ceremonies linked to the land, therefore, no longer apply or, rather, they have a much wider application. We no longer need to bring our firstfruits to the temple in Jerusalem, but we offer a sacrifice of praise in hundreds of languages, in sanctuaries large and small, in every corner of the globe. We no longer celebrate the seventh day as set aside to the Lord, instead we gather to praise our God on Resurrection Day. The Law has been superseded, but the spirit of the Law remains.

Many years ago, the prophet Jeremiah looked forward to a day when a new covenant would be made between God and His people.[1] Instead of an external rulebook, God’s Law would be written on their hearts. This prophecy has been fulfilled in the new people of God, the church. The Law is no longer an external force, it is an internal compulsion, and it begins and ends in the limitless love of God.[2]

Lord God,
I am so grateful for the sacrifice of my Savior,
by which I am set free from the Law’s demands.
I see that, by myself, in my own strength,
I could never hope to satisfy the Law.
But You could, and You did, through the blood of Jesus.
Now, Your Law is no longer a demand, it is my delight.
Amen.

[1] Jeremiah 31:33
[2] John 14:15

Breaking the Law

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.”
Matthew 5:17-18

There have always been those who say, “Jesus has taken the punishment for my sins. I am no longer under condemnation. I can do what I like. I know that God will forgive me!” Paul faced the same issue in writing to the Romans.[1] His response mirrored Jesus’. In no way is the Law nullified. In fact, the Good News of salvation by grace, through faith, sets us free to obey the Law. We are saved by grace, by God’s unmerited favor, not by our efforts in keeping the Law. Yet, having been saved by grace we are to strive to obey the Law, not as the root but as the fruit of our salvation.

By “the Law” Jesus means the body of biblical commandments that governed the life of a devout Jew. He did not mean the interpretations of the Law that determined, for example, how far one could walk on the Sabbath before it became work. Jesus is much more interested in the great principles of the Law as enshrined, for example, in the Ten Commandments. It is not possible for Christians to assume that, because Christ has fulfilled the Law, we do not need to respect the property or the lives of others. Christians have no business getting involved in the deeds of darkness: apostasy, adultery, murder, and theft. The Law still applies. Our salvation does not depend upon our keeping of the Law, but if we do not keep it then we demonstrate that we are not really serious when we claim Jesus as Lord. A standard applies to our conduct. We should strive to live according to that standard. And the standard is the Law.

How many poor choices do we attempt to excuse by saying, “But I’m under Grace, not Law!” Often, the excuse is simply an attempt to cover up our failure to live according to the values of the Kingdom. Of course, we are under grace, not law. Not one of us could stand without the imputed righteousness of Christ. But we are not saved in order that we may ignore God’s commands. We are saved so that, in simple gratitude, we might live to please Him.

So, the Law has not been abolished. It may have been superseded in certain respects, but it still reflects the character and will of God. If we are to be salt and light we must do our best to reflect the precepts of God’s Law.

Father,
For the times when I have presumed upon Your love – forgive me.
For the times when I have chosen to ignore the clear warnings of Scripture,
and have suffered the consequences – forgive me.
Teach me how to pay fitting respect for Your Law.
In all things may my character be modeled on the character of Christ.
Amen.

[1] Romans 3:31

Thursday, February 18, 2010

The Light of the World

“You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.”
Matthew 5:14-16

Darkness is something we rarely experience in our modern, urban world. Our ancestors knew the terror of the night, when every breaking twig became an imagined threat and the moaning of the wind sent shivers down every spine. Nowadays, it is difficult to escape from the light. The clouds reflect the city’s glow. Even in the countryside, passing cars make the world as bright as day, even if only for a moment. But those who heard Jesus knew the value of the light, just as they knew the dangers of the darkness.

Jesus came as the Light of the world,[1] as the One who had been sent to those dwelling in darkness.[2] Those who chose to follow Him moved out of the kingdom of darkness and into the Kingdom of Light.[3] They were charged to bear witness to the Light, and to share that Light in a world still shrouded in darkness. That is our task, too! We are to so live out the values of the Kingdom that others will be drawn to Christ. We are the light of the world, not just because we reflect Christ, but because we share in His glory.

We are to be like a city set on a hill. Perhaps Jesus was thinking of Jerusalem, the bright light of the Jewish people, set on Zion’s hill? Or, perhaps, Jesus merely used an illustration familiar to those who lived in First Century Palestine. A city, raised above the plain brings light and security. It cannot be hidden. In the same way, we are to be like a lamp in the home, which one would certainly not place beneath a bowl. The purpose of a lamp is to illumine. The purpose of God’s people is to bring light where there is none, to expose the deeds of darkness, [4] and to lift up the Kingdom of God.

Once again, we should note the clear distinction between those who follow Christ and those who do not. We tend to think in shades of grey. We minimize our differences in order to attract others. This is a mistake. Our world represents the darkness because so many in it have lost their moral compass. In their confusion they call evil good. They live by their own lights, which are really not lights at all. In such a world, it is our responsibility to hold fast to Jesus, and to live as those who have been redeemed.

Lord Jesus,
Shine in me.
Burn away the blemishes that disfigure my witness.
Let me live for You alone.
Then, let me shine – not for my glory, but for Yours.
Like a city on a hill,
as a lamp upon a stand,
may I shine for You.
Amen.

[1] John 8:12
[2] Matthew 4:16
[3] Colossians 1:12-13
[4] Ephesians 5:8-14

The Salt of the Earth

“You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled by men.” Matthew 5:13

Pliny, the Roman historian, once wrote that there is nothing more useful than “salt and sunshine.” It was a play on words. In Latin, salt and sunshine are sale et sole. Nevertheless, Pliny had a point. A home without sunshine would be an unwelcoming place; a table without salt would be equally dreary. Jesus makes the same point. Those who live according to the values of the Kingdom of God, for whom the Beatitudes form a framework for living, must be salt and light in their communities.

We may be surprised to hear this. After all, the attitudes of meekness and mercy, purity and peace, which characterize the Beatitudes, are not normally found in those who set out to change the world. In fact, it is even more surprising that Jesus calls His disciples “the salt of the earth.” Would it not be easier for them to avoid all contamination, to escape from the world instead of trying to change it? It might be easier, but it would not be faithful. This raggle-taggle band of Jewish peasants is charged with making a difference. So are we.

Followers of Christ are to be “salt”.[1] What does this mean? In Jesus’ day, salt had two main uses – to flavor food, and to preserve it. Some commentators suggest that Christians must bring flavor to their communities by encouraging them in good deeds and right living. Christians, it is said, must be activists, bringing out the best in people, initiating meaningful change, speaking out for the poor and the oppressed. This is undoubtedly true, but it is probably not what this text means.

Jesus is saying that it is our responsibility to prevent societal decay, to preserve society by our influence for good. This will not necessarily make us popular, at least in the short term, but it is an essential element in the work of the people of God. Wherever there is cruelty or exploitation, the church must speak out. Wherever folly masquerades as faithfulness, the church must speak out. But we will do this, primarily, by being different, by seeking to be more like Jesus. If we lose that difference, if our saltiness loses its flavor, then we will have failed.

Are we different? Are we really Christlike? Is it obvious that the church is a different society, governed by very different rules, owing ultimate allegiance only to God? Or, are we far too anxious to blend in?



Lord God,
Forgive my easy appeasement of evil,
my accommodation of the things of this world.
Draw me back to Yourself.
Make my discipleship real.
So shall I be salt in this decaying world.
Amen.

[1] Mark 9:50

Lent Devotional - Introduction

Introduction

Come with me, during the weeks of Lent, to sit at the feet of Jesus and to listen, once again, to the timeless treasures of the Sermon on the Mount. Take time out, every day, to find a quiet place where you can read and pray.

This will be the second year that we will have dealt with Jesus’ most famous sermon. Last year, we spent five weeks working our way through the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:3-12). Those studies are still available on line, by the way, if you missed them. If you go to you will find them, beginning on February 8, 2009. This year, we complete the journey. It is a spiritual discipline that can only help us.

The Sermon on the Mount is more than a collection of platitudes; it is a manifesto for the Kingdom of God. Jesus deals, authoritatively, with a number of different subjects. Almost all of them have practical application:
· What is Christian character?
· What is the place of the Law in the Christian life?
· How can I exhibit the values of the Kingdom in my daily life?
· How should I pray?
· How should I relate to others?

By His words, Jesus shows us how Christians are called to create an alternative society, based on different values. The world, He seems to say, is bound to behave badly, because it is under the sway of sin; but this is how you are to live.

One of the key themes of the Sermon on the Mount is obedience. If we listen to His voice, if we allow the Spirit to teach us, and if we subject our will to His, then we do more than engage in Bible Study, we change our world.

May the Lord bless us as we gather around His Word, and as we leave to serve in the name of Christ.





Alan Trafford
First Presbyterian Church

Lent 2010

Sheroes

Now, I know that I live a somewhat cloistered life, (or so I've been told), but it amazes me to find out that I have been blissfully unaware of a complete category of human being. I refer to the superwomen known as 'Sheroes.'

Earlier today I was driving home, listening to a mind-numbingly dull discussion on PBS about some new play or other. Members of the cast were being interviewed. One of them, in particular, was gushing, almost to the point of incoherence, about the merits of this masterpiece. There were knowing murmurs of assent as she spoke about the importance of the 'sheroes' highlighted in the play. At this point I began to listen. I'd never heard of sheroes. I assumed she was merely slurring her speech in her excitement, or that she'd had a little too much Sssauvignon Blanc with her lunssch, but I was wrong. She used the term several times. So, instead of reading the news at lunchtime, I did a little investigating.

Apparently, Maya Angelou coined the term 'sheroes.' It is meant to describe a lady who is both an exemplar of feminine strength as well as a role model and a source of inspiration. So far so good.

Then, I came across a learned work by Varla Ventura (someone else I've never heard of) entitled 'Sheroes: Bold, Brash, (and Absolutely Unabashed) Superwomen from Susan B. Anthony to Xena.' This book explains everything in chapters bearing such exciting titles as: 'Warriorsheroes - Amazons among us,' 'Ecosheroes - Saving Mother Earth,' and, my favorite, 'Polisheroes - Stormin' the Halls of Power' (as opposed to polishing the corridors of power, I assume).


Then, to my amazement, I discovered that the United Church of Christ has produced children's educational materials in its 'Media Awareness Network.' These lessons, based upon a book called 'Media Violence: Pulling the Plug on the Power Myth,' teach grade school children the importance of identifying sheroes who are worthy of one's respect and regard. Good for them. Knowing the UCC, I suspect that few of these sheroes will have much time for conventional morality, they will be much too busy tearing down the bastions of male privilege and prejudice.

Be that as it may, I now consider myself to be educated. I will no longer abuse the language by applying a gender-neutral word to those women whom I admire for having done something particularly worthy. I will refuse to demean women by describing them with a word that sounds like they might be 'he's' and not 'she's'. I just have one question - what shall I do with that lovely old word - 'heroine'? Is that to be discarded, too?

Change and Decay

There's an interesting article in today's Houston Chronicle. More than twenty auto dealerships have gone bankrupt in the Houston area during the recent downturn in the economy. Most of the lots are still vacant. They are very difficult to sell. So, gone are the tacky trimmings, the metallic ribbons and the inflatable gorillas. Gone, also, are the oceans of steel and polished chrome. Instead, formerly mammoth stores like Bill Heard Chevrolet are home to drifters and drug dealers; grass pushes up between the cracks on acres of concrete.

Realtors have been trying to sell expensive frontage to commercial customers, but no one is biting. Larger areas, further away from the roads, would be ideal for new hotel developments, but there are many hotels in Houston at less than full occupancy, so no one is building new ones. The huge, 40 acre site in Hempstead, formerly home to Lawrence Marshall Chevrolet ("We clobber big city prices") is 90% unoccupied. Only one small parcel has been taken over by a country store, which moved out from the town center. The remainder is a stark reminder of what was, once, the largest volume Chevy truck dealer in the nation.

What is so upsetting about empty car dealerships? Obviously, they can quickly become an eyesore, and they do attract crime. Many of the vacant dealerships have been stripped bare. But the problem is deeper than appearance. Cars represent something ingrained in the American psyche. They represent freedom, the mobility we all need to succeed in our fast paced world. An empty car lot seems to spell failure, not only for an individual entrepreneur, but for the entrepreneurial culture. An abandoned car lot seems to say "Our culture has failed. Capitalism has failed. No more Chevys by the levy. No more American pie."

So, what do abandoned churches say? That God has left the room? That Christianity no longer has a place in our modern society? And where are the articles bemoaning the loss of something precious in our culture? Or, do we value Chevrolets more than the Savior?

Book Burning

A disturbing story has come out of the UK in the last few days. Apparently, British pensioners, hard hit by an exceptionally cold winter, and a 40% increase in the price of natural gas, have taken to burning books to keep warm. With a 20kg bag of coal costing over $8, and a decent sized hard back book selling for about 8c, some people have been raiding used bookstores to find cheap fuel. According to a report on Metro.co.uk a charity shop in South Wales has seen senior citizens snapping up volumes of old encyclopedias to keep their fires lit overnight, because they burn slowly and are cheaper than coal.

I see two issues here: First, it is an abomination that the elderly should be driven to such straits. If a society is to be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable members then this is a terrible indictment of modern Britain. I have a recurring vision of octogenarians struggling through the snow and ice in order to carry home heavy loads of obsolete Encyclopaedia Britannicas. Either the structure of family life has broken down to such an extent that the elderly are left to fend for themselves, or socialism, the substitute for the family, has failed. This should not happen, especially in one of the most prosperous and advanced countries in the world.

There is, however, a second isuue, which probably should not concern me, but it does. What on earth are they burning? Some of the most valuable books in my collection came from charity shops. For example, I have a full set of the works of G. Campbell Morgan, in about a dozen volumes, that is one of my treasures. I bought the lot for five pounds in a jumble sale in Newcastle. I have a 1630 Thomas Buck Bible, printed in Cambridge, which I also picked up for five pounds. I wonder how many old family Bibles are going up in flames? I wonder how many priceless volumes are being sacrificed in order to keep people warm?

People are more valuable than books, of course. But I can't help remembering how the fall of great civilizations has often been accompanied by the burning of books. To burn a library is to destroy a symbol of the accumulated wisdom of the society that is passing away. Maybe that image is just a little too close to the truth?

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/807821-pensioners-burn-books-for-warmth

Image credit: maddogfargo.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Freud's Unfinished Business

Here's an interesting snippet about everyone's favorite psycho-analyst, Sigmund Freud. Nothing is ever quite what it seems in Freudian psycho-analysis. There are hidden meanings in just about everything. Indeed, many of our adult malaises are caused by the suppression of childhood memories, particularly if the memories we choose not to remember are of events that were traumatic. Freud's treatment often involved the uncovering of suppressed memories (some would say the invention of false memories), allowing the analyst to help the patient to deal with unfinished business.
Freud was brought up as an orthodox Jew. As a child, his father would often read to young Sigmund from a Philippson Hebrew Bible, illustrated with woodcuts. In Freud's father's Bible, the illustrations had been colored in by a child's hand, presumably by Sigmund. It was this Hebrew Bible that Freud's father presented to his son on his 35th birthday.


For all of his adult life, Freud was a militant atheist. He rejected Judaism. Even though his wife was Jewish, he refused to allow her to light Sabbath candles in their home. On one occasion, he threatened to become a Protestant rather than partcipate in a Jewish wedding ceremony. It was an empty threat. His philosophy would no more allow him to be a Protestant than a Jew. It was a position Freud held until the end of his life.
Ana-Maria Rizzuto writes that, when his father died, Freud began to collect small antique figurines. His study contained many; his desk always had a number of statuettes upon it. Freud spoke of his collection with great fondness; he even bequeathed it to his daughter, Anna.
Here's the interesting aspect of this story. Rizzuto tells us that the figures bore a striking resemblance to the woodcut illustrations in his father's Hebrew Bible.


Is it possible that Freud was using them as substitutes for religious devotion? Was the father of psycho-analysis suppressing his impulses? Did Freud have unfinished business? Perhaps the figurines represent the pleasure he had once experienced while hearing the stories of the people of Israel at his father's knee? Who knows! But, Freud taught a great deal about the human capacity for self-deception. It seems at least possible that Freud was deceiving himself. In his professional life he denied the possibility of God; but he surrounded himself with objects that reminded him of his religious upbringing. Did the arch-atheist have, deep down, a heart that longed for God?

The Signs of the Times

Michael Fitzgerald has written an interesting study of a man who made an enormous impression upon the twentieth century. Adolf Hitler - A Portrait contains a series of essays upon aspects of Hitler's life and work. For example, Fitzgerald includes subjects such as Hitler the Artist, the Politician, the Messiah, the Warlord, and the Murderer. A fascinating chapter looks at Hitler the 'Green' leader and sees, in National Socialism, the first shoots of modern environmentalism. There were, apparently, many ways in which Germans were better off under Hitler than they had been under the Weimar Republic. Hitler made great strides in overcoming poverty, and in improving diet and general health. Nazism aslso swept away many if not all of the old class distinctions. Advancement on the basis of merit became the norm. Of course, such improvements were costly. The rapid, wholesale restructuring of society was only achieved because it was, largely, imposed by an authoritarian regime. That regime was, fundamentally, socialist. In this, Hitler was not a conservative, he was a radical. If his program had not been tainted by extreme anti-semitism, then he may have been remembered as a great innovator. Tragically, however, Hitler was driven by an anger that consumed millions of lives including, eventually, his own.

I recommend this book. Fitzgerald does not avoid the hard questions. He does not fail to denounce Hitler as a mass murderer on a truly horrific scale. He does, however, move beyond the rhetoric to capture more than a caricature. An important question deserves our attention: Why did the German people elect to office a man who had already demonstrated a tendency to use violence? Did they not realize that, by voting for the National Socialists, they were condemning their nation to yet another war?

Various reasons have been suggested for the short-sightedness of the German people. Some have argued that the Second World War was a necessary postscript to World War One, and that the injustices perpetrated by the victors at Versailles led to the re-assertion of a militaristic Germany, bent on revenge. Others have drawn attention to the failures of the proportional representative electoral system, which allowed government to be manipulated by those at the extremes. Some commentators have noted the threat of communism and the reactionary forces that propelled Hitler into power. For others, the weakness of Weimar, the vacillations of its leaders, and the senility of Hindenberg seem to explain the rise of Nazism's star. Still others have blamed the policy of appeasement adopted by Europe's grand old men, allowing the jackboot to swagger its way past every obstacle.

Whatever the reason, the fact of the matter is that the German people, voters and politicians, allowed a psychotic meglamaniac to gain the reins of power. If there is a lesson for us it is surely the importance of vigilance. Within a relatively short space of time, the new German Chancellor had outlawed all associations other than those of which he approved. He came to dominate every aspect of national life, including those that had, initially, vigorously opposed him, including the army. Is it not possible that a modern Hitler could dupe us in just the same way?

Hitler benefitted from weak government, fear of foreign power (Soviet communism), and the financial havoc caused by the Great Depression. Many people either supported him, or failed to oppose him, because he was strong and confident, and because they believed that they would be better off with Hitler at the helm. It is the cancer of self-interest that allows charlatans and despots to claim authority to which they have no right. One could argue that six million Jews perished because ordinary people were more concerned about their standard of living than about doing what was right.

Death of a Church

The news from Seventh Presbyterian in Cincinnati breaks my heart. I preached there in 1992. Rev. Stan Wallace and his wife Betty had stayed in our home, in England, a few years earlier. Stan preached for me at St. George’s United Reformed Church in Newcastle upon Tyne, so I was returning the favor. They were gracious and generous hosts. As for Seventh Presbyterian – the members were as welcoming as their pastor, faithful in worship and in Christian education, actively involved in mission in their community. Sadly, their story has been repeated around the country. Once vital churches struggle to maintain their facilities; vision is overcome by fear; the specter of closure freezes innovation. And yet, in this instance, it seems that the remnant did have a plan, and the finances to make one more effort to turn the corner. Even if it hadn't have worked, at least they would have had the satisfaction of knowing that they had tried their best. Instead, for whatever reason, Presbytery pulled the plug. A once-great church was hastened to its end and there was no dignity in its passing. I grieve for old friends, and for a system that appears to have lost its grip on grace.

Colorful Language

I've just come across a wonderful quotation in Arthur C. Danto's book Nietzsche as Philosopher. I'm only part way through the book, by the way, but I find it very helpful, even though Danto is too enamoured of Logical Positivism for my taste. Unfortunately, this tends to make his insights rather anachronistic, given that Positivism is no longer en vogue. Danto rescues Nietzsce from the accusation that he is merely an intellectual hooligan, endlessly expanding the meaning of words then crashing them back to what they were in order to expose their limitations. Apparently, Nietzsche regarded himself as someone who went about the business of philosophy "with a hammer." There's some truth in this, but Danto succeeds in showing the underlying seriousness of Nietzsche's lifework.

Anyway, here's the quotation. It does not just apply to Nietzsche.

His language would have been less colorful had he known what he was trying to say...

Amen to that!

Privilege and Power

I have just finished reading Philip Haythornthwaite's Wellington: The Iron Duke. It's a well-written, very accessible little book, (which doesn't make you feel like an idiot for not knowing the insider's jargon). Haythornthwaite deals with, perhaps the most accomplished British General, certainly since Marlborough, a man who demonstrated his prowess in India, confirmed his abilities during the Peninsula war, which liberated Portugal and Spain, then fixed his place in history with the defeat of Napoleon.


Haythornthwaite traces Wellington's development from his childhood in Ireland, through his military training (surprisingly, some of it was in France), through his triumphs and subsequent political career. Although he was born in Ireland, Wellington was really part of the English aristocracy, but he bore that mantle well. In fact, one of the recurring problems of Wellington's long and distinguished career arose from the system of preferment, based largely on social standing, which prevented him from giving promotion on the basis of merit. At times, he was able to sidestep this by advancing careers through the Portuguese army, of which he was also head, but it apparently riled him to see the inexperienced sons of the landed gentry given posts to which they were not at all entitled. He wrote:

I, who command he largest British army that has been employed against the enemy for many years, and who have upon my hands certainly the most expensive and difficult concern that was ever imposed upon any British officer, have not the power of making even a corporal!

Having said that, Wellington himself benefited from this system early in his career, especially when serving in India, where his older brother had a great deal of political influence. However, later in life, he saw how dangerous this system could be.

Although he could be aloof and reserved, Wellington at least had an admiration for the common man. He retained the prejudices of his age, especially in his fear of mob rule, and he did not believe that commoners raised from the ranks made good officers, since he thought them more likely to succumb to drink; but he did not despise those who had been born without the advantages of rank and wealth. This passage, by Wellington, caught my attention:

Perhaps there is no man now existing who would like to meet me on a field of battle; in that line I am superior. But when the war is over and the troops disbanded, what is your great general more than anyone else? I am necessarily inferior to every man in his own line, though I may excel him in others. I cannot saw and plane like a carpenter, or make shoes like a shoemaker, or understand cultivation like a farmer. Each of these, on his own ground, meets me on terms of superiority. I feel I am but a man.

Probably, in his own day, few people would have accused Wellington of excessive humility, but in contrast to many others, he retained a sense of perspective. He did not think of himself as better than others, simply because he was the most successful soldier of his generation. I suspect that, in our supposedly more egalitarian age, that is a lesson we would do well to note.

On Culture and Change

In England, the Football League (real football, that is, with a round ball) has just launched a new survey for supporters. The League wants to know what fans like or dislike, how the 'beautiful game' might be improved. I came across a blog by Paul Fletcher, who recommends this new survey, then goes on to give details of a similar exercise undertaken in 1962. At that time, football in England was experiencing something of a decline. League leaders were concerned about falling attendances and commissioned a report to find out what could be done.

Over four thousand people were canvassed for their opinions. These were then evaluated and the findings compiled by one A.D. Bannatyne. Until recently, the results were kept confidential. This is not surprising when you read them.

For example, there is a section headed "Women," which asserts "On the whole women do tend to resent their men going out of the home to enjoy themselves - and this applies to football matches too. Women themselves do not display much interest in football." Bannatyne's suggestion is priceless: "...attempts might be made to encourage the wives and girlfriends of football supporters to be a little more self-sacrificing by letting their menfolk out to watch League matches." Of course, the relative absence of women could also have been caused by another set of problems picked up in the report: out-of-date facilities, poor seating, primitive toilets and woefully inadequate parking.

In other sections the report blames poor attendance on a general increase in the standard of living, with an attendant rise in the number of alternative leisure activities, such as "cameras, do-it-yourself equipment, cars, gramophone records and players, paper-backed books, etc." In particular, television comes in for criticism, despite the observation that "in general television only becomes an attraction when people become dissatisfied with football itself." The report advises that football should never be televised. Games should never be floodlit, in fact they should only take place at the traditional time of three o'clock on a Saturday afternoon. Football should never be played on Sunday.

How the world has changed! The 1962 report opens a window onto a society that has changed beyond recognition. Fletcher is right to identify Bannatyne's work as, at best, a commentary on social history. But I wonder whether the report has anything to say to the community of the church?

Frankly, the 1962 report reads very much like some of the navel-gazing studies done to examine the problems of falling attendance in mainline churches. We've read a great deal about the lure of alternative forms of entertainment. Television has been blamed for the demise of evening services. Poor facilities have often been cited as one of the problems facing those who want to attract younger people to attend church. Awful bathrooms, nasty nurseries, antiquated central heating systems, poor acoustics, and non-existent parking have all received their share of criticism. Increasingly, nowadays, we are hearing that the message must be packaged in more palatable ways, that our services are too slow and ponderous, that the preacher doesn't seem to relate to the modern world, and so on. No doubt there are good points to be made, even though sometimes it does feel like we should be congratulating people for having made it through the sanctuary door.

What concerns me is that the authors of the 1962 football report seem so blind to their cultural context. They want faster, more exciting play, but they also want to be able to tell women to stop nagging their menfolk. They want a higher skill level on the pitch, but they don't think that new technology has any place in football. Yet, today, international football largely dances to the beat of television's drum. Thousands of matches are televised every year. Games are scheduled for the benefit of the broadcast companies, including on Sundays. Without the income generated by television, the top teams would not be able to afford the ridiculous salaries now paid to the best players, or to build their fantastic new cathedrals of sport.

Are we similarly blind, in the church? Do we fail to understand how we are conditioned by our cultural expectations? Do we also fail to recognize those forces that will shape the future, whether we like them or not? Will a future generation look back at our dusty reports and smile at our parochialism and our lack of vision?

We, too, have experienced decline, and have not been slow to ascribe blame. But, in our longing for a world now past and gone, have we failed to see how God is still at work?

Deliver Us From Evil

During this season of remembrance, I've been re-reading Alistair Horne's superb book, The Price of Glory, a study of the battle of Verdun in 1916. It makes sobering reading. Like two stags locked in combat, the armies of Germany and France fought themselves to a standstill. The Germans, under the overall command of the dithering General Erich von Falkenheyn, attempted to bleed the French dry at Verdun. In one sense they succeeded, since the successful defence of 1916 was followed by the mutinies of 1917. Virtually every French settlement, large or small, was affected by Verdun. A generation of young Frenchmen was wiped out by their leaders' defence a outrance, the single-minded determination not to cede an inch of land or, having done so, to reclaim it as soon as possible. To this day, the names of some of the key features of the battle - Douaumont, Le Morte Homme, or Cote 304 - send shivers down the spine of France. Indeed, neither side 'won' at Verdun. It was, as Horne says, "an indecisive battle in an indecisive war." By the end of 1916, Germany had suffered a third of a million casualties and captured only a pathetically small strip of land. France lost a similar number, though no one will ever know for sure. Churchill put the French casualties as high as 469,000.

What struck me, 'though, was a metaphysical reflection (p.242-243). It seems completely out of place among the realism of harsh statistics. Horne writes about a common understanding, at the time, that events were being manipulated by evil.

In the last days of peace, there had seemed a point where the collective will of Eurpoe's leaders had abdicated and was usurped by some evil, superhuman Will from Stygian regions that wrested control out of their feeble hands. Seized by this terrible force, nations were swept along at ever-mounting speed towards the abyss.

I don't think that Horne is suggesting that responsibility for the mistakes of the war can somehow be transfered to a malevolent spirit; he is clear about the culpability of leaders. Nevertheless, he acknowledges the existence of evil. There is something for us, here. Perhaps in our post-modern sophistication, we have become blind to the shadows that stalk our world. We watch Twin Towers fall, and we are too clever, or too afraid, to call evil by its name.

Grace and Law

Earlier this year I read, and commented upon, a series of novels by Brendan O'Carroll, stories that are raw and vibrant with the life of the Jarro, a working class slum in Dublin. They are well-worth reading, as long as you can see beyond the language, which is somewhat earthy... I enjoyed the stories of Agnes Browne and her rambunctious clan because they reminded me of life in the North of England. O'Carroll has since written a 'pre-quel,' as they say, telling the story of Agnes as a young girl. I don't think it's as well written as the main stories, as is often the case with works written to fill in the gaps in our knowledge. It's hard to avoid the suspicion that it was written to satisfy the demands of a curious public (and the publisher). Be that as it may, The Young Wan is a cheerful tale. There's a smattering of Irish nationalism, a tipping of the hat to the unions, and series of entertaining anecdotes. I'm not sure I'd pay full price for it, but I'd borrow it from the library, or pick it up at Half Price Books, which is where I got my copy.

In my previous review, I noted that there was an absence of anti-clericalism, which struck me as odd. The Church was simply an irrelevance to Agnes, as an adult. This volume may give us part of the reason why.

Towards the end of the story, Agnes is about to be married to Redser Browne. She is already having doubts. However, she is pregnant and he has agreed to marry her. The tension in the story concerns Agnes' wedding dress, which is white. Her mother and grandmother before her had worn the same dress. Her first communion dress had been made from its train. Agnes is determined to wear the dress, but when Father Pius finds out that she is "in the family way" he forbids it. Only virgins may wear white. She will have to wear something else, and suffer the shame. Secretly, the priest sympathises with Agnes, and would like to bend the rules, but the Church refuses compromise on the sacrament of marriage. If he performs the ceremony, and she is wearing white, he will lose his job. In the end, this is precisely what he does, and before the registers have been signed, he has been defrocked by the bishop. Only then do we learn of the debt owed to Agnes' father by this priest.

So, the issue is raised of rules or compassion. The priest wants to exercise compassion, but the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church refuses. When he acts according to his conscience, the hierarchy responds with legalism, it crushes his rebellion, and a family spends the next fifty years resenting the Church. The question is: which should be paramount, the rulebook or compassion, law or grace?

It is easy to answer "compassion." In recent years whenever there has been a conflict between what have been called the masculine and the feminine sides of the Church, the feminine has always won. We find it increasingly difficult to make hard decisions. Church discipline is almost impossible to enforce. Now, I'm not suggesting that we should return to an entirely law-based ecclesiology, but I do wonder whether the pendulum has not swung too far. If we have no standards to keep then we compromise too readily with the tears of the world. Sometimes those tears are genuine, but sometimes they are not. Surely, there is a balance to be found? The Church should be seen a place of principle, but also as a bastion of love. The truth is that, if love is always exercised in a vacuum, and if no standards are fixed, then it is love that suffers. Grace without law ends up merely being licence, and that is a corruption of the Gospel, just as much as the inflexibility of Law.

Earlier Review at http://presbuteros.blogspot.com/2009/06/dragonflies-and-death.html

Gathering Rosebuds

Sorry for the absence, we've been enjoying the mountains in Colorado. While there I picked up a copy of Hesperides by Robert Herrick (1591-1674). I find his work a little more accessible than that of some of his contemporaries, but even so he can be a little obscure. Herrick was heavily influenced by Ben Johnson. Apparently, at one time he belonged to a group called "The Sons of Ben"! The most famous poem in the book is called "To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time." It carries echoes of Johnson's "Song: To Celia." Both poems remind their readers of the ephemeral quality of life and suggest that, since our time is short, we should make the most of it. What on earth does Herrick mean? Is this a manifesto for lust?

I find this a little odd, given that Herrick was a bachelor, and a minister of the Church of England for thirty two years. There doesn't seem to be any scandal associated with his name whatsoever, and yet the simple implication of the poem seems to be Carpe Diem, or, in plain English, "make hay while the sun shines." This interpretation is not helped by those who insist that double entendres exist throughout the text, and that Herrick's lines are actually rather erotic! I suspect that those who read Herrick in this way may be telling us more about themselves than about the author.

The idea of Carpe Diem comes from Horace's first ode. It is the belief that, since life is brief, one should live in the moment. The most famous line in Herrick's poem is also taken from a Latin original, perhaps by Virgil who, at the conclusion of the poem De Rosis Nascentibus uses the phrase "collige, virgo, rosas," which means "gather, girl, the roses." Could it not be that Herrick is actually trying to do something rather more profound than to urge his readers to "get on with it", as some have suggested! There is more to his philosophy, for example, than Robert Frost's wistful longing in his Carpe Diem. Herrick is interested in reconciling Horace's original idea with his Christian faith. He does not suggest that the brevity of time should lead to licentiousness, but to commitment. The virgins, of whom he writes, are encouraged to marry while they can, not to pursue as many lovers as youth will allow. Is there, perhaps, some longing of his own hidden in the text, the memory of a love long lost, of a young woman who could have been a companion for life, but who slipped through his fingers? Herrick lived through one of the most tumultuous periods of English history - the Civil War. He had seen changes on a scale that must have been unimaginable in his youth. A King had been deposed. The old securities had been swept away. Many lives had been lost. Surely, Herrick understood the need to take opportunities when they came, because one could never be sure what tomorrow would bring.

Today, Carpe Diem is a superficial rallying cry for those who do not wish to think about tomorrow, who are caught up in the headlong rush for instant gratification. For Christians, the phrase can have a deeper meaning. Since no one knows how long life shall last, we should not refrain from commiting to one another. Life is too short to play the field; when we find love, we should not be afraid to "gather it, while we may."

To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time
Gather ye rosebuds while ye may,
Old Time is still a-flying:
And this same flower that smiles to-day
To-morrow will be dying.
The glorious lamp of heaven, the sun,
The higher he's a-getting,
The sooner will his race be run,
And nearer he's to setting.
That age is best which is the first,
When youth and blood are warmer;
But being spent, the worse, and worst
Times still succeed the former.
Then be not coy, but use your time,
And while ye may, go marry:
For having lost but once your prime,
You may for ever tarry.

Best Church in Town ?

We had visitors at church on Sunday. A recently retired minister from the North West and his wife were doing the grand tour and, somehow, they ended up in Brazosport. So, they came to worship with us at the traditional service. It was a pleasure to meet them. Lake Jackson isn't really on the tourist trail, except for those who like to visit chemical facilities. It turns out that the minister and his wife had a bit of trouble finding us. Actually, they were told that there were no churches in our area.

Apparently, they inquired at the front desk at their hotel. Could they provide a list of local churches? Of course! Whereupon the clerk supplied a list of 'Church's Chicken's,' which is a popular fast food franchise. So the wife insisted - no, she was looking for a place of worship, somewhere where she could gather with other Christians. But the clerk had no idea what she was being asked for, "I don't think we have any of those in our area," she said.

Now, I've nothing against Church's Chicken, in fact I enjoy going there once in a while. I do worry about someone needing a list of fast food restaurants. Do they need to check them all out? But I worry a great deal more about the clerk, and about the witness of the hundreds of churches in our area. Are we invisible?

The Maytrees

I've always enjoyed Annie Dillard's writing. I read "Pilgrim at Tinker Creek" in the late Seventies. She's an intelligent and interesting writer (the two do not always go together), even if, sometimes, she is a little arcane. Frankly, there are passages in The Maytrees over which I simply shook my head. It's not just that the terminology is alien - I can cope with that, I just ignore it, as I do when reading from Patrick O'Brian's smorgasbord of seventeenth century life at sea - it's more that Dillard piles up language in heaps until the sense is smothered. It's still beautiful, but in spite of the words, not because of them. She also has a tendency to tell you what she has been reading, dropping names like a gate-crasher at a party of the rich and famous. Then, suddenly, in the midst of some great debate, usually going on in a character's head, a snatch of quirky prose or a seeemingly random idea catches you unaware. At one point Lou, the main female character is discussing religion with herself. She asks herself why she had never bothered to become a Buddhist. her answer, "High blood pressure. Have you seen how fat Buddha is?" Humor saves Dillard on a number of occasions, when she is in danger of becoming unbearably high-brow, one might almost say 'pompous.' But it doesn't always save her.

The Maytrees is the story of a man and a woman, residents of Cape Cod in the years following the Second World War, who fall for one another. Fireworks follow. The man, Toby, is a poet-cum-housemover. The woman, Lou, doesn't do very much at all, but she paints the sea-shore every now and then. They are blissfully happy, reading 300 books a year, between them. Then Toby displays the stupidity of his sex. He runs off with another woman. For twenty years he avoids his old hometown, his wife and son, until events conspire to send him home. There are two death scenes towards the end of the book that are beautifully written. In both, raw realism is counterbalanced by mature reflection. The book is worth reading, if only for these passages. There is much to admire in Annie Dillard's writing.

And yet, I regret that she did not allow any of her characters to speak of faith, or of the wonder of creation. Their's is a flat land, populated only by thought, albeit profound. In a brief discussion of religion, Lou dismisses Christianity with disdain (and not a little prejudice). Later in the story, a break appears in the monolithic modernism. It is noted that the later Wittgenstein moves beyond dull empiricism to the neglected handmaiden of philosophy - metaphysics. But no sooner is the door opened than it is slammed shut. No room here for contemplating the divine. The legends of the Mayans and of the Aleuts may illustrate the circumstances of their broken lives, but there is no room for a Hebrew.

It makes me wonder, is this deliberate? Is Annie Dillard simply demonstrating the prejudice of the cultural elite, looking everywhere for meaning except to Christianity? Or, is she hoping that we will notice the omission, and go looking for ourselves? I'd like to think the latter, though I'm not altogether sure. And if this is what she is about, then she may need to plant more obvious signposts along the way.

The Maytrees is a good story, and it is (mostly) beautifully written; but if it points, at all, to a solution to the meaninglessness and emptiness of the lives she portrays, then it does so only by silence, and that is seldom enough.

La Mauvaise Vie

There is some interesting, and stomach churning, news going the rounds today. The French Minister of Culture, Frederic Mitterand, nephew of the late President, has been expressing his support for Roman Polanski. You may recall that Polanski was arrested the other week, in Switzerland, and is awaiting extradition to the United States, where he faces charges of having had unlawful relations with a 13 year old girl. He admits the charges. The incident happened in 1977 and ever since Polanski has avoided the US, or states from which he might have faced extradition. It's been a little nauseating to see Hollywood come out in support of the film maker. Apparently they think it is mean-spirited of the United States to attempt to send Polanski to trial, after all these years. Surely some kind of settlement could be arranged?

Mitterand's involvement may be a poisoned chalice for Polanski. The former TV presenter, documentary maker, and writer, who was appointed as culture minister in June of this year, wrote a book in 2005 called The Bad Life. The title is apt, because in it, Mitterand describes his passion for young, male prostitutes in Thailand. This comes at a time when the French and Thai governments are working together on ways to combat sex tourism.

So, here's a guy who admits to the exploitation of underage children, supporting a famous film-maker who also abused a child. Mitterand describes the actions of the United States, in its attempts to bring Polanski to justice, as "callous and horrifying." Humm!

And so the godless continue to stand morality on its head, calling darkness light while condemning the truth. Here's a thought, though - what would the press and the pampered movie stars have said, if the paedophiles had been priests?

The irony is, of course, that if the Hate Crimes amendment, which has been added to the Defense Appropriations Bill, is approved, and if "sexual orientation" remains undefined, then paedophiles may find protection under law, even in the Land of the Free.

Death of a Denomination. Part 3.

I've been making my way, painfully, through a copy of the May 2009 issue of Reform, the national magazine of the United Reformed Church in the United Kingdom. Having trained at Westminster College, Cambridge, and having served in the URC for ten years, I have a certain affection for my old denomination. But, having been away for sixteen years I can see how the URC has changed. I believe it has moved even further away from its roots.

One of the articles in Reform is entitled "Leave Behind Childish Things." Written by Dave Tomlinson, and based upon his book Re-enchanting Christianity, the article encourages church members to deconstruct their faith, and to reject those parts they don't like. Only then can the journey of rediscovery begin. "Reinterpreting the Christian faith requires us to abandon forever the notion that being faithful to the gospel means preserving doctrinal purity," writes Tomlinson. He then procedes to re-think the virgin birth, the atonement, the resurrection, and eternal life. His approach is clearly universalist; he has no time for either the concept of eternal bliss for the redeemed or eternal condemnation for the damned. "The injustice and grotesqueness of this outlook appears utterly absurd to many people today," he writes. Tomlinson also departs from historic Christianity in his interpretation of the person and work of Christ. "Jesus did not know everything - of course he didn't! Jesus made judgements that were less than perfect - of course he did! Jesus believed things about the world and the universe that we now know to be untrue - of course he did! He was a first century man... Never-the-less, in a decisive way - in and through his humanity - the character of God was manifested in Jesus of Nazareth. And this is what the incarnation proclaims: God inhabiting human life, without in any way violating or abrogating human nature." Tomlinson displays a classic, liberal understanding of the ontology of faith: "For Christians, divine revelation is not finally in a text, a creed or a set of dogmas, but in a person; not in words, but in a living Word."

Dave Tomlinson is perfectly entitled to his opinions, but I don't know how he can pretend that they come even close to traditional Christianity. He may claim the name, but to do so he has to redefine its content to such a degree that the name, like the word, becomes devoid of meaning. I may call my dog a cat as much as I like, and complain about the limitations of language; but until he starts 'meowing' I'll keep on calling him a dog.

Back in the mists of time, when the URC had some sense of itself as a church in the tradition of the Reformation, it understood what it meant to be Christian. There is even a confession of faith in the URC Service Book, taken from the Manual. It reads, "We believe that God, in his infinite love for all, gave his eternal Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who became man, lived on earth in perfect love and obedience, died upon the cross for our sins, rose again from the dead, and lives for evermore, saviour, judge, and king." Is this the childishness that must be abandonned if one is to reimagine faith? If so, what are candidates for the ministry to be taught, and what should they teach once they are ordained? Environmentalism? Is that the best they can come up with?

Tomlinson's vision is simply a rehashing of ancient heresy. The Ebionites wanted Jesus as Messiah but they didn't want to call him divine. Their beliefs (curiously close to those later propagated by Islam) were rejected by orthodox Christians. Arius made the same mistake, as did the Nestorians and the Socinians. All of them failed to grasp the divinity of Christ, refusing to accept that, in Him, "the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). Placing human reason above divine revelation, they judged both Scripture and Christ. Their modern equivalents are the unitarians, whose beliefs are similarly far removed from the historic tenets of the faith.

When did the URC become unitarian? When did universalism take the place of particular redemption? And when did it become acceptable for the official publication of the denomination to be used to destroy the beliefs unpon which that denomination was founded? No wonder the church is dying. What good news is there left to proclaim?

Tomlinson's article can be found at www.urc.org.uk/What_we_do/Communications/reform/09/may/leave_behind_childish_things