iGod

A reflection for Good Friday - if you are religious or not

At noon, darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon. And at three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

When some of those standing near heard this, they said, “Listen, he’s calling Elijah.”

Someone ran, filled a sponge with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to take him down,” he said.

With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last. The curtain of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. And when the centurion, who stood there in front of Jesus, saw how he died, he said, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (Mark's gospel, the Bible)

My youngest daughter loves reading stories from her Children's Book of the Bible. I tend to let her chose one, which hopefully isn't too many pages. Amidst the other stories is the account of Jesus' death. The Church calls it Good Friday. To a child of seven or even a mature adult it is perhaps hard to see why this could in any possible way, shape or form be called a good day.

But here's the thing.

Even the most hardened of skeptics I meet admit that Jesus stood for life, love, justice and faith. Through history and society people have broadly cheered at his indignant approach to upsetting convention and exposing hypocrisy and abuse. But every hero apparently has his day and we get disprited when people don't live up to our hopes. Much like politicians and expensive footballers, I guess.

DId Jesus get too big for his boots or did the people big him up for their own needs? A large number really just wanted a king to lead a revolution and overthrow the Romans and live life again on their own terms again.

Last Sunday we rememembered Palm Sunday, the day when Jesus rode into Jersusalem at the time of the Feast of the Passover, not as a people's king or a vainglorious rebel leader, but as a pilgrim on a way to a festival on a donkey and colt.

On Maundy Thursday we remembered how he met with his closest disciples for the Passover meal, a meal that symbolised the salvation of the Jewish people, by the retelling of the story of their exodus from Egypt many hundreds of years previously. They had a last supper together in a upper room, taking the bread made without yeast and the cup of wine and passed them around to each other.

The night would end in betrayl by one disgruntled militant activist member whose trust in Jesus had worn thin by a lack of perceived action.

And so we come to Good Friday or bad Friday, depending on your viewpoint as a child or not. It may interest you to know that the cross was known as such a horrendous form of Roman torture and death that for the first part of the Church's development no reference to the cross as a symbol is to be found. it was only latterly in the Western church first that the cross started to be depicted as a main symbol of Christianity and that was through art as much as anything else.

Today, Jesus' death is overlooked by many in a secular society because he is seen as a narrow-minded, judgementalist, religious bigot out to conform everyone to one view, regardless of other views, cutlure etc.

However I have to say this is what others have made him, not himself. Much like in his day.

This 'king' did not live up to socio-political expectation at so many levels.

Firstly he never owned property, he always had something borrowed to him. His parents borrowed a stable (not born in a palace). He borrowed friends' houses to stay in (no possessions of his own). He borrowed a donkey and colt to ride in Jerusalem (not a steed). He borrowed a guest house room for the last supper. And at the end he even borrowed another man's tomb to be buried in.

Recently I heard atheist Rick Gervais say in an article in the New York Times that he thought he was a better Christian than Christians because he kept the 10 Commandments. He had come across those who profess to follow Jesus but had dubious actions, citing Ghandi who said. "I like your Christ, I don't like your Christians." Often the church has to be shamed by unexpected sources for it to come to its senses.

Sometimes It is hard to see beyond the moment and get perspective for Christians, agnostics and atheists alike. Easter gives our lives perspective whether we are religious or not.

So what makes Jesus' life, death and resurrection relevant for us today? Because his death historically happened in the hands of a secular institution, the Roman Empire, and so stopped it from becoming a small religious regional affair, making it unknowingly everybody's business. Hence, becoming a world faith across all cultures and backgrounds today.

The Easter story slows us down to remind us of our falibility and human weakeness. It reminds us that untimately we all want to be saved from something or ourselves.

Beyond being one of the earliest human rights activists, Jesus Christ demonstrated a purity that most of us, if we are honest with ourselves, yearn for. It came with great and awful sacrifice.

We want hope. We want to believe in better. We, therefore, need to be reminded of the pain to gain.

So when I wish you happy Easter, I mean 'happy Easter!'

May you find peace and love in the power of his life, death and resurrection.

ASD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A thought on suffering as we move nearer to the cross of Good Friday

My atheist friend thinks that Christianity trades on suffering.

I know where he is coming from, but he is wrong.

Let's start with the cultural context of the Bible.  Everyday suffering and death were part and parcel of life in Ancient Near East culture. They were spoken with a matter of fact air about them. Today, though, they have become uncomfortable subjects and are likely to be met with some shuffling of feet.

The fact that God wants to talk about suffering and we don't perhaps should tell us something about ourselves.

Actually Christianity starts not with suffering, but with the human experience - and that naturally encompasses suffering.

For faith to not have a theology of suffering and death (theodicy) would show a fundamental weakness in its thinking. Without acknowledging death we cannot talk about Jesus being a life-giver.

It would mean that Jesus’ own death is pointless because suffering and death are not big deals. My atheist friend would say that death is the end. But to him it is all temporal, believing there is nothing more than this life, so why not just get on with it?

The Egyptians in their banquets exhibited a skeleton to the guests, to remind them of the brevity of human life saying as they did so, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” This is why we must talk about suffering - and about death.

I know it is not popular to labour on this aspect, but actually by acknowledging it we are able to get a greater revelation of what it means for Jesus to go through the agony of the cross to die for each one of us this Easter.

Previous generations appreciated the message of life because the prospect of death was always near to them. Not so today. With the advance of medical science and the long-lasting enjoyment of peacetime we have the confidence to dispense with the language of suffering. 

However, to charge Christianity for using suffering as a recruitment tactic is a lazy argument. It is but an honest admission that we are not infallible, but human. It says that we cannot be dependent on ourselves to save the day. However far we have come in our thinking.

ASD

Evolution, IQ & footballers

In the light of the recent John Terry scandal, findings just published by Dr Santoshi Kanazawa of London School of Economics and Political Science make interesting reading. They show that apparently due to our evolutionist tendencies men with a low IQ struggle to stay faithful to one partner.

On the other hand, more intelligent men are more likely to live in an exclusive relationship. I am not sure whether premiership footballers will have read this research, but they may feel it lets them off the hook somewhat - if we waiver that little thing called personal accountability.

Just as interesting, Kanazawa goes on to say that people who believe in God are less intelligent and tend to be ‘paranoid’.  Furthermore, ‘religion is the by-product of human tendencies to perceive agency and intention as causes of events to see the “hands of God” at work behind otherwise natural phenomena.’

The report in the London Metro concludes “more intelligent children are likely to grow up against their naturally evolutionist tendency to believe in God and become atheists.”  Really?

Now as a ‘bear with little brain’, but I would have thought atheist-biased evolutionists would argue that there was no God to “grow up against”.

I am not sure it is ‘natural’ in our increasingly secularised country to start life believing in God. At least, that is not my experience.  Aren’t we all conditioned by society in some way? How objective can we really be?

I think what I am hearing is that as we have evolved to become more intelligent and therefore less prone to believe in God. This would take us neatly back to the Enlightenment argument of the ‘God of the gaps’ theory.

The problem I have with these findings is that, by its nature, it is has to be culture-bound, therefore the commentary which goes with it is conjecture. For instance, on a totally human level, men who have affairs tend to be called ‘dumb’ because the relational fall-out on their spouses and children is often huge. 

Human responsibility and a relational values system are, of course, seldom part of the evolutionary conversation. More the pity. But then that would introduce an ethical and moral dimension into the debate, however I appreciate that may not have been in the remit of the research.

Nevertheless, to suggest that God is made redundant because of an evolutionary intelligence argument is a brave, but hardly an original line to take.

In truth, I am just not sure that the alternative gives us a better world.  

ASD

'Evening prayer' as seen on London buses

In the light of the previous usage of bus sides in London by atheists and the Christian Party which on the whole failed to capture the imagination of a non-plussed general public, it is good to see the Evening Standard regaining the sacred space with some good old-fashioned ironic advertising.In some way, this probably does more good for the Church than its own efforts.

ASD

What stops us from sharing our Christian faith?

To end the week, I came across this profound quote from Christianity Today magazine:

"How much to you have to hate somebody not to proselytise?  How much do you have to hate someone to believe that everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?"
Penn Jillette, atheist, comedian, film-maker, recounting someone giving him a Bible.

ASD

How to respond to atheists - don't use a bus ad or political party to do it.

I read yesterday that The Christian Party, the Trinitarian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church have paid for their own pro-God adverts that will run on 175 buses across central and east London and the West End for two weeks from Monday.

I really don't know what to make of this. There surely were not many comments left that positively responded to this move.

As a marketing man in my day job,I have never been a fan of tit-for-tat advertising. Marketing history shows there are usually two main casualties with this tactical defensive approach - the advertisers themselves.

I also wonder if the best way to reach people with God is to first get them to join an institution. I wouldn't have thought so.

Personally, I struggle with the whole thing, but you'll be relieved to know that I 'probably' won't be using a bus side to say it.

ASD

An atheist that believes Africa needs Christianity

I keep bumping into people who keep mentioning to me Mathew Parris' article in the Times newspaper back at the beginning of this month. I notice that Jason Clark had posted his words too. Though, of course, he is much more on the ball than old slow coach here. The columnist argues for the place of Christian faith in Africa if it is going to have a real chance of really moving forward in strength. Yet, what makes his words profound is the fact that he, er, well, doesn't believe in God.

"Now a confirmed atheist, I've become convinced of the enormous contribution that Christian evangelism makes in Africa: sharply distinct from the work of secular NGOs, government projects and international aid efforts. These alone will not do. Education and training alone will not do. In Africa Christianity changes people's hearts. It brings a spiritual transformation. The rebirth is real. The change is good.

I used to avoid this truth by applauding - as you can - the practical work of mission churches in Africa. It's a pity, I would say, that salvation is part of the package, but Christians black and white, working in Africa, do heal the sick, do teach people to read and write; and only the severest kind of secularist could see a mission hospital or school and say the world would be better without it. I would allow that if faith was needed to motivate missionaries to help, then, fine: but what counted was the help, not the faith."

I suspect Dr Dawkins might take quite a different viewpoint.

ASD