simonvarwell.co.uk

I’ve just stumbled across this excellent article by comedian Frank Skinner in (whisper it) The Times.

Frank Skinner is an irreverent and often crude comedian but, notably, is a committed Christian and has frequently spoken about his faith.  His book Frank Skinner is a fascinating insight into his faith, upbringing and career, and while it’s not for the faint-hearted it is certainly engaging, hilariously funny and, well, frank.

Anyway, the above Times article is a short commentary on the recent complaints about the disadvantages Christianity is claimed to be facing.  Skinner argues that it is actually when it is oppressed, discomforted, that it is at its best, and that the decline in church attendance is a great sign that church is becoming less something that everyone feels they have to go to, and more something that people actively choose to go to.

He further argues that there’s nothing wrong with Christians being distinct, different, apart, because it means that we’re standing up for our faith; even, he says, when it means we are unfairly judged as a result:

Most British Christians are badly dressed, unattractive people. We’re not pushy and aggressive members of society. We’re a bit like Goths — no one can remember us being fashionable and we talk about death a lot. I love the glorious un-coolness of that.

How refreshing that, when the loudest Christian voices around tend to be bitter campaigners complaining about gays, the assaults on Christian education or the writings of Richard Dawkins, we have sensible folk like Frank Skinner standing up to profess their faith and demand no privilege.

We need more people like him.

On the train back from Edinburgh on Friday, I finished off the last couple of chapters of “Velvet Elvis” by Rob Bell.

Rob Bell is a well-known American pastor, speaker and writer, and is influential in a lot of very modern explanations of what Christianity is all about. I first started reading Velvet Elvis at least a year ago, and it basically got a bit lost in the book-time continuum and I only got around to finishing it off.

It subtitles itself as “Repainting the Christian faith” and aims to go back to basics, explaining where Christianity came from and what it’s all about. It rips away a lot of the paraphernalia, the “religion”, and strikes at the heart of the message. While it’s powerful stuff, it’s often hard to read, and this is why I think I ended up taking so long over it. In an attempt to write in a very contemporary way, his overly-conversational language is a bit hard-going, his tendency to write in short sentences often impeding the ability to be free-flowing in his message.

I might be being a bit harsh – I actually can’t remember much of the first half of the book (other than one or two very helpful explanations of the culture of the Jews at the time of Jesus), and so perhaps should go easier. Let me conclude by quoting a very powerful comment from towards the end of the book, with my emphasis added, about what the church is actually for (and what it’s not for):

The church doesn’t exist for itself; it exists to serve the world. It is not ultimately about the church; it’s about all the people God wants to bless through the church. When the church loses sight of this, it loses its heart. This is especially true today in the world we live in where so many people are hostile to the church, many for good reason. We reclaim the church as a blessing machine not only because that is what Jesus intended from the beginning but also because serving people is the only way their perceptions of church are ever going to change. This is why it is so toxic for the gospel when Christians picket and boycott and complain about how bad the world is. This behavio[u]r doesn’t help. It makes it worse. It isn’t the kind of voice Jesus wants his followers to have in the world. Why blame the dark for being dark? It is far more helpful to ask why the light isn’t as bright as it could be.

Amen to that.

I got back earlier this afternoon from my stag do.

Part one was a tremendously fun day of paintball, quad biking and clay pigeon shooting at Highland Activities. They’re based in Kinloch Laggan, on a vast estate in a beautiful part of the world where cheesy TV drama Monarch of the Glen was filmed. Part two was a night of food, music, one or two beverages and lots of laughs at a house in Contin.

It was great fun but I am now shattered.

The last thing I needed, then, barely half an hour after getting home, was some Jehovah’s Witnesses knocking on the door.

Funny really, because I somehow knew that it would be some sort of religious visitor when I heard the knock, and it was only Monday past that I had two other JWs trying to tell me something or other. Like that earlier visit, I gave them short thrift, interrupting their polite spiel to tell them I wasn’t interested and was a Christian, closing the door in their face as politely and firmly as I could.

It brought to mind that I had them at my door a few weeks ago too – and that wasn’t the first time. Always in two, always starting out with an indirect line of conversation – starting out with leaflets about drug abuse, blood transfusions or “the truth”. However, I am now skilled in instant recognition of copies of “The Watchtower” so am able to interrupt their enquiry before they get too far into their stride.

I am sure I should deal with them in a better way – by authoritatively taking apart their arguments, or showing their faith up to be an alarming misuse of the Bible; and of course I could certainly be more polite. All of the above require patience and research, however, and I have a tendency to neither, at least on this matter.

But more than that, I am a bit concerned that they have been at my door so much lately. Either they are rubbish at cross-referencing their outreach plans, or they are just hugely persistent. And am I doing something wrong? Am I only encouraging them by answering the door?

Now they know someone lives here who isn’t 100% rude or abusive (surely not that rare?), are they going to redouble their efforts? There’s a Kingdom Hall not a million miles away from my flat, so perhaps I am one of their targets – handy, unthreatening, and professing a faith they regard as close to their own.

I wonder how soon it will be before they’re round again…

Our wedding – ten days away, now – will feature a sermon delivered by Duncan MacPherson, minister of Hilton Church of Scotland, where Nicole and I both worship.

We have asked Duncan to preach on Luke 24, specifically the story of the road to Emmaus, when Jesus (after his resurrection) appears to his followers, who are slow to realise who he is. One of the key points of the passage is the dialogue between the followers and Jesus, a dialogue key within any Christian marriage.

Duncan has emailed me to suggest that, with blogs being a good form of dialogue, maybe thoughts from readers could be obtained through my blog.

So, if you have any comments – even just a single line – about what you think makes a strong marriage, Duncan says he will aim to incorporate such thoughts in his sermon. Just go ahead and post them here, anonymously if you like.

It’s a novel form of interaction in a sermon, and I wonder what thoughts folk will come up with.

I am off to Stirling tomorrow and Weegieland on Friday, for some quick work trips.

While I am away, here’s something to entertain you. Anyone who’s been to a pentecostal church – or anyone who’s not, for that matter – might find it quite amusing.

The recent release on compassionate grounds of Abdel-Basset al-Megrahi, the convicted Lockerbie bomber, has been big news in the last week or two.

Much has been made of the controversial decision to release him, made by Scottish justice secretary Kenny MacAskill. Sometimes compassion is hard to show, but there has been widespread support – particularly from Christians – for the decision. It’s been described as one of the biggest political decisions in the devolution age and certainly of the current SNP administration – but if both come to be defined by compassion, then that’s a pretty good defining characteristic.

Of course, MacAskill is not a Christian himself, but I understand from a friend who works at the heart of the Scottish political system that although MacAskill’s three most senior civil servants are Christian they did not write his speech that referred to “a higher power”. Is this an example of the Christian faith at work through prayer and example, influencing others?

What might admittedly have been a politically astute lean towards a religious society has still nevertheless created controversy across the pond in the USA – as this website illustrates.

However, there is hypocrisy at work in much of the pro-boycott movements – as this site and this blog post brilliantly reveal.

The USA cannot have it all its own way, and perhaps the protesters, and indeed we all, need to bear Matthew chapter 7 in mind before criticising.

In church this morning, there were very helpful reflections upon – among other things – how a Christian attitude is about seeking reconciliation rather than justice or revenge.

Reference was made to briefing documents, revealed in GQ, that Donald Rumsfeld provided the White House during the war in Iraq.

Featuring triumphalist, Crusader-like images from American military theatres with Bible verses superimposed, they paint a picture of the Bush administration as a terrifying, sinister theocracy, and they would sound like a hilarious caricature were they not absolutely true.

It is so sad that the people mostly associated with the label “Christian”, particularly by the Muslim world, are neo-cons like Rumsfeld and Bush. No wonder so many folk hate Christianity, the West and the USA.

Meanwhile, it’s sad also that other “Christian” fundamentalists continue to make headlines (in blatant contradiction to the Church of Scotland’s admittedly bizarre nationwide gagging order), making yet more waves with their alarmingly shoddy interpretation of and over-reaction to, yes, that old chestnut, homosexuality.

The church in Scotland’s treatment of this subject highly amuses me.

I’ve sat through more than a couple of sermons (in a number of churches) covering this issue in recent months. Preaching on the topic has ranged from sledgehammer-like paranoid obsession, through to treating it gingerly as an unmentionable hot potato. A pink elephant in the room, if you like.

Meanwhile, I photographed this headline above earlier today about one local church’s action on the debate – are they making a move on the issue, or getting a minister themselves? It amuses me that there are two radically different interpretations of this one brief, innocuous headline.

How wonderfully apposite…

The Christian blogosphere – particularly the more fundamentalist element – has been full of chat about the furore we are witnessing in the run-up to the Church of Scotland‘s General Assembly, due to meet in a couple of weeks.

In case you hadn’t noticed, it’s all about a recent decision by Queen’s Cross Church in Aberdeen to appoint a homosexual minister, Rev Scott Rennie. There’s an increasingly popular petition doing the rounds, calling for the Church of Scotland to prevent such an apparently awful thing from happening.

I was going to ignore this issue for fear of fanning the flames of division and unncessary debate in the church – a lot of Christians, including folk in my own church, read this blog. However, having been emailed twice in the last week or two by people asking me to sign the petition, having read a few articles online about the issue, and having thought and prayed hard over the last few days about whether or not I should write this, I really feel that a counterbalance to the voices against the appointment must be provided.

No doubt those who signed the petition, and who peddle a belief that the Bible is unambiguous and unequivocal in its condemnation of homosexuality are very balanced, reasoned and logical in reaching their viewpoints and in deciding to add their names.

As a result, they’ll be fully able, I am quite sure, to answer the following questions:

1. Leviticus 20:13 is apparently clear about what should happen to homosexuals: they should be killed. Presumably, it would be against the teaching of the Scriptures to leave them alive any longer: there’s no mention of any period of grace. Can you please confirm when the lynching of Mr Rennie and his partner is to take place? Or is it a secret, that you can at least assure me is definitely going ahead?
2. The minister in question previously served at Brechin Cathedral. Where in the Bible does it state that homosexuality is permissable in the city and royal burgh of Brechin? I’m not aware of any petition against his ministry there; so either homosexuality is fine in Brechin, or I missed where that earlier petition was posted. Can you enlighten me please?
3. As instructed in Leviticus 19:27, shaving one’s beard is against the law of God. No mention of exemptions for women either, I am afraid. What is the church to do about a doubtlessly rampant disregard for the Bible? Indeed, I am shortly to have a shave this evening as I am getting a bit stubbly – what will happen to me?
4. If you have ever eaten pork or shellfish, can you please explain what you are doing to reconcile your disgusting dietary habits with your Lord?
5. I thought parishes in the Church of Scotland could call whichever ordained minister they are led to call. Can you explain to me why you disagree with this fundamental principle of Presbyterianism and of church law? And why is this matter the business of anyone who is not a communicant member of that particular parish?
6. All Christians are called upon to be servants of the church and each other. Therefore other members of the church – homegroup leaders, administrators, lay preachers, welcome teams etc – must, I suppose, strive and appear to be as Biblical in their lives as ministers must. Can the petitioners guarantee that there are no publicly or secretly gay people in our churches in positions of authority or influence? And how about gay Christians who quietly, devotedly pray for the church as a whole? Heaven forfend, they could be praying for you and me right now, influencing our faiths and our lives without us knowing! Surely they must be stopped, yes?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying that we should all go out and appoint homosexual ministers. There’s not enough to go around, for a start. I don’t know the individual involved in this case and would hazard a guess that not being in a legal marriage is an inappropriate environment for a sexual relationship (although given that gay marriage does not legally exist, I find it hard to blame the couple involved).

However, as I’ve said before when I wrote about a similar matter a couple of years ago, homosexuality is at the very least an immensely grey area. Those proposing that homosexuality is clearly wrong are exercising an interpretation of the Bible that is loaded with a very human perspective – something which is precisely what so-called reappraisers are accused of doing.

The Bible is a complicated book, and occasionally even seems to be ambiguous and self-contradictory. To take snippets of it without social context (or indeed any other context) while failing to do so with other snippets (such as those which condemn figs, shellfish, pork and so on) is to undermine and damage its message.

Yes it’s the word of God and inspired by God, but written by humans and therefore certainly not the inerrant and infallible word of God. To treat it as such is to misuse it. The Bible has a message we must follow as a result of trying to understand it, not by dogmatically, primitively and unthinkingly following it word for word, letter for letter.

Those on the liberal side of the church are accused of picking and mixing the Bible. Perhaps that’s true, but it’s just as true for those on the conservative wing. We can only read it with human eyes, after all, in the same way that those who wrote it did so with human minds.

This whole wider issue of homosexuality in the church is a tedious, repetitive debate about minutiae of Biblical interpretation. The debate does not deserve the coverage, impact or participation it is receiving. It makes the church look like a bunch of legalistic, sexuality-obsessed pedants who care much more about this issue than the big battles against war, hatred, poverty, disease, spiritual desertification and suppression of individual liberty that the church should be famous for fighting.

Rev Scott Rennie should just be allowed to get on with his job. And we should get on with ours and stop trying to do God’s.

Unless of course, there are answers to the above questions…

Ship of Fools is a satirical Christian website which I don’t read nearly often enough. It’s very good – both funny and thought-provoking – and one of its highlights is the “mystery worshipper” section, where churches are reviewed by unidentified visitors.

My old church in Glasgow, St Silas, was recently visited by the mystery worshipper, as David, the Rector of St Silas, has blogged. You can read the review here.

It’s a subject of course close to my heart – I have form on the issue, having visiting St Silas twice (1|2) during my Glasgow church search, before going on to call it home during my time in the city.

The mystery worshipper’s review is thorough, and has much to praise the church for. However I can’t help thinking that most of the negatives are simply down to the fact that the reviewer appears not to be very “low church” as the Anglicans would call it, and I reckon a reviewer more comfortable with an informal, laid back community such as St Silas would have had a much better experience there.

Such things are subjective, however. One person’s ideal church would be another person’s hell on earth.

Glasgow is in something of a heatwave, which as you may know is not my favourite sort of weather. It was good to be back in church tonight, although it was oppressively hot in the building, and I think I irritated everyone sitting near me by generating quite a breeze when I kept wafting my pink paper (that’s the intimation sheet, just to clarify) in my face in an attempt to cool down.

While sweating my way through David‘s excellent sermon on Romans 8, and when I should have been focussing on Jesus, the heat got me thinking. What can we do in church when it gets too hot? There must be plenty of things.

101 things, in fact…

1. Ask to get baptised in order to cool off.
2. Post a sign outside saying “Welcome to Hell”
3. …or one saying “You think it’s hot in here?”
4. If it’s communion, ask for your wine with ice.
5. Count the understains among the congregation. Especially if it’s a charismatic church.
6. Announce that you’ll only give to the offering if there’s ice creams given out in return.
7. Convert to Catholicism so you can justify throwing holy water over the congregation to cool them down.
8. Sing loud enough to lift the roof. Literally.
9. Mould the intimation sheet into an attractive Japanes-style fan. If you have a pen, decorate it. Ask your neighbours to mark it out of ten.
10. Tear up your Bible and do a test to find out which book makes the most effective fan.