Mike's musings

A day at home

(backposting) There are times when you need to observe your canonical duty, and there are days when you need to stay at home with your two young and not very well daughters, having some down-time, making cookies, that sort of thing. I figure that's praising the Lord and celebrating his Love as well.

Labels: love

Preaching against the BNP

(backposting) I take the responsibility of the pulpit very seriously, and I generally don't like preaching against something, but decided that I couldn't avoid it today. The BNP (British National Party, and I'm not going to do them the service of linking to them) have been suggesting that church leaders should keep out of politics. Not only is this rubbish (as the Archbishop of York puts it: "which Bible are they reading?"), but there's a real danger that British voters, unhappy and disillusioned with the mainstream political parties after the scandals around expenses for MPs, will vote for the BNP in enough numbers that they'll have some representation and declare that they have a mandate.

So, I preached against their message of hate and fear, and talked about our duty, as Christians, to work for the coming of God's Kingdom, and the message of Isaiah 35: "Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble knees. Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a recompence; he will come and save you."

In the afternoon we had lots of fun at a fund-raiser for Jo's pre-school (lovely weather), and then we drove up to Kate and Mac's near Loughborough (in two cars, as I need to be coming back earlier than Moo and the girls.

Labels: family, love, preaching

Funeral

I attended - but didn't take - a funeral today. A mother and wife, 43, kids 5 and 7. It was a very moving service, with a packed church: it was standing room only with 20 minutes to go before the start. The father's a friend, which is why attended. The priest took a very good service indeed, with a good mix of solemnity, respect and humour.

And I spent much of the rest of the afternoon what I'd do if Catherine didn't come up the drive, and it was a police officer at the front door, instead.

Labels: funeral, love

Valentine's Day

At some point, Moo and I ought to get round to writing each other a card. We've both bought one, but haven't written in them yet. We don't really do Valentine's Day, given that the 13th is our engagement anniversary.

Bad news though: not only did I have to miss the second half of the Wales-England game (some idiot had scheduled it over the kids' bedtime), but we also lost, 23-15. Not good.

Labels: love, sport

*Cough*

At Moo's insistence, I went to the doctor today to show her my cough. She seemed to like it enough to want to listen to it via my back, using a stethoscope. It must have impressed her significantly, as she gave me a prize to take away: a week's worth of antibiotics. These will make me loopy for approximately 7 days.

Other exciting news today: I asked Moo to marry me 16 years ago. And she said yes. I was down on one knee, on King's College bridge (in Cambridge) with a diamond ring which I'd bought with money I'd borrowed from the college (though I'd not told them why). We weren't feeling desperately romantic, so I gave her a bag (pink) for her new netbook (pink), and she gave me the series 2 and 3 of The Wire, which we've enjoyed watching immensely. We popped out for lunch, and in the evening had sausages, mash and baked beans: a staple stay-at-home treat. And we finished off series 1 of The Wire, which was an excellent way to finish off the evening.

Labels: illness, love, Moo

And back home again

Watched Body of Lies on the plane: it's OK, but a little obvious. Got in OK, having got some sleep during the flight, and ended up not sleeping in the car on the way back (and no, I wasn't driving). Both girls were very, very pleased to see me, as I was them - and Moo, of course. We took them to an indoor play centre in the afternoon, and it was lovely to have some family time for a change.

All though I'm pleased to be home, and pleased to be with Moo and the girls, I'm most pleased that I can take some of the burden off Moo's shoulders: she's had a terrible week, and just needs someone else around.

Labels: home, love

Recycling

I ended up preaching at the 1000 team service in Gosfield today. I wasn't down to do it, but my incumbent was ill, and it was lucky that we even had a priest to preside over communion, but Viv had called the fantastic Clifford, and he stood in. I made an absolute hash of serving for him, but the fact that we needed to consecrate some more wafers wasn't down to me: although the sidesman told us how many were there, we had no idea how many wafers were already prepared.

The sermon went down well, though: at John's suggestion, I re-used one I'd preached in November about the death penalty, and how opposed I am to it (see blogs passim in November 2008), even for those who kill children. This in the context of Holy Innocents' day, of course.

So, it all went well, and Moo (who's not feeling well today), the girls and I headed out for lunch in a nice pub-restaurant.

Labels: death, love

The death penalty - and Baby P

I've been meaning to blog on this topic for a while now, and I've finally decided to jump on it and do so. In fact, I've been meaning to blog about it from before the Baby P story broke, but I think it's even more important now.

As you may have noticed, here in the UK, there has been enormous outcry at the death of a 3 year old baby known as "Baby P" at the hands of his parents, from terrible injuries. And that outcry has come, unsurprisingly, from people with small children: people like us. That's understandable, and no cause for alarm: there should be an outcry, as this should not have happened. However, it goes beyond that. There are calls for the death penalty for those responsible: or at least for the death penalty to be available to people who commit such crimes. A number of my friends on Facebook have signed up to groups advocating this, and similar. And I can see why. But I believe this to be fundamentally wrong: I passionately believe that we should not have the death penalty.

My reasons are many, and I'm going to try to lay them out here. Interestingly, I think, few of them are based on faith or theology. I realise that my general approach to ethical issues is a Christian one, but I don't think that this is a question that needs Christianity - or other faith - to be invoked in order to decide it. Why, then, should we not have the death penalty?

1. The very top reason is that it brutalises. The ability to call for the death penalty allows us to dip deep into the animal part of us and ignore the rational, the thinking, the loving. And I would ask the question: "do you want your children to grow up in a society where violence is punished with violence?"
2. It's not a deterrent, in many cases. Crimes that are, in other countries, punishable by the death penalty are not those which are avoided by thinking "oh, I might get the death penalty for this: I won't do it, then"
3. It's unjust. It is the economically, socially, academically and intellectually disadvantaged who are by far the most likely to receive the death penalty
4. It's unjust (2). In criminal organisations, it is those on the ground, the lowest in the chain, who are most likely to receive the death penalty: they're more likely to get caught, they're less likely to get off (see above), and they're more likely to have committed the actual crime themselves, rather than having ordered it
5. It's truly a one-way ticket. Mistakes are made: history is littered with them. People who have been found guilty, received the death penalty, and have then been found not to have committed the crime. A confession is no guarantee, either: confessions can be forced, and some people confess because they want to die, even if they haven't committed the crime
6. It's a betrayal. I believe that people have fought - and died - to leave us with a society where we have the opportunity to be decent, honest and just. The death penalty is none of those, and by lowering ourselves to the level of those who commit the crimes that are believed to merit it, we betray those people who have come before us.

I'm not even going to start on Christian arguments: I really don't think they're needed. Comments are _especially_ welcome.

Labels: children, death, ethics, love

Confidences

(backposting) Today a colleague asked me for spiritual guidance with a personal issue. They were concerned about some very negative emotions they have, and how to deal with them. I gave what perspectives I could, and it seems to have helped, at least a bit.

I am always astonished and humbled when people seek to confide in me, and ask for guidance: particularly at work. But it does highlight how my ministry _does_ extend beyond the obvious church-based work I do, and how people are aware of my ministry within the work context. It's so buoying up, and shows how the SSM ministry model can work, even when - as in my case - my work is not officially classed as part of my ministry. I'll be praying for this person, but also for my ministry.

Labels: love, ministry, work

Getting upset at the Peace

I took Jo and Miri to the 10am at St Andrew's Halstead this morning, and Jo got really upset. At first, I couldn't work out why, but it turned out that it was because one of the other children there had refused to pass the Peace with her. I was surprised that she was so affected by it, but she was very sad. In the end, we found the relevant child, who, it turned out, was happy to oblige. I guess there had been a misunderstanding, but all was well afterwards. As it happens, John had preached on the importance of loving each other - even if we don't agree with each other or even like each other all the time - and had given the example of the dangers of discriminating over who we pass the Peace with. Maybe Jo was paying attention. Though I'm not convinced.

Great swimming from her later on, and both girls went to sleep very quickly at bedtime, which was a considerable bonus.

In 4 years, the Olympics will be in London. Yay!

Labels: church, love, sport

Newquay, and a wedding

Or - how to be a fantastic husband

(backposting) First of all - calomine lotion, painkillers. This will be a bit of a theme.

We went out in the morning for coffee and cake, followed by shopping, to Wadebridge (lovely modern Coop - can't fault it except on size), and I put pressure on Moo. I told her that I was quite happy to look after the girls for enough time for her at least to make the ceremony in Padstowe. She ummed and ahhed, but in the end, went for it. I was so pleased - as I mentioned yesterday, Sophie is very special to her - so she got dressed up and we headed off in the car to Padstowe. Sophie and Steve were getting married at Prideaux Place, a manor house-type place, and so after agreeing where to meet, and pressing Moo again, I dropped her off.

The girls were still asleep in the back of the car, so I just drove. To Newquay and back - around an hour round trip - and then when Miri started to set off, we found a farmshop. Got Miri out, changed her, put her in a sling - all the while Jo was being a star - got Jo out, went to the farmshop. No C & C. Aaaargh! Girls back in the car. Look for C & C place. Fail to find one. Park up, sling up, take Jo into Padstowe, get ice-creams. Jo very, very mucky (even took pictures).

By this time, Moo was ready, so I drove up to Prideaux Place to pick her up. Had a quick chat with Phil and Becca, good friends from college (and married, as of ages ago).

I had earned enormous husband points. It's good to be lovely sometimes, and it made me really happy that Moo had got to go to the wedding. I'd have loved to go as well, but some things aren't meant to be.

A hard, hard evening: in the end, Jo didn't go to bed until we did, and slept with Moo all night.

Labels: love

Theology - penal substitution of atonement

It's a while since I blogged much theology, but things are settling down at home (church with Jo, more breastfeeding today - which went well - a long walk with Jo on my back and with the dog - not on my back, etc.), and I took the time to read an article by Bishop Tom Wright in the "Church Times about the doctrine of penal substitution atonement. There's currently a major argument going on within the evangelical parts of the Church of England around whether penal substitution is the only doctrine of substitution which should be accepted, and how severe a version of the doctrine should be adopted.

In fact, there's been something of a split within the evangelical parts of the CofE. One (Baptist) evangelical, whose book "The Lost Message of Jesus" has many adherents, is Steve Chalke. He rejected one understanding of penal substitionary atonement as "a vengeful father, punishing his Son for an offence he has not even committed." "The fact is that the cross isn't a form of cosmic child abuse".

Well, of course it isn't. First of all, let me say that I do find this particular doctrine of atonement useful. It's one of several that I find helpful, in fact, but I feel that it's often oversimplified. For a start, talking about the Father the Son in the way that Chalke is quoted as doing seems to be grossly negligent of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Father and the Son aren't just a father and a son - they're part of the Trinity: cosubstantial, coeternal. The Father doesn't force the cross on the Son: it's a joint decision by all parts of the Trinity - the Spirit as well.

But Tom Wright's view, which is opposed to Chalke's, is one with which I also can't hold. The problem the Wright seems to have with rejection of the "strong" view of penal subs titution is that it rejects the view of God's wrath. Wright is very much in favour of a theology which highlights God's wrath. This I find very difficult. He writes "...God's wrath is the necessary outworking of his love. If God does not hate slavery, child-abuse and the exploitation of the poor; and if God is not determined to condemn them and rid his world of them, then God's judgement is neither good nor loving." Well, I agree with the second of those sentnences, but really don't need to take on the first. Wrath is usually associated with vengeance, and this I reject. At no point in his article does Wright reference the core gospel ("good news") for me: God is love. S/He can be horrified by, saddened by, angered by, despair at all the things that Wright mentions, but can do so without wreaking vengeance. Wrath - violent, almost uncontrolled anger - is not what I associate with the God I know who is revealed in his Son in the New Testament. A God who allows his Son to take on the burden (the uncontrollably oppressive, the unbearably painful burden) of our sins for the sake of love: that is the God I know.

Labels: CofE, love, theology

Work, work, work

(backposting) Which is good. Pleased that I'm able to.

I was reading the nativity story to Jo today (yes, I know it's Lent). We got to the birth, and she said: "I love baby Jesus." "That's nice," I replied, thinking how well she's got got the point. Then she said, "I _love_ angels." "Hmm, I thought - fair enough - but not _quite_ as theologically positive." It was when we turned the page and she said, "I _LOVE_ camels," that I began to realise that the theological wasn't top of her list.

Labels: Jo, love, theology, work

Christians: choosing who to love

I'd hoped to spend some time on this, but as readers of entries passim will realise, I'm not at all well (update below), so I'm going to keep it short.

My intention had been to write from two directions:

1. as Christians, we don't get to decide who we should love: we're supposed to love everyone (including ourselves). This includes people of whom we may not approve - and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too.
2. we should maybe realise that other people don't get to decide who they love, either: and I'm thinking in particular of gay, bisexual or lesbian people. And gay, bisexual or lesbian Christians, too. God made each of us the way we are, and we must remember that Jesus told us to "love your neighbour as yourself", which means that we must realise that people must love the selves that God made them.

I'm not going to be drawn into the "paedophile debate": that's not about love, as it's not reciprocal, and is entirely about abuse. I'm talking about good, honest, human (and, through Christ's incarnation, divine) love.

Sorry to be blunt - I expect comments (though I may delay responding to them all until I'm rather better).

Synchroblog

Today is a "synchroblog" on the subject of spiritual warfare. If you've liked what you read here, or, more particularly, if you didn't, and you'd like to read some other opinions, please visit one of the other participating blogs:

• Christian Sexuality as Ritual Worship at Phil Wyman's Square No More
• Christians: choosing who to love at Mike's Musings
• Loving God, Loving others, loving self- responding to the Goddess- a feminist perspective at Eternal Echoes
• Trinity by Mike Crockett
• Prophet's Passion at Adam Gonnerman's Igneous Quill
• A Love Supreme from Fernando's Desk
• What is this thing called love? at Steve's Notes from the Underground
• Love as it should pertain to us missionally? at Webb's Stumbling into the Kingdom
• Divine Eros by Handmaid Leah
• Loving the Other by John Smulo
• The Conjunction Between Sensuality and Spirituality by Matt Stone
• The Blogger Whom Jesus Loved at Jamie's More Than Stone
• Love Them Patriots at Calacirian
• I'm a better lover than I used to be... by Billy Calderwood
• Young people in on love by Tim Abbot
• The Art of Making Love....and Soap at Cindy's Tracking the Edge
• Being Missional: Love Comes Before Power by David Fisher at Be the Revolution

Update

For those of you with an interest, I'm definitely still ill. Got around 2 hours of sleep last night, woke up with a temperature and alternate shakes/sweats. Doc gave me antibiotics and the week off.

Labels: illness, love, sexuality, synchroblog