Mike's musings

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