Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Merton on Monday
Contemplation is the perfection of love and of knowledge. Man's life grows and is made perfect by those acts in which his enlightened intelligence takes hold of truth, and by those even more important acts in which his inviolable freedom as it were absorbs and assimilates the truth in love, and makes his own soul true by "doing the truth in charity". Contemplation is the coalescence of life, knowledge, freedom, and love in a supremely simple intuition of all love, freedom, truth and life in their source, which is God.
Thomas Merton, The New Man, p. 9
Thomas Merton, The New Man, p. 9
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Give Peace Another Chance
John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s power to puzzle, intrigue, shock and amuse was never greater than when they summoned reporters to the Amsterdam Hilton on this day in 1969.
Their seven-day “bed-in” was billed as a protest against violence in all its forms. This was much less exhausting than marching on the Pentagon and, in the danger stakes, sitting in bed is considerably safer than breaking into a nuclear weapons base.
It was a publicity stunt but the image of the happy newly-weds championing peace and love has lingered in the popular memory. The sheer absurdity of the act was one of its most provocative qualities.
Dissidents in Soviet Europe pioneered absurdist theatre as a means of protest because it was impossible to denounce the regime publicly. Yoko and Lennon lived in liberal democracies but they did not choose to chair commissions on military and economic policy.
The apparent silliness of their protest suggested that the western model of democratic capitalism wasn’t something you could reform through criticism and debate – it also needed to be dismantled. But Lennon himself was wary of taking it too seriously, saying: “The worst than can happen is that we create a laugh. But the best is that the vibrations for peace get through.”
What the protest lacked in intellectual rigour, it made up for in showmanship. Its iconic quality was only heightened when former President Dwight Eisenhower passed away on March 28. The General had personified American resolve and was the figurehead of an emerging superpower which took pride in running its families and its Government with a straightforward set of values.
Yet the violent resistance to the civil rights movement and the fiery quagmire of Vietnam challenged this perception of a virtuous nation – the grubby farce of Watergate was around the corner. It was in this time of soul-searching that Lennon and Yoko bounced into bed and championed the concept of peace and love. In daring to rekindle idealism you can argue they performed a public service.
Today’s celebrity activists delight in joining in policy discussions, giving evidence to congressional inquiries and lobbying presidents. Frontline politicians have been celebrities ever since Bill Clinton wooed a sceptical America with his saxophone, so this convergence of public-spirited limelight-lovers is no surprise.
But perhaps we do need artists who can celebrate ancient virtues in their purest forms. Love and peace are in short supply today and there is little tolerance for creative absurdity in these serious times.
David Beckham needs to rest his foot and if he and his wife feel like using their duvet days to promote an alternative to capitalist militarism they should be applauded for giving peace a chance. The world’s media would be there to record some good vibrations.
A Thursday column.
Their seven-day “bed-in” was billed as a protest against violence in all its forms. This was much less exhausting than marching on the Pentagon and, in the danger stakes, sitting in bed is considerably safer than breaking into a nuclear weapons base.
It was a publicity stunt but the image of the happy newly-weds championing peace and love has lingered in the popular memory. The sheer absurdity of the act was one of its most provocative qualities.
Dissidents in Soviet Europe pioneered absurdist theatre as a means of protest because it was impossible to denounce the regime publicly. Yoko and Lennon lived in liberal democracies but they did not choose to chair commissions on military and economic policy.
The apparent silliness of their protest suggested that the western model of democratic capitalism wasn’t something you could reform through criticism and debate – it also needed to be dismantled. But Lennon himself was wary of taking it too seriously, saying: “The worst than can happen is that we create a laugh. But the best is that the vibrations for peace get through.”
What the protest lacked in intellectual rigour, it made up for in showmanship. Its iconic quality was only heightened when former President Dwight Eisenhower passed away on March 28. The General had personified American resolve and was the figurehead of an emerging superpower which took pride in running its families and its Government with a straightforward set of values.
Yet the violent resistance to the civil rights movement and the fiery quagmire of Vietnam challenged this perception of a virtuous nation – the grubby farce of Watergate was around the corner. It was in this time of soul-searching that Lennon and Yoko bounced into bed and championed the concept of peace and love. In daring to rekindle idealism you can argue they performed a public service.
Today’s celebrity activists delight in joining in policy discussions, giving evidence to congressional inquiries and lobbying presidents. Frontline politicians have been celebrities ever since Bill Clinton wooed a sceptical America with his saxophone, so this convergence of public-spirited limelight-lovers is no surprise.
But perhaps we do need artists who can celebrate ancient virtues in their purest forms. Love and peace are in short supply today and there is little tolerance for creative absurdity in these serious times.
David Beckham needs to rest his foot and if he and his wife feel like using their duvet days to promote an alternative to capitalist militarism they should be applauded for giving peace a chance. The world’s media would be there to record some good vibrations.
A Thursday column.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Merton on Monday v.2
My Lord God, I have no idea where I am going. I do not see the road ahead of me. I cannot know for certain where it will end. Nor do I really know myself, and the fact that I think I am following your will does not mean that I am actually doing so. But I believe that the desire to please you does in fact please you. And I hope that I have that desire in all that I am doing. I hope that I will never do anything apart from that desire. And I know that if I do this you will lead me by the right road though I may know nothing about it. Therefore will I trust you always though I may seem to be lost and in the shadow of death. I will not fear, for you are ever with me, and will never leave me to face my perils alone.
Thomas Merton
Thomas Merton
Merton on Monday
To find the full meaning of our existence we must find not the meaning that we expect but the meaning that is revealed to us by God. The meaning that comes to us out of the transcendent darkness of His mystery and our own. We do not know God and we do not know ourselves. How then can we imagine that it is possible for us to chart our own course toward the discovery of the meaning of our life? The meaning is not a sun that rises every morning, though we have come to think that it does, and on mornings when it does not rise we substitute some artificial light of our own so as not to admit that this morning was absurd.
Meaning is then not something we discover in ourselves. or in our lives. The meanings we are capable of discovering are never sufficient. The true meaning has to be revealed. It has to be "given." And the fact that it is given is, indeed, the greater part of its significance: for life itself is, in the end, only significant in so far as it is given.
As long as we experience life and existence as suns that have to rise every morning, we are in agony. We must learn that life is a light that rises when God summons it out of darkness. For this there are no fixed times.
Thomas Merton, The New Man, p. 6-7
Meaning is then not something we discover in ourselves. or in our lives. The meanings we are capable of discovering are never sufficient. The true meaning has to be revealed. It has to be "given." And the fact that it is given is, indeed, the greater part of its significance: for life itself is, in the end, only significant in so far as it is given.
As long as we experience life and existence as suns that have to rise every morning, we are in agony. We must learn that life is a light that rises when God summons it out of darkness. For this there are no fixed times.
Thomas Merton, The New Man, p. 6-7
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
The Joyful Nation
There has never been even a whisper that Mel Gibson is planning to follow-up Braveheart with a spectacular depiction of Owain Glyndwr’s adventures – but maybe supporters of Welsh independence should hope he does.
The movie was cultural Lucozade and for years after the Scottish romp hit the screens, young men would paint their faces blue at the toss of a caber.
Scottish identity is not rooted solely in pride in elite institutions and ancient customs but fizzes in each can of Irn Bru. Ceilidh-dancing is not a subsidised art form but a social activity with the energy of a rugby scrum and the euphoria of a bungee-jump.
In recent years, Scottish popular culture has fused with political confidence. When a soon-to-be popular Aberdeen ceilidh band was searching for a name in 1996 “Referendum” was the logical choice – they don’t perform in anoraks and I understand the group is still going strong.
It is hard to imagine the sons and daughters of Cool Cymru choosing a similar moniker at this moment in time, but there is an optimism and verve in Welsh culture which may well drive future strides towards greater autonomy.
One of the great “what-ifs” in the history of the British Isles is how Irish nationalism would have evolved if violence had not broken out on the streets of Dublin in 1916. If the gun had not been reintroduced to Irish politics, could the 1921 partition of the island have been avoided and would the tides of modernity have washed away the ethno-religious tribalism which still divides its people?
Research published this week shows that the vision of a non-sectarian united Ireland remains a distant prospect.
Just 36% of Northern Ireland’s population would vote ‘Yes’ in a referendum for unification with the Republic. Only 69% of Catholics and a tiny 6% of Protestants warm to this notion.
In 2003 a buoyant Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein talked of a united Ireland by 2016 – around the time of the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising. But today only 42% of people think that Ireland will be one country in 2021.
Republicans may take a crumb of comfort from the fact that only an identical percentage think Northern Ireland will still be part of the UK; they may also be encouraged that only 39% of people define themselves as British. However, a minuscule 4% of Protestants choose to call themselves Irish.
McGuinness had hoped functioning north-south political bodies would convince people of the cause of Irish unity. However, old divisions which were deepened by bombs have yet to be bridged. As the Scots have demonstrated, national identity does not thrive if it is defined primarily in opposition to a demonised other; rather, it grows from pride in a diverse society where people find a raucous joy in confronting challenges together.
The movie was cultural Lucozade and for years after the Scottish romp hit the screens, young men would paint their faces blue at the toss of a caber.
Scottish identity is not rooted solely in pride in elite institutions and ancient customs but fizzes in each can of Irn Bru. Ceilidh-dancing is not a subsidised art form but a social activity with the energy of a rugby scrum and the euphoria of a bungee-jump.
In recent years, Scottish popular culture has fused with political confidence. When a soon-to-be popular Aberdeen ceilidh band was searching for a name in 1996 “Referendum” was the logical choice – they don’t perform in anoraks and I understand the group is still going strong.
It is hard to imagine the sons and daughters of Cool Cymru choosing a similar moniker at this moment in time, but there is an optimism and verve in Welsh culture which may well drive future strides towards greater autonomy.
One of the great “what-ifs” in the history of the British Isles is how Irish nationalism would have evolved if violence had not broken out on the streets of Dublin in 1916. If the gun had not been reintroduced to Irish politics, could the 1921 partition of the island have been avoided and would the tides of modernity have washed away the ethno-religious tribalism which still divides its people?
Research published this week shows that the vision of a non-sectarian united Ireland remains a distant prospect.
Just 36% of Northern Ireland’s population would vote ‘Yes’ in a referendum for unification with the Republic. Only 69% of Catholics and a tiny 6% of Protestants warm to this notion.
In 2003 a buoyant Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein talked of a united Ireland by 2016 – around the time of the 100th anniversary of the Easter rising. But today only 42% of people think that Ireland will be one country in 2021.
Republicans may take a crumb of comfort from the fact that only an identical percentage think Northern Ireland will still be part of the UK; they may also be encouraged that only 39% of people define themselves as British. However, a minuscule 4% of Protestants choose to call themselves Irish.
McGuinness had hoped functioning north-south political bodies would convince people of the cause of Irish unity. However, old divisions which were deepened by bombs have yet to be bridged. As the Scots have demonstrated, national identity does not thrive if it is defined primarily in opposition to a demonised other; rather, it grows from pride in a diverse society where people find a raucous joy in confronting challenges together.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
[The] Christian message is basically nothing else than the transmission of the testimony that love has managed to break through death here and thus has transformed fundamentally the situation of all of us.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.307
On that day of fear the Christian will be allowed to see in happy wonder that he to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given" (Mt 28:18) was the companion in faith of his days on earth.
Ibid., p.327
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.307
On that day of fear the Christian will be allowed to see in happy wonder that he to whom "all authority in heaven and on earth has been given" (Mt 28:18) was the companion in faith of his days on earth.
Ibid., p.327
Monday, March 15, 2010
Barth on Monday
...God by the Holy Spirit acts so that there are men who listen and that a congregation arises. The way of the Christian is derived from the forgiveness of sins and leads to the resurrection of the body and eternal life...
We belong together with Him in the Holy Spirit. We are His congregation, and all that is ours is originally and properly His. We live by what is His.
We must not fall away from this centring of all truth. Forgiveness of sins, resurrection, eternal life are not something outside Christ, but are God's action in Him.
He, the One, lightens, and the Christian man moves in His light... Not just in the moment of his 'conversion', but it is always the case that when the Christian looks back, he is looking at the forgiveness of sins.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.140-141
We belong together with Him in the Holy Spirit. We are His congregation, and all that is ours is originally and properly His. We live by what is His.
We must not fall away from this centring of all truth. Forgiveness of sins, resurrection, eternal life are not something outside Christ, but are God's action in Him.
He, the One, lightens, and the Christian man moves in His light... Not just in the moment of his 'conversion', but it is always the case that when the Christian looks back, he is looking at the forgiveness of sins.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.140-141
Friday, March 12, 2010
One more time, let's hear it for sequels!
When Andrew Lloyd Webber decided to create a sequel to the Phantom of the Opera it is likely he spent more time worrying about the response of audiences than the rows of first-night critics.
Sequels, revivals and remakes are a staple of the entertainment industry, but they can be taken as proof that the pursuit of cash trumps the quest for artistic originality. But it is not inevitable that a further adventure in a series will be a creatively bankrupt exercise in commercial exploitation.
True, many people left the fourth Indiana Jones movie and Spiderman 3 shaking their heads and wishing that the canon had been left closed. Most notoriously, the release of the second trilogy of Star Wars films made it deeply unfashionable to confess to admiring Luke Skywalker’s prowess with a light-sabre.
Yet if a studio has some brave executives at the helm they may decide that a franchise has an established audience so a director can afford to take a few exciting risks. Ironically, one of the best examples of this happening was with the original Star Wars trilogy. George Lucas handed the helm of the first sequel, 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back, to Irvin Kershner, a director with a background as an artist and musician.
At times disturbing, his film explored realms of psychological and spiritual darkness which you do not expect to tread through in a popcorn movie.
Similarly, British director Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight created a harrowing masterpiece of operatic intensity when he brought the Batman myth into 2008 America. This was not a film aimed at the lowest common denominator but it took more than $1bn. And the history of cinema would be impoverished if Francis Ford Coppola had not made the second Godfather movie.
The early reviews suggest that Lloyd Webber’s latest Phantom is by no means a failure, and in the coming decades Love Never Dies may stand alongside its prequel as a fine companion work.
And we might be wrong to groan at talk of a sequel to Avatar. Director James Cameron is the master of using subsequent movies to draw out new elements of characters – and draw audiences back to the cinema.
Terminator 2 (1991) is a thriller which genuinely excites, and Aliens (1996) reconfigures the viewer’s expectations of a female protagonist in an action movie.
Sequels to Spielberg films are notoriously poor if he is not in the director’s chair. The increasingly watery Jaws franchise is partly responsible for the negative view of the genre.
But perhaps in an era of climate change the time has come for a fresh look at natural terrors. And – if a flash of true inspiration strikes – even a sequel to ET could be a cause for cheers. It is worth risking accusations of selling out if there is a real chance of striking gold.
Originally a Thursday column.
Sequels, revivals and remakes are a staple of the entertainment industry, but they can be taken as proof that the pursuit of cash trumps the quest for artistic originality. But it is not inevitable that a further adventure in a series will be a creatively bankrupt exercise in commercial exploitation.
True, many people left the fourth Indiana Jones movie and Spiderman 3 shaking their heads and wishing that the canon had been left closed. Most notoriously, the release of the second trilogy of Star Wars films made it deeply unfashionable to confess to admiring Luke Skywalker’s prowess with a light-sabre.
Yet if a studio has some brave executives at the helm they may decide that a franchise has an established audience so a director can afford to take a few exciting risks. Ironically, one of the best examples of this happening was with the original Star Wars trilogy. George Lucas handed the helm of the first sequel, 1980’s The Empire Strikes Back, to Irvin Kershner, a director with a background as an artist and musician.
At times disturbing, his film explored realms of psychological and spiritual darkness which you do not expect to tread through in a popcorn movie.
Similarly, British director Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight created a harrowing masterpiece of operatic intensity when he brought the Batman myth into 2008 America. This was not a film aimed at the lowest common denominator but it took more than $1bn. And the history of cinema would be impoverished if Francis Ford Coppola had not made the second Godfather movie.
The early reviews suggest that Lloyd Webber’s latest Phantom is by no means a failure, and in the coming decades Love Never Dies may stand alongside its prequel as a fine companion work.
And we might be wrong to groan at talk of a sequel to Avatar. Director James Cameron is the master of using subsequent movies to draw out new elements of characters – and draw audiences back to the cinema.
Terminator 2 (1991) is a thriller which genuinely excites, and Aliens (1996) reconfigures the viewer’s expectations of a female protagonist in an action movie.
Sequels to Spielberg films are notoriously poor if he is not in the director’s chair. The increasingly watery Jaws franchise is partly responsible for the negative view of the genre.
But perhaps in an era of climate change the time has come for a fresh look at natural terrors. And – if a flash of true inspiration strikes – even a sequel to ET could be a cause for cheers. It is worth risking accusations of selling out if there is a real chance of striking gold.
Originally a Thursday column.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
...a Christian is someone who knows that in any case he lives first and foremost as the beneficiary of a bounty and that, consequently all righteousness can only consist in being himself a donor...
[E]xcess is God's trademark in his creation... At the same time excess is also the real foundation and form of salvation history, which in the last analysis is nothing other than the truly breathtaking fact that God, in an incredible outpouring of himself, expends not only a universe but his own self in order to lead man, a speck of dust to salvation.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.260-262
[E]xcess is God's trademark in his creation... At the same time excess is also the real foundation and form of salvation history, which in the last analysis is nothing other than the truly breathtaking fact that God, in an incredible outpouring of himself, expends not only a universe but his own self in order to lead man, a speck of dust to salvation.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.260-262
Monday, March 08, 2010
A Love Like Fire
I’m sure we all have objects that we would grab in an instant
If the shout came up the stairs
In the middle of the night:
“The house is on fire! Get out!”
We’d come pounding down the stairs,
Perhaps clutching our passport,
A photograph of our parents,
Or a grandparent’s wedding ring?
But if we arrived at our home and saw smoke and fire
Curling out of the windows,
I wonder what would send us running into the hallway of an inferno?
Perhaps the only reason to enter a burning building
Would be to save someone we love.
We would race up the stairs if we thought a
Son or daughter was there,
Trapped in the clouds of hot smoke.
We would crash into the darkness,
And hurtle through blazing doorways
And search to the point of asphyxiation
Until we had found the one we loved.
The story of Jesus is the story of such a rescue mission.
The God of the Bible sent His own Son to earth
To rescue people he loved.
In the Gospel of John we hear Jesus explain to a religious expert why he was here.
He said:
“For God so loved the world,
That he gave his only Son,
That whoever believes in him
Should not perish but have eternal life.”
There it is in black and white.
God loves us.
He does not want us to perish.
He gave us his son so that we could have
Eternal life.
He wants us to believe this and invites us to do so .
The French writer Victor Hugo said:
“The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved.”
The Jesus we encounter in the Bible tells us we are loved
By the creator of the cosmos.
This is not the affection which a child
Might have for a hamster
Or a man might have for his dog.
This is a love which compelled Jesus
To suffer crucifixion and death in order to draw us
Into the realm of eternal life.
Yes, we know that we are a ramshackle lot
Who could never live up to God’s standards of perfection.
We’re not worthy of a mention in the New Year Honours list
Never mind eternal life.
In this season of Lent we are more aware than ever
Of the temptations and desires that can derail our lives.
There is nothing we have done to deserve the forgiveness of God.
But the God glimpsed in the pages of the Bible
Does not rush to our rescue because he needs us or we deserve it.
The mother who runs into the burning house to snatch her daughter from the flames
Does not risk everything because she is thinking about how her child will repay her.
It may not be rational,
But in the mother’s heart burns a love
That is wilder than the flames which have gripped the house.
In the person of Jesus,
God met with the poorest people in the world,
Those who were scalded by life:
The lepers, the prostitutes, the outcasts,
The demon-possessed, the tax-collectors
The hypocrites and the helpless.
He revealed a God who
Longs to heal.
God knows we have polluted his world in every sense.
He understands our fears and shame and doubts and questions.
He knows we have an almost infinite capacity to mess up,
But he loves us.
He has been loving us from day one.
We read in the mysterious and wonderful opening chapters of Genesis that:
“the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
And the man became a living creature.”
The God who gathered us into life
Is the God who sent us His son to show the extent of his love,
And He is the God who asks us to take him at his word
And trust that He wants to be near us today.
The apostle John exclaimed in the first of his letters:
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God.”
We may have been singed by the fires of life,
Our clothes might be dirty and perhaps our hands aren’t clean,
But the God who through Jesus can be known as our Father will not turn us away.
Rather, if we’re willing to accept we need rescuing,
His Holy Spirit will sweep into our bodies and redeem our lives.
When God looks at us
He does so with the same delight as when he formed us out of the ground.
He was able to turn a mound of molecules into a being as beautiful as Eve.
And in the same way he will take our history,
Our hopes and fears,
Desires and hang-ups,
Vices and virtues
And through the power of his love
Bring us into the image of his son.
The apostle Paul wrote to the first Christians in Corinth:
“Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust,
We shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
Let us speak to the creator who will make His great dream come true:
Great God of love and justice,
Come and rescue us,
Forgive us our sins,
Embolden us with your hope,
And make us brand new.
If the shout came up the stairs
In the middle of the night:
“The house is on fire! Get out!”
We’d come pounding down the stairs,
Perhaps clutching our passport,
A photograph of our parents,
Or a grandparent’s wedding ring?
But if we arrived at our home and saw smoke and fire
Curling out of the windows,
I wonder what would send us running into the hallway of an inferno?
Perhaps the only reason to enter a burning building
Would be to save someone we love.
We would race up the stairs if we thought a
Son or daughter was there,
Trapped in the clouds of hot smoke.
We would crash into the darkness,
And hurtle through blazing doorways
And search to the point of asphyxiation
Until we had found the one we loved.
The story of Jesus is the story of such a rescue mission.
The God of the Bible sent His own Son to earth
To rescue people he loved.
In the Gospel of John we hear Jesus explain to a religious expert why he was here.
He said:
“For God so loved the world,
That he gave his only Son,
That whoever believes in him
Should not perish but have eternal life.”
There it is in black and white.
God loves us.
He does not want us to perish.
He gave us his son so that we could have
Eternal life.
He wants us to believe this and invites us to do so .
The French writer Victor Hugo said:
“The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that we are loved.”
The Jesus we encounter in the Bible tells us we are loved
By the creator of the cosmos.
This is not the affection which a child
Might have for a hamster
Or a man might have for his dog.
This is a love which compelled Jesus
To suffer crucifixion and death in order to draw us
Into the realm of eternal life.
Yes, we know that we are a ramshackle lot
Who could never live up to God’s standards of perfection.
We’re not worthy of a mention in the New Year Honours list
Never mind eternal life.
In this season of Lent we are more aware than ever
Of the temptations and desires that can derail our lives.
There is nothing we have done to deserve the forgiveness of God.
But the God glimpsed in the pages of the Bible
Does not rush to our rescue because he needs us or we deserve it.
The mother who runs into the burning house to snatch her daughter from the flames
Does not risk everything because she is thinking about how her child will repay her.
It may not be rational,
But in the mother’s heart burns a love
That is wilder than the flames which have gripped the house.
In the person of Jesus,
God met with the poorest people in the world,
Those who were scalded by life:
The lepers, the prostitutes, the outcasts,
The demon-possessed, the tax-collectors
The hypocrites and the helpless.
He revealed a God who
Longs to heal.
God knows we have polluted his world in every sense.
He understands our fears and shame and doubts and questions.
He knows we have an almost infinite capacity to mess up,
But he loves us.
He has been loving us from day one.
We read in the mysterious and wonderful opening chapters of Genesis that:
“the Lord God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life,
And the man became a living creature.”
The God who gathered us into life
Is the God who sent us His son to show the extent of his love,
And He is the God who asks us to take him at his word
And trust that He wants to be near us today.
The apostle John exclaimed in the first of his letters:
“How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God.”
We may have been singed by the fires of life,
Our clothes might be dirty and perhaps our hands aren’t clean,
But the God who through Jesus can be known as our Father will not turn us away.
Rather, if we’re willing to accept we need rescuing,
His Holy Spirit will sweep into our bodies and redeem our lives.
When God looks at us
He does so with the same delight as when he formed us out of the ground.
He was able to turn a mound of molecules into a being as beautiful as Eve.
And in the same way he will take our history,
Our hopes and fears,
Desires and hang-ups,
Vices and virtues
And through the power of his love
Bring us into the image of his son.
The apostle Paul wrote to the first Christians in Corinth:
“Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust,
We shall also bear the image of the man of heaven.”
Let us speak to the creator who will make His great dream come true:
Great God of love and justice,
Come and rescue us,
Forgive us our sins,
Embolden us with your hope,
And make us brand new.
The Big Debate May Not be the True Debate
The decision by the leaders of the three biggest parties in the UK to take part in election debates eight decades after British broadcasting began in earnest seems a little overdue and quite odd.
The oratorical tussling will be essential viewing and may shift the opinions of a few priceless handfuls of swing voters in marginal seats, but why break with tradition and stage these Prime Ministerial show-downs now?
In past years the arguments against such events were exercised more regularly than champion greyhounds.
It makes sense in the United States to have presidential debates. There, the candidates are unlikely to be household names at the start of the contest.
The debates give an obscure governor from Arkansas a crucial chance to introduce himself to homemakers in Missouri and digital entrepreneurs in Seattle in one evening.
But in the United Kingdom the men who have a shot at leading the country run at each other with a metaphorical chainsaw each week at Prime Minister’s Questions.
We already know so much about these characters that we could identify them by the undulation of their chins and the contours of their eyebrows.
Traditionalist may grumble with good reason that this TV spectacular will distract voters’ attention away from local constituency battles. We go to the polls not to elect a Prime Minister but to back the candidate of a party will seek to form a Government.
But the biggest criticism is that the debates represent a pre-devolution Britain which has vanished. Labour and the Conservatives might like to present the election as a straight choice between either party, but strategists are aware that a shoal of rivals – of which the Lib Dems are the biggest fish – now compete in the electoral pool.
Cynics would suggest the three biggest parties’ leaders have only agreed to take part so the spotlight stays on them. That may be unfair – anything which encourages people to get to the polls and use their hard-won vote deserves consideration.
But even if local debates are staged in Wales and Scotland, the showpiece-stand-offs will not represent the realties of the true UK. If anything, it could accentuate the idea that this is essentially an election about who runs England and intensify agitation for a new federal settlement.
As the Institute of Welsh Affair’s director John Osmond noted this week on his blog, one of the last times this was seriously considered was the Speaker’s Conference of 1920.
The selection of the Prime Minister – especially when at war – is of huge importance and once gloriously tangled threads of the constitution are looking frayed and tired. Perhaps the time for real innovation has come; if so, we need something more imaginative than the transformation of the general election into a version of X-Factor featuring three men in suits.
Originally a Thursday column.
The oratorical tussling will be essential viewing and may shift the opinions of a few priceless handfuls of swing voters in marginal seats, but why break with tradition and stage these Prime Ministerial show-downs now?
In past years the arguments against such events were exercised more regularly than champion greyhounds.
It makes sense in the United States to have presidential debates. There, the candidates are unlikely to be household names at the start of the contest.
The debates give an obscure governor from Arkansas a crucial chance to introduce himself to homemakers in Missouri and digital entrepreneurs in Seattle in one evening.
But in the United Kingdom the men who have a shot at leading the country run at each other with a metaphorical chainsaw each week at Prime Minister’s Questions.
We already know so much about these characters that we could identify them by the undulation of their chins and the contours of their eyebrows.
Traditionalist may grumble with good reason that this TV spectacular will distract voters’ attention away from local constituency battles. We go to the polls not to elect a Prime Minister but to back the candidate of a party will seek to form a Government.
But the biggest criticism is that the debates represent a pre-devolution Britain which has vanished. Labour and the Conservatives might like to present the election as a straight choice between either party, but strategists are aware that a shoal of rivals – of which the Lib Dems are the biggest fish – now compete in the electoral pool.
Cynics would suggest the three biggest parties’ leaders have only agreed to take part so the spotlight stays on them. That may be unfair – anything which encourages people to get to the polls and use their hard-won vote deserves consideration.
But even if local debates are staged in Wales and Scotland, the showpiece-stand-offs will not represent the realties of the true UK. If anything, it could accentuate the idea that this is essentially an election about who runs England and intensify agitation for a new federal settlement.
As the Institute of Welsh Affair’s director John Osmond noted this week on his blog, one of the last times this was seriously considered was the Speaker’s Conference of 1920.
The selection of the Prime Minister – especially when at war – is of huge importance and once gloriously tangled threads of the constitution are looking frayed and tired. Perhaps the time for real innovation has come; if so, we need something more imaginative than the transformation of the general election into a version of X-Factor featuring three men in suits.
Originally a Thursday column.
Barth on Monday
Those called together by the work of the Holy Spirit assemble at the summons of their King...
If I do not believe this here, I do not believe this at all...
Where the Bible becomes a dead book with a cross on the cover and gilt edging, the Church rule of Jesus Christ is slumbering.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.133-135
If I do not believe this here, I do not believe this at all...
Where the Bible becomes a dead book with a cross on the cover and gilt edging, the Church rule of Jesus Christ is slumbering.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.133-135
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Ratzinger on Tuesday
The meaning that sustains all being has become flesh; that is, it has entered history and become one individual in it; it is no longer simply what encompasses and sustains history but a point in it.
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.193
It is openness to the whole, to the infinite, that makes man complete.
Ibid., p.235
Joseph Ratzinger, Introduction to Christianity, p.193
It is openness to the whole, to the infinite, that makes man complete.
Ibid., p.235
Monday, March 01, 2010
Barth on Monday
We are going to meet Him from whom we come...
We must not sit around like melancholy owls, but in a certainty about our goal, which surpasses all other certainty...
What is the future bringing? Not, once more, a turning-point in history, but the revelation of that which is.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.122
We must not sit around like melancholy owls, but in a certainty about our goal, which surpasses all other certainty...
What is the future bringing? Not, once more, a turning-point in history, but the revelation of that which is.
Karl Barth, Dogmatics in Outline, p.122
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
