Instead of the club understanding of Church Jesus offered the parable of the mustard seed: “The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed that a person took and sowed in their garden. And it grew and grew and became a great tree with large branches so that the birds made nests in it.”
The power of this parable relies upon us knowing some basic botany. The mustard plant is an annual that grew wild in Palestine. Pliny, that great Roman observer, writes: “It grows entirely wild … when it has once been sown it is scarcely possible to get the place free of it.”[i] It was, in other words, a weed. It was the oxalis of the ancient world.
In the parable the person plants the mustard weed in their garden. Apart from being a stupid thing to do [think oxalis], it violated the law of diverse kinds in Leviticus 19:19. This law was designed to maintain order and separation, keeping plants in their proper place and not mixing them. Normally mustard was sown in small patches on the edge of a field. It was prohibited to plant it in a garden because it would result in mingling. By planting it in the garden, the planter makes the garden “unclean”. The mustard seed grew, and grew, and grew … as weeds do.
Jesus was inviting his hearers to imagine God’s reign to be very different from their religious club. The Jewish purity regulations were a result of needing club boundaries. All clubs need boundaries in order to create safe cultures, delineating insiders from outsiders. Jesus however was saying that God violates boundaries, violates biblical principles, disregards common botanical sense, and makes a mess of good order.
Jesus could have likened God’s reign to a cedar of Lebanon that grew tall and strong with many branches, capable of holding nests for many birds.[ii] In the great tree of the religious club all birds, read people, could find a home.
Mustard seeds don’t grow into great trees with branches. They grow into shrubs, with a maximum height of 1.2 metres. It takes a lot of digital re-imaging, or G.E., to make mustard into a large tree. Jesus was either botanically challenged or was deliberately mixing it up. The lowly, virulent, and problematic mustard can hardly be mistaken for the lofty, virtuous, and powerful cedar. Indeed his audience was probably smiling at the thought. What was Jesus trying to do in stirring his metaphors?
Jesus often did the reversal thing, trying to turn people’s thinking upside down. Consider, for example, the man beaten on the road to Jericho. The hero of the story is the unclean and despised Samaritan. The reign of God is meant to be mighty, exalted and significant, like a cedar. The mustard seed though is proverbially small, despised, and insignificant. Yet in the topsy-turvy, upside-down mind of Jesus, God is seen clearest of all in the small, despised, and insignificant.
There is disorder contained in the mustard metaphor. The reign of God is not like the Auckland Botanical Gardens were everything is carefully laid out, well tended and watered, named and admired. The reign of God is not orderly, where people all have allocated places and behave themselves. Rather the reign of God is like oxalis. It crops up all over the place, despite our best efforts to keep it out. Just when you had that patch of garden looking great, up she pops with her little yellow flowers.
It didn’t take long for the early Church to try to domesticate the breadth and wildness of God’s reign and call itself the Kingdom of God. Constantine made an empire out of it. All theistic religions have a tendency to want to own God and declare their institutions are God’s creation. Jesus in his day was trying to help his Pharisaic colleagues to broaden their thinking, see the divine in the weeds as well as the cedars, in the impure as well as the pure, and above all not to imagine that they could domesticate God.
[i] Pliny, Natural History, 29.54.170 [LCL, 529].
[ii] Ezekiel 17, 34, and Psalm 104.
10/31/2007
10/19/2007
The Morning Club
Sometimes a children’s story contains a great truth:
“Grasshopper was walking along the road. He saw a sign on the side of a tree. The sign said MORNING IS BEST. Soon Grasshopper saw another sign. It said THREE CHEERS FOR MORNING. Grasshopper saw a group of beetles. They were singing and dancing. They were carrying more signs.
“Good morning,” said Grasshopper.
“Yes,” said one of the beetles. “It is a good morning. Every morning is a good morning!” The beetle carried a sign. It said MAKE MINE MORNING.
“This is a meeting of the ‘We Love Morning Club’,” said the beetle. “Every day we get together to celebrate another bright, fresh morning. Grasshopper do you love morning?”
“Oh yes,” said Grasshopper.
“Hooray!” shouted all the beetles. “Grasshopper loves morning!”
“I knew it,” said the beetle. “I could tell by your kind face. You are a morning lover.” The beetles made Grasshopper a wreath of flowers. They gave him a sign that said MORNING IS TOPS.
“Now,” they said, “Grasshopper is in our club.”
“When does the clover sparkle with dew?” asked a beetle.
“In the morning!” cried all the other beetles.
“When is the sunshine yellow and new?” asked the beetle.
“In the morning!” cried all the other beetles. They turned somersaults and stood on their heads. They danced and sang.
“M-O-R-N-I-N-G spells morning!”
“I love afternoon too,” said Grasshopper.
The beetles stopped singing and dancing. “What did you say?” they asked.
“I said that I loved afternoon,” said Grasshopper.
All the beetles were quiet.
“And night is very nice,” said Grasshopper.
“Stupid,” said a beetle. He grabbed the wreath of flowers.
“Idiot,” said another beetle. He snatched the sign from Grasshopper.
“Anyone who loves afternoon and night can never ever be in our club!” said a third beetle.
“UP WITH MORNING!” shouted all the beetles. They waved their signs and marched away.
Grasshopper was alone. He saw the yellow sunshine. He saw the dew sparkling on the clover. And he went on down the road.”[i]
Every community places boundaries around itself. It creates a sense of identity and belonging. It delineates between insiders and outsiders. Even the most inclusive community in the world has boundaries. The art of inclusion though is to recognize that your community does not have a monopoly on truth, love, God, beauty, and knowledge, and neither does any other community; and to keep the boundaries you have as porous as possible so that the challenge and love of God may freely flow through.
The beetle club had created meaning and borders around their enjoyment of the morning. Their allegiance to their club identity blinded them to the truth that was beyond their borders.
[i] A. Lobel, Grasshopper On The Road, London : Windmill, 1979, p.8ff.
“Grasshopper was walking along the road. He saw a sign on the side of a tree. The sign said MORNING IS BEST. Soon Grasshopper saw another sign. It said THREE CHEERS FOR MORNING. Grasshopper saw a group of beetles. They were singing and dancing. They were carrying more signs.
“Good morning,” said Grasshopper.
“Yes,” said one of the beetles. “It is a good morning. Every morning is a good morning!” The beetle carried a sign. It said MAKE MINE MORNING.
“This is a meeting of the ‘We Love Morning Club’,” said the beetle. “Every day we get together to celebrate another bright, fresh morning. Grasshopper do you love morning?”
“Oh yes,” said Grasshopper.
“Hooray!” shouted all the beetles. “Grasshopper loves morning!”
“I knew it,” said the beetle. “I could tell by your kind face. You are a morning lover.” The beetles made Grasshopper a wreath of flowers. They gave him a sign that said MORNING IS TOPS.
“Now,” they said, “Grasshopper is in our club.”
“When does the clover sparkle with dew?” asked a beetle.
“In the morning!” cried all the other beetles.
“When is the sunshine yellow and new?” asked the beetle.
“In the morning!” cried all the other beetles. They turned somersaults and stood on their heads. They danced and sang.
“M-O-R-N-I-N-G spells morning!”
“I love afternoon too,” said Grasshopper.
The beetles stopped singing and dancing. “What did you say?” they asked.
“I said that I loved afternoon,” said Grasshopper.
All the beetles were quiet.
“And night is very nice,” said Grasshopper.
“Stupid,” said a beetle. He grabbed the wreath of flowers.
“Idiot,” said another beetle. He snatched the sign from Grasshopper.
“Anyone who loves afternoon and night can never ever be in our club!” said a third beetle.
“UP WITH MORNING!” shouted all the beetles. They waved their signs and marched away.
Grasshopper was alone. He saw the yellow sunshine. He saw the dew sparkling on the clover. And he went on down the road.”[i]
Every community places boundaries around itself. It creates a sense of identity and belonging. It delineates between insiders and outsiders. Even the most inclusive community in the world has boundaries. The art of inclusion though is to recognize that your community does not have a monopoly on truth, love, God, beauty, and knowledge, and neither does any other community; and to keep the boundaries you have as porous as possible so that the challenge and love of God may freely flow through.
The beetle club had created meaning and borders around their enjoyment of the morning. Their allegiance to their club identity blinded them to the truth that was beyond their borders.
[i] A. Lobel, Grasshopper On The Road, London : Windmill, 1979, p.8ff.
Question from Isabelle: Where are devils?
Dear Father Glynn,
Where are devils?
Love Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
I think devils are found in the imagination. Sometimes they are in people’s dreams. Often they pop up in story books – story books are of course imagination put into words and written on paper.
I don’t believe devils actually exist. No one has ever seen a devil. We know from history that the idea of devils has developed in stories. In some periods of history people thought they were real, and lots were afraid of them.
I don’t even believe they are in hell. I think the whole idea of an actual place called hell is highly suspect. It was thought up in the days when people believed in God living in heaven above us and the devil living in hell beneath us. Nowadays we know that we live on a round planet. Beneath us is earth and rock. Above us is sky, space, stars and other galaxies.
God is the name we give to the powerful love often seen between people who seek the best for each other. It's a love that can even heal us. People who try to destroy that love live a ‘hellish’ life. Hell is a state of mind and existence that rejects love and delights in hatred.
Kind regards,
Glynn
Where are devils?
Love Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
I think devils are found in the imagination. Sometimes they are in people’s dreams. Often they pop up in story books – story books are of course imagination put into words and written on paper.
I don’t believe devils actually exist. No one has ever seen a devil. We know from history that the idea of devils has developed in stories. In some periods of history people thought they were real, and lots were afraid of them.
I don’t even believe they are in hell. I think the whole idea of an actual place called hell is highly suspect. It was thought up in the days when people believed in God living in heaven above us and the devil living in hell beneath us. Nowadays we know that we live on a round planet. Beneath us is earth and rock. Above us is sky, space, stars and other galaxies.
God is the name we give to the powerful love often seen between people who seek the best for each other. It's a love that can even heal us. People who try to destroy that love live a ‘hellish’ life. Hell is a state of mind and existence that rejects love and delights in hatred.
Kind regards,
Glynn
10/09/2007
It’s a tough time to be a conservative.
It’s a tough time to be a conservative. Despite all that moralistic fervour, those righteous admonitions, all the pointing of the fingers at secular humanism and bankrupt liberalism, the numbers don’t look good. New Zealand is not about to become a Bible-believing nation any time soon. The crowds who swim to the latest Pentecostal preacher and get hooked also seem to tire after awhile and break free. Attendance in mainline denominations is at best static, with a few exceptions here and there. Certainly there is no second coming for biblical morality and church going conviction.
In Anglicanism the great conservative thrust over the last decade has been to claim they are the majority, they are the true stewards of biblical correctness, and any unrepentant loving gay or lesbian who has the audacity to show up in Church needs to be exorcised. Conservatives chose homosexual relationships as their line in the sand. ‘Bashing gays,’ they reasoned, ‘is sure to win us the day.’
And for a while it did look like they were winning. The Archbishop of Canterbury got confused between management and leadership, and sank into the mire of the former. The Primates took to themselves power to punish dissent, though it was never theirs to take. The Anglican Consultative Council, while showing more backbone than most, seemed to succumb to Episcopal bullying.
Even in little old NZ the conservative stench breezed in. Vicars threatened to resign because of what was happening overseas. Some bishops developed supple spines keeping those vicars in ‘the family’. Lots of consultation was called for. Not mind you with disaffected gay and lesbian Christians who were once again being clouted by bigotry, but with those poor hurt conservatives who always want religion to make them feel good. Bishops paused before ordaining anyone who was gay.
The reassuring thing however about conservatism is that given time, and enough rope, it will hang itself. Slowly and surely the Anglican world is waking up to the ugly reality of the bigotry it has been trying to accommodate.
Consider the tone of recent editions of Church Times that barometer of English purple opinion. No longer are the Americans being vilified as imperialistic innovators who take no notice of anyone else. Now, after Archbishop Rowan has finally visited them, they are being spoken of as conciliatory and reasonable.
The ludicrous situation of three African Provinces competing with each in a race to ordain the few renegade American bishops is being exposed for the sham it is. How a bishop in Pittsburgh is meant to be accountable to a Primate in Nigeria is anybody’s guess – though ‘accountable’ is not what is in mind. Power and money is.
The murderous Bishop of Harare has used the climate of anti-homosexuality to further his own ends. Despots count on the absence of backbone, and their ability to spread fear and mistrust. Hopefully the leadership and lawyers of his Province will deal to him as best they can.
Wycliffe Hall, the evangelical training college in Oxford, is also reeling from its own Machiavelli. Their principal has successfully caused the resignation of over half his staff, public condemnation from former principals, dismay from moderate evangelicals in general, and the substantial inflation of his salary package. Amongst his incredible actions is the appointment of a Vice-Principal who does not believe women should teach men! The Council to whom he is accountable are at best displaying a predictable lack of intestinal fortitude.
Maybe however the biggest atmospheric change afflicting conservatism is the slow awakening of that patient tolerant beast called Middle Anglicanism. For at the end of the day the conservatives have chosen to vilify someone who is everyone’s neighbour. And they are vilifying him or her because that neighbour has chosen to commit him or herself to another in love. ‘Neighbours’ and ‘love’ are two words at the heart of Christian faith. There is something deeply counter-cultural to Christianity in advocating the theological and political crucifixion of a neighbour who has dared to love another.
As I say, it is a tough time to be a conservative.
In Anglicanism the great conservative thrust over the last decade has been to claim they are the majority, they are the true stewards of biblical correctness, and any unrepentant loving gay or lesbian who has the audacity to show up in Church needs to be exorcised. Conservatives chose homosexual relationships as their line in the sand. ‘Bashing gays,’ they reasoned, ‘is sure to win us the day.’
And for a while it did look like they were winning. The Archbishop of Canterbury got confused between management and leadership, and sank into the mire of the former. The Primates took to themselves power to punish dissent, though it was never theirs to take. The Anglican Consultative Council, while showing more backbone than most, seemed to succumb to Episcopal bullying.
Even in little old NZ the conservative stench breezed in. Vicars threatened to resign because of what was happening overseas. Some bishops developed supple spines keeping those vicars in ‘the family’. Lots of consultation was called for. Not mind you with disaffected gay and lesbian Christians who were once again being clouted by bigotry, but with those poor hurt conservatives who always want religion to make them feel good. Bishops paused before ordaining anyone who was gay.
The reassuring thing however about conservatism is that given time, and enough rope, it will hang itself. Slowly and surely the Anglican world is waking up to the ugly reality of the bigotry it has been trying to accommodate.
Consider the tone of recent editions of Church Times that barometer of English purple opinion. No longer are the Americans being vilified as imperialistic innovators who take no notice of anyone else. Now, after Archbishop Rowan has finally visited them, they are being spoken of as conciliatory and reasonable.
The ludicrous situation of three African Provinces competing with each in a race to ordain the few renegade American bishops is being exposed for the sham it is. How a bishop in Pittsburgh is meant to be accountable to a Primate in Nigeria is anybody’s guess – though ‘accountable’ is not what is in mind. Power and money is.
The murderous Bishop of Harare has used the climate of anti-homosexuality to further his own ends. Despots count on the absence of backbone, and their ability to spread fear and mistrust. Hopefully the leadership and lawyers of his Province will deal to him as best they can.
Wycliffe Hall, the evangelical training college in Oxford, is also reeling from its own Machiavelli. Their principal has successfully caused the resignation of over half his staff, public condemnation from former principals, dismay from moderate evangelicals in general, and the substantial inflation of his salary package. Amongst his incredible actions is the appointment of a Vice-Principal who does not believe women should teach men! The Council to whom he is accountable are at best displaying a predictable lack of intestinal fortitude.
Maybe however the biggest atmospheric change afflicting conservatism is the slow awakening of that patient tolerant beast called Middle Anglicanism. For at the end of the day the conservatives have chosen to vilify someone who is everyone’s neighbour. And they are vilifying him or her because that neighbour has chosen to commit him or herself to another in love. ‘Neighbours’ and ‘love’ are two words at the heart of Christian faith. There is something deeply counter-cultural to Christianity in advocating the theological and political crucifixion of a neighbour who has dared to love another.
As I say, it is a tough time to be a conservative.
9/20/2007
An Offensive God
Drag artiste Queenie Aotearoa dances a tribute
at the death of fellow artiste Shane in St Matthew's this week.
at the death of fellow artiste Shane in St Matthew's this week.
Today we have become timid in our imaging of God. We think it is radical and risqué to even call God ‘Her’. Our images of God as loving and inclusive do not do justice to the God Jesus painted who is offensive to the keepers of the status quo, religious or secular. Indeed the concepts of God as transforming love or divine energy unless earthed in risky imagery and stories are a diluted insipid version of the offensive God Jesus was shoving into the faces
of his opponents.
We also need to rethink our vision of inclusive love - not that tolerance, justice, and understanding between peoples, races, religions, genders and orientations is an unworthy goal. Yet the vision often has an underlying premise of us the powerful letting the powerless in, or us the powerless wanting the powerful to invite us in. To use the image of an all-inclusive dining table with us all sitting around together, we need to ask where this table is located, and who has set the menu.
Or put another way, where and with whom is this offensive God? Remember the parable of the lost sheep, and the one after it with God as a sweeping woman. This God leaves the 99 well-feed and respectable church and business leaders, and goes AWOL. This God of Jesus doesn’t do normal, or expected, or civilised.
This God could be found on the banks of the Brisbane River three weeks ago when a group of gay friends grieving a young man’s death threw high heels into the water. God threw one of Hers in too.
This God was blowing raspberries at the back of a meeting of the ruling council of the Northern Irish Free Presbyterian Church when they ousted this week their founder Ian Paisley for his tolerance of Gay Pride marches. She also danced for joy that such a dogged hardliner as Paisley could change, albeit a little.
Will we turn and face this offensive God overcoming the objections of grumblers, and the grumbling inside ourselves?
9/13/2007
Hell Just Froze Over!
Sometimes a piece of news really stuns you. The following article by Tony Grew [pinknews.co.uk] on Sept 10th had that effect on me. I have reproduced the first part of it below. It is also a wonderfully hopeful article. If such a persistent and vicious hardliner as Ian Paisley can show tolerance then anything might be possible.
Ian Paisley, the First Minister of Northern Ireland, is to step down from the leadership of a church he founded 56 years ago.The veteran politician has come under pressure from members of the Free Presbyterian Church over gay rights issues. The fundamentalist Christian sect has been outraged that Mr Paisley and other members of his Democratic Unionist Party have ignored their objections to government financial support for Pride marches. Mr Paisley, 81, became the head of Northern Ireland’s devolved administration in May, after decades of opposition to power-sharing with the province’s minority Catholic population. Before the administration had taken office a Free Presbyterian preacher demanded that a new government minister block a grant to Pride, calling it a "celebration of sodomy."
9/01/2007
Families, Unity, and Growing Up
One of the pervasive metaphors in the Anglican Church is that of a diocesan family with a daddy in charge. Occasionally these days there is a mummy in charge, but not at present in this country.
I have been at a national Anglican three-day conference on hermeneutics. I am suspicious that the family metaphor is driving the agenda. There seems to be a desire that we discover and name [via study of the Bible] our familial connections, and find some central points of agreement while acknowledging our many peripheral points of disagreement. Unity then lives on despite the diversity. It is a grand modernist scheme that has prevailed in Anglicanism for many decades.
As one born within the post-modern meta-narrative my problem with this scheme is that the children have grown up. Their relationship to daddy and each other has changed. They don’t need the daddy like they did before. They don’t heed the daddy like they did before. Daddy is welcome to his views, but they don’t have to coincide with theirs. Daddy hasn’t the power he used to. Some children regress into modernism, and some daddies encourage it. But more and more we are all growing up, accepting that we live in a plural world and joining together periodically for various issues.
Likewise the adult children now have an adult relationship with their siblings. Sometimes they get on well, finding commonalities and supporting each other. Sometimes they don’t, travelling different paths and finding very little in common. The latter experience is not a sign of failure or of dysfunction. Indeed it can be a sign of maturity.
I have mostly grown beyond the desire to try and convert evangelical Anglicans to my views on life, faith, and homosexuality. I recognize they have chosen a different path. I will publicly state my views and expect them to state theirs. If a daddy bishop aligns with an opposite viewpoint to me then of course I will publicly disagree. But I won’t expect to mute the bishop, nor do I expect him to try to mute me.
The phrase “the Anglican view” is so broad on many issues as to be almost meaningless. It makes as about as much sense as saying “a Christian view” or a “New Zealand view”. In the postmodern world we know that all views are conditionally shaped and relative, even if we believe in absolute truths and eschatological justification.
I’ve heard what I’m articulating described as ‘each sitting in our small corners’. Well in my schema there are no corners. We are part of an interconnected global network with free and fast information. We are making choices all the time. We are joining hands with friends and yesterday’s enemies on today’s issue, and finding a different set of hands to bond with on tomorrow’s. We are trying to follow the impulses of the living Christ in building a world of justice, joy, and peace.
Family reunions are okay, especially when family trusts and the like have to be dealt with. It’s good to catch up with each other. But we need to be cautious about trying to create or present ourselves as a unified family when it is nobody’s reality.
So let’s get on with the justice, joy, and peace, wherever we are.
I have been at a national Anglican three-day conference on hermeneutics. I am suspicious that the family metaphor is driving the agenda. There seems to be a desire that we discover and name [via study of the Bible] our familial connections, and find some central points of agreement while acknowledging our many peripheral points of disagreement. Unity then lives on despite the diversity. It is a grand modernist scheme that has prevailed in Anglicanism for many decades.
As one born within the post-modern meta-narrative my problem with this scheme is that the children have grown up. Their relationship to daddy and each other has changed. They don’t need the daddy like they did before. They don’t heed the daddy like they did before. Daddy is welcome to his views, but they don’t have to coincide with theirs. Daddy hasn’t the power he used to. Some children regress into modernism, and some daddies encourage it. But more and more we are all growing up, accepting that we live in a plural world and joining together periodically for various issues.
Likewise the adult children now have an adult relationship with their siblings. Sometimes they get on well, finding commonalities and supporting each other. Sometimes they don’t, travelling different paths and finding very little in common. The latter experience is not a sign of failure or of dysfunction. Indeed it can be a sign of maturity.
I have mostly grown beyond the desire to try and convert evangelical Anglicans to my views on life, faith, and homosexuality. I recognize they have chosen a different path. I will publicly state my views and expect them to state theirs. If a daddy bishop aligns with an opposite viewpoint to me then of course I will publicly disagree. But I won’t expect to mute the bishop, nor do I expect him to try to mute me.
The phrase “the Anglican view” is so broad on many issues as to be almost meaningless. It makes as about as much sense as saying “a Christian view” or a “New Zealand view”. In the postmodern world we know that all views are conditionally shaped and relative, even if we believe in absolute truths and eschatological justification.
I’ve heard what I’m articulating described as ‘each sitting in our small corners’. Well in my schema there are no corners. We are part of an interconnected global network with free and fast information. We are making choices all the time. We are joining hands with friends and yesterday’s enemies on today’s issue, and finding a different set of hands to bond with on tomorrow’s. We are trying to follow the impulses of the living Christ in building a world of justice, joy, and peace.
Family reunions are okay, especially when family trusts and the like have to be dealt with. It’s good to catch up with each other. But we need to be cautious about trying to create or present ourselves as a unified family when it is nobody’s reality.
So let’s get on with the justice, joy, and peace, wherever we are.
8/31/2007
Does God Change?
Dear Rev Cardy,
I'm sure you’re aware that God does not change but stays the same- yesterday, today and forever. God does not change, we change.
Tom [UK]
Dear Tom,
One thought you might like to consider: when two people are in love, and grow in love, the love will inevitably change them. You don’t stay the same when you are loved. If God and I are ‘lovers’ is it not possible that not only am I changed by the relationship but also God?
Glynn
I'm sure you’re aware that God does not change but stays the same- yesterday, today and forever. God does not change, we change.
Tom [UK]
Dear Tom,
One thought you might like to consider: when two people are in love, and grow in love, the love will inevitably change them. You don’t stay the same when you are loved. If God and I are ‘lovers’ is it not possible that not only am I changed by the relationship but also God?
Glynn
8/23/2007
Harry Potter and Satanism
The following is an exchange with a person concerned about Harry Potter and Satanism. She inserts a lengthy dated quote from a pastor opposed to Harry Potter.
In the light of your recent sermon posted on the website about your lack of belief in Satan, I wonder what you make of this? Thanks, Rose.
FOR YOUR PRAYERFUL CONSIDERATION
With the latest mania of Harry Potter, we all need to be warned about the last days of witchcraft mention in 1 Tim 4:1. Christian parents or otherwise that let their children read and watch this garbage cannot blame them if they end up in the occult. This is the most evil thing I have laid my eyes on in 10 years... And no one seems to understand its threat. The Harry Potter books are THE NUMBER ONE selling children’s books in the nation today. Harry Potter is the creation of a former UK English teacher who promotes witchcraft and Satanism. Harry is a 13 year old wizard. Her creation openly blasphemes Jesus and God and promotes sorcery, seeking revenge upon anyone who upsets them by giving you examples of spells, rituals, and demonic powers. Let me give you a few quotes from some of the influenced readers themselves: "The Harry Potter books are cool, 'cause they teach you all about magic and how you can use it to control people and get revenge on your enemies," said Hartland, WI, 10 year old Craig Nowell, a recent convert to the New Satanic Order Of The Black Circle. "I want to learn the Cruciatus Curse, to make my muggle science teacher suffer for giving me a D." [A 'muggle' is an unbeliever of magic.] Or how about the REALLY young and innocent impressionable mind of a 6 year old when asked about her favourite character: "Hermione is my favourite, because she's smart and has a kitty," said 6 year old Jessica Lehman of Easley, SC. "Jesus died because He was weak and stupid." DOES THIS GET YOUR ATTENTION!! If not, how about a quote from a High Priest of Satanism: "Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause," said High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan in Salem, MA. [Since 1995, open applicants to Satan worship has increased from around 100,000 to now...14 MILLION children and young adults!] Still not convinced? I will leave you with something to let you make up your own mind. A quote from the author herself, J. K.Rowling, describing the objections of Christian reviewers to her writings: "I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling told a London Times reporter in a July 17 interview. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son Of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, ...while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."
Hi Rose,
I read the material above as you requested. Frankly I am very suspicious of the source. The author does not give specific references for his J.K. Rowling quote. Searching the net there is only one July 17th Times article on Harry Potter and it’s from 2005 and the quote above is not in it.
My family and I have read all the Harry Potter books and thoroughly enjoyed them. They promote values of loyalty, friendship, telling the truth, and breaking the rules for a greater good. I think these are biblical values. The books are set in a fantasy world of wizards and spells. There is no mention of Satan, the Devil, Jesus or God. Fantasy is a well-known genre that has wide popularity today. No doubt some will try to understand the books in a literal manner and indulge in potentially harmful practices like Satanism. To ban Harry Potter [or some similar draconian option] makes as much sense as banning the Bible because it promotes sexism, slavery, and homophobia.
Kind regards,
Glynn
In the light of your recent sermon posted on the website about your lack of belief in Satan, I wonder what you make of this? Thanks, Rose.
FOR YOUR PRAYERFUL CONSIDERATION
With the latest mania of Harry Potter, we all need to be warned about the last days of witchcraft mention in 1 Tim 4:1. Christian parents or otherwise that let their children read and watch this garbage cannot blame them if they end up in the occult. This is the most evil thing I have laid my eyes on in 10 years... And no one seems to understand its threat. The Harry Potter books are THE NUMBER ONE selling children’s books in the nation today. Harry Potter is the creation of a former UK English teacher who promotes witchcraft and Satanism. Harry is a 13 year old wizard. Her creation openly blasphemes Jesus and God and promotes sorcery, seeking revenge upon anyone who upsets them by giving you examples of spells, rituals, and demonic powers. Let me give you a few quotes from some of the influenced readers themselves: "The Harry Potter books are cool, 'cause they teach you all about magic and how you can use it to control people and get revenge on your enemies," said Hartland, WI, 10 year old Craig Nowell, a recent convert to the New Satanic Order Of The Black Circle. "I want to learn the Cruciatus Curse, to make my muggle science teacher suffer for giving me a D." [A 'muggle' is an unbeliever of magic.] Or how about the REALLY young and innocent impressionable mind of a 6 year old when asked about her favourite character: "Hermione is my favourite, because she's smart and has a kitty," said 6 year old Jessica Lehman of Easley, SC. "Jesus died because He was weak and stupid." DOES THIS GET YOUR ATTENTION!! If not, how about a quote from a High Priest of Satanism: "Harry is an absolute godsend to our cause," said High Priest Egan of the First Church of Satan in Salem, MA. [Since 1995, open applicants to Satan worship has increased from around 100,000 to now...14 MILLION children and young adults!] Still not convinced? I will leave you with something to let you make up your own mind. A quote from the author herself, J. K.Rowling, describing the objections of Christian reviewers to her writings: "I think it's absolute rubbish to protest children's books on the grounds that they are luring children to Satan," Rowling told a London Times reporter in a July 17 interview. "People should be praising them for that! These books guide children to an understanding that the weak, idiotic Son Of God is a living hoax who will be humiliated when the rain of fire comes, ...while we, his faithful servants, laugh and cavort in victory."
Hi Rose,
I read the material above as you requested. Frankly I am very suspicious of the source. The author does not give specific references for his J.K. Rowling quote. Searching the net there is only one July 17th Times article on Harry Potter and it’s from 2005 and the quote above is not in it.
My family and I have read all the Harry Potter books and thoroughly enjoyed them. They promote values of loyalty, friendship, telling the truth, and breaking the rules for a greater good. I think these are biblical values. The books are set in a fantasy world of wizards and spells. There is no mention of Satan, the Devil, Jesus or God. Fantasy is a well-known genre that has wide popularity today. No doubt some will try to understand the books in a literal manner and indulge in potentially harmful practices like Satanism. To ban Harry Potter [or some similar draconian option] makes as much sense as banning the Bible because it promotes sexism, slavery, and homophobia.
Kind regards,
Glynn
8/15/2007
Questions from Isabelle - why is God there?
Dear Father Glynn,
Why is God there?
Love Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
I think we’ve talked earlier about the location of God – the ‘where’ question. We talked about God not just being ‘there’ but also ‘here’, and ‘in here’ and ‘over there’ and ‘far far away’. Again if we think of God like love there is no limit to where love might go or be.
But I think your question this time hinges on the word ‘why’. ‘Why does God exist?’ or, in my language, ‘Why does Love exist?’ There are a range of possible answers. Maybe it’s because we need God/Love. Maybe it’s because God/Love needs us. Maybe it’s because God/Love has always been and the real question is why we exist. Maybe it’s because loving and living and hoping and dreaming are knitted together and can’t be unraveled. Just like God and us.
Here’s hoping,
Glynn
Why is God there?
Love Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
I think we’ve talked earlier about the location of God – the ‘where’ question. We talked about God not just being ‘there’ but also ‘here’, and ‘in here’ and ‘over there’ and ‘far far away’. Again if we think of God like love there is no limit to where love might go or be.
But I think your question this time hinges on the word ‘why’. ‘Why does God exist?’ or, in my language, ‘Why does Love exist?’ There are a range of possible answers. Maybe it’s because we need God/Love. Maybe it’s because God/Love needs us. Maybe it’s because God/Love has always been and the real question is why we exist. Maybe it’s because loving and living and hoping and dreaming are knitted together and can’t be unraveled. Just like God and us.
Here’s hoping,
Glynn
8/14/2007
Life in the City - Known By Name
I am slowly getting to know my downtown neighbourhood and the patterns of those who live and work here.
As I habitually look at people’s faces, rather than the pavement or shop windows, I’ve noticed that I’m beginning to recognise my fellow inhabitants. There is that young Asian woman with the bright orange handbag. There’s the old guy who has probably spent the night in a bus shelter. There’s the bank employee who goes to the same coffee shop I usually frequent.
Auckland has some 1.5 million people. Downtown, as you might expect, is the most densely populated part of the city. Some 5,000 people live within 300 metres of the church. What I didn’t expect was to begin to recognise people, like you would at a village store.
There is some impressive community-builders downtown. Like the McGregor Brothers café in Wellesley Street. James and Tom offer a good product, and serve it with grace and finesse. Yet other cafés and restaurants do the same. The difference is they make the effort to learn their customers' names. When you consider that from 7 a.m. on there is a queue of coffee junkies lining up for a pre-work fix, learning names is no small feat.
Similarly there is the Tiki Boy café on Ponsonby Road. As I walk in the door there is always a holler: “Hiya Father Glynn”. Preston tells me that if he has served a person three coffees and doesn’t know their name he is failing in his job. Jene and Preston have also created their own café ethos. It’s a fun, joking, clowning atmosphere. While the McGregors offer fine china, the Tiki Boys offer stunts on bikes.
What I’ve noticed is that I will walk past, and drive past, other cafés that actually have better coffee and food in order to go somewhere where I’m known by name. And its not just where I am known but its where others names are announced too, and relationship encouraged. Its what in times past a local village pub might have offered. Or a church.
As I habitually look at people’s faces, rather than the pavement or shop windows, I’ve noticed that I’m beginning to recognise my fellow inhabitants. There is that young Asian woman with the bright orange handbag. There’s the old guy who has probably spent the night in a bus shelter. There’s the bank employee who goes to the same coffee shop I usually frequent.
Auckland has some 1.5 million people. Downtown, as you might expect, is the most densely populated part of the city. Some 5,000 people live within 300 metres of the church. What I didn’t expect was to begin to recognise people, like you would at a village store.
There is some impressive community-builders downtown. Like the McGregor Brothers café in Wellesley Street. James and Tom offer a good product, and serve it with grace and finesse. Yet other cafés and restaurants do the same. The difference is they make the effort to learn their customers' names. When you consider that from 7 a.m. on there is a queue of coffee junkies lining up for a pre-work fix, learning names is no small feat.
Similarly there is the Tiki Boy café on Ponsonby Road. As I walk in the door there is always a holler: “Hiya Father Glynn”. Preston tells me that if he has served a person three coffees and doesn’t know their name he is failing in his job. Jene and Preston have also created their own café ethos. It’s a fun, joking, clowning atmosphere. While the McGregors offer fine china, the Tiki Boys offer stunts on bikes.
What I’ve noticed is that I will walk past, and drive past, other cafés that actually have better coffee and food in order to go somewhere where I’m known by name. And its not just where I am known but its where others names are announced too, and relationship encouraged. Its what in times past a local village pub might have offered. Or a church.
7/26/2007
The Basis of New Zealand Anglican
When the Archbishop of Uganda recently said that the basis of his Church was the authority of scripture, the seeds of the martyrs, and the historic episcopate I was struck by how foreign it all sounded. I think the Church in New Zealand has been deeply influenced by an egalitarianism that is wary of the consolidation of hierarchical power. One of the gifts, for example, I think the evangelical movement has given many of us is this sense of egalitarian, priesthood of all believers, unmediated personal relationship with God. Secondly, this Church has been deeply influenced by the spirituality of the tangata whenua [i.e. Maori], the earth on which we stand, and the struggles for justice around land and culture. The third basis I would say is innovation. It’s the make-do, no.8 fencing wire, create-our-own-solutions approach. We bring together our tradition, our scripture and hermeneutics, our peoples and our compassion and we make solutions. Sometimes of course we get it wrong – but more often than not I think we have got it right.
7/25/2007
A short history of Satan - Part 1
Satan hasn’t always been about. He seems to have popped up around the 6th century BCE. In the Book of Numbers and Job Satan appears, not as an evil seducer, but as one of God’s obedient servants – an angel who has an adversarial role. Note the Satan was a role.
As a literary device Satan’s presence in a narrative could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Take the story of Balaam – a man who had decided to go where God had ordered him not. Balaam saddled his ass and set off, but in Numbers 22:22 “God’s anger was kindled... and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his Satan” – i.e. as his adversary or obstructer. In the Book of Job Satan likewise has this adversarial role – with God authorizing Satan’s testing of Job.
However, around the same time as Job was written [550 BCE], other Biblical writers began to use the concept of Satan to explain division in Israel. 1st Chronicles suggests that a supernatural foe had managed to infiltrate the House of David and lead the King into sin.[i] Zechariah depicted the Satan inciting factions among the people. These writers paint the Satan as sinister and the role begins to change: from Satan as God’s agent to Satan as God’s opponent.
Four centuries later, 168 BCE, internal conflicts within Israel are even more acute. The problem was how to accommodate the cultural and religious traditions of foreigners who now lived in Israel. Some promoted tolerance and integration, others the opposite. Following the Maccabean Revolt, when foreigners were expelled, the internal divisions remained extreme. Separatist groups emerged who used the concept of Satan to demonise their Jewish opponents. Satan was not just the enemy without [foreigners] but also the enemy within [fellow Jews]. These separatist groups also constructed stories of Satan’s origin – one of the more common ones being that he was a princely angel who through lust or arrogance fell from grace.
Of course other Jewish writers tried to stem the tide of racist and religious xenophobia. Daniel, for example, while concerned about ethnic identity never uses Satan language to demonise his opponents.
[i] I Chronicles 21:1.
As a literary device Satan’s presence in a narrative could help account for unexpected obstacles or reversals of fortune. Take the story of Balaam – a man who had decided to go where God had ordered him not. Balaam saddled his ass and set off, but in Numbers 22:22 “God’s anger was kindled... and the angel of the Lord took his stand in the road as his Satan” – i.e. as his adversary or obstructer. In the Book of Job Satan likewise has this adversarial role – with God authorizing Satan’s testing of Job.
However, around the same time as Job was written [550 BCE], other Biblical writers began to use the concept of Satan to explain division in Israel. 1st Chronicles suggests that a supernatural foe had managed to infiltrate the House of David and lead the King into sin.[i] Zechariah depicted the Satan inciting factions among the people. These writers paint the Satan as sinister and the role begins to change: from Satan as God’s agent to Satan as God’s opponent.
Four centuries later, 168 BCE, internal conflicts within Israel are even more acute. The problem was how to accommodate the cultural and religious traditions of foreigners who now lived in Israel. Some promoted tolerance and integration, others the opposite. Following the Maccabean Revolt, when foreigners were expelled, the internal divisions remained extreme. Separatist groups emerged who used the concept of Satan to demonise their Jewish opponents. Satan was not just the enemy without [foreigners] but also the enemy within [fellow Jews]. These separatist groups also constructed stories of Satan’s origin – one of the more common ones being that he was a princely angel who through lust or arrogance fell from grace.
Of course other Jewish writers tried to stem the tide of racist and religious xenophobia. Daniel, for example, while concerned about ethnic identity never uses Satan language to demonise his opponents.
[i] I Chronicles 21:1.
7/17/2007
In answer to Tim - Devil contd
Tim has written a comment following the post regarding Isabelle's question about the Devil. This is my response:
Dear Tim,
Sometimes it is difficult to know where to start a conversation when two people are approaching the same subject so differently. It is always tempting to say “I’m right and you’re wrong”, but that doesn’t assist mutual understanding.
I’m reminded of a story about a young man coming to a well known spiritual teacher. This young man knew his Bible. He not only could quote it, he followed all its commandments. Yet the young man was still not happy. The teacher listened patiently and then, guessing that the young man had considerable wealth, told him to cash it all up and give the money to the poor. The teacher’s advice wasn’t in the young man’s Bible! Yet it was where the young man would find happiness if only he could thwart his love of money.
Tim, you state that the Bible is a book from God. I would say that it is a book that points us to God. For God’s wisdom takes different forms and shapes depending on circumstances and culture - just as it did with the rich young man. It is not the words of the Bible that we are to worship, follow, and obey. It is God, whom the Bible points to that we are to worship, follow, and obey.
You go on to infer that my dismissal of a literal devil is proof that my understanding comes from the devil. I think you need to be careful in labelling the arguments of your critics as from the devil. It is unfortunately a way, well-attested to in history, of plugging your ears to truth other than your own.
There are a number of things in the Bible that are simply not true. The Bible taken literally says, for example, that woman was made from a man’s rib, and that women need to keep silent in church. The Bible contains dietary prohibitions regarding pork, shellfish, and the like. The Bible has God incinerating people from the skies, usually the author’s opponents. Every Christian will work out what parts of the Bible they will adhere to and what they will overlook or dismiss; what bits they will ascribe to the culture and thought forms of the authors and editors and what bits are timelessly relevant. To literally adhere to every word of the Bible would lock you into the 2nd century world of when the last epistle was written, and therefore deny the existent and power of God in the last 18 centuries.
Tim, I would also caution you about assuming whose names are in the ‘Book of Life’. You assume that Isabelle’s isn’t. Whatever you believe about judgement, the Christian tradition is very clear about who is the judge – and it’s not you, or me.
If you wish to read further about the devil can I commend to you Elaine Pagel’s book The Origin of Satan. It traces the history of the Satan/devil idea through antiquity, the biblical books, and into church history. It is a sobering read. Demonizing one’s opponents, other Christians, and Jews, was a precursor to inflicting pain and death. It is a dangerous path and does not lead to life.
Peace,
Glynn
Dear Tim,
Sometimes it is difficult to know where to start a conversation when two people are approaching the same subject so differently. It is always tempting to say “I’m right and you’re wrong”, but that doesn’t assist mutual understanding.
I’m reminded of a story about a young man coming to a well known spiritual teacher. This young man knew his Bible. He not only could quote it, he followed all its commandments. Yet the young man was still not happy. The teacher listened patiently and then, guessing that the young man had considerable wealth, told him to cash it all up and give the money to the poor. The teacher’s advice wasn’t in the young man’s Bible! Yet it was where the young man would find happiness if only he could thwart his love of money.
Tim, you state that the Bible is a book from God. I would say that it is a book that points us to God. For God’s wisdom takes different forms and shapes depending on circumstances and culture - just as it did with the rich young man. It is not the words of the Bible that we are to worship, follow, and obey. It is God, whom the Bible points to that we are to worship, follow, and obey.
You go on to infer that my dismissal of a literal devil is proof that my understanding comes from the devil. I think you need to be careful in labelling the arguments of your critics as from the devil. It is unfortunately a way, well-attested to in history, of plugging your ears to truth other than your own.
There are a number of things in the Bible that are simply not true. The Bible taken literally says, for example, that woman was made from a man’s rib, and that women need to keep silent in church. The Bible contains dietary prohibitions regarding pork, shellfish, and the like. The Bible has God incinerating people from the skies, usually the author’s opponents. Every Christian will work out what parts of the Bible they will adhere to and what they will overlook or dismiss; what bits they will ascribe to the culture and thought forms of the authors and editors and what bits are timelessly relevant. To literally adhere to every word of the Bible would lock you into the 2nd century world of when the last epistle was written, and therefore deny the existent and power of God in the last 18 centuries.
Tim, I would also caution you about assuming whose names are in the ‘Book of Life’. You assume that Isabelle’s isn’t. Whatever you believe about judgement, the Christian tradition is very clear about who is the judge – and it’s not you, or me.
If you wish to read further about the devil can I commend to you Elaine Pagel’s book The Origin of Satan. It traces the history of the Satan/devil idea through antiquity, the biblical books, and into church history. It is a sobering read. Demonizing one’s opponents, other Christians, and Jews, was a precursor to inflicting pain and death. It is a dangerous path and does not lead to life.
Peace,
Glynn
7/11/2007
Questions from Isabelle - Devil stuff
Dear Revd Glynn,
What are devils? And what do devils do? What do devils eat? Do devils babies come from eggs or do they not?
Your Friend
Isabelle.
From Mum:
P.S. Isabelle had a dress-up day at school today, and one of her friends came as a devil. Hence the questions.
Dear Isabelle,
There has always been goodness in the world, and there’s always been evil. Usually when we think about evil we think about a really bad person who might have, for example, killed or hurt a lot of people. But sometimes evil is bigger than just one person or group of people. We call that an evil system. About 65 years ago the Jewish people in Europe were nearly all killed – some 6 million people died. It happened in Germany. While there were a few evil people who thought up this horrific idea, lots of ordinary Germans were involved in it coming about. The evil was bigger than the people involved.
Back in the time the Bible was written some people talked about this idea of an evil system by making an imaginary creature to symbolize it. So like Ronald McDonald symbolizes McDonald hamburgers, the devil symbolizes evil. And like Ronald is just an actor dressing up [there is no real person called Ronald McDonald], so there is no real person or being called the devil.
However we humans always like dressing up and having fun. And dressing up as the bad guy is particularly fun. Our imagination has dressed devils in red, with horns on top, a tail behind, and a pitchfork in hand. At parties we go around and mischievously prod people with the pitchfork! Devils at parties eat what everyone else eats – though they usually have pepperoni and barbeque sauce on their pizza! I haven’t heard about them having babies – they’d probably have to grow up first.
Evil of course is deadly serious, and devils you meet at parties can be seriously funny. There comes a problem when the two are mixed together. If a person who has done evil acts starts being called a devil then people can start treating him or her as less than human. It is very dangerous to our soul, and to the safety of all, to start treating anybody as less than human.
Kind regards,
Glynn
What are devils? And what do devils do? What do devils eat? Do devils babies come from eggs or do they not?
Your Friend
Isabelle.
From Mum:
P.S. Isabelle had a dress-up day at school today, and one of her friends came as a devil. Hence the questions.
Dear Isabelle,
There has always been goodness in the world, and there’s always been evil. Usually when we think about evil we think about a really bad person who might have, for example, killed or hurt a lot of people. But sometimes evil is bigger than just one person or group of people. We call that an evil system. About 65 years ago the Jewish people in Europe were nearly all killed – some 6 million people died. It happened in Germany. While there were a few evil people who thought up this horrific idea, lots of ordinary Germans were involved in it coming about. The evil was bigger than the people involved.
Back in the time the Bible was written some people talked about this idea of an evil system by making an imaginary creature to symbolize it. So like Ronald McDonald symbolizes McDonald hamburgers, the devil symbolizes evil. And like Ronald is just an actor dressing up [there is no real person called Ronald McDonald], so there is no real person or being called the devil.
However we humans always like dressing up and having fun. And dressing up as the bad guy is particularly fun. Our imagination has dressed devils in red, with horns on top, a tail behind, and a pitchfork in hand. At parties we go around and mischievously prod people with the pitchfork! Devils at parties eat what everyone else eats – though they usually have pepperoni and barbeque sauce on their pizza! I haven’t heard about them having babies – they’d probably have to grow up first.
Evil of course is deadly serious, and devils you meet at parties can be seriously funny. There comes a problem when the two are mixed together. If a person who has done evil acts starts being called a devil then people can start treating him or her as less than human. It is very dangerous to our soul, and to the safety of all, to start treating anybody as less than human.
Kind regards,
Glynn
7/10/2007
Questions from Isabelle - Why is God called God?
Dear Revd Glynn,
Why is God called God, if God is love?
From Isabelle.
With a mum postscript:
P.S. Isabelle heard me on the computer, and this was a bit muddled with sleepiness. I think the translation is "Why is God not called love, instead of God, if God means love?" Confused? I am!
Dear Isabelle,
I love your questions!
Words called nouns name an object that we can see – like t-r-e-e names that thing with leaves and branches outside my window. The word G-o-d though names something we can’t see. It names a spiritual power that flows through people’s lives. That power is within, beyond, and between us. It is something we experience, like feelings, but can’t be proved scientifically.
Christians believe that the main feeling and evidence of that spiritual power is love. Sometimes we might meet a person who is so full of goodness that it seems that while she or he is with us that spiritual power called God is with us. This was the experience of people who knew Jesus. He was stuffed full of God.
Some people want to call that spiritual power a ‘Him’ or a ‘Lord’. They make G-o-d into a noun. I prefer to think of G-o-d as a verb: a flowing, moving, loving force. Sort of like the power that lights up the bulb rather than the light bulb itself.
Kind regards,
Glynn
Why is God called God, if God is love?
From Isabelle.
With a mum postscript:
P.S. Isabelle heard me on the computer, and this was a bit muddled with sleepiness. I think the translation is "Why is God not called love, instead of God, if God means love?" Confused? I am!
Dear Isabelle,
I love your questions!
Words called nouns name an object that we can see – like t-r-e-e names that thing with leaves and branches outside my window. The word G-o-d though names something we can’t see. It names a spiritual power that flows through people’s lives. That power is within, beyond, and between us. It is something we experience, like feelings, but can’t be proved scientifically.
Christians believe that the main feeling and evidence of that spiritual power is love. Sometimes we might meet a person who is so full of goodness that it seems that while she or he is with us that spiritual power called God is with us. This was the experience of people who knew Jesus. He was stuffed full of God.
Some people want to call that spiritual power a ‘Him’ or a ‘Lord’. They make G-o-d into a noun. I prefer to think of G-o-d as a verb: a flowing, moving, loving force. Sort of like the power that lights up the bulb rather than the light bulb itself.
Kind regards,
Glynn
7/05/2007
Questions from Isabelle - what does God do?
Dear Revd Glynn,
What does God do?
From Isabelle
Dear Isabelle,
As you probably guessed by now I would put the word ‘love’ into the question instead of the word ‘God’. So the question would read ‘What does love do?”
Here’s a little list that is by no means complete:
1. Love tucks me into bed at night, listens to the good and bad things about my day, and gives me a kiss goodnight
2. Love encourages me to think about what is good for others. What does my brother/sister need, and how can I help?
3. Love is the joy I feel when playing in piles of autumn leaves, throwing snowballs, making sand sculptures, or running into the sea.
4. Love is joined to wonder – that feeling I get when starring at the stars on a cloudless night.
Another way of saying all the above is that God comforts and encourages us; God urges us to think about the needs of others; God joins us as we play; and God excites us in wonder.
Of course, particularly with no. 1, God has the human face and heart of your mum or dad.
Kind regards,
Glynn
What does God do?
From Isabelle
Dear Isabelle,
As you probably guessed by now I would put the word ‘love’ into the question instead of the word ‘God’. So the question would read ‘What does love do?”
Here’s a little list that is by no means complete:
1. Love tucks me into bed at night, listens to the good and bad things about my day, and gives me a kiss goodnight
2. Love encourages me to think about what is good for others. What does my brother/sister need, and how can I help?
3. Love is the joy I feel when playing in piles of autumn leaves, throwing snowballs, making sand sculptures, or running into the sea.
4. Love is joined to wonder – that feeling I get when starring at the stars on a cloudless night.
Another way of saying all the above is that God comforts and encourages us; God urges us to think about the needs of others; God joins us as we play; and God excites us in wonder.
Of course, particularly with no. 1, God has the human face and heart of your mum or dad.
Kind regards,
Glynn
6/28/2007
Questions from Isabelle - how does God make water?
Dear Revd Glynn,
How does God make water?
From Isabelle
This letter from Isabelle contained a postscript from her mum:
P.S. We have tried to explain the scientific theory, with atoms, molecules, electrons and things sticking together (like magnets!), but we wish Isabelle to explore other ideas as well. She has a very inquisitive mind and is always asking rather searching questions. We would appreciate it immensely if you are able to reply to this email, and no doubt future ones.
Dear Isabelle,
There are some things in this world that are made – like biscuits and television – and some things that just are there – like rain and ponies. Science can tell us what rain is made up of – all those molecules and things – and how ponies are born from their mothers, but science can’t really tell us how they are made. It’s not like someone sat down and designed and drew rain and ponies, and then made them. Some people when they don’t have an explanation from science say God made them. Well, God is the power of love that flows through the universe. God is not a Santa who sits in a workshop and designs and builds things. So the short answer to your question is that God didn’t make water – just like how love doesn’t make water.
Kind regards,
Glynn
How does God make water?
From Isabelle
This letter from Isabelle contained a postscript from her mum:
P.S. We have tried to explain the scientific theory, with atoms, molecules, electrons and things sticking together (like magnets!), but we wish Isabelle to explore other ideas as well. She has a very inquisitive mind and is always asking rather searching questions. We would appreciate it immensely if you are able to reply to this email, and no doubt future ones.
Dear Isabelle,
There are some things in this world that are made – like biscuits and television – and some things that just are there – like rain and ponies. Science can tell us what rain is made up of – all those molecules and things – and how ponies are born from their mothers, but science can’t really tell us how they are made. It’s not like someone sat down and designed and drew rain and ponies, and then made them. Some people when they don’t have an explanation from science say God made them. Well, God is the power of love that flows through the universe. God is not a Santa who sits in a workshop and designs and builds things. So the short answer to your question is that God didn’t make water – just like how love doesn’t make water.
Kind regards,
Glynn
6/26/2007
Go to Hell, straight to Hell
I was at breakfast with some friends when I was asked about hell. Not the pizza company that bears the name, but the celestial Dante version.
I told them the story of an Australian friend who in the rarified air of Sydney Anglican thelogical debates had to bite his tongue and quell his urge to either laugh or cry when listening to hellish debates. On one side were the snuff brigade - instant incineration. The snuffers were the 'liberals'. On the other side were the spit roasters - continual torment. They were the 'conservatives'.
My breakfast companions, being well-travelled, also had horror stories to share on religious nonsense. Such stories would be hilarious if only some people didn't believe them and subject others to them.
The conversation concluded with a question to me: "What do you think Glynn about heaven and hell?"
"Well," I replied, "if there is a heaven we are all going to be there. For some it will be paradise and for others it will be hell."
p.s. for those who haven't visited Mr Deity yet - check out their version of hell.
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1826735&ml=o%3d12%26fpl%3d68726%26fx%3d&
I told them the story of an Australian friend who in the rarified air of Sydney Anglican thelogical debates had to bite his tongue and quell his urge to either laugh or cry when listening to hellish debates. On one side were the snuff brigade - instant incineration. The snuffers were the 'liberals'. On the other side were the spit roasters - continual torment. They were the 'conservatives'.
My breakfast companions, being well-travelled, also had horror stories to share on religious nonsense. Such stories would be hilarious if only some people didn't believe them and subject others to them.
The conversation concluded with a question to me: "What do you think Glynn about heaven and hell?"
"Well," I replied, "if there is a heaven we are all going to be there. For some it will be paradise and for others it will be hell."
p.s. for those who haven't visited Mr Deity yet - check out their version of hell.
http://grouper.com/video/MediaDetails.aspx?id=1826735&ml=o%3d12%26fpl%3d68726%26fx%3d&
6/24/2007
Questions from Isabelle - how was God made?
Dear Revd Glynn,
How was God made?
From Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
Some things have no beginning and no end. Not many things, but some things. Like infinity. Like space. Like love. These things just are. Love is not born when a mother has a child. Love is there already, like a bulb in the ground, and bursts into flower when the child is born. God is like infinity, space, and love. God was never made, or can be unmade.
Kind regards,
Glynn
How was God made?
From Isabelle.
Dear Isabelle,
Some things have no beginning and no end. Not many things, but some things. Like infinity. Like space. Like love. These things just are. Love is not born when a mother has a child. Love is there already, like a bulb in the ground, and bursts into flower when the child is born. God is like infinity, space, and love. God was never made, or can be unmade.
Kind regards,
Glynn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
