Jesus Course

In this day and age of high blood pressure and stress the medical advice is for us all to eat less salt. This is good advice although sometimes I miss my food being as tasty as it once was – I’ve almost given up on crisps these days  – probably a good thing for my health anyway.

So when Jesus talks about how we are to be the salt of the earth has he gone mad? Does Jesus mean that we should be putting the pressure on so everyone dies of a heart attack? Does Jesus mean that we should make sure we are doing our bit to make everyone in the world as unhealthy as we can? Of course not.

We need first of all to understand what salt meant back when Jesus said we should be like salt.

Salt in the ancient world was most certainly considered to be a very good thing. It was used for all kinds of things – not least as a flavouring for food. It was also used to preserve meat, for money, to aid healing, as an offering to God, and in customs performed for newborn babies (Ezekiel tells us that newborn babies were rubbed in salt – Ezek. 16:4). Sounds a little crazy to me but I guess it was probably something to do with it’s antiseptic qualities. Salt was a pretty important commodity. In fact in a society where food was not always plentiful and labour tended to be hot and hard salt was an essential of every day life.

Let me just make a small point here about how we use the bible. It seems to me that it is pretty obvious that when Jesus says we should be like salt he wasn’t saying we should turn ourselves into little heaps of white powder. It hardly needs saying that Jesus is using a metaphor here and he didn’t intend us to believe that we are quite literally salt and should pop ourselves into the cooking pot. This may seem obvious but it is an important point to remember. Christians sometimes gets confused by biblical metaphors and those antagonistic to Christians will sometimes quote things from the bible that are obviously metaphors but they try to make us sound weird for having such metaphors in the bible.

Anyway back to my point.

Salt is important because it improves things. This is pretty much what Jesus was saying. Christians should improve things, make the world seem a better place. Sadly this isn’t always true of Christians but it should be. So we Christians need to be asking ourselves: are we making the world a better place or a worse place.

Jesus had an answer for those who made the world a worse place – he described them as those who have lost their taste. They are no use and will be thrown out and trampled on. Again this is a metaphor.  He doesn’t mean that anyone who loses their saltiness should be thrown out in the street and used as a pavement (side walk, etc). He simply means that if we lose our saltiness we will find ourselves outside of God’s kingdom.

So are you going to be someone who makes the world a better place, or someone who makes it worse?

Christian living salt of the earth

Have you ever wondered what life would be like if people really lived liked Jesus said we should live? We see some of the effects when Christians live as they should – sadly this doesn’t always happen – we might know some of the names of well known Christians who we can admire, names like Mother Theresa and Desmond Tutu come to mind. If everyone followed the teachings of Jesus then people like these people would be common place. You may be surprised to hear that I have met many such people in churches I have been to but they don’t get noticed by the public as they live out their Christian lives.

Today we are going to think a little about the beatitudes.  The beatitudes come at the beginning of the sermon on the mount in Matthew’s gospel (Matthew chapter 5).

The beatitudes tell us about some things that will happen in God’s kingdom. These statements tell us nothing about the kind of people that Christian’s should be – save that the qualities listed have a place in God’s kingdom. Sadly some Christians have mistaken the beatitudes for a list of Christian attitudes and have tried to copy the attitudes that the beatitudes talk about.

Of course qualities like meekness and desiring righteousness are good qualities for some but God did not intend us to try and live up to the beatitudes.

What Jesus is saying is that in God’s kingdom:

• the poor in spirit will find job in the kingdom of heaven – and not when they die but now!
• those who mourn will be comforted
• the meek will inherit the earth.
• those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be satisfied
• etc

Jesus is telling us what the kingdom of God will be like. This is reassurance that although you might feel that being merciful doesn’t count for anything – God notices and is happy that people are following him. It is comfort to know that people who mourn will be comforted by God in his kingdom. I could go on.

The beatitudes then are not rules for us to try and follow but statements about how wonderful God’s kingdom is.  I’m sure Jesus could have gone on for a very long time explaining other injustices that will be put right in God’s kingdom. And whilst God’s kingdom might need some time before it is complete we can get some of this reward in the hear and now.

Christian living beatitudes, Jesus

The sermon on the mount is a set of teachings from Jesus that have been grouped together in a section of Matthews gospel (chapters 5-7). The teachings are also in the other gospels (in various forms). Scholars like to get all hot under to collar debating whether Jesus sat down or stood up to preach and how many actually listened. The gospel writers all arrange their material to make points so it becomes impossible to say whether this sermon was written down as presented or whether Matthew gathered together several sermons into one place.

There is historical interest to finding answers to these questions but realistically we aren’t going to answer them in a way that makes everyone happy unless someone invents a time machine to go back and find out.

Sadly too many Christians gets caught up in this kind of detail and then fail to get the point of what Jesus was trying to teach us anyway. What methods Jesus used for preaching are not the point of the sermon.

The sermon offers guidance for the follower of Jesus to understand what life in the kingdom of God is supposed to be like.

Jesus makes it very clear that he is not intending to offer a new set of rules that simply replace the ones found in the ten commandments but that through the following of his guidance we can learn to love, forgive and enjoy life.

One of the complications with Christianity is that we believe that the way to get a good relationship with God is to rely on the loving and forgiving nature of God and not worry about trying to prove ourselves through the following of certain rules (what we might call being saved by grace).

However once we have gained that good relationship with God through our faith in God we then need to commit ourselves to living life with God in charge. We commit ourselves to letting God be our monarch and living a life in God’s kingdom.

We could take the line of saying that all we have to do is to love God and forget about the rest (as St. Augustine once did) but this doesn’t answer all of our questions. We are people who have to live in a practical world and so we need some practical guidance.

Because Jesus understood this he gave us guidance about what kingdom living is all about – guidance which we find in the sermon on the mount.

So if you ever wonder what a Christian should live like then you should turn to the sermon on the mount. Like all things you read in the bible you should also understand it bearing everything else you have read in the bible in mind but it does give a pretty full account of how we are supposed to live.

Does this teaching apply to people who are not Christians? The easy answer is yes because this is how God intends us all to live but the less easy answer is that each person must choose whether to live like a member of God’s kingdom or not. Christians cannot force people to live this way they can only hope that others will want to live this way when they see the difference it can make in the Christians life.

Christian living christian teaching, sermon on the mount

Although I haven’t watched the program (I’m in the UK and don’t follow the series anyway – perhaps my loss) I’ve had my Internet news feeds about Jesus dominated by the story of Larry David ‘urinating’ on Jesus painting in a ‘Curb your Enthusiasm’ episode.

From what I’ve read the event seems to have involved some splashed urine on a painting of Jesus that was then mistaken for tears. I think in some ways the idea was a clever one, although perhaps the idea could have been softened to avoid offense with someone washing their hands (perhaps there is something funny about urine that escapes me somewhat).

This is the kind of issue that constantly comes up in the UK with religion and religious characters (although Jesus and Christianity seems to be the main source for the fun) being the object of ridicule and innuendo on many TV comedy shows ).

So then we have the dilema. Do we laugh at it to show we are just the same as everyone else and can take a joke or do we make a stand to say actually this is really quite offensive?

Not just Christians, of course, see Jesus as a great religious figure and this is likely to be offensive to quite a large percentage of the worlds population.

There is always a fine line between using something for a joke and trying to squeeze some humour out of an offensive situation. There are certainly people who find any offensive remarks to be a great source of humour.

Personally I feel that with so many other things to laugh about (and I personally enjoy a good laugh) any humour that degrades other people is not right.

We already have some restrictions on free speech (and rightly so) where people are not free to say what they like about people of different races or genders. We don’t accept that it is ok to say anything you like about anybody (we don’t accept verbal bullying as being acceptable for instance). So at some point we want to draw the line. Personally I think we need to make sure we don’t draw the line so close that people are not free to express opinions – whatever they may be – as long as those opinions are not expressed in a way that is going to cause a riot. This is about the way opinions are expressed and not the opinion themselves.

So we come back to humour. Humour is not just about expressing opinion it is about the way it is done. People must be free to say Christians are wrong but not to piss on them (sorry for the language!).

I think this is a case of things going too far and perhaps we let too many comedians get away with too much – in the interests of free speech and being afraid we are going to be labeled as humourless killjoy spoilsports.

Perhaps comedians are sometimes themselves guilty of bullying others – how far is it from a good joke to bullying someone (those who have been bullied at school will tell you have most bullies use tactics to make others laugh at them).

Of course humour has been used in the past to make us laugh at: black people for being black, homosexuals for being homosexual, Jewish people for being Jewish, etc. And at the time we all collude with the claim that it’s just humour and people should loosen up and learn to laugh at themselves. I hope by now that we have come to see that humour can play a part in the way people view others. Of course it isn’t the cause of the problem but it certainly can contribute to making some pretty terrible things to happen. I hope by now that even those who hate Political Correctness would understand that some things are just too far.

I didn’t see the episode and we get worse in the UK but I want to make a plea for people not to degrade others (or their beliefs) whether in the name of a good joke – or otherwise.

Thoughts humour, jesus christ

It sometimes makes me sad when I read stuff that makes me think that someone is getting angry at Jesus. What makes me really sad is that too often the people getting angry at Jesus are Christians. To hear some Christians write about Jesus or the church you would think that they were the worst of enemies. I was reading something today on a blog by a Christian that at first I assumed was an anti Jesus blog but it turned out to be written by a Christian.

Why does this happen?

• I guess it could just be bad writing and the writer meant to say something else, but this seems unlikely to me.
• It could have been someone who was caught at the wrong moment and they were letting off steam – maybe but then why write it in a blog?
• Perhaps it was someone just struggling with their faith – this could be true because I know that every Christian faces this from time to time.
• Or perhaps they just thought they were being funny – quite possible, there is an awful lot of anti church stuff written by Christians who think its funny – not my taste though.

Now look. I’ve had my fair share (perhaps more than my fair share) of rough treatment by the church. I’ve felt that sometimes God was keeping his distance and letting things happen to me that in my view he shouldn’t (always seems to turn out best for me in the end though). I’ve also had times when I’ve cried out to God in desparation but don’t seem to have got an answer (although later I found out I had). I’ve been there, felt it, and done it.

I’m sure that deep down the person in question does love God and wants to be a good servant but there is something that has hurt them that makes them want to get angry at God. I understand this. But never forget that despite all the anger God still loves you.

Jesus is pretty used to people being angry at him. If there is someone who can take the angry accusations its Jesus. But do you angry Christians realise that others find fuel for their own anger in yours?

So please don’t burden those who are looking for God with your own anger. Let the anger go and let the rest of us be free to find Jesus.

Thoughts

I came across this page the other day that explains Anne Rice’s conversion to Christianity. It’s well worth reading.

http://www.coffeehousetheology.com/anne-rice-atheist-christ/

Thoughts

Here is a story about how the face of Jesus has appeared on the coat of a workman who was working on repairing a church. If Jesus is going to appear on a coat this seems to be the obvious place for it to my way of thinking.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2702386/Jesus-appears-on-jacket-in-Glasgow.html

Jesus in funny places

Living with hope is much better than living without it. I know, I’ve tried both. The sad thing is that many people are trying to live with a worldview where there isn’t any hope. Now, whether you like the word or not we all (even those of us who never think about it) live by a worldview. That is we have certain basic beliefs that we live by.

I don’t think many people would actually want to describe themselves as atheists, in fact the statistics suggest that most people believe in God, but the majority of people seem to live by an atheistic view of the world. Whilst they might say they believe in God they don’t believe that God has any part to play in their life.

Just recently I read a heated debate on a blog about the difference between a Christian funeral and a humanist funeral. The discussions nearly exclusively seemed to be focussed on the content of the services. Some argued that humanist funerals are too full of soppy sentiments and easy listening songs whilst others argued that Christian services are all the same and lack the personal touch.

To my mind there was something missing in the discussions and that was the Christian hope. Christians have a pretty unique idea of what life after death means. A life lived with God in a paradise created for us to live in. A place where we will meet people who have died previously and where pain and suffering are overcome by the love and forgiveness of God.

You won’t find this hope in a humanist funeral. Regardless of the songs sung or the words used it is the hope that Jesus offers that makes all the difference.

But what about life before death? Well Jesus was pretty keen on life at all times – not just after death. Jesus wants us to find love, joy and fulfillment in this life as well as in the life to come. So the Christian hope applies to this life as well as the next.

Jesus tells us not to despair because there is always hope. And this isn’t a patronising fluffy pink kind of hope, but a deep real kind of hope that is worth believing in. A hope based on God who tells us that whatever happens he will always love us. The kind of hope that a theif can find whilst nailed to a cross when Jesus says to him: “today you will be with me in paradise”.

I’ve got a few things left in mind for this life yet but in Jesus I have hope for today and for tomorrow.

Jesus

Most people seem to believe that there must be something very difficult about praying. A belief, perhaps, that God will only answer a prayer if it is said in a particular way or using a particular formula.

Many churches have traditions that they follow when it comes to prayer but, as far as I am aware, there is no Christian church anywhere that will claim that these are the only way you can pray.

The disciples of Jesus asked Jesus himself for some help with this difficult question and Jesus gave them the Lord’s prayer to use. It’s debatable whether Jesus meant this as a prayer to say or a formula to follow. Personally I think it’s both.

There are countless books written about prayer and various ways of thinking about the various kinds of prayers that we can use and at what times we should use them.

Then people get pretty obsessive about what ending you put on a prayer to make it work, or whether you should ever say a prayer more than once.

For my part I think an awful lot of nonsense is spoken about prayer and most of it creates so much confusion that people start to think its like writing a PHD thesis every time you start to pray.

Perhaps the biggest load of nonsense I hear – and I’ve heard this one a lot – is that some people say they are just not the praying kind.

“I’m more of a practical person so I leave the praying up to the more spiritual types”.

Rubbish, my friend.

This is like saying you are not the kind of person who eats – I leave that up to the hungry people – or breathes – I leave that up to the breathing people.

The problem isn’t that you can’t pray it’s that you have become so confused by the whole subject that you think it’s best left up to the experts.

Prayer is simply conversation with God. At times you might want to tell God about something that is worrying you or that you want. Other times you might want to tell God how fantastic he is.

Like any relationship things get pretty dull if you only ever talk about the same thing, so make sure there is variety in your conversation.

There are no right or wrong words to use. There is no set formula for how to do it or what ending you must use. There is not even a rule about how many times you should say something. Jesus sometimes makes the point that God doesn’t answer just because we repeat our prayer over and over (like you might on a prayer wheel) but at other times he makes the point that we should keep asking.

So just express what is on your heart and God will listen. The more you pray the easier it feels.

Don’t hold back – pray to Jesus.

Christian living pray, prayer

I was reading a blog the other day and one of those who left a comment on the blog was very insistent that ALL scientists are atheists. They never said where they got their information from but they insisted that those who accept the need for evidence must be atheists.

It may not surprise you to know that I don’t really agree with this.

First of all we need to understand what atheism actually is. Atheism is the assertion that there is no god (a-theism). Now it seems to me that this is as much a claim to knowledge as the belief that there is a god. So the atheist can’t say that there is no evidence for god so I conclude there is no god, they must have evidence to prove that there is no god. It is not logical to make a claim to knowledge from nothing. Now there is no absolute evidence that there is no god (even atheists accept this) so any claim of there not being a god is a faith, just as much as theism (or the belief in god).

So if we want to claim that a scientist must base everything on physical evidence then the best we could come up with is agnosticism (e.g. saying there is not enough physical evidence to prove the existence or non existence of a god). So the logical end of scientific belief, as atheists explain scientific belief, is not atheism but agnosticism. I don’t really agree with this either but the argument put forward by atheists (if you accept is as being true) can at best only bring you to being an agnostic not an atheist.

However, we then have to explore what constitutes knowledge of something. How can we know anything? Some people will respond that our senses tell us what exists and what doesn’t (e.g. only anything physical is real). Yet how do we then explain things like thought, love, beauty, etc. Some people say it is just chemicals reacting in the body but that is not enough because we experience more than a chemical reaction. We can also appeal to logic and say that the only things we can know about with our senses is the physical world but this does not prove that there is nothing that is non-physical, e.g. metaphysics and god.

It seems to me narrow and closed thinking to insist that the only things you can know exist are those things you can physically experience.

Then we can come back to the word “experience”. You will find that the majority of Christians will be able to talk about encounters with God – times that they have experienced the presence of God. Of course they don’t mean they have physically touched him but that they have felt his presence. I have experienced this for myself and find that I can no more deny the existence of God anymore than I could deny the existence of my brothers.

Some will talk about weak atheism (person who does not have a belief that one or more deities or gods exist) as opposed to strong atheism (person who believes that no god exists) but I think this is a red-herring. Some want to claim to be weak atheists (presumably because it sounds better in certain circles) when they are really agnostic.

Others will talk about ‘improbabilities’ trying to use philosophical/mathematical terms to try and persuade us they are taking a higher thinking approach to things when what they really mean is that they have chosen not to believe (which is a much a faith as choosing to believe – neither can claim intellectual authority). Of course I don’t accept the improbability argument anyway because I believe the evidence points to there most probably being a god and I’m in good intellectual company here (take a look at this article).

Anyway I’m getting off the point. The point is that just because you are a thinking person doesn’t mean you must automatically be an atheist – this is a simple lie that atheists have tried hard to push and the gullible have fallen for.

It is that statistically there are more atheists in the scientific community than in the general population. The most obvious explanation for this is culture not intelligence.

Take a look at the following sites where the statistics are discussed. They are mostly from the USA but they are still valid in this discussion because not all scientists are British, of course.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/why_are_scientists_atheists.html

http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/050811_scientists_god.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1374/is_n4_v57/ai_19582381/

Thoughts