My summary of Isaiah

as far as i can tell 

foreword : dear isaiah – this mind blowing vision is a hint for you to volunteer to take my message. as soon as you say yes you will go i will then let you in on the secret that they’re not going to listen anyway. 

here are the messages :

ch 7 to 45 :  

"look after fatherless, widows, aliens, weights and measures regulations, justice, alcohol moderation, leaning on God not other nations, no idolatry or immorality or else. 

if you bully the weak you’ll end up getting bullied by a nation bigger than you and see how you like it then – look it’s happening to your neighbours so hurry up and get your act together cos i really mean it. 

and woe to the lying prophets who are saying its ok, we’re doing the right things, we must be in God’s will, he’s on our side."

ch 46 - 66 

"ok, ok, i know this is a horrible dry flat desert region but i will eventually let you go back to your hills and fertile crescent when you have twigged that i’m still with you even out here in this wilderness. look i made all this and i made you. you know you never really kept me in a box in the first place and you certainly cant now. 

i’ll send my servant to fix things. here are a few signs to look out for to know it’s him. 

ps even the trees and the hills will be rather cheerful about all this…

ps it all works out all right in the very end too."



(lizeph paraphrase of isaiah.)


therefore (my conclusions)

a) jews dwelling in the land should look out for the first half of isaiah's prophecy for those dwelling in their own land

b) jews living in exile should take particular note of the words to them while they’re in exile.

Quote : Nicky gumbel on salvation

"Salvation is based on:

• Faith, not works
• Mercy, not justice
• Belief, not birth"

Nicky Gumbel

Is God angry with us ?

I don't think the right balance will be brought by just preaching the opposite extreme. Some how it's one of those mysteries that we are all created in God's image and so all of value and all have some of his characteristics, but we are also spoiled by sin and alienated from God. I have grown to like the verse that used to give me the creeps - for all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I'm given to understand that the word sin comes from ye olde english to illustrate falling short. It seems it's an archery word for when the arrow not only doesn't hit the target but it comes out wobbly from the bow and does a belly flop on the ground before even getting that far (and everyone watching the competition laughs or jeers I suspect). It helps me to remember that without God I'm part of that belly flop even tho I try to be a nice person, even if I haven't broken one of the ten commandments this week. I hope that makes me less patronising with those who've not yet turned to Jesus, but also keeps in mind that we do need what Jesus did. Love the sinner, hate the sin is the old cliché but I think it's very valid.

I've read some interesting stuff lately about God's anger/not. I'm still thinking it through.

I must say I have been very put off by images of a grumpy god turning his back on mankind and I think it is an over balance of what was once a healthy teaching to challenge complacent church members to repentance - the ministries of people like Finney and others. I associate it with the Fundamentalist movement too with their rather particular approach to the final judgement, hell and so on. I must say that in my opinion it's a pretty aggressive approach and not one I'm totally at home with. For example I don't think Jesus talked about hell with the ordinary people, only with the religious.And I think we've got our end times interpretations of some scriptures a bit knotted up.  I think Jesus approach is amazingly compassionate and loving and thoughtful when he's with ordinary folks. Brood of vipers is saved for the religious.

Having said that, as part of my current pilgrimage reconciling me to certain bits of the bible, I had to face up the the wrath passages in the minor prophets so I set my face and did a study to find out what actually makes God mad. I worked through the first half of Isaiah and all of Amos for starters and found a list that shouldn't have surprised me but it did. Of course there is the drunkenness, apostacy, foreign gods, idols, false prophecy etc but a really large part of God's gripe seems to have been how they treat the poor, needy, defenceless women and children, aliens/foreigners, false weights and measures, rigged trials,  denying proper legal rights to people, etc And it seems to me that the ultimate punishment for this sort of bullying and theft is to hand them over to even bigger bullies and thieves until they get a taste of their own medecine with the invasion and exile in Babylon. The actual poor themselves get left behind in the land to make out on their own !

So basically God goes lary about the things I wish I got more angry about too ! And as a disabled woman, on my own, with sick kids, in a foreign land, struggling with the economic crisis caused by the greedy, resulting in cuts to services I can identify with a lot of the people that God is sticking up for ! I don't mind him getting cross about how people like me get treated - and I've not had a bad ride compared to many, I'm one of the relatively rich in the world.

It seems to be yet another of those mysteries where the answers must be somewhere in not either/or but both. Some how I need to hold in my head the two images of God - so angry about wrong and injustice, yet so loving and merciful towards us. I'm not too fond of the old ying and yang thing, but I can see that it has some element of comprehension of this wonderful paradox.

a collection of some thoughts about the bible

some thoughts about the bible


my own personal view point
 

i'm coming at "the bible" from a new point of view for me. i've read it believed it and acted on it for years. but it's been turned upside down, put back to front. this period of my life if feel i've been experiencing things and am now finding them in "the bible".
i'm coming at "the bible" from the perspective of having spent nearly a decade 1996 to 2006, not being able to read it much. i was too poorly. but during those years someone walked very close with me and gave me an utter conviction of his presence with me. despite old fashioned loneliness amongst other things he was always there and while everything i have done and am has been called into question in one way or another he was a simple accepting reassuring strengthening presence. i was very socially isolated in practice nursing my sick kids and bipolar husband, trying to keep up work and church membership. and a lot of misunderstandings made me even more lonely. but i remember him feeling so close that i could almost touch him. i could barely formulate "prayers". in fact i felt God told me to stop trying to.
i've only been to church a few times since 2003 cos i cant get our much and i did manage to get thrown out of 2 churches and a mission agency cos of the misunderstandings. but tho i am grateful for all the years i had of fellowship and teaching i'm also enjoying the opportunity to come at things afresh. my view of God has got bigger not smaller. i'm enjoying asking questions and exploring ideas. in this context looking at the bible from new is proving a fascinating experience. i cant see it as chapter and verses any more either. for the moment i cant handle words that have had religious ideas strapped on to them either.
i've been gripped by the people in it. i've been moved by the vivid accounts of clinical depression of naomi, chronic illness of job. i've been touched by a law system that repeats so often that it is available for the foreigner, the weak, the poor, the fatherless, and woe betide those who oppress them. letter after letter that emphasise, even more than theology, the practical outworking of loving God and loving loving others. generosity. and honesty. my giddy aunt we dont know the half of it. i've been moved by my own understanding of myself as a sinner based not on doing bad things but my concept of God's holiness being ever less like a sterilised hospital and more like freshly driven snow. sparkling, light, luminous, exciting, inviting, with a hint of danger. despite me basically being a "nice" person, and liking "niceness" it seems empty compared with that dazzling life giving power. the dynamic of the holy spirit. the God who "talks". who" talks" through his writings too, and "talks" in person. it comes to me over and over as i'm reading it in hungry gulps - if ever anyone was so in earnest to try to communicate, if ever his hearers so thick ....
and through it all the person of Jesus walks through the page and i recognise that presence with me. the one who touched people and noticed them and accepted meal invitations where no "decent christian" would be at ease is the one who i have had walk by my side, whispering in my weary heart and clumsy mind - "do not fear for i am with you". that same word over and again, along with a conviction of being held like a baby bird in the palm of a large workman's hand. i've been moved by the utter dedication of Jesus to people, not in a dry "ought to" sort of way but in the way of someone who has genuine care and genuine authority. i'm not discouraged by my pathetic little efforts, everyone has to start somewhere, but inspired by the profoundness of his understanding of how we tick and what we are really.
i'm such a beginnner. i feel i've got everything to learn.
i feel i've been pretty ham fisted in learning to express myself but i hope i'm learning. i hope my clumsiness hasn't put you off. it's mainly over excitedness. i'll calm down eventually. or maybe i wont. i'm an enthusiast.

i find it very hard to think about "the bible" as just one concept these days. it isn't a book, its such a hodge podge of a collection of documents that i think each needs looking at in it's own right, or at least within it's grouping. i don't know why the letter of james wasn't included. i don't have a problem when people see Jesus from a variety of perspectives.
i think some of the critics of "the bible" have a point because we've made claims that "the bible" cant realistically live up to. i think some find that christians stick in their craw for other reasons, and knocking the bible is a good way to upset them and put them on the defensive.
i do have a big problem with the more dogmatic churches that say you have to interpret this, this way, especially those with fundamentalist tendancies. i have problems with how they speak to those who dont agree with them too. thats why the creation evolution debate sends me batty. i think the science fundamentalists are just as rude and patronising as the so called creationists. i freely admit i have personal issues with fundamentalists whose negativity and rigidity and emphasis on the trivial while missing out on the the essentials did a lot of damage in my family (tho wonderfully there is a thread of faith that continues like a river that's gone underground). i have issues with people having to be proved right and having to put others down in order to do so. i've had to back off some words that are trigger words - like "evangelical" "bible" "gospel" - not that i don't believe them but they have come to have such negative connotations.
here in france the way many people talk on the radio they really believe that if you believe any of the bible you have to be a cretin. they get really angry about creation of any sort being taught in schools in the us. the concepts of bible have got caught up with images of george w bush and his gung-ho attitude to war and god, and his resemblance to a monkey when he smiles. and with black gospel music. many catholics, even nominal ones still wouldn't touch the bible with a barge pole - they've been taught it's too dangerous and only a priest should look at it. they really believe it. people in the 21st century still believe that.
as usual i want the best of both worlds. i think the polarisation of these debates make for stupidity. i think the documents of the bible, as originally written, are probably a pretty accurate account of what they are an account of but they don't claim to be a world history and i don't think they are.

i read the daily bible notes by jeff lucas, lucas on life every day and he's said more than once that there are bits of the bible he has problems with, not cos he doesnt believe that they're true, more cos he's worried they might be. and he freely admits that there are also large bits he doesnt begin to understand. his main point is to apply what we can believe and trust which comes back to other issues like how you see God etc i think that's the nearest i can get to where i'm at. pressure to believe and act on things you're not sure about can be very damaging long term even if it ensures a bit of short term orthodoxy. believing things that are wrong can also be very damaging.

we need to be consistent and scientific about these things - what sort of source documents etc are we willing to accept to make them "authentic" history ? which news paper account would we accept as valid of current news ? if we're going to accept for example that homer's accounts of the trojan wars are accurate with no other corroboration, or the earliest reports on the sayings of confuscious which date a good 500 years after he died, or the accounts of the life and battles of julius ceasar written by julius ceasar starring julius ceasar ... ? in comparison the sayings of socrates written down by plato who modified them to fit with his own teachings is pretty good evidence cos at least we know the author's motives and we know there was a direct link with the original person.

 

 why i accept the bible as evidence about itself.

 

* as far as i can tell even opponents will now admit that they are def the best historical records around as historical records go, by historians standards, according to my sister who worked in an archeology  lab for a while. even if you don't want to live your life by what's in them it seems likely that they do say what they say and a lot of what they say may well have happened, or the way the story is told is an accurate representation of the point of view of the particular people group who is telling the story.

* 4 accounts, written within the life time of many of the first hand witnesses is a pretty strong hand. one of those accounts seems to be written by an independent researcher, sponsored by a non-jew, who interviewed eyewitnesses himself, even the socially outcast, even women, beggars, prostitutes, collaborators with enemy powers, is really quite a coup. the descriptions of the romans for example are consistent with all the other things we know about the romans. all the other writers knew each other. they were related or had been disciples together. as far as i know only luke set out to write the complete biography or Jesus and the early "church". all the other documents and letters fill in each other, fill in for where there are gaps in teaching. james is not going to double up the teachings of paul or peter. they worked together, stayed accountable to each other.

 
* the alternative is believing popes ect i'm sorry i don't trust a pope as far as i could throw one, however much i might admire individual ones.
* i think the archeology backs up a lot of the bible not the popes. where there is no archelology - (and that is a good bit of the early part of the bible), this is typical of many nomadic, low ecological foot print people groups. much of what we know about groups like tuaregs and bushmen etc is based on their own memories and that is not called into question. in order to make a lasting impact on the land scape you either have to do the same thing in the same place for a very long time leaving field, road, dwelling, cultural patterns etc that we can guess from OR you have to have a lot of power and money to be able to build a monument. stonehenge couldn't have been built by a nice little village community sharing and being kind to each other any more than the pyramids were.
* i think if a theology still has to be expressed in latin it's probably dodgy.
* i think some "fundamentalist" teachings are as arrogant and pompous and erroneous as the popes. based on out of date translations of the bible and applied with ignorant and bigoted blinkered rigidity. so called "literal" application appalls me cos it's not what it claims to be. they apply one interpretation of one "verse" as it suits them without even looking at it's own context let alone its historical context. how could the teachings about race have become so prevalent amongst those groups based on a very vague misinterpretation of one verse in genesis when the whole law reiterates over and again that foreigners are to have more or less the same legal rights and obligations as natives, let alone all the teaching about equality in the NT.
* the evangelicals didn't actually break away from this rot till in the 40s and it took much longer to root it out of groups that call themselves evangelical or pentecostal. i'm an evangelical in the sense that luther invented the word - someone who has responded to the good news off my own bat not cos a church has told me i've got to go via it as an intermediary.
* what does the bible actually claim about itself ? - nothing like what the people who try to use it as incantations and spells claim. nor what some groups who use bits of it to justify their own politics. as far as i can see "word of God" is an expression that means several things not just the written collection of documents. for goodness sake why do have to use the words in latin. scripture just means written down. ok, lets say writings so it doesn't have religious overtones. bible - greek for collection or library. why are we so superstitious about it ?
* it claims to be a true account of what happened. as it was originally written that seems quite likely. where there's a difference there's often the alternative present too - eg the "chronicles" are the account of national events kept by the priests, an expurgated version of history. but the two volumes referred to as "kings" are a much fuller version, no holds barred, no taboos account of all the kings' faults as well as their strengths. as it is, it's all a much more coherent account of a nation's history than anything we have in britain so far back, so who do we think we are to pull it to pieces ? some of it is written down from an older oral record , that's no guess work, it actually says when things start to be from a written record in genesis . (it also mentions when the bronze age arrived to their peoples.)
words used in the bible to describe itself : 



1)  "the scriptures" - always referring to the old testament. they didn't even necessarily see the OT as a whole - sometimes the prophetic books are referred to separately from the historical and devotional documents : the law, and the prophets.
2) "the good news of Jesus" . gospel, ev-angel - latin and greek for good news - a common expression at the time - lots of wars - people would wait for an angel - messenger , to announce the progress in the latest international conflict. if the news was good he was called a herald of good news : angel + ev . which would be announced or proclaimed - the word we translate by preach, in a public place. this tradition was carried on in britain with the town cryer and we now call it a news bulletin, still communicated by an announcer (who wasn't present) or a reporter (who was).
3) "the teaching of the apostles". which is what it says.

how we use the bible, and what it is not.

* it's not a book of sayings. There's only 2 documents in the whole  bible collection that are - proverbs and ecclesiastes. anywhere else we can't expect to just dip in and make full sense of any extract without bothering to read the rest. things are written in the context of a family saga, or a biography, a royal dynasty, a national crisis, a personal letter, a systematic explanation, a letter resolving a dispute or correcting error. so we can't use quoting a bible verse like a magic spell in a situation. we have to quote it intelligently

* not expecting everything in our current translation to make complete sense. The bible should, in my opinion be treated with the same circumspect respect as any historical documents.  I would not like to lay odds as to whether the word translated "day" in my Bible means 24 hours, or general time period in the original ? it changes nothing about the fact that comes up all through the Bible - that God created the heavens and the earth, so why get our knickers in a twist about it ? did they thread camel thread (like threading the silk, or cotton into your needle) with difficulty or was it an actual camel through a small gate ?. these are things that are not central to salvation and i can hold on an open hand.

* People talk about details in the bible being inconsistent, but they're not being consistent themselves. the same ppl might accept hieroglyphics, or julius ceasar's writings to be a reliable account even though they're open to a huge amount of interpretation, and may have had elements of political propaganda too in their own day.

A thought, concretewords : 'The Instrument'

The instrument


I remember it well, 40 years ago and more. Sandals, short socks, shorts, long thin legs. Thick brown hair in a pony tail. The annual ritual as soon as we arrive. Jumping out of the car. Running to promenade to look. Little brother trailing behind shouting because he can't keep up and I won't wait. 

It's not there yet. Oh.

Trekking back up the cliff to our holiday flat. Running down again. Traipsing back up. Running down. Dancing back. The poster has gone up at last. They're here ! 

Each summer my family went to Cromer, a decaying English seaside town. I didn't understand that the paint was peeling till I was older. We loved the place like you love your pet, regardless. My Dad played tennis and we went to the CSSM. 

All weathers, I was there.  Damp from the sand seeping through the seat of my slacks. North Sea wind down the neck of my anorak. I never cared. I was enthralled. I loved every single minute. From the Bible study groups in the morning, to the Beach Special service and games in the afternoon I drank it all in. Always last to leave. Often too timid to chat, but unable to tear myself away.  

I didn't go to Sunday School. Well, my friend Wendy had invited me to hers in the parish church, but my Mum and Dad didn't go there so I thought I wouldn't be allowed. I made up for it one marvelous week each year on the beach. I loved the songs. I wrote down the words in a notebook when I got home. 

"Wide, wide as the ocean, high as the heavens above, 
Deep, deep as the deepest sea is my saviour's love."

I dreamed, well no, I was too shy, I hardly dared even dream it, but in my heart of hearts I longed to be with those musicians strumming away so everyone could join in. It was nearly an ache.

*****

For my 14th birthday I asked for a guitar.

I sat on the edge of my bed for hours on end trying and trying the chords in the manual till my fingers gradually gained the leather hard tips which make the strings bite less.

"I, though so unworthy,
Still am a child of his care"

The next year on holiday I took my guitar and my book of choruses...

... and said nothing.

And the following year. And the next.

What went on in that intervening time is another story which I hope I will get to tell you one day. Suffice it to say I met with Jesus in a new way and finally joined the team. I saw God at work, made friends, learned things, had fun, met kids, and even met my husband. And I got my heart's desire. Year after year battling north east wind, sea gulls, high tide, tractors, bin lorries, helicopter, come rain and shine I accompanied the songs. Every guitar I had finished up with sand in it. Of course then I couldn't just stop at beach missions !

All told I led worship for nearly 30 years in many ways, in many places. Never wearied of it.

*****

Nowadays the guitar is stowed away. It's been there for nearly 10 years. I struggle to hold the strings down. I've more or less lost my voice. The song books are lined up on the bookshelf, yellowed and worn. Songs left half written, untried, in the file.

But the deep urge burns on. It had got under my skin before I was even aware of what worship was. 8 year old, 9 year old, 10, 11, 12, praying along with the special prayer, year after year. No follow up, no teaching, no understanding. Not yet. Just a gut certainty. And even now it goes on. A smouldering passion. Full of questions yet as certain as it ever has been. 

Not withered by age or crushed by life.
Bigger than the instruments. 
Broader than the songs. 
Deeper than the services

It keeps my heart beating. 
It keeps me marching. 
It keeps me praising God regardless of what's going on. 

"For His word teaches me
That his love reaches me
EVERYWHERE"

*****

PS  I wrote this comment on someone's blog and felt like adding it here :-

"I would have thought it trite to say this in the past, but it really is about worshiping God in the end. You may not be able to play the flute but you’re carrying on giving praise to God with your blog – I’m sure it’s in the psalms – “praise him on the trumpet the psaltery and blog”. Me too. Whether I can ever play my instrument again or not I’m not going to let it stop me praising Jesus."

*****
 
Have guitar, will travel

Indoors, outdoors, church, Town Hall, 
Nightclub, school and shopping mall. 
Mid Atlantic, mountain peak, 
Forest glade, car park, beach.

Solo voice or with a band,
Every Sunday, one night stand.
For a thousand, for a few, 
New plastic chairs, old wooden pew.

Praise the Lord ! and Glory Be !
Simple awestruck bended knee.
Any method, any time, 
Any place and any rhyme.

Thank you Jesus, I'm so glad,
Thank you for the fun I've had,
Thank you for the joy and tears,
You've been faithful all these years. 

(Have had such fun writing this ditty. Thinking of so many memories. Even the hard ones, God worked anyway.)

Is God Speaking ?

Question :

Hi liz How do you know the voice if god when he speaks to u and differentiate it from your own thoughts ive started journaling and find i can get into a flow but then doubts creep in as to weather ive been hearing gods voice or my own thoughts x

part 1

this is a really good question that has caused much debate for centuries :-)

i did a little study once on "the word of God"

so how does God speak to us ?

well first of all he speaks, he doesn't hint. there's no point going reading things into circumstances the majority of the time. same with finding obscure verses and reading something into them that they're not really saying. we still have superstitious practices that hang around even in christian circles that we don't notice cos that's how our society sees things.

things that are referred to as the word of God in the bible -

first and foremost is the person of Jesus. Jesus is God talking to us - john ch1 - and the word was make flesh and dwelt among us. hebrews 1 "in the past God spoke through the prophets, now he has spoken to us through his son." .therefore we need to copy how he behaved and obeying things he said is the one way to be dead certain you're in God's will. 

* read the eye witness accounts about him - the gospels (literally -good news, greek evangel) 

* mull over his advice and his example. beware over spiritualised interpretations that take things to mean something they don't mean in context. 

* DO IT ! jesus told a story about two building constructors - one set his house in a difficult place to build cos it was on rock, another chose a nice flat area that had a sand base but was probably the flood plain of the river. the storms came, as they do sometimes even if it's only once in every 100 years, and the house built on the sand was washed away. jesus interpreted this story saying that the one who builds on rock is someone who hears jeus's words AND DOES THEM. the other guy heared too but didn't put into practice what he heard. his life was saved but all his life achievements were wasted.

'the bible' is referred to as God speaking. well, lets qualify that statement. the word the bible does not exist in the bible. it means library or a collection of documents in latin and talks about the full collection - old and new. it wasn't used till years after the final documents were written, when people were trying to gather together all the letters and biographies that had been written for the early church. what it is refered to is as the scriptures (latin for writings) is also called the law and the prophets. in hebrews ch 1 it says "in the past God spoke through the prophets, now he has spoken to us through his son." Jesus speaks about everything written in the law and the prophets being fulfilled in him. Jesus treats the ot writings as God talking. in the nt they refer to the teaching of the apostles. at the time it was probably in person at first and passed on as an oral record, but very quickly things were written down and letters would be copied out and passed on from church to church, though they would be too expensive for individuals to own mostly - it was going to be well over a thousand years before the arrival of paper and the printing press.

* we're told to be like a reliable workman in studying and applying it.
* jesus only had the Old Testament, but he learned that very carefully. The quotes he uses when he was tempted by Satan in the desert was probably a "Sunday School" lesson he memorised.

you have to get the bible teachings in place to be able to really work out what is God's general guidelines - no point praying about something and expecting an individual word when in fact it's already more than clear in the bible ( tho read it for yourself - don't just base it on one teaching on one verse) if in the slightest doubt about what the bible is saying about something go and ask Don Fortune. he's read the bible all through each year since he became a christian and he has a careful and balanced approach to things.

if you are feeding yourself with bible and having an attitude of worship and respect to God some of your thoughts will come in line with God's way of seeing things and be naturally more in line with his.

*however you define the word of God it's described in ephesians as a sharp two edged sword, hebrews adds that it can cut between bone and marrow  - that's a scalpel in my language, so don't treat it as empty words ie you have been warned !!! 

thirdly there is god speaking through the holy spirit usually explaining, encouraging, guiding, leading and so on. this is called prophecy when it's another person speaking on behalf of God, or it may be another prompting like a word of knowledge or of wisdom, the interpretation of a message given in an unknown language, a gift of faith to have a certainty about some thing that God is going to do that we can't really know. we'll go on to hearing god speak for yourself next.



part 2

one factor in learning about god speaking is finding out the difference between hearing God speaking and your own imagination.

first practice using your imagination. God gave it to you. we are told to love the lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind and all your strength and love your neighbour as you love yourself; there's nothing wrong with thinking through.


try reading a passages in the bible and imagine it with real people. ask what happens if ...

get used to what your imagination sounds like. enjoy using it. then you wont pretend it's God speaking cos you'll recognise it, and you'll recognise that it's a really useful tool that God can use to help you understand things, and to therefore speak to you through it.



part 3
 
recognising God's voice - my sheep recognise my voice and follow me - jesus in the good shepherd passage.

what about noting down all the times you ca think of when you were dead certain it was God who spoke to you and it was proved right. would you recognise that voice again.? it is unlikely it was a voice in your ear, more likely in your spirit. did you act on it ? you get familiar with god's voice - but that doesn't exclude ever getting it wrong. you build in confidence.

what was the fruit of hearing what ever it was ? usually when i hear God i feel relieved, or peaceful. 

here's an example : over and over again he's given me the words "do not fear for i am with you". sometimes i have felt fed up - that's not a very exciting message. i had it for the first time at my baptism and its come through all sorts of people over the years. i thought it was cos i can be a frightened person - little lizzymouse. i never guessed that it would mean i was going to be in all sorts of scary situations. God knew that I would need reassuring that the fact that things were bad wasn't a sign that i'd done something wrong, far from it because he had promised he would be with me. we were skint for years and years and years but God provided everything that we needed (tho not always what we fancied) but he wanted us living amongst others in need and living like them. we even lived a few blocks away from an al quaeda terrorist cell for a while - blokes from the same mosque as them came and threatened our kids and their friends and wrecked our car. having a mysterious illness, well, now diagnosed as ME/fibro (whatever that is), is pretty scary too - but knowing with such certainty He is with me has helped me to cope through any number of crises, and especially the loneliness.

i don't begin to pretend that "God speaks to me" every day. but i can be aware of his presence every day, i can learn every day, i can be open to him every day. i can be wary about not listening to other voices every day.


another example of hearing God speak : i was once at a worship conference in lincoln. i had got to know another woman a bit at table. during the extended worship session i felt i had to stand with her and say that God had said she wasn't to be left on her own. i did. i felt a right nit. she said she was fine; i just stood nearby feeling a bit of a dope. then there was an appeal, i listened vaguely but i didn't particularly feel i should go , it was for people in leadership, leading worship, pastors and pastors wives. i stopped listening cos this woman was sobbing her eyes out. i just put my hand on my shoulder and prayed gently in tongues. i didn't know what to say and she didn't look like chatting. they i gave her a hanky, she dried her eyes and said, i'm fine now. thanks. and i went back to my seat. much later, as i was leaving i met her chatting with someone and she said - do you know anything about me? and i said - no, we only chatted briefly at lunch. it turned out she was recently separated - her husband, the pastor, had gone off with the secretary. she'd had to go to another church - so along with the loss of her husband was a lot of loss of status too. no more leading worship or being a pastor's wife, so she felt very miserable and left out not being able to go to the front for that appeal. she was astonished and thrilled that god had provided for her to not be alone and it confirmed he was looking after her.

it was a familiar prompting that sent me to her, but some times i've have got it wrong too. however i don't think a prompting to do a simple act of kindness is ever wrong - unless it's being nebby and nosey or something, even if it's just you being moved by sympathy - that's the fruit of the spirit at work in you. 
i used to worry about if a name of someone came to mind should i pray for them or not. i now automatically pray for them - sometimes it's God prompting me and other times - well it's just their lucky day isn't it.

i find most times God speaks it's rarely guidance about the future (tho that does happen)- it's usually about dealing with something in the present. and often points to something in his character and something in my character. this builds something long term not just a superficial what shall I do next.

i find there are times when im' hasty and should have listened first - when someone asks for prayer, or in prayer for healing, or a miracle i find it's wisest to listen a bit first rather than just crash in with the usual catch phrases that could actually be unhelpful to the person being prayed for.

be careful not to make the wrong claims about something. for example a lot of times it looks like i had a word of knowledge, but i'm naturally curious and i might have noticed the slightest hint or remembered that that person said something that no one noticed at the time. that doesn't make it less God speaking to that person through me but i must be careful what i call it. i don't always remember what triggered it till after - but that's ok - if God chose to use it.

you're not at this stage but some people become so familiar with a churchy way of thinking and talking that this gets muddled in their head with what is actually God. they will bring out their thoughts but present it as God speaking. they're rarely being deliberately naughty, more often well meaning, but there's a thin line between what is harmless and what can be misleading, thoughtless or downright dangerous. in the ot they were called false prophets. the problem was that people liked them cos they said things they wanted to hear, and they looked to all intents and purposes like they were the real deal on the surface. this is why it's important that those who are familiar with prophesying should weigh up any prophecy that is given to check. hence being a little bit careful about prophecy given with no other witness present. always best to check.


part 4

i have found a useful way of checking back is this God speaking is to use a 3 way spirit level (lizzy joke ha ha).

the story : i was watching this bloke building a wall. he wasn't young. he was building a garden wall, and by the way he used his tools and the fluidity of his movements he'd done this lots of times before. what struck me was that at every stage he kept fiddling with his bit of string with a weight on it - you know a plumb line - to check the wall was straight up, and every new row he fixed a bit of string to check he was making it straight. he worked so easily i'm sure he could have done it by eye, but he knew himself and walls well enough to be wise enough to keep checking.


this got me thinking about - we can get so in the habit of making "christian" decisions or the atmosphere in christian meetings, that we maybe aren't always thorough about checking back that it is God speaking and not just our ambitions or hopes or just how our culture sees things. i thought about some of the ways to check we're on the right lines. like the bloke out the back building his wall we need to keep checking ourselves. a good workman makes it a habit like a nurse thinking to wash her hands.

Word of God - Jesus in person. what would Jesus do? is it the sort of thing he'd say. (greek logos - someone speaking something)

Word of God - the bible/scriptures/the law and the prophets/the apostles' teaching - does it fit with the general teaching on that subject in the bible (not just the interpretation of one verse) (greek graphos - something writen down - latin - scriptus ->scripture)

Word of God - prophecy - it it what God's saying at the moment? prophecy should be confirmed by others known to use prophetic gifts if there is any doubt. never hesitate to go and ask someone wise to check out a private word that's been given to you. (greek rhema - the specific message that someone is giving)
 
* beware, i've heard some superstitious rubbish with a bit of truth in it for good measure spoken on this subject. 

* be wary of anyone who thinks God only speaks through them and who is upset if you want to check it. 

* be wary of anyone wanting you to respond without letting you think about it. be wary of anything that leaves you feeling condemned. if it's the conviction of the holy spirit he always gives you something to do about it. and true repentance always brings release - remorse makes you feel better for a bit, but doesn't solve anything really. 

* beware of anyone making you feel you can't hear God properly cos you're young in the faith. parents talk to kids at any age so your heavenly father is very likely to talk to you.



part 5
knowing the difference between God talking and your feelings.

same as with your imagination, find out about your feelings. face them. they're not wrong, even if your reactions to them can be. get used to your own inner voice so you can recognise when you're talking to yourself; a healthy adult does it a lot of the time. if we always block out our thoughts with tv music etc it's not really helpful, same as the opposite extreme of being preoccupied with your own belly button and only listening to your thoughts :-)

you were talking about a journal. it might be that someone has suggested you write down what God says to you. i think that's a good idea. but i think it's helpful to keep a wider journal than that. write down things you're thinking about, event that have happened. put a ? - i wonder if God is speaking to me. come back to it later and re-read it - things may well have become clearer. don't be frightened to think things through. you may laugh when you come back to it in a couple of years time, or you may think - did i really write that - that's a bit wise :-) why didn't i act on it then ?

you got me started on a huge subject. i hope you find some of this helpful - it's by no means a complete study but some of my thoughts.
xx Liz xx

A thought : Africa, powers

Some thoughts about Africa, mainly subsaharan following a blog post by Roger Mitchell

and notably these comments (abridged) 

"Hi again Roger,
I hope you don’t mind me picking your brains.
(i) Is it significant that all the countries that border the Sahara – north & south – are ex-French colonies?
(ii) Is it significant that these countries are, not just the poorest in Africa, but in the world?
(iii) Is significant that Algeria is rich in Gas and Oil; Niger has the world’s largest Uranium reserves – which by the way powers France’s nuclear plants; Mali is Africa’s third biggest gold producer; and so on, and so on…?
(iv) We talk about the spirit of something, that which energises it, controls and influences it.  ...
 ...What if one of the greatest hindrances to peace/ shalom in Africa is poverty, the power and the spirit of poverty?  ... Covenants made long ago and constantly being energised by spilt blood, occult practices and unrighteous treaty or contract.... Africa is so much older than its colonial history, the truth of it so much more ancient. ... Maybe then we might know and understand, and then be able to act effectively.
I don’t know much really, but I do see a dawn, a long slow morning crepuscular, one that will captivate everyone with its beauty. I long to see Africa arise to the full light of day in all its God-given glory..."



May I join in this discussion. I also live in France. I’m making some huge generalisations which I would qualify a bit when it comes to the details.  Following the points made in the blog comments :

(i) When it came to colonisation it seems to me that France got the left overs. Britain ‘got’ India, West Africa, North America, and so on; the Dutch – South Africa; Spain and Portugal got South America, etc ie a lot of the rich pickings at the time.

(ii) Anyone living near the Sahara is living in difficult climatic conditions, amongst the harshest in the world and getting worse as the Sahel grows. North Africa has the fact that it borders the Mediterranean going for it so at least it is significant for trade etc 

(iii) The gas,oil and uranium are relatively recent factors that have made it worth while ‘having’ these countries after all. Of course the gold is a much older story and makes up for the climate a little bit.

(iv) I agree absolutely about what your shy friend (see original blog post by Roger Mitchell comments) says about the dominant spirits. In Africa just like in Europe there seems to be a perpetuation of certain patterns. In Africa there has been a historical pattern, just as in pre reformation Europe, of gutter poor peasants and a few extremely rich. There are still some very very very rich Africans in comparison with their compatriots. That is their pattern of government, to bleed the country as much as they can as long as they can stay in power. (Remember this is gross generalisations) This is the pattern followed by many European monarchs in Europe too. It’s a very very deeply rooted habit – like who could get the money and labour to build Stonehenge for example without exerting “a little pressure” shall we say ? When Europeans went to Africa they had largely stopped doing it so much to fellow Europeans and went and did it to Africans instead. And look what we did to China – French and Brits together – groan
Continuing about the dominant spirits I heard a fascinating account by a historian of Ghanain descent who has looked into the history of Ghana in West Africa. Apart from many wonderful things, he also found that there was already a history of slave taking long before the Brits got there. The Northern tribe used slaves from other neighbouring tribes to work the gold mines. When the Brits arrived the Northerners then sold these same neighbours to the Brits who then sold them on. Eventually the Brits found it cheaper to go and fetch the slaves themselves. I use this west african example to say that I think we must be very careful about generalisations based on Live Aid images which then permeate public attitudes, a fact that you’re very aware of. 

My personal opinion is now that “Africans” may or may not need us. Maybe we’re more of a nuisance than a blessing sometimes, not cos we perpetuate colonial attitudes, but cos they do. However I believe that the next wave of revival in the world will come from Africans from Africa reaching out. I think we desperately need their intercession and their willingness to share the gospel. I also think that people will be willing to respond to them without the strings attached cynicism that we give to westerners talking freely about just about anything. 

I think we need to be very very careful about replicating the spiritual and powers that we have at work too. There’s nothing very clever about how our markets are going about things and so called democracy, which isn’t really, and can just become a tool for buying support as opposed to earning it. For example I think the system of village elders and negotiation is much stronger than the dribs and drabs of democracy we have here . But overall the key not the question of whether we have serial leaders or keep the same ones, it’s partly how to help them leave power without losing face – a house of elders and seniors (as opposed to a house of land owners or lords) could be a very useful addition to the democracy we export – ditto in the church. It’s so much easier to leave any sort of leadership if you know you will still have some sort of status and respect afterwards.

The key seems to me to pray that we will have the courage to think beyond our boxes and, as you suggest, kenarchy (or the same thing but with a less clunky name – inventors are rarely good at choosing the best name that the public can attach to) has to be a key. Church structure patterns can often mirror those in society, and every where we need to have the courage to live and organise ourselves in radical, alternative ways (without giving in to anarchy on the other extreme). If we don’t give people a structure to copy they’ll go and reproduce what they’re used to.

Thank you for your work promoting love and goodwill, what ever we call it.


Just another comment on the continuity of powers front - We need to remember that one of the next biggest colonising powers after the Romans is Islam. Mohammed was himself an excellent or at least successful warlord chieftan, and his two aids then successors also gifted warriors and strategists. "Christian" powers required over 300 years before they took up arms, and then it was on the back of the Roman empire and under their direction. Islam was imposed by the sword from the word go. There is nothing incongruous about Islam, when it goes back to it's roots in it's most fundamentalist form, being warlike. The 'peace' which comes from it therefore has more in common with the Pax Romana - you get peace if you give in. Of course not all Muslims want to live like that now, far, far from it. The conquered ones didn't necessarily want to live like that then either. Let's not just see the "terrorists" as hole in a corner crazys. They follow in a tradition of fearless, brave warriors. If they were from our culture we'd be proud of them. I don't agree with what they do, but I don't agree with how we decide who are heros and who are deadloss loonys either. We went much the same way about conquering Africa too after all.

A story : 'Help'

'Help'

Wild briars whipped at his legs, but Dimitri didn't notice. Eyes fixed on the road he scrambled into his hidden look-out point. He'd heard the news. His cousin had rushed up to tell his father. There'd been a riot. That would mean new prisoners. 

Dimitri lived with his parents and his brothers and sisters in a little house next to the jail. Jailer was a poorly paid and little respected job. His father often spoke of getting another job. Well he talked about it. Dimitri didn't know what the jail looked like inside.  He'd looked in once but ran away sick with the smell and the noise.

They were coming up the hillside out of town. The Guard, only two prisoners, and the usual curious crowd. Dimitri ducked as he saw his father anxiously came out to meet them. He was always living on his nerves, terrified in-case a prisoner escaped, then he would be executed. Dimitri had learned to duck quickly if his father lashed out when he was like that. He'd have to keep the little ones quiet at supper.

That night Dimitri was restless. He had slept but something had woken him. It was the quiet. There was no shouting or moaning in the cells next-door. Just the sound of singing. It sent shivers up his spine.

Dimitri stood in the rubble that had been his house. The babies were crying. Everyone was shouting. His mother was desperately counting children. His father was oblivious of them all. He was shrieking and waving a knife. Dimitri stared his eyes wide, less worried about the earth quake than by the hysterical behaviour of his father. He'd never seen him this bad before. His father was going to kill himself. Dimitri tried to make his legs move but he was rooted to the spot.

Then a voice called out clearly amongst the debris that had been the jail.

"Don't harm your self, we're all here."

The Jailer called for called for lights and rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. The prisoners were walking around, their chains had fallen off them.

"What must I do to be saved?"

They replied : "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved - you and your household."

We don't know what became of Dimitri and his brothers and sisters. We don't even know his real name. The last we hear is that the jailer at Philippi washed and fed his prisoners, they were all baptised and "the whole family was filled with joy, because they had come to believe in God."

Many children have lived in de-humanising poverty, witnessed trauma, or their parents in distress. The love of God is for whole families. If you identified with that child, but didn't have the help you needed at the time, I believe it's never too late to experience the healing hand of Jesus so that we can avoid passing on our chaos to a further generation.

From Acts chapter 16

A thought, concretewords, : 'The Cupboard'

Concrete Words : The Cupboard

(ps I live in France and I'm disabled. I write the contents on the cupboard doors for the helpers to be able to find things)



We've run out of rice.

I peel back the layers in the cupboard. 

An end of pasta. Not enough for a meal.

Dried lentils. I never did get round to my resolution of healthy eating. I still haven't cooked them. I don't actually like them. Even if they're good for me I can't find them appetising.

Half a packet of wholegrain rice. Ditto.

How could I have let the bottom of the cupboard get so dirty ? Were does the dirt come from ? I'm not that dirty or careless ? Am I ?

Why don't I empty the cupboards to the bottom more often, isn't it easy. Cloth. Disinfectant. Bin the old stuff. Put back what's left.

Maybe there is enough pasta left in that packet if I do lots of veg with it.

I feel so good about myself. I want to take a photo of my lovely clean cupboard.


Like appologising. and letter writing. or sending a little card, or going for a walk. I don't get round to it. It's going to take so much. But when I do I feel so good. Why don't I do it more often ?

Rant : Preach and teach are not synonyms

I think some of the problem is the muddle we've made between the words preach and teach. In the whole Bible it's clear that the shepherds of the believers, what ever you call them, Rabbi, Pastor, Elder, Overseer, Bishop will teach the believers. It's always teach. The word preach means proclaim and is always used for announcing or proclaiming the good news to people who don't know it yet. It's a word generally used outside the Bible for a Town Crier of sorts announcing something of national importance - a battle won, a royal birth. Teaching is an indoors activity traditionally done by someone sitting down who includes questions to make his trainees think, and open to questions. The two are not synonyms or interchangeable. Paul went about preaching and teaching. So he was both evangelist - goodnews-ist, and teacher.

In my opinion we have compromised into our little holy huddles by doing a "preach" on sunday morning - which effectively means we get neither proper teaching as such nor real proclamation where the public can hear it. I don't necessarily think that preaching has to be just open airs these days, people don't live out doors much in our climate, but anywhere where people go, including the media. I also feel that more people should be properly taught how to be Bible teachers so that teaching can happen much more in smaller formats, 100 people or less, so that there can be question and answer.

I also like what Jo Storie says about teachers being open to discuss with wider sources than just their own narrow stream.

I feel that if teaching within the church could give up it's preachy 6 feet above contradiction attitude then it would model a more reasonable approach to discussion amongst Christians instead of the current shouting at each other, especially through the press which makes me want to cry.

A Link : Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke

http://www.dyfedwynroberts.org.uk/index/evangelicalism-and-steve-chalke

Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke

Posted by Dyfed Roberts on Monday, January 28, 2013 Under: Post-Christendom

 

In making a public statement on the issue Steve Chalke's desire was to start a conversation within evangelicalism on same sex relationships. He has been partially successful and long may that conversation continue. An unintended consequence of his statement, however, is the fact that he has also shone a light on the current state of the evangelical community. While there is much to laud within the movement this episode has highlighted something that may be of concern.

Bebbington's quad

In 1989 the church historian David Bebbington published his seminal work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain and offered his four characteristics of what makes an evangelical: the necessity of conversion; an emphasis on activism; having the cross at the centre of one's faith; and finally the importance of the Bible and the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found within its pages'. These four points have been widely accepted as being the defining characteristics of the movement. 

One key thing about them is that they are quite broad in their scope. For example, both Calvinists and Arminians can be included within the definition despite their differences. So while Whitefield and the Wesleys differed on what the Bible taught about soteriology, they are all considered evangelicals. There seems to be plenty of room within Bebbington's definition for evangelicals to disagree on how the Bible is understood.  While the movement accepted that 'the Bible is inspired by God' Bebbington noticed that there was 'remarkable fluidity in ideas about the effects of inspiration on the text'.

Outside the camp

But has this breadth has been called into question by Steve Clifford, the EA's general secretary, in his response to Chalke? As I said last week Clifford took the opposite view on the subject of same-sex relationships. That in itself is quite uncontroversial - at least within evangelical circles. However, in his response he took his argument one step further and claimed that Chalke's interpretation put him outside evangelicalism. Indeed he even claimed that Chalke's interpretative method would lead people to a false 'god'. As I'm sure you'd agree that's a very strong statement.

In putting Chalke outside the camp, however, is Clifford not insisting on having a far narrower definition of what constitutes an evangelical compared to the accepted classification? It seems that he is not content for Bebbington's classical definition - allowing room for biblical interpretation - to stand. To be an evangelical today one needs not only to have the Bible at the heart of one's spiritual life but also be bound by a particular way of interpreting it.

Does this suggest that the evangelical movement is turning inwards in the face of the many challenges of our post-Christendom times? And isn't this actually a drift towards fundamentalism?