Just a thought…if a middle-aged, middle-class straight white male were to walk into a ‘typical’ British church the chances are he’d feel pretty normal.
But if Dizzee Rascal did, I imagine he’d feel a bit out of place.
As The Church, do we receive people in the same way as Jesus did, or do we judge people against some odd man-made standard?
I think I need more grace than I allow myself to think.
English: A homeless man in Paris Français : Un sans domicile fixe à Paris. Tiếng Việt: Một người đàn ông vô gia cư ở Paris Polski: Bezdomny mężczyzna w Paryżu See below for more translations. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’ve recently started a new job, which has led to me thinking back over the past jobs I’ve started. In comparison this new job is one which I would historically have looked at as one which I’d have liked to have, but which is generally worked by people I dislike…what I mean is that people in my job dress in suits, act busy, travel around the world as if they’re popping to the shop, have lots of meetings in tall buildings, and generally just act as if they’re more important than everyone else.
What I’ve realised is that my pre-judging of people in this job hasn’t changed despite the fact I work with them every day, and they’re all perfectly normal! I find myself disliking the concept of them (us?), which is weird, and completely nonsensical.
What it’s highlighted to me is that I find it very easy to put people into boxes:
Just to clarify, these are examples of what I could think, not necessarily what I do think. But the point still stands; I put a stay-at-home mum in a different box to a homeless person despite the fact that their different circumstances may have no bearing whatsoever on who they are. Am I making sense? I’m very tired.
The real point is this: surely we are all bearers of the image of God, and that should be the ‘box’ into which I put people?
Well, a book about grace. In terms of theological areas it’s tempting to think that this one’s been covered already, but the author admits this in the introduction and is pretty humble about it, which sets a good tone for the rest of the book. It’s split into two parts which roughly reflect the Old and New Testaments, each chapter of which retells a particular Bible story (e.g. creation, Joseph, King David, Matthew), with a particular (and healthy) focus on how the grace of God is demonstrated.
Being reminded about the grace of God is one of those things that you think you know enough about because you’ve heard it all, until you actually spend time looking at it again. It’s probably been less than a year since I read a book about grace but I found this one to be a refreshing way of communicating it. Stanley has the ability to tell familiar stories in a way which highlights things you might not have spotted the first time in a way that’s easy to read and can bring you close to laughter or tears.
It’s written very simply, so is ideal for new Christians or those of us who are less academic, but doesn’t get particularly meaty with its theology so if you’re more an N.T. Wright than Rick Warren reader the chances are that you won’t feel like you get that much out of it, although I expect you’d find it a good read anyway.
I’d recommend this to most Christians to be honest. It’s difficult to read it and not identify areas of your life you don’t want to change, and that for me is a good thing. I’d definitely give it to a churchgoer who wasn’t that into Christianity. But I’d probably hesitate before recommending this to a non-Christian – it doesn’t quite have that evangelistic edge in my personal opinion.
I got this book for free from BookSneeze.com. I’m not required to give a positive review.
This book is intended to be a fair, factually accurate analysis of Roman Catholicism, with a specific focus on its differences when compared to protestantism, and whether these differences actually matter. It’s particularly aimed at correcting people who think (1) the differences aren’t important, or (2) they know about Roman Catholicism when actually they don’t. Each chapter takes one aspect of potential disagreement (e.g. Mary, papal infallibility), explains the true Roman Catholic position, and identifies anything that protestants should be concerned about.
It’s written clearly and carefully, quoting from important sources, and as someone who hasn’t really had that much exposure to Roman Catholicism it’s excellent at showing what they believe and why they believe it. It’s easily the best explanation of Roman Catholicism I’ve ever read.
That said, I’m not convinced it does exactly what it says on the tin. The introduction gives a bit of a warning that Roman catholics may be offended by the book, but it seems that from a desire not to offend far too much effort was put into explaining Roman Catholic doctrine over rebuking it. For most chapters I’d say about five sixths is explaining, and only one sixth is comparing.
So if you’re familiar with protestant theology and are looking for an explanation of Roman Catholicism, this is the book for you. If you think you know about it but couldn’t give any evidence for your position, this book is for you (you may be surprised about how wrong you are!). But if you’re looking for a breakdown of protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism I’d give this closer to three stars than five stars.
I got this book for free from Reformation Trust Publishing. I’m not required to give a positive review.
English: Baptism of Christ (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I’m not sure what’s happened but everywhere I look at the moment someone seems to be talking about credos and paedos.
Yes, I know. People who believe that infants should be baptised have historically been called paedobaptists, and someone somewhere thought it would be a good idea to shorten that to paedos. No points for you. Credobaptists believe that only believers should be baptised. And holding either position requires that you think the others are wrong, plain and simple.
Here’s where the problem comes in; only one of the following is true:
It can’t be both. If the first is true then Christian parents are being disobedient to God by not having their kids baptised, and if the second is true then having kids baptised is a waste of time at best, and a heretical practice of works righteousness at worst.
A couple of Bible quotes to muddy the waters (no pun intended):
In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead. (Colossians 2:11-12)
We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. (Romans 6:4)
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. (Galatians 3:27)
Baptism, which corresponds to [Noah's Ark], now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:21)
From a biblical perspective baptism seems to be important then! It would appear that it’s through baptism that we’re united by faith in Christ, saved from the wrath of God by his death and raised to new life by his resurrection. It’s not enough to say baptism just represents something (often the stance taken by credobaptists), but it’s very difficult to align these passages with the paedobaptist view seeing as the Bible’s very clear that salvation is by grace, through faith…and newborns don’t have that.
So here’s my twofold conclusion. (1) I think believers’ baptism fits the Bible passages better. (2) Baptism is far more important than it’s often made out to be.
English: Inquisitive cows. Fresian cattle and Court House Farm near Hardy Gang Wood (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I have a friend who was born and brought up in Singapore. She went to school, as many children do.
While at school she had textbooks, and in those textbooks were pictures of Fresian cows. However, despite the access she had to this knowledge, not for a single moment did she ever actually think that Fresian cows were real creatures. Based on the information about animals she had available to her the existence of an animal which shares exactly zero colours with its habitat was simply unbelievable.
Put simply, a black-and-white creature living in a green landscape in Singapore would have died off a long time ago, and the idea this could have any other outcome simply couldn’t be entertained.
Yet when she moved to England in her twenties she discovered that this fairy story wasn’t as fictional as she thought. There are black-and-white cows everywhere. Who’da thunk it?!
When she told me about this it made me think about my conversion to Christianity.
My entire life I’d been told about God, but the information available to me through school, friends, TV and church to a certain extent had taught me that God is a fairy story.
But not believing something doesn’t stop it from being true; when I discovered the truth it took me by surprise.
Adam and Eve (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
A Christian’s life is overwhelmingly filled with fun, freedom, life and love. The vast majority of Christians have that experience of Christianity, yet that’s not what tends to get reported.
The typical non-Christian’s view of Christianity is that Christians are judgmental and foolish. Christians disbelieve in scientifically-proven theories (a contradictory statement but we’ll leave it for today), and they just hate anyone who drinks alcohol, has sex, or goes to a mosque.
Of course that view is fundamentally wrong for every Christian I know, but the Christian’s judgmentalism when it comes to homosexuality is one of the most often-reported factors of Christianity.
So I’m really grateful that Andrew Wilson has addressed it in a bit of a different way by using real people’s stories, rather than talking about it abstractly (which I’ve attempted to). Here’s a great quote from his article:
Following Jesus can be very, very costly for gay people: it can cost people not just sex, but also family, relationships, friends and social identity. In fact, I think gay people, along with Muslim converts and cross-cultural missionaries, understand the cost of discipleship much better than straight people. They often understand much more clearly than middle class, straight, happily married white people what Jesus meant when he talked about giving up everything to follow him.
Seriously, take the time to go read the whole thing.
