Category: Sermons

Posted on

Forgottenheimer: Oppenheimer’s undetonated bomb, and a missed opportunity – contains spoilers

Oppenheimer. Universal Pictures,

It seems somewhat late in the day to be writing about Christopher Nolan’s latest film, Oppenheimer. In part, that is because my emotions and reflections have turned out to be just as complex as Nolan’s own narrative. I have been searching for clarity.
I will therefore get straight to the point. If you will forgive the hyperbole, in my view Nolan’s epic, despite its multi-layered narrative and wonderous cinematic creativity, is deeply disappointing. That is because it is the only film in history that we expected to bomb but in reality, lacked impact. Whilst I find myself questioning whether I should go back and rewatch the film for anything that I have missed, one of the most telling markers of good storytelling is that you are so drawn in that you cannot fail to take its themes home. Even without being particularly visceral, a good film will return to you and invade your thoughts when you are back home doing the hoovering.

Piecing together the narrative

In the case of Oppenheimer, my only thoughts were ones whereby I was trying to piece the narrative together. In order to enjoy this film you will need to understand the historical context in which it takes place. Heck, you may even find it easier to read the text from which the film was inspired, American Prometheus (Bird & Sherwin, 2021) in order to be adequately prepared. Oppenheimer was the architect of the atomic bomb, in a race against time, developing a weapon that could arguably end World War II before our enemies made their own advances. He was a theoretical physicist who displayed some uncomfortable personality traits – including, according to the film, lacing his lecturers lunchbox apple with cyanide. He was a hero one minute, but derided the next. President Trueman, for example was unimpressed whe Oppenheimer shared his concern that he felt he had blood on his hands, famously derriding Oppenheimer as a ‘cry-baby’. Oppenheimer’s reluctance to support the further development of a hydrogen bomb, as the United States hurtled towards a cold war, led some politicians to be sceptical of his support – and the easiest way to disempower him was to question his loyalty to the states by suggesting he had communist sympathies and may have leaked secrets to the Russians. This set in motion an enquiry as to whether he remained suitable to continue working for the United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Perhaps it is the way that my mind works; as I viewed the film I had to think back to my university lectures in Physical Chemistry, trying to remember the composition of the bomb, and how the nuclear material needed to be refined (illustrated by an increasing load of two sets of marbles in a two fish bowls). If this were a lecture, and I was in the audience listening, I would have been sitting there nodding politely, perhaps even smiling whilst wondering whether I was the only one not quite understanding what was being said. It was like reaching the point in a Maths lesson where you are really not following, and the teacher has no idea. This way in which the narrative of this film weaves about is a nightmare! It is filled with flash-forwards, and flashbacks, in colour and black and white, with I believe, colour representing the memories of one of Oppenheimer’s detractors, Richard Strauss. And yes, I did not realise that until I read a review from someone else. Significantly, YouTube and the internet are full of articles that break down and explain the narrative.

A crime against humanity

My primary concern is that I didn’t feel a profound sense of Oppenheimer’s moral turmoil following the bombings. We should be acutely aware of the sheer devastation caused by the uranium fission bomb (‘Little Boy,’ equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT) on Hiroshima and the plutonium implosion bomb (‘Fat Man,’ equivalent to 21,000 tons of TNT) on Nagasaki. This knowledge should be seizmic in our souls.

Little Boy – US government DOD and/or DOE photograph, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Fat Boy U.S. Department of Defense, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Atomic bombing of Japan. Left picture : At the time this photo was made, smoke billowed 20,000 feet above Hiroshima while smoke from the burst of the first atomic bomb had spread over 10,000 feet on the target at the base of the rising column. Six planes of the 509th Composite Group participated in this mission: one to carry the bomb (Enola Gay), one to take scientific measurements of the blast (The Great Artiste), the third to take photographs (Necessary Evil), while the others flew approximately an hour ahead to act as weather scouts (08/06/1945). Bad weather would disqualify a target as the scientists insisted on a visual delivery. The primary target was Hiroshima, the secondary was Kokura, and the tertiary was Nagasaki. George R. Caron, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

The wide variation in the death toll stems from the inadequate record-keeping at the time. Estimates range from 129,000 to 226,000, complicated further by the distinction between immediate casualties and those succumbing to radiation poisoning. What I want to emphasize is that although Oppenheimer’s flashbacks touch upon this terror, it is presented fleetingly, assuming that the audience is already aware of the unimaginable scale of destruction caused by these weapons.

Photo of what became later Hiroshima Peace Memorial among the ruins of buildings in Hiroshima, in early October, 1945, photo by Shigeo Hayashi.

 

The patient’s skin is burned in a pattern corresponding to the dark portions of a kimono worn at the time of the explosion. Japan, circa 1945. Gonichi Kimura 1945 National Archives at College Park, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

 

Siblings losing their hair. The younger brother died in 1949 and so did the elder sister in 1965 of aftereffects of atomic bomb. Kikuchi Shunkichi日本語： 菊池俊吉, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons1945.

This, in my opinion, is the major flaw in “Oppenheimer.” In fact, judging by the numerous explanatory articles and videos available online, you might find yourself needing a manual to decipher this film before delving into introspection. I may be simplifying things, especially considering the film’s title is “Oppenheimer” – centered on the individual rather than the bomb itself. Nevertheless, even when Oppenheimer’s opposition to the United States developing a hydrogen fusion bomb becomes evident, the lack of vivid description (beyond cold facts and figures) of what ground zero looks like for a ‘typical’ nuclear bomb means that the audience can’t fully grasp the gravity of the situation and the depth of Oppenheimer’s emotions. Time Magazine, citing a nuclear engineer at Berkeley University in California, underscores that a hydrogen bomb would possess a hundred to a thousand times more destructive power. [2]

A missed opportunity to tell the story to younger generations

Regrettably, this film is rated 15 in the UK instead of 12A. While I acknowledge that the themes in this film are mature and warrant parental guidance, I believe that the ages between 12 and 15 are crucial for helping young individuals contemplate actions, consequences, and the world around them. The language used is relatively mild, but there are instances of obscenities. Similarly, the intimate scenes, though mild and potentially relevant in terms of conscience and key narrative themes, come across as overly clever and, in a way, overly theatrical. This approach diminishes the gravity of these moments and, frankly, feels somewhat absurd.

For instance, in one scene, Oppenheimer’s relationship with Gene Tatlock, who is also having relations with the Communist Party USA, is depicted with them in bed. Oppenheimer’s mind seems preoccupied with theoretical physics and matters of conscience, while Gene takes control of the situation by sitting on top of him, grabbing the Bhagavad Gita from a shelf above his head, and reciting the line “Now I am become death, the destroyer of souls.” This phrase is, of course, repeated by Oppenheimer later. In another scene, Gene and Robert sit naked, facing each other, as a portrayal of the competing desires between Gene and Kitty (Oppenheimer’s wife) begins to unfold, with Gene vying for dominance in their love triangle. These scenes are not explicit or titillating; they are more commonplace, peculiar, and a sophisticated, creative effort to highlight Oppenheimer’s character flaws and how he is both the instigator and victim of his own inner turmoil. They certainly do not offer gratuitous moments through pornography. I’m not convinced that they add significantly to the script, and I believe they could be portrayed differently for a younger audience.

While I’m tempted to delve into the discussion of what content should be accessible at various age levels, my main point is that even if the film did underscore the gravity of the nuclear experimentation and the ethical dilemmas it raised, its UK age rating makes it inaccessible to those under the age of 15. Nevertheless, I strongly believe that our young people should be as well-informed about the threat of nuclear warfare as they are about the Holocaust. “Oppenheimer” represents a missed opportunity, especially with its release date on July 21, 2023, so close to Hiroshima Day on August 6th. [3]

A cult following?

While the film may not have a significant impact in certain areas, I have no doubt that it will gain a dedicated following. It’s not entirely accurate to call it a “cult following” because the film isn’t meant for mere entertainment; rather, it’s a vehicle for understanding how personality, conscience, power, authority, and consequences intersect. It delves into the connections between theory, practice, and perceived risk, as well as ethics and utilitarianism.

Oppenheimer is initially celebrated for his work at Los Alamos but later faces derision from those who question his loyalty. Strauss is motivated to undermine Oppenheimer after witnessing a conversation between Oppenheimer and Einstein, which leaves Einstein seemingly indifferent towards Strauss. This eventually leads to Oppenheimer losing his security clearance. However, Strauss’s ambitions for a senior political role are thwarted when it becomes clear that his vindictiveness, exposed for all to see, was the driving force behind this move. Consequently, Strauss fails to garner enough votes in the Senate for his appointment. This power struggle, rather than the ethics of nuclear warfare, becomes the central lens through which the story unfolds.

Ultimately, Oppenheimer is finally recognized for his achievements by John F. Kennedy. In all of this, Einstein’s earlier words to Oppenheimer, that he will be praised for his actions because they benefit those who applaud him, prove to be true. After unleashing the nuclear bomb, Oppenheimer becomes a pawn in a political game. Therefore, the film’s reluctance to help viewers step into the narrative by providing a clearer backstory is what prevents it from making a more profound impact. Regarding the bomb’s impact, longer moments of reflection, possibly with silence, showcasing the devastation and fires, could have underscored this point. Such scenes don’t have to be visceral; they simply need to be telling.

Looking for the spiritual core

For those seeking a deeper, spiritual reflection on the significance of Oppenheimer’s story, CBS News provides profound insights through a 1965 interview. Oppenheimer’s responses to the newscaster’s questions followed a somewhat expected pattern: he viewed the bomb as a necessary evil, a harsh measure taken with reluctance, aimed at preventing further suffering. He candidly admitted, “You naturally don’t think of that with ease. I do not think our consciences should be entirely easy.” However, a sense of caution pervades Oppenheimer’s responses. He appears to sidestep personal reflections and instead emphasizes the collective conscience of the era. Based on the information available to him in both 1945 and 1965, Oppenheimer seemed to believe that the use of the bombs was justifiable.

Nonetheless, I was deeply struck by the contrast between corporate and personal conscience. Regardless of the rational arguments constructed by others to justify the use of the bomb, did it still conflict with Oppenheimer’s personal conscience at the time, even if it seemed rational on the surface? Regrettably, this is a question that remains unanswered, as Oppenheimer carried it with him to the grave and beyond, leaving us with a perpetual ethical dilemma.

Curiously, just as the film inadequately references historical context, it also fails to explore the divine or our responsibility to it, except for Oppenheimer’s misquoted words from the Bhagavad Gita, which the audience is left to interpret. It’s worth noting that this Hindu epic involves its hero, Prince Arjuna, conversing with Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu, who is the preserver and protector of the universe in Hinduism. Arjuna is uncertain about how to handle a family conflict, and Krishna convinces him to fight. However, when Krishna reveals his true power, the world seems to burn (to borrow your phrase), and Arjuna pleads with him to stop. In this sense, Krishna to Arjuna is what nuclear research is to science—initially desiring the benefits but recoiling once realizing the destructive force unleashed. The parallels between these narratives are striking.

Oppenheimer harnesses nuclear science but is cautious about the consequences and where it might lead. However, the film unfortunately doesn’t delve further into this aspect to shed light on Oppenheimer’s awareness of his accountability to the divine. It seems that featuring Oppenheimer’s reference to one of Hinduism’s sacred texts should prompt consideration of the idea that regardless of our individual beliefs about God, there is more at play here than a limited human-centered ethical conversation.

Oppenheimer, and Physicists ‘knowing sin’

Interestingly, Oppenheimer did speak of sin relatively soon after the bombings, and so it would have been possible to begin to enter this territory. Personally, I would not be looking for the film to do more than introduce the question – because we can reflect on it in the car park later. But to close, during his 1965 CBS interview, Oppenheimer stated:

“Long ago I said once in a crude sense, in which no vulgarity and no humour could quite erase, that ‘Physicists had known sin’. I didn’t mean by that the deaths that were caused by the result of our work. We had known the sin of pride. We had turned to effect in what proved to be a major way the course of man’s history. We had the pride of thinking that we knew what was good for man, and I do think that this has left a mark of many of those of those who were responsibly engaged. This is not the natural business of a scientist.”

Regrettably, from my perspective, while “Oppenheimer” possessed considerable beauty, creativity, and an unmatched level of sophistication within its intricate and multilayered narrative, it failed to make the impact it should have. It may not be a total disaster, but it certainly fell short of expectations. “Oppenheimer” runs the risk of fading into obscurity and becoming “Forgottendheimer” because it places too little emphasis on the crucial ethical question of whether it is morally justifiable to use nuclear weapons and the complex personalities and dynamics that are involved in making such a decision.

[1] Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – Wikipedia
[2] https://time.com/4954082/hydrogen-bomb-atomic-bomb/
[3] https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/08/06/japan/hiroshima-attomic-bombing-78th-anniversary/
[4] (26) From the archives: Robert Oppenheimer in 1965 on if the bomb was necessary – YouTube 2:15

Posted on

Reflection and Eucharistic Prayer based on Jesus’ response to the Canaanite Woman seeking Deliverance for her Daughter

This communion liturgy was written for cafe worship and in response to the challenging dialogue, in Matthew 15:21-28.

The Canaanite Woman, Les Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry, Folio 164r, Condé Museum, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Matthew 15 describes a visit made by a woman to Jesus, then in Gentile territory, She was desperate for Him to deliver her possessed daughter. Jesus’ response, “Let the children be satisfied first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs”, has proved one of the most challenging sayings of Jesus because, from a cursory reading, it appears to support the discriminatory and inhumane attitudes shared by many of his compatriots, towards the Gentiles.

Whilst the principle that Jesus comes to the people of Israel first, and then to the wider world is understandable, we are made distinctly uncomfortable by how Jesus’ words could be taken to uphold some kind of two-tier hierarchy (in which ‘they’ (the Gentiles) are favoured less than ‘us’.

Michael Angelo Immenraet, Jesus and the Woman of Canaan. Between 1673 and 1678. Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. Complete with large dog. Spot the look of surprise on the face of the nearest disciple. Michael Angelo Immenraet, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

This is not helped in the least by his referring to them as ‘dogs’.

Softer readings of the term, derived from the original Greek (which means ‘puppies’ rather than the ferocious animals we might assume), do little, in reality, to counter this. Meanwhile, the suggestion that the word for ‘dogs’ in Greco-Roman contexts, was also used to refer to philosophers, is tempting to hold on to (as if Jesus is saying that his truth claims need to be received as more than philosophical ideas that are up for debate).

However, Jesus is too far removed from this context for this to offer any kind of reprieve. The Gentiles knew that they were despised by their neighbours. Our only hope, unless we suggest that Jesus is having a bad day, and has been caught off-guard, is that he is saying it sarcastically, as if this phrase, ‘It is not right to take food for the children and toss it to the dogs’, is a common saying that Jesus is ridiculing. However, there seems little evidence of this, and we cannot know the tone in which Jesus is speaking.

There are, however, some positives. In the first place, the woman, an outsider, is prepared to risk people knowing that she has approached Jesus. Second, this seems to be a rare occasion where the person – let alone a woman – challenges Jesus and leaves affirmed. Her response, ‘Even the dogs under the table eat the children’s crumbs’, is met with praise and the declaration that her daughter has been healed that instant. The core message is that Jesus, most likely seeking solace, tolerates being disturbed by someone in great need. The woman’s humility and persistence changes her life, and the life of her daughter.  Beyond this is the fact that whilst Jesus’ initial response leave us perplexed, He nonetheless disregards the boundaries of religious tradition that would have forbade He even talking to this woman, let alone bringing healing to her family.

I commend this liturgy to you, to use or edit as you wish. As general guidance to those ministers who are looking to write their own liturgies, page 221 of the 

Methodist Worship Book is a significant help. My personal experience is that this freedom that is offered to Methodist presbyters can be particularly helpful in ecumenical settings, given how we can shape our liturgies around particular scriptural and missional themes. This liturgy features elements of the Methodist Communion service for Pentecost (also for renewal, and emphasising the power of the Holy Spirit), aspects of Ordinary Season (1) – particularly a rewording of the familiar prayer recognising that we are not fit to gather the crumbs up from the Lord’s Table.  The Liturgy borrows from elements of the Iona Tradition by placing the Peace at the end, rather than at the beginning. Here, the emphasis is on how, having shared in communion, we find greater peace, and are drawn to a deeper level of commitment, then we were when we first began. We are a people who are now compelled to live at peace with each other, to respond well to those in need, and to bridge the divide. Meanwhile, the Lord’s Prayer is entered into earlier, as we emphasise that God meets our daily needs and that this rite is both a reminder and a fulfilment of this. 

One line is derived from considerable reflection, in that we pray that God would ‘help us unravel those strands of our traditions (sic.) which we have spoilt, that now limit our love’. This is rooted initially in the idea that aspects of the Pharisaic Tradition which were intended to help people draw closer to God had in fact become more insular and created division. A more detailed analysis of that paradigm is not possible here, but Jesus is clear in his speaking out against rules that misunderstand the action itself (ie food laws or washing hands) with the point of the action (this should be an outward sign of an inward commitment to righteousness, rather than a display for the sake of one’s one pride). Meanwhile, my emphasis is on how we can spoil the best of our inherited traditions in much the same way; we have the tendency to cherish the past to the point that we end up not preserving a mission but a living museum of what used to work. And in the worst of cases, we withdraw from the world, feeling resentful of those in our communities who do not seem to be supporting us. We say, ‘We are here for anyone and everyone just so long as they are prepared to walk through the Church doors’.

This is, I grant you, a pessimistic view of church where amazing things are happening, but our overriding learning from Fresh Expressions, and then New Places for New People, and also Church at the Margins, is that we still need to encourage each other in reaching out to new people who are not yet members of the church, and to be open to the kind of changes that need to be put in place so that the Church meets them where they are, rather than expecting them to conform to a model of church that may work for us, but may be less than ideal for them. We need to visit the land of the Gentiles and to be receptive.

Another element from the Methodist Worship Book which may prove helpful, especially in countering any sense of hierarchy, and emphasising mutuality, is for the President to adopt the confessional stance laid out in the Second Preaching Service within the Worship Book, Section B. Here the President would lead the way in confessing their own sins, with the pardon being pronounced by the congregation,  and then the congregation confessing their sins to the President.

I confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

Silence, after which the people say

We confess to God and to you
that I have sinned in thought, word, and deed;
May God have mercy on me.

May God grant you pardon
forgiveness of all your sins
time to amend your life,
and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit, Amen

_______________________

The Creed 

The Offering

The Lord’s Prayer

The Lord is here. His Spirit is with us.
Lift up your hearts. We lift them to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God. It is right to give our thanks and praise.

Almighty God. At the beginning of time, your Holy Spirit
hovered over the surface of the deep.
You formed the heavens and the earth.
You brought light to the darkness, and life to all.

You convict us, and draw us,
that we might turn to you
and know life in all its fulness.

We remember your faithfulness through the generations
And how your covenants unfolded.
You raised up a holy people to reflect your love for the world
so that we might find purpose, and care for one another.
You sent prophets, priests, and kings to lead your people.
You defeat sin and death, and all that oppresses.

We give thanks today, that despite our sin:
Our tendency to withdraw from you, and from each other
Our lack of humility and willingness to embrace the risk of rejection
Our negligence, weakness, or even deliberate intent:
You sent your Son Jesus, so that you, the one true God
who was unknown, or overlooked and forgotten by so many,
would be revealed through His exorcisms, healings, and nature miracles.

And so with angels and archangels
and all the choirs of heaven
we join in the triumphant hymn:

Holy Holy Holy Lord
God of Power and Might
Heaven and Earth are full of your Glory
Hosanna in the Highest
Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord
Hosanna in the Highest. 

As we gather at this table, we remember Jesus’ final meal.
Where, as the future looked bleak,
worry, confusion, questioning, and betrayal hung in the air.
We acknowledge Jesus’ sacrifice, dying on the cross for us:
Journeying unto death so that we might be shaken to our senses.
He who welcomes our questioning, who loves beyond the border
urges us to seek the Father’s forgiveness and love our neighbour

Whilst we are saddened by Jesus’ death, we rejoice in His resurrection
and the knowledge that your Kingdom is here, is coming, and knows no bounds:

Christ has died, Christ is risen, and Christ will come again.

You lead us from longing to belonging.
Although our life may be challenging.
Although love’s cost, paid through grief can be great.
Although we may feel at times abandoned and lost.
You never leave us, you are our comforter, counsellor, helper, our friend.
When we are weak, we are carried by our church family.
When we are strong, we join our church family in carrying the weak.
Your spirit convicts us as to how, and where, you are leading us to serve.
You call us to welcome the stranger, to question that which divides us,
You call us to unravel those strands of our traditions which we have spoilt,
that now limit our love
We give thanks for those who stand with us now, whom we cannot see,
those who join with us in worship, prayer and service.
Who together with us, and the angels and archangels
praise you, and proclaim the eternal truth:

Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord.
God of Power and might
Heaven and earth are full of your glory,
Hosanna in the highest
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord,
Hosanna in the highest.

We remember how, on the night before he died Jesus took bread, broke it, and said, ‘Take, eat, this is my body’, and how he took the cup saying. ‘Drink from it all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins’.

We offer you these gifts of bread and wine, and with them ourselves, as a holy living sacrifice:

You send forth your spirit.
You bind us in love.
You renew the face of the earth.

Pour out your Holy Spirit so that these gifts of bread and wine
may be transformed and may become for us the body and blood of Christ.
Unite us with Him forever
And bring us with the whole of creation
To your eternal Kingdom

Through Christ, with Christ, in Christ,
in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
all blessing and honour and glory and power
be yours forever and ever, Amen.

The bread is broken in the sight of the people.

We break this bread to share in the body of Jesus Christ

Lord, we come to your table in humility,
trusting in your mercy
We are not deserving of the crumbs under your table
but it is your nature to bring healing
and to shape us into the people you are calling us to be
So feed us with the body and lifeblood of Christ
so that He may grow in us, and we may grow in Him.

The bread and wine is shared; helpful options here, which reinforce the theme of Jesus calling us to love our neighbour, is for the bread and wine to be shared amongst the congregation by passing it to each other.

The Peace

The Peace of the Lord, which surpasses all understanding and knows no bounds, be with you now and forever

And also with you

Posted on

We Believe: Churches Together in Whittlesey and District. This is what we stand for.

The statement below reflects Churches Together in Whittlesey and District’s ongoing understanding of how God is calling local Christians and churches to support each other in partnership. It is the culmination of a year’s reflection, as our shared values have surfaced through prayer, conversation, and action. (I write as one of the local ministers who is part of this group, with a sense of gratitude as our jouurney has unfolded).

The desire for churches to work together has renewed following the Covid-19 pandemic, as leaders have recognised that we can understand the needs of our community more by conferring with each other, and in certain areas we can have a far greater impact by working together and supporting each other, than working alone. We are One Body with congregations meeting in different times places, to accomodate different needs. My earlier article, ‘Churches Together, What’s the Point?’ highlighted that whilst there is considerable warrant on us striving towads gathering for shared worship, an alternative starting point – and arguably the more fruitful route in helping people discover the joy of journeying together – rests in shared mission. Whereas encouraging congregants to ditch all their morning services to gather in one place for worship is a challenge, sharing in mission, with opporutunities in different times and different places, may be more achivable. It also is highly relational; we then join for a joint service not because there is an ecclesiological edict to do so, but because we are connected to our friends in other churches and enjoy fellowship together. (I should say that we have had some success in joint worship, but the trust of my argument remains).

We Believe is not intended as a credal statement. It is a creed of sorts, fashioned around Jesus’ prayer for the disciples that they should be One, supporting each other through the hardship that is to come once Jesus is taken from them, and as they face persecution in the future. Its starting point is therefore about how we value each other, and how we relate well to each other, irrespective of the differences we share. We Believe, in my view, determinedly emphasises our common faith in Christ. It asserts boldly some key theological drivers.

If the Good Samaritan was good not just because he was caring enough to tend to the wounded man, but because he had the capacity to love the person that he had most likely been conditioned from birth to hate, then how much more should we be obliged to support our fellow Christians? Should not the love of God blow apart our differences?

God has called us as Christians (rooted in and living out our discipleship as part of a local church), to mission. There will be times when by working in partnership we can achieve more than if we work alone. To resist this is to work contrary to God’s purposes.

Whilst we regret the conflict that has existed, and remains (sadly in some areas) between Christians of different denominations, we celebrate the richness of our traditions, and with that our diversity. God would have us listen and learn from one another. Whilst we might yearn for increased unity, we recognise that diversity is a part of life, and for the sake of peace, and the Gospel, we must learn to live with contrasting convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well. Our conflict must never obscure our shared belief in Jesus as Lord, and the mighty truth of the death and resurrection of Christ. (This, I must confess, is part of my Methodist identity, having surfaced as part of our ongoing discussions around human sexuality).

There is no place for self-interest and self-preservation in the life of the Church, as if we promote the life of our own church first and disengage in our support of others. There is no room for the fear that members from one church will leave for another down the road who is more appealing. The core task, for us all, is to discern and meet need. Our focus should not be so much on doing the work of the church, but on doing the work of the Kingdom, from which the Church, and local churches are birthed. We are not called to serve so much in our church, but in God’s Church, and it is God who has domain over what this looks like locally. Focus on building the church and we will be dead in the water. Focus on making disciples, and affirming constantly that we want them to find a spiritual home, a church, where they can be loved, love others, and fulfill their potential, and God’s blessing will come our way, irrespective of where they go. If your church has a reputation for nurturing people, it will grow. And we all have the capacity to nurture. What one person loves in worship style and approach will be different from another. (I won’t reveal my preferences but there are some churches that will uplift me, and leaders who I know I can always turn to, but by the same token, I know that there are churches that will not sustain me for where I am in my life right now. That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It is all part of the mix.

And finally, at this moment in our history, and whilst affirming the importance of conscience and freedom of religious belief and expression, as churches, working together, we need to assert ourselves in the fight against discrimination in all its forms. In this present hour, our concern continues for racial justice within the Church, and for the Church’s voice in affirming the dignity and human rights which should be afforded to those who are part of the LGBTQI+ community. In this respect, to remain silent would be to perpetuate, in some contexts, the untruth that the church is die-hard traditional, unconcerned, uncaring, and out of touch with reality. In respect of LGBTQI+ issues, whilst many within and outside the Church will appreciate that our debates will be multilayered, emotional, and complex, the more urgent message for us to relate is that as God’s people, we have compassion and we are clear about what we do stand for where human rights are concerned.

Below is the statement ‘We Believe’, agreed by Churches Together in Whittlesey and District.

We Believe

We believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and that He died for us, and that God raised Him from the grave by the power of the Holy Spirit. That same Spirit is at work in us.

We believe that Jesus’ desire for us that we would support each other, in remaining faithful to God and to each other, through the joys and sorrows of life. We are disciples travelling along the same road.

We believe that God has a mission to save the World from sin, death, and all that enslaves us, and that as Christians and local churches, we have our part in that mission.

We believe that by supporting each other in our discipleship, and the work of our churches, we can do more than if we were to walk alone. To this end, we assert that to work in isolation, where the possibility of partnership exists, is contrary to God’s will.

We believe that diversity is a part of life, and that inclusivity is an act. We embrace the diversity and richness offered by our individual traditions. We have much to learn from each other. Whilst our Churches may differ in certain areas of doctrine and practice, God calls us to live with contrary convictions, and where we disagree, to disagree well, in such a way that does not undermine the gospel.

We believe that God calls us to build the Kingdom, rather than to focus on building our local churches, but that in working for the Kingdom, our local churches will flourish.

We believe in One Church, which is God’s Church, of which we all share a part. We celebrate moments where this unity becomes visible.

Churches Together in Whittlesey in District affirms the Churches Together in Britain and Ireland’s focus on racial justice, the fight against discrimination in all its forms, and in particular whilst respecting the rights of conscience and religious freedom of belief for all people, stresses the dignity that should be afforded to those who are LGBTQI+, and affirms their human rights.

Posted on

Lenten Reflection One: Taking the Devil Seriously

 

This article is inspired in part by the Sermon notes that have been produced by Roots. Here, the author focuses on how the Devil is tempting Jesus to question his own identity….

Sometimes retaining your focus when sermon writing is difficult. As I reflected on this, my son was kicking a ball repeatedly against the back wall of my study, occasionally missing and hitting the window. He is singing at the same time; some or other chant that about Peterborough United. I am becoming increasingly frustrated, having to shout at Ben to keep it down. I am feeling tired – it has been a long and draining week, and I have to confess, I am a little grumpy. And then to top it all, I hear the distant sound of an ice-cream van as it blares out the theme tune to what I remember was Blue Peter. I am not amused. I can’t seem to get the beginning of this sermon right. My son would love me to come out with him, but right now I am struggling to balance my responsibilities as a Dad with that of being a minister. I am also trying to balance the sense of frustration and unrighteous and underserved indignation that I feel (I really want that ice-cream), with the peace that I should be modeling as a minister.

And then it struck me. The temptations are about just that. They are about identity. They are about who Jesus will be in the moment, and whether he will be faithful to God’s call. Will Jesus accept his place under God’s authority? Will he be tempted to use his power and influence to further his own ends? Will he go it alone, rather than working according to God’s plan? This penetrates much deeper than the questions that are raised by the momentary struggles that I am facing as I find it hard to concentrate. God is less worried, I believe about whether I cave in and dash our for a 99 Flake, so long as I am not eating a hundred of them at a go. God is less worried, I believe, about whether I am occasionally grumpy, just so long as I don’t take it out on those around me. But God is concerned about whether I live in humility and know that He is almighty and all powerful, and I am very small, and that I have a small part to play in his plans for the world, rather than me thinking that I can ask God to bless my plans – leaving him, so to speak on the touchlines cheering along. I think that God is concerned that I do not use the gifts that he has given me, for my own purposes. He gave them so that I could help others. And I think God is concerned that in my ministry I do not promote and sell myself as some kind of superstar. The temptations are not really about what Jesus is being tempted to do. They are about who Jesus is tempted to be. The devil (or deceiver) tempts Jesus to rely on himself alone – to turn the stones into bread. He tempts Jesus to be a religious evil Knievel, attracting everyone with supernatural sensationalism. He tempts Jesus to be a tyrant and follow him, with the promise of all the land he can see. In the, quite literal, heat and hunger of the moment, these temptations must have felt strong, yet Jesus resists. He is determined to find his own identity as the Son of God, and to live by his Father’s values. And so, it is for me, and for all of us.

There is something significant that is happening to Jesus here, something that happens to all of us as we go about our lives. Jesus is wrestling with the identity that the devil tries to force upon him. In life we may have times when others force an identity upon us, that can be unhelpful. Think for a moment about how you may have been known at school or at work. Were you the quiet geek, were you the life and soul of the party, were you the sporty one? How was your identity a blessing or a curse? And today, how is the identity that others may put upon you, be a help or a hindrance? Crucially, if we find that we face burdensome expectations, can we throw them off? And as I see it, not only people but also churches, have unhelpful expectations about what they will do and what they won’t do. One of the crucial questions that we are having to ask ourselves at the moment, especially as the Church engages in new forms of fellowship and mission, is what we mean by the term ‘Church’.

We would do well to turn our attention to how Jesus deals with these attacks on his identity. Most importantly, he turns to scripture to refute Satan’s argument. Jesus identity is to be found in scripture. Likewise, God’s broad purpose for our lives is revealed in scripture, and when we struggle or face difficulty, it is to scripture that we must return. This is helpful in at least two ways. To turn to scripture, is by implication, to acknowledge that God’s presence. Yet in life, it is so easy to forget God. It is easy to forget that we are accountable to God. It is too easy to be swallowed up in a sea of human opinion since God is absent from most of our Western media. More than this, opinion in some aspects of the media is instant and knee jerk, with little evidence of reflection and analysis. Journalism at times can become a case of summarising people’s responses, rather than what you might call hard-nosed journalism that invests in deep investigation and reflection. Is there such a thing as paying too much attention to the views of others? And in these pithy pieces of analysis, we might recognise that we have engaged speech first and brain second. If we look to how Jesus responds to the devil, we can see he engages scripture first, then speech second.

Moving on from this, another reflection from the account of the temptations, is how Jesus is not naïve about how the Devil operates, and what the Devil is trying to do. We have not talked much about the Devil. It seems somewhat crude. He is referred to in slightly different ways in the gospels, ho diabolos – meaning ‘the accuser’. This is the same word used for Judas, and those who gossip in revelation. The devil attacks us, accusing us of some kind of failing. This leads us to question our identity as children of God, and crucially, whether God is with us and for us. Another title is ho poneros, which means The Wicked One – used to describe Satan himself – the one who works in opposition to God. There is ho peirazon, which means the tempter. There is pseustes, which means, the liar and the father of lies. I could go on, but my point is however we view the Devil, any view that dismisses him as the creature in red with a fork, or as a piece of ancient superstition that we can now disregard, is wholly inadequate. However we picture the Devil, he is still at work, trying to undermine the work of God and us. At the same time, by the power of the Spirit, we can resist. But we can only do that if we take scripture and the promises of God seriously.

I want to end by referring back not to the temptations, though, but to the description of the serpent (another word for the Devil – or deceiver), in the Garden of Eden. As I have said before, I don’t think important whether you read this as literal or otherwise, although most orthodox Jews would he horrified at the idea that people would take it literally. What is at stake is how the deceiver undermines Eve by questioning what God has really said. And then he undermines God by questioning God’s motives. So often in life the truth is warped by two things – a distortion of what someone has said, and or, a distortion of motive.

As Christians, we need to seek God and know his promises for our lives.

Matthew 11:28-29

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

Romans 10:9

If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Jeremiah 29:11

For I know the plans I have for you,” says the Lord. “They are plans for good and not for disaster, to give you a future and a hope

And we need also to note how God has been shown to be faithful in his promises

Lamentations 3:22-23

The steadfast love of the LORD never ceases; his mercies never come to an end; they are new  every morning; great is your faithfulness.

James 4:7

Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you

1 Corinthians 10:13b

God is faithful, and he will not let you be tempted beyond your ability, but with the temptation, he will also provide a way out so that you can endure it.

Posted on

Reflections on Covenant – and what gets in the way

There has been much to celebrate across the circuit. This is my fourth year with you all, and as I write I find myself in the ‘season of covenant services’. As I reflect I am mindful that I could never have predicted what God has done. New people have become involved in the life of our churches. Others have taken on new roles, and have not just done ‘ok’ but have blossomed and are being mightily used by God. Some of our local churches – and indeed we as a circuit have stepped out in faith and tried new things, and the results are beyond anything we can imagine. Oh, and I am I right in thinking that despite some of the set things we are obliged to cover, our circuit meetings (and other gatherings) are ‘fun’, perhaps even joyous at times? Our problem, especially when we arrange our agendas for circuit meeting, is that there is so much good news to share, and not enough time.

 

As I reflect, and as I am honest with myself, I am also minded that I could have never predicted some of the challenges that we have encountered on the way. I am sure that the same is true for you in your personal lives and in your commitment to the Church. The word ‘predict’ is important here. I think that it is our desire to want to know the precise detail of where he is leading us and how exactly we will get there, is one of the things that causes us to struggle with our faith. God gives us enough. God is the architect, we are the workers. However, particularly when we are tired, or when we are focused on the immediate, we worry about what is God’s business, or we anticipate problems before they even arrive. We do struggle sometimes because – let’s be honest, we reason with ourselves that if we were God, we would have spoken or acted by now, or done something differently! But by nature, our minds are limited by our own preoccupations and perspectives. Another useful lesson is that just because something is difficult does not mean that it is out-and-out ‘bad’. Jesus never promised that life would be easy: he just promised that he would never leave us.

 

I have found three basic principles helpful in my own ministry. First, let God be God. Don’t roll out the red carpet for him in the wrong direction! Second, be led by the Holy Spirit, and be attentive to the teachings of Christ. Ask yourself, ‘Where does God want me’. Spot the difference between what you feel obliged to do, and what God is calling you to do. Third, offer yourself as a living sacrifice (Romans 12:2), for in living faithfully as a disciple, throwing yourself into the Christian work, your mind with be transformed, and you will discern the way ahead.

Proudly powered by WordPress