Not celebrating a 'living legacy'

Dear Mr Cameron, 

"This is the time when, as Christians, we remember the life, sacrifice and living legacy of Christ."

No, it is not. We celebrate as our only hope in life and death, the perfect life, atoning sacrifice, bodily resurrection and current intercession of Jesus Christ before the throne of our Father God. 

Please do not patronise us with talk of shared values. Pretending to share values does not even restore society, or reconcile families, never mind restore us to a reconciled relationship with the God of the universe. Jesus Christ did not die and rise again to share a vague feeling of peace to inspire us. While we are powerless to do peace, he came to be our peace, to make peace, and to preach that peace with the Father [Eph 2]. There is no eternal hope in a 'living legacy'. There is sure and certain hope for a broken, rebellious and dead world, in a Man who defeated death and rose as the first-fruits of a new creation, and will return to judge the living and the dead.  

The chronologically-challenged 'Cranmer' draws out an interesting comparison with Barack Obama's Easter speech here. Glen Scrivener treats us to something better:

The danger of Christian faith

"When I'm leading the campaign against Sharia law, for the abolition of the blasphemy law, speaking for the oppressed and marginalised, persecuted Christian and other minorities, these Taliban threaten me.

"But I want to share that I believe in Jesus Christ, who has given his own life for us. I know what is the meaning of the cross, and I'm following the cross. I'm ready to die for a cause, I'm living for minority community and suffering people, and I will die to defend their rights. So these threats and these warnings cannot change my opinions and principles. I prefer to die for my principles and for the justice of my community rather than to compromise on these threats."

Shahbaz Bhatti, Pakistani Minorities Minister, shot dead today, speaking in January. Video interview.

 Some would say that religious belief is dangerous. It makes people fanatical. Ready to kill others for a cause. But anyone who has truly put their trust in the cross - the death - of Jesus Christ, becomes fanatical and dangerous in another way. He is ready to live for suffering people, and to die to defend them. This is a Christian, a 'little Christ'. A servant is not greater than his Master. 

Did you vote for this?

Huw Williams gets to the point: Are you in a we or a collection of 'I's? Did you vote for this?

Caption competition: leader debates

Not having a TV license, I'm catching the party leaders' TV debates a bit at a time after they're live, on iplayer. So it was with much amusement that I saw the opening freeze shot for yesterday's debate:


Clegg: We're the only ones who have told you the details of what we would cut - 50% waste, 50% waste in all past governments: look, we don't need 2 legs: think how much we could save by only using one!
Brown: I agree with Nick.
Cameron: Give me strength!

Caption competition open!

[Please note: bad language and character assassination attempts not welcome. Keep the humour good!]

Voting to love your neighbour - with your mind

With the UK General Election coming up, I've drawn together some resources Christians may find useful. Useful, that is, if you want to think, seeking to use your mind (as well as will and emotion) to love your neighbour in how you vote.

Interview with Wayne Grudem on politics and the Christian, by Adrian Warnock:

How should Christians vote in 2010? by Dr Jonathan Chaplin, Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics, on bethinking.org. "To prepare for their upcoming electoral choice, Christian communities should seriously engage in discerning the defining issues of this election. ... For the sake of 'the welfare of the city'."

Also, from the Christian Institute - voting and the Bible in 210 seconds:
Mentioned in the above video, the Christian Institute has produced an election briefing in which it analyses party manifestos on a few specific issues most Christians will care about, though it leaves the vast majority of items: immigration and asylum, social care, economy, national business ethics, etc., etc., up to the individual to research. Some things are clearer than others.

To think through more of the theory behind the different parties (ha, traditionally, anyway):
Power Against People: A Christian Critique of the State, by Philip Vander Elst, on bethinking.org,
contrasting with
State Expectations, by Paul Bickley, on bethinking.org

And for a few interesting personal takes:

• Dan Blanche on the first TV leaders' debate (to flag it up - I found Paxman interviewing Cameron much more helpful than the "debate", as annoyingly rude as Paxman is, and will watch his other interviews in coming weeks);
  
• Adrian Warnock starts a series on why he's voting Conservative this time - starting with social justice;
• Peter Grier (meinem Bruder) dilemma-ising and discussing on a Christian perspective of democracy and politics (on facebook - I've no idea if you need to be logged in to view).

[I may start posting some thoughts of my own at some point, but for now, they're mostly being spent in discussion with my housemate!]

Quote of the day: battling for the unborn (again)

John Piper brings an article to our attention on why the pro-life battle isn't being won by appeal to humanity. It's concise, powerful, and true. He concludes:

[A] “case against sexual libertinism” is good, but by itself powerless. “Cases” don’t affect hormones and passions very much. But there is a power to “put to death the deeds of the body” (Romans 8:13). His name is the Holy Spirit. And he moves through faith by making Jesus Christ the supreme treasure of life - including sexual life.

So, at bottom, the battle for the life of the unborn is the same as the battle for the life of the un-born-again.

It all comes down

Matt has been studying eco-towns, since the UK government is planning(? pondering?) planting 10 such. As an engineer, he doesn't think it sound. And it got me thinking: what does the gospel say on this?

In brief, I think the gospel leads us not to abandon forlorn cities (whether to move to Cambridge, or to build new eco-towns, or to move to the nice suburbs!). From a gospel perspective, nothing is irredeemable. While ultimately we recognise that all human efforts at regeneration will be subject to frustration, it is in hope that the One who so punished us will one day set it free from its bondage to decay (Rom 8). God hasn't pulled out of this world. He hasn't carried out his sentence of condemnation on it completely, and whisked people off to live elsewhere. No - he sent his Son into the world to redeem it, and sends his people into it, cursed as it is. The devil won't have the final word on the world: the final word is Jesus. God will renew his world, uniting all things under Jesus as head. So as God works in grace in the world, even as many people continue hell-bent on destruction, so we must work in grace in the world, not abandoning what is rotten, but seeking to redeem. We must engage in the renewal of the messed-up rather than trying for the new and untainted.

Which brings me to this: in fact, to try to build perfect eco-towns suggests a rather-too-positive view of human nature and ability. "The old is a mess: but we'll try new and untainted." This neglects to address the main problem: we can't build a new and untainted system, because we ourselves are tainted with the problems of the old! At heart, we don't want to manage God's earth and society well under him, because we are selfish. Rather than using what we've got to serve other people to God's glory, we seek to use other people to get what we want, to our own glory. We're only interested in environmental issues when our own nest is snug. Trying to build new eco-towns is like trying to retreat away from sin to a monastery: it doesn't change our hearts. Building the right structures will not change our hearts to live in a non-selfish way to steward the earth, love other people and worship our Creator. It'll just make Pharisees: "Lord, I thank you that I am not like other men. I recycle every week, I use renewable power sources, and I'm certainly not like that inner-city yob over there!" To imagine that eco-cities are the answer is an unrealistically optimistic view of human nature.

So, it's the now & not yet of the gospel again. God is set on redemption, and works in grace in the world: so must we. Yet we live awaiting that final redemption of the earth so live in hope rather than thinking we can accomplish everything now.

An interesting conundrum is posed in Isaiah: how can the utterly faithless, condemned city become a glorious city of righteousness? There's no hope in her! But there is hope in the faithful servant, sent by God. And so at the end of the Day, the only perfect City is not built by human hands, but comes down out of heaven to earth, from God. A faithful city and a restored Eden, a people whose hearts have been changed. Come, Lord Jesus!