PamBG's Blog

I don't know exactly why, I'm weary of blogging for the moment.  I'll be back when I'm no longer weary.  

I'm blatently stealing from Olive's post on Octomusing

===

This is an appeal for Zimbabwe as the aid ban is lifted and nearly 4 million people will go hungry in October if no action is taken

As the ban on aid agencies operating in Zimbabwe is lifted, the Methodist Relief and Development Fund (MRDF) is supporting an appeal by ACT International that will deliver food and agricultural support to some of the country’s most vulnerable people.

Over 2 million people were in need of urgent food supplies when the Zimbabwean government ordered all aid agencies to suspend their humanitarian and development work on June 4. The ban only worsened an already desperate situation in a country with growing political instability, 85% of the population out of work and inflation levels that were spiralling out of control.

Amanda Norman, MRDF Supporter Relations Director, said: ‘We might think that the financial situation in Britain is grim, but the economic disaster faced by those in Zimbabwe puts things well and truly into perspective. Millions of Zimbabweans have been caught up in this complex humanitarian crisis and it’s hard to know how to even begin to make a difference. This appeal enables us to work with others to alleviate some of the suffering in the short term, and empower people to begin rebuilding their lives.’

It is estimated that nearly 4 million people could go hungry in October, with this number peaking at 5 million between January and March 2009. Now that the ban has been lifted, many will now be able to access much-needed food supplies.

The appeal through Action by Churches Together (ACT) will distribute monthly food rations of maize, cooking oil and beans to over 26,000 people in some of the most vulnerable communities. Farmers will be able to rebuild their livelihoods thanks to the provision of seeds, fertilisers and training in conservation farming that will help them to guard against the impact of drought.



Taxpayers are encouraged to gift aid their donations where possible, adding a value of 28p to every pound they give, at no extra personal cost.

MRDF makes small miracles possible for people living in the world’s poorest communities. For more information, visit www.mrdf.org.uk

Source: Methodist Church News Release 26/09/08 Donations to MRDF’s appeal for Zimbabwe can be made by debit or credit card on 020 7224 4814, or by cheque, payable to “MRDF (Zimbabwe emergency)”, posted to MRDF, Methodist Church House, 25 Marylebone Road, London, NW1 5JR.

Twice this week online I've encountered the argument that 'liberals' like me - and I put that word in scare-quotes for a reason - allegedly believe that 'all opinions are valid' and so, therefore, we do not have the right to disagree strenuously with conservatives. The argument seems to be that if we're going to argue that all opinions are valid that therefore the conservative opinion is valid as one among many.

What's wrong with this picture? First of all, I don't actually consider myself to be a theological 'liberal'. I don't hold the view that a person can call themself a Christian and believe just anything. For instance, I do not believe that it is orthodox Christianity to deny the divinity of Christ nor orthodox Christianity to deny the Trinity. Of course, an individual may struggle with these concepts, but - in my opinion - the church community may not deny them.

I do not consider myself a 'liberal', I consider myself a 'catholic'. A catholic Christian believes in the universal offer of God's salvation to all of creation. We believe that there is no person to whom God omits to offer his salvation: 'All shall be invited to the feast of life! Good news!' I do not know who is damned - if anyone - and I'm glad it's not my decision to make; that decision belongs to God.

I can see where some people might think my view is 'liberal', but it's not about 'anything goes'. It's about 'all are invited'.

This is actually a strongly-held conviction. I don't believe that all opinions are valid. When someone tells me that God excludes some people from his offer of salvation and that human beings can identify these individuals by their wrong ideas, I will disagree strenuously. Because I don't believe that all opinions are valid.

I am an opinionated catholic and I will disagree with you if I think you are wrong. And I'll try to do so in a civil and cordial manner.

I've had more occasions over the last few days to reflect on our future move to the US in September 2009 which I'm still very much 'processing' in my own mind and psyche.

I went to London on Thursday. I lived in London for 17 years; it's the longest I've lived in any one city during my adult life. I admit it. I feel like a Londoner. I love cities and I spent a really fantastic and positive portion of my life in London. I still miss my friends there. The minute I get off the train, my whole being relaxes and says 'I belong here. This is part of who I am.' I step out of having to play a game - the Pam-who-doesn't-live-in-London - and I can be me for a few hours. Or so it seems.

Anyway, as I said, I went to London on Thursday. And I realised that I will have only a few more occasions to visit within the next 12 months. Most of those occasions will be to go to a meeting of a committee that I sit on and then to return back here the same day. I'll probably only visit once or twice in pure 'holiday mode' to see friends and say good-bye.

But here's the really weird bit. I'm going to move to a town that is about 30 miles from where I grew up. I've not lived in that area for over 30 years and I've not lived in the US for 20 years. I'm going to go live in this place and no one will know that I'm a foreigner. There are a lot of really basic things that I don't know about living in the US. But no-one will know I'm a foreigner. I'm going to leave behind all my friends and all my support systems. I'm going to a foreign country but no one will know that I don't belong.

I know there is some theological reflection that can be done here. Babylon-born Israelites returning to Jerusalem, perhaps? I don't know; it's too late just now. I do believe that God is with me. I do believe that there is Kingdom Work to do everywhere. Sometimes God calls us out of our comfort-zones. May I have the strength to pray 'His will be done'.

A 'real life' friend of mine has posted on the subject of Why the Large Hadron Collider won't destroy the world.

He has tried to write for the general public so that even people like me will understand the article. And I think I pretty much did understand.

As he says in his post, my friend is upset by the news coverage suggesting that the LHC will destroy the world. He says that there is as much chance of that happening as of falling off the edge of the world if you sail to the horizon.

And for those of you who keep lists of Methodist bloggers, my friend is a Local Preacher although I suspect that most of his posts won't be theological.

You may be interested to know that, according to The International Earth Destruction Advisory Board that 'as of 7:35:05am UTC on September 10, 2008, the Earth has been destroyed.'

The site gives advice as to what to do in the event of earth-destruction, aka 'geocide'.

Since the circuit has announced that they are granting my request to leave this circuit in 2009, a number of people have said things to me like 'Never mind, God has a plan in all of this.'

It's hard to know how to respond to such a statement at the time, but there is something about the assumptions behind that statement that bother me. Some sort of assumption that human life is a great jig-saw puzzle that God is manipulating. 'Let's see, I'll make Pam's parents ill and then she'll move to the States and....' Yet, it's the kind of thing that we in the Church say very often.

I realise that the question of 'why things happen' is theologically difficult; and I don't think it's a subject that human beings can really wrap our heads around to our own satisfaction. I'm not sure I'm a determinist; I'm not sure that I believe that God manipulates events in order to make other events happen. And I certainly don't believe that God 'makes' people ill. Yet, I do believe in God's sovereignty and, to a certain extent, I believe that there is something in the idea that God 'allows' things to happen; but I'm not sure I know exactly what that means. As I said, I don't think I can tie this up into a nice neat package with linear logic.

Here is what I believe for my current situation. Without going into details, my parents' lives will be significantly better if I can be with them. This made my choice - if not the decision - seem like an obvious one. The Great Commandment tells us to love our neighbours (other people) as ourselves and the Ten Commandments tell us to honour our father and our mother. How can I preach these things if I'm not going to do them myself?

Those are the principles that I used to make my decision. The process that I used to make my decision was talking to other people - my parents, brothers and sisters and obviously my husband. Then I spoke with those who have oversight over me in the church: my Superintendent, the Circuit Leadership team and my District Chair. There was overwhelming understanding expressed that 'this is the right thing to do'. I think of this process as 'pushing doors to see if they will open'. It seems to me that the doors all opened immediately. The final confirmation for me was when I left a voice-mail message for my parents that we'd be coming to the States in August 2009 and that there was now no turning back. Their response was that it was wonderful news that gave them hope.

I'm sure that God will have work for me in the States. There is always work to do in spreading the Kingdom of God. For me, the question is 'Given that I will be going to the States, what is God's will for me there?' rather than 'God must have manipulated this situation, so what has he trying to manipulate me into doing there?'

My friend Sally has written an interesting post on the subject of whether the followers of other world religions worship a different God from the Christian God. I have a lot of respect for Sally and her views even when I disagree with her;  and this is one of the rare times we disagree! Anyway what she said, as well as some of the other comments on the post, got me thinking.

The most intriguing comment was by my blog-friend Tim Chesterton who suggested that when people say that other religions worship 'different Gods', that they are saying that they believe different things about the God they worship than people of other religions.

The problem I have with Tim's suggestion is that I often feel I'm worshipping a 'different God' from many people who call themselves Christians. And I sometimes feel that my concept of God has more similarity with people of other religions - particularly progressive Jews, Sikhs and Baha'i.

What I specifically mean is that there are many Christians who seem to worship a hard God who is eagerly waiting for human beings to slip up so that he can punish them. These individuals wouldn't say that this is their official doctrine, but they act that way. They also voice objections to my brand of 'soft and fluffy' Christianity that really believes that Jesus meant 'forgive your enemies' when he uttered these words. On the other hand, many progressive Jews, Sikhs and Baha'i would say that a merciful God who calls us to forgiveness is at the centre of their beliefs. I often feel that I have more in common with some of these individuals than with other Christians, yet I feel it is my duty not to reject my Christian brothers and sisters.

As Sally noted, this is a very complicated question and I'm not claiming to have all the answers to it.  I thought it was an interesting discussion, though.

Phil Broom Groom has initiated a petition to the authorities of Durham Cathedral to take control of the Cathedral bookshop, currently being run by SSG.  I could not make a direct link to the petition, but it can be found here: 

Fourteen years ago, my husband and I attended my university's 15-year reunion.

Today, I've just received an invitation to our 30th reunion.

Yikes! Where did those 15 years go? It doesn't seem that long ago.  The 30 years since graduation does seem 'long ago', but it seems more like 20 years than 30.

I stumbled across a blog post two days ago on a blog I don't normally read.  It was an expression of an idea that I've come to be familiar with over the last ten years of Christian internetting: that the Church in general is 'too nice' and that we need to start being tougher on people: both people in the church and people in 'the world'.

I'm also currently reading Ken Costa's book God at Work[1]. On page 43, he uses slightly different words to a phrase I've heard before. Costa writes: I've head this saying before as 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted' but I think I prefer Costa's 'confront the comfortable and comfort those who need comforting', even if the phrase doesn't have the same word-play. I think Costa is absolutely right that there is something about human nature that makes us want to 'get in good' with those who are in power rather than to confront them with their wrong-doing. Similarly, the sinful part of human nature means that we are often tempted to hurt those who need help: be it on a macro-scale (e.g. rich countries exploiting poor countries) or at a one-to-one level (e.g. taking out our frustrations on someone who we perceive can't hurt us).

When we say that 'the church is too nice' do we mean that we are not challenging those who are comfortable in their wrongdoing? If so, then we need to think and pray about how we can have the courage to speak God's truth in a challenging but constructive way. By the same token, there will always be people in society and in the church who need comforting and we are most certainly called to comfort those who need it.

It's not just 'the world' that is tempted to confront those who need comforting: the Church has also fallen into this temptation and succumbing to it is probably an excellent way to serve The Enemy and to be a bad witness for Christ.

We've been in the United States and rented an automobile from a well-known rental company (let the reader understand).

We rented the car at Cleveland Hopkins Airport which is about 40 miles from where my parents live in Hudson, Ohio. Most of the driving from the airport to Hudson is on the freeway (motorway).

On Tuesday morning, the front right tyre had a blow-out and we rang for roadside assistance. No problem. Someone showed up in about 45 minutes and put the spare tyre on the car. So far, so good.

But, of course we don't want to drive around with the spare tyre and we would want to have a standard tyre fitted. This is where the problems started.

Well, the company said, you can swap your car for another. Except none of the concessions - other than the one at the airport - have any extra cars. OK, no problem, the company says. Here's the name of a garage; you can go there and they will fit a new tyre. Good job we rang the garage. No, we won't fit the new tyre unless you pay for it because The Famous Car Rental Company don't pay their bills.

We are not happy bunnies. We have left the rental car in my parents' driveway and we're using their car for the duration of our visit. We'll still have to drive the 40 miles to the airport tomorrow on the motorway at 50 miles an hour. Going this slow on the motorway is a terrifying experience if you've never tried it.

Gotta love US television. Sometimes non-Christians have great perspective. Here's a short sound-bite that captures everything that's wrong with 'taking the bible literally': Have a nice day! ;-)

A thought-provoking post from Sam Norton: Who did Jesus most criticise?

Sam writes: We're all different and I'd not use precisely the same language as Sam.

I think I'd say 'I used to think that the people Jesus was criticising was those who were sure of their own salvation. I now think that he was criticising those who were sure of the damnation of others.'

I'm not sure that Jesus 'damns' those who think that they know who is damned.  But I do think that we are enjoined many times in the New Testament not to make these judgements.

Sometimes you just gotta laugh. Hat tip to Ask the Priest

'This year's Lambeth Conference has been steeped in controversy. And, unlike the good old days, it can't be settled by beheading your wife.'

This week's edition of The Church Times has very interesting article on Pretres Academy.

These are short videos (in French!) produced by The Diocese of Besancon. They follow the pattern of the television show Star Academy presenting the every-day lives and activities of priests in short videos. Fascinating.

I have just received some summary documents from The Annual Conference of The British Methodist Church. I note that one of the resolutions we passed was This got me wondering how many Methodists have actually read the resolutions? Because homosexuality isn't really their main focus. They are - as the title suggests - about human sexuality.  

Here is a link to the resolutions on the official Methodist Website: Human Sexuality The page also includes a bit of further discussion and some links.

As I understand the 'debate' about reviewing these resolutions within our denomination, there are people on 'both sides' of the homosexuality issue who want the possibility of individual interpretation closed on the matter of homosexual acts. Some want a clear condemnation of all homosexual acts. Others want a clear permission to bless Civil Partnerships in church.

Why were these resolutions not reviewed?  I was present at Conference when the possible review of the resolutions was discussed. Conference had asked for written responses from the Methodist people and the response was huge by normal standards.  I don't remember the exact number, but David Gamble said that on most consultations if they received 5 responses from churches or Methodist members, this could be considered 'a deluge of opinion'. There were apparently hundreds of responses to the consultation request on Human Sexuality ('Pilgrimage of Faith') and the results indicated that views were about equally divided on both sides of the homosexuality issue.  Results also indicated that most respondents did not want to review the Resolutions.

I blame it on Dave's 20th Wedding Anniversary but I'm going to go where angels fear to tread and dare to offer just a few thoughts on marriage. Not a treatise, mind. And not a worked-out systematic theology. Just a few thoughts.

Why am I doing this? Well the post that Dave links to, Will Positive Examples be Taken Seriously? throws out the thought that Christians don't offer many 'positive' thoughts on 'how to have a good marriage'.

So, as an egalitarian - someone who believes men and women are equal - I have a few simple but related thoughts:  

This text from The Life You've Always Wanted by John Ortberg struck me very powerfully this morning. I 'preach' to no-one but myself and simply share this text if it resonates with anyone else. Aren't most of the values of 'the world' centred around 'An idiotic contest to see who is the greatest' in one way or another?  This is the big way that I think The Church of Christ can be 'counter cultural'.