The Lord will be my light

Do not gloat over me, my enemy!
Though I have fallen, I will rise.
Though I sit in darkness,
the Lord will be my light. Micah 7.8

Dungeons are traditionally dark, windowless places. That's no accident. Except for those born blind, human beings find being in the dark for any length of time disturbing. We rely so much on our vision to make sense of the world. Keeping a prisoner in complete darkness is a sure way of torturing their mind and breaking their spirit.

Sometimes life itself seems to become a dark and dreary dungeon. We can't understand what is going on. Our personal lives are shadowed by illness, loss and loneliness. The world around us is dark with disasters, wars, cruelty, threats and human suffering.

This is as true for Christians as it is for anyone else. In fact it can seem worse for Christians. Where is God in the darkness around us? Why is he allowing us to suffer such confusion and disorientation? In those times we are likely to hear a voice whispering to us "God doesn't care! He can't help you. Are you sure he even exists?"

To recognise these whispers as the voice of an enemy, the enemy, rather than our own, is a great relief. To summon the courage to say "I don't know why this is happening, but I know that God is trustworthy and I will wait for him" is often the turning point in our troubles. It's like finding a candle suddenly shining in the darkness. The dungeon doesn't disappear, but we're no longer afraid of the dark.

Why Rumours of Hope?

(from my 'About' page)

Well, for a start, with a gazillion blogs already registered on the internet, it's getting hard to find a name for a new one. It was either this or "The In of And".

But more seriously, why Rumours of Hope? 'Rumour' is, after all, a word with somewhat negative connotations. In a world that clamours for constantly updated information, rumours are often substituted for news. We hear rumours of war, rumours of economic turmoil, rumours of environmental disaster, rumours of sex scandals, rumours of political sleeze and corruption. We associate the word rumour with hearsay and gossip.

But why not circulate some positive rumours? People listen to rumours. They pass them on, and wait with interest to see if they will prove true or not.

What the world really needs at the moment is some reason to hope. Not head-in-sand hope, but hope that despite all the gloom, there is a future that is worth waiting for and working towards.

So I'd like to spread some alternative rumours such as: God is not dead, the world is not out of control, humanity is not a cosmic mistake, atheism or legalistic religion are not the only options. Rumours such as: God can be trusted, life can be meaningful, love will ultimately triumph over death.

I've moved a number of posts here from two of my other blogs, Trust and Necessity (now closed) and Not the Doctor (which I'm re-organising). I've also provided a link to my old website One Candle. And I plan to post new material regularly. I hope you will enjoy browsing and reading and perhaps interacting through the comments box.

Don't be alarmed

People have been predicting the imminent end of the world and Jesus' second coming since his ascension. Some of these predictions have been based on supposed prophetic visions or dreams. Others have focused on auspicious dates such as the years 500, 1000  and 2000 AD. Calculations based on the book of Revelation have produced a wide range of dates, most of which have already passed by uneventfully.

Cataclysmic events such as the sacking of Rome (410 AD), the bubonic plague  in 1347-53, and the wars of 1914 and 1939 have also prompted people to  predict the imminent end of the world. Anxiety being created today by various crises internationally is likely to lead to a rise in end-of-the-world forecasts.

The Bible restrains us from making such predictions or becoming anxious about them. For one thing, it provides a record of wars, famines, plagues and disasters spanning over 2000 years. Whatever dreadful thing is happening in our world today, we can be sure to find something similar in the history described in its pages. "There is nothing new under the sun" (Ecc. 1:9). In all these events, God remains sovereign.

Secondly, we have Jesus' words in Matthew 24:6-8 "You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of birth-pains." What midwives call "practice contractions" in other words.

Jesus assures us that when the end does come and he returns it will be both sudden and obvious. In the meantime may our response to what is happening in the world be compassion and prayer for those affected, trust and steadfastness in our own situation.

Image: by tarotastic / photo on flickr

Now we are all prophets

Then he said to me "Prophesy…" So I prophesied as he commanded me. Ezekiel 37:9-10

After studying the role of the prophets in the Old Testament, one of our Bible study group members asked "What about today? Are there still prophets today?"

It's a good question, and we discussed it at length. Some would point to Hebrews 1:1-2 to argue that prophecy ceased with the end of the Old Testament and the coming of Christ. Others would argue that prophecy is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit mentioned in 1 Cor 12:10 and some people are especially gifted for this role. Certainly the New Testament mentions specific people such as Agabus as prophets.

But the New Testament also speaks of every Christian being called to prophesy (eg 1 Cor 14:5). The Old Testament prophets were anointed with the Holy Spirit to speak God's word into a specific situation and call people back to the covenant made at Sinai. As Christians living under the New Covenant, we all have the Holy Spirit and we all have the word of God in scripture. So we could be said to be prophesying when, prompted by the Spirit, we remind one another of that word in order to exhort and encourage one another in our daily circumstances.

That doesn't mean racking our brain or searching our Bibles for an appropriate word for every occasion. But we should be obedient to the Holy Spirit's leading and be ready to include God's word in our conversation and our prayers as he brings it to mind. "Would that all the Lord's people were prophets" (Num 11:29)

Image: Author: Ian W Scott / photo on flickr 

Violence in the Old Testament - part 4

This is part 4 of a series. See part 1, part 2, part 3.

To summarise what I've said so far:

1. Much of the violence of the Old Testament is the result of human decisions and actions. The fact that such violence is not always condemned outright by the writers of the Old Testament does not necessarily mean that they are condoning it. (Part 1).

2. What causes the most difficulty for readers of the Old Testament, and arouses the greatest vitriol from its critics, is the fact that in some places God himself is the one commanding or carrying out the violence. How can a God who is described as loving and kind to all that he has made (by the Old Testament writers as well as the New) be involved in acts of violence and destruction?

3. Ignoring this problem is not a solution, nor is explaining it away by assuming that the Old Testament writers got it wrong or put words into God's mouth. (Part 2). However, it is true that the writers sometimes used militaristic metaphors for God's activity which we don't always find helpful.

4. God, as the uncreated creator, owner and sustainer of the world, does not have the same limitations that human beings have and his actions cannot be subjected to the same analysis or restrictions that we would apply to another human being. This is not the same as saying 'might is right'. A teacher who keeps a child from going out to play because of unfinished work is using their authority and wisdom to discipline the child. A child who stands at the door to prevent another child from going out to play is a bully.

5. Violence is generally perceived negatively. However it can be used positively in two situations - in creative (and re-creative) processes and in applying justice. (part 3)

Joshua and the Battle of Jericho

Let's look now at a specific example of God's use of violence, one which most people find disturbing.

The violence of the Old Testament - Part 3

This is part 3 of a series. See Part 1 and Part 2

Human-initiated violence in the Old Testament

In part 1 we looked at the human propensity towards violence. While the level of violence in a society ebbs and flows over time, it is never absent. Those who would not think of taking part in violent activity themselves may still watch violence or read about it as a form of entertainment.

Human nature hasn't changed, and much of the violence described in the Old Testament (not to mention the New Testament) is evidence of that. The Bible chronicles life as it is, not as it should be. Life in the Ancient Near East was hard and brutal, tribes and nations went to war with each other and families squabbled then as frequently as they do now. Much of the violence that is recounted in the Old Testament is initiated by sinful human beings. Often such violence is condemned, by the writers and/or by God (eg Psalm 11:5, Proverbs 3:31, Malachi 2:16) But not always. 

Persian warriors

As I've mentioned before, the fact that some activity is recounted in the Old Testament doesn't necessarily mean that it’s being approved. Unless a commentary is added by the writer, the reader is left to decide for themselves what the significance of any particular event might be. Sometimes a violent episode is recounted to demonstrate how bad things had become (the events of Judges 19, for instance). 

That's all very well. But what of the violence that seems to be specifically commanded or carried out by God? If we're not going to pretend it doesn't exist, and we're on shaky ground suggesting that God's words of command have simply been added by the human authors of the texts, (see part 2) what are we to make of it?

The violence of the Old Testament - Part 2

(Thursday thesis)

This is the second part of a series on violence in the Bible, particularly the Old Testament. Part 1 can be found here. And yes, I know it's not Thursday, I'm posting this late.

Two options that don't work

Ignoring the violence of the Old Testament isn't an option for several reasons. First, it suggests that we’re afraid of what conclusions we might come to if we did face it. We’re afraid that our image of God and the way he works might have to be revised in ways that we’re not comfortable with. We’d rather stick with the censored Bible and the blurry image of God we’re familiar with.

But living in fear of discovering the truth isn't healthy, psychologically or spiritually. It puts us constantly on guard against anything that might disturb our carefully constructed version of truth. It means that our faith is not really placed solidly on the God of the Bible, but on an idol of our own construction. We’re creating our own cannon of books and passages that are acceptable to us.

If the God of the Bible really is a cruel and sadistic monster, as the New Atheists suggest, then we should be right to reject him as they do. But not bothering to find out whether it’s true or not seems bizarre. Hoping that it isn't true is not faith but wishful thinking.

Ignoring the violence of the Old Testament also ensures that we live in fear of other people questioning us about it. We’ll find ourselves unwilling to invite people to church or our Bible study group if we know that one of the ‘difficult’ passages from the Old Testament is going to be read. We’ll avoid suggesting that people read the Bible for themselves, or point them only to the New Testament. We’ll look embarrassed and give a half-hearted answer when we are questioned about difficult passages. Fear will kill our desire to evangelise, or lead us to offer a short and sweetened version of the gospel.

Ignoring the violence of parts of the Old Testament means that we’ll have no biblical way to understand the violence in the New Testament or in the world around us. The crucifixion will be a jarring aberration in an otherwise peaceful landscape. The final judgement scenes in Revelation will seem out of place. The lavender-scented version of the world that comes from our edited Bible won’t match up with a reality where war, brutality, rape, domestic violence, murder and a host of other evils are on display daily.

The violence of the Old Testament - part 1

A smiting God

The word 'smite' is seldom used today, yet everyone seems to know its meaning. The reason they know is that everyone is aware, whether they've read the Bible or not, that a lot of 'smiting' went on in the Old Testament. And often God was the one doing the smiting.

Tissot: the taking of Jericho

Recent translations of the Bible don't use the word smite. But the perception that the Old Testament is full of violence, much of it ordered or carried out by God himself, hasn't gone away. New Atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchins have made much of it, painting a picture of God as a violent and sadistic monster, promoting genocide

But it's not just the ignorant and the New Atheists who are disturbed by the violence of parts of the Old Testament. Many Christians are disturbed by it too. For some, the violence is intolerable, more than they can stomach. Their solution has been to reject the Bible as a source of truth and walk away from their faith. I have been tempted to do this myself at times.

And surely we should be deeply concerned when we read of God ordering the Israelites to slaughter every living thing in a city, including women, children and even the animals (Deut 20:16-18, Jos 6:21). Or when Moses is outraged on God's behalf because the Israelites have spared the women and children of Midian. (Num 31:7-19). What sort of God tells parents to have their unruly son put to death? (Deut 21:18-21) or orders the stoning of adulterers? (Lev 20:10)

Who hasn't winced when such passages have been the reading for the day? What Bible study leader or preacher hasn't wished they could avoid such passages in their teaching of the Bible? Isn't the Old Testament giving us a picture of a God that would feel familiar to the Taliban? Haven't such passages been the justification for so much blood shed and war in the name of God over the centuries?

Paul – not our role model

(Monday musings)

The apostle Paul is often put forward as an example for all Christians to follow in sharing the gospel with others. And when it comes to his love for Christ, his obedience, his courage and his commitment, he is certainly a great example.

But I wonder if Paul is really the best guide for the ‘average’ Christian to be urged to follow when it comes to delivering the message of the gospel. Paul was a single man with (as far as we know) no dependents. His occupation (making tents) could be carried out anywhere. His Roman citizenship gave him the right to go anywhere in the Roman Empire, and to some extent provided him protection. He was free to travel from place to place.

As a former Pharisee, Paul had a well-respected theological education and the skills to expertly interpret scripture. He was trained to lead, teach and write.

More importantly, as an Apostle, Paul had a very specific calling to be an evangelist which followed his dramatic conversion on the Damascus road. Clearly he was well equipped for the role, or perhaps we should say, the Lord had wonderfully prepared him for it.

The problem with Paul being held up as an example is that few of us can identify closely with him. We may have families. We have jobs that may not easily be transferred from place to place. Our theological education is limited (though we can certainly always learn more.) We may not have leadership skills, speaking skills, or the ability to teach. And most of us have not received a clear calling to be evangelists. We are all called to be witnesses of what we have seen and heard and know of the Lord Jesus.

The risk is that, in comparing ourselves with Paul, we feel inadequate for the task we think we’re called to do and give up. What we really need to know is what Paul had to say to the Christians he was writing to about how they were to go about being witnesses to Christ. He didn't ask them all to join him in his travels. What did he tell them to do? What were they to say to the people around them? How were they to demonstrate the good news of the gospel to their neighbours? The answers to these questions, rather than Paul himself, are where we will find our guide to being witnesses.

If you had been here - Martha's lament

Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died" (John 11:21)

The raising of Lazarus
by Duccio di Buoninsegna

Unless you are reading this story for the first time, you already know the outcome. Lazarus has died, and his sisters Mary and Martha have called for Jesus. When he eventually arrives, Jesus tells Martha that her brother Lazarus will rise again. Martha responds "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day." After assuring Martha that he is the resurrection and the life, Jesus asks Martha if she believes that whoever believes in him will never die. Her answer? "I believe that you are the Messiah, the son of God".

So Martha's initial words "Lord, if you had been here my brother would not have died" can simply be read as a statement of faith: "I know that you can heal the dying." After all, she goes on to add "I know that even now God will give you whatever you ask." (11.22) Martha expresses a faith in Jesus that is more than justified when Jesus raises Lazarus from the dead.

But let's look back at the situation before Jesus' arrival, from Martha's point of view. Her brother Lazarus becomes ill and is obviously dying. She and Mary are desperate - not only do they love Lazarus, but the prospects for two unmarried women with no male family support are grim.

They hear that Jesus is not far away and send a message "Lord, he whom you love is ill". They have been friends of Jesus for some time, they have lovingly ministered to him and believe that he cares about them. They have also seen and heard enough about what Jesus has done amongst the sick and dying to believe that he will surely be able to do something for Lazarus.

Doubting Thomas

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”  
John 20:24-25 (English Standard Version)

I once thought of Thomas as someone with a sceptical outlook on life - a first century scientist who looked for evidence to support his hypotheses. I assumed he was like the many people I know who reject the Christian gospel because (they assume) there is not enough evidence to support it.

But these are people looking at Christianity from the outside. Thomas was not like that. He'd lived alongside Jesus for three years. He'd watched Jesus, listened to him, learned so much about him first hand. He'd been as committed to following Jesus as any of the disciples. When Jesus set out on his last journey to Jerusalem, it was Thomas who had urged them, "Let's go and die with him".

Detail from Carl Heinrich Bloch "Doubting Thomas"

Nor was Thomas like the Pharisees who wilfully disbelieved Jesus because he threatened their own position. As Jesus had predicted in his story of Dives and Lazarus, they would not believe even though someone were to return to them from the dead. (Luke 16:31) Thomas wasn't refusing to believe whatever evidence might be presented to him. He was adamant that he would only believe if he saw for himself, but later, having seen, he believed whole-heartedly.

Why did Thomas refuse to believe the words of ten men who were all well known to him? The other disciples had not believed the women who brought the news of the resurrection. "It seemed an idle tale to them", something the women, in their emotional turmoil, had dreamed up. The word of a woman was not admissible as evidence in a Jewish court, and no doubt the disciples had something of this attitude still with them even after spending three years with Jesus. But the word of two men had authority, and here were ten men all in agreement.

The disciples were no doubt so excited that they could hardly get the words out, as they told Thomas that they had seen the Lord. They must have told him, too, about Jesus showing them the wounds in his hands and side. Yet their collective enthusiasm and explanation didn't persuade him. Thomas insisted, “Unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails, and place my finger into the mark of the nails, and place my hand into his side, I will never believe.”

Other versions of this verse say "I will not believe". Either way, Thomas is quite emphatic. Nothing anyone can say will ever persuade him that Jesus has risen. Only seeing the evidence in front of him will make him change his mind.

It's difficult and risky to draw conclusions from the few sentences we have about Thomas. Yet there seems a definite movement in Thomas' attitude to Jesus in John's account, from the courageous commitment he showed on the road to Jerusalem, through the confused questioning in the upper room, to this determination not to believe without seeing for himself.

This willful doubting of Thomas is often taken as an example of arrogance or stubbornness towards Jesus. But could it be that Thomas' is guarding himself from further hurt and confusion? Is his refusal to believe perhaps a means of protecting himself from being disappointed and mistaken again, a case of 'once bitten, twice shy'?

It would seem, from his words in the upper room, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?" that his recent determination to follow Jesus to his death was based on a less than accurate understanding of what Jesus was going to do in Jerusalem. He thought he knew where Jesus was going and why, but somehow what Jesus said in that last conversation with his disciples rattled Thomas. There's a desperation, almost exasperation in his question "How can we know the way?"

Then came the furtive arrest, the mockery of a trial and Jesus brutal death. Thomas did not go to his death with Jesus after all, he fled with the other disciples. Like Peter with his broken promise to remain with Jesus, Thomas had more on his mind in those days after the crucifixion than just his grief at the loss of a good friend and teacher. He was surely struggling with guilt at his own act of betrayal, and a continuing sense of confusion and disappointment.

Detail from Rubens
 "The incredulity of St Thomas"

There are many people like Thomas. Once upon a time they were deeply committed Christians who sincerely thought that they would go to great lengths, even to death, for the Lord and the gospel. They were the Youth workers in their churches, the best students in theological college, the people everyone knew was destined for the mission field or a great preaching ministry. Then something happened that stopped them in their tracks. Perhaps it was a tragedy in their own lives or the life of someone close to them. Perhaps it was a bitter, destructive conflict in their church, or the moral failure of someone they looked up to as a model and mentor.

Suddenly the gospel they thought they understood no longer made sense, it didn't help them describe what was happening, it didn't cover their wounds. At that point they decided that the only way they would be able to go on believing would be to have evidence that the gospel was really true. In the past they had believed because of what they heard and read, but now other people's words are not enough. Now they need evidence from Jesus himself. In order to protect their shattered confidence, they will not believe unless they see.

Yet they also struggle with their own shame at having promised so much and then walked away. Their pride has to deal with the fact that they've spent years trying to convert others, and now they no longer believe themselves. They look back on their past enthusiasm with embarrassment. This only adds to their determination not to go this way again without strong evidence. The merely wounded might declare that they cannot believe, the shamed insist that they will not.

The risen Jesus deals with the failings of each of his disciples gently, graciously, personally. He doesn't issue a blanket pardon. In fact, he doesn't actually rebuke any of them for their abandonment of him. He takes Peter aside on the beach and by asking three times "Do you love me" allows Peter to undo each of his three denials of him. How, then, does he deal with Thomas?

It's strange, really, that Jesus appeared first to his disciples when Thomas was absent. He could surely have arranged things so that all eleven disciples were together. John's account makes it sound as though Thomas arrived not long after Jesus left. That raises the question, did Jesus actually intend for Thomas to be absent on that first occasion? And if so, why? And why wait eight days before appearing again with Thomas present? We're not told.

We can imagine what those eight days must have been like for Thomas, with the other disciples all insisting that they'd seen Jesus and all talking about what they had seen, what he had said, what they had felt, what it could mean. Like the odd man out on a jury deliberation, he must have felt some pressure to accept what they were saying. Yet he apparently continued to insist on withholding belief until he saw the evidence for himself. Did Jesus wait those eight days, hoping that Thomas would change his mind? Or did he have some other intention in waiting?

Caravaggio "The incredulity of Saint Thomas"

When Jesus did appear, dramatically through a locked door, he wasted no time in speaking to Thomas. And he knew exactly what Thomas had been demanding. “Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.”  With Jesus standing in front of him, Thomas surely didn't need to put his fingers in the nail holes to believe, but Jesus meets the full demands of Thomas unbelief. He holds out his hands to him.

Written dialogue does not always convey the tone in which something is said, nor the expression on the face of the speaker, and John does not tell us how Jesus spoke these words to Thomas. Often the verse is read as a stern rebuke or a command "Do not doubt!" and the words are used to warn those whose faith is wavering that doubt is not acceptable to Jesus.

These words could just as easily be said gently, compassionately, perhaps even ironically. "Don't be doubting, but believe". The original Greek text could be literally translated "Don't become disbelieving". Jesus loved Thomas just as he loved each of his disciples. He understood Thomas better than Thomas understood himself. Jesus' living presence in the room was rebuke enough to someone who had been denying that possibility.

Again, we can ask why John recounts this episode about Thomas in his gospel. In Luke's account of Jesus appearing to his disciples, Thomas is not mentioned by name. Instead, Jesus says to all of his disciples "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts arise in your hearts?" (Luke 24:38) Then he shows them his hands and feet and invites them to touch him.

It is often said that this incident with Thomas is included by John to encourage those who have come to faith in Jesus through the witness of the apostles (directly, in John's day, or indirectly through scripture since then.) They may not have seen the risen Lord Jesus, but Jesus himself said that those who believe without seeing are 'blessed'. (John 20:29)

But if the emphasis is on  the blessing of believing without seeing, why not provide an example of someone who did believe solely on the word of the disciples. And why single out Thomas as the doubter, when John says none of the disciples believed the women's account, and when Luke makes clear that even with Jesus standing amongst them, some of the other disciples doubted? Jesus words in John 20:29 (“Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” ) could be inserted after Luke 24:40 and make perfect sense.

We might also ask what Jesus meant when he used the word 'blessed' for those who believe without seeing. Did he mean that they are commended or even rewarded by God for their faith? Or is their faith somehow a blessing in itself?

In that week of suspended belief Thomas was surrounded by friends who were no longer grieving but ecstatic in their joy at having seen Jesus alive. He must surely have longed to have their faith, to share their joy with them. And yet he's afraid to let go of that commitment never to believe unless he sees. The cost of being proved wrong and disappointed again seems just too great to bear. So while they're rejoicing, he's in a state of emotional turmoil and sadness. What if Jesus should never appear to his disciples again. He will have missed out forever on settling his doubts.

And now suppose he meets someone who has been told by the disciples about the resurrection and they have believed and are full of the excitement of a new convert. Wouldn't he describe their state as 'blessed' compared to his own?

But Jesus doesn't leave Thomas in his doubts. He comes to him. He gives him all the evidence he needs. And just in case he should later doubt that it happened, he comes to him while he's with others who can recall and confirm what took place and what was said.

It's worth noting three things in  this story. First, Thomas never stopped being a disciple.The other disciples did not exclude him because of his doubts. He was not numbered with the Pharisees who refused to believe for very different reasons. Second, Jesus is gracious to Thomas, and doesn't exclude him either. Instead he meets his need. But third, Jesus says those who believe without needing proof are far better off than those who will never believe without seeing.

The first two statements encourage us to be gentle towards those who struggle with doubt (including ourselves), and to continue to include them in our fellowship. The third precludes us from thinking that there is any merit in doubting, though we may have good reasons for having doubts. Waiting for proof is a risky path to take if proof comes only by a gift of grace.

(This is the second of an occasional series of articles on Biblical characters who experienced doubt. See also Jesus, are you the one? )