Category: Faith

Posted on

The daily STAB Prayer

Submit to the
Trinity
At
Breakfast

(or at the Beginning of a task, project, year, etc.)

The STAB prayer is a simple formula, intended to anchor your focus on God at the beginning of the day. No prayer should become religious or formulaic, rather the STAB Prayer provides a framework or a reminder of how we can pray. Although it can never compete with the Lord’s Prayer, it can certainly complement it.

The structure, which you can use as an outline, is as follows:

Father, You are my God; I worship you.
Jesus, thank You for being my Saviour; be also my Lord.
Holy Spirit, fill me today; I need You.

First, we concentrate on the supremacy of God the Father, and give Him the worship He deserves.
Secondly, we remember with gratitude the salvation bought for us by Christ. But we don’t stop at accepting His salvation; we also submit to His lordship over our lives.
Thirdly, we look to the Holy Spirit, to fill us afresh and to guide us through the day.

Simple, but powerful.

This image is a simple encapsulation of the STAB Prayer. Why not print it out and put it somewhere where you’ll see it at the start of the day?

The STAB prayer

Posted on

Don’t all faiths lead to God? Why is yours so special?

Assuming we’ve satisfied ourselves on the question of the existence of God and accept that He is real, the next logical question is which God and what is He like? In fact some would say, “Don’t all faiths lead to God? Why is yours so special?” And this is the issue I will attempt to address in this podcast.

Note to broadcasters: please do contact us to obtain higher quality audio and a licence to broadcast any of these podcasts.

podcast iconHow can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

Posted on

The Message: Translation, Paraphrase, Truth or Heresy?

bible

Cards on the table. Growing up as a child, I read The Living Bible, a paraphrase of the Bible that was easy to read and understand.  This was my main Bible from the ages of 4 to about 15.  I gradually transitioned to the NIV, requesting a hefty leather-bound, commentary-laden edition for my 18th birthday.

19 years and many Bible studies later, slightly the worse for wear, this remains my main (printed) Bible.  The advent of the internet and the easy accessibility of multiple versions has somewhat relegated the printed word, but my old Bible still brings with it a sense of comfort, peace and tradition – in a good way.

Of course there now exist many different versions of the Bible, all rendered with different objectives and varied levels of scholarship.   If your faith rests on the word of God (faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God, says Paul in Romans 10:17) it is important to know where that word may be found.

Many Christians today refer to their Bibles as “the word of God” and here we come to the heart of our discussion: In a recent sermon, I quoted some passages from The Message.  My reasoning was that I was reading a familiar passage and it is sometimes helpful to hear that passage in unfamiliar language, to ensure we don’t “switch off”.

I had not anticipated that one of my friends and someone whose spiritual integrity I trust, would question my use of The Message and further, question whether The Message even deserved the right to be called “the Bible”.  The fundamental objection is that “The Message is a paraphrase”.

Broadly we divide Bible versions into two categories: translation and paraphrase.  Doing so, we may be forgiven for thinking that there is a clear distinction between the two approaches, or that one is “superior” to another.  But I do not think that the differences are as black and white as they might appear.

As I understand it, the objective of a translator is to take a text and render it in as nearly accurate a form as possible from the source language to the destination language.  With paraphrasing, the author may start with the source language or with a pre-existing translation and then seeks to render it into a modern idiom – that is, using expressions that are particularly meaningful in a certain time and place.  (Note, the foreword to The Message states that Peterson wrote “straight from the original text”.)

It is hopefully clear that paraphrasing intrinsically involves interpretation.  The author of the paraphrase has to attempt to understand the gist of the source and predict how the source could best be understood in modern (colloquial) language.  In this case, if the author’s understanding is faulty, the paraphrase will be equally faulty.  The author considers that risk to be worth taking: If the author’s understanding is accurate, the target audience should be able to understand the paraphrase with no further assistance.  The weakness of course is that, as language develops, the paraphrase becomes outdated quickly.  Furthermore, a paraphrase into American English, say, may not result in a completely intelligible read for an Australian or British English speaker.

What may not be obvious at first glance is that translation also involves an element of interpretation, especially when the source text is an ancient language and no native speakers are alive to verify the accuracy of the translation.  In all likelihood, the source text, regardless of its age, will contain idioms and colloquialisms that would be difficult to understand without background knowledge.  A literal translation could in fact do damage to the text.  For example, a literal translation into other languages of the expression “it’s raining cats and dogs” would be unlikely to leave the reader with the impression that it’s raining heavily.  More likely, they would wonder what strange phenomenon has occurred to cause domestic pets to fall from the sky.

One further problem of translation arises: the rendering will typically require interpretation and understanding on the part of the reader.  Since the objective has not been to create a colloquial version of the text, the reader is left to apply her own understanding to the work.  With translations (as opposed to paraphrases) of ancient texts, the risk of misunderstanding the text must consequently be greater.

Where does this leave us?

Regardless of the method of rendering, it would be a mistake, I think, to describe any English version of the Bible as “God’s word”.  At best, it is a translation of God’s word.  Fortunately we have the great benefit of the Holy Spirit, who communicates with us through and in addition to our English versions of God’s word, helping us to understand the text rightly.  Is it acceptable though to refer to paraphrases such as The Message as “Bibles”?  Given the inherent difficulties of translations and paraphrases, I would not personally withhold the title “Bible” from either.  By analogy, hammers and spanners are both “tools”.  The Message and the KJV are both “Bibles”.  Which is better, a hammer or a spanner?  Neither: they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses.  Which is better, The Message or the KJV? Neither: they are different and have different strengths and weaknesses.

All translations and paraphrases share a common divine heritage blended with a human (therefore flawed) understanding.  Let us not elevate any particular version to the state of deification. Rather let us thank God for the gift of His Word and the gifts he has given his servants in translating and paraphrasing for our benefit. And further let us thank him for his Holy Spirit who will guide us into all truth (John 16:13).

Practical note: due to the strengths and weaknesses of each version, when attempting to understand a passage, it is prudent to consult a range of Bible versions and to ask the Holy Spirit to guide us in our understanding.  Also, it is helpful to be mindful of the credentials of the authors of the versions.  In the case of The Message, as with many other versions, those credentials are impressive (many scholars contributed to the final text).  This is also the reason why I would dismiss a translation such as the Jehovah’s Witness’ version of the Bible, the New World Translation – the translators’ credentials are reputedly either poor or hidden.

Bible image copyright © David Campbell, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

How to Remember the Ten Commandments

Do you struggle to remember the Ten Commandments? Would you find it tricky to remember them in order? As part of a teaching series on the Ten Commandments, I prepared some relatively easy mnemonics. You may find they help!

1. You shall have no other Gods before me.

2. You shall not make … an idol.

Remember two major “Idol” shows: Pop Idol, in the UK and American Idol in the States. (Perhaps a bit dated now!)

3. Don’t take the Lord’s name in vain.

Imagine the three wise monkeys, all determined not to blaspheme.

4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy.

Visualise a four poster bed, with the words “rest” written in it. Note also there are four letters in each of the words, Holy Abba Rest.

5. Honour your mother and father.

Remember five gold rings (from The Twelve Days of Christmas) – rings being a symbol of marriage and thus parenthood. Also there are five letters in each of the words, Value Mater & Pater. (Yes I know! If it’s silly, you’re more likely to remember it!)

6. Do not murder.

Think of a grenade, roughly in the shape of a number 6.

7. Do not commit adultery.

007 is one of the most prolific adulterers in fiction!

8. Do not steal.

A bit of a stretch, I admit – imagine the 8 as part of a burglar’s mask.

9. Do not bear false witness.

Imagine someone lying down in a tennis court, holding a number 9 instead of a racquet. No lying in court! Get it? (Groan.)

10. Do not covet

Hard to explain, this one. Start with the letters “NO NV” (no envy). Take the last upright part of the first N and add put it next to the O to get 10. Then take the slant and last upright of the second N to get V and place it next to the V, for VV. In Roman numerals, V plus V is 10.

Posted on

Why did God bless Jacob, the deceiver?

5369725815_9db3016c6c_b_d[1]

In the story of Jacob and Esau, Jacob, the younger twin, uses fraud and cunning to take Esau’s birthright from him. The significance of the birthright in Old Testament times cannot be overemphasised. The end result was Jacob becoming the ancestor of the Israelite people, blessed by God and Esau becoming the ancestor of some of their mortal enemies, rejected by God. On the face of it, this preferential treatment might seem unjust, if it derives from Jacob’s use of subterfuge.

But perhaps therein lies the mistake, assuming that the blessing flows from the deceitful act, rather than from a prior or independent choice of God’s. If we look back in the story, even before the birth, God had said to the boys’ mother, Rebekah:

23 …Two nations are in your womb,
and two peoples from within you will be separated;
one people will be stronger than the other,
and the older will serve the younger.

Genesis 25:23 (New International Version – UK)

And why did God choose Jacob over Esau? We may never know the full reasons, but here are a few thoughts:

  • God’s decision to bless Jacob is made prior to the children’s birth and prior to their ability to commit a sinful act. In this way, God provides an early demonstration of the principle that his favour is not based on our works.
  • God foreknew the events that would unfold. Remember that prior to Jacob deceiving his father, it is said of Esau that he “despised his birthright” (Genesis 25:34). He had sold it to his brother for some stew (probably not realising that Jacob was in earnest about taking the birthright).
  • It is possibly implied that Esau would not have honoured his bargain pertaining to the transfer of the birthright, hence Jacob’s need to take it by deception.

Whatever the real reason behind God’s choice, there are a few scriptures that cast light on his mode of operation. Firstly, the divine right of God to dispense special grace as He sees fit:

19 … I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.

Exodus 33:19 (New International Version – UK)

Secondly, the attitude we are expected to maintain with respect to God’s grace:

21 … The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.

Job 1:21 (New International Version – UK)

Amd thirdly, lest we be in any doubt, our position in respect of deserving God’s favour:

10 … There is no-one righteous, not even one;

Romans 3:10 (New International Version – UK)

In short, Jacob could not have earned God’s blessing. Furthermore, we can take some comfort from the fact that God blessed him despite his behaviour. And finally, we can see that in His glorious timescale, God’s purposes will be fulfilled, even though we and our enemy try our hardest at times to defeat those purposes.

Scripture taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION®. Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 Biblica. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.

The “NIV” and “New International Version” trademarks are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office by Biblica. Use of either trademark requires the permission of Biblica.

Isaac – Brancoveanu Monastery image copyright © Fergal of Claddagh, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

A Holiday Message From Rob Pomeroy: Why I’m not an Atheist

Ricky Gervais

This year, Ricky Gervais strayed some distance from his usual field of comedy, posting a Christmas message for the Wall Street Journal, entitled Why I’m an Atheist. Within a week, the article had attracted nearly 6,000 comments.

A colleague brought my attention to the article and I’m glad he did. It was an interesting read. I commend Ricky for his honesty in expressing the reasons for his belief system at a time where personal belief seems an increasingly taboo subject.

Concerning belief, he makes a good point: “People who believe in God don’t need proof of his existence, and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary.” He’s right in observing the tendency to become entrenched in one’s beliefs and fearful of challenge to those beliefs. That is profoundly disappointing to me. I do not want to believe in something false, even if (as Plato observed) some good might come from that belief. No, I want to believe in something real and true, so far as such can be established. Therefore I welcome challenge to my faith. If the things I believe are true, they will stand up to any scrutiny and to the extent that I might be wrong or misguided, I want to be corrected.

Not all Christians feel the same way.

Where Ricky misses his own point is in neglecting to observe its application to him. In my experience, it is just as true to say, “People who don’t believe in God don’t need proof of his non-existence and they certainly don’t want evidence to the contrary.” Vast swathes of literature reporting miracles and the transforming effect of a personal relationship with God are dismissed out of hand. Let’s be clear: God, if He exists, is a spirit. What kind of evidence are you expecting?

But I agree with Ricky. When Christians (indeed believers of any persuasion) utter post-modern mantras like, “This is true for me,” or, “This is my reality – show me yours,” I cringe inwardly. Truth is not like that. In fact no one believes that, deep down. No one believes that the sofa that I’m sitting on has the capability of disappearing into non-existence in Schroedinger’s world between sofa and non-sofa. With the exception of a few very esoteric thinkers, we do all believe in the factual absolute truth that the sofa is not in my head.

If Jesus existed (and no serious historian now doubts that) then He was either truly God’s son or a lunatic. Let’s not be wishy-washy about that. There is overwhelming support for the fact that He made this claim. He had a reputation of performing miracles – this reputation was not confined to sympathetic or “Christian” writers. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. There is no room in that view for half-hearted truth claims. Either Christ is the way for everyone or He’s the way for no one.

As an aside, this is where an accusation of intolerance is falsely levelled at Christianity. All world views have similar truth claims. Crusading atheist Richard Dawkins for example famously believes that parents teaching their children the truth of the Gospel are effectively committing child abuse. There’s tolerance for you. But I digress.

Let’s address the central point in Ricky’s world view: “I don’t believe in God because there is absolutely no scientific evidence for his existence and from what I’ve heard the very definition is a logical impossibility in this known universe.” This reveals that he has bought into the “enlightened” spirit of the age which wants us to believe that the only route to truth is through science. Since when did science acquire the monopoly on truth? For instance, ethics can tell us a lot about how we should practise science, but science can tell us nothing about how we should practise ethics. Science is a study of the observable universe, so it stands to reason (yes reason!) that it is in no position to comment on something unobservable or non-corporeal. If God exists, He is spirit.

I’ve recently been hearing about the Kalām cosmological argument which briefly states:

  • Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
  • The universe began to exist.
  • Therefore the universe has a cause.

Modern science does not take issue with this line of reasoning. Most cosmologists, Stephen Hawking included, believe that the universe is not eternal, that it “started” at some point in time. But we know from experience (don’t we?) that things do not just spring into existence out of nothing. It never happens. Why should the universe be any exception?

This then leads us to account for the existence of the universe: at this point we have a choice which faith statement to accept since it becomes impossible by any known method (including scientific method) to prove something beyond the sphere of our own universe. Do we believe in magic? A supreme being? Or some other idea which science is bound to hit upon eventually? At this metaphysical level the most elegant and yes, logical, account for the existence of the universe is an eternal being with will and intent. That being has to be eternal since the being cannot itself have come into existence (that would stick us with an infinite regression). That being can’t simply be matter since we know that matter has a beginning.

So the definition of God, far from being a “logical impossibility in this known universe” is a logical necessity and remains the best explanation we have to date of the fact of existence.

“Arrogance is another accusation. Which seems particularly unfair. Science seeks the truth. And it does not discriminate.” Here Ricky is confusing science with scientists. Science is practised by scientists and, I flatter myself, I have enough experience of them to detect a tendency towards arrogance, bias and discrimination. That is not unique to scientists; we all are like this.

I don’t follow why Ricky believes the burden of proof for God’s existence is on the believer. Be that as it may, believers have been demonstrating the existence of God for millennia and can hardly be blamed if non-believers refuse to accept that demonstration.

Keeping it real, Ricky’s account of the loss of his faith is poignant and saddening. He felt that his mother’s imposition of faith upon him was a sham to encourage him to behave “properly”. Darkly ironic. You see the biggest hurdle for belief in God, for many, is the poor way that believers behave. This is inconsistent with the stated underpinnings of love. Jesus when asked what the greatest commandment was replied, “Love God. And love people.”

But far more serious than Christians failing to comply with their own requirements is atheists following through the logical consequences of their belief system. If the universe is impersonal and amoral, there can be no logical defence of an absolute moral standard. Atheists can defend a moral consensus as much as they wish, but there can be no particular logical reason why a Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler or Genghis Khan should not rise up again and genocidally attempt to accelerate evolution.

If it doesn’t suit me for you to live, why should you live? The universe doesn’t care. If I’m stronger than you, why should your genetic material be given a chance to outlast mine? No moral reason. The universe doesn’t care. We all die anyway.

You say you’re trying to live a moral life. Good for you. But why should your morals have any impact on me? You’re in my space. So I’m going to kill you. That this reasoning is perfectly legitimate in the absence of an absolute moral standard cannot be disputed. You may not like it, but we’re not talking about like/dislike. We’re talking about right/wrong.

In my life I have experienced God’s intervention and known his love in a way that has surpassed coincidence and landed firmly in the realm of truth. I have tested this belief system and it has stood up to every challenge. When Christians talk about standing on a rock, this is what they mean. I embrace my faith and I embrace science. There is one important proviso: where my faith and science disagree, I have learnt to let faith preside over science. Experience has shown so far that science eventually catches up with faith, a trend I fully expect to continue, if science is indeed as honest as Ricky likes to believe.

Ricky Gervais photo copyright © Nadja von Massow, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.

Posted on

How can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

It’s perhaps one of the most significant questions asked of Christians, both in the frequency with which the question occurs and in the size of the hurdle it represents to the questioner. The challenge is in reconciling two apparently conflicting statements: firstly that God exists and he is loving, all-powerful and good and secondly, that suffering exists and can be seen in people who we consider don’t deserve to suffer.

Listen to the podcast for one approach to this vexing question.

Note to broadcasters: please do contact us to obtain higher quality audio and a licence to broadcast any of these podcasts.

podcast iconHow can a good God allow the innocent to suffer?

Posted on

Sinner or Saint?

crowbar

I’ve been a Christian for 30 years. That feels like quite a long time. Certainly long enough for me to forget the impact of my conversion experience.

I woke up with a strange but profound analogy going through my mind this morning: no matter how often I use a screwdriver to prise out nails, this will never make it a crowbar. And it may well break the screwdriver. I said this to my wife and she had no idea what I was talking about, so perhaps I had better expand on that. (In her defence it was 7am – a bit early for spiritual parables.)

One of the charges often levelled at Christians is that they’re no different from everyone else. In fact they’re worse: they claim to have absolute moral standards, yet they hypocritically fail to meet those standards themselves. I feel that often this is used as an excuse to justify bad behaviour (if the Christians can’t get it right, why should we?) nevertheless, sometimes the mud sticks. So are Christians any different, and if so, in what way?

Back to my conversion experience. I was four at the time. No, I wasn’t into sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (!) but I was an unruly, wilful little boy and my parents – especially my mum – found me hard work. Until the day of my conversion, that is.

“No matter how often I use a screwdriver to prise out nails, this will never make it a crowbar.”

The story goes that I was having an argument with my dad. I was insisting that I was a Christian and he was insisting that I wasn’t. Eventually I asked him if I wasn’t a Christian, why not – and he explained to me the necessity of apologising to God for all I did wrong and committing myself to “the Jesus way”. Apparently I bought that explanation and made a commitment there and then.

Some may wonder whether it’s possible for someone so young to make such a significant decision or appreciate the implications of it. All I can offer in response is the evidence of my life. I’m still here, still following that path I set out on 30 years ago and increasingly certain that it was the right decision.

As to the impact of my commitment – I changed dramatically and immediately. I became tractable, obedient, compliant and submissive. Much of this is what my parents reported at the time and subsequently – I can’t remember in detail what I was like previously. But what I do remember is the feeling that a cloud had lifted and that I had emerged into a new, light, airy freedom. It genuinely was like being reborn.

This is one of many facts from experience that makes it nigh on impossible for me to deny the living reality of my faith. Excessively naughty four year old boys cannot simply change under their own effort. No, I experienced a transformation of my nature – there can be no other explanation for the sudden and complete overhaul of my behaviour.

“I remember the feeling that a cloud had lifted and that I had emerged into a new, light, airy freedom. It was like being reborn.”

There is an evident contradiction in my life though. Despite this transformation, I still blow it, frequently and repeatedly. How can this be, if I have been transformed from sinner to saint? This is where the analogy of the screwdriver comes in. I have heard it said recently that salvation is not an event, it’s a journey. From my experience, I have to disagree. It was a profound event. I was changed in an instant from a sinner to a saint. In the place of the crowbar there was now a screwdriver. I could still be used to pry out nails, but this was no longer my function. As a saint, I can still sin, but this is not my purpose or destiny. I have an obligation to live a better life than that and this is what I try to do, no matter how often I fall short of that. I also know that if I sin too often, if I prise out too many nails, it will break me and I will need some serious repairs/re-forging.

So I would no longer call myself a sinner. That is not what I am made for. Granted, I may sin, but using a screwdriver for the wrong purpose does not change its nature. Using all that God has given me for the wrong purpose cannot change my fundamental nature as one who is saved. This way of thinking liberates me to a free and fuller life. This is what I believe God wants for all people.

Crowbar image copyright © Dustin Tinney, licensed under Creative Commons. Used with permission.