It’s still bright at 5pm…

One way or another I spend quite a lot of time looking out of my study window. While it does not afford a view of rolling hills, and I can only see one rather bare tree (at least for the time being), it is just after 5pm and I can see outside and don’t have to put my desk lamp on to read. All this is good news. Granted that there will be cloudy days to come when it will be duller at 5pm. But the days are now lengthening, another winter is almost behind us and that tree will not be bare for much longer. The mind turns to warmer as well as longer days and spring and summer plans; the whole mood lifts. My inner Calvinist whispers about the shorter, colder days that will follow, and a return to early darkening afternoons. But, for the moment I can enjoy the extra minutes of daylight and their promise while ignoring these darker promptings.

It is all a reminder that time is moving along. And the longer days are not the only such reminder. Just recently I’ve been at a number of funerals and thanksgiving services. One was that of a friend and exact contemporary; we had been undergraduates and PhD students in the University of Glasgow (he was much cleverer than me - his PhD was in nuclear physics). After working for a while as an engineer in the aerospace industry, he studied theology and was eventually called to be the minister of a Presbyterian church near Birmingham. Last summer we bumped into each other at the Catalyst conference in London, and although we hadn’t actually seen each other face to face for about thirty years, you would hardly have known it. Hearing about his death was a surprise on two levels. Firstly, it was unexpected. We all secretly think that only other people die even although this is patently absurd. But I no more anticipated his death than I anticipate my own (ie generally not at all). Secondly and additionally, because he was a close contemporary, the news inevitably evoked those feelings of personal mortality that lurk in the farthest reaches of the background to one’s thinking. It turns out that along with you and everyone else, as each day passes it passes for me; I am a little bit older. A further reminder of the passing of time.

Another occasion that sticks in the mind was the thanksgiving service of one of our friends in Liverpool, who had originally come to the city to study Physical Education. But during her studies she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. This meant a necessary change of direction, but did not mean despair. She went on to a successful career in business, although she had to retire on medical grounds relatively early in life. Without a word of complaint she continued to play an active role in family and church life, pouring herself into the lives of many others, including ours being an active part of one of the Church small groups we led for a while. At the service there was genuine thankfulness for a life well lived in the face of what was eventually severe disability. A life that had been of tremendous benefit to many of us and therefore a life of significance. But (and this was true of the other service too), in addition to looking back, we were collectively able to look forward. These occasions were far from solely concerned with the past.

Both of these individuals were Christians, with a firm hope that because they had placed their trust in a Saviour who had died but then been raised, they and those of their friends and family who shared their hope, could face death and know that it was not an end. In life they had known the same uncertainty of us all; we do not know the timing or manner of our death in any detail. In one case it came relatively swiftly, in the other after a protracted physical decline. But they had a security, indeed a certainty, in the midst of the uncertainty. Even death could not break the hold that their Saviour had upon them. So, facing both those known and unknown difficulties that lay ahead of them in life, they could do so with confidence. And we could meet after their deaths, with the implicit reminder of our mortal demise with a similar confidence. I don’t mean by this the sort of cocky bravado that insists on the paying of Sinatra’s “My Way” or the reciting of Henley’s “Invictus”. Both of them had sought to follow Jesus’ way because their souls had definitely been conquered by Him. And it was not with any naive and false bonhomie we sought the comfort of families who were truly grieving loss or sought it for ourselves. In the midst of the grief you would expect, there was that certain shared hope that this loss was not permanent. In time it will be trumped by a life together that is eternal. And time is passing.

In fact these occasions did more that note the passing of lives, and implicitly the passing of time. They did more than point forward to a future that was hypothetical. They evidenced that future and served as a deposit of it. Time is passing. But the future that was in view on these occasions is not merely waiting passively for us to arrive at it, it is making its way towards us. And that leads to both anticipation and a degree of restlessness. One of Rutherford’s hymns captures this. It no doubt will strike some as odd, depressing even and it can be parodied (and probably has been). It’s on my list for my funeral (which I’ll obviously be depending on others to organise) and begins with the following: 

“The sands of time are sinking;
the dawn of heaven breaks;
the summer morn I've sighed for,
the fair sweet morn awakes;
dark, dark has been the midnight,
but dayspring is at hand,
and glory, glory dwelleth
in Emmanuel's land.”

It’s well worth looking it up and reading the other verses. Being able to see out of my study window, it turns out, is just one more pointer to lighter and better days ahead.

The fall and rise (ups and downs) and rise…….

While it is not inevitable, life can be a bit of a downer. And no matter how far we rise, what is inevitable for each and every one of us is our eventual mortal demise. It doesn’t bear thinking about. Which is why, by and large, we don’t. In this culture we usually neither think nor talk about death. And when it arrives, increasingly ways are found to avoid, or at least distract us, from “it”. More than a few daytime TV ads offer alternatives to “trad” funerals. Funded (probably) by your over-50’s life insurance policy (so you needn’t worry about being a “burden”), one can now opt for a “direct cremation”, and your loved ones can remember you howsoever they wish (or not), without any “fuss”, and certainly without reminding themselves of their (or your) mortality.

But on my morning walk this morning (nothing excessive, just to the paper shop), I happened to get thinking about a number of folk that are no longer with us. Some were people that I didn’t know personally. This was prompted in part because I watched the “Concert for George” recently. Organised by friends and colleagues of George Harrison, former Beatle and devotee of eastern mysticism, Harrison grew up about a mile from where I’m typing. Despite prodigious talent, worldwide fame, a considerable fortune (his estate was worth about £100M when he died), and the love and affection of his family and many friends, it’s not clear he was a man who really found what he was looking for. He died in 2001, in a house belonging to someone else, albeit surrounded by his family and Hare Krishna chants. After his death his family released his final “message to the world”: “Everything else can wait, but the search for God cannot wait, and love one another”. It was to George’s credit that at least he had been looking.

Another recent reminder of life’s biggest reality has been the sudden death of Alex Salmond. This is a name known to everyone in Scotland, most people in England, and not a few beyond. He was a former First Minister of Scotland, leader of the Scottish National Party (and beyond that Scottish nationalists in general), and general pest and thorn in the side of UK governments of every political stripe. He died last Saturday from heart attack, having made a speech, far from home, at a conference in North Macedonia. While a man with many political opponents, the subsequent tributes have shown that he was much respected and had many friends across the political spectrum. I have no idea what his opinions were on religious matters. Interestingly, he one described himself as a “Church of Scotland adherent”. So, not a believer, not a Christian, not even a Presbyterian, simply an “adherent” of one of Scotland’s mainline, and declining, protestant denominations. I’m not sure I really know what that means. Maybe that was the idea. He famously fell out with fellow nationalists in the Scottish Government, was subject of various inquiries, and was cleared of criminal charges (including charges of rape and sexual assault). While found not guilty (and “not proven” on one of the charges) by a jury after only six hours of deliberation, the trial did reveal patterns of behaviour that even his own defence counsel accepted might be construed as “inappropriate” (while falling short of criminality). But the trial, and the political and governmental machinations that surrounded it, revealed an unpleasant side to Scottish political life at the highest level. This has probably contributed to the demise of Salmond’s former party, the SNP. And while he was, and obviously felt, vindicated by his criminal trial, he was still seeking legal redress at the time of his death.

Perhaps more poignantly, he was speaking in Macedonia about democracy. But it was democracy that had delivered his most stinging defeat (while also bizarrely marking his biggest achievement). He successfully persuaded the Cameron UK government to hold a referendum on Scottish independence, and even got to choose the question on the ballot. And yet the people, by a convincing margin (much wider than in the Brexit referendum), rejected his view and voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. If all political careers end in failure (to misquote Enoch Powell), then you might have thought that to come relatively close to achieving a lifetime goal, see it dashed democratically by your own people (he was a nationalist after all), and then watch its likelihood recede even further because of the missteps and incompetence of your successors, would have been crushing. But by all accounts Salmond remained up for the struggle. Not “no” for him. He was ready to go again. But then he unexpectedly ran out of time. There are many who are shocked, and are left reflecting on the meaning of it all. One wonders how long it will be before their minds return to mundane and mortal matters, and they avert them once again from what is perhaps the most pressing of issues.

But I’ve known lots of others, not superstars or elite politicians, who have looked (or indeed not looked) and found the answer to our obvious mortality. And it is certainly not to ignore it. Over the years we’ve had various Bible study groups meeting in our home. And, over the years, some of the folk who we met with weekly, have died. In a number of cases I still walk past their former homes; I’m often reminded of them. All of them have left a gap of course, particularly for their immediate families, but also for that wider circle of which we were a part. And, along with their families we have grieved. The experience is inevitably difficult and challenging. And yet the folk I’m thinking of were Christian folk. I don’t mean that in the sense that they belonged to a certain culture, attended particular meetings, assented to particular religious propositions. What I mean is that they actually knew someone who had died (in a particularly gruesome manner), and yet returned shortly thereafter to life. When he eventually left our immediate vicinity he promised that he had not merely escaped death, but had overcome it. His claim was that those of us who knew him would be beneficiaries of what he had accomplished and share in this victory. Because of the culture that we are now all embedded in, this all reads like bizarre nonsense. Mystical and mysterious at best, deceptive and dangerous at the worst. But that is more apparent than real. What I have seen is the transformative power of the life and death of Jesus Christ time after time, in part if not yet completely.

Thinking about the moment of death is, I think, no more attractive to the Christian (the “Christ follower”) than it is for anyone else. And yet, emptied of its power to terrify and paralyse, death and its aftermath do bear thinking about. Because after the inevitable fall (if fall it is), there is now for those in Christ an equally inevitable, but much more comforting, rise in prospect. Thinking about life and death needn’t be any kind of a downer.

Keswick 2023.3 Constitutionally speaking…

There is one subject that all Brits constantly bang on about - weather. That’s because we have a lot of it, mainly in the form of rain (for which we have about eighty different words and euphemisms). But there’s something else that we pretend neither to have or like to talk about that actually takes up quite a lot of our time – the constitution. By this I mean the largely political issue of how we organise ourselves. We do of have a constitution, it’s just that (unlike the US or France) it is substantially unwritten. It becomes more obvious with the occurrence of certain events. The Scottish independence and Brexit referendums were obviously about “it”: one changing it, the other not. Another aspect of the constitution was on full display in the events surrounding the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the accession and coronation of King Charles III (we do this kind of thing rather well). But just as the state (i.e. us collectively) has a constitution, even although it is difficult to pin down in all its details, so too does each human being (and it is just as difficult to pin down). But “pin down” is exactly the task Matthew Mason has undertaken in his Keswick seminars.

Just like the British constitution, our constitution as human beings is well trodden ground. Although neither Aristotle nor Plato had any interest in the British constitution (although both wrote about and within the political structures of their day), they were both quite interested in what constitutes a human being and human life, and what makes for a good life. They both put in an appearance seminar two (Tuesday). But a better starting point is what God has to say. So we spent a fair bit of time back in Genesis 1 and 2 (as we did on Monday). Obviously human beings are partly material, in that God makes us from dust. This is a materiality we share with other kinds of things, particularly animals. What the creation account makes explicit is that there is something else that is true of us. We have the breathe (in some sense the spirit) of God breathed into us. Is it this in combination with our material stuff that makes us human? No, because animals also have the breath of God in them too (Gen 6:15, 22). But there are two ways in which humanity is differentiated from other forms of life: our form of life, and the way God relates to us (and we to each other).

I’ve long been worried about the tendency to define humanity in terms of some attribute that we possess. No matter which attribute you pick, sooner or later some example from the animal world is found that possesses that same attribute. Language used to be a favourite. But it turns out that a number of species (including some fairly “simple” ones) can process arbitrary symbols using grammar and syntax in a way that looks suspiciously like language. And then there’s the interpretation of experiments with other primates, where they were taught sign language. Within limits, they seemed able to use this to communicate both with humans and with others of their own kind. This work had been subjected to sustained critique, but it looks as though even language isn’t that unique. Nor are other favourites like tool-use, self-awareness and so on. It can be difficult to prove these exist in other species but it is not impossible. On the flip side there are those members of humanity who might be thought not to possess some particular attribute (like the unborn child, the profoundly disabled teenager or the demented elderly person). And yet there really is there is no difficulty in identifying them as human. And this appears to boil down to their form; a combination of shape, look, capacity and attribute. But there is something else.

While God appears to talk at other species, He talks to and with humans. And from them (specifically Adam in Gen 2:23) He elicits a response. We stand in a particular, communicative relationship with Him that turns out to be important. It is a relationship that confers both privileges and responsibilities. There is the privilege of dominion over the other things that are created. Whatever that means (and its meaning is highly contested) this is a privilege and accompanying it is a sense of authority (seen, in part, in Adam’s naming of the animals). But there are also obligations; the obligation to work in the first instance, and also the obligation to obey a single explicit and easily obeyed command.

This, of course, sets up the framework for understanding a far darker aspect of our constitution that rather more depressingly was dealt with in Thursday’s seminar. Things are not as they should be, because we are not as we should be. And it’s not just that we think and do wrong stuff, it is that in a fundamental sense our stuff, what we are, has become wrong. And the wrongness is now intrinsic to what I am and what we are. It is so intrinsic that I naturally recoil from and rebel against the whole concept of original sin. I may rail against the idea that if I had never actually done something wrong, done something that contravened God’s standards, I would still stand at the bar of His justice and rightly be condemned. But that is the way the universe it. Because when Adam fell, I fell; when Adam sinned I sinned. For all sorts of reasons this doesn’t seem just. But I’m hoping that this devastating news will be followed in the final series in the seminar by consideration of what is good news. If it is the case that I can be condemned because I am inextricably linked with Adam, who acts as my representative, the head of the race to which I belong constitutionally, then maybe if I can find a new representative, a new head. And if my “registration” (or link, or allegiance, or identity) can be transferred, then it could be I’ll off the hook as far as God is concerned. Of course that new rep would have to be fundamentally different to me. Indeed they would need to have a different origin to me, otherwise they would have the same problem I have (Linkage with Adam, sin and failure). But then if they are completely different to me, if they are a completely different order of being entirely (like God is for instance), then how could any effective link to accomplished? There would just be too big a gap between us. And why would they want to be linked to me and all who like me (i.e. you and everyone else) who stand justly condemned by the Creator?

Tricky. I seem to be stuck. To quote Paul “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” I’m glad there’s a seminar left. This, of course, sets up the framework for understanding a far darker aspect of our constitution that depressingly was also dealt with in Thursday’s seminar. Things are not as they should be, because we are not as we should be. And it’s not just that we think and do wrong stuff, it is that in a fundamental sense our stuff, what we are, has become wrong. And the wrongness is now intrinsic to what I am and what we are. It is so intrinsic that I naturally recoil from and rebel against the whole concept of original sin. I may rail against the idea that if I had never actually done something wrong, done something that contravened God’s standards, I would still stand at the bar of His justice and rightly be condemned. But that is the way the universe it. Because when Adam fell, I fell; when Adam sinned I sinned. For all sorts of reasons this doesn’t seem just. But I’m hoping that this devastating news will be followed in the final seminar in this series by a consideration of some good news. If it is the case that I can be condemned because I am inextricably linked with Adam, who acts as my representative, the head of the race to which I constitutionally belong, then maybe I can find a new representative, a new head. And if my “registration” (or link, or allegiance, or identity) can be transferred, then it could be that I’ll be delivered from this depressing and devastating position I occupy as far as God is concerned. Of course that new "rep" would have to be fundamentally different compared to me. Indeed they would need to have a completely different origin to me, otherwise they would have the same problem I have (linkage with Adam, sin and failure etc). But then if they are completely different to me, if they are a completely different order of being entirely (like God is for instance), then how could any effective link be accomplished? There would just be too big a gap between us. They would be unable to identify in any way with me. And, there were such a person, why would they ever want to be linked in any way to me and all who like me (i.e. you and everyone else) stand justly condemned by the Creator?

Constitutional questions always seem to be tricky. I seem to be stuck. To quote Paul “Who will deliver me from this body of death?” I’m glad there’s a seminar left. 

Easter 2023: Welcome to the flip side….

Poor Matthew (Parris) doesn’t get it. I get why he doesn’t get it. And he isn’t alone. His problem is both relatively straightforward and relatively common. As Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter to Jean-Baptiste Le Roy in 1789 “...in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes” – and dead people stay dead. So I can forgive Matthew for being confused as to the significance of Jesus’ death. Writing in his Times column yesterday under the title “I’ll choose heroes before martyrs any day”, Matthew described Jesus as “the supreme example of a great man felled by midgets”. He was objecting to the notion that Jesus death proves or validates His teaching: “That Jesus was falsely accused and cruelly crucified does not make him a better man, or his teachings more true than if he had lived comfortably to ripe old age.. The depth of his suffering has no bearing on the validity of the Christian message..”. His basic thesis was that Jesus died a victim and His victimhood generated such sympathy that it prevented (and prevents) a proper analysis of what He taught. This rather implies that Jesus’ death was either a miscalculation or bad luck, but not in any way key to who He was or what He was seeking to do. But this indicates that Matthew has entirely missed the meaning and significance of Jesus’ death (for it has both). It is something that is easily done.

The reason he misses the point is that he is focussing on only half of the story. There’s lot about Jesus’ death that might make one rage (much as I was doing on Friday). At a minimum it certainly came as a huge disappointment to His earliest followers. But if Jesus simply died, coming to a horrible end, that could not possibly validate His message (to this extent I agree with Matthew). In fact it would convincingly invalidate His message. If He was merely a victim, He could be no example. For on its own, His death would proves nothing beyond Him being either a fool or a liar. Who would want to follow either? This is because He Himself was very clear about the place and circumstances of His death, and spoke about them repeatedly. But He also insisted that His death would not be the end. His original audience either did not hear Him, did not understand Him or did not believe Him. That inner group of disciples, so traumatised by the events of “good” Friday, were every bit as incapable as Matthew at putting it all together. They were so sure that dead people stay dead, and Jesus was certainly dead. So that was that. But then they should also have known that this is not entirely true. Among their wider number was a man called Lazarus. Lazarus had died, but Jesus had raised Him from the dead. You would have thought that this might have caused them to pause and ponder when a number of women reported to them that Jesus tomb was empty on the Sunday morning following Jesus’ Friday death, and that they had been told that the reason the tomb was empty was that Jesus was alive.

We are able to gain bit of an insight into the thought process (or rather the lack of thereof) going on inside the heads of the first Christians that particular Sunday. Luke records a conversation that two of them had with a seemingly ignorant stranger, as they trudged, depressed, from Jerusalem to the village of Emmaus (Luke 24:13-35). They had placed their hopes in Jesus, but these had been dashed by His death. So certain were they that His death had marked the end of those hopes, that they had totally discounted clear evidence that something remarkable had happened. They had heard the report of the women that Jesus’ tomb was empty. And they knew that this was not wishful thinking on the womens’ part, because it had been confirmed by others (i.e. men). They knew that the same demonstrably reliable witnesses (the women) who had reported the empty tomb also claimed to have been told that Jesus was alive. But of course that was ridiculous. Perhaps what might have swayed them was the evidence of their own eyes. If they themselves could have seen Jesus then they would believe. Indeed that would transform the whole situation. This is a common misconception. Because, as it turned out, they could see Jesus. Indeed they were talking to Him; He was the seemingly ignorant stranger they were talking to.

To cut the story short (you can read it for yourself in Luke 24) eventually they recognise the risen Jesus. The rest, as they say, is quite literally history. Jesus alive transforms everything. Now His death is not a tragic miscalculation, nor is it the triumph of midgets and lesser men over a great man. In fact His death is demonstrated not to be the death of just a man at all. But it is His resurrection that validates His own claims, that He did not lose His life but gave it. He died not as a victim, having had death imposed upon Him (by either men or God), but as a willing substitute and sacrifice. His death is not unimportant (merely the prelude to resurrection), but He stresses twice that it was a necessary means through which he accomplishes what had been set for Him, prior to returning to the glory that had always been His. His resurrection demonstrates that He was not at all just another good man and religious teacher from whom we might learn useful things. His resurrection demonstrated that He was uniquely the God-man who had pioneered the way by which death could be overcome for all those who would trust and follow Him. His resurrection is the flip side of the story of his death that Matthew either misses or, perhaps more likely, dismisses.

Because it just can’t be true. Except, of course, it is. All the evidence is there. But then, as the two on their way to Emmaus demonstrate, it is not now, nor has it ever really been, a matter of evidence, of knowing stuff. It’s about recognising Him.

Easter 2023: How come the world still spins?

The death of a child, a spouse, a parent, comes as a shattering blow. It is one that I haven’t experienced personally yet but I know that one day I will. However, what I have observed in others is the way their world just stops. And then complete incomprehension: why hasn’t it stopped for everyone else? Do they not know what’s happened? Are they simply unaware? Or do they not care? How can this be? And so it goes on. It would be less than human if such a loss did not induce, at least for an instant, anger, compounding the grief. But then the death of any particular individual will not be known to the vast bulk of humanity. And consider the numbers involved; it is estimated that just over one hundred people die every moment of every day. It is a tragedy that not every single one will be mourned – there have always been those who die alone and unknown. But many will be mourned, and there will be those who grieve. For those impacted there will always be that question: How can your world continue to spin when mine has come to a shuddering halt?

I found myself wondering about this at church this morning. Although it is a Friday, it is “good” Friday, hence I was in church. Some other time perhaps I will investigate why this particular day on which we remember Jesus giving up His life in appalling circumstances is called “good” (here’s what I came up with previously). So much about that day is grotesque. The injustice of it. Jesus is declared innocent by His human judge, the Roman governor Pilate, three times in quick succession. The case brought against Him collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. One of His two fellow accused, a thief, recognises that while two of the three of them that day were being justly punished (albeit by crucifixion), Jesus had done nothing deserving death. Even His Roman executioner comes to appreciate something of Jesus’ uniqueness (albeit after the event). And yet, there He hangs, there He suffers, there He dies.

I want to explode. I want to point an accusing finger at those limp, wet disciples, and shout: how could you? Judas betrayed Him the previous evening, and Peter had repeatedly denied Him. The rest of the little band of His closest disciples had scattered. Only some women (including His mother) and John are left to watch Him die. He had invested years in a core group of twelve, patiently, painstakingly, teaching and shaping them, feeding them and occasionally rescuing them. They had heard amazing words, they had seen amazing things. And now, outrageously, they are nowhere to be seen, just when you think He might need them most. More startling still is Jesus’ restraint. When Judas and a mob arrived in a garden where Jesus had been praying to arrest Him, a fight had almost broken out. Violence started, but was stopped just as quickly by Jesus Himself. Could He have escaped if He’d let Peter and the rest “get stuck in”? Perhaps. Did He need their assistance? He certainly didn’t want it. But consider. He’d calmed storms, fed thousands and raised the dead! He could have snuffed out the very existence of those who now laid their hands on Him. And yet He didn’t. My immediate response is to ask: why didn’t you? Why didn’t you stand up to such obvious injustice? Why didn’t you make the likes of Judas and the rest pay there and then? I would have.

If I’m confused by Jesus' response, I’m stunned by God the Father who had spoken of His love for, and His pleasure in, His Son. I know that the incarnation takes us to the edge of, and well beyond, human understanding; how can one person be both God and man? But the claims made by Jesus are clear. He had willingly come from the Father’s side, at the Father’s behest, something long planned. Just as the Father took pleasure in the Son, so the Son sought to please the Father. And yet this Father watches this Son unjustly defamed and abused. Part of me me wants to cry out: how could you? Never mind stopping the world spinning, I wonder why God didn’t rip the earth from its axis and hurl it like a discarded marble across the galaxy. He is God after all, and this is His Son being abused and insulted.

As if all of that isn’t bad (or confusing) enough, as Jesus hangs on a cross, the Father apparently abandons His Son, who cries out in agony because this abandonment is so excruciating. And this only part of what is going on; things that those original observers could see, hear and infer. There are those things transpiring that are unseen and so extraordinary that if God Himself had not revealed what was really going on, one would hesitate even to hint at it. It is Paul who writes in 2 Corinthians 5:21: “For our sake he [God] made him [Jesus] to be sin who knew no sin...”. Why? Part of me is outraged at how unfair this all is. How are we to understand it?

But neither my understanding or my feelings are of much interest. My perspective isn’t the one that matters. God is God, He is not me and He is not like me. In fact He is so unlike me (and you) that the very words that we use, human words, cannot communicate accuracy the fullness of what He is like, even if we could understand what He is like in the first place. We mustn’t slip into the misunderstanding that God is just like us, but bigger. He’s not; He is of a completely different order of being. But because we cannot know everything about Him, does not mean we can know nothing. That’s because He has revealed Himself using human language and images that we can understand. Why did He restrain Himself when His Son was brutally taken and crucified by mere creatures? Because this was the means by which that very rebellion could, in justice, be forgiven by God who is just. Breathtakingly, the world still spins on its axis, not because He is somehow indifferent and doesn’t care or love, but precisely because He does. And He does so with a perfect passion unlike anything that is ever true of us. So he watches as He had always watched, because as He is outside of time, the death of His Son has been and is always before Him.

Part of our problem is that we are time-bound and temporal; for us time is linear. Although this story isn’t over, and our picture is incomplete, we’ll have to ponder and wait until Sunday. Then we’ll learn why the world kept, and keeps, on spinning.

Life goes on - or doesn’t

Strange times. One of the features of the pandemic has been the truly heroic efforts of healthcare workers to reach those in need, and provide them with the care necessary to see them through their crisis to recovery. At the height of the first lockdown, many of us stood on our doorsteps and clapped each week for a number of weeks to recognize and support these efforts. We locked down and stayed at home to prevent sickness and avoid deaths. We put the education of the young into deep-freeze to protect mainly the elderly and those vulnerable for reasons other than their age. But that was then, and this is now. Time has moved on and it’s interesting that it is in this context a very different attitude has been asserting itself.

There is now, and has been for some time, a vocal lobby in the UK advocating for a change in the law to allow the taking of life. The name of what is being advocated changes. It has been called all of euthanasia, assisted suicide, mercy killing, assisted dying, and other things beside. Somewhere I have no doubt PR specialists have been working to establish which term causes the least public anxiety and is likely to garner most public support. But the campaign is definitely up and running. Robert Shrimley’s column in the FT caught my eye back in August (“The time is ripe for citizens’ voices on assisted dying”, FT, 25/8/21; it’s behind the FT’s paywall unfortunately). A number of medical professional organisations have been changing their stance on “assisted dying” from opposition to “neutrality”. Then there was the proposal of Orkney MSP Liam McArthur for a bill to go through the Scottish parliament, which is currently out to public consultation. Most recently we had the debate on Baroness Meacher’s “assisted suicide” bill in the House of Lords.

This is not the first time there have been such debates of course, and the arguments made in the Lords were familiar enough. It is not likely to be the last time they are heard. The proponents are quick to claim they are promoting human dignity and autonomy – individual dignity and autonomy that is. It should be a matter of choice. We have choice in every other area of life, on what basis should it be denied in this one area? In this area though, talking about individual choice is misleading, One person’s right to choose to die, at least on the basis of most current proposals, is the imposition of an obligation to kill (or to assist in a killing) on someone else (usually a medical practitioner). And death, any death, like birth, does not just affect a single individual even in our particularly individualised culture. If someone wishes to die, there are a number of courses of action individuals can, and tragically do, take. That is not what this debate appears to be about. It is about state-sponsored, legislated and organized killing. This is why (as Lord Winston pointed out in the Lords debate), terminology matters; an "assisted" death, inevitably draws others in.  

Opponents of the current proposals rehearsed their (equally familiar) arguments too. Practicalities were prominent, as was the “slippery slope” argument. This raises an interesting question. If, in a modern, liberal, democracy, assisted suicide/euthanasia is legalized, what happens? This, at least in theory, is now an answerable question as there are a number of such jurisdictions – the state of Oregon in the US, Quebec in Canada and Belgium and the Netherlands in Europe are examples. However, it turns out that how you interpret the data depends on which side of the argument you start. Proponents argue that in none of these places have things progressed to mass killing. Opponents point out that numbers have risen inexorably  (Belgium: 2002, 24 cases – 2016/17, 4337; Netherlands: 2006, 1923 – 2017, 6585), and laws have been extended (eg in both Belgium and the Netherlands from only adults to children). Practice in terms of adhering to laws is variable and difficult to monitor and there could be even more slippage “under the radar”. The riposte is that these are practical matters that will have practical solutions. But such solutions are going to fall on an already overworked and overstretched healthcare system. Are resources and safeguards really going to be allocated to deathcare as opposed to other aspects of healthcare? Currently in the UK even our hospices, where high standards of palliative and end-of-life care are available, are not within the state healthcare system. They are largely supported by public donations and sponsorship. Surely the provision of proper end-of-life care should have priority over ending life “care”?

We live in culture where the beginning of life is just as contested. Individual rights and autonomy have been exalted, and the individual and societal cost has been high. In England and Wales 210,860 abortions were reported in 2020, the highest so far recorded (that averages out at over 20 per hour, every hour, over the year). The 1967 Act was introduced with all sorts of safeguards, but sent a signal that had a range of unintended consequences. I am not, as it happens, an absolutist on the abortion issue; an absolute ban would be unworkable and undesirable. And things like aggressive protesting outside centres providing abortions (let alone the violence that has occasionally erupted) cannot be condoned. But perhaps it can be agreed that the situation we currently have is not the sign of a healthy society. And, critically for the current debate, promises made during the original debate, and safeguards introduced to prevent "mission creep", both turned out to be rather hollow. 

Legislating in such complex areas is tragically difficult and should never be undertaken with the breezy confidence exhibited by some of the supporters of Baroness Meacher’s bill. The law has to define, and by definition, it codifies. But some areas of life (and death) defy easy definition and codification. Leaving it to judgement and conscience may be messy, but it is a lot better than the alternatives.

Life in the Pandemic VIII: So many goodbyes….

There are many folk who are grieving these days and having to say their goodbyes. While some probably knew the time was approaching when an older relative, spouse or friend was going to leave this life, they didn’t think it would come so soon, precipitated by an unknown virus, in the midst of a global pandemic. For others death has arrived as an unwelcome, unexpected surprise and shock. And there have been those stunned by an overwhelming sense of injustice at a young life cut tragically short. No death is just a statistic. Each one leaves grief in its wake. Every death matters, just as much as every life.

As long as there have been people, there has been death. It is the inevitable last experience of our lives here, all of which follow a pattern. We move from our earliest memories, on a journey via definable phases and critical events. Shakespeare likened life to a play (of course he did) and talked about how men and women have their  “..exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts; His acts being seven ages.”(1). Less poetically perhaps, I remember enjoying 18^th and 21^st birthday parties with friends. Then it was University graduations and rounds of weddings. There was the arrival of kids (for most), and catching up with family exploits in the occasional Christmas epistle (some of which I actually read). I’m just getting to the stage of metallic wedding anniversaries and those milestone birthdays as the decades accumulate. And also for me, now there is that gradually souring note of parents, aunts and uncles being lost; a hint of what’s to come. The deaths of celebrities and others I grew up with, some I looked up to, are becoming more frequent. The diseases of ageing are beginning to take their toll on my contemporaries. A cancer scare here and there. And instead of births and birthdays, I know it that eventually there will be funerals and condolences. And then….

Fair enough, I know that this might be a bit morbid, but I’m thinking that it needn’t be. I’ll admit that the pandemic has encouraged morbid thoughts. Daily death statistics will do that to you. But we all know that we cannot live in this world forever, even if sometime we secretly think as though death won’t come for us, only other people. In our general culture too, pre-pandemic, death had perhaps become remote, the business of various professionals, leaving the rest of us to get on with living. So thoughts of it could be suppressed, and squeezed down into the farthest, dark recesses of our minds. The pandemic has changed that, at least for the moment. But as well as the pandemic I have two other reasons that have caused me to reflect on this. The first is, as it happens, a death, the second is a book.

Last Tuesday I heard of the death of a man called Peter Maiden(2). I’m pretty sure he wouldn’t know me, although we met on a couple of occasions. He came from, and never moved far from, Carlisle (in the northwest of England, up near the Scottish border). He was widely known as the International Director of a missionary organisation called Operation Mobilisation from 2003 to 2013 (although he had been involved with OM since 1974) and he was a trustee of the Keswick Convention. I heard him teach the Bible on a number of occasions. And although I can’t honestly remember any of the specifics, what does stick in my memory is his manner – gracious, humble, straightforward. Others have been speaking and writing about his influence on them through his teaching, leadership and books. Now, to be honest, his death is not that of a close friend of relative. There are many folk who will be grieving for him in a way that I am not. But I am aware of a loss. He was one of those people who served as a marker for me along the route of my journey. Not just a marker of the way, but a marker of the destination. His teaching and living pointed to a life beyond this life, that in many ways is more important than this life. He devoted his life to sharing and teaching what he took to be the words of God. In the process he was used to influence many thousands, including me. His death is, of course, a demonstration of his mortality, but it is to me a reminder of mine. His life here has ended, something he was prepared for, knowing that more was to come. I wonder - was he deluded to think like this? Were those he influenced deluded? Was (or am) I deluded? I don’t think so.

The book I mentioned above is the snappily titled “Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995” by Oliver Barclay(3). I confess it wasn’t one of the ones I mentioned in my last post as being on my summer reading list. I met Oliver Barclay too, when I was a PhD student in the 1980’s, at a Research Scientists Christian Fellowship (now Christians in Science) conference. He belonged to a very different generation, but was a clear and long-sighted thinker, encourager and organiser. In particular, he played a key role in the development of the Intervarsity Fellowship (now UCCF), the organisation that links and supports Christian Unions in universities and colleges in the UK. In the book, he relates the work and struggle of many men and women, who established the evangelical culture and infrastructure that I and many others depended on as we grew and matured in our Christian thinking. There were those who ministered in churches in University cities throughout the UK, with a clear commitment to the transforming truth of the Bible. There were resources like commentaries, and books in critical areas of apologetics, written from a robust evangelical perspective. He mentions the work of many who are now obscure to many of us. And the book stops in 1995 - a quarter of a century ago. As I read Barclay’s book, I found I was reading of many who seemed like giants – Martin Lloyd Jones, J.I. Packer, John Stott and many others beside. Markers for my journey, marking it out even before it began, now receding into the distance. These  were men and women, whether I encountered them personally or not, to whom I owe a great debt. They made the way easier for me, very often at cost to themselves. They were passionate about God and His word. They lived it as well as taught it. They weren’t supermen and women, they weren’t heroes to be placed on high pedestals; every single one of them had his or her flaws. But they were critical to me and many others. And one of the keys that comes out of Barclay's book is the utter centrality of that other book. To them it was the book of God’s words, a notion that the world they inhabited derided even more strongly than it is derided today. Their conviction and claim was that by teaching it and living it, they were encountering and living for the God who made, saved and sustained them.

The book was and is the Bible (of course), and its key message is the good news (the Gospel) of Jesus Christ. When others turned their back on its truth as truth, the Maidens and Barclays and their ilk believed, lived, taught and shared it, and encouraged others to do the same. I was one of those so encouraged. And ultimately it is the Bible and the God who stands behind it and is revealed in it, that provides not just the markers along the way, but the very way itself. It is a way does not end in bereft goodbyes. Don’t get me wrong, goodbyes there are and will be. Oliver Barclay moved on from this life in  2013, and I'm sure there was sadness and loss. And there will be a funeral in Carlisle at some point soon, with grief and grieving. There will be goodbyes along my journey, until it too, reaches an inevitable destination. But the Gospel is so powerful that it transforms these goodbyes. Death here is the destination of one part of our journey, but it is not the terminus. For those of us who have encountered, trusted and followed Jesus, the goodbyes are accompanied by a transforming hope that takes us beyond death and the grave, through resurrection to safety. And they are then followed by a welcome to a whole new journey.

1. William Shakespeare. “As you like it”, Act II Scene VII.

2. For tributes see https://www.uk.om.org/InMemoryOf/peter-maiden 
or https://keswickministries.org/a-tribute-to-peter-maiden/

3. Oliver R Barclay. Evangelicalism in Britain 1935-1995. A personal sketch. IVP.
  https://ivpbooks.com/evangelicalism-in-britain-1935-1995-pb