AT the end of last season Celtic Football Club sacked its manager, Ronny Deila, for not delivering the kind of results the Board expected, and with a flourish of trumpets unveiled their new manager, Brendan Rodger, who had been sacked by Liberpool FC for not delivering the kind of results their Board expected. Since then the Parkhead publicity machine has not ceased to provide tasty sound bites about how the great days of Celtic as an all-conquering European football force are just about to return. All eyes therefore were on Celtic’s  qualifying match yesterday with the minnows of European football, The Red Imps of  Gibraltar. Naturally Celtic were thrashed 1-nil, and were lucky to escape greater humiliation. Seasoned observers of Scottish football would of course have predicted that if there was a way of wresting disaster from the jaws of victory, a Scortish team would find it; but shrewd pundits might anyway have spotted this was a classic David and Goliath set-up.

The D v G scenario of course features the small weak force against the gigantic strong force, and includes the pre- match boasting of the latter; but it also includes the fact that this is a David home game, in which the small one knows what works and what doesn’t. David, the wide boy from Bethlehem, may never have seen a fully-equipped Philistine warrior before, but he knew instinctively that this unwieldy over- armoured monster was a sitting duck. If my shrewd pundit had been reviewing the contest for Chosen People TV and noted David’s body language and the gleam in his eye, he would have advised the Philistines to have the extra large coffin waiting in the wings. Unfortunately for him the hard- of-thinking thug didn’t see what was coming, and in no time at all his supporters were on the way home complaining, “The boy done terrible; he lost the heid.”

In the case of the Red Imps of Gibraltar, they must have guessed that the combination of an Astro Turf pitch, southern European temperature and a modest competence with a football would see Celtic off. I wish I’d placed a bet on it.

The Bible interprets such events as revealing the invisible arm of God who secures victory for his minnows even against overwhelming odds. A more profound and counter-intuitive version of this is found in Isaiah chapter 52:14 – 53:12, the song of God’s servant, which speaks of how the arm of God has been revealed in one who was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, suffering injustice, humiliation, torture and death; but becomes the instrument of God’s forgiveness and healing for many nations.

In the religious tradition of Israel, this strange prophecy was taken as an image of Israel herself, suffering many defeats from the big boy nations, so that God’s blessing might come to the whole world. Doubtless Jesus of Nazareth grew up with that prophecy amongst others, and may have seen it as a guide to his own destiny. Certainly his first followers took it as a prophecy of his rejection, execution and resurrection, of the one faithful in weakness against overwhelming odds, bringing God’s goodness to the world. Even his apparent defeat was a victory in their eyes. This  very radical and almost contradictory version of the David and Goliath theme is a central motif in the Gospels, the Letters of Paul and the book of The Revelation. In the latter the David/ Jesus figure is called the Lamb, while Goliath is transformed into Babylon, the Beast from the Sea, the Great Dragon and The Satan, the enemy of God. All the apparent defeats of  the sacrificial Lamb and his followers by the powers of evil are seen as simultaneously victories of God’s goodness in those who are faithful to it. From a worldly point of view they are terrible defeats but from the point of view of the Spirit they are victories, because the victims’ trust in God’s goodness is unconquered, and they share the glory of the Lamb in the world to come.

As a rather reluctant and fearful follower of the Lamb, can I share this faith? On the whole I would very much prefer not to be beaten up by the Goliaths of this world -one or two tastes of what they can dish out left me grateful not to have had more- but I have also seen the suffering courageously endured by my heroes great and small. I can easily affirm that their resistance to evil and commitment to goodness is a splendour of the human spirit, but do I really believe that it is a victory, not a loss of life but precisely a fulfilment of it? Can it be true in something more than a poetic sense, that their battle has mysteriously taken place on home ground, and that the well-aimed stone of their courage has dented the forehead of the devil? Are they in fact now enjoying the life of God? 

Well, yes, that’s my faith. Whether I can live by it is another question, but I do believe it, I believe in the victory won by all the small people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Chico Mendes, Rosa Parks, Mahatma Gandhi, Helder Camara, Alice Scrimigeour, David Haines, the medical staff of MSF killed in Syria, and thousands of others, who looked Goliath in the face and knew they had the beating of him. I will certainly not have earned it as they have, but Lord, I want to be in that number.

 

Tanveer Ahmed who killed Asad Shah, a Glasgow shopkeeper with a wonderfully ecumenical faith, stated that he did so because  his victim was “insulting the Prophet, peace upon him.” This routine prayer of peace for Mohammed and war against anyone who dares to interpret his teaching differently from the speaker, should be of great concern to all religious people, because it articulates a kind of fundamentalism that has besmirched Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and even Buddhism, as well as Islam. Islamic fundamentalism is most similar to the Christian variety in that both rest on complete allegiance to the text of a holy book, which however requires interpretation as any book must. The fundamentalist interpretations of the Noble Qur’an and the Bible are similar in that they are partial, stupid, and utterly authoritarian. 

They are partial because they prioritise some parts of the holy book as opposed to others. In the case of Islam, this means prioritising the anger of Allah to the exclusion of his compassion and his mercy, which in turn leads to an unbalanced interpretation of texts about Jihad. In the case of Christianity it means ignoring most of the teaching and example of Jesus.

They are stupid, in that they reject the use of human reason. All arguments must bow to the authoritative word of the holy text. All facts must be ignored if they seem to contradict the holy text. All people must be seen not as they are, but as they are defined in the holy text. All of this involves a complete abandonment of human intelligence and a disciplined commitment to stupidity.

They are authoritarian in that all attempts at different interpretations of the holy text have to be forbidden; only the one, official interpretation, disguised as the literal meaning of the text, is permitted, on pain of expulsion from the religious community, or perhaps, death at its hands.

An open, intelligent, democratic Glaswegian Muslim was killed by a partial, stupid, authoritarian Muslim because he had dared to question the fundamentalist interpretation of his faith.  My own experience of hate mail received in the wake  of my public support of gay clergy, in which the vilest sexual abuse and threats of extreme violence were often signed,”A CHRISTIAN” taught me that the name of Jesus does not exclude fundamentalist hatred.

It is an urgent task, I think, for all genuine belivers in all religions to call time on all fundamentalisms. Secular societies are responsible for many evils but this one is the responsibility of religion. But how should we tackle it?

The first necessity is to identify it, and for that purpose I would like to offer to the world a cultural product of my native Glasgow: the bampot test. I should explain that “bampot” is a Scots term for a “foolish, worthless fellow,” otherwise called an “eedjit” or “nutter”. The chief characteristic of a fundamentalist bampot is his hatred of facts, especially those that might get in the way of his convictions. So, if you are in the business of electing a Minister, Imam, Rabbi or Guru, the first question prescribed by the bampot test is:

Is every word in our sacred writing equally and literally the word of God which must be believed and obeyed?

If the person answers ,”yes” he or she is a bampot, because he refuses to recognise the fact that all writings are written by fallible human beings.

If you have any doubts about the person’s bampotism, a second question can be asked:

How did the universe come into existence?

If the person tells a story of how it was raised from the deeps by the sacred turtle of the south seas, or fashioned from nothing by the Creator God in one week some four thousand years ago, he or she is a confirmed bampot, because he refuses to recognise  the facts about the universe established by the sciences.

Once you have made a firm diagnosis of bampotism, you should refuse to allow the sick person to exercise any authority on your religious community, while gently offering him or her free access to the debampotification course which I have devised and can deliver, under the title:

THE FACTS ARE FRIENDLY; GOD IS IN THE FACTS.

Once fundamentalists are refused employment and deprived of influence over decent believers, that is, once this illness has ceased to confer power, prestige or wealth, it may cease to be endemic to religious communities.

Christian readers may have noticed that my definition of fundamentalism applies mainly to the Reformed Churches with their reverence for the scriptures, while Roman Catholic Churches and Orthodox Churches may seem to escape these strictures. Far from it. It’s just that in these cases the place of the Bible is taken by the Ruling Hierarchy of the churches. A Catholic who thinks that the Pope and the Bishops of his church are infallible is just as much a fundamentalist as any bible-basher from Bathgate. He or she is suffering from a bad case of Sancta Ecclesia  Bampotissima and requires urgent treatment.

Yes, and as I broaden my thinking on this matter is strikes me that of course there are politicians who cannot see beyond their ideology, celebrities who cannot think beyond the latest fashion, scientists who are unable to contemplate anything that is not susceptible to scientific proof – yes all of these may also be caused by virulent strains of the bampot virus, but as a religious person I have to put my own house in order before I venture outside. As a mere semi-retired Christian minister I cannot be responsible for the near universal bampotoscopy that is required.

 

 

 

Back in the dear dead days of the late sixties there was a splendid arts and politics journal published in Edinburgh under the title “Scottish International”, committed to an open, ecumenical Scottishness that always saw Scotland on a map of the world. It was edited by a brilliant young man from Kilmarnock, Robert Tait.

His radical breadth of sympathy comes to mind now when the alternative to a various forms of toxic English nationalism appears to be some kind of Scottish nationalism. If I want to live and work in a society which is more free, equal and fraternal than that of the present UK, my best option is support for the SNP, at least until another referendum has established Scotland as an independent nation. I am heartened that there has been an increased support for this in the wake of The Brexit vote, because it indicates that our nationalism is outward looking, especially towards Europe.

From a Christian point of view, nationalisms look more like a barrier than a way forward: Christianity began with the breaking down of Jewish nationalism and the establishment of multiracial, multinational, assemblies of believers. It was the genius of St.Paul to see clearly that the gospel of Jesus was for all human beings, and to set out on his own transgressive mission that took no account of nationality. The painful adjustment of Jewish believers to this new identity is charted in the New Testament. He did not think that nation states and boundaries were of any great importance in the business of communicating the love of God, although of course he was operating in a world already united by Roman imperialism. His new vision was not only for himself but for his converts whom he urged to recognise their common belonging, by giving aid to their impoverished brothers and sisters on the other side of the world, in Jerusalem.

Can this sort of Christian faith really be allied with any sort of nationalism, however open?

The Christian conviction that nation states are not all that important suggests that decisions about communal life should be taken by those who are affected by them. The modern principle of subsidiarity as I understand it, proposes something similar; that decisions should be taken at the most local level that is feasible. In the fairly recent past, city and rural councils in Scotland had much more power and responsibility that they have now, due to the desire of central government in the UK to have no local opposition.I think their powers should be restored and even extended. There are also a whole range of decisions that could be taken for the whole of Scotland, by an independent government. I would like to see the injustices of global capitalism removed from my significant territory, and the benefits of radical justice established within it. My commitment, therefore, to gaining the inhabitants of that territory real autonomy, may at least be compatible with Christian faith.

And yes, I do have a deep longing that the self-serving expectations of bankers and CEO’s of large companies, the contempt of ruling elites, the braying voices of those who think themselves self-made, the sub-fascist propaganda of press barons and their prostituted journalists, the flatulent outbursts of cushy seniors who’ve had a good life thanks to a decent society and now want to pull up the drawbridge before their grandchildren can have the same, the lunatic economists who hold to a policy of infinite growth on a finite planet, the loud opinions of those who have no knowledge of history and no concern for the future, and the killers who wait in the corners knowing that they’ll be needed soon if not already; yes a deep longing that this whole clamjamfry may be deprived of any influence over a nation that has suffered them too long. That’s why I want independence.

Well, part of why I want it. The other part is my desire to belong to a reasonably just and well-run nation -something like Norway would do- confident enough in partnership with similar nations, to work for the ecological, economic and political peace of humanity and its planet. My acquaintance with the young people of Scotland tells me that many of them would like to live in such a nation, and would be excited by the opportunities it would provide for their creativity. But it also tells me they won’t hang around forever; that if Scotland does not provide a home for their egalitarian energy, they’ll go somewhere that does.

“Scottish International” – the old 1960’s masthead still points in the right direction.

*clamjamfry, Scots:  rabble, crowd, noisy gathering

 

 

This week the media carried the story of how officials of an English Hunt fed fox cubs to its foxhounds to give them the experience of killing and devouring their appointed prey. It was an example of how some human beings continue to look on animals as material for either their nourishment or their pleasure, without any sense of the worth of the creatures they farm, train or kill. Although in this instance the focus of sympathy was meant to be the fox cubs, I also felt for the hounds which are not naturally hysterical killers, but are perverted into such by this kind of training. I am not a sentimentalist: foxes also kill; that is how they survive; but only human beings kill for fun.

I want to ask about the roots of this human cruelty and whether it may be connected with some of our more immediate political concerns, such as racial prejudice and terrorism.

I recently read an astonishing book by the Icelandic author SJón, The Blue Fox, in which a Christian priest hunts down and kills a rare arctic vixen which has blue fur. It emerges in the narrative that he has previously got rid of a Downs-syndrome girl in his family by selling her as a sex slave to some sailors. She is eventually cared for by the hero of the book, who learns her strange language and treats her with tenderness. The bitter hatred of the priest for anything and anyone whom he regards as merely animal is seen as the way in which he asserts his intellectual and spiritual superiority as a human being favoured by God. The book is a parable about the kind of power that protects life and the kind that destroys it.

There is reasonable evidence that many so-called primitive societies recognised the common interest of living things and displayed reverence for them in their customs. In the creation story in the Bible, human beings are planted in the midst of the living world as “likenesses of God” to continue the creator’s management of all creatures, a plan which is challenged when the human beings decide to become gods on their own terms, seeking the “knowledge of everything”, as the means to power over everything. The Bible story, which probably dates from the 8th century BCE, has already identified human arrogance as the root of evil, specifically of the never-ending struggle for power. This excess of self-regard and lack of appropriate reverence is identified in Greek drama as “hubris”, the quality which brings ruin on individuals and their families.

It is an arrogance which infected even Christian theology, in its misunderstanding of the creation story as a justification for treating animals as if God had no love for them; and for viewing the natural world as merely a God-given resource for the good of humanity. This divinely sanctioned arrogance has been over many centuries built into the ideology and practice of capitalism and its major opponent, state socialism, both of which have treated the natural  world as an infinite provider of the raw materials of economic growth. Both systems believed that the ruthless  application of the right economic practices would deliver an unending supply of goods and services.

Except, except… State socialism in the first instance discovered that even the savage pruning of millions of human lives and the destruction of millions of acres of natural habitat could not supply human need; and then, even as the capitalist world rejoiced in the collapse of its opponent, it began to be aware that its ruthlessness was depleting its own resources, polluting its own environment, and causing the over-heating of the planet.

The capitalist response has been exemplary: smear the reputation of any scientist who  points out the destruction of the environment; deny the truth of global warming; insist that capitalism can provide for the lives of all humanity- while actually restocking its weapon systems and boosting its armed capability, so that when the crunch comes, the capitalist economy will supply the major capitalist nations, and the rest of the world can go to hell or face annihilation. That’s why nobody in the UK can tell you what our nuclear deterrent is for; it’s for dealing with the countries that might threaten our supplies of food, water and energy when the environmental shit hits the fan. This is not the sort of thing governments want to publicise, but of course they all know that the world can never live as richly and wastefully as the richest nations, and that the era of energy wars is fast approaching.

The rise of right-wing nationalist parties in the “western” world and of terrorist groups elsewhere can be explained as a response to the big lie of capitalism, that it’s good for everybody. These groups, often composed of people disregarded by government, have sussed out the terrible truth: the system will not supply everyone and when the bubble bursts, it will be first -come, first -served. So better grab power now, for your nation, class or religious group before it’s too late. That’s why they foment hatred against foreigners, migrants, other nations, other religions; people need to be trained for what is to come, they need to get a taste for blood…… 

Which brings us back to the beginning. The evil is arrogance. Not just our individual arrogance, nor even our religious or national arrogance, but fundamentally our arrogance as a species. We refuse to see  ourselves as part of the web of life and utterly dependent for our flourishing on our fellow creatures. We have been content to remain ignorant about their contribution to our  lives, from the millions of bacteria that live in our guts, to the great whales whose decline is a measure of the dying of our oceans.

Citizens need to wake up to what is happening in their societies and in the world. Christain churches need to repent their bad theology and neglect of God’s creativity. There is a modern children’s hymn with the refrain, “yes, it’s God’s world after all”. Indeed it is, but most people don’t believe it; they think the world belongs to them, or their group, or their nation, or their religion.

Yes, this is a rant: the conclusions I’ve reached are not backed with adequate evidence. But I wanted to get this argument with all its connections down on the page, because when even decent people living in a land of plenty start telling me that there is no room for refugees, I can smell the rottenness  in the air. “By the pricking of my thumbs/ something wicked this way comes”.

 

 

 

 

 

The nifty bit of abuse in my title comes from a Christmas song by Sydney Carter who imagines Mary and Joseph “knocking on the window on a Christmas Day” and getting the answer:

“No we haven’t got a manger, no we haven’t got a stable

We are Christian men and women, always willing never able”

It’s unfair of course, but it is does sum up a lot of Christain hand-wringing at the state of the world, while the churches, bible bloggers included, offer diddly squat to make it better. The U.K. church’s response to the Brexit referendum may be a case in point. They have made justifiable criticism of the mean -mindedness and outright racism of some of the debate; they have worried about the effect of the U.K. Exit on European peace; they have protested that God is concerned with people rather than boundaries, and especially with people who have no countries and no homes.

So let me suggest two practical responses that any church can take.

1. It can help identify usable dwellings within its own parish that might, with Government help, house refugees, and it can publicly commit itself to welcoming refugees and helping them settle over years rather than months. It can notify its local council and the Scottish Government of its desire to help in this way. This is a practical response to the fact that Brexit will make it harder for refugees to come here. Churches in Scotland will find that some German churches already have experience of what can be done
2.  It can work to establish a twinning arrangement with at least one church in the EU. Most denominations want their churches to do this kind of thing through their bureaucracies, which like to keep power in their own hands. Individual congregations should assert their independence and competence to make contacts and pursue friendships with congregations in Europe. Such linkages have four purposes at least: a) to celebrate our common faith and mission in Europe.  b) To share information about worship, education, pastoral care, and outreach which can enhance the life of both partners. c) to encourage mutual visits that build personal friendships. d) to make real especially to younger people our belonging together across boundaries. The reality of a European union is not totally dependent on what nation states and their governments decide to do, but upon the determination of citizens to build cross-border institutions and personal ties. Perhaps we should always have started to build Europe from the bottom up rather than the top down.

These responses are far from being the only right ones, but they tackle real problems which are exacerbated by Brexit; the plight of refugees and the increase in nationalistic hatred of foreigners throughout Europe. They also hold out a chance for churches to take the lead in a social issue rather than being dragged kicking and screaming in the wake of change.

These initiatives would also be fun, because they involve contact with other human beings. Boredom comes from exclusivity and closed doors; fun, excitement, hope and pleasure come from openness. When Jesus spoke about himself, he did not say, “I am the Wall” (like Mr. Trump); he did say, “I am the Door.”

 

 

Its only four hours since it became clear that the UK as a whole had voted to leave the EU, and only some minutes since the Prime Minister announced that he would stand down in the autumn. Too soon, therefore, for any disciplined reflection on this result, except to record how proud I am of Scotland and my fellow citizens, that we have shown our acceptance of inter-national cooperation and our rejection of racism, by voting 62% to remain. Of course we never saw ourselves as masters of the world, as the English did – even if we shared their imperialism, we were in fact their first colony- nor do we have the levels of immigration experienced in certain parts of England. Still, we have clearly shown our different political values in this vote and I hope they will guide our future.

I promised to devote this blog to a consideration of what theologians call eschatology, that is, thinking about the end times. The classic Christian doctrine is that in the end time, Jesus will return in glory to judge the living and the dead; that God will create new heavens and a new earth; and that God’s people will share the divine life forever and ever. I guess that very few of the believing people in the churches I serve either know or believe this teaching, but believe rather in individual judgement and reward at the end of their own individual time. Few believers now hold to the concept of a future general resurrection and universal judgement with the possibility of heaven or hell. The eschatology of the faithful has been privatised.

Of course any just judgement has to be personal. I wrote in my bible blog yesterday (emmock .com) that I see the final judgement of Jesus as happening in a time aslant historical time but impinging on it, so that every day is judgement day, every day people are welcomed into the light of God’s love or left in the darkness they have chosen. When I call God “the beyond in the midst”, I mean that God’s goodness (Jesus/ heaven) is available to me here and now, where I may choose it( life) or spurn it (death). Of course there is a sense in which evil people do not choose death; they choose wealth, power, violence, lies, lust and so on, but they are always aware that these goods are devoid of life. They are choosing the death of their humanity and in their own end time they get what they wanted. Good people may be afflicted by evil or tempted by it, but they know that it offers no life, and therefore choose to reach out towards a goodness, which in their end time reaches out to them and gives them life.

But that is a personal vision. What about the world in which we live? What about the countless people who never had a chance to be persons because of oppression and deprivation? What about the ecosystem of the earth and our fellow creatures? What about the universe and its evolution, including perhaps forms of life of which we at present know nothing?

The bible offers visions of the end which are broader and deeper in their scope than individual salvation, and which give content to the believer’s prayer, “Your kingdom come; your will be done on earth, as it is in heaven”. In this blog I’ll use just one of these, leaving other vision for subsequent blogs. Here it is:

The Peaceful Kingdom Isaiah 11: 1-9

11 A shoot shall come out from the stock of Jesse,
and a branch shall grow out of his roots.
2 The spirit of the Lord shall rest on him,
the spirit of wisdom and understanding,
the spirit of counsel and might,
the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.
3 His delight shall be in the fear of the Lord.
He shall not judge by what his eyes see,
or decide by what his ears hear;
4 but with righteousness he shall judge the poor,
and decide with equity for the meek of the earth;
he shall strike the earth with the rod of his mouth,
and with the breath of his lips he shall kill the wicked.
5 Righteousness shall be the belt around his waist,
and faithfulness the belt around his loins.
6 The wolf also shall live with the lamb,
the leopard shall lie down with the kid,
the calf and the lion and the fatling together,
and a little child shall lead them.
7 The cow and the bear shall graze,
their young shall lie down together;
and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
8 The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,
and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.
9 They will not hurt or destroy
on all my holy mountain;
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters cover the sea.

This dates from the reign of King  Hezekiah of Judah 715-687 BCE, and comes from the pen of the first prophet Isaiah, who communicated to the rulers of his people what he believed to be God’s message, in vivid diatribes and visions. He was open to the politics of his nation and area, capable of assessing these out of a profound grasp of his religious tradition, and of expressing his assessments in language of beauty, precision and wit.

Here, towards the end of his life, he provides a vision of how his God will fulfil his promise to the great King David, that his dynasty will last and will be fruitful. In this vision Isaiah was looking I think into later, if not the last, times.

The instrument of God’s transformation will be a politician! In this case, a king of the Davidic dynasty, who will bring God’s rule to the people. He will not be a superman, but rather a man inspired by the fear of God, and moulded by God’s spirit. The qualities which are developed in him are not supernatural, but human: wisdom, understanding, counsel and might. This ruler sets aside propaganda and makes judgement in favour of the poor and the humble of the land. His harshness towards the wicked is shown by the force and accuracy of his words. His whole character is bound together by goodness and faithfulness. This description is given by a man who knew kings and their frailties yet trusted that God’s purpose would be achieved through a human ruler, by human means.

But then the vision makes an extraordinary leap. The establishment of social justice will lead to a paradisal peace in which all enmity will be abolished between predators and prey, and between animals and human beings. The reconciliation of animals with each other is twice emphasised by their gentleness to children. It is a vision that still brings a catch to the voice almost three thousands years after its composition. The abolition of the need to kill in order to eat does away with the most fundamental of all types of violence and convinces the reader that it is not necessary.

The summing up emphasises this possibility:

they will not hurt or destroy – that’s the result, and it is achieved by the universal knowledge of God:

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord

as the waters cover the sea-

-that’s the means: the prophet declares that the impossible possibility of peace will come through human knowledge and action that is rooted in the creative impulse of God.

I’ll conclude with some brief points about this text.

1. It is set in this world of human beings and other creatures
2. It is set in history yet transcends it.
3. The events are encompassed by God’s presence but they are brought about by human action.
4. Government, in this case by a King, is envisaged as necessary for justice.
5. The opposition will be destroyed by the truth and wisdom of the ruler’s judgements.
6. The Government is inspired by the character of God to dismiss lies and attend to the needs of the poor and the gentle.
7. The life of the ruler is bound to the life of God.
8. The ecosystem is returned to the state described in the vision of Genesis, in which there is no predation amongst creatures, no enmity between humanity and animals.
9. Human justice is the precondition for this transformation, but does not define its scope. The just society flowers into the garden of Eden.
10. This vision of the last times finds its imagery in a story of the first times, completing the arc of creation

We should note that all species including humanity are what they are because of predation, amongst other factors. Does this invalidate the vision? I think not, as Isaiah knew he was appealing from the real condition of the world to God’s original intention for it. This is the way he marks the transcendent nature of his vision.

All of these points deserve incorporation into Christian teaching about the end time.

 

 

The image of Nigel Farage the UKIP leader unveiling a poster at the weekend is unintentionally comic as well as racist. A small, slightly apologetic, sad man (what we would describe in Scotland as a “wee bachul”) stands in front of a picture of hundreds of vibrant human beings about to burst into a Greek field. He is telling us that this will destroy life as we know it. This swarming mass of needy people in Greece will trample the Union Jack, abolish private education, occupy our parking places with their camels, close our ale houses, defeat us at football, force our men and possibly our women to grow beards, and deliver the editor of the Daily Mail to be martyred by crazed ayatollahs.

AAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!

The end of the world will arrive if we don’t vote leave on Thursday.

On the other hand, a responsible man in a suit with a very red face – can he really be our PM? – assures us that on the contrary, all the rich humanitarian policies of his government- constant  reductions in welfare benefits, cutting down on the huge numbers of costly people with disabilities and throwing alylum seekers into detention centres – these shining examples of social justice will be no more, unless we vote remain on Thursday. If we vote leave, the floodgates will be open for hordes of slimy alien creatures, led out of the sewers  by Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, to terrify the nation in a feeding frenzy of right wing ruthlessness. Most of these treacherous creatures will be indentifiable as Tory MPs and colleagues of the honourable PM.

UUUUUUUUUUUURRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!

If we do vote leave on Thusday, the end of the world will arrive.

I have always been attracted to the apocalyptic utterances of end of the world prophets. I loved the dismal street preacher of my youth, who would stand in Sauchiehall Street on a wet November afternoon giving the punters the glad news that the end of the world was nigh. Most of his damp audience looked as if they would consider this outcome a blessed release. I particularly liked the transatlantic group who knew that the world would end at midnight on 31st January 1983, at which hour they gathered on Mont Blanc, as instructed by their prophet. By breakfast time on 1/1/1984 scores of bedraggled creatures were back at ground level, lamenting the fact that they would now have to pay their hotel bills.

Given the poor record of all such prophecies, you might think that even the loopiest orators would avoid them. But no, all we need is a political, moral, religious or ecological crisis, like for example the possibility of Turkey joining the EU in 50 years time, for the manic street preachers to grab their placards and point to Armageddon.

Jesus entrusted his followers with the task of announcing the arrival of God’s Rule, which some saw as an apocalyptic event, but He saw as the robust communication of God’s goodness here and now. Knowing however that there were plenty loopy prophets around, he counselled them to pay no attention to the voices saying, Tomorrow in Jerusalem, or Next Week in Damascus, and to continue abolishing poverty, healing the sick, welcoming the outcast, and staying hungry for justice.

I hope the UK votes to remain in the EU, for, degraded as it is, it remains a reminder of a generous vision and a stimulus to a fraternity that might lead to greater liberty and equality. Political choice is often a matter of achieving small gains or preventing small losses.

But if it votes to leave I shall not be closing down my blog and getting my climbing boots on for the ascent of Mont Blanc. Like the 8-05 Scotrail from Dundee to Glaagow, the end of the world will have been postponed again.

 

The murder of Jo Cox MP by a man shouting, “Britain first!” has caused public horror and the temporary abandonment of the ritual exchange of lies and insults which has taken the place of rational debate about membership of the EU. Suddenly even the worst offenders, most of whom are well-known public figures, are seen with solemn faces, deploring violence and urging more protection for MPs. Doubtless the public will regard their solemnity with the same scepticism as their rabid splutterings.

My particular concern is that the BBC whose newscasts have for weeks given publicity to intemperate allegations and slurs, whose presenters have given airtime to routine lying and called it balance, now has the impertinence to put on black ties and ask if there’s something disrespectful about the way we treat our politicians. Indeed, responding to the terrible death of a young woman with hours of vapid discussion may be another kind of disrespect. The very news engine which has gorged on political abuse is now chewing its way through the tragedy of a human death.

The atmosphere in which we currently do our poiitics is seriously polluted, and therefore dangerous, even if, as it may turn out, it had little to do with the murder of Jo Cox.

I immediately think of two classic Christian texts.

The first is the sermon on the mount in which Jesus quotes the commandment against killing and goes on to to forbid violent and denigratory speech against another person. I have to admit that I have not often preached on this text, perhaps because churches have their own internal arguments which do not always avoid harsh words. I may have been guilty myself of words designed to demolish rather than to refute. Like all teachings of Jesus, the link he makes between violent action and violent words is wise and radical. The mental and emotional disposition in which we dismiss others as worthless is violent even if we manage to restrain ourselves from anything worse than words. Clearly if we permit violent public discourse we encourage acts of violence. More positively, if we encourage peaceful public discourse, we discourage acts of violence.

The second is Simone Weil ‘s book, “The Need for Roots” written during the Second World War. In it she lays down what she calls “needs of the soul” the most sacred of which, she says, is truth. Human beings in society need truth and suffer from lies. She writes this sentence: “We all know that when journalism becomes indistinguishable from organised lying, it constitutes a crime.” She goes on to ask why it is not punished, and seriously proposes making it a crime to publish lies. She knew that this would lead to howls of democratic rage from the habitual liars, but suggested a special sort of independent judiciary to deal with such cases. Perhaps we need to recognise that public lying is a crime and the mother of crimes, and that a press free of political control need not be free of all control.

These issues have been of concern to me for some years, but may be of greater public concern in the wake of public savagery.

 

 

 

(Jesus (J)is praying alone, watched by an armed JewIsh Jihadi (JJ))

JJ. Jesus of Nazareth, I hope you are praying for yourself!

J. Why, brother?

JJ. Because I’m here to kill you in God’s name, for having given comfort to a Roman, and for having committed abomination.

J. I plead guilty to the comfort, but I need informed about the abomination.

JJ. “If a man lie with another man as with a woman, they have committed abomination.”

J. I know such men, but I’m not one of them. Why do you think I am?

JJ. You pretend to be a Rabbi, but you’re not married, and you teach that men may keep away from women for the sake of God’s kingdom. You live with a group of men, whom you have instructed to love each other.

J. And you, brother, and your fellow soldiers, have you not renounced marriage and family for the sake of holy war? I and my friends are also engaged in holy war, although not against flesh and blood.

JJ. If you swear that this is true, I will spare you.

J. There’s no need for swearing. Yes and no are enough. I’ve said it is so.

JJ. Very well, God be with you….

J. Perhaps we can talk, if you have time for anything but killing…

JJ. Don’t laugh at me, Jesus…

J. What gives you the right to kill in God’s name?

JJ. The right of holy war against the Gentiles who have stolen our land!

J. And the killing of men who lie with men?

JJ. As it is written in the Torah, they shall be killed and their blood shall be on their own heads. Leviticus chapter 20. Surely we must obey the Torah!

J. We have to do something much harder: we have to obey the God of the Torah.

JJ. How can there be a difference?

J. This teaching makes two mistakes. The first is that men lying with men is contrary to God’s creation and therefore abominable. But the truth is that these men were created with this desire; they do not choose it. If you know any, you’ll know that this is the truth. And if God created them, they are also God’s children and precious to him.

JJ. You dare to speak for God against his Torah?

J. Yes. And the second mistake is that God needs our protection, so we must kill those who commit what we call abomination or indeed those who conquer our land. If God needs protected from his creatures, he’s not much of a God.

JJ. How can a true Rabbi show such disrespect for our God?

J. For all your weapons you’re just a child, brother. You need to grow and learn from our father Abraham who was strong enough to argue with God over the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The Father doesn’t want scared wee kids who hide behind the Torah, but grown up sons and daughters who love him with all their heart and soul and MIND and strength.

JJ. But this is worse blasphemy than lying with men! It mixes the thoughts of human beings with the Word of God!

J. Do you know of any word of God that did not come through the thoughts of human beings?

JJ. But then there will be no certainty in our faith, no absolute authority!

J. The Torah and the prophets are a human witness to God. They are only God’s Word if we treat them as human and sometimes mistaken.

JJ. And you think that’s enough?

J. No of course it’s not enough, child! Once the Torah points us to God, we are to love Him with all our heart and soul  and mind and strength and our neighbour as ourselves. And part of that is going in secret to fall on our knees and pray, as I was doing when you interrupted me.

JJ. Jesus of Nazareth you are a greater danger to God and our people than I could ever have imagined. As a soldier of God I must kill you! God is great!

J. Amen! And because God is great, I’m going to get to my feet and walk past you, and you will not hurt me, because you already think I may be right. If you grow into a new faith, you’ll find me again, and I’ll welcome you. Peace be with you.

(The armed Jihadi stands still as Jesus leaves.)

*jesus and mo, as above, is the most intelligent commentary on contemporary religion available. Just google Jesus and mo.

 

 

 

If there’s a minister in Scotland who is forever applying for the role of Old Testament prophet it’s the Rev. David (Elijah) Robertson of the Dundee Free Church of Scotland, and there are few areas of Scottish life untouched by his vigorous denunciations. In some instances his well-argued polemics have been a welcome antidote to liberal platitudes, in others more an expression of theological prejudice. Just this morning I see that David (Elijah) is at it again, this time as a spokesperson for the “SNP for Leave” campaign, on the subject of the forthcoming referendum, in an essay in the Sunday Herald.  His argument is: 

1. The true sovereign of the world is God and therefore under God, all people share equally the right to determine their own affairs.
2. In the case of Scotland that derived sovereignity should belong to the Scottish people and their chosen government.
3. Sharing that sovereignity with the Europeqn Union is a diminution not only  of sovereignity but also and more importantly of democracy, because the effective rulers of the EU, the commissioners, are not elected but appointed.
4. An independent Scotland would have more power as part of an “interdependent UK.” than as part of the EU.

Most people will notice some strange things here. At present, the Scottish people, in a referendum, has chosen to be governed within the UK. If that’s their use of their God -given right, then presumably God gives it his tentative approval, however much Rev David (Elijah) may disapprove. In fact the whole article suffers from the ambiguity as to whether  it is arguing against a future independent Scotland or Scotland now as part of the U.K., remaining in the EU.

The point about the lack of full democracy in the EU has been made by many others, but it cannot be honest to ignore altogether the EU Parliament and its elected representatives including those from Scotland. An argument that pretends the EU is simply non-democratic is inaccurate.

In fact we must contrast the existence of an EU Parliament with the utter lack of any institutions that might allow an independent Scotland to have influence in an “interdependent” UK. Indeed this “interdependence” is a prophetic vision which must be God-given as there is no earthly evidence for it at all.

These elements are curious. There are also some good elements, such as a genuine concern for grass- roots democracy, for the Scottish fishing industry, and distinctively Scottish social justice proposals, like banning tax- avoiding companies from bidding for public contracts.

But as a fellow theologian I find myself suprised by the absence of any genuine biblical perspective. I imagine David (Elijah) will have one which he has chosen not to use when arguing a secular issue, but its absence permits him to be more positive about nation states, such as Scotland, than the Bible is. The desire of  the confederation of tribes called Israel to become a nation state and be governed by an elected monarch is viewed by the  biblical prophets as rebellion against God. The people are warned that their new King/ government will rip them off and lead them into dynastic war. And even after the successful reign of King David, his successors are judged by whether they worshipped God or idols, and gave justice to the widow and the orphan, that is, to those who had no social power. The best that the Old Testament expects of the nation state and its rulers is that they are not idolatrous and protect the weak and powerless! That’s it.

The New Testament is no more positive about the nation state. Jesus announced a Rule of God which had no place for either the rule of Rome or of Israel/Judah, nor did he propose a caliphate or theocracy that would implement God’s Rule. He expected that God’s Rule could be exercised in communities of those who accepted it, underneath, within, and alongside the nation state or empire. The only teaching we have from Jesus that  is directed at  “nations” is in Matthew 25 where the nations are gathered before the true king and judged as to how they have treated the hungry, the thirsty, the immigrant, the naked, the sick and the imprisoned, with whom the true king is identified. This goes further than the Old Testament, but does not expect more of the nation state than basic social justice and care.

I make this point to suggest that Christian people ought not to assume that the nation state itself is a boon to humanity. It tends towards unrestrained competition with other states which is ultimately resolved in war. This pessimistic realism about states is characteristic of the biblical tradition and of the best Christian political writing. From this perspective we cannot assume that an independent nation is always desirable or that full sovereignity is always better than international association. With this in mind we might see the founders of the EU as looking at the history of their nation states in two world wars, and recognising that their full sovereignity had become demonic and required restraint; and that their mutual ignorance had issued in bigoted hatred of neighbouring peoples. Shared sovereignity could accustom legislatures to decisions made for the good of neighbouring nations as well as their own; and the freedom of people to learn work and play in other nations could foster transnational community. These, as well as free trade, were the hopes of those who founded what has become the EU. From a biblical perspective they could be seen as ways of undermining the self- idolatry of nation states.

But perhaps David ( Elijah)  has thought of all this and dismissed it, either because he thinks that  the EU Is seriously oppressive or that the Scottish nation is especially just, or would be, if only it could free itself from Brussels. He would have to justify either of these positions by more coherent argument than he has provided.

Although I am not a prophet, I do judge politics from a biblical perspective, which leads me to ask the following questions about the referendum:

1. Which choice is more likely to restrain our government’s and neighbouring governments’ worship of their own powers?
2. Which choice is more likely to provide justice for the poor, the migrant and the orphan in Scotland and Europe?

These criteria do not make for easy answers. For example, the poor of the UK are the most adversely affected by immigration, but they lead me, on balance, to vote to remain in the EU, which puts me at odds with D (E) our national prophet. But they led me to vote the same way as he did in the last referendum, so maybe there’s hope for me yet.