The Tenant: Good morning, hello, I thought I’d give you a call….

Me: Who’s that speaking?

The Tenant: This is one of your tenants. I might even say it’s your favourite tenant.

Me: There some mistake here, I don’t rent property and I’m not a landlord….

The Tenant: You are Rev Michael Mair if I’m not mistaken..

Me: Yes, that’s me, but I don’t have any tenants.

The Tenant: No? Not even in that property you take so little care of…

Me: Come on, stop messing around. Are you trying to sell me something?  Where are you calling from?

The Tenant: Somewhere very near, closer than you can imagine. You could call it an interior. Eh-heh, you could call it your interior in fact. If you doubt me, just switch off your phone. Good man, that’s it, and you can still hear me, yes, clear as a bell?

Me: Yes…….I can……Look, what sort of trick is this?

The Tenant: No trick, at all, I assure you. Just me, calling from your inmost self, your mind, your psyche, your soul as it used to be called…..

Me: I did wonder. I guess my mind’s playing tricks on me. You’ll go away if I don’t panic. You said you weren’t alone. who else is there?

The Tenant: Oh we don’t need to talk about him for the moment. No, I wanted to talk to you about your blogs.

Me: I’m always open to criticism.

TheTenant: So you say, but somehow you don’t ever get any. Maybe because hardly anyone reads them.

Me: That’s just abuse…

TheTenant: You’ve paraded yourself as a radical Christian who follows the true way of Jesus. You make pointed criticism of violence, greed and religious hypocrisy, just as he did.

Me: Well, so I do. Is there something wrong with that?

The Tenant: Well let me ask you. Is the world a whisker better, more peaceful, more generous, more honest, for all your criticism?

Me: Well, of course, I don’t really know. How could I know?

TheTenant: You know as well as I do that there’s not the slightest bit of evidence that all your pious blethers have improved the lot of the poor or the oppressed in even the teensiest of ways.

Me: I suppose you may be right….

TheTenant: Suppose? Of course I’m right. Yet you keep on blogging because it makes you feel better. You know that oppressive thugs will still kill and turture innocent people. You know that the richest people on the planet will grab its resources while despoiling its ecosystems. But blogging makes you feel better so everything’s fine and dandy.

Me: But you, my inner tenant, you know the answer, is that right?

TheTenant: Yes.

Me: So? You can’t expect me to believe you without being told your recipe for world-improvement…

TheTenant. You’ve been blogging now for six, seven years, is it? That’s about the same length of time it has taken Islamic State / Daesh to establish itself.

Me: So?

TheTenant: So, in the same time you spent farting around with bible blogs, these people have established networks of influence, purchased weapons, attracted worldwide support, carried out ambushes, raids, suicide attacks, taken hostages,  altered the politics of the world, demonstrated in other words, that ordinary people can change things….

Me: But by terror, by atrocities and ruthless commitment to their own cause…

TheTenant: Exactly. By terror. Because they know that only terror can shift the levers of power. Only terror can make the rich and powerful sit up and take notice. Only terror can have any hope of establishing the Rule of God in the world.

Me: Are you really making a case for terror? 

TheTenant. Bet your sweet ass I am. While you have been bleating in blogs, these guys have transformed the world. Stupid people ask in bewilderment why nice Muslim boys and girls from the civilised world are joining them. The answer’s obvious: because they’ve gone beyond talking about injustice and done things that make world leaders shake in their shoes, for if people are willing to die for a cause – not just willing to kill, but willing to die – how can they be contained by the usual threats; and if they are living their dangerous truth, how can they be deceived by the usual lies?

Me: But they’re monsters, depraved killers who torture and kill indiscriminately.

TheTenant:No, not indiscriminately. They don’t kill their own brand of Muslim. But yes, they are savage, deliberately maiming and killing in monstrous ways, to create fear. Terror, it gets things done. The rich and powerful seem to have their house comfortably furnished, under lock and key. Only terror opens the door. Even Jesus knew that, he said nobody could ransack a strongman’s house unless he first tied up the strong man. That’s what terror does.

Me: Ah, right. I think I know who you are, at last. I suppose I’ve always hoped you’d been evicted….

TheTenant: No, you’ve threatened, but you’ve never finally done it…you like me too much…

Me: You wish! But I recall you mentioned the other tenant. I think I know who that is, and maybe I’ll ask his help in dealing with you. As you reminded me, you need hog-tied before we can springclean the house…..

TheTenant: I’m a peaceful soul who never outstays his welcome. You don’t need to bother the… the …..other…But maybe you’ll keep in mind what I’ve said?

( To be continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A Muslim man arrested for the killing of Asad Shah, a Glasgow shopkeeper and leading member of the Ahmadiyya Mosque in that city has issued a statement that he had not killed the man because of his reported respect for Jesus but for his disrespect to the Prophet Mohammed, peace be with him. He understood (wrongly)that Shah claimed to be a prophet of Allah, and therefore executed him for not accepting Mohammed as the last prophet of God.

In fact Asad Shah did not think he was a prophet but, along with all Ahmaddiyya Muslims, believed that in fulfilment of a Qur’anic prophecy, one Mizra Gulam Ahmad, born in 1835, was the final messenger of God. There has been some evidence in Glasgow of tension between the Ahmadiyyas and the “orthodox” Mosque, which may have influenced the killer.

Qur’anic scholars are divided on the witness of their holy book about the treatment of heretics and apostates. My own inexpert view is that there are sufficient passages which condemn such persons to death to justify the wariness of non-Muslims towards this often beautiful set of teachings. Certainly Muslim Religious Law would insist that any offender would have to be tried and convicted before he could be sentenced, or at least named in a proper fatwa as deserving of death.

So, yes, the killer who issued this statement was wrong about his victim’s beliefs and about his right to take the Law into his own hands, but he may well have been right about the verdict of the noble Qur’an on heretics and apostates. That is my uncomfortable conviction: Islam teaches that disrespect of the Prophet is punishable by death. No doubt there must be due investigation,  due process of trial and conviction, but the brute fact is that you’d be daft to make a joke about Mohammed in a Mecca bar …… except there wouldn’t be a bar…

No Christian should find this strange. After all, with absolutely no encouragement from Jesus, Christians persecuted and in some cases killed those they defined as heretics, and fought savage wars of religion against their fellow believers. This is proof that religion itself, unless very specifically committed to nonviolence, needs no authorisation from its founder to murder those it considers as enemies. When religion permits no access to reason, the only way of settling disputes is by force.

That is why I urge all people of faith to respect human reason: facts, rational argument, and a grasp of the uncertainty of all human judgement, are as essential in religious debate as they are in any other sphere of knowledge. Just as I am utterly opposed to a Christian fundamentalism which claims to be loyal to the literal sense of the Bible but in fact wants to impose its interpretation of the Bible on everyone, so also I am opposed to all Qur’anic scholarship that refuses a historical examination of the origins of the Qur’an and the myths that surround it. Only by exposing their holy traditions to the light of reason can Islam and Christianity rid themselves of bigotry and prejudice.

But there is a difference between the two faiths about disrespect of their founders. It would appear that anyone disrespecting Mohammed, peace be upon him, must be punished to defend the honour of the prophet; whereas Messiah Jesus died forgiving those who not only dishonoured but also tortured and killed him, thus living out his own instructions about loving your enemy. Disrespect was not a problem to Jesus; he thrived on it. That’s why, with all my respect for Islam,  I’m happy to be a disciple of One much stronger than Mohammed, who didn’t need to waste his enemies.

Any serious response to the Glasgow tragedy requires a fundamental examination of violence in the light of the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

p

 

 

 

The latest 10 Commandments by Arthur Hugh Clough

Thou shalt have one God only; who
Would be at the expense of two?
No graven images may be
Worshipp’d, except the currency:
Swear not at all; for, for thy curse
Thine enemy is none the worse:
At church on Sunday to attend
Will serve to keep the world thy friend:
Honour thy parents; that is, all
From whom advancement may befall:
Thou shalt not kill; but need’st not strive
Officiously to keep alive:
Do not adultery commit;
Advantage rarely comes of it:
Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat,
When it’s so lucrative to cheat:
Bear not false witness; let the lie
Have time on its own wings to fly:
Thou shalt not covet; but tradition
Approves all forms of competition.

This savage little poem by the Victorian poet Arthur Clough came to mind when I was taking in the revelations about the behaviour of rich and powerful people in their use of offshore tax havens. It is very unsurprising that a bunch of Russian thugs connected to the chief thug who rules their country, should have been hiding their dubiously obtained fortunes in the tiny remaining parts of the British Empire, but to many people, perhaps, more surprising that a late member of the British PM’s family did so. Of course, as all reports of these facts have to say, there’s no suggestion of anything criminal.

“Thou shalt not steal; an empty feat

when it’s so lucrative to cheat.”

My own lifetime experience is that rich people will go to any lengths to protect their advantage over others, and to pass on that advantage to their offspring. While they are doing so however, they prefer to think of themselves as decent law-abiding and even Christian people. We live in a capitalist society as a consequence of which our laws protect wealth and its possessors from any serious exercise of justice; it’s often possible therefore, for the wealthy to be law-abiding. But Christian?

The often-hidden secret of Christianity is that Jesus was extreme about wealth. He did not teach that wealthy people should be reasonably philanthropic while maintaining their wealth, but rather that they should speedily get rid of their wealth before it damned them. It’s quite clear that he regarded the possession of wealth as one of the main dangers to a person’s salvation. This seems to have been his own distinctive understanding, which surprised and disturbed his disciples. When he sent a rich young man away with the message that he should sell up his properties, give the money to the poor and join his group of followers, he reportedly spoke about how difficult it was for rich people to squeeze into God’s kingdom. This astonished his disciples, who believed, as did most people in their society, that wealth was evidence of the blessing of God on a good life. Jesus’ words about camels and needle’s eyes left them in no doubt where he stood. He explained that you could not simultaneously serve God and Money. If this sounds a prejudiced view, we should recollect that Jesus showed none of the cold-heartedness of political or moral zealots; but kept company with rich people who had made their money dubiously, the collaborating tax-collectors and other riff-raff, while making it clear, as in the case of  Zacchaeus, what they needed to do. In the case of the rich young man who wanted salavation, the account mentions that Jesus felt affection for him. 

All this is so very clear in the Gospels, and in the practice of the early church, that it can only be ignored by means of a serious and deliberate distortion of the faith of Jesus. Yes, people may rightly argue that a living faith has to have intellectual space to grow and change and make itself relevant to new circumstances, but Jesus’ teaching about wealth is so  clear and central that I can’t imagine why anyone who disagreed with it, would want to be Christian in the first place. And the teaching is certainly not out of date or irrelevant, as the current revelations show. Rich people believe that their wealth owes nothing to the society in which they made it, to its material infrastructure, legal framework, political freedoms, nor to their fellow citizens. No, it is their money, their property, earned by their own hard work or that of their ancestors. They owe nothing to anybody, and are certainly not responsible for the condition of the poor in their own nation or elsewhere:

“Thou must not kill, but needs not strive

Officiously to keep alive.”

The contemporary assault on the benefits of state provision and the value of taxation is a the kind of barefaced self -interested tactic that Jesus would have expected: the rich serving mammon to the exclusion of social responsibilty, the very hard-heartedness he satirised in his story of The Rich Man and Lazarus, which imagines the rich man frying in hell while reminding God of His social responsibilities. Anyone who thinks these views are outrageous, should remind himself of the outrageous change which has taken place in my society over my lifetime. I grew up in post- war Britain, where many key industries were publicly owned, and top salaries taxed at over 90%. Public service of all kinds was considered honourable. Of course such a society had faults but I remain convinced that even its faults were more humane than the trumpeted virtues of the neo-liberal paradise in which I now live.

It is not the job of the church to rule society, but rather to make its tradition available to citizens who are deciding their society’s future. As the referendum on Europe and the elections for the UK devolved assemblies approach, I consider that since Jesus’ teaching about wealth is more accurate than anything else we are likely to be offered, it should be made public by his churches.

In the fourth voyage of Gulliver, Jonathan Swift introduces him to a race of intelligent horses, who are utterly opposed to the routine follies of humankind, including its frequent use of lies, which the horses define as,”saying the thing that is not.” The horses are puzzled that anyone should want to do this, as it flies in the face of the facts. For Swift of course this judgement cuts two ways, exposing both the degeneracy of human beings and the limiting rationalism of the horses.

But let’s stick to human beings.

This morning I received, as a member of the Scottish Nationalist Party, a “letter from Nicola” giving me the Party’s platform for the forthcoming Scottish election. I guess I can excuse the attribution of this letter to Ms. Sturgeon; after all my Bible includes things attributed to Paul, which were certainly never composed by the sage of Tarsus. In fact, if you reply to Nicola the pretence is dropped and an aide answers you in her own name. No, the pseudonymous letter is doubtless a legitimate device in maintaining the Party’s reputation for being modern and direct.

It was the content that got me: a selective list of appealing goodies delivered by the SNP Government in the name of fairness, such as free medical prescriptions for all, and free bus travel for the over 65’s. Now I can see how these might be viewed as goodies, but their contribution to fairness is far from obvious. I am lucky enough to be able to pay, as the English do, a fee for my prescriptions and for my bus travel. It is fair that I get them free? The SNP wants me to think so, and to resist any thought that people like me ought to be contributing more to the public purse. These items in the list are what some have called “persuasive definitions” or what Swift called, “saying the thing that is not” or as I might say, lies. There is also a more deliberate lie in the letter, a sideswipe at the Labour Party, which is accused of wanting to increase the tax burden for ordinary people. No doubt the Labour Party made a pig’s ear of its very modest proposals for income tax increases, but its clear aim was to tax the middle classes a bit more to protect public services used by everyone. This particular lie disguises the SNP’s reluctance to increase taxes, because that might alienate the wealthier section of its supporters.  Moreover it insidiously confirms the Tory view that all taxes, and the public services they fund, are an unfair burden on the rich.

As political lying goes, these are modest enough examples. Indeed some readers may be wondering why on earth I’m complaining, as surely no political party could survive without the kind of persuasive definitions ascribed to Nicola. Well, yes, but…

Simone Weil, the French philosopher, believed that lies, especially but not exclusively the kind of lies generated in propaganda, were pernicious and the source of great evils in society. You only need to think about the consequences of the very popular lie that people on benefits are scroungers to see the truth of this proposition.  She argued for the existence of a special court which would deal with complaints against the publishers of lies. (She had the same difficulty in inventing a satisfactory way of selecting this court as Plato had in establishing his “guardians” in the Republic.) She recognised however, that political parties could not survive without lies; and therefore proposed the abolition of political parties!

Weil, like Swift’s horses, thought that tolerance for lies, especially public lies, was not only degrading but also likely to lead to catastrophe, as it encouraged people to believe “the thing that is not”, to evade reality.

There is much that is admirable about the SNP and its politicians; so if it feels it has to indulge in routine political lying, it may be assisting Weil’s case for abolition of parties. Without doubt the big parties hold the key to political careers, as well as setting the terms of political debate in this country. The big issues faced by all western democracies are: how to feed, educate and care for their populations; how to control  injustice and relieve poverty; how to combat climate change; how to deal with the plight of refugees; how to combat the terrorism of groups and nations. And Nicola wants me to think about my bus pass!

Commentators all round the world commended the Independence Referendum in Scotland for creating a vibrant political culture that involved all ages. Already it’s evident that the enthusiasm of youth is being harnessed, especially by the SNP, to communicate election messages. Or as Jonathan Swift might say, “to promote the thing that is not” or as I might say, to tell lies. This may lead to speedy disillusionment.

Simome Weil, a profound thinker, was seriously loopy about some issues and I until now thought her view on the abolition of parties was one of them. Now, I’m not so sure. Of course some political parties have done some public good, but the time may have come to examine the effects of their relentless propaganda on our ability to face facts.

The readers who wonder what this has got to do with Jesus or theology may be comforted by this verse from Isaiah chapter 59: v 14:

“fair judgement is pushed aside, justice stands far off; for truth has fallen in the public square, and honesty cannot enter.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The most thought-provoking words I read during Holy Week was the Good Friday headline of the Scottish Daily Record:

WOMAN SAVES TARANTULA FROM CHILDREN

The accompanying text told how a woman in Bellshill near Glasgow had stopped some children from hurting a tarantula which had escaped from a nearby house. The RSPCA took charge of the animal which they declared to be in a robust condition. In the whole report there was not a word to suggest that this sequence of events was not entirely normal. It was flanked by a story about how a Scottish woman had trained her parrot to use the loo. “For this is my country….”

The beauty of the story is that it correctly identifies children as more dangerous than tarantulas, because of course Homo Sapiens is the most deadly of all predators, daily responsible for more kill than Tyranosaurus Rex managed throughout his history.

I have been taken to task by a number of readers for my pessimistic blog which  doubted if the human race would survive its own evil and folly. In particular a number of Christian believers asked how such pessimism could be reconciled with faith in the God of Jesus. After all, we are told to pray “Thy kingdom come” which surely cannot mean that humanity will be wiped out by global warming. We are commanded to take no thought for tomorrow, which surely suggests that gloomy prognoses such as mine are contrary to the spirit of Jesus. And doesn’t God guarantee in the Noah story that seed time and harvest will never cease again?

---

The biblical realism of the Afro- American slaves knew better:

God gave Noah the rainbow sign

No mo’ water but the fire next time.

That Spiritual picks up the plain truth of the witness of the New Testament with regard to the future of the earth: it won’t end well. Yes, God will rescue his faithful people, who have not contaminated themselves with power or wealth or other idols, but have trusted in the way of Jesus, these God will rescue from the destruction which will come upon the world. This type of theology is called eschatological (meaning thought about the end-times) or apocalyptic (meaning a revelation of God’s hidden purpose), and there’s a lot of it in the New Testament, more than can simply be ignored as an aberration. Almost all books of the New Testament contain some reference to the short future of the world. Of the Gospels only John fails to report the eschatological prophecy of Jesus. Most of the Pauline letters mention the shortness of the time of God’s patience and look towards the final appearance (Greek, Parousia) of Jesus Messiah; and the book of The Revelation contains nothing other than visions of the approaching end of this world, and the arrival of new heavens and a new earth. The end always involves God’s judgement on the powers of evil and their adherents and the reward of those who have remained true to Jesus.

There are all kids of subtle differences in way different writers use this kind of material, but there are a number of common convictions:

1. While the death of Jesus on the cross reveals the astonishing goodness of God; it also reveals the astonishing evil of humanity.
2. Jesus’ death on the cross is depicted as an eschatological event: the sun refuses to shine and the dead rise from their graves. The New Testament writers assume therefore that the end times have arrived. Other eschatological events may not be immediate but they are imminent.
3. In the remaining time of God ‘s patience the Gospel of God’s Rule in Jesus has to be announced world-wide so that before the end people from all races may turn towards the God who will rescue them from the day of wrath.
4. The establishment of God’s Rule on earth will not be a continuation of this world. If McCoy happened into it, he would say accurately, “It’s life, Jim, but not as we know it.”

In time, the texts which more or less clearly pointed to the swift return of Jesus and the ending of the world as we know it, became an embarrassment to the church and were interpreted as pointing to a remote future or spiritualised as symbols of the judgement that comes upon people at death. Many churches, recognising that those who are fascinated by this material are usually nutters, such as the 1984 people who awaited the end on top of Mont Blanc and hadn’t enough money to pay their hotel bills when they finally descended, or the pathetically deranged creatures who expect some variety of rapture, steer clear of the whole topic.

But like the homophobes say of homophobia, “it’s there in scripture,” and in this case it’s not in a few stray references, like homophobia, but is a central element in the witness of the New Testament.

I love this earth and would like to be optimistic about its future. In fact, given what I know scientifically about life, I am reasonably optimistic about the future of the physical planet and life on it, and would like to extend this optimism to include the human race, but cannot do so with any conviction. Homo sapiens may turn out to have been an evolutionary cul de sac. That rational doubt about the long term future of human beings is supported rather than rebutted by the theological witness of the Bible. The great flood of the bible story is God’s exasperated response to the evil caused by the creatures made in his likeness. God ends up sorry that he destroyed so much of his original creation but there’s nothing in the story about human sorrow for their evil. Sure enough, scarcely has God unveiled the rainbow than Noah’s drunk and causing trouble. God’s decision to persevere with humankind looks like the triumph of hope over experience.

Pessimism need not weaken faith, nor the commitment of believers to oppose human arrogance, violence and stupidity while there is the least chance of averting disaster. Optimism on the other hand may lead people to ignore the ominous signs of what our grandchildren may face in their lifetimes.

 

 

My meditation for today will be found on my other blog at emmock.com 1897.

I’ll be back with desperate Dan next week.

 

My Holy Week meditations will be found on my other blog:

emmock.com

number 1896 is especially relevant to my last blog on this site.

I’ll come back to this site next week.

That phrase of Shakespeare’s has been in mind for a few days as an accurate description of what I see when I look at the activity of the human race. We face an increasing threat of devastating global warming, which has already begun to affect many countries and will soon affect all, and the response of the rich and powerful of the world is to try to run things so that they will become richer and more powerful even if they end up in artificial environments poised on the surface of a burnt out planet. This means conspicuous consumption of earth’s diminishing resources, complete carelessness with the lives of the poor and the creatures or the earth, and vicious brutality towards anyone who gets in the road. And the Islamic jihadis who claim to stand for justice in opposition to the power of the rich, are touched by a hysterical self-righteous extremism that simply adds to the evils they try to oppose.

There is nowhere on earth that offers me news of anything better; the many people who work for justice, goodness and beauty are forced to exist on the margins of power and are always vulnerable to its priorities. 

Yes, I know this sounds extreme, but my view stems from the realisation that I have been wilfully optimistic in refusing to see that the destructive people are more powerful that the others, and that most of what actually happens is what they want to happen. How could I have failed to see this? I think probably I didn’t want to see it and therefore ignored it. Check it with your own view of the world- that’s the reality, isn’t it? – it’s going to hell in a  handcart, because we’ve permitted comfy rich boys, like the U.K Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is presently delivering a budget which will enhance the lives of the rich and damage those of  the poor, while failing to address any of the real problems of our country, to decide our futures. Yes, yes, it’s called democracy, I know. But does anyone think that their grandchildren, who are already poorer than them and will live precarious lives on an overheating earth, subject to vicious wars for the remaining sources of energy, does anyone think they’ll be grateful that it was all done democratically?

The instinct of people who begin to see how they’ve been shafted is not encouraging: witness the rise of right wing parties in Europe, the US, and in many other places. They have a common gift to their supporters: someone to blame other than themselves, for the state of the world, usually foreigners. Clearly these people are not seeking real solutions. They want instant magical solutions that will solve the problem at a stroke, building walls over vast territories to keep foreigners out (Trump) or jailing everyone who disagrees (Putin). None of these are quite as mad as North Korea’s drive to make its armed forces larger than its civilian population, but they’re at least competing. Nothing rational has any effect on the pathetic, demented, squealing rage that falls for these solutions. It’s as if the passengers on the Titanic, being warned that it might crash, started fighting to finish the whisky and diverted the crew’s attention from the danger.

I used to quote Gramsci, the great Italian Marxist, who prescribed, “pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will,” meaning that things would probably go wrong but you could fight them successfully. I still want to fight and will continue in this blog to encourage others to fight, but I don’t anticipate victory: I think evil and destruction are the default settings of the human race.

And what about God? Will he/she not intervene to avert catastrophe? No. God has already intervened through the great prophets and teachers, and in person in Jesus, and it hasn’t worked. Well, not enough anyway. Maybe God has always known this,  and having done his/her best, is already dreaming a successor to Homo sapiens.

Come on, come on, someone will be saying, all this is some kind of provocation, you don’t really think this.  Ah but I do, and one of the strongest supports for my argument is myself: why haven’t I fought harder? Why have I sometimes added my own evil and destructiveness to the common pile? My only excuse is that I’m a human being.

 

 

I belong to the Scottish professional middle class, a social grouping which has historically contributed more than its fair share of scientific, engineering, literary and philosophical excellences to the world, along with its support of the British Empire, its Calvinist morality, and its canny commitment to personal prosperity.

I grew up with a very strong sense of right and wrong. That’s not to say that I was a saintly child, far from it, but when I had done wrong, I knew it. Not only did I know it, I felt guilty about it, and was in constant fear of being found out and exposed as a unworthy of my family, my church, my community. Again, all this fear and guilt in no way stopped me from doing the things I knew were wrong. Quite the reverse in fact, as it gave an additional thrill to the doing of them.

Looking back, I wonder how many of those sins were in fact wrong- some of them, certainly; others were simple failures and follies. This was the product of a moral system which saw sex outside marriage as wrong, but the takeover of other countries for the benefit of the natives, as right and even praiseworthy. Without doubt however the training worked. Even now I hesitate to talk back to respectable people who are expressing loathesome opinions in case I get a clip on the ear and am always conscious that appearing in public with unpolished shoes is slovenly and lets the family down.

I can see that this ethos, backed by an agreeable sort of Christian faith, equipped its young people to treat their equals with decency, to work hard, and to believe that public service was honourable, albeit better as a hobby than a career. It was probably the same ethos that David Cameron’s mother impressed on her family. In my case, and perhaps in many others, it produced a selective conscience which judged my foolish actions as big sins but was quite unmoved  by my leaving my physician mother to do all the housework.

At first I saw Jesus as another purveyor of this ethos, even if He was a bit superior to the rest. In fact I never thought of him as historically real, or even as the hero of the books in which he appeared, but rather as a sort of free-floating human God who had descended to earth for my benefit, and in some mysterious transaction involving his death, had persuaded God to forgive my sins. Don’t get me wrong, I was grateful for the story of forgiveness, because it meant that even if I flunked the moral examination which was my life on earth, I would not be relegated to the eternal Junior Secondary, which was the anticipated hell of all lazy 11+ examinees. ( “the plumber’s kids go there!”  my mother hissed.)

But then, bit by bit, Jesus started to be real to me. At first, it was just noticing that he  wasn’t much in favour of the ethos in which I had been trained. He was especially unimpressed with those who passed judgement on others and seemed at ease with tradespeople, of which he was one, not to mention prostitutes, traitors, and other riff-raff that his moralistic contemporaries and mine considered beyond the pale. Above all, he was curiously un unconcerned with “sin”. There is a certain gaiety to his forgiveness of sin, by which he recognises its capacity to destroy life, especially when it results from the judgement of others; and gets rid of it in God’s name, so that the sinner may recover fullness of life. Even serious sins, like those of the collaborating tax collector Zacchaeus, are left uncondemned, so that the sinner can change his life and provide recompense without being told to do so.

I said, unconcerned, but of course that only refers to his lack of moralistic condemnation, while he is on the other hand, a complete terrorist with regard to what human beings can become, that is, citizens of the kingdom of God, who must strive to be perfect as God is perfect. For the sake of becoming agents of God’s justice and compassion people have to leave other things behind them, including their sins. Forgiveness is offered not for the sake of what a person has been, but for what she is called to be by God.

There is practically nothing in the teaching of Jesus which chimes with the theological story of the appalling weight of human sin which can only be forgiven by the Divine Son of God bearing the divine condemnation of it, so that God may offer forgiveness without compromising his justice.

Jesus it appears, understood human wrongness as the misuse of the capacities the Father had given to his children. ( As the father of the prodigal provides a share of his patrimony) He knows that “in the beginning” that is, in God’s intention, it was meant to be otherwise, and rather than compromising, he insists that his followers live as they were meant to, no matter how unrealistic that may seem. The children of God, to be sure, need not fear the Father’s rejection, but they are commanded to begin again in the Father’s generosity ( to become like children/ to be born from above), showing that same generosity in their life with others.

The cross is not the grim story of a psychopathic God who demands satisfaction from his Son, but the sober story of the Son of God who poured out the Father’s generosity in life and death, the victim of moralism, meanness, prejudice, hatred and fear, yet still undefeated. Jesus faithfulness unto death to the generosity of God, is as St Paul recognised, the end of all religious systems designed, like the Torah, to secure the blessing of God. As Jesus knew, the blessing is already given to those who turn to God, in spite of their sins. Now, in that blessing, they have to start again, and again and again.

In that confidence I have learned from Jesus how to be wrong, namely, to accept it as my misuse of God’s endowment of my being, my choice as a person who shares in human evil, which also means that I can choose otherwise, to start again as a person who can share the goodness of God.

All this comes from Jesus, whose life and death and resurrection I accept as the definitive communication of God. There is for me no other God than the Father of Jesus. Do I mean that all other religions are lacking? Yes. Do I mean that all other religions are completely wrong? Of course not. I cannot follow Jesus and pretend that Mohmammed was right about enemies, or that Buddha was right about non-attachment. But I can learn from Mohammed’s commitment to justice and the Buddha’s cure for egoism. My approach to other faiths and philosophies should be wholly ecumenical, but even that openness derives from Jesus the crucified Messiah, the beloved child of God.