Trains and crap Britain

I like Britain and I enjoy living here for the most part. When I was in Central Asia last year for 6 weeks, I really missed some things in Britain like the things we have on offer to buy, the cool climate and things like electricity and fridges! However there are some things that are crap in Britain and the trains really say it all to me.
Britain has become fixated on money. It used to be subtle but it isn't anymore. Virtually all government arguments are about the cost and value of certain decisions, money being wasted etc. Strikes are common because people want to be paid more. People complain about expensive houses and want the government to basically give them money (which the government obviously magics up in a big money room and doesn't come from taxes!), even great institutions are made or broken on the cost.
Do we like the railways? Of course, virtually everyone likes travelling on a train, in a sense, because it is roomy, mostly quite fast and allows you to do things you can't when you drive like walk around, buy food on the move, make phone calls and work on your computer. What people don't like are the prices, the hassle and sitting on a train for 4 hours at a signal because of a broken down train or suicide or points failure or staffing problem (driver in bed asleep). I thought about the Swiss trains, which granted are based on a much simpler network, and wondered how can they not suffer the same things that we do? Of course they can and they do but the issue is not so much "is the train going to break down" but "we will reduce the chance of breakdown and deal with it effectively when it happens".
Back in the day trains were new and went about 25 mph which was like greased lightening but Stephenson wanted more speed, more power, better traction, lower maintenance etc and improved various aspects of his machine to achieve these. Did it cost money? Of course and lots of it but what he ended up with was something with higher value, he got back the money he invested with interest. Why do Britons not do this anymore? Why do we bulk at investment rather than make things better? Why don't we make decisions to prune the rail network and make it work better? Spend money on useful projects and improve what we have?
I still don't understand in this day and age why it is considered normal to have points failures and signal failures. If we can send a space shuttle into space with no room for failure then why not take the same approach with the railways and create equipment that either doesn't fail or fails in a way that can be predicted and dealt with before it actually happens?
Oh yeah, it costs money.

Revival, revival, revival

I'm bored of the those people who are always banging on about revival like we will click our fingers, maybe pray a bit and then everyone in the world is going to be saved. Don't get me wrong, I like optimism and after all, we know God wins in the end but it seems people want a quick fix. Let us think about what the Bible actually says about Christian work which might lead to a 'revival'. 1) Big things in the Bible occurred when one or more people were dedicated to God in prayer and lifestyle. That is not to say that God cannot work unless we are perfect but there is a fairly understandable link between our own holiness and the Spirit's ability to work. 2) If we look at Paul's journeys, at one point he was not allowed to enter Bithynia, the Spirit would not permit him to enter. This surely means that God is not doing everything everywhere all the time, you could say that He has a time for different people - presumably for various reasons. 3) Specific places are not more special than other places for God. Look at the Ethiopian in Acts. He went to Jerusalem to search for truth and where did he find it? in the middle of the desert with Phillip.
If you really want revival, you need to spend long periods of time talking to God and listening to Him. If we were really good at that then perhaps God would use us for just 3 years and change the whole world just like He did with Jesus!

Words, words, words

I certainly talk too much, I have too many opinions, too many of which are not based in Christ but in intellect. If you're honest many of you are probably the same. We express our opinions freely and can end up with a church run by the most persuasive people rather than the most spiritual (who would say what God wants to be said).
Anyway, one of the facets of this which is a big problem in the world in general as well as the church is our definitions of words. We can debate or argue about a certain subject when we might not be disagreeing because our definitions of words and sometimes our logic is too vague or abstract.
I heard it said once that Jesus told us to love one another, therefore it is OK to be in a relationship with anyone because we are loving them. Reason this is wrong? Definition of love is too vague. I have also heard it said that it is OK for Christians to sin because we are forgiven. Reason this is wrong? The assumption that forgiveness wipes away all consequence of sin. As a third example, there is debate about whether baptism without immersion is void after all the Biblical pattern is for full immersion. Reason this argument might be pointless? because we assume that a certain arbitrary level of physical imitation is acceptable to God and a lower level isn't. We could argue if we were pedantic that all baptism should take place in the Middle East or by a Jewish person but we don't because 'that would be silly' are we best placed to argue God's way in the human intellect?
The answer? Jesus told us that we would be held accountable for careless words and James warns that he tongue is dangerous. We should be slow to speak. Also more importantly, if Jesus said that he only spoke what the Father told him to speak then that is a pattern we should follow but rarely do. Next time someone asks you something Christian, try taking a few seconds to 'hear God' on the subject before you answer, or maybe just show humility and accept if something is your best guess rather than being written in stone!

Is there Absolute truth?

Forgive the philosophical tone of this post, especially since I am not a philosopher but I was wondering about the question after having some conversation or other with my father about decisions in life and what was right and wrong. For instance, is it right for a Christian to be a soldier? Is it right for any Christian? Do these grey questions imply that there is no absolute truth. (Some people would think it is not a grey question but for many I think we would agree that we would be uncomfortable with the killing part of being a soldier but would accept that many soldiers are believing Christians)
As in many subjects of life, people seem to disagree, not because they necessarily disagree but because they are careless with words and definitions and not humble to backtrack on an opinion. So person A, lets call him Bruce, says that "Truth is absolute", he believes this because God is absolute, Jesus calls himself the Truth and is God therefore, Truth is God is absolute. He therefore believes that his view on being a soldier is the universal view that should be held by everyone. Person B - or Charlie - has a problem with this stance because he thinks that it is wrong to be a soldier if you are a Christian because it could involve killing someone which he thinks the Bible doesn't agree with. He also knows that lots of soldiers are Christians so he has a few options. 1) He is wrong about thinking it is wrong, 2) All soldiers who are Christians are wrong or 3) truth is not absolute because what is wrong for him is not wrong for others. The 3rd option is the most palatable so he disagrees with Bruce and they have a big argument and both storm out of the pub cursing the other person's lack of theology!!
What if we more careful with our definitions? When we talk about absolute truth, we are unqualified to talk about it because it is much beyond our understanding but we can probably safely say a few things. Bruce and Charlie would both agree that God is absolute and that what he knows and thinks both in Himself and for us are absolute but we cannot go much further than this with any certainty. We can say with certainty that the Bible forbids murder but we also know that God ordained various people to kill others in a way that would be murder if it wasn't for the fact that God allowed them to do it. So if we defined murder as killing without God's permission then it would be an absolute statement of truth and Bruce and Charlie can then argue about whether God permits armies to kill people and if so to what extent it is allowed!
Put simply, life is complex and although there is a perfect/absolute plan in God's mind, for the most part this appears to be worked as best as possible in real life allowing for the complexity of humans and their own ideas.

Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought

It's funny if you think that almost every Christian in the world would agree that humility is important and that we are nothing without God yet virtually everything most of us do is not centred on God but us and involves self-improvement rather than simply learning to trust in God. I think the root of this problem is the carelessness with which we use words! For instance, is it right to say that as Christians we should "become better people"? On the one hand we could answer "of course", in that if we didn't our conversion would be suspect but at the same time the Bible teaches that the sinful nature and the flesh is utterly corrupt and that our aim is not to become better but to see our situation in the reality of sin that corrupts us and the salvation that comes from God so we cannot therefore actually become "better people". Of course in this example the problem is in the actual meaning of words which I didn't specify and which sadly in many cases are not qualified carefully. I have heard people use words like "racist", "bigot" and "sexist" in various Christian and non-Christians arenas with no real qualification of what the accuser means specifically and what does and doesn't actually constitute racism, sexism and being bigoted. Is it bigoted if I say that Arsenal are the best football team? Is it sexist to say that woman are generally more caring than men or to say that black people are more athletic? In church when somebody teaches something, how careful are they with their definitions?
All this introduction was because I was thinking about people who are spiritually proud. You have probably met them, they have an answer for everything and take counsel from no-one. They think that they are not only God's special friend for all spiritual matters but also that they alone are ordained to be the last judge. These people are a thorn in the side of many a ministry and have caused more than their fair share of pain, either by being overcautious and lethargic in the movement of the ministry or overly impulsive and single-minded leading ministry into danger. The folly of these people is warned about in Romans 12:3 which says that we should consider ourselves with "sober judgement". Stop and think for a second. Are you attending a charismatic church and think that "conformist" churches are backward and un-spiritual? Are you attending a conformist church and think that charismatic churches are airy-fairy or arrogant in their views about certain things? Both parties easily fall into pride and un-Godliness! God never told us that one group of Christians would be perfectly correct and every other group are totally incorrect! Why do we presume that we are basically 99% correct in our theology and everyone who disagrees is obviously wrong? Who are we to be the arbiter of all spiritual knowledge? Shame on us. Unless we learn again to be humble and accept our understanding as limited and changeable as other people's is also, we will never learn to move in the higher callings of God because we will fall before we fly!

Intro and symptoms

I used to have a blog where I spelt out my spiritual teachings and annoyances but decided to remove it for reasons I can't remember anymore. I have however recently been thinking certain major thoughts about being a Christian with all it entails and thought I needed somewhere to write it down so it is not forgotten.

My first post is about symptoms and causes. If someone catches a certain virus, their skin can break out into a rash. If they go to the doctor, the doctor does not diagnose a skin complaint and issue skin cream, they perform certain tests and diagnose the cause of the skin problems so that they might prescribe an injection or tablets to treat the virus causing the problem. It is appropriate that we diagnose and treat the causes of problems rather than their symptoms.

When we look at church, various underlying problems cause certain symptoms. The symptoms might be a lack of attendance of our members or people feeling bored and unmotivated by the contents of a service. Although these are symptoms of various things, we often try and treat them and ignore the cause. For instance we try and make the service more fun or 'appropriate' so that we boost our numbers or increase enjoyment. The problem of course with this approach is that instead of providing a long term reliable solution, we provide a temporary solution (if we are lucky) that becomes broken again because we did not seek the underlying reasons. Part of our problem I think is that many of the underlying causes of problems are spiritual, both related to the spiritual life of individuals but also related to the reality of the spiritual world, both of which we are mostly ignorant of. On the other hand, the symptoms are mostly physical or emotional and we think we understand these better so our solutions are often emotional or physical.

The only answer I can think of is for leaders of churches to literally be on their knees in prayer constantly to seek a better understanding of causes and their correct remedy.