Faith in a Flourishing City Birmingham Prayer Breakfast Friday, 22nd June, 2012.

Council_House,_Birmingham_(2)

Introduction.

This morning, as I was making my way to the Council House, I met a man on the bridge just outside the ICC. He was looking very troubled, so I stopped to ask him if he was okay. He was a successful businessman, with little or no financial worries, but he told me that he was unhappy because of some issues he was facing in his private life. He was contemplating whether it was worth living. I spend a few moments talking with him, then offered to pray for him – he was very grateful for that, telling me that he knew that he was missing ‘something’ at the centre of his life. It was a powerful encounter that actually brought into sharp focus what I want to say to you this morning.

I am privileged and honoured to be asked to address you this morning in the Council House. I have spent many years in Council Houses – just not ones quite like this – having been born and brought up in a council estate in Northern Ireland. Thank you so much for the invitation to address you today.

The Constituent Parts of a Flourishing City.

What is a flourishing city, and what place does ‘faith’ play in such a city? Again, on the way here, I saw some things that articulate the component contributors to a flourishing city. From my hosts’ home I could see the canal – a reminder of the great heritage of commerce and trade of Birmingham. As I looked through the window I could see people working out in the gym on the other side of the canal. I walked through centres of commerce and shopping malls, glanced into the reception of Ballantyne’s Gym, passed the ICC and Symphony Hall and passed some of the centres of political power to get to the Council House. I also passed several churches. On one of the brown tourist signs on the roadside there were directions to the Jewelry Quarter, St Philip’s, St Chad’s, the City Centre and the Symphony Hall. I passed the site of the new library, and outside the Council House saw the BBC news being broadcast on a massive open-air screen, not to mention the Titanic installation just outside. All these things point to some of the constituent parts of a thriving, flourishing city – commerce, statutory services, culture, the arts and media and communities of faith. For any city to flourish we need all of these communities playing their part. Each with their own strengths and weaknesses and each bringing their own identity to the table of the city so that the city can flourish and grow.

A Tapestry of Many Strands.

The Commercial Sector

We need the innovation, flare and resources of the commercial sector. Too often those in business and commerce have been viewed with either suspicion or disdain by the public sector, the arts and culture sector or the faith communities. We must be careful not to miss their vital and vibrant contribution to a healthy and flourishing city.

The Arts, Culture and Media Sectors

The arts and culture sector bring a richness and depth to a city that is incredibly important. When we see them as frivolous, we miss the point of the arts. They create spaces – both physically and in the hearts and minds of citizens, to reflect on the beauty of our lives and the both the strength and the struggles of our communities. Without them, we can turn oil painting of community into a charcoal drawing of existence – life looses its colour. We cut their funding and minimize their importance at our peril.

The Public Sector

The public sector provides a wonderful base for service – and should be at the centre of putting people first. In the many years that I have now been working with elected politicians and public officials, every single one of them originally entered their sphere of work and life because they wanted to make a positive difference in the lives of people in their community. Some may have lost sight of that high ideal, but they all embarked on the road of public service ‘to make a difference’. We should honour them for that.

The Faiths Sector

Then there is the faiths sector. I am proud to count myself in their number. Faith communities bring an ability to connect with harder to reach people, a deeply person-centred approach to life and the longevity of commitment to our communities long after the latest funding rounds have been withdrawn or the initials on community transformation initiatives have changed again. We are in our communities for the long haul. But we bring more than our presence – we bring hope and the space and opportunity for people to reflect on the deeper things of life and society. We are a vital part of a flourishing city. One particular moment in my own life reminded me of this very strongly.

Some years ago I had a meeting in Glasgow with a colleague called Martin. He was working to help the Church of Scotland connect with the poorest communities in the city and I was on my way to meet him to discuss some ideas of how that might work. Having lost my way slightly on the way to the meeting I eventually found the right road, and on the pavement just a few hundred yards from the venue for our meeting, someone had written in large black letters ‘I miss being close to God’. The same thing happened this morning here in Birmingham except this time it was a man on a bridge wondering what to do with his life.

Put bluntly, cities cannot flourish without faith communities. I would go one step further – cities cannot flourish without God. Too often city officials, commercial leaders and those in the world of arts and culture want the activities of faith communities but do now want the faith communities themselves. Let me put it another way. You want what we do, but you are not willing to accept who we are. I am afraid that approach has always failed – and it always will. If you want what faith communities do in a flourishing city – and we do a lot – then you must allow us to be who we are. We cannot apologise for our faith. It is both illogical and unreasonable to expect to have the energy and engine of our activities and services without also allowing us the space to have the inspiration and fuel of our faith. Our faith motivates us – take away our motivation and you will be left with an engine that does not work. Let me explain that further.

Faiths Communities not ‘The Faith Community’.

I am not a pluralist. I was not brought up in a Christian home, but instead came to faith as a teenager, experiencing a conversion to Christ. I cannot apologise for Jesus and His place in my life because He has never apologized for me. Yet I often find myself in situations, both in central government and in local government, where it is assumed that the various faith communities all believe in the same thing, really – don’t we? There is a deep ignorance of the illogicality of such a position at best and at worst a trivializing and marginalization of the importance of faith in our lives.

Of course I celebrate and welcome partnerships across different communities of faith. There is much that can be done together as Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Janists, Baha’is, Buddhists and Zoroastrians work together for the good of the wider community. We each contribute to flourishing cities.[1] But we are not the same. In fact there are glaring differences in different faith communities. To try to make us look and sound the same is like trying to make all political parties look and sound the same. As a Christian, I believe that Christ is the ultimate and complete revelation of God – He is the Way, the Truth and the Life. No other faith community holds this view and it contradicts many of their teachings and convictions. So I do not want to hide my distinctiveness, I want to honour it and be clear about it – but that distinctiveness does not exclude me from playing my part – it simply means that we must be clear about who we are and what we do and why we do it. The religious culture in the UK has long since left the realm of believing that all faiths believe in the same God – we recognize that we do not – but government and others still try to squeeze us all into the dame world. That is a fatal error. Let us be ourselves. Instead of blending us all into some kind of ‘smoothie’ of faith, let the constituent parts of the different communities of faith relate to one another from their positions of distinctiveness. There are important reasons for this

1. The Importance ofdrawing people into a flourishing city.

As a young man, I remember listening to an interview with John Hulme, who was at that time the leader of the SDLP in Northern Ireland. He was explaining why he had embarked on secret talks with the IRA. When challenged on why he had taken the step he responded by saying that you do not create peace by talking to men of peace – you must also talk to those not yet committed to peace.

The same is true when it comes to creating flourishing cities and communities of cohesion. Often the passion, energy and commitment of people of faith is found in those who have a more traditional and conservative position in their own faith communities. I myself am politically progressive but theologically and spiritually conservative. Those in the conservative ends of different communities of faith need pathways of working with others that enable them to be true to their own convictions about God and His place in their lives whilst at the same time being able to work with others in a whole plethora of activities and commitments.

In effect – if you want to create a flourishing and cohesive city, you must make room for the diversity of people of faith. We need to move beyond the mush of multi-culturalism and enter the much more exciting ground of poly-culturalism, where communities can collaborate but can also celebrate their identity. This is the only model that can pull Europe, let alone Britain, back from the brink of fracture.

2. The Importance of allowing personal faith to express itself publicly.

My faith is, of course, a personal decision, but it has very public consequences. You cannot with any level of clear thinking or philosophical rigour, expect me to have a private faith that has no public consequences. My faith affects every area of my life. I am not a Jew or a Hindu or a Sikh or a Muslim – I am a Christian. It is my Christianity that shapes my view of society, culture, my neighbours and myself. It is my allegiance to Jesus Christ that causes me to understand my role in the world.

It is a failure of philosophical and political understanding to assume that faith is disconnected from wider life. For a umber of years now, politicians have made absurd disconnections between public life and private faith. You can no more separate these two constituent parts of my identity than you can ask me to disconnect my masculinity from my fathering. It is like asking a politician to disconnect their political convictions from their political life.

I think that one of the reasons for this error lies at the root of our challenges as a society – that is the confinement of our understanding of morality and ethics.

3. The importance of a larger moral framework.

There are many people here today whose whole worldviews have been shaped by our faith – indeed if your faith does not shape your worldview, I wonder really what impact your faith has had upon you at all? Housing, education, employment, healthcare, the environment, international relations, foreign policy etc. are all ‘moral’ issues. I cannot lock my faith away in a box and pretend it has nothing to do with my life and my view of society any more than I can lock my lungs away from the rest of my body and expect to live!

Morality affects every decision we make and every view we hold. It includes, but is not confined to, traditional issues of sexual morality and issues of personhood.

It is precisely because I believe in the dignity of all people and the importance or right contexts for relationships, behavior and conduct that I commend my colleagues in the House of Bishops for their comments around marriage a few weeks ago. Morality is not a dirty word – and we must be careful not to turn it into a political or behavioural football.

4. The importance of understanding tolerance properly.

Ironically, in our pursuit of becoming ‘tolerant’ we have shown the greatest and strongest intolerance toward those who have a conservative view (in the ethical rather than political sense of the word) of issues such as sexual conduct, marriage, and the right to life. In a week when we have seen the morality of tax-avoidance hitting the headlines as well as the issues of economic collapse across Europe and the raging debate around same sex marriage my observation would be that to label some of these issues as ‘moral’ discussions and others as nothing to do with ‘morality’ is nonsensical.

You may not agree with what I say – but to tell me I have no right to say it is quite another thing! That strikes me as the greatest and most challenging threat to our democracy and our flourishing possible. To dismiss bishops or Christians such as me because you disagree with us and to label us as ‘intolerant’ is to display the greatest intolerance of all. Not only that, but it also runs the deep political and social risk of abandoning debates about right and wrong, conduct and ethics or what is morally acceptable or unacceptable to the wider landscape of political and religious extremists. We do this at our peril. It was that pathway that led to the collapse of the Weimar Republic in the inter-war period in Germany.

If we are to create genuinely tolerant, flourishing and cohesive cities and communities across the UK, then we must accept that there is a valid and vital discussion to be had with those of us who believe that one of the reasons that we face the challenges we do is our abandonment of some core moral principles and a an inherently Judeo-Christian framework. That framework inherently connects societal health with community morality and in turn links community morality with personal ethical and moral choices. This connected trail is fractured at our peril. I wonder if the reason we face the societal crises that we do is precisely because we have tolerated and condoned this separation for too long.

You can move a building, but you cannot move its’ foundations.

In 1953, when Elizabeth the Second was crowned, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the Church of Scotland gave her a bible. The words spoken to her are important to remember:

“Our gracious Queen: 
to keep your Majesty ever mindful of the law and the Gospel of God
as the Rule for the whole life and government of Christian Princes, 
we present you with this Book, 
the most valuable thing that this world affords.

Here is Wisdom; 
 this is the royal Law; 
 these are the lively Oracles of God.”

My challenge to you this morning is this: in the sixty years of her reign, the Queen has not wavered from her promises and commitments that she made in her coronation. Twelve successive Prime Ministers and their governments, of every political hue and colour, have led the United Kingdom to forget these important truths. We have neglected the truth of the words of the coronation at our peril. We have, in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘multi-culturalism’ tried to change the foundations of our society. The truth is that we have lost our moral and ethical centre and called it ‘progress’.

A flourishing city means many things but a city can never fully flourish until its people flourish – and people cannot flourish whilst their spirituality is downplayed. And we downplay spirituality most dangerously when we make ourselves the centre of our own moral universe.

The Importance of the Church.[2]

Whilst not wishing to defend the many errors of judgement of the church over the years in Britain, I do want to celebrate our contributions to our nation. We are at the heart of welfare services, social care, youth work, community development and education. We run some of the best programmes, schools and support packages in the country. Without us, the UK welfare structure would collapse and in every region of the United Kingdom, our departure would lead to social breakdown and a crisis of such proportions that the economic challenges of the last few years would look like a minor trifle.

We are committed to playing our part in the UK. We want to be at the heart of a flourishing Britain, not just a flourishing Birmingham. The issue is not our willingness to serve; it is the political fear of discussions about what is actually wrong with our nation. You cannot gag the church in the areas where you disagree with us, then ask us to contribute as a ‘service provider’ in your programmes. We want to be partners with government, the commercial sector and the arts and cultural sector – but be careful you do not turn our desire to partner into either making us a miniature form of yourselves or a cheap and rather embarrassing cousin at the family table where we discuss and deliver the vital components of a healthy society. You need us – and we are committed to serving you – but you can’t dictate to us.

We operate in the presence of government and in the presence of the commercial sector and in the presence of the arts and cultural sector – but we are not in your pockets. We need each other.

Conclusion – A Better Conversation.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn suffered for many years because of his faith in Christ. He would not deny his allegiance to His Saviour. Amongst the many challenging things that he said, let me remind you of two.

Firstly, when asked to explain what he thought had happened to Russia that brought the country to the state it found itself in when he was imprisoned, he replied that he could sum up the collapse of Russian hope and morality in one simple sentence - ‘Men have forgotten God’. My deep fear is that the same can be said not just of Britain, but also of Europe – ‘We have forgotten God’. The UK is like a boat sailing desperately close to the rocks of moral bankruptcy. We are being navigated by men and women who themselves appear to have either lost their compass or broken it. What is far more dangerous is that they are covering their ears and ignoring the warnings of those who can see the rocks and do not want the ship to go down. What is true of Britain is true of Europe.

Secondly, however, we must remember another quote from Solzhenitsyn. The line between good and evil, he argues, does not separate nations or tribes or even religious communities. The line between good and evil passes through every human heart. That includes my heart and yours.

Our nation needs a better conversation. One that is humble enough to accept that much of our moral experimentation of the last fifty years has led to greater enslavement not greater liberation. The idols of materialism, greed, sexual liberation and individualism have left us dangerously close to the rocks.

If we are ever to flourish then now, more than ever, we need to rediscover this simple truth: we need each other but we need God.

Thank you.

Malcolm J Duncan

June 22nd 2012.

Malcolm.Duncan@goldhill.org

Blog: www.malcolmduncan.typepad.com

Facebook / Twitter: MalcolmjDuncan

01753 887173

y.

[1] My book. ‘Building a Better World: Faith at Work for Change in Society’ (Continuum, London, 2006) unpacks this further.

[2] For a fuller expansion of the role of the local church in community transformation please see my book, ‘Kingdom Come: The Local Church as a Catalyst for Social Change’ (Monarch, Oxford, 2008)

Six Days and Counting - How Should I Vote?

Like me, I guess you have been thinking, praying and deliberating about how to vote. It hasn't been an easy process for me and I think some of the things I will say in my posting will be a little unpopular - but here goes anyway. I have tried to work through, as I do each time I am asked to vote, some of the core principles and decision-making filters that I believe will help me to make a Spirit-led decision.

Principle One: Who will benefit, support and protect the poor and the marginalised most effectively.

Whilst lots of Christians think that the most important question to ask as they come to a ballot box is 'will my vote protect the church', I don't see that as the top priority in the New Testament or the Old. Don't misunderstand me - I think we need to be careful to campaign for the protection of our civil liberties etc - but I think that we can get things the wrong way round. God's prophetic demands of Israel and the clarion call of the life, example and teaching of Christ, is that we should honour God - of course that is true. But the immediate outworking of that is the way in which we treat our neighbour rather than the protections we secure for ourselves. To put our needs, desires and well being above the needs of the poor, the excluded and the marginalised, seems to be to contradict the teaching of the Great Commandment (Matthew 22); the call to be Incarnational (John 13 and John 15) and the example and call to Kenosis (Philippians 2).

We all know that there are going to be extremely austere times ahead, and that whoever comes to power is going to have to introduce swinging tax increases and severe public spending cuts. Given that those with a traditional conservative view believe that tax should be cut to enable a release of private spending and investment, those with a traditional socialist view believe that there should be a more centrally managed approach to wealth re-distribution through taxation and those with a traditional liberal political theology believe in the reduction of the state and the greatest good for the greatest number, I choose to believe that across the political spectrum there is a genuine desire to do something to protect the weak, the excluded and the vulnerable during the next few years.

If that is a given (and you might be call me niaive in making this assumption), I want to cast a vote that will afford the greatest protection to those who are most exposed and vulnerable. In short, I want to understand exactly how the austere decade ahead will be managed - and none of the parties are answering that question with honesty and integrity. I'm dismayed that the principle of wealth redistribution hasn't really been discussed with vigour. I want to know how the poorest will be protected from inevitable interest rate rises, cuts to essential services and the inevitable job losses that might ensue. I want to know what the parties will do to enable support and protection of those at the bottom of the pile, from disabled children to low skilled and low paid workers. I also want to know how we will deal with immigration without vilifying asylum seekers or those who have a genuine concern about mis-managed economic migration. We can't pretend it isn't an issue nor can we simply endorse attitudes that are driven by fear rather than fairness. Why did it take Gillian Duffy being insulted for this to get onto ANY of the leaders' agendas?

I'm not impressed with the lack of information on these issues and it leaves me frustrated. Having read the three manifestos, the Liberals explain most fully what they do - but they still over cover a tiny portion of the stringency that we will need to embrace if we are to navigate the straights of economic constriction we will face.

Principle Two: Which party will uphold truth, transparency and accountability.

My second key principle for deciding how to vote relates to the party's policies on accountability, honesty and truthfulness. Given the complete and utter debacle of the last few years around expenses etc, I want to know that there will be a major overhaul of the systems and protocols of central government. This doesn't just relate to how people behave in the commons. I want to know how truthfulness will be encouraged and integrity be strengthened. The whole thing is brought into focus when we hear of politicians saying one thing in public and another in private. Of course, Gordon Brown should not be castigated as the only such politician just because he was caught. The reality is that whilst I have met many senior politicians and have always felt that each one came into public life to make a difference - whatever their party allegiances, I have also become very concerned by the lack of accountability, the prevalence of spin and the incessant avoidance of issues of integrity, honesty and trust-worthiness. I have never felt as 'unconfident' about the candour and honesty of leading politicians as I do now. That is a serious crisis for a committed social democrat like me.

For the first time in my life, I actually strongly considered not voting in this election. Of course I will - and I can hear your voices rising in horror at the the thought that I would even think about not voting. The truth is though, my confidence in senior politicians has been so undermined in the last few years that I came desperately close to abandoning a deeply held principle that I must always vote. In the end, my commitment to be part of the solution and my determination to stand up and make a difference led me to the decision that I will vote - but the process has been harder than it has ever been.

I want to believe in politicians. I want to know that they won't break manifesto promises. I need to be assured that they will be accountable to the electorate. I want the power to recall my MP if they step out of line. I want to know that decisions about spending, war, housing and education will be made with integrity honesty and genuine concern for the good of society. I am fed up with politicians who put their own well-being and the well-being of heir own parties above those of the country.

So integrity and truthfulness is about more than expenses - it is about a system of election which is fairer, it is about a re-formed Second Chamber, it is about greater accountability of elected members and it is about an assurance that major decisions will be made in consultation rather than in isolation and in silos of the political elite - detached and remote from the anxieties and fears of real people.

I think a great start would be a stronger and clearer commitment to Nolan's principles for public life - which were supposed to strengthen the responsibilities and behaviour of those in public life - but where have they gone and what has happened to conversations about integrity and truth.

Principle Three: How will families be protected?

I am not just talking about the traditional family of a husband and wife and children, I am talking about families. Of course, as a Christian, I believe that the very best and God-given ideal for families is one with a husband and wife  bringing up children in a loving and stable environment. Marriages need to be protected and strengthened - and with all the rhetoric from the parties none of them have even scratched the surface of protecting and strengthening the family. Taxation support, required counselling prior to divorce, and acknowledgement of the centrality of the unit of marriage at the heart of our society would all help - or at least make a start. How will government make divorce less easy? Alongside that, investment in pre-marital counselling and a campaign encouraging people to consider marriage might help. We as churches could make marriage easier too - by suppling low cost ways of helping couples marry and keep the financial outlay down etc.

That might sound draconian - I don't mean it to. Instead, I also want to understand how the parties will support single mums and dads - those who have ended up in a family where one parent is trying to do the job of two. Investment in support for children in such families and the reversal of some ridiculous ideas that negate or remove the importance of fathers and mothers would be a great place to start.

Principle Four: Which party has a consistent approach to the dignity of life.

The massive shift in thinking in churches to social action and engagement has been a huge blessing - and I welcome it. But I also want to know what the new government will do to protect the dignity of life. That involves serious reconsideration of current limits on the points at which abortions can take place, the informal relaxation around passive euthanasia and the apparent softening in the courts of the law concerning assisted suicide and dying. It feels inconsistent to me to have a view around the poor and the marginalised which is so strong, and then to dismiss the issues around the dignity of life at the beginning and the end of a human being's life journey. I'm sad that so many seem to have allowed the issues of the dignity of life become divided into things that we speak out on and things that we do not.

How will a new government apply a consistent life ethic in issues of abortion and euthansia as well as in support to those who struggle in life? The rights of the unborn are as important to me as the rights of the born. The rights of the disabled, the terminally ill and the vulnerable are as important as the rights of the healthy and the strong.

Principle Five: How will the freedoms of the church be protected.

I am used to the mantras and comments from politicians that tell me they welcome the church's works and projects. I have spoken with most the senior figures in political parties across the years. I applaud and thank them for their acknowledgement of the importance of the church's social contribution to society. It isn't enough though. The solid, central reason for the work that we do is our allegiance to the Lord Jesus. We believe in social action - of course we do, but we also believe that we should be free to talk about the motivation and the inspiration of the Lord Jesus.

I have listened with great interest to comments about 'faith' communities in the election campaign. I've watched the videos (the 'Christians in Politics' one is really good) of leaders courting our vote.

Yet I haven't heard an acknowledgement that our faith matters as much as our actions. I will not vote for a party that forces me to hide my faith, pretend that my motivation is incidental and can be removed or suggests that my believe in the unqiue message of the Christian Gospel that 'Jesus is Lord'. I celebrate the freedom and diversity in Britain - but that diversity must include the freedom for me, as a follower of the Lord Jesus to share His message not only in my actions, but in preaching, evangelism and mission. Of course I do not want the government to fund my evangelism - but I do expect them to afford me the civil liberties and freedoms to both proclaim the message of Christ and demonstrate it in my actions and approaches to social engagement. I'm not a pluralist, I'm not going to pretend that my allegiance to Christ is a secondary issue.

In short, how will the parties afford me as a Christian the respect and freedom of speech and action that I am asked (and willingly agree) to afford to fellow citizens. Controversial as it may be - I want the freedom to live, speak and act as a follower of Christ in the same way as Muslims are afforded freedom.

So there are my five key principles which I have been prayerfully considering and thinking through - and I haven't decided yet! What is your framework for voting?

God-Gazer

God gazing

Hi Everyone,

A massive thank you to everyone who has commented so positively on this poem, which I wrote recently. Feel free to download it and do what you want with it.

God bless you all - if you want to check out the charity that I lead and what we do, then click

here

-you can make an enquiry about me preaching there to, which many of you have been asking me about by text or email.

God bless you all

Malcolm Duncan 

God-Gazer

I want to be a God-gazer,

captured by the brilliance

that springs from the radiance

of You.

I want to be a God-gazer!

Not a cheap food grazer

or an easy option lazer.

I want to be a trail-blazer

for the ordinary, everyday life.

I want to be a God-gazer -

not just copying the halcyon ways

that shimmer brighter in the haze

of by-gone rays and the good old days.

I want to be a God-gazer!

Looking beyond the trappings of success,

cutting through the stucco of respectability

like a laser piercing darkness.

I want to be a God-gazer!

Reaching for the stars and

seeing beauty in the moment by

becoming fluent in the language

of the God Who is here, Who is now.

I want to be a God-gazer

until my imagination is saturated;

until my thirst is sated;

until my passion is stirred;

until my intellect is stretched

as far as it can be;

until my yearning yearns

for others to be free.

I want to be a God-gazer -

not a meetings manager

or a people pleaser

or a 'tea and sympathy' vicar -

not a leadership trainer,

not just a speaker

but a seeker.

I want to be a God-gazer...

and for a moment I want God

to gaze through me.

I want others to see

His eyes

Heart

Mind

and Love

above everything else in me.

I want to be a God-gazer

captured by the brilliance

that springs from the radiance

of You.

Life-giver!

I want to be a Life-giver

not a life-sucker.

I want my life to be releasing

not appeasing or placating.

I want to be a Life-giver,

A drainpipe without blockages,

A circuit without stoppages,

A connector without breakages.

I want to be a Life-giver!

A 'you can do it' releaser,

A 'have a go' preacher,

A 'you were born to do this' pastor.

I want to be a Life-giver -

Seeing rivers flow, not die,

Seeing others rise and fly,

Helping friends reach for the stars

even if they sometimes miss.

At least they can say they tried.

I want to be a Life-giver,

Generous in spirit and in heart,

Letting the forgotten make a start

at being Life-givers, too.

I want to be a Life-giver

because I am a God-gazer

not because it's about me

but because it's about Him

because life can't spring

from any other 'thing'.

I want to be a Life-giver

connected to the Source

and pointing to the Son -

standing in the shadow of the Light

celebrating Him.

World-changer.

I want to be a World-changer

not just a furniture re-arranger

or an 'it could be better' winger

or a 'have the left overs' stinger.

I want to be a World-changer!

A doer, not just a talker.

I want to spread the clothes of heaven,

No more or less than a poor man's dreams,

beneath the feet of Jesus.

I want to be a World-changer -

'Cos on a morning many winters ago

the tomb was open

and the curse was broken.

Death had to let go

and re-creation burst out

of an old wineskin

like water from a geyser,

Like the cry of a child

pushed into the world

and nothing

would shut Him up.

I want to be a World-changer

because it's started...

because the vanguards on the move...

and love is pushing out hate

and light is shining out

and darkness can't understand it

beat it

change it

hide it

kill it

stop it

win.

I want to be a World-changer

because there's safety in this danger.

There's meaning in this purpose.

There's joy in this mission

and too many others are missing

the power of life in all its fullness.

World-changer? Life-giver? God-gazer.

God, break in - then break out

Fill - then make me leak.

Plug me in and push me out.

In me, through me, around me.

Make me a Patrick.

Make me a Brendan.

God-gazing, life-giving, world-changing.

Captured by the brilliance

that springs from the radiance

of You.

Malcolm Duncan

January 2010

(c) Malcolm Duncan

For more info, please contact malcolm@churchandcommunity.org

What does Copenhagen have to do with Jerusalem?

Examining roots

What does 'Advent' have to do with Climate Change? To put it another way and to borrow an analogy from a Church Father - what does Copenhagen have to do with Jersualem? To understand the connection, we need to first understand Advent.

Advent is no longer noticed - let alone observed! The season of longing, yearning and repentance has been replaced by an ever earlier marketting strategy for Christmas. Don't get me wrong - I LOVE Christmas and look forward to it every year - but I also love advent. I don't like Christmas beginning at the end of October, though! I don;t think we have banished advent just because of commercialism, though - I think Christians have become so secularised that we have abandoned the challenge of advent.

This isn't the fault of tele-evangelists and pedlers of cheap, easy religion and a 'come to Jesus and He'll do whatever you want, whenever you need Him to' mentality. I don't want to have a 'pop' at the gifts and the lights and the family feel of Christmas - and I don't want to sound like a charismatic 'scrouge' bemoaning the society I am part of. Far from it - I thinl the reason we have largely ditched advent is because we don't understand it anymore.

What is Advent?

Some clues might be found in one of the figures that is associated with it - John the Baptist. 'Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand' he thunders (Matthew 3:2). Mark says John 'appeared' in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance and forgiveness of sins. when John was thrown in jail, Jesus also is noted this way, 'From that time on Jesus began to preach, saying, 'Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand' (Matthew 4:17). Jesus also told his disciples to preach the same thing.

Advent, it seems to me, is much more about reflection and repentance and vulnerability than Christmas. Advent is about renewal and honesty in and about ourselves, in the light of Christ's promised return. But we shouldn't turn 'repentance' of John's sort into a purely private matter - it's about a whole creation being brought back into right relationship with and right order before God. John is clear about the reason for this repentance - God's Kingdom is coming, God is sorting things out (eschatology for those who want a big word before supper!) John is like an old fashioned watchman warning people, princes and principalities and powers that the coming of the Lamb of God signifies the beginning of the end for a crumbling order of selfishness, greed and pride. He is giving notice of war with sin - personal, communal and corporate.

Advent, therefore, is perhaps one of the most political seasons of the Christian year - and this year the Copenhagen Summit on climate change happens right in the middle of it.

Our faliure to understand this season is connected with our lack of understanding of the connection between the First Coming of Christ and the Second Advent. Persistent quietism of pastors, preachers an teachers about the Second Coming has led to a detached and hostile approach to the world and our place in it. We have departed from the biblical narrative of a redeemed and renewed earth which will be finalised and completed by Christ at His return but was begun when He first came - leaving us the exciting role of being 'inbetweeners' - people who live in the glorious rays of the first coming and the clear hope of the second with the commission to be kingdom bringers. Instead, we like to think of a departure, a leaving behind the rotten world and its mess and living somewhere 'out there'  free from all responsibility of care for the planet. Of course such simplistic theology is amplified through teh speakers of series such as 'Left Behind' novels and preachers whose passion is to pinpoint a date for departure rather than remind us of the responsibility to serve, invest and spend ourselves for the people around us and the planet which God has entrusted to us. Perhaps the greatest criticism of much of the church in the 20th and 21st century will be the absolute failure of most of us to take our responsibilities for the planet and its people seriously enough. The one God called to be stewards have become squanderers.

As a result, we have allowed the powerful influence of the promised return of Christ to be hijacked by quacks, astrologers, and weird cults and theories (some within the 'church). The connection between the two advents needs to be re-discovered - and in doing so we re-discover something of our own calling and direction.

In the comings of Jesus (first and second) the nations, principalities and powers and judged - and defeated, by God's Word to us. In Christ's lordship all of the earth and all of the heavens and everything else is rendered accountable. A response from us to the state of the world is not requested by Christ - the advents demand it. To quote John 'bear fruit that befit repentance.'

Another key figure in Advent is Mary. Her words are even more political than John

He has put down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted those of low degree; He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away enpty (Luke 1:52-54)

Climate change is largely man made and its injustice means that the squandering of the rich and powerful has forced the poor and dispossessed to suffer even more. We are answerable to the Returning King for this travesty and complete reversal of the purpose and message of the coming of Christ - and He will ask us why we did not respond to His Word.

In the first advent, Christ the Lord comes into the world, in the next advent, Christ the Lord comes as Judge of all the world, its thrones, powers, kings, prime ministers, politicans, pretenders, sovereigns, dominions, principalities, authorities, presidencies, regimes, scientists, philosophers and people. What a travesty if we, His people, end up in the place where we ignore His teaching on our responsibilities. He comes as the God of creation - but He also comes as the God of History - the God who sees and knows all things.

This is what our society (and perhaps even we as His followers) re-act against - yet it is the hope that should keep us going and hold light before us as the world 'melts' - but we must remember that we live between two advents.

God help us to be sensible in Copenhagen and view it in the glaring light not only of Bethlehem, where Your Son was born, but also Jersualem, where He died and one day will stand again.