Tag Archives: Theology

Not so simple

Posted on by

Some 16 years ago I wrote a paper on the issue of the biblical material and homosexuality. In it I tried to look honestly at the biblical material. Having previously written on gender equality and Scripture, so for example, ‘I forbid a woman to teach and have authority over a man’ I maintained had no relevance to the issue, I was asked why the same did not apply to the issue of homosexuality. My response was that there was a key issue of what can be termed the ‘intra-canonical dialogue’. Let me explain.

With slavery there were many pro-slavery evangelicals who appealed to the authority of Scripture, but, amidst a slavery culture, there were some/enough Scriptures that clearly pointed in a different direction. And in the case of women within a patriarchal society (and a patriarchal-biased book) there was a phenomenal pull in an egalitarian direction. But in the case of homosexuality that there was not this intra-canonical dialogue.

Another aspect that needs a lot of unpacking (and qualification) was that the boundary for sexual activity was marriage and that marriage was between a woman and a man.

At the same time I wrote that original paper I was asked what would convince me to take a view that differed from the perspective that I was outlining. My response was that if there was a community that embraced same-sex activity, yet espoused biblical beliefs and gave clear evidence that the fruit of the Spirit was being manifested among them, then I might have to reconsider. That fruit would need to be clearly manifested (and not just through some claim to manifest ‘love’) and it would need to be maintained over a period of time – then we might have to consider that the Holy Spirit had ‘cleansed their hearts through faith’. (Now in applying this test I realise that if we were to apply it to some heterosexual Christian communities they might fail the test.)

In my response I was thinking of the first-century response to the Gentiles. The apostolic community was immersed in the biblical narrative but their primary question was ‘what do we perceive the Holy Spirit is doing’ which then pushed them to interpret and re-interpret the Scriptures.

Over the years I have had some wonderful dialogue with people of same-sex orientation. Men with a sensitivity and awareness of who they are – and an empathy with others – that is so often lacking in many hetero-sexual males. Without a doubt Jesus-like qualities.

I have also been very challenged when reading the Gospels. I am sure that Jesus would not be popular in church-circles because he would hang out with the ‘wrong’ people… and that would include the gay community.

Is there healing for our sexuality? Sure but what do we mean by that. My identity is who I am, part of my identity is my sexuality, and part of my sexuality is my orientation amongst other elements. First and foremost I am not defined according to my orientation. We do not introduce ourselves as ‘Hi I am xxx, I am hetero-/homo-sexually oriented.’ Our identity is in who we are, our personhood. Part of our healing is to realise that our sexuality does not define us.

There is nothing intrinsically more holy about being hetero-sexual in orientation than being homo-sexually oriented. Orientation – and I think most believers are clear on this – is not an issue. What remains is how I express my sexuality.

Having recently read, and reviewed, God’s Gay Agenda, I would gladly say to anyone ‘read this book with an open mind’. I have no doubt that the author and the community she represents are committed to Scripture and that there is no objective reason to say the Holy Spirit is not present with them. Indeed, and I thought rather ironically at that, when the author was at a low point in her spiritual life she went to Pensacola and was powerfully impacted there. She recounts how the Spirit came on her and in a corporate prayer time she began to groan and call out for the freedom for her people (the gay community), that the barriers to their entrance to the community of God would be broken down, that they would find their place.

We have to listen to such testimonies. If we disregard them we should also disregard other testimonies that have their source in a similar experience or environment. What is for sure is that this situation is not about to disappear and in a society / church where there is a greater push for transparency we are going to find ourselves being shocked at numerous points. Thank God for Scripture, but we so need the Holy Spirit to help us in our interpretation.

Here then in this post I want to conclude with some questions.

  • Slavery – women – homosexuality. Are these on a trajectory or is there a difference?
  • Prophetic imagery? I can see the dualities of Scripture (heaven/earth) being represented in the duality of male/female coming together. Can gay-marriage be prophetic in a biblical sense or simply provocative to force us to reconsider our boundaries?
  • Are the restrictions on same-sex activity cultic and anti-idolatrous in their contexts or are they wider than this?
  • What are legitimate boundaries for sexual expression?
  • And where does the call to celibacy fit in? (And with reference to Sandra’s book is the biblical reference to those who ‘are eunuchs from the womb’ a reference to celibacy or to those with same-sex orientation?)

Someone wrote me and asked if my views had changed since reading Sandra’a book. That is hard to answer. My attitudes I am sure have. By that I mean, we all think we are open and do not have a problem, but on many issues we can find that a button is pushed. So I am being softened, this has been an ongoing process over the past 25+ years. (Before that I knew too much to be softened… (translation – was too defensive)). I am sure that in this context Sandra’s book has been another tool from heaven in softening me.

My views today? I still have questions. I have what might be called ‘sticking points’, but I am desperately trying to hear what the Holy Spirit is doing and saying.

The dialogue is certainly with us.

For those interested here is Sandra’s web site.

Another Christmas, another year

Posted on by

One faith among many? I am actually open to the possibility of some measure of the knowledge of God being present to some in other faiths. To simply interpret Jesus as ‘the way to God’ is to minimise what the Gospel is about. He is not the way to God, he is the way to the God who is known as Father. Christians are not to have the low-down on knowing God but on having an intimacy with the God of all creation. Sometimes we defend something so limited when we forget that we are here to explore depths and heights. Let’s not stop dreaming.

And Christmas. One huge reason why we cannot possibly think of all faiths simply being a variation of each other. One huge reason to keep faith alive and explorative. We encounter the weakness of God. A baby. Living in our world. I am amazed at how God speaks to us. I think I can almost suggest that we do not hear the word of the Lord but we do hear what he says to us. I am not a Catholic and am not about to become one. Yet God can (maybe) speak to someone and call them into the priesthood. And yet in God there is no priesthood class. Is it the word of the Lord or God speaking to an individual? Often we hear God speaking to us, but if we understand God has come to live in our world then what he says to us can increasingly become the word of the Lord. Or to maybe take the charismatic language out of it: our convictions that are birthed from our faith can become the stepping stone to his convictions.

Christmas. Fully human. He understands me. He knows what I am made of. Questions, doubt, uncertainty and growth. His experience and mine. Another year: growth?

Christmas. Into the world comes the first authentic truly human one. All heroes are fallen heroes, but not this one.

Jesus was not born on Dec. 25th, a week after his birth is not the beginning of a new year for God when he makes a set of new resolutions. But the dates are good for me. What a platform for a new year.

So to all who follow this blog, with all the unanswered questions and challenges to faith that will come in this next year, a reminder from Isaiah 9:

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government shall be upon his shoulder,
and his name shall be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting bFather, Prince of Peace.

Have a reflective Christmas.

Tradition: really that important?

Posted on by

Most days I read or skim what Scot McKnight is blogging about. He comes from a ‘New Perspective’ (NT Wright, James Dunn et al.) and often picks up on some interesting stuff. Today his blog was Smooth Places in Turbulent Waters.

Here are some opening lines:

Perhaps the 21st Century will be when evangelicalism develops an ecclesiology. Perhaps, I say, because the prospects right now are nothing but turbulent waters. Denominations are shrinking noticeably; more and more churches are going rogue. Some are calling for reviving the 1st Century’s house churches and others are non-denominational and mostly disconnected from one another. But everyone’s talking about how to “do” church . The irony in all this is that in disconnecting from the great tradition, which is an ecclesial tradition, churches are depriving themselves of the resources of reflection for “doing” church. The missional voice is one that may be the future of a genuine evangelical ecclesiology.

He follows with a brief review of a new book which certainly looks interesting with some dialogue with the Eastern voices. However, it is the line in the opening paragraph that stands out: The irony in all this is that in disconnecting from the great tradition.

Now all sentences have to be unpacked, and I confess not being the greatest fanatic of tradition. Can we really put as much weight on tradition as some would like us to for such matters as ecclesiology? A while back I read Tom Finger’s statement that:

Ecclesiology has often been one of theology’s least innovative and interesting loci. Systematic theology has often served well-established institutions, and rigidified and legitimized their doctrines and practices… theologians have sometimes been more anxious to defend those structures which paid their salaries.

Strong words from a theologian.

It is not that we have nothing to learn nor to benefit from tradition. But increasingly in a post- (christendom,-enlightenment, -modern…) we have to be careful about bringing baggage from the past. And of course if one believes that a wrong view of sovereignty has embedded itself in the West, and in church we have to be very careful indeed.

I still like Newbigin’s 1953 analysis of the ‘three traditions’ of ecclesiology: Sacramental, Protestant and Pentecostal. It could be seen that the first has leaned on the Father aspect of the Trinity, with a transcendence that means we access heaven (more? / primarily? only?) in a special place through a special means; that the second leans on the Son aspect with the elevation of ‘truth’ as the medium through which reality is encountered; and that the third draws from the spirit of God. No prizes for knowing where I a biased toward!!

However, I want to suggest we have to go a little further. The transcendence of the Father? How transcendent – we are to spontaneously call him ‘Abba’, we only know him though the Son who walked among us. So is God really that far away from ‘us’ all? And the Son, how do we encounter him but through the Spirit – ‘The Go-Between God’ as one writer described.

Tradition – let’s learn what we can. The shift in time though gives us the needed space to explore something that seems to be disconnected from tradition, yet maybe more connected to the democratisation of Pentecost. And if we have something to offer the Western world, where democracy is fast dying, it could be that we only-just hear the voice of tradition, but that we do not listen to closely.

Just a thought.

A couple of posts to read

Posted on by

Today I read a couple of posts. The first on not buying into an eschatological belief about politics is always something of an ever necessary reminder. If you read, also read some of the comments to get hold of what is / is not being said.

It is titled:
Dear Christian: If the Thought of Either Romney or Obama Getting Elected Makes You Fearful, Angry, or Depressed, You Have What we Call a Theological Problem

All political regimes are utopian. Communist, socialist, fascist, monarchic, and democratic. All of them.

Peter Emms.

A great reminder. Yesterday around 2 million were on the streets of Barcelona, calling for a divorce from Spain, independence and to become the next state of Europe. Maybe they have been wronged, maybe the current government is not moving in the right direction… maybe. I have my political views, but neither left nor right are right. All systems are fallen, and Jesus informed a certain Roman puppet that his kingdom was not of this domination system.

A good reminder too – I have some chapters in Revelation to finish!!!

The second is by Andrew Perriman entitled:

No other name by which we should be saved

An excellent post – as so often taking a different take on the issue because of a strongly narrative reading.

Here’s how it starts:

I am not a universalist. I do not think that the New Testament teaches that everybody will be “saved”, though it appears that the political landscape of the new creation will be more complex than we may have thought. The framing soteriological argument in the New Testament is not that humanity needs to be saved (in a universal present) but that Israel needed to be saved (in a particular past).

An excellent post and a reminder that I need to get back to a few comments on the issue I started with the blog ‘Between Extremes’.

Revelation #7

Posted on by

This video has a focus on the first three chapters – the easy bit!! The warfare through the resistance to the kingdom of God coming (cosmic and timeless resistance) is localised and temporalised as seen in the 7 churches of Asia.

An overall chiasmic structure:

A Prologue

B Church in the Cities of Asia: creation and pressure

C Opening sealed scroll: Exodus plagues

D Bitter-Sweet scroll: War against the community

C` Exodus from the oppression of Babylon

B` Liberation from evil and God’s world-city

A` Epilogue

The prologue has a movement of
God (with closed scroll)
to Jesus (who opens the scroll)
to the angel (who comes with scroll)
to John (who eats the scroll) so that he can prophesy (10:11).

John hears then sees – this is a very normal sequence in the book. Sight gives understanding to what is heard.

The vision of the son of Man is shaped by Daniel 7. From that vision he writes to the 7 churches (representative of the whole)… the cosmic battle is localised, and the eternal battle is temporalised.

It then ends with a call to go higher – do not be earthbound, go beyond beyond the restrictions of chronological time – see the end from the beginning. This is the call we read in Rev. 4:1.

The video password is revelation.

Revelation #6

Posted on by

This video begins to look at the shape and structure of the book. It is apocalyptic and focuses on the resistance to the coming of the kingdom of God to the earth.

I suggest it has meaning for us because it first had meaning to the hearers. It cannot be a book that had no significance – other than predicting the future – for some 1900 years!

There are two ways of understanding ‘near’ or ‘close’: chronologically or ‘kairotically’.

Assuming a team’s goal is to win their league, and they were runners up in the year 2000, then in subsequent years did not do too well, but eventually won the league in 2005. We can ask when were they closest to their goal?

There are two ways of answering that: chronologically the year before – 2004. Yet if they had an exceptionally bad year that year and just avoided relegation we could also say they were the furthest away. They were not ‘close’ at all.

Kairotically we could say they were closest to the goal in 2000 when they almost made it (runners up).

I opt for a late date for the letter. the focus is not on Jerusalem and its fall, but on Rome (what it represents) and its judgement and fall.

Is the book progressive or recapitulative? In measure both. It moves forward – the intensity develops, but there is also some backtracking:

like all good stories being told there are flashbacks (e.g. Rev. 12, the son being born to the woman) and foreshadowings (e.g. Rev. 7, the multitude that cannot be numbered).

Here then is the video: password of revelation.

Interesting Scripture # 20

Posted on by

Where do prophets go to die?

I love Sundays (and all other days) the day when Jesus rose, affirmed as Son of God by the Father, carrying human destiny out of the grave. I am so happy to be predestined in him and able to taste glory now. (No I don’t read interpretations into Paul’s phrases about predestination… seems simple to me: Jesus is the one who carries destiny, so in him I am destined.) But the Scriptures I have been mediating on are about where prophets are to die.

Nevertheless, I must go on my way today and tomorrow and the day following, for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to it! (Luke 13: 33-34).

Earlier in Luke we read that Jesus set out resolutely to go to Jerusalem (Lk. 9:51). He was determined that his death was to take place in Jerusalem. The city that had sought to live above the prophetic (Jeremiah), and so now by the time of Jesus was opposed to the prophetic and killed prophets. Jesus said “because it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem” (NRSV), yet Paul set his face to go to Rome, making his appeal to Caesar. He did not look, nor expect, to be killed in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem for Jesus and Rome for Paul

Both symbolise places of power, centres of control. Jerusalem symbolised religious power and Rome political and economic power. Jerusalem had lost its call, with the Temple falling under judgement as it was no longer a house of prayer for the nations. It was not a source for reconciliation but for division. Jerusalem was compromised (and the priesthood were very willing to sacrifice Jesus so that the Romans would allow them to keep the Temple). So in going to Jerusalem Jesus sets choices out very starkly. Choose him or maintain the status quo. His death though spells the end of that system – symbolised by the Temple curtain ripped in two.

So on to Paul… Interestingly his route to Rome is via Jerusalem. In Acts 21:11,12 Agabus gives Paul a word:

And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands and said, “Thus says the Holy Spirit, this is how the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.” When we heard this, we and the people there urged him not to go up to Jerusalem.

He travels to Jerusalem but it is the catapult to get him to Rome. He refuses to go back to Jerusalem (Acts 25:1-3) but rather appeals to Caesar Acts 25:8-12 with the famous words “I appeal to Caesar”. Agrippa says that Paul had no case to answer to Caesar… and he was right. However, Paul knew that Caesar had a case to answer.

To shift economic and political power it is necessary that religious power is broken (see Ephesus – no city in the New Testament is shaken without the final sign being the shaking of economic power… en route religious power is confronted). Christianity was never designed to be a good state religion. How can it be? Our allegiance is not to a system, nor to a state, nor to a constitution. It is to Jesus alone.

So prophets had made pigrimages to Jerusalem where they were killed, culminating in the death of Jesus. All people (and prophets) must go there. If relgion can buy someone that is the end of the journey. But if they cannot be bought by that power, and although some damage can be done in Jerusalem, they should not stay focused there. That power is broken; there is no Temple curtain. The goal is the centre, that place that takes on the name ‘kingdom’ that offers success to the kings of this world, and total financial freedom to the merchants of the seas. Rome for Paul, Babylon in name to one and all.

Where are they to die post Jesus and Jersualem?

(A reminder to me to do some more videos on Revelation…) In Revelation 18:20 we read the answer to that:

And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all who have been slain on the earth.

A shift has taken place. Thank you Jesus: it is finished. You died never to die again.

Thank you also Paul. It is not finished… not yet.

Revelation #5

Posted on by

In this video I take a look at some of the numerical structure that undergirds the book. There are obvious ‘sevens’: seals, trumpets, thunders, bowls; less obvious ones: beatitudes, for example; and some lovely intriguing combinations such as ‘Jesus’ mentioned 14 times as is the term ‘Spirit’. The two by way of contrast that has always been a symbol of the message of the book is ‘Lamb’ and the list of cargoes headed for Rome (both come up at 28 times). The Lamb’s life is given totally (7) for the whole world (4), whereas the Imperial draw is to take everything from the whole world.

(Password: revelation).

Bibles and novels

Posted on by

I have had a little email correspondence that I found encouraged me to write a few blogs on some aspects of – the big word – eschatology and also Revelation. I am no expert in these areas but will try to put a few pointers / perspectives up here over the coming while – they will appear SOON (whatever that means).

Let me start by putting something out there that is not at all controversial. Of God or from another source: Bibles with notes in them and novels about biblical subjects?

Well maybe we don’t have to absolutely decide that they are from one or the other source!! But:

What a stroke of ‘genius’. Put footnotes in the Bible – I now read something, have no idea what it means and I cast my eye to the bottom of the page and suddenly revelation comes to me. ‘One will be taken, the other left’ – of course, silly boy, the Rapture. ‘What about those who have died?’ Look down, no they are not really asking that question, they are asking about escaping tribulation, and how we can all be snatched out of here.

My point is – beware of notes in Bibles. Do they allow us to read the text or do they tell us what the text means? I consider that on the issue of eschatology nothing did so much to establish pre-trib Rapture teaching as being the interpretation of Scripture as the Scofield Bible did. It probably single-handedly took away the ability for people to read the Bible for themselves on these matters.

Then novels. It can be so easy to confuse novels – about the future – with reality. I can read about aliens visiting planet earth, and it might / might not make a good read… but it is a novel. It certainly would not benefit me if I ended up reading that and assumed that what I was reading was a description of reality. And of course one step further when we read novels about the end: we can allow them to dominate our interpretation of what we read in Scripture, or stop reading Scripture, or when we do we can no longer read it because our interpretive grid has been shot by novels we have read.

So just a couple of perspectives. Don’t expect all to agree but I do consider that the two major things that have neutralised the true power of eschatology are the famous Bible with notes in it (and the off-shoots) and sets of novels. Both in the words of a book title have contributed to ‘The Rapture: leaving the Bible behind’.

I believe in sin

Posted on by

Been a long time since I have put up a post with the ‘I believe…’ title, so here goes – not a complete statement, nor covering every angle. What is meant by ‘sin’, what do we understand as ‘original sin’, solidarity with Adam and the like?

There are ‘laws of life’ that we are to live by, but the problem with simply quoting Scripture, such as ‘all your righteousness is as filthy rags’ to indicate that no matter how well we do we fall short is to take Scripture that applies to Israel with their righteous (law-keeping) behaviour not proving to be enough. We cannot take that and simply apply it universally. Even a lot of Pauline texts are dealing with the Jew/Gentile issue. We cannot make specific Scriptures and simply apply them universally. He does of course say ‘all have sinned…’ regardless of being Jewish or Gentile.

Sin can well be understood as never discovering the reason for which one was born
So: the idea that whatever good is done is despised by God is not something I can see as substantiated by Scripture. We can value what is done that has genuine good in it. ‘Good’ is not something that is acceptable when done by Christians and not when done by someone else; neither does good guarantee someone salvation – that is a different aspect.

So ‘born in sin’? That’s a tough one to answer. If by totally depraved (the ‘T’ of tulip) is meant there is no good in someone, I reject that; if it is softened to indicate that humanity is tarnished in every aspect I can almost go there. In some way all of humanity is in Adam, and in need of a Saviour.

So sin is falling short, not making the grade, but borrowing from Walter Wink here is the core way I look at it. Working with the archery term (sin: missing the mark) let me suggest that sin can well be understood as never discovering the reason for which one was born. To miss the mark in that sense. To do so means we fall short of the glory of God. To discover why we are born, and to live it out is to bring true glory to God.

We need Jesus. He was fully human – we are not. He lived in relation to the Father – only what I see / hear him do… To be captivated by his love, to be incorporated into him, to receive the same Spirit, as the Spirit of adoption, then we can begin to falteringly walk in the same direction.

The real tragedy of sin is not that of wrong-doing, it is that of people living and dying never discovering who they were, why they were here… that can only be discovered, not by an inward search, but by a heavenly encounter.

Whatever we believe about sin, the effects are everywhere with personal and collateral damage. However where sin abounds, grace more abounds.

I believe in the supernatural #5

Posted on by

Where are the boundaries between what is natural and what is supernatural? When is the discovery of a new treatment classed as ‘natural medicine’ and when might it be seen as a supernatural intervention of God as he works with those who press in with a passion for discovery? When is the development of a ‘natural’ ability a cross-over into something supernatural? What about a reversal of ‘natural’ trends such as climate change as a ‘supernatural’ goal…

So I am aware that this is a big subject and the scope in these few blogs is fairly narrow. I am willing to accept that there has been a flakiness in some charismatic claims, not helped by a fear that to face reality is to weaken faith – whereas Abraham faced the fact that his body was past it, yet believed God. True faith does not deny the facts. Again with Jesus and the prayer for the blind man: after the first prayer he was not instructed to take it by faith, and Jesus accepted that the healing was not complete, for he prayed again.

There have been such false divides between charismatic / social gospel; personal salvation / corporate transformation. It is these divides that I would love to see closed. The Gospel (and God!!) is much bigger than the compartments we have made.

We all live with our passions. Passions fuel our prayers. I pray daily for the supernatural manifestations of the kingdom of heaven. And in this I am on a journey. So a little personal trajectory outlined below.

For a number of years I pursued healings and was privileged to see many wonderful God-interventions. I saw the majority of those inside the four walls, in the context of worship and prayer. I have no doubt that the more one focuses on such things the more it takes place – after all the only time Jesus ‘failed’ in the realm of the miraculous was in the context of corporate unbelief (Mark 6:1-6, a huge Scripture that needs an expansion). So corporate faith is ‘conducive’ to miracles. I have also been privileged to see miracles in homes where an invitation was given to come to that place, but the greater manifestation was in the corporate setting.

We live on an island where there were accounts of many miracles in the recent past. However, we have found that many believers had never heard of them, and that as far as we are aware that those not professing faith have certainly never heard of what went on. We honour what took place, but if we are looking for a new continent we have to see something different take place.

I remember reading an email from someone who came to faith, he lived in a town where one of the largest, best-known churches in the UK meets. He said ‘I am not sure what I am going to do, because church is not very public where I am.’ However, many come in by car and train week by week. But behind closed doors it is not too public. Inside the walls and God is so present.

I am grateful for the four walls – where would I be without that as part of my journey… but where am I aspiring to go?

I believe in the supernatural #2

Posted on by

Cultural and theological readings can be problematic. Healing can be seen as a culturally relevant sign of the kingdom’s nearness in the NT, but that signs in our culture might be different, for example. So to cut to the chase, my reading is that Jesus and the Gospel sowed seeds for total world transformation, but the seeds sown do not override or supersede the continued expectation among Jesus-followers for supernatural interventions.

At one level I have seen enough, but unless someone can really show me differently, I have also read enough of the Gospels to convince me that the manifestation of the supernatural can and should be at a greater level of frequency than is experienced.

Maybe we are too analytic, maybe that does not help us simply live. Ever thought about Jesus instructions in Matthew 9:8 to the 12 he sent out? ‘Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.’ We can theologise it, maybe they just got on with it. The problem with a tight theology is that some things do not fit with what we know is ‘correct’. And if we approach the issue to find a water-tight theology we will find this text a tough one to squeeze into our box. Heal the sick, but in the same breath ‘raise the dead’. They certainly did not expect to raise every dead person. Now my point is not that they expected only to see the same number of sick people healed as dead people raised, my point is that our theology (‘healing is in the atonement’, ‘confession brings possession’, or whatever) will always leak, and that maybe in the NT there was a greater excitement about Jesus, and all sorts of things spilled out as a result through these commissioned people.

No, we cannot settle everything theologically and even if we did we would still have the issues of experience to deal with. Situations such as Smith Wigglesworth’s own daughter being deaf right through her life, for example. Or, I have stayed in the home of someone who has seen – in reality – more healings than I have had hot dinners, including a woman raised from the dead outside his own house on the street, and yet had to bury his own son. Experience.

So today my suggestion is let’s not work it all out, let’s be a lot more free and see what just spills out. And theology? For me the ongoing question, ‘so if Jesus were here what would be happening?’ is enough to spur me on, after all Luke’s Gospel was just what Jesus began to do and to teach.