Category: Personal Perspectives

Not too long to Pentecost, so full of significance that indicated a new era was underway. There is within it a reversal of Babel / Babylon with the miracle of languages. I am not very good with languages, and had to take the report on the chin that told me that my level of English was such that if ever I lived in an English speaking country I should look for a job that involved simple instructions but not extended conversation (a test on English as a second language). However…

Twice to my knowledge I have spoken in a language that I did not know, and was unaware that I was speaking a known language. First time was pretty conventional. For some reason I prayed for someone and after a few opening words in English I thought ‘just pray over them in tongues’. I did so, thought nothing more of it. They went back to their seat and asked those that they came with ‘where did he learn my language?’ Did I speak Albanian, or did he hear Albanian? Who knows – the important thing is that ‘he heard it in his language.’

The second time was less conventional. I was (and from the context one can see that both examples are from a couple of decades ago) in a setting that I considered overtly religious, the ‘apostles’ of the city were gathered sitting in the front row. I could tell that they were not really open to my message which amongst other elements would have contained ‘they are not your people and it is not your money’… I got so far and I thought I know what to do. I need to shout out as loud as I can some gibberish. Let’s see how that is responded to. So I waited till the translator had finished my last sentence and I gave it a good blast. The interpreter had tears rolling down his cheeks, the moment having connected to his humour. People fell to the floor laughing; the front row was sitting more upright than before. I had no idea what had happened until it was explained to me that I had repeated an insult a 5 year old might give to an adult and then run off before they can be chastised… I had repeated it perfectly… in a language I had no knowledge of. A miracle.

Oh and what did I say that was so anointed? Well this is how it was translated back to me:

Your face looks like your arse.

Twice. The first time in his language – wow that is so kind.

The second time – in the language of the people and the apostles. Wow – quite a wake up call; stop hiding behind position, status and religion.

Putting a crown on someone… No I have not watched the events today in the UK, but it has been on in the background. A big event – but what kind of event? Head of the church of England (the monarch), and the archbishop anoints the king… wow – mutual submission or confusion?

Before quoting a little Scripture (little???) a disclaimer: I am not from the elite (now who was invited to the coronation?), nor am I from the church as organisation background (I like to claim an anaBaptist streak), nor am I a royalist (does not mean I am anti-royalist) so would not be able to swear allegiance – of course I claim that my Teacher seemed clear on that – not to swear. So a little Scripture:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah and said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow in your ways; appoint for us, then, a king to govern us, like other nations.” [T]he Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to the voice of the people in all that they say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me from being king over them… But the people refused to listen to the voice of Samuel; they said, “No! We are determined to have a king over us, so that we also may be like other nations and that our king may govern us and go out before us and fight our battles.” 

Not very encouraging! Ah well there is one to follow Saul who is one chosen as he will be ‘after God’s own heart’ – but what could that mean? Could be he liked the harp and sang some great songs – that will take him a long way… but maybe ‘ok we got royalty in place, now empty it of power, and make it redundant’. I kind of think the latter, particularly as ‘king of the Jews’ title was nailed to the cross.

I don’t go for the ‘Christian nation’ label as it seems to mix two words that are oxymoronic, but if a nation is a ‘Christian nation’ surely the inauguration of a ‘king / queen’ is a testimony to a nation not being Christian and simply as one of the [other] nations?

Monarchy – yes or no – not an issue for me, but to raise it up as being a sign of a particular nation being elevated in status just does not cut it for me. ‘Defender of faith’… not really the role of anyone for everyone; maybe ‘defender of faiths’ could be more Christian as the cross opens the way to the Father (faith) and leaves open the door for anyone to pursue whatever faith they desire to profess (faiths and non-faith).

Another little (repeated) Scripture:

In those days everyone did what was right in their own eyes as there was no king in the land.

A royalist vision… but maybe ironically a vision worth pulling for. Everyone doing what they saw as right – was that not the prophetic vision? Where no one needed someone else to teach them the right way? The solution in the above Scripture – get us a king… But I think the real solution – heal my eye-sight.

Of course what I have written above has very little bearing on today’s ceremony. But maybe where we place our allegiance is to be questioned. Meanwhile life carries on – sight of Jesus seems to be relevant, deeply personal and applicable to one and all – royalists included.

Stephen’s famous speech in Acts 7 is a bit of a ‘well what do you think about this then?’. It comes to a conclusion with ‘God is not in your temple’ and cos you think so you really are a stubborn people, opposing what God is doing. (The presence of the Temple – the place made for God to dwell in was so richly symbolic; it signified to so many that Jerusalem would always be safe. This was how it was in the days of Jeremiah, and in the Roman War epoch. Imagine the rise of faith when the Romans had to go home and sort out home base in the middle of that period, the time of civil war over the future of Rome.)

So he ends with ‘God is not here’, something that was evident with the death of Jesus when the temple curtain was torn top to bottom. And he ends there because he has been emphasising ‘but God has always been there’. He starts with the patriarch Abraham:

The God of glory appeared to our ancestor Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia.

Joseph has the presence of God with him in Egypt:

The patriarchs, jealous of Joseph, sold him into Egypt; but God was with him.

Moses – born in Egypt:

At this time Moses was born, and he was beautiful before God.

Moses has a visitation in Midian:

When he heard this, Moses fled and became a resident alien in the land of Midian. There he became the father of two sons. Now when forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush.

Miracles in Egypt, sea of reeds and the wilderness:

He led them out, having performed wonders and signs in Egypt, at the Red Sea, and in the wilderness for forty years.

A lot of activity outside the land of Israel… then they come into the land, bringing with them the tabernacle, and eventually to the building of the Temple. Rather than present this as the highpoint which would be the narrative of those within the land he uses it with a twist. The punchline is delivered:

Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with human hands.

Blunt, blunt, blunt. Stephen the Subtle does not seem an appropriate description! Oh maybe there are other nuanced perspectives in the speech, such as,

David, who found favor with God and asked that he might find a dwelling place for the house of Jacob.

Nuanced but the end-product Stephen claims was not approved of – that of building the Temple. God does not dwell there, or in the case of the audience ‘God is not here’. Their history, as Stephen presented it, told them that God was to be found there, outside the safety of the land, outside the city that they knew God would defend; of course he would defend it, the magnificient buildings (occupying around 0% of the entire city) spoke loud and clear – or as they were to find out that not only was God not going to defend it, but there would be an unequivocal sign that it was Jesus, the son of man (human one) who had received the kingdom (Dan. 7:13, 14). In the light of that none of the stones that made up the supposed dwelling place for God could remain one on another. Such a sign revealed a different story to the one the audience narrated. The sign, and Stephen’s speech contradicted their belief that the glory of the Temple surely pointed to the glory of God, and the glory of God promised protection and survival.

Protection and survival? If we desire God here there is a new narrative that needs to be told. God is there.