Off to London

I often meet people who regret the path they have travelled and I can understand that, and the majority of people would not repeat the past if they could have their life over again. The latter part of the above two perspectives I am sure I would relate to if I took enough time to reflect, but the former I find harder to resonate with. I am philosophically simple – I am where I am because of the journey I have taken so try to make the most of today, and I believe in a God who maximises every opportunity, a God who works in everything – including mistakes, wrong turns and what is simply wrong!

Anyway my journey took me off to London Bible College (now London School of Theology) in 1973. I had been strongly touched by the Holy Spirit when I was 16 and had a straight forward Pentecostal understanding of al things biblical!

I don’t remember every aspect of my travels but probably flew a small plane to Aberdeen or Edinburgh and than took the train to London the next day. I do remember being asked in Aberdeen / Edinburgh as to what station I would arrive at in London. I looked at them as if they were stupid – London station I replied! I had no idea that there were multiple stations in London and finally when I did get there had no understanding that I would have to catch a train that ran underground. (At least I came from Orkney where the nearest train station is in the norht of Scotland… if I was born in Shetland the nearest train station is Bergen, Norway.)

My room mate upon meeting asked me a question I did not understand how to answer. ‘How was your journey?’ I did understand the words, but the question… I had never encountered a question like that in my life. One, coming from an island such a question at a literal level would not mean very much – a journey of more than 5 minutes would be impossible and it took me months to work out that the question was not a question literally about my journey but a polite conversation opener. Cultural differences are subtle, but that interchange (or lack of cos I did not know how to reply) has helped me cross cultures.

Three years later I left with a degree and less than a year later married fellow-student, Sue Middlemiss. Immediately following LBC I joined YWAM (youth without any money?) for the Toronto Olympics outreach and then travelled across the USA. I am sure I wonderfully displayed all my lack of understanding in that period of four months, but very glad for the experience.

Back to College days… It was not the spiritual hot-house I anticipated; lectures were not so exciting and given my difficulties with comprehension of things written preparation for seminars was somewhat limited. Most professors / lecturers were either Reformed or modertely so and I was well able to engage a few in the lectures to push and press them, such were the inconsistencies that I perceived. Of course, as per all systems, provided nothing was adjusted the system would hold, but move one aspect and the system was vulnerable.

In the New Testament introduction I never understood the great pains that were gone to to ensure that each and every book was ‘apostolic’. Impossible to prove, and of course there was an underlying aspect that was ebing defended. Presuppositions based on a prior doctrine of the Bible is what rightly leaves such an approach open to criticism. In the 70s credible evangelical scholars were just beginning to enter the wider world of academia but the theology was just too defensive for its own soul’s sake. Thankfully that has changed a lot in the last 50(!!!!!!) years.

[‘Doctrine of the Bible’ will always be problematic and is normally filled with unproveable presuppositions. There was no ‘Jewish canon’ until after the NT era, and we still have different Christian canons… Jesus probably read or had access to books such as the book of Enoch – certainly NOT written by Enoch and yet quoted within our Bible as ‘Enoch the tenth from Adam said…’. And as for ‘all Cretans are liars… and this testimony is true’ does rather condemn anyone born in Crete! All the above pushes me to a narratival approach to the text with Jesus as the hermeneutical lens, blah, blah.]

Of all the subjects I enjoyed three the most – hisotrical theology, New Testament Greek and New Testament theology.

During those three years of study I visited YWAM on numerous occasions and sat through lectures there from Gordon Olson who had the largest library in the world on Charles Finney and Oberlin College (I was later to stay with him in Chicago in 1976). He was one of the earliest people in the modern era to embrace Open Theology – now in the popular world with people like Greg Boyd and the very articulate theologian Thomas Jay Oord who is yet more adventurous and I like that he uses the phrase ‘Open and relational theology’. Gordon Olson’s material was invaluable for me and I have leaned heavily in that direction ever since those sessions.

I think the professionalism and career aspects that I witnessed in those years… as well as coming to terms with what on earth does a 21 year old know about anything meant I now had ‘training’ (not!!) under my belt but could not with any integrity look for a post to exercise it. Thank God any form of church you care to mention was spared! And thank God it ended any concept I had of a ‘career’ in church ministry.

So a few months later – January 9th, 1977 – Sue and I moved to Cobham Surrey, south of London. Gerald and Anona Coates had initiated a small (with 5 others) in their home in the late 60s and this had now grown to around 60 people by the time we joined. It was like breathing fresh air – non-relgioius and with a passion for Jesus. Genuinely relational (not perfect… and daughter always teases me with ‘we grew up in a cult’)!!!

In a later post (also known as a ramble, and perhaps sometimes a ‘confused ramble’) I will get into life in Cobham Christian Fellowship, the Pioneer network and the wider New Church scene in the UK.

Faith – when? what? and how?

My family background was that of evangelical, and am aware as the decades have passed that word can carry different meanings. It does seem to centre on two key aspects – the authority of Scripture and the meaning given to the death of Jesus. Of course how those two are understood can differ enormously. Anyway my family background was more of the stricter form of evangelicalism – Sunday as a holy day, no alcohol, no -did I mention no fun? OK sarcasm was not allowed so delete the last comment. It can be easy to find flaws in faith approaches but I am glad that there was a basic authenticity in the faith context in which I grew up, and the respect for the Bible has been something that has stayed with me ever since then – when I had a daily reading in Scripture Union notes.

Coming to faith? In that background the question would be worded – when were you converted or born again? Interestingly Jesus only used that term once – John 3 to a specific person, someone who was totally versed in the ‘Scriptures’ but needed a major transformation to ‘see’ / ‘enter’ the kingdom of God. Nicodemus needed to be born again / born from above (the Greek can be translated either way). It is used one more time in the New Testament so it is not without content beyond the Gospels, but it is probably overused as the one and only paradigm. (Maybe an underused one is ‘sell all you have and come follow me’? – again used by Jesus to one person.)

New birth… birth is a process, and some births are premature, some difficult etc. This is why defining faith can be a challenge.

I grew up always believing in God, always having a Trinitarian belief, always considering that Jesus died for my sins. I many times considered God and talked to God. So was that faith, or what might be termed ‘saving faith’?

I made some kind of personal profession at age 11, but now looking back am not sure if that crossed me over from one side of the line to the other (more on that below).

At age 16 there was something very definite that took place. Under an old paradigm I was ‘born again’ at 11 and baptised in the Spirit at 16 – with the very presence of God coming to / through me as if I were physically under a fairly hot hair dryer that literally came through my body in a tangible physical way maybe for an hour or more. I spoke in tongues and very easily the two stages of Pentecostalism explained everything.

But… complex is it all, and never too easy to squeeze Scripture into what fits our personal experience.

‘Salvation’… Let me jump forward. Reconciliation to God – never God being reconciled to us through some payment by Jesus on the cross, but God was in Christ reconciling the world to him/herself. And in the fullness of that reconciliation is that of restoring our humanity, repairing and restoring us to the image of God. Salvation that is forensic might have made sense in the Reformation era when the context was that of indulgences for sin – but would that have made sense in the NT era? I think not – it would have been seen as inadequate, even if a truth of it could have been argued for.

The root of sin (big subject) is that of failing to be truly human, thus falling short of the glory of God. The one and only truly human one – the one who was the express image of the invisible God both revealed who God is and who humanity is. Thus salvation is probably more a process than we evangelicals make it out to be – more of a healing, restorative process.

‘Salvation’ is more to do with saved for than save from. Hence I find it harder to pin down what ‘saving faith’ is. It probably differs from one context to another, and the wonderful part of ‘evangelism’ is not that of a narrow – you are bad, admit it and I will show you a path – but I think more along the lines of ‘there is good news for you and for the whole of creation… come join the movement that is centred on Jesus and find your (small) part in the transformation (reconciliation) of all things’.

Follow me – consistent in the Gospels where the controversial nature of that invitation / command should not be minimised. Follow me spoken in the Jewish context was both radical and offensive, and post the cross deeply offensive (to the Jew a ‘stumbling block’). Yet it continues and finds a central part in Revelation where there is the description of those ‘who follow the Lamb wherever he goes’. Not come worship me, come preach me, but come follow me.

Following is a process… and although the 10 words were given to Israel, the early instructions that focus on ‘God’ continue to express elements of our journey – no other ‘god’, no ‘image’ and do not carry the name of the Lord in vain. Truth be out we all create an image of God, and we all probably act / carry out actions in God’s name that are not reflective of who God truly is – OOOFFFFF; Jesus was so vital, to show us the image of God and what it was to act truly in the name of that God.

I have no idea if there is a ‘line’ or not – that is not my deal. There are followers of the Lamb, and I trust that I am one of those and I trust the mercy of God that I have been solidly included ‘in Christ’… so to jump to the big picture I have worked with this pattern for years – all who genuinely receive Christ are ‘saved’ and those who reject Christ are ‘lost’. But no line that I have drawn as a result of my reading of Scripture.

‘My’ reading – so problematic!

When did I come to faith? In stages and it continued today when I encountered the Lord.

To know God and to make God known. Am I pentecostal? No idea… Was Paul pentecstoal – no idea… but I do know that he challenged the Galatian believers as to what was happenning among them as the expectation that God would continue to do miracles among them:

Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law or by your believing what you heard? (Gal. 3:5 – present (ongoing) tense).

Always today is important.

A friend who I miss (John Barr, passed away in 2001) was asked by a woman if he would pray for her as she had cancer and had been given 4 months to live. He replied with ‘the doctors have it wrong’. What then is the diagnosis and prognosis, she asked. Scripture tells me ‘you have today’… Today, choose life and thus be a life-giver. I you agree you have life today I will pray for you.

I am grateful for my background, probably no longer being recognised as someone from that background… but I hope that I am guilty as charged as being a follower of the Lamb, and continue to try and discern where that will lead to.

If someone can say ‘I was born again’ and then give a date and a place, I am delighted (though follow Nicodemus’ journey in John’s Gospel and try to find the date and place! Nicodemus’ journey is a process); I am delighted if someone says ‘I was baptised in the Spirit…’. Yes, yes and yes. But faith – it is a journey. It is an adventure. Jesus, not theology has to be central. And it is deeply personal… certainly those who are religious need to be born from above… maybe those who are centred on wealth need to sell all they have; all of us have to heed the call to follow.

  • Faith – when?
    Today.
  • Faith – what?
    An alive belief that there is in Jesus a ‘new creation’.
  • Faith – how?
    Full of authentic questions.

Not 70 yet… and definitely not arrived!!

My family background was that of evangelical, and am aware as the decades have passed that word can carry different meanings. It does seem to centre on two key apsects – the authroity of Scripture and the meaning given to the death of Jesus. Of course how those two are understood can differe enormously. Anyway my famly background was more of the stricter form of evangelcialism – Sunday as a holy day, no alcohol, no -did I mention no fun? OK sarcasm was not allowed so delete the last comment. It can be easy to find flaws in faith approachesbut I am glad that there was a basic authenticity in the faith context in which I grew up, andthe respect for the Bible has been something that has stayed with me ever since then – when I had a daily reading in Scripture Union notes.

Coming to faith? In that background the question would be worded – when were you converted or born again? Interestingly Jesus only used that term once – John 3 to a specific person, someone who was totally versed in the ‘Scriptures’ but needed a major transformation to ‘see’ / ‘enter’ the kingdom of God. Nicodemus needed to be born again / born from above. It is used one more time in the New Testament so it is not without content beyond the Gospels, but it is probably overused as the one and only paradigm. (Maybe an underused one is ‘sell all you have and come follow me’? – again used by Jesus to one person.)

New birth… birth is a process, and some birhts are premature, some difficult etc. This is why defining faith can be a challenge.

I grew up always believing in God, always having a Trinitarian belief, always consdiering that Jesus died for my sins. I many times consdered God and talked to God. So was that faith, or what might be termed ‘saving faith’?

I made some kind of personal profession at age 11, but now looking back am not sure if that crossed me over from one side of the line to the other (more on that below).

At age 16 there was something very definite that took place. Under an old paradigm I was ‘born again’ at 11 and baptised in the Spirit at 16 – with the very presence of God coming to / through me as if I was under a fairly hot hair dryer that literally came through my body phayscally maybe for an hour or more. I spoke in toungues and very easily the two stages of Pentecostalism expalined everything.

But… complex is it all, and never too easy to squeeze Scripture into what fits our personal experience.

‘Salvation’… Let me jump forward. Reconciliation to God – never God being reconciled to us through some payment by Jesus on the cross, but God was in Christ reconciling the world to him/herself. And in the fullness of that reconciliation is that of restoring our humanity, repairing and restoring us to the image of God.

The root of sin (big subject) is that of failing to be truly human, thus falling short of the glory of God. The one and only truly human one – the one who was thee express image of the invisible God both revealed who God is and who humanity is. Thus salvation is probably more a process than we evangelicals make it out to be – more of a healing, restorative process.

‘Salvation’ is more to do with saved for than save from. Hence I find it harder to pin down what ‘saving faith’ is. It probably differs from one context to another, and the wonderful part of ‘evangelism’ is not that of a narrow – you are bad, admit it and I will sho you a path – but there is good news for you and for the whole of creation… come join the movement that is centred on Jesus and find your (small) part in the transformation (reconciliation) of all things.

Follow me – consistent in the Gospels where the controversial nature of that should not be minimised. Follow me spoken in the Jewish context was both radica and offensive, and the other side of the cross deeply offensive (to the Jew a ‘stumbling block’). Yet it continues and finds a central part in Revelation where there is the description of those ‘who follow the Lamb whereever he goes’. Not come worship me, come preach me, but come follow me.

Following is a process… and although the 10 words were given to Israel, the early instructions that focus on ‘God’ continue to express elements of our journey – no other ‘god’, no ‘image’ and do not carry the name of the Lord in vain. Truth be out we all create an image of God, and we all probably act / carry out actions in God’s name that are not refelctive of who God truly is – OOOFFFFF Jesus was so vital, to show us the image of God and what it was to act truly in the name of that God.

I have no idea if there is a ‘line’ or not – that is not my deal. There are followers of the Lamb, and I trust that I am one of those and I trust the mercy of God that I have been solidy included ‘in Christ’… so to jump to the big picture I have worked with this pattern for years – all who genuinely receive Christ are ‘saved’ and those who reject Christ are ‘lost’. But no line that I have drawn as a reuslt of my reading of Scripture.

‘My’ reading – so problematic!

When did I come to faith? In stages and it continued today when I encountered the Lord.

To know God and to make God known. Am I pentecostal? No idea… Was Paul pentecstoal – no idea… but I do now that he challenged the Galatian believers as to what was happenning among them as the expectation that God would continue to do miracles among them. Always today is important.

A friend who I miss (John Barr, passed away in 2001) was asked to pray for a woman who had cancer and was given 4 months to live, and he replied with ‘the doctors have it wrong’. What then is the diagnosis and prognosis, she aksed. Scripture tells me ‘you have today’… Today, choose life and thus be a life-giver.

I am grateful for my background, probably no longer being recognised as someone from that background… but I hope that I am guilty as charged as being a follower of the Lamb, and continue to try and discern where that will lead to.

If someone can say ‘I was born again’ and then give a date and a place, I am delighted (though follow Nicodemus’ journey in John’s Gospel and try to find the date and place!); I am delighted if someone says ‘I was baptised in the Spirit…’. Yes, yes and yes. But faith – it is a joiurney. It is an adventure. Jesus, not theology has to be central.

Faith – when? Today.

Faith – what? An alive belief that there is in Jesus a ‘new creation’.

Faith – how? Full of authentic questions.

Way back in time

Been a long time since posting, so will try and ‘correct’ that. Gayle and I are away from home for almost a month and I am replying to emails as best I can on a phone. This is the first day I have managed to hook up to a wifi signal… But been thinking over these days that this year I have a birthday coming up, and as I have not had one of them in a long time I got out the calculator in one hand and the birth certificate in the other, could not believe what it said… changed the batteries and repeated… same response. So decided I would blog away with a few posts on some reminiscences. Now that will be a challenge as it involves memory. My memory for many things is great, but I seldom look back so it means my recollection is either non-existent or probably inaccurate. Great parts of life are forgotten. The strength? Of course there is a strength! The strength is I don’t get stuck but want to move forward. And – only if I were to admit it – the weakness is I have learnt so little as attempts, mistakes, wrong turns are all part of God-given human ability to encourage us to reflect and learn. Explains a lot!!

My larger framework I am working with at the moment is that of reconciliation in four directions – to God, to others, to self and to creation. It opens up a lot of scope and I expect I will cover some of that at a personal level as I blog.

I don’t intend to cover in minute autobiographical detail, but here are some insights from way back… My dad was a farmer so growing up on a farm the outside was almost as much home as the inside. I have no idea how old I was but I do vaguely remember smashing (with a stone?) every pane of glass in a newly built chicken run. No thought at all as to what that meant, no thought that this was wrong or even naughty. No thought of consequences, no conscience. Not normal. I think I have grown beyond that – and do think (now some 6+ decades later) that there are consequences for behaviour and the world does not resolve around one’s own enjoyment.

Second memory is being put in the driving seat of the land-rover and allowed to drive. I think two elder brothers were also on board. At one point one said to me ‘can you see the pile of stones, you’re driving straight toward them?’ I think I answered ‘yes’ but truth be out I could not see them as I was always badly short-sighted. A short time later as one of them grabbed the steering wheel, but too late, as I ploughed straight into a concrete post, thus altering the contours of the land rover for ever! I pretty much think that I was 10 or 11 at the time of the accident. Driving has improved slightly since then.

Short sighted. I do remember thinking at school (in my big class of 7 kids) that I could not understand why the teacher used a blackboard and chalk. No-one could see what was being writing on it. Until I had an eye test (after 5 years of thinking the teacher was evidently stupid for using such equipment) and thus discovered everyone else could see what was written there. Painfully discovering that I was not the ‘norm’ on everything. I still am learning that – we are all different and to some extent eccentric.

And my final memory for this blog is that of buying my first laced up leather soccer ball. Bought at Leonard’s shop for the price of 21 shillings (yes I grew up under pounds, shilling and pence). A leather ball that lost its shape, weighted a ton when in the wet grass, but meant I could run and kick it around for hours on end. Rain or sun made no difference. Not sure if I have grown out of that, but having played football in the street against two young kids I did decide my call-up to the Scottish national team is not going to come any time soon.

Maybe all kids are stupid? But one of the best lessons in life I have learnt is I am not that smart. I did well at school but I think cos I had a good memory and discovered how to negotiate exams. Doing well in that way can lead to the deception of being smart. I was not and continue to be amazed how slow I am to learn. Ah well – assuming I will have as many more birthdays as I have had (!!!!) I might even become a little smarter than I am today, though probably not.

On not too smart, one thing I have realised is that I am not a good reader. I can read words but do not have a high level vocabulary nor comprehension. It is far better for me to listen to someone so as I grasp what they are communicating then later I might be able to read anything they wrote. A good lesson for me was moving to Spain and saying good-bye to a reference library of some 2000+ books. Accept your limitations.

When Sue was 40 she had a list of guests and celebrated. She asked – and you what about your 40th (7 months later). I replied with I will do nothing as I have not got to that stage where I have accomplished anything, but maybe talk to me when I am 55, maybe then I will have made enough mistakes to have matured a little. Fast forward… eve of my 55th and cycling along a wet path, a man walks out, I instinctively hit the back brake, but the back brake handle in the UK is the front brake handle in Spain. Front brake locks, I go over the top and land with the handle bar into my ribs – broken rib as a result. OUCH. Maybe I hadn’t learnt enough?

So now coming up to the 70 marker, at last the mature Martin is arriving.

Walter Brueggemann (11/03/1933 – 05/06/2025)

A few days ago a giant passed away – Walter Brueggemann. I asked Chris Bourne who is much better qualified than me to write a post on Walter. (Above dates in European format dd/mm/yyyy.)


Born March 11, 1933, in Tilden, Neb., Walter died June 5 in Travers City, Mich. He was 92. From 1961 to 1986, Brueggemann was Professor of Old Testament at Eden Theological Seminary . He then held the William Marcellus McPheeters Professorship of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary in Decatur , Georgia, where he retired in 2003. Retired being a very loose term.

Nothing quite fits. That’s the problem with Walter Breuggemann. In academic terms his status as an OT scholar was settled a very long time ago, but it is not a good fit with higher criticism, not even the more amenable progressive versions, but certainly not 19C European versions. Neither is he a traditionalist in anything except the most powerful broad narrative sense. His was a uniquely literary form of criticism (but he was not a literary critic in the technical sense, go figure!). He was digging for gold, not proof.

He was never able to be anything other than a poet of the prophetic, an advocate of allusion, master of metaphor, a seeker of transferable resistance to the principles and powers of empire. From his earliest work (The Land, for example) he drew from the text rich tapestries of understanding of male domination, female agency and the lies of the Pharaohs, even Jewish Pharaohs. Understanding of the Land led to understanding of the society of the land, their leasehold upon property, sexual ethics, marriage, social justice (if only between men), agency and its absence.

He was always as uncomfortable a writer for conservatism as for the more tawdry aspects of liberalism and was not shy about saying so. The status quo, that infinitely variable source of phony comfort and private regret, does not fare well with him whether it arises in 1000BCE or 2000CE.

But it is the way his poetic reading, weaving epic hope for the poor and broken, gives basis for the sort of resistance that, even on a good day, seems very far away from us today. To the extent that I remain Christian, some credit is due to the challenge of listening to this man. He has the most appalling and frequent knack of saying the one thing that will not allow me to give up! He has no fealty to contemporary systems of power no matter their brand. But he is equally robust in his rejection of the sort of church that, like Israel, demands a king and a king’s totalizing power. Cunningham, Schaeffer, Wagner and dominion theology be blowed, along with its illegitimate offspring Project 25!

What can I say about someone who wrote more than a hundred books, and not a dud among them. I would urge everyone to read (and that means really read, as in several times) The Prophetic Imagination, and my utter favourite, Finally Comes the Poet. These are among his most accessible, profound, beautiful and brief titles. I am presently in the middle of reading A Biblical Theology of Provocation (Ice axes for frozen seas). That’s when I am not negotiating its implications and having to dry my eyes.

As with so many, I have found that a long association with any thought-leader’s work leads to areas of divergence. For one who understood so deeply the place that emancipation stories occupied for Israel, he was remarkably quiet on the lack of critique of slavery in scripture. And for his warm embrace of the marginalised and mistreated, the lack of biblical perception on women’s history is also notable. This is not to say that Walter lacked these things, but that he rarely dealt deeply with the biblical lack. And he was not being ironic, when challenged about divinely ordained violence in the Bible, when he suggested that maybe what we see is a God who is in recovery from his violence. But as I said before, he was not that sort of critic. He was not dealing with any doctrine of the Bible, he was dealing in the stories of the Bible, the way people behaved and spoke to each other, to their overlords, to their systems and their deities.

It strikes me, in a wave of imposter anxiety, that I might not be the best person to offer commentary on his work. The best person is Walter Breuggemann.

Thus every totalitarian regime is frightened of the artist. It is the vocation of the prophet to keep alive the ministry of imagination, to keep on conjuring and proposing futures alternative to the single one the king wants to urge as the only thinkable one.

Prophetic Imagination

Compassion constitutes a radical form of criticism, for it announces that the hurt is to be taken seriously, that the hurt is not to be accepted as normal and natural but is an abnormal and unacceptable condition for humanness.

The task of prophetic ministry is to nurture, nourish, and evoke a consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture around us.

Prophetic Imagination

In both his teaching and his very presence, Jesus of Nazareth presented the ultimate criticism of the royal consciousness. He has, in fact, dismantled the dominant culture and nullified its claims. The way of his ultimate criticism is his decisive solidarity with marginal people and the accompanying vulnerability required by that solidarity. The only solidarity worth affirming is solidarity characterized by the same helplessness they know and experience.

Prophetic Imagination

It is astonishing that critical scholarship has asked forever about the identification of these store-house cities, but without ever asking about the skewed exploitative social relationships between owner and laborers that the project exhibits. The store-house cities are an ancient parallel to the great banks and insurance houses where surplus wealth is kept among us. That surplus wealth, produced by the cheap labor of peasants, must now be protected from the peasants by law and by military force.

Truth Speaks to Power: The Countercultural Nature of Scripture

In this interpretive tradition, Sabbath is not simply a pause. It is an occasion for reimagining all social life away from coercion and competition to compassionate solidarity. Such solidarity is imaginable and capable of performance only when the drivenness of acquisitiveness is broken. Sabbath is not simply the pause that refreshes. It is the pause that transforms. Whereas Israelites are always tempted to acquisitiveness, Sabbath is an invitation to receptivity, and acknowledgement that what is needed is given and need not be seized.

Sabbath as Resistance: Saying No to the Culture of Now

People of faith can read the Bible so that almost any perspective on a current issue will find some support in the Bible. That rich and multivoiced offering in the Bible is what makes appeals to it so tempting—and yet so tricky and hazardous, because much of our reading of the Bible turns out to be an echo of what we thought anyway. THE ISSUE OF LAND The dispute between Palestinians and Israelis is elementally about land and secondarily about security and human rights.

Chosen?: Reading the Bible Amid the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

If you want verification that God’s promises are kept, you will not find that verification among the new atheists who have reduced everything to a tight little package of reasonableness that easily explains everything away. Nor will we find verification among the fundamentalists who have God in such a box that there can be no room for inexplicable gifts. You will find verification among the daily performances of the trusting ones who live out their trust in ways that the world terms foolish: in a church ready to be venturesome into God’s future; in a church that pays attention to those disqualified by the capitalist system; in the acceptance of those who are unacceptable; in the commitment of time to neighbors when we prefer to have that time for ourselves; in the telling of hard truth about the world, and that in a culture of denial; in the slant toward justice and peacemaking in a world that loves violence and exploitation too much; in footing the bill for neighborliness and mercy when we have many other bills to pay; in lives that give testimony before the authorities who want to silence and intimidate and render others irrelevant.

A Way other than Our Own: Devotions for Lent

I wonder, sometimes, just how far back we need to reach in order to grasp today.

The Arc of Mission: Presence, Naming and the Table

Across the past three reflections, I’ve been writing from a field most people don’t see—among the trauma-formed, the silence-carriers, the ones the world didn’t stay for. That’s my people group, and it’s the lens I write from. But I want to say plainly that these themes—Presence, breath, naming—are not exclusive to trauma. They are human. They show up in leadership, in mission, in formation, in grief, in spiritual threshold. And if we name “trauma” too many times, there’s a risk people will treat it as something happening over there—something distant, specialised, exceptional.

But that’s not what this is.

This is not content for a subset.

It’s witness from a field that reveals something the whole body needs to hear.

These aren’t theoretical pieces. They are real-time accounts of Presence at the threshold—held among people who have often had no place in the room.

Together, I believe these three reflections trace a coherent arc. They don’t form a system or a solution, but they spiral out from a shared centre: the kind of Presence that doesn’t arrive with noise, the kind of breath that returns slowly, and the kind of naming that rebuilds what trauma tried to erase. They’re written from the field—but not just about the field. They carry movement, witness, and language that belongs wherever people are learning to stay near what hurts without turning away.

And this isn’t a sideline view. This is the gospel. Jesus didn’t begin at the centre and make a compassionate detour to the margins. He was born outside. Lived outside. Was crucified outside. His entire ministry spirals out from presence among the ones systems discard. The disciples weren’t a mission field—they were the ones he stood among. They knew him. He called them from where they were already standing, already aching, already labouring. And when he said “Follow me,” he didn’t just commission them. He became mobile Presence. He led the way in motion—not away from pain, but through it. So when I write from the field, I’m not stepping away from orthodoxy—I’m writing from within the place Jesus began. The place he still dwells.

Part One explored what happens when Presence arrives quietly and without resolution. It held the tension that Presence isn’t proof—it doesn’t arrive as validation that things are okay. It comes as mercy, not spectacle. Not because we’ve healed, but because God chooses to dwell here. We don’t co-opt Presence to explain our stories. We are abided into it. It is not the sign that we’ve arrived. It’s the beginning of where mission and mercy take root.

Part Two followed the naming gate. It lingered in the garden, in the breath between grief and recognition, in the moment Jesus speaks “Mary.” Not as explanation. As invitation. As reconstitution. This was not just naming—it was naming that moved. Mary becomes a verb. The first apostle not by credential, but by encounter. This is what real sending looks like: to be named into motion. Not after you’ve recovered. But as you’re still breathing through the ache.

Part Three came to rest at the table. Where the resurrected Jesus cooks breakfast. Where mission is not a platform or a strategy, but a fire and food. Jesus doesn’t begin with explanation. He begins with presence that cooks. Nourishes. Holds. This is where resurrection breathes—not in spectacle, but in shared re-regulation. Not in proving, but in coexisting. The disciples are still processing. Still unsure. And still—he feeds them. He stays. And he sends them from there.

Together, these three movements aren’t just a devotional arc—they’re a glimpse of God’s own apostolic rhythm. We often inherit models that frame mission as what comes after we’ve healed, or what we go and do once we’ve resolved the ache. But in each of these moments, Jesus doesn’t wait for healing to complete. He begins in the ache. He meets people in trauma-space—not to extract a testimony, but to re-humanise them in breath, body, and name.

This is not a detour from the apostolic—it’s the blueprint.

God’s sending always begins in Presence.

He breathes before he instructs. It is not absence. It is preparation for return

If we are named we are sent .

He feeds: we carry the fire that feeds us.

We see in these three scenes what real sending looks like:

It happens from the threshold.

From the garden.

From the fire.

From the grief that hasn’t fully cleared, and the body that hasn’t yet stopped trembling.

This is what it means to be sent as Jesus was sent (John 20:21).

Not with noise, but with breath.

Not with tools, but with attention.

Not from triumph, but from table.

This is also what it means to be mobile Presence (some of these insights were sharpened in dialogue with Martin’s recent post on mobile holiness which I deeply appreciated). To move as Jesus moved—not from centre to margin, but from among, as one who has stayed, eaten, wept, breathed, and still walks. Incarnational presence isn’t an abstract theology—it’s God pitching his tent, not in temple courts but in hungry places. It’s John 1:14 lived out in movement:

“The Word became flesh and tabernacled among us.”

We become mobile not because we are strong, but because Presence never stayed still.

This is Jesus’ mission.

To be with.

To dwell.

To send not by platform, but by breath.

Sometimes we are still trembling at the edge—

waiting for the ache to pass before we speak,

before we go,

before we believe we’re part of the story—

let me say this plainly:

We already are.

The threshold is not where you wait to be fixed.

It’s where Jesus meets you, breathes peace, and sends you from there.

This is how resurrection moves.

Presence.

Naming.

Shared fire.

And a path that begins not in power, but in Presence that stays. 

To go may look like to staying.  

To remain may look like to running. 

But either way-we walk among. 

Presence and the Threshold Part 3 The Table Threshold. Breakfast After Collapse: Mission from the Fire

The third in the series by Heidi.


Some of us have named our hunger through trauma. Others just know what it is to sit in front of a plate and feel… gone. But either way, Jesus doesn’t ask you to prove you’re ready. He cooks. He stays. He says, “Come and eat.” (John 21:12).

There are moments in the Gospels where Jesus breaks bread, grills fish, eats in front of people who are scared or ashamed or unsure He’s even real. We’ve often read those moments symbolically—as rituals or signs. But what if they’re not just metaphors? What if they are mission?

What if the fish was real, the bread was warm, and the taste itself was part of the healing?

Because hunger is never just physical. For many of us, food carries meaning. Some have lost trust in it. Some eat in silence. Some perform hunger. Some numb it. But Jesus doesn’t demand an explanation. He simply meets us where the appetite went quiet.

In Luke 24, Jesus appears to His friends after resurrection (Luke 24:36–43). They are frightened, disoriented, unsure. And He doesn’t begin with proof or theology. He says: “Do you have anything to eat?”

They give Him fish. He eats it. Slowly. In their presence (Luke 24:42–43).

This is not performance. This is co-regulation—what neuroscience calls the way one nervous system helps another feel safe and grounded. …a kind of Spirit-embodied anchoring Jesus performs not by teaching safety, but by becoming it It’s not just a trauma concept—it’s a human need. And Jesus does it not with lecture, but by chewing.

He eats to show: I’m here. I’m real. I’m not ashamed to be in a body.

In John 21, He builds a fire and cooks (John 21:9–13). The same friends who scattered, denied, and froze in fear are now being fed by the one they abandoned.

No lecture. No platform. Just breakfast.

This is table theology as mission. Jesus isn’t just offering a second chance. He’s rebuilding the world through a plate of fish.

Because the Gospel doesn’t rush. It doesn’t demand regulation before it gives nourishment. It simply asks: Can I sit with you while you eat? For some, that moment might feel impossible. Trusting taste again, trusting people again, trusting yourself to know what you need. But He doesn’t rush you. He stays. He chews slowly. He doesn’t need you to be healed to feed you. This is not just about trauma. This is about being human. We all carry echoes. Hunger for belonging. Mistrust around nourishment. The feeling that we should be further along than we are.

But the table Jesus sets is not performance.

It’s Presence.

And whether you’ve named your ache through therapy, theology, or you don’t have a name for it yet—He’s still cooking. And He says, even now: “Come and eat.” She went to find the body. And now, here He is—cooking.

Imposter tables 

But we need to speak plainly now.

Because not all tables that bear Jesus’ name reflect His presence. Some have become imposters.

Tables dressed in linen and hierarchy. Tables guarded by gatekeepers, measured by status, rationed by role. Tables that hand out silence instead of bread. Tables where control is passed off as community. Where the body is welcomed in theory but shamed in practice. These are not Jesus’ tables. They are replicas. Platforms in disguise. And people know the difference—especially the ones who flinch.

When a table tells you to perform hunger instead of name it, to suppress your need instead of bring it, to be grateful for what harms you—that’s not communion. That’s theatre. The real table—His table—feeds the body without demanding a performance. It doesn’t size you up. It doesn’t shame your hands. It doesn’t measure how well you’re chewing.

Jesus never said, “Organise this in remembrance of me.” He said, “Do this.” Feed. Break. Offer. Stay.

If the table you’re building makes people afraid to eat, start again.

Because the resurrection didn’t come with applause. It came with fish, fire, and a quiet voice saying, “Come and eat.”

And if you think this is soft or sentimental, remember Acts 6. They didn’t get stoned for eating lasagna. They got stoned because they insisted that everyone gets to eat. Because daily distribution mattered (Acts 6:1–6). Because widows were being overlooked. Because food became the frontline of justice (Acts 7:54–60).

This isn’t a side dish. This is mission.

The table is not just recovery. It’s not just restoration. The table is a threshold. It is the place where systems are interrupted. Where shame is refused. Where new ways of being are born. Where the Kingdom comes quietly, with bread still warm from the fire.

This is where the old scripts fall apart: You don’t have to perform here. You don’t have to win a seat. You don’t have to hide the ache. The table is the gate where Presence meets you. Where Jesus stands and says, “This is the door. Sit down. The door is open because I am already here.”

When Jesus says, “Feed my sheep,” it’s not metaphor first. It’s meal first. And if we skip that, we’ve skipped Him. So we sit. We serve. We stay. We re-learn what goodness tastes like. And we say to whoever comes: You’re not late. You’re not too much. You’re not behind. You’re not what they called you.

You’re hungry. That’s enough. Come. Eat.

Metabolised Glory: fish oil on the fingers of God

And this too must be said: when Jesus rose from the dead, it wasn’t just His spirit that returned. It was His body. And that body wasn’t metaphor. It wasn’t ghostly or soft-focus or theoretical. It was transformed. Jesus’ DNA was altered. Glorified. Tangible. This isn’t just poetic imagination—it’s what Paul calls the ‘first fruits’ of a new kind of body (1 Corinthians 15:20–49). He wasn’t just recognisable by faith. He could be touched. He could eat. He could cook.

And the food He ate didn’t disappear like magic. It was digested. Because the resurrected body is real. This matters. Because the resurrection was not an escape from the body—it was the return of a body that could still bear wounds, still prepare meals, still offer Presence. This is not a symbol. This is the future we are being remade into. And it begins with breakfast. It begins with fish. It begins with Him, sitting by the fire, and saying once again:

“Come. Eat.”

We are not just reframing Jesus’ resurrected DNA—we are reclaiming resurrected embodiment from the false spirituality that tries to float through the wall without a body.

Jesus didn’t gain access by leaving His body behind. He didn’t transcend into spirit to reach the locked room. He kept His body—and still entered anyway. This is not ghost theology. This is glorified materiality. He didn’t escape the physical. He reframed it. The body wasn’t discarded for access. It became access.

And what we are naming is this: the danger of resurrection without embodiment—when we try to reach people, rooms, ministry, even healing, without being fully present in our own body. The temptation to walk through walls by becoming hyper-spiritual, emotionally dissociated, or performatively holy. The quiet heresy of thinking we can reach people more powerfully by being less human.

But Jesus didn’t go through the wall by becoming less real. He entered the locked room in His glorified, wounded, digesting body (John 20:26–27). And His first words weren’t, “Bow down.” They were: “Do you have anything to eat?” (Luke 24:41)

Mary went hunting for a body (John 20:11–16). And now that the body has returned, we keep turning Him into mist. Between the tomb and the table, we found Him. But between the naming and the eating, we forget that He stayed human. The danger isn’t that we doubt the resurrection. It’s that we don’t let it stay flesh.

The resurrected Jesus didn’t preach the gospel. He embodied it. He cooked. He chewed. He stayed.

Resurrection doesn’t mean the wounds are erased. It means the wounds no longer banish the body. He walked through the wall with scars, with breath, with hunger—and He didn’t stop being human when the miracle came.

We are not meant to float into glory. We are meant to carry it in our skin.

And the room is still locked. But the body stays.

And He says again: Come. Eat.

Not as proof of power, but as a declaration of Presence. And not symbolic presence—somatic, cellular, sensory presence. Because resurrection is not a spectacle. It is not a special effect. It is the return of the body that was brutalised—not erased, not replaced, but restored into a new form of reality.

And that body doesn’t float. It doesn’t shimmer with untouchable light. It cooks. It eats. It stays. It chews.

Chewing is the slowest, most human thing He could do.

There is no urgency in chewing. No domination. No manipulation. Only breath. Texture. Timing. Nerve.

Because Luke doesn’t want us to miss it. He could’ve ended the story at “He appeared.” He could’ve written “They believed!” and closed the scroll.

But he didn’t.

He said:

“They gave Him a piece of broiled fish, and He took it and ate it in their presence.” (Luke 24:42–43)

This is how the Gospel ends: with fish oil on the fingers of God.

Because Jesus isn’t demonstrating a principle. He’s rethreading trust through digestion. He’s telling their nervous systems: It is safe to stay in the room. Not with argument. Not with miracle. But with food moving from His mouth to His stomach in front of them.

We were trained to look for fire from heaven, not co-regulation through charcoal smoke. We were trained to think proof comes in volume. But Jesus offers it in molecular quiet. We overlook it because it’s not dramatic. But that’s the point. The Kingdom doesn’t come with spectacle. It comes with breakfast.

Why is this missional?

Because if Jesus sends us from the table, then everything begins with how He ate.

He doesn’t say, “Go and perform miracles.” He says, “Feed my sheep.” (John 21:17).

And how did He feed?

By staying present long enough to chew.

We think His presence is the proof of resurrection. But it’s not just His arrival that changes them. It’s that He stays. That He eats. That the One who broke open death lets them watch Him swallow. This is not performance. This is the slow undoing of fear. One bite at a time.

Some of you are weak, sick, and asleep—not because you doubted God, but because you’ve been fed at tables where no one discerned the body. You were given rules instead of bread. Silence instead of Presence. And the table—meant to bring life—became a site of starvation (1 Corinthians 11:27–30).

Sick with unprocessed ache. Weak from over functioning in systems that never feed you. Asleep in the sense that your body stayed alive but your spirit went offline. Numb from too many meals where no one noticed your absence. Disembodied because no one ever said: “You are the body.”

So when Paul says, “You have not discerned the body”—you’re hearing that now with prophetic clarity. He’s not saying: “You should have behaved better.” He’s saying: “You forgot who was at the table.”

Some of you are weak, sick, and asleep—not because of sin, but because our nervous systems were overwhelmed at tables that handed out form instead of food. We tried to stay. We tried to be grateful. But the silence was loud. The pressure was cold. And no one discerned the ache beneath our hands. This is not punishment. This is trauma. And the table that should have held us—became a trigger for dissociation.

Go apostolic—but go breakfast-shaped

Peter’s last fire was the one where he denied. It was night. It was cold. The charcoal was burning. And the questions— “Aren’t you one of His?”—were met with: “I don’t know Him.” (John 18:17–18) That fire held failure, fear, fragments. The smell. The smoke. The sound. His body remembered. And Jesus doesn’t bypass that memory. He returns to it.

He builds a fire in the same way. But this time, He cooks. This time, He feeds. This time, He stays.

We know this as survivors: trauma reenacts. The body loops. The nervous system replays what it couldn’t resolve. Peter could have spiralled forever. From charcoal fire to shame to retreat. Fishing. Surviving. Naming himself by his failure. But Jesus interrupts the reenactment not with confrontation, but with co-regulation. He builds a parallel fire. He repeats the smell. He brings back the body. But this time—He doesn’t ask for loyalty. He asks, “Do you love Me?” Not to indict. To tether.

Peter isn’t just forgiven. He is repatterned. Jesus doesn’t say, “You need to revisit that night.” He says, “Come and eat.” And then: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17). He creates a new spiral: from shame, to Presence, to meal, to mission. This is not mission without Presence. This is Presence rewiring the wound into witness.

There are two fires. The first fire is rejection, denial, collapse. The second fire is Presence, warmth, recalibration. They could have kept reenacting the first. But Jesus offers a second. And yes—there will be a third fire in Acts. But not yet. Because you cannot carry flame until you have sat long enough in the one that feeds you.

This is the radical reframe. Jesus doesn’t rescue them from trauma with words. He rescues them through breakfast. He doesn’t give them clarity. He gives them warmth. He gives them food they didn’t catch. He says: “What you couldn’t find in the dark, I already prepared in the morning.”

This is trauma-informed apostolic fire. So when you go, go apostolic—but go breakfast-shaped. Not lightning. Not thunder. Fish and bread. By the shore. With the body that stayed.

And now we must say it plainly. The Church of Jesus Christ has been operating in a trauma it didn’t know it had. And this is Jesus’ antidote. Not performance. Not repetition. Not reenactment disguised as renewal. But co-regulated re-entry into the site of rupture—with breakfast, breath, and the fire already burning.

He doesn’t re-traumatise to restore. He re-threads the moment through food. He doesn’t ask us to prove anything. He just cooks. And stays. And for every Peter who still smells the charcoal in their lungs—He builds a new fire. He says, again: Come and eat. Mary went looking for the body—and now we find Him feeding ours.

And it is from this place that we are sent. Not from perfection. Not from performance. But from Presence. From a fire we did not light, from food we did not catch, from a moment of mercy that rewrote our memory.

The commission does not come after clarity. It comes in the coals. In the warmth. In the chewing.

We are sent not to repeat trauma in new packaging, but to carry the memory of a meal that undid the loop. We are sent as people who have sat by the fire and found we were not condemned. We are sent by the one who stayed.

And so we go—with the smell of smoke still on our clothes, with fish oil on our fingers, with the ache of having been known. We go from here. From breakfast. From Jesus. We don’t leave the table to perform. We carry the fire that fed us. I think I might go rummage in the freezer for some fish fingers and see who wants to eat with me. It’s not spectacle. But maybe it is a miracle. Because it’s how He did it. And maybe that’s enough today.

Presence and the threshold part 2 The Dash, the Breath, and the Name – The Apostolic Blueprint Hidden in John 20

Second of three guest posts from Heidi Basley


Late one night, I was sitting with an open Bible and an ache I couldn’t name. I’d been asking how to write for the people group I’m sent among—those who don’t live in straight lines, who speak in fragments, who carry collapse in their bodies like a sealed story. I wasn’t reading to be inspired. I was reading to survive.

And that’s when I found it. John 20:1. It didn’t shout. It breathed.

“Mary Magdalene is coming…”

Not came. Not had arrived.

Is coming. Present tense. Greek: ἔρχεται.

I blinked. Read it again. Checked the lexicon. Checked the verb. It wasn’t a poetic flourish. It was the actual grammar. She is still coming.

And something in me broke open. Because I realised—I am, too.

I sat with that for a long time. Because if she is coming—present tense—then it unravels so much of what I had been taught to believe about myself and about the people I walk among. This was not just a textual observation. This was a theological rupture. A spiralled re-entry of witness into the text. Mary isn’t just someone who once arrived. She is someone who remains in motion—still, now.

I looked around to see who else might be writing about this. I searched through commentaries and websites and theological reflections. And I felt a strange mix of grief and excitement. Because no one seemed to have noticed. No one had paused long enough to say: She is still coming. Not in memory, but in motion. Not as symbol, but as present-tense witness.

Holy Spirit is still operating like this. Still moving in Mary’s form. Still sending those who arrive breath-first, without platform, without permission, without polish. She is still coming.

Let me show you the text: John 20:1 in the Greek says, “Τῇ δὲ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων ἔρχεται Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνὴ πρωῒ σκοτίας ἔτι οὔσης εἰς τὸ μνημεῖον…” A literal translation reads: “Now on the first day of the week, Mary the Magdalene is coming early, while it is still dark, to the tomb…” But almost every English version renders it: “Mary came to the tomb.”

It had to be translated that way. Not because the Greek demands it, but because our imaginations couldn’t hold her in motion. Because a present-tense woman walking in resurrection form doesn’t fit into the theological grammar of empire. You can’t credential a verb. You can’t institutionalise someone who’s still walking. You can’t gatekeep apostleship if it belongs to motion, to ache, to returning.

But I’ve read her verb. And I’m not going back.

She is still coming.

She’s not a symbol. She’s not a footnote. She’s not the exception.

She is the pattern. She is the prototype. She is the spiral’s first breath.

This isn’t about displacing men or reversing exclusion. This is about reclaiming what Scripture has always said. It’s about letting the text breathe as it was written. It’s about honouring the first apostolic movement for what it really was—not a mistake, not a postscript, but a breath-carved commissioning.

And it matters even more when we remember the principle of first mention. In biblical interpretation, the first time something happens isn’t incidental—it carries weight. It sets precedent. It reveals form.

Mary is the first to be sent with resurrection breath. She is the first to be named by the risen Jesus. She is the first apostle—not as the institution later defined it, but as Jesus lived it. Firsts in Scripture are not accidents. They are architecture. And Mary’s naming is the first breath of resurrection witness.

She didn’t arrive to explain theology. She came with the ache. She wasn’t carrying a pulpit. She was carrying presence. And He rose when she was there. Not before. Not somewhere else. For her.

Because if He rose without her, she would disappear.

So He waited.

So He named.

So He authored the timing of resurrection to include the one most likely to be erased.

He said: “Mary.”

And everything turned.

That was the breath.

That was the gate.

That was the first apostolic moment in the garden.

She was named—not as comfort, but as commission. She turned. She returned. She went. Not healed. Not believed. Not prepared. But sent. Because she was named.

And I believe this now with my whole body:

If you’re named, you’re sent.

Even if you’re still flinching. Even if you freeze in crowds. Even if your nervous system doesn’t believe you’re safe. Even if no one ever said you were trustworthy.

If He said your name, you are already walking the spiral.

This is not past tense.

This is gospel breath.

This is how resurrection keeps breathing.

Mary is still coming.

And so am I.

And so are you.

Let me be clear:

This isn’t a feminist manifesto. This isn’t about replacing one exclusion with another.

I’m not writing this because Mary was a woman.

I’m writing this because Jesus named her.

And He didn’t name her in theory—He named her in breath, in trust, in motion.

This isn’t about elevating women.

It’s about recognising that when Jesus says there is neither male nor female, He isn’t erasing identity—He’s erasing hierarchy.

The only kind of feminism I believe in is the kind found in Jesus: parity, not powerplay.

This is not “you pushed us down, now we rise over you.”

This is: “He called us all. Fully. Freely. Together.”

If He names you, He sends you.

And He does not consult your category first.

The Dash – The Silence That Holds the Ache

There’s something about the way the text moves from verse 10 to verse 11 in John 20 that has haunted me. It’s not just what’s said. It’s what isn’t.

The disciples go home. That’s verse 10. Peter and the other disciple see the linen, the empty tomb—and they leave. They vanish from the story.

And maybe that, too, needs to be named.

Not to diminish them. But to acknowledge the ache.

Jesus didn’t send the one who understood everything.

He sent the one who stayed.

The others left with questions. She stayed with none.

She stayed with grief. And He trusted her with glory.

Then comes the dash.

It’s not a long sentence. It’s not dramatic. It’s barely there.

But verse 11 opens with this:

“But Mary stood outside the tomb, crying.”

No one speaks in the space between. No one checks if she’s okay. There’s no theological reflection. There’s no prayer meeting. Just a dash.

And that’s where I live much of the time. That’s where many of my people live—between the verses, after others have walked away, when the ache is still present but no one else is.

This is the first dash—the one between abandonment and staying. It holds something most people miss: Mary didn’t know what would happen next, but she stayed anyway. She stood in the silence, in the not-yet, in the ache that had no closure. She didn’t run home to write about it. She remained.

Then there’s the second dash. The one between her voice and His.

Mary turns and sees someone she doesn’t recognise. She assumes He’s the gardener. She speaks first—asks where they’ve taken Him. And for a moment, nothing happens. He doesn’t reply with doctrine. He doesn’t rush to correct her. He waits. The text breathes.

Then—“Mary.”

That pause? That’s a dash too.

It’s the space between grief and recognition. The stillness before the name. The moment where presence is there but not yet named.

And this matters. Because in trauma, the dash is everything. It’s the waiting room of the nervous system. The place where language collapses. The moment before memory returns.

Jesus doesn’t interrupt the dash. He lets it hold. He meets her there—not with explanation, but with breath.

And that’s what makes the dash holy. It’s not absence. It’s not delay. It’s not avoidance. It’s the shape of Jesus-shaped waiting.

He let the ache be heard before He spoke.

He let her stand alone before re-entry.

And then He said her name.

The dash is where many of us still live. But it’s also the place where resurrection holds its breath just before release.

The Naming Gate – Where Breath Becomes Sending

He didn’t start with a sermon. He didn’t lead with proof.

He said her name.

“Mary.”

And everything turned.

There are moments in Scripture that don’t just carry meaning—they change the atmosphere. This is one of them.

When Jesus says her name, He’s not offering reassurance. He’s opening a gate.

This is not symbolic. This is structural. It’s the moment where grief becomes movement. Where collapse is no longer hidden. Where a woman alone in the garden becomes the first apostle of the resurrection.

The naming gate isn’t sentimental. It’s not a soft whisper to soothe her nervous system. It’s a declaration of identity. It is the voice that calls chaos into order, just like it did in Genesis. It’s the breath that speaks light into the dark.

She hears Him.

She turns.

She sees.

But it begins with her name.

This is how God commissions. Not through platform, but through Presence. Not with credentials, but with calling. Not with a plan, but with a name.

Naming is not a label. Naming is a release.

The moment Jesus says “Mary,” He isn’t just recognising her. He’s trusting her. He’s placing the uncontainable truth of the resurrection into the hands of someone still shaking.

This is the pattern.

And I believe this with everything in me: if He says your name, He is trusting you. Not when you’ve healed. Not when you’ve figured it out. Not when others approve.

Now.

He said her name, and He didn’t follow it with reassurance. He followed it with sending.

This is the naming gate. The place in the garden where grief becomes apostolic. Where identity becomes mission. Where staying becomes going.

And the gate still opens.

Mary Magdalene and Paul are not opposites. They are apostolic twins—called in different gardens, named from different collapse, but sent by the same breath. Mary was sent from grief. Paul was sent from blindness. Mary was sent from silence. Paul was sent from violence. But both were named in a threshold moment, met by Jesus—not theory—and sent without credential. They were believed by God before they were believed by people.

Because the breath that called her still calls us.

I used to think Mary and Paul were opposites. But now I know they’re apostolic twins—named in collapse, trusted by breath, sent without proof. Not because they were ready. Not because they were recognised. But because Jesus met them personally, in places that smelled like death, and called them by name.

Paul had his naming gate too. Knocked to the ground, blinded, stopped mid-certainty. His name was spoken by Jesus in the threshold, and everything changed. Not to correct him. To call him. Just like Mary.

She Is Sent – Witness That Walks Without Proof

He doesn’t give her a map.

He doesn’t tell her what to say.

He simply sends her. While she is still weeping. While she is still confused. While the other disciples are still hiding.

“Go to my brothers,” He says, “and tell them.”

She is sent not because she is strong. She is sent because she stayed. She is sent because He trusted her to carry breath.

This is not post-trauma recovery. This is not healed and ready. This is the theology of being in motion while still in collapse.

She doesn’t wait for the others to understand her. She doesn’t need to be validated before she moves. She doesn’t ask if they’ll believe her.

She just goes.

She carries witness the way real apostles do—not with confidence, but with clarity. Not with permission, but with Presence.

This is the apostolic pattern: to be named, to be trusted, to be sent—even while still crying.

Resurrection didn’t clean her up before it commissioned her. It breathed in her direction and trusted her to walk.

She was the first. Not as a reward. As a reality.

And now the breath that called her sends us, too.

So if you are still weeping, still unravelled, still uncredentialed—hear this:

You are not behind.

You are not unqualified.

You are not the exception.

You are being trusted.

You are being sent.

And the world needs your voice in the garden And He is still calling names. And still cooking breakfast. But that’s another fire. And another morning. And the table, too, is a sending gate. And where I intend to go for part three…

Presence and the Threshold Part 1

First of three guest posts by Heidi Basley


I didn’t come here with a strategy. I came because I stayed. And because I stayed, something has become clear.

Not system-clear. Not step-by-step.

But breath-clear. Field-clear.

The kind of clarity you don’t explain—you embody.

I’ve learned to listen differently. To let Presence speak before I do. To trace where He’s been—not just in the light, but in the silences. That’s the kind of clarity I bring into this writing.

Not to convince you.

But to witness with you.

Over the next three blog entries, I’ll follow that clarity through three lived spirals:

Presence. Apostleship. Commodification.

Not as disembodied theology. As terrain. As places where I am learning to stay long enough to see Him Each one returns not to strategy, but to breath. Each one traces the ache that precedes the name.

I will show that the dash—the sacred pause—is protected from both noise and exploitation. I will propose, as I write, a triple breath of reconstitution. We are standing at a threshold again, with Mary in the garden, where the future is being shaped, and the past and the now are converging.

I am spiralling back to Presence—the kind that breathes, names, feeds, and stays. Not as metaphor. Not as idea. But as embodied nearness. I and the people group I’m sent among of the traumatised have known a kind of Jesus that fills rooms and leaves your body behind. I have sat under hands that said healed, while something inside me fractured. I have watched miracles become proof, and proof become pressure. Every time proof has become pressure, it has brought fracture. And it is my conviction that every time miracles have been used as proof, we have moved further away from Jesus—not closer.

I have stood in courtrooms where my survival was cross-examined. I spoke slowly so I wouldn’t fall apart, not so they’d believe me. And still, they wanted evidence. But Jesus never asked for that. He just stayed.

For me, the systemised Jesus of empire has often echoed the same forensic analysis as the legal systems of our day. I have seen how we’ve forgotten how to bear witness without demanding proof. We’ve mistaken evidence for encounter.

But over these past years, I’ve felt something deep and quiet: that I have to go backward to go forward. Not to analyse the past, but to find the places where Jesus was lost—and where His Presence is still waiting to be found.

This is not a forensic search. It’s a return to the garden. To the body. To the place where Presence once breathed—and will again.

I cannot leave any stone unturned. Not because I want answers, but because I want Jesus.

I stayed. I heard Him. He’s alive. And I’m not leaving this field until we feel His breath again. Maybe he’s really been in the field all along. 

I refuse to write from a platform. I will only write as a witness.

What I mean by witness is this: I stayed. I watched what others left. I didn’t have certainty, only breath. But I was there when Jesus spoke the name.

I write like Mary—the silenced witness for a silenced people. Not credentialed. Not authorised. Not believed. But still sent. Still carrying breath.

This writing doesn’t come from strategy. It comes from encounter. There is a returned Presence in this work. A coming-back-through-the-threshold Presence. And I will not move forward until I know where He is.

Three Spirals of Return 

We must hunt first for a body. Before Resurrection, there is ache. Before Presence says your name, there is the search. These are the three truths this writing spirals around. They are not themes. They are lived movements:

1.    We must hunt first for a body.

2.    Before resurrection, there is ache.

3.    Before Presence says your name, there is the search.

This is the pattern I return to. This is the breath I follow. This is how witness begins.

Part One: Presence Is Not Proof

I am spiralling back to Presence—the kind that breathes, names, feeds, and stays. Not the kind that performs. Not the kind that multiplies without memory. The kind that remains.

John 20:11–18 (NASB)
But Mary was standing outside the tomb, weeping; so as she wept, she stooped to look into the tomb, and she saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been lying.
And they said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”
She said to them, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I do not know where they put Him.”
When she had said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, and yet she did not know that it was Jesus.
Jesus said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping? Whom are you seeking?”
Thinking that He was the gardener, she said to Him, “Sir, if you have carried Him away, tell me where You put Him, and I will take Him away.”
Jesus said to her, “Mary!”
She turned and said to Him in Hebrew, “Rabboni!” (which means, Teacher).
Jesus said to her, “Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’”
Mary Magdalene came and announced to the disciples, “I have seen the Lord,” and that He had said these things to her.

Mary came to the tomb not looking for proof, but for a body.

And here is where the ache folds into the present. She came for a body. And still, we are looking. The Church of Jesus has become disembodied. We have turned flesh into flash, breath into branding, skin into spectacle. But the body of Jesus is not a metaphor. We need voice to become voice again. Skin to become skin. Presence to become proximity. Resurrection didn’t rise in concept—it rose in bone and blood and breath. We are not saved by idea. We are saved by incarnation. She wasn’t rehearsing doctrine. She wasn’t carrying hope. She was carrying ache.

“They have taken my Lord away,” she said, “and I do not know where they have laid Him.”

This is where witness begins. Not with light, but with absence. Not with resurrection, but with ache. Not with certainty, but with the silence between loss and breath.

She comes to a trauma structure—a sealed tomb, a stone, a system—and she stays.

I’ve stood in places like that.

I’ve watched miracles become proof, and proof become pressure. Every time proof has become pressure, it has brought fracture. And it is my conviction that every time miracles have been used as proof, we have moved further away from Jesus—not closer.

I’ve known the kind of Jesus that fills rooms and leaves your body behind. I’ve sat under hands that healed, while something inside me fractured. I’ve stood in courtrooms where my survival was cross-examined. I spoke slowly so I wouldn’t fall apart, not so they’d believe me. And still, they wanted evidence. But Jesus never asked for that. He just stayed.

The system wanted evidence. Jesus just stayed.

Presence is not proof. It is not for performance. It is for return.

The Garden is the field. 

Is it possible—just possible—that Jesus didn’t choose the timing of His resurrection at random? That the One who overcame death, and the grave also resisted the empire’s instinct to seize the spectacle? He could have risen during the Temple liturgy. He could have appeared to the priests, to Pilate, to the crowds. But He didn’t. He rose in a garden. In silence. To a woman whose voice would not be trusted. What if that was the point? What if resurrection happened in secret because Presence must never be co-opted by power?

We have confused Presence with platform. We have mistaken proximity for proof. But in the garden, Jesus shows us something else: that the nearness of God is not a credential—it is a mercy. Mary stays close. She doesn’t lose her proximity to Jesus. But she does not use it as validation. She inhabits the dash—the space where Presence is not platformed, only embodied. Where proximity is not performative, but breath-soaked. God is good, and His nearness comes like moss on a wall—quiet, persistent, alive in the margins.

 But we have been taught to turn that moss into measurement. We’ve treated nearness like endorsement. We’ve used it as currency. In the garden, all that collapses. Presence returns—but not to affirm, only to name. The real is not what gets recognised. It’s what gets breathed.

The Ache Before the name

Before resurrection, there is ache. Before Presence says your name, there is the search. Before any witness can stand, someone must go to the place where grief is still real, still raw, still sealed.

(Between John 20:13 and John 20:16, the text falls silent. This is the dash—the field between grief and naming.)

The Dash is enough.

The dash between Mary’s cry—“Where have they laid Him?”—and her name—“Mary”—is not punctuation. It is witness syntax. It is the whole field.

The dash is the minus between loss and return. The breath-space between ache and recognition. The silent hinge between trauma and sending.

In traumatic systems—whether religious, legal, therapeutic, or familial—everything moves too fast. Decisions are demanded. Certainty is performed. Proof is extracted. Healing is measured by speed, coherence, and completion.

But trauma isn’t linear. And Presence doesn’t hurry.

So, the dash becomes something else. Something sacred.

It is the antidote to system speed. The interruption of proof-demand. The soft refusal to move on just because the structure says, “you should.”

The dash becomes a field reversal. In trauma-coded systems, the silence is judged as failure. In the spiral, the silence is where breath returns. 

In empire structures, what cannot be explained is erased. In witness rhythm, what cannot be explained is held. In institutional logic, delay is waste. In the garden, the delay is where Jesus names you.

The dash is apostolic.

It does what no trauma-coded system can. It honours slowness. It refuses explanation. It holds ache without bypass. It lets Presence arrive in its own time.

It is not absence. It is preparation for return.

The dash is where she stayed. The dash is where she wept. The dash is where she was named. We do not fill the gap. We sit in it. If all we have is the dash—that is enough.

Hidden resurrection, un-marketed God 

Jesus never used healing to prove Himself. He did not perform. He did not recruit through spectacle. He withdrew. He breathed. He drew in the dirt. He touched what others refused to. He fed, not to demonstrate, but to restore. His body was never used to certify—it was given to stay.

When He wanted someone to know Him, He didn’t offer an argument. He said their name.

And so, He says, “Mary.”

And this is the miracle: not only the empty tomb, but the breath that returned when He stayed.

This is where apostleship begins—not in glory, but in ache. Not in certainty, but in silence. Not in gifting, but in nearness.

Mary becomes apostolic not because she is healed, not because she is ready, not because she is brave—but because she stays long enough to be named.

Her hair was still tangled with grief. Her eyes stung from weeping. She was still untrusted by the others. And still—He named her.

We must hunt first for a body.

I didn’t know Jesus was staying until I realised, I hadn’t been left. No one else showed up. But breath returned in a moment I didn’t prepare. Not with fire—but with the quiet sense that I was not alone. Moments like when it was snowing. I could barely breathe. I was trying to get home. A stranger sat beside me and said: “It’s ok. I see you. Let’s get you home.”

Where the system demands proof 

Mary wasn’t given proof. She was given Presence. She came in ache, not authority. And because she stayed in the ache—Jesus spoke her name.

This is the spiral. This is the breath. This is Presence—not as proof, but as witness.

And I am still here. Still spiralling. Still searching. Still writing from the garden among the ache and those aching where it has not yet lifted—but where Jesus still names us anyway.

Let this be enough. Let this be breath. Let this be where the spiral begins.

Let this be witness, too.

To those wondering what to do with this now: the invitation is simply to pause.

And what is the question?

I wrote an email today in a hurry to someone today who is way further on in the journey of authenticity of faith than I am, a privilege to read what they had sent me, and in my reply I wrote:

Religion provides answers to those who don’t want to process their questions.

That made me think some! We all have questions; religion – of whatever brand – provides answers. The answer comes and if we don’t continue to push into what the question is behind and beyond the question we articulate we might well be satisfied. Then what happens the question comes back to nag at us, but we have the answer so the nag is silenced, and the process never goes further. Any action is short-circuited.

I wonder what questions Jesus wrestled with, born not in the centre, living early life as a refugee. What questions did the well-educated Saul of Tarsus push down until he met Jesus who asked ‘Why?’. Not ‘what are you up to’; not ‘stop doing that’… but ‘why?’.

We can be so sure about the answers… the big one (is it the big one?) on ‘heaven and hell’ and what I am saved from. But ‘why?’. Maybe it would not be the big one if I slowed down and asked why that is important. Maybe I would come up with a question behind the question and be done with religious answers.

Just thinking out loud.

No king… please, no king!

I am currently reading the desire of Israel for a king (1 Sam. 8), and clearly something so deeply disturbing going on. The request is so that they might become as one of the nations (ta ethne – the Gentiles) and that the king might go before them and fight their battles for them. Even if we removed ‘God’ from our world view the alternative to there being a monarch (or dictator) is an awesome vision. (I think there are some keys in the ‘meals’ of the New Testament where they take place at so many different levels – another post, another day.)

Jump forward to the NT and we have the ‘we have no king but Caesar’ proclamation in that first Easter week; on the cross is nailed ‘king of the Jews’; Paul seeks to release in city after city an ekklesia when there already was an ekklesia present there. The city ekklesia being more than a city council as it had more powers than any current council and was mandated to implement Roman values and Roman culture into the territory where it held jurisdiction. To suggest that the Gospel at heart is not political is surely to miss how Paul’s proclamation was heard – ‘these people are proclaiming another Caesar’!

I am deeply troubled by our global crisis and without something that arrests its direction we will in a few short years be living in a world that has a few kings that seek to subjugate other lands.

Europe. Those who have been touched by heaven’s grace within this continent. I guess for some 25+ years many of us have been calling for something fresh in Europe, for something to appear that knows that we can learn a lot from the past but that the past cannot shape us as we move forward. I am deeply grateful for the advancements of the Gospel within this continent in the past, but we also need to understand that those were contextualised. The Reformation was not the final word! Theology and practice has to be revised; what it means to be Christian community and what it means to be community likewise has to be revisited.

We do not need a king; truth is no country needs a king / dictator, the result of such a move will only be oppression and we should not be surprised when such a person exhibits demonic behaviour… the story of Saul. We should not look (in the body of Christ) to where there are great claims of success (though there is much we have to learn). What can we do? Where will we go?

The history books will tell us what we chose when we look back post-2040. I sincerely hope that it will not be a few political voices that seek to call for a new order within Europe. Let the body of Christ in Europe stop following the kings we anoint (when we do we come under that ‘anointing’) and be brave enough to dream, pray, and eat our meals that demonstrate the Roman way has indeed been rolled up.

The future of the globe as is means that Europe will be sidelined. The globe will be carved up 3-way and those who centre on technology will at some levels transcend the carve-up. On both counts Europe will be sidelined and become irrelevant. Seems like a wonderful context for those who want to live out their lives for something this world needs.

Not a king to be like the other nations; but let us move away from our dictators (king) and learn from Europe where the old way of dividing people has diminished. I do see a ‘new Europe’.

Perspectives