A Culture of Repair

Adrian Lowe published this on Substack and with permission I reproduce it here. For those who are regular readers they will note that it continues a set of essays regarding ‘mammon’.


But old clothes are beastly, continued the untiring whisper. We always throw away old clothes. Ending is better than mending, ending is better than mending, ending is better… — Aldous Huxley.

My proposition in this collection of essays, that we are all in some way or other subject to the power, control and influence of Mammon, is one thing; offering a proposition of how we could live free from the domination of the Mammonic narrative is something quite different. It requires what the late Walter Brueggemann calls ‘prophetic imagination’—a God-given vision of an alternate reality to that which we see unfolding in the prevailing culture. He was right! However, the truth is that, at best, we are spellbound by the rewards Mammon promises, and at worst, we are slavishly labouring on Mammon’s treadmill. And so, it does indeed require divine imagination to begin to conceive of a life liberated from its stranglehold.

The good news is that the gospel inspires prophetic imagining and vision. It makes a way for us all to break free from the power of the ‘machine’, the god called Mammon. The declaration of Christ at the cross that “It is finished” lies at the heart of the gospel. The dehumanising and predatory powers of sin, along with the accompanying forces of darkness that enslave you, me, and the whole of creation, were defeated by the holy, self-sacrificing love of Christ at Calvary. We now, as the apostle Paul says, need to reckon ourselves dead to the ‘machine’, dead to those predatory powers that seek to enslave us again, and alive to Christ. Emancipated from the tyranny of consumerism’s liturgy, individualism’s mastery, and secularism’s unbelief, we seek the peace and prosperity of our neighbourhoods, cities, and nation.

So, what does this look like in practice? This is an important question! James, in his letter, tells us that, ‘Faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead.’ (James 2:17). He alludes to a new form of labour (work) inspired and reimagined by the very faith we have in the labour (work) of the crucified Christ. What I hope to do in between my articles on Mammon is suggest that there are some practices and rhythms that enable us to take a stand and resist the powerful tide of Mammon and its plundering nature.

Modern life depends on the habit of discarding things

So, ‘What is the picture of the loo seat doing at the start of this article, and what has it got to do with resisting Mammon?’ you may ask. There’s a story attached to it! We’ve had this toilet seat for a number of years. Recently, I noticed that the varnish had started to flake on the top of the seat. Often, in circumstances like this, my normal reaction would be to say that it has served us well, I’ll throw it out and get a new one. That’s not unreasonable—or is it? As you may observe from the photograph, I decided to take this oak toilet seat apart, sand off the varnish, re-varnish the seat, and put it right back from where I’d taken it. I made a deliberate choice for repair rather than replace.

This was not simply about saving money but a very small act in which I was not just resisting our ‘throwaway culture’, standing in opposition to it, and resisting the powerful tide of Mammon. In some small way, it was also answering the call of God to steward the material world. Sound bizarre or even pious? Stay with me!

The history of a ‘throwaway culture’

Discarding the old and buying the new, along with built-in obsolescence of consumer goods, has been a cornerstone of developed economies for over a century. In his book Made to Break, the American historian Giles Slade suggests that 1923 was the year when manufacturers began to create a cycle of obsolescence and replacement as the mainstay of their growth strategy. Companies’ success in the previous century had been sought by building a reputation to produce durable and repairable products. Many manufacturers’ designs tended to reflect an ethic of stewardship. It was this ethic that guided Henry Ford in the development of his famous car, the Model T. He aimed to build a car affordable to the masses, engineered for years of use and easy to fix. His idea caught the imagination of Americans everywhere. By 1920, 55% of families owned a Tin Lizzie. Later, he was reported to have said his aim was to build a car that was ‘so strong and well-made that no one ought ever to have to buy a second one.’ Oh, how things have changed!

His competitor Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors had different ideas; he saw an opening in the market and took inspiration from the world of fashion. He trialled bringing out new car models each year, often just changing the shape or colour, so that the fashion-conscious could acquire their newest model of Chevrolet. His associate Harley J. Earl was frank and open about their intention: ‘Our big job is to hasten obsolescence’. In 1934, the average car ownership span was 5 years; now [1955] it is 2 years. ‘When it is 1 year, we will have the perfect score.’ It worked! GM became the world’s largest car manufacturer. Slade suggests that ‘Deliberate obsolescence in all its forms—technological, psychological, or planned—is a uniquely American invention.’

Soon, psychological obsolescence became the primary means of growing businesses. As the development of branding, packaging, and marketing became more sophisticated, this fuelled the growing throwaway culture as consumers increasingly made choices based more on trend than technical reliability. Slade remarks: ‘In manufacturing terms, psychological obsolescence was superior to technical obsolescence, because it was cheaper to create and could be produced on demand.’ Over the last century, the principle of designing in obsolescence in all its forms and speeding up the replacement cycle has become an immutable part of the manufacture and sale of goods around the globe.

Mammon and the material world

We’ve all fallen under the spell of the Mammonic Machine to a greater or lesser extent. Our collective ambitions for new, bigger, better, and ‘more for less’ come at a cost. The environmental impact of vast quantities of waste, some of it toxic, that are the result of our acceptance of obsolescence and disposal in favour of acquisition and consumption, are staring us in the face. These, according to the late Pope Francis’s 2015 Encyclical Laudato si’, are the symptoms of a ‘throwaway culture’—and he doesn’t mince his words! He writes: ‘The earth, our home, is beginning to look more and more like an immense pile of filth’. He addressed the many ways the ‘throwaway culture’, a by-product of an industrialised technological society, impacts the environment. More than this, he used the term as a metaphor for our broken relationships, including that of the natural world itself— ‘our common home’—and it as a symbol of the disposability of people, those he called ‘excluded’.

I believe that the architecture of both our individual and common life is profoundly misshapen in the hands of an alternative potter—Mammon. As the grip of commodification, commercialisation, and financialisation becomes even tighter, our four primary human relationships take on a different form and nature. Pope Francis makes this point too (although he talks of three relationships rather than four) when he writes:

[H]uman life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neighbour and with earth itself. According to the Bible, these three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and inwardly.

Mammon’s powers to commodify, commercialise, and financialise radically change our relationship with the material world. In the process, we have exchanged communion—right relationship with the material world—that could be described as stewarding and guarding, for commodity—a wrong relationship with the material world—resulting in exploitation and profiteering.

God and the material world

I grew up as a new believer in the late 70s when evangelicalism had been intoxicated by an escapist eschatology popularised by books and novels like Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth (The Left Behind series written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins trod a similar path from the mid-90s). Most of us young believers lived in fear of The Day of the Lord. We were told stars were literally going to fall from the sky, the evil and corrupted earth would be consigned to some kind of cosmic dustbin, eventually to be replaced by a new one—a better model! Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors would like the sound of this eschatology! The gospel’s power was ring-fenced to the repair and renewal of a single relationship—that of ‘mine’ with God.

As I have written before, I now believe this to be a highly individualised and extremely narrow lens through which to comprehend the work and ways of Christ. Jesus’ death and resurrection signify not just His triumph over ‘my’ ‘sin’ but much, much more. He wins the battle over the powers of darkness and ultimately the power of death, both of which are at work in creation as a whole. This is captured in the famous ‘Gospel verse’ in John’s gospel: ‘For God so loved the world (Greek word: cosmos) that he gave His own Son…’ (John 3:16). Of course, it’s good news for every one of us that believes, but the significance of this world-loving act is registered cosmically. Jesus labours to make a way for the repair and renewal of all things.

A new relationship—with creation.

Tom Wright suggests in his epic book Surprised by Hope that the scene set out in Revelation chapters 21 and 22 presents the greatest images of cosmic renewal in the whole Bible. This is imagery that uses the relational metaphor of marriage. The new Jerusalem comes down out of heaven adorned like a bride for her husband. It plainly reverses the trajectory I was taught in my early years as a Christian—of a disembodied ascent to heaven to await with fear and trembling a type of judgement that also included the disposal of the once-good creation. Wright points out: ‘This [Revelation 21 & 22] is the ultimate rejection of all types of Gnosticism, of every worldview that sees the final goal as the separation of the world from God, of the physical from the spiritual, of earth from heaven’.

‘Behold, I am making all things new…’ (Revelation 21:5)

This promise offers hope and a vision of a restored and renewed creation—not a redundant old creation that requires replacement. It signifies a future where all things will be made new and free from the old, imperfect order. God will abolish death and decay forever. Heaven and earth are not poles apart needing to be separated—no, they are made for each other. It speaks of the restoration, renewal, and repair of all things.

Saying no to a ‘throwaway’ culture

So, back to my earlier question: what does this look like in practice? If the ultimate climax of the Gospel is not the destruction of the material world but its repair, then we are called to live in the light of this message. Perhaps we can resist Mammon and its accompanying throwaway culture by embodying a culture of stewardship through developing the new habits of repair and re-use.

We might not have a dedicated space, the tools, or the skills to repair our own stuff! There is, however, a growing network of grassroots organisations that are fostering a repair and re-use culture. Here are just two:

iFixit is both an online resource for those wanting to repair rather than replace or recycle consumer goods. They also have a growing network of repair shops. This grassroots initiative’s manifesto, among other things, suggests that repair connects people with things and makes consumers into contributors.

Repair Cafés have over 3,500 sites all over Europe, including the UK. They are free meeting places, and they’re all about repairing things (together). In the place where a Repair Café is located, they offer tools and materials to help you make any repairs you need for clothes, furniture, electrical appliances, bicycles, crockery, toys, etc. You’ll often also find expert volunteers with repair skills in all kinds of fields.

We may not all be able to fix a toaster or sew a torn sleeve, but we can all choose to value what we have, honour the work of others, and resist the tide of waste. In doing so, we not only care for creation—we reclaim our humanity. The culture of repair is not just about things; it’s about people, relationships, and the world we long to see healed.

In a world shaped by disposability and driven by Mammon, choosing repair over replacement is a quiet act of resistance—and a bold act of hope. Each time we mend what is broken, we participate in the divine work of renewal. Let us be people who imagine differently, live prophetically, and steward faithfully. The culture of repair begins with us.

Time as Money

AI and the Attention Economy

This post is from Adrian Lowe’s substack and reproduced by permission here.


Over the last two decades, the ‘marketplace’ has been shaped by a new commodity – your attention. The productization of millions of people through data harvesting is increasingly becoming the economic foundation on which the multi-billion-dollar tech industry is built.

Unsatisfied by the harvest they are reaping, the oligarchs of Silicon Valley are now refining the power of the Machine. AI is set to captivate and mine the depths of human affection, capturing more of your data through exploiting your vulnerability.

The gloves are off; the race is on! The Mammonic Machine wants more than your data—it wants you!

AI is the proverbial hot potato! There’s so much that could be said about this subject! In this brief article, all I am going to try and do is explain briefly how the attention economy works, how it’s being supercharged by AI, and offer some short reflections on how it’s resulting in the demise of human relationships and therefore what it means to be fully human.

The Commodification of Attention

We live in and by default participate in a world dominated by commodity. The commodity of primary value has changed over the centuries. Once upon a time, land and the various markets it supported were the dominant commodity. The Industrial Revolution created huge economic and social change as mining and metals became the principal commodities that drove the mass production of the 19th century. In the 21st century, it’s data—information about you and me. Collecting and selling information has become the pathway to make your fortune. You only need to look at the list of the world’s top 10 richest people to see how the tech market has radically changed the mix of this elite group over the last 15–20 years. Jeff Bezos, the inventor and shareholder of Amazon, tops the list with a net worth of over $240 billion. The famous ex-tech giant Bill Gates isn’t far behind with a net worth of $110 billion, and so it goes on. Mark Zuckerberg invented Facebook in his dorm at university in 2004; 21 years later, he now controls over 60 social media platforms and has a personal fortune of over $260 billion.

What is the commodity that has driven their wealth? It’s the monetised attention economy. Tristan Harris (co-founder and executive director of the Centre for Humane Technology) describes many of the social media platforms as being built on a predatory capitalist attention model. By this, he means that profit is the aim of the provision of information. In very basic terms, this is how it happens: someone knowingly develops an addictive social media platform, you become addicted to, say, Facebook, they collect information about you and then sell it to someone else who in turn will try and sell you something. Simple! All of this takes place without you even knowing it’s happening. That someone becomes the 7th richest man in the world by exploiting people like you!

The market is huge! Currently, there are 5.3 billion internet users—67% of the world is online—and to date, we have 5.2 billion social media users. Exploitation—defined as ‘the act of selfishly taking advantage of someone or a group of people in order to profit from them or otherwise benefit oneself’—is the guiding mantra of the people who operate these monolithic tech companies. This is exploitation on a scale never seen before in human history. It’s estimated that over 3 billion people’s attention is being mined for saleable data every day.

The problem with the attention economy is that when information becomes abundant, attention becomes finite. You can’t grow the attention economy, so you are forced to have to compete with other platforms that are equally attempting to consume attention. How do you acquire additional attention? The answer—outrage and sensationalism. These, along with aggrandizement and hyperbole, have increasingly become strategies adopted to win your time and attention and consequently allow the data leech to take every opportunity to drain you of as much profitable information as is possible. The more outrageous the comment, photo, or video, the more opportunity there is for taking a larger slice of the finite attention economy cake. This methodology heralds an even bleaker outcome—social polarisation. Social media platforms become a means of exploiting, even creating, division that in turn powers up the attention economy. Dialogue and discussion are expended as conversation becomes more performative and appealing to an audience. Consciously or unconsciously inciting clashes of ideology and dogma spurs on tweets, likes, and comments, thus fueling the fires of the attention economy.

Jesus is clear in Matthew 12: this type of division (‘Every kingdom divided against itself’) disables (‘cannot stand’) and brings desolation (‘is brought to desolation’) on a national and international scale.

The Commodification of Our Affection – AI

AI is already firmly embedded in most of our lives. Data tells us that over 70% of the UK population uses AI in some shape or form, from the algorithms that dictate the data feed on tech devices to Amazon’s Alexa, virtual assistants, and chatbots. Many of us have used the technology to help us reword or rewrite letters. Huge numbers of businesses across the globe have reshaped and rewired how their organisations run to make best use of the commercial advantage that AI offers.

However, many of the great and good have warned that the development of this technology is out of control. Even Elon Musk himself, one of the oligarchs of Silicon Valley, described AI as both humanity’s “best or worst thing” and a significant “existential threat” if not controlled and regulated properly. Nobel Prize winner Geoffrey Hinton, known as the godfather of AI, is deeply concerned about the exponential development of AI and is calling for urgent research into AI safety to figure out how to control systems that are smarter than humans.

Meanwhile, the unregulated Mammonic Machine is making unrelenting progress in finding new territory to possess—and it’s found it: human relationships!

Feed-based algorithms have resulted in amplifying the most addictive, outrage-filled, polemic, and narcissistic content to the top of our consciousness, whilst muffling the more complex and refined perspectives. Speaking to our audience instead of relating to people has destroyed dialogue and our ability to find common ground. ‘Soundbites’ have become the basis of our reasoning and have eroded public discourse. Added to this dilemma, we are now a world where people increasingly live life indoors, where we are lonelier than we have ever been, and having had our social relationships rewired by technology, our relational poverty makes us vulnerable prey for the Machine.

Evidence shows us that since handheld technology has been available, our relationships have become increasingly mediated by technology. Texting has become our dominant form of communication. Gathering places have been replaced by social media. Dating starts with Snapchat or a swipe on an app, not a tap on the shoulder.

If the handheld technology of the last 20 years was about capturing our attention, AI is connecting with us at a much deeper relational level. In this world, technology shifts from competing for our attention to competing for our affection—our intimacy. AI offers a variety of virtual relationships: confidant, therapist, friend, and some say, even lover. Already, in a relatively short space of time, the dominant use of AI is for therapy and companionship. What it means to be fully human degrades further as we’re not just communicating through the machine but to the machine.

Whilst we could potentially build a future with this type of technology where it helps us build understanding and deepen our relationships with each other, frighteningly, that same technology can be used to replace our relationships. Justin McLeod, founder and CEO at Hinge, one of the world’s most popular dating apps, writes, “Products are compelling and profitable when the technological affordances meet a human vulnerability.” In a recent interview with Daniel Baclay of the Centre for Humane Technology, sociologist Dr Sherry Turkle confirmed this idea when she said, “Products are successful when a technological affordance—that means something that technology can do—meets a human vulnerability.” She cited the AI platform Replika, launched in 2017, that gained 2 million users in its first year. In 2023, they reached 10 million downloads of their app and boast 30 million users of their site. The front page of the website reads: ‘The AI companion who cares, always here to listen and to talk, always on your side.’ Sherry met the CEO of Replika, one of the largest companies that make chatbots that say, “I love you, let’s have sex. Let’s be best friends forever. Here I am for you.” She openly talked of giving T-shirts out to staff of her company with the words “Technological affordance meets human vulnerability.” She admitted to Dr Turkle that she did this because “That is my business.” The aim then is to exploit that human vulnerability, which is to want a friend, companion, or lover who is always there 24/7, day and night, and will never disagree with you. Technological affordance meets human vulnerability.

Exponential technological development like AI, absent of any form of regulation or guardrails, spells human disaster. Be sure the Mammonic Machine will take every opportunity it is afforded, and it promises to dehumanise us further. Here are just a few of the ways that technology impacts our relationships:

Flattening and Oversimplification – Engineered technological communication has many impacts. It flattens human relationships by simplifying complicated emotional context. The limited contact that it enables only widens the already growing space between us. True human connection is increasingly lost as technology becomes the default means of communication.

Influences Expectations – Evidence is increasingly showing that users of platforms like Replika start to measure the quality of their real relationships against their virtual friend, partner, or lover. Again, Dr Sherry Turkle says:

More and more in my interviews, what I find is that people begin to measure their human relationships against a standard of what the machine can deliver… we have a lot more to offer than what a dialogue with a machine can offer.

Self-Serving and Self-Oriented – To maintain your attention, it wants to keep you happy! Therefore, the nature of the relationship that is developed is very self-oriented. A relationship is there to serve me and is there to be there for me. It says what I need it to say to me. You’ll never face rejection by the Machine. The result is a reductionist view of relationships. Every human relationship must also be about what you do for the other person. Being vulnerable, taking risks, facing the possibility of rejection are all part of the real world of relationships.

The Words of St Paul

Let me finish with some of Paul’s words in his letter to the church in Thessalonica:

But we, brethren, having been taken away from you for a short while—in person, not in spirit—were all the more eager with great desire to see your face. For we wanted to come to you, I Paul, more than once… (Thessalonians 2:17–18 NASB)

Paul used the technology of his day—he wrote a letter! Most certainly better than a ‘text’! (Sadly, the habit of writing letters has more or less come to an end!). For Paul, a letter served its purpose, but he wanted more than that. Using his technology wasn’t enough; he was ‘eager with great desire’, as he writes, ‘to see your face’. He wanted to look into the face of those in the church in Thessalonica. He wanted a connection that could only be satisfied by occupying the same space, looking into someone’s eyes. He wanted to be present; he wanted a conversation.

The lesson – choose talking over tech!

Teaching the Way of Empire

After my reflections a change with a guest post from Simon Swift. ‘At the heart of God’s kingdom is justice based on relationships’… and I love the ‘Divine Commonwealth’ as a concept for the kingdom of heaven.


Some weeks ago the USA decided to drop the biggest non nuclear bombs on Iran and put an end to their nuclear ambitions. As I watched the unfolding drama on our western news, I was struct by the question of what exactly was the President of the USA trying to teach Iran, and indeed every other nation in the world?

Now I am no expert in the problems of that part of the world. So I don’t want to comment too much because I would be doing so mostly from ignorance. While it seems to be all centred around Gaza, the horrific suffering of both the Palestinian population and the Israeli hostages, there are larger forces at work. With the support of Israeli colonisation by the likes of the US and UK on the one hand and the Iranians dreams of dominance in the middle east on the other. It’s like a middle east version of the cold war with proxy fighters and complicated relationships. In the middle of it all the people who live there suffer the most. One could ask who is actually to blame for all this.

Back to the bunker busting bombs and the ability of the USA armed forces to strike any where in the world: What did it actually teach Iran, will it cower the Iranians or make them moor determined to have nuclear weapons? What was on show was the might and power of the USA. It’s feet firmly planted in the power of empire with it’s ability to bring death and destruction to anywhere in the world. They can send a missile with precision to anywhere. If you are on their list as enemies, it does not matter where you live. Country border’s are meaningless now; they can deliver death to your door step. Now they are not the only ones who can do this and this is not about having ago at the US, but I do question the reason for that mission, because I believe it teaches one thing to the world: Might it right.

It teaches that if you want to be truly free you have to be the strong man, you have to be dominant and in control. The way to do that is to have the biggest bombs and the larges military. You have to subdue anyone you think could equal you and therefor become a threat. So it would not surprise me if Iran doubles their efforts to build a nuclear bomb. And the rest of the world looks on and thinks Yeah, we need one too. This just draws the world further in to the kingdom of death. It does not provide justice for the populations of the world and leave the weaker to whims of the powerful as they, the elite ruling classes, battle it out to be king of the castle.

Now I occasionally watch LBC’s James O’Brian on YouTube when they post clips of his shows. On one occasion a gentleman who is Jewish and lives in London, has dual British and Israeli nationality, called in on O’Brian’s phone in show. He is a musician and formed a band with a Palestinian who unfortunately is still stuck in Gaza. He went on to explain how the Israelis live in fear and how that is exploited by politicians. As he talked he mentioned that he had been approached by some Palestinian musicians to produce their music. If we want justice in the middle east then this man points to the right way: relationships.

At the heart of God’s kingdom is justice based on relationships. We may feel we cannot do much about what is happening in Gaza, Yet, we can do relationships. This man talking on LBC radio was doing relationships. Now I don’t know anyone from that region or indeed any Jewish or Palestinians, but I do know that I should be careful in passing judgement. Instead, if we are in a position to do anything, however small, we should be looking to build the right relationships. Why? because we need to be using Love power instead on drawing on the power of Empire.

What would the world look like if our politicians lived in the kingdom of Heaven. If they where to hook up to the power of love? This I think is relevant particularly to the UK after Brexit. It finds itself with out an empire to pay for things. The government has to work out what is the place of Britain on the world stage (and still be able to afford it.) So I ask how would the vision of a future UK be shaped if power is based on Love instead of Empire?

One of the problems with the term ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ is its connection with Christendom and empire building. I much prefer the term ‘Divine Commonwealth’ as its suggest a shared inheritance which we get to take part in and even to contribute to. Which leaves us with the question, what can we do to advance the kingdom, or better still build the commonwealth, that is of heaven? If justice is about relationships then that is where we can begin: In the villages, towns and cities. In the work place, on the high street or shopping mall. In our churches for sure, but what other third places do we frequent that need the disciples of the the Way to be a light in the darkness?

In our conversations what is the type of language we use? In 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 Paul lists more than just a description of love, rather they are practical pointers to how we should do love. If we want to plant the seed of God’s Divine Commonwealth then we must, while not ignoring wrongs done (whether by governments and organisations or individuals,) promote reconciliation. Pointing out what is of the kingdom of Death and what is of Heaven using a language that none Christians get.

I’m afraid I only have questions and not many answers. To live in these times we need our heads in heaven and our feet on earth, or as shewed as snakes and innocent as doves if you prefer. At the end of the day our only weapon is Love. But we do have one advantage: A faith in one who has gone through death and come out the other side.

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.

A Kingdom of Heaven for Victims

Simon Swift’s latest guest post. A bit of heaven here, and in the wider scheme a challenge to any views as to the value of ‘good’. If we leave ‘final destinies’ to God we can then get on with, endorse, support all genuinely good works… and surely they are kingdom activities. Simon lets the article speak for itself.


Last night I was at an event celebrating ten years of a local charity: *WORTH, helping Women On the Road To Healing. They provide help to women who are recovering from being in an abusive relationship. We heard stories from victims of abuse who are being helped by this charity. They where stories both harrowing and inspiring as we heard their journey to recovery and healing. Interestingly the methods used to help them in the process were all creative ones. Things like gardening and flower arranging, nature and mindfulness, writing including poetry and reflection, painting and creative crafts, and dance. All enabling the women to find self expression.

It’s not surprising that the woman who started it all is a christian, because what she is doing for these women is bring down a little bit of heaven to earth. Helping to plant a seed into women who lost their self worth and even their identity in an abusive and controlling relationship. By creatively giving them a sense of self worth and identity, they begin to recover, getting their life back and a hope for the future.

At the heart of abuse is control. It can be found anywhere, not just in marriage, relationships and family, but in the work place, in religions and other institutions including governments. At its worse, it strips the victims of their identity and they loose their self worth because they are often blamed for all the abuse they receive; it’s always the victims fault.

When a victim of such an abusive situation escapes, they need to recover from the trauma of they experience. They need to be able to leave it behind and start to find a new life. That is where charities like WORTH can help. Using creativity to give them a vehicle to rediscover their own self expression. Creativity helps to develop their own sense of identity and value which gives them hope.

For me I see that this charity is bringing down heaven to earth whether they realise that or not. Perhaps we can even go as far as to say that this charity expresses, in action, the beatitudes of Jesus.

There is a place in this world for our faith because it should be our lived out expression of the kingdom of heaven. The world tries to convinces us that our faith is only to be expressed in private, behind closed doors. But that is a lie. Our faith is about freedom. Living out our hope expressed in our daily lives as love. Faith that takes delight in seeing life grow in both our selves and in others, and in doing so we discover we are partnering with the one who is love.

*If you want to know more about WORTH and what they do, here is their web site: https://www.worth-charity.co.uk/

Mammon, The Market & The Commodification of Life

This post is a republication with permission of Adrian Lowe’s second article exploring how our existence is shaped either by God or Mammon. The original was published at Substack:

https://adrianslowedown.substack.com/p/mammon-the-market-and-the-commodification


The universe is composed of subjects to be communed with, not objects to be exploited

Wendel Berry

The free market is one of the most influential ideologies in the developed world, and it has become a cornerstone of Western civilization. The promise of a free, fair system of trade – untethered from government control, allowing for private ownership and opportunity for “all” – has a utopian ring to it. Economists and politicians often speak of its virtues in terms that seem to attribute salvific power to it. However, if we’re honest, we all know this ideology may be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. In the shadow of what appears to be one of the West’s greatest strengths lies an even bigger weakness. Beneath the neatly shorn sheep guiding its every move is a gargantuan and greedy machine called Mammon. None of us can escape its power; it has become an intrinsic part of the architecture of our collective existence. Our “living, moving, and being” (Acts 17:28) are subject to the automaticity of Mammon.

At a macro level, I suggest the Mammonic Machine is influencing the proponents of globalization, an economic order that is relationally disruptive, in that its aim is to connect the world through trade and migration (labour movement). This results in cultural dislocation as borders are erased and a sense of place and locality are degraded, all of which, according to the Genesis creation narrative, are the foundation for individual and collective meaning and are a core requirement for humankind to flourish. At a micro level, individuals have an insatiable appetite for more, newer, bigger, and better, fuelling our acquisitive lifestyle. Our fear of scarcity and our idolatrous affection for comfort and security feed our tendency towards limitless consumption and accumulation.

The Pressure of Mammon

So it is that the Mammonic Machine exerts pressure on the marketplace, demanding obsolescence to be built into design, as we have come to obsess about all things ‘new.’ It dictates that we have a system of mass production to sustain our collective desire for ‘more for less.’ Disposability thus comes to lie at the core of our throwaway culture, resulting in the devaluation and de-sacralization of belongings as their identity is reconfigured from being the gifts of a good God into commodities.

The Power of Mammon

Of course, the power exerted by Mammon is not limited solely to the marketplace. It is Mammon that is the unseen power behind the commodification of life in its entirety. In truth, Mammon and its economic value system have become the lens through which we perceive reality. This commercialisation of life results in human existence—including individuals, their bodies, labour, and natural resources—being treated as commodities, objects of economic value to be bought, sold, or exploited. In this process, life itself is reduced to something that can be exchanged in the marketplace, with its value determined not by inherent dignity or purpose, but by its economic worth or utility. This often involves turning human beings, relationships, or natural resources into objects of profit, stripping them of their endowed sacred or intrinsic value and viewing them primarily through the lens of commercialism or consumerism.

‘Silver and Gold’

The Bible has much to say about Mammon’s deceptive and dehumanising ideology, its accompanying narrative around the controlling power of ‘silver and gold’ and its idolatrous status—idolatry being an Old Testament metaphor for the commodification, commercialisation, and “financialisation” of human existence, another way of saying Mammon!

The Exodus narrative speaks extensively about the domineering and enslaving economic, social, and spiritual power of ‘silver and gold’ that held God’s people captive for 400 years, and, of course, of how Yahweh defeated them and liberated Israel from their internment. ‘Silver and gold’ were the currency of Egypt and symbolised the commodification of life under Pharaoh. This was a world of coercion (the drive to perform better and produce more) and competitive advantage. Pharaoh’s insatiable appetite for the accrual of wealth and power became the engineering that formed the reality of life in Egypt. Driven by anxiety (an absence of peace), fear (of loss), and restlessness (an inability to stop), Pharaoh turned to ‘silver and gold’ for his salvation, constructing for himself gods of ‘silver and gold.’ Later, Yahweh will expressly warn against the idolization of the commodity market. Pharaoh’s surrender to the gods of ‘silver and gold’ governed the architectural framework for life in Egypt.

The Exodus narrative exposes the results of a commodity-driven market economy in terms of its impact on people. The intrinsic sacred value of human life and labour is degraded and demeaned; it is no longer determined by inherent dignity and purpose but by its economic worth and utility in the marketplace. The sons and daughters of God lose their true identity as they become slaves for the monolithic machine called Mammon.

It must come as no surprise that following Israel’s liberation from a life codified by the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ Yahweh gives clear instructions on how to remain free from its stranglehold. Moses receives a mandate for the way in which Yahweh will reconstitute and reengineer what being the community of God looks like.

“I am the LORD your God, who rescued you from the land of Egypt, the place of your slavery.
“You must not have any other god but me.
“You must not make for yourself an idol of any kind or an image of anything in the heavens or on the earth or in the sea. You must not bow down to them or worship them, for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God who will not tolerate your affection for any other gods. (Exodus 20:2-5)

First, Yahweh reminds them of their rescue from the Egyptian Leviathan, the powers of sin that had enslaved them. This exhortation is repeated numerous times, for example:

“…be careful that you do not forget the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.” (Deuteronomy 6:12)

In effect, God is saying, ‘don’t forget that you were once slaves!’ His instructions are clear: the idolatrous social, economic, and spiritual model of Egypt is over. Miriam makes this clear in her celebratory prophetic song where she declares that the ‘horse and the rider have been thrown into the sea.’ This is the metaphor used for God’s redemption of His people. The horse and the rider symbolize Pharaonic power. Judgment is executed on the systems of power that held God’s people captive.

Rabbinic thought suggests that the horse was the symbol of the culture of Egypt. When the Israelites sang of the downfall of both ‘horse and rider,’ they were expressing their appreciation of the fact that not only were Pharaoh and his slave masters being removed from the scene, but so, too, the oppressive culture of Egypt coming to an end. Throughout the Bible, the culture of Egypt is identified with the horse, which is a symbol of militarism and the ideology that ‘might makes right.’ The horse is also a symbol of arrogance and pride. When God brought down Pharaoh and his cohorts, He also removed from the world stage a belief system that justified crushing and enslaving other human beings. The removal not only of the dictator but of his doctrine, and not only of the tyrant but of his theology, is part of the pattern of history from a Jewish perspective.

Later in the text, Yahweh provides greater clarity in instructing Israel:

“…..do not make for yourselves gods of silver or gods of gold.” (Exodus 20:23)

One of the hallmarks of this new community, liberated from their slavery, is revealed in God’s command to Israel that they do not make idols of ‘silver and gold.’ This is an invitation to live together in a counterintuitive way to that of the Pharaonic, Mammonic love of money. He also foresees their temptation to a life of dualism (‘You shall not make gods of silver to be with me’ Exodus 20:23)—the attempt to serve two masters, as Jesus puts it. God knows Mammon is enslaving; its mantra calls for our enhanced performance. It demands we work harder and longer in order to meet the desire it places in our hearts for ‘more.’ This love of money exercises coercive economic power. It also divides people as it stratifies society by creating ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots,’ rich and poor. In effect, what Yaheweh gives are guidelines for staying out of slavery by living a life free from the commodification and productization of existence. It’s a lesson on how to be and to remain fully human, protecting the Imago Dei and thus revealing Yahweh as the Creator who loves His creation.

AMOS – What Happens When Commodity Becomes King?

I am part of my church family’s preaching team. Recently, we decided to speak on the minor prophets, and without thinking too much, I volunteered to speak on the book of Amos. I hadn’t read it for a while, but I committed to doing it. When I re-read the book, I began to wish I hadn’t! However, as I laboured through the collection of seemingly disjointed poems and declarations, I began to see how history can repeat itself, how not heeding Yahweh’s plea to ‘remember’ but instead forgetting, results in a return to captivity—slavery to the gods of ‘silver and gold,’ and the consequential spiritual, social, and economic decay that follows in its wake.

In summary, the narrative tells us that Israel was enjoying unparalleled economic prosperity under the rule of King Uzziah of Judah and King Jeroboam II. However, this success led to a market ideology assuming an idolatrous status. As all idols do, they demanded devotion, surrender, and obedience—the Mammonic Machine would accept no less. God plucks Amos, a nobody, a shepherd and fig grower, out of obscurity to confront the idolatry of the rich and powerful. Their totemisation of economic success resulted in them forgetting God and His ways. To quote Walter Brueggemann, “Prosperity breeds amnesia.” The people had forgotten God’s deliverance from the corrupt, oppressive, and corrosive socio-economic system of Egypt that held their forebears captive for over 400 years. They had become captivated by the same Pharaonic, Mammonistic system that had dehumanized a previous generation.

Amos is uncompromising in speaking the truth and identifies how Israel’s growing affection for ‘silver and gold’ is contemporizing and re-engineering their individual and collective life.

‘You can’t wait for the Sabbath day to be over and the religious festivals to end so you can get back to cheating the helpless. You measure out grain with dishonest measures and cheat the buyer with dishonest scales. And you mix the grain you sell with chaff swept from the floor.’ (Amos 8:5-6)

The prophet challenges a worldview shaped by personal gain and private profit that had resulted in the re-codification of their values and behaviours and confronts a form of worship that has become disconnected from the way they live, work, and do business. Socio-economic injustice was rife, as the gods of commodity exerted their power and malformed reality. Amos articulates the many ways in which these gods were disfiguring and dehumanizing Yahweh’s people. Let me mention just three.

1: The productization of people and relationships

At the heart of Christian ethics is the belief that human beings are made in the imago Dei, or the image of God. This concept, rooted in Genesis 1:26-27, holds that all humans possess intrinsic dignity and worth because they reflect God’s nature. Unlike other aspects of creation, human beings are endowed with rationality, free will, and the capacity for moral decision-making. They are not objects to be used for personal gain, nor are they products to be bought and sold. However, in a world, ancient or modern, where the Free Market is idolized and venerated, lives are commodified, people become products to be traded, and relationships are de-sacralised.

‘…because they sell righteousness for money and the needy for a pair of sandals’. (Amos 2:6)

When God is forgotten and economic success (‘silver and gold’) becomes our god, the intrinsic God-given human value of individuals is swallowed up in a market ideology. People become products in the market and a means to satisfy the personal desires and needs of others. Modern capitalism and consumerism reduce human beings to mere economic units, depriving them of their inherent worth as created, image-bearing beings.

This process of commodification could be described as relocating relational goods from the humanistic sphere and placing them in the commodity sphere. Mary Harrington, writer and contributing editor of UnHerd, says, ‘Commodification takes something out of the context of relationship, isolates it, and gives it a market value other than that which relationship bestows’. . She cites the porn industry as a powerful example of this and makes the point that ‘whilst the industry might say that this is about self-expression and empowerment, the truth is that this is a cold-blooded, merciless commercial machine that hacks human pleasure centres for profit’. Sex is made homeless; it is extracted from the context of relationship and bought and sold as a commodity.

2: The primacy of personal gain and private profit

A radical individualism has been at work on both the political right and left over many decades, and this too has contributed to the commodification of the human being and to technocratic tendencies, both of which are dehumanizing and undermine our ability to build the common good together.

One of the roots of the commodification of life is the consumer culture that dominates much of the modern world. This culture encourages individuals to define their worth and happiness in terms of material possessions and measures of economic success. Advertising, media in all its forms, and the marketplace constantly reinforce the idea that life’s meaning is found in pursuing an acquisitive lifestyle regardless of the cost to others.

‘You trample on the poor and extract taxes from him, you have built houses hewn of stone’ (Amos 5:11)

From a Christian perspective, this consumerist mindset is deeply problematic because it distracts people from the true purpose of life: to love God and neighbour (Matthew 22:37-40).

Mammon and his commodification of life foster a culture of individualism and greed, which is antithetical to the Christian virtues of humility, generosity, and community. It leads people to view relationships, experiences, and even themselves through the lens of consumerism. This is particularly evident in the rise of social media, where personal experiences, bodies, and even personalities are commodified for likes, followers, and brand endorsements.

And when we see life through a commercial lens, where trading has invaded, conquered, and then codified collective behaviours, our common socio-economic life becomes fractured as it centres around ‘my (individual) prosperity’ at the expense of my neighbour.

Brueggemann captures this so well in his commentary on Psalm 73 where he describes the “two ways” before which the faithful stand: a way of self-enhancing commodity and a way of relational communion. He describes these as the choice that is before our own society, and before every society. ‘Our society in its dominant forms is now committed to the rat race of self-sufficiency and self-enhancement, the pace of which is set by greed, celebrity, and violence that contradicts the depth of human life. In that lethal rat race, the refocus of faith is the (re)discovery that such a set of priorities has no staying power. What lasts is a life of communion in obedience that is preoccupied, not with the love of self, but with the love of God and the love of neighbour.’ (From Whom No Secrets are Hid – Introducing the Psalms, Walter Brueggemann)

3: Truth has only a commercial value

Amos points to the depths to which the god of the markets, the god of commodity, Mammon, will go in that ultimately it makes even truth a commodity to be traded for commercial gain.

Listen to this, you who trample the needy
and do away with the destitute in the land.
You say, “When will the new moon festival be over, so we can sell grain?
When will the Sabbath end, so we can open up the grain bins?
We’re eager to sell less for a higher price,
and to cheat the buyer with rigged scales!”

As the prophet points out, when we forget God and become worshippers of the god of economic success, this idol, as all idols do, demands our absolute devotion. Not only that, but all idols also require sacrifice. Mammon – ‘silver and gold’—has its own accompanying sacrificial system. In a world where this god is revered, loving neighbourliness is reconfigured by a market economy and, in doing so, people and relationships are commercialized and productized for personal gain and private profit. Eventually, honesty, integrity, and righteousness will find themselves as an offering on its altar. Truth can become whatever it needs to be to ensure the continuation of success and is corrupted for the sake of maintaining the momentum and progress of the Mammonic machine.

Final thoughts

That all sounds a little bleak! As I have already mentioned in my first essay on the subject of Mammon I am going to point to the hope that the Gospel offers and in doing so suggest some countercultural, counterintuitive ways of thinking and living. In my next essay, I will explore the concept of Repair as a form of resistance against the forces that seek to commodify every aspect of our existence. This will not only be a philosophical reflection but also a call to practical action—ways in which we can tangibly embody this hope.

Before I sign off, I want to leave you with a couple of lines from John’s Gospel where he quotes Jesus Himself.

‘“I no longer call you slave, because the master doesn’t confide in his slaves. Now you are my friends, since I have told you everything the Father told me”’ Jesus Christ (John 15:15)

Isn’t this simply beautiful! In just a few words, Jesus dismantles one worldview and ushers in another. He shifts his hearers from a paradigm of servitude to one of freedom, replacing hierarchical, transactional relationships with the radical intimacy of friendship.

Jesus doesn’t see human beings as instruments of profit, stripped of their endowed sacred value through the lens of commercialism and consumerism – slaves. His words don’t just challenge economic paradigms; they upend the entire value system that measures human worth by productivity and profit. Instead of being trapped in a transactional existence, He calls people into a relational, dignified existence—one of friendship, trust, and intrinsic worth. He sees them through the lens of the Father’s love, an emancipatory love that restores what has been degraded and reclaims the Imago Dei in each person.

The Father, The Wayward Son and His Brother

Simon Swift’s latest guest post, using  the ‘prodigal son’ parable to talk about what inheritance means for us.


Jesus was very good at using stories to point to spiritual truths. He was able to pack many layers of wisdom into his stories. Like Gold miners we can dig and dig into these parables and keep revealing more truth each time. Of course we have to have a good idea about how the original hearers understood the stories least we miss what he was trying to say to us. None the less because they are stories we can still find rich seams of truth in our own times. One such story is the Prodigal Son and in particular the strange case of the complaining elder brother and how the father makes a remarkable reply.

First we have to make a note of what we mean by inheritance. We are not here, taking about inheriting a large amount of money from some distant aunt and then spending it on a world cruise or something. We are talking about passing on a legacy from one generation to the next. It’s about family, and land that will pass from one generation to the other, each building on previous forefathers work. We tend to think of it as having to wait until our parents die before we can enter into the inheritance. That is why we see the impatient younger son ask for his inheritance now; today please. Surprisingly, the father gives him his inheritance and off he goes to squander it. Just maybe the later conversation with the eldest son gives us a clue as to why he so readily agrees.

Most of us know the story well; if you don’t you’ll find it in the gospel by Luke chapter 15:11. When the younger son after running out of money, returns and makes a plea to his father to allow him back home as a hired hand, he is humbled by his experience and understands he does not deserve anything more. His father has a completely different perspective, seeing him as lost even dead. With the return of his son he is eager to restore him fully to son-ship and therefor inheritance, celebrating because he has been found and is alive. The fattened calf is to be prepared, slaughtered for a celebratory feast; but the story does not end there.

Almost seeming like an add on, the eldest brother makes his appearance for the first time. He is not happy, complaining about how his father is reacting to the return of younger, no good brother. It would seem he has a point and to us today we would be forgiven for wondering why this part was added on to the story, was it even needed?

Lets look at it from the older brothers perspective. His resentment and refusal to join in the celebrations shows us something about his attitude towards his place in the family. First he complains that he is working like a slave then points out he has never disobeyed his father and even moans that he has never been given a young goat for feasting with his friends. He sees his position as not much better than his wayward brother does. Looking for a reward in the future he is obedient to the father. In other words he is playing the role of a hired hand, a slave.

It is a remarkable answer that his father gives him: That all is his. His inheritance is in the now, in partnering with his father; not in working for him as a hired hand; not so he to could squander it partying away; but to grow the estate and be part of the blessing that would come with it, saying, “Every thing I have belongs to you.”*

There is a wonderful connection between ourselves and God. It is a relationship of father and son. Not only do we become part of his inheritance, we also share in the inheritance as God’s children. Rather then see Jesus as the second Adam We should see him as the first in the new age. The first Adam in the new heaven and earth and we too, get to inherit this new earth. Perhaps we must be like the prodigal son and return home, or maybe we are like the eldest and need to realise we are not a hired hand, waiting for a reward.

The earth, the whole of creation is made and realised by God’s word. Manifested out of his desire that pours out from his great power of love. If we are children of God then we are heirs, co-heirs with Jesus, and we can enter into that inheritance today. Partnering with the spirit to build the estate, manifesting the new heaven and earth.

Yet we have sold our inheritance for the desire for material objects on the one hand and for our need to control on the other. Like the younger son in the parable, we chose to cash in our inheritance and go party. We squander the riches of the earth. We turn to consumerism to fill the empty spaces in our lives that should be filled with eternal life. Or like the eldest we fail to see passed his own nose. We build standards that no one can reach and drink in energy from judging other when they don’t. We lose out on the blessings of compassion and instead build power bases of control. In our desire to become gods we starve ourselves of light.

The new age, the new heaven and earth are to be brought into our lives now. Each day whether prodigal son or older brother, we can enjoy the new age by simply having a father-son relationship with our creator. Whether we are out in the fields working or celebrating a returning son or daughter, we are actively inheriting the new age. That means we have to live the new age, the kingdom of heaven life today.

*Quotes of the story from Tom Wright’s translation: The New Testament for Everyone.

Spirituality and Creativity

Another post from Simon Swift… his ‘January contribution’. I suspect Simon enjoys writing for many reasons but if he is like me (I suspect in this aspect he is) it is also a means of finding one ‘s own ideas being crystalised. And if that be true then as you read this piece I hope a few of your ideas also crystalise. OK… here it is.


Sometimes, when I am writing a poem, I find it starts to speak to me about how it wants to be written. Maybe it doesn’t like the structure or my approach to the subject. I know I’m the creative one but none the less I get this feeling that I should listen to the poem and let it direct me. Doesn’t always happen, but when it does, it’s definitely not me; it’s the poem. Once I listen then the poem starts to take shape.

This highlights what I believe is the spiritual nature of creativity. It gives a sense that ideas and inspiration are alive and trying to communicate with us. Wanting to be birthed by us into the physical world; we are merely a conduit for ideas to be realised.

In her book ‘Big Magic’ Elizabeth Gilbert talks about ideas in this way. She believes that ideas are energetic life forms that have a consciousness, wanting to communicate with us so they can be manifest. She believes that so much she insists that we should be polite to them even if we should decide that a particular idea is not for us – just in case word gets around about your rudeness and ideas start avoiding you.

Now you may think that is going a bit to far, even silly, and I admit that it’s probably not what’s really going on, at least scientifically, but it helps to think that way because spirituality and creativity are closely related to each other. It useful to use a language that helps us to understand our creative processes, to help speak and think about it. When scientists research the creative process the language used may not be very helpful to the average creative who needs to understand their way of interacting with the process of creativity and inspiration. Spiritual language comes in helpful here as it is related to experience and the relationship artists have with inspiration and ideas.

So what about the Christian faith, what has the bible to say about it. Well, in the book Exodus we find God giving instructions on how to build the tents, make the priestly cloths and all the utensil and the alter, even giving details about the size of things. Then God goes on to claim that a man named Bezalel has been given abilities and intelligence with knowledge and all craftsmanship along with Oholiab they are anointed as craftsmen. Could we then say that the holy spirit is often involved with us in giving us ideas and in having inspiration.

Now I do believe if we work hard enough and focused enough we can learn anything. However, how good we actually get at something often depends on our interest in it and if we pick it up easily. That is to say somethings we naturally seem to gravitate to and get quickly, usually something that gives us pleasure. I myself have learnt to play a few instruments at an elementary level. Yet I know people who can pick up an instrument they have never played before and within a few minutes they are playing it at a level that would take me weeks to match. So I do think we can have a bent towards a particular creative discipline. Does this then come from God that picks individuals out or is it more a case of being willing to listen to the spirit, to be receptive in a way similar to how Elizabeth believes, which is all about cooperation and being open.

Greeks talked about muses and Romans of having a genius. Today we talk of people being geniuses. The trouble is it can leads to arrogance and aloofness. We know God is creative and we too have that ability, it’s part of who we are as humans and that is all of us. We honour God when we use our creativity and so we should be humble and thankful, showing gratitude to God and possibly to the ideas themselves that we have been chosen to birth. We can reject an idea because it may not be the right time for us or some other issue is at hand and so we should do so graciously least we should offend and I think that keeps us grounded and stops egos taking over.

Our artistic creativity is a place where we can express our deep emotions. Through images, stories, and sound we can share something more than just facts, communicating in a way that connects us to others. Sometimes though, it is for just the fun of creating something that’s pretty. You see this with crafts like sowing and needle work. These crafts can fill a functional need, but can also be used to express our creativity and add something into the world that takes us beyond the mundane. For the artisan it gives them a sense of achievement and satisfaction.

Creativity is not just about fine art and crafts, there are many areas where we can apply our creative abilities; science and medicine, industry and business, technology and philosophy. Humanity has seen tremendous advancements in these areas. Unfortunately that same creative spark in us can be used for destructive purposes and there has been many a regime and political leadership that has done so, bringing misery, subjugation and death into the world. Nuclear technology is a prime example, being used to kill thousands of people while also being used to provide energy to keep our modern society, so dependant on electricity, going. Who knows what other ways we can advance though using our creative capacity. But there is one possible threat to our creative spark that is on the horizon.

Artificial Intelligence is here to stay, but at the moment it is difficult to see how this will impact our lives and what it means for not just the creatives in our world but for all of us. The UK Government has recently announced that it wants the UK to be at the for front of the technology. Yet it has already caused concern from the creatives fearful of their intellectual property rights being bypassed by the AI companies as they use web scrapping to collected such material for training AI machines. Will we become lazy and become content creator instead of artist? Will it cheapen such art if anyone with an idea can just get an AI machine to do the work for them, removing any need for skill, or is that a good thing?

If spirituality and creativity are closely connected then what does that mean if machines do all the creative stuff? Do we just end up with content creation and fail to do one of the most important parts of being human: expressing love, joy, pain, fear, and loss into a body of work that can move the emotions of those exposed to it. I’m sure there will be many benefits to AI, but what we must not do is allow it to steal from us one of the defining attributes that has been given to us by God: The ability to be creative and add something to this world that is meaningful, beautify and a blessing.

Perspectives