Christianity in the UK and in the USA compared

There have been many surveys concerning the religious beliefs of the British public.  It is obvious that we are now a much more secular nation than we were even twenty years ago. Belief in God has steadily declined over the years, especially among the young.  In some parts of Britain only 22% of this group believe in God.  Less than 7% of the public goes to a place of worship each weekend.  This state of affairs contrasts strongly with the figures coming out of America, where there is an opposite trend.  This can be seen in the figures given below.
Another worrying fact is the obvious ignorance displayed by even university educated adults.  Recently we went on a tour of the Cambridge colleges.  We started at the magnificent Kings College Chapel, a jewel late medieval perpendicular Gothic.  The guide, obviously an educated man, pointed to the windows facing east and said, "This window sees the sun rising and as you know Christians worship the sun."  I think he got confused with the other homophone!
Last evening there was a programme on the BBC asking the question  Are Christians in Britain being persecuted?  Many Christians in the UK feel that perfection is too strong a word, but they feel that Christianity is steadily being marginalised and that petty restrictions are being placed on believers in the workplace.  Nurses and social workers have been threatened with dismissal if the don't stop wearing a cross etc,  while Muslims seem to be free to wear veils and even hijabs. They feel that there is not a level playing field.


The UK and the USA compared


Many large-scale polls indicate that less than half the British public believe in God:

Date	Details	Belief in God
2008	1000 people were polled both in the UK and the USA and asked "Do you believe there is a God?". Less than 40% in the UK said yes, compared with 80% in the USA.14	<40%
2006	12507 people were polled, finding that only 35% in Great Britain believe in any kind of God or supreme being, compared to 27% in France, 62% in Italy, 48% in Spain, 41% in Germany and 73% in the USA.15	35%
2006	Poll of 4000 older teenagers in Cornwall found that only 22% could affirm that they believed in God, and 49% said they didn't.16	22%
2003	1001 British adults surveyed4.	60%
2003	55% of the British public do not believe in a higher being17.

British Attitudes 2

One of the most startling facts facing the church in the British Isles is the steep decline in church-going and an increasing lack of interest in the Christian faith.  Between 7.6 and 10% attend a church on Sunday at the present time, and in some white working class areas the percentage is even lower.  Ofsted have noted that the level of ignorance about the Bible and Christianity among the young is very disturbing and even among teachers the situation is not much better.  Only half of a survey could name one of the four gospels, whereas 60% percent knew that the Koran was the sacred book of the Islamic faith.  Over 65% of British people have no contact with any church. Only 40% believe in God, whereas in America the number is 80%
We are heading for a constitutional crisis. When Prince Charles becomes the monarch the number of Muslim worshippers could exceed the number worshipping in the Anglican Church, which is the Established church of these islands.  Indeed Prince Charles has let it be known widely that he does not want to called Defender of the Faith,a title that every British monarch has used since Henry 8th, but Defender of Faiths.
The decline is especially seen in the Catholic and Methodist Churches.  It has been said that by 2030 the Methodist church will cease to exist.  There some beacons of hope among the charismatic churches, but in most churches any increase in numbers can be accounted for by the immigration of Poles and West Africans.


All this can be compared to the situation in May 1940.  The situation this country faced was nothing short of catastrophic.  Three hundred and fifty thousand of our soldiers were trapped in Dunkirk, surrounded by the victorious panzers of Rommel and Guderian.  Churchill became Prime minister on the 20th May and he decided to go down fighting rather than become the slaves of the Nazis.  On the 26th King George 6th and the Prime Minister called a National day of Prayer, an event unthinkable today.  That Sunday the churches were packed and on the very next day a decision was made to attempt the perilous evacuation of our troops from the shallow beaches of Dunkirk and the remains of adjoining heavily bombed port.  For some strange reason Hitler had ordered his tanks to halt and regroup for essential maintenance. This gave our nation a breathing space. During the next week eight hundred vessels ranging from fishing smacks and pleasure cruisers to regular destroyers lifted the whole of the British army, plus thousands of French troops, from under the noses of the Wehrmacht.  The British looked upon this deliverance as a miracle. 
One wonders what would happen to this country today if we were faced with a similar catastrophic danger


The beach and Port of Dunkirk today.

British Attitudes

Anyone looking at the current scene in Britain will speedily come to the conclusion that the British have lost their nerve.  Gone is the self-confidence of the Victorian era and the era that came to an end at the close of the second World War.  We have gradually lost our self assurance and confidence.  Generations of school children have been taught directly or obliquely that our history and our culture is full of shameful episodes and we have no reason to be proud of our achievements.  I know this is true because I was for many years a purveyor of this denigrating attitude. Most teachers I mixed with would rather be labelled a crook than a patriot.  Instead of extolling the incredible achievements of the Industrial Revolution and the amazing inventiveness of the likes of Stephenson and Telford, the emphasis has been on the horrors of child labour and the cruelty of the capitalist system.  The British Empire has hardly been mentioned at all, and if it was, little was said of its positive input into so many nations, the main emphasis being on the aggressive and racially-motivated greed of the colonialists.  Yet, as a recent historian has written,  the British Empire, though no charitable organisation, was as empires go, the most benign and pacific that the world had ever seen. (See Niall Ferguson, The British Empire).  As result we have a generation that lives in a sort of cultural vacuum.  They are not sure what our culture really is and whether it is worth-while defending it.  Those with an old-fashioned liberal education are often amazed how little even intelligent young people know about their history and culture.  So when another self-confident culture asserts its claims most British people are so riddled with feelings of insecurity and even racial guilt that they meekly give way.
As an illustration I should like to mention what happened in 2007.  At the passing out parade of cadets at Hendon, presided over by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, a Muslim lady cadet refused to shake hands with the commissioner or even join in the group photo.  Sir Ian was furious.  This act of defiance against long-standing cultural norms was obviously not the brain-child of the cadet.  Very few cadets would be brave enough to make such a challenge.  She had obviously been coached by other Muslims.  They guessed and guessed rightly that when push came to shove the Police would cave in rather than be accused of racial and religious insensitivities.  The cadet was accepted and was sent to West London, where she would not offend any of her co-religionists.
It is into this dangerous social and spiritual vacuum that Islam is spreading.  They see a culture that is ripe for exploitation.  Push wisely and hard and the indigenous population will give way.  
The most amazing sights that I have seen recently are the demonstrations by the British Defence League against the Islamisation of Britain and counter demonstrations of the Muslims.  These counter demonstrations are invariably supported by left-wing activists.  Don't these left-wingers realise that if Islamism ever came to power in this nation the first group to be crushed would be these same left-wingers?


In case anyone thinks that I am against Muslims in general I would like to say that this is not true.  I have Muslim friends and I consider the majority to be hard-working and peaceful folk who are proud to have been born into this country.

I*SLA*M 2.

When Muhammed died in 632 he could look back on a life of remarkable achievement.  Orphaned early in life and without an education, he had united the disparate factions and squabbling tribes of Arabia into a semblance of religious and political unity.  He had imposed on his compatriots a revolutionary faith that claimed to be the the final prophetic revelation of Allah.  They accepted him as the supreme prophet and apostle and the Koran as the infallible and authoritative word of God.  He was very far from being the simple impostor that earlier European historians described.  He was obviously a very remarkable man, skilful in diplomacy, engaging in social life, but all the while having a streak of ruthlessness when necessary.  This was shown in the destruction of 800 males of the Jewish Quraysh tribe after the Battle of the Trench outside Medina.


After his death there occurred the most amazing example of military expansion the world has ever seen, one that rivals that of Alexander, but with the added bonus of permanence.  Within two years of his death, Damascus had been taken by the Arabs, Jerusalem a few years later, and the  whole of Egypt by 642.  By 711 the Muslim empire stretched from  Spain in the West to Afghanistan in the East.  With the sole exception of Spain, the lands conquered at that time remain Muslims lands to this day.  How  were all these victories achieved?  These are the main reasons.  The Muslim armies were fired by a zeal that they were inspired by Allah to bring salvation to a benighted race. Secondly, the two major powers in the prosperous lands to the north of Arabia had been squabbling and fighting for years.  Both the Byzantines and the Persians had reached a point of exhaustion.  Thirdly, the Semitic Christians in Syria and Palestine were sick of the corrupt and oppressive Greek-speaking rulers in Constantinople. They thought that Muslim rule would probably be milder and fairer than what they were experiencing.


In 732 Muslim armies based in Spain crossed the Pyrenees and advance towards Paris. At Tours one of the most important of world battles took place.  Charles the Hammer of France defeated the Muslim armies and they retreated back to Spain.


The next few centuries are fondly looked upon by most Muslims as their Golden Age.  They translated and meditated on the Greek classics and in the royal courts Muslim and Jewish  and Christian scholars studied and discussed basic problems in science and mathematics.  As one contemporary Muslim scientist writes,  "Between the the 9th and the 13th centuries the only people doing decent work in science, philosophy, or medicine were Muslims."
Then, in the early 12th century,  a book was published by a very learned Sufi scholar that has had a deep influence on I*slam.  Al Ghazzali, concerned that the writings of Plato and Aristotle were far too popular and there was a consequent decline of faith among Muslims as a result, published his book, The Incoherence of the Philosophers.  In it he strove to highlight the contradictions found in Greek philosophers.  In it he championed revelation over reason and predestination over free-will.  One of his doctrines was what is known as occasionalism.  It is an attack on the basic assumption of all science- the concept of cause and effect.  For example, take petrol, fire and oxygen.  Moderns believe that if you put these three together you will get an explosive reaction without exception.  The known properties of the three items mentioned makes an explosion inevitable. Ghazzali said that God directly intervenes in all the observable cases because it is His will, not because of the intrinsic certainties involved. Most say you cannot have a science based on the momentary arbitrary will of something external to matter.  A lot of Muslim intellectuals believe that it is from this period that Muslim science declined.  While the West pursued Scientific enquiry at an ever increasing rate the Muslim world retreated back in a rigid orthodoxy that has continued to this day.
In the terrase cafes of Cairo, among the intellectuals who meet there, one of the perennial topics of conversation is the backwardness of Arab and Muslim states in general. They admit that Islamic nations are scientifically and economically far behind Western nations. One Pakistani physicist has done a survey on scientific papers published in the past few years.  Less than 2% are produced in the whole of the Muslim world,  a figure which is a slightly lower  than that of Spain.
There are more books and scientific papers published in Israel than in the whole of the surrounding Arab states put together.  Muslim scientists are eternally wary of offending the current religious orthodoxy. The spirit of free enquiry is stifled.

I*sla*m

There is no doubt about it.  Our politicians and the intellectual classes haven't a clue how to deal with the ideas and  actions of a resurgent, militant I*sla*m.  The whole business does not come into their mental framework. The cosy liberal consensus that has ruled, apart from the blip of Nazism, most of Europe for the past three centuries, and the current craze for multiculturalism, don't know how to react to a faith that rejects the democratic process, that derides the whole system of what they call man-made laws,  and will have nothing to do with the separation of Church and State that has dominated European thinking since the beginning of the eighteenth century.   
Militant I*sla*m takes pride in stating that their religion encompasses all facets of life, whether it be religious, political, moral and social.  They want to impose on Europe a Theocracy based on Sharia law and centred around a restored Caliphate in Turkey. Above all they want to suppress freedom of debate.  They detest our freedom to ruthlessly analyse and even criticise all religious pretensions.  To the islamist criticism is simply blasphemy.  They are pressing in the UN that a bill should be passed outlawing all criticism of religion.   Our intellectuals shudder and protest meekly that nothing has been seen like this in England since the Civil War that ended in 1651.  
The other point that confuses and scares the pants off our chattering classes is the acceptance in militant Islam of the proposition that the end justifies the means, a moral doctrine that has always been rejected by Christian moral philosophers. That means that deception (taqqiya in Arabic) and extreme violence can legitimately be used if they achieve the advancement of Islam.  Our writers and serious journalists who love to ridicule and marginalise everything Christian have suddenly been struck dumb.  They remember the fate of Salman Rushdie, who went into hiding after publishing The Satanic Verses in 1988.  However, their fears are not trivial. A French philosopher, Robert Redeker,  wrote an article in Le Figaro, criticising Islam in 2006.  He received death threats and had to go into hiding.  Geert Wilders of Holland, a controversial politician who campaigns against the Islamification of Europe, never sleeps in the same house for two nights and rarely sees his wife.  Dutch Islamists have vowed to kill him. Theo Van Gogh, a descendent of the painter, made a programme about domestic violence in I*sla*m, was shot eight times and had his throat slit in the middle of Amsterdam by a Islamic radical in 2004.
As a result  of this you rarely if ever see a radical critique of Islamic doctrine or history in the serious press or on TV.  Most TV companies avoid any programme that would upset Muslims.  The reason for all this moderation and hesitation is simple - fear.

President Obama

I must admit that I am no expert in American politics. But I was interested in the President's attempt to bring in a just and equitable health-care system. Now it seems that his plans are in disarray and that if he fails here his future will be bleak and he could become a lame-duck president. That is the view of A Kaletsky in today's Times p.30

One thing has shocked me as I have trawled the internet and watched videos is the bitterness of American political life. I watched today a debate on CNN concerned with a Baptist Pastor's sermon, in which he says he hates Obama and all he stands for and that he hopes he lands in Hell. I was stunned as I viewed such un-Christian rhetoric. Obama seems to be facing a torrent of venom unheard of in Europe.

I think the reason for this is quite simple. In England no Christian I know sincerely believes that his party is the party of God. A Christian voter here has a simple choice; which party will do the least damage to cause of Christ? It is a matter of the least of three evils. This is the same I believe all over Europe.

In America many Christians, perhaps the majority, believe that to be a Christian is to be a republican. Even the least of social reforms put forward by the Democrats is labelled as rank socialism or communism. Take the state of American health-care. American spends up 17% of it GDP on health issues. This is way above the proportion spent on health in the major industrialised countries, and there is no doubt that the best in

America is the envy of the rest of the world. Yet the picture is very patchy. For all the enormous amounts spent the results are not impressive. The average expectation of life is below that of many other developed nations and the level infant mortality, which is the true index of a nation's health, is the highest among industrialised nations, higher than that of poverty-stricken Cuba. The reason for this is simple; many tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and cannot access the best of modern treatments. This what Obama is trying to redress, rather unsuccessfully it seems.

Another reason for the hatred felt towards Obama is his laissez-faire attitude towards abortion. He has done nothing to ban it. OK this is a serious moral problem. But when compared to his predecessor, George W Bush, his sins and misdemeanours, pale somewhat. He has not led his country, and the UK, into a disastrous war against Iraq, where even by conservative estimates, at least a 100, 000 Iraqis have died, as well as thousands of allied soldiers. Also the invasion has had a disastrous effect on the Iraqi Christian population. Before the war there were about 1.5 million in Iraq. That figure has now dropped to about 400.000. Most have fled to Syria, having lost their homes and most of their possessions.  The secular despotism of Saddam, one that tolerated Christianity, has been supplanted by an intolerant form of Islam that believes that all Christians are allied to the invader.

The Celts 2

The Farne Islands, once a place of Celtic pilgrimage, is bleak enough in the summer. In winter it must be harsh in the extreme. Nearby are the rocks from which Grace Darling and her father, in 1838, rescued nine passengers and crew from a shipwreck and brought them to safety. I have seen the 21 ft. open rowing boat that was used and I marvelled just how such a slender young woman could handle such a craft in a storm

One of my posts was about Celtic Christianity. I tried to drive away some popular misconceptions.

Now for the positive. When the original Celts migrated from Ireland, through Scotland, finally arriving in the north east of England in about the middle of the seventh century, they found the land still in the grip of paganism and pagan worship. With great faith and courage and determination they decided to go on a mission to bring England back to its Christian heritage. Travelling by foot, they would approach a tribal leader and boldly and courageously urge him to embrace the gospel and get rid of all forms of paganism. Many large scale people movements took place. Their apostolic journeys are amazing considering the primitive condition of the roads at that period. Columbine, travelling mainly on foot, reached Austria and Switzerland.

The Celts had a high doctrine of creation. This world was not some inanimate, evolving machine, nor was it a simple vale of tears; it was alive with the creative action and providence of God. He was the master

of the winds and the waves and the sea.

There is a fascinating passage in Bede. Mentioning how some of the saints seemed to have power over the very forces of nature, he goes on to say, "We , on the other hand, often lose that dominion over creation, that is ours by right, through neglecting to serve its Creator". They undoubtedly saw and expected many healings and amazing providences

There is one instructive story from Bede's Life of Cuthbert. The monks were hoping to bring several boat-loads of wood back to the monastery, when the wind veered and carried the boats out to sea. The local peasants mocked their prayers, shouting out, " They have done away with the old ways (pagan worship) and nobody knows what to do." But Cuthbert continued to intercede on his knees. The wind suddenly changed and brought the boats safely back into the Tyne. The peasants were suitably impressed and spread the news of the event.

Another thing that impresses you when you read these small biographies is the care taken of the poor and the marginalised. Their leaders encouraged a heart and life of compassion. Cuthbert, when he retired to the bleak fastnesses of the Farne Islands, found that his primitive abode became a place of pilgrimage. Many came from great distances. Bede writes, "No one left unconsoled, no one had to carry the burdens he came with. Spirits that were chilled with sadness he could warm back to hope again with a pious word."

Another facet of their lives was their keen perception that the church faced a subtle and determined enemy. There are a lot of stories of spiritual battles concerning people and places. They were very conscious of the wiles of the enemy. It is instructive to read of the famous Celtic prayers of protection, the most famous of which is Patrick's Breastplate. Many Christians, including myself, do not take this matter seriously, trusting in a sort of carnal self-confidence, so popular in this age addicted to positive thinking. Mini disasters often occur.

Here is a Celtic prayer that will give you a flavour of the spirituality.

The arms of God be around my shoulders,

The touch of the Holy Spirit upon my head,

The sign of Christ's cross upon my forehead,

The sound of the Holy Spirit in my ears,

The fragrance of the Holy spirit in my nostrils,

The vision of heaven's company in my eyes,

The conversation of heaven's company on my lips,

The work of God's church in my hands,

The service of God and my neighbour in my feet,

A home for god in my heart,

And to God, the father of all, my entire being.

(Lorica of St Fursa)

My advice to those interested in this subject is simple.

Avoid, first of all, the many books about the Celts and go to the translations that are available of the original documents. "The Age of Bede" by Penguin books is an excellent one to start with.

Immigration

This subject is certainly a hot potato at the moment. Politicians in the main, with exception of Nick Griffin, avoid it like the plague. Many have strong views but are inhibited because the feel that they will be called racists. Yesterday was a bit of a shock. The respectable and socially conservative Town's Women's Guild have stated that about 80% of the respondents to a recent survey in their organisation say the mass immigration is destroying the cultural identity of the British people. A few weeks previously the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, said that the very DNA of Britain is being radically changed by excessive immigration. He has been strongly criticised by clerics in the Anglican Church. Critics will say that this is nonsense because Britain has always been a haven for those seeking either asylum or a better life. This is undoubtedly true. From about 400AD, together with much of Western Europe, Britain received enormous numbers from abroad, from the Anglo-Saxon invasions that occurred after the Romans left our shores to the coming of the Vikings about three hundred years later. This completely changed our culture from Celtic to an Anglo-Saxon one. After the Norman

Conquest our language and culture were once again changed. Norman French gradually amalgamated with Anglo-Saxon to produce the English we speak today. Most of Western Europe was going through similar turbulent incursions. Goths, Visigoths, Ostrogoths, Huns, Vandals, and Lombards poured out of the steppes of Central Asia and overthrew the Roman based civilisations of Europe between the years 400 and 600 AD. Rome itself was sacked by the barbarians in 410AD and later in 556AD.

But it is fascinating to realise that these massive and destructive movements were very different to the tide of immigration today. Fifty years after the barbarian invasions it would have taken a DNA specialist, if this technique had existed, to disentangle the racial mix of the time. The tribes were all of Indo-European stock and they would be virtually indistinguishable within a generation. Secondly, and this is vastly more important, the invaders quickly picked up the culture of the host countries and most became at least nominally Christian, though many at first adhered to the Arian heresy.

Today things are very different. There a fifty-three million Muslims in Europe,and sixteen millions in the EU, many of whom are convinced that their religion and culture are superior to those of Europe. They have no desire to integrate: in fact some groups are quite adamant that their aim is to Islamise Europe totally.

A few years ago Colonel Ghadaffi of Libya stated publically, that such are the number of Muslims in Europe,over 50 million at present,that our continent would become Islamic without a bullet or a shot being fired. Given the vastly superior fertility of Muslim families this is feasible. Also there is a cultural vacuum in post-Christian Europe that is waiting to be filled.

Just before he died, Derek Prince said that Britain would be the first European state to become a Muslim one, an opinion that the well-known Baptist minster, David Pawson, fully concurs with. See his video series on this important subject. Are they panic mongers or do they have some truth?

Celtic Christianity

The window in Cuthbert's chapel on the Farne Islands

A few shots of Lindisfarne today

There has been for a number of years an in intense interest in Celtic Christianity. When you read the first-hand accounts of the heroic labours and saintly lives of Columban and Aiden and Cuthbert a feeling of nostalgia arises, a feeling that this movement represents a form of authentic indigenous Christianity that we can all learn from. The Celtic church seems at first view to be a truly British and Irish phenomena that seems to untouched by the growing power and influence of the Roman church on the continent. Above all, many feel we can copy and learn and even immerse ourselves in Celtic Christian culture.

Most of this is of doubtful validity. The Celtic church was in no way an independent church. Even in turbulent times which saw the final withdrawal of the Roman legions from Britain and the Anglo-Saxon invasions along the East Coast, we were never cut off from what was happening on the Continent. They were never rebels against what was going on in Rome. They believed in a unified church. The Celts only differed in several minor ways: they calculated Easter differently. their tonsure (shaving of the head) and slight variations in their rite.

If a modern Christian were to be transported to Lindisfarne or York at this period he or she would find themselves in an alien land. The long services were all in Latin, with extensive periods of the liturgical chanting of the psalms. The sermons would, among other things, declaim the virtues of asceticism and the superiority of celibacy over marriage. Nearby would be a monastery where the tonsured monks lived lives of such self-denial that would make the average modern Christian shudder. On Columban's mission to the Continent it is said that he ate little more than herbs, berries and the bark of young trees.

I have noted that several Celtic communities have sprung up around the world in past thirty years, but none of them has, as far as I know, imitated the central beam of their mission thrust - the rejection of marriage and the embracing of an extreme ascetical life style, in order to be totally free to evangelise. I feel that there has been a lot of cherry picking here.

Having said all this negative stuff. I still believe that the Celtic Christians have a lot that we can aspire to and learn from. But that will be for another post.

Worship

I am going to write a page or two on the subject of Christian worship. It is a popular buzz word at the moment and number of worship CDs increases by the day. First of all I am going to look at the subject historically and finally I shall make a few comments that are very relevant to modern day church life.

The word for worship in the New Testament is proskuneo. It is used over fifty times and it means literally to bow low and kiss the hand in reverence. It obviously had a secular as well as a spiritual meaning. In the NT there is virtually no clear descriptions of what a typical service was like. But we have a few glimpses. We learn in 1Corinthians 14 that there was a surprising amount of freedom. Anyone it seemed had the the freedom to bring a tongue or a revelation or a prophecy to the assembly. There was only one proviso; that everything was to be done decently and in order. We also learn that believers were encouraged to sing and to make melodies in their hearts to the Lord (Ephesians 5:19) It all seems to have been spontaneous. All scholars agree that all worship in apostolic times was purely vocal.

There were no musical instruments. Why? Religious instrumental music was associated in the minds of believers with pagan temples.

During the following centuries the main form of music was a sort of chant using the psalms and other biblical passages. This of course developed into the Gregorian chant of the middle ages. Most modern Christians find this sort of thing totally alien.

The first instrument used was the organ, which seems to have been introduced during the time of Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century.

Music does not seem to have played an important role during the Reformation. Calvin thought it was like going back to Judaic practices. In Puritan times church music was mainly the singing of what is known as the metrical psalms. This involved putting the psalms into verse form. It was all very formal

The real breakthrough occurred in the eighteenth century. Methodism swept the country and the songs of redemption could be heard across the land. Charles Wesley was probably the finest hymn writer that the English- speaking world has ever known. His lyrics are good verse and contain solid biblical and doctrinal truths. They are still sung throughout the world.

Here are some of the most famous:

• "And Can It Be That I Should Gain?"
• "Christ the Lord Is Risen Today"
• "Christ, Whose Glory Fills the Skies"
• "Come, Thou Long-Expected Jesus"
• "Hail the Day that Sees Him Rise"
• "Hark! the Herald Angels Sing"
• "Jesus, Lover of My Soul"
• "Jesus, The Name High Over All"
• "Lo! He Comes with Clouds Descending"
• "Love Divine, All Loves Excelling"
• "O for a Thousand Tongues to Sing"

The next important event that has deeply affected Christian worship occurred after 1859, the start of the second evangelical revival.. Many thousands of ordinary uneducated man and women were swept into the church. Many could not read the standard hymns. To help the new converts, a simple refrain or chorus was attached to every verse. The words were quickly learned and the converts could sing lustily and not be embarrassed.

The next phase can be seen in the pentecostal revival that spread out during the first three decades of the past century. The meetings were held in public halls and many of the converts had no knowledge of traditional hymns. The meetings were often preceded by a lively interlude of chorus singing.

What was worship like in those days? After a period of chorus singing and one or two traditional hymns (see Redemption Hymnal for examples), a reading was given and then there was a period of open worship around the Lord's Table. The people were encouraged not to pray but to bring their offering of praise and worship in their own words to the Lord. Some of these times were very precious. Sadly this form of open worship has almost disappeared in most charismatic churches.The reason is simple. In the last thirty years the introduction of the acoustic guitar and powerful electronic amplification have completely changed the nature of Christian worship. Traditional hymns are sung less and less. and chorus singing led by a lively band has largely taken over the scene.

Band-led singing is worship in the minds of most modern Christians today. I have no problem with modern worship. Singing is part of our spiritual life. But all singing, be it hymns or choruses, is basically liturgical: it is the repeating of words written by another. Liturgy has its place but not too big a one. Some worship services have sometimes an hour and half of singing. Unless God comes down in remarkable power, I think this unscriptural and excessive.

Imagine being a father and your children never thanked you in their own words, but used only words learned elsewhere. I am making a plea that there be less chorus singing and a lot more spontaneous public worship.

Happiness

I have been reading a very interesting book on psychology called by the surprising name: 59 seconds. It is written Richard Wiseman, professor of the Public Understanding of Psychology. He looks at such subjects as happiness, relationships and decision-making from the point of view of rigorous scientific research, and not from the comments and writings of the self-help specialists that are found in so many popular magazines. For instance, this sort of positive use of the imagination is very often encouraged in order to achieve one's dreams.

"Just shut your eyes and picture yourself on a superb beach sipping cool champagne, clothed in fashionabe designer gear, surveying a message on your Blackberry that tells you of your corporate success."

This sort of advice about obtaining success and happiness has been common in the past forty years. Wiseman says that research is clear that such exercises are at best ineffective and at worst harmful. It ill prepares people for the setbacks and pains that occur in life.

Most people when asked what would increase their happiness in life usually say that a steep increase in their finances would be number one on their list. But modern research seems to back what Aristotle said in his Ethics over 2000 years ago."For assuredly he who possesses great store of riches is no nearer happiness than he who has enough for his daily needs." As Jesus said in Luke 12:15 "A man's life does not consist in the abundance of his possessions." Although extreme poverty causes misery, it seems that once the basic needs are met big increases in wealth only bring temporary increases in satisfaction. It all boils down to the coffee pot syndrome. This experiment has been done many times. Imagine going for a long walk in cold weather. You spy an inviting house. You are invited in and the smell of freshly roasted coffee assails you nostrils. You look forward to a delightful espresso or capachino. The strange thing psychologist have noted when reviewing this scenario is that within ten minutes the delicious aroma has gone and the only way of getting it back is to go outside for about ten minutes. You see, human nature is incredibly adaptable. The new car or the new house only provide a short -term boost. We quickly get used and familiar with the new. As the book says, "Yesterday's luxuries can soon become today's necessities and tomorrow's relics." It has been computed that possessions and wealth provide us with only 10% of our happiness. As our capacity for happiness is at least 50% genetically controlled, what do we have to do and believe so that the remaining 40% that lies within our control can be put to the best use? I shall answer that in my next blog.

Happiness

When I looked at the strategies recommended to increase happiness I was surprised at two things. The first was how important the pen was. Writing down one's thoughts and feelings, or journalling as it called, has definite benefits. Secondly, it was gratifying to see just how Biblical so many of the research findings are.

The first recommendation is to cultivate the gratitude attitude. Or, as one Californian university, said: Count your blessings. To use the coffee pot story again: go outside into the cold for a while and when you return you will begin to appreciate all those things you take for granted - a roof over your head, your Mum's roast dinners, friends and neighbours in the street and especially in church, and all those things that make life comfortable. But don't just think about them. Write them down - at least three of them at the end of each day

Next, try "affectionate writing". Think of a person who has been a great blessing or help to you, then write a short sincere letter to that person expressing just how you appreciate his or her actions.

"It is better to give than to receive". Many experiments have been done where groups were either instructed to spent an amount of money either on themselves or on others. Those who gave to others had higher levels of happiness that those who acted more selfishly.

Lastly, those people who believe and pray are consistent happier than those that don't. But it was noticed that those who prayed for themselves were less contented and happy than those who prayed for others.

Sometimes the researchers have noticed significant improvements in health and happiness in those who took part.

There is so much in the bible about thankfulness and praise. One word used in the NT for thankfulness, eucharisteo, is used about forty times. Ingratitude to God and to others, is totally unchristian. See Luke 17:11-19.

Our Mortality

I n some ways it's a bit morbid to think about death, but as a Christian it is something that has to be faced. As we get older our mortality begins to stare us in the face.

One of my favourite poems is Prospice by Robert Browning. I think it is a superb poem, full of exciting rhythms, meaningful images and a powerful and satisfying finale. I hope you enjoy it.

EAR death? -- to feel the fog in my throat,

The mist in my face,

When the snows begin, and the blasts denote

I am nearing the place,

The power of the night, the press of the storm,

The post of the foe;

Where he stands, the Arch Fear in a visible form,

Yet the strong man must go:

For the journey is done and the summit attained,

And the barriers fall,

Though a battle's to fight ere the guerdon be gained,

The reward of it all.

I was ever a fighter, so -- one fight more,

The best and the last!

I would hate that death bandaged my eyes, and forbore,

And bade me creep past.

No! let me taste the whole of it, fare like my peers

The heroes of old,

Bear the brunt, in a minute pay glad life's arrears

Of pain, darkness and cold.

For sudden the worst turns the best to the brave,

The black minute's at end,

And the elements' rage, the fiend-voices that rave,

Shall dwindle, shall blend,

Shall change, shall become first a peace out of pain,

Then a light, then thy breast,

O thou soul of my soul! I shall clasp thee again,

And with God be the rest!

J N Darby

In my last post I mentioned J N Darby. It is hard to describe this immensely influential man adequately. He had great force of personality, a formidable intellect and great stores of biblical and classical and linguistic knowledge and expertise. I would not hesitate to suggest that he was one of the most important persons thrown up by the turbulent history of the nineteenth century church. His influence is still felt today.

He was born in England in 1800, but did his higher education in Dublin. He became a priest in the church of Ireland and led a life of apostolic, one might say exceptional, zeal and devotion. In Lent he would fast till he was feeble and weak in body, would not eat on Wednesday and Friday and Saturday till late in the evening, and then only take a little bread. At one period he lived in a wretched hut on a hill and would wear only the most tattered clothes. His heroic labours caused the local Catholic peasants almost to view him as one of the saints of old. He won many to the Church of Ireland. But when his Archbishop stated that all converts must swear allegiance to the British Crown he resigned and left the church.

The rest of his life was spent spreading a form of what was at that time a radical version of Christianity. He was the spokesman par excellence for what is known as Brethrenism. He looked upon any form of ordained clergy as anathema. Christians were to come together in great simplicity and break bread together and look to those gifted in their midst for guidance and ministry. The assemblies this formed were to have elders, not an ordained minister. He aimed to root out all denominationalism.

His other strongly held view was as follows. He held that all the optimistic high-flown ideas of the post-millennialists, that the gospel would triumph throughout the world and that society would be gradually leavened and improved by the preaching and sacrifices of the saints, were based on a delusion. He held that the dispensation of the church had ended in failure. The Church was now in ruins. All that could be done was for the saints to wait in simplicity for the coming rapture, when the saints would be snatched away to heaven just before the Great Tribulation, when God would deal with his earthly people the Jews. Then Jesus would come a second time to set up the period of the Millennium. In many ways this was a profoundly pessimistic programme.

The other obvious characteristic of Darby was his disputatious nature. He was always convinced he was right. His most famous quarrel occurred in 1848. He was at that time leading the church in Plymouth with another able and learned brother, Benjamin Wills Newton. Newton had printed a sermon which he had published views on the human nature of Christ that offended Darby. Newton apologised, but Darby was not satisfied. He continued his feud with Newton for several years, and when several Christians from Plymouth wanted to join the Bethesda church run by George Muller, and were accepted, Darby effectively excommunicated the whole Church in Bristol and split the Brethren movement down the middle, a separation that exists to this day. The new members from Plymouth were, according to Darby, guilty by association - they were therefore implicated in the original false teaching of Newton. Therefore any church that received them were as guilty as Newton.

As a result. the Brethren movement fractured into many brands. The original design of re-uniting all the true children of God into a non-sectarian whole actually produced the opposite. The redeeming feature in all this was the emergence of the Open Brethren, those like George Muller, who rejected the exclusiveness of those who followed Darby and who have, for the past century, been in the forefront of missionary endeavour.

+

Strange Vagabond of God

I would like to write a bit about a strange man who seems to epitomise a form of Christianity that was common in the Middle Ages but is rarely seen today. John Bradburne was a sort of wandering anchorite, a man who cared nothing for those things that seem so important to most of us. He cared nothing for money, possessions or power.

He was born in 1921 into an upper- middle-class family in Skirwith in rural Cumbria, a beautiful region of England that has the English Lake District within its borders. His family was a distinguished one. Terence Rattigan, the playwright, was a cousin and another was Christopher Soames, the last governor of what was known as Rhodesia.

He had s distinguished military career in World War 11, during which he worked with Gurkhas in Burma. After the fall of Singapore he and a fellow officer sailed in a primitive sampan all the way to Sumatra. He was decorated for his bravery.

After the war he converted to Catholicism. He tried three times to enter monasteries but failed every time. He spent a lot of time wandering around Europe and the Holy Land, doing odd jobs and sleeping wherever he could find a couch for the night. He was obvious a restless seeker after God.

He realised that material things can never really satisfy the deepest longings of the human heart. He would express his deepest feelings in verse, some of it surprisingly good.

This sonnet seems to sum up his feelings.

No more, my Lord, to dream away Thy time,

Among the fading blooms of pleasure's lawn,

No more to slumber heedless of the chime

Which keeps untiring watch from dawn till dawn.

No more the quest of this world's finest views

Which can but fill the eye with fresh desire,

No more the crowding vanities and news

That keep from souls Thy Holy Spirit's fire.

No more the wanderer way, the wide unrest

And weary search for joys that will not cease;

No more, good Lord, to turn from Thy behest,

No more! We know Thy will to be our peace.

To thee we tread the road that Christ has trod,

So rest our hearts in His: Thy heart dear God.

In 1969 he found himself in Rhodesia, now Zimbabwe. He said he was seeking a cave where he could pray. A friend, Heather Benoy, suggested to him that he could be useful looking after small leper colony at Mutemwa, an area to the east of Harare. When he got there he found a scene of utter dereliction. The lepers were dirty and hungry; their sores were suppurating and primitive huts had roofs that let in the rain. John looked around and , "I'm staying." He kept his word and spent the rest of his life in selfless service to these outcasts. feeding them, washing their open sores, tending them in sickness and reading the scriptures to them.

In 1979, at the height of the insurgency against the Smith regime, he was abducted by a gang of insurgents. They took him to a secret location and tried to tempt and humiliate him. Young girls were offered him , but he simply held his peace and quietly prayed. A smaller group to him away into the bush and shot him in the head. He was found the next day clothed simply in his under pants by a rural road.

I include a part of another of his sonnets, probably his best, that seems to sum up his life.

Your heart's desire is nearest, though unseen,

Your haven of perfection close at hand;

And that drear quest was as a fevered dream;

God's love within you is your native land.

So search none other, never more depart,

For you are homeless, save God keeps your heart.

Thou art indeed just, lord, byGerard Manley Hopkins
I would like to introduce one of my favourite poems. It is based on the Latin translation of Jeremiah 12:1. It is, in my opinion, the most poignant and sad poem in our language. Hopkins manages to write in the strict sonnet form, a form that can be so artificial, and yet he is able to express his feelings and thoughts in an intensity that is almost searing in its power. Art and feeling combine to make a satisfying artistic whole.

It is the plea and cry of a desperately sincere man, who towards the end of his life, finds his life and religion so empty and disappointing. Perhaps the struggles he had with his sexuality and the rigours of his life as a Jesuit produced a suffocating legalism that almost drove his to despair. The last line contains a prayer that every Christian understands: "Mine, O Thou Lord of life, send my roots rain"
My advice is; read the poem aloud several times in order to understand the inversion and the intense brevity of his style

THOU art indeed just, Lord, if I contend

With thee; but, sir, so what I plead is just.

Why do sinners’ ways prosper? and why must

Disappointment all I endeavour end?


Wert thou my enemy, O thou my friend,
5
How wouldst thou worse, I wonder, than thou dost

Defeat, thwart me? Oh, the sots and thralls of lust

Do in spare hours more thrive than I that spend,

Sir, life upon thy cause. See, banks and brakes

Now leavèd how thick! lacèd they are again
10
With fretty chervil, look, and fresh wind shakes

Them; birds build—but not I build; no, but strain,

Time’s eunuch, and not breed one work that wakes.

Mine, O thou lord of life, send my roots rain.