

From the hillside

Bridging gulfs that keep Jesus at a distance.

John M. Hancock

From The Hillside

John. M. Hancock

Copyright 2012 by John. M. Hancock

Smashwords Edition

Published in the UK. 2012 by Dubmire Books

Revised 2013

Unless otherwise noted, all scripture quotations are from the

New Revised Standard Version of the Bible.

Extracts from Common Worship: Services and Prayers

for the Church of England © The Archbishop's Council.

To those who have challenged, inspired

and encouraged me.

Contents

Preface

Chapter One: A PERSONAL VIEW

Chapter Two: THE BEGINNING OF THE BEGINNING

Chapter Three: THE NEXT STEPS

Chapter Four: THE GOD STORY

Chapter Five: CLEARING THE GROUND

Chapter Six: TO BE CONTINUED

Chapter Seven: CHALLENGES REMAIN

Chapter Eight: FROM ANOTHER HILLSIDE

Endnotes

Preface

'To An Unknown God'

What you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. Acts 17 verse 2

I am not surprised if you are having difficulty in deciding what this book may be about. The title tells you little but then many book titles fall into that category. If you look at the first chapter, you could be forgiven for thinking that it is a tedious autobiography of someone of whom you have never even heard. Relax! This is not a book about me. In that first chapter, I pick out various elements from my own experience. In retrospect, I see issues with which I am still concerned and which constitute the burden of the book.

I will set out the different audiences who may find this offering of some interest. There are times in our lives when for some reason or another we are disturbed by questions that are vaguely spiritual, which we are not able to put into words. Sometimes very discreetly, we start to search. There seems to be a plethora of books. Which do you choose? Having made a choice, whilst very often the book may be very good, it fails to answer those tangled questions we have not been able to articulate. Something is missing. This continues very often as more books are read. The same is often true when we venture into one of the many advertised courses or events. Sometimes we are even more daring and go into a church service. For many the questions may be answered. But for many more ignorance is not bliss and the failure of all this material to meet their needs and answer their questions is frustrating. Faced by this many have decided to investigate no further. We know that in what we have found, nothing has hit the target. I know something of this frustrating search. This book comes straight out of my own experience. This is not an academic book although I do refer to my academic sources in the endnotes as this may be of help to some readers.

The numbers of those attending worship in church buildings and elsewhere has been falling steadily since the last half of the twentieth century. If you lead a small or large congregation and are seeing neither growth in numbers nor in the willingness of members to share their faith with others, this book may be for you. It comes from a personal conviction that we have expected others to join the church and become enthusiastic about what fires us and to do things our way. We were wrong. We expected them to come on our terms. We have not answered their questions nor met their needs.

You may be a regular churchgoer but one of the many who has questions you never dared to ask or were never encouraged or even given an opportunity to ask. Some of those questions may have been pushed into the background and even become lost in the fog of church activity and other pressures. But you cannot talk to others about Jesus while you feel in the dark, often irritated with church, and aware of so many problems and unanswered questions. I know something of that.

And finally! You may be hanging in there hoping for the day when others will join you in your love and enthusiasm for Jesus and his way. The Church as an institution sometimes seems seriously out of touch and even unwilling to move fast enough to keep abreast of the people who are just plain ordinary and many of whom are your friends and neighbours. Your church seems to have no overall strategy or any enthusiasm to consider the need for such. My concern (in chapter six) is to offer ways to enable people find genuine faith.

I thank my friends and family who have encouraged me. Especially my son Andrew who at the beginning urged me on step by step when I was living at the time with him in May Hill. His wife, Jackie, made me realise how some people hear the words from the New Testament and church services in different ways. Emily, my granddaughter corrected some of my grammar and spelling and asked questions where I was obscure. Others have read the text and made valuable suggestions and in particular, Judith Lees, churchwarden at the time of St Barnabas, Burnmoor in the Durham Diocese, sorted out my punctuation and asked penetrating questions which I have attempted to address.

In the text, I express my gratitude to my teachers at university. More recently, I have learnt from Bishop Tom Wright through his preaching and writings. I acknowledge how much he has influenced much of what I have written. I thank him for all that. It is good to be able to go on learning and adjusting in the light of new discoveries aided by others who are more gifted and able.

I am puzzled that so few people have read the books from Tom Wright and Ian Ramsey. At present, there is little sign that their writings have had much impact on the liturgy, teaching and preaching in the Church of England. I dare to hope that in some small way this book might draw attention to the much more profound, scholarly and exciting contributions of others.

John M. Hancock.........Candlemas 2012

9 Railway Cottages. Houghton le Spring

Chapter One

A Personal View.

I sat on May Hill in Gloucestershire, a prominent landmark – a sight that says you are nearly home. The sky blue, the sun gently warm and the views stunning.

When I was younger, I had climbed many hills and mountains in the Lake District. At Durham School, I had climbed the steps of Chapel Hill and looked over the school buildings, the playing fields, and further beyond to the cathedral, castle and the city. On this May Hill-side, it was different. My life had been busy and time for reflection usually focussed on the immediate past or future. There was always some issue that needed to be thought through. Now after I had retired I had space to reflect more leisurely and the perfect surroundings in which to think and pray. From this hillside I saw the sunrise and set. I saw winter give way to spring and through to autumn. Opposite there was a large, elegant and impressive house surrounded by trees. From where I sat, it had seemed that there was no road to it or any driveway. It was weeks later that I would realise that there was a bridle path and road behind the house when I saw my granddaughter riding along the path. Most significant was whilst I thought the house itself seemed relatively near, in fact I was to discover that I was well and truly separated from it by the steep sides of a heavily wooded-valley.

As I reflected on that, I realised that in my own life there had been things, unrecognised at the time, that had separated me from Jesus. More significantly, and the trigger for writing this book, I realised that what was true for me may well be true for many others. The way in which the local congregation is organised around worship in a church building gives no space for the different and varied backgrounds of people to be recognised, understood and provided for. It is assumed that one size will fit everyone.

My personal story of how I came to this understanding may not be of any interest to some readers. It is after all a story from a privileged past that will be foreign and irrelevant to many who are not of my generation. If I give you a brief summary of the relevant issues, you may prefer to omit this detail and turn directly to chapter two.

I was born and brought up in a vicarage and educated in a private preparatory school and then sent to an all boys boarding public school during the nineteen fifties. I did not appreciate how this separated me from other boys of my age.

At school and college, as well as at home, I hid behind hard work to maintain a convincing outward appearance - a confident and competent operator. I was in reality very insecure and ignorant of life. I appeared to be religious but the cloak of religion I wore was very different from what I came to see in the New Testament of the relationship I could enjoy with God through Jesus. This gulf began to dawn on me when a friend in my first term at university asked me 'Are you a Christian?' As Christians, we often fail to recognise what may lie under the surface of many people. This should require, rather demand, that we treat them as individuals rather than as potential pew fodder. Then we have to see that often the language and music of most church worship fails to get through to most people. It did not help me to encounter Jesus. The same is still the case. I was one in a large congregation. No-one knew me, other than as the vicar's son. It was assumed that I was a Christian. Along with everyone else, it was assumed that I had sound foundations for faith and knew far more than I did. Christian leaders fail to realise that most people do not have the tools by which they can show others that Jesus lived, and that his words in the gospels have been reliably recorded.

This should give you enough background if you wish to turn to the next chapter.

My early years were spent living in a large distinctive vicarage house. Clergy and their families were often separated from the population by life style and schooling. I was protected from seeing the ordinary. Newspapers were carefully edited. I did not stray beyond the vicarage garden walls. I was oblivious of the housing conditions in which many of my peers lived. 'Slums' was just a word: the reality did not dawn on me for a very long time. The worship and life of the 'church' was comfortable for those with middle class backgrounds. Yet what was needed was not comfort but challenge and a context in which we were recognised as individuals with distinct needs and different backgrounds. It was assumed we were all the same and that those who recognised that they did not fit, would either 'improve' or simply accept that much in worship and church life would be foreign to them.

I gazed over towards that house again. So near and yet ...

At college, I realised that my very protected childhood in an Anglican vicarage and life in an all boy's boarding school had not prepared me for normal life. It could have been different. When aged seven, we moved to (West) Hartlepool, I left the private school to which I had been sent in Gateshead and went to the local Elementary school. I just did not fit in. This was not the world to which I was accustomed. I tried very hard to win the friendship of other boys, just as at home I thought I had to earn the love of my parents. (But that was the 1950's) Childhood experiences made me unsure of myself. Academically I was not making the grade and would certainly have failed the eleven plus exams. I was taken away and sent to a private preparatory school; back into the privileged and separate world I had always known and away from the 'ordinary boys' I had encountered briefly for the first time in my life. The gulf widened when at 13 years old I entered Durham School as a full time boarder for six years. The next step was into St. John's College in Durham University. It was here that I began to see something of the gulf separating me from many other people. It was obvious as I mixed with others of my own age but from different backgrounds.

After I had gained my degree at Durham, I went to Oxford. There in my first year I accepted a challenge and volunteered with a group of other students to go regularly to a youth club for those in the Cowley works area. You can picture a postgraduate student standing there amongst older teenagers and others in their twenties, after shift work in the factory, trying to make sense of Jesus to them, whilst darts were thrown narrowly missing my ears and feet. The shock drove me, when on holiday, to spend many evenings in what was then a transport café on the green in Sedgefield (where my father was the rector) used by bikers in their leathers and by other young people. I organised gatherings of Sedgefield youth in the very large Rectory garden with music from speakers slung from bedroom windows, a Christian speaker and refreshments served by my long suffering mother from the kitchen.

It was not only the youths of Oxford and Sedgefield who were in a different world from me. In my first job, as the curate, I was expected to go into the youth club and the loud Saturday evening dance. It was not my scene at all but I saw clearly how so many of the young people around me lived and relaxed. I wanted to bridge the gap and find ways of introducing Jesus to them. In my first parish, I began a youth work for the older teenagers in the cellars under the church building when youth clubs were still in fashion. It was very successful as far as they were concerned. This led me into a big involvement in education in the borough and, in my second parish, into two schools – one primary, one comprehensive.

The gulf that separated me from young people did not stop with them. In the first two parishes in which I worked, I visited every house at least twice. Here I had evidence in abundance that what was normal for those whom I visited was not normal for me. There were so many differences in culture, language and every day living. I was in a different world. Neither I, nor I thought the institutional church, were equipped to bridge the gap. At least I saw that there was a real gulf and that it should be bridged but not in order so that those, the majority of our population, could be dragged across into 'church'.

Back in college, I began to recognise personal gulfs.

Caught up in the very early, exciting and at the same time frightening days of university, I was confronted by a question; Are you a Christian? Sorry, what did you say? My questioner was not a stranger. He was not some weirdo. He was very normal. We played rugby together and I regarded him as a friend. Are you a Christian? My stunned silence did no more than produce a probing repetition of the same question. I had been at a Church of England public school; chapel every morning, house prayers every evening and monthly attendance at the Cathedral evensong. I had grown up in a vicarage, 'taken to church' every Sunday. My father was a respected Anglican clergyman. After taking O Levels I had gone forward for ordination selection and been accepted. Whilst I somehow satisfied the selectors of my suitability for ordination, I was not at all clear in my own mind of what it was that was stirring me. This was very different from my father's experience. He had left school at 14 and gone to work in his father's car bodybuilding factory in Coventry. He became convinced that he should be in full time Christian ministry, so he went to Night School and then having gained the required educational qualifications went to the ordination selection panel. He was refused four times - his was not a public school background! After hard work and great persistence, he was eventually accepted for ordination, gained a place in Durham University, succeeded in his degree and diploma and was ordained.At both school and work, my dad had been in touch with his peers. Once he was ordained, my parents he moved north and left much of their past behind. It seemed to me that they thought they had moved to a different level.

As the shock of the repeated question wore off, I dared a response - Of course, I am! I believe in God. I've been baptised, confirmed, and gone to church for as long as I can remember. I'm an ordinand. My friend did no more than comment that Jews, Muslims, and many other faiths believe in God and questioned whether attending church did much more than make someone a churchgoer. That was the end of that conversation but it had challenged my assumptions.

Free for the first time from the restrictions of vicarage life, questioning thinking was a new and disturbing departure that provoked many heated discussions at home in the holidays. Previously, when it came to religious issues, I was expected to accept without question what I was told. To do otherwise left me feeling as though I had committed a mighty sin. But when a dangerous driver, mounting the pavement, killed my only godson and I was 'comforted' with 'God takes the best flowers first' and 'all these things are sent to try us', I became much less sure about God. My misgivings only increased when some tried to reassure me of God's existence by pointing to the beautiful sunset or by suggesting that this world could not have happened by accident. I pointed to earthquakes, floods and the death and destruction left in their wake. My turmoil was not resolved by church attendance either. Rather I now began to see the institution with which I was so familiar, in a different light.

Attending a Christmas midnight communion after my first university term, I noticed the faces of those around me singing the carols. They did not look happy with God or with anyone else. Again, it was the same when they returned from taking communion on this of all nights. It was not a good advert for God. Later, I dared to comment to my parents that when people were singing they looked as if they were anticipating a visit to the dentist and when they came back from communion, they looked as though they had been to the dentist. You can imagine how this was dismissed as the rebellion of a first year Durham university student.

Yes, perhaps I was no more than a churchgoer and now I seriously doubted whether the God I went to worship existed or if he did whether he deserved such worship. Once I asked after a service 'what was that all about?' I had to explain what I meant: 'well the strange words, the ancient English and the sermon – would you summarise it for me please in ordinary words?' 'No, that was not why you went to church - just accept what happens! Don't worry about it.' I was given no explanations, nor room to discuss. Yes, I was a student (though different from the image that conjures up today!) but I wondered what response others, not from a vicarage background, would receive.

What I did not realise was that when I went to church, like everyone else, I was just another 'pool ball'! Our best Sunday outfits seemed in part designed to achieve this. The congregations were relatively large but no one had more than a superficial contact with others. It was as if we were pool balls bumping into each other and then disappearing off home till the next time. People were well accustomed to this and comfortable with it. There was no alternative for comparison. The need for the church to be structured in a way that allowed people to become more involved with each other, if they so chose, was not recognised. The result however of the 'pool ball' effect was that, for those who wanted or needed to belong, the church failed them. For others for whom the Christian community might have offered a place of safety that allowed them to come out from behind their masks, there was nothing. I was numbered amongst those, even though at the time I failed to recognise the issues.

Back at college, I stopped going to church. I didn't miss the boredom or the sermons that were full of words but meant nothing. I remained an ordained. My degree course was made up of four modules, chosen on the basis of those subjects for which I had won school prizes. One of them, Religious Knowledge, was not a favourite subject at all. But now I wanted to use it as one of the modules so I could prove that scripture was unreliable, full of contradictions and a composition by Christians to suit themselves, freely embellishing what facts there were. Part of the Religious Knowledge module was the study of Mark's gospel in Greek. It was the first time I had read any part of the Bible properly. The only Bible reading I had ever done was from the King James Version on a Saturday morning at home when aged nine, I was forced to read it aloud at family prayers. It was a dreadful experience.

It was in the first week of that first Christmas holiday that it hit me: if I did not pass those first year exams I would be thrown out of college. Languages had never been a strong point for me even though I had done classics at school. I knew I had to get to grips with Mark's gospel. It was not easy and time was short. Even Christmas Day afternoon (only hours after that awful Midnight communion service) was spent in a cold bedroom with commentaries and the Greek text of Mark. In the following term, I realised that I was becoming increasingly captivated and enthralled by my study. This growing enthusiasm was in no doubt due to the lectures on the Greek text of Mark from C.E.B. Cranfield as well as lectures from Prof. H.E.W.Turner, G. Henton Davies and Prof. C.K.Barrett, and the patience of my tutor, Prof. D.R.Jones. I see now that I owe to each one, a very great debt of gratitude. In different ways they helped me to see and hear more of the Word and stimulated a hunger in me that remains to this day. By the end of my first year, my view of the reliability of the text of scripture had to be revised. I was in a hurry to find out more. There were two consequences of all this. One was a scholarship and a place in Honours Theology in Durham University. The other - I had to realise that there was a solid basis underlying the Christian faith. I had examined the evidence for the existence of Jesus and then had gone into great detail looking at the reliability of the documents behind the Bible. Without that enquiry, I would have gone in an entirely different direction: certainly not ordination! But I saw that what I had been able to do was not possible for everyone. I had been extremely blessed. Somehow, the discoveries I had made, needed to be shared with Christians and non-Christians alike. The church could not continue with the notion that people just believed whatever they were told in Sunday School or from the pulpit or by parents.

It was before the end of my first summer term and after the exams that my original decision to seek ordination was also in some way confirmed for me. One Sunday evening I had gone walking. I was passing a normal traditional Anglican church. I went in. Evensong was just about to begin. The service was as I expected boring and dull. But it was Trinity Sunday. Canon Jack Norwood, the rector, preached. I have not forgotten that sermon. He preached on Isaiah chapter 6 drawing comparisons between Isaiah's experience and that of the Christian. He then pointed out that it was important to read further than the usual first eight verses of chapter 6. Isaiah's response to God's question – Who will go for us? is followed by God giving him a hugely difficult and painful task. Isaiah 6: 9ff. I realised that I would not find the ordained ministry an easy ride. For some reason that sermon left me in no doubt as far as ordination was concerned. I was privileged because I had gone into that service with a Christian background and some understanding. Not everyone has that advantage.

My enthusiasm for theology – but not church attendance - knew no bounds on the Honours Theology course but I did not make enough time to master Hebrew. Failure to pass that paper meant I could not continue in Honours Theology. I was devastated. After just one year, I was returned to my original course but continued with my theology reading alongside the course work. But then, very soon after I had learnt of my failure on the Durham Honours course, I was offered a place at Oxford to read Theology as a postgraduate when my time at Durham finished. When I entered Hertford College, I realised that I had been given an incredible opportunity. At Oxford, as at Durham, I was able to soak up teaching from brilliant people. They challenged me in so many different ways and gave me a thirst for a deeper understanding of scripture and theology. Two of them would become my Bishop, one shortly after the start of my ministry - Ian T. Ramsey and the other, later on, David E. Jenkins (my tutor when he was on the staff of Queen's College, Oxford) who appointed me as an honorary canon of the cathedral. Having been successful academically at Oxford, I returned to Durham to complete my ordination training and the theology Diploma (at Cranmer Hall, St John's). That now involved very few papers and left me even more time to extend my reading.

I had answered many of my theological and academic questions around the Christian faith. At the same time I came to recognise that intellectual assent alone did not go far enough. The evidence of the New Testament was that people made personal and costly decisions to give their allegiance to Jesus. This was my next step but as I did, I asked Jesus to sort me out. That was to take a long time, partly because I failed to cooperate with him and was afraid to deal with many of the issues. There was a big difference between my outward appearance and the reality. I knew what I was doing. I concealed a large part of me from everyone by hours of work, a serious exterior, and a narrow severe theology. In fact I was unsure of who I really was, afraid of my emotions and without the experience of life that most others of my age had. The fact that I had missed National Service did not help, for there I would have had a very serious awakening. At college whilst I was absorbed by my studies and enjoyed them, I did very little besides. I used my work as an escape, a way of avoiding coming to terms with myself. Slowly I had to realise that I was so wrong. Courtship in the twelve months prior to ordination, marriage, and the birth of our first child only served to bring home to me the depth of the gulf within myself.

I threw myself into my responsibilities as the curate and then in charge of the vacancy when my vicar left the parish only two months after I had been priested in 1965. In the following year, I was asked to speak at the post ordination training residential course for curates about youth work. I questioned whether it was appropriate in every instance for the curate to be sent immediately into the youth work regardless of his particular gifts and experience. The thinking was that the curate was closer to the young people than the vicar. I asked whether in fact most curates with public school and university backgrounds were nearer to the young people. I talked about my experiences at Oxford and the way I had become aware of the need to use appropriate language in which to really communicate with those young people.

Youth clubs were very large and included young people well into their late teens. Many church people regarded them as a source of 'pew fodder'. I knew from colleagues that in their youth work they were judged solely on the basis of the number of youth who attended evensong. Many 'church people' insisted that attendance at church services was a requirement for membership of the youth club. In my parish church, we used the same services when young people were present under duress as we did for everyone else who had been brought up on the diet of 1662 services and language.

During the break for lunch, to my horror, I discovered that my bishop, Ian Ramsey, had been present at my session. Memories of Oxford flooded back! I was surprised he was there and even more so when he launched into conversation with me, comparing his education with mine. He had gone to the local grammar school. We talked of my experience in the Cowley Works that he knew well. He asked about the language I was using in talking to those young people. He called me John. This was normal for him and all his clergy were addressed similarly. Previously bishops, as did teachers at school, used only our surnames. The clergy began to refer to him as Bishop Ian – something previously unheard of and abhorrent to my father. Like many others, I quickly came to realise that he would engage in real conversation with people no matter who they were or where they came from. I had served as a curate in this one parish for three years. The normal pattern for curates at that time was to serve for another two or three years in a different parish before perhaps moving into a parish as incumbent. I was stunned when only a few months after this encounter with the Bishop, he offered me the challenge as vicar of a large parish, Hebburn St John. I accepted eagerly and moved there with my wife and two year old son in December 1968. It was not a popular appointment. Bishop Ramsey was accused by some of favouritism (At Oxford I attended his lectures. But I was one of many.) He was accused of nepotism (because my father was a senior clergyman in the diocese.) It was a depressing discovery that even very senior clergy could make such accusations against their bishop without having the facts it disturbed me.

The early death of Bishop Ian in 1972 at the age of 57 took from all of us who knew him and from others who would have grown from his friendship and under his leadership, a man of exceptional brilliance and great humility. He not only spoke clearly from a great depth of learning, but also communicated so easily and clearly with people of all ages, levels and from many disciplines and backgrounds. He excited and encouraged me. When he visited the parish, we put a box in the pulpit on which to stand so that he could be seen. He was our 'diddy bishop'. Although many people did not fully grasp what he was saying, he has left us an immensely valuable legacy.

Now in the new parish along with my academic work, there was much to do. The church building and congregation had to be brought kicking and screaming into the second half of the twentieth century. Real contact needed to be made with the population who had not been visited by the vicar or the church for very many years. My predecessor as vicar had been in post over thirty years and was in his eighties when he retired. As I had in my curacy parish, I completed two visits to every house in the parish. Often people thought that I was looking for more pew fodder. It was news to them that this was not my objective. I suggested to them that the local church worship could be a place where faith came alive for them and that when this really happened for people, the church would become effective in the community. But first I warned them that we had to clean the building, make repairs and significantly upgrade the heating and lighting. And there was no money! I was not keen for them to come and experience the state of the building as it was, nor the language of the services nor the attitudes of the few in the congregation. Increasingly many people were out at work, so evening visiting was essential. All the visiting records were transferred to a card index system. Once I had moved on, neither of my parishes parish maintained the records. (No computers then!) Visiting by the clergy was expected, if not demanded. My father had worked in this way and in much that I did, I followed his pattern. In the course of the visiting, there were some important pastoral contacts but the numbers attending worship did not grow significantly. The church members were not pleased. What mattered to them was that I should get people into the church pews. I knew this was not the way of Jesus or the early church and that a more appropriate contextualised and biblical pattern was needed. No one questioned the strategy or challenged me to think about my methods. No one asked questions about my work-life balance. The long hours I worked left little or no time for my wife and family. I gave the appearance of being able to handle 'things' just fine. The truth was that I was struggling with insecurity and uncertainties that I had begun to recognise at university. The impressive work output continued the way I had been in the later years at school and then at university. Those who could have made some input were content that the boat was not being rocked and that all seemed well.

The gulf between the way I appeared and the inner reality remained. The process of resolving the issues was a long and sometimes very painful one. As I tried to do something about it, I made some very seriously bad choices over several years that impacted on relationships, home, family and my work. I hardly knew what to do. Pride and embarrassment were there in plenty. All the time I was absorbed in the work and found every excuse to go on as usual. I tried to tackle the issues myself and that was disastrous. My rare attempts to share with someone else were met with incredulity. I seemed so competent in so many ways and appeared completely confident. Those, with whom I made initial attempts to introduce the other side of the picture, either did not believe me or did not feel able to help. It took a long time before I was able to resolve the personal issues. By then it was too late to have any benefit for relationships or allow me to feel confident in moving on in ministry. On the other hand, my narrow and severe theological position had been modified very much earlier in my ministry partly because of the progress in the evangelical world post 1967 and the developments in the Church of England. But above all, I was influenced by reading Ian Ramsey's On Being Sure In Religion.

My growing self-awareness helped me realise the obvious: that people are complex and what is seen of a person is far from the whole story. It was not simply a matter of convincing others of the truth of the gospel. There are other factors that to some extent, may affect the way a person responds. I recall my shock and horror when someone who had become Christian, suddenly became an atheist. His acceptance of the Christian faith and his rejection of it were both the result of other personal issues. Our failure to appreciate the inner gulfs that bedevil some people, makes our discussion or argument with them so wide of the mark and makes us look insensitive and ignorant. Sometimes it only serves to aggravate their tensions and either drives them into angry rejection or a blind acceptance that comes from neither heart nor mind when they could have been led into a healing encounter with Jesus. He encountered people as individuals as well as talking to the multitudes. Perhaps the organised church has missed out on the need for more person-to-person contact that listens to and draws out the more personal issues as they are shared and confidence grows in a group of trusted friends. Instead, there has been a concentration on public worship, meetings and on the clergy as the sole point of spiritual and pastoral contact for people.

I began to recognise another gulf in worship and discussions at college and at home. I realised that the language with which I had been very familiar, with which I had been brought up, was one of the obstacles that had kept me from understanding and encountering Jesus. (I recall one Sunday tea time prior to evensong, my father suddenly announced: "Dearly beloved brethren, is it not a sin to peel the best potatoes and throw away the skin? I may as well say that tonight: no one would notice! Even he had misgivings about the language used in worship.) It dawned on me that if that was my experience in spite of my privileged background and lifelong closeness to the church, what was it going to be like for others without my advantages and living in a world so different from mine? I was determined that it should not be allowed to be a block preventing them from encountering Jesus. With the words went a manner of delivery and a voice that kept the audience at a safe distance. I went to great lengths to remove these blocks. I did not always succeed and sometimes I met a brick wall from those who felt safer with the status quo. Throughout my ministry, the gap between the churchgoer and everyone else was a constant issue, and the source of inner and often external conflict. This was never more obvious than when I conducted baptism, funeral, or wedding services that I hoped would make sense to the captive and sometimes embarrassed and puzzled audience. Church people in the congregation complained. One archdeacon actually suggested that I was employing 'a high risk strategy'. I was being dragged in opposite directions as I tried to reach all comers.

I encountered the same issues when I struggled with the language of the Prayer Book and the hymns (more ancient than modern) as well as with the way people spoke when in religious mode. I wanted to use ordinary clear language in the Christian context, in and out of worship. Particularly in the early days of ministry, that took me down paths that were not lawful in the Church of England.

Then slowly improvements were made. New hymns emerged and alternatives to the Elizabethan language of the services were approved. But the changes did not go far enough, partly because a balance had to be maintained with those who were happy with the way things had always been and who in many cases were the main source of income for the church and were not to be alienated.

The problem with language was not limited to those on the outside of the church as though all was well with those who sat in the pews. There was another gulf becoming increasingly and irritatingly obvious to me. There was, and very often still is, a gulf of understanding between the very people who sit in the pews and the clergy (or some of them). The congregation say or sing words that they do not understand or worse, they use the same words as used by clergy but with a meaning very different from that understood by the clergy. This was also true of other components of a service. Much of what the clergy said, did and wore were a cherished part of the service but had lost their meaning and significance for many people. They had very often been around on the Christian scene from the days when congregations were much larger, when finance was not the major problem as it is has become, and when liturgy and music remained virtually unchanged. They were part of a church that had not changed whilst their own world and that around them was constantly changing. They were now part of something that to some extent they did not understand and which therefore they were unable to explain to partners or teenagers or children. But the unchanging church was a comfort to them when so much else was changing.

I should have been the archetypal Durham Diocesan clergyman. Born, brought up, and for the most part educated in the diocese  he son of a canon of the cathedral, I should have been comfortable with the language and with everything about the church in which I had grown up. But it was from within this privileged position that I could also see that there were other ordinary things that contributed to the gulf between most people and the church. I have already mentioned the distinctive house that made for separation from the population. I was nearly out of my teens when I dared to take the Diocesan Calendar and on ordinance survey maps pasted together to show the whole diocese, I showed how parishes of less than 7000 population could be grouped together as one unit. The map and paperwork mysteriously disappeared before the evidence reached others prior to my ordination! Nevertheless, many working people thought that some clergy had a very cushy number in small parishes whilst others struggled in large and difficult situations. Many years later, I tried, as chairman of the Diocesan Parsonages Committee, (having been encouraged by Bishop Ian Ramsey's all too brief foray into this area some years previously) to do something to reduce the size, grandeur, number and costs of vicarages. I was only able to effect very modest changes in the face of resistance from those who either did not realise, or if they did, care that their housing contributed to the failure of the church to connect with people living in very different housing, quite apart from the practical issues and financial implications for the church and the clergy. Then, soon after I began work in my first parish, I took on the 'small matter' of fees that were charged for weddings and funerals, which appeared to those paying them to clergy to be extra pocket money although they were intended to be part of their basic pay in the following year. This system would not have been tolerated in any other business. I knew that people did not understand the system but that even without knowing the details they felt that it placed the clergy and the church in a different world from theirs. I presented to a large meeting of clergy (the Jarrow Chapter) a scheme to achieve some transparency so that it would be clear that the money was actually part of basic pay, deductable from the stipend (salary) paid in the subsequent year. I shall not forget how my proposal was received!

However minor these issues may appear to be, they made it more difficult for people inside and outside of the church to find a living faith. These particular issues are more recently being faced and some action taken. But it may take longer for the impressions and perceptions previously created, to be corrected. But there is more!

I may already be guilty, in what I have written by references to the influence on me of university teachers, of giving an impression or reinforcing a perception already well fixed in the mind of my reader. The next chapters will only confirm your worst fears unless I make an effort to correct it. The problem is this. Many clergy have left people feeling that unless they had A levels and an academic background, sermons would go over their heads and they would have to accept that they had no chance of really understanding. The less you understood, the more intelligent and clever you thought the clergyman to be. I have heard that said very frequently. The language of the worship and hymns reinforced this. Much of what they said and sang they did not understand. Some might try to give the impression that they understood and would then become very defensive if they were questioned. So many sermons and talks have been given without any consideration of the intended hearers and no attempt has been made to 'translate' the language of worship. Alongside this was the implication that to be a Christian you had either to be academic or willing to 'just believe' what you were told. Not only that but a look around the congregation also suggested that perhaps Christianity was only for a particular type of person.

A moments quiet reflection and thought will be enough to reassure you that this cannot be the case and is not true. Remember the first disciples and the picture of the early church. 'Not many wise were chosen...' (1 Corinthians 1 verse 26) No one needs a theological education at university or a particular social background, in order to become a Christian.

But none of this means that anyone should be left without the opportunity to understand whatever is appropriate for him or her. Christians must be sure, today especially, of the solid ground on which they can declare their allegiance to Jesus and that it is not a matter of simply taking a deep gulp and nodding in token agreement. There is much they can understand and enjoy. It is not right to expect anyone to get this understanding from a sermon. This is not the purpose of sermons. But it is possible to make exciting discoveries as you meet together in someone's home and talk together with those who could guide you.

I have a wish that in what follows many of you will find help as you take up the challenge of leading your friends into whatever way you are led.

Chapter Two

The Beginning of the Beginning.

How do we find faith? When my friend asked his question, you may have thought that this was the beginning of the journey that led me to a real faith. But beginnings are often complex and not appreciated as such at the time. Everyone has a journey and no two are identical. More must be done to make it possible for people to make a beginning. There are many problems that have to be recognised and then overcome. Church needs to the people where help to begin a journey is offered, obstacles removed and individual situations shared. In the emphasis on the congregation and other meetings, this is often not possible.

When that particular question was put to me, I had a background, more appreciated now than it was then. There was my clergy home with parents who had come from different backgrounds and now thought they should leave everyone from their past behind. (I discovered many 'new' relatives when I put the family history together.) There were grandparents who lived many miles away in Kenilworth. Closer to home there were Sunday school teachers, school teachers and others who influenced me. As I grew up there were other experiences that made an impression. I remember very clearly visits of clergy from overseas and some sermons from my father. Schooling was not a wonderful experience, but it certainly contributed to my development and view of myself.

When I started on my degree at Durham, this seemed to be no more than the inevitable next step. I did not expect the words of scripture or the words of my lecturers to do more than equip me for the exams. Certainly, I had no expectation when I wandered into Evensong on that Trinity Sunday that something would click for me. Nor did I anticipate that my failure in Theology at Durham would nevertheless confirm the confidence of my professor and teachers sufficiently to gain me a place at Oxford. There I attended the lectures of Ian Ramsey, then Nolloth professor. At the time, I did not grasp everything he said but I have been amazed how far his teaching has influenced my understandings. Several of his lectures were devoted to disclosure contexts and moments. I was first consciously aware of this as I listened to Jack Norwood's sermon: it was a disclosure moment and a significant next step in my journey of faith.

Some of my language, and in particular my use of that word 'disclosure', reveals the impact Ian Ramsey has had on my understanding and preaching. It was with the use of language and words, amongst other areas, that he was concerned. Although in his lectures he did not describe disclosures as the beginning of beginnings, this is in fact what they are for some people. Ian Ramseywas concerned to root theological talk in contemporary empiricism which he described as a label for a particular philosophical approach which asserted that knowledge only comes from sensory experience. He was concerned for meaning and language so that there could be real understanding when we speak to others from any background about Christian faith. Some writing and teaching of contemporary empiricism seemed to many to threaten Christian 'talk'. But Ramsey from his deep understanding, understood how by describing ordinary experiences, people might suddenly 'see' what was being explained. This provided a perfect entry into understanding how for someone Jesus could suddenly click for them. Using language drawn from experience meant that religious assertions had some kind of empirical grounding so that the language of faith was meaningful within the context of probability. He concludes that this approach is 'both intellectually honest and devotionally helpful.'

Bishop Ramsey gives us numerous down to earth descriptions of ordinary events to illustrate what he means by disclosure. At the same time, he insists that disclosures are very different from hallucinations and dreams. These illustrations are invaluable for their simple clarity. Some disclosures whilst fitting with life, can sometimes be described as spiritual and be recognised as the work of the Holy Spirit. But when this does happen, Ramsey insists that such disclosures must still fit with the world around us. Disclosure however is not the same as proof. That does not make faith unreasonable. What we have is probability. This is also true of many situations of every day life where we accept probability. There is no conclusive evidence – only probability. 'Probability is the very guide of life' wrote Bishop Joseph Butler one of Ian's brilliant predecessors as Bishop of Durham (1750-1752) to whom he recognised his debt. By this, he does not mean that we have nothing but doubt and uncertainty, but he does mean that in practical matters a person will often act against the odds, and when that happens it is not necessarily unreasonable. He gives simple illustrations of this from his reading of Bishop Butler. It is true of a response to disclosure: such a response is not unreasonable but rather it pushes at the boundaries. This leads into mystery. Mystery is not where in frustration at failure to understand, we 'cop out' and call it mystery. Reflection will show that many people experience mystery. It is not unknown in ordinary life.

Children in learning can experience mystery – perhaps by looking at the world of nature or delving into the joys of science. When they are told that God is very big, that God is bigger than they are, bigger than anything they have ever seen and even bigger than big and bigger still, some struggle to take it in, others come to the verge of mystery. This can take place in a discussion in response to the challenge 'Who made God then?' On one memorable occasion, I remember talking about God to primary school year six pupils in an act of collective worship. One boy exclaimed 'I get it'. The penny dropped, the ice broke, the light dawned, and something had clicked for hm. These are all phrases Ian Ramsey uses to describe what he calls 'disclosures'. But the boy who 'got it' did not grasp God, but in what he had heard, he had come to experience something of mystery. Bigger than bigger etc. brought him to a disclosure. That pointed to mystery but it did not explain God. For that eleven year old saw what mattered to him. (At least in talking with him later that is the way it seemed to be.) Mystery is fundamental to life. So much is mystery: we experience something that we know we cannot explain simply. Love, appreciation of a piece of music or a work of art or a particular scene, a sunset or the night sky and many more point us to mystery. Above all, I discover mystery when I reflect on "I". I may think that I know 'I', me, better than anyone else. But then who am 'I'? As I look more deeply I 'see' that in reality I do not fully know 'I'. There is more to me than the sum of all my thoughts, words, actions and so on. There is more to me than the sum of my best friend's knowledge of me. I am a mystery. I have to acknowledge that there is something more, a mystery. The word 'I' is elusive. I remain real and in part I can grasp something of me but I know that there is more that completes 'I' and that is mystery. If I understand that as far as I am concerned, it is less difficult to realise how true it may be when we are thinking of God.

For there to be a disclosure, there must be an appropriate context as well as the use of models drawn from current everyday experience. This need for the right context and model is particularly important if there is to be disclosure in teaching and in public worship. If the teaching is boring or the worship dreary, remote and dull, then the possibility for disclosure is compromised.

This understanding of the possibilities for disclosure drove Bishop Ian to take very seriously his opportunities to work in ethics, especially medical ethics, in broadcasting and particularly in education as well as his involvement with the miners in County Durham. As he grasped these different areas, he was able to select suitable models which gave him a bridge into 'Christian talk'. At the same time, he wanted to create the best context in which people from every walk of life could encounter disclosure. For him it was vital that we try to clear the ground as much as possible by clear thinking and expression so that disclosure can occur. He recognised that the way in which Christianity was taught in schools to young people at a very formative stage in their lives was important. For a similar reason the language used in worship was important so that the right context and models were provided that could lead to disclosure. This failure has contributed to the beginning of the beginning for many people not being as helpful as it could have been.

For many people the beginning of the beginning is such a disclosure rather than any argument. A clear illustration of this is Peter's sermon in Acts 2: 32-3. The listeners we are told were 'cut to the heart'. These words were foolishness to the Greeks and a stumbling block to the Jews. But they evoked disclosure. This disclosure was followed by commitment – three thousand were baptised. (Ian Ramsey speaks of disclosure commitment) Then we read that they spent time together both in the Temple and in each other's homes (Acts 2:42,46). Ramsey recognises different levels of commitment. We can commit to a past time, a ship, to a person, even to mathematical axioms but he says Christian commitment goes further and combines all these. For some, and I was one, the total commitment of which Bishop Ramsey speaks, develops only slowly step by step as the imperative of the disclosure dawns more clearly.

In the past Christian families often provided the context in which such moments of disclosure could happen. Our family and parents, church, school and friends shape our early years. Today fewer people attend places of Christian worship. 6% is often quoted but this figure is drastically lower in some areas. The teaching of Christianity in school is often inadequate. Little attention was given to Bishop Ramsey's contribution. In some instances, Christian ministers do have contact particularly with Primary school children, but some do not relate well with children and are not able to communicate at their level. Even when this is not the case and the contact with church is a good one and children have a good experience, this is often confusingly contradicted by a child's experience of a Sunday service, by their contact with other churchgoers or more often and more profoundly, by the attitude of their parents. The contexts for disclosure at home or school are fewer than for earlier generations.

A further confusion is caused for some by what is called 'folk religion'. Bishop John Hapgood (who followed Ramsey at Durham 1973-1983) wanted clergy to take this seriously in their ministry. Folk Religion has been defined as "the totality of all those views and practices of religion that exist among the people apart from and alongside the strictly theological and liturgical forms of the official religion" The confusion arises simply because many do not know what is folk and what is not! For many, Christianity is best described as folk religion. There is much confusion of the two, particularly around weddings, funerals, and baptisms (christenings). The confusion is compounded by misunderstanding, and results so often in conflict between people and the clergy, causing further obstacles to disclosure and real faith. When Christian neighbours and friends cannot explain the problem sufficiently, the conflict remains and breeds resentment that sends out ripples far beyond those originally involved.

For many years, congregations have left it to the minister to visit their neighbours to speak with them about Jesus. Such visiting does not happen now to the same extent. It is rightly seen, but not always understood or accepted, that it is Christian neighbours who should be equipped to be effective in communication and who with other Christians could meet together in an area to pray for and serve their neighbours, creating the environment in which disclosure could take place. Sadly that vision of how the church could function in a fringe Christian community is lacking very often even amongst the most active congregations where the emphasis remains on increasing attendance at church. But it is precisely in a local group of friends that the personal unique contributions can be made and others can come to understand how each one has a different background that explains much about how and who they are now. This understanding does not come from casual contact in a service or meeting.

Whilst the influence of the church is fading, the influence of the media in all its forms, television, radio, magazines, the internet and the like, cannot be avoided. Often the influence is unrecognized; it just happens. Often it is scandals about clergy relationships, their abuse of young people, pronouncements from prominent church leaders, church debates and arguments on such things as the ordination of women bishops, homosexuality, same sex marriages or the lack of finance or the prominence given to those scholars who argue from a liberal position that gain attention. Mixed in with all of this are radio and TV programs where religion or aspects of Christianity are misunderstood and are wrongly portrayed or criticised and often dismissed casually. Increasingly humanists / secularists are vocal. They want Christianity to be taken out of public life and decisions and for the Church of England to be stripped of its privileged position. (This is frequently argued by senior people in the church itself for different reasons.) When public events and services are shown on television that involve church buildings, cathedrals and the clergy, this only serves to increase the impression that the church and Christianity belong to a different world and are irrelevant to this century, although many may enjoy the spectacle.

There are ordinary contexts of experience that could lead to disclosure moments. Most people experience emotions of joy, concern, anxiety, anger, and sadness. These are especially likely around times of births, marriages, leaving home, unemployment, mental and physical illness as well as terminal illness and death. These times can trigger something at least approaching a disclosure. In the past, but less so today in many parts of the country, these events bring people into direct contact with the church. Such are occasions where disclosure could occur and where 'green shoots' could be nurtured by the church. But the reality is that gulf between the world of those involved and that of the church is often too great. What the minister says is either not understood or understandable or is not heard because it is not what people were expecting. The words and music of the service are remote and so different from that of normal life. A eulogy from a family member or friend is often the only time that brings relief The attitude of those who are regular attendees is often patronising or downright critical and rude. Even when something good does happen as a result of a visit or a church service, it is left hanging in mid air with no one around in their locality to ground the good experience and lead people further to understand a little more of what it was all about. In these situations possibilities for disclosure are curtailed and a beginning cannot happen.

I had been brought up, like most in my generation on a diet of 'nice' stories from the Bible. I knew the story of Noah (minus of course the emphasis on the total destruction of everything outside the ark!) and David and Goliath (minus the beheading!). I knew the stories about Jesus but my parents could not explain why he went AWOL after the Jerusalem visit. I knew the miracle and parable stories from the New Testament. Teachers and preachers were not excited by their subject or exciting. I was left without understanding, unchallenged and somewhat bored. As a teenager, my questions were not answered and 'church' was a waste of time. For me things only began to click in university lectures and as I studied. I came to understand that what I had been given I should pass on in appropriate ways to others so that they in turn could continue the process amongst their friends. There are clergy who are in touch with those whom they serve and for whom they are leading worship and preaching and who do this. They gather people together and by their wise leadership equip them to function within a pastoral strategy that backs up in their own community what happens in worship. When this happens, members are equipped to communicate the gospel to others and the whole body of Christians have confidence in talking about their faith.

It is these so-called 'ordinary' Christians who are best suited to be the conduit for the gospel; after all they are not paid to talk about Jesus like the clergy! (or adopt the clergy voice!) It is often Christians being Christian where they are, individually or as a group, that counts. They will be at home, in the club, on the sports field, at the shops or in the group that meets in your street that triggers a reaction. It is about being recognisable as Christians rather than as those who 'go to church' or as religious or church people or 'good' people. Christians being church where they are accessible and visible (not shut away in some building) often provoke the comment 'I would like a bit of what they/he/she has'. In very ordinary situations and amongst very normal ordinary people something is seen that attracts others. It is as if the God who is the Word made flesh, is speaking to people through the ordinary. Here there could be moments of disclosure. Here a beginning is possible. It is about God being discovered in the ordinary, speaking to humans in the language they understand. This is part of the Christmas story. It is the incarnation. Christians need to be those through whom God is heard and discovered. The early church achieved this as they met together in small groups. It has happened since in the history of the church and today in many places worldwide. But this emphasis often has no place in a congregation's strategy. All the emphasis is on getting people to 'come to church.' In the last two decades, financial considerations have predominated. People listen to sermons delivered 'six foot above contradiction'. There is little attempt made to give them an appropriate context when they could glimpse something of the kingdom that might make them curious to find out more. The chance to become excited at the possibility that they may have stumbled on something new and challenging is denied them.

It is the church, the institution, that has created or allowed a gulf to develop which separates people from disclosure and an experience of the presence of Jesus. The church places the onus on people to come to church or to begin reading or ask questions. It is assumed or expected that those who do have to come to a church service for a funeral or wedding or baptism or those who dare to venture into a regular church service, have a certain level of knowledge and understanding. But when we take time to listen to others it becomes clear that we are not all on the same page nor do we all begin at the same place. Assumptions can no longer be made when little or nothing is known or understood of the background of many of those around us.

While some contexts for disclosure have been lost or reduced, others do remain. There are those who for a variety of reasons pick up a Bible or a part of the Bible and, without fully understanding, read something that clicks for them. For many others the starting point is apparently nothing at all to do with religion or Christianity. It may be that something strikes a chord for someone or that the hitherto untroubled waters have been disturbed, prompting doubts or questions. When Tom Wright was Bishop of Durham his book Simply Christian was published. He describes these moment as echoes of God's purpose and plan for his creation. His predecessor, Ian Ramsey, might have seen them as pregnant contexts for disclosure. People will describe them differently. But they are places where many might begin a journey leading perhaps by different routes to a place where the Jesus who had been in the far distance becomes a present living reality.

These are 'echoes' of God's plan when all things were created and God saw that it was very good. (Genesis 1:31) In the beginning, there was justice; people were made to live in relationship with God, a spiritual relationship that then made it possible for people to live together in harmony with each other and with the natural world whose beauty would be unspoilt. The rebellion of humans, given choice, wrecked a lot of this design but could not extinguish the echoes; the desire for what had been intended. In Jesus and particularly through his resurrection, a new creation - what was intended - is restored. Those who give their allegiance to Jesus are committed to bringing that new creation closer to completion so that his kingdom comes and his will is done on earth as it is in heaven.

I am fascinated by 'phone-in' programmes. One of the striking things is that these are opportunities for people to complain, criticise and vehemently voice their anger at perceived or real injustices. We want fairness from players, referees, politicians, bankers, parents and others. The sentence handed down by a court to some convicted offender is often thought not to be fair. Children in particular have a very strong sense of what is fair as parents quickly discover. In reality, the world is not fair. The West is so wealthy whilst the greater part of the world's population cannot afford health care or education even if it is available somewhere. At every level, unfairness, inequality and greed is experienced and can be seen. The response to all this when voiced is: 'Well that's life. Life isn't fair.' That is meant to be the end of the issue but some want to say 'Why not?' Will the time ever come when justice will be the norm?

This longing for justice specifically in a capitalist society was made clear in 2011. Many people camped outside St.Paul's Cathedral in London to discuss an alternative capitalism. The anger that was expressed at the bankers, the 'fat cats' and others receiving huge pay deals, bonuses and pensions revealed something of this demand for fairness even if in some cases it was not expressed in acceptable ways. David Cameron, then Prime Minister, talked about the need for 'responsible capitalism' and 'moral capitalism'. In November 2011 Bishop Justin Welby, then Bishop of Durham, in his inthronement sermon said: "The idols of our age are fallen, toppled in successive economic and political tempests. All the great institutions (including the institutional church, as we have seen recently) in which we have trusted seem to be caught flat footed with changes in mood and temper so rapid that leaders are constantly running to catch up." The idols of wealth with all that had been promised had failed to deliver. Wealth remained the privilege of the few and the rest were supposed to accept their different situation. The Bishop pointed to the presence of this longing for justice expressed by Micah and Jesus. Something serious had happened to "the very basis on which government of all sorts has been working since the 1980s, the undertaking and understanding that the most fundamental task of government was to make us richer and more and more untouched by the vagaries of life, from illness to economic downturn." But it didn't happen. In fact the situation became more serious. The need for 'transparency' was offered as the solution to soothing people's anger. But far more was needed if there was to be real justice and fairness. It remains to be seen whether men and women left to their own schemes and dreams can meet the demand of this echo for justice and fairness that has surfaced so dramatically. But the Bishop whilst underlining that the 'idols have fallen', points clearly and uncompromisingly to what still stands "the faithfulness and truth of the Christian gospel". The acquisition of wealth, regardless of much else, has been seen by some to be hollow and empty, leaving personal voids that cry out to be filled. As with this echo, so with those I go on to outline, God-sense will emerge as people grasp and share the message of Jesus. Many will continue to criticise, complain and moan at the failure of others to heed the prophets and establish justice and fairness. The institution of the church may continue to be self obsessed with its own problems (and I shall refer to them later) but "This is a time of opportunity." In Jesus a new resurrection certainty has dawned. His kingdom has in fact broken into this world so that even now those bound together in their allegiance to Jesus can become his agents for change that will be completed when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of God and of his son. This is the time for a thorough exposition of Christian capitalism by those equipped theologically as well as in economics and finance. It needs to be rigorously developed, recognising the tensions and complexities. It needs to be set out clearly so that Christians can, by a thorough understanding, seize this time of opportunity and contribute positively to the coming kingdom. All this needs to be done in spite (or because) of the clear trend to banish Christian perspectives and practices from the public arena.

There is another echo. Whilst there are some genuine loners, most people want and need to belong. Marriage is a good example. The revelation that the marriage of some famous person or prominent Christian is far from what it seemed to be, is a cruel disappointment for many. They had hoped that here at least, was a living demonstration of a good relationship that could restore confidence that marriage could work when so often after the first flush of love everything seems to drop to bits, no matter who you are. Cheryl Cole in her song The Flood 2010 (that may reflect her own experiences) has the lines:

But you can't hold on to water

it fills you up but never stays.

It's only good to wash away today,

And you're loving me like water.

You're slipping through my fingers: such a natural disaster, love.

We need relationships but find it so difficult to make them work. I should know! (Twice married to the same person and twice divorced.) The best we seem able to do is to make it appear to others that the relationship is working. What is most cherished is not easy to get right and it can so easily be misused and go horribly wrong.

But even when there is real love and relationship, it is always being threatened by death. Why, when we need relationships so much, are they apparently ended so finally? That seems to make no sense and undermines the value of a relationship. Talk of death is avoided as much as possible. People pass away or pass on; they don't die. Death is a problem to which many have no real answer. It is the end. Some seek an escape into increasing materialism (eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die) Many cling on to memories. For some this makes some sense of the strange echo but it is insufficient as an answer. In the end all escape routes are found to be inadequate, 'dead ends'. Christians seem vague submerged in the pious clichés that abound. Hope of making a beginning is not furthered when no one can make sense of the apparent end. Yet the echo persists. We go on longing for lasting true relationships and genuine love.

Love is often threatened by old age especially when appearances and physical health matter. For many its inevitable onset is frightening and disturbing. Many go to great lengths to delay the appearance of age or conceal it. We want to be young forever with youthful attractive bodies Why is it that the aging process does not really seem to make sense even when we seek to accept it gracefully?

This fading beauty that we cannot stop slipping through our fingers is seen also in the natural world. The spring blossom is there one day but is quickly gone. No sooner have we realised the beauty around us and it is stripped away. So too in the autumn. If you live where the trees have glorious autumn colours, you know how quickly that enjoyment of their beauty is ended. It just does not seem to be right or make sense. Something is wrong. We cannot hang on to the spring newness or the autumn displays. Nor can we keep the sunset that thrills the heart and then is no more. Even the photograph so carefully taken fails to capture precisely the scene as we saw it originally; the photo is not the same as the real thing. The frost that decorates the spiders web or the rain drops hanging like glistening jewels on the bare branches of trees or the beauty of newly fallen snow transforming the landscape and giving trees and shrubs a new dimension - all here today and gone tomorrow or very nearly. We long to hold onto the beauty we are enjoying but it too slips through our fingers and we are left to ask why we should have such longings that are never fully realised.

There may be clear echoes in the world of beauty and design. But there is so much more that contradicts the beauty and muffles the echo. Young lives are taken in awful circumstances that seem to question the existence of a God who is in control of his design. Then there are the so-called natural disasters – the list is a long one. Is this the world God made when he saw it was very good? Something has gone badly wrong. Yet often, unable to face the echo, we dismiss these things as evidence that there is no god (as I did) or very commonly as 'just natural'. Yet many 'natural disasters' are the indirect or direct consequence of human greed and selfishness. The disasters actually are not 'natural' but man made. The same is true in the animal world. We wonder at life but we cannot avoid the horrors that some breeding practices or experimentation bring. The usual way out is again 'well that's natural – it's nature.' Yet, all too often it is not natural! What is really meant is 'It's normal or usual.' We have become conditioned to accept the consequences of human interference, manipulation and experiment in so many areas without challenge. The results we so often call 'natural'. But they are not! It is only what has become normal for us. Sometimes human intervention is for the good. Just think of the various conservation projects, the concerns for the environment or the advances of medical science. But all this is only correcting the mess made by humans and contributes towards the renewal of what was intended. If 'what is natural' is saying the same as 'what is normal' we are confusing what humans have done to the natural world and to fellow human beings, with what God intended. We have been conditioned to accept so much as natural that it is difficult to strip this away and try to see the original picture. It is also possible that now we cannot really picture what God intended and what is in store \- the restored world. We have echoes and pictures particularly in Isaiah (Isaiah 11:6-9. 65: 17-18) and Revelation (21:1-5) of how things will be: the original natural picture. But it has been so obscured by human arrogance - 'we know what is best for our world' that what we can see is only partial. The new earth may come as a big surprise to many people. But when we hear the echoes, we cannot ignore them. We will continue to seek to co-operate with the Maker in his work of recreation now just as when we hear the cry for justice, we will work for greater fairness and consistency or for the healing of broken hearts that long for lasting relationships. Often our response seems frustratingly inadequate and is often undone by those who do not hear or care other than for their own ends. But the echo remains and those in Christ continue to cooperate in his work of re-creation.

These failures to fully grasp justice, beauty and relationships in ways which makes complete sense, lead some to respond to another longing bubbling under the surface of their busy lives and which they find hard to explain and even embarrassing. This is the deep need people have for spirituality – although the folk with whom I spend time would describe it differently. They are puzzled that they have such feelings. For many it is 'just not cool.' A possible beginning is missed. They are unknowingly trapped in the thinking of the past. Since the 1780's and the Enlightenment, any recognition of spirituality has been gradually squeezed out of life and philosophy. There are now some signs of an admission that rationalism and secularisation cannot eradicate the spiritual nor replace it. Humanists and secularists now prefer to focus on the failures of the church, the confused thinking of Christians and the apparent unfairness of giving the church its privileged position in the UK.

Previously it was contended that human beings could get on very well without the spiritual; that such things belong to the pre scientific past. Karl Marx denounced religion as the opium of the masses. Freud dismissed religion as a neurosis that was designed to divert attention from man's real interest, sex, or to enable him to escape from his frightening feelings. Nietzsche remarked 'I find it necessary to wash my hands after I have come into contact with religious people.' The view was that you couldn't become modern without throwing off religion's yoke. Even in America in 1960, Kennedy reassured the electorate that his faith would not affect his politics. In the UK at the beginning of the new century, political leaders are not eager to declare a Christian allegiance and often more anxious to claim humanist or other convictions. Time magazine in 1966 asked 'Is God dead? A theologian, Thomas Altizer published his Gospel of Christian Atheism. In 1968, Gallup found that 68% of Americans thought that religion was loosing its impact on society. In phone-in programmes and in many conversations I hear these things being repeated by people who have no idea where they have picked up their arguments. Human reason was to be preferred rather than unreasonable faith, producing extremists and resulting in conflict, persecution, intolerance, superstition, and other evils done in the name of religion. This was highlighted by the crusades on one side and on the other, the destruction in 2001 of the New York Trade Centre twin towers. The conflict between extreme Muslims and Christians in many parts of the world is escalating. But there is also the killing and torture of Christians by Christians: the Catholic–Protestant persecutions and the conflicts between the Orthodox factions. The murder of Muslims in the Balkan War and the conflicts that continue between Hindu and Muslim, and Muslim and Buddhists. The murderous conflict between Muslim Shia and Sunni who, like Al Qaeda are apparently unconcerned when they kill fellow Muslims, leaves no doubt in the minds of many that the curse is widespread.

The extremists and the effect that extremism in any religion can have, make people suspicious of 'keen' Christians and of religion in general. All this remains true even when you balance against it the huge amount of good that organised religion has done through history.

Such reasonableness and rejection of religion in order to become properly modern flowed from a trust in basic human goodness and the appreciation of the great things human beings could do with science, wealth and the arts. There was no room for notions of original sin. Voltaire ridiculed the idea that some water (in baptism) could wash it away. But now we find ourselves in this global village where it becomes increasingly difficult for anyone to ignore the evidence of how humans treat each other. As more horror stories pour onto our screens and news bulletins, the more we begin to question so called basic human goodness, the transformation wealth was supposed to bring and the value of all that had been held dear.

In spite of the past and the evidence in the present, there have been times when spiritual hunger, came to the surface. There was a longing to make a beginning that was coherent and on firm foundations. Methodism, free from the establishment, in a free market with leaders whose pay, job security, and life style contrasted starkly with that of the established church, offered ordinary people the choice that they craved. There were other revivals in the Victorian era as well as the High Church movement. But none of this lasted. The springs of faith dried up, unable to cope with the intellectuals and the new idols of wealth, science and industry. Billy Graham hit the English scene after the Second World War and whilst large crowds were attracted, he made little difference in the long term, not least, because the church was not structured for individuals. There were no established small church units that could welcome and nurture new Christians (at least for an initial period) instead of rushing them into the traditional church services. Billy Graham was one thing; institutional religion and the established Christian church was another, altogether different. It seemed as though faith was ebbing away. The second half of the twentieth century saw the almost complete secularisation of the British white working class \- the estrangement of the indigenous population from the church. This is no surprise. The services that used to be in Latin were still unintelligible to many even in English. Then religion was used to keep people in their place, accepting their lot whilst hoping for a better life after death as they accepted life's miseries. Pie in the sky when you die rather than pie now! The church supported injustice and exploitation in scandalous ways. They claimed that poverty was the ordained lot of most; wealth belonged to the few by right. The original version of the hymn 'All things bright and beautiful' has the verse that illustrates this very clearly:

The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate,

God made them high and lowly

And ordered their estate.

As we have previously commented, we do not seem to come very far since those Victorian days of that hymn. But now the football crowds, who once sang Bread of heaven and Abide with me, sing something very different. Roy Hattersley described Britain as an agnostic nation. In 2009, 6% of the population were in a church building on Easter Sunday. The newspaper I saw reporting this fact regarded the figure as something of a revival! A survey in 2004 showed 44% claimed that they had no religious identification (11% in 1983) Two thirds of eighteen to twenty four year olds described themselves as non-religious and more than half did not think that Jesus existed as an historical figure. More than half the number of weddings do not use church buildings and the clergy. The Roman Catholic Church is finding it increasingly difficult to recruit priests. In Dublin, home to a million Catholics, only one priest was ordained in 2004. Nearer home, in the local Roman Catholic diocese of Hexham and Newcastle, they estimate that the number of priests will fall from 115 to 73 in the next nine years. Between 2001 and 2009, worship attendances fell from 52,563 to 39,216. It is claimed that 'Mild Anglicanism' and 'doubting Catholicism' are dying – fast. The former Archbishop, Lord Carey, declared very recently that in many areas, the Church of England is dying. He knows more than most of us of the actual situation.

The old religion in which my grandparents and parents had been brought up no longer meets the needs and hunger of most people. The contexts for disclosure have largely disappeared. In the face of all that prevents a spiritual beginning, it should be no surprise that some people turn to other things. People seek for 'highs'; they are desperate to feel good because they spend so much of their time feeling low. They turn to alcohol, legal highs and illegal drugs. Others resort to paganism and black magic for their fix. Sometimes this is violent, angry, selfish, perverted and hideously foul or simply materialistic. Women and men work long hours to pay for that which they then have little time to enjoy - a caravan or a bigger and better house, and if they do get some time, find it unfulfilling. All this is an indication of a spiritual vacuum that is felt at all levels of society and which 'churches' for the most part are not able or willing to fill other than with their own prescriptions, regardless of whether the remedy reaches the personal empty voids. There is a spiritual vacuum, recognised or not, and something must fill it. Some seek other alternatives, preferring something religious. New Age religion, mysticism, angels and other faiths, particularly Islam and Buddhism, attract many people. The bookshelves of the high street stores bear witness to these changing spiritual quests. For all this of course, the public are often condemned and not understood by church people. The idea that it is the church that has let people down is not contemplated.

Even so there may be signs of change. The charismatic movement and all that is flowing from it brought huge blessings to many individuals and congregations (as well as a fair share of problems). Over two million Britons with an average age of 27 have attended Alpha Courses. The numbers of adults seeking confirmation has risen sharply whilst confirmation of the younger children has dropped dramatically. Celtic spirituality and therefore all things that could be claimed Celtic, are in fashion. Unlike some UK politicians, American Presidents now openly declare their Christian faith. The number of Christians in China is growing rapidly. Recently, atheists have made new onslaughts as if aware that God is not as dead as they thought. Sam Harris 'The End of Faith', Richard Dawkins 'The God Delusion' and Chris Hitchin's 'God is not great – how religion poisons everything' have been promoted widely even in front of Christians. Amongst many 'churchgoers', instead of mildness and a gentle vagueness, certainties and challenge are sought. And instead of being born into a religion, the freedom to choose is more important.

But there is another sort of secularisation that, in the UK at least, is becoming increasingly obvious and to which I have already pointed. It is not an outright rejection of religion but a movement to take religion out of the public sphere and confine it to the personal and private. This removal from public to private is seen in the demand to keep moral issues separate. What a person does privately should have no impact on their public life. This is seen is in the various pieces of equality legislation which imply that religious convictions should have no place in public affairs (e.g. the sexual orientation of those seeking to have an adopted child cannot be used as the reason for refusing an applicant.) There have attempts to stop people from wearing a cross. In the discussion of same sex marriages, the church does not want the word marriage to be used in this context but it is told to keep out of the debate because it does not involve them: it is a secular issue. Marriage itself is under threat from several sides. Celebrity weddings have contributed to a growing failure on the part of many people, to focus on the real point of it all.

People no longer turn automatically to Christianity or as most would say 'the church', in spite of deep echoes, the deep longing for something more and the new life in evidence in some congregations. If it were possible for them to experience some disclosure in worship, this is not possible. They are not there. Only a minority of the rapidly growing number of older people are seen at worship and even they do not consider that their questionings and those of their family and friends, might be resolved in the light of Jesus, his life, death, resurrection, and the presence of his spirit. As children grow up, they have doubts whether Jesus is any different from Santa and the fairies and they see that their grandparents and parents have little or no time for church. Whilst there are exceptions, there are too many congregations where there are very few children, no young people, and scarcely any who are in the twenty to fifty age range. Even where there are children and others from this age range, it often transpires that they are the children and grandchildren of the older members of the congregation.

It should be remembered that many of those who are missing are those who previously were in Sunday School and youth groups. They do have some sort of a background. What was so missing that they did not want to continue life in the church? And what about the older people? If faith had come alive for them in their earlier years, why are they so few in number in the congregations of today? One of the most depressing aspects of my ministry was in talking with much older people for whom the church was only another of their clubs and many more who were just not interested or openly dismissive or hostile. The older people are often amongst that much larger group who have soaked up, often without realising it, the idea that Christianity is discredited. For so many Jesus and the Bible is a lot of old stories that are irrelevant today and unreliable anyway. Nor is anyone likely to be helped if they are given the impression that they are rated intellectually inferior and when they know that they do not understand some of the church language nor the readings from the Bible. Many who might want to see changes, are fully aware that they are not in a privileged financial position to be able to wield influence in the congregation. Those who do ask questions are often given pious and pat answers. Very often those answers use church or theological language, which only serves to increase the fog. All too often, those who answer questions do not hear what is actually being asked and are more concerned to follow their own rehearsed arguments regardless of the question. So often we fail to realise that a question may be the first step to a beginning. There is no awareness of the potential here for disclosure. Sometimes a question is a tester and not the real question. It conceals other issues and these and the real question is only asked when it is thought to be safe. There is no chance of a question being heard unless someone is seriously listening. When there is any religious discussion outside the church building and organisation, the starting point may often be about suffering in general or the suffering of someone in particular. Implicit is the feeling that 'it is not fair'. It is at this point that God is dragged in. They may ask 'Why does God allow it?' without describing the God whom they are challenging. God may be dismissed as the infantile preoccupation of the few. But still for many people, God has a toehold. Similarly, in situations when all else has failed and all seems to be beyond human control, we will be urged to pray to God. If the outcome is as people wanted, then it is declared to be a miracle. But if not, then what? The atheist can have a field day accusing those concerned as desperate and pathetic, using God as a crutch. But it could be that in the right handling of such questions and situations, disclosure could occur.

People talk more easily about God than Jesus. The name of Jesus is rarely mentioned except as a swear word. Even amongst church people there seems to be an embarrassment to speak of Jesus. His name is heard only in the context of worship. If people are more comfortable to talk about God, even if it is a God they do not know and about whom they are confused and vague, then this may be a starting point in bridging the gulf that separates them from the God whom they could know in Jesus.

Chapter Three

Next Steps.

A group of clergy were discussing how they prepared the parents who asked for a baptism of their child. 'I always begin by asking the father if he believes in God.' 'Well, I'm not bothered but she is OK with it' came the reply. The discussion then centred on the problem when the father and/or the mother declared honestly that they were atheists, apparently not aware that this response might raise problems. But no one asked whether the question was likely to be understood in the first place. What is important is that we recognise that for many people believing is a matter of swallowing hard some irrational or unscientific claim usually rejected by other intelligent people. Believing is about blind acceptance and you will do this if everyone you know has done it or (in the case of baptism perhaps) you are afraid of the consequences from the mother in law or others whom you respect or do not wish to offend. Listening to people on the bus or in the shop queues, it seems that believing in God is very vague. It comes to the fore when you have no one else and nothing else to turn to or when things have gone terribly wrong; you have no explanations and you need someone with whom to be angry and blame for the mess. The lyrics of some of our popular songs reflect precisely this. Look for example at some words of Break Even from The Script where the broken hearted man is "praying to a God I don't believe in".

There is more confusion about what it means to 'believe in'. The phrase is used frequently not only in the baptism service but in Christian worship and conversation generally and in ordinary everyday talk. Do you believe in fairies or in Santa usually means do you think they are real and really exist? So when people say they believe in (or don't believe in) God or Jesus, this is what they mean – do you think Jesus really lived? But in the New Testament and in Christian worship it means something rather different. The Greek means 'trust in' or 'give my allegiance to...' I may be sure that Jesus was a real person who really lived but when I say I believe in him, I am going much further. So in Common Worship (1980) in the Church of England, the baptismal question is 'Do you believe and trust in Jesus...' This is not asking two questions but asking the same question in two ways to make the meaning clear.

Many believers in other faiths would be happy to agree that they believed in God. By this, they may mean trust in God or they may mean that they think God exists. There is nothing specifically Christian about believing in God. What is most significant is the sort of God in whom people claim to believe.

For some God is everywhere, a part of the created order. So they go into the countryside rather than to church. But enjoyment of the natural world takes place alongside the other picture of death, destruction and chaos that is seen in the natural world. Is this God the author of all this? We also have to contend with the abuse and murder in society as well as the greed and viciousness that humans exhibit so frequently. Does the God to be found in the 'countryside' make sense of this evil? On the other hand for others, God is the remote power, distant from us, up in heaven, the unknowable, the absent X. God is there for emergencies and can be blamed and shouted at when things go badly wrong. But this God has little to do directly with this world or its inhabitants. This is the Deist approach, common in the eighteenth century and very obviously still alive (but not always under that name!) in this century. Small wonder that no one wants to worship that God. Those who hold on to this remote, transcendent view of God cannot square their view of such a God with the suffering in the world and in particular in their lives or those of their loved ones. It would be so much easier if this God had made us like puppets on strings.

Those who seek to 'prove' the existence of God often do God no favours. Those arguments against are often balanced by the arguments for. Argue for the existence of God on the grounds of the beauty in the world and the complexity of the human body and you are faced with the chaos in the natural world that destroys lives and livelihoods leaving a long term trail of misery and suffering. The wonder of a newborn has to be put alongside those newborn with deformities and the glory of youth set alongside the cancer that kills young men and women before they are thirty. (My own daughter Kathryn died aged 31 after several years 'fighting' cancer and most of the time appearing to be positive.) Some God!

So much has been written and said in this debate. Some faced with the conflicting arguments about God resort to the claim 'everyone is entitled to their own ideas'. No one is right and no one is wrong. We are in a world of total subjectivity. Little wonder then that in pubs and clubs, religion is one of the few topics we were told that is not to be discussed, because it only leads to argument and the forceful expression of sincerely held subjective opinions for which there is no resolution other than an agreement to disagree.

I have often been misunderstood, when I have said that I did not believe in the God who was being rejected by someone for very good reasons. As far as I was concerned, the god they were describing did not exist. Thank God! The same is true when some claim the existence of God for reasons that do not add up. Indeed is this God 'he' anyway? That in some way gives the impression this God is somehow a version of a human male. God then is seen in human terms. Any notion that God is bigger than big and bigger still, and yet not the remote distant uninvolved X power, is foreign to most people. 'What sort of God do you think exists or doesn't exist?' is the critical question that is rarely asked. But it is an important question in any talk about God. When answers are forthcoming, the numerous variations confirm for many the idea that everyone must be entitled to their own ideas. Whenever there is rejection or acceptance of the existence of God, there will be explicitly or implicitly, articulated or not, a particular understanding and picture of the God that is being rejected or accepted. We are left to sink in the sea of subjectivity. To make any progress we must ask about the character of this God.

It may be more helpful if before asking someone whether they believe in God, we have first explained what is meant by 'believe in' and given some idea of who this God is about whom we are talking. Christians must take the arguments about the existence of God seriously but should not be distracted by them. Christians must start with God because everyone else does, but from there, they must move on to Jesus. Here we have one who rescues us from sinking in the sea of subjectivity and confusion. If he lived, told the truth about God and this has been reliably transmitted and is open to examination, then we either trust what he says or we reject him as a liar or lunatic or self-deluded. "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell". So, whilst most people start with God and often get no further than arid argument, the Christian focuses on Jesus and they get to God through him.

God in the Old Testament is present amongst his people and active on their behalf. But he is also present in the cloud and fire, the holy God who cannot be approached by sinful human beings. This God is shrouded in mystery. God cannot be grasped hold of. We do need to be aware of the dangers of talking about God in straightforward language as though God is no more than some other person or object. We cannot get privileged access to the diaries of God's private life or describe his appearance. (We need to be cautious of dogmatism. Ian Ramsey makes this point in his book "On being sure in religion".) We cannot know the name of God. (Exodus 3 and 6) It might seem that God gives his name but we do not know how to pronounce YHWH. God only knows the name of God. The pupil who blurted out 'I get it'went on later to tell me that it was like him trying to draw me. He could not fit me on his paper; he could not do it in 3D and he could not draw all my feelings and thoughts. Just so. God is God and if we could describe God completely, God would cease to be God; we would be describing something called god but which was simply our own projection. God to be God is mystery and for this reason there is a gulf here that we cannot bridge. When we 'get it', we see that it is mystery. At that point, there is disclosure. We never reach a complete understanding of the divine mystery.

But there is more. God does not give the name of God but God does allow humans to see the human face, the human side of God. That is as much as humans can handle because they are human and God is God. In seeing God's human face, we have all that we need. Along with the mystery is the even greater mystery that God shows his face in human terms. That is important because it allows humans to know all that they need to know about God without running the risk of creating God in their own image. We are lost in awe and wonder not only by the mystery but also by the vulnerability God demonstrates by showing his human side in Jesus. It is in Jesus that God is disclosed at the human level. He had a deep relationship with his father whom he knew as the father God of his people, his children. This was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. He is often going off on his own to be in closer contact with his father. This was the father who at the start of his work had made it clear to him and those around him that Jesus was his son and that they were to listen to him. (Mark 9:7) Jesus knew God as his father and himself as the apprentice son. This relationship however was also to be enjoyed by those who trusted him. The most obvious indication comes from Jesus' teaching in the prayer pattern he taught the disciples. By using the Hebrew word 'abba' for father, he may have wanted to change the way Jews thought of God. Although the use of abba was not unique to Jesus, it may be significant. The word that was normally used of God was 'abbi' a remote and distant type of father rather than the intimate relationship of a child with his father – dad – the meaning behind 'abba'. This was a loving figure, almighty in all ways, but one who chose to qualify his almightiness with selfless love.

In this century the danger for many is that the description of God as father only leads them to assume that God is like their father. All too often human fathers are not all that they should be and sometimes are very bad, often almost totally absent and unloving. It is the understanding that Jesus gives of God as father that should inform and transform our human pattern - not the other way round.

But for those who heard Jesus so often use 'father' to describe his relationship and then incredibly tell his disciples to use it as well, it meant even more. 'I am ascending to my father and your father...' (John 20:17) They were Jews. Moses had declared to Pharaoh that his God had sent him to say that Israel was his first-born son (Exodus 4:22). It was this father God who would rescue his children from the slavery of Egypt and stick with them through all their rebelliousness in the wilderness journeyings. When Jesus told his disciples to call God 'Father' he therefore expected them to be certain that they too - like their ancestors - would be rescued and that the one who would lead them, their King-Messiah, would know God as his father. God had said to David 'I will be his father, and he shall be my son.' (2 Samuel 7: 14) and it was understood by Jews that freedom would come through the King Messiah. What the Jews failed to grasp was that this liberty was to be from the consequences of their rebellion and missed opportunities to obey their creator. But they looked for freedom from their political oppression and occupation which could only come from a conquering King. It was inconceivable that salvation would come from a Suffering King enthroned on a cross and wearing a crown of thorns.

At this point, it would be reasonable for people to ask us to stop. We have skipped over two important steps. We assume that they accept that Jesus actually lived and that what he said about God has been accurately recorded and untarnished in being handed down to us. Even if people do not say Stop, we should not assume that they are clear about the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the New Testament. Many churchgoers certainly are not. For most people these are two serious gulfs - the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the records. Did Jesus really live or is his no more than a story like that of Santa? Then if he lived are the records we have in the Bible reliable? Without satisfactory answers to these questions, any beginning is open to serious challenge. To answer these questions are the next steps.

When I was growing up, clergy in particular could assume that the occasional and regular churchgoers did not question the historicity of Jesus or reliability of the Bible. To raise any questions in these areas was almost heretical. When Bishop David Jenkins was at Durham (1984 –1994) he rocked the boat by explaining that some of the events in the New Testament like the 'virgin birth', the wise men and the resurrection might have been deeply influenced by the later realization of the church that Jesus was God. In fact, he did no more than to say in public what had been taught in universities for some time. The way in which he was reported and represented, seriously undermined what trust people had left in the Bible and in the historicity of Jesus. There was a great deal of misreporting by those who did not fully understand what David Jenkins was saying. The Bishop did not help matters when he seemed sometimes to forget that those outside universities do not necessarily think in the same way as lecturers and students. But at the time he challenged people, for example, to consider whether the reciting of the creed was the important issue rather than the experience of the reality. If Jesus is not experienced as the one who is alive with me, then what do I gain from repeating the creed week by week with its assertions about the resurrection of Jesus? Most unusually, this had people talking about it in the pubs and clubs of every kind but often there was no one around to throw any light on the issues that they raised. The ordinary churchgoer was shocked and confused but had no answer – at least not a coherent one. It made many realize that even the most ardent churchgoers were out of their depth when outside their comfort zone of traditional worship. They had nowhere else to go for help and support. They did not belong to a Christian group that met to support each other and equip each other for their role in modern society. It was no surprise that they kept quiet about their faith and avoided questions from every direction. These are some people who listen to sermons week after week, belong to study groups, attend courses and are told frequently about books that would help them. They should be equipped. But they do not appreciate the misunderstandings of those around them. They cannot answer anyone who dares to challenge them. They accept the Bible in general but cannot deal with anyone who raises doubts or questions. As they scorn those who are described as 'fundamentalists' they also reject out of hand any who seem to undermine beliefs they have always held. Preachers and teachers find it hard to help congregations because they do not understand the people amongst whom their congregation live. What is being said is either over their heads or completely misunderstood or is totally irrelevant to them. There was an opportunity for progress as a result of Bishop David Jenkins rocking the boat. The trouble was that bishops are meant to be a safe pair of hands and are not expected to rock any boat. But had the opportunity that the controversy raised been taken, an understanding of what faith is might well have reached more people. The grounds for faith and the language to articulate it could have been made available for churchgoers and non-churchgoers alike.

So what happens now to the greater proportion of people who do not attend church services and those in congregations for whom Bishop David was an all too brief a breath of fresh air?

Without always articulating it, many do not consider that the Jesus of Nazareth might in some way be the answer to echoes they recognise or be able make sense of those times when they have been temporarily drawn towards him. They do not think that he ever lived or that what is written about him is in any way reliable. Some have read or heard on radio and television debates around the reliability of the documents or the quest for the historical Jesus and been given the impression from theologians that there are therefore good grounds for their doubt. Some were mistakenly encouraged to put Bishop Jenkins in this category.

In 1989 the talk show host Larry King, interviewed Shirley MacLaine on the New Age. When a Christian caller contested her view with an appeal to the New Testament, MacLaine brushed him off with the objection that the Bible has been changed and translated so many times over the last 2000 years that it's impossible to have any confidence in its accuracy. King was quick to endorse her "facts". "Everyone knows that."

There is another way in which the Christian faith can be quickly dismissed. As we have already seen, for some people, believing means being naïve, irrational and unscientific. Jesus is put in the same bracket as Santa and the fairies! That then describes Christians who believe in Jesus and trust the Bible! No one has appreciated this confusion or taken the time to explain what it really means to say 'I believe in....' If you sense that faith is basically irrational, that the basis of faith is insecure and that the subject of faith may never have lived anyway, it is little wonder that so many feel lost in this maze and have a very low opinion of others who claim that they know the way.

This should not be the case in this century. Both those who dismiss or ignore Christianity, and those who claim to be and are recognised by others as Christians, must get up to speed.

It is now relatively easy for anyone to get hold of the facts about the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the documents. Churchgoers in particular should now be making it a top priority to become equipped so that no one is left with the misunderstandings exhibited by Larry King. It is so much easier with access to the internet, numerous books and excellent courses, e.g. Alpha, run by many groups of Christians, for the average churchgoer to be properly equipped so that others can be given accurate information on the basis of which they can come to their own decision.

We can be certain of the actual historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a fact that the existence of Jesus is more certain than that of say, Julius Caesar. This is because the only evidence for Julius Caesar comes from friendly sources. For the existence of Jesus, the situation is very different. There are several very significant contributions from hostile writers whose interest would have been better served if the existence of Jesus could at least have been questioned. Josephus, a Jewish historian, mentions Jesus in connection with the martyrdom of James. In particular, Tacitus, a Roman senator and historian wrote in Book 15 of the Annals (written c. 116) that Christos was a person convicted by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.

But so what? The existence of Jesus may be more or less certain but the record of what he is alleged to have said and done may have been tampered with surely? A few followers may have made up stories to push Jesus onto the world stage. In any case, we all know how stories may start out in one form but as they are passed on by word of mouth, the details are changed and are embellished. Today even the films made of the books featuring Mrs. Marples and Poirot add modern details and even change who is the 'baddie'. If it is done there, why not in the Bible? The four gospels do not agree with each other and in many cases appear to contradict each other. Jesus existed all right, attracted a group of people around him and they then made up the rest. How can we know that the documents we have in our possession accurately reflect originals destroyed almost two millennia ago? Communication is never perfect; people make mistakes. Errors are compounded with each successive generation. By the time 2000 years pass, it's anyone's guess what the original said.

That is what many say and even more often intelligent men and women think or assume. Scholars have had to address this issue and answer it with facts. F.F.Bruceis just one of these whose findings we will use. One of our basic assumptions is that the written word is more reliable than the spoken word. Often we are asked 'Will you put that in writing please?' This was not always the case. The spoken word had for many years been used as the most reliable form of transmission. Important facts were passed on by word of mouth, often by fathers to their sons. Long before the various parts of the Old Testament were written down, they existed in oral form. This was particularly true of the narrative of the exodus, the escape and deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt. Fathers were given the specific responsibility for ensuring that that their sons learnt word for word the account of the events that were central to the life and expectations of all Jews.

It remained the same in the days of Jesus. The oral word was regarded as far more reliable than the written word – precisely the opposite from the modern attitude. Many parts of the gospels were already in established oral form before they were written. Whilst this oral tradition was in circulation, there were also many eyewitnesses of the events who had heard Jesus teaching. The same remained true of the written gospels, especially that of Mark. There are no records of any attempts to contradict the written accounts. The question is then whether these written accounts are reliable and reflect the original faithfully. Scholars argue that if there are sufficient written copies, then it is possible for scholars independently to compare them. It is not only the number of written copies that are relevant but also the date of them. How close in time to the oldest existing documents are they? If the numbers are few and the time gap is wide, the original is harder to reconstruct with confidence. However, if there are many copies and the oldest existing copies are reasonably close in time to the original, then scholars can be more confident of the exact wording of the original.

To get an idea of the significance of the New Testament manuscript evidence, scholars compare the record for non-biblical texts. These are secular texts from antiquity that have been reconstructed with a high degree of certainty based on the available textual evidence. The important first century document The Jewish War, by the Jewish aristocrat and historian Josephus survives in only nine complete manuscripts dating from the 5th century - four centuries after they were written. Tacitus' Annals of Imperial Rome is one of the chief historical sources for the Roman world of New Testament times, yet it survives in partial form in only two manuscripts dating from the Middle Ages. Thucydides' History survives in eight copies. There are 10 copies of Caesar's Gallic Wars, eight copies of Herodotus' History, and seven copies of Plato, all dated over a millennium from the original. Homer's Iliad has the most impressive manuscript evidence for any secular work with 647 existing copies. J.J.Bruce wrote "No classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest manuscripts of their works which are of any use to us are over 1300 years later than the originals."

For most ancient documents, only a handful of manuscripts exist, some facing a time gap of 800-2000 years or more. Yet scholars are confident of reconstructing the originals with some significant degree of accuracy. In fact, virtually all our knowledge of ancient history depends on documents like these. By comparison with these texts, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is much better. The most recent count (1980) shows 5,366 separate Greek manuscripts represented by early fragments, uncial codices (manuscripts in capital Greek letters bound together in book form), and minuscules (small Greek letters in cursive style) Among the nearly 3,000 minuscule fragments are 34 complete New Testaments dating from the 9th to the 15th Centuries. Uncial manuscripts provide virtually complete codices (multiple books of the New Testament bound together into one volume) dating back to the 4th century, though some are a bit younger. Codex Sinaiticus, purchased by the British government from the Soviet government in 1933, for £100,000, is dated c. 340. The nearly complete Codex Vaticanus is the oldest uncial, dated c. 325-350. Codex Alexandrinus contains the whole Old Testament and a nearly complete New Testament and dates from the late 4th century to the early 5th century.

Amazing evidence comes from the papyri - fragments (as opposed to the codices). The Chester Beatty Papyri contains most of the New Testament and is dated mid-3rd Century. The Bodmer Papyri II collection, whose discovery was announced in 1956, includes the first fourteen chapters of the Gospel of John and much of the last seven chapters. It dates from A.D. 200 or earlier.

The most amazing find of all, however, is a portion of the gospel of John, 18:31-33, discovered in Egypt and known as the John Rylands Papyri. This is only three inches square. It represents the earliest known copy of any part of the New Testament. The papyri are dated on palaeographical grounds at around A.D. 117-138 (though it may be earlier), showing that the Gospel of John was circulated as far away as Egypt within 30 years of its composition. Only about 50 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament, though most of the other manuscripts contain the four Gospels. Even so, the manuscript textual evidence is vast, especially when compared to other ancient works.

Early in the history of the Church, Greek documents, including the Scriptures, were translated into Latin. By the 3rd and 4th centuries, the New Testament was also translated into Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. These texts helped missionaries reach new cultures in their own language as the Gospel spread and the Church grew. Translations of the Greek manuscripts (called "versions") help modern-day textual critics answer questions about the underlying Greek manuscripts.

The Scriptures gave rise to an immense output of early Christian literature, which quoted them at length and, in effect thereby, preserved them. In addition, the accuracy of the manuscripts is confirmed by ancient versions and citations from early Christian writers, called the Church Fathers. In their writings they quoted extensively from the New Testament. At the start of the second century, all the four gospels are referred to. We can be sure that the gospels were written at least before 100A.D. Metzger summarises "if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, (the church fathers quotations) would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament" More recently there have been those who have suggested that the four gospels were only four amongst dozens of similar works and that these four were eventually privileged and the others discarded, suppressed or even banned. It is suggested that the picture given by the gospels was convenient for the ruling authorities at the time when in the fourth century A.D. Christianity was becoming the official religion of the Roman Empire. The most well known of these 'discarded gospels', the Gospel of Thomas, comes from the Nag Hammadi documents found in 1945. But scholars (Tom Wrightamongst them) have shown that the version of Thomas we have, whilst written in Coptic is in fact a translation from the Syriac. The Syriac traditions embodied in Thomas can be dated reliably, not in the first century but in the second half of the second century. In other words, it is seventy to a hundred years after the time when the first canonical gospels were in widespread use across the early church. The Thomas gospel is mainly a collection of sayings. Some of these are similar to what we have in the canonical gospels but show that they are have been doctored to express a Gnostic or semi-Gnostic viewpoint - very different from the God story of the Old Testament. Apart from these sayings, there is little or no narrative. But the story of Jesus is the climax of the story of Israel, setting out the fulfilment of the promises of God. This is missing from the Nag Hammadi documents, which have no place for the Old Testament and its total story.

The reliability of the New Testament is no longer contested by non-Christian scholars, and for good reason. Simply put, if we reject the authenticity of the New Testament on textual grounds we would have to reject every ancient work and declare null and void every piece of historical information from written sources prior to the beginning of the second millennium A.D.

Have the New Testament documents been significantly altered? Critical academic analysis says it has not. But if the reliability of the New Testament is accepted, there remains very often a serious misunderstanding that undermines the understanding of those documents. Paul's letters to young churches differ from letters to private individuals and address church issues as well as a few personal ones. No one as far as I know has doubted that they are anything but letters even though we don't always have the letter that prompted the reply. We recognise that it was probably a scribe who did most of the writing. (Galatians 6:11) Sometimes one letter is actually more than one. This may be the case with 2Corinthians. But with the Gospels, it is different. So many think they are or ought to be biographical or a diary of the life of Jesus. They are troubled when they realize that this is not so. For instance, the birth of Jesus is told in Luke but in Matthew, you have to plough through seventeen verses of the family tree (showing Jesus as a descendent of King David) before you come to the birth narrative. In Mark, the earliest of the Gospels the birth narrative is not there at all and most would not recognize it in John's gospel. In Paul's letters, the birth of Jesus has no distinct place. Most people notice that there are no descriptions of what Jesus looked like.

With the exception of his visit to the Temple in Jerusalem when he was twelve, there is no mention of the years from his birth till his emergence some thirty years later. Because there are so many gaps in our picture of Jesus, people are attracted by his person to add, invent and imagine things about him and try to pass them off as authoritative and genuine. (Many people accepted that details in The Da Vinci Code 2003 were facts. They were not! This was a mystery-detective fiction novel written by an American author, Dan Brown.) That these gaps that have been left unfilled is an indication of the reliability of the text. Anyone who wanted to create a convincing story in the way so often suggested would have made a better job of it. Similarly the fact that the gospels are not exact copies of each other, that there are differences between them and the chronology differs, all suggest that there has not been any attempt to create a fabrication. There are some verses that are difficult to understand or are very hard to accept. These have not been doctored. In some instances, there is evidence from the textual variations that might show how scribes in the earliest days of copying the manuscripts either deliberately or accidentally made changes. Very early in the life of the Christian church, Jesus and his disciples became increasingly revered. You can see this in Mark's gospel where the disciples are depicted as stupid, 'thick'; but in other gospels, this has been smoothed out. In Mark1:41, the healing of a leper, the majority of translations follow the manuscripts that read Jesus was moved with pity. But one manuscript has Jesus was moved with anger. This might be a copying error (the Greek words for pity and anger are similar) or more likely, a scribe changed the word to pity because he could not accept that Jesus was angry with the leper. Some scholars suggest that Jesus might be angry with the disease, not with the leper. It certainly seems improbable that anyone would change 'pity' into 'anger'. General assertions that the gospels have been created by the early church on the basis of only limited information to suit their propaganda needs do not stand up to detailed examination.

The Gospels are clear that they are written to show that in Jesus the Kingdom of God had broken in on earth. Heaven, God's dimension of the cosmos and earth, the human sphere, had come together in Jesus. This is no biography or anything like it. Nor is it a story to show a wonderful moral example we should follow. Nor is it about how we can get to heaven because heaven is here and now, ready for those who want to enter. It is God's final rescue initiative. It is about Jesus, the historical Jesus of Nazareth, whose portrait we have in the gospels and which makes sense within the world of Palestine in the first thirty years of the first century. But as we look at this Jesus, we see more than the historical figure. We see the One who in himself, by what he does and says, is fulfilling the promises of God to Abraham and David to give humans the opportunity for freedom from the consequences of rebellion and be made new.

The agnostic or humanist, Muslim or Buddhist who looks at the evidence for the existence of Jesus and the reliability of the documents will come to the conclusion that Jesus did live and that the documents are reliable. When someone comes to this conclusion, we should not confuse it with a decision to become a Christian. They might reasonably accept the evidence but that might be all. But if the 'light dawns' for someone, then that disclosure is anchored on the basis of sound evidence. From that point, the disclosure could lead them into commitment and they could take the next step by declaring their allegiance to Jesus. But whether they do this or not, in the face of the scholarship to which anyone can have access, it is unreasonable for anyone to continue with the popular talk of the last few generations, still being repeated in different circles today, that reduces Jesus to a myth and the New Testament to a literary hoax.

For some however, their attitude towards the New Testament is coloured and shaped by a deep suspicion of the Old Testament. Both the New Testament and Jesus himself used the Old Testament. It was central for any Jew who was brought up to know the scriptures. Jesus himself, a Jew of the first half of the first century, was soaked in an understanding and knowledge of the Old Testament. When he quoted the Old Testament or used crucial concepts and ideas from the Old Testament, he could safely assume that those who heard him understood what he was saying.

The Old Testament is sometimes pushed to one side today. For many it is a closed book. They consider it too difficult or irrelevant. Certainly there are parts of it that need careful understanding and explanation within the context of the time it was written. Very often only small portions are read in worship and often by those who do not understand what they are reading, with inevitable consequences. Some congregations rarely hear the Old Testament read at all. Whilst the importance of the Old Testament for Jesus may be recognised, the reliability of the documents are seriously doubted by some. In addition, the Old Testament is frequently misunderstood and from school teaching and beyond, many people have been set off on the wrong track. Big mistakes are made when for instance it is assumed that the early chapters of Genesis are setting out a scientific account of creation. When this is challenged or ridiculed, it often leads some to view the whole bible with, at least, suspicion.

How do we know that the Old Testament we have today is even close to the original? Haven't copiers down through the centuries inserted and deleted and embellished the documents so that the original meaning has been obscured?

The first thing is to start with the collection of ancient source documents themselves. Long before anything was written, the words were passed down by word of mouth. Again, we have to remember that word of mouth was very important. It was all that people had. What was passed on was repeated word for word. Fathers taught their sons word by word. The crucial question is: Not having any original copies or scraps of the Old Testament, can we reconstruct them well enough from the oldest manuscript evidence we do have?

When writing began those who were engaged in it were in the professional classes. The scribes who copied scriptures were often devout Jews. They believed they were dealing with the very Word of God and were therefore extremely careful in copying. They did not just hastily write things down. They used individual scrolls similar to that which Jesus used when he read from Isaiah. The earliest complete copy of the Hebrew Old Testament dates from c.900 A.D. made by a group of Jews called Masoretes. These Jews were meticulous in their copying. The texts they had were all consonants in capital letters, and there was no punctuation or paragraphs. The Masoretic text (MT) was an attempt to standardise the text comparing all the then known texts of the Hebrew bible to form one complete copy that represented the original writings. At the same time they standardised the pronunciation by adding the vowels (pointing). The Codex Leningrad, dated around 1000 A.D. was previously the oldest known copy of this Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible. That was until in 1947, when a young Bedouin goat herdsman found some clay jars in several caves near the valley of the Dead Sea. Inside the jars were some leather scrolls. The discovery of these "Dead Sea Scrolls" at Qumran has been hailed as the outstanding archaeological discovery of the twentieth century.

The scrolls revealed that a commune of monastic farmers flourished in the valley from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D. It is thought that when they saw the Romans invade the land they put their cherished leather scrolls in the jars and hid them in the caves on the cliffs northwest of the Dead Sea. These materials are dated around 100 B.C. Of particular importance are the Isaiah scroll found in one cave (1Q1sa) and fragments in another cave (1Q1sb.) The significance of the find, and particularly the copy of Isaiah, is because it antedates by more than a thousand years the oldest Hebrew texts preserved in the tradition. This enables scholars to compare them with the Hebrew texts of the tenth century AD. A comparison of the Qumran manuscript of Isaiah with the text (MT) reveals them extremely close in accuracy to each other. In the 1Q1sb fragments, there are virtually no differences. There are more variants in 1Q1sa. Whilst many of these are spelling and grammatical and do not alter the meaning at all, there are 15 about which scholars and recent translations are divided. But apart from these, the text of Isaiah has been remarkably well preserved. There is sufficient evidence from this comparison of the Masoretic text with that found at Qumran to suggest that the text of the Old Testament has not been tampered with in the ways sometimes claimed. It is safe to assume from this that the scribes have been as faithful in copying the rest of the Old Testament as they were in copying Isaiah. Translators that are more recent have been able to compare the text with the vowels, alongside translations into Greek, Aramaic and Syriac, made before the text was produced. This has given some changes and these corrections are noted in the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) This gives a text that is likely to be even closer to the original. But it is described as a 'version'! Here is another area where there is more confusion!

It is a problem for many that there are so many versions of the Bible. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is one of the best and the most recent. But our understanding of what constitutes a 'version' varies greatly. You may have your version of an event, I may have mine and someone else may have his or hers. Who is right? How do we decide? 'Everyone has their own version.' But this is not what is meant by versions of the Bible. There is however one exception to this. That is the New World 'translation' (1950) from the Jehovah Witnesses. This is a sectarian paraphrase and attempts to give the Jehovah Witness teaching through their translation. Apart from this, it might be wiser to describe the versions as translations. Yet, even that is open to misunderstanding since the reasons for new translations have to be understood. Translation of the texts takes scholars many years. Where new documents have become available, any variations between them and the previously accepted text have to be carefully weighed and compared. But the scholars can now also use other discoveries of secular and non-biblical material as well as archaeological evidence. These new discoveries often give an insight into the meaning of words in biblical texts that previously have either not been fully understood or have been misunderstood.

The English translations of the original documents were done in the language current at the time of the translation. The best known and much loved by many, is the King James Version of 1611. It was some time before a translation was produced that used the contemporary language of the twentieth century. That change led many to believe that the 'word of God' had been changed. Similarly, more recent translations do not use 'he' when in modern usage 'people' or an equivalent is a more accurate translation. This more accurately reflects the meaning of the original. Some translations are more useful than others depending on the needs of the reader. For instance, the NRSV gives very useful footnotes that help any study of the text. There are different words and phrases used in the different translations but it is certain that the meaning of the original remains identical. Then there are 'translations' that are paraphrases. This is clearly stated and recognised by the authors. These paraphrases attempt to give the real meaning and sense behind the original words. The Living Bible and The Message are two recent examples. They are not intended as study bibles. One particular use for these paraphrases is to help new Christians and enquirers. But it is also useful for anyone to read the same passage in more than one translation and in one of the paraphrases.

None of this helps the reader unless there is an understanding of the purpose behind the writing. So, the Gospels are not intended to be biographies and the Acts of the Apostles is not a history of the early church. Any mention of the Old Testament reminds people of creation in Genesis, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark, Abraham perhaps, certainly Joseph and his coat; Samson may come to mind along with Job and of course Jonah and the whale. 'Nice stories' but so what? How do they hang together if indeed they do? We have bits in our minds that do not seem to have any significance for people today. Jesus knew the whole God story. We have lost that panoramic view and understanding. We must go somewhere towards rediscovering it in a way that makes sense to churchgoers and those outside so that mention of the Old Testament is not an immediate turn off. We have seen that the documents behind the Old Testament can be trusted and that it was crucial to Jesus in his own life and in his ministry. The message of the Old Testament is part of his message. This must now be explored.

Chapter Four

The God Story.

Increasingly there is a need for Christians to be clear about the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the Old and New Testament documents. It must also be recognised that it is no longer any good to assume that it can be taken for granted that either those who are churchgoers or those whether claiming to be Christian or not, have the facts about Jesus and the Bible documents. Being a Christian is about a relationship of trust in Jesus. That cannot begin to be taken seriously or explored unless the foundations are secure and the facts understood, otherwise any disclosure could be no more than a dream or self-hallucination.

There are people, young and old who pick up the Bible and begin reading it. Many have to give up that task because it rapidly becomes obvious that this is no ordinary book. In fact, the Bible is a collection of books whose style and genre varies. It may be that the best starting point for reading the Bible is not at the beginning at all but rather with one of the gospels in the New Testament such as Mark. Even then, it needs to be understood that, as has already been discussed, the gospels are gospels, not biographies. They are written to introduce the reader to the good news of Jesus. Similarly, the reader needs to approach the Bible with some tools in order to appreciate what is being read. This cannot happen easily when the Bible is read in public worship sometimes very badly and without any understanding. Nearly always the passages read are very short and no context is given. It does not help to read only a small portion of a letter. These difficulties can be overcome if the Bible is read in a small group together with others hungry to understand and hear God speaking through the Bible. In such a group, they might follow one of the threads that run through the whole or part of the Bible. Here I will offer one such thread. However, once this thread has been explored, it has to be remembered that there are other important threads, which I am not going to describe here. All of them together give you a rich tapestry that is the Bible God story.

'In the beginning God created' or 'when God began to create'. That is how the story starts. Children ask 'Then who made God?' They do not find it easy to picture the beginning as the beginning. One teenager put it to me 'before my beginning was my mum and dad, so who was there before God? The answer is God. The beginning is the beginning. Before the big bang and everything else, God. This is not intended by the writer to be a scientific account, even though the order of creation is scientifically correct. It is about God, not science. It is theological.

This God is not a machine, computer or an abstract remote Power. God says 'Let us create humankind (men and women) in our own image, according to our likeness' (Genesis 1:26) Humans share in God's likeness. Traditionally we picture God as male. The Bible uses the pronoun 'he' and Jesus speaks of God as 'Father'. This may be a reflection of how the writer in his time along with his contemporaries viewed women as in some way inferior to men (missing the point that both share in the likeness of God.) The writer uses the plural Let us create...This is not the predecessor of the doctrine of the Trinity. Rather it may refer to the seraphim and cherubim by whom the Holy God is surrounded Genesis 1:26. The same may be the case in Isaiah 6. But we should notice that 'the spirit of God swept over the waters' Genesis 1:2. The spirit or wind of God was the agent in creation and as early as John's gospel, it was understood that 'in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him and without him not one thing came into being.' This gospel is dated 117-138 AD. Already not only was Jesus understood in terms of the Greek concept of Logos (Word) but also it was recognised that Jesus was there in the creation process. So here are the seeds of later doctrine!

God is more than the human mind can properly comprehend. God is bigger than very big! At some point the Jews recognised this: they would neither write nor say the name of God and even today orthodox Jews neither speak nor write it. The consonants are YHWH usually pronounced Yahweh but we do not know that is right. God is who God is. Henton Davies in his lectures used to say that when Moses asked God for his name the reply was "Mind your own business!' In the Hebrew 'I am who I am' or may be "I am who I will be" (Genesis 3:13 NRSV) This God gives humankind dominion over all creation. Genesis makes it clear repeatedly that all God made was very good. (Genesis 1:10, 12, 18, 21, 25, 31) This is in stark contrast with Gnostics and other religions that either regard the created order as evil from which humans must be delivered or claims that god created an evil power as well. This was an issue with which Christians have constantly had to contend and correct. Humans are created in the image of God and are set above all created things. The psalm says 'You have made them a little lower than God and crowned them with glory and honour.' Humankind was told what they could and could not do, but at the same time they were given choice. They were not created robots nor were they puppets on strings. The next chapters of Genesis tell how wrong choices were made – they rebelled against the creator, thinking that they knew better, and humankind suffered the consequences. The almighty God having given humans choice does not over rule the consequences when they make bad choices.

But God cannot ignore rebellion. This is the major plot line of the Old Testament - humans given the choice miss the opportunity and choose to ignore God and put themselves at the centre. This results in a mess. The rebellion and its consequences grow incrementally and infect and affect the whole created order. But God out of love cannot stand by whilst his creation goes into chaos. Repeatedly he attempts rescue missions. They fail. Some writers look forward to the time when all will be restored but we have to wait for the New Testament before we find the successful costly rescue attempt, which even then requires individuals to make choices. In the garden, those created by God rebelled against him. From that to the first murder, to widespread violence and the building of a tower – when men and women actually thought they could reach God by their own efforts – flowed inevitable consequences and punishment but never abandonment. God did not walk away. Human beings had to learn that they couldn't put up a ladder of intellectual arguments and reach God's world anymore than they could put up a ladder of moral achievements and be good enough to be in God's presence. But the early lessons were not learnt and another way had to be found. That is where Abraham comes in. Abraham and his descendents are to be God's means of putting things right. God made a covenant with Abraham. Not that Abraham asked for it, or deserved it or agreed the terms. It was a one sided arrangement – that is a covenant - accepted by Abraham. It was a rock solid commitment that the creator of the universes will bless the whole world through Abraham. Tom Wright "Shimmering like a mirage in the deserts through which Abraham wandered was the vision of a new world, a rescued world, a world blessed by the creator once more, a world of justice, where God and his people would live in harmony, where human relationships would flourish and where beauty would triumph over ugliness. It would be a world in which the voices that echo in all human consciousness would blend together and be heard as the voice of the living God."In other words, God would make sense of all that we described in the earlier chapters. This is the story that dominates the Old Testament. God is never giving up on his promise but seeking the willing cooperation of humans to achieve it. It was not straightforward. The first wheel comes off this rescue plan when Abraham wants to claim that Sarah his wife is just his sister! (Genesis 12:10-20; 20:1-16) Then Jacob cheats on his brother Esau. So, it went on. His brothers hated Joseph but God had other plans for Joseph. Then Moses has the task of bringing the rabble of Hebrew slaves out of Egypt to the edge of the land God had promised to give them. It took them a long time to get there because progress was interrupted regularly by rebellion in spite of the rescue from Egypt they had experienced. Once in the Promised Land it was the same story. When the people thought they could do things their way they suffered, usually at the hands of the remaining residents in the land and their neighbours. When they recognised the evil of their rebellion, God gave them Judges. Then they wanted a King.They were given a king. God made a promise to David that he would have descendants and that his dynasty would not end. He was a man of faith and devotion to God. But even he, David, went off the rails. He was ruthless and willing to commit terrible crimes to satisfy his own ambition and desires. When he is challenged, he confesses and accepts the punishment that God sends. But the life and achievements of David had impressed the people so much that they always longed for a King who would be like David - 'son of David'.

During the time in the wilderness en route to the Promised Land, the Tabernacle was the place where God had a special place. This was where the stone tablets containing the Ten Commandments were kept. When the people were settled, the pressure for a permanent housing led to the building by Solomon of the Temple (957)This Temple was sacked by Egypt, only to be rebuilt by King Jehoash of Judah (835). But it was not long before this was stripped by Assyria (700) and finally destroyed by Babylon in 586. The Temple was central to the Jews because it was there that God was on earth; there heaven and earth overlapped. The need therefore for a Temple drove the people to believe, that no matter what hostile forces did, the Temple would be restored. Even during the exile in Babylon this hope remained.

The story of the Kings is a constant refrain describing how good or bad the King was in obeying God and in his attention to the Temple. Not even the intervention of God through prophets could prevent the kingdom being divided into Israel and Judah. The failure of the northern kingdom to cooperate with their God in his good purposes resulted in the devastation of the kingdom by Assyria and the exile of its people. The southern kingdom, Judah, fared no better. No sooner did Assyria start to fade than Babylon rose to power. Again in spite of warnings through the prophets, kings preferred to trust in political alliances rather than God and their people preferred injustice and deceit concealed under the thin veil of Temple sacrifices instead of justice and a willingness to live together in relationship as God's covenant people. In the end Jerusalem and the Temple were flattened and the people taken into exile.

Zion, Jerusalem, and in particular the Temple, had been the place where God was located. There was his glory; there was heaven on earth, there was forgiveness and fellowship with their God. But when the glory went, as understood by Ezekiel (11:23), then despair followed. Increasingly a substitute for the Temple worship was found in the keeping of the Torah: it was as though you were in the Temple itself, heaven and earth again overlapped when the Torah was obeyed and followed. Following the destruction of the Temple, the Torah (the Pentateuch, the first five books in the Old Testament) was probably written down and edited into the form we now have them. The intention was not only to tell the story of rebellion and rescue, of exile and return, but also to stress how the people should behave in response to and gratitude for what God had done for them. The Torah was not just an individual's guide to living but, more importantly, a way of teaching people how to live together as a nation. Significantly it was the Torah that was attacked by foreigners because they recognised that this was the way of keeping people together and protecting the national unity and identity of a people under God and in covenant with him. It was in the keeping of this code that they hoped to avoid another period of exile.

Ezekiel had looked forward to the time when the glory, God's presence, would be able to return to a rebuilt Temple. (44:1-2) When however the people were allowed to return home, and they could re build their Temple, reconstruction was delayed through the opposition of Judah's neighbours and an economic crisis until the time of Darius (Ezra chaps. 1-6. and Zech chaps. 1-8.) The new Temple was a shadow of that which it replaced and under the domination of Syria, the Temple was used for pagan worship and desecrated.

Since David, the expectation was that the Messiah King would rebuild the Temple if necessary. Judas Maccabaeus led a successful rebellion against Syria in 164 BC. He restored the Temple and his family were established as the royal family. But he and his family were not the Davidic successors that were hoped for. Years later the Romans gave Herod the Great the title of King of the Jews and he began (a work his family continued) to improve the Temple to something resembling its original grandeur. But Herod was not the King for whom the Jews longed. The Romans destroyed that Temple in AD 70. But the hope for a good, true and just King who would rebuild the Temple fulfilling the ancient hope and longing that the promises of God to David would be fulfilled, remained. God would do this through a descendent of David – a shoot from the stock of Jesse (Isaiah 6:13), King David's father. This is central to the prophet Isaiah. One passage, Isaiah 11:1-9, is familiar from Christmas carol services, but it does not excite people because they do not realise what it is saying. Not only will this Messiah King (i.e. Jesus) bring justice and peace to the world, it will be through him that the whole earth will be full of the knowledge of God and nature itself will be sorted out so that the wolf will live with the lamb... a whole new harmony for the whole of creation. (Isaiah 65:17-18,25.) But Isaiah sees this being accomplished through the Messiah King being a suffering obedient servant on behalf of Israel who had so conspicuously and persistently rebelled and refused to obey. These are the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. Through him, Israel can be rescued and the world will then be able to see what God has done for his people. Jeremiah develops the theme of the new covenant that is needed to replace the first covenant that had been broken. Ezekiel sees that it will be necessary for God to do something about the basic disease of the people: they need a new heart. God must transplant this into his people, because in their own strength, the previous covenant had been broken and their hearts were hard as stone, convinced they knew best. God has to act. It is he, who comes to the rescue through the suffering servant Messiah King. He keeps his promise to Abraham and David. He offers restoration after the exile.

He gives them a King to wash their feet and rescue them. In this Messiah King, heaven and earth come together. Jesus is the new Temple where God is truly present. Here the echo of longing for spirituality is realised. All that was sought for in the Temple to be rebuilt by the Messiah is there in Jesus. This is what Jesus is saying in speaking of his resurrection body. 'Destroy this Temple and after three days I will raise it up.' (John 2:19-21) It is as though Jesus is the walking temple! No wonder it angered the Jewish leaders who knew what he was talking about. Through Jesus, peace becomes possible between humans and God. But its final fulfilment rests on the response of repentance from the people and their willingness to cooperate with God in his good purposes for the world as he had made them known to Abraham.

Jesus is the next part of the God story. The King has come. Mark's gospel begins "The beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ". Mark does not begin with his birth or childhood or teenage years. He begins with what he wanted to get across to others – the good news of Jesus Christ, the inauguration of the kingdom. After his baptism, the time of preparation in the desert and the arrest of John, Mark 1: 14 says that Jesus came into Galilee proclaiming the good news of God and saying 'the time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God has come near, repent and believe in the good news'.

For the ordinary Jew this meant that the Messiah King for whom they were longing was here. The King from the root of Jesse, David's descendent was the anointed one (The same word is Messiah in Hebrew and Christ in Greek). It was through him that God's promises and purposes would be fulfilled and Israel would be rescued from the occupying oppressor Rome who would be judged. After that, a new reign of justice and peace would follow. Heaven was arriving on earth. Others before him had attempted to rid the Jews of the Romans and were crucified for their trouble. But with Jesus something was different. People had hailed him as King when he rode into Jerusalem. They had earlier wanted to make him King but he had slipped away from them. He was aware that they had the wrong end of the stick. He drew crowds of people who were impressed by his teaching. He acted as one with authority, forgiving sins, healing and teaching. He had suggested to the disciples that he was the one to come after Elijah and that one was the Messiah. For Jesus to be seen as the King in waiting was of concern to Herod because he was answerable to Rome and the cry would go up 'We have no King but Caesar'. The Chief priests were also concerned. They were Herod's backers and derived their power from him. But the people were confused because Jesus was not beginning with the removal of the Romans; he was beginning with them, the chosen people! He was calling them to radical change and repentance for the rebellion that had been the story of their history. He was challenging them to become the light to point the Gentiles to the true God and his way. This was the deal God had made with Abraham. His people, by the way they lived would show the world who God was and what he required - true justice and harmonious relationships as a loving response for what he had done and not as a bargaining chip they could use with him. Jesus fulfilled what Isaiah had spoken of and of which he spoke when he read from the Isaiah scroll in the synagogue. He was in fact rescuing people from the consequences of their rebellion rather than from Rome, opening their eyes, setting the lame free to walk and making it possible for the poor to hear the good news. This was the kingdom coming in action and it was clearly seen. (Luke 4:17-21) The Messiah King would turn things upside down so that the poor and widows, the orphans and the outcastes would get a fair deal. This disturbed the Pharisees. They had become influential in the exile when they were based on the synagogue around the Torah. They gained their influence by their knowledge of the Torah, that symbol of national identity and the way of claiming God's favour against the pagan Romans, and by their interpretations of the Torah. The synagogues remained central for the people who were less than enthusiastic about Herod's Temple.

The parables Jesus told were understood by these religious leaders as directed to them. They did not hear them as the nice stories I was told in Sunday School. They recognised that it was they who Jesus was saying were the elder brother who resented the rescue and the return of the younger brother. This story-parable, like many more, hit home and hurt. The meaning was not heavenly but right down to earth and the Pharisees knew it. In both the teaching and healing ministry of Jesus, he is making it clear that something new was here: the kingdom was at hand. 'If I by the finger of God cast out demons, then know that that the kingdom of God has come among you.'

They had got that right. But it seems that the people and the disciples themselves had nationalistic blinkers on. The oppression from occupying powers for so long had got to everyone. So, Jesus tried to avoid the use of words like King and Messiah. Indeed, many times in the Gospels, he tells people not to tell others he was the Messiah when they thought they recognised him. This was done to save people from getting wrong ideas. Not that it worked. They were too excited and did tell others. So, Jesus prefers to use a different title, Son of Man. It is not common in the Old Testament but it would be familiar to Jews from Daniel (chapter 7) and Enoch. Here Son of Man is a strange human figure who represents the Jews and who after suffering, is vindicated. So Jesus is saying he will suffer. Yes! And he told his disciples several times but would they hear what he was saying? Don't think so! The penny did not drop for some time. Again, the idea that the Messiah King would suffer was clear from the Suffering Servant passages in Isaiah. But the Jews had a way round this to fit in with their own ideas. They concluded that the suffering was the suffering that Israel's enemies would experience. If the Servant suffered then it followed, he could not be the Messiah.

Their national misfortunes dominated their thinking and neither scripture nor Jesus himself could shift them. But Jesus was clear about what he had to do. He knew the scriptures. He had read and studied them. They shaped his vocation. He had wrestled with it all in prayer to check it out with his father. The Messiah King, the Suffering Servant, the Son of Man must suffer. Jesus understood his part in the overall plan of God to rescue the world from the mess into which men and women had got themselves - the result of their rebellious attitude bringing chaos in its wake as they insisted on having their own way.

The Good News of Mark opens with Jesus proclaiming that 'the kingdom of God is near' and then significantly, devotes more than half of the gospel to the events around the suffering and death of the King. The earliest gospel sees that the heart of the good news is the death of Jesus. He, the Son of Man, the representative of Israel would take their sin, their rebellion with all its horrendous consequences on himself and be vindicated at the other end. 'He was wounded for our transgressions, and crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the punishment that made us whole and by his bruises we are healed.' (Isaiah 53:5) His death would achieve what the Temple with its sacrificial system had pointed towards but been unable to deliver. The real enemy was not Rome but human rebellion against and rejection of God's way in which men and women had chosen to become totally involved. The brokenness of relationships, the damaged lives of people, the estrangement in nature and the fleeting nature of beauty – from all this we could be rescued by the one hanging on a cross.

The story had begun with the tree of knowledge and the human choice to rebel against the creator God. The consequence were the sins of the people as they continued to trust in themselves and consequently repeatedly missed the target of holiness resulting in all sorts of evil clearly seen as the suffering King hangs on another tree, the cross of Calvary. In the New Jerusalem where heaven and earth meet, another tree, the tree of life, grows on the banks of the river, offering healing to all nations. This points to the reversal of all that had gone wrong so that no longer in future need people only hear and experience echoes. But that future has already dawned in Jesus, so that those who place their trust in him can share in anticipation in what God, at Easter did for Jesus, the new creation bursting from the tomb. Now as his body, the church, Christians are challenged to be his agents for bringing about the time when the earth is filled with the knowledge and glory of God.

You may be saying that you don't understand how by my placing all my trust in Jesus dying on the cross, sets me free from all the consequences of my sin and free to be his agent in the new creation through his spirit. OK! Jesus says that's the way it is. 'The Son of Man came not to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many'. (Mark 10:45) You may not understand it and it may sound strange. But there are many situations like this in which we find ourselves. I do not understand how this computer on which I am pressing keys works. What matters for me is that it does. I get on and use it and am grateful for it. It is so much easier than the old typewriter or in my case writing essays and papers by hand with no cut and paste! It seems that increasingly those involved in advanced science are willing to say that they are not always able to explain some very basic things. The scientist can go so far, a lot further than we can, but with their present level of knowledge and understanding they accept that they don't understand all they would like to and must wait until something else makes it possible for them to do so. It seems that some of the most brilliant scholars are those who are the most ready to recognise the limitations of their knowledge and the provisionality of statements that in the past had been regarded as written in stone. It is when pushed to the limits anyone can be in the place of disclosure. There is probability, but no proof. Yet it is here that 'the penny drops, the light dawns' and they see.

As new life breaks in at Easter with the resurrection of Jesus, the new creation has begun. Such a human resurrection had not happened before and it has not happened since. It is hard to see how anyone could have imagined such a thing. In Daniel 12:3 the expectation was that the righteous, the wise among Israel would appear as bright stars, heavenly glory, in the resurrection. (Is this the origin of what children are often told when someone dies - their loved one is that bright star they can see.) The gospels themselves make it clear that Jesus himself went to some lengths to show that he was no ghost. (Luke 24:39ff.) There are those who have persuaded themselves that some loved one is not dead but it is very hard to see how large numbers of people for a very long time could have done this over the same person and that the church could have grown on such a basis. Of course, there have always been those who have said that Jesus was never dead and that the cold of the tomb revived him. Those who know about crucifixion, not to mention the flogging that had preceded it, do not agree. It is not possible. Even if something like it were, then the revived person would need a long time to recover sufficiently to do what we are told Jesus did after the resurrection. Modern medical opinions differ as to whether Jesus died of cardiac rupture or of cardio respiratory failure. The important thing is not how he died but rather whether he died. The weight of historical and medical evidence indicates that Jesus was dead before the wound to his side was inflicted and supports the traditional view that the spear, thrust between his right ribs, probably perforated not only the right lung but also the pericardium and heart and ensured his death. The claims that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge.

Surprisingly churchgoers are very vague, if not confused, over the resurrection. Some Easter hymns suggest that the whole significance of the resurrection is that there is life in heaven after death (although the prescribed readings from the letters focus on living now). This was not the way early Christians saw it. Sure, although this is often not picked up, the resurrection body of Jesus does give us more than a clue as to what sort of body we will have after death. It will be a bodily resurrection after a period with Jesus in paradise or heaven, a rest in peace (or R.I.P.) (1Corinthians 15:35ff.) It is clear that the resurrection body of Jesus was different from his previous body. He was not identified from his appearance. There have been endless attempts to explain why he was not recognised but the facts are clear: it was by what he said and did that he was known. It was the person of Jesus that registered with his followers, not his physical appearance. But that is not the primary point behind the first Easter. The message that the Jews who followed Jesus took hold of was that the God in heaven, who had always shown that 'he' was in the world, had by raising Jesus from the dead brought new creation to life. Here were the seeds of that new creation putting to rights the failures and destruction that had followed the first. In a way, just as rebellion in the garden kicked off the pattern that brought punishment, exile and foreign domination, so now in another garden something happens. As Jesus makes himself known, it was clear that through the obedience of one man, representing Israel and holding in himself the vocation of Israel given to Abraham, that in him all the nations of the world would be blessed, new life had been unleashed. Here was true freedom from all the destructive and deadly consequences of rejection and rebellion. The new Israel must go and make that new creation happen in the world. How will this be done? The new Israel is the Christian Church. The Church () is the people who have given their allegiance to Jesus called together and sent out to be his agents as they engage in the task that Jesus gives them and for which he equips them through his spirit. More than this, it is the Spirit who moulds them into the Jesus mould and gives them the power to become what they are in Jesus. In this way, by dependence on his spirit, they reverse the inbuilt tendency to rebel against God by usurping his position. It is by dependence on his spirit, that the chaos created by Babel, wrecking communication between people, could be corrected. The church are the people who must speak in the power of the spirit equipped with the facts so that they are able to pick up on the misunderstandings and false assumptions made by many people as well as being able and willing to deal head on with any assault on the historicity of Jesus and the reliability of the documents that lie behind the Bible. They are the people who must offer the best and most appropriate contexts for disclosure commitment in this century. In order for the Church to be confident and equipped, we need to recognise that just as God spoke clearly in Jesus, the living Word, the words we use need to be clear.
Chapter Five

Clearing The Ground.

If we are to follow the commands of Jesus, the church needs to be fully equipped so that when it speaks outside of, as well as in public worship, it speaks with words that the people will understand. More than fifty years ago I came to realize that the language used by Christians in public and private contexts was a major obstacle even for me brought up in a church-going home and educated in public school and universities. I realised that church language could be a real barrier to many, whilst others simply accepted that this was just how it was. Many people were excluded from understanding whatever was being said and if they thought they understood, they were sometimes wide of the mark. But it is important to be clear what we mean when we ask for 'understandable language'.

In 2011, the General Synod of the Church of England voted to back a motion calling for a more understandable text for the baptism service. The motivation for this move came from a concern that the number of baptisms was falling. In some contributions to the debate and in a subsequent programme on BBC Radio 4, it was obvious that what was meant by some in calling for understandable language varied. One speaker said, "It is essential that parents and family can feel comfortable with the words of the baptism service. It is not good if they are alienated or don't connect with the central words". "Let's find a way of softening the unpalatable bits so that people can enjoy the service". The idea of rebirth being necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven because of the stain of sin is considered as 'morbid and denying'. Another writer quoted Paul "Do you not know that all of us who have been baptised into Christ were baptised into his death?" and commented 'That's a shocking thing to say, so is it any wonder that some do not want the baptism ceremony for themselves or their children.' There are those who do not want to recognise that they are the sinners for whom Jesus died. The baptism service is designed for Christians who want to bring their children into the family and faith of the church. When it used for those who have little or no connection with church and whose families and friends who are invited to the service are similarly unfamiliar with church, it is little wonder that there are potential problems. Sadly, from one point of view, in my ministry I never had anyone who complained about the words of the service or the fact that they did not understand or approve of what they heard. The reality I suspect is that for most people the words go over their heads - they don't hear what is being said or take seriously, what they read. They are looking forward to the party afterwards! The call for understandable language is good but understandable language is not a language that changes the meaning of baptism or the words of St Paul in order to make the service 'enjoyable' or 'palatable' or to avoid 'alienating' people. Again, whilst language may be understandable it does not necessarily follow that it is understood by those using or hearing it. People need the opportunity to discuss and share leisurely and with others they know and trust. This cannot even happen in baptism preparation meetings if those meetings are with people who have little or no background or understanding of the Christian gospel. The baptism service is only one of the services attended by large numbers of people who are unfamiliar with church language and with the Christian message. There is a responsibility on us to use understandable language and to provide the means to enable people to understand such language.

Most professions and trades have to use technical words that may not be understood by the ordinary 'layman'. The institution of the church similarly needs technical words. I have tried to avoid technical theological words. (e.g. eschatological, justification, atonement, etc..) If such words need to be used we must make sure that they are explained and understood. The same is true of words used in church circles – e.g. Advent, Epiphany, collect, paten, chasuble, surplice and so on. It might be useful for them to be used and understood, but it should not be a priority for those unfamiliar with church to understand these words.

There are many other words which anyone venturing into church worship will hear and use as well as those they encounter in their reading of the Bible. I cannot consider all of them in this section, but in what follows, I am going to discuss some which seem to me to offer a particular challenge. I have sometimes asked people to bring a notebook with them to a service and write down all the words, which they know they don't understand. It is often a long list and that is only the words they think they don't understand.

On another level, there are words used today that may mean something very different to some people. Language changes from the familiar meaning of yesterday. (e.g., cool, sad, tragic.) School children and their parents are discovering a language gap. Children develop a different a language of alternative meanings that seeps out at home. The same difficulties exist when we talk about our faith unless we are careful and sensitive to the understanding of those who may be listening especially if we do not really belong to their culture. When words from an earlier culture are used, there can be added confusion. So words from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries used in the Book of Common Prayer, though used less since 1980, can confuse. The familiar prayer, 'Prevent us O Lord' gives a completely different message from that in the original Latin - go in front of us... Then there is 'The Lord's my shepherd I'll not want '... an old English word meaning I will lack for nothing. All very confusing! But not everyone is aware of the confusion or the misunderstanding they cause.

Then there are words used in the media that change the original meaning. Frequently 'evangelical' is used to describe someone enthusiastic about a cause and perhaps a bit too keen, when the word really describes a particular theological emphasis of some Christians. The same is the case with 'evangelistic' which really means announcing the good news of Jesus. Another example might be 'charismatic'.

Words must be used, so there will always be a need for understanding and caution, recognizing that language is constantly evolving and changing. This is true for everyone. Some who have grown up in the church use words in public worship that they either do not understand or think they understand but would be surprised to discover they were wrong. It is even more difficult for those who have not grown up in the church. It would be good if more people were aware of these problems when fewer people are at worship and when children grow up with no church connections. Baptism, weddings and funerals present a serious challenge that must be taken seriously. For very many, Church is an alien world and the language encountered there adds enormously to that alienation.

That word 'church' which I have now used many times can itself be very confusing. I tried at the very beginning to clarify the ways in which the word can be used. Most people speak of the church to describe not people but a building. The church is still the place where the bus stops or where you are told to turn right for a particular shop. For many years, the Free Churches called their places of worship 'chapel' which at least left the word 'church' as the way to describe Christians called together. But it may also have been the way to distinguish the non-conformists places of worship from the established church. Those who attend worship are regularly told that church is people rather than the building but in practice no one takes that too seriously. Small wonder that the population as well think of the church as a building and not as the people. People talk of belonging to the church. By that, they mean the organization centred on a particular building. This focus on the building has caused great difficulties. People belong to a particular building and cannot shift their focus. We shall see how all this has led to major problems.

The problem with language is not confined to the mainstream established denominations (e.g. Church of England, Methodist, Roman Catholic etc.) In the independent and Free Churches, where an awareness of the needs of outsiders might be expected, technical and theological words are also used regardless of the audience, many of whom would be new to any form of worship. Often repeated words are used almost as a form of punctuation. 'Lord' is one such. That can conjure up images of the House of Lords or someone who lords it over us. In fact, it is the word Jews used for God that was then also used for Jesus. But it was dangerous talk. Lord was the title of the Emperor. Those who used it were recognizing that the emperor virtually owned them. To call Jesus Lord was challenging the highest power. 'Lord' should not be used lightly.

Another word is 'Name'. Increasingly names have no meaning or their meaning has been lost. Christ is taken to be the surname of Jesus: but it is a very significant title in Hebrew, Messiah. For the Jew and for early Christians, the name revealed something of the person. The name revealed character. Thus Simon was the given the name Peter (Rock). The name was also the authority and power by which another could act. This is still the case when someone is sent 'in the name of the Queen'. Knowing the name of a person gave you some power and authority over that person. So, Jesus asked the demon for its name. (Mark 5:9) The Christian name should be significant; but for most it says nothing of Jesus and his lordship. Now we talk of forenames in recognition of our multi-cultural society. It might be good if when people were baptised they deliberately took a Christian name as an acknowledgement that Jesus was their Lord.

Everyone knows what sin is! But do they? I have already mentioned some of the problems people have with its use in the baptism service. It conjures up for most people misleading impressions and echoes of their youth picked up from churchgoers and sometimes parents: whatever you enjoyed was sin. Sinners were those who did not go to church. Phrases like 'rebellion', 'thinking I know best and certainly better than God', 'rejecting and distrusting God', 'missing the target' with all the awful consequences that follow, are more appropriate. I prefer to avoid misunderstanding by not using the word 'sin' and choose words that get to the meaning of 'sin'; but then I am accused of being long winded and dumbing down sin.

There are other words and phrases that appear straightforward but require some knowledge of the context and background of the Old Testament and of the world in which the bible documents originated, in order to appreciate the full meaning of what is being said.

The Lamb of God is a good example of this. Not many, even in regular worship, become enthused or excited by the constant reminder that Jesus is the Lamb of God. They hear it but would be hard pressed to explain it to an enquiring partner or teenager.

Lamb of God is used in the New Testament by John the Baptist to identify Jesus. For the Jew that would need little explanation. Abraham sacrificed a lamb provided by God in place of his son Isaac – though that was a close call! The lamb was the principal animal of many sacrifices but of particular importance was the Pascal lamb. (Exodus 12:21-8) The blood of the lamb was put on the door lintels of the Hebrew slaves homes so that the angel of death knew which houses to pass over when killing the Egyptian first born – the last straw that broke Pharaoh's back and brought him to allow the Hebrews to leave Egypt. The blood of the lamb was critical in the release of the Hebrews. So, the blood of Jesus by his death is critical in the release of his people from the consequences and penalty that inevitably followed their rebellion. The use of blood in sacrifices was to re-establish the link and fellowship between the worshipper and God that the worshipper had destroyed.

The lamb 'without blemish' is perfect. It was used to take the place of a human being. No human was perfect. Jesus replaces the lamb and is given to us by God. A perfect man is the most effective way of dealing with all sin, known and unknown, not just till the next time, but for all time. There is no repeating this sacrifice; that was needed in the Jewish system because of the limitations of an animal. This demonstrates how important is an understanding of the Old Testament.

The world of the first century Jew was part of the bigger world and as Christianity grew and spread, Greek influences came to play a huge part. Often without realizing it, the Greek background has left its mark on the thinking and feeling of many people in much more recent times. This Greek, as opposed to the Hebrew way of thinking, is illustrated by a word that we often hear used - 'Soul'. We are asked to pray for the soul of someone who has died and it is used in ordinary situations. I went over to shut the window after the old man had died. 'No don't shut the window' I was told, 'his soul has to leave'. For the same reason Hindus often, insist on a funeral pyre in the open air. If that doesn't happen, the soul cannot leave. I often found people troubled by what they thought were ghosts, thinking it was a troubled soul that had been unable to escape. The Greeks thought that the soul was the internal bit of someone that survived death. The body was material and so was essentially evil. The soul was good because it was the spiritual bit of someone. This is what most think when they hear or read the word soul in church or in the Bible.Jesus and the Bible belong to the Hebrew world of the first century, not the Greek.

To the Hebrews the soul was a union of body and spirit. It was the aliveness of a person or animal. A soul was a person, a self. Whereas the Greeks saw the soul as an oyster in the shell (a spirit in a body), the Hebrews emphasized the wholeness of the person. For the Hebrews the soul perished at death. Norman Snaith says: "here are no passages that speak of the immortality of the soul, which is not a Biblical idea at all. There is no single instance in the Old Testament where the 'soul' should be thought of as that which survives death." The King James Version (KJV) uses the word soul very often in its translation. This has seeped into most people's minds. It is very useful to compare the translation of the KJV with any of the new translations. Just one example. Jesus' words to His disciples, in Matthew 16:26, in the King James Version: "What will it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeits his life? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" A better translation is "What will it profit them, if they gain the whole world and forfeit their life? Or what will they give in return for their life?" (NRSV) The separation that the Greeks made between body and soul or between the sacred and the secular is being adjusted. Modern psychology has emphasized the wholeness of life and this reinforces the Hebrew concept. One professor shocked his students by saying: "Jesus never went on a 'soul-saving' mission in his life." Then after a pause, he declared: "He was much too busy saving people."

Many people question at the time of death whether their loved one has gone to heaven. In scripture heaven sometimes simply means the sky and this has led to the popular understanding that heaven is out there, a place above the sky. But the New Testament describes heaven as a fact, God's kingship, God's dimension – not a place. That is why we pray in the Our Father prayer for heaven to become a reality on earth. Heaven and earth overlap in Jesus. This is what he is saying when he declares that the Kingdom of God has come near. It will be fully realized in the future but it is inaugurated by Jesus in his ministry, particularly in his death and resurrection. 'If I, by the finger of God cast out demons, then know that the kingdom of God has come among you'. (Luke 11:20)

Under Greek Gnostic influence this world was seen as something inherently evil through which we have to progress to reach a better world. This is in stark contrast to the Hebrew view. The world created by God was declared to be very good and definitely not evil. But the Greek influence still persists. The idea that Christians regard or are meant to regard the world as evil has stuck with a lot of people. Asking people in the Church of England (Book of Common Prayer baptism service) to 'renounce the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh' does nothing to correct this impression. When the word 'world' is used it has to be remembered that whilst it might refer to this little planet earth, often and particularly in John's gospel, it is used to mean 'people organized against God' and does not mean the place we call earth. In this context, the world can be described as evil, implied in the phrase 'the world, the flesh and the devil.'

Hell is a word that is frequently heard (as a swear word) but it also needs to be reclaimed from popular myth. Far less is known from Scripture about "hell" than most Christians think. Most New Testament writers never mention "hell" or even have much on judgment by fire. All of us have graphic images of what the English word "hell" means, but that derives from medieval sources and the bad teaching of the institutional church in the past when the fear of hell was used to coerce people into church attendance. The scripture words used are Sheol, Gehenna, and Hades. They are surprisingly undefined in the Bible. Sheol is the Hebrew word for the grave, the place of the dead and does not mean "hell", even though the KJV sometimes uses that word. Gehenna refers to a geographical location. Hades often means no more than the grave or death. Perhaps the words are best used as they are when they occur in the text of scripture.

That baptism service also asked whether you rejected the Devil (elsewhere also called Satan, Beelzebub and the fallen angel). The popular picture of the devil also comes from medieval times where he is often depicted as having horns and a goat's hindquarters. He has also been depicted with a forked tail and carrying a pitchfork. None of these images is based on Biblical materials. In both the Old and New Testament, the original role of Satan (and the other names) is to test people in their allegiance and trust in God. The Bible suggests that God actually allows this to happen. The story of Job, the testing of Jesus before he began his ministry, Jesus' words to Peter 'Satan has desired to test you...' (Luke 21:31) and the testing of Judas described as Satan entering into Judas. (Luke 22:3) illustrate this. We are all too well aware of the way in which we are tested and the strength and power of that. The testing itself is not wrong. Where we sin, rebel, against our Father God is by supposing that we can resist simply by relying upon and using our own resources - refusing to accept the power offered to us in Jesus. We must not try to escape our responsibility by claiming somehow that it was the devil or Satan's fault! Jesus is specific in making clear that he is stronger than the strong man (Mark 3:27). Paul reminds Christians that not only does God provide a way through testing but that through the Holy Spirit he equips Christians for the struggle. (1Corinthians 10:13. Ephesians 6:11.). In later biblical books, the role of the devil, in an attempt to explain the fierceness of the opposition and persecution being experienced by Christians, begins to shift into that with which people are more familiar.

It is not only the medieval times that have deeply influenced ideas about the devil. In recent times modern literature and particularly films have added considerably to the modern misunderstanding of the devil. To this some have added modern versions of witchcraft and devil worship. Sadly, many people do not realize that none of this has anything to do with the Bible. This is especially serious when it has caused or aggravated psychological problems for some people.

Linked to this modern interest in the devil is a preoccupation with evil spirits. Because the media has had such influence through films and the publicizing of the practices of some cults, the possession by evil spirits is either sought for or feared by the vulnerable. Some confuse this with the Bible accounts where Jesus confronts those who are described as being possessed by an evil spirit. In the New Testament, the people who are described as being possessed have physical or mental illness. Their illness was not sought by them. As in other societies then and still in some places today, such illness could only be explained as possession by an evil spirit. They do not have the advantages that allow us to understand the source and reason for such things. They could do no other than to see these things as the result of possession by demons or spirits. Healing was therefore understood as deliverance from the evil spirit. Jesus in his ministry heals by driving out the spirit and releasing the person from their bondage.

In this century more people are deliberately putting themselves at risk by their attraction to evil. Christians are urged not to dabble, even if they think it is just for fun, in Tarot cards, Ouija boards and other things especially associated with the Eve of All Hallows. The account in 1Samuel 28 of the visit of Saul to the witch of Endor is cited to warn against consulting the dead. Saul had asked for guidance from God and been given none. He had previously expelled witches and diviners from the country. But when Samuel does appear he very firmly rebukes Saul. God will guide. To go to any other source is rebellion against and rejection of God. This is true also for those who use Tarot cards and Ouija. For a Christian it shows a failure to trust in Jesus as well as exposing people to the power of evil. Christians were confused when in the 1960s, the late Episcopal bishop James A. Pike gave new and widespread attention to the idea of communicating with the spirits of the dead by claiming to converse on a regular basis with his deceased son. Today our society is flooded with mediums and psychics who advertise their services nationwide through TV, magazines, radio, and newspapers.

People respond for various reasons, especially bereavement, and their use of drugs in the past or present. They are vulnerable and run the risk of psychological problems. This can lead them into séances and is part of the attraction of the Spiritualist congregations. Another 'attraction' are ghost tours that are organised and have become very popular. These are tours of haunted castles and houses. (Hampton Court, Tower of London and in the north east, Chillingham castle near Alnwick.) Once hooked in to either the fear or the fascination, it can leave some open to unscrupulous manipulation. Sometimes this reflects the failure of the Church and individual Christians to give clear teaching about death and life. In spite of Christian funeral services and support, many feel the need to turn to séances and the like. The New Testament is clear that it is in Jesus there is certainty, strength and confidence in the face of death. He is able to give total freedom and release. By his Spirit, he is able to equip us all to rise above all fear of possession and be set free to cooperate with him in bringing in that new creation.

This new life of freedom and healing, the reality of forgiveness and the new start that all come from trusting Jesus, (i.e. believing in him) is described as eternal life. For most people eternal life or heaven is what they expect or more often say they 'hope for' when a loved one dies or for themselves after they die. Many see it as the promise of 'pie in the sky when they die.' But most want their 'pie' now and are not interested in something after death! It is irrelevant. Today, eternal life is far less appealing to many and is replaced by the longing for eternal youth expressed for example in the in song Forever Young (Jay-Z)

Let's dance in style, let's dance for a while,

Heaven can wait we're only watching the skies,

Hoping for the best but expecting the worst,

Are you going to drop the bomb or not?

Forever young, I want to be forever young,

Do you really want to live forever? ...

Some are like water some are like the heat,

Some are the melodies some are the beat,

Sooner or later they'll all be gone,

Why don't they stay young?

It's hard to get old without a cause,

I don't want to perish like a fading voice,

Youth is like diamonds in the sun,

And diamonds are forever,

So many adventures couldn't happen today,

So many songs that we forgot to play,

So many dreams swinging out in the blue.....We let them come true

Forever young...

On that quest for eternal youth, many spend vast amounts of money! For Christians however, eternal life is the quality of life that becomes a reality we enjoy when we get into a relationship with Jesus. It is not the same as the Greek concept of immortality.  He gives this life - that is a first instalment now of what we will enjoy in full when the human body is destroyed in death. It is misleading when in worship texts, hymns and some translations of the Bible, immortality is used when eternal life is meant. But even eternal has heavy Greek overtones suggesting length of life, rather than the quality of that life. So the translation 'Abundant life' is to be preferred and is more easily understood. Even then a specific and explicit effort has to be made to separate it from other overtones. Eternal life is possible now. John's gospel makes this clear by using the perfect tense not the future. (John 10:10) Abundant life is the life Christians can live now, as it was meant to be and will become a full reality in the new creation. Often the word 'heaven' is used rather than eternal life. Just as eternal life is not restricted to the future, so too with heaven. When we experience abundant life now, we have heaven on earth. It is a first instalment, a down payment. The final delivery has to take place but that down payment now is a guarantee and the basis on which we can be certain about the future.

The word used to describe this certainty of something we cannot see in full, is 'hope'. In the Book of Common Prayer funeral service, it speaks of "the hope of the resurrection..." Now hope usually means something like 'I hope for sunshine tomorrow – but I cannot be certain of it.' In Christian talk, hope means almost the opposite. It is a certainty about what we cannot see but about which we are certain because of Jesus' promises and the evidence of what he has done in the past. The Common Worship service speaks of 'sure and certain hope in the resurrection' – correcting any idea of uncertainty. I am not at all sure that this is actually picked up by those sharing in a funeral service. I suspect that the point is lost on most of those participating. Hope is being certain of what we cannot see (Hebrews 11:1, Romans 8:24-5). But in this, we are not deluding ourselves. Here and now we can enjoy heaven, eternal/abundant life and the promises of Jesus that when his kingdom comes on earth, then what we have now in part, will be enjoyed to the full.

One of the most common misunderstandings for which some parts of the institutional church in the past was responsible, is the notion that we must earn or merit eternal life, heaven. The Bible contradicts this. In the Old Testament the Hebrew slaves did not deserve or earn their freedom from Egypt. Nor did they earn or deserve the Promised Land. It was given to them by God out of love enshrined in the covenant – that one sided arrangement between unequal parties. In the New Testament, God's undeserved and uninvited generous costly intervention, is called 'grace'. At the end of one wedding service, the hymn Amazing Grace was sung. Whilst the couple were signing the register, the minister heard the best man ask the bridegroom. "Who is this Grace woman?" I have sometimes asked a congregation as soon as I have greeted them at the start of the service with 'Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.' to tell me what grace is. Of course, I don't get an answer there and then! But at the end of the service, over the cuppa – that daring innovation introduced some years ago to attract people to worship – I return to the question. The response is as straightforward as it is honest – 'Don't really know'. Sometimes it did go further. " It is what the Vicar says before the Parish supper." For some it was also the signal that a load of tedious prayers are about to end! So there and then, I would decide to explain with dangerous simplicity. GRACE is God's Rescue At Christ's Expense. God becomes one of us in Jesus and goes to the cross because he loves us and wants to offer us the means by which we can be rescued from the consequences of our persistent rebellion against him. To understand and accept rescue requires an understanding of the seriousness of rebellion, sin. If I miss the opportunity of putting Jesus at the centre and instead choose to put myself at the centre of everything, thinking and acting as though I was God and know best, this is sin. 'I' is at the centre. I have chosen to separate myself from God. Grace is only appreciated when the meaning and consequences of sin are understood. We are talking about rebellion against God. We have seen it throughout the Old Testament. We know it in our own lives: we think we know best and how so often we suffer as a result. Sins are the expression of our rebellion: the actions that follow when someone is confident that they are in control and can act as though they are God. God intervenes not because we ask him to do it or because we deserve it but because he cares so much. Grace is God's undeserved and unasked for intervention to offer a rescue.

Grace at meals and graciousness should then be our response to what He has done. Grace is a word of huge importance and theological content, summing up so much of the reason for worship. Particularly in worship, the word is used frequently and perhaps for this reason few take much notice of it – part of the words of worship. But others and perhaps especially those unfamiliar with worship are left with their own ideas of what is meant. Sometimes where I am now living, I hear people say (usually on a bus!) "There but for the grace of God....." In the context, they seem to mean that if it were not for God, they would have been in the same situation as the person about whom they had been talking. My curiosity has not yet pushed me to ask them what they mean. It sounds as though they are giving God the credit for them being in a different and better place. At least they have some hint of God's intervention but little do they seem to realise the extent of God's intervention in order to give them the chance to experience freedom, eternal life, forgiveness and the power to cooperate with him.

Why did the vicar take a machine gun to church? 'To make people holy!' Of course! Most people would think that, compared with grace, this is a word they clearly do understand. But there is confusion even here amongst churchgoers. Often people think holy means being stuck up ("holier than thou"). Very many people think that "holy" means "morally good". So, you have to be holy to go to heaven. However in scripture whilst holiness implies goodness, the core meaning of holiness is not "good" but rather "set apart" "distinct"- and therefore, good. Holiness draws a boundary around what is uniquely associated with God. So, it is with anything to do with God. In the Old Testament, the Torah was kept in the ark. The bible is called the holy bible. What is unique requires unique accommodation and to be set apart from other uses. In the Old Testament holiness meant that Israel was associated with God. This set them apart from the other nations, for His presence was with Israel. He promised that he would be with them and that they belonged to him. In grateful response, the people undertook to reflect the character of their God and to be holy so that other nations could see the true God. It was in the following of the Torah, that made Israel distinct and by the ethical standards set out in the Torah, made their God distinct. But at the same time by this total emphasis on ethical behaviour, the Old Testament shows that this holy God was 'down to earth', affecting and influencing behaviours. For some that is very awkward and frightening.(Leviticus 19:1) People were not left to achieve these high standards from their own resources. Rather they discovered that holiness in a person or people comes from a dependence on a holy God and in loving response to what he has done. It is the response people should make on their side of the covenant. It is their response to, and not the grounds for, his love.

One word on its own can lead to misunderstanding but couple it with another that can be equally misunderstood and you have to be sure to give adequate explanation. This is the case with the 'Holy Spirit' Holy should now tell us that we are involved with a spirit to do with God. He is not an evil spirit. One of the descriptions of the Holy Spirit in the Bible is as rushing wind and this led to earlier translations using the phrase Holy Ghost. The word ghost is known in the ninth century to have the meaning of breath or blast and is close to the old English word for wind 'ghust'. It is not surprising therefore that the Holy Spirit was confused with ghosts. An interest in ghosts is still very much alive. For this reason, some people are frightened by any talk of the Holy Ghost/Spirit and of being filled with Holy Spirit. As a result, many avoid becoming involved in any way with the Holy Spirit. Some people do not understand the work of the Holy Spirit and explanation and care needs to be taken. There are also too many examples where the work of the Holy Spirit has been used as a cover for things that were very far from spiritual and violated the temple of God. That is how Paul describes a believer filled with the Holy Spirit. (1Corinthians 3:16. 6:19-20) None of this should prevent us from understanding and being open to the Holy Spirit. The Bible is clear that the Holy Spirit is not some impersonal force but rather a person. In the New Testament, the Holy Spirit is referred to as Jesus (John 14:18,28) My first boss spoke of him as 'Jesus our contemporary'. It is in this way that Jesus makes God's future real in the present. After the resurrection, the disciples of Jesus were frightened by the authorities and confused by the reports that Jesus was alive. Some went back to their fishing. The disciples were still expecting the Messiah King to act and do something about the Roman occupation and restore the kingdom to Israel. But instead, when Jesus meets them, he tells them to wait for the Holy Spirit he had promised to give them. He was the one who in the Old Testament had equipped men for the work they had to do and who equipped Jesus in his baptism for his work. The Holy Spirit is not forced upon the disciples. They waited because they wanted to receive. God does not force his gifts on his people. The spirit changed those disciples. No longer were they afraid. Now they are able to speak out clearly with conviction and power, not because they had become educated, but because they had been filled by the Holy Spirit. Jesus had told them that he would not leave them alone but would come back to them so that they would come to understand what he had said to them and would know he was still with them to inspire, guide and equip them for his work. (John 14:12. 16:13. 1 Corinthians 12:7-11). It is startling to compare the attitude and approach of the disciples after Easter Day with the same disciples after Pentecost. Not only was there boldness but also an understanding of the gospel. The Holy Spirit was not given so they could have spiritual highs. Rather he was given to help them be spirit-filled people able and willing to continue the work of Jesus and to communicate the Gospel, no matter what the cost. The combination of changes in language and modern influences have helped to tarnish the understanding of the Holy Spirit. We must recognize these influences on people, including church people, and correct them.

There is confusion about being spiritual. It is regarded by some as weird, odd, not with it or cranky. It is something for people who are into things like that. In fact, it is being recognised increasingly that human beings are more than body and mind. If that were not so, there would be many experiences of life for which there is no explanation. Individuals may not be prepared to admit to their friends that they sometimes experience something that they can only call spiritual. It is often precisely the spiritual that attracts people to other religions where spirituality is normal. In a situation where more people are recognising the destructiveness and emptiness of materialism, it is time for the church to be clear about the Holy Spirit. For too long the third member of the trinity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) has been overlooked. Many are longing to discover the work of the Holy Spirit as a viable and much more attractive alternative to the effects of drugs. An openness to the Spirit would allow more room for someone to see things from a new perspective, a new angle, and a new dimension. Disclosure is then part of ordinary experience and to be welcomed as the work of the Spirit of Jesus opening our eyes to see. Often in the New Testament gospels we read of Jesus healing the blind. Often physical healing is linked to spiritual blindness. The blind man can 'see' who Jesus is, whilst the sighted are struggling. Mark 8:18 Do you have eyes and not see? Jesus asks when confronted by disciples who were panicking when they had forgotten to bring any bread. He reminds them that the five thousand were fed and he asks 'Do you not understand?' The very next verse describes how a blind man is brought to Jesus and is given physical sight. The healing was difficult. It took two attempts so the blind man could see clearly. This is followed by the account of Peter's blindness when he was unable to see that Jesus must suffer. It was some time before Peter understood and 'saw'. Or take the healing of blind Bartimaeus. Mark 10:4652 which is placed strategically immediately before the entry into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday) and the events of that week when the record shows how few people could really see. This was spiritual blindness contrasted with the sight that Bartimaeus received. What did Jesus say to him? "your faith' has made you well.'

Those who gladly receive the spirit and in whom the spirit lives are the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:16. 6:9). They are a new creation. (2 Corinthians 5:17) They are part of that re creation that began with the resurrection of Jesus. Those filled with the Holy Spirit are called to live at the 'intersection of earth and heaven' as they continue the work Jesus began so that the time will come when heaven and earth will totally overlap and all things will be made new. (Revelation 21:5). All this is the work of Jesus, the Holy Spirit in us and through us. But we have a foot in both camps: we are still involved with all that is wrong and the rebellion that ruins our own and other people's lives. At the same time we know the power of the spirit in us. We know the tension as we seek to apply the teaching of Jesus in this twenty-first century. Those who call themselves Christian sometimes say and do the things that on the outside are fine. But all too often, what is inside the packet does not match up with what is on the label. These inconsistencies are so frequently noted by those outside and it undermines the credibility of the Christian message. Jesus came into this human sphere to open up a way for us to have a part in the new world that was inaugurated by his resurrection. So, we are called and challenged to allow his spirit to shape us in the Jesus mould, to be living and dying with him on a daily basis. 'Break me, melt me, mould me, fill me. Spirit of the living God fall afresh on me.' No one should be left to think that the life Jesus wants us to live and the work he gives us to do is to be done in our own strength. That is the old rebellion – I can do it, I know best, I don't need help from anyone. Constantly this 'temptation' lurks. Similarly, when we do succeed then we recognize that it has been his doing. "And every virtue we possess and every conquest won; and every thought of holiness are his alone." Amen! (=Yes, absolutely. I agree.) The old hymn has it right! Christians are the people who in fact and in reality are totally dependent on the Spirit and are willing to go on being filled.

They are not the people who tick the boxes when they keep tedious rules. For many, Christianity is seen as a negative religion full of rules about what you must not do. Listen to the words in some church services and it is hard to disagree with them. But as we understand the purpose of God's laws, we see that the point of them is not to drive us stupid or into depression or suicide by trying to keep boring old rules. Rather they drive us to our knees and teach us to depend on the Holy Spirit. They help us to discover in the present a foretaste of the full and rich human existence that will be ours when all things are made new. Tom Wright says, "We are practicing in the present the tunes that we shall be singing when the kingdoms of this world become the kingdom of his son".

One function of the Holy Spirit is that he points away from himself to Jesus so that we do not always recognize his work. So when we come to an understanding of Jesus and in the language of Bishop Ian Ramsey, a discernment disclosure leads to commitment for us and we 'see' things for the first time, it is indeed the work of the Holy Spirit. For those seeking and searching as they read and discuss, it might sometimes be helpful if they knew in advance that in reality they were not going to be on their own. The Holy Spirit will guide and teach them. At the time, this might sound weird. With hindsight, it is so obvious!

Our dependence on the Holy Spirit is never clearer than when we turn to prayer and bible reading. It is then that we learn to depend on him and will listen to what he is saying. The role of the Holy Spirit is central when we come to prayer. In so many situations, we do not know what to ask or how to pray. This is experienced when we come to pray about personal and family issues as well as when we struggle with concern over world problems. It is not a 'cop out' to recognise that I depend on the Holy Spirit. 'We do not know how to pray as we ought but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words' (Romans 8:26)

The opposite situation arises when I know what I want. I want to tell God what I want and try to twist his arm behind his back in order to get it. Children do this with parents. Adults do the same but with greater subtlety. If we do this in prayer, we will be disappointed and may even give up. I do not know best. I need to be shown by the Holy Spirit. Prayer is about recognizing that it is God who knows best and has the complete picture and knows all the facts. I should be asking him to remind me of this all the time. Then sure of that, ask him to help me to cooperate with his good will for me and those for whom I have concerns. This would change so much of our public and private prayer. An emphasis on cooperation with God through prayer is long overdue. It is so much more important to have our relationship of trust with Jesus right, than being concerned to get our words right.

Especially in public or in a small group there are those who in their praying want to sound intelligent, articulate and even eloquent! But in our relationship with Jesus, human words are not going to be precise and we will not be articulate at all times. Those who do not attend church services (and some who do!) sometimes find the need to pray but are deterred from doing so by false ideas with which they have grown up. They have the impression that only a church leader can pray 'properly' or 'correctly.' Prayer is not the preserve of the 'religious class'. It would release many if they understood that prayer was talking to Jesus, using ordinary words as you do in normal conversation. Yes, sometimes it might help to use books of prayers written by others, themselves filled with the Spirit. It is important to realise that sometimes when you find praying difficult on your own, the words of someone else can really help. Selected psalms have been a great encouragement and healing for many. It is often true that prayer takes on a new dimension and sets some free when it is shared with others. The Holy Spirit will work in whatever way he knows is best as we cooperate with him.

People are often embarrassed to pray aloud, either in a group or with another person, no matter what the need may be. But in prayer, we are not talking to that other person but to Jesus. We talk to him as we would to a friend. The person for whom we pray or the people with whom we are praying hear our words and identify with them. You will feel awkward if you think you are talking to the people around you. But you are not. Nor should you be trying to copy someone you think does it 'correctly' or better than you can! You are talking to Jesus using your normal words but always open to the Holy Spirit

Some will address God in prayer. God is the father who knows the needs of his children before they speak just as many parents know the needs of their child, but it is important for the child to speak it. Others will pray to Jesus and find that easier as they speak to a brother at the right hand of God. It is after all through Jesus that we can come to the Father, so that makes sense. Some will switch between God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This is all fine.

As I glimpse more of the greatness and goodness of God and as I see more of Jesus and trust him more, I will want to thank him and tell him what I think of him. People do that naturally when things don't go the way they want. They are quick to complain and accuse. They blame God, forgetting that they do not know best. It should be as natural to give God the praise as we come to know and see him more clearly. Sometimes we will find ourselves lost in wonder, love and praise. Then there are no words to say what we feel or think. Prayer should include silence and stillness. We do not need to be constantly talking. We need to stop and listen. This is true of our relationships with others and something very often missing. The relationship suffers consequently. The same is true in our relationship with God through Jesus. Prayer should include stillness or silence. Prayer should become two way and I should expect this. I should expect that God will communicate with me as I seek to cooperate with him. Perhaps at first I will do most, if not all the talking and I may need guidance so that I can adjust the balance. Prayer on your own, with others informally, in a group or in public worship is an exciting journey of constant discovery.

Conversation with Jesus will be deepened when we know him better. Then we will be able to thank him for who he is. How do we get to understand and know Jesus better? Bible reading is one of the best ways. Again we are not dealing with any book, but one through which God does communicate. Not that we will understand everything we read. There is help available to do more of this. But using this holy book requires us to depend on the Holy Spirit so that God can communicate with us and give us whatever disclosure is appropriate for us at the time. There is a balance for us to gain between using the Bible as this means of communication and as a book that we want to understand through study. But study does not exclude the possibility of disclosure. I know! Alongside personal BibIe reading, I also discovered more and heard God more clearly when I was with others who wanted to hear and learn. For me to pray and read together with others was tremendously encouraging and helpful.

I have already shared one of my concerns about telling my personal story with which I began. It was important that no one should get the impression that to enjoy the Bible, it was necessary to be a university student with great teachers and with easy access to and the aptitude for reading serious books. Not many people are in such a position. Nor were the first disciples and early Christians, thankfully! True there is a great deal of academic knowledge that can be gained which helps in the reading of the Bible, but it is not essential for the person who wants to hear God speaking to them through the words of scripture. Disclosure becomes possible when a person is looking and listening. Sadly there are too many theological students and others with all the knowledge but are closed to any disclosure.

The use of prayer and bible reading in worship services will be very different from the individual's personal use. It is strange, if not difficult, when those who are experiencing prayer and bible reading for the first time in their own lives and with others informally, are faced with what happens in a church worship service. Then they find that praying and Bible reading in worship service is different.

Public worship is a different world. It may not have been part of their life and they can feel lost if not embarrassed when they encounter it. Sermons are new to them when they have been accustomed to sharing in discussion, listening to and challenging others. They soon discover that there is no chance to ask questions and even after the service, people are not always keen to or capable of answering questions. That is not all.

The new comer to the new world of 'church' is sure of Jesus but not much more. It is not just that the way of praying and using the Bible is so different. When people are put into the pews having had little or no experience of public worship they feel very awkward. They do not know the 'house rules'. Everything is strange. Even if they have been helped to find the right door – and there is a wide choice in so many buildings – then once inside, they have to find their way through a stack of books, pamphlets and papers handed to them as they enter. They feel awkward if some kind person tries to guide them through the pile. Some church buildings have been set free from this problem by using modern technology operated by a reliable and competent person with discreetly placed screens displaying all the information that you need. Even so, they are bemused by some of the in-house notices and the church organisation or its obvious absence. They feel like outsiders.

The church fails to realise what they are doing to these new worshippers or hesitant searchers. Our desperate concern for more pew fodder means that we forget or ignore the gulf that exists between the great majority of the population and the Christian church as they experience worship in the local church building, no matter how friendly members try to be towards them.

People come from different places and backgrounds. People come to 'see' Jesus and give him their allegiance by many routes. I have drawn attention to the wide variety of backgrounds and history of people. One size does not fit all and to try to merge people, as soon as they come through the church door, into the regular congregation is not always helpful. Many will share the misunderstanding, doubts and difficulties I have written about in the earlier chapters. The problems experienced by those pushed into the congregation may often be shared to some extent by some who are regulars. The difference for them is that now they are too embarrassed to admit difficulties or have reached the point where they feel they have to accept the inevitable.

Some of these problems you might think could be resolved by courses of sermons on all the issues I have already discussed as well as an introduction to the Church of England, its worship patterns and Common Worship. Alternatively, they could be given talks in midweek in some church hall. These would be delivered from the front with no real chance to follow any particular issue an individual person may have. How many weeks would it take? How long before some gave up and the dwindling numbers felt awkward sat in front of the speaker. Not every congregation has a person who is able to prepare and deliver such talks.

There must be a better way of taking seriously the people who come with their different stories and backgrounds as well as with their own needs, hurts and hopes. There has to be an alternative to the assumption that anyone showing any interest or prepared to share in some informal church group will inevitably become a regular member of an established congregation.

In the future, the number of people with no church contact will increase. Any increase in the congregation is likely to be small unless there is some understanding of how the congregation however small or old can become aware of the population around them and especially their neighbours and friends. How can the regular members hear the doubts and questions of others? How can they answer each one after listening carefully to what was being said? How can they offer others a spirituality that brings disclosure and commitment? In the end, how can the ordinary pew fodder become the people who are equipped and confident to introduce others to the bread of Life broken for them? All this seems a very tall order and intimidating in the face of the situation in which many dwindling and ageing congregations find themselves. But that would be to forget who is their God and what he has done for them in Jesus and what he wants to do for them in his church. In that confidence, the church must be ready for something at first, new to many, threatening for some, irrelevant to others, but hopefully challenging to most.

Chapter Six

To Be Continued

Jesus had taught his disciples and prepared them for what they would do. He completed his work on the cross. No one else could do this. God placed his seal of approval on that work by raising Jesus from death and in that, launched the new creation. By his death, Jesus made it possible for people to be set free from the consequences of their rebellion and sin. Now it was for those who surrendered their allegiance to him to become his agents. At the time of his death and even immediately after the resurrection, the disciples still did not get it (Acts1: 6-8). The restoration of the kingdom to Israel remained their objective. They had remained behind locked doors, afraid, confused, and disappointed. That is where the Holy Spirit came in to sort things out for them. He brought alive for each of them the things that Jesus had said and done so that they took on their full significance. He knew their human weaknesses. They were not to be left alone nor were they to depend solely on their own resources. The Spirit he had promised would make him real to them and equip them for all situations. Pentecost (Whit) when the disciples received the Holy Spirit is often described as the birthday of the church.We have seenthat the word has several meanings but that the basic concept behind this word church (ecclesia) is of people who are called together. The church is people of all sorts from all sorts of backgrounds and economic strata. They are described as the Body of Christ in which every part is important and no one should be pushed out (Corinthians 12:30). Elsewhere the church is likened to the branches in the vine (John 15) and living stones being built into a spiritual temple. (1Peter 2:4-10) The common denominator is that these people are those who have made a disclosure commitment and have given their allegiance to Jesus. Consequently, they also belong to each other. They know that he died for their sins; they know the reality of his forgiveness and are living in the light of his resurrection and are empowered by his Spirit. They are the people for whom things have come to make sense, for whom the penny has dropped.

As an immediate consequence of receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter started preaching. His sermon was clear and uncompromising. The consequence was that three thousand were baptised and added to the believers. Growth had started and nurture went alongside that growth. Luke reports that they spent much time together (Acts 2:46) in the Temple and at home breaking bread. A pattern was already emerging. When public worship was no longer possible in the face of opposition, the growth and nurture continued as Christians met secretly in each other's homes and other places like the catacombs Jesus had used a small group when he called the twelve and spent three years teaching them and showing them his way. Through the history of the church, small groups have frequently been the key to revival and growth as well as the means by which new Christians were nurtured subsequently. Wesley developed the Class system to great effect. People met in homes during the week with lay leadership and on Sundays worshipped, at least to start with, in the local Church of England. Sadly, today the Class System hardly exists in this country in more than name. But elsewhere where there are few church buildings or where there is opposition or persecution, Christians continue to meet in small groups. Here the church is growing. But in 2014 it there were warnings (e.g. from Pope Benedict and Lord Carey) that in some places where Christianity had its earliest roots and elsewhere, there was a danger of the church being completely forced out.

In the UK very rarely are there established groups who are aware of the needs of people both in the pew and those for whom Jesus has only recently become significant. Often those who look to church worship for answers frequently leave disappointed and frustrated. In the past, there have been groups specifically for the church members (House groups, Lent Groups, ecumenical groups and other groups for special purposes). These were not intended to meet the needs of the new Christian, the nervous enquirer or that person who wanted to clear up misunderstandings even if they had been a church member for many years. These are the people who perhaps in response to the questioning of a friend, often realise that they need to know more but are hesitant to ask in a large group or even in a small group unless they know they are amongst understanding and supportive friends. Some churches have a well-established set of house groups that meet regularly. Some do nurture members but my limited experience would suggest that this is not widespread. Where there are larger more vibrant churches, they often do not see the strategic and pastoral importance of groups as an integral part of church. Other churches pay some attention to groups but do not see them as a complimentary and essential part of the life of the church. Groups where they do function are seen as optional add-ons.

The group is important for the nurture of new Christians whose needs I have referred to previously. They must not be left like pool balls knocking into each other but no more. They need a place where their different stories will be heard and taken seriously. They need somewhere that is safe for them to drop their masks and be known for who they are. The group is a meeting of ordinary people who want to discover the God who is to be known in the ordinary: where they can speak of their doubts and ask their questions knowing that they will be listened to and not rejected. Together they will explore the bible and prayer. They will deal at their own speed with the issues that arise from church worship. Together they will become limbs in the body, living stones in the building and branches in the vine. Together they will be equipped, supported, and challenged not only to develop in the Jesus mould but also to bring their families, friends and neighbours into a place where they are at least able to consider the claims of Jesus and the basis underlying them. The group is vital for those who respond to Jesus, for whom 'the ice breaks'. The group will help to bridge the gulf they might otherwise experience when they encounter normal Sunday worship. It is vitally important for the seeker, or the enquirer who 'just pops into church'. These people need to be reassured that whilst the service may be strange they can be part of a church group where they will find real encouragement and help.

But the church group is also essential for the established members of the congregation. They have all the advantages of familiarity with normal worship and the organization of the Church of England or another denomination. Some will have gained from sermons and study groups. Most however will have huge gaps that have never been filled satisfactorily and which can only be filled in the right sort of group. But in most instances such church groups and the need and imperative for them as part of the whole life of the church, will at very least, be strange to the long established regulars. It may be that their reaction to start with will be one of doubt, suspicion or rejection. But the wealth that these people bring should not be overlooked or sidelined. They must be helped in all the ways that are appropriate in their situation to appreciate something which initially they consider not for them. It is possible to help them discover that groups are as old as the church, and vital for the wholeness of the church they cherish as well as for themselves.

The Cell Church Movement is similar to what I have been describing as church groups. Several books have been written about it. The existence of Cell Churches around the world has become widely known. But the title 'Cell Church' can be taken to describe the cell as a church. This gives rise to misunderstanding and fears that underlie some of the opposition to Cell Church. The original meaning of cell was a 'small room'. This led to the monks cell and of course to the prison cell. Apart from this static confined meaning, it has, in the natural sciences, a very different emphasis. Here the understanding of a cell is that it is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life. It is complete in itself and multiplies in division. It is this latter description that fits well with the description of the units which together make up the church at the local level. It is a much better description than 'group'. Whilst it is only a switching of the order of the words, church cell describes the sort of fundamental structure I believe is essential for the life of the church. Church cells describe the nature of the cell, rather than the nature of the church. (i.e. as cells) The name is preferable to that of Cell Church or church group that may also carry overtones of other church groups in the past.

It is important to distinguish church cells from other groups. Not every group, even if called a cell, may be a true church cell. Sometimes cells are too rigid – what happens must always be done this way - or they are defined so loosely that anything can be called a cell. The church cell is not a house group or some other group by another name. Whilst some church cells meet in houses and this does have some advantages, others meet in community buildings. The location does not define the group. But the location of the church cell in the community from which its members are drawn is essential. Most important, the church cell is not a scaled down version of church worship and its activities. Nor is the church cell an extra bolted on at different times. The church cell is not an optional short-term fix. It is not for those with some particular rigid agenda, concern, or interest. It is not for the super keen or in-group. It is not a brain washing session. It is not a gossip shop. It is not a moaning session for those with problems about the church leadership. It is not a power base for those who need to assert themselves.

There is one further vital component that works in conjunction with the church cells. These are the church ministry cells. Church ministries are the children and youth groups, seniors groups, administrative groups, the P.C.C, music, drama, dance, worship planning groups etc. In many places, these groups have existed for some time in some form. But in the past often they have acted independently and jealously guarded their territory. There has been no awareness of what it means to be a cell. This has led to bad attitudes and practices that would have been unhelpful for anyone new venturing into the church. These groups work vertically i.e. according to interests whereas the church cells are horizontal, working across all groupings and ages. The church ministries and cells are the vital parts that together in worship and responding to and impacting upon the local community, constitute 'church'. Church cells and ministries belong together and whilst different, they are not independent. When church cells are being introduced and the emphasis is new, it will be important to involve the existing ministries in all the planning and teaching. It will be vital to help them see that they also need to function as cells. What is important for the life of the church cell is also very important for the life of each ministry cell. They need to understand and accept that on their own they cannot meet the objectives of the church cell, nor can the cells achieve the ministry cells objectives.

In some existing small congregations, the ministries will be few. Church cells are not there to replace them nor compete with them. In fact, members of some ministry cells could well belong to a church cell in addition. When this happens then, because of the time demands, a lot of understanding and sensitivity is needed. In some instances, the meeting format will need to be adapted to suit. Church cells and ministries will complement each other. Ministry cells, as they develop provide contact with young and old in the neighbourhood and with other groups. They will have good contacts with the church cells. Those in church cells will be encouraged to recognise each others gifts and talents, and consider ways in which the ministry cells could test and use them. As this begins to happen, the impact on the neighbourhoods will be increased.

My illustration below (although any illustration has its limitations.) may help to show the relationship of church cells and ministries to the church and the wider neighbourhood or parish.

The church cells will be in contact with their local neighbourhoods, serving and listening to their neighbours. The ministry cells also are in close contact with their neighbourhoods through their members encouraging anyone who is interested to become involved in some way. As they come together with the church cells in mutual recognition and see the real value of both, and especially as they enrich worship together, they are the church in that place.

Some have described the church like a bird: it needs two wings. In the past, the church has tried to take off with only one wing: the main church services and activities centred in the church building and plant. With only this one wing it falls. There is little growth. Numbers often reach a plateau partly related to the number of full time leaders. There is little growth of the church in the neighbourhoods. But this 'bird' picture can be misleading. The two wings of a bird are virtually identical. The two wings of church are not. For the church to be church, it must have the church cells and ministry cells living alongside the church building centred Sunday worship and the life of the wider church. The two are different but complimentary and essential ways of making the church effective in its whole mission. Tom Wright wrote: "Ideally every Christian should belong to a group that is small enough for individuals to get to know, care for and particularly to pray in meaningful depth for one another, and also to a fellowship large enough to contain a wide variety in its membership, its styles of worship and its kingdom-activity. The smaller the local community, the more important it is to be powerfully linked to a larger unit. The larger the regular gathering, the more important it is for each member to belong also to a smaller group. Ideally, groups of a dozen or so will meet to pray, study scripture and build one another up in the faith." It is that ideal, kingdom cells is the name Tom Wight gives them, that is needed urgently in this country.

The mainstream churches and church leaders have often been suspicious, if not hostile to the idea of cells. This may be because the overtones created by the name Cell Church. They are afraid that they will draw people away from the traditional church and be more attractive to newcomers and some existing members; that this will affect seriously the finances of the institutional church and that they might become totally independent of and rival to the traditional church. The anxieties of the church leadership are understandable. The name Cell Church can give the impression that that this is another potential church or denomination. It is important to be clear what church cells are.

The church cell is complete in itself, living, able to multiply, but inter connected and part of the whole – the church. It is not a system lifted from elsewhere and imposed on a new situation. It meets the needs of the people and responds in the context of the community in which people live and to which they belong. There are some areas, and in particular, those that are socially deprived, some (former) council estates and some large new conurbations, where there is no church building. These are precisely the places where the presence of the church is often most needed. Sometimes the church has given up the struggle and has moved into areas that are more affluent or considered easier for attracting more churchgoers. This echoes the closure of many of the local services and schools and shops, as the bigger unit is preferred. Now it is not only the council estates but also the private estates that are becoming desert areas. Those who live there are often from a wider area. There is no sense of belonging to a community and the church building does not stand at the heart of it. Often people do not know where their local church building is to be found. The church has very little contact with them. But there are those who still request baptism for their children and seek to use the church building for weddings and funerals. The church can have contact with children at school. Women and men meet at the school gates, see each other at the same clinic, often go to the same shops, meet in the same pub or on the same golf course. The local church has an opportunity to sow seeds and through sensitive pastoral contact over time build up relationships with people. These will be the contacts for whom there is prayer in the cell and from the cell, people go out with confidence in the Spirit. This could attract a new friend into a church cell or even to the establishment of a church cell in their area. From there, new growth begins as neighbours and friends discover what Jesus is doing with and for their friends.

Church cells will only do what is done best in cells. They are the place where people can become known to each other, voice their questions and doubts and be free from the presumption that they understand the language and concepts used by church people or heard in a church service.

People are familiar with the brief and sometimes awkward welcome they receive when they go to church worship. The church cell meeting takes the welcome seriously. It is not a formality or a forced word of greeting. It is an opportunity at the beginning of the meeting for people to share and be as open with each other as they wish when they feel safe. There will be a lot of listening to and hearing of what is being said or not being said.

People will be helped not to interrupt or argue or correct or solve problems for others. There will be space for healing of relationships and appropriate prayer when a situation arises. Worship often follows the welcome. This will be geared to the cell members and may include the possibility for the breaking of bread, communion or agape. Music and song will play some part in this worship.

Those in cells may well consider whether the elements of prayer and bible reading in the church cell can in some way make up for the lack of both in the lives of some people. Nothing can completely replace the time spent alone in prayer and bible study. However, circumstances often makes this very difficult. There are the demands of the children and the wider family and pressures at home have to be taken seriously, especially if one partner is not sympathetic. When someone in this sort of situation has prioritized their church or ministry cell and given time to that, then it might be right for the cell to look at ways of ensuring that some of this time helps to make up for the prayer and Bible reading and study that cannot be done at home.

At some point in the meeting, the church cell will learn together. Cell leaders and the overall leadership will decide on the best way to deliver this material as well as the content. Very often, the cell will ask or suggest ideas and topics. When there are people unfamiliar with public worship, some time may need to be given to dealing with the sort of issues that arise. This is important so that as soon as possible, the whole cell will feel able to worship together with others in the church building. The cell leaders may meet with the church leadership to prepare themselves for guiding the cell in the teaching element. They will have the material as a handout. This may well raise other topics on which members ask for help. Here the quality of the servant leadership is important. Everyone should feel a benefit, know they have been heard and be helped to make their contribution as well as ask questions or disagree. The Bible reading and teaching gives time and room for questions, and if necessary diversions, to happen. It will respond to the needs of people whereas in the large gatherings this is not possible.

Members are encouraged to identify those for whom they want to pray and with whom they want to share Jesus. This will probably include those with whom they have almost daily contact in ordinary life. Week by week members will be challenged, supported, and encouraged in this. The cell will be aware of the people living in their area so that illness, particular needs, significant events, or moves are picked up and acted upon appropriately. The whole group will encourage and support each other. The group will be a pastoral group for its members and for the people in the area in which they live and meet. Where needs arise that cannot be met by the church cell, these are taken to the overall leadership of the church.

Most of the things that have become part of the social life of the church will be done in the church cell. Sales, coffee mornings, BBQ's and the like will take place wherever the church cell meets or in the home of one of its members. This will provide, in a way that does not usually happen, a real contact with their immediate neighbours and a chance for Christians to be seen naturally as normal.

Ministry cells will need guidance to evolve as cells, especially where they have existed as a group with their own territory and independence. This will not always be easy when old attitudes have become ingrained. Much of what is said in connection with the church cells will also apply, sometimes with adaptation, to ministry cells.

For church cells to come into existence is a long process. Church for most people is what happens in the building on a Sunday. It takes time, prayer and patience to show people the New Testament pattern, how cells thrive in the church worldwide and the way cells are working today in this country. The established few need to be encouraged to see that cells are not 'new' but an essential and complimentary component of church that enriches all the members.

In the description of cells and their functioning, repeated mention is made of leadership, overall leadership and leadership in the cell. The issue of leadership is vitally important. It must be servant driven and modelled on the examples of Jesus in the gospels.

Initially, the vision for church cells may come from one person who may have to approach the vicar. It may get no further. You never know! If it is the minister who has the understanding and vision, it will be shared with members of staff (if there are any) and with the existing leadership amongst the laity. This will include the PCC and leaders of the church ministries. This will be done with great care and sensitivity. If these people are not persuaded, convinced and enthusiastic, then the whole project at least needs to be put on hold. Clearly this part of the process cannot be rushed. Only when they have grasped the imperative for church cells, their theological basis, the practical urgency in their situation and the impact that church cells must have on their neighbourhoods and in the nurturing and making of Christians, will it be possible to progress. It will take time to achieve and many misgivings and misunderstandings may need to be explored and sorted out en route with prayer and patience. This will test the degree to which the leadership is convinced and committed to establishing church cells.

But when this stage is reached, (in the Church of England) the deanery and diocese should be approached. In the past, the senior leadership in a diocese has been at least apprehensive of church cells (or as some have come to understand them, Cell churches). It may well be a daunting prospect seeking to unpick wrong impressions and give a coherent and complete picture of church cells and their relevance in the present climate based on the evidence of scripture and the history of the church. If you are given the time and succeed in bringing the senior staff on board, then they will need to share this with diocesan officers, boards and ministries. There must not be the excuse of 'nobody told me about this' for opposing church cells. When all those at diocesan level are understanding and supportive, then it will be time for them to share this with area deans. When they have grasped it and are enthused, then they should be asked to share it with their deanery. This does not mean that every parish should adopt the church cell model but that they should understand it and support those following what to some will appear to be a different route. That is a very rough road map. It will take time and prayer. It will sometimes be very lonely. Variations may be needed, refinements made, some additions and even removal of some items made. But I am certain after my little experience that unless all this is done, and everyone gives their consent and even becomes enthused, it is wrong for a parish to go it alone as a general rule. We are part of the body of Christ and the little finger must be willing to heed the rest of the body.

Church cells will not progress without a sound foundation that consists of the enthusiasm and commitment of the leadership at diocesan, deanery and parish level. But then the members of the congregation need to be gently introduced to something exciting under God. This will be done in different ways that fit the local situation. The leadership of the church may do this at several services by giving a straightforward introduction explaining why church cells are important and why it is proposed to introduce them. At this stage it is an obvious help if the deanery and diocese are supportive. If it is done after Easter into Trinity when the lectionary is following the Acts readings, this fits well together.

Before any church cell can meet, the leadership of the cells must be identified and equipped. Often in the course of sharing with the P.C.C, with the congregation and with other leaders, potential cell leaders may emerge. There may only be two or three but if they are the right people then it will be best to start with them.

It is possible that there is no one amongst the existing leadership who comes forward as a cell leader. By definition they are already leading in some area and may well have no more time capacity. There will be others who recognise this role is not for them. On the other hand, there may be some volunteers who are not suitable and that situation requires careful handling.

In many parishes, leadership of any sort is sometimes lacking. The difficulties in finding the best people to be leaders cannot be understated. In many congregations, there is apparently no suitable person. However few, it is important that only the right people are used. A great deal depends on the local clergy and their skills. There are congregations made up of 'churchgoers' who have never been given teaching and the opportunity to give their allegiance to Jesus. It is essential to wait until there are those who are clear in their commitment who have the right attitude towards leadership and a real understanding of and enthusiasm for church cells.

Many congregations have never been encouraged to consider their gifts and how they should be using them. They were sheep to be led. The clergy in the past were not given the training to recognise gifts and abilities in people and how to develop them. The reduction in clergy numbers has made some recognize the importance of Biblical images that point to the ministry of the whole church, the Body of Christ. It is not long ago that clergy would say 'if you want anything doing, do it yourself.' They often complained about the lack of leadership. In worship and in the life of the parish, it was a 'one man band'; the clergy did everything. Both the clergy and their congregation expected it to be that way. It is surprising that whilst this is no longer said, very often the old attitudes remain amongst the laity and sadly, sometimes among the clergy. It may take time for some in the congregation to realise that the clergy are genuine about sharing leadership and do not want to go on as the one man band outfit. Some congregations may take some persuading. It is very important to preach and teach on the gifts with which the Holy Spirit equips the church so it is built up in every way. Leadership is a gift and it must be encouraged. This is not a ploy to get people to do more jobs! They must understand that it is a Biblical principle and central to the functioning of the Body of Christ.

Whilst the attitudes of individuals and congregations will take time to change, clergy and lay people need to understand what is 'church' and appreciate fully that leadership comes from the whole body functioning appropriately according to their differing gifts.

I have often struggled with the term leader. I feared that the word might give the wrong message to some people. Sometimes an alternative word is used; for instance enabler. But in fact a person's experience of people in these roles should correct their initial expectations. It is important that whatever the name used, the person should be thoroughly at home with what is needed and be able to deliver. Where leadership of groups has always been in the hands of clergy (and I know of places where no one will attend a group if the clergy do not lead it.) it will take time to help people to realize that they could be a leader and in many cases should be so. They do not have to possess a degree or have been a teacher or whatever.

So how do we describe the role of the servant leader? Sharing knowledge and answering questions and solving problems are important but that is not what the church cell leader is about. The leader holds the meeting together and has an agenda in their head so no one feels that the meeting just drifts. Above all the leader is acutely aware of the importance of enabling each member of the group to contribute as they see fit. The leader will check those who want to impose their solutions or hold forth on some topic in which they are well read. No one should think that the cell is the place for delivering (or receiving) lectures. This is not the place for anyone to try to demonstrate superiority. In a group of ten or twelve people, there will a wide variety of personalities. Some slow to come forward, some too quick to do so. Some who listen but never speak, others who would talk all the time and never listen. There will be those who want to correct others and those who tend to argue each time they have something to say. It takes some skill to enable a cell to function as it should where each one, including the leader, listens and learns from each other and above all is open to the Holy Spirit. There are books, courses and speakers available who address these issues. Many dioceses have someone skilled in this area. However in the early stages, it is better if 'the training' can be done 'in house', perhaps with one Saturday session outside the area or with one or more visits from a 'professional' who would help to reinforce what is being taught.

There is always the likelihood that there might be a problem with some leadership. This why the whole leadership group will meet with the clergy and the clergy will keep an eye and an ear on how things are developing. Church cell leaders will be clear that they will not be left to their own devices. The cell is a church cell and not their cell! The leaders must be sure that they will be accountable to, be supported by and have regular meetings with, the overall leadership. Above all, this structure must discover and demonstrate the servant model of Jesus. This is important. It may be that at the outset potential leaders are helped to look at the way Jesus led his disciples. He clearly intended this to be a pattern for them. The leadership must be a servant leadership in the mould of Jesus.

Alongside the leadership, the role of the host and an understanding of the gift of hospitality is important. Not everyone is a natural host. Where the cell meets in a house, those who live there are the right first choice. Hopefully one or all of them will have that gift and be willing to serve in this role. The host opens the door and an impression is immediately made – and first impressions do matter.

In some areas of this country at present, there is a reluctance to invite others into your home. "An Englishman's castle is his home" (or the other way round!) is too often quoted with passion! This highlights the need to recognize that hospitality is a Christian gift and privilege. It cannot be assumed that people will be keen to volunteer the use of their homes, let alone become hosts for the church cell. Many a congregation needs to be reminded of the need for hospitality and to see this as an important Christian ministry. It must not be assumed that homes will automatically be volunteered for church cell meetings.

When the church cell meets elsewhere in a community building, hosts can be volunteers and perhaps even different people each week. One thing should be understood is that the host and the leader cannot be the same person. It is totally impracticable and to ignore this leads to certain disaster! The host/s greet people as they arrive; take their coats; show them where the toilet is and in a genuine and relaxed way helps to make them feel at home. They may well introduce them informally to those who have already arrived if they have not met before. Before anyone arrives, they will have made sure that there are sufficient seats and when the needs of the people are not known, made sure that there are several upright seats with arms. Several scatter cushions are good if there are younger people. The host will have agreed with the leader when the cuppa should be served. It may be as people are arriving but local custom and needs vary. Equally important is the need to ensure that the host knows that a three-course meal should not be prepared! A biscuit is all that is necessary. Where there is more than one host then one of them can take the orders, tea or coffee and all the variants, and serve. If there are younger people in the family this is a good way for them to be valued. Car parking is another issue that needs to be considered. When proceedings have started, the host will greet latecomers and reassure them so that they do not feel uncomfortable at joining the group late. At the end, sorting out coats and saying good-bye is very important so that no one just leaves unnoticed. It is important that at the outset, an agreement is reached about the start and finishing times and that this agreement is adhered to by the host and leader. It is important for the host and leader to check from time to time, how the arrangements and hosting in general is going.

It may be more difficult but best in the long term, if initially the church cells consist only of congregation members. There will be time spent ensuring, in the context of a church cell meeting, that everyone understands church cells and the reasons for them. In examining the gulfs that exist between congregation members, their neighbours and their community, it is sometimes then that the difficulties they themselves have may emerge. Some of these have been discussed earlier. It will be when members meet in their new church cell and see how it works in practice that they will have their questions answered as well as clear up any misunderstandings and resolve any misgivings. The meetings will demonstrate how the church cell should work and how the servant leadership of the church cell operates

If the leadership of the church cell is overseen and properly equipped, then other leaders will emerge from the church cell, perhaps become co leaders and be prepared for the time when the church cell divides. This is for the future and it is important that there is no rush to move to the next stage until problems, conflicts and practical issues and misunderstandings have been resolved properly in these congregation based church cells.

Those people who have 'tried' church somewhere else, often find the worship strange, they don't 'get anything from it' and they feel conspicuous amongst a predominantly older congregation. But what also turns them off is when they become aware of the undercurrents, tensions and power struggles that seem to pervade the life of some congregations, and often lead to most unchristian behaviour. As serious is the way in which the leadership sometimes de-skills the ordinary person who is very quickly made to feel inadequate. The structure and leadership of the cell must contrast strongly with this more common experience that some people have of church.

Church Cells will have tensions especially when the church membership is small. This is often the situation in many congregations. It is probably good for cells to meet weekly but when some members are also church ministry members it is important not to place excessive demands on the time of members. Sometimes it may be right to meet on a fortnightly basis. It is important to realise that the church cells and church ministries are complimentary, not competing alternatives or rivals for member's time. It will also be necessary to guard against church cells being regarded as a new way to produce more pew fodder. Because the cells and ministries congregate for worship, they will become aware of the need for Sunday worship to become more accessible to non church people. Changes to worship are never easy. If there is a vision of what the church is about in the parish through the church cells and of the importance of the church ministries in the whole church picture, changes can be made. Often this will be with a struggle. But in the church cell, it will be possible to consider worship from the point of view of the non-church person or the one whose previous experience of worship that has not been helpful.

However slowly, Sunday worship will develop so that as the cells grow and new people are added, it will not be a problem for the cells to congregate for Sunday worship. Here there will be a context that is appropriate and will facilitate disclosure. The language of worship is important. I have stressed how the language of some worship is one of the barriers for many people of all ages especially when it comes to growing as a Christian. The prior experience of relationships and sharing in the church cell as well as the opportunity to clear up misunderstanding and confusion in church language is important if public worship is to be more than it has been for so many in the past. In this new context, new disclosures will be possible. People will see how Sunday worship gives different opportunities from worship in church cells. There will be a different atmosphere when all the cells meet together. The music will be different in some ways. The sermon will be challenging and inspiring rather than a time for teaching. As well as valuing the small group, it will be good to realise the value of and enjoy being part of the larger group.

When the church cells are functioning as they should, then new people – very often neighbours and friends of existing members and often those for whom there has been prayer, will be attracted or invited and others may come, curious to sample what is going on and even ask questions. Very quickly, when this begins to happen church cells will divide and multiply. This will be another test for the original church members who will have been made well aware that this will and must happen but for whom when friendships and relationships have been formed, it can be difficult.

Church cells can function regardless of the fluctuations in the number of people in the area or in the congregation. Church cells provide a basis so that these changes can be accommodated naturally. A new method does not need to be invented each time numbers in the congregation or community grow or shrink. In the church cell pattern, everything is there from the start. As the number of cells increases or decreases, only the number of hosts, servant leaders and oversight will change in response. This follows naturally once the foundations have been well established. The church grows not only in numbers, but also in the depth of understanding, care and commitment of the members.

The model that I have been describing not only adapts readily to changing numbers of members but also to different situations. This pattern can be adopted by town and city congregations as well as by large and small villages and hamlets in the country. In situations where the church building is large and expensive to maintain, church cells can be a lifeline. In the church cell, the emphasis may be upon church rather than upon the building. With a vision for church cells and ministry, a recognition that the large church building is not as important to them as they once thought may enable them to consider alternatives. In the meantime there is a new incentive to develop imaginative ways of beating the cold and adapting unused space to allow worship to develop.

In all this, once the basic principles are understood and a vision of what is possible under the God who has called and who equips has taken root, then with lots of prayer and not a little heartache at times, church cells begin to emerge.

Chapter Seven

Challenges Remain

Church Cells in conjunction with Church Ministry cells seems to me to deserve immediate consideration. What alternatives are there? Often the need for church growth is recognised but frequently what is meant is the recruitment of new members to swell the congregation and income. There seems to be a constant stream of Diocesan initiatives, courses and events. In answer to how we gain growth the response will be 'become a friendly welcoming church' and 'develop community contacts'. There is a real place for both. But on their own but it continues to expect people to 'come to church' on our terms, using our language and strange ways, music and jargon. It fails to recognise the needs of most of our population and to deal with the impressions and ideas they have picked up from so many sources. These we have analysed earlier. It is important to recognise that church growth should not be sub consciously clamouring for more people 'like us'.

Some may point to the independent congregations where there is life and growth in the church in the UK. and suggest that here is a viable alternative to the pattern. We should consider these 'rivals' (or threats) seriously and be ready to learn from them.

In a few places these independent groups might seem to offer another way of reaching the population and nurturing Christians. Whilst my knowledge of these churches is limited, I do not think that they provide a better way. In some countries, they are described as mega churches. In the U.K., some are numerically large and have large church plant but they are not mega! You have to elsewhere to experience the mega variety! They vary in organisation. Some are short lived. Amongst those that do seem to be more established, many provide a relatively large facility often with sports hall and community facilities alongside or incorporating a modern worship area. The car park is apparently full. The congregations are large but very often eclectic, drawing people from a wide area and often from other congregations that are less vibrant. The person who has experienced some disclosure independently of organized religion will come here perhaps after trying the established churches if they are found to be uninspiring and not meeting their needs. The members are predominantly middle class. In some cases, it is possible that many have done no more than join up with others from the same social and economic group. They adopt the same church language, attitudes and mannerisms but sometimes with such large numbers, those for whom there is no substance behind the exterior go un-noticed. It has to be assumed that those attending have a grasp of the basics. In fact, many do not have a foundation but are carried along by the enthusiasm of those around them, sometimes picking up bits and pieces as they go along. There is a buzz about the place and a professionalism in the presentation and in the equipment and publicity used. In many cases, the money to set up and sometimes to maintain the organization comes from a few wealthy families or individuals who in some instances control the location, direction and emphases of the church as well as the choice of leadership. Together with elders or deacons and others lower down the ladder, they form a very rigid hierarchy sometimes without much accountability to the members.

A band that is not always sensitive to or aware of the needs of the congregation provides the music. Some of the time the songs are relatively unknown especially to any outsider but are picked up by constant repetition and the exuberance of the leader and band. Many are much easier to get hold of than traditional hymns. I have found it strange that there is little reading of scripture other than sometimes as part of the talk and then the passages are brief. Over the months, there is an apparent imbalance with large sections of the Bible not being used. In many of the churches there seems to be a deep confusion about baptism and communion. The sermon is often more like a 'motivational talk' used in other circles. It has a catchy title and scripture is introduced to support or illustrate what is being said. The impression is that there is a demand for something new and different every time. Power point is often used but sometimes without much imagination. It is very wordy and lacks the pictures and illustrations that most of need alongside words. More concerning is the way sometimes scripture is misused, taken out of context or used very loosely as a peg on which to hang some topic. There are other surprising omissions. The Lord's Prayer is rarely used. Whilst there is much praise and worship, there is little space for repentance and the assurance of forgiveness. Intercession seems to be missing in many cases. If it happens, it is around the needs of that church and the world is often low on the agenda. In the prayer that does happen, there is often a repeated and incessant use of the same words or phrases. Where a team of different people leads the worship, it sometimes lacks quality. It is often difficult to trace any theme. Those contributing introduce their own themes that makes the whole disjointed. Frequently the beginning and especially the close of the worship, are confused and uncertain.

Apart from singing, the audience has little opportunity to participate in the worship. This contrasts strangely with most experiences in Anglican worship. Having said that, the worship in many of these independent churches is certainly not boring or dull. It can be uplifting and challenging. Outside of worship, with such large numbers, pastoral care is essential. Although the person leading the church is often called the senior pastor, pastoring is the last thing that he does – and it is always a man! In many cases, pastoral care of the members is left to house groups. But many of the congregation do not appreciate the importance of such groups or have the time to give to them. The groups are not locality based. They are made up of people drawn from the congregation but with no connection with where they meet. The meetings are usually weekly. But they are often cancelled for a multitude of reasons. This has the effect of suggesting that the house group is not that important to the leadership. Sometimes the groups seem to be used by the leadership as a means of controlling or even brainwashing the members. The leadership of the groups is very dominating. Often the leaders have had no training and have little or no understanding either of group dynamics or of the objectives of the group. The needs of an individual are frequently overlooked. The assumption is made that everyone is at the same stage of understanding and experience. For those who have disturbing or challenging under currents, rumblings and echoes they cannot articulate, who do not use the catch phrases or who worse still, voice doubts or ask awkward questions, there is little help and sometimes rejection. Often it makes it impossible for many to say anything for fear of being shown up. Careful and appropriate teaching does not always happen.

This type of church, in spite of its more contemporary appearance and delivery, with all its activities and house groups does not reach the outsider. It does not impact on the ordinary people living in the vicinity who have never had any connection with church or on the many who recognise that something is missing that might make sense of their life and their longings. Church activities based on the church plant fill the week but leave little or no time for anything else and seem in some cases to impose an unreasonable demand on people who should have time for their family, spouse and non-church friends. There is a strange lack of evangelism springing out of real friendship. It amounts to no more than invitations to friends and neighbours to 'come to church' or to free fun days and open days. If they like what they get, they might come back; if they do not, then they might in the future be invited again or simply passed over. The emphasis is on coming to 'church'. The independent church focuses on the large gatherings for worship and the events that go around this. The house groups do not serve to nurture or pastor their members. There is no attempt to be in touch with the local neighbourhood in which the group meets. Leadership is controlled by those at the top of the hierarchy and is not encouraged from the members. Whilst there are many valuable aspects about these churches, which could be considered by the mainstream denominations, the independent churches do not provide the best context for the population to have the opportunity to encounter the risen Jesus nor the means by which pastoral care can be given and individuals encouraged.

Church cells as I have attempted to describe them achieve a balance between the congregating of people in relatively large numbers for worship and local church cells nurturing members who will care for one another and the people in their neighbourhood. But above all, they give a context for the possibility of disclosure.

In worship, possibilities have increased with the introduction of good sound systems, the imaginative use of Common Worship and the numerous resources that have become readily available. All this can, with the use of the computer and power point projections on to strategically and sensitively positioned screens, improve worship. But it is not always welcomed by established congregations.

Even careful attempts to move a congregation into new ways are often criticised. Once my archdeacon appeared for Sunday worship unannounced and rapidly disappeared at the end. It wasn't hard to guess what had prompted this. I heard nothing from him after that visit. But in various ways, the breaks were applied, directly or indirectly. The same archdeacon voiced his concerns about 'Cell churches' to me and congregation members. He was only doing his job. The problems had come from the misunderstandings that had grown up around the Cell Church movement. None of this helped us to move forward. In that parish I was also at fault. I did not give enough time to establish firmly the church cell pattern. I was heavily involved with the schools and in setting up the North East Christian Churches Together. The restoration and reordering of the large church building after a major fire at the beginning of my ministry in that parish was very time consuming and emotionally draining as I tried to keep everyone on board for some very drastic changes!! But I also came to see that without at least a diocesan strategy and the obvious support of the senior leadership team for Church cells etc., new ideas were perhaps doomed in the face of local apathy or opposition.

Very often, these problems arose out of a concern that moving forward, however carefully, ran the serious risk of alienating some members of the congregation and especially those who were making a significant contribution towards paying the parish share. This concern over finances seemed to divert attention from other issues. If there was insufficient money to pay clergy and maintain church buildings, what point was there in developing and encouraging Church cells and worshipful worship?

Finance had become, since the 1950's, a growing concern. It took the average churchgoer a long time to realize that the situation was very serious. Some recognised that clergy houses were too expensive to maintain or build and that there had to be a drastic reduction in the number and size of them. They accepted that the biggest demand on the income of the church was the payment (stipends) of clergy and that numbers of clergy must match the ability of the diocese with the parish to meet the stipends.

Some church leaders had recognised the need for drastic action whilst there was still time to respond positively with a real strategy before shrinking resources forced a reaction which may not be helpful in terms of the mission of the church. In 1983, John Tiller published his report 'A strategy for the Church's Ministry'.It was talked about and debated.

In the Durham diocese, Bishop David (1984-1994) warned of the financial problems that were developing. He asked the diocese to consider how the numbers of clergy should be reduced and which church buildings would not be required in the future.Again, there was debate and suggestions were made but the impression was that few people were really taking the situation seriously enough to be forceful about a solution.

As the problems increased, the deanery was given the responsibility according to a formula, to form a plan for the number and location of clergy in their deanery. But as clergy numbers were reduced, parishes grouped together and church houses sold or let, the national economic situation worsened. We had been spending beyond our means. The issues are well known but in the church it meant that having had to run fast to catch up, we were now going to have to run even faster to keep up. It remains to be seen whether this is possible if congregations do not grow and as the disposable income of most people decreases and their savings yield little or no return. With reducing clergy numbers many of the things clergy were expected to do are being left undone. It has meant the end of normal pastoral care and visiting evangelism. Clergy visiting is now in emergencies only. In spite of the inevitable reduction of clergy, we had in effect ignored the need to develop local leadership empowered by the Holy Spirit and set free to serve the kingdom. Talk of church cells was an unnecessary irritant and seemed totally irrelevant to many leaders.

The problem for many churchgoers at their local level was that the cost of their church building – its maintenance, insurance and running costs was increasing rapidly. Some could use reserves, but that could only last for so long. Where there were no reserves people put all their time and energy into raising money to preserve their church building. When I was rural dean of a large deanery (Jarrow) for nine years (1983-1992), I saw this at ground level. People found it hard to think beyond preserving their church building and retaining their vicar. When I left, two church buildings had been closed not because of any planned strategy but because the congregation was left with no alternative. We published a deanery plan around the number and location of clergy and church buildings. We had accepted that the growth of the church and the maturing of Christians could in the long term be the solution to many of the problems. The plan therefore included a way forward for the church to consider church cells. This was agreed in theory but whilst the building/clergy numbers agenda was pursued, any idea of returning to New Testament church patterns that might produce growth that could solve some of the long term problems, was quickly forgotten. With that went any real concern and care for the community – those who could be seen, let alone those who were not readily visible.

As people in the pews and their leadership concentrated increasingly on the financial needs and the decreasing size of congregations, they were impatient with talk about church cells and leadership. More significantly, they forgot that they had a faithful God; that the church they worried about was his church and that it was his kingdom which they had been told by Jesus to seek above all other things.

The plea of some church leaders that there should be a strategy- led plan to identify buildings for closure was dropped in the face of hostility and criticism. In the end, buildings can only be closed with the agreement of the Parochial Church Council (in the Church of England.) so buildings may remain as long as the people can maintain them. Many, often elderly people will give time, and effort to raise money as well as giving of their own, to support their church building as their first priority. They learnt ways of ensuring that this money did not become included in any of the schemes to calculate the amount the P.C.C. was under pressure to contribute to the diocese. When these costs have been met, there is little for the overseas church and for charitable giving. The diocese, in spite of pressure, had to face a shortfall (or uncertainty of that possibility) and then budget in these impossible conditions. If the congregations had real confidence and enthusiasm for growth through church cells in the knowledge of who was their God and what he would do through them, something different might be possible. Congregations with this vision, with a new grasp of the ministry of the whole body of Christ and with a transformed view of the role of their church buildings, might very easily be prepared to agree what they were able and willing to guarantee as a realistic contribution. They would be set free from the pressure and guilt many feel when they fail to meet the figure set for them. But for this to happen there needs to be a vision of what their God through Jesus in the power of his spirit can do.

Some of the buildings are well kept; they do pay their way by making a huge effort. But look at the age of the members and the rate of numerical growth (not even the gaps left by those dying are being filled). In a few years, given no change, they will be empty except for the last few. If while there was still time members threw themselves into a new vision of church cells and ministries, there would be a difficult period of transition but in small ways growth would emerge. Even where there are only a few people scattered around, shivering in a cold church building, under God with prayer, this situation could be turned round. We need our people to recognize reality – that they have a great God so that they are not afraid of what they see but look just a little further to see how God can work through them. They can opt for this rather than continue with the race to see whether the building or the congregation drops to bits first. That choice exists for a large number of congregations. It is a challenging opportunity that is exciting when the presence of our God with us is remembered. It is God who makes the difference when we see darkness all around and when we fear the death of what, for so long, has been so important to us. There may be many congregations that need to see what is possible. Facing reality could well be the route by which many come to a disclosure and meet the Lord of the church, with them in power.

(In the current 2009 Durham Diocesan directory, whilst the figures are based on those of the 2001 census, on a rough count there were 63 parishes with a population of less than 1000 people. There were 70 parishes with an electoral roll (that is roughly a membership list) of less than 50 people. The numbers can be more frightening if the population figure becomes 1500 and the electoral roll 75.)

But while the few sit in their church building, spending and raising money to keep things going, outside the numbers of those who doubt whether Jesus ever lived and are sure that the bible is no more than a literary hoax are increasing fast. The building they see does not point them to a mighty God, down to earth and involved in their world. They see instead church people arguing over finance and buildings. When they have to sit in the building on hard benches in very low temperatures, they leave very cold, in more ways than the obvious. They hear the church people criticising the clergy for what they do and for what they do not do. All this puts a further gulf between people and Jesus. For they do not hear about him. They hear about church fees, church buildings and clergy they never see. We underestimate the massive gulf that this has created for most of the parish population. For them, a huge gulf exists between what they see the church doing and a Jesus who if they think he ever lived, is so far away from them and apparently unreachable.

Some efforts are made to shift the emphasis from maintenance to mission but this is often a thin disguise for an attempt to attract more pew fodder - more people, preferably those in the higher income brackets - into the congregations. If any do respond, they are expected to accept the type of music and understand or at least quietly go along with, the language of the worship and are immediately urged to take on some of the jobs that need to be done. Anyone (usually a newcomer) who is enthusiastic and suggests doing something different is listened to politely and then ignored. There are some small groups of faithful people who persevere in prayer week after week to do their very best, but often they are not appreciated or taken seriously. It is hard if you are committed to preserving 'your' church and at the same time under some pressure to provide increased income to maintain the clergy provision in the diocese. This is especially true if you do not feel that those in authority either understand or appreciate what you are doing.

Many of these older people in congregations, especially outside the larger conurbations, have inherited memories of the local church building as the hub of the community often providing for social needs as well as the place of worship and the inevitable place for the baptism, wedding or funeral. In the Victorian era as each small area of population grew, so church buildings and chapels were built, often in competition and not because of need. Research in the north east of England showed that in those days there were more seats in all the places of worship than there was population to fill them! Each building had its own clergyman often with private means living alongside the Lord of the Manor and the local doctor. Parish magazines from the period show that regular attendance at worship was not all that the clergy expected and people were constantly being urged to 'do their duty'.

These church building pointed upwards to remind people of God and outwards through the people to demonstrate that this God was down to earth and amongst them. Now posters publicizing jumble sales, coffee mornings and garden fetes are stuck to a notice board that has permanent information that is faded and grubby, and often out of date. The spire that used to point people to God is now depicted alongside the Restoration Barometer showing how far short of the target is the current total. The doors are locked and no one knows where to find the key for the odd person who wants to go inside for prayer. It is not hard to understand why this is so, but it can be a big problem for some.

The church building is important. For two men I knew 'the penny dropped' it seemed, because a church building acted as some sort of trigger. One man was walking past a church building he had seen often, but on this occasion, it was different. He could not explain it: it was a disclosure moment of far reaching consequences. The other was having a lunch break on a nearby seat in the church grounds. He looked at he building he had never entered. Slowly he realised that something was happening to him. He tried to rationalise but in the end decided that he had to do something. As he finished his lunch and began to walk back to the office, he saw a poster advertising Alpha on the church notice board. It must have been there before; but now it had huge significance for him and that evening he determined he would join the course. After all he had said to his friends, he knew how such a decision would be greeted.

It is often in worship that a commitment disclosure happens for some. Worship is what we are about. It is why we are here. It is in worship that people are given new strength, fresh confidence, a certain hope and a renewed vision to go out in love and peace to serve their Lord. The decision to leave church buildings to the decision of the local church people to care for them as long as they can, may result in the wrong buildings being lost. The danger is that church buildings will disappear from areas where they should remain. This for instance applies to town centres where a population may return in the future and where there could still be a lively ministry to those who use the town centre during the week. In villages, the church building may be the only building that could be used for funerals and weddings and more importantly, it could be a powerful symbol. The same is true in our towns. But where a building is not being used or is closed whilst its future is decided and implemented, it is often vandalised or boarded up. This sends a very negative message out to the population. No matter what the difficulties, the legalities, the opposition and criticism, a strategy for closure is essential so that they are carefully planned and take into account the need for the strategic location of church buildings. Particularly in separate villages, proposals for a union with a neighbouring village must taken account of transport between the two villages. Often there is none at any time any day of the week. Union of parishes in towns is more practical but not without practical problems for the elderly and families. The solution might be easier if a strategy involved other denominations.

I have been deeply involved in the ecumenical scene, (with Churches Together nationally, regionally and locally) sharing in an attempt to respond to Jesus' prayer that they 'may be one' (John 17:20-24). Whilst there were at some levels real conversations, a close working together and commitment to each other, in other places anything ecumenical was low down on the agenda and seen only as the concern of a few with a special interest at some times in the year. Even where there was more commitment, when the possibility of sharing buildings and maximizing resources to achieve a planned visible Christian presence in all parts of an area was mooted, there was a rapid loss of genuine interest. It seemed that although ecumenical involvement was accepted, when it came to buildings, whilst the right noises might be made, any real determination to see things happen vanished like the mist. Competition rather than cooperation was the real driving force. This was even true amongst some church leaders at the senior level. There was a concern that their denomination might suffer in some way if unity became too practical. In their position, they were committed to preserving the organization to which they belonged. They were also aware of the degree of conflict locally that would be faced if the implications of real unity for the sake of the gospel were even mentioned.

But if there were unity, the strengths that would flow would outweigh the problems. Sharing the rich traditions of others might also mean that the whole church could benefit. (E.g. a renewal of the Methodist Class System.)

Some people confuse unity with uniformity. But uniformity is not what characterises the Trinity nor should it characterise the Church. In towns and villages, there are small Methodist and Anglican church buildings (and sometimes others) standing almost side-by-side. The members of the congregations, who are aging and declining in numbers, are content that eventually either lack of funds or people will compel those who are left to accept the inevitable closure rather than use one building for worship and activities. But together they could become a powerful Christian presence. Even several declining church congregations in the same denomination each using overlarge, expensive or decaying buildings are not prepared to use one building together.

It is frightening to see how easily and quickly the prayer and commands of Jesus, who gave his life, are lost sight of in the headlong death-wish rush to survive at all costs. The command of Jesus was to make disciples not to maintain buildings!

The disunity of the church contradicts so much of what Christians say and their belief in the Triune Godhead. The way in which the church is seen to behave is so different from the way that those outside the church, and especially those in business and other high-powered organisations expect. They assumed that the church would show how people work together for the common good. But instead, they see blind competition and a deadly desire for self-preservation. This becomes another major gulf separating them from the Jesus whom they have only seen displayed in the institutional church. They considered that the church would set an example of good practise. It is not surprising that people are unwilling to take seriously the attempts of Christians to introduce them to Jesus when they see the disunity and destructive relationships between local churches. Some have no time for the church for this reason, but then confuse the church as they see it, with Jesus. He too is rejected.

If we are to bridge this gulf, we will have to show people the difference between the institution and the Gospel. We must make the gospel much clearer so that its light shines through the distractions with buildings, finance and disunity. In the church we must take this gulf seriously if we are to solve the problems we have allowed to dominate for too long.

People for many generations have been brought up thinking that the building they attend is the church. Many have become attached to the building as if by an umbilical cord. It is confusing when those who lead them, whilst preaching that it is the people who are to be the living stones, for the rest of the time act and talk as though the crumbling stones of their church building are church. It is not hard to see why people hang onto the old stones. The confusion over that word, church, has left a huge stumbling block that will take time to overcome. In church cells, the importance of the church will be rediscovered and the significance of the church building will be appreciated for the right reasons. It will in time allow people to think about their church building, considering if it is a tool in the strategy, one which could be adapted to become an effective tool or whether, in spite of the heart aches, it is an hindrance.

The church cell-ministry pattern develops the leadership capacity of the congregation by recognising God's gifts given for the building up of the Body and brings people into a deeper understanding of the Good News. The gifts and ministries of members are mobilised. They are encouraged and equipped through worship together and in meeting where there is a real welcome, appropriate teaching and the freedom to ask, challenge and share to the extent that is possible. This leads to spiritual growth in the members and growth in the numbers being influenced by the church as the whole of the parish is reached through its natural neighbourhoods.

Many begin to realise that there are huge gulfs that separate their families, friends and neighbours from Jesus – most of them not of their own making. They come to see how much they had taken for granted which now they need to understand. In church cells they become excited about the gospel instead of fearful about finance. That this may lead to an increased income is not the hidden agenda for this strategy but the natural outcome in time, of adopting it. This church pattern shapes the whole life and work of the church, its ministry and mission. It is a church shaped pattern in the small cell, in ministries, in public worship and in reaching neighbourhoods in the parish.

But above all, it must bring people to grasp that their God is a faithful GOD, a big GOD, that the church is his church and that it is his plan and purpose that they are beginning to explore together. They will see that no matter how bleak and dark the situation seems to be in their locality and church, their God is mighty. They would surrender to him and in his power and with his wisdom would seize His opportunities. It was this God I began to know and experience, in spite of all my negativity and criticism of the institutional church.

Are you a Christian? My response to that question showed that in spite of my church connections and involvement I did not understand the question. Without realising it, the church building and all that went on in there and in the organisation itself, was part of the gulf that had kept me from discovering what it meant to be in-Christ. Some will accuse me of being unduly pessimistic about the current situation. We should be celebrating more the good stories that do exist. Others will consider that the solution I have been suggesting is over optimistic or unrealistic. I understand. Others may say that my own experiences or understanding of them have led me to this twisted view! While others may well consider the whole book as no more than the rantings of a frustrated retired clergyman.

But there remain many barriers separating people from Jesus. Often these are not recognised by those 'in the church' nor by those for whom ignorance is not even always bliss. The church does not provide the bridge for ordinary people for whom it is intended. Worship patterns have changed but the environment and culture has changed even faster. Many from different backgrounds are on an entirely different page. The gulfs remain. It occurs to few people when they are stirred by echoes or disturbed by doubts or questions to look towards the church. But when they experience some disclosure, many do not know then where to turn or turn to somewhere that does not help them and even scorns their 'alleged' experience. As well as the pulpit and the priest, we need the pattern I have tried to describe so that a context is developed where anyone could be in the place of disclosure and together help each other to bridge the gulfs.

Chapter Eight

From Another Hillside

I looked back across the gulf I had discovered. That house was now bathed in the glow of the setting sun behind me. I had come to see many gulfs in my own life and ministry.

From another hillside, CalvaryJesus has a different perspective on his ministry. Although in tradition Calvary is called a hill, it is more likely to be a location where the ground rises up above the road level: the sort of site the Romans would choose for crucifixions so that passers by and others could see easily. It was here that the greatest gulf was bridged. This gulf separated humankind from their creator because of their decision to go their own way and rebel.

Jesus used mountains.Here he could be alone. Here he began his ministry, struggling to understand the strategy God required from him as he saw a view from a mountain of all the world's kingdoms. (Matthew 4:8.) This strategy he set out in the teaching on the mountain (Matthew 5:1) that provided him with an ideal outdoor pulpit. Alone with the three disciples on a mountain, he is transfigured. The disciples hear Jesus talking to Moses and Elijah about the exodus, the new exodus, the rescue of his people, he was to accomplish at Jerusalem. (Luke 9: 28, 31.) It is on the Mount of Olives, Olivet, that he gives his teaching at the end of his ministry. (Mark 13:3)It is to the Mount of Olives and the garden of Gethsemane at its base, that Jesus comes on the night of his betrayal (Mathew 26:30) and it is from that place of such turmoil that he makes his final decision to go through with his Father's strategy. It is from there, Olivet, that he is taken via the mock trials, to Calvary.

In that place, in the eerie darkness there was a sort of silence. It was punctuated by sobbing and abuse and by words from one of the men up there on the crosses. 'It is finished' a shout of accomplishment. He did not say I am finished as some do as they are dying, but 'It is finished'. Jesus could see clearly that the task that he had been given and about which in prayer he had often gone back to God to check out that he was still on the right track, was completed. The suffering Messiah King, the Lamb of God, had achieved what was necessary to offer people the rescue they sought from the consequences of all that had escalated from the rebellion of men and women since the very beginning. The lamb had been sacrificed once and for all. Now those who chose freely to do so could submit and put their trust in him. Then freedom from their guilt and the consequences of their repeated failures to hit the target of holiness would lead to empowering. Now they could enjoy a new freedom. God sealed what was done on the cross by the empty tomb three days later. As Jesus burst out of that tomb, the new creation was inaugurated, a new creation in which Christians live now in anticipation of the life they will live to the full in the future when this earth and heaven become one. From this hillside, the new exodus is achieved. Jesus sees the Promised Land, the new heaven and new earth breaking in as he, the King, reigns from his throne-cross. He can hand himself over deliberately to his father who through him has delivered his people and set them free. But there is more to come.

Confirmation that he who wore the crown of thorns is indeed the King who brings in the kingdom comes when, perhaps on the same Mount of Olives, the disciples see Jesus ascend to heaven. Finally, when the new heaven and a new earth break in, it is on Mount Zion that those who are sealed, worship the Lamb. (Revelations 14:1)

But for now, from this hillside, Jesus sees Mary and the others weeping in grief. He sees the religious authorities relieved and satisfied to be free of this major threat to their power and position. All over this hillside, he sees the crowds who had come to watch but were not able to see what was really happening. The Roman soldiers had done their work. Perhaps one of them did see more. The Roman centurion, a Gentile, declares 'Truly this man was God's son' (Matthew 27:54) Jesus is aware of the men on either side of him. One of them could not see beyond his own understandable pain. But the other could see more. 'Jesus remember me when you come into your kingdom.' (Luke 23:40ff). 'Today you will be with me in paradise'. Jesus saw beyond the cross to Paradise – the place of rest that we sometimes call heaven.

His disciples Jesus could not see. They had taken cover, fearful that the same fate of death might be theirs next. Still they could not see even after the glimpses that they had been given during their time with Jesus. The light had not come on for them. Full disclosure was still to be experienced.

Jesus sees beyond this hillside to that other hillside, Olivet (Acts 1:12). He sees these same men returning, not to the relative safety of Galilee, but to Jerusalem - back to what they had previously feared. They were ready to wait there for the Holy Spirit so they could begin his work: making it clear to Jews and very soon to Gentiles who this Jesus of Nazareth is and what it was that he had done for them. They were to urge others to enter this new life, to grasp forgiveness and to become, with them, agents in the creation of the new earth restored to its intended glory under the lordship of the King now glorified. He sees the New Israel. He did not see individuals going out, but a community, as the old Israel had been called to be, knit together in himself and under his guidance and equipped with the gifts and fruit of his Spirit. They would be his body in his world so that they too could be broken for those he had come to save.

By his spirit, they would come to see clearly that their God who was calling them was faithful and true. They would lead others from the darkness of blindness into the light of the new day that was dawning. The dawn had indeed come but the day had yet to arrive. In the meantime, confident that that day would come, they would continue to pray 'your kingdom come; your will be done, on earth as in heaven'. They would make new disciples prepared to be salt in society and light to the world, following the way he had taught, not out of a sense of duty having to keep the old rules, but in response to what he had done in setting them free from all that rebellion and sin had done to them. The battle against sin and death was won. They who were free were now able through his spirit to meet the needs of the world and to placard before everyone the certain hope when all would be made new. That would be realised when Jesus returned as the angel had promised on Olivet, on the clouds in great glory. Then the daybreak would burst out into glorious day. Then the kingdom of God and his Christ would have come on earth as in heaven.

Endnotes

  1. 1.  The photograph on the facing page is of a sunset on May Hill in Gloucestershire. I am indebted to Ray Philson of Philson Photography for this photograph.
  2. 2.  I try (not always successfully and open to being called pedantic.) to distinguish between the church and the church building. The Greek ecclesia described a group of citizens called out to assemble for political purposes. (See Acts 19:32,39,41) In the New Testament, the word refers to a group of believers who are called together. This is seen in the letters of Paul. (Rom.16:1 etc.) Secondary meanings have arisen subsequently and need to be distinguished.

a. Buildings for church worship, services, activities, and meetings of any denomination.

b. The parish church – the building for the Church of England parish. Often 'church' means the buildings or the organisation in that particular town, village, or recognised locality.

c. The institution or organisation at the local, regional, or national level.

d. Denominations – Methodist, Church of England, Independent, Roman Catholic etc.

e. Catholic Church, that is the universal, worldwide Christian Church (Ignatius). But Catholic is often used to refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Frequently 'Roman' is omitted.

  1. 3.  see Chapter 1, paragraph 15
  2. 4.  I discovered this after his death, from a friend of my father who had been with him at Coventry Cathedral in the young people's group
  3. 5.  Bishop Ian Ramsey was criticised in the diocese and beyond for the amount of work he did and his apparent inability to prioritise and delegate. Some of this criticism was understandable. Not everyone appreciated that he was driven by his experience of recovery from TB when he was a student. He felt very deeply that he was living on borrowed time. Each day he welcomed as a gift from God
  4. 6.  On being sure in religion. Athlone Press 1963
  5. 7.  Diocese / diocesan – an administrative area in the Church of England. The Diocese of Durham comprises approximately the area between the Rivers Tyne and Tees
  6. 8.  see Chapter 1, paragraph 15
  7. 9.  One the most useful books in the present context, is Religious Language SCM 1957
  8. 10.  op.cit.pp. 15ff.
  9. 11.  Religious Language SCM 1957 p.19
  10. 12.  See Christian Education in the light of contemporary Empiricism. Religious Education Vol. LX p.95
  11. 13.  Clergy in the diocese often spent their time when listening to the Bishop's sermons, counting the number of times that he used the word 'disclosure'.
  12. 14.  D.Yoder. Toward a definition of Folk Religion 1974
  13. 15.  I have served in urban parishes with large council estates. The people are the ordinary working class, only some of whom are fortunate enough to bring home a weekly wage packet. I learnt so much from them. A small minority were professional people.
  14. 16.  Tom Wright Simply Christian SPCK 2006
  15. 17.  The summons of prophets eg. Micah 8; Isaiah 41:1-4
  16. 18.  Durham Cathedral 26th. November 2011
  17. 19.  Justin Welby ibid
  18. 20.  Forever young see page 107
  19. 21.  After this text was finished, ipsos MORI published a poll for Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science. based on 1,136 respondents. (February 14 2012
  20. 22.  .C.S.Lewis. Mere Christianity Harper Collins 2002 pages 52-53
  21. 23.  see Chapter 2, paragraph 6
  22. 24.  Ian Ramsey. Christian Empiricism 1974. p.69
  23. 25.  Are the New Testament documents reliable? IVP 6th. Edition 1981
  24. 26.  J.J.Bruce iid. P.21
  25. 27.  B.Metzger The New Testament OUP 1968
  26. 28.  Simply Christian p.82
  27. 29.  John N Oswalt New International Commentary Old Testament Isaiah 1-39 1986 p.29-30.
  28. 30. To the reader xl-xvl NRSV OUP This exceptionally valuable.
  29. 31.  Tom Wright. Simply Christian p.65
  30. 32.  In the Old Testament, there is another thread, perhaps a later one, rather than a concurrent theme. A King is resisted because God is the only King and a Temple is wrong because God cannot be contained in an earthly building.

As with the demand for a king, so with demand for a temple there is another thread found in the Old Testament that at least questions whether a temple is appropriate. See 2 Samuel 7:1-13. 1 Kings 8

  1. 33.  As with the demand for a king, so with demand for a temple there is another thread found in the Old Testament that at least questions whether a temple is appropriate. See 2 Samuel 7:1-13. 1 Kings 8
  2. 34.  These passages are used by the Jehovah Witnesses particularly in their propaganda leaflets. This is deceptive and misleading. It is used as an entrapment before leading the reader into their teaching which is not Christian.
  3. 35.  See for example the reports of work by scientists in particle physics at Corn, the Hadron Collider.
  4. 36.  Stars are metaphorical for both saints and angels in the Old Testament and Judaism. See Revelation 1:16 where Jesus is depicted holding seven stars. He is sovereign (the hand symbolism) over the church on earth (the lamp stands) and the heavenly counterpart (stars/angels)
  5. 37.  see note 2 above
  6. 38.  see note 2 above
  7. 39.  Voltaire p.45
  8. 40.  For all the saints? N.T.Wright. SPCK 2003 p.72. 75
  9. 41.  Distinctive ideas of the Old Testament 1946 Westminster Press p.89 note 2
  10. 42.  see note xxxviii above
  11. 43.  The 'cuppa' fails to give more than a chance for friends to gather briefly. It does nothing to allow exchanges between groups of people who may want to share questions or needs. See chapter 1 where the pool ball effect is discussed. A more useful way forward is the subject of chapter six. This could bring new life to the 'cuppa.'
  12. 44.  Oliver & Boyd 1948 T.F.Torrance. Grace in the Apostolic Fathers
  13. 45.  This saying is often attributed to John Bradford (1511-55) but it has been used by many since.
  14. 46.  See Chapter 2, paragraph 29
  15. 47.  The election of Matthias (Acts 1:13) to fill the twelfth place may show that the disciples already recognised that they had a ministry. For the church, Pentecost was more like a public empowering of the church
  16. 48.  see note 2 above
  17. 49.  Ian Ramsay comments are important. see pp.31ff.
  18. 50.  Acts 2:46; Romans 16:5; Colossians 4:1; P Philemon 2; Corinthians 16;19
  19. 51.  Open Doors. World watch list 2013 gives details.
  20. 52.  Tom Wright Simply Christian p.181.
  21. 53. This is the amount contributed by each parish towards the costs of providing a full time trained ministry.
  22. 54.  A Strategy for the Church's Ministry. London S.P.C.K.
  23. 55.  Bishop David Jenkins in the Durham Lamp February 1985
  24. 56.  Jarrow Deanery in the twenty first century
  25. 57. Calvary is the English version of the Latin translation of Golgotha (Aramaic) that means Place of the Skull, but in Luke's account The Skull. There are many suggestions why it had the name. The most likely is that the shape of the mound had a resemblance to that of a skull
  26. 58.  Hills over 1000ft. are usually referred to as mountains.
  27. 59.  In Luke 21:37 Jesus teaches in the Temple by day and rests on the Mount of Olives at night
  28. 60.  In Matthew, 28:16 the ascension is located in Galilee.

