NEW MEETING MINDS

Black and white

2012-02-06T12:39:00.000-08:00

Post by Ash

The recent concern over acts of racism both proven and alleged within the Premier League (Suarez at Liverpool and Terry at Chelsea) remind us all that the spectre of discrimination within our society is never that far away. After all, what we see on the field of play is often no more than a reflection of what we ourselves may experience in everyday life. Yes, great strides towards eliminating such prejudice have been made, and we can rightly be pleased by our standing as one of the most racially-integrated societies in the world. But then the reminders of the distance still to be travelled are rarely far away.

It could be a casual jokey remark from someone in your company or hearing , or an uncritical reference to an alarmist newspaper story. It could perhaps take the form of a regurgitation of statistics, purporting to show the numbers of immigrants taking `our` benefits, or some anecdotal story about the laziness of certain ethnic groups. It could even be, as I was unfortunately recently privy to, a repetition of the old mantra that a house being sold in your predominantly white neck of the woods is to be purchased by a ` non-white` (you can probably imagine the actual words used; conveniently transferable to fit various minorities) accompanied by stern warnings of the impact this will have, both financial and social.

These instances all have one thing in common, particularly when no attempt is made to place any of the dialogue within either a critical or objective context; they demean. Not just the character of the perpetrator, but those of both the individual or group who are prepared to tolerate receipt of such `pearls of wisdom` without question or rebuttal, and of course, those who are the targeted subject of the abuse.

A genuine, thoughtful, and sensitive discussion about the concerns experienced along the road to integration is always to be welcomed. In that way communities move forward. In the meantime however, we all have a duty as best we can to challenge ignorance and prejudice about such matters, no matter where, how or when this occurs . These `little battles` may be tiresome, lose us some sympathy, paint us as over reactionary (`I didn`t really mean it like that, you know`, you may subsequently be told),leave us feeling awkward, and possibly create into the bargain the impression that you`re a fun-less whinging liberal. But fought they must be. After all, that most basic human principle of `love your neighbour` was surely never meant to be optional upon your neighbour`s colour.

The more we challenge such matters, be it at the pub, the match, or in the shop, the sooner we`ll all be able live in a truly tolerant, integrated and open-minded society.

The Problem of Suffering

2011-12-04T01:08:00.000-08:00

Post by Ian

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

It is a fundamental truth that there is suffering in the world. We see suffering wherever we look, to varying degrees. Quite rightly, atheists ask us: where is God in this? One view is that God allows suffering in order to punish sin. Another view is that it's Satan or the Devil who causes suffering, and God allows this. Predestination, that God sets the course of our lives, is a popular viewpoint - and becoming more so. Fatalism replaces a belief in human free will. A belief that says we deserve whatever befalls us.

Personally, I come down firmly on the side of free will. God has gifted humanity with the ability to choose our own course and allows us the freedom to follow it. Like a good parent, God allows us to make our own mistakes and to learn from them. Yet, God is there to help comfort us in the aftermath.

If Satan exists, then it is the tempting angel of the book of Job. The tempter has no power except that which we give or allow. We can choose to give in or not. Evil is done by humans who no longer listen to the quiet voice in their soul, the voice of God guiding them. They choose their actions and others suffer as a result. God does not interfere as the free choice is made. To interfere would overrule free will and that is something that God is either unwilling or, having given it, is unable to revoke.

In the Bible stories, God works through humans. God gets Noah to build the Ark in order to save life from the flood. He gets Moses to speak for him in Egypt and Aaron to raise his rod to perform the miracles. He gets Jesus to try and reform his people and acts through him in the miracles of healing. Perhaps God, as spirit, needs to work through the material in order to influence the material. God can do anything, as long as God has someone who listens. It is when we fail to listen to the voice in our soul, guiding us to do good, that things begin to go wrong.

What then of natural disaster? Well, the world is active and is needed to be so in order to support life. Our numbers are pushing where we live to places that are more at risk of disaster or unable to support the number of people that live there. Again, the choice is ours. We can choose to continue to grow in number. We can choose to continue to live in areas that are more at risk than others. We can choose to continue to live in places that can not support then numbers who live there. Or, we can choose otherwise. Free will.

"God created the law of free will, and God created the law of cause and effect. And he himself will not violate the law. We need to be thinking less in terms of what God did and more in terms of whether or not we are following those laws" ~ Marianne Williamson

"There's too much tendency to attribute to God the evils that man does of his own free will." ~ Agatha Christie

What is welfare for?

2011-11-20T09:23:00.001-08:00

Post by Ian

Eighteen Church of England bishops wrote to the Observer on Sunday 20th November encouraging the government to rethink their cap of £500 a week on benefits, to be brought in in the Welfare Reform bill.

I struggle with this. On the one hand, they have a point. People who have been receiving more than this, sometimes far more, will feel the pinch as the cap comes in. On the other, is it right that people can receive £26,000 a year tax-free in state benefits - especially in these hard times. This is equivalent to £34,765 before tax. There are a great many working people who do not earn this much and have to manage on what they earn. Why should anyone expect the "right" or "entitlement" to such a sum?

Surely, benefits should be a safety net and a "ladder back to work". However, there are families who have two to three generations that have never worked. Despite this, they expect to be able to cash in the giro each week. Priorities have become skewed, food and shelter taking second place to expenditure on mobile phones, cars and cigarettes. The work ethic disappears in to an attitude of entitlement as the next generation grows in to this environment.

My liberal tendencies struggle with this. I don't think people should be cast off in to poverty. Yet, my strong sense of fairness rails against a free hand out of money that others work hard for, and on which they manage to make ends meet for their families. I definitely don't believe that a life on benefits should be long term or easy. My own financial conservatism is horrified at the amount that is given out. It is more than possible to raise a family on this amount, and live comfortably if careful. I know this as I've done it.

I have no answers, and I don't know if the Welfare Reform Bill will fix anything. It might indeed make things work. It surely is not fair to give out an amount of money that many working people can only aspire to earn. This is why people are trapped in dependency. It becomes uneconomical to move off benefits back in to work. This goes against the idea of benefits as a safety net or as a ladder back in to the working world.

I think the bishops are out of touch with reality in speaking out against the benefit cap. Many working people will resent non-working people more than they earn, at their expense. Especially if this is done on a long-term basis. Even more so if the person who is receiving the benefits has never worked.

I would appeal to the government differently. The line must be walked, grant people the safety net if they fall on hard times. Give them the ladder back in to work. However, maintain a system that is fair to those who are working hard to pay the taxes that fund the system.

Organ donation

2011-11-15T07:38:00.000-08:00

Post by Graham

I am the proud owner of an organ donation card and have been for some time. Aren`t I good ! I feel quite smug about this and superior to those who, upon death, can`t yet bring themselves to bequeath vital parts of their body to those desperately in need of them. I also firmly believe we should adopt a system of opting out of the scheme, rather than opting into it, such as been suggested in Wales recently.

Yet my feeling of self-satisfaction has been recently shattered ! Just a few days ago I read of a kidney charity that has just been launched called `Give A Kidney-One`s Enough`. In the past four years, apparently, more than 80 people have donated a kidney to a person they have never met and probably never will. This surely is altruism of the highest order and I feel guilty that I personally lack the courage to do such a thing in my lifetime.

I don`t know how many of the donors (it was 88 at the last count) are Unitarians or practising Christians of some sort, but I am willing to bet that a good number of them, perhaps even a majority, are non-believers. How do we explain this ? Is this the working of the Divine (the Holy Spirit, if you like) within the heart of us mere mortals ? What makes a person prepared to sacrifice their own health for the benefit of others about whom nothing is known, and not just for the benefit of another member of their family ? Surely, if it is not God working through us, it is a testimony of the generosity of the human spirit and gives the lie to the belief that all is rotten in our society. Thank God for their altruism !

I told you I was humble

2011-10-30T09:43:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash

The address at New Meeting this morning was about the pathway, the continuum even, from humility to over-confidence and arrogance, that we all perhaps struggle to effectively accommodate throughout our lives. Sometimes it seems a constant battle-did I say the right thing, did I intervene appropriately,was I too outspoken, did I `back-off` when I should have said something ?

After the service we wandered in discussion if there were any contemporary examples of political leaders who had been convincing in achieving this `balance`. Was it really possible to attain such prominence in public life, and yet still be considered humble ? Isn`t this increasingly what we now desire from such leaders ? Has there been a lag between what the public want in this respect, and what politicians perceive is `best` for the public ?

A number of names were suggested; Mo Mowlam, Ann Widdecombe, and Mrs Thatcher. At least one of these suggestions might be considered contentious ! It was interesting that the immediate response resulted in female candidates being nominated; women are still in a serious minority when it comes to the world of politics in the UK.

Can we have humble leaders ?

Faith Works and Smiles

2011-10-09T08:02:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham.

Some years ago I submitted an article for the Midland Unitarian Association http://www.midland-unitarian-association.org.uk/on the subject of `Are We Angry Enough ?". My thesis was that anger achieved little in life; problems had to be looked at in the cold light of reason and, as someone who in earlier days was prone to lose his cool on many occasions (particularly when playing Rugby !), I felt it had done little to develop me as a person. After all, aren`y our watchwords Freedom, Reason, Tolerance - surely that`s enough to stop us getting hot under the collar at the slightest provocation.

And yet lately, I seem to be reverting to type, getting angry at bankers` bonuses, the injustices that exist in the world, the plight of the poor (although these are bad enough to make one explode with anger) and with so-called religious people of every denomination who seem to `talk the talk` but not `walk the walk`. There are religious people everywhere who can hardly bother to share a `Good Morning` with you as they rush off to their bible class or prayer meeting, and as for exchanging a smile: forget it ! They also seem oblivious to the plight of their neighbours, the aged, the infirm. As long as they can cling to their idea of salvation by confessing their sins and professing their allegiance to Jesus, they are content.

It`s the age-old problem:what`s more important:faith or works ? I know what for me as a Unitarian is of more concern. I couldn`t care a fig about what a person believes, whether he or she is Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or even non-believer. I am more concerned as to how they live their life, how the values they picked up from their religion or philosophy is translated into everyday action.

I don`t think we Unitarians can afford to be smug about this. We know what the principles of our belief are, that we should treat everyone with respect, that we should show love and compassion to all, but I wonder sometimes if, instead of talking endlessley about issues of belief and conscience and the like, that we were more aware of the plight of those around us and actually try to do something about it. And do we smile enough and share a cheery word with those we meet on a daily basis ? All this goes toward making this life a more wholesome and meaningful one.

An Observatory without a Telescope

2011-10-02T10:33:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash

Like many churches, we spend a lot of time thinking about how best to serve the spiritual, physical and practical needs of those in our community. We tend therefore to focus for much of our time on the future, and planning for that as carefully as we can.

It was therefore very refreshing to be reminded of some very fine and inspiring advice from the much loved John Mellor, a long-standing supporter of our church,who very sadly died last year. Found amongst his papers were various writings used by him many years ago when he led services.A loving, talented, and creative man, he believed passionately that `imagination` was a gift to be treasured; for him it was a way to people`s hearts , a route possibly towards unlocking spirituality. Churches even should take heed if they were not to stagnate.

His words below remain as relevant today, as when they were written.

"Imagination is the ability to dream dreams, to visualise concepts and new ideas; to be creative, to have a thought and visualise it in a tangible way. It is the ability to simply suppose !

It is a fundamental part of human life-a positive thought process and a source of inspiration.

Imagination came spontaneously to us as children, but we have been taught rationalism is to be desired above imagination. We need to acknowledge the importance of thinking and experiencing images.........

The soul without imagination is what an observatory would be without a telescope .Our belief is stimulated by our imagination.

The gift of imagination can release in us a whole flood of ideas, giving us the ability to look beyond our own situation, to extend our understanding and help us to discover the new. Jesus excelled in the use of imagination. A grain of mustard seed, the Prodigal Son, and the Good Samaritan, to name just a few.

It is through imagination that we form our pictures of God. It is a precious gift and this imagination helps us to reach out to a God who is ultimately beyond our reason and our own understanding, but who on the other hand is as close and near to us as the very air we breathe.........

Small congregations need to use their imagination-to look at the seemingly impossible-to dream dreams. It is our imagination that enables new possibilities to open up to us.

This is the time for audacious imagination. Where there is no vision people perish.We need to respect the past and learn from it, but a society which develops an attitude that the future has nothing better to bring is a society in decline......

When imagination is stifled by bureaucracy or inflexibility, we get mediocracy which neither satisfies our own physical or aesthetic needs. All too often we are caught up by then systems that paralyse our creativity that do not allow flexibility.

We who are made in the image of the divine, have a spark of the divine within us.It is there to be discovered within ourselves and it is there to be recognised in others........

A life of dreams is better than a life of regrets-hold them tight, for tomorrow they will be gone."

Words by John Mellor.

With grateful thanks to Bess Mellor, John`s widow, for giving the papers to us from which these words have been abridged, and to Graham Williams for placing these thoughts back before us in his moving service of tribute to John, held at New Meeting House, October 2nd , 2011.

The Dark Side of Consumer Culture

2011-08-11T12:33:00.000-07:00

Post by IanWe have seen over this past week a horrendous display of violence on the streets of our cities. The most shocking element being that, unlike previous riots, this has not been targeted at government and police. Instead there has been a wave of looting and wanton destruction. This was not a political protest turned violent, this was a blatant display of criminal acquisitiveness. Burglary and criminal damage on a grand scale.

The spark has been stated as the shooting of Mark Duggan by police. A peaceful protest by family, friends and local people in Tottenham was hijacked at the end by a minority intent on violence. Since this outbreak, other waves of looting have swept London and, from there, the rest of the UK.

David Cameron has called this behaviour a symptom of a broken, or even sick, society. I must say that, to an extent, I agree with him. But it is more than that. This is a symptom of the consumer culture, forever reaching to grow the economy by enticing us to spend even more on things we are told we "need". This is a symptom of the greed and acquisitive material culture that the government, of whatever colour, supports. The reason? This culture underpins our economy and ensures that we can afford the government expenditure - which is based on an assumption of continued growth. Continued growth is unsustainable. It is a house of cards on which we build our economy and stake our futures (pensions). Eventually, we will reach a peak - if we are not there already.

The people who are looting, in the main, are young people. They have grown up in a culture which has told them that they have "the right" to a nice TV, nice clothes, designer trainers. They have grown up in a culture that enforces the right of individuals over the regard of others around them. They have grown up in a culture where it is acceptable to spend more than you have. There are older people in the mix as well, I would guess that they joined in with the same attitude.

The recent debt crisis has closed down access to cheap credit. This has affected the lower paid and those who are credit risks more than the higher paid and those with good credit ratings. I would hazard a guess the the majority of those looting were in the first two categories. Cut off from cheap credit, they saw an opportunity to grab "free stuff" that our culture has been whispering that they "need".

This is a possible explanation, but there is no excuse for this attitude to the property and livelihoods of others. The looters need to realise that, through their actions, the lives of ordinary people have been ruined. Even after the immediate effect of homelessness and loss of property has been sorted out, jobs will be lost and neighbourhoods blighted - not all of those shops looted will reopen.

Above all though, we must learn to live within our means. At the government level as well as at the level of the individual. As Dickens had Mr McCawber state: "Income £20, expenditure £19 19s 6d, result: happiness. Income £20, expenditure £20 6d, result: misery."

Yet, in the midst of this darkness, there is a light. In the days after the looting, people have been turning out with broom in hand. They came to help tidy up after the nights of violence and destruction. They came to help their community and neighbourhoods.

But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation, into a snare, into many senseless and harmful desires that plunge people into ruin and destruction. ~ 1 Timothy 6:8-9

We are too many ... the last taboo?

2011-07-31T10:57:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian
"Earth-that-was could no longer sustain our numbers, we were so many." ~ Opening to Serenity, Joss Whedon

This year, the population of our world will pass 7 billion. The population passed the 6 billion mark in 1999, only 12 years ago. In 1960, the population was around 3 billion. By 2050, human population is predicted to have passed the 9 billion mark. These numbers don't necessarily mean a lot. However, what they represent is a global catastrophe waiting to happen. They represent an increase in population density, an increase in resulting pollution, an increase in the causes of climatic change, a decrease in biodiversity.

The fact of population growth has an effect, more pronounced for the poorer people of the world. The current crisis in Somalia, for example, is partly caused by a semi-arid region struggling to support a population that has outgrown the carrying capacity of the land they populate. A drought has caused this problem, but what makes it a humanitarian disaster is the number of people that it affects. Compassion dictates that we must act, but we are likely to see an increase in such humanitarian disasters as an increasing population put ever more strain on our planet.

As population grows, we convert more of the planet's biomass to our own biomass. This is the way it has to happen, there is only a finite amount to go around. The current rate of consumption is around 1.5 Earths. We are consuming the resources of the planet at an unsustainable rate. In doing so, we strip the habitat of numerous species - thereby, reducing the biodiversity of our planet. The Optimal Population Trust (OPT) states: At a 1990 per capita emission rate of about four tonnes of carbon dioxide per person per year, the world's theoretically environmentally optimum population level would not be much higher than two billion, living at an average 1990 lifestyle, in order to stabilise carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.

In a recent speech, Sir David Attenborough commented that there seemed to be a taboo on naming population growth as a factor in the problems we faced today. He called on people to break that taboo. For a number of years, many people have attempted to warn of the effects of over-population.

In 1971, Dr Paul Ehrlich published "The Population Bomb". In this book he warned that the human population would grow to a size where we would be unable to feed the growing population. The lowering of the global death-rate through advances in medicine and sanitation has meant that the difference between birth-rate and death-rate has increased. This has caused a different problem, one slow to emerge yet potentially devastating. As Sir David states in his speech, there are two ways in which human population growth will come to an end. Either we decide to control our population and keep it to sustainable levels, or the death-rate will control it for us.

We are seeing the emergence of drug-resistant disease and an increase in instances of natural disasters (such as floods and earthquakes) affecting more and more people as years go by. We could see this as a warning that, unless we do something to curb our numbers ourselves, nature will find a way to control our growing numbers.

I will close with some words from Daniel Quinn:

"For ten thousand years we've been increasing food production to feed an increasing population—and for ten thousand years our population has grown. Every single "win" in food production has been answered by a "win" in population growth. Every single one. But, according to our cultural mythology, this doesn't have to happen—and one of these years, magically, it will not happen. The magic will presumably be that all nations will achieve improved social and economic conditions and adopt effective, voluntary family planning, just like the Union of Concerned Scientists recommends. This magic didn't happen last year or the year before that or the year before that or the year before that or the year before that—but one of these years, by God, every guy on earth will put on a condom and super-glue it in place and it WILL work. One way or another, there will come a year when we increase food production—and miraculously there won't be an answering increase in population to consume it.

Our cultural mythology explains why it was vitally important for us to increase food production last year. We HAD to, in order to feed the starving millions. Everyone knows that. But, oddly enough, we increased food production to feed the starving millions, and guess what? The starving millions went on starving. The population went up—but the starving millions didn't get fed. And of course we know why it's vitally important to increase food production THIS year. We've got to do that in order to feed the starving millions. We WILL increase food production this year—there's no doubt of that—but is there anyone in this room who believes that the starving millions will be fed, this year, for the first time in living memory? I guarantee you, my friends, that by year's end this year, the starving millions will still be starving—and I guarantee that our population will have grown by two percent." ~ Extract from an address made by Daniel Quinn, Kent State University, Earth Day, 1998

Food for thought ?

2011-07-07T03:33:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash
Once again news has broken of human tragedy on an almost unimaginable scale, this time in the horn of Africa. UNHCR and BBC reports amongst others, have described that as many as 10 million people are currently experiencing malnutrition and starvation, as a result of the combination of severe drought and fighting across this area.

It could be very easy to default to `compassion fatigue` as we are presented with yet more appalling images of Somali children in Kenyan refugee camps, dying in front of our eyes. We may not like what we see, but as we already give so much in austere times there`s a limit to our resources, and anyway, what can we do ? The problem in this area will never go away, and has little to do with us.

To say that Somalia is in turmoil is something of an understatement. Comprehending reasons, beyond the climatic, can prove unfathomable, particularly for those in the west. The following quote from a recent Guardian newspaper story on the country shows the confusion; `....the Islamist government of Sharif Ahmed is locked in an attritional struggle with Al-Shabab , a radical off-shoot of the Islamic Courts Movement, the alliance of tribal Sharia courts which once controlled most of southern Somalia. The government is also under attack from Hizb Al-Islam, a Somali franchise of Alqaida...' http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/07/somalia-civil-war-al-qaida

Not the easiest of explanations to western eyes. Being charitable in such trying circumstances, it might therefore be thought, would be wasteful or worse still, counter-productive.

Yet even the briefest resume of the history of Somalia would place this civil war raging since 1991, within something of a continuum-after all, the land has been fought over (and some would say exploited) variously for centuries, by both middle-eastern and western powers.Some would argue that the European creation of national boundaries in the late nineteenth century exacerbated tribal and religious differences.Even today, we learn of US and UK `drone` activities within the country, in the `fight against terrorism`. So like it or not, western fingerprints, amongst others, are arguably to be found within the seeds of this crisis. Put bluntly then ,even if we cannot be convinced on a human level of the need for aid and charitable donation, perhaps we can consider a historical responsibility and a current (anti-terrorism) `self-interest` ?

Whatever our stance, whatever the reasons for the suffering, unless money is urgently made available for those best placed to support in this tragedy, thousands of people, the majority of them children, are likely to die within the next few weeks. Our own contributions can therefore help provide short-term relief to such intolerable human suffering. And maybe our watchfulness,prayer, and petitioning can subsequently go some way to alleviate an apparently intractable problem. Surely we can but try ?

There are many sites for those who may be considering donations, for example;
http://www.redcross.org.uk/
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/
http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/

The Descent of Man

2011-06-27T00:33:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian

Some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall ~ William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure (Act II, Scene I)

Graham posted a blog entry a few weeks ago on the subject "Good or Bad". This got me thinking on the subject. The cry of "O Tempora, O Mores" has echoed down the centuries from the days of Cicero. The issue is not, I think, a reflection of the times. Rather it is a reflection of attitude.

The post got me thinking on the concept of Original Sin. In my experience, Unitarians believe (as I do myself) in the concept that each living thing contains a piece of the divine. The divine spark, breath of life (Ruach), soul, life force (anima) - whatever you wish to call it, it gives us a connection to the divine. Through this, we have the potential to be like Jesus and live a righteous life. In other words: we are essentially good, if we listen to the voice of our hearts and conscience. This differs from the traditional view that man is a fallen creature.

The concept of Original Sin only exists in the Western Christian church. The Catholic church maintains the concept that we inherit the sin of Adam, and the Protestant churches (in the main) maintain the concept in their branching off from the Catholic church. It is not a concept that exists in the Eastern Christian church. It was one of the reasons for the Great Schism. The Eastern churches believe that we live with the consequences of Adam's sin, but that each person is born innocent of sin. Yet, the concept that we are all condemned from birth persists in Western culture.

Why is the concept of sin important? The definition of sin is basically doing what God find abhorrent. By following the rules (i.e. the commandments and Jesus' teachings), we are able to avoid sin. However, everyone will slip on occasion. So, the traditional answer is that we are all damned unless we believe in Jesus and his ability to save. The claim is that Jesus died on the cross to wash away our sins, especially the original sin inherited from Adam. So, sin and you go to hell. Only faith, they say, can save you - the doctrine of Sola Fide.

A problem if you don't believe in hell. Okay, why not sin then? The answer, personal morality and a sense of social responsibility. If a belief in hell is the only thing stopping you from sinning - especially the major sins of theft, adultery and murder - then you are not a moral person, no matter your other beliefs. It is not the threat of eternal damnation that stops people from committing murder or stealing what is not theirs. The moral person is the one who will listen to the voice of conscience, whatever their faith. In this inner voice, stopping us from immoral action, we can fancy that we hear the voice of God. When we falter, we have the ability to repent our failing and ask for forgiveness (Ephesians 2:8-9). Action through faith (James 2:14-19), and taking responsibility for our actions.

Is Sola Fide what the Bible is saying to us? From some of Paul's writings, this impression can be gained. However, even Paul goes on about the need to back up the faith with good works. James presents the opposing view: that faith is only demonstrated through action. Jesus, to me, shows the latter of these two positions, that of faith through action. He teaches trust in God and the need for personal responsibility for your actions. To be righteous, you need to love God and to honour the commandments. To be perfect, you should sell all your possessions and give to the poor (Matthew 19:16-22). Perfect people are very rare.

The moral person, no matter their faith, has a social conscience and lives a moral life. The problem arises when we allow ourselves to question the inner voice, or disregard our conscience for the temptation in front of us. If we allow our fears to rule us, we can falter.

And there are voices

that want to be heard.

So much to mention

but you can't find the words.

The scent of magic,

the beauty that's been

when love was wilder than the wind.

Listen to your heart

when he's calling for you.

Listen to your heart

there's nothing else you can do.

I don't know where you're going

and I don't know why,

but listen to your heart

before you tell him goodbye.

~ Roxette, Listen to your heart

Inspiring Balls ?

2011-06-17T08:38:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash
So according to papers recently acquired from the former office of Ed Balls, Gordon Brown`s camp plotted against Tony Blair to hasten his departure as Prime Minister. Well what a shock that must be-for virtually none of us. So much for being inspired by those we elect ; unfortunately very few politicians seem to pass muster on this score these days. In reality it was probably ever thus. Shallow is a term that rather comes to mind, as yet more news media is wasted on such stories.

Cut to two separate, humble, but inspiring events in the truest sense of the word, that would put the cynicism associated with our political classes to shame. One took place last week at University College, Manchester. The other happens everyday in run down and chronically deprived areas in all our inner cities.

The former was a happy gathering to celebrate the valediction of students entering the ministry. Part of the event was devoted to an address by a Baptist Minister about the difference these students, and in effect all of us, could make in our small yet important personal stratosphere. She described the contributions that she felt were possible by reference to her own experiences and ministry, as the chaplain at a hospice in East Cheshire. Far from being a place filled with doom and gloom, the hospice was overwhelmingly a centre for great joy; those facing the trauma of serious illness and death were mostly sure that love, above all else, was the glue of life. The materialistic fripperies that we all come to rely upon, and the point-scorings with our fellow beings, were ultimately of no relevance whatsoever. These patients exuded a presence and grace that was truly inspiring-as was the case with the work and life of this particular Minister, little though would she appreciate me saying so.

The second example of real inspiration came from a source we sometimes underrate; children. The BBC broadcast a programme highlighting the conditions that youngsters living in some of Britain`s inner cities are forced to endure. We`re all probably aware that life is tough in places such as the Gorbals in Glasgow, but just how tough became all too graphically apparent as the programme progressed .Put bluntly, the children featured were living in damp, infested and overcrowded conditions that without any shadow of doubt should have been condemned as uninhabitable. Most viewers would have been shocked by what passed for the everyday experience for far too many youngsters in 21^st century Britain. What was truly inspiring however, was the response of those children, through whose daily lives the story was told. Far from self-pity they tended to just get on with life. They knew that they were living in something of a hell- hole, and that for some their family circumstances were less than ideal. But they remained both philosophical and positive; most seemed to have a firm idea of what was needed to be done to improve their lot. All were prepared to make sacrifices for the good of their families and friends. None seemed bitter; they just needed a break, be that the chance of a decent education, diet, or , safe, secure, basic housing. In short, the sorts of things most of us take for granted.

Set against these selfless lessons that those struggling at the end and starts of lives so inspiringly can teach us, the selfish in-fighting of elected politicians really does seem quite pathetic.

Good or Bad ?

2011-06-05T11:19:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham

One of the endearing traits of Unitarianism is that its followers are always inclined to think the best of people, not the worst. They are not hung-up on sin, believing everyone is essentially wicked, but think rather that all people carry a touch of the divine within them which is frequently revealed in their interaction with others.

I myself fully subscribe to the latter view, and yet I find nowadays more and more people are wary of their fellow men and women. Whether in this age of unnatural fears the media have contributed largely to this attitude is debatable, but what is not questionable is its existence.Why else would young mothers drive their children to school, even in a village like my own, instead of letting them walk a few hundred yards to the school`s gate ? Why else would our local recreation ground, where my own children spent many happy hours playing when they were young, be deserted even on school holidays ? I admit the computer has much to answer for in this regard, but the main reason for so few children being left out alone is surely the fear on the part of the parents as to what might happen to their precious offspring, should they meet an evil predator.

I do have sympathy with this attitude of many young parents today, but I still believe their fears in many respects are unfounded and that life today is no more frightening than years ago, and that to believe every stranger is a likely paedophile is a grave mistake. I shall relate two perhaps trivial personal incidents that illustrate the fact:

A few years ago I helped a young girl, who had smehow got separated from her mother, across a busy road to rejoin her family. I took the girl by the hand and led her safely to the opposite pavement. The look of the mother, who said nothing, was one of complete horror. I was made to feel subhuman, a monster, evil personified. The second incident, which happened recently in a local coffee shop, was even worse. I was enjoying a quiet cup of coffee on my own when a young mother entered the cafe, pushing a young child in a pram. The pram was placed facing me, and, for some reason, the lovely young lad looked at me with interest. Perhaps he suspected that here was someone who related well to young children, especially boys. I smiled at him. He promptly returned the smile, and so we continued in silent communication until the mother realised I was looking at her child. She then immediately turned the pram around the other way so that the young lad was facing the wall. How sad ! What a reflection on modern society.

I left the cafe depressed and chastened. I couldn`t help thinking that it would be so much better to give people the benefit of the doubt and subscribe to the Unitarian view that people are basically good, not evil. If we all did the same I am sure we would live in a better world and it would certainly do wonders for our peace of mind. Perhaps we Unitarians are naive and utopian in our outlook; perhaps wev are fighting a losing battle in this world where every possible crime is reported, but perhaps we are right to stick to our guns and try and lead the way back to a more civilised and humane society.

It's the End of the World ... and I feel fine.

2011-05-22T05:46:00.000-07:00

Yesterday was the start of the End of the World. You may not know it, but millions of people will now be dying as the end times are upon us. Last night, at 6pm, the Rapture occurred and thousands of people disappeared in to heaven. Or so goes the prediction of Harold Camping, the latest doomsday soothsayer, who predicted that the end times would start with the Rapture on May 21st and the tribulation would continue until October 21st.

The eschatology of the end times is depressing. So many good people believe in this, some strongly enough to sell everything they have to spread the message - as has occurred in the case of followers of Harold Camping. They have sold their worldly goods in the belief that the world will end soon. A lot of impoverished people will be wondering what they have done this morning. I wonder if Mr Camping will be returning their money to them. It's not as if this is even a common interpretation of the end times - the usual length of the tribulation being seven years.

Why are these evangelical Christians so intent on ending the world? I find it extremely saddening that they just can not see the sanctity and beauty of the world in which we live. Is it not better to focus on living well in this world, and improving the lives of those around you, than focusing on this eschatological outlook? There are many problems that are not being addressed, such as the threat of global warming, poverty, hunger, homelessness, loss of community. Time spent on preaching the end times could be spent far more productively on making the lives of those around them just that little bit better.

I believe that these are only the last days if the eschatology-focussed evangelists succeed in making them so. They are so focused on the next world that this world is neglected. There are things that need to be done NOW in order to preserve our place in this world. If wrong (and there is always that possibility no matter how sure you feel) then it will be our children and grandchildren will be the ones who will suffer.

To me, it seems that the sentiment of the evangelist is that: "It doesn't matter what happens to this world as I'm going to heaven", or: "The quicker this world is destroyed, then the quicker judgement day will come and I'll have my perfect life". These sentiments do not reflect well on anyone. Especially so when coupled with the smug attitude that anyone not believing as they do will burn in hell.

I have written before that it is my belief that Jesus expected that the Kingdom of God would be here, on Earth - as keeping with the Jewish eschatology he would have been familiar with. I have written more recently on the view that, perhaps, the Kingdom of God is indeed a spiritual one and that we only have to accept it in our hearts. Either way, I believe that the coming of God's Kingdom is down to us. It won't be a big battle in the skies and a whisking off of several believers in to the heavens. It will be a battle of the shadow within us all, a personal battle that each of us need to make. When enough of us manage to win, the Kingdom of God will be here - because we will have built it. This is free will, given to us by God. This is choice and personal responsibility. We have a choice, live well or not. It is down to each of us to make that choice.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law.

~ Matthew 7:15-29

Image from the Wikipedia article on Harold Camping and is Creative Commons material

Is this why our churches are so empty ?

2011-05-17T00:40:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham

I read a survey in a newspaper recently which had as its theme the falling attendances at church over the years.One of the explanations given was the greater life expectancy for us all these days. The article went on to say that those in the first flush of youth and even those in their fifties and sixties were loath to attend church until such time that they felt perhaps that their end was in sight and it was time to make peace with their God. Such people were clearly concerned about the after-life and missing out on the glories in heaven. It was for this reason it was pointed out that most churches these days are frequented by the grey-haired brigade and that, unless a church was particularly lively and geared towards the younger generation, it would find few younger members in its ranks.

As a Unitarian and as someone over seventy myself I found this all very suprising. I was raised as a Baptist, was a regular churchgoer until my early twenties, lapsed, in spite of always retaining an interest in religious and spiritual matters, and then, to my delight, came upon Unitarianism about four and a half years ago. Since then I have been a regular attendee at my local Unitarian church and can honestly say that the thought of heaven has never once crossed my mind. In fact, it has been so liberating to find many aspects to religion other than this personal relationship with Jesus that will redeem me from sin and send me on my way to the `Pearly Gates`. I realise that religion is indeed a personal matter, but that it should be concentrated on the individual alone and not on society, or the world at large, I find perplexing and worrying.

It is inevitable that as one gets older one`s thoughts turn towards the end of one`s earthly existence but, if it is the worry about heaven and hell that is the sole thought that motivates a person to lead a good life, then I feel there is no real substance to that person`s religion. Thank God, then , for Unitarianism, which has opened up for me a broader spectrum of religion and spirituality which embraces not just me but the whole of humankind !

Resurrection - Rebirth and Symbolism

2011-04-24T01:34:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian

But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ~ Romans 6:22-23

Easter, a time of rebirth and the time of the resurrection of Jesus. The passion narrative is depicted in all four gospels, consisting of the entry in to Jerusalem at the end of Jesus' ministry and his subsequent death by crucifixion. This is followed by the narrative of his resurrection and the meeting with his disciples in Galilee.

The earliest gospel account is that of Mark (65-75AD). In this account, three women followers of Jesus go to the tomb where his body has been laid to find the tomb empty. They are told by a young man that Jesus of Nazareth had been raised and had gone before them to Galilee. There, in the oldest and most authoritative texts, the account ends - with the women fleeing from the tomb (Mark 16:8). For Mark, the redemptive message is not in the resurrection of Jesus but in his suffering and death. The resurrected Jesus shows that the message he taught will continue - through his disciples and followers. Indeed it did, with James the Just taking up his brother's mantle and the continuation of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem until the fall of the city in the Jewish Revolt (70AD).

Matthew (70-80AD) expands this further, having the disciples meeting with Jesus in Galilee (Matthew 28:16-20). Jesus instructs them to go and teach, as he had taught them. Luke (80-90AD) further expands the post-resurrection narrative, but keeps the action in Jerusalem and the surrounds. In Luke, we have the account of Jesus joining two of his followers on the walk to Emmaus. John (90-120AD) again expands the narrative, taking two chapters in his book instead of the single resurrection chapter in the other gospel texts. In John's account we have the story of doubting Thomas.

The resurrection of Jesus is, I've learnt, a difficult subject among Unitarians. I believe in the resurrection, in terms of a spiritual rebirth, and in the imagery and symbolism surrounding it. At this time of Easter, we should celebrate the cycle of rebirth and embrace our Christian heritage. Jesus died as an example to us all and showed us a path to God. I believe that Jesus took the position of sacrifice, negating the need to sacrifice at the temple for redemption. In essence, he became our high priest (Hebrews 5) and the prime example of a life of righteousness in God's eyes. We follow this example, as best as we are able, and ask for God's forbearance and mercy when we are unable to do so. We petition our deity directly, rather than asking for the intercession of a priestly class.

The Triumphal Entry - Facing Death

2011-04-17T00:39:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian
The disciples went and did as Jesus had instructed them. They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. A very large crowd spread their cloaks on the road, while others cut branches from the trees and spread them on the road. The crowds that went ahead of him and those that followed shouted,
“Hosanna to the Son of David!”
“Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!”
“Hosanna in the highest heaven!”
When Jesus entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred and asked, “Who is this?”
The crowds answered, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth in Galilee.”
~ Matthew 21, 6-11

The passion narrative is depicted in all four gospels, consisting of the entry in to Jerusalem at the end of Jesus' ministry and his subsequent death by crucifixion. In the synoptic accounts (Mark, Matthew and Luke) the accounts in the two later books reflect the early writing of Mark, adding detail and embellishment to the story. Matthew highlights earlier scriptural backing for the actions attributed to Jesus. Luke makes Jesus in to a stoic accepter of his destiny and fate. The earlier account of Mark, to me, shows a man who knew what may happen if he challenged the powers of the day. The power of the Sanhedrin in the temple and of the Roman governors. He knew what he may face, and yet he did it anyway.

Jesus approaches Jerusalem and sends two of his disciples to fetch a colt from a nearby village. On the back of this colt, he enters the city. In this simple act, he is challenging the status quo. He is entering Jerusalem as the messiah, the chosen of God (Zechariah 9:9). The people recognise this and greet Jesus, Matthew has them ask: "Who is this?", to which the reply is: "This is the prophet Jesus, the man from Nazareth in Galilee." (Matthew 21:10-11).

Jesus not only enters Jerusalem in this way, he then proceeds to overturn the tables in the temple, where money-changers traded in sacrificial beasts and redemption money. He challenges the priests when he is questioned on where he gets his authority. The same place as John (the baptist) being his answer. Jesus proceeds to teach to the priests in parables, his preferred method of teaching. They attempt to trap Jesus in talk of sedition, asking him whether it is lawful to pay taxes to Caesar. To this he gives the well known reply of: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's" (Mark 12:17). In doing this, Jesus separates spiritual authority from temporal.

After challenging the authority of Jerusalem in this manner, Jesus shares the passover feast with his disciples. After the meal they go to the Mount of Olives and the garden of Gethsemane. Here Jesus prays for the cup to be taken from him, he is aware of what is likely to come. He has already stated during the meal that one of his disciples will betray him. Sure enough, a crowd arrives to arrest Jesus - sent from the priests and scribes of the temple. They try him and pass him to the Roman authorities for execution. The governor, Pontius Pilate, is accounted as being reluctant. Understandably so, here is a man who is counted as a prophet by the common people and who is popular. To condemn him could cause a riot. Yet, on the other side, the local power of the temple is asking him to fulfil a duty of Rome - to execute a prisoner they have tried. Jesus is also on the borderline of preaching sedition against Rome in his claim to be the King of the Jews, a post that Rome had abolished by this time in the province (Augustus dismissing Herod Archelaus, the son of Herod the Great in 6AD). Judea was now a province of Rome, directly ruled by Rome's governor.

And so, Jesus was crucified - the death of a criminal. Above him, it is written, was the sign IESVS·NAZARENVS·REX·IVDÆORVM - Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. On the cross, Jesus finally despairs as the spirit of God leaves him in death. Yet, in his death, the veil of the temple is rent in two - giving the hope of direct contact with God for the people. No more would the priests of the temple be required as an intermediary.

The story of the passion, I think, is among the most moving in Christianity - even without the usual interpretation of Jesus sacrificing himself to rid humans of original sin. Most Unitarians would agree with me that one's sin is one's own, not inherited. No, Jesus did sacrifice but not in that way. He showed a path to God that we can follow, if we have the courage to set aside everything and follow him (Matthew 19:16-30).

It is especially relevant today. Looking at events in the Middle East - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen. People all over the Middle East have been stepping in to danger, to challenge the status quo. They have protested against their rulers, knowing that they might be killed or be made to disappear. Here are examples of people, who have decided to make a stand - no matter the cost. Like the Chinese student who was filmed standing up to the approaching tank in Tiananmen Square, the people in the demonstrations throughout the Middle East risk their lives to speak out. To speak out against oppressive authority, to protest, to accept the slings and arrows of others without retaliating in kind ... this is courage. I can only hope that, if faced with a similar situation, I would have the courage to follow the same course of action and to make a stand for what is right.

At three o'clock Jesus cried out with a loud voice, "Eloi, eloi, lema sabachthani?", which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" When some of the people standing there heard this, they said, "Listen! He's calling for Elijah!" So someone ran and soaked a sponge in some sour wine. Then he put it on a stick and offered Jesus a drink, saying, "Wait! Let's see if Elijah comes to take him down!" Then Jesus gave a loud cry and breathed his last. The curtain in the sanctuary was torn in two from top to bottom. When the centurion who stood facing Jesus saw how he had cried out and breathed his last, he said, "This man certainly was the Son of God!"
~ Mark 15:34-39

For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing until it divides soul and spirit, joints and marrow, as it judges the thoughts and purposes of the heart. No creature can hide from him, but everyone is exposed and helpless before the eyes of the one to whom we must give a word of explanation. Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us live our lives consistent with our confession of faith. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses. Instead, we have one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet he never sinned. So let us keep on coming boldly to the throne of grace, so that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.
~ Hebrews 4:12-16

Spring, Fayre, and `Eat a Unitarian`.

2011-04-11T04:35:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash
What a great way to spend the weekend - first the New Meeting House `Summer Fayre` on Saturday in aid of the `Maggs Centre for the Homeless` followed by a great Sunday Service and then our `Eat A Unitarian` shindig.

THE SUMMER FAYREFront of house setting up; a hopeful bucket is waggled.
The Vice-President contemplates an energetic day.
As does Dennis-dancing at the front of house to attract the custom.

The crowds flock in...400 + trampled our drive throughout the course of the day, in the beautiful April sunshine.

They drove a hard bargain....

Some just looked....

Some more also looked....

And some, bless them, also bought.

The `Chat-Cafe Team` of Bronwen and Elaine pull `dissenting` faces.....it`s tough in the kitchen !

Was the bucket filling ?

Our wonderful street organ team...the best in Britain !!

Prince William has invited them.....

But this little girl just wanted to dance.

And so did Ian. If only we could sell that `modern` telly......

The Book Sellers of Kabul.

A lull in proceedings, but the bucket was half-full by the end of the day!

SERVICE

And then, next day, post-service and pre-lunch....a bit of a natter.

Chris majorly fails to avoid the photograph.

Two distinguished men with their Fair Trade coffee.

This pair tried hiding at the back.

Graham and Pete take evasive action; is that a fight going on nearby...

EAT A UNITARIAN (meal)

Oh, then this lot make it to the ancient pub , hoping for an early tipple .

And the same lot, looking sideways.......`do we look better from the right ? `

A straggler shuffles in.

It was this big !

Food time.

Guests examine the `Order Of Service`.

But the sensible money gets tucked right in !

This was a very successful weekend. A total of £350 was raised towards our annual collection for `The Maggs Centre For The Homeless`, and many people visited the church for the first time. The service and meal the following day were very enjoyable, and a great time was had by all.

Common sense matters

2011-04-06T12:03:00.000-07:00

Post by Ann

I am a Unitarian Minister, now officially retired, although still reasonably active and able to prepare and lead services. In the past, each week `the sermon` was a spiritual and mental undertaking. On good weeks this was great but I did have dry weeks which my congregations, thanks be, have always understood.

I came to realise that stories, be they fictional, for example Aesop`s fables-especially for the children-and stories about everyday real life and situations of commerce and livelihood that many face, are far more beneficial and effective than all the eloquence of a great preacher.

Down to earth commonsense in the well-being of our communities is what we need and what our churches, chapels and the like should be offering.

I offer the following story to illustrate this;

`There was once a factory that employed thousands of people. Its production line was a miracle of modern engineering, turning out thousands of machines everyday. The factory had a high accident rate. The complicated machinery of the production line took little account of human error, forgetfulness and ignorance. Day after day, workers came out of the factory with damaged hands and fingers, cuts and bruises. Sometimes a worker lost an arm or a leg. Occassionally, some were electrocuted or crushed.

Enlightened people began to see that something needed to be done. First on the scene were the churches. An enterprising Minister organised a small first aid tent outside the factory gate. Soon, with the backing of the Council Of Churches, it grew into a properly built clinic, able to give first aid and treat minor injuries. The Town Council became interested together with local bodies such as The Chamber Of Trade and The Rotary Club. The clinic grew into a small hospital, with modern equipment, an operating theatre, and a full-time staff of doctors and nurses. Several lives weres saved. Finally, the factory management, seeing the good that was being done, and wishing to also prove itself enlightened, gave the hospital a small annual grant, and an ambulance to speed serious cases from workshop to hospital ward.

But, year by year, as production inceased, the accident rate continued to rise. And in spite of everything the hospital could do, more and more people died from the injuries they had received.

Only then did some people begin to ask if it was enough to treat people`s injuries, whilst leaving untouched the machinery and practices that caused them.` Brian Wren

Sound familiar ?

How lucky are we ?

2011-03-24T12:14:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash
We frequently forget just how lucky we are. It`s an enduring as opposed to endearing human trait. The appalling natural and human catastrophe in Japan, and and also earlier in the year in Christchurch, New Zealand, bring home all too clearly the thin line-between joy and sadness, certainty and despair. We have all, I`m sure, been moved not only by the suffering but also by the sheer heroism of so many, in the face of such terrible adversity. They put most of our own daily travails to shame.

Closer to base we can perhaps sometimes be guilty of a similar loss of perspective about our lot, when faced, for example, with the dilemma of the homeless. Try as we might, maybe , just maybe, we sometimes catgorize this group as being 'their own worst enemy'; drink, drugs, temperament, laziness-surely they`re the reasons behind the predicament in which they find themselves ?

The bottom-line of course is that this group are really not that different to ourselves. Each individual has particular reasons for his or her misfortune, and it`s not hard to imagine that had such issues been presented to us we too may have struggled; lucky for us therefore that we`ve our coping mechanisms and good people around us to help.

There are many fine individual`s organisations and charities that work tirelessly to help this group, for example Shelter and Crisis. On our own patch, the Maggs Day Centre in Worcester, established in some `spare capacity`owned by the Cathedral, does an absolutely outstanding job, clothing, feeding, counselling and being a `friend` to the homeless in the county. They also provide an overnight refuge throughout the cold winter nights. Established in memory of John Maggs, a homeless man found dead in the city in 1984, they do their very best to support the homeless in as many practical ways as possible.

Such centres exist in many other parts of the UK, and they all need our support. New Meeting has adopted the Maggs Centre this year for its charity; we shall do what we can in our own small way . We don`t pretend it will be anywhere near enough, and there will of course always be competing and very genuine other causes to support. Helping some of the most dispossessed on our very doorstep though, seems the least we should be doing. And how lucky are we to be in a position to do this !

For more info : Maggs Day Centre www.maggsdaycentre.co.uk

The thin Unitarian line

2011-03-03T04:05:00.000-08:00

Blog by Pete

The question, `who or what is a Unitarian?` is one that can never satifactorily be answered.For every Unitarian there is a different view. The aims,the vision, the drive of every

congregation differs, not only from each other but as time changes.Unitarianism is far from static. It is undoubtedly one of the most open-minded and tolerant of all faiths.

However, sooner or later situations arise where even liberal Unitarians perceive a need to draw lines. This may happen between congregations, for example over the need for a communion or maybe the incorporation of modern pagan philosophy. It may also happen within congregations regarding direction, character, and their relationship with others in the community. Inevitably some individual Unitarians will find themselves on the wrong side of a line drawn with good conscience by the majority. As much as we might try to please everyone the very nature of a broad church negates this.

Thus congregations of any Unitarian Meeting House or Church are a mix of those whose spiritual needs are met within the confines of the services provided, those who dip in and out depending who is in the pulpit, and those who splice it with other sources of spiritual inspiration and expression. It can lead to richness but also tensions. It generates a great deal of food for thought, questions, and sometimes a need for solidifying personal precepts while accepting the position of others. The word compromise tends to be used very carefully when it comes to beliefs.

I recently found myself on the wrong side of a line in our church, at least in terms of my own philosophy and perspective of Unitarianism. Maybe, more accurately, a line had been drawn before me that could not be crossed in actuality. This was the decision that the formal space designated as a place of worship could not be used by any other denomination. Christian or non Christian or any other faith under any circumstances. I`m not saying that itb was a wrong decisiuon:by definition, following a policy that is overwhelmingly desired by those who are the church, is the right decision.But id does cause me to reflect on what it means in terms of aspirations and hopes held for the church.

Firstly it should be said that for most faiths or churches the idea of their church being used by any other denomination or faith would be untenable. The fact that Kidderminster Unitarians will allow and welcome another faith to use some of their facilities is a credit to Unitarianism. Secondly I should also declare that as well as being a Unitarian I am also a part of the Spiritualist Church that uses a room owned by New Meeting. However I am not speaking on their behalf or their needs in this instance, but from a Unitarian perspective, and trust that it willbe accepted as such.

Churches sharing space is not new. It is not universally common but it does happen, and probably more so in the case of Unitarian and Quaker Meeting Houses. Not only the same premises such as the halls but the same church itself. As outcasts from many interfaith communities we know what it is like to be condemned to the fiery depths for not accepting creed or dogma. We pride ourselves on welcoming anyone of any persuasion at least into our services without expectations or prejudice. So it was with some sadness that I acepted the closing of the ranks and the church doors to accept all from our small private club. No one actually wanted to move in; it was a precautionary measure, just in case.

There is no suggestion or question that it was to discriminate or to put out a message of insularity; more an overwhelming sense of insecurity.The church will be available for secular gatherings and events which are not seen as a threat or an erosion of primacy. It certainly has the right and duty of every church to rigorously maintain its identity,ethos and future, and mine is no exception. I am committed to help our church grow and help build a vibrant congregation that actively meets the needs of those in our community. I can`t help feeling though that we may have taken a backward step or at best a stance which is conservative rather than expansive.

This especially seems unfortunate when we are looking to recruit professional spiritual leadership that will be required to be dynamic, forward looking and proactive in recruiting new members. When we`ve tried to embrace the advice of those successful in transforming Unitarianism into a 21 st century faith the phrase `to give it away` as the key growth was banded and celebrated, when it was merely an abstract idea.

I also glimpse hints of other principles reflected in the choice we have made:choices and lines drawn within our society and institutions. The pride we take in embracing others while shaking our collective heads,say,at those who espouse equality for women but then fight tooth and nail to prevent them becoming priests and bishops. Yes, welcome to participate but not allowed in the sacred sanctuaries. The acceptance of gay Christians, so long of course as they are not active. Physical `love` to remain exclusively for heterosexuals. Those who insist they are not racist or colour prejudiced and genuinely believe in equality, having no personal animosity against minorities;but when their village or estate or school attracts too many of those not of their kind, take steps to protect the place where they live. But not us, no, never.

Unfair maybe. But I wasn`t drawing comparisons, simply reflecting. Looking beyond the glass. Lifting my eyes from my own lap.I am not worried about the Spiritualists, who, in all likelihood are no more than a passing anomally in our long history. My worry is we are not so much trying to protect as much loved sanctuary, as gathering a comfort blanket under which we can quietly reach the end of our days, cosseted and safe.Have we sent out a subconscious message to ourselves and others that says our rhetoric is for an expansive future, our hearts are in the reclusive past ?

It has been said that I wear two hats. This is not quite accurate. I don`t have two religions just the one.It just encompasses a broader spiritual base. I am no less a spiritualist when I am attending or leading Unitarian services, and no less a Unitarian when I am attending or leading spiritualist services. The identical rejection of dogma, creed abd Trinitarianism apply to both. The same tolerance and acceptance of all great teaching:the belief in each finding their own path to God, which are many.

For me it`s a continuum. At one end a greater helping of Philosophy, Theology and action;at the other end a greater acceptance of our spiritual nature. I have never drawn a line in my heart. To have others draw one on my behalf is another sadness. Again, I`m not saying that we should not stand by the decision. Equally strongly held views went into its making. I hope that the frame of mind that generated it is the right frame of mind to attract the next generation of Unitarians.

The `Big Society?` Blink and you`ll miss it.

2011-02-15T16:53:00.000-08:00

Post by Ash

The `Big Society` is back in the headlines and again dividing opinion. It seems to induce one of those moments that author Malcolm Gladwell attempted to define in his book `Blink`. It was his premise that the vast majority of key decisions we make as individuals are based upon that one or two second `blink` moment when we first see or hear a person,or become aware of a situation or event. It`s rapid cognition, the sort of thing that some would refer to as intuition, but which in his opinion much more rational than that.

So no suprise he might suggest, that when we are presented with the phrase `Big Society`, particularly when uttered by a politician, there are instant responses ranging from the encouraging or perhaps just a weary resignation, through to the downright dismissive. Even the marvellous Archbishop Of York Dr John Sentamu was minded to tell viewers to last Sunday`s Andrew Marr show on the BBC, that this is an idea that has been around for at least 2,000 years.

I guess that we`re all prone to the `blink` mentality, and of course a small dose of cynicism is thought to be good for us. Is organised traditional religion similarly affected ? For example;
The `Big Society`?- (blink) "we`re already doing it."
Full-House worship ?-(cynicism) "great ideal but we live in a secular society with so many competing demands upon time,the world has changed,so it will never happen."
The way to God ?- (blink) "er..., through us please, not any of the other lot."
Cairo-style revolutions ?-(cynicism) "yes it`s lovely that they`re striking out for democracy, but it`s likely to end in a pyrrhic victory."
Maybe though we should take some time for a closer examination.
The `Big Society` ? This may mean different things to different people, but most seem to agree that if it`s about anything then it must be a `sense of community`and a way of letting `people rather than bureaucracy` take control. Helping others is the key or as Therese Coffey MP rather neatly stated, "go and do it". The Archbisop Of York was right in his assertions in that for over two millennium, we have had access to a religiously driven moral code, a way to lead a life, a divine light. Much great work has been undertaken as a result including magnificent projects and outstanding contemporary examples of lives being led that we could all quote. But if the social actions of traditional religions in the UK today were to be compared for example with those of just over a century ago, it would be difficult not to reach the disappointing conclusion that it has played anything other than a `bit part`in the overall scheme of things. How many of the buildings for example, are purposefully used for communities across the day, let alone throughout the week ? Everyone knows that the Salvation Army works directly for the support of the vulnerable.It`s surely no coincidence therefore that their motto is `belief in action`; they are a `doing` as well as spiritual organisation-their buidings at least are certainly put to work.

And how many individuals in our society would be sufficiently engaged to search out advice or support, or would seek to test their opinions on important matters in their life through contact with their community church. How many would even know where this was ? So can it really be assumed that `we already do` the Big Society ? Individually maybe, but via our collective assets ?

Full-house worship? Well I`m not suggesting for a minute that this has to be an essential pre-requisite for success; increasingly for example groups and individuals are using modern technology for support in their quest for both for a personal and fulfilling spirituality, and for reaching out to others. That may well have its place for some, but what`s so daunting also about working in the the collective expectation that a vibrant and contemporary spiritual message should and could be shared with as many souls as possible ? Why the general defeatism ? Has traditional religion not kept pace with the society that it espouses to serve ? Does it no longer have a common touch ? Has it a vision,confidence and energy that will free it from an over-reliance upon dogmatism ? Why, when confronted by such issues, do so many seem to despair that change is possible ? There are, after all, shining examples where places of worship are literally joyously rammed with people, places that contradict this trend toward negativity and seeming acceptance of decline; yet so often these are dismissed as `happy clappy` or `fortuitously located at the centre of a large housing estate`, or they`re `dynamically led` or `culturally different`, as if suggesting that these alone are the reasons for their success, and could never happen `here`. Surely these are places from which lessons should be learnt , the most basic of which being that they`ve actually worked hard to know and provide what their congregations need.

The way to God ? Well it takes very little prompting to remind us all that despite perhaps the best of intentions, the traditional religious default position of `my route to God` can too frequently dominate all reason. In the worst instances this can instantly repel or be too fundamental a message to either encourage personal spiritual discovery or welcome newcomers. Faith and belief demand respect, but such credentials are diminished when used to exclude those many and `different` others.

Cairo-style revolution ? It`s natural to be concerned by uncertainty. Sitting in a comfortable house watching the reporting of the revolution on our TV`s, it`s maybe not an unusual response to assume that such popular uprisings will lead to some undesireable outcomes for ourselves; higher oil prices, islamic fundamentalism,and a limiting of western influence maybe ? Establishing a comprehensive democracy which includes free speech as we know, won`t just happen overnight. And yes, maybe these people themselves will come to regret at least the speed of changes that they have brought about.But surely this is their choice, and theirs alone.In their circumstances, would we be brave enough to take this route ? Is it not really the concern about the potential for a state to become guided by religious zealots that drives us ? Do we really understand the chances of this happening, or the deeper how`s and why`s involved ? Should we not also allow the Egyptians, in this case,to try to address these matters for themselves ? Are we not becoming so self-interested a society as to be unable to generously interpret the genuine needs of others beyond our own borders? Dictatorship, after all, is a prison sentence, not a way of life.

So maybe those of us who in particular hope that at least we are trying to live our lives `religiously`, should spend a little more time than just the odd `blink` considering the `Big Society` that we`d most like to belong to. The exercise may actually serve us well by requiring a re-examinination of the possibilities . By keeping cynicism to a healthy bare essential, we may even find a route to God that could be shared by many others; and perhaps upon that journey embrace the fact that society really does mean `all`; even those in Cairo.

Sin,Sacrifice and Salvation

2011-02-05T06:59:00.000-08:00

Post by Graham

Recently we attended the final service at a local chapel which had been forced to close its doors because it is no longer sustainable with the small number of people attending on a Sunday. It was a good service, the chapel was full and the singing was excellent. We were pleased to take part in the service as we had fond memories of the place. We ourselves attended services there only spasmodically, but my wife`s father, a real chapel man, frequently went there on a Sunday during the short time he lived with us before his death. In fact his funeral service was held there.

I say we had fond memories of the place, mainly because over the years there had been a succession of very fine people associated with the chapel. We remember with particular fondness the minister who conducted my father-in-law`s burial service, and, before his time, a lovely lay preacher who radiated goodness and did much for the people in the village. And so we went along to the service to pay homage to their memory, if nothing else.

The service itself was well constructed, the prayers were good and some excellent memories of past members were recounted. There was, however, one thing that jarred-the hymns ! Nothing wrong with the tunes (indeed they were sung lustily) but oh dear, the words ! We were constantly drowning in Jesus` blood and wallowing in sin. It brought to mind that the religion of my youth, although I hadn`t realised it at the time, revolved around the three S`s:sin,sacrifice and salvation, and that was about it. Reward in heaven was the ultimate goal, and I thought to myself that, surely, religion must be more than this. The themes of the ultimate brotherhood of man (irrespective of another`a religion), community, the divine spark within us all (not just the saints !), a compassion and love, peace between nations, these were conspicuous by their absence in the hymns. It made me thankful that I had found Unitarianism in my later life and needed to look outward, not inward, if I was to find true satisfaction in religion.

Why am I a Unitarian?

2011-01-29T08:29:00.000-08:00

Post by Ian.

I was brought up as a Methodist and attended regular Sunday school classes as a child. Christianity, as taught, never resounded in my heart though; and the older I got, the more questions and inconsistencies I found. The biggest questions in my youth were about the Trinity and why Christians didn't seem to do what Jesus was teaching. The most vocal of Christians seemed to be those who paid the least attention to Jesus' teachings. I never got satisfactory responses to questions, no matter who I asked. The Trinity especially was something I could not believe in. How could God be three persons in one essence. How could God be a "person" at all. God was everywhere - no person or being could be everywhere at once. Hence, at the age of 13, before confirmation, I left the church.

In my journey toward faith, I read the Bible, the Qur'an, the Noble Eightfold Path. I explored Wicca and other pagan faiths. In the end I just considered what I believed in my heart, looked around at what I'd seen and started referring to myself as an animist, I considered myself not quite an atheist, though I have certainly had atheistic tendencies. I retained an interest in Christianity, especially early Christianity and have read extensively in to early Christian history and biblical textual criticism.

Why do I now consider myself a Unitarian? Well, even though I'd looked in to other branches of Christianity, I never came across the term. Strange isn't it? I came across terms such as animist, theist, deist, pantheism and panentheism - but not Unitarian. As far as I was concerned, if you couldn't believe in the Nicene Creed you weren't a Christian. Having now explored the terms a little more, and having been convinced that one can be called Christian without subscribing to the Nicene Creed, I now class myself as a Unitarian Adoptionist Christian.

So what does that mean? I believe that all living things around us have a soul (anima, life force, whatever you want to call it), and that all living things are connected. We all have a divine spark within us, that links us as mortal creatures to the divine. As humans, we have been gifted with rational thought. I think that this puts a responsibility on us to listen to our conscience. Our success as a species has threatened the existence of others in the world. We recognise there is a problem, and it's up to us to do something about it. As Stan Lee put it, with great power comes great responsibility. I think we tend to devolve the responsibility on to God more often than not, when we should be asking ourselves: "What can we do?"

In theology, I believe that God exists (if at all) not as a person, or even an entity. The closest I have come to a belief in God is that of panentheism or deism. My understanding of the Trinity would be that God is God (Unity). The holy spirit is a manifestation of God's power. I see God everywhere, in everything. God is within us, and surrounding us. But God is greater than the sum of the parts.

Jesus is not God, but chosen by God in order to teach and endowed with the holy spirit at his baptism. A prophet and potential messiah. I believe Jesus is the first-born in terms of having undergone the resurrection that some will attain in the final judgement. Son of God is also not a singular title in the bible. It refers to angels and their mortal descendants (Nephilim) in Genesis (6:4). It can refer to the people of Israel (Exodus 4:22). It also refers to King David and his line (II Samuel 7:10-16). I believe that we are all the children of God, with the potential to follow where Jesus led.

In terms of an afterlife, my beliefs are vague. I don't believe in the traditional version of Christian heaven. This, I believe, has come from Greco-Roman imagery of Elysium. If anything, I believe in the soul going through a cycle of physical death and rebirth. When I die, I believe my soul will be reborn in to another human body. This will continue until the final judgement.

I have found a place where I can express my beliefs, and enjoy a community where my beliefs are not derided but listened to and challenged. I enjoy the debate that goes on in the Unitarian faith. Unitarians are not satisfied with accepting established thought, but will look for those answers I sought so long ago. Different members will come to different conclusions, but that is okay. We are all children of God, using the gift that God has presented to us. That of rational thought.

Thank you for reading and, as Dave Allen often ended with, may your God go with you.

We walk in beauty

2011-01-23T14:54:00.000-08:00

Post by Ian

`The world doesn't belong to us, we belong to it. Always have, always will. We belong to the world. We belong to the community of life on this planet - it doesn't belong to us. We got confused about that, now it's time to set the record straight.`~ Daniel Quinn, Providence
`Remember that your tracks are one strand of the web woven endlessly in the hand of god. They're tied to those of the mouse in the field, the eagle on the mountain, the crab in its hold, the lizard beneath its rock. The leaf that falls to the ground a thousand miles away touches your life. The impress of your foot in the soil is felt through a thousand generations.` ~ Daniel Quinn, The Tales of Adam

The poem, Leisure, starts: `What is this world if, full of care, we have no time to stand and stare`. In the modern world, we have very little time to stand and stare - time to appreciate and reflect on what we have. All too often, the refrain of our lives is now ... we do not have the time. How did this happen? We have numerous time-saving devices that are meant to free us to enjoy more time, not less. Yet, we now spend more time in doing than ever before. We spend so much time on social interaction by proxy that we can suffer withdrawal effects should someone take our Blackberry, or iPhone, or other communication device away from us. We do not now have the time to stand and stare.

So, what do we miss? Anything? Well, we miss the stillness and silences that can offer insight and revelation. We lose our centre and, lost in the day-to-day chaos of our lives, the centre can not hold. Unless we make time to appreciate the stillness and reflect, we are unable to regain control and capture some of that stillness for ourselves. We substitute social interaction by device for real social interaction, because it is easier and quicker to do so. We willingly isolate ourselves by placing ourselves in a silo, locked away in our own world so that we do not need to interact with the worlds of others' ken.

In the doctrinal Christianty of my background, people wait for the second coming of the Christ. They wait for a future time of judgement and trial, after which there will be a new world. This world is a mere waiting place where you can prove your faith before being accepted in to heaven. Buddhism casts the Earth as a place of suffering, a situation to escape from using the techniques laid out in the Eightfold Path, with the promise of Nirvana - the escape from the cycle of suffering. Other religions share this view of the world. We don't belong here. The world is just a place that humans live in temporarily. Humans are the only beings gifted with souls. We continue.

I don't believe this. I believe that we humans are but one species on this world possessing the divine spark. All life shares this divine spark. We happen to have the gift of reasoned thought, and have a responsibility with this gift not to misuse it. The spirit we know as God is everywhere, in everything. We are all children of God. We can choose to follow the example of Jesus, the son of Joseph who was chosen by God to bring a message to his people. I believe that, by following this example, we can bring about the Kingdom of God. It's up to us. As Stephen Lingwood put up on his blog a while ago: What if God is waiting for us? Waiting for us to pay attention to that divine spark within, and take the responsibility on ourselves for living well. Maybe we need some action to go with that faith (James 2:14-20).

Native Americans used to say that one should tread lightly on this earth, for your actions should be considered to the seventh generation. We are lucky if our actions are considered at all, let alone with this degree of forethought. Now is the time to regain the centre and the stillness. Time to reflect on our actions and how they may impact on our children, to the seventh generation. We must give up dominion, and become equal partners with those we share our world with. Maybe then, we will have a future.

Luke 17:20-21: Once Jesus was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God was coming, and he answered, ‘The kingdom of God is not coming with things that can be observed; nor will they say, “Look, here it is!” or “There it is!” For, in fact, the kingdom of God is among you.’

Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the wind, Whose breath gives life to all the world.
Hear me; I need your strength and wisdom.
Let me walk in beauty, and make my eyes ever behold the red and purple sunset.
~ from The Great Spirit Prayer translated by Lakota Sioux Chief Yellow Lark in 1887

What price peace ?

2011-01-09T08:16:00.000-08:00

Post by Ash
It was depressing to read of more acts of violence carried out in recent weeks in the name of religion. Two weeks ago 60 people were killed in an attack on a church in Baghdad, contributing further no doubt to what the UN Refugee Agency described as a `slow but steady exodus` of Christians from Iraq. On New Year`s Eve in Alexandria, 21 were killed in a similar act of carnage against a Coptic Church. On Tuesday last the `liberal -minded` muslim Governor of the Punjab, Salmaan Taseer, was murdered by his own bodyguard.He had been attempting to change his country`s blaspemy laws in an effort to spare the life of a Pakistani Christian sentenced to death for insulting Islam.

That fact that these are examples of attacks by alleged Muslims upon Christians is almost incidental. We all know of examples of Christian intolerance and violence toward other Christians.The advantage of historic hindsight also reminds that the Crusades were hardly the most glorious moment in European religious history. More currently it`s hard not to be acutely aware of the negative perception of the `Christian` west by Afghani`s and Iraqi`s affected by the odd stray warhead. Not for them the rationale of `collateral damage`.

All right-thinking people know that to persecute others, let alone commit atrocity in the name of religion is quite simply an abomination.Individuals and groups that carry out such despicable acts often do so quoting scriptures and mantra as justification. They conveniently ignore the overwhelming and noble truths in all the great religious texts about peace, love and justice.

Contemporary critics of religion frequently use such excesses to remind of the irrelevance, indeed latent dangers of `belief`. Hopefully those of us who accept that there is an important spiritual aspect to all life will counter this. We have a responsibility to condemn such irrational acts of violence and to help keep some sense of perspective. The perpetrators are not representative in any way of their majority communities.They seek bloodshed, mayhem and division for selfish, one-eyed gain. We must seek benevolence, mutual acceptance and peaceful co-existence.

The United Nations Declaration On Religious Tolerance (1981), subscribed to by over 300 nations , states that "everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion" . It would be hard for any caring person,and in particular for an individual true to their particular faith, to disagree with this.

Dancing in the snow

2010-12-23T07:08:00.000-08:00

Post by Ash
Snow and ice doesn`t generally behave as we would want it; on tap, so to speak, and dolloped in just the right place for just the right space of time. Wouldn`t it be wonderful if it fell say on our gardens, fields and woodlands, but left our roads, railways and airports free of the nuisance, irritation and dangers that we`ve all experienced in the last week ?

Children of course love the stuff. Not for them the worry or responsibility that eventually fills the adult mind when a journey or burst pipe has to be coped with. More often than not they simply see the uncluttered possibilities of joy and opportunity. Life is exciting, the glass half-full.

Isn`t this in a sense what the Christmas story is about ? Challenges will abound, and often from the most unexpected sources. But whatever one`s beliefs, convictions or prejudices, the events of 2000 years ago remind that life can be about hope, peace and love, even when confronted with the most difficult of circumstances.With the unfettered optimism that characterised our youth and a desire to treat others with kindness and love, we too can be touched by the blessings of this story.

New Meeting members Kate and George are currently spending their Christmas in Melbourne. They tell us that the christmas service at Melbourne Unitarian Church ended with the the following wonderful thought; " life is not how you survive the storm but how you dance in the snow" . Well the white stuff, just like life, doesn`t travel in straight-lines, but may your `dancing` to the the message of Christmas give you strength to cope with the `corners`, whatever they may be.

Everyone at New Meeting House joins me in wishing you ,your friend`s, your family, both here and across the world, a healthy, happy and peaceful Christmas and New Year.

The real `big society` ?

2010-12-16T11:30:00.001-08:00

Post by Roger M.

What do you think about David Cameron`s idea of the `Big Society` ?

How are people persuaded to act in the way you want ?

(a).By the way of power-force them.

(b).By the way of money-bribe them.

(c).By the power of love and friendship.

Suppose you are in a position of total power and decide to share it with nine others. You are left with one-tenth of what you had.

Suppose you have £1,000 and decide to share it with nine others. You are left with one-tenth (£100) of what you had.

Suppose you decide to share your love and friendship with nine others. How much do you have left ? Not less but more; perhaps even ten times more. Why ? Because love, friendship and trust are the only things that exist by sharing. The more we share, the more we have.

Power and money both have the same result; if we win, you lose. If you win, I lose. With love and friendship we both win ! The health of a society depends upon them.

If this is what David Cameron and his `Big Society` is all about, let`s give it a go !

Lighting up my life

2010-12-12T11:56:00.000-08:00

Post by Graham

What light`s up my life ?

Firstly my family. It brings me great joy to see my two sons who are as different as chalk and cheese and who fought like cat and dog when they were young, get on so well together in later years.They keep in regular touch with each other and even share secrets to which I am not privy.What a delight it is for me to see them together, enjoying each other`s company.

Secondly, the laughter and exuberance of children;their naturalness,friendliness and openness to new ideas. My work with them in the local primary school is invigorating and enlivening. They are keeping me young !

Thirdly, unexpected acts of kindness from strangers. It happens more often than you think. It is not a rare occasion to find yourself in a spot of bother and discover someone completely unknown comes to your aid.

Fourthly, stories of self-sacrifice of aid workers, carers and the like. It amazes me that such people have so little regard for self and that their whole life`s mission is to be there for others. They are an example to us all !

Finally, something as simple as a lovely smile, once again often from an unexpected source. There are too many people with long faces nowadays, and to receive a beautiful smile, particularly from a stranger in the street, is a real blessing.

To sum up:what gives me real pleasure is anything that reveals the divine in us humans. It is there in abundance if we look for it.

Note: This blog also appears in the December 2010 edition of MU Now, the magazine of the Midland Unitarian Association. www.midland-unitarian-association.org.uk/

Biblical Inconsistencies in the accounts of Matthew and Luke

2010-12-04T16:15:00.000-08:00

Post by Ian

Literalists often claim that the Bible holds no inconsistency in the accounts. The mental gymnastics that have to be undergone in order to come up with this position ensure that only people who are of the same opinion will ever believe the same. There are plenty of inconsistencies in the Bible, as is only to be expected with a book written over hundreds of years, by several different authors, edited at various points in its history and subject to clerical transcription errors.

The inconsistencies in the New Testament are most easily demonstrated in the accounts of Matthew and of Luke. Where the material has not been taken from Mark, these two accounts differ widely. The simplest inconsistencies to demonstrate are those of the genealogies and the infancy accounts.

Genealogy of Jesus
The genealogies of Jesus, showing the descent of Jesus from David are different in Matthew and Luke. The genealogies have been the subject of much discussion and commentary. Several attempts have been made in the past to try and resolve the accounts, the most well known being that of Annias of Viterbo at the turn of the 16th Century.

Annias suggested that the account in Luke was the genealogy of Mary. The suggestion is rejected by the majority of Biblical scholars as there is nothing to support the claim. Annias used forged document in order to support his claim, which had been rejected by the end of the same century. In addition, the Lukan account contradicts other traditional genealogies for Mary - which have her descended from Nathan, with immediate descendency from Joachim (Heli), Barpanther and Panther (writings of John of Damascus, Justin Martyr & Ignatius).

Infancy Accounts
The accounts of Jesus' birth differ in the locations used within Matthew and Luke. The traditional nativity story mixes these two accounts in an attempt to harmonise them. They are actually two separate accounts making points about Jesus' fulfilment of prior prophecy regarding the messiah. Attempts to reconcile them again skew chronologies and add in further locations that are not in the accounts. Matthew's account highlights Jesus' Davidic descent and kingship. Luke highlights Jesus' message being for the common man.

Firstly, chronology:
The account of Matthew is set some ten years prior to the account in Luke. This can be calculated using known historical events.

Matthew includes Herod the Great in the infancy story. Herod died in 4BC, so that account is usually dated at around 6BC.

Luke includes a Roman census in his account. While there was no Empire-wide census at any time, there is a census that took place when Quirinius became governor of Syria. This census took place between 6AD and 7AD.

Hence, approximately ten years lie between the accounts.

Secondly, the locations in the accounts:
Matthew starts his account in Bethlehem, where Joseph has a house and is living with Mary. Once the child is born they continue to live in the house until visited by the Magi. Following the visit, the family flee to Egypt (having been warned of Herod the Great's impending massacre by an angel). They remain in Egypt until told of Herod the Great's death (again by angel). The family return and settle in the town of Nazareth in Galilee.

Luke has Joseph and Mary living in Nazareth to begin with. On hearing of the census they travel to Bethlehem, where Jesus is born (in a stable). The family is visited by shepherds. After eight days, Jesus is circumcised according to the law of Moses. When the time of their purification passes (thirty-three days), the family travel to Jerusalem in order to present Jesus at the temple (again, in accordance with the law). When Joseph and Mary had done everything required by the Law of the Lord, they returned to Galilee to their own town of Nazareth (Luke 2:39). They return directly to Nazareth from Jerusalem.

So, in conclusion, there are inconsistencies. The accounts are different. No manner of mental gymnastics can rationally reconcile the accounts.

Above all: this is only a problem if one subscribes to the doctrine of literal inerrancy that Charles Hodge came up with in his Systematic Theology (1871–1873). For non-literalists, the accounts form two interesting and complimentary accounts of Jesus' birth and life. They complement each other, but definitely contradict each other in places.

Welfare that works ?

2010-11-28T06:37:00.000-08:00

Blog by Ash

The Coalition Government`s `way forward` on wefare matters has become much clearer with the November 4th release of the Ian Duncan-Smith inspired, `Universal Credit:Welfare That Works`.

In a nutshell, this White Paper proposes wholesale reform of the existing benefits system, combining current Income Support, Income -Based Job Seekers Allowance, Income-Related Employment and Support Allowance, Housing Benefit, Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit into one `Universal Credit`. Ian Duncan-Smith hopes that this, together with a more effective taper as individuals move from benefit to a job (individuals to lose 65% of benefit payments per £ as they move into work, as opposed to the curent 95% loss),will make work more attractive, breaking a cycle of benefit dependency that he believes has gone on for far too long. Within two years of the 2013 launch, he estimates, 300,000 adults will be raised above official existing levels of `poverty` (a level measured as those on 60% or less of the average UK income), and more importantly and by association, 350,000 children. Amen we would all say to that I`m sure. Oh, and £5.2 billion of Tax Credit fraud will be averted.

According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation though, this would still leave over 2 million below that poverty line. So if it works it will be a much-needed start in the right direction, but much greater effort and determination will be required to finish the job.

There has been a lot of hoo-hah in the media about the matter. The Sun has started a campaign on behalf of its readers (it claims) to help David Cameron rid the country of `benefit scroungers`(together with illegal immigrants).The Guardian on the other hand has given only a cautious welcome, wondering if the other austerity measures imposed by the government will in effect`neuter` the undoubtedly honourable intentions of Duncan-Smith.

Rowan Williams has bravely popped his head above the parapet and predictably been attacked as an out of touch do-gooder for his much reported statement "I don`t immediately think it`s fair". A full transcript of his response however indicates a clear realisation on his part of the economic dilemma faced by the government, and a request for them to address the fundamental injustice apparent through the widening inequality in British society. He also pleaded that sight be kept of the obvious truism; "people are often on benefits not because thay are wicked, stupid or lazy, but because their circumstances are against them"

A `Churches Together` alliance of Methodists, Church Of Scotland, United Reformed Church, Baptist Union Of Great Britain and the group Housing Justice and Church Action On Poverty

have also aired their views, less widely reported that;"there is a serious danger that people living in poverty will be staigmatised by government announcements that imply they are lazy or work shy". For good measure they sought, and gained, a government retraction on the alleged size of tax credit fraud at£5.2 billion. In fact the figure was nearer £1.6 billion (still unacceptable of course).

No matter our opinions on this matter, the fact remains that in these increasingly difficult economic times, welfare reform of any magnitude will have a significant impact. There will be those at the bottom of the `pile`, and those who may be in work in low-paid activities, who will struggle to cope. Our church building stands in a pleasant part of Kidderminster town centre in the ward of `Greenhill`, yet even here the last census reported that 17% of children lived in workless families, and 22% of children lived in families receiving Working Tax Credit; the poorest families. That`s an average of one in five, living in straightened circumstances with all that entails for life-opportunities. We don`t need to look very far for somewhere that requires welfare support; it`s on our doorstep.

So what will our response be at New Meeting House ?.We are involved in social action; how can we be more effective ?

And what is the response of the Unitarian movement in general toward these issues ? Is there a consensus view? Our Victorian forebears would certainly have been `in there` leading the charge.The Cross Street Chapel Congregation of those days,according to the fine report by Geoffrey Head, "used their wealth and respectability with discretion and judgement; yet they did not back off when their convictions took them to the edge of the permissible and legal". I suspect they would already have expressed their views on such reform to local and national politicians, and agitated for change that really does work for the poorest. They would also have instituted local support mechanisms.

Times and circumstance change, but surely Unitarianism also has a public view on `Welfare That Works`, that needs airing.Ian from New Meeting has already entered the fray (see previous blog) What do you think ? Surely, at the very least, Ian Duncan-Smith and his fellow politicians need to know !

Is it really a punishment to work?

2010-11-11T05:28:00.000-08:00

Post by Ian

For the past few days, the argument over the benefits changes has swung back and forth. Especially with the proposed policy of forcing people who have been on benefits for a while to perform community service. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has come out against the plans, stating that the plans will lead people "into a downward spiral of uncertainty, even despair". Why? Is the Archbishop really saying that going out and doing something for the small sum people get as a benefit will lead them in to despair? Of course, the full details have not come out yet and these plans will have to be implemented appropriately. However, I can't see why a few hours of work for the benefit received would bring people in to despair. Let's take the Jobseeker's Allowance as a guide (£65 a week). That benefit equates to around 12 hours work at current minimum wage levels. So, what can be done with 12 hours? Well, litter picking has been mooted as an idea. There's never enough time or money available for the council to keep up with people dropping the litter in the first place. Add to that, clearing up graffiti and painting walls. This might actually get people thinking about challenging those who produce the graffiti. How about just sitting and chatting with an elderly or disabled person for a few hours? It doesn't have to be manual labour, even this small thing can help immensely. Add to this any other skills people can bring, or want to put their minds (or hands) to. Get companies involved, to see if they can accommodate someone for a few hours at a lower cost in order to get people in on some training and experience. This could be a way to provide career changing skills at a low cost - giving the unemployed person another skill to add to their CV in the quest for a new job.

But, I hear, there's the law of unintended consequences. Arguments have been made that people will resort to crime, as the punishment they'll get for minor offences will equate to the same thing (community service). There's the argument regarding the community service done by the unemployed will put council workers out of work. Personally, I think the benefits outweigh the potential drawbacks. This is a way of getting people doing things in their communities, getting to know people in their communities, working to improve their communities, and so on. We might actually get back the pride of doing work for the community, and see our communities thrive as a result.

I would hope that the policy is thought through, and does not end up being exploitative. Hours of community service should be calculated on at least the minimum wage level equivalent. The proposed 30 hour work placements are just wrong. However, I think we should not be looking on this policy as a punishment, but rather an opportunity to make communities closer. The policy is a chance to regain that pride of earning the money we get, instead of expecting an "entitlement". It's a policy that needs some work, but is a good thing in principle. Here's hoping that the MPs will modify the policy appropriately as it goes through parliament.

The role of women in the church

2010-10-29T16:53:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian

Always a topic of debate in the more traditional doctrinal churches, the role of women has been hotly contested - especially in the Orthodox and Catholic churches. However, there's evidence in the Bible that women not only taught in the early church, they helped fund Jesus' mission. There's even evidence in the Bible of a possible female disciple. Not one of the twelve, named in Mark, Matthew and Luke; but possibly one of the seventy. Firstly, the role of teacher in the church. Women are mentioned throughout Paul's final salutations in the Letter to the Romans (Romans 16). A lot of the women in this list are in high positions of authority in churches. Junia (or Julia) has been generally edited out as Junias, but the oldest and most authoritative texts have a female name. The reason, she is counted as an apostle of Christ by Paul. Paul generally addresses his letters to "brothers and sisters" within the texts. This alone is significant as Paul obviously expects both men and women to be present at its reading - something that was not necessarily true of Judaism of the time. Acts 18 describes the actions of Priscilla and Aquila. These two are always mentioned together, husband and wife, obviously a team in their ministry. Galatians 3:28 states that there is no male or female, as we are one in Christ.

Yet it is also Paul, generally showing a very egalitarian attitude throughout his letters, who gets the blame for the main piece of scripture against women teaching in church. Passages like 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34 have been used to ban women from the priesthood in the Orthodox churches. At least we have the argument that the Timothy letters are of the pseudepigrapha, written much later in Paul's name. But Corinthians is a letter that scholars agree is written by Paul. So, what did Paul actually think? Is the passage in Corinthians a later addition? Personally, I agree with those who regard this passage in Corinthians (34-35) as a later scribal addition to the text - possibly as a result of a marginal note referencing Timothy being incorporated in the text during copying.

Let's then look at Jesus' mission. In Luke (Luke 8:1-3) states that the Jesus and his disciples were supported financially by a number of women. Jesus addressed women directly in his teaching. He used women as examples of exemplary faith. It was a woman who first saw Jesus after the resurrection and who was sent to spread the message of his rising.

Also, in Luke (Luke 10:38-42), there is an indication of the discipleship of at least one woman - that of Mary, sister of Martha. She sits at the feet of Jesus, listening to his teaching. To sit at the feet of a teacher was the position of a disciple. For Jesus to allow a woman to do this, accept the role of disciple, was unusual. Jesus not only allowed it, but rebuked Martha when she commented on it and asked for Jesus to send Mary to help her.

To me, the Bible shows that Jesus and Paul both considered women to be important contributors, and even teachers. Both considered men and women to be equal, working together and being taught by each other.

But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honour to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honoured, every part rejoices with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.
1 Corinthians 12:24-27

Peace in Islam could do so much more for Palestine

2010-10-28T18:32:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian.

Again, talks between the Palestinians and Israelis are taking place, hosted by the US, in the hope that the cycle of violence between the two peoples can be ended. The cycle, begun in the conflict of 1947 and perpetuated since on both sides. Like in Ireland, the people on both sides wanting an end to the conflict but their leaders sadly pandering to the minority who wish to continue the conflict.
Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. both won their struggles through the use of non-violent civil disobedience. They used their faith in a cause for which they were willing to die, but not to kill. I have often thought that this strategy would work for the Palestinians far better than the cycle of violence perpetrated by the terrorists among them, and on them by Israeli forces. As said by Gandhi, the cycle of an eye for an eye will only end up making the whole world blind.

Islam is to submit, to submit to God all that you are. Could it be that it's now time to trust to God and look for ways other than armed struggle to resolve this long weeping sore?

O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do.
Surah 4:135 (Qu'ran, Shakir translation)

Eying The Horizon

2010-10-17T09:38:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash

The announcement this week of drastic cuts in government budgets, will doubtless be followed all to quickly by the usual political and media noises about the urgent need for public sector reform. Almost certainly there will then be a backlash from those threatened by this attack, with complaints about greedy bankers, fat cats, and those employing off-shore tax-havens. In the middle of all of this will be those far too many real lives from both the private and public sectors, desperately affected by an economic crisis not (they will consider) of their own making.

We can all be `one-eyed` in our off moments, and political and economic bad news is often more palatable when the distractions of blame are encouraged.

Reality of course, is a very different matter. We`re all mostly grateful for the interventions for example , that happen to keep us in good health. Few of us would think to complain to a GP making a life-saving intervention, that she should focus more on cost-effective budget reform, or to a nurse who has reassuringly managed our everyday needs whilst we were unwell that he should see what it`s like to do a `proper` job. We`re just so overwhelmingly grateful to them. And of course, most of us are also aware that it is the success of our thousands of businesses that enable these activities. We actually admire entrepreneurs and their like, we respect the sheer hard work of those employed in our manufacturing and creative industries, and yes, we even admire good, honest bankers.

The simple fact is, both sectors need and depend upon each other. Added to that, we all know good people who are either currently working, or whom have lost their jobs, or at least are in peril of such, in both sectors. When we take the time to remember this, we inevitably reach more refined and mature conclusions.

So, what does all of this have to do with Unitarian belief? Surely we are tolerant, believe in individual freedoms and the need for respect ? Well of course, but are there also times when we ourselves lose sight of the target, and become side-tracked by the old polarised arguments between dissenting and traditional religions ? Are we sometimes so quick to defend our own lines of reasoning and belief that we too become unwittingly dismissive of other religious pathways and interpretations, particularly those associated with the pains of our historical schism? We have probably all heard stories of ministers in Anglican church`s for example, who have spoken openly about how misguided and unfocussed Unitarian attitudes to the gospels may be, and that there should be `no truck` with such `sinful` dissent. In some regions of the UK therefore, Unitarians are even banned from `Churches Together` type activities.

But so what ? There are eccentrics and excesses in every walk of life. No church, including our own, is exempt from that reality. Such actions should not condemn the majority. By rising to the bait aren`t we ourselves in danger of a continuance of a public versus private sector-type impasse, that serves neither side well ? Just like those sectors, we are also inextricably linked, whether we like it or not, with other religious and spiritual pathways.We all know good and deeply sincere people whose beliefs are different to our own;dare I say they may even be Trinitarian.That doesn`t make `them` wrong any more than it makes us `right`.

I`m all for exploring Unitarian attitudes to theology and to the growing confidence that this can engender, and for the need to focus upon our `particular` identity.This is fundamental and I applaud those who are able to provoke, challenge and lead us in these matters. I also completely understand the need to be aware of and respect our proud traditions; history reveals the appalling treatment of dissenting individuals and their families by the traditional church. We should however be aware of the wasted energy of ongoing scuffles, albeit unintentional ones, that belong firmly to the past. The last thing we want are mixed messages, yesterday`s battles, and barriers to newcomers.If we are to thrive and grow, it will be as a result of our actions both now and in the immediate future, as much, maybe even more so, than of our words. People will be attracted to our beliefs and to our buildings by the strength and usefulness of what we actually do, both for them and for the wider community, as well as what we say. That has certainly been shown to be the case in the Unitarian Church`s that have grown and `succeeded` in the last few years. There is much to celebrate and promote both nationally and locally in what we are already doing, I know. So let`s work on the link between our unfettered spiritual belief and effective physical actions. Let`s make our buildings useful places with unambiguous and inspiring messages that people from all walks of life,ages,and spiritual persuasion will want and need to visit. And let`s ensure we rise above the need for any points-scoring and blame, and keep our eyes firmly on the horizon.

Christian Eschatology and the concept of Hell

2010-10-06T14:40:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told that I will "burn in hell" for not believing that Jesus was divine. I actually believe that there's a possibility he existed historically, but that he was a very human religious teacher rather than a divine god creature.

The trouble with this statement, "burn in hell", is that it's inaccurate. The main reference to lakes of fire and the fiery abyss are in Revelations - which has more credibility as a political treatise that as an eschatological work, and wasn't written until late in the 1st Century (Irenaeus states around 95AD). Other references are scattered through the New Testament. However, the modern Christian view of a fiery Hell comes from the Greco-Roman vision of Tartarus, and is not the traditional Jewish view which Jesus would have recognised. It would be a good guess that this vision of Hell came in to play once Paul and other Hellenised Jews began to form the Christ movement in the decades following Jesus' death. The Greek learning of the Biblical authors colouring their imagery, rather than the Hebraic imagery of the earlier books.

Traditional Jewish belief is that of a purgatory state which can last up to a year (hence the saying of Kaddish and sitting shiva). You reflect on the sins of your life and then move on to heaven (rest) or to sheol ("death" or "the grave" rather than hell). Non-believers aren't automatically condemned as long as they follow a righteous life (preferably by following the seven Noahide laws that apply to all humankind). On the resurrection, the righteous dead will live again in bodily form on Earth (the "Kingdom of God" described by Jesus). This earthly Kingdom of God would be ruled, in God's name, by the messiah - the descendent of David. This is what Jesus' disciples believed Jesus to be, and was the throne Jesus was claiming.

In the New Testament, this vision of an earthly Kingdom is again born out again and again in Jesus' teachings - as recorded in the gospels. The three synoptic gospels, and even the Acts of the Apostles and Paul's letters, all refer to an earthly Kingdom of God which Jesus will return to establish. These writings are all 1st Century. When this didn't occur, the message of a spiritual kingdom began to circulate. Now, this is all we have. Because of this later move (late 1st Century and 2nd Century) toward a spiritual kingdom, the vision of heaven and hell is firmly Greco-Roman rather than Jewish. Modern Christians basically believe in Elysium and Tartarus. If you're Catholic, there's also Hades thrown in to the mix - which at least is comparable with the Jewish purgatory concept.

"The wages for sin is death" says Romans 6:23. As this is what most secular atheists believe anyway, it's not very effective to threaten them with it. The denial of the sight of God, a god that an atheist doesn't believe in, isn't much of a threat either. So why bother? The lack of a fiery hell to scare people with might force Christians to actually think about their religion. A rethink of the message being given in the Bible may also make some of the eschatologically focussed Christians reconsider the environment. God's Kingdom is meant to be here on Earth - build it, and He may come (to paraphrase Field of Dreams).

Are humans social creatures?

2010-10-06T13:34:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian

My thoughts are as follows.

Humans are social creatures, up to the extended family group. We naturally cope with our family ties and close friends that have been adopted in to the family group. A certain amount of altruism is encoded in our brains through the 250,000 or so years of human societal development. This is the basis of the tribal social structure. As social structures have increased in size over the last 10,000 years, rules of society have been laid down through religion or secular ethics. These rules are what keeps our selfishness in check and allow us to work within a larger society. This in turn allows us the increase in specialisation and technology we enjoy today.

But is this a natural state, or are we just using our intellects to guide us through the problems? When the rules of society are not followed, then society breaks down and the natural state reasserts itself.

Unitarianism - A Pick-n-Mix Faith

2010-09-29T12:14:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham.

I was reminded,watching Chief Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sachs in conversation with the philosopher Alain de Botton on TV recently, of what Yewtree had said sometime ago in response to one of my earlier blogs:that heresy is not something bad at all. Lord Sachs, a man whom I like and greatly admire, spoke in a kindly but derogatory way of `pick and mix` faith, which in his eyes had little value.

De Botton had mentioned Unitarianism and obviously Lord Sachs associated our beliefs with such a faith. He mentioned the etymological meaning of heresy which is `believing what you choose`. The more I thought about this and consulted Yewtree`s comments again, the more I thought there was nothing at all wrong in this.

Religious leaders of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are always referring to free-will and what a great gift from God this is. What, then, am I doing other than exorcising this amazing gift in choosing to adopt some aspects of Christianity and in rejecting others ? I just don`t wish to opt for one particular faith and bne constrained by its dogma and doctrine but wish to be free to reject some aspects of religion I find unacceptable, wherther it be something written in the aBible or a code of practice that a particular church adopts.

If being a heretic means thinking for myself and believing what I think is right and prioper and not what others have told me to believe, so be it-I`m a heretic.

On The Third Day

2010-09-19T08:07:00.001-07:00

Post by Ann

An extract from the novel `On The Third Day` by Piers Paul Read

As Simon wandered first through the Christian Quarter and later amongst those of other faiths he was struck by the Universality of the faithful. He reflected with sudden joy that the Cross without the Resurrection made him love Jesus all the more, sharing with him his human fraility.Walking south, towards the Jewish Quarter, he came to the top of the steps of the Western Wall where, as always, there stood a row of pious Jews nodding and chanting as they prayed. He suddenly felt this intense warm kinship with them, he had never known before.

He had considered their frock coats, beards and ringlets so strange to him, but now he rejoiced in the sharing of the mutual strangeness, they in their costume of the Polish gentry of the 18th century and he in the habit of a medieval monk.

Both bore witness, in their eccentric attire, to their faith in the same God. The Muslims too he thought, who had occupied the Temple Mount since Saladin had taken Jerusalem, believed, like Jews and Christians, in the existence of a single God.

"The faith that sustains me", he reflected, "must not depend on the detail of a human requirement of God`s conformity. It must not be that trivial.It must be something underlying and pervading all these things- yet that does not invalidate the more particular way I have chosen to express my faith.The way I have chosen is right not because it is the way for me because it is favoured by the One I worship , but because it is the way for me."

For my God is greater than all these things.

Through the doubts that have descended upon me today I am finding a deeper faith.

And with that he returned to sing vespers in the church of St Simon Doris.

Ed Note: The Author is a British Novelist and non-fiction writer born in March 1941.A practising catholic, his work is heavily influenced by his faith. The reader will draw their own conclusions upon any parallels between the sentiment expressed above, and liberal faith. The most recent edition of this book (March 2000) for those who may be interested, is available via publishers Hodder and Stoughton.

JESUS, BORN OR ADOPTED SON OF GOD ?

2010-09-01T09:07:00.000-07:00

Post By Ian

In my studies of early Christianity, I've come across various non-dogmatic views on the divinity of Jesus. The one which, I feel, corresponds most closely to the "original" Christianity are those of the Ebionites. The Ebionites were a 1st Century sect of Judaic Christianity, focussing on the message of Jesus without claiming divinity on his behalf. They believed he was the messiah and would herald God's Kingdom, a physical kingdom here on Earth rather than a heavenly spiritual kingdom. They practised as Jews, following the Torah and observing the festivals. They accepted Gentiles to the faith as long as the Noahide laws were observed.

In Mark, Matthew and Luke, during the baptism of Jesus by John a light descends from Heaven and a voice is heard saying "You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased". The virgin birth story leads the reader of the Bible to think this is a confirmation, rather than an adoption. Without the virgin birth story, a common story in the Roman middle-east, the passage could indicate an adoption or a blessing.

So where does the virgin birth story come from? The authors, Matthew and Luke, were documenting oral infancy stories that were around at the time of authorship (between 75ad and 95ad). They both used different stories as a basis, hence the differences between the accounts, but both reference Isaiah as a prophecy of Jesus. However, Isaiah doesn't refer to Jesus and the prophecy of a virgin birth, I believe, comes from a mistranslation.

The Septuagint was the Greek version of the Tanakh in use at the time when Matthew and Luke were writing their accounts. Both accounts were written in Greek, both seem to have used the Septuagint as a source. In Isaiah 7:10-17, Isaiah points out a young pregnant woman seen across from Ahaz and himself. Before that child is grown, Isaiah says, the two kings feared by Ahaz will be gone and God will bring Ahaz's people to their ancestral house.

The virgin part of the account comes out of the translation of Hebrew in to Greek. In Isaiah, the Hebrew word used to describe the young woman is almah, which means "young woman". In the Greek Septuagint, the Greek word used is parthenos , which means "virgin". The Hebrew word bethulah is the word meaning "virgin", and is used elsewhere in the Bible where this meaning is required. It can be deduced therefore that, because, almah is used the meaning of "virgin" was not meant and the meaning of "young woman" is the one that should be read. In the Didache (the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles), the Eucharist is taken thanking God for the message given through Jesus and the line of David, both referred to as "Sons of God".
Didache 9:2 First, concerning the cup. We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine, David thy Son, which thou hast made known unto us through Jesus Christ thy Son; to thee be the glory for ever.

Could it be that Jesus is A Son of God rather than THE Son of God? David is also referred to as the Son of God (2 Samuel 7:14). The Son of God that was used as a title of the kings of Israel? The comparisons of Jesus are then with David as king, being the promised Messiah who would bring God's Kingdom in to effect and rule from God's throne, the throne of David. Not a divine god-creature, but a human - favoured by God and chosen to teach. A teacher who shows the path to God. It's up to us to follow the path he laid down and become children of God ourselves. The divine spark resides within us. It's up to us to nurture it.

THE TRINITY DOCTRINE IS NOT BIBLICAL

2010-08-23T09:17:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian.

The trinity is a doctrine that was established in the 2nd Century and was first given written form by Tertullian in his statement of the trinity: three beings (hypostases) in one substance (homoousios). The trinity is not consistent with Jewish belief, that of one God, and inconsistent with Jesus' own belief. Paul, also, did not write of a trinity. The early Christians in Jerusalem did not believe in a trinity. The first hints of a Trinitarian doctrine being formed are at the end of the 1st Century, as there are some hints in John. However, even that gospel is not Trinitarian.

The bible does not teach the concept of a triune God. The bible teaches that God is God, Jesus is the potential messiah who will bring about God's kingdom, God's power on Earth (the Holy Spirit) is within us for the asking.

Perhaps the most heavily used verses in support of the Trinity are John 1:1 and John 10:30.

John 1:1 has translated Logos as "Word" since Jerome's Latin Vulgate's use of "Verbum". However, this does not accurately translate the Greek. Logos is a complex construct in English giving the idea of: reason, meaning, dialogue. So, John 1:1 can as easily be translated as "In the beginning was reason", or "In the beginning was meaning". The attributing of a person to the "Word" is as bad as the Gnostics attributing a person to the "Wisdom" (Sophia) of God. Jesus is being described as God-sent, but not God. God's purpose (the establishment of God's kingdom) made flesh, i.e. the coming of the messiah.

In John 10:30 it states: I and my Father are one. However, could this phrasing not also mean “one” as in “of one mind”. In the Bible, Jesus also states that he and his disciples are “one” and that all nations will become “one”. Does this mean that Jesus and his disciples are one essence? Of course not. Is everything one essence? Well, perhaps – if one is inclined toward pantheism.

Another favourite is the "I am" in John 8. Jesus was not claiming to be God, he was claiming to be the messiah (the one sent by God) who Abraham foresaw the coming of.

There are many Biblical verses supporting Unity. John 8:17-18 states that there are two witnesses: Jesus and God (who sent him). If they were the same essence, there would only be the one witness – not valid in Jewish law. Jesus himself states that there is only one God (Matthew 19:17) and that God is greater than he (John 14:28). That Jesus was anointed by God (Acts 10:38) and given power by God (Matt. 28:18) to be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5) and a doer of God's will (John 6:38). Paul wrote that Jesus interceded on our behalf, as an intermediary not as a direct appeal (1 Corinthians 8:6, Romans 16:27, Romans 7:25). In Hebrews, Jesus is described as being our High Priest.

In Matthew 19:17, Jesus asks why they call him good when there is but one who is good. The implication in this statement, especially when going on to the commandments in the next verse, is the one is God. Jesus is differentiating himself from God, as he does in many other verses (e.g. John 5:30, John 7:16-18, John 14:10, Mark 13:32). Jesus states that God works through him and that he does God's works. He doesn't state that he is God or equal to God.

In short, to support Unity one only has to show the Bible. In order to support Trinity, one has to understand an unfathomable mystery and accept it with faith. Why not just accept the mystery as unfathomable and learnt to accept that the path we're on is one we follow by ourselves. We can only learn through Jesus' example and hope to meet our Father along the way.

THE ALPHA COURSE

2010-08-05T06:34:00.000-07:00

Posted by Graham

As someone who went through the `Alpha Course` two years ago and found it interesting, to say the least, (particularly the follow-up discussions with Nick, our local Rector) I am constantly intrigued by the promotional material the instigators of the course put out and the question they pose;

THE MEANING OF LIFE IS....

Certainly it`s a challenging question, but would it be sacrilege, or even blasphemous, to offer an answer;

`The meaning of life is to be found in doing good, irrespective of any religious belief`

I suppose they want us to say the meaning of life is to be found in Jesus, who indeed spent his life doing good and persuading people to love their enemies, but I think of all those people in far-flung lands who have not been brought up in the Christian tradition, many of whom seem to have found the secret of happiness and live blameless lives. Are they all doomed because they have never heard or taken part in the `Alpha Course` ?

IT`S NOT THE WORLD THAT NEEDS SAVING

2010-07-19T12:31:00.000-07:00

Post by Ian.

I saw a sign up at my daughter`s school the other day:`Save The Planet`. A common enough phrase in this environmentally conscious culture of ours. Teaching the children to save the planet has to be a good thing. After all, we`re affecting the environment and the planet is doomed unless we do something about it. We know this for sure don`t we ? Yes, there are some people who deny it but these people are just misled, in denial, greedy (delete as appropriate).

Well, what if I tell you that the planet is in no danger from us whatsoever ? That whatever we do to the planet it will eventually recover. Would you put me in the category of denying the facts above ?

Well, it`s true. The planet is in no danger. It`s us that are in danger. All talk of environmental impact and climate change affects just one thing;the biosphere will need to survive. If humanity were to die off and stop polluting and messing around with things, the planet would recover. A new balance would be found. A new order established. We put ourselves in danger of distinction with our actions. So the slogan should not be `Save The Planet`; it should be `Save Us`.

So we can fix it. Right ? I mean we`re recycling and setting up sustainable growth ?

Sorry, nope. All we`re doing is lessening our individual impact. It`s not enough. As a culture we are sleepwalking our way to our own destruction, and this cultural outlook is global. Why? Because we`re not tackling the real issue. To paraphrase Joss Wheddon (Firefly):we are too many, and we`re using the earth up. We continue to happily convert biomass to human biomass. We happily consume finite resources, blissfully uncaring of the long-term outlook. Even `green` technologies use rare earth minerals, so called because they are rare, and therefore ultimately unsustainable.

Calculated on 2003 average global impact, the Optimal Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/) state that sustainable global population is somewhere around 5.1 billion. That`s more or less the current state of play. However in order to get this avaerage, people live in dire poverty to give us our western lifestyles. For a modest global lifestyle (3.3 global hectares per person or ghap per cap), allowing for 12% biodiversity, the susutainable population figure drops to 3 billion. Less than half of what it is today. In the UK our lifestyle (5.5 gha/cap) can sustainably support around 17 million people. There are around 65 million of us.

So, why doesn`t anyone hear the politicians talking of this ? Because the whole of our economy is based on growth. The people of this working generation pay the pensions of those who have gone before us. We pay the health care, the government salaries, MP`s expenses. In short, it`s not in their interest and is an unpopular message. It involves telling people that they will not only have to live within their means, but reduce their lifestyle. It`s telling the finance people that recession is a good thing and we need to cut back. No, if anything is to be done it will be down to us as individuals.

Something to think about !

A TALE OF TWO SEAS

2010-07-14T11:42:00.000-07:00

Post by Ann

In my study I have a drawer that contains snippetts, readings and so on, that I have collected from various sources over the years of my ministries. I am not a good filer but at times I do sit on the floor, and with the radiator to my back and sort and sift.

It was way back, one Sunday in the 80`s when as a member of the congregation in our Rochdale Unitarian Church I listened to the service leader as he took the following `thought` as his main reading. The writer and source are unknown to me. It greatly stirred and influenced me in my ministries. Here it is.

There are two inland seas in the course of the River Jordan. One is fresh. Fish are in it. Splashes of green adorn its banks. Trees spread their branches over it and extend their roots to its healing waters. Along its shores children play. It is called The Sea Of Galiliee.

The River Jordan flows on south from this to another sea. Here there is no splash of fish, no song of birds, no childrens laughter.Travellers choose another route, unless on urgent business.The air hangs heavy about its waters and neither beast nor foul will drink. So what makes the difference in these neighbouring seas?

This is the difference; The Sea Of Galilee receives but does not keep water from The River Jordan. For every drop that flows into it another flows out. The giving and receiving go on in equal measure. The other sea hoards its income and is not tempted into any generous impulse. Every drop of water it get it keeps. The Sea Of Galilee gives and lives. The other sea gives very little.

I wonder if this is why it is called The Dead Sea ?

PRIESTS GOOD AND BAD

2010-06-22T09:44:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham.

We have all been horrified in recent times by the dreadful stories coming out of the Roman Catholic Church concerning paedophile priests and the abuse of children in their care. And yet, in spite of these horrendous events (and let`s not kid ourselves that such things happen only in the Catholic Church ! ), we need to keep a sense of proportion and realise that the vast majority of priests, the world over, work selflessly and courageously for their people and deserve nothing but respect for their efforts.

I have recently returned from Poland where a charismatic Roman Catholic priest, Jerzy Popieluszki, was beatified earlier this month on June 6th. Whatever we Unitarians think of beatification, this was a man of outstanding bravery and character. He was born in 1947, lived under the oppression of a brutal Communist regime but he kowtowed to nobody. By continuing to serve his flock and to celebrate mass with them (another thing many Unitarians are not too keen on !), using his sermons to criticize the regime and motivating people to protest against injustice, he became an enemy of the authorities and was finally and brutally murdered by the Security Police in 1984 at the age of 37.

He was much loved by all his people and his life illustrates how little an affiliation to a particular church or doctrine matters. His life was dedicated to the service of others and it proves that the only thing that really counts in this life is selfless love. It is something, surely, to which we all aspire.

NEVER LOOK BACK (UNLESS YOU INTEND TO GO THAT WAY)

2010-06-15T01:52:00.000-07:00

Posted by Ash

....so the saying goes.

A few weekends ago we were delighted to welcome to New Meeting three new friends from Harvard, Massachusetts. Why had these wonderful people turned up on our doorstep for a Sunday service, thousands of milies from their home ? Simple really. They had been researching their ancestry and found through contact with the New Meeting web site that our congregation had been blessed with many years of service by their `lost` aunts, Jane and Caroline Badland. In this case, `many` really does mean exactly that;the sisters gained fame in the 1950`s as the oldest living sisters in the UK, and they both lived to well beyond 100 years of age. Most of those years were spent in unstinting service to New Meeting, its community, and the people of Kidderminster.

What was so amazing, was that had it not been for our American friends, we may not have revisited and appraised in such a significant way this uplifting connection with our past. Neither would we have met the local newcomers, who upon reading of the visit in the local press came to us with stories about the sisters that brought them very much back to life. We were even shown artefacts the sisters had used.

We talk a lot about the significance of `social action`;doing good works in support of others. These two sisters reminded us all only too clearly of what `good works` really means.

The visit helped fill in some gaps in our American friends family history. They were delightful people to meet and brought with them understanding, warmth and love. It also helped our community here to re-focus and grow.

So perhaps sometimes it really is useful to `look back` and learn from our forebears. Wisdom,after all, does not just reside in the present.

Note:

`Don`t look back unless you intend to go that way` is a quotation from Henry David Thoreau, author,transcendentalist ,abolitionist,naturalist,civil libertarian, from Concord, Massachusetts. 1817-1862

CAN`T MANAGE IT MYSELF

2010-06-01T03:32:00.000-07:00

Post by Graham

Last Sunday was Trinity Sunday and an Anglican friend who knows that most Unitarians don`t subscribe to the Trinity, asked me what our church service was about. When I told her that our theme was `The Nature Of God`, and that we held a mock court scene discussing whether in fact God existed or not, you could see that she was clearly horrified, although she was too polite to say so.

To her and most churchgoers, you go to church to worship and praise God, not to question his exitence. Why not ? Perhaps it`s because, as I read on an official church`s website: `If you probe the depths of God too deeply you are likely to slip into heresy`. This is a view that I simply cannot accept. Surely, it is not heresy to seek answers to the mystery of the Universe? Perhaps it is because there have always been so many ready-made answers in the established church that so many people are put off going there.The age of blind acceptance is past and the sooner the church realises this the better.

THE COURAGE OF AID WORKERS

2010-05-15T10:26:00.000-07:00

Posted by Graham

Earlier this morning I heard Bishop Desmond Tutu on Radio 4 talking about his new book, which has as its theme the innate goodness of man. How refreshing to hear from the Protestant Church such an encouraging message instead of the too frequent emphasis upon sinfulness and wickedness (it was all Eve`s fault,of course;it says so in the Bible !).

Bishop Tutu went on to talk of the courage of aid workers, operating in such dangerous parts of the world such as Darfur and wondered what inspired them to go back to such places again and again at great personal risk. I`ve often thought the same, and it`s too easy to say it`s because of their faith, as some of them, I am sure, have no faith worth speaking of. I do believe, however, it is an example of the `Holy Spirit`, whatever that may be and whatever religion these good people have as their background, working through them and helping to make the world a better place. Such people may not wear their religion on their sleeve, might belong to no one particular denomination or sect, might not even believe in God at all, but kindness is their watchword and they provide hope for the rest of us.

I`m as cynical as the next man but, like Desmond Tutu, I do believe in the goodness of most ordinary people and firmly believe it outweighs the evil in the world which the church is so often keen to talk about

THE `S` WORD,ETHICS AND VALUES. SPIRITUALITY (for blokes?)

2010-05-13T03:19:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash

This is never an easy topic to mention, especially it seems if you`re a bloke. I`ve lost count of the number of times over the years I`ve been told that "I don`t do religion". Often I`m in somewhere like a pub with friends, or at a party or a football match, and it`s generally a male response to those convivial conversations we all find ourselves in from time to time about a `better way of life`. I rarely raise the issue myself but if ever I rise to the bait there`s usually the "but with respect" rider, and the earnest reminder about the bad that religion has caused.

Religion as the organised arm of spirituality has, it`s true, something of a historical and burdensome backpack. But that should never distract from the overwhelming desire for good that it radiates, and for the potential joy of discovery and development of our spritual self. We all have one after all.

So what is this thing called spirituality, and what`s all this about ethics and values ? There`s a lot of very earnest discussion and writings about these matters, but is it really that complicated ?

I`m lucky. I know from personal experience that my spirituality or inner peace, for example through prayer, actually works. Obviously not all the time, and yes, impossible to prove to those who may wish to challenge the assertion. But simply and humbly I tell you that my life has been immeasurably improved by the acceptance that the prayers I give and the prayers I have received do make a difference. Similarly I am now more able to appreciate the great spiritual joys in the more reflective elements of life; the magnificence of the natural world, the quiet moments of contemplation, the acts of goodness by so many, indeed the vast majority of people around me. These have all impacted upon my own spiritual self, and shaped my personality hopefully for the better.

Where did this spirituality come from ? Same place as yours I guess. I was beautifully guided in life by patient and loving parents. I was influenced as a student by the stories I read from the worlds of religion, philosophy and literature. Most importantly, I learnt from those great role models, internationally, here within the UK, and from within my own peer group. And as my moral code-call it personal ethics and values, stumbled into some form of semblance, so did the questions and dilemmas. What is a just world ? Can there ever be peace without war ? How do you explain a loving God to the tragically bereaved ? No matter how I try I realise that I will never have easy or even effective answers to such issues. My spiritual values I believe do help. But of course I also have to survive through suggestions, doubt and faith; and accept that this is the normal human condition.

What about those contemporaries whose parents weren`t loving, who hated their education, and whose peer group was not necessarily an influence for the good ? Some will undoubtedly have struggled to identify anything positive about their inner spirituality, and indeed may possibly have even denied its very existence. Others may have felt singularly disadvantaged by their circumstances, and view dwelling upon this issue as a luxury they can ill afford. But most I`m sure will have triumphed no matter what their situation, even if they felt it was against the odds; such is the strength of human will. In fact, some of the wisest, most divine (spiritually that is !) people I have known have certainly not had the featherbed advantages I`ve experienced, and have also most likely been completely unaware of the influence they`ve had. So I accept that acknowledging and developing our own spiritual journey is not necessarily a pre-requisite for a successful life;but I do sincerely believe that it will help us achieve a happier one.

Liberal faiths such as Unitarianism seek to support individuals who wish to make some deeper sense to their lives. Their welcome extends to all comers, no matter what their beliefs or disbeliefs may be. The Unitarian acceptance that there is so much more in common between the world`s major religions than that which divides, encourages unprejudiced exploration of belief and spirituality. We should celebrate our diversity, learn from each other, not squabble or point score.

This belief that everyone is entitled to make their own spiritual journey, doubts and all, and at their own pace and on their own terms, convinces me that here is an opportunity that`s too good to miss. So next time someone tells me that "with respect" religion has nothing to offer but guilt and division, I`ll mention the `S` word and invite them to New Meeting. And perhaps "with true respect" we can discover that the spiritual self, true values and personal ethics are more than just some pretty big words on a page. And that like so many of the best things in life, the journey is free; even for blokes!

GROWTH, LEADERSHIP and VEGETABLES

2010-04-24T02:03:00.000-07:00

Posted by Ash.

At last, the election dawns and with it the expectation of up to five years of `change`, `difference` or `renewal`, depending upon your perspective upon these things. Whilst it`s perfectly possible to be cynical about the intentions of politicians and others who affect our lives in various ways, what about our own roles within our own areas of `influence`, be that within our families, friendship groups, jobs,or volunteering ? What is our strategy for the next five years ? Have we fully considered the impact of decisions we are making now ? Are we sure that our best intentions will result in best outcomes ?

This has certainly been exorcising our minds at New Meeting. How are we best placed to serve our community ? Are we making best use of the resources we have? What do we need to do to continue our own `growth and renewal` ?

As you can imagine much discussion has focussed upon how best to cater for the heart and mind, body and soul. Central to that debate has been the issue of professional spiritual leadership. Now for those of you reading this who are unfamiliar with the Unitarian and Free Christian movement, you may be suprised to learn that (unpaid!)`lay leadership` is a significant factor in many of our congregations. Services are often led by such individuals, even where there are also full or part-time Ministers at the church. This tradition emanates, in a sense, from our liberal traditions, as well as from necessity, and is one that we generally all welcome. Lay leadership can be extremely effective, is `of the people` if you like, and as much a part of Unitarianism as the bricks and mortar of the buildings.

That said, our own discussions have led (most of) us to conclude that professional and effective `Ministerial` leadership is a necessary pre-requisite for enduring growth. Logic dictates that such individuals, as long as they are the right `fit` for the congregation and the community and have the necessary support, will stimulate ongoing, consistent and appropriate growth. We have seen this for ourselves over the last five years, through the guidance and leadership of our own excellent Minister, Ann Latham.

Are there enough Ministers out there though to lead such work, should ever we need to advertise as such in the future? The answer at present is clearly a resounding no. A very small number are in training, and there are not enough existing ones to `go around`. Add to that the daunting financial task that faces a congregation wishing to support a ministerial contract plus the lack of `central` funding , and it becomes easy to see that a potential crisis awaits !

There has been lots of talk in the Unitarian movement at large about this subject. A recent Midland Unitarian Association event (http://www.midland-unitarian-association.org.uk/) in Birmingham and The General Assembly (http://www.unitarian.org.uk/) in Nottingham focussed upon these very issues. Both were addressed by Andy Pakula, Minister from the thriving community of Newington Green and Islington Unitarians (http://www.new-unity.org/) in London. If ever anyone needed a demonstration of the impact that professional ministerial leadership can have, this was it !

We remain optimistic about any future challenges that we may face in this regard. As Andy Pakula has intimated, in the short-term Ministers may need to be `shared`between congregations, or even enticed from abroad on an overseas `sabbatical `, for example from the States. Whatever happens, we shall be pro-active in our approach to this matter and supportive of any measures that lead to an essential resurgence in Ministerial training here in the UK.

On a lighter note, and talking of `growth` (vegetables that is and not just spiritual !) we are delighted with the recent `re-discovery` of the garden at the rear of New Meeting. This area has been a `wilderness` for many years. Now, thanks to the tireless efforts of `main man` Edward it`s starting to be re-claimed. Still early days, but the plan is to grow produce for sale from our stall at the front of Church, with all proceeds to Charity. This represents another opportunity to involve our community in `doing` things, and eventually we hope will also provide a place of calm and tranquility that all can share.

And to think that this wonderful resource was there, staring us in the face all along. All that was needed was the right person and the right set of circumstances to come along. Maybe there`s a message for us all in this?

Edward fearlessly taming the `wilderness`.

Is that a Greenhouse about to appear against our boundary wall ? Prior to this activity we didn`t really take much note of our boundary wall. All we could see was a mass of `Ivy`. Still quite a bit of work to do ?

YOU MAY NEED THE DOCTOR, DARLING

2010-03-30T02:14:00.000-07:00

Post by Ash

Well, you`d think that was the case, given the state of last night`s long-awaited televised debate on the management of the economy. And maybe not just for poor old Alistair !

Imagine this morning`s headlines;"Darling hits home with Stamp Duty" (closely followed by his eyebrows), or maybe "Cable`s Promises Left Dangling";oh hang on no ,what about "Osborne Stakes Death Tax".

Whatever your political persuasion, it wouldn`t have been too hard to predict such well-worn cliche`s, permed and ready to sit atop the obvious piece of journalistic interpretation,written it seems increasingly to order to suit the newspaper`s owner and financiers. Enough to make us all feel ill; or at least a little depressed.

Fine. That`s the world we live in you might say. It`s a democracy thank God (how often do we forget that?).People can say and write what they want. Newspapers are newspapers; they reflect the readership. Don`t take it to heart. If you don`t like what you read, don`t buy `em. Oh, and the economy is `king`, or as someone quite important once said "it`s the economy stupid!" Get that wrong and we`re all in the soup.

Hard to argue with any of this of course. Capitalism drives both our our individual fortunes and our welfare state.It depends for its life upon the oxygen provided by our democracy and freedoms of speech. But wait a minute. Isn`t that oxygen becoming more than just a little polluted? Isn`t it causing us to start to splutter a little ? There is no need to remind anyone in the UK of the appalling damage done to the already diminished reputation of our elected representatives, by the various expenses scandals. We also share the world-wide disease generically referred to as `bankers sleaze`.

Well, when I get a cough that sticks I visit the doctor. But where is the doctor just when you want her, particularly when it comes matters of the economy, wealth, fairness and social justice?

Poorly or not there are a few things we can take as a `given`.We all have a free conscience and a moral compass. We all share an overwhelming and common desire to do good (I have to believe that), and we can all get quite excited when our rights are threatened. But are we exercising those qualities enough ? And isn`t there something extra in our armoury, that we`ve forgotten to look after ?

Many of us I`m certain feel that there must be more to life than becoming rich or powerful, or the very best; even when we ourselves may feel so driven. The vast majority of people`s everyday actions are designed to be supportive, co-operative, and caring. Most will know for example that the increasing disparity between the rich and poor , both in the UK and globally is, almost by definition, wrong. People, contrary to the often expressed exasperations , generally do `get it`.

For many though, not least those fortunate enough to be `secure` in their personal material life, isn`t there a growing urge to think "there must be more to life than this?". And doesn`t the `than this` bit also include points-scoring and power-grabbing debates on the economy such as we saw last night, and the toilet flush of media headlines that follow ?

Isn`t it time that we searched our souls, our hearts, our spiritual-selves; you can call it what you like (I call it `visiting the doctor`), and grabbed some of the balance back ? Shouldn`t we be moving towards a newer unity ? Can`t you just see it-Osborne, Darling and Cable, the `Three Amigos`. "Those boys sure done good together" states leader in The News Of The World. Well maybe not, but you get the drift.

We all have it within us to develop our own spiritual lives both for our own good and perhaps more importantly, for the good of others. And that extends to influencing our democratic leaders at whatever level, our media, and even those lovely bankers. We all have it within ourselves to search for a deeper and greater understanding to our purpose in life. And of course, we all have it within our hands to make the public debate on the economy, and indeed on all matters worthwhile in life, so much more conscious of these issues. In the process we may just begin to discover our true selves. We may even find a deeper happiness.

Maybe we should check in with the doctor again ?

Post by Ash.