Hot & Spicy

Genesis 25:34

As we read the story, we must not forget that the birthright is not properly Esau’s. Ordinarily it would have been, but God has decreed otherwise (25:23). Jacob isn’t taking what does not belong to him; he’s asking for it back. In any case, Jacob’s demand is absurd: who, in possession of the birthright which, in Abraham’s family contained all the promises of God, would give it up for a meal of lentils? Had Esau any sense, he would have said “Forget it”, and prepared himself a meal. Jacob’s words were a test, and they revealed his brother’s wicked heart. Like Adam, Esau chose to eat and despised the promises of God.

Matthew Mason's 3rd Post on Jacob really is worth a careful read.

An exciting new artist

Malcolm Piggot 

©God (the links)

Click here for links to the songs we sang during the conference on Saturday (©God - the Psalms and Worship Today). 
A number of these were new to me! Like 10000 Reasons by Matt Redman (everyone else seemed to know it!):

And Down into Darkness (with it's James Bond undertones!!): 

All in all it was a very helpful day and definitely a conference I'd recommend. 
It is probably hitting the middle ground well (meaty without being too theologically heavy nor too musically technical -- though I did opt for the technically light seminars ... so I think a keen musician or PA person could have got loads more of that than I chose). 
It was a bit light on it's engagement with the Psalms and singing them today - that idea was not dismissed exactly but seemed to be sidelined a bit too easily.  Psalms are a pattern for our worship to inform and shape our emotions and our response to God - which is rich and varied, including grief and agony as well as joy and gladness. I agreed and found all that was said very helpful. I guess the talks will be available online in due course. I had just hoped for a bit more help in thinking through actually, you know, singing Psalms. 
The day handled the whole area of music very wisely and in the context of John 13, Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12-14 ... so with a strongly anti-consumer mentality, encouraging us all in our musical choices to put service in love first as we seek to build up others (and the body of Christ).
All in all, a big thank you to Graham Beynon and the Music Ministry guys. 

Tipton Christians Against Poverty

We've just begun to connect with Christians Against Poverty as a church (and thanks to them I have just enjoyed a superb breakfast at Frankie and Benny's!). A few weeks ago at Grace we had the local Tipton Against Poverty Team visit our evening service. They are lovely and doing good work. It is a privilege to begin to get behind them in this. 

Jacob was what kind of man?

Matthew Mason's second part on Jacob (Genesis 25:27):

the evidence from the rest of the Hebrew Bible, and especially from the way Genesis describes major characters, points strongly to the translation, “Jacob was a blameless man.” And this in contrast to wicked Esau and wicked Laban, and, as we shall see, wicked Isaac.

What is for the public benefit?

What is for the public benefit? 
On what basis do we decide that? 
Are those criteria obvious? To who?
How do they know their criteria are right?
How do they measure benefit? 
How do they know that they've measure right? 
And why should I or anyone else accept what they say?

I've have these questions in my mind for awhile. So I found myself reading the Charity Commission's booklet:  Charities and Public Benefit.

I can't believe it. But I did. 

And murky is the way I would describe it. I'd be delighted if someone would show me a clear paragraph explaining exactly what this concept of 'public benefit' is, how it is measured and judged. 

The best I got was this: 

There are two key principles both of which must be met in order to show that an organisation's aims are for the public benefit. Within each principle there are some important factors that must be considered in all cases. These are: 

Principle 1: There must be an identifiable benefit or benefits
Principle 1a It must be clear what the benefits are (see section E2)
Principle 1b The benefits must be related to the aims (see section E3)
Principle 1c Benefits must be balanced against any detriment or harm (see section E4) 

Principle 2: Benefit must be to the public, or a section of the public
Principle 2a The beneficiaries must be appropriate to the aims (see section F2)
Principle 2b Where benefit is to a section of the public, the opportunity to benefit must not be unreasonably restricted: (see section F3)

But this section begs all the questions that I have! It must be a field day for the lawyers. 

(Oh, right, I get it now!)

But the reason this matters is not first of all because lawyers will get fat on it. Though that will bring problems and victims - many of them unseen and unknown to us (not to God). The reason it matters is when someone (or the majority of people ... 51%?) thinks the way Bertram Russell does, and they come to define and enforce public benefit all religious charities will lose that status: 

The question of the truth of a religion is one thing, but the question of its usefulness is another. I am as firmly convinced that religions do harm as I am that they are untrue. Why I am not a Christian: and Other Essays on Religion and Related Subjects (Routledge Classics)

The names of the Patriarchs

Home is a sick bay today. 

Came back from church though and found that Jane at least knows the names of the Patriarchs! So a productive morning.

She'd been listening to this:

The most embarrassing verse in the Bible?

"Say what you like,” we shall be told, “the apocalyptic beliefs of the first Christians have been proved to be false. It is clear from the New Testament that they all expected the Second Coming in their own lifetime. And, worse still, they had a reason, and one which you will find very embarrassing. Their Master had told them so. He shared, and indeed created, their delusion. He said in so many words, ‘this generation shall not pass till all these things be done.’ And he was wrong. He clearly knew no more about the end of the world than anyone else.”

C.S. Lewis, The World's Last Night: And Other Essays, p.97

C.S. Lewis is embarrassed of Jesus?  I was sure the quote was taken out of context, so I looked it up... No such luck.  Lewis goes on to explain how he solves the problem: With the assertion that Jesus probably really did not know how or when the "world would end". He continues:

"Yet how teasing, also, that within fourteen words of it should come the statement “But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” The one exhibition of error and the one confession of ignorance grow side by side... The facts, then, are these: that Jesus professed himself (in some sense) ignorant, and within a moment showed that he really was so. To believe in the Incarnation, to believe that he is God, makes it hard to understand how he could be ignorant; but also makes it certain that, if he said he could be ignorant, then ignorant he could really be. For a God who can be ignorant is less baffling than a God who falsely professes ignorance."

I found the above from a post here. It concludes very sensibly:  

It seems appropriate to me to be embarrassed about what C.S. Lewis said, not about what Jesus said. 

You'll have to be at church this morning to find out why I agree with that (we are in Mark 13:3-37)! And why that matters. 

great is His love towards us

Appropriate as I go to this today (early train!):

Chappo

John Chapman (1930-2012)

How should we then live? (9)

God's economic upheaval

This is to be a time of unprecedented upheaval in the life and leadership of the people of God. Jerusalem, and the temple which is the focus of its authority, is about to lose its central role in God's economy. The divine government, the kingdom of God, is to find a new focus. 

The Gospel of Mark (The new international Greek testament commentary) RT France) p497-8 in the commentary on Mark 13:3-37. 

The Most Slandered Man in Christendom?

The most slandered man in Christendom is…our father in the faith Jacob: a blameless man throughout his life, rejected by his father, despised by his brother, swindled by his uncle, and slandered by generations of preachers ever since. Robbed of his birthright by his father, robbed of his bride and flocks by his uncle, he has been robbed of his reputation by us. But God is faithful to his promises: Jacob received his inheritance, his Rachel, and his sheep. Now, contrarian to the last, I hope to restore to him his name. 

In the next few posts, I hope to make a case that in his dealings with brother, father, and uncle, our father Jacob was just what Genesis tells us: a blameless man. I hope also to make the case that in misreading the story and portraying him as a scheming villain, we miss powerful lessons for our own lives.

Love it. I am looking forward to Matthew Mason's next posts! 

How should we then live? (8)