Painting Brexit – Peter Howson

January 5, 2019

‘It becomes more and more plain that this country is heading to fall off a cliff,’ said my friend Mark shortly before Christmas. Peter Howson, renowned Scottish painter, depicts this drive to the cliff edge:

howson entzauberung

This is the first of five large canvases painted in 2018, recently shown at the Flowers Gallery in Hoxton, East London.

The woman being pushed to the cliff by the burly ‘patriots’ is Britannia. As a naturalised Scot, Peter H understands that, not only will Brexit seriously damage our economy, but it will break up the United Kingdom. The Scots will be determined to again be part of Europe.

Proud independence is driving us to the fall off the cliff. False history says ‘We saved ourselves (and the world) then (Second World War). We stood alone and it was Our Finest Hour. We can, we must do it again. We must stand alone, free from the Bureaucrats of Brussels.’ True history says ‘We needed our Allies, our Empire / Commonwealth partners. We needed the Russians to soak up most of the Nazi aggression. We needed the Americans to fund us and then support us. We appeared to stand alone for a while when the sea protected us. Then the world saved us. We must stand together or we sink.’

Proud independence finds it easier to blame the Bureaucrats of Brussels than to recognise our own mistakes. We have become lazy and rushed away from the foundations of Christian morality on which our community life was based. We have sought Fun and a Good Laugh above all else. We have served Mammon, prioritised servicing the rich through the City of London. The damage to our nation has been self-inflicted. We need to be saved not from the Bureaucrats of Brussels, but from our own sins.

What after the cliff-fall of Brexit? Peter H’s next paintings of 2018 were scenes of Britain fallen into a hellish existence:

howsonsisteviator

Here is the grim essence of the reality of Britain degraded by, hungover by, our sins, our bridge to fellowship across the sea demolished.

Peter H’s faith asserts that, even in this mess, Britain is not abandoned by Jesus. Jesus, and His Cross, remain with us, mostly ignored, with some curious attention. Was it the Patriots’ Union Jack which killed Jesus, or replaced Jesus?

What after the degradation? Peter H continued to paint. Later in 2018 came ‘Anak.’

howson anak

This man is the leading Patriot. His Union Jack drape has gone. The substantial bridge over the water has been demolished, a good time ago. He is not rushing on his feet; his legs seem useless now. But he knows he is down and he is looking up for help. The sky is beautifully mottled with touches of hopeful colour. He is like an addict coming to his senses and seeking the help of a higher power.

In the 12 Step programme devised by Christians which has become the basis of Alcoholics Anonymous and other programmes for addicts, the Third Step is ‘Make a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understand Him’

In 2001 Peter H painted ‘The Third Step:’

howson third step

In 2018 Peter H painted The Patriot Brit, post Brexit, taking the Third Step.

The First Step is to recognise that we are powerless over our addiction, and that our lives have become unmanageable. The Patriot Brit has, eventually, recognised his addiction to proud independence, Fun, and Mammon. The Second Step is to come to believe that a power greater than ourselves can restore us to sanity. The Patriot Brit has come to believe or begun to believe. Now Peter H paints him turning his will over to the care of God. This is the foundation of a different, better, more whole, more holy, life.

Peter H also paints a different Patriot Brit taking the Third Step amidst the general degradation:

howsonpergamum

After the Brexit cliff-fall, is a wallowing degradation. The colours of the Union Jack have separated. After the degradation is a turning to God. Peter H sees and shows this to come. Salvation in the end? Will we finally, as a nation, turn our will over to God?

Can all this be avoided? Robbie Williams sang: ‘We know we’re falling from grace, and we’re praying it’s not too late…’

Roger Harper

PS You can buy Peter Howson’s large canvases for £180,000 each. Or a Limited Edition Print of the Archangel Michael for £400. Highly recommended. See https://peterhowson.co.uk/shop/prints/archangel-michael/

PPS The Archangel Michael prints seem to be no longer available on Peter’s site. Worth looking out for them still…

Advertisements

Lincoln In The, Very Christian, Bardo: 27 November

November 27, 2018

‘Lincoln in the Bardo’ by George Saunders won the Booker Prize last year. Rightly so. A superb book, telling the story of Abraham Lincoln mourning for his young son in the dark days of the American Civil War along with the stories of several Americans stuck in the same graveyard as Willie Lincoln. A book more Christian, more Biblical, than most people, maybe including the author, realise.

The stories are told entirely through voices, like a documentary film with no narrator. Each voice is distinctive, full of character. Each person faces the challenge of responding to the legacy of their own past, with many, not all, learning, changing, moving on.

The identity of each voice is noted at the end of each set of their words so that, to start with at least, we don’t know at first who exactly is speaking. This is disconcerting and it helps to glance to the end of the paragraph before reading.

‘The Bardo’ is Saunders’ name for the graveyard as the place where people, souls, are stuck along with their bodies. Bardo is the Tibetan name for the place where souls await reincarnation. Saunders has said that he did not intend to denote the full Tibetan understanding of Bardo, rather ‘to help the reader not to bring too many preconceptions to it… in a book about the afterlife, it’s good to destabilize all of the existing beliefs as much as you can.’ Saunders says he included elements of Christian and Egyptian tradition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_in_the_Bardo

From the Tibetan Bardo people move on, mostly, to reincarnation. From Saunders’ Bardo, people move on, if they can, into a new dimension of light. One Germanic character uses a wonderful Germanic expression to denote this transition: ‘the matter-light-blooming phenomenon.’ Souls rise suddenly high into the air, their redundant clothes falling behind them. They have most decidedly gone. Beyond communication. Gone into light, into glory. A Bardo more Christian than Tibetan.

Saunders’ Bardo is the same as the grave. Each day the souls have to return to their bodies, only at night can they roam the cemetery – and no further. Souls live in the grave, an in-between place. In the Old Testament the dead are described as being ‘in the grave’ in the pit’ ‘in Sheol.’ Sheol is gloomy half-life. In the New Testament Sheol is rendered by the Greek word ‘Hades.’ The understanding is the same as in the Old Testament, except with a stronger certainty that Hades-Sheol is an in-between holding place pending resurrection. This Hades has been distorted into the Hell of eternal torment and has not been taught for centuries. Saunders’ Bardo is much closer to the New Testament. A remarkably Christian Bardo.

Saunders’ Bardo has another great difference from the traditional Christian Hell – people leave it in a glorious ‘matter-light-blooming.’ Through the book we understand that this is the very best outcome for all of them. At first it seems that a young dead soul, and body, being held in love by a living human, is a comfort and a help. Later we see that the holding has been a disservice, that souls need to be freed to escape the grave and move beyond, even beyond communication. In an age of widespread semi-spiritualism, when many like to think that those who have died are close enough for communication, Saunders shows the danger to the living and to the dead of such holding on instead of letting go. A helpfully Christian Bardo.

Saunders’ Bardo can be left through a change of mind and heart. A soldier faces and confesses the truth of his unfaithful sexual liaison. He leaves. A boy faces and confesses the truth that he will not recover, he cannot be part of ‘normal’ life again. He leaves. A clergyman who has always taught the fearsomeness of God, while also acting increasingly kindly to others, says, quietly, in brackets, ‘Perhaps, I thought, this is faith: to believe our God ever receptive to the smallest good intention.’ He leaves. Such change of mind and heart leading to new, eternal, life is called in the New Testament ‘metanoia’ aka repentance. A most Christian Bardo.

But surely it isn’t Christian to see people as able to repent beyond death? The Church has consistently taught that people’s eternal fates are sealed the moment they die. Jesus, on the other hand, proclaimed ‘Fear not! I was dead and am now alive. And I have the keys of Death and Hades.’ (Revelation 1:17,18) In Saunders’ language, Jesus has the keys of the Bardo. It may not be Church teaching, but it is entirely Christian to understand that Jesus tells us He has the keys because he uses them. Jesus continues to seek and to save the lost in Hades, in the Bardo. (See https://rogerharper.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/the-lie-of-hell-death-is-not-the-final-chance-31-july/) Jesus continues to invite people to repentance, to a change of mind and heart, so that He can welcome them into the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven. Saunders does not show the ministry of Jesus. He does show repentance leading to departure for the Kingdom of Heaven. A surprisingly Christian Bardo.

Sunders has written a great book, comparable to ‘The Great Divorce’ by CS Lewis. Lewis’ book should have been called ‘Bus Out Of Hell,’ for it describes various people taking a bus from a freshly-depicted hell for the outskirts of heaven. They have an opportunity, through repentance, of moving further, inexorably, on, into heaven. Who will take this opportunity and who won’t? Saunders echoes CS Lewis – knowingly or unknowingly? I highly recommend both books.

Roger Harper

PS George Saunders has now replied to my comment on his Facebook page. I actually haven’t read “The Great Divorce” but sounds like I should – right up my alley.’

 

Why do people cuddle by Monet’s Thames?

July 14, 2018

Monet returned to London for months to paint the light on the Thames by Parliament. He was enthralled by the changing effects, impressions, of sunshine and fog and rain, of sunrise and midday and sunset. He painted 19 canvases which, together, show a delighted and delightful kaleidoscope.

 Six of these Thames paintings were reunited for the ‘Impressionists in London’ exhibition at Tate Britain earlier this year. I sat and sat happily taking in Monet’s presentation of the glorious variety in the ordinary British.

 DSCN0382 (2)

People went by and came. A woman who I had noticed on her own a couple of rooms previously came alongside a man facing the light blue and dark blue midday Thames. She threaded her arm around his waist. They leant into each other. Another woman turned her head as a man entered. He walked up to her; they kissed, lips lingering together. Unusual expressions of affection for London?

 A man in his 50s walked up behind a woman with greying hair looking at a Thames shimmering in the mid-afternoon sunlight. He put his arm across her shoulder and she leant into his neck. A younger couple stood in front of a misty, cooler, Thames. They turned towards each other, kissed briefly, before their lips returned for a longer touch.

 Four public cuddles seemed extraordinary. Might these paintings emit something romantic?

 A few weeks ago I saw the ‘Monet and Architecture’ exhibition at the National Gallery. I had noticed a solitary man in a blue jacket, about 60, like me, matching my pace through the rooms. I sat in front of the two ‘Thames by Parliament’ paintings. He sat on the same bench facing the other way, towards views of Rouen Cathedral. He talked to the woman next to him. Did they know each other?

 The woman stood up and walked close to one Thames painting. After a couple of minutes, the man in the jacket came up to the same painting. He put his arm round her waist and whispered in her ear. Surely this was confirmation of the effect of these paintings.

 DSCN0383 (2)

Monet loved London. He loved the light on the Thames. He loved the safety he found as an exile from the bloody turmoil of the Franco Prussian war and the ensuing Paris Commune. He loved the stability of a country with a solid democracy and no revolutions. He loved the flowers, abundant in a land of sunshine and showers.

In exile Monet painted his wife in London. She sits in French mourning clothes, looking wistfully out of the window, unable to pay attention to anything present, not even her book.

 DSCN0380 (2)

Monet’s attention is on his wife’s chair, more central in the painting. An English chair called a ‘chaise longue,’ a play on the French-English connection and maybe an expression of their long wait to return home. The viewer, as intended by the painter, sees mostly the bright flowers of the quintessentially English cloth. The centre of the painting, which indicates its overall atmosphere, is bright. Monet was loving what he saw in England, despite exile.

Monet painted the Thames by Parliament with affection, with care, with love. As people watch, they respond with affection, with care, with love. Art communicates. Alleluia!

 

Last chance to stop the Brexit wrong turn

July 1, 2018

Last Saturday I  Marched for a referendum on the final Brexit deal On the train to Charing Cross I wrote my banner. The man sitting next to me, a retired taxi driver and newspaper printer, said he had voted Leave but would now vote differently.

BrexitMarch1 (2)

We ended with rousing short speeches in Parliament Square, albeit too many, Anna Soubry was the climax ‘I want to put love back into this country.’ Yes indeed: love your European neighbour as you love yourself.

In Tesco by Trafalgar Square, buying water for the journey home, a 17 year old white lad behind me was talking on his phone. ‘It’s like mad busy. There’s been a parade. What’s that thing with the seven gold stars?’ It’s future fellowship and prosperity from which we are cutting ourselves adrift.

Please sign the petition
https://www.peoples-vote.uk 

BrexitMarch2 (2)

Jewish Voice for Israeli Peace Outlawed

April 28, 2018

In Jerusalem for New Year January 2014 I searched the old city for a Peace, Shalom – Salaam T shirt. Such shirts were common on my last visit at New Year 1997. In 2014 they were nowhere to be seen. Eventually, one small shopkeeper turned up a good quality, embroidered, Israeli-made shirt, which I wore happily. ‘Peace’ in Hebrew letters. ‘Peace’ in western letters. ‘Peace’ in Arabic letters. So be it!

 ShalomShirt

18 months later an Egyptian-American cousin in law told me that the Arabic is fake. The ‘Arabic’ writing does not read ‘Peace.’ It does not read anything. It is made to look like Arabic but is only squiggles.

The T shirt is a cynical, hypocritical, Israeli production, high quality but fake. Produced for the outside world, the visitors, prominently featuring the word ‘Shalom’, ‘Peace in Hebrew’. ‘We Israelis want peace,’ the shirt proclaims.

What does the Israeli-made fake Arabic say? Maybe: ‘The Arabs who speak of peace are all fake.’ This is a common Israeli claim, which justifies not engaging seriously with any peace talk with Arabs. Or maybe: ‘We don’t know their language, we don’t want to know their language, we’ll just pretend we do.’ How can there be peace between people when one side refuses to learn the language of the other, while pretending otherwise?

Now even the real the Israeli voice for peace has virtually died. Uri Avnery, Israeli soldier in the War of Independence, long-standing advocate for peace between Israel and Palestine, wrote 2 weeks ago about Israeli snipers killing unarmed protesters within Gaza, near the border:

Not only is the shooting of the unarmed protesters, far from the fence, done by order, but there seem to be no other voices. The military and political leadership is united. Even in civilian society, voices against the mass murder are very few… Nobody dares to speak out against the killing, apart from some faint whispers. Even the many admirable groups of youngsters who fight against the occupation, each on some special sector, are silent about the Gaza killings.

No mass demonstrations. No huge protests. Nothing.

So we, too, are to blame. And perhaps more than others.

Please write down: I am guilty!’

http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1523632747

Jewish Voice for Peace, a US organisation, is now officially banned in Israel. Jewish Voice for Peace is one of 20 organisations whose members are banned from entering Israel. Israel sees itself as the home, the haven, for all Jews across the world – except those who talk honestly and seriously about peace with the Palestinians.

https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/israel-includes-jewish-voice-peace-bds-ban-list-supporting-palestinian-human-rights/

Is my writing here ‘disproportionate and furious hostility to Israel.’ David Hirsh would probably deem it so. In this week’s Church Times, Hirsh repeatedly claims that Jeremy Corbyn’s talking with Palestinians, at times even using their language, is the same as the worst anti-semitism. This is how Jewish, and other, voices for peace are silenced – loud, repeated, shaming, assertions of anti-semitism. David Hirsh’s article shows mostly that he, like many others, is adamantly confusing and conflating being Jewish with being a whole-hearted supporter of the State of Israel. Those, especially currently, in the British Labour Party who carry on criticising Israel, while honouring Jews, are vilified.

 If you want to read a clear, strong, case for separating Judaism from Zionism try Robert Cohen: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/writingfromtheedge/

Let a Jewish Israeli have the last word here. In his blog of March 17. Uri Avnery wrote:

Real friends of Israel should advise Netanyahu to make peace as long as Mahmoud Abbas (Abu-Mazen) is still around. In two weeks he will be 83 years old, and he is ailing. He is deeply committed to peace. He has no obvious successor, and his replacement may be far, far less moderate.

But Netanyahu doesn’t care. Peace is the last thing he has on his troubled mind. He is far more committed to the eternal conflict with both the Arabs and the Iranians.

After all, what would life be like without enemies?

Roger Harper

British Companies ruined by the City of London.

February 2, 2018

The City of London demands that British companies put the short term interest of shareholders first. A ruinous demand.

Last Thursday the Governor of Thameside prison, operated by Serco, told staff, including me, that Carillion had been borrowing money to pay shareholders. ‘Serco don’t do this. Don’t worry that Serco is going to collapse like Carillion,’ was the message.

Most of us think, righty, that shareholders are only paid when the company makes a profit. The City of London thinks differently. Shareholders should be paid as a priority over anyone else. If there is no profit, you borrow money to pay shareholders. Carillion did it and the City of London was happy.

To pay shareholders Carillion borrowed money from its own workers, as well as from banks etc. For several years Carillion paid less than its obligation to the company pension fund.  The workers lost money on their pensions while the shareholders gained money in dividends and inflated share price: In 2012, outside advisers said Carillion had prioritised growing earnings and supporting the share price ahead of the pension scheme. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42871054  This led to a shortfall in the pension fund of £990million. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-42853895

In the short term the shareholders benefited. In the long term, of course, they lost out, as the value of their shares has now collapsed. But the City of London is not interested in the long term interests of either companies or shareholders. The City of London concentrates on making sure shareholders can get out at signs of trouble, not on helping companies through difficult circumstances.

Last Friday someone who works for Severn Trent Water said that it is company policy that no work will be undertaken unless the cost can be recouped within 3 years. ‘It’s simply a matter of finances,’ is how this is explained.

Nonsense! It’s simply a matter of short term thinking. If a water main is leaking about £500 worth of water a year, and the repair will cost £2000, Severn Trent say the repair is ‘uneconomic.’ The company choose to lose £500 ever year for years and years, rather than pay for the repair. Of course it makes economic sense, in the long term, to repair the main. But Severn Trent only think in the short term. They ‘cannot afford’ this repair because it would reduce their short term profit and the City of London insists that their short term profit grows rather than reduces.

No UK farmer would expect to recoup the cost of land improvement within 3 years. No UK house-owner would expect to recoup the cost of extra insulation within 3 years. Ordinary people know we have to invest for the longer term. Not the City of London. They have their own twisted thinking, their own rigged rules.

The City of London serves the short term interests of shareholders, against the long term interest of British workers, British companies, the British nation. The City of London are flagrantly not loving their neighbour as they love themselves. It is time we found a different way of investing in British companies.

See http://www.laddermedia.co.uk/about-us/4561595889 for one different way.

Roger Harper

 

The Shack movie: improvements?

January 4, 2018

Maybe some people have recently had the DVD of the ‘The Shack’ for Christmas? I saw the film last year, wrote up these thoughts and shelved them because they are long. Maybe they will help someone?

Seeing The Shack on screen is more vivid than reading the book.  All that is great about the portrayal of the Trinity is clearer. Not so good elements are clearer too. Some of the resolution comes too easily. Jesus and the ‘hero’ Mac, whose daughter Missy has been abducted, abused and murdered, run across a lake. They skim the surface unbelievably. More plunging the depths is needed: the depths of Mac’s anger, the depths of the pain taken on by Jesus, the depths of the many-formed self-giving of the Holy Spirit.

What different scenes could there have been..? Here are some…

1

Jesus entices Mac into his workshop with the lure of a tool that Mack has always wanted to use. Inside Mac finds the beginnings of a child-size coffin. Mac’s fury is unleashed. Accusing Jesus of planning his daughter’s death as some sick sacrifice, of standing by while little children suffer unimaginably, of punishing people by taking away their most precious treasure, Mac smashes and rips and pounds all that he can. Tools and nails and splintered wood fly around the workshop, glass shatters into blood-letting shards.

Jesus comes close to Mac, so that some of Mac’s blows fall on him. Jesus stands between Mac and a shattering window so that the shards shed Jesus’ blood. Angels appear and disappear, wings protecting Mac from his own violence, giving Jesus no protection. Jesus winces and cries out in pain as he is wounded.

Mac’s huge wave of anger subsides; his energy drained. He looks at the devastation around him. He reaches for a sharply splintered section of wood and tries to cut himself. Sometimes he succeeds. Sometimes Jesus manages to place his hand under Mac’s cutting hand. Again Jesus bleeds, clearly in pain. The wounds in Jesus mirror the wounds in Mac.

‘What are you doing?’ sneers Mac.

‘What are you doing?’ says Jesus calmly.

‘You think pretending to be the victim, not the judge, will win me over?’ spits back Mac. ‘You’re the punisher, you’re the one who sees all and holds it all against us. You wanted Missy dead to punish me for my killing. If you think that’s the way to get me to beg for forgiveness, think again!’

Jesus looks calmly at Mac. ‘I don’t make that connection. Trust me. The enemy is the stealer, the killer, the destroyer. I am with you for your good. Do you want me to stay?’

Mac is quiet. Eventually he nods. ‘I don’t understand but there’s something good about having you around.’

‘Thanks.’ Replies Jesus warmly, sounding relieved. ‘And you can be forgiven, when you’re ready. Healing can come, when you want it. I’m not sure you want it yet.’

‘Just when I thought I was comfortable with you…’ says Mac a little exasperated. He shakes his head. ‘Give me some time.’

‘There’s a bed for you in Papa’s house. Come on, I’ll take you.’

2

The following morning Mac meets Papa at breakfast.

‘It’s tough when you child dies,’ says Papa warmly.

Mac looks back with some anger still but now tired.

‘How many children do you have?’ asks Papa.

‘Three, or … What kind of a question is that?’

‘And how many of your children have been hurt bad?’

‘You’re supposed to know everything.’

‘How many children do I have?.. Do you think I’m so different to you? And how many of my children have been hurt bad?.. You’ve been furious. Yeah, we know all about that! When we want to take the attackers’ children and have them torn limb from limb in front of their eyes. When we want them to burn with pain outside and inside so they feel what they have done.’

Mac looks up, surprised.

‘They’re not just your thoughts, Mac. We know! How many children’s tears rip into our heart?’

Mac holds his head in his hands.

‘Mac,’ says Papa gently, reaching out to touch his hands. ‘We want to make it better. Just like you. Make it better for your kids, for all the kids, even the grown-up ones. How does hurting someone who has hurt someone make it better?’

Mac relaxes, collapses ‘OK, OK! You win.’

‘And how can you heal someone who doesn’t want to be healed; they just want someone else to hurt?’

‘I guess you let them do some hurting and wait for them to want it to be made better…’

3

Mac goes back to his room. He hears a groaning, a yearning, an anguishing cry beyond words. He searches for where this sound comes from. The Holy Spirit is bent double, clutching her belly. Her hands and arms are cut, bleeding, like Jesus’ hands and arms.

Mac grimaces at the sound, shaking his head, trying to distance himself. But as he walks away, there is an even more piercing shriek. Mac turns round quickly his mouth gaping open. He echoes the cry.

After that cry, Mac tries to pull himself together, but tears are beginning to fall. His tears mirror the tears of the Holy Spirit, her tears mirror his. Gradually he lets go and echoes the groaning of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit echoes Mac and also begins to look more like him. Together they weep and cry and groan and shout.

The wave of anguish ebbs away.

‘You do know. You do feel.’ Mac shakes his head in wonder. ‘I always thought you were impervious to feeling.’

The Holy Spirit shakes her head, still looking like Mac. ‘Love always feels. We never stop feeling.’

‘Thank you,’ says Mac wiping his eyes and sinking back exhausted. ‘That does feel a little better.’

‘We want to make it better.’

Mac smiles ‘I’ve heard that somewhere before.’

‘For all our children? The Holy Spirit now looks more like the Father. ‘Will you let us make it better?’

Mac nods, a tired but definite deep nod. ‘Yes. I want it made better too.’

‘You don’t want someone else to hurt?’

Mac shakes his head, tired and definite again. ‘Not now.’

‘Come here!’ invites the Holy Spirit with great motherly warmth. As Mac comes to her, her arms become huge wings with golden feathers and he rests and sleeps like a little child. The Holy Spirit becomes a great dove hovering, brooding, over Mac. Angels come with bright glittery clouds which they gently pour into Mac’s head. His forehead seems to glitter a little from inside as his eyelids move rapidly. The Holy Spirit bends down and kisses Mac’s head. ‘Sweet dreams Mac!’

4

Mac awakes and goes out for a walk. He sees Jesus a little way off and goes to join him.

‘Man! How do you do it?’ Mac asks in wonder. ‘I’m not the same and, you know, I am sorry now. Sorry for smashing up your shed. So sorry for… killing… my Dad. It didn’t make anything better, did it? Only worse.’

Jesus smiles at Mac. ‘Thank you. That’s a great gift. Is there anything else you want to give me?’

Mac looks a little nervous.

‘Just that while you’re in apologising mood, you might like to add something?’

‘Yeah. Why not?’ The camera moves away so that Mac and Jesus are further away and their voices soon cannot be heard. ‘I’m sorry I’ve ignored my daughter. I wasn’t making it better for her either…’

The sunlight moves, indicating that a couple of hours have passed. Jesus stands in front of Mac as the camera moves in again. Jesus holds out his hands showing his nail-wounds. He smiles. ‘Peace be with you, Mac. You are forgiven.’ He looks Mac in the face and nods. Then he takes a deep breath, fills his lungs, throws back his head. ‘YOU ARE FORGIVEN!’ Jesus proclaims, his voice reverberating around the tress and buildings. Mac stands buffeted and buttressed by the sound as in a strong wind. Jesus then leans in close to Mac and adds, more quietly. ‘And you always will be!’

‘Come and see!’ says Jesus excitedly, taking Mac’s arm. They go to Jesus’ shed. Angels, hundreds of angels, are just leaving, Huge bright beings, some with wings, some like people, some shafts of light, broad or fine, many with workman’s tools.

‘They’re good at their work for us’ says Jesus. The shed has been transformed. The broken glass has become fresh diamond insets, the broken wood has become part of an intricate pattern of jagged and rounded shapes. The whole place is larger than before and more intricate and also more useful, with more space for work of different kinds.

‘I did that, and you did that!’ Mac exclaims in awe.

‘We want to make it better. We can make it better. When you let us.’

Now Mac sees and meets his father. Now Mac sees Missy in her field, with Jesus and with her grandfather.

5

Another morning, another breakfast is finishing. Plates show remains of barbequed fish. A charcoal barbeque is close by, one last fish still on it.

Papa leans back contentedly. ‘Mac, we’d love you to stay, but we’d love you to love a little more.’

Mac looks puzzled.

‘Why don’t you three go for a walk?’ invites Papa cheerily and firmly.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit stand up and invite Mac to join them. ‘OK!’ Mac says, a little puzzled but happy.

As they walk along the Holy Spirit becomes a dove, or like a dove, again, hovering over them. They reach the lake where there is a small sail boat. Jesus steps in and invites Mac to join him. The Holy Spirit fades and becomes faint. We can just make out her wings, now very large and fanning. A wind from the Holy Spirit blows the boat along.

‘Faster?’ asks Jesus.

‘You bet!’ replies Mac.

The wind rips into the sail and the boat takes off at a perilous angle. Jesus and Mac yell and yelp as they career along, pulling ropes, leaning out, laughing in the spray.

‘Where are we going?’ shouts Mac.

‘Haha!’ shouts Jesus back. ‘It’s up to her!’

The boat veers and turns and speeds forward and calms to pottering before speeding up again.

‘Enough already!’ yells Mac at last. The wind calms down.

‘Man, am I hot!’ exclaims Mac.

‘Shower?’ asks Jesus.

‘I could do with a full body cool wash!’ laughs Mac.

The Holy Spirit is back over them, now like a cloud. A gentle shower begins to fall on Mac and on Jesus. Mac tilts his head back to receive the water on his face. ‘Man, that is so sweet!’

‘More?’ asks Jesus. Mac nods.

The water starts coming a little more strongly. ‘More?’ asks Jesus. Mac nods. A few times until Mac is standing under a great torrent, his body moving sensuously taking pleasure in the flowing waterfall.

‘Enough already!’ yells Mac. Jesus slaps him on the back with approval.

‘How do you get dry in this place?’ asks Mac.

‘Like everything,’ replies Jesus happily. ‘You ask. Anything. Try it!’

‘Hey! You!’ Mac turns to the cloud-Holy-Spirit above him. ‘Can I have a towel please?’

The cloud flattens out, becomes white and fluffy and comes down, wrapping itself around Mac.

‘How many wows can you give a guy?’ asks Mac in wonder, clutching his perfect towel, now bathrobe.

‘More than you can ask or imagine!’ shouts Jesus and gives Mac a high five.

Jesus sits down on the grass. Mac sits beside him. ‘If you go,’ says Jesus, ‘you can go with me with you, and with her.’ The bathrobe lifts off Mac and becomes the female Holy Spirit again.

Mac looks puzzled. ‘You’ll have to look. It’s a bit murky there, you know. You’ll see me but blurry, like a reflection in the body of a beat up old car. I won’t be as bright as many other things. You’ll have to keep looking. But I’ll be there. With you. Always.’

‘And her?’ Mac gestures towards the Holy Spirit.

‘Who does she look like?’ asks Jesus.

Mac turns and looks intently, puzzling it out. We see his face, looking. ‘She looks like you!’ Mac exclaims. The Holy Spirit has indeed changed to look like a more female version of Jesus.

‘That’s who she is really,’ affirms Jesus. ‘And now?’

Mac looks again, moving his head to the left, to the right, quizzical. As though he can’t quite make out what he’s seeing.

‘Does she look like me?’ asks Mac tentatively. The Holy Spirit has indeed changed to look like a kinder, wiser, younger Mac.

‘Why does she want to look like me?’ asks Mac with some self-disdain.

‘So she can fit into you,’ says Jesus calmly, seriously, nodding affirmation. ‘She will be with you, she will be in you. OK?’

Mac looks bemused. ‘How?’

‘Take her in!’ commands Jesus, then more loudly: ‘Take her in!’

Jesus blows hard on Mac. At the same time the Holy Spirit becomes a cloud, moving swiftly, darting round Mac, brushing past him, returning under him, swirling. His hair moves as blown by a strong wind.

‘Don’t let her just pass by. Take her IN!’ shouts Jesus. He sucks in a great gulp of air. Mac does the same. His cheeks puff out. He looks tense. Then he swallows. A couple more sucks and swallows.

Mac starts giggling. ‘Ye-hu, ye-hu, ye-hi-hu!’ He laughs. ‘It’s like tickling, but it’s warm! It’s so weird! And so good! Ye-hu, ye-hu, ye-hi-hu! Ye-ha, ye-ha, ye-hi ha. Yee hah!’ Mac falls over laughing. ‘I’m burning, man! I’m burning! Man!’

‘Yeah,’ nods Jesus with a broad grin. ’She fits, you know. And she brings gifts. The fire’s good. Real good. Wait till you have the living water, or the dove, or  the oil. Man! That oil is so GOOD! More than you can ask or imagine eh?’

Mac, still laughing nods. ‘Too true! Man! So GOOD!’

‘Enjoy the pictures, enjoy the nudges, enjoy the surprising thoughts. She’ll lead you into everything you need to know. She’ll guide you every step of the way. She will not leave you nor forsake you.’

Mac calms down to chuckling. ‘You mean I get to keep this?’

‘You get to keep the Holy Spirit. You just keep asking, keep taking her in. And you get to keep me. You just keep looking. Now…’ Jesus pauses to gain Mac’s full attention. ‘Are you ready to go back and do some loving?’

‘I need to do something with all this!’ Mac shouts, waving his hands in front of his belly and up to his chest and out around him. ‘This isn’t just for me is it? This is for sharing, for making things better.’

‘You got it!’ exclaims Jesus. ‘Are you ready to go back and do some loving? Are you ready to love patiently, when they think you’re just a weirdo and keep their distance or drive you out of your job and your town? Are you ready to love in tears when the pain is almost unbearable? Are you ready to love all the selfish and nasty people? Are you ready Mac?’

Mac holds up one hand, to ask a question. Jesus nods.

‘What about Papa? Do I go without Papa?’

‘Papa is in me with you. Papa is in the Holy Spirit in you. Papa is closer than the sky. Papa is not far, not far at all!’

‘Thank you.’ Mac beams at Jesus. He holds out his hands in front of him in surrender to Jesus. ‘I’ll go.’

‘As Papa sent me, so I send you!’ Jesus speaks calmly and with great authority.

Mac wakes up in his crashed car, wincing in deep pain, but also chuckling a little.

Roger Harper

‘The Death of Stalin:’ Great truth and strange distortions. 23 December

December 23, 2017

The film ‘The Death of Stalin’ is a tour de force. Taken from a French book of the same name, financed and produced by French companies. Superbly written, acted, filmed, mostly by British filmmakers. (Why could the British financial institutions for whose benefit the whole British economy is geared, not have expressed financial confidence in this brilliant enterprise?)

deathStalin

‘The Death of Stalin’ conveys the grinding terror of post war Soviet Russia and the crazy chaos around and after the Communist dictator’s death. ‘Based on real events’ and on real people. Each nasty character is distinctive and believable, verging on caricature, yet never losing touch with the grimly real history. Yes Stalin did have his close colleagues play silly, degrading, games and watch American cowboy movies. Yes the whole population knew someone who had been dragged off in the night by the State Security Police and half expected, any night, to be on the ‘list’ for forcible removal, torture, exile, execution. (The composer Dmitri Shostakovich sometimes slept in the hallway so that when ‘they’ came, his family would not be disturbed.) Yes Soviet leaders were coarse and sex-obsessed. I remember an official Soviet ‘Peace Delegation’ being received by the Town Council of Belper, Derbyshire in the 1980s. During the break for refreshments three good Soviets, including an Orthodox Bishop, did not realise that I could understand the gist of their lewd conversation about the body of a female Councillor. Yes when Stalin had the stroke which finally killed him he was listening to a record of a Mozart Piano Concerto which had been made in the night after he had heard it broadcast and had ‘requested’ a record of the unrecorded broadcast. Yes the pianist was Maria Yudina who had written to Stalin critically. 

But no, Maria Yudina’s note was not as harsh as in the film. The Concerto had not been recorded the night before Stalin died but nine years previously. Neither did Yudina bargain for money, as in the film. Stalin was so pleased with the recording that he sent Yudina 20,000 roubles. She replied with a note assuring Stalin of her prayers, calling him to repent for his many sins, and explaining that she had given the money to her church. All expected Stalin to show some displeasure at the note, maybe a curling of the tip of his nose. This would have been enough for the night-time hammering on her door. Stalin’s face remained blank. See https://forwardseeking.wordpress.com/tag/stalin/ and http://www.crossroadsculturalcenter.org/events/2011/9/17/maria-yudina-the-pianist-who-moved-stalin.html Stalin also never forgot. Was there a true connection, not as immediate as in the film, between Yudina’s playing, her thank you note, and Stalin’s stroke?

Why does the film, and the book on which it is based, distort details? Beria the vicious head of the State Security Police did not die without a trial the day of Stalin’s death. He died three years later after a typical show trial. Was it because the writers thought a more compressed, more dramatized version of reality would be ‘truer’ in some way? Or that they wanted to leave their personal imprint, changing history to reflect their art? Better to be accurate in detail as well as in broad sweep, more respectful to the actual, named, people. 

More importantly, the film focuses entirely on the variegated human wickedness of the Soviet leaders and misses the wicked ideology which they followed. Anyone who visited Soviet Russia, as I did in 1974 and 1978, will have seen Communist Party slogans everywhere, especially on top of prominent buildings. These are absent from the film. Soviets lived a double life, the official narrative of present sacrifices for the glorious socialist future contrasting with the desperate struggle for survival, for human warmth. Life was always cloaked in pompous rhetoric; atrocities cloaked in official justification. The ideology was not a minor detail, as in the film, but a major feature of public and private life, a necessary part of the grinding terror. 

If we are to learn from history, as the makers of ‘The Death of Stalin’ would want, we must see more clearly the dangers of idolatrous ideology – whether Communist, racial-Fascist, Free Market, or Islamist. Each demands belief in a better world ahead for which bloody struggle is necessary now. People other than the ideological leaders are made to pay the price. Life becomes grim: over-controlled and diminished and fearful

Life is not to be lived in the service of the great Communist, Capitalist or Islamist dream, it is to be lived as an expression today of love of God and love of our neighbour. Maria Yudina, in her piano playing and living, expressed this counter-cultural love. This is fullness of life, tree freedom, based on full truth, with no distortions. 

Roger Harper

A woman Bishop of London? God’s not bothered. 22 December

December 22, 2017

I remember the Big Deal that the ordination of women was in the 1980s. Battle-lines, campaigning groups, bad disagreement. Predictions of disaster brought about by ‘fundamental change’ to Bible teaching and Church tradition.

An Evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, took a bold stance by disagreeing strongly with the Conservative Evangelicals. Carey called the Church to make the general principle of ‘in Christ there is no male nor female’ more important than particular instructions to particular churches on women in church. Jesus had gone as far as he could in welcoming women as forefront disciples, not least in giving women the responsibility of witnessing to his resurrection. The focus had to be first and foremost on Jesus rather than equally on Moses, Paul and Jesus: ‘Listen to him!’

George Carey, and others, also made sure that no-one would be coerced contrary to conscience. The Church would have two, apparently conflicting, practices to match the conflicting theologies. Some churches would have women in leadership, some would not. Room was made for both. The same decision was made for marriage after divorce, some clergy and parishes taking the weddings of divorcees, some not. Without this, Prince Harry’s marriage to a divorcee would have been tricky, at least.

The Church of England took the step that has now led to Sarah Mullally the next Bishop of London, a Bishop in a direct line of succession from the first Apostles. Paul wrote that an Apostle had to be a witness of the resurrection. It took the Church a long time to recognise the implications of the gender of the very first witnesses of the resurrection. The Holy Spirit leads into truths which, sometimes for a very long time, Christians cannot bear.

Predictions of disaster were not fulfilled. (The gut human belief: change = disaster is another sign of the fall and the fear that we all inherit.) The Church of England has not fared notably worse with women leading parishes and dioceses. Yes, there has been continuing decline, as would be expected in the most Christendom Church as we leave Christendom, but not because of women in leadership. Churches led by women vicars grow, generally, much the same as those led by men vicars. (I don’t think anyone has dared to do these statistics; this is my view, mostly from across the West and East Midlands.)

What about churches who refuse to have women in leadership? My experience is that these churches too grow with the same variety as Anglican churches generally. I think of one Midlands church officially unaccepting of women priests and bishops, running thriving Alpha courses with remarkable Holy Spirit Days and healthy congregations. Predictions of disaster here too have not been fulfilled.

The Gamaliel Principle is that we should allow people to go ahead as they deem best and see if God blesses their ministry (Acts 5:33-39.) The experience of the last 30 years is that God, the Holy Spirit, seems happy to bless ministry whether by those pro or anti women in church leadership. He’s not bothered. Women in leadership is not a Primary Issue for Him. If it were, the results would be obvious by now. He loves all who faithfully follow Jesus within their own limited understandings.

Can we learn from this for our current debate about Gay Marriage? Might this be something into which the Holy Spirit is leading the Church, though it could not have been borne before? Might the principle of loving faithfulness, to one person, for life, coming out of the heart, be more important than particular mention of particular physical practices? What happens when we do not listen to Moses, Paul and Jesus equally, but listen to Jesus first and foremost?

(Welcoming Gay Marriage is not welcoming all relationships of all LGBT people. The life-long commitment to one person specifically excludes anyone wanting to be a practising bisexual.)

How would the Gamaliel Principle be applied today? Could the Church of England allow, even encourage, two different, apparently conflicting practices, to match the conflicting theologies? Then we could see how the Holy Spirit blesses the different ministries.

Some people say that Gay Marriage is so definitely a Primary Biblical or Church Tradition issue that there can be no fellowship with those who adopt a new understanding and practice. How do they know? How do we know? 30 years ago people were saying the same about women in leadership. Maybe God will be proved to be not so bothered about gay marriage either.

Roger Harper

I’m an apostate! 20 October

October 20, 2017

Gay marriage maybe!!!??? An apostate then’ This was the only comment online on my recent article for Christianity magazine about working as a Chaplain at an Immigration Removal Centre. https://www.premierchristianity.com/Past-Issues/2017/October-2017/God-behind-bars-faith-stories-in-an-immigration-removal-centre

John Rollins declared me to be no longer a true Christian because of the title of my website about gay marriage. He gave no evidence of having read the site, nor even of having read the magazine article. Anyone who does not condemn gay marriage outright cannot be counted a Christian by him.

John’s view is shared by many Conservative Evangelicals, especially in America. The Conservative Nashville Statement on Biblical Sexuality, published in late August this year, includes:

Article 10   

WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness.

WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree. https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement

The writers are clear that any homosexual sexual practice, whether inside of outside of a monogamous, lifelong, publicly declared, relationship is immoral. Anyone who even contemplates approval of gay sex only within a ‘marriage’ or who accepts that fellow Christians so approve in good conscience cannot be in fellowship with these Christian leaders. That includes me.

I am not aware of any of these leaders having engaged with the reasons for saying a middle ground ‘maybe’ to gay marriage. Neither have they given any reason for say that approving of gay marriage is so much worse than approving of remarriage after divorce, about which Christians continue to disagree. (See the current controversy in the Roman Catholic Church – although the Nashville people are unlikely to count Roman Catholics as Christians either.)

 The Nashville Statement is deliberately hard-line. Conservative Evangelicals are saying what they have said before but more stridently. A Staff Writer for the US broad Evangelical magazine Christianity Today (not able to give their name for fear of being branded an apostate) wrote: The Statement ‘offers a comprehensive conservative position on sexuality, using harsher language and drawing tighter dividing lines than before.’ https://www.christiantoday.com/article/evangelicals.and.the.nashville.statement.what.is.the.point/112827.htm

The anti-gay-marriage Christians are in full battle mode.

The pro-gay-marriage Christians are also in full battle mode. Christians United quickly issued a Statement opposing and mirroring the Nashville Statement. Steve Chalke, prominent UK Evangelical, was on the Editorial Team.

Article 3:
WE AFFIRM that relationships between fallen humans have suffered great distortions resulting in various forms of infidelity and unhealthy behaviors that contribute to the suffering of humanity. We also affirm that God’s desire is for all humans to enter into loving, sacrificial relationships with one another, whether romantic, platonic, or social, regardless of gender or sexual identity. http://www.christiansunitedstatement.org/ 

These Christians fight against any hint that Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender or other such people are not as God created and intended them to be. All loving relationships in which people give something of themselves, whether monogamous or not, life-long or not, publically declared or not, are championed as part of God’s desire for humanity.

People like me who question how an active Bisexual could possibly be in a monogamous, lifelong, relationship are castigated as unloving and out of step with the Spirit today.

Considering gay people to be singing out of tune, but still part of the choir, is, according to Christians United, an affront to the worth of gay people as created such by God. They may sing differently but no-one can say that it is out of tune. They have their unique voice.

According to the Nashvillites, people who sing out of tune cannot be part of the choir. They can have a full Christian life in every way, except that they are never allowed actually to sing. Anyone who contemplates allowing them to sing, albeit out of tune, is themselves sinful.

(As those who know me can testify, the sounds that come out of my mouth are indeed brazenly out of tune.)

The Church is in a battle, with each side fighting harder than ever. More than ever, we need a strong middle ground to say to both extremes ‘Your strident aggression is unbiblical, unloving, neither in tune with Biblical teaching on how Christians are to behave with each other, nor an expression of the original image of God in human beings. Stop it! Come off your high horses, down from your battle tanks, and join in negotiations making every effort to maintain the unity of the body of Christ.’

These negotiations should be based firstly on a thorough look at the words and ministry of Jesus (not Genesis, Leviticus or Romans to begin with) examining what light they shed on the acceptability of gay marriage only – not other relationships. This examination should also include asking what light Jesus sheds on whether Christians can agree to disagree about gay marriage or not. There should also be a serious attempt, together, to discern the will of the Holy Spirit, hoping that we can come to say ‘It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us…’

See https://gaymarriagemaybe.wordpress.com/ for more details.

My Anglican Church is perhaps best able to embark on such examination – expect that no-one seems to want such robust standing up to both sides. Focusing on Jesus is not talked about – only the rest of the Bible and what is currently deemed loving by the different sides. The question of why exactly gay marriage is treated as a primary issue over which we have to walk separately is not posed. The possibility of allowing different Anglicans not only to believe different things about gay marriage but also to have different policies on gay marriage is not envisaged. (The Scottish Presbyterians have, sensibly, envisaged this.) We seem to be doomed to slog it out before a nasty divorce. A good way forward is roundly ignored, to my ongoing frustration.

 One person on the Christianity magazine website defended me as not an apostate, given what I had written about my ministry with immigration detainees. ‘Gay marriage maybe?’ it’s better than‘ NO WAY!’ or ‘YES, YES, YES AND MUCH MORE!’

Roger Harper

(with apologies for the change in font which WordPress made and refuses to let me change.)