Secular Society: A Good Thing?
I’ve been thinking a bit about the whole ‘militant secularism’ thing recently. If you’ve missed what’s happened, you must have been living under a rock. Or, paying no attention to the news. Either way, there’s been a whole lotta bloggin’ going on about it! This is the news article which kicked it off, although also see my post on healing and the ASA. Also you can read Baroness Warsi’s comments which I think really kicked off usage of the phrase ‘militant secularism’ in the past week or two.
What I’d like to talk about today is secularism itself: it’s often portrayed as a ‘neutral ground’ where those of all faiths and none can come together and make a stable society where people’s personal beliefs can stay out of the way. Just leave your religious beliefs at home, and there’ll be no problems.
The problem with that is that I don’t see secularism as ‘neutral ground’: secularism is a belief system too. What I mean by that is, the implicit idea behind secularism is that it’s possible to rightly govern, administer justice, and act ethically without a religious reference point. In other words, in this country at least, essentially secularism is equal to atheism.
The problem with that – with respect to the governance of this (or any) country, is that I think theism in general and Christianity in particular provides the only sound, rational foundation for any kind of ethical system. As such, what the secularists or atheists want to claim – that the country would be better off if we dispensed with the religious element in leadership – is simply not true.
Let me try and explain: in atheism, you don’t have many options for morality. I’ve heard a few different explanations, including reading an interview with Richard Dawkins the other day when he explains that morality comes from the cultural ‘Zeitgeist‘ (his word) – in other words, what people think is right and wrong at the time. But the general principle is that there is nothing objectively right and wrong – in other words, ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ are simply labels which we have almost arbitrarily come to define in a certain way. That definition may well change in the future.
So to take an example, in some Islamic countries I understand a woman may be stoned to death if she is caught in adultery. Is that a moral or an immoral action? It seems to be the cultural ‘Zeitgeist’; it’s the law of the land – the punishment is not hidden. In other words, I can’t see how an atheist could say, with all integrity, that that was a wrong or immoral action. Now if that’s not an immoral action… what’s to stop the same thing happening in this country (UK)?
Similarly, in this country: for a long period of time (c. 8-900 years), kings and rulers have been under the same law as everyone else. In other words, all are treated equally according to the law (in theory, at least). Why should that be so? The original reason given was Genesis 1:27 – everyone is created in the image of God, and therefore everyone deserves to be treated equally. This isn’t an obvious idea – just look at the history books, look around at the world, to see that this is not so.
I believe that something underpins morality, and that something is the Christian God. There are no two ways about it.
This is what Dorothy L. Sayers saw clearly in her essay ‘Creed or Chaos?‘ (originally from 1940, the reference to Germany is to the Nazi party):
We on our side have been trying for several centuries to uphold a particular standard of ethical values which derives from Christian dogma, while gradually dispensing with the very dogma which is the sole rational foundation for those values. The rulers of Germany have seen quite clearly that dogma and ethics are inextricably bound together. Having renounced the dogma, they have renounced the ethics as well—and from their point of view they are perfectly right. They have adopted an entirely different dogma, whose ethical scheme has no value for peace or truth, mercy or justice, faith or freedom; and they see no reason why they should practise a set of virtues incompatible with their dogma.
If you reduce morals to things you can rationalise – well, you can rationalise just about anything. A secular society could well lead us down a direction we don’t want to go.
This is where I want to draw back to the issue of militant secularism. Now I don’t agree with Baroness Warsi that we are facing ‘militant’ secularism (Although I do think there are a number of strident voices which want to get rid of any religious influence in the public square whatsoever, which may have muddied the waters). What is more worrying to me is ‘secularism creep’ to coin a phrase. In other words, more and more, secularism is becoming the ‘default’ position without it ever being democratically introduced.
We’ve ended up in a situation where religion is marginalised in the public square, almost without anyone ever agreeing that’s a good thing – it’s just happened because of inertia and people believing that ‘secularism is neutral’.
What I’m hoping is that all this will provoke some kind of debate about the role of religion, Christianity and secularism in our society. If the people want secularism that’s fine, that’s democracy for you – but I’d rather people were aware of what they were agreeing to rather than it just creeping in by stealth.
Two down, one to go
I’m talking about terms, of course. After this week (in which I have two exams), we have one week of holiday, and then we’re back in to the third and final term of the year.
So, how have things been going this term? I thought I might post up some reflections similar to my reflections after one term.
The workload has definitely increased this term, which was only to be expected really! I think next term is going to be even worse (with the elective modules I’ve chosen, I have an additional three assignments to be handed in as well as the five required ones).
These are the main courses I’ve been studying (in no particular order):
- The Development of the Church and the Doctrine of God – it’s a bit of a mouthful, but basically it’s a church history / doctrine combo module. I’ve found it a great way to study doctrine – learning about it via the medium of early church history and the various heresies that had to be dealt with. As part of the course I wrote an essay on the Trinity which I really enjoyed writing, but more on that story some other time. This course continues through til next term.
- Old Testament 1 – Genesis to 1 Samuel – I’ve really enjoyed this module. Seulgi, our lecturer, is so enthusiastic about the Old Testament it’s difficult not to enjoy it! The Old Testament is fascinating, and it’s been great to look at it – even at a fairly speedy pace. Just getting an overview of the theme of each book and some of the context, history etc has been invaluable. Next term we will also be continuing with the Old Testament module.
- Foundations of Philosophy - I’ve never studied Philosophy before, so it’s been great to look at Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine and so on. This course also continues over into next term so I will talk about it properly some other time.
- Pastoral Epistles - Looking at 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus. We’ve just finished looking at 1 Timothy, we will do 2 Timothy and Titus next term. This has been fantastic as well, it’s great to go further into a particular part of the Bible and the Pastorals really are fascinating books.
- Apologetics – following on from Cultural Exegesis last term. I’ve learnt a lot in this module about the ‘presuppositional’ model of apologetics, which I kind of knew a little about beforehand but makes a lot of sense to me. Of everything I’ve done this is probably one of the most helpful, practically speaking – I would definitely like to post something up about this in the future.
Overall, I’m still enjoying the courses, and I’m looking forward to the next term!
So, that’s how my term has been. Apart from academic stuff, Phil and I have settled down into life at our placement church, and have also been going to Christ Church, Cockfosters in the evenings (including joining a home group there).
And despite missing Colchester and all the friends we have there, I think we’re pretty much settled into life in London and are happy here 
Someone please show the Daily Mail a map
This is brilliant. I missed the original Twitter storm, but apparently some pictures starting circulating last week apparently showing members of the Ku Klux Klan walking through East Barnet. (East Barnet is where we live, about a 20 minute walk away from college).
Anyway, it turns out that they weren’t Ku Klux Klan members, they were merely choristers from the local Methodist Church – wearing robes – on their way up to the local Anglican Church. Someone had taken a photo and they’d got mistaken … you can read all about it here.
Now the Daily Fail, sorry, Mail picked it up and ran a story about it. Then, when they realised they were wrong, the published this article correcting it. (I apologise for linking to the Mail, by the way, please try and avoid looking at any of the links in case the red mist sets in). That article is unintentionally hilarious: they have got the location completely wrong.
The pictures were taken in Essex and created a frenzy on Twitter, with one member of the public even calling the police, urging them to investigate.
East Barnet is not in Essex. It’s in Hertfordshire, or Greater London … whichever way you look at a map, not Essex.
After it was uploaded to Twitter Essex police carried out a search of the area on the night of January 31 and told MailOnline that they hadn’t found anything suspicious.
I would love it if they had actually called up Essex Police.
But, to my mind, the most hilarious thing is the picture of the church they’ve put up. That’s definitely not East Barnet Methodist Church… I’ve got no idea where it is. This is the real church, which is the first result if you put “East Barnet Methodist Church” into Google.
Clearly this is exactly the kind of investigative journalism the British newspaper industry has been missing.”East Barnet? That’s in Essex, isn’t it? And let’s include a picture of a random Methodist Church”. The crazy thing is, it would have been the work of about ten seconds to verify that a) East Barnet is not in Essex; b) ‘East Barnet Methodist Church’ is actually, well, East Barnet Methodist Church. Genius.
The Bible, Healing, and the ASA
Last week, the ASA seemed to end up ruling that you can’t claim that God heals people. This is in response to a flyer on the HOTS Bath area website (HOTS = Healing On The Streets). For the whole story of why the complaint was made, check out this blog post (written by the person who originally made the complaint).
Now, I’m not really going to go into the details of the ASA ruling. I think it’s a bit heavy-handed, to be honest. My main reason for thinking that is they’ve basically outlawed claiming that God can heal – not that he will heal. This seems a bit bizarre to me: clearly a God who is incapable of healing anyone is not a God who is worth believing in. I think the question of ‘evidence’ is just a red herring, given that these claims are not on the same level as someone who (for example) claims that homeopathy can prevent malaria. They’re not trying to usurp medical authority, or stop people using the ordinary methods of healing. If the ASA make no provision for religious claims at all, then ‘the law is an ass’.
Still, that’s all I want to say about that topic, though – I want to deal more with the issue of healing from a theological perspective. I just wanted to pose the question: “What does God say about healing?” And, more specifically in this case, what does God say about the kind of healing which HOTS speak about?
I think the Bible is clear that healing can and does happen. There are many miracles of Jesus’ healing recorded, and the book of James doesn’t mince its words: “Is any one of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer offered in faith will make the sick person well; the Lord will raise him up. If he has sinned, he will be forgiven.” (James 5:14-15, NIV translation).
It seems pretty unequivocal, doesn’t it? Although this may not be a helpful translated of the original – the Greek verb used is sōzō, which means to save or heal (In the more literal ESV translation, it is rendered as ‘saved’). In this case, it could refer to physical healing or it could refer to spiritual salvation. Perhaps both.
There’s an intriguing story in Matthew 13:53-58 about Jesus going back to his home town. Matthew adds a little comment: “he did not do many miracles there because of their lack of faith.” What’s going on here? Is Jesus unable to heal them because he’s run out of power? Not quite. I think what’s happening is not that Jesus couldn’t heal people – but that healing them would have been pointless: John’s gospel consistently uses the word ‘signs’ of Jesus’ miracles. Miracles aren’t just there in a vacuum, they point to something: they point to Jesus being the Christ, the redeemer, the saviour. The people of Nazareth were hardened against Jesus, unable to accept that he was the Christ – and as such, healing them would have produced no fruit in that regard.
Jesus performing miracles without people believing in him would have been inconsistent with his mission. This is an extract of the New Bible Dictionary article on ‘Signs’, which puts it far more eloquently than I could:
The real significance of the miracles of Jesus is that they point forward to Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension, to the transformation brought by the new age of the Spirit, and thus lead to a faith in Jesus the (crucified) Christ, the (risen) Son of God. … Consequently a faith based or nurtured exclusively on signs, rather than on the reality to which they point, is immature and at grave risk. Mature faith rejoices in what signs it perceives, but does not depend on them.
The significance of that, with respect to HOTS, is that it seems to me HOTS are offering ‘healing’ on its own, without any other stuff about believing in Jesus. And I’m just not sure that’s a Biblical model of healing.
God can, and does, heal. But I think any healing promised apart from faith in the risen Christ is on shaky ground. I’m sure God does use it nonetheless – perhaps some people are healed and then convicted that it was God who healed them and then go on to believe.
But I think it’s important to remember that there is a kind of healing which is more important than physical healing: the healing of a broken relationship with God. Physical healing is good, but only inasmuch as it points us to the risen Saviour.
Creation / Evolution 6: Putting it together…
This is the final post in my mini-series on “Creation, Evolution and Evangelicalism.” In my last post I looked at what the ground rules would be for interpretation. So in this, the last post on the subject, I will give you the answer you’ve all been waiting for: all your questions about Genesis, Paul, Creation and Evolution will fall away and you will never have to wonder about it again! … I wish. Part of the frustration with a topic like this is that I don’t think there is a clear answer, a clear synergy.
That’s the main reason why I’ve been somewhat putting off writing this post – because I can’t really give “an answer”. However, I think there are some interesting things I’ve learnt along the way, which I will share with you.
At some stage in the future I will consolidate all these posts into one, hopefully iron out some of the unevenness which naturally arises from blog posts (well, my blog posts anyway). But for now, here we go…
Who was Adam?
There are a variety of explanations, some of which I think are more valid than others.
One explanation which in some ways is very attractive is that of ‘federal headship’. This is the view Denis Alexander explains in his book. He posits the view that God chose a pair of neolithic farmers (a man and a woman) to be ‘federal heads’ for all of humanity. They then sinned, and that then became the sin which Paul refers to in e.g. Romans 5. This view is attractive because it would fit in well with evolutionary history as far as we know, it would seem to explain about Adam and Eve being farmers at the approximate time period that the Bible seems to indicate they were around, and would seem to fit with God ‘choosing’ people (e.g. God chooses Abraham, God chooses Israel etc.) Under this view, Paul’s reference would not be to Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all mankind in a biological sense, but in a representative sense.
Such a view might also shed some light on Genesis 6:1-4: It’s an interesting exercise to read that passage in the light of this theory, the “sons of God” and the “daughters of men” … but then, it’s a very difficult passage to interpret any way you look at it. It would also seem to solve the perennial problem “where did Cain get his wife?”, although there are – again – all sorts of options on that subject for every view of origins.
I’ve heard that Alister McGrath is a proponent of a view like this, although I haven’t been able to find any hard evidence so I’m willing to stand up to correction on that one.
Of course, there are problems with this view, for example: it seems to do damage to a doctrine of original sin, and leaves unsatisfied the question of what happened to all the other neolithic people.
Another view is to place the creation of Adam way back approx. 150,000 – 200,000 years ago, to the first hominid pair. Although this would be much earlier than the traditional dating of Adam and Eve, if the Biblical chronology would allow a much longer period of time during Genesis 1-11 it would seem to gel more neatly. Apparently Hebrew genealogies don’t function in the same way that we might write a genealogy, they picked out key people and allowed for the possibility of gaps – of course, 150,000 years is a lot of gaps but then Genesis 1-11 is unique.
One suggestion which Henri Blocher made is that the reason for the slow development over the course of time after the initial Adam was to do with the fall – i.e. the fall impacted negatively the development of mankind.
Conclusion
I think it’s difficult to be proscriptive about the question of origins when there is so much that is still unknown. One thing I’ve been encouraged by is that a lot of the people I’ve read who are conservative theologically also take the question and science of evolution seriously: as such, people like C. John Collins, Henri Blocher and Tim Keller all seem to believe in evolution even if it’s not 100% clear how we fit it all together theologically. (I’ll link to some of the relevant books below).
What I’d like to conclude with is a quote from Henri Blocher’s essay in ‘Darwin, Creation and the Fall’:
We should not be embarrassed to conclude with uncertainty: it is a mark of a mature faith, properly based on adequate evidence and serenely bearing the tensions of a pilgrim’s progress by faith, not sight. Free from a neurotic need for certainty on every matter, we trust the trustworthy Creator and Redeemer.
Helpful Books
Here are a few of the books which I’ve found helpful:
- In the Beginning by Henri Blocher – scientifically a bit out of date, but theologically right on the money.
- Did Adam and Eve Really Exist? by C. John Collins – I found this book really helpful, surveying the relevant literature and Bible passages, as well as surveying some of the models of understanding Adam and Eve in the light of science. Doesn’t draw any firm conclusions but helpful to think some things through.
- Darwin, Creation and the Fall - a collection of various essays by several different authors, specifically about the problem of the Fall with respect to evolution. I found Blocher’s essay, once again, very helpful – although there were also a number of other helpful essays.
- Creation or Evolution: Do we Have to Choose? by Denis Alexander – I’m not sure about this theologically, but it’s well worth reading and contains lots of good info about the science.
- Should Christians Embrace Evolution? by Norman C. Nevin (ed) – the answer of this book is basically “no”; it was written as a response to Denis Alexander’s book. I found this book a bit uneven – I agreed with some of what was said, but I often think the authors went a bit too far in their critique of theistic evolution. That said, it’s still worth a read.
- Reclaiming Genesis by Melvin Tinker – in the introduction of the book, Melvin explains why Christians shouldn’t see the Bible as being in conflict with evolution. He then goes through and delivers expositions of Genesis 1-12 which are brilliant. Unfortunately, he doesn’t really talk about Adam and Eve and how we should understand them in the light of Paul – but if you want a good exposition of Genesis 1-12 this is good to go for.
The Two Hundred Dollar Cheesecake
This week at college it’s “Namugongo Week”. Oak Hill has a partner college in Uganda called Uganda Martyr’s Seminary, and this week is designed to raise funds to support students there. The plan is to raise £10,000 – that’s enough money to support 25 students for a year.
So, as part of the week Oak Hill hosts a variety of fundraising events, the highlight of which is possibly the auction. This year the auction was on Monday afternoon, and a whole variety of lots were up for grabs – lots of babysitting, some cakes, drumming lessons, a painting created specially, etc etc. Basically anyone could put pretty much whatever up for grabs, a skill or time or something like that. We – as in the first years – had been warned that this was something to budget for, i.e. you should plan it in with your giving for this term. They were not wrong.
The lots went for some quite high prices in the end – some chutney went for about £60, the drumming lessons went for over £200, etc. One of the latter items to come up was a “White Chocolate Cheesecake”, which apparently had gone for quite high prices in previous years. I decided to bid for it, as cheesecake – especially white chocolate cheesecake – is one of my favourite things.
Well, the bidding started at £50, and skyrocketed. I … well, basically, I got a bit carried away, and kept sticking up my finger. Until the bidding stopped, and I ended up the winner.
So that’s the story of how I ended up spending £200 on a cheesecake. More details to follow…
The Jeffrey John Fiasco
I know that just about the world and his dog has been commenting on this recently, and I’m late to the party anyway, but I just wanted to add my two cents. I heard last week that Jeffrey John was reported to be thinking of suing the Church for discrimination.
Now this was galling to me last week, but what pushed me to actually blog about it (I know, BLOGGING about it, can you believe!) was a lecture we had today on 1 Timothy 3.
Let me try and explain: it’s nothing to do with Jeffrey John’s sexuality, or at least – it’s only indirectly related.
The point is that he is wanting to sue the church for discrimination in not making him a bishop. Two things need to be said:
- Bringing lawsuits against believers in this manner is, I believe, prohibited by 1 Corinthians 6. What message does it send out to the world, let alone to the church?
- It seems to me that Dr John, by (contemplating) bringing this lawsuit, is denying the fact that there are people in the church who would be at all opposed to his appointment. In other words, hang the unity of the body of Christ – I want to be appointed a bishop. This leads onto the third thing.
- What’s the big deal about not being appointed a Bishop? Can one not serve God by being a dean? (To be honest I don’t really like the fact that he’s even a Dean but that’s another matter). The point is, he seems to be displaying a level of ambition which would make me question his motive for becoming a bishop. This is where 1 Timothy 3 comes in: apparently the word translated ‘sets his heart’ in the NIV in v1 has the meaning of over-ambition. The question is, does Jeffrey John want the office of Bishop, or the service?
On that last point, the lecturer this morning quoted John Chrysostom. I can’t find the exact quote, but this seems relevant:
That we may have glory with men, we lose ourselves with God. What profit in such honor? How self-evident its nothingness is! When you covet the episcopal rank, put in the other scale, the account to be rendered after this life. Weigh against it, the happiness of a life free from toil, take into account the different measure of the punishment. I mean, that even if you have sinned, but in your own person merely, you will have no such great punishment, nothing like it: but if you have sinned as bishop, you are lost. (Source)
It seems to me that anyone who desires the post of a Bishop that much, to the point of suing the church about it, is not really Bishop material.
Inerrancy, Augustine and UCCF
One of the problems with blogging is that of history. What do you do if you blog about something, then a while later change your mind on that subject? I’m contemplating such a problem right now. You see, in the past I’ve blogged about the UCCF Doctrinal Basis. Specifically, I didn’t like one of the points relating to Biblical infallibility. Well, I think the majority of the problems I had at the time have been resolved, and I’d like to share why I now think differently. [I did toy with just deleting the blog post, but I think that would be a bit dishonest.]
So, first of all, a couple of terms: Inerrancy - this is the belief that something is functionally without error. So, for example, I could say the statement “2 + 2 = 4″ is inerrant. Infallibility, however, is different. It means that something is without the possibility of error. So it’s actually stronger than saying something is inerrant. The ‘infallible’ claim is one which UCCF applied to the Bible in their Doctrinal Basis.
Before going any further, just a quick point on the ‘as originally given’ clause: obviously we don’t have the original copy of the Bible. That said, what with the number of manuscripts and so on we can be pretty sure what we’re reading is close to the original. This is in line with The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, an interdenominational evangelical document produced in the 70s.
So, that said, there was something I found particularly helpful in my understanding of inerrancy. I think the main problem I’d had before was that I didn’t understand the concept properly: I thought of inerrancy in a pretty wooden kind of way, e.g. if you believed in inerrancy you had to believe that every single word of the gospels was literally true, and verbatim. In other words, if Jesus is reported to have said two different things in two different gospels, this would mean one gospel was in error – and thus inerrancy fails.
Now what I’ve found particularly helpful on this is studying Augustine. In our church history module at college we’ve been looking at a variety of early church writings, and last week we were looking at some of their writings on Scripture (i.e. what their view of Scripture was). I found Augustine very helpful when thinking about this topic of inerrancy. Here’s a quote from Augustine, Harmony of the Gospels, II. xii. 29 (he’s talking about the difference between what John the Baptist said in Matthew 3:11 and John 1:27)
But further, if, when he spoke of the shoes of the Lord, John meant nothing more than to convey the idea of His supremacy and his own lowliness, then, whichever of the two sayings may have actually been uttered by him, whether that regarding the unloosing of the latchet of the shoes, or that respecting the bearing of the shoes, the self-same sense is still correctly preserved by any writer who, while making mention of the shoes in words of his own, has expressed at the same time the same idea of lowliness, and thus has not made any departure from the real mind [of the person of whom he writes]. It is therefore a useful principle, and one particularly worthy of being borne in mind, when we are speaking of the concord of the evangelists, that there is no divergence [to be supposed] from truth, even when they introduce some saying different from what was actually uttered by the person concerning whom the narrative is given, provided that, notwithstanding this, they set forth as his mind precisely what is also so conveyed by that one among them who reproduces the words as they were literally spoken. For thus we learn the salutary lesson, that our aim should be nothing else than to ascertain what is the mind and intention of the person who speaks.
I’m sorry if that’s a bit hard to digest! – basically Augustine is saying what is important is the last bit – the mind and intention of the person who speaks. Essentially this is the way we are to understand inerrancy: not in the sense of ‘every word ascribed to Jesus must have been verbatim spoken by him’ but we can affirm what is said is nonetheless truth.
Our lecturer made the point that human communication doesn’t work in that over-literal way, and that inerrancy works within that framework of human communication.
I found this a very helpful way of looking at inerrancy, particularly when it comes to the gospels. I admit that the real issue here was what I was understanding inerrancy to be, so perhaps this will help someone else!
Creation / Evolution 5 – Ground Rules for interpretation
This is part five in my (not-so-mini) series on “Creation, Evolution and Evangelicalism”. I’ve talked in previous posts (see that post for all the links) about why I think that so-called “Creationism”, more properly known as Young Earth Creationism or YEC for short, is not a sufficient explanation to account for both the Biblical and scientific data. Well, I’ve now done my assignment and the relevant reading for it and I think I’m in a position to at least move on slightly!
In my previous post I looked at Genesis 1 and how we might understand that from an old-earth and, I believe, a Biblical perspective. We now come to looking at the rest of the Bible, specifically, what do we do with the question of Adam and Eve? What do we do with the fall? Now I should say at the outset that anything I say here is not going to be anything other than tentative. The long and the short of it is, at the end of the day we just don’t know exactly what happened.
That said, I think there are a few points which we need to agree on before moving towards any kind of resolution.
Sermon: Matthew 3:13-4:11 – “A New Israel and a New Adam”
Tonight I preached a sermon at my placement church on Matthew 3:13-4:11. I don’t know whether it was recorded, I don’t know whether they have the facility to record there, so I’ve decided to upload the sermon as a PDF: you can download it here (PDF, 408K). That’s an approximation of what I said, by the way – I decided to preach from notes rather than a full script this time. (It seems to be working as well, my memory seems to be improving in that respect. It seems that you actually have to practice to improve your communication skills, who’d have thought it…)
I had some positive comments on it after the service, so that was positive. I felt a bit more nervous about preaching there than I have done previously, probably because I didn’t really know people so well. When I was preaching at Fordham I did at least know most of the people in the congregation. Still, preaching to a group of people who I don’t know is something I will need to get used to, so it’s not bad to have some experience in that respect.
Next week I’m preaching in chapel – it’s only a “Monday Meditation” (where basically the goal is to do as little talking as possible and get everyone to meditate while saying ‘Ommmm…’) but it’s still a pretty daunting prospect preaching to a bunch of people who are all studying theology and training to work in Christian ministry. People who have, for the most part, probably got more experience and learning under their belt than I have. Still, hey ho, experience is experience.
Hope you enjoy the sermon, if you read it. Let me know what you think.
