Love

All of this Royal Wedding business has got me thinking about love and relationships. After all relationships are a significant part of life. A big part of being created in God's image is being relational. After all God Himself relates to us personally, as our Father. He also enjoys a perfect relationship with His Son and the Holy Spirit in the eternal Trinity.

Our greatest joys in life, as well as our greatest woes are often the result of our relationships. For our lives to go the way they should we have to work on our relationships. We must relate to the right things in the right way and thankfully God hasn't left us to discover how to do this alone. Instead speaking clearly in answer to a Pharisee, Christ shows us what the priority of all our our relationships should be and shows us the true essence of a proper relationship.

“Which is the great commandment in the Law?” (Matt. 22:36). Seems like an innocent question right? Well it is until one considers the context of this question. Pharisees and other Jewish leaders had been plotting Jesus' downfall for some time and this was yet another attempt to “entangle him in his talk” (v.15). Having just exposed their ignorance of the Scriptures and the resurrection in relation to a question about taxes He is now faced with this question concerning the Law.

It was a question debated day in and day out by Rabbis and theologians of the day. Having divided the Law into positive and negative commands (248 positive and 365 negative) they often argued over which were great, burdensome sins and which were small, lightweight sins

Jesus, rather than get caught up in all of these debates gives a comprehensive answer which not only answered the enquirer but also revealed God's will for us. “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbour as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets” (Matt:22:37–40).

He sums up the whole Law in His answer and shows us our responsibilities in our relationship with God and our fellow human beings. He shows us that the essences and purpose of all our relationships is love.

God Himself should be our first priority in love. We are to love him completely and supremely. Heart and soul, body and mind should “all” direct and show our love to God.

But what does this kind of love look like? Christ said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (John 14:15). So following God's commands and direction and being obedient is closely connected to loving the Lord, but it is not doing justice to describe love this simply. Love is more than an act of the will. Certainly part of love includes an act of the will, but it first arises in the affections.

John shows this connection in 1 John 5:3 where he writes, “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome.” Loving God means that one must observe and indeed keep His commandments. Not as a burden but instead as a delight. Just read Psalm 119 which repeatedly shows what I'm trying to explain... an attitude of delight in God's Law.

Saint Augustine described the love we should have for God as “the motion of the soul toward the enjoyment of God for His own sake, and the enjoyment of one's self and of one's neighbour for the sake of God.” So we can see that loving God is really enjoying God, above everyone and everything else and living obediently with gladness to His in love.

But this isn't the end of Jesus' message. He continues to teach that, after loving God with our “all”, our next responsibility is to love other people sincerely and honestly. Now I've heard lots of different teaching on this (haven't we all) and contrary to what some espouse, Christ is not commanding self-love. It is wrong to take Christ's words and use them to imply that we cannot love others until we love ourselves because Christ and the Apostles knew that we already love ourselves enough. The Apostle Paul makes this very point when he notes that “no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it” (Eph. 5:29). This type of self-love is shown by the choices we make which serve only our own personal intentions and interests. No matter how destructive these choices may turn out to be, they are still ultimately expressions of our love for ourselves.

Self-love however hard we try, is inevitable. Once we understand that Christ command to love others as much as we love ourselves is pretty hard to achieve. Think about it, the education you always wanted, the health you wish to enjoy, the sunny beach front property and all that money, along with all the other comforts and benefits of this life that you desire for yourself - you are also to desire for your neighbours.

Not only your friends and family but even your enemies are to enjoy this love. The message however doesn't mean that I am to love them more than God, for I am never to do that, but instead that I must love my neighbour as much as I love myself.

Of course without the grace of Jesus Christ this is impossible. In order to live up to Christ's commandments I am totally dependent upon His grace because I just cannot love God supremely nor people sincerely apart unless His love had reached me first through His msot precious Gospel.

1 John 4:19 - “We love because He first loved us.”

Good Friday

It's Good Friday and I've been reflecting upon the fact that it is now over 13 years since the Good Friday Agreement was signed in Northern Ireland. For me that's what Good Friday is all about... “peace agreements”, isn't that why it means so much to us Christians? Today is a remembering, a retelling of how the death of Jesus brought about peace between God and us. Due to Christ's death on that “Good” Friday we don't have to be frightened of a god who we have offended but can instead be forgiven for the very worst we have done to him and to each other. This “agreement” with God has made it possible for a new level of peace between human beings too. It may have took a good while for people here in Northern Ireland who thought they were Christians to discover – but they did at last.

It's one way in which the original Good Friday story has actually come alive in our own time. When I think about what happened on the first Good Friday, I think about events that have brought it to life for me and others in my lifetime.

This last year or so, this country just as it was settling into peace suffered a number of shocking and horrifying events. The murders of the two Soldiers in Antrim, and the slayings of two police officers have served only to give to galvanise the peace movement. Somehow this violence had shocked the whole community into realising the need for change, a change from tribalism and “acceptable” levels of violence and sectarianism... real peace suddenly came into view. I've met people who'd been involved in the protests against the violence – I even talked with the supporters of republicanism - and those violent events have lingered in everyone's minds.

We have just started to learn that real peace happens when people let go and take real risks – in personal relationships just as much as in relations between communities or countries. On the first Good Friday, Jesus put his life on the line for us to be able to see that we could be at peace with God and so we could let go of our fear of other people as well. It's the ultimate Peace Agreement; it's worth remembering.

Missing the Mass

It is astonishing to think that in 2011 the Orange Order still maintains a rule forbidding members from attending a friend or family member's wedding, baptism, confirmation or even their funeral if it is to take place within a Roman Catholic Church.

Personally as an Orangeman, I have “stopped at the gate” or else “walked to the door” of the chapel on many an occasion in light of the promises I made upon initiation.

Promises which if broken will apparently result in my expulsion from the Order.

Promises which could result in exclusion and estrangement if broken.

Promises which are binding within the Order.

Tom Elliott

Recently these promises have come to the attention of the media because just a week or two ago as most of you are aware the funeral for the young Roman Catholic Police Officer Ronan Kerr was held and Tom Elliot, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party (political party) attended the requiem mass.

Tom is also the Immediate Past County Grand Master of County Fermanagh's Grand Orange Lodge. So you see the conundrum.

Now the Orange Order hasn't progressed much since 1967 when young men like Martin Smyth (who would later rise to become Grand Master) among others would demand that the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and UUP leader Phelim O'Neil be expelled for attending a Roman Catholic Funeral. Even though the great and the good of Ulster's high society used all their influence to keep O'Neill in the Order it made no difference to the outcome. At a meeting in Omagh later that year he was expelled. Now almost half a century later the current leader of the UUP is facing calls for his own expulsion over his attendance at a Roman Catholic funeral however this time there is a massive difference. The Orange Order – that means the person who answers the phone up at headquarters – told the press that they didn't expect anything to happen. Which of course raises the question of the purpose of having a rule that isn't enforced. It also raises a question of equality.

Why for example would I face expulsion for attending a requiem mass for a friend but Tom Elliott wouldn't? Is it because I'm not one of the gentry? Maybe it's because I'm not one of the political class? Are the rules only applicable to some members or all of us?

I know and respect Tom, I've heard him speaking many times and have found him to be a hard working man, he prefers people to judge his actions rather than words and I assure anyone reading that my gripe is not with him. My gripe is with the rule itself.

Yes I've heard the usual line of that rule is based entirely upon the “ Anglican 39 articles and Presbyterian Westminster confession” thus it is no more sectarian than the churches are. In fact the Order in maintaining that rule is somehow more “Prod” than the ecumenical “sell out” churches themselves. Of course the truth that the rule only came into existence 90 years after the order was formed (almost half the amount of time the order has existed) is conveniently forgotten. So too is the real purpose of the rule...to prevent Protestant workers identifying with their Catholic neighbours in case they decided to object to poor working conditions and ultimately rise together in a rebellion against the upper classes who used the people as a workforce.

The modern Order is very different today and has a very different role and function to play from earlier generations. The hierarchical class structures died out in the 60's and early 70's, the cultural ethos of the order has come to dominate and the unionism has broadened with time. Yet the rule has been maintained ever since it was introduced. We have moved into a new dispensation and the fact that even the Grand Lodge (not renowned for its' youthful optimism and forward thinking) see no point in punishing those who break this rule is surely a welcome step and indeed a necessary one. We can put a shiny religious gloss on it if we want but the question remains the same... In Northern Ireland in 2011 is it not about time we ditched the rule? Are we mature enough to follow our own motto and allow all men (including our members) their “free civil and religious liberty”?

Or is simply attending (not participation) in the mass “idolatry”, “blasphemous” and insulting to Christ? In which case we should maintain the rule and expel members like Tom for attending funerals or weddings in chapels?

I have over the past week saw the virulent hatred of some “Christians” for anyone who disagrees with either their own personal interpretation or indeed their respective congregation's interpretation of Scripture. I have also saw the blatant disregard by other “Christians” for anyone who introduces any Scripture into a conversation which contradicts their own point of view and of course I have saw the politically motivated “Christians”. By politically motivated I am referring to those who have a hatred for those with differing politics and as such are constantly looking for a big stick to beat their opponents over the head with (metaphorically speaking) and at present the most convenient weapon to use is the religious one. I on the other hand am in that apparently small band of protestants in Northern Ireland who don't study Roman Catholic Canon Law and catechisms all day but who has instead based their entire understanding of Rome on the Westminster Confession and the 39 articles and the messages delivered by the church in which I was raised and who simply doesn't know enough about Rome to give an impartial and balanced comment. But I will say this... at the very least... the rule needs changed.

Catholic? Part 3

Though this union might not be visible, it will however produce visible signs in the lives of everyone who is united to Christ. Members of the church catholic will be evidenced by new natures and transformed lives characterized by submission, obedience, love, and commitment to God and His Word, (John 3:3–8; 8:31–32; Rom. 6:1–22; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 1:6–9; Phil. 3:3–11; Titus 2:11–14; 1 John 2:3–6). The apostle John warned us that where there is no holiness of life, there is no union with Christ, even if the professing believer is a card carrying member of the visible church (1 John 2:3–6; 3:4–10). Jesus gave similar warnings in His preaching and parables (Matt. 7:13–23, 13:18–30; John 8:30–44). Also, those individuals who are united with Christ are also members of visible communions organized locally, which is why Paul could speak of the church at Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus and why we can walk down the road rather than flying to Jerusalem to attend worship.

Christ's one, true Church catholic embraces everyone from every culture, race, sex, and background (Eph. 2:11–12; Col. 3:11; Heb. 12:22–23). It is the company of those who have believed and obeyed the Gospel, giving evidence of their union with Christ by holiness of life. These believers will make up the perfected Church catholic in heaven where, for all eternity, they will worship, serve, and glorify God and the Lamb (Rev. 5:8–14, 22:1–4).

True catholicity is spiritual in essence, not institutional.

To be a true catholic is to be made part of that body of saints, the Elect of God who have been converted from sin and spiritually united to Jesus Christ. It is to join the great company of the ransomed, healed, restored, and forgiven. In light of the sober possibility of “profession without possession,” the New Testament pleads with us to examine ourselves, to see if we are in the faith, to make our calling and election sure (2 Cor. 13:5). We have a moral obligation to encourage others to do likewise. It is union with Christ, not membership in a visible organization that makes a place for us in the one, true catholic church. Maybe instead of worrying about trivial matters we should think more of our own spiritual relationship with our creator so that we can be confident in our salvation and can with the saints of all ages and Scripture can proclaim: “Worthy art Thou … for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation” (Rev. 5: 9 NASB).

Catholic? Part 2

Many today are in search of the one true church, the church catholic with historic continuity traced back to Jesus and the apostles. Jesus declared in Matthew 16:18, “I will build My church” (NASB). He did not start the “reformed church of Jesus” or the “free church of Jesus” but instead He formed His one true church for all without distinction. So the question of catholicity is related directly to the true nature of the church.

Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy define the church institutionally. For them catholicity is understood as communion with a visible institution.

Protestants, on the other hand, explain the church, mostly, though not exclusively, in spiritual terms. To them catholicity is really something spiritual. They said the true catholic church was invisible but was this a legitimate biblical argument? 

In Matthew 16:16, Peter confessed that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God”. Jesus replied, “I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”. So is the “rock” Peter’s confession and therefore Christ Himself, as Protestants insist? Or is the church built on Peter, and subsequently, his successors in Rome, as the Roman Church claims? How on earth can we understand what Jesus actually meant?

Well I find that the book of Ephesians provides some help. In Ephesians 2:20, Paul states that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone”. But how is the church built upon the apostles and prophets? Well at the start it was built through their preaching (Acts 2:42; 5:42) and then historically through their inspired writings. In their Gospels, they testified Jesus - His Person and work - as the ultimate foundation of the church (1 Cor. 3:11). In Ephesians 1:13, Paul writes that “in Him you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation — having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise”. Paul is reminding the Ephesians how their church was built, and how the church catholic would be built worldwide. The Gospel call was proclaimed, the Ephesians responded in faith and were sealed in a spiritual union with the Saviour Jesus Christ. The means of building the Church was the apostolic Gospel, a message prophesied by the prophets and witnessed first-hand by the apostles. Thus, the rock of Matthew 16 must refer to Peter’s confession of Christ.

Scripture is pretty clear in showing that the Church consists of those who have embraced the true Gospel, have been spiritually united with Christ, and have become members of His Body — His Church (John 15:4–5; 17:23; Rom. 12:12–13; Eph. 1:22–23). And being spiritual in nature, it just makes sense that this union is invisible. As Paul explained not all who were part of the visible nation of Israel were part of the spiritual kingdom of God (Rom. 2:28–29; 9:6–7). Scripturally it is clear that one can be a member of the visible church and not part of the invisible Church of Jesus Christ. 

First and foremost, the nature of the one, true Church is spiritual and invisible. 

(Part Three coming tomorrow D.V.)

Catholic? Part 1

An evening or two ago I got into a discussion with a TUV (a hard-line unionist political party) candidate in the upcoming election and a Roman Catholic. The TUV man was as talking about the recent murder of Const. Kerr by “Roman Catholic Republicans” (though why their religion mattered was beyond me) and well judging by the replies he recieved it seems that the term “Roman Catholic” is offensive to Roman Catholics and as such we should call them catholics and nothing more. Now this got me thinking as Anglicans are “catholic and reformed” and the Eastern Orthodox is “catholic” too and I believe that such distinctions are needed between the catholic denominations needed. Maybe “Latin Rite” would be more acceptable when describing Roman Catholics?

 

All this has got me thinking about what a “catholic” actually is. What exactly is a "catholic"? Can a catholic be someone who worships God in Spirit and truth in a Biblical way or must one break out the candles and incense and whip on a cassock to earn the right to call oneself "catholic"? That is but one question I hope to anwser in this new three post series, entitled “catholic?”

The Church of Christ has been called “catholic” since the time of the Apostlic Fathers. It comes from the Greek “katholikos”, and means “universal.” For over a millennia this was its meaning. However, the word catholic is now identified almost exclusively with the Roman Church. It has become something of a dirty word amongst the Protestant people of this country (Northern Ireland) but this association with Rome is from what I can see, a relatively late development in history. The early church applied the term to the church as a whole, to both east and west and I intend over a new series of three short posts to show that we as Anglicans have as much a right to the term as any one else. Post 2 coming tomorrow D.V.

<a href="http://technorati.com/tag/religion" rel="tag"><img style="border:0;vertical-align:middle;margin-left:.4em" src="http://static.technorati.com/static/img/pub/icon-utag-16x13.png?tag=religion" alt=" " />religion</a>

Vote Early, Vote often!

Just got an email saying that I've been nominated to the Northern Ireland Social Media Awards for Best new blogger of 2011 which is nice :)

If you like what you've liked the blog so far then why not give me a little support by voting for me? 

 If you have twitter it's as easy as tweeting the following:

#NISMA I nominate @[http://www.a-wandering-pilgrim.blogspot.com] for cat 5

Or if your on Facebook I'd really appreciate a wee vote for in the Northern Ireland Social Media Awards. If it helps - you can just cut and paste - 'I would like to nominate www.a-wandering-pilgrim.blogspot.com for Best New Blogger (Category 5)' on the NI Social Media Awards wall and that's you all done and dusted. THANK YOU so much :)

Forgiveness...

It is obvious and self evident that bitterness is a terrible thing. Even the most ill informed commentator from another planet who glances at Northern Ireland could make the valid observation that we are still plagued by bitterness. Scripture underlines the potential dangers. ’See to it that no-one misses the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many.’ (Heb 12:15) Paul exhorts the Ephesians to ‘get rid of all bitterness’. (Eph 4:31) In Galatians the Apostle Paul risks insulting those reading his epistle in his effort to prove that the gospel of grace is about faith in Christ and not works of the law. Yet he is also equally eager to show that we cannot abuse our freedom in Christ without serious consequences. He gives a chilling example to all – especially for those of us in the evangelical wing:

’If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other.’ (Gal 5:15)

Bitterness does not normally just appear without reason nor does it come out of nothing. Some real or imagined insult or injury has been the cause. We all know that injury and insults can be handled in many different ways and can cause us to experience a range of emotions which in turn affect our response. But we could broadly categorise them into three general types of responses.

One response is to retaliate, to be vindictive and take revenge, to strike out and return evil for evil, blow for blow, bullet for bullet and bomb for bomb. This in turn often leads to a retaliation and a continuation or often an escalation of the conflict.

A second response is to resort to a self-destructive retreat into self-pity. Powerlessness or fear may make this seem to be the only option, but in the end it often leads to nothing more than discouragement, despair and depression.

A third response is to deny or suppress real feelings of anger and hurt. Over time, sometimes a very long time, these feelings smoulder and poison our whole system and lead in the end to a bitter spirit.

There must be a better way than these three! As the bracelets used to say “WWJD?: What would Jesus do?” Well His response towards the soldiers who crucified him was to pray for them: ‘Father forgive them, they don’t know what they are doing’. His teaching to his disciples was: ‘Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you and pray for those who ill-treat you’.

You probably saw it coming, and yes, of course, it leads us to the difficult question of forgiveness. I say ‘difficult’ because in the context of Northern Ireland this important and complicated issue has too often been treated in a superficial and cavalier manner. In the face of an evil atrocity like the one perpetrated yesterday in which a young police officer was blown to bits whilst getting into his car what sense does it make to say to the his family, to the widow and orphan of the murdered father, or to the parents of the murdered child... “You should forgive”?

Last night I raised the issue of repentance. Of course, if forgiveness is to be ‘transacted’ then there must be apology, repentance and if possible restitution. Sadly, in the reality in Northern Ireland is that there is little to no chance that many victims will ever receive even an apology. Their beloved husband or son, father or brother was seen in the eyes of others as a ‘legitimate target’, hence no crime was committed and talk of apology was simply inappropriate. We are told that the best we can hope for, is seemingly an expression of regret for the hurt caused on all sides. 

Am I the only one who sees a great danger to the victims here? With no prospect of meaningful repentance, the danger I see is that the victim will be trapped in bitterness, which will in time affect the whole person. But it doesn't need to be like this. The victim could take the initiative. Whether or not the perpetrator acknowledges his guilt, the victim could still choose to develop, by the grace of God, a forgiving spirit. In the dim and distant past I came across these five features of a ‘forgiving spirit’. I am not able to acknowledge the source, all I can say is they have for the last couple of years been a help in maturing my political views and my indeed in my personal struggles.

In response to any insult or injury inflicted upon me I try to develop a ‘forgiving spirit’. This I believe simply cannot be done without prayer and isn't an overnight transformation but a progressive change within. This Spirit of Forgiveness will have the following features:

· A forgiving spirit is one that rejects the right to retaliate. It will not consider returning evil for evil.
 

· A forgiving spirit is one that takes the deliberate decision not to harbour hostility. The evils of the past are not forgotten but they are not allowed to dominate the present.
 

· A forgiving spirit is one that takes the deliberate decision to return good for evil.
 

· A forgiving spirit is one that wants the best for those who have injured us. The best we could wish for anyone is for them to come into a living relationship with Jesus, which then opens up the real possibility of not just forgiveness but reconciliation.
 

· A forgiving spirit is one that grows out of the knowledge of having been forgiven by God in Christ. (Eph 4:32)

This may not be a greatest description of a forgiving spirit and I'm sure you could probably come up with something better, but it is a good start. In conclusion, I have two more things to say. We should remember that God is still a God of justice. There is still a day coming when Christ will judge the living and the dead. In that court there will be no need of witness testimony or forensic evidence. In that court there will be no miscarriage of justice, with the innocent being condemned or with the guilty being acquitted, heck there won't even be an Ombudsman or Secretary of State to order an inquiry.
 

And the final thing: developing a forgiving spirit may be to the benefit of the guilty; it will surely be of benefit to society, but most of all it is for the well being of the victim.

A forgiving spirit is better than a bitter spirit.

Peace, Peace, when there is no peace.

“A 25-year-old police officer has been killed after a bomb exploded under his car in Omagh, County Tyrone. The device exploded under the vehicle outside his home in Highfield Close, off the Gortin Road, just before 1600 BST on Saturday.” - BBC

Just a few weeks ago my girlfriend and I attended what was our first St. Patrick's Day celebration. Fearing what would happen if someone recognised us as protestants I felt it better for us to travel to a festival far away and eventually we settled on the festivities in Omagh.

St. Patrick's Day, Omagh 2011

It was actually a good day. Organised by the local council care had been taken to make the event welcoming. No tricolours were to be seen and no masked republican bands or Hibernians were included in the parade. It was a cultural day very different from our twelfth of July festivities. Folk bands from all over Ireland and even Scotland were present as were national choirs and junior singers and even the odd poem was recited. As for the parade itself it was a wonderful expression of Omagh's pride in it's people, young people's groups, elderly groups, disabled groups, local schools and charities and even sporting and hobby groups (including two lambeg drummers) paraded along the route with pride. Waving and smiling they were met with words of approval from the day's compère and cheers and claps of recognition and thanks from the large crowd.

As I stood there I was glad to see that Omagh was finally coming out from the shadow of the events of August 15, 1998, which saw the the worst terrorist attack in over 30 years. When, 500 pounds of explosives shattered the downtown, killing 29 people and injuring over 100, including children and tourists. 

But yesterday (2/4/11) another bomb was placed in Omagh. Under the car of young Roman Catholic called Ronan Kerr. Aged just 25 Ronan had made the mistake of joining the Police service and for this he was viewed as a traitor by many within his own community. It is believed that he has been a police officer for just over three weeks which makes it very likely that this was carried by by people who knew him well. Some neighbours attempted to pull him out of his car as it was engulfed in flames but it is appearing likely that it was others who had planted the bomb in the first place.

PC Kerr's car, after the bomb .

It is horrific... but it was not unexpected. This is the third time a PSNI officer has had a bomb placed under their car in the last couple of years. Numerous bombs are being left throughout the province at police stations and courthouses. PC Kerr now becomes another statistic to be added to the list of those murdered by terrorists since “Peace” arrived which contains over a hundred names.

A big issue in all this is that while PC Kerr was only 25 it is highly probable that his killers were around the same age. Those of us under the age of 25 are in a sort of political purgatory. When I was growing up the idea of killing a republican or “stiffing a taig” as it was colloquially called was an honourable one. It was a war and in a war there are casualties and it was kill or be killed. If we weren't prepared to kill them then they would kill us... and our children would be slaves. As the maxim said:

“It is better to die on your feet fighting for Ulster than to die on your knees in a United Ireland”

Of course in a war there is “collateral damage” - that means civilians would undoubtedly get hurt but it could be justified. To me it was all explained away as simply as “All IRA members are from republican areas and are no one from their community ever goes to the police therefore they (republican civilians) must all support the IRA. Thus they are legitimate targets” or for those more religiously minded “Rome is the bastion of the Antichrist and anyone killing a fenian (Derogatory term for Roman Catholic) is doing God's work. The idea that maybe decent law-abiding Roman Catholics were scared to go to the police for fear of reprisals never entered the minds of many loyalists.

By the time I was 8 the peace process was started... this meant that the Unionist parties and the Nationalist parties spoke to each other. Meanwhile in my area pipe bombs were being manufactured and young people recruited into loyalist terrorist groups in anticipation of the peace processes failure. I'm talking about 13 year olds joining terrorist groups and learning how to use rifles whilst being indoctrinated into a world of murder and violence all of which was justified with quotes from reformers and Scripture and even history.

Republicans of my age are no different. Growing up in a time when killing of Soldiers and Police was seen as a good thing. Recruitment into republican groups was common and many young people were indoctrinated with tales of the United Irishmen, Easter Rising or even the Hunger strikers into joining groups and waging violence against others. 

Jump to 2011 and what's changed? There are still no Roman Catholics in my village and Protestants still are begin driven out of their homes in Rasharkin. The Orange men still aren't allowed to walk home from Drumcree parish church. Bombs are still being planted with intent to kill. Terrorists are still recruiting. Rangers and Celtic are still divisive and people are still dying (though at a slower rate than before). The Church and our politicians are still telling us everything is all right and we should close our eyes and ears when something bad happens and hope it's just a one off. Pray for peace they say.

But here is the cold hard truth. Yes we need to pray for peace but we also need to call for “Repentance”. Without repentance there can be no forgiveness and without repentance or forgiveness what sort of peace do we really have? A sham peace. A political peace if you will. But the time for such a sham is coming to an end and the choice is going to be made soon... will we have a real peace or will we look back on the last decade and in relation to those church leaders and politicians exclaim as Jeremiah did in 6:14 that“They have healed also the hurt of... my people slightly, saying, Peace, peace; when there is no peace.”?

Pray for the family of young Ronan Kerr and pray that he is the last... pray for God to work in the murderer's hearts that they may repent and the healing process may begin.

Pray for God's blessing upon this land.

Listening

“Hail Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with you.”

Famous words, but when reflected upon can be quite puzzling. Mary is already full of grace, the Lord is already with her, but this is a story of how the Word of God comes to her both in and through the angel’s message. But what’s going on in Mary before the angel speaks, and before life kindles in her body? Well partly the answer must be, that God the Word is with us in every moment of our being, in every aspect of our being and existence. We are, because God has spoken. The Word God has spoken is never taken away from us. In the very deepest part of each one of us is the Word of God. God is inviting, God is summoning, God is speaking to us by name, God is writing on His own heart our uniqueness and our distinctiveness.

Mary is full of grace and the Lord is with her, because she’s received the grace of going into that depth, where the Word is, and after recognising it drawing it into the light, so fully that it’s possible for the Word to become flesh in her body. Ultimately she had the grace of listening – that’s the grace she’s full of. And because she had that grace of listening, she has the silence – the room – for the Holy Spirit to enter, to overshadow, and to bring Christ to flesh.

If there is something I try to pray for in relation to myself it is to receive the grace of listening like that.

Recently after becoming interested in Anglican Monastics I was reading the Rule of Saint Benedict (which can be found here: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/benedict/rule2/files/rule2.html) and was struck by the simplicity of the message. Really Benedict's rule can be summed up in one word...”Listen”.

The life of the monk is one of listening. It's listening God into your flesh, listening God into your heart, mind and soul. It's all about absorbing God into life. He's already there but we have just got to listen.

St. Benedict's medal

Life in the Benedictine monastery is a life about the grace of listening, so that the Word becomes flesh, not in individual and individual and individual, but in the life of mutual obedience and mutual service lived under the Rule. So we should always remember to pray for the grace of listening to God and to one another as the Rule of Benedict suggests, so that we as Christians can be inseparable from one another and so that we can work together in mutual service to advance the Kingdom of Christ.

And there's another kind of listening that comes out of this. I like to think of it as the grace of listening to the world. And surely that’s part of the same listening: listening for the creative Word in things, in nature; listening our way into the depths of what is around us, so that the Word comes alive in what we do with the things that are around us, the stuff we live with and live on.

Monastic witness at its best involves listening, not only to God, nor only to one another, but to the

world itself; a patient and light way of standing on the soil; an attentiveness to what this earth actually gives us. We too need to realise the beauty of God in the world all around us. We should pray that what is spoken in the life of our homes and our churches will be heard and that they will be part of God’s means of creating and shaping the grace of listening in the wider community, shaping the grace of listening for all those in positions of authority, shaping the grace of listening within Christianity (where let's be honest we aren't always brilliant at listening either to one another or even God, never mind the environment – though progress is being made). So, “ausculta”, listen, as the Rule says. But also speak, be who you are, be who you say you are. Let your world be what it is, and let all of that together be God’s Word to this wider environment.