Rose Bowed Down

She stood tall with her back to the wall,

Gracefully and cheerfully with peachy roses on display.

She stretched up to the sky, as if about to fly,

But her feet were firmly rooted to the soil,

Stretching out her branches, like arms, in a wide embrace. 

She clung with tenacity to the trellis that was her support,

Weaving her branches 

out and in, 

in and out,

To hold on tight,

To keep upright. 

Then one day, out of the blue, the tellis lost its grip, and came adrift, from the wall on which it had been mounted.

Now, no longer the support on which she so relied,

The trellis had become a burden,

Which weighed her down - 

She silently cried.

Bowed down low,

bowed but not broken,

She yearned to be relieved of the heavy weight that bent her.

There was only one solution, 

So every branch and stem that weaved about the trellis was trimmed,

Freeing her from her life-long friend,

Lifting off the trellis on which she used to depend,

Straightening her up again,

Pruned, but by no means defeated,

She stood, as tall as she could,

With a promise that she will bloom again.

Guidance and Glory

 Listening to morning prayer on St. Mary's, Walthamstow Facebook live, (at 8:30 a.m. weekdays) you will hear, in Ordinary Time , the lines "Lord, you guide me with your counsel and afterwards receive me with glory". 

For some time now, that statement has caught my attention. There was something about it that I felt needed exploring further. So I am writing this blog to do that. 

Knowing "God's will" has to my perception, been something of a preoccupation of Evangelical religion in my lifetime. The quest of every Christian teenager leaving school and making decisions about what career path was often overshadowed with "What is God's Will for my life?" With the understandable trepidation that they would get it wrong. In the Torah, and Judaism,  matters seem, to my view much more concrete and clear cut. If you were in a certain family, you were to be a priest, a Cohen, and if you were were not a decedant of Aaron, you were a Levite, and you had a religious role, in the Temple,  but not a priest. Others followed in the footsteps of their parents. Jesus followed in the footsteps of his earthly father, Joseph, learning the trade of carpentry.  John, the Baptist, should, on paper, have followed in Zechariah's footsteps and become a priest, but it turned out that he became the "voice of one calling in the desert,'Prepare the way of the Lord.' I could point to other Biblical people like Abraham, Samuel, and David who had very specific and clear direction as to God's will for their lives and they were able to follow this direction and to varying degrees of success, do God's will.  (They often slipped up and did not do God's will, despite clear direction - and their failures often brought about serious consequences - Moses was not allowed to set foot in the promised Land, despite being the one to lead the Children out of Egypt and through the Wilderness - He, and all but two of the Generation who left Egypt,  died in the Wilderness. Such narratives are often more than a cautionary note, and strike terror into the hearts of serious Bible believers, that they must not get it wrong, when it comes to doing God's will. 

With maturity and experience of life, I would advise my younger self, and others who understandably want to know and do God's will,  that we should simply follow our hearts, when it comes to making these big life choices. One's natural aptitutes, and what makes us happy are good indicators of what we do in life. That there is also great scope for "course correction" after embarking on a specific career path, realising that it is not really "our thing", we can do something else. 

My Mum, Ruth, when she had completed her schooling, started training as a nurse. It became very apparent to her,  after not too long, that nursing was not her thing. It was by no means an instantaneous switch, but after some years, and through some pretty random circumstances, she became an art teacher, and I would say, if there is such a thing as "God's will for your life", in the sense that it is like an architect's blueprint,  then teaching would have been that thing for Mum. 

To be honest, I am not sure now that God is concerned so much with the minutiae of our day-to-day, or even life decisions, be that in terms of career, or relationships,  or where we live. I think, much higher on God's agenda, is How we live, day-to-day.  What is our character? Not what we DO, but who we ARE, as people. If I look at the Gospels, I see Jesus us telling us in different ways,  that how we treat one another is what identifies us as "one of His". Interesting that in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the religious people, the priest and levite, refused to be distracted from their "mission", in order to help the man in a crisis, but the supposedly secular Samaritan took time to take the man to an inn, and to pay, with clearly no expectation of reimbursement,  where he could recover, despite also being "on a journey". I think that we can be so preoccupied with being "purpose-driven", that we become like the priests and the levites in the parables and not willing to divert or delay our journey. But it was the Samaritan, the "smelly Samaritan", who was a neighbour to the man attacked by robbers. It was the "smelly Samaritan" who was doing God's will on that day on the Jericho Road. (I know the Bible doesn't actually say "smelly Samaritan " but I am using that expression to put across how Jesus' Jewish hearer would have viewed Samaritans.  Today we call the parable "The Good Samaritan ", and yes, he was a good and kind man. Let's not forget that this was a parable, and nor an actual person- he was a character conjured up in Jesus imagination to explain a principle. I am sure Jesus decision to use a Samaritan as the hero of his story was to emphasise his ordinariness as opposed to his goodness - and yet, he chose on that day to do the right thing for the man attacked by robbers. It is important to note that Jesus never refers to the Samaritan as Good. His goodness is reflected in his actions. )

Later on we read the list of qualities that mark people out as Spirit filled - the fruit of the Spirit - love, joy, peace, patience, goodness,  kindness,  faithfulness, gentleness, self-control. (Galatians 5:22-23). If I might be so bold as to offer my own paraphrase of those verses - The kind of person who is Spirit-filled is loving, joyful, peaceful, patient, good, kind, faithful (reliable), gentle and self-controlled. There is no law against being this kind of person.  

When it says that God will guide us with His counsel I think it is more about being this kind of person,  how to be this kind of person,  having wisdom to do/say the right thing in specific circumstances, or the wisdom to NOT do/say anything in specific circumstances. We DO need God's guidance in our day-to-day lives to be the best ----- (fill in the blank with career/role/etc.) we can be moreso than choosing what that career/role is. 

That said, while we should aspire to be that best person, we are fallable humans and will make mistakes. We will sometimes emulate the focused purpose-driven hard-nosed priest, instead of the empathetic generous Samaritan. Such is our humanity that on some days we will get out of the wrong side of the bed and we may be grumpy.

This is why part two of Psalm 73:24 is so important because,  whether we have heard God's counsel and followed it, or completely ignored God's counsel  and gone our own way, to our short term detriment perhaps, afterwards God receives us with His Glory. 

Ultimately God's love for us does not depend on our effort or achievement but simply on the fact that God is God and God loves us. He will still love and receive us regardless or how good, faithful, kind, loving, etc we have been. Like the father in the parable of the Prodigal Son, God will receive you and celebrate your return with rejoicing - with Glory . 

Selah

This poem I wrote with Psalm 73:24 in mind. 

Guidance & Glory

How hard it is sometimes to know just what to do or say
When trouble strikes and things breakdown,
When you’ve lost your way. 
What do you do when it’s all your fault, and
There’s no way to fix it, nowhere to hide?
Where do you go, when things go wrong, when it’s all falling apart? 

This isn’t a time to be glib, to give some blasé reply –
Sometimes all we can manage is a deep heartfelt sigh.
There really are times that make no sense at all.
What do we do then, when we're at a loss? On whom then can we call? 

I do not wish to belittle or deny the seriousness of the situation, 
But I do believe there is One we can call on in such a desperate season.
That’s God, our Saviour, who guides us with good reason,

God gives us strength to take each step, and listens as we pray. 
We can rely on God to stay — right by our side.
God loves us and won’t desert us, God will see us through to the end.
Just like the man on the cross,
We'll hear our Saviour say, 

“You will be with me in Paradise at the end of the day."

Baseless Hate

 Earlier I came across something that surprised me. First of all I need to give some background,  as some of you may be aware, in addition to my interest in matters of my Christian faith, I am also interested in other religions, but very much, Judaism. 

Judaism has its own calendar. We are in a part of that Calendar which is a period of mourning from 17 Tammuz to 9th of Av.  The 9th of Av is designated a fasting day. 9th of Av in Hebrew is Tisha B'Av. It is believed both the First Temple (That Solomon built) and the second Temple build after the exile with Nehemiah and Ezra were destroyed on 9th of Av. There were many other things that coincided with these dates but these are the most significant I understand.  The First Temple was destroyed about 586 BCE (BC) and the second was 70 CE (AD) . 

Without getting to involved with the details of of these dates and practices I want to get into what I learnt today . It is from part of the Talmud called Yoma 9b It asks why the First Temple was destroyed and the reply is because of idol worship,  forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed. After a discussion of what was meant by these three things it then goes on to say:

However, considering that the people during the Second Temple period were engaged in Torah study, observance of mitzvot, and acts of kindness, and that they did not perform the sinful acts that were performed in the First Temple, why was the Second Temple destroyed? It was destroyed due to the fact that there was wanton hatred during that period. This comes to teach you that the sin of wanton hatred is equivalent to the three severe transgressions: Idol worship, forbidden sexual relations and bloodshed.

It was not this that caught my attention butan email from Chabad.com called daily dose which quoted this piece of the Talmud that did.  

It translated the Talmud like this: Because there were those who were intolerant of others without cause. Which teaches us that senseless intolerance is equal to idolatry, murder and adultery combined. (Talmud Yoma 9b.)

It was that word intolerance that made me sit up and pay attention. Basically, from reading further and seeing the same word translated as "hatred" was eye opening to me.  

I read this from some Sabbath notes for a synagogue  - story not sure where I will try and find it, but it states this: 

Shlomo Ephraim ben Aaron Luntschitz Rabbi of Prague from 1604 – 1619:

It's known that in the first Temple there was fighting and baseless hatred between the rulers of Israel, and that the Temple was destroyed in part because of the fighting between the kings of Israel and Judah. In the second Temple, there was baseless hatred among all of the Jewish people, because they had been afflicted with it to the point that there was no cure...

This is the difference between the first and second Temples: in the first, the hatred was between the leaders about running the kingdom, because the kingdom was divided (between Israel in the North and Judah in the South), and they were fighting about borders...In the second Temple, however, there was hatred about pointless matters, because even the lowest people hated each other for no reason. For this reason, it is called “baseless hatred” (sinat chinam) because they did not actually have anything to fight about.

It started me thinking,  do we allow pointless unimportant issues to cause division among us. Is Sinat Chinam causing us to burn our bridges with people. 

I  must admit when I read "intolerance" my mind went straight to the intolerance of homosexuality by many religious leaders and adherents of different faiths, but being Christian I think of Christian pastors and people.  Could this attitude of intolerance to what they perceive as sin, to the extent that they would refuse communion, expel from the Church and force family members to turn their backs on their own kith and kin, and even their own children., can that be worse than idolatry, sexual immorality  and murder together. The Conservative Christian pastor may say: That's the Talmud, it's not the "inspired Word of God", and will reason that the second Temple was destroyed because the Sacrificial system was replaced by Christ's death on the Cross.  Since we know that Jesus said no-one takes my life, but I lay it down, and yet we know that it was Roman nails that held Jesus on the Ctoss that he died, and it is interesting that Jesus likened His own body to a Temple, when He said "Destroy this Temple and I shall rebuild it in three days. I  think that it is entirely possible that the rabbis are right that the baseless hatred between them was a destructive force that became physically evident in the destruction of the Second Temple. 

I believe Jesus spoke repeatedly about having a judgmental attitude.  Jesus pointed out and rebuked the superior attitudes of the religious leaders of his time.  Baseless hatred often tries to claim a basis or justification- race, social status, residency status (citizen, immigrant, "undocumrnted" , "illegal alien") religion  - where people don't only feel superior to people of other faiths but people who understand and practice the same faith in different ways. 

For the Christian, all hatred is Sinat Chinam, pointless, because we are called to love our neighbours as ourselves. 

In addition to the 10 Comnandments we got through Moses Jesus gave us ONE - I believe that His ONE commandment is as important as all the ten together - namely Love ONE another as I have loved you. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples,  that you love one another.  

In the Talmud - the expectation to love every other Jew as their own flesh. We know that in Judaism there have arisen different groups, Orthodox,  Reformed, Liberal and there are Jews who are not religious. But they say a Jew is a Jew, and it doesn't matter whether they are pious attenders of shul, or atheists,  they are Jewish and the call is to love and accept. 

If Judaism has its different groups, Christianity has splintered into myriad groups. And sadly the animosity between these groups called denominations is horrendous and I am convinced it grieves the Holy Spirit. The fact that there have been wars between Protestant and Roman Catholics, with the most recent bring troubles in Northern Ireland. We worship the Same God and Saviour even if what we think about our God and Saviour is different.  I know many Roman Catholics think they are the only Christians and I know many protestants think Catholics are are not Christian at all. Some Protestants go so far as to describe Catholics in diabolical term. It is ridiculous and it is Sinat Chinam. If there is no room, for some, for diversity within religious faith, then the notion of diversity in terms of sexual orientation of gender identity is totally anathema. But I believe that there too, the judgmental superior attitude is "baseless hatred".  

It is baseless because prejudice is not a valid reason to bully or exclude. Our bodies are called temples, but collectively as a Church we are a Temple, and yet our differences (not our diversity) and divisions are destructive to the Temple. 

If baseless hatred caused the downfall of our Temple, then baseless or unconditional love can rebuild. 

So whether you are fasting for Tisha B'av or not I pray that we may be united 

Where vaccinations come from - Really

Vaccination is definitely the one and only way we can get out of this mess. We cannot continue in this lockdown and social distancing, which though it served its purpose as a stopgap measure was never going to be sustainable in the long run. Vaccinations have been the solution to end epidemics such as polio and smallpox, but how did this miracle in a bottle come about. Many would mention the physician Edward Jenner, and you would be right as he was the first to give this technique of fighting viral infection the name vaccination, but Edward Jenner is not where it started. A process called "ingrafting" was carried out by women in Turkey, in which the pus of an infected small pox pustule was "ingrafted" into blood system of a person making them slightly ill but after recovery, apparently immune from the disease. Now, how did this practice make its way to England you might ask. It did so by a very interesting brave and brilliant woman called Lady Mary Wortley Montague. 

The daughter of an earl, she nevertheless being female was not provided with a great education. She had a governess for whom she had little good to say, but she somehow through her own diligence taught herself to read and write and learnt Greek and Latin to a very good level. Sadly, she contracted small pox and suffered greatly with it. Her face was scarred as a result of her illness, but she survived. 

She met and corresponded with her future husband but him being not as wealthy as another suitor for Lady Mary, was not the preferred option by Earl Pirrepoint, her father. Lady Mary did not like the man who the earl had set his sights on as his future son in law, and so she eloped with Mr Wortley Montague. As it would happen her husband was appointed as ambassador to Constantinople and Lady Mary insisted on going with him (this was not usual in those days) and she wrote about her travels - also unusual for her time. She discovered this practice of ingrafting and secretly and very bravely had her little boy ingrafted. He was about 3 years old and thankfully survived. She wrote about this process and when she returned to England had her daughter publically ingrafted and people observed and saw it worked. Among her friends by this stage was Princess of Wales, daughter in law to King George I . She sought permission to have her children to "have the operation" 

This thing had lots going against it. Firstly it was foreign - what could "Mohamedans" teach Christians. 

Secondly - it was something done by women and being promoted by a woman. What can women teach men. 

Thirdly, the medical establishment had a lot to lose from this process as they made a lot of money from the supposed small-pox cures. 

King George however thought it would be a good thing to investigate and they agreed that they would test it on 6 prisoners from Newgate Prison. He probably thought they would all die of the smallpox and he could put the "silly notion" to bed. But of course they all survivedand so the idea of innoculation gained traction. Ultimately he gave permission for his granddaughters to be innoculated, but not his grandsons.

At some point Edward Jenner made his observation about the milkmaid and realised that instead of using smallpox pus he could use the pus of cow pox instead - this is where the word vaccination came into being - vacca is cow in Latin. The rest h

Is history. 

Maybe we can give brave Lady Mary. Wortley Montague and the Turkish women credit where credit is due.  Like many other scientists, as Isaac Newton said, Edward Jenner stood on the shoulders of giants, only those shoulders were female. 

Lady Mary was a poet and I came across this poem that she wrote: 

For would'st thou fix Dishonour on my Name,

And give me up to Penitence and Shame!

Or gild my Ruin with the Name of Wife,

And make me a poor Virtuous Wretch for Life?

   Could'st thou submit to wear the Marriage-Chain,

(Too sure a Cure for all thy present pain)....

Tho' ev'ry softer Wish were amply crown'd,

Love soon would cease to smile, when Fortune frown'd.

Lady Mary Wortley Montague

Visiting in prison

 (No Title)

John C. Fairlamb

Humility 3

In the previous blog, we looked at the 'parable' of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said, among other things, "

I was in prison and you visited me

". We tend to forget this aspect of the story. You see it is easier to identify with those who were sick, or who were poor, or were homeless but when it comes to people in prison we tend to become uncomfortable. 

I think that for many Christian men and woman, the thought of people in prison being regarded in any positive light is practically an anathema. 

Didn't they deserve to be in prison, hadn't they committed some crime that meant that they should be there and not in society at large? 

Aren't they despicable creatures who deserve our contempt?

I would simply ask would Jesus have that attitude. 

Firstly, NOT everyone who is in prison is truly guilty of what they have been accused of. Even in our modern, scientifically advanced world, miscarriages of justice happen all the time. 

Occasionally, but very seldom, do the rich members of society, actually fall prey to the system, and serve time behind bars. They use their ill-gotten gain – to employ the services of slick lawyers – who manage to get their clients off scot free. On the other side of the coin, a poor person, who may be genuinely innocent, can find themselves in a mess, and the defence lawyer assigned to them, to plead their case may or may not believe them, but who will make a half-hearted attempt but not be too bothered if they lose the case and the person is sent down. (I realise that I am generalising and that there are probably many very dedicated defence counsels who work tirelessly to see justice done for their client even if that client cannot afford to pay the legal fees. ) However the big picture is that people are not all equal before the law – except in the constitutions – and that justice is dispensed differently depending on one's status in life. 

Secondly, many are kept in prison, who have not had their day in court, or their opportunity to 'face justice'. According to the Human Rights Charter, ap erson is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately for many who are imprisoned, the presumption of innocence is easily forgotten by those who read the newspapers.

SO, who are we to judge those people in prison? Jesus is calling us to show compassion. Can we look the other way, when reports come out of over-crowded prison cells, people living in inhumane conditions. 

Some would say, Prison is supposed to be hard – its supposed to send a message that “If you do the crime – you must do the time.” and all other such harsh statements. We forget that amongst those who are thrown into prison are those who are prisoners of conscience – that is, they are there because of their faith. 

In many communist countries, people are jailed because of their faith. That may not be the case, at the moment in the UK, or the USA, but the time is coming when to mention the name of Jesus will be a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or death. Already we see signs of this in that people can lose their jobs because they offer to pray for a patient whom they are treating, or they wearing a cross on a chain around their neck. I was listening to the radio one night and the presenter was going off the deep-end because somebody dared to preach the Gospel on the tube, in his hearing. He was so offended. 

It is easy to stand in judgement over people without slightest understanding of what brought them to that place. I am not advocating that we stop putting people in prison, and that because justice is unequal it should not be exercised. On the contrary, a vast number of cases that are brought to court are dealt with justly and the perpetrators of crime dealt with appropriately. But just because someone is in prison, does not mean that we ought to despise them or view ourselves as superior. Jesus, the one who committed no crime, was unjustly accused, and found guilty in an illegal court. When he was taken to the 'legitimate' court of Pontius Pilate – Pilate admitted that he found no fault in Jesus, and yet he buckled under public pressure and granted the wish of the 'people' to have Him crucified. There was no justice in the case of Jesus trial and sentencing – but there was justice because Jesus took our place on that cross that day. 

On that same night that Jesus washed the disciples feet he said to them: “

A new commandment I give – that you LOVE one another as I have loved you. People will know that you are my disciples because of your love for one another

.” 

I look on Facebook and I see lots of big “I am a CHRISTIAN kind of banners and groups, etc. People have bumper stickers for their cars, and the one of course is the famous fish. But Jesus said, “

They shall know you are my disciples by your love

." I am not saying that we have to go to the other extreme and be all secretive about it. I am not even condemning the group, the banners, or the stickers, I'm just saying that if it is all about an external show – then perhaps we have missed the point of this command. How does that kind of love show itself in our communities? Jesus said to the sheep you saw me as a stranger, and you welcomed me in. 

I was talking to a man the other day, and he told me of a church that dealt very uncharitably with a friend of his – he said she had special needs and that someone in the Church told her not to come back because she 'stank to high heaven.' The attitude of that person stank to high heavens, and no doubt caused a stench in the nose of our Lord. The poor person came out of the church devastated.

I don't become a police officer by merely putting on the uniform – I have to actually do the work of a police officer. Not all police wear uniforms – and definitely police do not wear the uniform all the time. However, even when a police officer is off duty – they never cease to be police – and in an emergency – they are ready to pick up their role at a moment's notice. They may be out and, happen to notice or become aware a crime being committed. They may not show their true colours but will act to bring the situation under control. 

In a similar way, a Christian does not cease being a Christian when they are at work, or just at home relaxing. They may not be 'in Church' or some religious rally. They may not be doing religious stuff, but Jesus didn't say “they shall know you are my disciples by your religious activity. “ No a Christian is a Christian all the time and even when he/she 'is not on duty' he keeps an eye open for opportunities to SERVE his fellow human and show love to them, for it is by that that the world may know we are Jesus disciples.

Sadly, how often do you hear a person say words to the effect of “I won't become a Christian, Christians are hypocrites.” Instead of being drawn in by our love for one another, people are repelled by the hypocrisy that they see in the Church. 

Pride is at root of hypocrisy

. 

Humility on the other hand is the essence of reality.

I am sure that ther si a lot more that can be said on this subject, but for now - I leave it there. I hope however, that you don't. I hope that you take this word, and apply it to your life in whatever way is necessary. 

John C. Fairlamb

Wrote this ages ago. It was interesting to read what I wrote.

One thing I didn't say, but maybe should have: when Jesus said "I was in prison and you visited me" he was not asking us to evaluate the cause of his predicament, whether his being hungry/naked/homeless/or in prison and in the case of in prison it says "you visited me" not "you set me free". The point is we are being to do what we can do and nothing more. Be the person guilty or innocent visiting them helps them know that they are not alone and not forgotten.

Just nowLikeReplyMore

Write a comment...

Pentecost 2021: Language

 I try to write a poem to coincide with the Feast of Pentecost each year, I don't always make it. Quite often I make it, but a bit late. This year I started early and so I am putting down here what I have got. 

At the first Pentecost, the disciples who were already following Jesus started speaking many languages and people from many different places heard their own languages spoken by "these simple folk from Galilee" So this year I decided to treat LANGUAGE as the theme. 

I will admit that though some bits are poetic, it is not all poetry. These are my various thoughts about language. 

To begin with, did we all speak the same across the board - one universal language with universal understanding? That would have been paradise, no? An ideal perhaps to which it's natural we should aspire to return? 

It is portrayed that way in the book of Genesis that from Adam and Eve, for many generations the people spoke the same language, and then came along a huntsman by the name of Nimrod, and he was obviously a very charismatic man with a very ambitious spirit, who wanted to build a very high tower, that would "reach the heavens" - something God would not stand for. And so God miraculously "confused their languages" resulting in the downfall of the team through the inability to communicate and with that confusion came the downfall of Nimrod's mighty tower. 

Was language then like a precious beautiful ornate vase, that all of a sudden is knocked down and falls and shatters to smithereens, tiny shards of pottery take flight across the room. Not one tiny piece of the lovely vase resembling another but each one unique. Every piece representing a language, some pieces bigger spoken by many and other pieces tiny spoken by just a few. 

I don't think the shattered vase analogy is that useful really, for a few reasons: We know that languages were not completely formed at their genesis, and that they were not all formed in one moment in time. No, like the humans that made languages, languages have evolved, and different languages have come into being over the millennia that humans have been around. We know for a fact that some languages gave birth to others - for example The Dutch community that went to live in South Africa formed a language called Afrikaans. Many of the words used by their forefathers would be understood by Afrikaners today, but there have been enough changes to the vocabulary, and even the grammar, to make it distinct. 

We also know that some languages have spread not just generationally, from parent to child, but also because of politics and power. The language of the powerful imposed upon the people with no regard for the languages of the oppressed. This is why Spanish and Portuguese became the dominant languages spoken in South America, and many of the languages that were spoken there are now extinct, and why the official language of so many countries of the world is English. 

The powerful have used language as a means of oppression and control. They have barred indigenous people from communicating in their mother tongue, and insisted they only use the "official language" They have taken babies from their parents and placed them with families who do not speak the babies' languages, depriving them of so much more than just their language. 

It doesn't only happen at the level of government, but still to this day we hear too often of people facing racist abuse because they are overheard speaking in a language that is not English (in the USA and in the UK). People making the assumption that someone not speaking English or speaking with a non English/American accent means that they are foreigners, and then using that assumption whether accurate or imagined to be xenophobic towards them. 

Language is more than the words we speak or write. 

Language is that look, that shrug, that chuckle or sigh - 

language is the tear that fall from the eye. 

Language is the silence that follows a threat, a clenched jaw, a clenched fist, an intense stare, just standing there! 

Language is a handshake, a high-five or hug - 

Language is the gesture that gives heartstrings a tug! 

Words are important - should be measured and true - 

Not too many and not too few.

I think my little poem makes the point that not all language is verbal - that is consisting of words. Much of what we say to one another whether on purpose or not, we say without words. 

The saying "Actions speak louder than words", comes to mind. I think we should be very aware of what we are communicating when we aren't talking. Is what we are communicating what we really want to communicate or is it possible that our meaning can be lost in translation? 

On the Day of Pentecost that came 50 days after Jesus rose from the grave, 10 days after He had Ascended from the Earth, we read that a group of about 120 followers of Jesus were gathered together in a room, and they heard a mighty wind within the room, and what looked like little flames appeared above each person's head and they all began speaking in different languages, just like the people building Nimrod's tower, only this time, instead of this causing confusion, it actually lead to understanding as many people from the surrounding districts heard the message in their own native language. 

We should not feel threatened by a diversity of languages and diversity within languages. Our language is a part of who we are. 

I am a lover of languages. I have learnt other languages just for fun. I definitely think that people should take a pride in their own languages but they should see the beauty in other languages too. 

Some people are gifted in the area of languages being able to speak more than one, some even quite a few. Other people, for many different reasons may struggle even to manage their own language and may need a lot of help. We need to make room for all of these. 

My final thought: It has often been joked that God is an Englishman - of course that is preposterous nonsense - the truth is that God speaks YOUR language, whatever that language might be, and God understands and knows you completely. He knows and never misunderstands like humans, even your nearest and dearest, might do. 

A New Kind of Christian" by Brian D McLaren

 I have been reading this book and am almost finished reading it, but thought I would share a brief review. 

When I started reading it some time ago, I didn't realise that it is a theology book in the form of a novel. I know that sounds weird - how could I not realise it was a novel?  The author wrote in the first person, as one of the characters in his story, but I thought the author was relating something personal to himself. The character, "Dan" was a church pastor at the end of his tether and ready to pack in the pastoring and exploring his options going forward. I am not going to give you any spoilers as to what happens, but suffice to say, it was a fascinating story and more importantly chock full of very challenging thoughts about how we think about God, the Bible and Christianity. 

I at one stage unfortunately mislaid the book before I finished it, and was very worried that I had lost it. However much to my relief I found it again and started reading again. 

I am considering reading the book again with the aid of the reader's guide at the back of the book - questions and notes written by Timothy Keel. 

The book doesn't contain the full story like any good novel it finishes with a cliff-hanger. There are two other books which having read this one, I am keen to read. 

The book is published by SPCK Publishing, London, England. First published in Great Britain in 2013. 

ISBN 978-0-281-06990-3

Also available as an eBook with ISBN 978-0-281-06994-1