culture

Video For Remembrance Day

Posted on by Glen in creative, culture, My videos, poetry, videos | Leave a comment

DOWNLOAD VIDEO

If I should die think only this
… A bullet flew by that did not miss…

What story of the war is told?
Romance bright or horror cold?
Triumph’s tale or tragic loss,
the iron or the wooden cross?
Lost lament or victor’s boast?
Full brass band or lone last post?
Heroes, villains, cowards, kings?
It’s war… it’s all these things.

It’s us unleashed for good and ill,
the gallant heart, the savage will.
A Kaiser’s pride, a nation’s fear,
a global greed, it’s all in here.

What causes war, the old book asks?
Beyond the history, beneath the masks,
There grows a want, becomes a will,
demands our way, prepares to kill.

The war we mark as long ago,
is close to home, it’s all we know.
What ceases war? The pressing question.
What can halt inborn aggression?
To end all wars and retribution –
war itself is no solution.

Can terror end all terror now?
Brute force subdue itself and bow?
Can darkness drive out darkened dread?
Or death extinguish death instead?

We need to interrupt the spiral.
A healing antiretroviral.
The story’s told of an Anti-Zeus –
A God of Peace turned Human Truce.
Into our world, into our midst –
a walking, talking armistice.

A King made meek, a power made weak,
to stand and turn the other cheek,
to take the blow, absorb disgrace,
and rise to give again His face.
In grace undimmed and arms unfurled,
to bless and pacify the world…

…and you – to sweet surrender brought,
forgiveness for your battles fought,
a peace to pass to every soul,
then warfare ceased from pole to pole.

Six Disturbing Assumptions Uncovered in A World Without Downs

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, culture | 12 Comments

DS docoIf you haven’t seen it already, run, don’t walk, to see Sally Phillips’ documentary: A World Without Down’s Syndrome. In it Phillips discusses a new, non-invasive, test offered by the NHS to diagnose Down’s Syndrome in utero. In Iceland, the test has led to 100% of expectant mothers terminating their pregnancies when discovering Down’s. In Denmark it’s 98%. Already in the UK, 90% of mothers terminate and Sally wonders aloud whether, with this new test, we will go the way of Iceland and effectively see a world without Down’s Syndrome.

Sally is the mother of Olly, an 11 year old full of life and fun (and who has Down’s) and she rightly sees this future as unthinkable. She interviews mothers, doctors, geneticists, and those with Down’s from around the world. What we discover through the documentary is truly disturbing. Let me highlight six chilling assumptions informing a culture that would enable the elimination of a subgroup.

 

1. Because feelings run high, facts should be silenced

This article was written before the documentary’s airing in which Jane Fisher, Director of Antenatal Results and Choices, complains:

“Sally is a very compelling presenter, and – absolutely – it’s great to have the positive images of people [with Down’s] who are already here. But it’s very personal, and it’s an extra layer of difficulty for couples and families who might be making the decision now about whether to end their pregnancy. It risks offering the suggestion to those who have [decided to end a pregnancy] that they have made the wrong decision.”

Translation: When things are so personal, it’s unhelpful to have the other side put compellingly. People might change their minds.

 

2. “Costs” are calculated in pounds and pence

At one point Sally interviews Lynn  Chitty, professor of genetics and fetal medicine, and asks her about the cost of the test. Sally is talking about the high cost to society of, potentially, eliminating an entire population. Jane says “It’s not a high cost at all, our studies have shown that you can implement this at…” Sally interrupts “Sorry, I wasn’t talking about the financial cost… I was talking about an experiment… that may result in a catastrophic result [for] the Down’s Syndrome population.”

When one side is speaking about the cost of rolling out a programme of blood tests and another side is speaking about the survival of a group of people, we are talking at some pretty chilling cross-purposes.

 

3. Society should not be encumbered by the weak and vulnerable.

Lynn comes back at Sally with a question of her own. She asks: “How do you feel about later on in life? Because [Olly] is likely to outlive you. How do you feel about that prospect?” Sally responds: “the answer to that is not termination. The answer is that if we have a society that is unable to care for people, the problem is not the person.”

A mother whose vulnerable son will outlive her needs a society that will value the vulnerable too. Instead she is faced with someone who thinks the better course of action would have been termination. If Lynn’s views are at all representative of society at large, this is frightening indeed and it signals a 180 degree shift in our moral compass. In times past we would have thought the moral thing would be to care for the weak and vulnerable. We are shifting to a view where it’s not just permitted but positively virtuous to end the life of the weak and vulnerable because we no longer want to be a society that cares for the weak. We eliminate them

 

4. The good life is one that is free from pain and struggle

Sally meets Kate who decided to terminate her pregnancy at 25 weeks when they discovered Down’s. Kate tells Sally she’d done a lot of research – not just of the facts and figures but also listening to stories of those living with Down’s: “You see some of the difficulties that people were going through,” she says, “One woman whose 5 year old son still wasn’t walking… he was very heavy, having fits everywhere. If my child was affected as much as he was I’d feel really guilty about that, having been given the choice.”

After they watch inspirational footage of a gymnast with Down’s, Kate reflects that the gymnast clearly had to struggle far more to attain these achievements and it wasn’t something she wanted for her child.

Never mind that those with Down’s report being some of the happiest people on the planet, never mind that the greatest lives lived have been in the teeth of suffering, never mind that every human being must struggle in this world, somehow we have come to the view that a life of pain and struggle is simply not worth living.

 

5. The right to life is earned

Sally interviews geneticist George Church who is at the forefront of genetic testing in utero. As Sally raises the danger of people having ever more information about their offspring, Church says that our real battle is to educate the masses. If having children with DS is an enriching experience for all then Sally and others should keep doing what they’re doing (while George does what he’s doing). He urges Sally to “Spread the word that [those with Down’s Syndrome] are valuable members of society.”

Job done. We just need more information – both about the unborn and about their prospects in the real world. And if those with DS can be deemed to be valuable, no problem, right? Except, who says who’s valuable? And how? On what basis? The entire logic of Church’s position is that the right to life is earned. (Of course the position of the church is quite different: life is a sheer gift).

 

6. Personalising the issue is wrong.

Here’s something deeply ironic in the way the Guardian have reported this documentary. Before the documentary we were warned that Phillips was wading into emotional waters and could upset mothers with her compelling case (see point 1). After the documentary, came this review by Julia Raeside: It’s Straight From The Heart – And That’s The Problem. First the facts would upset people’s feelings. Then we’re told Sally’s case is all feelings, no facts.

Raeside says it’s “impassioned but not impartial” because Sally shows us her happy family life, her beaming, boisterous son, Olly, and the inspirational achievements of those with Down’s Syndrome. How unfair to personalise the issue. How unfair to bring these people, whose elimination we are discussing, off of the sonogram, out of the NHS leaflets and onto our screens, laughing, joking and dancing. Wouldn’t it be fairer if we dealt with them as…. what? Statistics? Lists of symptoms?

No, if we are dealing with people then it would not be impartial, it would be sociopathic to cast them in anything less than personal terms. That is the beauty and also the integrity of Sally’s documentary.

 

It seems to me that these six disturbing views are throbbing away under all our discussions in this area. Phillips’ documentary has done us a huge favour. She has confronted a culture of death with a beaming 11 year old and asked us: Who will we listen to? Let’s pray we choose well.

Olly

Racism, Shaming, Scapegoating and Hope

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, Cross, culture, My videos, videos | 5 Comments

Here’s a response to some of the events of the last fortnight, focusing on racism and some other of the blame games that threaten to tear us apart.

Sorry for the hands-off-the-steering-wheel-gesticulations! Won’t do it again, I promise! If I do an in-car vlog again I’ll probably do it parked.

Anyway, hopefully my Jehu impression won’t distract too much from the issues discussed…

 

The Guy With The Mic Does Not Speak For The Room

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, culture, evangelism, mission, pastoral theology | 3 Comments

micLast month I was helping out with a number of student missions. One mainstay of the university mission is a “lunch bar.” The Christian Union provides free food, there’s a talk (often with a provocative title) and then the speaker fields questions.

I was not the lunchtime speaker at the last mission I helped with so I got to sit in the audience and watch. What I learnt at those lunch bars has stayed with me because it has implications that go far beyond the student world. Here’s how it unfolded…

The talk titles for this mission were fairly provocative and the Q&A session was facilitated by a roving mic which the questioners held to command the room. Those two facts led to an interesting and perhaps predictable dynamic. Only certain people have the confidence to take the mic and therefore if it’s a particularly hot topic, you are in for a spicy 10-15 minutes at the end.

What happened pretty much every day was that we had a number of Christians from the CU, a number of guests of those Christians, some randoms who came for the food and some randoms who came for the hot topic. We then heard an excellent talk which tried to honour the question but which was basically a presentation of Jesus in 20 heart-warming minutes. Then the questions came. Invariably those who self-identified as unbelieving took the mic first and asked pointed questions. Every now and again a genuine enquirer was brave enough to ask a question on topic, but not often. And by the time our hour was up, we’d gotten well and truly off the beaten track into the realm of “Old Testament genocide” or some other subject equally far from the set topic.

Once the official time was up though the temperature in the room cooled significantly. We would turn to our neighbour and almost invariably their reaction to the event was:

“Really interesting”.
“Hadn’t thought about any of that before.”
“My granddad died last month and it’s made me wonder.”

After every lunch bar we’d have sensational conversations – about the John’s Gospels given out, about the talk, about random “religious questions” they’d always wanted to ask. Very little mention was made about the Q&A and if there was conversation about it, the number one impression they got was how the speaker reacted to the angry questioners. Very few could even remember what was said, even though it was just minutes earlier.

And here’s what I’ve been thinking ever since: Don’t be cowed by the angry questioner with the mic. He doesn’t speak for the room and “refuting” him isn’t the goal. We can try to respond thoughtfully sure. But our deeper goal is to engage graciously and our ultimate priority does not lie with the mockers. They sneered in the Areopagus (Acts 17) and they will sneer today. So what? Paul preached, some sneered, some believed, Paul moved on. Let the sneerers take the hindmost.

How often are we intimidated by those who have the microphone – those who speak loudest in the media – those who set themselves up as spokespeople for the culture? We could spend all our time fretting about the messages that dominate the airwaves. We could waste our days wishing to wrest the mic from others or fantasizing about how we might refute them publicly with devastating smack-downs. Or we could just get on and preach the gospel, ignore the sneers – they will always come – and engage our neighbours who just aren’t where the sneerers are at.

Don’t be deceived – the guy on the mic does not speak for the room. Those in the media do not speak for your friends. Preach the gospel, turn to your neighbour and let’s engage those conversations – the fields are still white for harvest.

 

 

Accusations Fly Over Controversial Sex Tape

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, culture, evangelism, My videos, RBTL, sex, videos | 3 Comments

Because click bait.

Anyway, here is yesterday’s Reading Between The Lines video: One Flesh

Essentially I just want to clear a space for a distinctive Christian sexual ethic and give some reasons for why we think in the peculiar way we do. In comments, a thoughtful YouTuber made some points (there weren’t any “accusations flying” at all I just put that in my heading to be sensational). “CaptainMikul” (not a Christian) made some excellent points. I’ve interspersed his questions with my answers.

 

CAPTAIN MIKUL

I respect your view that I should have freedom in my own sexual ethic, but I don’t think you get the (rather nasty) sub text of what you are saying…

Marriage, man and woman, sex: Ferrari, beautiful.
Not marriage, man and woman, sex: Beat up old car, not beautiful.
Marriage, man and man, sex: Beat up old car, not beautiful.
Not marriage, woman and woman, sex: Beat up old car, not beautiful.
etc etc.

 

ME

Hey, thanks for commenting. You’re right that I didn’t go into the male-female aspect of marriage here which I know is a huge issue but I’m trying to keep the videos under 8 minutes.

This means that the Ferrari/Lada analogy is not about hetero/homo-sexuality. I don’t have that issue in view at all in this video. The car analogy is simply about how we use sex. Is sex cheap? Is it for anyone or is it just for that one special person? Christians want to keep sex to “one careful owner” so to speak. That’s the point with the car analogy.

 

CAPTAIN MIKUL

You’re assuming that all Christians must share your sexual ethic. You’re fine with me having my own and don’t want to legislate against it, and I respect that. But to other Christians who have a different sexual ethic to Christians like yourself, who say their relationship is a beat up old car and that Christians believe that, can have a really damaging effect on them.

 

ME

On the issue of wanting other Christians to agree with me… well there are Biblical texts to be wrestled with. And I think I’m on safe ground to say “This is what Jesus taught about sex” and I think there are interpretations of Jesus’ teachings that are valid and interpretations that aren’t. People are free to believe what they like, but they are not free to re-write what was written. To use an analogy, You can be a free-market capitalist if you like, but you can’t claim that this was the true meaning of Das Kapital. “Marxism” is not infinitely flexible in what it affirms and denies and neither is Christianity.

 

CAPTAIN MIKUL

And then your saying that this is because Jesus gets to dictate what is beautiful in your life. So the Son of God himself thinks that a guy and a guy are not beautiful? Why does he get to decide that, why does He even think that?

 

ME

Jesus gets to tell us the deal with sex if He created it. I’d totally agree that, if He was just one more wise guru we could weigh His thoughts as an interesting 1st century, Jew. But if He made us and knows how life works then His teaching takes on a different character. That’s why the big question for a non-Christian is not “what do I think about Jesus’ sexual ethics?” but “Who does Jesus think He is to be speaking like this?” That’s the question I’d like non-Christians to be wrestling with.

Why does Jesus think sex operates like this? Well heaven and earth, man and woman, Christ and His people are these parallel pairings throughout the Bible (from the very first verse). And the Bible sees these pairs as “made for each other.” Man and woman coming together is part of a cosmic love story. It mirrors the way God loves the world, the way Christ gave Himself for His people. It’s about equal opposites combining in this life-giving way. No wonder then this how life comes to our species. Man and woman becoming one has been the way of life from the beginning. If man or woman “plays the field” that tells a different story to the cosmic love story. Likewise, Man sticking with man or woman sticking with woman tells a different story. For the Christian, sex means something beyond the sexual desires of the individuals involved. It is a proclamation of profound truths. Once again, I don’t expect you to agree with this sexual ethic because you don’t agree with the underlying “profound truths” but you asked why Jesus would even teach this stuff. And that’s the beginning of a sketch of an answer.

 

CAPTAIN MIKUL

You seem alright, I doubt you have a bad bone in your body, but can you not see the problem of presenting as loving and beautiful a deity who dictates that others relationships are not worthy?

 

ME

Thanks so much for the tone and thoughtfulness of your comment. I don’t see any problem with “a deity who” tells us what sex means in the world that he has made. The implications of that teaching are that there are more faithful and healthy uses of sex and less faithful and less healthy uses of sex. That seems absolutely consistent with a loving, beautiful God.

Let me finish with an analogy: If I was a Buddhist and this was a 7 minute video on the crazy-beautiful way of vegetarianism, would that be offensive? Imagine if I said in the video that “For Buddhists, meat is murder”? I imagine that most people would be completely fine if I said “Buddhists have a cosmic vision of life and meat-eating does not fit into it, so for us meat is forbidden.” I don’t imagine that there would be comments saying “I eat meat and I’m offended.” Or “Some of my best friends work in an abattoir, how dare you say they are unworthy!” I imagine everyone would shrug their shoulders and say “Fair enough, I disagree, pass me the bacon sandwich.” Why is this video different to that?

 

I haven’t yet received a response from him. But I’m thrilled that people are interacting on the issue.

 

 

How to win the world

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, culture, evangelism, gospel | 8 Comments

Jesus_washing_Peter's_feetYesterday I led a seminar on equipping Christians for evangelism. I opened up with a quiz to figure out where people were coming from. This is the quiz:

Here are four pairs of statements. Both sentences in each pair make good and honourable points, but if you had to choose, which would you lean towards…

A. Evangelism is about finding connections with what the world already believes.
B. Evangelism is about telling a very different story

A. Evangelism is more like leading people along stepping stones.
B. Evangelism is more like inviting people into an unfamiliar world

A. People’s stated objections to faith should be answered as asked with careful consideration.
B. We assume that, most often, questions are excuses because the questioner doesn’t want to believe?

A. Our goal is cultural transformation and being taken seriously by the powers that be.
B. We are content to be an unimpressive church of nobodies.

I lean towards B in each of these pairs. I hear the concerns of A but I think we give the world better than they ever dared believe when we first tell a different story. We lead people on in the faith by proclaiming the strange new world of the Bible. We address questioners best when we see beneath their questions. And we transform culture by being a cross-shaped community, unconcerned for worldly power.

Both A and B reflect good and honourable truths, so in one sense it’s a false dichotomy to get people to choose. On the other hand we do need to choose the way we pursue these things. And I say we take the hit by leading with B, all the while trusting that this is God’s path towards A. In other words I think the way to get the glory which everyone wants is through suffering. The way to resurrection is through the cross.

Here’s something that interested me. On three of these questions the room was split between A and B. I think A probably won each of the rounds but on one question A got 99% of the room and B got a couple of sheepish hold-outs. Which question? Number 4 – about cultural transformation. Everyone wants to shape culture and be taken seriously by the powers that be. No-one wants to be an unimpressive church of nobodies.

It seems to me, though, that God’s power and wisdom are vindicated precisely in a weak and foolish looking cross and a weak and foolish looking church (1 Corinthians 1:17-31). This cruciformity does indeed carry God’s power and wisdom and so will have a truly spiritual, transformational impact. But there’s a shape to that transformation – down and then up. Are we prepared to go that path? Are we prepared to be unimportant? Are we prepared to look foolish – nuts even – before the world. I was surprised yesterday to see how few people were prepared to identify as unimpressive and how many preferred to be ‘culture shapers.’

Maybe though, as the last vestiges of cultural power are being stripped from us, there is an opportunity for fruitful evangelism. Maybe if we embrace the “weak and foolish” label which the world is giving us rather than insisting on our own wisdom and credibility, we can truly walk the way of the cross. Maybe we’ll actually reach the world when we stop trying to do so with our own impressiveness. Maybe we should stop demanding ‘a seat at the table’ and instead pick up a towel to serve.

“But people will think we’re stupid, inconsequential servants!”

Exactly! Genius isn’t it?

Genesis 1 and Science

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, creation, culture, evangelism, science | 3 Comments

Genesis-7It’s difficult to think of any piece of literature as supportive of the modern scientific enterprise as Genesis 1. All the necessary foundations are in place:

1. Laws Up Above

The ancient Chinese had incredible technology but not science as we know it. Why? Because however great their minds were, they didn’t conceive of the world operating similarly according to a Great Mind. They didn’t think there were ever-present, always-applicable laws of nature that governed the universe. They went out into the world and tamed it through technology but they didn’t seek to press into the deeper laws of the universe.

That’s because they didn’t have Genesis 1. They didn’t believe that “In the beginning God” and that through his word an ordered cosmos is created which shows all the hallmarks of dependable regularities – seasons and spheres with boundaries and signs in the heavens, all going round and round – evening and morning, evening and morning.The God of Genesis 1 is a God prior to nature and beyond nature, therefore He gives us every reason to expect laws of nature. This is absolutely vital if you want to do science.

It’s not uncommon to find scientists today expressing their doubts that a “Grand Unified Theory” of everything may be found. That’s quite consistent. To believe in a grand unified theory sounds remarkably like Genesis 1, and who believes that anymore? But actually it’s belief in the God of Genesis 1 that will engage you further with the scientific enterprise. Disbelief will make you give up the investigation prematurely.

2. A World Out There

The ancient Greeks were smart cookies. All philosophy is footnotes to Plato and all that. Philosophy, mathematics, art and literature were all spheres of excellence for the Greeks. Science? Not so much. Because science requires you to believe in a stable and predictable world out there that is open to investigation. Science occurs when you make repeatable observations and check your theories against the cold hard facts. But Greeks didn’t believe in cold, hard facts. They believed in minds and reason and laws but not in empirical investigation. To study something for the Greeks meant a journey within the mind – not a venture out into the field. And so, no science.

But in Genesis 1 you have a genuinely concrete, genuinely real world. It’s not this second-class excretion from the gods, it’s positively willed by God, different to God (contingent not necessary) yet at the same time declared very good. It’s the kind of place you can move out into and have dominion over. It is open to us. In fact we are told to fill it, order it, develop it. Science is not just enabled by Genesis 1, it’s virtually commanded.

3. Minds In Here

If human minds are the product of mindless operations which only honour survival, not intelligence (the two are not at all synonymous), then why should we trust our minds to understand the laws up above and the world out there. If we are a part of the cosmos thrown up by the cosmos with no higher calling than to pass on our genes then why trust a brain that whirs away according to its own survival imperative?

If you really want to have confidence in scientific endeavour then turn to Genesis 1 where humanity are specially created in certain relationships with the Orderer above and the world out there. The image of God is on us and the command of God is to rule and fill the world. More than this, if humanity is created in God’s image it is because we are destined in Christ (the Image) for face-to-face fellowship with God. If that is so then we can have every confidence that the human mind is indeed capable of grasping those things above, even as we are sent into the world out there.

Genesis 1 is very far from being anti-science. It gives us these three building blocks and every reason to believe that they will triangulate to yield fresh insights. If we turn from the Bible, what right do we have to expect rational order to the cosmos? What right do we have to expect a comprehensible universe? What right do we have to privilege the processes of these 3 pound blobs of grey matter between our ears? Actually, to turn from the Scriptures is to weaken science, not strengthen it.

The realities spoken of in Genesis 1 provide the scientific enterprise with its firmest possible foundations.

Economics: Andrew Wilson and Vishal Mangalwadi

Posted on by Glen in apologetics, culture | 2 Comments

A great talk by Andrew Wilson on Economics:

Economics from Kings Church on Vimeo.

He identifies 3 false bogeymen: Profit, Credit and Inequality.

None of these are bad.

What’s bad is: Greed, Laziness and Envy

The solution is: Generosity, Diligence and Thankfulness

These flow from the gospel of grace: all is a gift.

B1044largeIt put me in mind of Vishal Mangalwadi’s excellent ‘The Book That Made Your World’. Mangalwadi writes compellingly of how western culture has been decisively shaped by Christianity – from politics to philanthropy to science to medicine to economics.

On economics, he makes the point that ancient cultures only display or hoard their wealth. Investing wealth doesn’t occur to ancient peoples. This is mainly because our default assumption is to consider the world as a closed system – there are finite resources that get whittled down with every act of consumption. Economics, to the natural mind, can only ever be a zero-sum game. If I want money, I’ll go to war to get wealth. But if I win, you must lose. This is the natural mindset of fallen humanity.

Jesus comes to earth with a heavenly abundance. Because He is a gracious gift from the Father, the closed system of this world is opened out to a fullness that we don’t deserve. The kingdoms of this world may go to war over a finite set of resources but the kingdom of heaven is the realm of a generous Father who knows how to give good gifts to His children. What’s more these gifts, when passed on, multiply. The kingdom of Christ is a shining reality, spreading its goodness. It is a sowing reality, multiplying its life. It is an investing reality, sharing its gifts. (See my recent sermon from CCK on Shining, Sowing, Investing). And in the shining, sowing and investing there is exponential growth.

All of this overturns the tit-for-tat of the flesh. Christianity brings a vision of abundance to the world that released people from fear and beckoned them to risk in the cause of a growing kingdom. It brought a gracious dynamic to a people who were used to keeping themselves to themselves. And it commanded a people who had “freely received” to “freely give.”

Add to this moral factors like: a large degree of honesty in Christendom without which financial systems cannot flourish.; the elimination of corruption; the dignity of man (which means we don’t want slaves to do menial tasks, we invent machines to do it)…

And then, from the reformation onwards, add in a theology of vocation in every walk of life plus a ‘Protestant work ethic’ and you’ve got all the ingredients for a flourishing economy.

But take Christ and His kingdom out of the equation and you’re only left with limited resources, limited hopes, tit-for-tat dynamics and fear, pride and envy calling the shots. Money doesn’t make the world go round – it’s the gospel that makes money go round.

For a taster of Vishal’s stuff, here’s a half hour race through the book:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-kMQONpM7U

BeLoved

Posted on by Glen in creative, culture, evangelism, marriage, My videos, poetry, videos | 7 Comments

[vsw id=”118485875″ source=”vimeo” width=”616″ height=”258″ autoplay=”no”]

It’s the fairy tale we all believe in – connection, completion, love without parting. The merest glimpse of it captures our hearts. But is the fairy tale real? Is there such a thing as endless bliss, unconquered love and a happily ever after?

Countless failed relationships and a beckoning grave cry out No. Love does not seem to have the last word in our lives – decay, disease, divorce, depression and death does. Can we really believe in love?

The answer is Yes, but only because there is a love despite our deserving, a love stronger than death, a love beyond this world. Jesus makes the fairy tale true – not just for bright-eyed young couples on their wedding day. Because of his blood-earnest, death-defying love, Jesus can bring us all into the ultimate romance. Whatever your relationship history or status, this bliss is for you!

WORDS

You

beside me.

Me: beside myself with you.

Beyond myself in you,

Become myself anew,

Belongs, this self, to you.

 

You

behold me.

Me: behold the world in you.

Besotted with the view,

Bewitched by all you do,

Beguiled by guileless you.

 

We

believe this:

This bedtime tale

Though countless fail

Though pride derail

Though death curtail

We believe this.

This bliss

Beseiged by hatred’s hiss

Beset by graves’ abyss

Betrayed despite our kiss

We believe this.

 

But is this bliss true?

Or only for the few

And then sinks from view

Is it true?

Beneath the tale,

Before we fail,

Beside what’s frail,

Beyond death’s vale?

Is it true?

Not only for the few

And then sinks from view

Is it true?

 

He

Beheld me.

Me: deep held in my disgrace.

He bends now face to face,

Becomes me in His grace,

Befriends me, takes my place.

 

He

Betrothed me.

Me: bestowed the world for free.

Bequeathed by royal decree,

Beloved eternally,

Become as one: He with me.

 

This, beneath all other glories

This, beyond the bedtime stories

This, beside your marital station

This, love’s sweetest consummation.

This is true.

Never to sink from view.

Not only for the few.

This bliss is for you.

 

Remembrance Video

Posted on by Glen in creative, culture, My videos, poetry, videos | Leave a comment

Share. Share. Share.

And feel free to use in your Remembrance Sunday services etc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14 15   Next »
Twitter widget by Rimon Habib - BuddyPress Expert Developer