Monday 7 November 2011
Tuesday 28 June 2011
Worshipping God's Judgements
Eagle eyed readers will recall that I had stated that I would write more about Emmanuel ... in fact I have failed to do this, indeed I have failed to write about anything in particular. I however do wish to share the following observations / teaching with you, reader, and hope that it will bless and challenge you.
Firstly, as I find myself wont to do, I wish to declare before Almighty God that I want Him to be glorified, and His Word to be revealed, and pray that he will rescue me from heresy etc.
The Bible has a few things to say that bring encouragement to anyone who has witnessed the death of a baby. Psalm 139 contains verses 13-16, which tell of God knowing about us when we were in our mother's womb, and speak of him knitting us together. It is passage that should be of great encouragement to us that God loves us personally, that he cherishes us; we recently looked at the psalm in our Community Group, and verses 17 and 18 leapt from the page. God has too many thoughts to count about us. This passage speaks of a great love for us as individuals, far away from the corporate, duty bound love that we can associate with God (God is love, so he loves us all, equally etc). This passage brings an individual element to his love: He has many happy thoughts about US: He loves my desire to make perfect picadillo enchiladas, He loves the fact way I lift and drop Jo etc.
But I'm on a tangent. The other encouragement the passage brings is this: God is the creator of life, He oversees foetal development, He is knitting together babies before they are born. It is doubtless this passage that spurs so many to protest against abortion; it is certainly this knowledge that allowed Stella and I to be comforted that our precious child, although far from being fully developed, was known by, designed and crafted by God. Witnessing His ongoing craftmanship at this stage, whilst horrific and painful for us, spoke also to encourage us that if God has tended for Emmanuel to this point, He will further tend for him, in heaven. And we (maybe just me) was struck when praying a few days later, when exhausted and drained and crying out to God, that we might get the chance to worship Him in His awesome glory with Emmanuel at our side.
Which leads on to the second passage: it is found somewhere in one of the Samuels, maybe 2 Samuel 11 or 12 off the top of my splendid head. David has been confronted by the prophet Nathan, who tells him that God has seen his sin, and that his son, born from his illicit affair with Bethsheba, an affair compounded by his arrangment of the death in battle (called a murder by God) of her husband, Uriah the Hittite, will die. David spends days fasting in prayer and repentance, his son dies, and then he arises, washes, dresses, goes in private, worships God, then comes out and asks for food. He then says the profound statement (paraphrased) "I will go to him, he will not return to me".
Again, the scripture brings solace to those in a similar position (mourning the death of a baby) by answering that question we really want answered: will we see our baby's again in heaven? The existence of this verse is an encouragement to all that they will go to their children, and that in death they will be reunited. The existence of both these passages brings much succour to those in our position: the child we had was not even born, so can we say that we lost a child? Medically, we may not be talking about a baby yet. Emmanuel didn't have fully formed genitals, and their gender could not be determined. However, by standing on the words of the psalmist, we know that what God has knitted together is known by Him, and loved by Him. And that same writer said: I will go to him in death. This all brings great peace.
But what I meant to write about is this: God says to David that since he has brough shame upon Him by behaving in this manner, God's annointed King has brought shame upon him, He will allow his son to die. This is the judgement that God passes on David. Anyone who has tried to instill some discipline into a child will know that it is key to explain that we make choices, and there will be a consequence. This is pretty much what God does here.
At this point, I must observe that I am in now way stating that all suffering come from God. Flat out denial of that. But I am stating that this particular event (the death of the boy) was allowed or even decreed by God.
I guess what really speaks here is that David, having wrestled with God in prayer and mourning and fasting for a week, when he finds out that his son is dead, goes immediately to worship God. Now we hear a number of songs that encourage us to worship in the dry place, praise Him in a dark place, when the storms of life beat upon us to rely on God ... in this case God sent the storms, He dried up the water, He blocked out the light.
Job says "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away". The song Blessed Be Your Name by Matt and Beth Redman uses this same line. I wonder how much we have appropriated this to mean "You give, and You allow to be taken". I am also sure that you, reader, when something precious has been taken away, have relied on God to deal with the pain, with the understanding that He suffers with us and is our comfort. This is how Stella and I felt after Emmanuel. But I must stress that what I am looking at is that I believe there is a difference betwen confronting the reality of an all-knowing God who allows us to suffer in His wisdom, and comforts us, and a God whose judgements cause that suffering, and through all of our pain, we still humble ourselves, suborn ourselves to that justice, and worship Him. If God had told me that what happened with Emmanuel was as a result of my sin, would my first response be to submit to that judgement? This is an area where our declaration that God Is Just is put to the test.
I pray that if we were tested in such a way, David's response to God's justice is the place where we would find ourselves. Any feelings he had about the portion he received were cast aside, and he worshipped God. Let it be unto us.
Onelove.
Firstly, as I find myself wont to do, I wish to declare before Almighty God that I want Him to be glorified, and His Word to be revealed, and pray that he will rescue me from heresy etc.
The Bible has a few things to say that bring encouragement to anyone who has witnessed the death of a baby. Psalm 139 contains verses 13-16, which tell of God knowing about us when we were in our mother's womb, and speak of him knitting us together. It is passage that should be of great encouragement to us that God loves us personally, that he cherishes us; we recently looked at the psalm in our Community Group, and verses 17 and 18 leapt from the page. God has too many thoughts to count about us. This passage speaks of a great love for us as individuals, far away from the corporate, duty bound love that we can associate with God (God is love, so he loves us all, equally etc). This passage brings an individual element to his love: He has many happy thoughts about US: He loves my desire to make perfect picadillo enchiladas, He loves the fact way I lift and drop Jo etc.
But I'm on a tangent. The other encouragement the passage brings is this: God is the creator of life, He oversees foetal development, He is knitting together babies before they are born. It is doubtless this passage that spurs so many to protest against abortion; it is certainly this knowledge that allowed Stella and I to be comforted that our precious child, although far from being fully developed, was known by, designed and crafted by God. Witnessing His ongoing craftmanship at this stage, whilst horrific and painful for us, spoke also to encourage us that if God has tended for Emmanuel to this point, He will further tend for him, in heaven. And we (maybe just me) was struck when praying a few days later, when exhausted and drained and crying out to God, that we might get the chance to worship Him in His awesome glory with Emmanuel at our side.
Which leads on to the second passage: it is found somewhere in one of the Samuels, maybe 2 Samuel 11 or 12 off the top of my splendid head. David has been confronted by the prophet Nathan, who tells him that God has seen his sin, and that his son, born from his illicit affair with Bethsheba, an affair compounded by his arrangment of the death in battle (called a murder by God) of her husband, Uriah the Hittite, will die. David spends days fasting in prayer and repentance, his son dies, and then he arises, washes, dresses, goes in private, worships God, then comes out and asks for food. He then says the profound statement (paraphrased) "I will go to him, he will not return to me".
Again, the scripture brings solace to those in a similar position (mourning the death of a baby) by answering that question we really want answered: will we see our baby's again in heaven? The existence of this verse is an encouragement to all that they will go to their children, and that in death they will be reunited. The existence of both these passages brings much succour to those in our position: the child we had was not even born, so can we say that we lost a child? Medically, we may not be talking about a baby yet. Emmanuel didn't have fully formed genitals, and their gender could not be determined. However, by standing on the words of the psalmist, we know that what God has knitted together is known by Him, and loved by Him. And that same writer said: I will go to him in death. This all brings great peace.
But what I meant to write about is this: God says to David that since he has brough shame upon Him by behaving in this manner, God's annointed King has brought shame upon him, He will allow his son to die. This is the judgement that God passes on David. Anyone who has tried to instill some discipline into a child will know that it is key to explain that we make choices, and there will be a consequence. This is pretty much what God does here.
At this point, I must observe that I am in now way stating that all suffering come from God. Flat out denial of that. But I am stating that this particular event (the death of the boy) was allowed or even decreed by God.
I guess what really speaks here is that David, having wrestled with God in prayer and mourning and fasting for a week, when he finds out that his son is dead, goes immediately to worship God. Now we hear a number of songs that encourage us to worship in the dry place, praise Him in a dark place, when the storms of life beat upon us to rely on God ... in this case God sent the storms, He dried up the water, He blocked out the light.
Job says "The Lord gives, and the Lord takes away". The song Blessed Be Your Name by Matt and Beth Redman uses this same line. I wonder how much we have appropriated this to mean "You give, and You allow to be taken". I am also sure that you, reader, when something precious has been taken away, have relied on God to deal with the pain, with the understanding that He suffers with us and is our comfort. This is how Stella and I felt after Emmanuel. But I must stress that what I am looking at is that I believe there is a difference betwen confronting the reality of an all-knowing God who allows us to suffer in His wisdom, and comforts us, and a God whose judgements cause that suffering, and through all of our pain, we still humble ourselves, suborn ourselves to that justice, and worship Him. If God had told me that what happened with Emmanuel was as a result of my sin, would my first response be to submit to that judgement? This is an area where our declaration that God Is Just is put to the test.
I pray that if we were tested in such a way, David's response to God's justice is the place where we would find ourselves. Any feelings he had about the portion he received were cast aside, and he worshipped God. Let it be unto us.
Onelove.
Monday 9 May 2011
Sounds
A couple of songs that we have been getting on recently.
At church we have played a few times this simple tune which a couple of our team picked up at a World Trumpet Mission (our affiliate church network, as it were): Set A Fire. A very simple song, with two refrains, which can be repeated round and round; we've used it in the latter part of worship,where we have broken through already. "There's no place I'd rather be, than in here in Your love" comes as a response to God after He has responded to our worship by drawing close to us. Then "Set A Fire Down In My Soul, cos I Want More Of You" expresses our plea: to be set alight with a passion for God, for holiness, for righteousness. Every time we've played the song there's been a real sense of anointing. Musically it's really simple, with the rhythm from acoustic guitar backed up with either the congas or a simple phrase on the snare drum with snares off, with simple kick and hi-hat pedal. Great great song, my song of the now.
The other song we've (Stel and I, that is) been enjoying is I Worship You, a performance by Travis Cottrell. We sang this at the church prayer meeting once or twice; again very simple, repetitions of a phrase, this version uses key-changes and musical build, and especially the choir; the building soaring music encourages a similar response in the worshipper: as the truths we sing further penetrate us, our declaration in praise grows firmer.
So two simple songs that carry a lot of anointing. Enjoy.
At church we have played a few times this simple tune which a couple of our team picked up at a World Trumpet Mission (our affiliate church network, as it were): Set A Fire. A very simple song, with two refrains, which can be repeated round and round; we've used it in the latter part of worship,where we have broken through already. "There's no place I'd rather be, than in here in Your love" comes as a response to God after He has responded to our worship by drawing close to us. Then "Set A Fire Down In My Soul, cos I Want More Of You" expresses our plea: to be set alight with a passion for God, for holiness, for righteousness. Every time we've played the song there's been a real sense of anointing. Musically it's really simple, with the rhythm from acoustic guitar backed up with either the congas or a simple phrase on the snare drum with snares off, with simple kick and hi-hat pedal. Great great song, my song of the now.
The other song we've (Stel and I, that is) been enjoying is I Worship You, a performance by Travis Cottrell. We sang this at the church prayer meeting once or twice; again very simple, repetitions of a phrase, this version uses key-changes and musical build, and especially the choir; the building soaring music encourages a similar response in the worshipper: as the truths we sing further penetrate us, our declaration in praise grows firmer.
So two simple songs that carry a lot of anointing. Enjoy.
Wednesday 27 April 2011
Emmanuel
Our baby was stillborn on 26th April 2011.
We are unsure as to the gender of the baby, who we were able to say hello and goodbye to yesterday. They were beautiful. King David said of his baby that passed away in 2 Samuel that he would go to him, and we believe that we will see our baby again.
Our baby's name is Emmanuel, which means God With Us. We called them this because despite this being the hardest thing that we have ever been through, we know that God is with us, He never leaves us, He gives us strength and peace and lifts our heads.
Friday 22 April 2011
A brief and cheery thought for Good Friday
Great prayer meeting at church this morning before the Good Friday march in glorious weather before a rehearsal where the band sounded absolutely awesome (I love it when rehearsal = worship, it gets close to the 1 Chronicles 25 players I talked about yesterday). The prayer meeting was grand; People bringing their all in praise to God, declaring His glory in our own words.
And God gave me the following sentence to chew over:
"How many more will go to the fires before you wake up?"
Chastening. Tears. No sense of condemnation for the failures of the past, which is why I bring this here. I don't intend you to start carrying guilt because people you love have not responded to Christ: He didn't lay that on me, and not on you. But we need to kick our slumber.
Bless.
And this actually was brief. One out of two and all that ...
And God gave me the following sentence to chew over:
"How many more will go to the fires before you wake up?"
Chastening. Tears. No sense of condemnation for the failures of the past, which is why I bring this here. I don't intend you to start carrying guilt because people you love have not responded to Christ: He didn't lay that on me, and not on you. But we need to kick our slumber.
Bless.
And this actually was brief. One out of two and all that ...
Thursday 21 April 2011
Something spiritual ... worship leading and playing.
To go with all that cricket stuff.
I'm going to write a series of posts about worship; Andrew from church and I lead our Youth Band at church where we are encouraging a number of our talented youngsters to learn about worship and develop their skills at playing together and learn some of the songs we play regularly as we lead worship in the church. Due to having not one but two talented drummers amongst the kids, I am forced to play the bass, which is very amusing for everyone except me. We also have a ukulele, and several voices and Jacob (who is already a fantastic electric guitarist and really blesses God and the church with his playing in the band on Sundays as well).
Anyway, we need to come up with our teaching for the summer term, and I thought that this would be a good place to start to put some of my teaching ideas in place, so you can give me feedback or further enlighten me for the teaching sessions. The areas I am thinking to break it down to are these keys to serving God through the playing of instruments, or worship leading as we have come to call it!
Firstly the key attribute to anyone who is going to be a worship leader or serve God through their playing is to be a worshipper of God; to love God, to be devoted to him above all else, and to live for Him. Straight forward this one, and truth be told, something that all Christians should be living for, but this is the key attribute or behaviour of a musician: that they love to worship God.
Alongside this then come the qualities that we expect to see in a worshipper of God, with the Holy Spirit indwelling: the fruits of the spirit. Love, joy, peace etc. I think the important ones here are faithfulness, and self control. A worship musician needs to be dedicated and to work hard. From personal experience, another crucial personal quality is humility; as a drummer, knowing that you can be heard, and that you can have a large influence on the band, on volume, on tempo etc. means that it is vital to be humble, to seek to play your role, to respect the worship leader, and not to seek glory for ourselves. These qualities will flow out of a relationship with the Holy Spirit.
Another couple of scriptures I want to look at are 1 Chronicles 25 and 1 Samuel 10:5-10. As a worship musician, these are two of the ways in which I want my playing to develop to glorify God. In the first passage, the temple musicians are appointed, and they are trained and skilled in playing music for the Lord. The word translated skill here is the Hebrew word Sakal, and can also be translated to mean sensitivity. These musicians were in the temple, skilled musicians who had been trained to play music for the Lord. God loves our music, and loves to hear it, and from this passage we see that there is skill involved in playing for the Lord. I pray that I, and my fellow players, and the youngsters that we are teaching would all develop this skill. The second passage talks about a group of travelling prophets, who come playing their songs, and their music leads Saul to also prophesy, at a time in history where prophecy was not common or undertaken lightly. I love the idea that when these prophets play, the spirit falls upon Saul and causes him to prophesy, the sense that the music seems to carry the Spirit with it. I also pray that our playing would carry the same annointing.
Any feedback, other ideas, let me know. Especially if you too are a worship musician!
Thanks.
I'm going to write a series of posts about worship; Andrew from church and I lead our Youth Band at church where we are encouraging a number of our talented youngsters to learn about worship and develop their skills at playing together and learn some of the songs we play regularly as we lead worship in the church. Due to having not one but two talented drummers amongst the kids, I am forced to play the bass, which is very amusing for everyone except me. We also have a ukulele, and several voices and Jacob (who is already a fantastic electric guitarist and really blesses God and the church with his playing in the band on Sundays as well).
Anyway, we need to come up with our teaching for the summer term, and I thought that this would be a good place to start to put some of my teaching ideas in place, so you can give me feedback or further enlighten me for the teaching sessions. The areas I am thinking to break it down to are these keys to serving God through the playing of instruments, or worship leading as we have come to call it!
Firstly the key attribute to anyone who is going to be a worship leader or serve God through their playing is to be a worshipper of God; to love God, to be devoted to him above all else, and to live for Him. Straight forward this one, and truth be told, something that all Christians should be living for, but this is the key attribute or behaviour of a musician: that they love to worship God.
Alongside this then come the qualities that we expect to see in a worshipper of God, with the Holy Spirit indwelling: the fruits of the spirit. Love, joy, peace etc. I think the important ones here are faithfulness, and self control. A worship musician needs to be dedicated and to work hard. From personal experience, another crucial personal quality is humility; as a drummer, knowing that you can be heard, and that you can have a large influence on the band, on volume, on tempo etc. means that it is vital to be humble, to seek to play your role, to respect the worship leader, and not to seek glory for ourselves. These qualities will flow out of a relationship with the Holy Spirit.
Another couple of scriptures I want to look at are 1 Chronicles 25 and 1 Samuel 10:5-10. As a worship musician, these are two of the ways in which I want my playing to develop to glorify God. In the first passage, the temple musicians are appointed, and they are trained and skilled in playing music for the Lord. The word translated skill here is the Hebrew word Sakal, and can also be translated to mean sensitivity. These musicians were in the temple, skilled musicians who had been trained to play music for the Lord. God loves our music, and loves to hear it, and from this passage we see that there is skill involved in playing for the Lord. I pray that I, and my fellow players, and the youngsters that we are teaching would all develop this skill. The second passage talks about a group of travelling prophets, who come playing their songs, and their music leads Saul to also prophesy, at a time in history where prophecy was not common or undertaken lightly. I love the idea that when these prophets play, the spirit falls upon Saul and causes him to prophesy, the sense that the music seems to carry the Spirit with it. I also pray that our playing would carry the same annointing.
Any feedback, other ideas, let me know. Especially if you too are a worship musician!
Thanks.
20 Years, Man and Boy ... (Part 2)
So my memories will start to become a bit less clear now. I didn't mention previously that Kent actually came 2nd in the championship in 2001, and they put up a small challenge in 2002, when again the batsman all made runs. Symonds was again the overseas talent. Kent lost in the semi-final of the one day cup in this year, chasing a huge total at Somerset they were in contention and probably favourites with Nixon and Ealham at the crease, they proceeded to throw away their last four or five wickets and lose. Saggers would still have been the pick of the seamers.
2003 saw each county allowed to take two overseas players, Kent started the year with Greg Blewett and Symonds. This was also the year 20:20 started: Kent took a while to grasp this format, but they won their first ever match at Beckenham against Hampshire: Symonds hit 96 off 32 balls (really), savaging the seamers Mullally and Giddins, mostly over long on and mid-wicket in an extraordinary display of power. In the championship, we struggled for most of the first half of the year. Mohammed Sami replaced Blewett as overseas player, and blew away Nottinghamshire with about 16 wickets in the match. Championship form turned with the signing of Muttiah Muralitheran for the second half of the season; although he was surprisingly easily played by Middlesex in a Sunday League draw with scores level, his form in the championship was sensational, and I think Kent won or drew all of the seven or eight games he played, in which he took around 40 wickets. Truly one of the greats. 2003 was also the year that Ed Smith displayed his finest form; he was in sensational form all year, with a truly magical spell around July where he scored a number of hundreds in succession. Late in the year he scored his first double hundred (against Surrey, possibly), and in the Sunday League relegation decider at the end of the season, scored a hundred.
In 2004, Kent in theory challenged for the championship for much of the year, although in practice they were well short of Warwickshire. It was Robert Key's turn to hit sensational form, his run of hundreds propelling him to the England side where he scored his first test hundred against the West Indies. I don't remember much about this year. Early in the season the mercurial Sami returned and destroyed Gloucestershire in the Sunday league; an extraordinary bowling performance saw him take around 8 wickets.
In 2005 Kent had a fairly large change of personnel: Smith went to Middlesex, Symonds departed, and in came Andrew Hall and Justin Kemp, with Kolpak signing Martin Van Jaarsveld in the middle order. Van Jaarsveld became one of a handful of players to score a pair of hundreds on his Kent debut. Kent challenged for the title all year, up to their penultimate match, where Nottinghamshire set them an absurd 420 to win off 70 overs on the last day, which they failed badly to chase.
The amount of Kent cricket I have watched since 2005 has decreased remarkably; I spent a couple of years as a member of Surrey in 2006 and 2007, being fortunate enough to watch Mark Ramprakash in perhaps the finest form of any batsman I have ever seen. I have fitted in the odd game since then, but the seasons all blur together; I know there have been two relegations and one immediate promotion, a 20:20 cup win and another finals day. Overall I would say that county cricket is not what it was: starting times are all over the place, as are tournaments, there is too much cricket that people don't want to watch, and the one day competitions need a genuine strategy to move forward. I will always keep an eye out for Kent cricket, and will attend matches as and when I can with my dad, but the thoughts I used to have of taking my son to watch county cricket in the same way that my dad took me are not so present; I doubt there will be a championship worth watching in ten years time. But there we go.
To finish my ridiculously self-indulgent trawl through memory lane, I have selected three teams: the best XI I saw play for Kent, the best XI I could pick for Kent with only one foreign player, and the best XI of players I have ever seen in the flesh.
Fulton, Key, Dravid, Hooper, De Silva, Symonds, Nixon, Ealham, Headley, Saggers, Muralitheran
Fulton, Key, Smith, Hooper, Van Jaarsveld, Ealham, Nixon, Patel, Headley, Mccague, Saggers
Hayden, Langer, Lara, Richards, Waugh, Kallis, Russell, Warne, Waqar, McGrath, Muralitheran
Thanks for reading, even though I know you didn't really.
2003 saw each county allowed to take two overseas players, Kent started the year with Greg Blewett and Symonds. This was also the year 20:20 started: Kent took a while to grasp this format, but they won their first ever match at Beckenham against Hampshire: Symonds hit 96 off 32 balls (really), savaging the seamers Mullally and Giddins, mostly over long on and mid-wicket in an extraordinary display of power. In the championship, we struggled for most of the first half of the year. Mohammed Sami replaced Blewett as overseas player, and blew away Nottinghamshire with about 16 wickets in the match. Championship form turned with the signing of Muttiah Muralitheran for the second half of the season; although he was surprisingly easily played by Middlesex in a Sunday League draw with scores level, his form in the championship was sensational, and I think Kent won or drew all of the seven or eight games he played, in which he took around 40 wickets. Truly one of the greats. 2003 was also the year that Ed Smith displayed his finest form; he was in sensational form all year, with a truly magical spell around July where he scored a number of hundreds in succession. Late in the year he scored his first double hundred (against Surrey, possibly), and in the Sunday League relegation decider at the end of the season, scored a hundred.
In 2004, Kent in theory challenged for the championship for much of the year, although in practice they were well short of Warwickshire. It was Robert Key's turn to hit sensational form, his run of hundreds propelling him to the England side where he scored his first test hundred against the West Indies. I don't remember much about this year. Early in the season the mercurial Sami returned and destroyed Gloucestershire in the Sunday league; an extraordinary bowling performance saw him take around 8 wickets.
In 2005 Kent had a fairly large change of personnel: Smith went to Middlesex, Symonds departed, and in came Andrew Hall and Justin Kemp, with Kolpak signing Martin Van Jaarsveld in the middle order. Van Jaarsveld became one of a handful of players to score a pair of hundreds on his Kent debut. Kent challenged for the title all year, up to their penultimate match, where Nottinghamshire set them an absurd 420 to win off 70 overs on the last day, which they failed badly to chase.
The amount of Kent cricket I have watched since 2005 has decreased remarkably; I spent a couple of years as a member of Surrey in 2006 and 2007, being fortunate enough to watch Mark Ramprakash in perhaps the finest form of any batsman I have ever seen. I have fitted in the odd game since then, but the seasons all blur together; I know there have been two relegations and one immediate promotion, a 20:20 cup win and another finals day. Overall I would say that county cricket is not what it was: starting times are all over the place, as are tournaments, there is too much cricket that people don't want to watch, and the one day competitions need a genuine strategy to move forward. I will always keep an eye out for Kent cricket, and will attend matches as and when I can with my dad, but the thoughts I used to have of taking my son to watch county cricket in the same way that my dad took me are not so present; I doubt there will be a championship worth watching in ten years time. But there we go.
To finish my ridiculously self-indulgent trawl through memory lane, I have selected three teams: the best XI I saw play for Kent, the best XI I could pick for Kent with only one foreign player, and the best XI of players I have ever seen in the flesh.
Fulton, Key, Dravid, Hooper, De Silva, Symonds, Nixon, Ealham, Headley, Saggers, Muralitheran
Fulton, Key, Smith, Hooper, Van Jaarsveld, Ealham, Nixon, Patel, Headley, Mccague, Saggers
Hayden, Langer, Lara, Richards, Waugh, Kallis, Russell, Warne, Waqar, McGrath, Muralitheran
Thanks for reading, even though I know you didn't really.
Wednesday 20 April 2011
20 Years Man and Boy ... (part 1)
I've been supporting Kent County Cricket Club for 20 years. That seems like a long time, and to match it, a ridiculously long post reminiscing about that time.
I first went to watch Kent in the summer of 1990, although I basically just read my book and didn't really watch the match at all. We were either playing Hampshire or Surrey. But in 1991, we went to watch the West Indies vs Kent at the St Lawrence, and I watched intently the whole time to see the undisputed best team in the world. The Windies batting line-up that day was: Simmons, Haynes, Lara, Logie, Richards, Hooper, Dujon ... I don't recall the rest. Simmons made about 70 odd, Haynes and Lara were out cheaply (my dad told me that the latter was just starting his career; I don't recall anything at all about him). The diminutive Gus Logie at four made an impact, with a few sparkling shots square of the wicket in a half-century. Richards made about 20 or 30 (which was about par at that stage of his career), I think Hooper went to about 60 hitting about twenty off an over at one point, and Dujon made a few as well. I suppose they finished the day about 260 - 5 or so, and I don't recall any of the bowlers at all (my dad told me a few years later that Kent employed a string of useless West Indian fast bowlers around the time). I was hooked though.
The next season, 1992, Kent finished second in the championship and lost in the B and H cup final, the 55 over competition. We attended the B and H cup quarter final match (might have been my mum's birthday, I think she and my sister made a lasagne for the men's dinner which we ate when we got home). Kent vs Derbyshire, which was a low scoring sort of encounter. Carl Hooper was now Kent's overseas player, but he was bowled (or lbw, the mind plays tricks, and I'm not researching any of this) by Ian Bishop, then pretty much accepted as the fastest bowler in the world. Hooper made everything else look extraordinarily easy, so being done for pace seemed extraordinary. I didn't see Kent's semi-final win, but went to the final with the old man. It rained, and we left early in the afternoon. Hampshire, Kent's opponent, batted well, with Smith (then still one of the best batsman in the world) making a destructive 90 with support from Terry and Gower. We didn't return for the Sunday, as Kent displayed what would become a familiar trait for the next ten years: choking. To be fair, Kent were never really close in their run-chase, if I remember correctly.
A spectacular Martin McCague bowling display vs Hampshire was another highlight of 1992; the big paceman took 8 for not many against Hampshire, also taking a catch and being involved in a run-out if I remember correctly.
The following year saw Kent challenge for the Sunday League, only to lose a title decider on the last day of the season to champions Glamorgan (par the course, Kent failed to make enough runs, although had IVA Richards not been reprieved from a Duncan Spencer no-ball, the outcome may have been different). Kent were an exceptional Sunday League side in these years, with Ward and Fleming early versions of pinch-hitters, Hooper seemingly scoring runs at will, and a long tail featuring Mark Ealham batting at 9.
Kent were reasonably close to winning the Sunday League in 1994 as well, although even if they'd won at the Oval on the last day, they wouldn't have claimed the title. They didn't win of course, they choked despite Hooper and Ward putting them in contention. They also managed to throw away a winning position in the NatWest semi final at Edgbaston, when after a Neil Taylor hundred had put them in a good position to chase a demanding total, the middle order failed to give the sublime Hooper the strike, he holed out on 44, and the tail collapsed. In 1995, however, they did win the Sunday League; of course Kent lost their last home match against Warwickshire, but rain meant Worcestershire were unable to overhaul us, and for once we had actually won a trophy. Kent made up for this lapse by finishing bottom of the county championship, and losing the B and H cup final, despite a remarkably good knock from Aravinda De Silva, our overseas player. De Silva also made two spectacular double hundreds, and shared in massive partnerships with Graham Cowdrey and Mark Ealham.
I don't recall much about 1996, which I think featured a minor challenge for the championship and a mid-table finish in the Sunday League, although this might have been the year that Dean Headley and Martin McCague kept taking hat-tricks. This was also the year of Matt Walker's spectacular 275 against Somerset at Canterbury. 1997 was the real year to remember though, as Kent managed to finish second in no fewer than three competitions. The B and H Cup Final was thrown away by poor batting by the top order, which could only be partially salvaged by the remarkable tail, and then blown away by young Ben Hollioake, batting with extraordinary freedom. The Sunday League was thrown away in the last game, where Kent lost away at Yorkshire, and the championship slipped away as Kent drew too many games, including one with scores level against Somerset. The championship side that year was probably something like: Fulton, Walker, Ward, Wells, Cowdrey, Ealham, Fleming, Marsh, Strang, Headley, McCague. The one day team had Fleming opening and Llong in the middle order. Ben Phillips and dashing young opener Ed Smith were around as well.
In 1998, the overseas player was Hooper for another year, Kent were pretty rubbish all round I think, although Hooper absolutely destroyed Strang, then playing for Nottinghamshire, during one Championship run-chase. Rob Key made his debut this year I think, and Dr Julian Thompson was our main pace bowling weapon, as Headley began to suffer more and more from the injuries that would end his career too early. 1999 was pretty similar I think, with Andrew Symonds in as overseas player. I don't remember much from '99, a decent low scoring championship scramble against Warwickshire at Tunbridge Wells and maybe a one-day win over Leicestershire.
2000 saw the introduction of the two tier championship system, and Kent narrowly avoided being relegated at the first hurdle. They also narrowly escaped relegation from the Sunday League. Rahul Dravid spent his only year at the club as overseas player, and was simply awesome; The Wall he may be in test cricket, but Dravid didn't simply occupy the crease, he also destroyed bowling attacks, including a wonderful hundred against Glenn McGrath's Worcestershire in the Sunday League, of the games I saw. It was a good job Dravid was in such fine fettle all year, because none of the other batsman got close to serious runs all year. In terms of bowling, new arrival from Durham Martin Saggers was the pick of the bowlers.
2001 saw Kent eventually win another trophy, with the capture of the Division 1 Sunday League title. Daryl Cullinan started the season as overseas player, but after an early injury, he was replaced by Symonds, who was terrific all season in the one day tournaments, and made an impact in the championship. It was the other batsman who really stood up to be counted though, with Key, Smith, Walker and especially David Fulton, who was sensational this year, and started the trend for the next few years of one batsman being utterly dominant. Fulton was very unlucky to not be selected for England this year. Kent's Sunday League win featured some memorable wins: a closely fought scrap with Gloucestershire was notable for a lot of aggro and sledging between the sides, and Ian Harvey skying a catch out to deep square leg when his power hitting looked to be taking Gloucestershire to the win. A tense win in a day-night match with Surrey was enlivened by Matt Fleming's three run outs in four balls, all via direct hit from the backward point and gully region. Kent won the League Title with a win over Warwickshire in which Symonds took five cheap wickets.
So that was ten thrilling years summed up in the blink of an eye! Part 2 when I can be bothered...
I first went to watch Kent in the summer of 1990, although I basically just read my book and didn't really watch the match at all. We were either playing Hampshire or Surrey. But in 1991, we went to watch the West Indies vs Kent at the St Lawrence, and I watched intently the whole time to see the undisputed best team in the world. The Windies batting line-up that day was: Simmons, Haynes, Lara, Logie, Richards, Hooper, Dujon ... I don't recall the rest. Simmons made about 70 odd, Haynes and Lara were out cheaply (my dad told me that the latter was just starting his career; I don't recall anything at all about him). The diminutive Gus Logie at four made an impact, with a few sparkling shots square of the wicket in a half-century. Richards made about 20 or 30 (which was about par at that stage of his career), I think Hooper went to about 60 hitting about twenty off an over at one point, and Dujon made a few as well. I suppose they finished the day about 260 - 5 or so, and I don't recall any of the bowlers at all (my dad told me a few years later that Kent employed a string of useless West Indian fast bowlers around the time). I was hooked though.
The next season, 1992, Kent finished second in the championship and lost in the B and H cup final, the 55 over competition. We attended the B and H cup quarter final match (might have been my mum's birthday, I think she and my sister made a lasagne for the men's dinner which we ate when we got home). Kent vs Derbyshire, which was a low scoring sort of encounter. Carl Hooper was now Kent's overseas player, but he was bowled (or lbw, the mind plays tricks, and I'm not researching any of this) by Ian Bishop, then pretty much accepted as the fastest bowler in the world. Hooper made everything else look extraordinarily easy, so being done for pace seemed extraordinary. I didn't see Kent's semi-final win, but went to the final with the old man. It rained, and we left early in the afternoon. Hampshire, Kent's opponent, batted well, with Smith (then still one of the best batsman in the world) making a destructive 90 with support from Terry and Gower. We didn't return for the Sunday, as Kent displayed what would become a familiar trait for the next ten years: choking. To be fair, Kent were never really close in their run-chase, if I remember correctly.
A spectacular Martin McCague bowling display vs Hampshire was another highlight of 1992; the big paceman took 8 for not many against Hampshire, also taking a catch and being involved in a run-out if I remember correctly.
The following year saw Kent challenge for the Sunday League, only to lose a title decider on the last day of the season to champions Glamorgan (par the course, Kent failed to make enough runs, although had IVA Richards not been reprieved from a Duncan Spencer no-ball, the outcome may have been different). Kent were an exceptional Sunday League side in these years, with Ward and Fleming early versions of pinch-hitters, Hooper seemingly scoring runs at will, and a long tail featuring Mark Ealham batting at 9.
Kent were reasonably close to winning the Sunday League in 1994 as well, although even if they'd won at the Oval on the last day, they wouldn't have claimed the title. They didn't win of course, they choked despite Hooper and Ward putting them in contention. They also managed to throw away a winning position in the NatWest semi final at Edgbaston, when after a Neil Taylor hundred had put them in a good position to chase a demanding total, the middle order failed to give the sublime Hooper the strike, he holed out on 44, and the tail collapsed. In 1995, however, they did win the Sunday League; of course Kent lost their last home match against Warwickshire, but rain meant Worcestershire were unable to overhaul us, and for once we had actually won a trophy. Kent made up for this lapse by finishing bottom of the county championship, and losing the B and H cup final, despite a remarkably good knock from Aravinda De Silva, our overseas player. De Silva also made two spectacular double hundreds, and shared in massive partnerships with Graham Cowdrey and Mark Ealham.
I don't recall much about 1996, which I think featured a minor challenge for the championship and a mid-table finish in the Sunday League, although this might have been the year that Dean Headley and Martin McCague kept taking hat-tricks. This was also the year of Matt Walker's spectacular 275 against Somerset at Canterbury. 1997 was the real year to remember though, as Kent managed to finish second in no fewer than three competitions. The B and H Cup Final was thrown away by poor batting by the top order, which could only be partially salvaged by the remarkable tail, and then blown away by young Ben Hollioake, batting with extraordinary freedom. The Sunday League was thrown away in the last game, where Kent lost away at Yorkshire, and the championship slipped away as Kent drew too many games, including one with scores level against Somerset. The championship side that year was probably something like: Fulton, Walker, Ward, Wells, Cowdrey, Ealham, Fleming, Marsh, Strang, Headley, McCague. The one day team had Fleming opening and Llong in the middle order. Ben Phillips and dashing young opener Ed Smith were around as well.
In 1998, the overseas player was Hooper for another year, Kent were pretty rubbish all round I think, although Hooper absolutely destroyed Strang, then playing for Nottinghamshire, during one Championship run-chase. Rob Key made his debut this year I think, and Dr Julian Thompson was our main pace bowling weapon, as Headley began to suffer more and more from the injuries that would end his career too early. 1999 was pretty similar I think, with Andrew Symonds in as overseas player. I don't remember much from '99, a decent low scoring championship scramble against Warwickshire at Tunbridge Wells and maybe a one-day win over Leicestershire.
2000 saw the introduction of the two tier championship system, and Kent narrowly avoided being relegated at the first hurdle. They also narrowly escaped relegation from the Sunday League. Rahul Dravid spent his only year at the club as overseas player, and was simply awesome; The Wall he may be in test cricket, but Dravid didn't simply occupy the crease, he also destroyed bowling attacks, including a wonderful hundred against Glenn McGrath's Worcestershire in the Sunday League, of the games I saw. It was a good job Dravid was in such fine fettle all year, because none of the other batsman got close to serious runs all year. In terms of bowling, new arrival from Durham Martin Saggers was the pick of the bowlers.
2001 saw Kent eventually win another trophy, with the capture of the Division 1 Sunday League title. Daryl Cullinan started the season as overseas player, but after an early injury, he was replaced by Symonds, who was terrific all season in the one day tournaments, and made an impact in the championship. It was the other batsman who really stood up to be counted though, with Key, Smith, Walker and especially David Fulton, who was sensational this year, and started the trend for the next few years of one batsman being utterly dominant. Fulton was very unlucky to not be selected for England this year. Kent's Sunday League win featured some memorable wins: a closely fought scrap with Gloucestershire was notable for a lot of aggro and sledging between the sides, and Ian Harvey skying a catch out to deep square leg when his power hitting looked to be taking Gloucestershire to the win. A tense win in a day-night match with Surrey was enlivened by Matt Fleming's three run outs in four balls, all via direct hit from the backward point and gully region. Kent won the League Title with a win over Warwickshire in which Symonds took five cheap wickets.
So that was ten thrilling years summed up in the blink of an eye! Part 2 when I can be bothered...
Tuesday 19 April 2011
Forgiveness
A brief word to you from me about forgiveness.
Some people use a study guide or plan to read the bible, some dip in and out, others, it is fair to say, scarcely read their bible at all. In our church we are taught to consume the bible in as large quantities as we are able, and to allow it to soak into us and speak to us. At the moment I have been reading the gospels, currenlty into John. One interesting thing that comes out from going through the bible in order is that when in the gospels, you get a nice bit of repetition going with some of the parables and miracles.
One particular parable has stood out for me of late, found in Matthew 18:23-35, and doubtlessly elsewhere, if not in Mark, then in Luke. In this parable, a servant owes lots of money to his master, and begs and pleads to be let off the debt. He is, and then after leaving his master's home, he finds someone who owes money to him, a far smaller debt than he has been let off, and beats this man and puts him in jail until he can pay. When the master finds out, he is angry, and sends the first servant to be tortured until he can pay.
It's a familiar tale no doubt. I acted it out in front of my fellow Year 7 students in a special Junior Christian Union assembly at Olaves. You know who you are supposed to be, and you know what it is asking of you. You know that Jesus is not messing about.
Another scripture: Mark 11:25-26. This one is similarly no nonsense, but it's harder; it frames forgiveness in a harder light. If you remain in unforgiveness, you will not be forgiven. This poses questions, or it should. Because we believe that all of our sins are going to be forgiven when we believed that Jesus died for us. Don't we? And we're right to believe that. Yet here is Jesus saying not just "forgive us as we forgive others" but straight up "if you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven".
Our minds here say that we are prepared to compromise a little bit. Do we really believe this? I suspect not; I know that there are scriptures that we ignore. Do we try to keep to this scripture (Matthew 5:48): "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"? I'm not telling you that you won't be saved if you don't forgive you brother or your neighbour, or if you are not perfect, but what the bible tells us on this is clear: if you are going to be a Christian, God is not expecting you to fail to forgive anyone for anything.
Which I'm sure we will say is fine ... until something happens that we really can't forgive anyone for.
Do you have anything you couldn't forgive someone for? Shall I be blunt? You do. Do you have kids? Would you forgive Roy Whiting? Would you forgive Ian Huntley? Would you forgive Venables and Thompson? I am acquainted with someone who killed their mum. If that was your brother would you forgive him?
The above parable makes it clear to you that you have to forgive anyone anything, and for you to punish them (and remember Christ's interpretation of murder during the Sermon on the Mount) would be entirely hypocritical given how much you have been forgiven. You are a Christian? Forgive. Anything. By anyone. Christ forgave the thief to his left (or right?) after one moment of heartfelt contrition. He forgave those killing him when he had committed no sin. You must forgive.
So the real question is how? Not if, but how?
The answer here lies in covenant. We are receiving teaching about covenant at the moment at church. Covenant is a binding agreement, like a pact or a treaty but stronger. An agreement that is understood that it will not be broken. An agreement forged through sacrifice and blood. An agreement that sees an exchange of responsibilities, of authority, and of power. If you are covenanted to me, what is mine is yours. Those I have authority over, you have authority over. My army is your army. And yours is mine. This was symbolised in ancient times by an exchange of the mantle, an exchange of coats.
Some people came into covenant out of convenience, or fear. The Gibeonites in Joshua 9 were scared of the Israelites, who had been comanded to slay all of their neighbours. So they tricked their way into a covenant so they would be protected. this was a covenant between a mighty force, and a lesser one, who covenanted out of protection. Our covenant with God is like this: His power, might and strength know no end; yours? Not so much. His wisdom is flawless. Yours? I'm pretty sure you would admit it's far from it.
So your covenant, your binding, unbreakable agreement, is extremely beneficial. Through this covenant, the disciples were given the same ability to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead that Christ used. The power of the Holy Spirit is like the mantle that has been given to those who believe: it is by this indwelling spirit that we are able to perform the same works that Jesus did. We have received his power and authority. It is the covenant in action. I believe also that the answer to how we are able to forgive the things that we would previously have marked as "unforgivable" lies in covenant: we are covenanted to an entity, the Lord God Almighty, who has the mercy to forgive everyone that ever lived the most appalling sins, be they in thought, word or deed. This ability to forgive, this power of forgiveness, is ours through our covenant with God.
BUT, and here is the major but, we have requirements under the same covenant. Firstly there are the binding terms of the covenant, those set out by Jesus, the commandments for us to follow. But more important is the very underpinning point of the covenant: if we are to take on the mantle of God, we must give him our mantle. As I said earlier, our mantle is fairly insignificant; our strengths do not compare to his, our kingdom is one of dirt (yeah, its paraphrased Johnny Cash), compared to His of glory, but we do have a mantle. We have authority, we have strengths, and we have a life. And if we want His mantle, we have to surrender ours, and give it to Him. And another of His terms is this: He will not share us. We do not covenant with Him and anyone else. We must not be found worshipping elsewhere.
So what am I saying, how can I draw this together? When Christ speaks about forgiveness, there is no room for manouvere. You forgive anyone anything, or you will not be forgiven by God. Since our entire faith is based on a belief in the forgiveness of our sins, we had better be ready to forgive. I suspect that we are secretly (or not so secretly) ready to forgive anyone anything. But in the truth of our covenental position lies this promise: the same power that enabled Christ to forgive as he fought for breath on the cross will work through you if we stay in our covenant position. We do this by surrendering all we have, and worshipping God and God alone.
I'm not going to claim that any of this is easy. But we have no choice but to forgive; you can play the odds that Christ didn't mean what he said, but I won't. The tools for forgiveness are there. Let us use them.
Yes, I did indeed say brief; scratch that.
Bless.
Some people use a study guide or plan to read the bible, some dip in and out, others, it is fair to say, scarcely read their bible at all. In our church we are taught to consume the bible in as large quantities as we are able, and to allow it to soak into us and speak to us. At the moment I have been reading the gospels, currenlty into John. One interesting thing that comes out from going through the bible in order is that when in the gospels, you get a nice bit of repetition going with some of the parables and miracles.
One particular parable has stood out for me of late, found in Matthew 18:23-35, and doubtlessly elsewhere, if not in Mark, then in Luke. In this parable, a servant owes lots of money to his master, and begs and pleads to be let off the debt. He is, and then after leaving his master's home, he finds someone who owes money to him, a far smaller debt than he has been let off, and beats this man and puts him in jail until he can pay. When the master finds out, he is angry, and sends the first servant to be tortured until he can pay.
It's a familiar tale no doubt. I acted it out in front of my fellow Year 7 students in a special Junior Christian Union assembly at Olaves. You know who you are supposed to be, and you know what it is asking of you. You know that Jesus is not messing about.
Another scripture: Mark 11:25-26. This one is similarly no nonsense, but it's harder; it frames forgiveness in a harder light. If you remain in unforgiveness, you will not be forgiven. This poses questions, or it should. Because we believe that all of our sins are going to be forgiven when we believed that Jesus died for us. Don't we? And we're right to believe that. Yet here is Jesus saying not just "forgive us as we forgive others" but straight up "if you don't forgive, you won't be forgiven".
Our minds here say that we are prepared to compromise a little bit. Do we really believe this? I suspect not; I know that there are scriptures that we ignore. Do we try to keep to this scripture (Matthew 5:48): "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect"? I'm not telling you that you won't be saved if you don't forgive you brother or your neighbour, or if you are not perfect, but what the bible tells us on this is clear: if you are going to be a Christian, God is not expecting you to fail to forgive anyone for anything.
Which I'm sure we will say is fine ... until something happens that we really can't forgive anyone for.
Do you have anything you couldn't forgive someone for? Shall I be blunt? You do. Do you have kids? Would you forgive Roy Whiting? Would you forgive Ian Huntley? Would you forgive Venables and Thompson? I am acquainted with someone who killed their mum. If that was your brother would you forgive him?
The above parable makes it clear to you that you have to forgive anyone anything, and for you to punish them (and remember Christ's interpretation of murder during the Sermon on the Mount) would be entirely hypocritical given how much you have been forgiven. You are a Christian? Forgive. Anything. By anyone. Christ forgave the thief to his left (or right?) after one moment of heartfelt contrition. He forgave those killing him when he had committed no sin. You must forgive.
So the real question is how? Not if, but how?
The answer here lies in covenant. We are receiving teaching about covenant at the moment at church. Covenant is a binding agreement, like a pact or a treaty but stronger. An agreement that is understood that it will not be broken. An agreement forged through sacrifice and blood. An agreement that sees an exchange of responsibilities, of authority, and of power. If you are covenanted to me, what is mine is yours. Those I have authority over, you have authority over. My army is your army. And yours is mine. This was symbolised in ancient times by an exchange of the mantle, an exchange of coats.
Some people came into covenant out of convenience, or fear. The Gibeonites in Joshua 9 were scared of the Israelites, who had been comanded to slay all of their neighbours. So they tricked their way into a covenant so they would be protected. this was a covenant between a mighty force, and a lesser one, who covenanted out of protection. Our covenant with God is like this: His power, might and strength know no end; yours? Not so much. His wisdom is flawless. Yours? I'm pretty sure you would admit it's far from it.
So your covenant, your binding, unbreakable agreement, is extremely beneficial. Through this covenant, the disciples were given the same ability to cast out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead that Christ used. The power of the Holy Spirit is like the mantle that has been given to those who believe: it is by this indwelling spirit that we are able to perform the same works that Jesus did. We have received his power and authority. It is the covenant in action. I believe also that the answer to how we are able to forgive the things that we would previously have marked as "unforgivable" lies in covenant: we are covenanted to an entity, the Lord God Almighty, who has the mercy to forgive everyone that ever lived the most appalling sins, be they in thought, word or deed. This ability to forgive, this power of forgiveness, is ours through our covenant with God.
BUT, and here is the major but, we have requirements under the same covenant. Firstly there are the binding terms of the covenant, those set out by Jesus, the commandments for us to follow. But more important is the very underpinning point of the covenant: if we are to take on the mantle of God, we must give him our mantle. As I said earlier, our mantle is fairly insignificant; our strengths do not compare to his, our kingdom is one of dirt (yeah, its paraphrased Johnny Cash), compared to His of glory, but we do have a mantle. We have authority, we have strengths, and we have a life. And if we want His mantle, we have to surrender ours, and give it to Him. And another of His terms is this: He will not share us. We do not covenant with Him and anyone else. We must not be found worshipping elsewhere.
So what am I saying, how can I draw this together? When Christ speaks about forgiveness, there is no room for manouvere. You forgive anyone anything, or you will not be forgiven by God. Since our entire faith is based on a belief in the forgiveness of our sins, we had better be ready to forgive. I suspect that we are secretly (or not so secretly) ready to forgive anyone anything. But in the truth of our covenental position lies this promise: the same power that enabled Christ to forgive as he fought for breath on the cross will work through you if we stay in our covenant position. We do this by surrendering all we have, and worshipping God and God alone.
I'm not going to claim that any of this is easy. But we have no choice but to forgive; you can play the odds that Christ didn't mean what he said, but I won't. The tools for forgiveness are there. Let us use them.
Yes, I did indeed say brief; scratch that.
Bless.
Saturday 16 April 2011
Curry Union
So I've been involved in a charity since before Xmas where we cook delicious curry for Bromley's rough sleepers every other Monday at church. We have called this charity Curry Union (the name is partly ironic, since the overall boss, Colin Bloom, is a staunch Conservative with a big C!). Last night we had our first fundraising evening, where we sold tickets to friends, supporters and church members, cooked some of our best curries, delivered a brief synopsis of the charity and I compered a spectacular raffle, although suffered a severe microphone fail.
For more info on Curry Union, we are on twitter @CurryUnion. We'll be raising more funds later in the year, so keep an eye out for that.
For more info on Curry Union, we are on twitter @CurryUnion. We'll be raising more funds later in the year, so keep an eye out for that.
Thursday 14 April 2011
Altars
Welcome, welcome.
I was having a conversation with the wife earlier, so I figured that I might share it here also. Please note that I don't intend to transcribe every conversation we have; you probably wouldn't be interested to listen to the conversation we had about why I wet Josiah's toothbrush but didn't put toothpaste on it, or the one about how hot the bathwater is.
But we did have a reasonably interesting conversation about a couple from Stella's parents church. Although I don't know them that well (they go to another church after all, and it is important for streams to flow separately (look it up, Hezekiah 6:13)), they are the sort of people who always have a kind word etc.
Anyway, Stella was saying that her dad was saying how when he entered their house, he could feel a sense of peace that was almost tangible (Stella didn't use these words obviously, she shows off less than me). Because I always have an answer, I observed that this was probably because they pray so often, and also that they have sought after God before anything else that is in the world.
We've been receiving teaching at church recently about prayer altars, and that it is noticeable in the bible, particularly the Old Testament, that there are often physical places where God's presence is drawn; Jacob's stone, Abraham being prepared to sacrifice Isaac. God opens the heavens over these places, and his presence comes down as people seek him there. Of course as Christians this is what we want. Let my house be like an altar to You God. Let Your presence be in my house. Of course.
I guess the thing that has really struck us recently with the TV stuff is that it's not enough just to make efforts to pray though; it is also essential that we stop allowing the worship of other worldly idols as well. (Please note, it is now about 24 hours since I started and stopped writing this piece). If we want our homes to be under an open heaven, altars drawing the presence of God, we need to be sure that there is nothing else being worshipped there.
So anyway, we've been listening to Matt Redman's The Friendship And The Fear today, an album I hadn't listened to for years. It has seriously, seriously dated. More so than the rolling pianos from Cutting Edge 1, more than that slightly muffled electric sound everything had when Dwayne Larring produced in around 2000. Stella described funky classic Can I Ascend The Hill Of The Lord as "the worst song ever". However, two extraordinary worship songs: The Way Of The Cross, and the title track. The former is stunning, and just a timeless cry of a heart that recognises we need to do more to follow after Christ. May it always be our genuine desire.
In other news, let it be established here: Manchester United will lift the UEFA Champions League this season.
Better posts will follow this one. Shalom.
I was having a conversation with the wife earlier, so I figured that I might share it here also. Please note that I don't intend to transcribe every conversation we have; you probably wouldn't be interested to listen to the conversation we had about why I wet Josiah's toothbrush but didn't put toothpaste on it, or the one about how hot the bathwater is.
But we did have a reasonably interesting conversation about a couple from Stella's parents church. Although I don't know them that well (they go to another church after all, and it is important for streams to flow separately (look it up, Hezekiah 6:13)), they are the sort of people who always have a kind word etc.
Anyway, Stella was saying that her dad was saying how when he entered their house, he could feel a sense of peace that was almost tangible (Stella didn't use these words obviously, she shows off less than me). Because I always have an answer, I observed that this was probably because they pray so often, and also that they have sought after God before anything else that is in the world.
We've been receiving teaching at church recently about prayer altars, and that it is noticeable in the bible, particularly the Old Testament, that there are often physical places where God's presence is drawn; Jacob's stone, Abraham being prepared to sacrifice Isaac. God opens the heavens over these places, and his presence comes down as people seek him there. Of course as Christians this is what we want. Let my house be like an altar to You God. Let Your presence be in my house. Of course.
I guess the thing that has really struck us recently with the TV stuff is that it's not enough just to make efforts to pray though; it is also essential that we stop allowing the worship of other worldly idols as well. (Please note, it is now about 24 hours since I started and stopped writing this piece). If we want our homes to be under an open heaven, altars drawing the presence of God, we need to be sure that there is nothing else being worshipped there.
So anyway, we've been listening to Matt Redman's The Friendship And The Fear today, an album I hadn't listened to for years. It has seriously, seriously dated. More so than the rolling pianos from Cutting Edge 1, more than that slightly muffled electric sound everything had when Dwayne Larring produced in around 2000. Stella described funky classic Can I Ascend The Hill Of The Lord as "the worst song ever". However, two extraordinary worship songs: The Way Of The Cross, and the title track. The former is stunning, and just a timeless cry of a heart that recognises we need to do more to follow after Christ. May it always be our genuine desire.
In other news, let it be established here: Manchester United will lift the UEFA Champions League this season.
Better posts will follow this one. Shalom.
Wednesday 13 April 2011
My new blog
So I've started a new blog. You'll have to wait a while 'til I get used to the presentation and fonts and whatever, but I figured I'd start with the content already.
I've had muchos blogs before, in this (my actual) name and others. I suppose I'm starting another one in case there are people who want to know what is going on and what I think who don't feel that my twitter and facebook feeds are giving them enough John Stevens for their buck.
I'll write about my walk with God, and about what I learn, and probably about my frustrations, and probably also about football, although you should note that when I write about football it will be from a point of near complete ignorance, given that whilst my library of football books makes your's look completely inadequate, and I've forgotten more about Italia 90 than you've ever known, I don't even have a television, let alone a subscription to BSkyB, and hence never actually watch any football at all. So pinch of salt there ...
In terms of christian stuff, Stella (my fair wife) and I have just got rid of our television in response to my recognition (my very slo-o-o-w recognition) that having a talking box (or talking rectangle, given the dimensions of modern TVs) in the corner of the living room that dispenses wisdom and idiocy from the world is perhaps not the right way to be living as a Christian. Truth be told, we are in the midst of allowing God to change the way we have become: professing to be Christians yet waist deep (neck deep) in the ways of the world. It is no longer possible for me to live my life in near enough the same way as everyone else in the world and expect to see breakthrough in my relationship with God.
So changes are being made. I don't know how often I'll post, it might be a lot, it might not be a lot. I'm not great with links or photos or anything, so it'll mostly be verbiage. I can't write, by the way. I'm sure you'll think I'm doing myself down, I can write reports or essays and stuff, but I can't write blogs or articles or fiction. Not many people can; You probably can't. No offence. My friend Dan can, you can easily tell the difference.
So there you go: overlong verbiage, desperate attempts to show off vocabulary, spiritual honesty, no good links or pictures.
ps If you don't know me, and this is like your introduction to me, I also have a son called Josiah John who is nearly 15 months old and totally amazing, and another yet-to-be-born child, who will also have a name that you will want to steal because it's so splendid.
I've had muchos blogs before, in this (my actual) name and others. I suppose I'm starting another one in case there are people who want to know what is going on and what I think who don't feel that my twitter and facebook feeds are giving them enough John Stevens for their buck.
I'll write about my walk with God, and about what I learn, and probably about my frustrations, and probably also about football, although you should note that when I write about football it will be from a point of near complete ignorance, given that whilst my library of football books makes your's look completely inadequate, and I've forgotten more about Italia 90 than you've ever known, I don't even have a television, let alone a subscription to BSkyB, and hence never actually watch any football at all. So pinch of salt there ...
In terms of christian stuff, Stella (my fair wife) and I have just got rid of our television in response to my recognition (my very slo-o-o-w recognition) that having a talking box (or talking rectangle, given the dimensions of modern TVs) in the corner of the living room that dispenses wisdom and idiocy from the world is perhaps not the right way to be living as a Christian. Truth be told, we are in the midst of allowing God to change the way we have become: professing to be Christians yet waist deep (neck deep) in the ways of the world. It is no longer possible for me to live my life in near enough the same way as everyone else in the world and expect to see breakthrough in my relationship with God.
So changes are being made. I don't know how often I'll post, it might be a lot, it might not be a lot. I'm not great with links or photos or anything, so it'll mostly be verbiage. I can't write, by the way. I'm sure you'll think I'm doing myself down, I can write reports or essays and stuff, but I can't write blogs or articles or fiction. Not many people can; You probably can't. No offence. My friend Dan can, you can easily tell the difference.
So there you go: overlong verbiage, desperate attempts to show off vocabulary, spiritual honesty, no good links or pictures.
ps If you don't know me, and this is like your introduction to me, I also have a son called Josiah John who is nearly 15 months old and totally amazing, and another yet-to-be-born child, who will also have a name that you will want to steal because it's so splendid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)