What is in Kelvin's Head?

You’ll have had your apocalypse

18/12/2013
So, Mr Harold Camping has died. Do you remember him? Sure you do. He was one of the most prominent predictors of the end of the world in recent years. There was quite a worldwide sensation in May 2011 when he predicted that all the true believers in the world would be taken up to heaven – raptured in other words. This would be followed by a pretty grim time for all those left on earth who would have fire, and plague to deal with on their own without the true believers. This would be followed by the end of the world which was scheduled for October 2011. This was the first apocalypse of the twitter generation. The rapture quickly became the #rapture and Mr Camping was mocked, relentlessly mocked all around the world, not least when the end times did not appear. Mr Camping had the media on his side. Well, he had his own media empire on his own side anyway. He appears to have genuinely believed his folly and committed his radio network (Family Radio) to spread the word.

Well apocalypses and their prophets come and go. One of the things that was interesting about the whole affair was how interested the world suddenly became in eschatology (that’s talking about the end of the world to those who don’t like theological words). With twitter going full pelt, all of a sudden, pretty technical theological words were being bandied about in jokes by the most surprising people.

Of course, some used the whole thing to mock Christianity. For many detractors we are never going to be seen as anything other than an amalgam of the nutters and Mr Camping became symptomatic of all that seemed silly about religious faith in general and about Christianity in particular.

It is worth pausing though as Advent makes its tumultuous way into the feast that follows, thinking about what Christians do really believe about all this.

Firstly – most Christians would say that anyone claiming to know the exact date and time of the end of the world is neither to be believed nor indulged. Jesus himself led the way here saying that no-one knew the day or the hour. However, there is a great presumption in that – which is that there is a date and time for the eschaton in the first place.

For me, it seems a shame for eschatology to be mixed up in all the cartoon buffoonery of mocking Mr Camping and his followers.

Talk about the end times in Christianity is not, for me, all about some spooky day and hour that is just around the corner like a great cosmic bogey man. Some Christians, from voices in the new testament like Saul/Paul of Tarsus to Larry Norman appear to have believed precisely that. However, I think that is to miss the point. The apocalypse has failed to materialise often enough for Christians to make their peace with it and use it to inform the life of today.

Here’s what I think the great stories and images of the bible have to teach people today:
- Firstly, live as though you’ve not much time left. How much generosity, love, compassion and justice can you build into what you do today.
- Secondly, life is fragile. Live with gratitude and thanksgiving for what you have.
- Thirdly, learn the lesson that some sincere, devout, often holy people have got things wrong – even voices that appear in the bible.
There are building blocks for a great experience of the world in that little list. Building blocks that make faith work and can help one to connect to a God worth knowing.
advent, end times, eschatology

10 responses to “The Tim Farron Question and the Archbishop of Canterbury”

Bro David

09/05/2017

This brings up an interesting memory with the long-time leader of Changing Attitude England (CA). This leader was taken in by Andrew Marin, founder of the Marin Foundation (MF) when he visited the UK in conjunction with some big outdoor Christian festival you lot hold anually. Marin and his followers were attending Pride Marches/Parades around the US and getting their photos taken hunging GLBTQ folks in the marches. His foundation claims to be attempting to build a bridge between the LGBTQ community and conservative Christian communities.
Marin was invited to comment on the CA blog. He spouted his pablum message of love for LGBTQ folks. Then, in a comment, I point blank asked Marin if he believed that we LGBTQ folks were sinners and needed to repent and become straight. He refused to answer the question. He said that I was asking the “wrong” question. Then he gave this answer verbatim from the Marin Foundation website;
“We call these the “Big 5.” They are:
Do you think that gays and lesbians are born that way?
Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Can a LGBTQ person “change?”
Do you think that someone can be gay and Christian?
Are LGBTQ people going to hell?
“The one common theme of these “Big 5” is that they are all close-ended, yes-or-no questions. Each of them must be answered with one word and they are all meant to end conversation. Based solely on one’s close-ended answers, it is easy to label, judge and dismiss the other community entirely. Thus we dehumanize a community based off of a word rather than create a productive conversation. In essence, by close-ended answers either the conservative or the LGBTQ community judges who you are, what you believe, whose team you’re on and how you should be treated.
“Rather than answering close-ended questions, The Marin Foundation seeks to elevate the conversation and continual fruitful dialogue, as tense as that may be. This is a model taken from Jesus throughout the Gospels. Of the 25 times Jesus was asked close-ended questions, only three times did he respond with a yes or no. These three times were only after he was arrested and admitting he was the Messiah. Prior to this, Jesus never answered close-ended questions with a yes or a no. Instead, he elevated the conversation.”
I spent the next three days searching the MF website and reading through articles and white papers. I realized that it was a ministry to the LGBTQ of wolves in sheep’s clothing. These people were trying to love vulnerable LGBTQ folks into their embrace, to slowly chip away at them until they had brought them to realize that their sexual/gender orientation was false, acting upon it was a sin and they needed to seek the help of Jesus to beome heterosexual and accept their gender assigned by birth.
I posted my findings on the CA blog and was promply chastized and barred from further posts. In a personal email from the leader of CA I was ripped a new arsehole and declared anathema. Sadly, even LGBTQ folks in prominent positions are taken in by these folks. I think that we need to continually ask the Big 5, of everyone, epsecially those non-LGBTQ folks who profess to be our allies and supporters, secular or religious.

Reply
Peter Davison

09/05/2017

Good column.
So who is entitled to express opinions on ethical issues? I’ve long understood it’s the duty of all of us to have INFORMED consciences and to obey them. We may wish to consult people we believe to be more informed than we are, such as our presumed leaders, but in the end, when asked, we should at least be ready to state, however firmly or tentatively, where we stand. As for our leaders, they may or may not be better informed than we are; but we also know that ‘experts’ may be people who know more and more about less and less – and that politics often intrude into our public morality. Much of ethics is situational. That said, Jesus seems to have had much more compassion for alleged ‘sinners’ than for those who chose to label them as such. And much of our present troubles seem to stem from our desire to label and scapegoat people who appear to be different. What would happen if we simply accepted people for who they are and learned to accept that love is indeed ‘a many splendoured thing’?

Reply
Graham Evans

09/05/2017

A very interesting new perspective and certainly a question that should be put to all the Anglican bishops who sit in the house of Lords.

Reply
The Rev Sr Helena Barrett, OSB

09/05/2017

Absolutely spot on, Kelvin. The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer (whatever it may turn out to be) instead of the usual yards of ecclesiastical flannel.

Reply
1. June B Butler
  
  18/06/2017
  
  “The ABC should be asked The Question until he is sufficiently exhausted to give a clear and honest answer…”
  
  Justin Welby wails piteously: “I’m not the pope.”
  
  Reply
the Rev. Grant Barber

09/05/2017

I always wondered how the preachers in Pepys’ diary could preach such long sermons. I think I understand better now. So glad we’ve already settled the matter in the Episcopal Church. (Oh, the answer can be a succinct “no, not sin just by its nature).

Reply
Bernard Silverman

11/05/2017

if I asked an archbishop whether deliberately stamping on someone’s toe is a sin they would give a direct answer. So they should be asked the Farron question over and over again until they do similarly. If the Prime Minister can do that so can they. Indeed the question should be “the PM thinks that gay sex is not a sin. Was she right?”

Reply
Alan Wilson

17/06/2017

Spot On…

Reply
Kate Odling

10/01/2018

Very interesting. I always think that if someone does not give a clear answer to a question that they have something to hide or that their true belief/thought would be unpopular. I think the ABC has looked very uncomfortable when any direct questioning about LGBT issues are raised. So someone should ask & not accept anything but a straightforward answer. My final thought is that we are all qualified to have an opinion – what’s wrong with that?

Reply
Bruce Gulland

15/01/2018

Whatever I think about the answer to the question, I did rather enjoy the style of your post – you had me on the edge of my seat!

Reply