The book of books

Here is the text of a lesson I gave to some 11 to 12 year old on the Bible.

The word Bible comes from a Greek word biblion meaning book or scroll, and, as you can see, the Bible is a book. However, it is more accurate to say that the Bible is a collection of books.

I have a little collection of books here, my old Ladybird books:

First,

Little Red Riding Hood;

Cinderella;

A book of Prayers;

The story of Baby Jesus;

The story of Nelson;

A Robin Hood adventure.

We might add to that little collection of books:

The Summa Theologiae,

A hymn book;

A book of philosophy

Bede’s History.

So what kind, what type of books are these?

Little Red Riding Hood; a story with a moral

Cinderella; a story

A book of Prayers;

The story of Baby Jesus; a biography,

telling us about someone’s life

The story of Nelson a biography

The Robin Hood adventure. a myth/legend perhaps history

Summa Theologiae, ; a theology book

A hymn book; a collection of hymns

Discourse on Method a book of philosophy

Bede’s History. a history book

Different kinds of books, exactly the you will find same kinds of books in the Bible – because the bible is a collection of books.

For instance,

The Gospels biography –life of Jesus

The letters of St. Paul A letter - and theology

Ecclesiastes philosophy

The book of Ruth story

The book of Kings history

The Psalms hymns and prayers

Genesis a collection of legends and

creation stories

So that’s the bible.

Returning to Little Red Riding Hood: We all know the story, but we also know that wolves don’t talk, people cannot be eaten whole by wolves, and you’d never mistake a wolf for your grandmother – would you? So we can say that the facts of the story are nothing of the kind – there are no facts in this story – nothing happened as the story said – it’s just a story. However, does that mean there is no truth in the story – no truth to be found within its words?

So, for instance, one of the truths might be Don’t talk to strangers – that seems a good idea – especially if you’re young – listen to what your mother tells you, and so on.

There you are, we know that the story of Little Red Riding Hood is not true but there is truth to be found in it.

In the bible, many of the stories and even the histories that tell us about real events are written in such a way so that we can find a moral, a truth in them that’s not just about the facts of the story.

Let’s look at the first two stories in the bible:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."

So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.

God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

Notice that it is God who is creating here. The word God is Elohim in the Hebrew text. This is the first account of creation that we find in the bible.

Now look at the beginning of this Babylonian Creation story:

When on high heaven was not named,

And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name,

And the primeval Apsû, who begat them,

And chaos, Tiamat, the mother of them both,

Their waters were mingled together,

And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen;

When of the gods none had been called into being.

You might think they’re quite similar – and that’s because they are. Around about 605 years before the birth of Jesus there was a war between Babylon and Israel. Babylon is in what is now Iraq. The Babylonians won and took many people from Israel to live in Babylon. Whilst they were there they would have heard the Babylonian story of creation. They took that story and made it their own, changing it to give it their own meaning.

Now let’s look at the second account of Creation that we find in the bible:

This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no human to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- the LORD God formed the human (Hebrew adam) from the dust of the ground (Hebrew for ground is adamah). and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the human became a living being.

Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the human he had formed. And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The LORD God took the human and put it in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the human, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."

The LORD God said, "It is not good for the human to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for it."

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the human to see what it would name them; and whatever the human called each living being, that was its name. So the human gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for the human no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the human to fall into a deep sleep; and while it was sleeping, he took one of the human's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the human, and he brought her to the human.

The human said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman’ (Hebrew ishah)
for she was taken out of man (Hebrew ish)."

Notice some of the differences between the two stories of Creation.

In the second, Humanity is created first, before all the other animals. Secondly, again in the second account, we are given the name of the god who creates – You might notice the word ‘ Lord’ is written in capitals; LORD. This is a tradition. It actually translates a word that looks like this: YHWH which is God’s name. and thought to be too holy to even speak, which is why we use the word LORD written like this whenever the Hebrew bible uses YHWH. Notice that the first creation story doesn’t use this at all. This is one of the reasons why we know that the two stories were not written by the same people. In fact they come from completely different times.

The second creation story probably originates from an earlier period of Israel’s history, between 1000 years and 900 years before the birth of Jesus. It comes from the time of Israel’s great king Solomon. It is a story that has a moral. It reminds human beings, however powerful, however glorious they think they are, they are in fact made of the dust. It’s a good thing to tell a powerful king that he’s just dust.

The first story has an order to it: the first day this happened, then this happened, then this happened….and God saw that it was good…It is about the triumph of Order over Chaos. Remember the Israelites had been defeated, their lives were in turmoil and chaos. They needed a story that told them that Order and harmony would prevail, and that God would be victorious over the turmoil and chaos.

The purpose of the two creation stories is to say something to particular human beings in two particular situations. The writers of the bible are using two different creation stories to two different sets of people. ‘You are getting too big for their boots, you are only dust.’ (the second story) or ‘Even though things seem bad now, everything is chaos and turmoil; harmony and order is how the universe has been put together, and harmony and order will win out in the end.’ The first story.

So, let’s return to your question of last week: Were we made by God or descended from monkeys? Behind that question I think, perhaps there is another one: Does the Bible conflict with Science?

Think back to the types of book we listed at the beginning. One type of book you won’t notice in the Bible is a Science book. That’s partly because Science as we know it now didn’t really begin until around 1300 years after the birth of Jesus.

Returning to the Creation stories in Genesis, notice again that there are two stories not one. As we saw, they don’t agree with one another. But that doesn’t matter, because they’re not telling us facts, rather they are trying to tell two different ‘truths’ to two different sets of people. People who wanted or perhaps needed to hear different things. What both accounts agree on of course, is that God is the Creator. They differ only on how God created. But creation is perhaps not the point at all, the stories have different purposes, purposes that have only been rediscovered over the past two hundred years.

What are days for?

The older I get the quicker the years go. Ten years ago seems like yesterday, and yet twenty years ago does now seem rather distant. It’s a strange thing, time, how it plays tricks on us.

Augustine asked “What is time? Who can explain this easily and briefly? Who can comprehend this even in thought so as to articulate the answer in words. Yet what do we speak of in our familiar everyday conversation, more than of time? We surely know what we mean when we speak of it. We also know what is meant when we hear someone else talking about it. What then is time? Provided that no one asks me, I know. If I want to explain it to an enquirer I do not know.”[1]

Einstein showed us that time and space are in fact part of the same thing. When the universe started, time started. So in answer to the question ‘What happened before the universe?’ the answer is ‘Nothing’, there is no before, because before is part of time, and time is part of the universe. (Now if this is making your head ache, it’s making my head ache too!)

Perhaps we should come back down to Earth in trying to understand these things. Philip Larkin wrote “What are days for? Days are where we live. They come, they wake us time and time over. They are happy to be in: where can we live but days? Ah, solving that question brings the priest and the doctor in their long coats running over the fields.”[2]

We need neither the priest nor the doctor to come running over the fields. Surely the answer lies in the fact that we are in time and space, it is where we live, breathe and have all our being.

I started off with a question. Another year has gone. It has been filled with happiness and sadness; profit and loss; love and hate; health and illness; life and death. “The days of our life are three score years and ten, or if our strength endures, even four score; they soon pass away and we are gone. So teach us to number our days that we may apply our hearts to wisdom.”[3]

It seems to me that wisdom is the practical application of our understanding. I understand that my time and yours are limited. Time is short. So whatever time in the end is, this I know: It is a gift that I will not discard with yesterday's paper

Time for a cup of tea.

---

[1] Saint Augustine: The Confessions, book 11, chapter 17 tr. Henry Chadwick. Oxford 1991

[2] Days, The Whitsun wedding Philip Larkin: Faber & Faber. London 1964

[3] Psalm 90, verses 10 and 12.

Collective Worship in a Church of England (C.E.) Voluntary Controlled (V.C.) Primary School. Is it theologically possible and morally desirable?

What follows is the text of a seminar I led for an MA module.

I have always enjoyed leading collective worship in schools. I like singing and story telling. The children, by and large, have enthusiastically participated in both story telling and song singing. As a curate in Birmingham, with many children from non Christian backgrounds attending assemblies, I was taught to be careful, always reminding the children when appropriate, that this is what Christians believe, and was not necessarily what they had to believe.

After Birmingham came schools in rural Shropshire and Herefordshire. With the same philosophy in mind I led Collective Worship, never assuming the Christianity of the children present, until challenged by an inspector about the way I led Collective Worship. Whilst acknowledging the fact that the children were obviously enjoying Collective Worship and gladly participating in it, he nevertheless questioned whether this was worship. ‘Could it be better described as the imparting of information with some entertainment and singing?’

This of course begs questions, ‘What is worship?’ and ‘Are those without choice able to offer it? And ‘Should they be required to do so?’ Hence my questions:

Before moving on I would like to say just a few words about context. When I submitted my proposal, one of the questions that arose from the email conversation with my tutors was.

‘The context of assembles being in a faith school means that parents have chosen to place their children in a faith school and we wonder if this is important?’

May I respond in two ways.

Firstly, in my thinking I had not considered the school to be a faith school in the current usage of this term. This is because parents in our village do not choose the school because it is a 'faith school', they choose it because it is the school in the village. Neither does the school select on the basis of denomination or any religious affiliation. The head recently told me.

‘We are a community school, we put our arms around everyone.’ This from a school that just last week achieved an Outstanding from its statutory church inspection.

It is the community school that historically was provided by the church, as a service to the community.

Let's call it a church provided community school.

Secondly, I am not sure how the answers would be changed by context, faith school or non faith school.

If the love offered to my spouse, in my arranged marriage, is not freely offered and therefore turns out not to be love. No amount of my parents choosing my spouse for me would make my ‘going through the motions’ love.

So if worship that is not freely offered turns out not to be worship, then no other external considerations, i.e. parental choice or faith school context will make it worship.

Similarly if an action in and of it self turns out to be morally undesirable, then nothing, not the law, parental choice, faith school context, nothing can make it morally desirable. So if compulsory worship turns out to be a violation of a child’s Freedom of Conscience, and that is held by society and church to be wrong, then nothing not the law, parental choice, faith school context, nothing can make it morally desirable.

So what does the law say?

...each pupil in attendance at a community, foundation or voluntary school shall on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.

The whole act is interpreted by a much longer document Circular 1/94.

It states that the aims of Collective Worship are:

…to provide the opportunity for pupils to worship God, to consider spiritual and moral issues and to explore their own beliefs; to encourage participation and response, whether through active involvement in the presentation of worship or through listening to and joining in the worship offered; and to develop community spirit, promote a common ethos and shared values, and reinforce positive values.

It goes onto state that worship:

…must in some sense reflect something special or separate from ordinary school activities and it should be concerned with reverence or veneration paid to a divine being or power. However, worship in schools will necessarily be of a different character from worship amongst a group with beliefs in common. The legislation reflects this difference in referring to 'collective worship' rather than 'corporate worship'.

It says further that:

In the light of the Christian traditions of Great Britain collective worship organised by a county or equivalent grant-maintained school is to be 'wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character'. The Act then further defines collective worship of a 'broadly Christian character' as being worship which reflects the broad traditions of Christian belief.

The Churches represented in the Churches’ Joint Education Policy Committee take the following position:

“We strongly support the continuation of Collective Worship in all schools, recognising the major contribution it makes to the spiritual and moral development of pupils, which is a prime goal of education. It is believed by other faith groups to be of benefit even though its emphasis is mainly Christian. We look for Government support for an improvement in the quality of acts of collective worship and for ensuring that all pupils are able, with their parents’ consent, to attend meaningful acts of worship at school.”

The churches argue that Collective Worship has both Educational and Spiritual benefits.

It provides a means of developing an appreciation that goes beyond the material world, fostering a concern for others and providing a forum for exploring shared values.

Our society has other voices, The National Secular Society unsurprisingly takes a different view. Keith Porteous Wood, Executive Director of the National Secular Society, has said:

“The churches are putting incredible pressure on the Government and on Ofsted to enforce this iniquitous law. Large-scale surveys show that 60 per cent of school children define themselves as atheist or agnostic, so why are they being forced against their conscience to worship a God they don’t believe in? It is an abuse of their human rights – they are not permitted to exercise their freedom of conscience.

This is straightforward indoctrination. The churches can’t get children into their services so they bring the church to school, and force the children, a captive audience, to observe by law. We encourage parents to consider whether they want their children to undergo this manipulation. They have the right to withdraw their children from it, and many are exercising that right”

The British Humanist Association:

"Would like to see changes in legislation to give schools much more flexibility about how they conduct assemblies, the immediate withdrawal of Circular 1/94 (which insists on a narrow interpretation of the legal requirement for "broadly Christian" worship) in favour of new guidance from the DCSF recommending inclusive assemblies, suitable for all. This should be followed by repeal of the legislation requiring acts of worship in schools. Schools should, however, provide time and space for optional worship for those who want it."

Earlier we looked at the words of Keith Porteous Wood from the NSS

‘Why are they (the children) being forced against their conscience to worship a God they don’t believe in? It is an abuse of their human rights – they are not permitted to exercise their freedom of conscience.’

It seems to me that the whole question turns not on faith school stroke non faith school, but on the issue of Freedom of Conscience.

What does Freedom of Conscience mean? How should it be applied to the individual. To what extent do children have the right to exercise Freedom Conscience?

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Furthermore Article 18 declares.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

The UNHCR Declaration of the Rights of the Child principle 3 declares.

The child shall enjoy special protection, and shall be given opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws for this purpose, the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consideration.

Notice the words I have italicized and underlined. ‘in conditions of freedom and dignity’

So here are two well known secular declarations on Human rights that seem to be saying that the freedom of conscience even of the child is something to be upheld by law.

So what does the Christian Tradition have to say about Freedom of Conscience.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that;

God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."

“Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.”

“Every human person, created in the image of God, has the natural right to be recognized as a free and responsible being. All owe to each other this duty of respect. the right to the exercise of freedom, especially in moral and religious matters, is an inalienable requirement of the dignity of the human person.”

Martin Luther is reported to have said.

"Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

Now compare this with this question from early Christian history. Why were Christians persecuted by the Roman Empire, an empire which is well known for its religious toleration?

‘The Christians “atheism” was the basic cause of their maltreatment. Some intellectual pagans decried the forms of contemporary cult, but almost all concurred with them when necessary; the Christians refused to concur and their lack of respect was intolerable….

Nobody minded too much what the Christians did or did not believe. As a governor told Bishop Dionysius, there would be no objection if the bishop would only worship the pagan gods as well as his own.’ 1

Christians were brought to the attention of the Roman authorities because they refused to offer sacrifices to the imperial Cults. The Romans were, in the main completely perplexed by this conscientious objection to sacrifice. The fact of Christian martyrdom at this time and throughout Christian History demonstrates in my view the importance that Christianity has always given to Freedom of Conscience.

I would like now to turn my attention to the nature of worship. When it comes to worship, I feel a bit like Augustine trying to describe time. When I use the word I know what I mean. When someone asks me to define it, that is when I am in difficulty.

‘Worship is a religious phenomenon , a reaching out through the fear that always accompanies the sacred to the mysterium conceived as tremendum but also as fascinans, because behind it and in it there is an intuition of the Transcendent.’ 2

Put another way ‘Worship is a religious phenomenon, a reaching out through the fearful and fascinating mystery of the sacred, because behind it and in it there is an intuition of the Transcendent.’

Worship then, might be described as a human response to that which is wholly other. The question that arises for me is whether such a response is voluntary of involuntary.

One particular saying of Jesus springs to mind.

“A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” 3

I have a subsequent question for myself. Is there a difference between compulsion and coercion?

The difference perhaps is that a compulsion to act can arise from within a person, whereas coercion is something that can only originate outside a person.

I might say that am compelled from within to respond to God in worship.

Another word often associated with worship is devotion, which I equate to an active love. Again I can be compelled from within to respond to God with loving devotion.

Loving devotion is not possible where coercion is involved. For if the love is real, why the coercion?

So let me offer some tentative conclusions.

I do believe that the question of God and therefore the question of worship do have a place within the educational context. Accompanying those questions is that of ‘Freedom of Conscience’. Only when that question is properly addressed can the possibility of true worship be entertained.

To quote Jesus again;

“A time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” 4

In terms of practice, I would begin by exploring with the children the issue of Freedom of Conscience. If children are to develop a ‘Good Conscience’ they need to be given some freedom to develop and use it. It seems me to that ‘Collective Worship’ provides an opportunity for this to happen.

The BHA expressly argues that ‘Schools should, however, provide time and space for optional worship for those who want it.’

The question of God, and whether and how we should worship God can and perhaps should be part RE. It might turn out that in a particular class that a minority of children do not believe in God. This question could be asked of the majority;

‘Should those who do not believe have to attend worship?’

Similarly if the believers happen to be in the minority, the majority could be asked;

‘Should the believers be given the option to worship? What are you the non believers going to do instead.?’

One final question might be asked

‘How do we come together as a school to think about and affirm our shared values?’

I began with questions, and I have ended not with answers, but further questions.

1 Lane-Fox, R., Pagans and Christians p.425.

2Jones, C., et al eds The Study of Liturgy, p.7.

3 NIV John 4. 23f

4 NIV John 4. 23f

Believe it or not

I must confess that that I have always found belief in God quite difficult. There is something of the sceptic in me which has to seriously, the lack of positive evidence for the existence of God. Sometimes belief seems to evaporate altogether. Oh dear. But then perhaps we think of belief in the wrong way. I realise that I have come to think of belief as a something or a feeling that I either have or I don't. Here belief is a noun. But is that right? Does belief have a being all of its own. Is it something given by God, the god's or by life to those mortals that are favoured? Does that account for why some people believe in God and others do not? If that were true then God or the god would be capricious in the extreme. It seems especially unjust when one considers the fact that for many Christians, belief is a prerequisite of their entry into heaven. You don't believe, well you don't get in. 

I do not think that belief is like that at all. It does not begin life as a noun but as a verb. Belief is not something that we have, it is something that we do. Belief is the child of believing. 

It is like the story of the man who found he had no love for his wife anymore. 

'Go and love her.' said his friend, 'Love is a verb not a noun.' 

You may ask whether I believe in God, and I will say that I do. 

'What are you reasons? Where is your evidence?'

Ah well, there is the rub, I have plenty of reasons, but not much evidence. 

When the planes went in to the twin towers on 9/11 they were piloted be men who believed that God would reward them for this action. It was a belief they had no evidence for at all. Believing without evidence can be very dangerous.

There is an ethic that says, 'Do what thou wilt, and harm none.'  

Believing is fine.
Believe if thou wilt, but in that believing, harm none.

Atonement

Atonement: A word that provides the title to a recent film. But what does the word mean? We can speak about making an atonement for our sins, usually by saying “sorry” or offering some sacrifice of service to the offended party. The word atonement was invented by William Tyndale when he translated the Bible into English during the time of Henry VIII. It is really a phrase made of two words: at, one. He was trying to translate a word that did not have an English equivalent. It described the sacrifices made to God to put people right with God. To be reconciled with somebody or something is in one sense to be at one with that person or thing. Traditionally, Christians have seen the death of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Jesus pays the price for the things that you and I have done wrong. But I would like to think of atonement in a slightly different way. Athanasius says of Jesus, in his work on the incarnation, that Jesus “indeed, assumed humanity that we might become God.” So we might say that, in Jesus, God is at one with us. He is at one with our birth, he is at one with our living, our crying and laughing, finally he is at one with our dying.

A few months ago I was driving down from Bollingham. It was a bright December day, and in that brilliant late-morning sunshine the valley was a white river of mist, the hills either banks or islands. As I looked upon this beautiful sight I yearned to connect, to be at one, with it.

It has been said that Christians are somewhat obsessed with sin. But then sin is misunderstood, it is not what we do, it is a state that we can be in. When we feel disconnected, being apart from, rather than at one with everything, we sundered from the rest. In sin. It was Einstein who said “We experience our self, our thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest, a kind of optical delusion of our consciousness. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.”

The separation from others might result in a failure to myself in someone else’s shoes. ‘How might they be effected by my actions.’ And yet we do display a need to be at one with others. Our yearning to connect arises perhaps out of a recognition that we are also at one with the rest of creation and not truly separate from it. The monks on Mount Athos say “We have died and we are in love with everything.”

Must we wait for death? Maybe not. As Richard Jefferies put it.

“Eternity is here and now. I am within it. It is about me in the sunshine; I am in it as the butterfly floats in the light-laden air…The years, the centuries, the cycles are absolutely nothing; it is only a moment since this burial mound was raised; in a thousand years it will still be only a moment.”

Put another way. At one ment is now, because in the now every moment is one moment.