I'm so happy that he didn't sneeze

What's the most famous speech in the world? I'm sure for a lot of people the answer comes back "I have a dream", or "Martin Luther King". And so when I saw that my Dad had been given the book 'Speeches that changed the world' as a present, it was to the speech of said title that I headed straight to. Reading it through it's very powerful, very encouraging, but having had it on my wall for the last three years at uni I know it fairly well now. But what I wasn't aware of was the speech he gave four and a half years later, in Memphis, Tennesee.

He starts with a story of how he was stabbed by "a demented black woman" whist autographing books, and relays how the knife was so close to his aorta that the New York Times, on reporting the incident, said that if he had sneezed he would have died. A few days later, able to read through some of the post he had received, one letter strikes him, one he'll never forget. It's a short, straightforward letter, but it is from a young white girl, ninth grade (age 14-15), who has heard of his misfortune, and she says she is "simply writing to say that I'm so happy you didn't sneeze". He goes on to say that he too is happy he didn't sneeze, listing all the things that have happened, all that he would have missed, and that might never have happened had he died.

And it's at this point he conveys how his life has been threatened many times, how even that morning as he flew, the plane was guarded all night beforehand and comprehensively searched and checked, how more threats have been made and questions raised about what people might try to do to him in the coming days and months. And his final paragraph is stunning, absolutely stunning, and had me in tears:

Well, I don't know what will happen now. We've got some difficult days ahead. But it really doesn't matter with me now, because I've been to the mountaintop. And I don't mind. Like anybody, I would like to live a long life. Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the Promised Land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the Promised Land. And I'm happy, tonight. I'm not worried about anything. I'm not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.

The following day, 4 April 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed by a sniper's bullet whilst standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis, Tennesee.

What a faith, what an example, what a challenge. Is this what it means to be a Christian dying to oneself and living for Christ?

And how gracious a God, to keep him from death until he was ready, to remove that fear and to replace it with that contentment, with that joy. And I know one day I'll be at the Promised Land with him, and see the glory of the Lord forever.

Above is a video of the final paragraph, and there is also a FULL transcript - see the last seven paragraphs for what I read in the book.

Why get baptised?

I'm getting baptised tomorrow and whilst it will be a great occasion, it's not something to be taken lightly. Through baptism I'm signalling that I have died to my old 'self' (a concept that was central to why I started this blog) and been reborn through the power of God to follow Christ and live my life as he would have me. I'll write in the next few days of my personal reasons for baptism, but this post, if a little long (it's worth it I promise...), should give some food for thought about the general role of baptism. I want it to be clear that I'm not doing this to be controversial in the Salvation Army (SA) (and indeed I believe a fair few people in the SA have been baptised), it is something I really feel I should do and want to do, but I do believe it raises important questions for the SA.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The topic of baptism seems to raise so many dilemmas for different people and has caused a lot of division. In general, the Catholic and Anglican Churches seem to go for infant baptism (or Christening), whilst Baptists, Reformed and 'Free' Churches tend to go for adult ones. The logic for child baptism would seem to be that you wish to dedicate your child to God when they are young, and there could be arguably some backing for this in the Bible. Adult baptism seems more consistent and repeatedly implied throughout the New Testament (or more specifically those that are of an age to make their own conscious decision). The former also seem to go for drawing a cross on the forehead whilst the latter for full immersion (plunging the whole body into water).

The SA on the other hand don't do it at all (although are not, officially, against it). From what I have gleaned, the main reason for this seems to be that when the SA started (1865 in it's original form), it's membership drew from a variety of denominations, full of people who wanted to take the good news of Christ Jesus to those on the margins of society that had been forgotten by the wider Church. As there would have been disagreements amongst the members how baptism should be performed, this may have led to some friction, and so in 1883 William Booth wrote, suggesting: "is it not wise for us to postpone any settlement of the question, to leave it over to some future day, when we shall have more light, and see more clearly our way before us?" (see article mentioned in final paragraph). However, that day seems not to have arrived, or at least there seems to have been no point at which a serious, open discussion has occurred that has focused on Christ and put aside tradition and considered what is the best thing we can do as a movement, forgetting our pride and asking what is God's desire.

As you may well tell from how I write, and also given that I have made this decision, I feel baptism is right and is important. I feel glad to make this decision, and the fact I have come from this background has actually been extremely beneficial as I have been able to consider the special significance of baptism, rather than just seeing it as the natural 'next step'. I started seriously considering it maybe 18 months/2 years ago, challenged by how uni friends took it for granted and how I could really give no reason why I didn't, other than that it wasn't really the Salvation Army's thing. I couldn't really say the SA don't do symbolism, as they wear uniforms. Saying that we have 'Soldiership' which is equivalent almost seemed like I'd be saying "yeah I know Jesus made this suggestion but we've had a think and decided that William Booth's idea about the whole soldier thing just sounds a lot better". Again, it just seems like tradition getting in the way of the commands of God.

At the time of thinking this I was increasingly aware of the concept of Gnosticism which had invaded some parts of the early Church, where people thought the body was bad and the spirit good. This was rebuffed by early Christians who said that God made the whole human being good; spirit, soul AND body. I therefore figured that if God made us both spiritual and physical beings, then the things we relate with we look at in both a spiritual and physical context and meaning. Therefore it makes sense that we associate with some physical things in a spiritual way, sometimes in a bad way (idol worship, obsession around cars, money, etc.) but often in a good way (such as emotions experienced through photographs of people and places, or, for Christians, using the picture of the cross to help contemplate Christ). As God created us surely he knows we have these tendencies, and in fact wanted us to be like this, and so it seems logical that he would give us physical things to help us spiritually. He used the rainbow as a symbol of a promise, gave the Israelites the temple to symbolise the importance of God, and time and time again promise a sign to signify and confirm something spiritual. So it makes sense that when Christ wanted his followers to remember why he was to die he gave them the reminder of bread and wine, which was shown to be powerful in opening the followers eyes when they forgot that his death was planned. He also knew that people may judge Christians on their own works rather than what Christ has done, so by giving the sign of baptism they had something that was rooted in the death of Christ, rather than anything to do with human effort. Perhaps he knew that the SA would make uniforms for themselves and become soldiers, something that whilst obviously rooted in a decision to follow Christ, has so much more added to it and significance that is often more to do with the individual's actions than the work of God.

It was both a relief  (as it showed I wasn't crazy) but also a slight annoyance (that someone else had written something that I thought I was the first to think of) to read an article by Chick Yuill about this very topic and with similar explanation. A controversial figure in the SA, but someone who not only seems to have a solid grounding in the Bible but is also a very good speaker, Chick writes engagingly, and I encourage 'Salvationists' to read it through and seriously consider it (and have a look through the Rubicon website more generally), but others too should give it a read and maybe help them think afresh why it is that baptism is, and should be, held so dear.

I couldn't sleep the other night...

I've been helping out at a Bible Study in town since I came back to uni, which has been an amazing thing to be involved in, with 99% of those that come being marginalised from society in some way or other. One guy who came recently is living in Julian House (JH) currently, and after seeing him in town a couple of times in the week I was disappointed to not see him on Wednesday night. On the way home I decided to pay a visit to JH and see if he was there, and we had a chat. C is a really great guy, and you wouldn't think to look at and speak to him that he was 'on the streets'. We spoke for a while and then I left, saying I'd see him soon.

As I was leaving I spoke briefly to those sitting on the steps of Manvers Street Baptist Church, above JH. I found this really tough. Many of these people, probably between their late 30s and early 50s, were acting as though they were in their late teens, and, well, they just seemed pretty messed up. Just as I was about to leave though, I could see that one of the guys was practically (if not actually) out cold. I didn't now what to do, but, with them close to JH, and having said a word to one of the others to make sure he was alright, I left them.

On the way home thought I kept thinking "should I have stayed?", "should I go back - pray with them, chat with them, call an ambulance?". I got home and was going to bed, and really felt as though I should go back. You start to think, is that me thinking this or is God speaking to me? I think I would have gone if I hadn't had to be up early, although at the back of my mind I was thinking God'd give me the strength to get through the day.

I wrestled with it and was going to go, but didn't in the end, but I just couldn't sleep for more than 30 mins or so at a time. I don't think I felt particularly guilty, which made me think maybe it was God speaking to me, but, I dunno, I just didn't go.

It brought up two things in my mind.

Firstly, I still don't appear to be getting any better at hearing God's voice, mainly because my prayer life is pretty rubbish, and that I seem to pray more when I'm down or need things - not a good way to build any relationship!

Secondly though, it reminded me of the reason why I started this blog. You see I went to bed thinking about the prayer meeting I would lead in the morning, having in my mind Psalm 23. What a beautiful Psalm about God's protection for his children, for his flock, that he gives us peace. But as I lay in my bed, squirming at whether I was making the right choice, this didn't seem to be the picture I had. Instead I thought of Luke 9:23-24, and taking up my cross. I didn't feel particularly peaceful, and there seemed to be a tension between these two passages. But the more I thought about it the more I realised that to have the peace from Psalm 23 you need to have the commitment of Luke 9:23-24. And as I type now, I'm realising that to have the strength to do what is asked in Luke 9:23-24 we need the the protection, comfort and unfailing love of Psalm 23, as we carry our crosses through the darkest valleys.

If we expect following God to be just 'Psalm 23' we'll be too comfortable and when trials come along we'll be unprepared. But nor can we just look at the Luke passage, and expect our lives to be a joyless struggle as we follow Him.

We pick up our crosses and we follow him, safe in the knowledge that he is our Shepherd, the Shepherd who will never let one sheep go astray.

Why the name?

Thought it'd be good of me to explain the title of this blog.

The main title essentially describes how I'm trying to work out and uncover what is true in life. Truth is everywhere and it's just waiting to be discovered. I recently read a book called 'Velvet Elvis' by Rob Bell. In it, amongst other things, he speaks of how if he sees truth anywhere he'll claim it for himself. Writing as a Christian, he believes that Christ is the way, the TRUTH and the life, and yet he describes how he can look at, for example, the practices of some groups of Muslims in Turkey (rather than getting a mortgage they build their homes bit by bit to avoid accumulating debt) and claim that 'truth' for himself. God created this world and is in this world, he figures, and so truth isn't limited to just what the Christians say, what Church says, or even what the Bible says, but can be found in the world around us. So this blog is an attempt to seek out truth in the world, and I'd like it if you can join in too, by commenting on my posts.

The sub-title perhaps needs more explanation. Let me say first of all that this isn't an announcement that I have a terminal illness. It's inspired by many thoughts I've had over the last year or so. Firstly, I remember seeing the title of a song by Muse, 'Thoughts of a dying atheist', and wondering how much those thoughts would differ from those of a dying Christian. Would the Christian have more of a sense of hope, or one of confusion, as to why this was happening to them? How would I feel if I was dying?

But this phrase has taken on a whole new meaning to me. Since I became a Christian, in the true sense of the word, (when I was 17/18) I've been learning more and more about who God is, who the man called Christ who walked the earth was, and what God wants for and from me. I've learnt of his love, of his forgiveness, of his mercy, but whilst some seem to say that all you need to do in life is believe, I see in the gospels and in the books that follow that being a Christian was, and is, much more than this. To be a Christian, you have to die. Now for some this has meant physical death as a result of their choice to follow Christ. But for all it means 'dying to the sinful nature' (i.e. stopping doing the things that are not good, are not what God intended), turning around, and living in God's ways. Death was implied by Jesus when he said "If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me", as the cross was what Jesus carried on the way to his execution. So what does it mean to die in this sense? And what does it cost me? The important answer to this comes from Paul, a man claiming to have had a vision of Jesus after his death (one that made Paul blind, and caused a massive humbling and about-turning in his life). In one of the letters Paul wrote to the early Christians, many of which made it into the Bible, he says "For to me, to live is Christ, and to die is gain". But I want a deeper sense of what this 'death' means. Am I dying? Am I dying as I write this? Was I dying this morning but then made a few choices which brought me 'back to life'?

So it is from these thoughts that I start this blog, in the hope that this search for truth by a (sometimes) dying Christian will bring me, and maybe others, something closer to an answer.