A uniquely authoritative voice on the EU

Richard Hay is an Anglican priest who has a unique understanding of how the European Union works.  For many years he held the office of the senior civil servant in the European Commission.  At the same time he was a Church Warden of church in Brussels where a friend of mine, now a partner in rural ministry and mission, was priest.  Knowing of his uniquely authoritative voice within the discussion the following statement was passed on to me.  It is published here in the hope that in the midst of all the prejudiced comments it might bring some light rather than heat.

Now that the referendum date is known, we are writing to everyone on our address list.  Two years ago we were challenged to do this if a referendum was called.  

We think it matters how the UK votes.  The media debate is often ill-informed (or worse).  So here are comments that try to explain why we think the UK should stay in the EU.  They are meant to contribute to your thinking: each of us needs to come to our own conclusion, and we won’t all follow the same reasons.  Thank God for difference!  (Background: we lived in Brussels for 19 years and Richard worked for the European Commission for 18.)

On cost, we hear of ‘huge sums of cash’ going from the UK to the EU – or other conveniently vague terms hiding the fact that it’s only a very small part (1 – 2%) of UK public spending.

Migration is a problem.  But the big issue is not migrants from the EU - it’s those who come from non-EU countries, where we already have full control.  Our experience shows that it’s very difficult to manage.  But it’s a problem we share with other developed countries.  Surely we face it better together than alone.  And we must avoid being fearful of migrants (as some would wish us to be).  

Violence is in the hearts of a few of every faith; the vast majority of people of every faith are peaceful.  (We also have to confess to a bias: our local general hospital is only kept going by a very large number of devoted staff of many faiths from all around the world.  We give thanks for them, tinged with shame because we know that in their own countries healthcare is far below the standards of Western Europe.)  Compared to this, migration from within the EU is a side-show; mostly it brings us younger people to work and pay UK taxes, while just about as many UK citizens go and live in other EU countries, often in retirement.

But we really shout at the radio about sovereignty (‘being ruled by unelected bureaucrats’):  

• very few of our UK laws are ‘made in Brussels’.  Over the past 20 years, only 1.4% of main Acts of Parliament, and 11.8% of secondary laws, even mention the EU (says the House of Commons library).  We have sovereignty for the vast majority of issues

• all EU legislation is decided by the European Parliament (elected directly), and Council of Ministers (who are elected to national parliaments).  The (unelected) Commission can only propose legislation, and if so decided administer it.  As in the US, the power to propose law is separated from the power to decide.  (And now the European Parliament has to approve the Commission and its President)

• having formal power doesn’t necessarily give control.  Some of us remember the 1960s, when the UK government did everything it could to avoid devaluing the pound (‘in your pocket’); in the end they were overwhelmed.  Control can be found only by the right framework of government for the issue, and in some areas we have to work with others to have real impact

• the emotive claim that ‘we’ need to be in charge goes deeper than effectiveness.  We all cling to our independence.  But we (like every part of creation) cannot live fully on our own.  Despite Donald Trump’s assertions, we don’t live in a ‘zero-sum’ world (well said, the Pope, urging bridges, not walls).  Our flourishing depends on working together, on taking account of others’ needs, on accepting that better things can and are done together.

The EU is a framework in which to do together what is needed to sustain peace based on democracy, still a challenge in Europe (as Russia, the Middle East and migration remind us).  Within, we have weight to shape this process, and also to share in choosing directions for the environment and much scientific research, as well as some economic sectors.  Of course, the EU has many faults.  But we should work from the inside to adapt and strengthen the EU with the many others who also see need for change, rather than petulantly asking for a ‘special deal’ and testing the patience of our friends.

Many of us pray regularly for God’s Kingdom to come.  Government is a human need, but the Bible, and history more generally, is full of examples of abuse by the power-hungry.  Sovereignty is about means, not ends.  God’s Kingdom is concerned instead with values and results in public policy and private life of generous self-giving, forgiving, respect and acceptance of difference.  The only power in God’s Kingdom is love.  Being in the EU seems a bit nearer love for our neighbour than leaving ‘to do our own thing’.

Some thoughts – we have others, but we’ll stop there!  They come with warm best wishes from us both and our prayer for wisdom for you as you explore the issue and in God’s grace decide how you will vote.

Is the Holy Spirit Male or Female?

There are a number of websites, some academic, where this issue is discussed.  What I write here is not intended to be a thorough theological discourse but rather my own personal reflection.

Like many Christians my age I was brought up to think of God as male.  I have a Trinitarian understanding of God as essentially one but expressed in three persons.  The Trinity, like many other aspects of God is a mystery.  God is unique and no attempt to describe God is ever going to be adequate. Two of those persons present as essentially male: Father and Son.

I have therefore grown older talking with my heavenly Father.  The concept of God as Father is reflected in Hebrew scripture, is expressed in the words of Jesus in many places including the model prayer he gave to his disciples and in his own prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane.

Coming to know Jesus, growing in that relationship and discovering all I have come to know of Jesus has been by the presence of the Holy Spirit.  However the idea of attaching gender to the Holy Spirit is something that never crossed my mind for most of my long Christian life.  That began to change somewhere around 1991.  Although I had undertaken Old and New Testament studies and other education and training when I joined an evangelistic mission in 1963, none of this was certified and in order to be admitted onto the Roll of Ministries of the Congregational Federation (I had become a part-time minister of a Congregational Church) I had to undergo a thorough training programme.  By then I had accumulated some 28 years of ministry experience but the Congregational Federation was not minded to cut corners!

As part of those studies, which I greatly enjoyed, I was introduced into ways of doing theology that varied from and challenged my own practise.  This included both Liberation Theology and Feminist Theology.  Neither presented any major problem to me and I can honestly say that I "got it".  It was the latter that started me thinking more about the nature of God, and of the Holy Spirit in particular. It was not so much that this was a new exercise, just that I had not given much thought to articulate it before.

I was familiar with Genesis 1:27 which tells us that God created humankind in the image of God: both male and female.  I have never considered any anthropomorphic reference to suggest that God actually looks either like a man or a woman or a mixture of both.  rather I have always understood it as referring to characteristics rather than form. That is (if I may speak plainly) I have never imagined God with either a penis or vagina.  Come to that I never imagined God as necessarily having hands or feet etc.  I always understood this a figurative rather than literal.

It follows naturally that if both men and women are created in the image of God, then the best of both gender characteristics would give us some idea as to what God is like.  I had both a loving mother and father and value both.  I have a sister and brother - both very different - and I vale both.  Some characteristics that are typically male I also see in traces within those who are female and vice versa.

I began reflecting further on passages of scripture that attribute feminine characteristics to God.  Hosea speaks of God acting like a mother bear.  The scriptures speak of God giving birth to the nation of Israel.  Isaiah speaks of God as a comforting mother, and as a woman in child birth.  Both Matthew and Luke speak of God being like a mother hen.  Most would be very happy seeing God like a caring shepherd seeking a lost sheep or as a father longing for the return of a wayward son.  But should we not equally be comfortable with God in the image of a woman looking for a lost coin?

The Old Testament or Hebrew Scriptures were written in Hebrew.  Unlike English Hebrew nouns carry gender.  Some will be familiar with this if they have studied other languages.  I learned in Frech that "La plume (feminine) de ma tante (feminine) est sur le bureau (masculine) de mon oncle (masculine).  The pen of my aunt is on the bureau of my uncle.  The Hebrew word for Spirit, ruach, is feminine.

It is probable that much of Jesus' ministry was spoken in Aramaic in which the word for spirit is also feminine.

The New Testament comes to us in Greek which was the common or universal language of those times.  Reference to the Holy Spirit in the New Testament uses the word pneuma.  Greek nouns may be masculine, feminine or neuter (that is neither male nor female).  Pneuma is a neuter noun.

I have some friends who would be horrified to have God referred to as 'mother' but for others it would mean a great deal.  As far as I am concerned it does't bother me as I do not have a concept of God as either male or female but from whom the best qualities of maleness and femaleness are derived.  In public prayers I try to refer to God without having to use 'father' or 'Mother'.  If I have to do so I would probably only speak of God as Father, but then the term 'Mother God' has no biblical precedent.

For anyone who had a caring mother but a violent or abusive father there will be difficulty in thinking of God as father.  The opposite is also true.  All of us bring to the task of doing theology our own background, insights and experiences.  They become the prejudice or filter through which we try to grasp truth.

Back in 1991 on a training weekend one of the tutors deliberately chose a hymn for part of an act of worship.  The hymn addressed God solely as Mother.  Most students and tutors struggled and many of us could not bring ourselves to sing the words.  The next day, at a review of the weekend's activities the tutor who had chosen the controversial hymn asked if anyone wished to comment on it. There was a long silence until another tutor commented, "It had a nice tune!"

I found the words of the hymn thought provoking but I did not feel comfortable to use them as an act of worship.  I love my heavenly Father.  I love God the Son.  I delight in the presence of the Holy Spirit because the Spirit reveals the things of Jesus to me and this is so very precious.  That might very well be a feminine characteristic but does it really matter so long as we feel fathered and mothered by God?

Thank God for women! From where did they derive those intriguing and wonderful natures thgat have made my life so enjoyable?

Insight into the Trinity

Originally published in April 2012

When I was planning the recent Church Leaders Conference where the theme was partnership, I discussed with others the term perichoresis.

Perichoresis is a theological term used to describe an aspect of the relationship of the three persons of the Trinity. The word contains two Greek words: peri (around) and choresis (contain). Some wrongly think that the second Greek word is Chorus which means 'dance'. The term is used to describe how each retains separate complete identity yet are inter-related with the others. The exciting aspect (if you haven't already started to jump up and down) is that just as they share an inter-relational existence, we too are called by God into the same inter-relational existence. Here's a great illustration.

One Saturday a man named C Baxter Kruger was sitting sorting through papers when his six tear old son and a friend the man had never met before entered the room. They had been playing soldiers and were dressed up in camouflage with face paint and toy weapons. Before he knew it the man's son had jumped on him in a pretend attack, and the two of them fell to the floor in a friendly wrestling match. As they were playing around the other boy who was observing the fun decided to join in too. As the farther fooled around pretending to fight off his two young assailants, he felt that God told him that he needed to reflect on what had just happened.

His son, who had a confident relationship with his father, had involved his dad in some play. The son's friend who had never met the dad before felt drawn into this fun relationship and confidently acted as if he too were the man's son. The man then reflected on what might have happened if the other boy had walked into the room alone. This is what he later wrote.

"Within himself, that little boy had no freedom to have a relationship with me. We were strangers. He had no right to that kind of familiarity and fellowship. But my son knows me. My son knows that I love him and that I accept him and that he’s the apple of my eye. So in the knowledge of my love and affection, he did the most natural thing in the world. He dove into my lap. The miracle that happened was that my son’s knowledge of my acceptance and delight, and my son’s freedom for fellowship with me, rubbed off on that other little boy. He got to experience it. That other little boy got to taste and feel and know my son’s relationship with me. He participated in my son’s life and communion with me." 

There is no relationship more wonderful than that enjoyed between the persons of the Trinity and by adoption we are drawn into this relationship. Just as Jesus said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" so he also said "On that day [the coming of the Holy Spirit] you will realise that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you." John 14:20.

While I enjoy reflecting on this wonderful act of grace I also wonder whether the quality of this relationship I enjoy is so obviously and visibly wonderful that people who know me want to join in as well, much as the son's friend did.

Barry Osborne
30 May 2015

A smashable brand

The following is the text from a talk given at a Service celebrating Christian Unity held at Rugby School for churches in Rugby and surrounding area.  The talk was given by the school chaplain who has kindly given me permission to pass it on.  You may do so also but please ensure that you give appropriate credit.  Thank you.

Rugby Churches United Service, 22/1/12

 Three words that have the same meaning in almost every language in the world are “Amen”, “Alleluia” and “Coca-Cola”.  Amen means “Let it be so”.  Alleluia means “Praise God”.  Coca-cola is a carbonated soft drink.  Now let me tell you something you didn’t know.

Coca-Cola was invented in 1886, and for its first thirty years the company grew slowly.  It wasn’t until 1915 that it began the boom in popularity which continues to this day.  What happened in 1915?  Well, that was the year when they commissioned the new bottle.  They wanted a bottle that would be instantly recognisable, and not just as it stood on the shelf.  It must be made so that you could throw it against the wall and smash it into a hundred pieces, then pick up any one piece and still recognise it as part of a coca-cola bottle. 

We all realise just how brilliantly that goal was achieved.  If you were digging in your garden and you turned up a small piece of glass, you’d know immediately if it came from a coke bottle.  You wouldn’t need to excavate the entire bottle; just the fragment in your hand would tell you what you had.  Each piece is a different shape, but a small part stands for the whole; any portion of a broken coke bottle indicates the bottle in its entirety.

That was the first example of what came to be known in the advertising world as a smashable brand.  Just as a coke bottle can be broken up and any part of it evokes the whole thing; so a strong smashable brand means that any part of your product, your company, your organisation or your project points beyond itself to the whole.  Coke was the archetype of a smashable brand, but you can think of many others – whether it’s Guinness, Ferrari, IKEA or the Girl Guides.  The supreme example, of course, is Apple.  Take any one of Apple’s products, their services or their people; and evident in that one thing you will see the design, philosophy, values and ethos of an entire organisation. 

To do its job in the world, the Church of Jesus Christ must be a smashable brand.  In other words, you have to be able to break it into a hundred pieces and yet see, in each piece, the characteristics that tell you it’s part of a whole.  Why is that so important?  Because the Church of Christ IS broken into a hundred pieces.  Many more than a hundred.  According to the Revive website, there are 64 pieces in the Rugby area alone. 

64 churches and Christian organisations.  Just give a little cheer if I mention yours.  We have the Congregational Church, the Baptist Church, the Methodist Church, the New Testament Church of God. The Quakers – you don’t have to cheer, just give a little wave.  We have the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Rugby Christian Fellowship, the Evangelical Free Church, the International Fellowship Church, St Andrew’s Church, M2O, the Grapevine Christian Fellowship, the Harvest Fellowship.  If I haven’t mentioned your church, give a little cheer now. 

I used to serve in an Anglican Church before I came here.  Did you know that you can tell which church you’re in just by walking into the vestry?  In a Roman Catholic vestry they often have a picture of Jesus and his Sacred Heart.  In a Methodist vestry they have Jesus the worker.  In the vestry of a Baptist Church, it’s Jesus the teacher.  In our Anglican vestries, we have a full length mirror.

Anyway.  64 church communities in Rugby alone.  Can this huge diversity of Christian expression be a strength and not a weakness; an attraction and not a barrier to the people around us whom we serve in Christ’s name, who we call to repent and turn to him?  In other words, can we be a smashable brand, so that every single one of our broken pieces points beyond itself to the whole, and so that someone who encounters any part of Christ’s Church, encounters Christ himself?

Well, hear the word of the Lord.  The Bible passage that was read tonight is his message to each one of us, whether we have come here from the Basilica of St Pious the Pompous or from the Full Gospel Hallelujah Triple Blessing Church of the Latter Rains.  Let me read it again, and you hear again what it is that unites us all, the characteristics that identify us as the people of Christ:

In order that our service may not be brought into discredit, we avoid giving offence in anything.  As God’s servants we try to commend ourselves in all circumstances by our steadfast endurance: in distress, hardships and dire straits; flogged, imprisoned, mobbed; overworked, sleepless, starving.  (That sounds like your Minister. . . .)

We commend ourselves by the innocence of our behaviour, our grasp of truth, our patience and kindliness; (That sounds like your Minister’s wife . . . .)

by gifts of the Holy Spirit, by sincere love. We declare the truth, by the power of God.  We wield the weapons of righteousness in the right hand and the left. 

Now, see who this next bit sounds like:

Honour and dishonour, praise and blame are alike our lot; we are the impostors who speak the truth, the unknown men whom all men know; dying we still live on; disciplined by suffering, we are not done to death; in our sorrows we have always cause for joy; poor ourselves, we bring wealth to many; penniless, we own the world.   *

Does it remind you of anyone?  Yes of course it does, it reminds you of the Lord Jesus himself.  And this is what we are called to be, for we are being made like him. 

Dear Christian brothers and sisters in Rugby, smashed into many pieces as we are, with our weakness, incompleteness and sin, with our widely different styles of worship and models of ministry, we are a smashable brand. 

People may point at our diversity and say, “How can you expect me to believe in God when you Christians can’t even agree among yourselves?”  Well, you know, we don’t have to beat ourselves up about that.  It is not our job to be like one another; it is our job to be like Jesus; dying, yet living on, poor himself and bringing wealth to many, penniless, yet owning the world. 

We sing different songs in our churches, and we accompany them with different instruments, yet we sing them to the same Lord; we have different names for that table at the front of the church, but it is redemption through Jesus’s broken body and shed blood that we all celebrate there; we have different ways of using water and different ideas about who it should be used upon, yet it is the Holy Spirit’s cleansing of our hearts that is his free gift to each one of us.  One Lord, one faith, one baptism.  Even in 64 pieces we are the church, a smashable brand in which each part stands for the whole; Christ in you, the hope of glory.

Yes, people may call us frauds and deceivers, but let us confound them by the innocence of our behaviour and by patience and kindliness.   They accuse us of hypocrisy, and they may well be right, but we are the impostors who speak the truth. 

Honour and dishonour, praise and blame alike will be our lot in this world.  But we know of an even better world to come where Jesus will take the broken fragments of his faithful community in his gentle hands, and restore them like shattered fragments of glass being re-formed into a sparkling bottle, one church to sing his praise for ever.  But of that day no-one knows, not the angels in heaven nor even the Son, but only the Father himself.  So let us joyously live each day that he gives, commending ourselves as God’s servants by steadfast endurance as we await the glorious coming of Christ our Saviour. 

If you agree, say “Amen”. 

And if that sounds good to you, say “Alleluia”. 

And if you want your church’s life and your own life to show forth Jesus to the world, say “Coca-Cola”.

Richard Horner, Rugby School, 22/1/12

*(2 Cor 6:1-10)

Godly Riot?

The recent dramatic events in Syria will have gripped most if not all who read this.  We will have seen the enormous crowds that gathered on the streets of Cairo and Alexandria.  We will have seen the response of the President and those who have supported him.  We will have then seen the intervention of the army and the steps that have followed.  We may have formed an opinion as to whether what has happened is right or wrong.  I have been trying to reflect on whether scripture casts light upon the situation.

There are a number of questions to consider.

• Does democracy have a theological basis as the preferred form of government?

• What does the Bible have to say about submission to secular authorities?

• If there is bad government are there any constraints on the actions of those who would protest?

There is no single expression of democracy.  Even countries that have had this form of government for centuries vary in the way it is practised.  In my opinion there is something disturbing where majority Christian countries with democracy so associate the two together that they then perceive democracy as the only right way to govern.  But there has been a trend to seek to impose democracy onto other nations replacing other historic forms of government.  It always seems to be an exercise that produces pain and bloodshed.

Both history and scripture reveal that there are other forms of government that could be benign or malignant.  Before Israel insisted on appointing a king to rule over them they appear to be constituted federally and from time to time appropriate leadership would emerge from among them.  Behind this, at the best of times, there was a sense of theocracy - an acknowledgement that God is ultimately head of state.

God's hand is seen in the appointment of some national leaders such as Moses, the Judges, King Saul and King David.  Clearly, later kings usually presumed a 'divine right' to rule in the place of their father.  But this is not prescribed in scripture. Nations prospered or failed often because of the moral character of their king.  Most kings seem to be autocratic in their leadership style, though they may have had advisers.

Perhaps we could draw lessons from how various kings and leaders understood their roles.  Some clearly were despotic and sought power for what it could do for them.  Others, saw it as a responsibility, a duty of care for others.  These are sometimes described as 'shepherd kings'; those who exercised authority for the good of others.  Scripture declares God's approbation of those who led the nation of Israel in good and godly ways, but that is not the same as approving the form of government.

There is, therefore, no pattern for secular government beyond the importance of it being righteous and for the common good.  But the kingdom of God stands in marked contrast with this.

Jesus called [his disciples]together and said, 

‘You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials 

exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become 

great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first 

must be your slave – just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, 

but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.’ (Matthew 20: 25-28)

I would like to think that those who are Christians followed this guidance within their church life and within Christian organisations.  But how would it work within a secular context?  I know of |a restaurant set up by a Christian businessman as a service to his local community and as a place where people could make contact with the Christian faith through literature that he made available.  After a few months of chaos he had to appoint a non-Christian manager to introduce greater authority over the work of the staff.  Only then did it succeed!

Good secular leaders should always provide a good example and govern for the good of others, but there is no prescribed style or framework authorised by scripture.

The Christian/secular boundary is addressed in scripture.  Matthew 17:27 and Matthew 22:15-22 tell us about the attitude of Jesus regarding taxation.  Jesus does not challenge the authority of Herod and Pilate when he is being judged by them.  Paul writes to the church at Rome "Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. ".  To Titus looking after the church in Crete he writes, "Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good,".  Peter also comments on this, "Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right.".

But all the passages from the epistles are about how Christians are to conduct themselves in the world and there is a presumption of good governance.  Early Christians chose to disobey the authority of Caesar where this was in conflict with their faith in Christ.  Many of them paid for this with their lives.  But this was passive resistance.  In the Old Testament Elijah stands as one who confronted and challenged the authority of the king on the grounds that he was acting contrary to God's will for God's people.  David, before he was enthroned but after he had been anointed, refused to raise his hand against the person of King Saul but was prepared to defend himself.

In England we trace our journey to democracy back to 1215 and the Magna Carta.  King John was not believed to be good.  He may have murdered another possible candidate to the throne.  He was in a serious argument with the Church and had lost significant land to the kingdom.  The Magna Carta limited the kings authority and to some extent made him accountable to a committee of barons. John's later rejection of the Magna Carta led to a civil war.  

The relation between King and Parliament was often uncomfortable and ultimately led to the English Civil War (1642 - 1651) and the execution of King Charles I.  The Civil War was a national uprising and the conflict between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians cost many lives.

Against this background I am not sure that we are in a position to judge what has been happening in the Arab nations, and especially in Egypt at this time.  While we might look back to the 17th Century and disapprove of some of the things done by Christian men who pertained to be acting for the common good, we treasure our democracy and long that others under despotic regimes might enjoy the same.

It is my hope that what has happened in Egypt that has led to overthrowing their first elected President may prove to be growing pains as the nation seeks to create a just society with good and fair government. Only time will tell.

Do You "Service" Your Minister?

In February 2012 I wrote this article which appeared in The Congregationalist magazine.

When did you last service your minister?

Before reading this article any further please take a moment to consider what you get serviced or maintained regularly.  If you own a car it is probable that to ensure it continues to function efficiently you will get it serviced at least annually.  If you own a house you probably get the outside painted periodically and invest money on the interior so that it continues to provide you with a warm and comfortable environment and does not fall apart.  Of course, such programmes of maintenance make sense.  After all, you will have probably invested quite a lot of money on such assets.

Now take a moment to think about your minister.  He or she is probably the greatest asset your church has.  Considerable money has probably been spent in training him or her so that you can benefit from his or her ministry.  Churches need to regularly review how well they are looking after this asset.  Are there any signs of stress?  Is the stipend sufficient or could something be done about that.  I have known some churches where ministers are expected to work for less than the official minimum wage, yet they have church members enjoying much higher incomes.

What about time for themselves and their families?  Do they have regular time off just for recreation?  Do you ensure that they are able to have at least one decent holiday each year?

Finally, what do you do to encourage your minister in further professional development?  When did you last send your minister to an educational conference or on a course?  In almost every profession such in-service training is expected to ensure competence.  If it has been more than three years since you invested in your minister in this way it has been far too long in my opinion.  If you want to bless the one who seeks to bless you please consider these things.

I have been immensely privileged at my churches to be treated admirably without having to ask.  Most ministers are reluctant to make financial claims.  Indeed some go to conferences at their own expense because they know that they need some regular input but dare not raise this at a Deacons Meeting or Church Meeting!  Occasionally I hear stories of outstanding care of ministers, but more often I am aware that this is not the case.

So please, if you value your assets please ensure they are all kept in good working order.  Is it time to service your minister?

You don’t have to be alone to be lonely (May 2013)

Article from Yelvertoft Parish Magazine

It is possible to be surrounded by others with lots of activities taking place and still feel lonely.  It is precisely in such situations that some people feel loneliness most acutely.  Walking down a busy street, seeing others engaged in animated conversations or holding hands might bring a smile to some but it can be like a dagger in the heart.

Loneliness is a major health problem. It has become recognised as a contributory factor in a number of illnesses, and even a cause of premature death.  Those suffering from loneliness can be closer to us than we think, but completely unrecognised.  While some do combat loneliness in various ways, those who suffer acutely rarely share this fact with others – not even their doctors or church ministers.  On the other hand some folk relish solitude.

It isn't just the elderly who become victims to loneliness, but it is often brought on following loss of loved ones and their companionship.  Some keep busy through the day but dread the evenings and night times.  One way of avoiding loneliness is to develop a good social network in the real world and not just the internet.  Rural communities have their fair share of lonely people and we would do well to ensure that people on their own are not deprived of the opportunity to enjoy social interaction.  A phone call might help a lonely evening.  An invitation to join others in a trip out (even shopping) can become the highlight in someone’s day.

Jesus was aware of the benefits of solitude but also the pain of loneliness.  Even as he hung on the cross he felt abandoned.  As he approached the end of his time on earth he told his disciples that they would not be left alone.  Some versions of the Bible use the term ‘left as orphans’. He promised his presence in a new but similar way – through the real presence of the Holy Spirit.  During May we celebrate the gift of this new Companion, and the promise “I will be with you always, to the end of the age.” 

I commend getting to know God in this way, as a friend and companion, and will gladly help anyone to discover this. But the same God once said, “It is not good for man to be alone”, so let’s ensure we are all here for one another, but do so sensitively and without unnecessarily intruding.  

Barry Osborne 16/04/2013