We have moved to www.theprognosis.org

It's an hour long, so if you want to go straight to source you can click here.

The backgorund is...Google host talks regualrly in their various headquarters. Talks are by authors, Presidential canditates, etc. For some reason, they invited Tim Keller.

I saw a programme about a month ago which had a guy on it who raced camels, like how people race horses. They go really fast. I would put a picture here to show you but we all know that's not going to happen! So search on google images and you'll get the gist. But that's not the "fast" about camels I mean. I mean how they have humps full of fat on their backs that mean they can fast, as in go without food, for ages.

So how's your fast been this year? Have you survived your 40 days Lent that finish on Saturday? Did you go all out and give up food completely or did you only give up, say, chocolate, or some other nicety? If you're anything like me, which I suspect most of us are, then Lent will have passed with you barely missing a single meal.

Unless you're part of the Anglican, Catholic or Orthodox church then fasting is not something we talk about much. We use those verses in Matthew 6:16-18

"When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

And based on this verse, we say that we shouldn't let people know we are fasting or have fasted and we shouldn't talk about it or do it even as a whole church. Or maybe that's just my experience? These verses aren't talking about how we shouldn't let others know that we are fasting or that fasting should be an individualistic thing. After all, the verses before tell us to pray in a closed room. The point there is that our prayers shouldn't be 'showy' and the point here with fasting is that our fasting shouldn't be 'showy' either. So instead of looking deliberately rough when fasting we should look our best, because we don't do it for glory in the site of men, but for God. 

It's something it's assumed we will do: "When you fast". It's something tied to prayer. But why do we do it? What is accomplished by fasting? How does it benefit me or God? These are questions on which the Bible is pretty much silent. I can't find any answers to these questions from the Bible. Can you? The answer I was given growing up was that fasting gives us more time to pray, and therefore that we can fast by merely not watching TV or something. I think there's a small amount of truth to that but I think limiting it to that is undercutting what fasting is.

So since the Bible remains quiet, that means we have to figure it out by experience. I've only fasted four times, ever, a total of, check me out, six days! One of those occasions wound up with me getting chased by 25 bullocks, but that's another story! So here's some thoughts (not at all exhaustive) from my experiences as to what the benefits of fasting are.

It expresses a devotion to God: Acts of devotion aren't in fashion at the moment. But fasting is one of these things. It expresses to God our commitment to him, that we are willing to go without our most basic needs for God. It's not that God needs us to actually do anything as such for him to see our commitment, but then God asks us to pray even though he knows what we will ask.

It highlights our weakness: When you're feeling weak, miserable and starving, you realise how pathetic you are. The fact that you need to rely on food to keep you alive shows what you are before the self-existent God. In a small way, you face your own mortality.

Food and life is shown as secondary to God: Food is something we expect. It's easier to have a meal than it is to take a bite out of God's Word. When we fast, the tables are turned. We are more ready to go to God and his Word since we can't have a meal anyway. God is physically shown as being more important to me than even my food. It's an obvious means of self-denial.

Those thoughts are not exhaustive, as I said, so if you have more experiential wisdom about it then please share in the comments.

If you've been inspired to have a go and have never done it before then start where you can. Try fasting for just a day or two. Or even just miss a meal. If you're feeling hardcore then why not actually try the 40 day fast. It is possible. I know Jesus was God so he was bound to last the 40 days, but many others have done it. Here's a website with tips on how to fast even for 40 days, as well as more discussion on the matter than I can give. It's not about how long you can last but about your heart as you fast.

WARNING: If you've got medical conditions or are not generally fit and healthy, be wise and check with your doctor first.

It's not an easy thing to talk about really. It's so much easier to try and be clever. And of course, the beauty of spending enough time in a Christian culture is you can get very good at it; you can say all the right stuff so that no-one (except those very close to you) notice anything is wrong, unless you want them to. Just get into a doctrinal debate, or onto your favourite illustrations. Talk about the weather, talk about the gospel even, talk about anything except how you are really doing. I mean, I don't want to scare anyone. But then again, I've probably reached the point where I don't really care.

I don't even know what to call it. 'Backsliding', perhaps? In the church culture I come from that term seems to be reserved for those who really go off the rails, you know - the classic AWOL cases. 'Spiritual dryness' seems to be the more PC, the more respectable - and less stigmatised - term for what I'm going through, although I'm not sure what the difference is, in all honesty.

Doubts. 'Have I just got this whole thing wrong?', 'There seem to be a lot of people out there doing quite well without the gospel...', 'Why don't I feel anything when I pray?', 'Why does the Bible not excite me any more?', 'Let's be honest, why I would I rather be doing something else - anything else - than spending time with God's people?', 'Am I just a product of conditioning?'...

Tiredness. Of the spiritual variety. 'I've just run out of steam in this ministry. Frankly, I couldn't care less. Someone else can worry about it. When they eventually notice I'm not really doing it...'

Melancholy. What a great word. But what an awful feeling. I have no joy, no peace.

I'm not bitter and twisted. I don't blame any one else for my arrival in this place. I'm as tired as the next man of all those worn-out excuses for disillusionment - "I just couldn't stand the hypocrisy of other so-called Christians..." - you know that sort of nonsense (as if they have never had a hypocritical thought in the last five minutes...)

Nope, I'm sure I have no-one to blame except myself, I'm just not sure how I got here - or how to get back out. I've been here for such a long time now, that I frequently lack the energy and the inclination to analyse it.

Of course, when you're doing well spiritually you have all the theory - hey, I know where it's at - I've read 'Spiritual Depression' twice at least. The problem is course, when you are this low, when the doubts REALLY creep in, when the heavens are as lead as they say, then the questions change - 'Do I actually want to get out of here?', 'Perhaps I quite like rebounding between arrogant individualism and self-pity?', 'Maybe that's as good as it gets so I should just go and find some more distractions? After all, some of them are quite good fun.'

And that's scary for anyone with theory.

One thing I do know - and this is not just theory - is that the only slight parting clouds, the only chink of light over the last couple of months, has been when I have been reminded of grace. And then only enough to prick my ears up a little, not to turn my life around. The rest of the time, everything inside of me tells me to read more, to pray more, to pull myself together, to just be better. And that simply makes the clouds thicker, heavier, and more oppressive. Because that's the very thing I have no inclination to be right now.

But to hear people talk about grace does quicken the pulse, slightly. And it does stir some faint feelings of motivation to love Jesus. I'm not saying the clouds part and I see everything new; but even so this, I suppose, is no coincidence.

For some reason, the word obedience has a hard time in todays society. Most people, I should imagine, on hearing the word would be put off imedieatly whatever was being discussed. Obedience implies submission (another 'dirty word') which implies authority (just usinig the 'a' word today probably gives this post an 18 certificate) and as a result is something to be scoffed at by today's postmoderistical outlook.


















But what's interesting for me is the central role obedience should play in our Christian lives. Last Wednesday I took the final installment in what seems like a marathon of Bible studies (which have lasted since last September) on the 'Sermon on the Mount.'

Jesus really hit it home for me how much obedience should be a normal part of our Christian lives, if not a key part. And it got me thinking. Essentially sin is disobedience, that's the problem! Essentially what seperated Jesus from every other human that's lived was...obedience, he did, always, the will of the Father.

When Jesus says on the day of judgement, "Away from me I never knew you." We should all be on the recieving end, becuase anyone who doesn't obey the will of the Father, no matter what they say or do, is actually a reject.

If you've ever read the sermon on the mount hopefully you've realised that this obedience malarky is impossible for you or I. Jesus knew this and that's why his first beattitude was "Blessed are the poor in spirit."

Luckily, because of the Saviour Jesus was, we don't get judged on that final day as to whether we are obedient or not because Christ was, more so than we could ever be. BUT, now we are saved, the Sermon becomes an example of obedience that the Spirit is working in us to achieve (it's called sanctifictaion).

how do you measure spiritual growth? I'm going to venture it's by obedience to the will of the one who sent Him.

I popped along to a different church this sunday morning just gone; an eccumenical church nontheless. (And by the way, proGnosis does not commend church hopping, only I had certain reasons for popping along which I can't go into otherwise I'd have to name and shame the church!) It was an interesting service led by a minister, whose name I think was Margaret and who wore a blue gown. We had a lovely blend of litergy mixed with candle-lighting prayers, some hymns and some readings (that I think fitted the church calendar) and a reflection on the readings (aka sermon) closing with a blessing and the grace. They also have a coffee shop that is part of their 'reaching out to the community' which I went along to this morning.

Now I am eccumenical. Not that I am an eccumenicist but that I am eccumenical.(as a description not a label. See a previous post on which there was much confusion!) I don't think that I'm the only one who will be saved nor only those who agree with me on every letter of the law, so to speak. I would love to see the church unified as Jesus prayed for in John 17:21. But the fact is, it's not. So the solution surely is that we unite over the lowest common denominator. So we'll start an eccumenical church where anyone who calls themselves Christian, who claims to follow Christ, can join and we'll accommodate them all, right?

But if you put too little concentrate in your blackcurrant and apple squash you end up with disgusting stuff, the sort that normally gets given to kids in Sunday School. I noticed this yesterday in the service. The thing is, I couldn't really disagree with anything. Ok, so the candle lighting was a bit la-de-da and though I may think that a lot of the practice was not the best practice, it didn't mean it was wrong per se. Then in the reflection/sermon, she went through the stories that were read out, she even spoke about the Hebrew word ruah, which means wind or spirit or breath or something (and no jokes about my Hebrew exam: yes I did fail!) Her two application points didn't say anything exactly wrong. They were: 1. We need to be loosed from whatever it is that binds us. 2. We need to loose others who are binded by whatever binds us. There was nothing wrong as such, but she could've gone on to explain that it is sin that binds us and it's only in Christ's atoning work and in being united to him that we can be freed. But if she had gone on to say that, well she would've been saying more than that eccumenical spirit allows and she would've offended someone for talking about sin binding us or something.

So why am I eccumenical at all? Well I think the converse is also true. If you put too much concentrate in your blackcurrant and apple squash you end up disgusting stuff that's just too sharp and strong for anyone to drink. I've been along to churches where only one type of person is allowed, where everyone agrees with every letter of every individual doctrine and you end up with clones and a flat, dull, two-dimensional expression of church! In unity we have a greater knowledge of the riches of Christ (Col. 2:2). We all understand Christ in slightly different ways so when we unite and share our differences we have greater understanding of Christ and a richer gospel.

So how concentrated should our churches be? Well, my blackcurrant and apple squash should be done 4 parts water to one part concentrate, but I dunno what that means for the church! How much should we seperate and how much can we unite over? It's an interesting question and one that the Bible doesn't really give us any guidelines on. Pretty much my favourite author pretty much always goes on about how we should unite over the creeds such as the apostles' or other creeds, Nicea maybe? I also asked a well known Bible College Principle (no prizes for guessing who), and he said it was a case of looking back over history and see what the majority have always agreed upon as the core. Both are similar answers but majorities can be wrong and old creeds addressed the needs of the time. I haven't really got any strong answers, though I think a lot of it has to do with humility, conscience, seeing what is clearly taught in scripture and an understanding of the difference between heresey, error and difference of opinion. Any other answers, on a postcard or in the comments below!

It's all very well saying we unite over Christ and the gospel according to the scriptures, but what does that mean? Whose Christ? Whose gospel? Whose interpretation of the scriptures?