Guy Fawkes, Empire, and the Scapegoat.

Today will be my first proper "Guy Fawkes Night" here in the United Kingdom. Having recently moved to the UK from Canada, I have the unique opportunity to experience a holiday as an 'outsider looking in' on a cultural norm. I find the whole day quite fascinating to say the least. Guy Fawkes Night features fireworks, celebrations, and a large blazing Bonfire - that may or may not feature a effigy of none other than Guy Fawkes. 

Guy Fawkes Night occurs every year on the 5th of November. The holiday is a celebration of the foiling of (Catholic) Guy Fawkes's attempt to blow up (Protestant controlled) England's House of Parliament on November 5th, 1605. An effigy of Guy Fawkes (or the Pope) is burned on bonfires across England in recognition of his part in the failed 'Gunpowder Plot of 1605'. 

This popular poem captures the tradition and story of Guy Fawkes Day:

 The Fifth of November,  English Folk Verse (c.1870)

 Remember, remember! 
    The fifth of November, 
    The Gunpowder treason and plot; 
    I know of no reason 
    Why the Gunpowder treason 
    Should ever be forgot! 
    Guy Fawkes and his companions 
    Did the scheme contrive, 
    To blow the King and Parliament 
    All up alive. 
    Threescore barrels, laid below, 
    To prove old England's overthrow. 
    But, by God's providence, him they catch, 
    With a dark lantern, lighting a match! 
    A stick and a stake 
    For King James's sake! 
    If you won't give me one, 
    I'll take two, 
    The better for me, 
    And the worse for you. 
    A rope, a rope, to hang the Pope, 
    A penn'orth of cheese to choke him, 
    A pint of beer to wash it down, 
    And a jolly good fire to burn him. 
    Holloa, boys! holloa, boys! make the bells ring! 
    Holloa, boys! holloa boys! God save the King! 
    Hip, hip, hooor-r-r-ray!

What I found particularly interesting while reading up on this odd holiday, was the discovery that Guy Fawkes had a very small part to play in the Gunpowder plot. Guy Fawkes was, in actuality, was just the man who was caught red handed. Fawkes’ notoriety results from his discovery on scene and his confession under torture which indirectly led to the deaths of the other conspirators. 

The roots of the dissension, that I believe led to the 'Gunpowder Plot of 1605' began seventy-one years earlier during the establishment of the Church of England. King Henry VIII founded the Church of England in 1534 when parliament declared that the King was the supreme head of the church. King Henry VIII needed to establish an English church because he wanted a divorce. The Papacy, based in Rome, would not grant the divorce to the English King. Henry VIII decided to bypass Rome and declared himself as the head of the church. This in turn allowed Henry VIII grant himself the divorce. The move strengthened the economy of England. King Henry VIII no longer was required to send monetary contributions to Rome in support of the Papacy. The money was now redirected to the benefit of England. In addition to no longer paying Rome, all Catholic cathedrals, monasteries, parishes, and church properties now became incorporated to the State. It would be no small understatement to suggest that this created a strong rift between practicing Catholics and the State. This began a long feud between Catholics and Protestants in England. The tension was not helped by the reign of  Mary, Queen of Scots -who tried to reestablish Catholicism, or the failed invasion by the Spanish Armada in 1588- which was an unsuccessful attempt to overthrow the Queen Elisabeth I.

Catholics were pushed further to the margins when Queen Elisabeth I  made it law for all public and religious officers to swear allegiance to the monarch as head of Church and State. Catholics felt hopeful when the throne fell to the Protestant James I, Elisabeth’s second cousin twice removed. Catholics were hopeful for King James the First, as his own wife was said to have converted to Catholicism. Yet despite their hopes, freedom of worship for Catholics in England continued to be a constant dilemma, to which change was not happening fast enough. James was distrusted in Continental Europe for the perceived continued repression of the Catholics. Governmentally, the Privy Council was pushing James to show even less tolerance towards the Catholics. One such legislation that continued under James' rule was the fining and taxation of Catholics who refused to attend services in their local Anglican parish.

This all culminated in the'Gunpowder Plot' of 1605. The hope of expanded freedoms for Catholics was diminishing with each passing day of King James’ rule. This led to conspiracy. The Gunpowder Plot was masterminded by three men: Robert Catesby, Thomas Wintour, and John Wright, with several others such as Thomas Percy and Guy Fawkes added after the original three had tried and failed to win the support of King Phillip III of Spain and Pope Clement VIII to engage in military action against England.

The plot, on that fateful night of November the fourth, was to position 34 barrels of gunpowder under the Parliament buildings with the intension to detonate the following day with none other than King Henry present. Fawkes, whose role it was to guard the gunpowder once in position, was arrested after intercepted anonymous correspondence was shown to the King only five days prior. Fawkes was discovered in the cellars underneath Parliament early on the morning of the 5th of November. Guy Fawkes had with him a dimly lit lantern, a pocket watch and matches. Guy was a relatively small person in the conspiracy. Fawkes’ has become a household name because of his discovery on scene and his confession under torture which indirectly led to the deaths of the other conspirators. 

In reaction to the Gunpowder plot, Parliament put forward the “Observance of November 5th Act 1605″, which was passed the following January.  Guy Fawkes was the scapegoat for the plot and the other actors in the story: his co-conspirators, the tyrannical Protestant establishment, the peacible Catholics who refused to engage in violent uprising, are largely ignored in popular retellings of the story. The reaction to the Gunpowder Plot strengthened the resolve to continue Catholic persecution; particularly in the form of the "Popish Recusants Act 1605". The Act forbade Roman Catholics from practising the professions of law and medicine and from acting as a guardian or trustee; and it allowed magistrates to search their houses for arms. The Act also provided a new oath of allegiance, which denied the power of the Pope to depose monarchs. The recusant was to be fined £60 or to forfeit two-thirds of his land if he did not receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper at least once a year in his Church of England parish church.The Act also made it high treason to obey the authority of Rome rather than the King.

Guy Fawkes Night reminds me of the power of Empire and of Scapegoating. There was a mimetic crisis brewing in the socio-political climate of England. A tension had been brewing on a international and national level towards the English persecution of Catholics and the weakened state of the monarchy. There was a mimetic desire for the ring of power- one sides desire to maintain it, and another's desire for it. It appears to me that Guy Fawkes and his associates could be placed in the category of Scapegoats and victims of Empire. Their failed rebellion and subsequent execution provided an offered victim- to which strengthened the identity of the nation state and justified the continued persecution of Catholics by the Protestants. Michael Hardin summarizes Scapegoating beautifully in his book "the Jesus Driven Life":

"No one wants to be a scapegoat; it is not exactly an office for which one runs. Yet… human culture, whether religious or ‘secular’, needs its scapegoats in order to function as a community. There is no human community without victims. We define ourselves less by who we are than by who we are not."

Why make a spectacle out of the perpetrators of the Gunpowder Plot ? Could they not have been put on trial and subsequently forgotten? Why ritually enact the burning effigies of Guy Fawkes and the Pope? Why did Protestant ministers openly preach sermons to denounce all seditious practices against King and country? Why did Catholics in England continue to suffer persecution for another two hundred years? 

I believe that a 'Girardian Lens" is helpful to understanding the deep reasons for why there is such a thing as "Guy Fawkes Night". Michael Hardin explains: 

"The victim, randomly chosen (or seemingly so), is placed under collective guilt. The channeling of mimetic fury to the death of the victim is the act which empowers all other social bonds. The unity of the community arises only in connection with the surrogate victim. A marvelous exchange has occurred. The mimetic woes that had plagued the community are (temporarily) washed away and peace has occurred through the ritual enactment of death. As the community cannot take the blame for its own blindness and superstition and so must blame the victim before they can justify killing the victim, even so, the benefits that accrue are attributed to the victim. In short, the victim is given divinity. A differentiation has occurred between the victim and the rest of the community. The victim is thus the origin of transcendence." 

Could it be possible that the reasons behind 'the reason' for Guy Fawkes Day are deeper than a mere celebration of a foiled plot? What if society needs the sacralization of the victim? Did not the failed rebellion of Guy Fawkes give the country a resolve to nationalism? Of all the English victories to celebrate, why the day of November the 5th? Why is there no 'Spanish Armada Day'? Why is there no "Magna Carta day'?  Perhaps, because the most dangerous perceived enemy is one who threatens our societal constructs? 

My suspicion is that 'Guy Fawkes Night' or as it was originally called, "Gunpowder Treason Day", contributed to the firm establishment of an English identity - both nationalistic and religious- above a formerly interconnected Roman-Euro-centric identity. A nation rejoices in a surrogate victim that provides a momentary uniting force. Social order was temporarily restored as people are satisfied that they have solved the cause of their problems by removing the scapegoated individual(s), BUT, as Girard makes clear, the cycle will begin again. (Perhaps this is what contributed to the English Interregnum?) 

So what about Guy Fawkes Night's meaning to us today? Do we still scapegoat(s)? Do we still seek identity crisis resolution through blame and accusation? Surely, us 'modern' people have moved past all that petty scapegoating and rivalry. Or have we? In 2012 the BBC's Tom de Castella concluded:

"It's probably not a case of Bonfire Night will ever decline, but rather a shift in priorities ... there are new trends in the bonfire ritual. Guy Fawkes masks have proved popular and some of the more quirky bonfire societies have replaced the Guy with effigies of celebrities in the news – including Lance Armstrong and Mario Balotelli – and even politicians. The emphasis has moved. The bonfire with a Guy on top – indeed the whole story of the Gunpowder Plot – has been marginalised. But the spectacle remains."

I leave you with these words from Rene Girard's seminal work, Things Hidden from the Foundation of the World. Thanks for reading. 

“Culture does not proceed directly from the reconciliation that follows victimage; rather, it is from the double imperative of prohibition and ritual, which means that the entire community is unified in order to avoid falling back into the crisis, and thus orients itself on the model – and the anti-model – which the crisis and its resolution now constitute. To understand human culture it is necessary to concede that only the damming of mimetic forces by means of the prohibition and the diversion of these forces in the direction of ritual are capable of spreading and perpetuating the reconciliatory effect of the surrogate victim. Religion is nothing other than this immense effort to keep the peace. The sacred is violence, but if religious man worships violence it is only insofar as the worship of violence is supposed to bring peace; religion is entirely concerned with peace, but the means it has of bringing it about are never free of sacrificial violence.” 

How Christians are a lot like Zombies...

There is a lot that could be said and not said about the comparisons between Christians & Zombies. I am not the first to make this connection. In fact, last night when I gave this talk, my Catholic friends gave me their take on the matter: "Christians & Zombies both like flesh and blood!!" they exclaimed. Given the view of transubstantiation you could totally make that case. But I won't.  A few years back there was even a movement called "Zombie Jesus Day" that tried to humorously draw comparisons about Jesus' rising from the dead and Zombies. There are even some critics that have compared the lack of thought from certain Christian groups as evidence that, "Christians want to eat your brains" and that faith is 'believing without any evidence'. I am not coming from any of the previous mentioned angles. For a bit of self disclosure: I am a huge fan of Zombie movies and I am a Christian. So I might tend to cast them both in a good light... 

How Christians are a lot like Zombies: 


1. Zombies & Christians have a singular focus to life.

Imagine for a moment that you were observing the behaviour of a Zombie for the first time. It would most certainly be a frightful sight. You would observe a decaying animated corpse covered in their last meal and endlessly searching for their next victim. You would hear the sounds of 'groaning', 'moaning', and 'screeching' emanating from this creature. The Zombie might seem like a slow creature, at first observation,  but given the right opportunity they become ferociously quick in catching their next meal. 

What drives a Zombie? What leads them to endlessly stalk prey, break down doors, and risk even their own existence? Two words:

Insatiable Appetite.

Zombies have a singular focus: human flesh, or more specifically: brains. It's the creed of their existence. In fact,  everything that the Zombie does can be boiled down to the search to satisfy their hunger. 

Q:Why did the Zombie break through the window of your car? 
A:Insatiable Appetite. 

Q:Why is the Zombie, whose legs were blown off by a shot gun, desperately dragging themselves along the ground toward you? 
A:Insatiable Appetite  

Q: Why is your best friend turned Zombie trying to kill you?
A:Insatiable Appetite


Now imagine that you were observing the behaviour of a Christian for the first time. In order to do this observation justice, let's also imagine that you are observing the 'first strain' of Christianity in the first century. (Patient Zero) You might observe that these 'followers of the Way' have an outward appearance like everyone else, but upon further investigation their behaviour is anything but normal. You would notice that these followers of The Way “all joined together constantly in prayer” (Acts 1:14) and "devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching"(Acts 2.42) If you got close enough to these Christians you might even hear 'strange sounds', some in your own language, emanating from them sporadically.(Acts 2.4) This 'speaking in tongues' would be so strange that you might even think they had started drinking at 9 in the morning. (Acts 2.13) You would also notice that these weird Christ followers, “shared everything they had.” (Acts 4:32) Who does that? What kind of disease makes someone willing to give up possessions and not buy into materialism? The most interesting behaviour you might notice among these followers of 'The Way' is when you try to kill to them. They might cry out things like, "Lord, do not hold this sin against them” (Acts 7.59) or run away from your persecution.(Acts 8.1) What will seem odd to you is that they never take up a weapon to try and seek revenge. It seems the more you kill these Christ followers the more they look like the one they are following, Jesus. 

What drives these Christians? What leads them to take care of the poor, pray for the sick, love their enemies, forgive without limit, and travel to ends of the earth? Two words:

Insatiable Appetite.

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work." (Jn 4.34) 

Christians have a singular focus: to do the will of the Father. Everything that a Christ follower does can be explained by their insatiable appetite to do the will of God. Christians are people that hunger and thirst for righteousness and justice on the earth. We don’t want to stop until our mission is fulfilled and the Kingdom has come.  

Q:Why do Christians feed the poor? 
A: Insatiable Appetite.

Q: Why is my best friend turned Christian praying for me?
A: Insatiable Appetite.

Q: Why is this Christian still loving and forgiving me even though I've told them off and hurt them? 
A:Insatiable Appetite.

2. Christians & Zombies die in exactly the same way.

The best way to kill a Zombie
 is to sever the head. There is no guarantee in any other method. You could try to cut off a zombies arms; but you just know they'll keep walking toward you. You could even shoot a Zombies legs clean off; but they'll drag their torso relentlessly toward you. You could empty the magazine clip from a handgun into the Zombie's torso. It might slow them down, but they eventually get back up! So as the picture above shows.... Aim for the head! 

“Christ is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.” Col 1.18 

Your head is arguably the most important part of your body. It houses the brain, which gives function to every other part of the body. According to the apostle Paul, Christ is the head of the Church. The metaphor “head” designates him both as supreme over the church and as the source of the church’s life. In the image of a living body, the head not only directs and governs the body, it gives it life and strength. You can live without an eye, a hand, or a foot, but you can't live long without a head! In the same way, in the life of a Christian, you could take away security, comforts, freedoms and they will still live. You could make it illegal to be a Christian, but that will not stop them. Even when you insult them, hurt them and put them to death.... It won't stop them!! They are relentless!

BUT, If you remove Jesus as head of the Christian's life.... You're guaranteed the death of a Christian. Or you can at least you can reduce them to living the status quo...

How to remove Jesus as the head: Put something else as head of the body and as the source of the Christian's life. Try a few of the following: 

Money

Career

Power

Worry

Pride 

Hate

3. Zombies & Christians are the Living Dead. 

Popular culture has long taught us that Zombies are the living dead – animated decaying corpses. They are no longer 'human' anymore. Zombies may bear a resemblance to human flesh BUT something is different. There is something within a Zombie that has transformed them from the dead to living dead.

 Zombies are not living people who have become the living dead. Zombies are dead people who have become 'animated' in their deaths. 

The real 'Living Dead"

Christians are also the 'living dead'. Paul tells us that, “We were dead in our transgressions and sins” (Eph 2.1) Dead. Dead as a doornail. No pulse. Yet something has happened to bring us to life in our death. Paul tells us that Christians have been “made alive with Christ even when they were dead in transgressions” (Eph 2.5) We were dead, and now we have been reanimated. Christians bear a resemblance to human flesh, BUT something is different. We may appear to be wasting away, but the Spirit is at work in us and will bring us to fulness of life in Christ. 

“....Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal.”- 2 Cor 4.16b- 18

Christians will still 'waste away' and be laid to rest like everyone else on the planet. That, however, is not the full picture. Paul tells us "that if our ‘earthly tent’ is destroyed we have a building from God, a house no human hands have built: it is everlasting in the heavenly places."(2 Cor 5.1 KNT) The Christian hope is that what is "doomed to die will be swallowed up in life."(2 Cor 5.4) But what about the present moment? Paul tells us that currently, "God is at work in us" and God has given us the Spirit as the "first instalment and guarantee. " (2 Cor 5.5) When a Christian confesses that Jesus is Lord they are 'animated' by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit dwells in us (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14; John 14:17); seals us unto the day of redemption (Eph. 1:13; 4:30); and grants us everlasting life (Gal. 6:8). 

4. Zombies & Christians work best in community. 

In a Zombie movie, the threat of death by Zombification is directly proportional to the amount of Zombies in your direct vicinity. Take the following scene from Shaun of the Dead:

Shaun and Ed deciding what to do about two Zombies in their backyard.

Shaun and Ed encounter two Zombies in their backyard who are slowly walking towards them. Shaun and Ed first try to resist the Zombie's advances by throwing dishes, cutlery and vinyl records to no avail. Shaun eventually breaks into the shed to discover a cricket bat and a shovel. Shaun and Ed then proceed to deal with their Zombie aggressors. The whole scene is really hilarious, and gives our protagonists enough time to figure out how to deal with the problem. If, however there were ten Zombies, the scene might have turned out a bit differently. 

Zombies work best in community. A single Zombie is easy to resist. It becomes way more difficult to deal with a 100 Zombies sauntering down the street towards you. The more Zombies there are, the more trouble you have on your hands. Zombies use their numbers to help them achieve their goal of satisfying their appetites. Zombies act as a cohesive interdependent unit that is united in the goal of getting the next meal. A Zombie hoard can surround your position and cut off all hope of escape.  

Christians also work best in community. A single Christian is easy to dismiss. A single Christian cannot address the deep brokenness of a hurting world. It becomes harder to dismiss a community of Christians living out the Kingdom of God. Christians use their numbers to help them to do the will of the Father. Christians believe that each member is part of a greater body united for common goal. (1 Cor 12.27) Christians act as a cohesive interdependent unit that is united in the goal of doing the will of the Father. A hoard of Christians can surround issues like poverty, injustice, slavery, racism and cut off all hope of enabling humanity to perpetuate the status quo. 

The Cross and the Crucifix

The Man of Sorrows, Aelbrecht Bouts (c. 1460-1549)

The Cross is not a detour or a hurdle on the way to the  kingdom, nor is it even the way to the kingdom; it is the kingdom come.

 -John Howard Yoder

There was a time when reflecting on the Cross,  I might have tried a 'cold approach'. It's the approach that collapses and restricts my thinking about Jesus' death into Easter Weekend OR WORSE into one specific dominate atonement theory. It's the approach that treats Jesus more as an object than the Lord that I imitate. It's the approach that is cold to the way of the Cross. The 'cold approach' allows me gloss over seeing myself in the story of the Cross. I am guilty of having a 'cold approach'. There was a time when I was more excited about memorizing facts on 'hot-topic' theological issues than about Jesus and the way of the Cross. You can get a lot of energy from theology, but don't try getting life from it. It's a dangerous path that can lead to idolatrous certainty. Get life from Christ. 

I've long since given up the 'cold approach' on my reflection on the Cross (and Jesus for that matter). I've shifted my thinking to see that the Gospel writers are not merely recording history, but each author has a rich theology that must be paid attention too! I have opened up shop on the Gospels and I have found a very deep, deep, deep well. I no longer see the Cross as Jesus dying so that I don't have too, but rather I am crucified with Christ. 

Identification

Union

Participation

Solidarity 

It is important to remember that Jesus first identifies the way of the Cross in the context of being a disciple who follows him. (Luke 9:22-24, Matt 10:38, Mark 8:34) If any person is to follow Christ they must take up the Cross and lose their life in order to find it. I too must take up my Cross and follow the Risen Lord. Christ has bid me come and die. It's a sobering thought... but I can't escape the deep implications of Christ's call to me. 

These days I find myself praying Paul's words to be "resolved to know nothing except Jesus Christ and him crucified." (1 Cor 2.2) I've never been more cut to heart than meditating about Jesus on the Cross. It takes a lot out of me. I feel a weightiness about the Cross. It brings me to tears. I endlessly contemplate Jesus' words to, "Take up your Cross and follow me". Prayer for me has often become a time of beholding Jesus on the Cross. I sit in silence and contemplate on the mystery of the Cross as a stumbling block, as foolishness, as the power of God. (1 Cor 1) 

I see on the Cross:

The disfigurement.

The Suffering Servant.

The scandal.

The offensiveness. 

A humanity driven by fear, pride, and maintaining the axis of power enforced by violence. 

The beauty of the Son of God who speaks the words of forgiveness from the Cross of his death. 

The Son of man who fully identifies with humanity in suffering. 

The Father who has not hidden his face from him but has listened to his cry for help. (Ps 22.24) 

The Cross and the Crucifix

This video features a short reflection from Morpeth's Anglican Rector, Reverend Simon White, about his infamous Crucifix that hangs on the wall of his office. I thought the story was worth sharing. I've also thrown in some of my favourite paintings and quotes for good measure. 

Teaching: It's more than what you think.

A teacher imparting information to his students.

Ideas have consequences. 

It has been said before that whatever you circulate as accepted thinking will typically result in the creation of accepted culture norms and patterns of behaviour. This is to say (in some sense): You become what you think. The way we might put this in a theological jargon is to say: Our orthodoxy informs our orthopraxis. I believe this to be true, but I have discovered that it is not exclusively true. 

There was a time where I might have thought that the best, if not the only way to 'teach' (train//disciple//convince) a person would be through extensive appeal to the cognitive approach. This approach to teaching is grounded in what some scholars label the ‘Socratic method’, that is aptly named after its originator Socrates. The Socratic Method seeks to arrive at a solid, tenable conclusions by the use of critical thinking, reasoning, and logic. I get a lot of satisfaction with working out the truthfulness of an idea. It is a strong conviction of mine that change often takes place at the root of an idea. But, as we will soon discover: Logic has its limits. We cannot for instance measure the true impact of  teaching on the ability to recite information alone. Observable behaviour should also factor into our teaching methods. This is to say that learning can be manifested by a change in behaviour.

Gandhi put it this way: “Your beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, Your actions become your habits, Your habits become your values, Your values become your destiny.” I am convinced that the way to discern the effectiveness of teaching is to assess a change in behaviour. Behaviours do matter. Our actions are indicative of how well we have processed the material. This is why good theology must be lived out. 

Israel Galindo in his book, The Craft of Christian Teaching, suggests that what we learn will change us in three primary ways: knowledge, attitude, behaviour. 

L = __C__

       (k, a, b) 

L: Learning, C= Change; k= knowledge a= attitude; b= behaviour.

Learning creates changes to our cognitive, affective and effective abilities. Galindo believes that, "Knowledge is the easiest to change." We can assimilate facts, data, and concepts with relative ease and subsequently allow new information to inform and correct old information. The hardest area to change, according to Galindo, is our attitude (emotional//affective). Good teaching, according to Galindo, must seek to address our knowledge, attitude and behaviours. This will result in ‘different’ hopefully better persons. All learning, according to Galindo, should result in change. Learning is change!

A recent research paper published by  Dr. Dan Kahan, a Yale Law School professor, appears to have confirmed Galindo's hunch about attitude being the most difficult area to effect change. 

In Kahan’s experiment, some people were asked to interpret a table of numbers about whether a skin cream reduced rashes, and some people were asked to interpret a different table – containing the same numbers – about whether a law banning private citizens from carrying concealed handguns reduced crime.  Kahan found that when the numbers in the table conflicted with people’s positions on gun control, they couldn’t do the math right, though they could when the subject was skin cream.  The bleakest finding was that the more advanced that people’s math skills were, the more likely it was that their political views, whether liberal or conservative, made them less able to solve the math problem.

Dr. Kahan demonstrates in the study that, "partisanship (emotional attachment) can even undermine our very basic reasoning skills." Kaplan commenting on Dr. Kahan's study asserts, "We want to believe we’re rational, but reason turns out to be the ex post facto way we rationalize what our emotions already want to believe."

It would appear that teachers (those who desire to effect change) really do have their work cut out for them! Galindo admits this when he writes, "Change is difficult, sometimes painful, and often resisted." I believe that Dr. Kahan's research has proven that teaching must address more than just the cognitive faculties. Teaching is not merely the relaying of data. Or as Galindo puts it,  "receiving  new information is not a sufficient definition for learning." Successful teaching needs to have a holistic commitment to every faculty and component of learning. As Kaplan asserts, "When there’s a conflict between partisan beliefs and plain evidence, it’s the beliefs that win. The power of emotion over reason isn’t a bug in our human operating systems, it’s a feature." This means that teacher's everywhere must ask afresh the question, "Am I teaching to effect change in all domains of learning?" 

Guidelines to help teach for change:

• Determine the change in the lives of your learners that your teaching will call for.
• Write a learning objective that focuses on that change in the domains of knowledge, attitude, or behaviour. 
• Teach one thing. One thing only per lesson
• Teach to effect change in one domain. (knowledge, attitude or behaviour)
• Use learning methods that will help the students reach that objective
• Determine how the student will demonstrate that learning has taken place. 

In order for someone to believe (holistically learn), four components must be operative to some degree:

Affective (feeling, emotional)

Cognitive (Knowledge, understanding)             

Behavioural (Action, conduct)

Volitional (will, conviction, passion)

"Knowledge plus feeling leads to a volitional conviction that is evident in behaviour." - Galindo

Did Jesus subscribe to the idea that learning equals change? Did Jesus address the cognitive, affective, and behavioural in his teaching? Yes, I think so. There is a case to be made that the Sermon on the Mount is the culmination of effective teaching. 

Attitude ("don’t even hate your brother/sister", "do not judge", "do not worry"), 

Knowledge ("you have heard it said", "those who hear these words of mine", "therefore I tell you") 

Behaviour ("turn the other cheek", "pray for those who persecute you", "put this into practice").  

Jesus does not let us off the hook. Christ’s teaching is meant to apply to the domains of knowledge, attitude and behaviour. The call for a disciple is to follow Jesus. It is important to note that Jesus ends his body of teaching on the Mount with the example of the wise and foolish builders. The wise builder is the one who "hears Jesus' words (meaning the previous body of teaching) and "puts them into practice".  Jesus expects his disciples obey and to enact the teaching of the Sermon. Jesus does not appear to regard the discipleship of the Sermon as an 'impossible ideal'. (Luther) Jesus' last words in Matthew's Gospel are a reinforcement of the Sermon. 

" When they saw him, they worshiped him (attitude//behaviour); but some doubted (attitude). Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me (attitude//knowledge). Go (behaviour) therefore and make disciples (behaviour) of all nations, baptizing them (behaviour) in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them (knowledge) to obey everything (behaviour) that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always (attitude), to the very end of the age." - Matthew 28:17-20

The early church took the teaching of Jesus and the Apostles so seriously that potential converts to Christianity were expected to practice that teaching before joining the church or having been taught the Sermon on the Mount. Alan Kreider comments:

This may seem severe and legalistic to us today, even perverse. How could a community rebuff people as potential members for not living according to the standards of the group before they had been taught? But the early Christian catechists were attempting not so much to impart concepts as to nurture communities whose values would be different from those of conventional society. Christian leaders assumed that people did not think their way into a new life; they lived their way into a new kind of thinking. [1]

The early church recognized that inhabiting a new way of thinking (indeed, a new way of living) is essential to full reception of the teaching of Jesus and genuine conversion to the way of the cross. Potential converts to Christianity were coming for baptismal instruction having their thinking already conformed to the scheme of the age. 

What would change in the church today if we "lived our way into a new kind of thinking"? (Check this video out)

May you be challenged to love the Lord your God 

With all your heart 

With all your soul 

With all your mind 

With all your strength! 

Works Cited

1. Alan Kreider, The Change of Conversion and the Origin of Christendom (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999), p. 23.

Encountering the Holy Spirit in John 14-16

I had the great opportunity to be invited to speak at the 'Encountering the Holy Spirit' event here in Morpeth, England. The event is an ecumenical effort hosted by all the churches here in Morpeth. We gathered to worship, pray, listen and seek God. What really impressed me was the diversity of denominations represented at the event. We had Anglicans, Catholics, Pentecostals, Anabaptists, Methodists, etc... represented at the gathering. It was very encouraging to see the greater body gather in this way! 

I thought I would share the audio of the session (click here) and share my notes I made during my study time. (read below)  

The context of John 14-16

John 14-16 is a part of the “Farewell Discourses” which are found between 13.31 to 17.26. John is drawing upon a well established Jewish literary tradition. Jewish testaments imagine the dying (or departing) person surrounded by his most intimate friends and family.There is an exhortation to obey the law, to carry on, predictions of what is to come, and typically conclude with a prayer for those left behind. In some cases, the departing person passes his “spirit” to his followers or successor. The best examples of a Farewell Discourse are Moses to Joshua and Elijah to Elisha. (Deuteronomy 31–34; 2 Kings 2:9–14) 

The focus of the Farewell Discourse is always for the concern for the comfort and encouragement of those left behind. It is no surprise then that we observe the following over the next few chapters:

• “Do not let your hearts be troubled”(14.1) 
• Jesus speaks directly of his upcoming death, resurrection and accession.  “Where I am going you cannot follow” (13:33) 
• Jesus is preparing his disciples for what is yet to come. “I’ve said these things to you,” Jesus went on, “ to stop you from being tripped up”. 16.1  
• Jesus promises the Holy Spirit  (the Comforter)“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper, to be with you forever.” 14.16

"In the farewell of Jesus many of the traditional elements appear. He encourages his disciples and comforts them (John 14:1). He also urges them to be obedient (13:34; 15:12). Moreover, Jesus promises that his Spirit will indwell and empower his followers following his death (14:17, 26; 15:26; 16:3, 13). In other words, we have in John 13–17 all of the elements of a Jewish farewell."

 - John, NIV Application Commentary

“These chapters have often rightly been seen as among the most precious and intimate in the New Testament. They are full of comfort, challenge and hope, full of the deep and strange personal relationship that Jesus longs to have with each of his followers. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are also full of some of the richest theological insights, of a sense of discovering who the true God is, and what he’s doing in the world and in us.”  - John For Everybody, N.T. Wright 

So what does Jesus teach us about the Holy Spirit in John chapters 14-16? 

The Holy Spirit empowers us to do the work of Jesus. (Jn 14:12, Acts 1:8)

• “I’m telling you the solemn truth, ‘Anyone who trusts in me will also do the works that I’m doing. In fact, they will do greater works than these, because I’m going to the father!” John 14.12
• Immediately after promising the greater works, Jesus begins to talk about the Holy Spirit. 
• If it is true that the power of God is resident in Jesus and that the disciple is invited to know Jesus and gain life from him, then in some manner the disciple will share in God’s power. It is of utmost importance to note that the astonishing promise of 14:12 points to the future. Jesus must first go to the Father before the promise of remarkable works and realized prayer can come.
• “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you and will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” -Acts 1:8 

The Holy Spirit is our Paraclete ( παράκλητος)  

“And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraclete ”(14.16a)

• The word used here in the Greek is ( παράκλητος). 
• This word occurs 5 times in the New Testament, all in the writings of John. (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7) 
• A fifth (and final) use occurs in 1 John 2:1, where Jesus is called a paraclete.
• It can be translated as Comforter, Encourager, the Helper, the Advocate, the Intercessor. 
• Occurs in secular Greek literature for an advocate in a court of law, who comes “alongside” a person to speak in his or her defence and provide counsel.

Jesus calls the Spirit another helper.

• Up until this point Jesus has been walking with the disciples, teaching them, sending them out to heal the sick, bind up the broken hearted.
• Jesus is thus a Paraclete, who is now sending a second Paraclete: The Holy Spirit. 
• 1 John 2:1, Jesus is called a paraclete.
• This means that the ongoing work of the Spirit will be a continuation of the work of Jesus during the disciples’ lifetime.

The Holy Spirit is with us forever.

“to be with you forever” (14.16b)

“I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” 14.18

Jesus does not abandon his disciples to their own devices. They are not like sheep without a shepherd, but rather the Good Shepherd calls out to his sheep, and his sheep hear his voice. The promise is that God's very breath, his Spirit, will dwell in us and with us forever. God is not far from anyone. God is with us.

Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Truth 
“This other helper is the Spirit of Truth” 14.17

• We know that in context Jesus has already said that he is “the truth” (14:6)
• Jesus is also teaching us that the Holy Spirit is Spirit of truth BECAUSE he testifies of the truth (Jesus). (16:13)
• Holy Spirit communicates the truth about God, which is the essence of God’s work in Christ 

Holy Spirit dwells in us - John 14:17 (Rom. 8:9; 1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Tim. 1:14;) 
“The world can’t receive him, because it doesn’t see him or know him. But you know him, because he lives in you and will be in you” 14.17


Jesus is describing a pattern of divine life, of indwelling and mysticism, in which God and Jesus share an interiority that leads to this sharing of glory; he also anticipates that disciples will enjoy a similar unity with God (17:24; cf. 14:23) and each other (17:11, 22). Jesus here envisages a profound spiritual intimacy that changes human life. It is a unity encompassing the Father with the Son, the disciples with them both, and the disciples in union with one another.

Holy Spirit teaches us
(1)He brings things to our remembrance.

• “But the helper, the Holy Spirit , the one the Father will send in my name, he will teach you everything. He will bring back to your mind everything I’ve said to you.” (John 14:26)

(2) The Holy Spirit speaks directly to us.

• “I have many more things to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of Truth comes he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and will tell what is yet to come. ” - John 16:12-14

Example of the Holy Spirit teaching the church:


(See Acts 10-11)
Peter was forcefully directed by the Holy Spirit to move into new theological territory that must have seemed completely uncertain. This is what Jesus describes in John 16:12–14. The Holy Spirit will be “the Spirit of truth,” guiding his followers into all truth, which they could not then bear to hear but which Jesus no doubt wanted to tell them later.

Here is the heart of the question: Does the Spirit simply lead each generation to apply the truths of Jesus in new ways? Certainly this is true. But does the Spirit also lead into new territory, new doctrines, and new activities unknown in Jesus’ historical ministry? In the present example, one could argue that Peter’s mention of clean and unclean in Acts 10:14 may echo Matthew 15:11 (Mark 7:19; cf. Rom. 14:14), where Jesus redefines “unclean” with new parameters. The Spirit has simply pressed the apostles to apply this truth in an unexpected way.


The Holy Spirit glorifies and testifies of Christ (John 15:26; 16:14).

• “When the helper comes - the one I shall send you from the Father, the spirit of truth who comes from the Father- he will give evidence about me.”(15:26) 
• “He will glorify me, because he will take what belongs to me and announce it to you” (16:14)
• Holy Spirit does not teach us something additional to Christ, but rather testifies of Christ.
• In theological jargon, our pneumatology (doctrine of the Spirit) must have a Christo-logical basis. To experience the Spirit is to experience Jesus.

The Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin, justice, and judgment.

“When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin, justice (righteousness) and judgment.” (John 16.8) 

"One important issue involves the Greek verb elencho, translated “prove wrong about” in the first edition of the NIV: “[The Spirit] will prove the world wrong about sin. . . . ” Here the idea is that of convincing the world about the truth of its wrongdoing. Brown thinks this contradicts 14:17, since there the world cannot accept the Spirit-Paraclete. But this is a different matter: In 14:17 Jesus is talking about receiving the Spirit, not hearing its message." - John, NIV Application Commentary





"The Spirit will prove that the world is in the wrong, on the three counts that really matter.First, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to sin. In other words, the world is guilty of sin; and the evidence is that 'the world', as we have seen throughout this book, has not believed in Jesus . This can only be, Jesus insists, because it is bent on its own way rather than God's way. 

Second, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to justice. The world thinks it has justice on its side. But the vindication of Jesus himself- which consists of his 'going away' and being exalted to the Father- is the sign, as in Daniel 7, that the living God has already give sentence on his behalf. If it's justice you want, we already know the verdict:  God had decided in favour of Jesus as the righteous one. All those who follow Jesus share that verdict. (This is where John comes very close to what Paul means by 'justification by faith'.) 

Third, the Spirit will demonstrate that the world is wrong in relation to judgement, which here means 'condemnation'. The world supposes that is can and should pass judgement on Jesus' followers. But the events which are about to unfold, the events of Jesus' death and resurrection, indicate decisively that they are wrong. These events mean that 'the ruler of this world'- the dark power that has kept humans and the world enslaved- has been condemned. His power has been broken. Death itself, the weapon of tyrants and particularity of 'the satan', is a beaten foe. " -John For Everybody, N.T. Wright 

Jesus is convinced that it is ‘better for us’ if he goes away.

“Very truly I tell you, it is for your good I am going away. Unless I go away the Advocate will not come to you, but if I go away I will send him to you.” - John 16.7 

"'If only we'd been there when Jesus was around!' people
often say. 'It would have been much easier. He would have explained everything to us, and told us what to do. And he'd have been such an encouragement. Whatever we are doing, he'd be positive about it, and we'd want to go on and do even better.' It's a common perception but it's wrong on two counts. 

First, the evidence of the four gospels suggest that the people who were around in Jesus' day didn't see it life that themselves. Some of his closest friends betrayed and denied him. Even the beloved disciple ran away in the garden. Most people couldn't really make him out. He was compelling but puzzling. Many thought he was mad. 

Second, in this passage and several others in the next two chapters, we find that Jesus has promised to be 'around' with his people from that day to this. In fact, he's promised that it will be easier, not harder, in this new mode. His people will be able to do things they couldn't do when he was physically present. 

But how will be 'around', now? He has promised to send us his own Spirit, his own breath, his own inner life. " -John For Everybody, N.T. Wright

Questions for reflection:

1. Have you ever experienced the comfort, strengthening, empowerment of God in your life? 

2.Why is Jesus so convinced that it is 'better for us' that he goes away? 

3. Why do we have tendency to down play the role of the Holy Spirit? (e.g. The creeds have only one line for the Holy Spirit)