Crimperman.org

Convenience is the anti-thesis of security

Part of my job is to do with security of websites and their underlying infrastructure. I’ve long held the view that the anti-thesis of security is convenience. Ask anyone dealing with computer system security and chances are they’d agree it’s not a good idea to let people choose their own passwords or pin numbers. There are factors such as the importance of what you are protecting that come into play but in general if you let people choose their own password they’ll go for something which is easy to remember and therefore guess or work out. Pin numbers will be the same: if they can get away with it most people will keep them the same on every system. Convenience for the person undermines security of the system. As this photo proves (I couldn’t find an attribution for this by the way so if it’s yours let me know).

But it’s not just security that suffers by convenience. I appreciate I will sound like Monty Python’s old Yorkshire men (“You tell that to kids today…”) but the truth is that we live in a world where convenience is the key. E-mail, Tweets and Status updates are pushed to mobile phones, bookings are made online or by SMS — preferably on the way to the venue and wireless internet connections are left unsecured and open because it’s easier that way. The phrase of our times seems to be “Can’t be bothered” (or a more colourful alternative) not because of apathy but because of pseudo-laziness. I say pseudo-laziness because this isn’t us not wanting to do something, it’s just us not wanting to take too much time or spend too much effort on it (which I suppose is laziness then). Some believe this is all a product of our drive for an instant world, I think it’s about convenience: you buy a new gadget and you want it to be charged already not wait for 24 hours, joint electricity and gas supply deals are sold not only because of cost savings but because it’s more convenient to deal with one company (until you actually have to deal with them then it’s anything but convenient!), people are encouraged to spend rather than save for things (presumably ‘spending’ on credit) and instead of buying your shopping “when the shops are open” it’s more convenient to dodge the shelf-stackers in the wee hours. I appreciate that there are good reasons for some if not all of these but the truth is that, to take 24 hour supermarkets as an example, once the store is open 24 hours it’s not just those who can’t get to the shops in normal hours who use them. We live in a world driven by convenience and whilst it can be both a nice thing and a dangerous thing it is not something that is likely to change.

Inconvenient truth?

It’s important to remember then that it is into this world we Christians are bringing our message. Our message which can sometimes make “store up your treasures in heaven” sound like “save for a rainy day”. A message which we too often present as “Thou shalt not” instead of “Have real and eternal life, more and better life than [you] ever dreamed of”. So what do we do? In a world which says “I can’t be bothered” how do we present “Love your neighbour as yourself”? Can it be that the Christian message is behind the times in ways we hadn’t considered before? Do we need to present it in ways which make it more convenient for people? In truth we already are. Fresh expressions, Messy church, Street pastors are all excellent examples of the Church making itself more accessible and removing the obstacle of inconvenience and they are not the only ones. But is this enough? Is it enough that organisations, churches and groups run these kind of projects or are we in danger of segregating the Church into the old and the new? Many studies have been made and papers written about the problems with running alternate ways for people to “do church” with many very clever people warning about the dangers of ending up with two “congregations”.

It’s up to us

But there’s something which keeps nagging at me. Whilst all these activities, projects and groups are great let’s not forget that many of the key moments in Church growth have come when God moves individuals to (for want of a better word) witness to those around them. This is important to remember. If the world around us is living by “Can’t be bothered”, the only way for me and you to teach them the importance of “Love your neighbour” is to do it. If the culture of saving seems foreign (no matter how good the advice) then the only way for us to demonstrate “Store up your treasures in heaven” is to do it and show it as it is: building for both now and the future. I am sure there are those who will disagree with me but Christianity is not about making God convenient, it’s about living as citizens of Heaven here and now: making God accessible through Jesus, through our words and actions. It’s about being inconvenienced ourselves so that other might experience life-changing grace. Yes it may involve changing our ways but the Church is all about change (despite the picture we present), it’s a “building” that is built of lives, hearts, hopes and love. No building remains the same while it is under construction so yes the Church must adapt, change and grow to keep its arms open to everyone but it’s not the building which lives but the stones it is made of – aka us. It’s been said that Christianity is supposed to be caught not taught and that you may be the only Bible people ever read. Now if you ask me both of those already sound like a convenience.

Should our churches adopt this model for teaching? (image by weathertation CC:By-NC-SA)

Yesterday I attended Evangelical Alliance’s Social Media for Social Change event in London and thoroughly enjoyed it . As others have noted there was probably greater emphasis on social media than social change but this was not really surprising or a negative thing. Something that came up almost as a side comment in one of the Q&A sessions was the issue of teaching within our churches. A comment was made about how the education system underwent a change from “a sage on a stage to a guide by your side”. This is rather catchy but it does sum up the issue well. I attended school well within the “sage on a stage” era but still encountered teachers who would very much work with me and were approachable, encouraging and available. They really did guide me through my studies rather than dictate what they felt I needed to know to pass an exam. By stepping away from he blackboard, taking time to listen and being more human they gained a greater respect from me than other teachers. Coincidentally I find I can now – all these years later – remember more of what they taught me than those who simply lectured.

A change or a return?

Anyway back to the church. Can and should the way teaching is undertaking in our churches undergo a similar change as the education system? And if so how? A round table discussion took place at the conference on these very points and various concerns were raised. Moving people out of their comfort zones is a risky business. Churches who had tried something other than a preach-cum-lecture approach had received significant negative feedback and yes as expected threats were made.

And yet something in me thought of this passage from Luke 4:

¹⁶ When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. ¹⁷ The scroll containing the messages of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him, and he unrolled the scroll to the place where it says: ¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, ¹⁹ and that the time of the Lord’s favour has come. ” ²⁰ He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at him intently. ²¹ Then he said, “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” ²² All who were there spoke well of him and were amazed by the gracious words that fell from his lips. “How can this be?” they asked. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” _{Luke 4:16-22 NLT}

When Jesus finishes reading the scriptures he sits and every eye is on him. This is because it was traditional at the time for Rabbis to sit in the synagogue when they taught. By sitting down Jesus indicated he was about to teach. I’ve been to a few Bar-Mitzvahs and most synagogues I’ve been to are not arranged in the same way as churches. There is no pulpit and the “congregation” are not facing in one direction. They sat around the teacher and listened. Another way to put it is that the teacher sat among them. Scholars suggest this may have been how synagogues were arranged in Jesus’ time. How different is this to the arrangement in our churches? Another difference is that Jesus when he teaches permits and even encourages interruption. Witness how he permits the children to come to him and how often we read of someone asking a question while he is teaching. How often have you sat in a church and somebody has raised a question only to be told that they can “have a chat” later with the preacher – which often sounds like “Sit down and be quiet while I make my point”. (I do appreciate why this is done and that it is not often what is really meant but it does sound like that).

A challenge

So here’s the challenge:

Can and should the teaching methods in our churches change? What would happen if the preacher/teacher sat among the congregation? What would happen if they were not only allowed but encouraged to ask questions?

It’s interesting to note that this happens in many churches already. Those who run a “cell church” model will already meet in a more “guide by the side” way. Home groups are often similar and many a youthworker will tell you that is how they work. All these are often successful within those contexts and yet when all this is put aside and we come to “do proper church” we revert back to “the sage on the stage” model. Another point to make is that I personally — and I know I am not alone here — am uncomfortable with the gravitas that is automatically bestowed upon anyone standing up the front. Sometimes it feels like you are taken as some kind of super-Christian when nothing could be further from the truth. Thankfully this is on the wane as people are remembering that preachers put their trousers on (if they wear them) the same as everybody else and might even get annoyed if they get their foot stuck.

I’m not sure how or even if this change should take place but surely it must be worth thinking about?

Photo by Bradley Newman CC:By-SA http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradley_newman/68921818

Some interesting thought patterns have been sparked off in my head by Twitter this week.

Cracked pedestals and treasure

The first is the fallout following Stephen Fry’s “fall from grace”. To be honest that’s a complete misnomer but what happened is that Stephen Fry – possibly one of the most popular people on twitter was quoted (he says mis-quoted) by the press as saying some things which at face value seemed rather sexist. The shock which reverberated around Twitter wads almost tangible. Millions of people “follow” Stephen Fry and is (particularly here in the UK) hailed as a sort of public treasure. Indeed he has been hailed as a National Treasure here many times. With excellent TV shows like “Last chance to see” and “QI”, he has somehow — and without him seemingly seeking it — been elevated to almost being worshipped by many who see him as a sort of modern-day wise-man. It’s important to note here that Mr Fry has not promoted himself in this way, he has to the most part been himself and because he comes across as likeable it is his “followers” who have elevated him to a high pedestal. He has as Shakespeare put it had “greatness” thrust upon him to the point where his word is often taken as truth simply because he says it. Again I imagine he’d be shocked at this but that is the scenario that was built around him. With all such situations it is inevitable then that the pedestal would reveal cracks and when it was even suggested that it did many of those who put him on it then criticised Stephen because he was up there. The irony of all this is not new. Stephen Fry is not the first “celebrity” who is worshipped and then pulled down or – in this case – vilified if he shows himself to be human. In fact the UK seems to have a real propensity for such behaviour. What is flavour of the month will next month be rejected as “uncool” (or whatever this month’s word is) simply because it has gained some traction.

Now set against all this we have the situation where those who worship God and in particular Jesus are more frequently portrayed as having some kind of delusion or ridiculed for daring to believe what “everyone” considers to be fantasy. The fact that Stephen Fry is himself a proponent of some of this is another ironic twist here. Don’t get me wrong I am sure Mr Fry has encountered more than his fair share of bigotry in the name of faith which has no doubt helped formed his opinion of religion. For that and other similar cases I am ashamed but it is interesting that in this dichotomy exists. On the one hand we have a world which seems to be increasingly obsessed with celebrity and is even redefining that term on a regular basis to suit whatever or whomever is on the flavour-pedestal this month. Andy Warhol was not a prophet when he said everyone would have 15 minutes of fame: he voiced something which then became a life-plan for many. On the other hand we have those of us who worship someone who is unchanging, ever-faithful and eternal and we are ridiculed. As I tweeted the other day:

Irony = In a world which worships that which is destined to fail, those who worship the One who is not are ridiculed.

Or as Jesus put it (better)…

“Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where they can be eaten by moths and get rusty, and where thieves break in and steal. Store your treasures in heaven, where they will never become moth-eaten or rusty and where they will be safe from thieves. Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be. _{Matthew 6:19-22 NCV}

It’s all about the numbers

The second thought is along a similar line. There’s been some research again on social networking and the impact it had. These things will never go away. People always want to understand why something is popular or well-used. I guess for many of them this is so they can figure out to make some money out of it but maybe I’m being extra cynical there. Mostly we’re given the impression that “success” or “influence” on Twitter or Facebook is down to how many connections you have. For Twitter it’s how many followers you have; with Facebook it’s how many friends. Consider then the use of those words: follower and friend. Whereas Twitter calls a follower someone who is fed what you type but doesn’t always read it, Facebook calls a friend someone you have or wish to have some loose connection with. For some this is simply that your friends or followers have heard of you (see Stephen Fry above) for others it’s a bit more personal. Either way it’s an empty defnition which seems to apply an intimacy to relationships which often could barely support being called that.

Consider what Jesus meant when he spoke of his friends or his followers. Following and friendship Jesus said, is about sacrifice. Terms like laying down your life, taking up your cross spring to mind. We throw words like friend and follower around with great regularity these days and I am not suggesting we find a new term for people-i-have-a-loose-connection-with on Facebook or people-who-say-things-I-want-to-see on Twitter but I maybe those of us who consider ourselves followers or friends of Jesus should make clear in our own hearts and minds what that means. As for the numbers we should remember how many followers and friends Jesus has. We should also remember that any greatness does not stem from the number of relationships he has but the effort he puts into them.

The skill, talent and dedication on display here is inspiring. The message too. That’s all

This prayer is attributed to St Patrick. I adapted it as a closing blessing/collective prayer the other week.

As I arise today,
may the strength of God pilot me,
the power of God uphold me,
the wisdom of God guide me.

May the eye of God look before me,
the ear of God hear me,
the word of God speak for me.

May the hand of God protect me,
the way of God lie before me,
the shield of God defend me,
the host of God save me.

May Christ shield me today.
Christ with me, Christ before me, Christ behind me,
Christ in me, Christ beneath me, Christ above me,
Christ on my right, Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down, Christ when I sit, Christ when I stand,
Christ in the heart of everyone who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.

Grown-ups, we make our own path
Using our own needs as a compass
Indiscretion, excused with a toss of the head
Leave the consequences for now
Time’s aplenty
Yes, there’s time to reflect later

And yet the day comes
No excuses delaying it
Debt is a patient builder

Yesterday’s fun on today’s bill
Every day it’s the same, will we ever learn
Time to settle accounts

Fallen, we turn to our one Hope
Revelation lifting our eyes beyond the debt
Every wrong, every fear. Our account is settled
Every time, it gets paid. Gone forever

We don’t deserve it

Like many of you I get a lot of well meaning fluff in my e-mail Inbox. Not spam but the e-mail equivalent of a chain letter. Much of the fluff in my inbox is Christian in nature and whilst I read it I rarely accept the “challenge” of passing it on unless I feel it is exceptional.

What if we treated our Bible like a mobile phone?

To be honest most of the ones I receive fall into the “Chicken soup for the soul” category – very lovely but a bit sugary for my taste. Sometimes I get one that really does move me and once in a while I get one that acts as a wake up call. I know , I know I could have chosen different words there but in this case it actually does apply. I’m putting (an edited version) of it up here because I just don’t like forwarding chain-letter e-mail but I do feel this particular message applies to a lot of the iPhone generation of Christians. Hope it helps.

Have you ever wondered what would happen if we treated the Bible like we treat our mobile phone?

• What if we always carried it around in our handbags or pockets?
• What if we placed on the table in front of us when out dining in case it demanded our attention whilst eating?
• What if we flipped through it several times a day?
• What if we turned back to go get it if we forgot it?
• What if we used it to receive messages from the text?
• What if we treated the Bible like we couldn’t live without it?
• What if we gave it to all the kids as gifts?
• What if we used it constantly when we travelled?
• What if we used it in case of emergency?
• What would make us say, “Hmm, where is my Bible”?

I’d just like to add a final one of my own.

• How many of us seek out a mobile-Bible app for our ‘phone and then leave it to collect dust in the apps list?

Have a good Monday (or whatever day you are reading this on)

Fizz the puppy

We have a puppy!

Fizz is nine weeks old and is what used to be called a mongrel. She’s what my dad calls a “Heinz 57″. She’s a mutt and we love her. Her dad was a collie of some kind and her mum was part-labrador, part-spaniel, part-pretty-much-every-other-breed I think. She’s very cute and like all puppies she manages to capitalise on it.

As with any puppy, Fizz needs to be house-trained. Being thoroughly modern owners we’ve read “Puppies for dummies” and searched every dog website there is. Most of them seem to be thinly disguised adverts for dog products of some kind. We decided to invest in some “pee pads”. These are the inside of a nappy spread out into a square and they are impregnated with some chemical that allegedly attracts puppies to pee on them. They are the modern equivalent of having newspaper all over the floor. The idea is that they make it easier to train your puppy to go on the pad and then you gradually move the pad closer to the door and eventually outside. This trains the puppy to pee outside.

Dogs can’t read

I know that’s obvious but in our research we forgot that Fizz did not read “Humans for dummies” or browse the many “How to train your new owners” Dog websites. Specifically she did not read the instructions on the packet of pee pads. She didn’t know what they were for nor that they were for her own good. In short she didn’t use them. No, she actually hated them. The wunder-chemical did nothing to attract her to them and whenever we put her on the pad — at the allotted time or when she looked like she was wanting to go — she would sit with that “naughty puppy” look on her face then after half hour of nothing we would let her off and she would pee on the rug. The one time she did “go” on the pad, it was more by fluke than design – we still heaped much praise on her as instructed but it was a one-off. She was getting good at recognising when she needed to go but had no desire to go where we wanted. Such is the way with puppies.

So what could we do? Three days of this had left us with a puppy who was in danger of becoming neurotic about paper on the floor and was still peeing and pooping everywhere else. She seemed to understand this wasn’t the plan but it was like she felt she had no option. We decided to skip the pee pad and starting taking Fizz into the back garden. We had been avoiding this as she hasn’t been vaccinated yet but our garden is enclosed and we have no other dogs.

It worked. From day one Fizz has trotted outside onto the grass and done what comes naturally. within 24 hours she had a regular toilet routine down and she also scratches at the back door to let us know if she needs an interim “leg-stretch”.

And grace..?

So what has any of this to do with grace then? Well when you are standing out in the cold waiting for a puppy to “go wee-wee” you do a lot of thinking. On one of these it occurred to me that the reason there are so many ways to house-train a puppy is because puppies are all different. If they were robotic we could just program their software to act how we want. They’re not robots. they are living things with minds and individuality. The reason this technique worked for us is that it suited Fizz. Other dog owners will experience more success with pee-pads and others still will swear by them (as opposed to at them). Then it occurred to me that humans are like this. We’re fickle, what suits one doesn’t necessarily suit another. It’s long been known that some students thrive in class but are hopeless in exams. Others are the opposite, being able to swot up and regurgitate the relevant facts but not apparently being able to get along in class very well. As someone once said, You are unique – just like everyone else. God knows this. He designed us that way. God seems to like diversity.

As has been often said, he didn’t make us as robots – we have free will. That’s all well and good but it has side effects, not least of which is the one that we could (and do) use our free will to reject the very idea of God altogether. It’s that dangerous game that parents play and none more so than God. The game is that you pour your heart and soul into bringing up your kids and you can at best only hope they won’t reject you and walk away. Most times kids like anyone will respond to a loving upbringing by loving their parents but that love does not always mean they will be what their parents had dreamed. And those with multiple children will know that what works with one child is almost as likely to not work with the next. People, like puppies are diverse. Imagine coming up with a single method of house-training every single puppy which not only works but suits every puppy’s individual needs and desires. It’s almost impossible, that’s why there are so many. If you want another analogy imagine coming up with a fool-proof weight loss programme which would not only work but suit the individual needs of every person who went on it. Again impossible.

Now consider the diversity between two puppies or two children with the same parents. Now project that upwards to the 6 billion people currently on the planet (never mind all the ones who are no longer on it). Imagine trying to come up with a single way to recompense for the diversity of wrong doing and – yes – sin among so many people. Yet God did. In a single act Jesus dealt with the entire range and amount of sin the human race could collectively muster – ever. And yet not one person is dealt with the same. Each person who comes to what we Christians call the “throne of grace” is forgiven completely and finds all their sin, guilt and even shame dealt with once and for ever. Yet each person will leave with a different experience. Each encounters a very personal and real Saviour who reacts and interacts with them in a way that best suits them. In short each encounters grace which sufficient.

That’s why it’s amazing.

I’m not an Anglican and — as some people seem to make this distinction — I don’t attend a CofE church either. For this reason I’ve kept out of the recent debate over the Pope’s offer to bring Anglicans disaffected by the women priests “issue” into the Roman Catholic Church. As someone who has not been part of a recognised denomination for most of his Christian (nay actual) life, I personally find the objections to the ordination of women — well — objectionable. Not that my choice of denomination (or not) should make any difference to that view or that my view is really worthy of much attention.

The sign at St Saviour's Walthamstow

Anyway, following the Pope’s offer (is this the ecumenical equivalent of head-hunting?), some Anglican priests, churches and groups have seriously considered crossing the house, shall we say. This includes one in Walthamstow where it seems the parishioners have taken umbrage to the idea as you can see from the photo to the right. As my friend the Church Mouse says: what a bunch of morons! Incidentally, I’m again grateful to the Mouse for highlighting something which tends to get missed or by mainstream news outlets.

Upon seeing that photo the first thought that sprung to my mind was “why bother with the graffiti? Why not just — oh I don’t know — go to another church?” The answer is possibly, in this case at least, that the vandals were not members of that church. But who knows? Maybe we have vigilante Anglicans on the loose. I’m reminded of the “vigilante’s for God” storyline from Drop the Dead Donkey years ago. I jest but some of the more unsavoury and shameful parts of Church history have been borne out of such self-important emotions. Why this is so important to the “artists” that they feel the need to perform such a childish act is way beyond me? Maybe it’s because I’m the kind of person who is angered but just shrugs when “Marathon” becomes “Snickers” and “Coco Pops” try to become “Choco Krispies”. But I am also the kind of person who choose his supermarket based on the number and availability of own-brand fair trade goods within the store. I’m also somebody who will (normally) refuse a free Kit-Kat because I find the ethics of the company behind it objectionable. If the supermarket you usually use stops selling the products you like: don’t go there in future! The same should apply to your church as well but it doesn’t, does it?

For some reason when certain issues raise their heads we Christians are very much “in and of the world”, throwing not only the toys but the bedding out of the pram as well. Yet for other situations — when we should be more vocal — the noise-level from the Church can be very low indeed. Millions of people are exploited beyond reason to fuel our “civilised” lives and yet churches are still serving unfairly-traded tea & coffee. Hundreds of thousands of Christians are ostracised, beaten up, imprisoned and sometimes killed just for saying “Jesus is Lord” and the silence from large parts of the Church is deafening. A group of people decide that it’s about time women were treated somewhat fairly in their denomination and there’s a — way too vocal — threat of an exodus. Some people find that pondering in and of itself objectionable and decide to daub the church sign board with graffiti. There are things we should march in the streets about. The ordination of women bishops and the fact that somebody else doesn’t like that idea and might leave the denomination should not be in that list.

Comfort zones

I am aware that what I am saying could be taken as an advocacy of church-hopping where people dislike the what the teaching at a particular church says about their lifestyle so they move on. Usually with a vocal dissent to the rest of the congregation as they leave. I’m not advocating that practice at all and always feel that if God is pulling you away from your current church it’s unlikely to be because the teaching is shining a light on the parts of your life that you’d rather not speak about. Also the issue with women priests is complicated by the fact that the disatisfied clergy are also contemplating about leaving their employer as well. But if you are considering leaving your denomination and/or church because there is a growing clash in the core beliefs between you, then do so without fuss, without fanfare and with dignity. If you feel the need to shout, protest and generally make a nuisance of yourself before or as you leave then chances are you are leaving for the wrong reason. Discuss the matter with those above you and if required find some mutual way to notify everyone else. To do anything else is like a child slamming every door when being sent to their room and is reminiscent of somebody who is more interested that people know they are leaving than actually leaving.

As for the morons who wrote such lovely words on the church sign: grow up. If you don’t like the fact that St Saviour’s is considering moving to Rome, choose another church but again do it with dignity and peace. Stomping around, spray painting slogans and generally sulking reminds me of my four year old in a tantrum (well except the spray painting).

I’ve been thinking about heaven again – mostly because because it’s been the subject of recent small house groups at church lately I suppose. Anyway have a look at this verse from Revelation 6:

⁹When the Lamb opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been killed because they were faithful to the word of God and to the message they had received.¹⁰ These souls shouted in a loud voice, “Holy and true Lord, how long until you judge the people of the earth and punish them for killing us?” ¹¹ Then each one of them was given a white robe and was told to wait a short time longer. There were still some of their fellow servants and brothers and sisters in the service of Christ who must be killed as they were. They had to wait until all of this was finished.    ( Revelation 6:9-11 NCV )

The souls under the altar there clearly remember what they had to endure to get to heaven – including the painful stuff. This seems to be in conflict with the concept that all the tears in Heaven will be wiped away, there’ll be no more pain and no hurting. This vision of paradise could be somewhat marred by the thought that in the afterlife we’ll not forget the stuff we had to go through here on earth. Most of use would probably be content with just remembering the happy times wouldn’t we?

Or would we?

It strikes me that we need to remember the pain in order to give some point of reference to the good times. A glorious sunset is made even more glorious when comparing it to a dark grey and dismal drizzle from the day before. Even a simple meal can seem wonderful when it comes after a period of starvation. Similarly wouldn’t the joy of heaven would be made greater by the memory of what was endured on earth. Of course it’s true that such memories could bring anger, bitterness or remorse but we need to also remember that – in the case of the first two at least – such emotions are not heaven. As for the remorse, yes it’s possible that along with the painful memories of what happened to us will be the memories of the times we were less than humane, less than faithful or generally missed the mark when it came to our relationship with God and our fellow humans.

This is where the tear wiping could come into it. It’s also worth remembering that – no matter how hard we find it now – it’s much easier to believe in our forgiveness when we are being told – face to face – by the one who is forgiving us. When the hand that wipes your tears also contains the wounds that heal you, its harder to ignore or forget. Of course many times we are more than able to enjoy that forgiveness here, on earth. Sometimes we all struggle though and I find it comforting to know that it won’t always be that way.

Hope is a wonderful thing – don’t you think?