A few years ago I asked a group of youth leaders, right on young Christian souls, what do you do if you come across a part of the bible you don't believe in or you can't accept?

I got two answers straight back at the same time. One said I change my mind and believe what it says in the bible. The other said “I've got some tipex somewhere.”

I guess those are your options, unless you can find a more creative way to live with the tensions.

I felt like reaching for the tipex this week when looking at the readings, at least the OT and Gospel ones. Or perhaps taking refuge in the warm fuzziness of Pauls letter to the Philippines – do not worry, think of whatever is pure, rejoice in the lord – I can cope with these things. Wrath, Mass slaughter and wailing and gnashing of teeth are not really my bag.

Incidently I've only ever met one person what actually gnashes their teeth when they get upset and that's my dad who in all seriousness does actually gnash his teeth if he gets cross – ngngngngn – and the trouble is its hilarious but always at a time when hilarity is not the appropriate response.

Gospel not meant to be funny either – “He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” - these chapters of Matthew are traumatic –They are traumatic because they speak of the breakup, the great divorce between Jewish Christians and their orthodox Jewish brothers and sisters. But another event casts a long shadow too. These stories on chapters 21-23 contain a lot of violence, in each of them cities, land, vineyards are laid to waste, destroyed or burned. But it is not surprising, the gospel was written shortly after AD70, by witnesses to the destruction of Jerusalem by Roman forces. This destruction was total and devastating. The Temple and most of the city were laid waste, not one stone left upon another as Jesus says else where.
In Jerusalem today there is a museum called the Burnt house –an excavated house of a temple priest. It is covered in a layer of ash and in the museum is one find that symbolises that terrible day. The severed arm bones of a young girl, still clutching a spear.

Why did this happen? Matthew's response is 'because of the rejection of the prophets and of Jesus' – recalling the doom prophets of the OT – Jeremiah and Ezekiel etc. Blaming the sins of the people for the

From where we stand, can we hold beliefs like this or is it time for some tipex? It is one thing perhaps for a Jew to say this to Jews in the midst of a great internal struggle. It is another for Gentile Christians to say it on this side of the holocaust.

Now it may be true to say that the Rabbis of the time were correct. The Romans acted in the way they did because of continual rebellions and what we would now probably call terrorist attacks against their forces, which culminated in a holy war, and many of the leaders of Israel saw this as a clear breaking of the Law of the Torah which forbids killing and the mistreatment of those of other nations living in Israel, so in a similar sense you could make an argument that Matthew is basically correct, that these things would not have happened had people listened to Jesus message and embraced his form of Messiahship – the suffering servant not the violent revolutionary. We do not have to give up the idea that actions have consequences, and that in the real world the actions of a minority can have terrible consequences for everyone, But still we are a long way from being able to justify genocide on religious grounds, as if such a thing could ever be done. “He sent his troops, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city.” Pass the tipex my good man.

Funnily enough, I think the Old Testament though is one place we can turn for a way forward.

At first sight its not an auspicious start – a reading from Exodus in which God is said to contemplate the wrathful destruction of a whole people because they have made a model of a cow. Disaster is only averted by Moses who plays the role of a someones girlfriend on a Friday night closing time fight, holding him back and saying

Leave him Wayne he's not worth it.

It would be easy to see this story as part of a primitive belief system, but in many ways I think it is a potentially more powerful and more honest way of exploring belief. Using story, rather than doctrine or dogma allows the writers to explore and hold together two strands of faith. The orthodox belief in an all powerful God who is in control of everything and demands justice and enforces consequence. The God of the Law and the Prophets. And woven in with that a voice of faithful dissent. – saying but this isn't right. These things shouldn't happen, this can't be the will of God, God is better than this.

Moses is just one of many OT figures who have the faith to wrestle with God, to stand up and argue, to hold our ideas of God up to scrutiny and demand that our ideals of the divine be at least as high as our own best morality. If God is being held to be less moral than we are capable of being, we know something has gone wrong somewhere.

And the OT writers show their respect for this questioning, faithful dissent by using the device in their stories of God changing his mind.

And ultimately I think I am happier to live with the contradiction, to wrestle with the tensions in this tradition, rather than have faith demand we leave our brains and consciences at the door, or tipex out the awkward bits. Life does not come with a bottle of correction fluid. The ugly aspects of the world must be faced up to by people of faith with moral courage.

I did Paul a disservice earlier, describing his letter as warm fuzziness. Given the context, writing from his prison cell, in fear of his life, in fear for the future of his churches, it is hardly not sentimentalism.

Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. Let your gentleness be known

to everyone. The Lord is near. Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. Finally, belovèd, whatever is true, whatever is honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is pleasing, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence and if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.

But of we are to think about these things, if we are to make these things a reality in our lives and our world, we cannot do that without the courage to faithfully challenge what is dishonourable, unjust and impure. Tipex may not be used in this examination. And so if we cannot challenge these things in own religion, our own tradition, our own scriptures, how can we do that in the world in which we live?