Christian Freedoms

Yesterday we prayed for the persecuted church and Songs of Praise featured Open Doors. The figures on the number of Christians who face real, life-threatening persecution are staggering (just browse the Open Doors site). Yet the words of a lady too scared to be identified demonstrated an incredible depth of faith in a personal saviour when asked why she didn't just deny being a Christian

Life is good but nothing compared to the beauty of Jesus

Her story was one of living under the attack against freedom to worship. A human right, by the way. We are incredibly lucky in the UK not to fear oppression and persecution like hers. However, events like this suggest something different:

"GOSPEL FREEDOM UNDER ATTACK"
Many Christians are concerned at the marginalisation of Christianity which is increasingly being experienced in society today. The case of the Christian nurse disciplined for praying with a patient, the school receptionist disciplined for asking her friends to pray for her daughter told off for sharing her faith with another child, the Equality Bill likely to force churches to accept homosexual youth workers, the hotel owners charged with a crime because they discussed their faith and criticised Islam to a Muslim guest who asked about Christianity - the list goes on.

The things listed there are problematic, that I'm not disputing, but they're not couched in the person of Jesus. I don't know all the details, it's just enough of an outrage to make you gasp and shake your heads. And I don't suggest we're immune from threatening behaviour but so are those of other faiths, or lifestyles. Where are the similar concerns about that?

The friction apparent in that list, most of which seem ludicrous rather than threatening, is a consequence of being in the world, but not of it. Gospel Freedom is living life to the full as citizens of heaven. We're called to model salvation, not to create and enforce Christian states, or Christian societies. So there's space for conflict.

Pluralism, the space for people to get on with what they believe and living how they wish (within societally agreed boundaries) is Christian freedom writ large. In fact, we really want to take it further because by default we love.

That's more than tolerating difference. And it isn't about expecting behaviour to sit within our beliefs or else. We do not get to choose rejection over love. But it's that freedom - to choose rejection over love - which people believe encapsulates our faith. That's the sound they hear above the noise.

Perhaps Britain is a Christian nation, it's probably not, but it definitely is home to people who disagree with our whole belief structure; it's home to people who think we're dangerous and deluded; to those who have been hurt by our hypocrisy and home to those bemused by the righteous anger we whip up towards semantics, language and individual lifestyles.

Just google "Christian Institute" to see the opinion of the world. Sadly, the apparent freedoms seen by the outsider aren't about Jesus. And yet, everything we do should be about Him, and about those out there, not us in here.

If freedoms are under such threat why do we try so hard to keep our cocoon intact? To build Christendom-on-sea where we don't have to make allowances for people that don't think like us. When the Church isn't engaged with the world it's revelling in sub-culture. When we revel in sub-culture we get sidelined by the world, it's inevitable. Mind you, if freedom is our passion where's the problem? If we marginalise ourselves, we vacate the moral high ground, we lose relevance as a spiritual reference point and become complicit with the development of the dreaded secularism.

As Christmas approaches and people attempt to avoid offence (Dundee, that would be you) should we not be celebrating that people go out of their way to avoid offence, because of love and respect for others? What happens instead is OUTRAGE and the (deliberate) misconstruing of events to make headlines. Just how insecure are we that we can't cope with the loss of a word?

The more we build sites like christianchirp.com, hold holy climate events (sorry St Mike's) that clash with the worldly (Friends of the Earth) and put No-shave-November up against Mo-vember (Edinburgh CU are doing it for Compassion, who are awesome, but still) the more Christian freedom looks like an invitation to an exclusive club, not a relationship that will transform you, your life and your community.

The day we are prevented from living with that freedom is when we can start to identify with our brothers and sisters who face prison, torture, rape and death. That is an affront to freedom, full stop. Surely any distinction of 'Christian' freedoms as something distinct is unhelpful anyway. It wasn't 'cos God loved Christians, or the church, that he sent Jesus; it was 'cos he loved the world.

So It Begins

Today I went to this shop

Where a man used something like this

To leave me shaved and ready for the start of Movember.

Please sponsor my Mo :)

Hugh Bayley on 10:10

On October 21st the Lib Dems asked their fellow MPs to commit Parliament to reducing its carbon footprint by 10% by the end of 2010, following a huge wave of support that saw almost 10,000 emails in 48 hours and 96% of MPs receiving a phone call asking for them to support the campaign.

In the event Labour stymied the vote with the Noes containing only a solitary DUP member and a sea of Red. I had emailed my MP, Hugh Bayley, asking him in the first instance to personally commit to the campaign and subsequently to support the motion brought before the house.

Sadly Hugh voted with the rest of his party (save for the twelve noble exceptions) in rejecting Simon Hughes' motion and not committing Parliament to a 10% reduction by the end of next year.

To say I was disappointed was an understatement, particularly from an MP who has been so prominent within International Development (the world's poorest suffer the most from a changing climate) so it was with interest that I received his response in the post (no postal strike impact here as yet).

On the personal front he's in.

I shall work to reduce my personal carbon consumption by 10 per cent in 2010 compared with this year. It is important for MPs to practice what they preach, so I will report on how well I do on my website at www.hughbayley.labour.co.uk as 2010 progresses.

However, he did not vote for the motion because

I did not support it because it included an unrealisable commitment for Parliament to cut its emissions by 10 per cent in 2010. I wish the Houses of Parliament were in a position to make and implement such a pledge, but I am afraid we are not.

The House of Commons Commission, a committee of six senior MPs, had discussed 10:10 on the Monday before concluding that it was impossible to speed up or add to the we work of emission cutting to achieve 10 per cent in 2010.

Fair enough, the reason we didn't see Parliament adopt 10:10 was because they didn't want to make a promise they couldn't keep. Given the last 12 months that's not a stupid decision, in Hugh's words

the Commission is right not to make a promise it feels it could not keep. If it did so it would increase public cynicism about Parliament and politicians

However, what's revealing is the letter that Hugh Bayley sent to the Commission. In it he lists 10 things. I'll let you make your mind up over whether or not these are achievable and leave you to the incredulity that behaviours within Westminster should be so blase...

• Every kitchen on the estate should be equipped to recycle paper, plastic, glass and cans. Currently, this is not the case
• Food waste - rotting food waste contributes massively to our greenhouse gas emissions. We could consider ways to start recycling this
• I have noticed walking around the Parliamentary estate that radiators are turned up to maximum temperature, with the windows open. There should be a cap to ensure the temperature on radiators is only as high as we need, and cannot be turned up.
• We should have a 'lights off' policy and should install more movement-sensitive timers so that lights are not left on when rooms and corridors are not in use
• We should be encouraging staff to turn their computer monitors and printers off when not in use
• The monitors around the estate remain on throughout recess, and when the House is not sitting. This is unnecessary and they should be turned off if there is no business to display
• Most plastic does not biodegrade and this is very damaging to the environment. The House should limit the use of plastic where possible. For example, we could switch to using takeaway wooden cutlery instead of plastic, and encourage people to use their own mugs, or biodegradable cups instead of the plastic filmed paper cups
• The House of Commons gift shop could adopt a no plastic bag policy, and instead use paper bags
• We should go back to providing tap water, and not bottled water in meetings
• We should switch to environmentally friendly cleaning products, which are less polluting than chemical products.

Justice

Two years ago I spent some time in Sierra Leone researching my Masters dissertation. According to the UNDP’s Human Development Index it's the poorest country on the planet. The conflict that tore that country apart is a harrowing story of child soldiers, brutal amputations and destroyed communities. My dissertation examined the gap between the ‘peace’ of Special Courts and Truth & Reconciliation Committees (TRC) and the reality of that ‘peace’ as experienced by men, women and children without homes or prospects and carrying the scars of the conflict.

Central to that debate was justice. On the one hand the belief that criminal justice equates to peace and in stark contrast the reality on the ground. The work of the Sierra Leone Red Cross Society addressed the needs of lives torn apart by conflict by seeking advocacy and reconciliation, particularly on behalf of child soldiers.

The consequence was not communities that rejected these men and women, often guilty of heinous crimes, but to actively engage in reconciliation and the rebuilding of their lives together. Clearly it wasn't enough to try Foday Sankoh or Charles Taylor. Not only did everyone know that those indicted were guilty but most of them died prior to facing trial. So what did attempted legal restitution achieve? The lives of those I met were being pieced together by people getting together, talking and forgiving before moving on as a restored community.

This is the poorest and the least developed country in the world recovering from untold evil. Not by punishing the people responsible for those crimes but actively welcoming them back into their midst. Very challenging.

The reason this is brought to mind is the recent media attention surrounding Ronnie Briggs, Peter Connelly and Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. Briggs has been released from prison on compassionate grounds and it’s being suggested that the same thing should be possible for al-Megrahi whilst the identities of those involved in the death of Peter Connelly have this week been made public. Alongside those pictures have been discussions about giving them new identities when they are released from prison, causing outrange at the waste of taxpayers’ cash.

Predictably there are loud voices of dissent. And it's the same whenever someone is sentenced for a high profile crime. Wherever there is the pain of loss, those responsible need to suffer in a way that ‘fits the crime’. But what punishment ever truly fits a crime on that basis? Is it like for like? One life for another?

I question whether that is a justice that gives peace? If our response is to require someone to suffer in our stead it doesn't stop our pain or make us feel any less raw. The more you punish,the more you pursue an impossible criteria for restitution. And so we’ve developed an incredibly sophisticated justice system that provides an agreed standard of societal justice. The British hand over responsibility for justice to those who have spent their lives studying the law and analysing defendants. On our behalf, and speaking for society, these men and women declare what punishment is appropriate and what justice is.

But then we can't accept that it has atoned for the crime.

Because the issues aren't just with sentencing, they're at release too. When granted freedom ex-cons have atoned for their actions in the eyes of the law (and by extension the rest of society). It doesn’t matter whether or not they’re unrepentant, or seek restitution and reconciliation with those they’ve hurt because that’s beyond the remit of a secular justice system. Except that we don't see it that way. Former prisoners face barriers to engaging with society, which some would say should be expected. But aren't those barriers only going to perpetuate those destructive behaviours? When Tracey Connelly, her picture widely publicised, leaves prison she will do so into the arms of a society ready to exact vengeance on her son's behalf.

Even though justice will have been served.

Not justice in terms of what some would demand but on that day she will have done what the state demands to provide restitution to the population of Britain.

If on that day she requires a new identity it will be because the papers who first bemoan her sentence and then her false identity are the same people who give credibility to a position that says ‘the justice system is broken, it doesn’t go far enough and she needs to suffer for what she did’.

Fundamentally, British society believes that there’s something people have to do to make themselves right with us; some standard of acceptability to achieve; or some punishment that resolves the past in order to change the future.

I don’t believe that.

I found Sierra Leone an incredibly challenging experience for a variety of reasons but fortunately we don’t have to visit West Africa to see life changing behaviour in action. Gee Verona-Walker, the mother of Anthony Walker, forgave her son’s killers. She knew that carrying the pain did nothing. She knows that it is no disrespect to the memory of her son to celebrate his life rather than searching for a potentially non-existent criteria for satisfaction.

As a Christian I fundamentally believe that lives do not have to depend on histories. And I believe that forgiveness, true past-forgetting unconditional forgiveness can heal anything. Impossible? Perhaps. Hard? Certainly. But the things that I believe rotate around that central, crucial, life transforming principle.

Swine Flu hits the 100 Acre Woods

Courtesy of someone within Hull City Council, I don't know where they got it from first but it made me smile :)

My Sunday's Viewing - Looking For God

So, the second show was Jon Ronson's documentary called 'Looking For God' and part of the new Channel 4 series 'Revelations'. I only discovered the programme was on at about 4.30 and that it clashed with church. Typically!

From that advert it wasn't clear which way the documentary was going to go. Would it be positive or negative? One shot of a guy talking about being repulsed, another calling the atmosphere moving and then shots of people being prayed for.

The premise was that Jon Ronson was going to follow a group of agnostics as they followed the Alpha Course at St Aldate's church in Oxford. In the end it clearly attempted to bring a balanced view to the story. It gave us a back story to some of them, highlighted those who had issues in their lives, where they stood with God and cut in shots of bowed heads in prayer, or being incredulous at what was happening or wrestling with the Bible.

However, as someone with 'inside' knowledge of Alpha as it were, it was interesting to see how the programme was cut, to see the vaguely comical way in which Nicky Gumbel and HTB were presented as sinister, calculating or indirectly manipulative - the splicing together for example of St Aldate's vicar giving the talk on 'Why Did Jesus Die' with footage of Nicky giving the same on the DVD was done to achieve the idea of a multinational organisation being copied at all levels with little independent thought. What Alpha attending non-Christians and Christians alike made of the film is anyone's guess although the initial comments from participants online has not given it a ringing endorsement.

Rather than engaging with the idea of grace, or salvation, or the claims that Jesus made, Jon Ronson was at pains to point out that the message was that Christians didn't like drunkenness, heard God speak in ways that could quite easily have been their imagination and of course he spent a good proportion of the film discussing tongues and the Toronto Blessing which is singularly the most likely topic to put people off (and a friend of mine has subsequently said that watching this programme has made him determined never to do Alpha).

What's true, in all those things, is that these are things the church believes. Jon Ronson's trouble with his material was attempting to condense 8 weeks into 48 minutes. And, unsurprisingly, he did that without discussing the Trinity. No conversation about tongues can work if there is no discussion of spritual giftings and there can be no discussion of the fruits of the spirit without engaging in some theology on Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Did Jon Ronson approach HTB? He approached 20 churches, 19 turned him down (I would love to know why those other churches did). Whether an interview with the St Aldate's vicar is on the cutting room floor or not he didn't look to raise any questions of theology or use his film to get to grips with what was being presented for discussion.

By the end of the programme two members of the 8 person group (who had been tracked in between weeks) had been absolutely repulsed by what they had experienced, and particularly the Holy Spirit weekend away. Some of the group were never interviewed, more of them found the idea of tongues objectionable and just one felt that something was stirring, due in part to someone's prophetic gifting (which I have seen today being labelled cold reading). He's going to do Alpha again, perhaps, but then he was the one with the Christian background.

Christine and I both found it slightly absurd in its reductionist approach to the course but what's interesting is the response it's getting online. The Christians, and those who have done Alpha themselves, seem to have found it quite a disappointing portrayal of what Alpha is. Although it is a disappointment tinged with weariness at knowing what to expect from Channel 4. Those in the middle are now wary of a course that has been 'exposed' in what it's really about. Whilst, on the other side of the fence there's a degree of crowing from the Athiest community who today also launched their summer camp (for the second time) and The Atheist's Guide to Christmas. There's a lot of people talking about how sinister Alpha is, how much it has confirmed their atheism and what a sterling job Jon Ronson has done.

And I think that's where my greatest sadness lies. It's not in an opportunity missed for the church to engage with the world - they tried, they gave full access and let Ronson get on with it. It's not in the fact that 48 minutes' worth of TV has presented Alpha in a way that might prevent people from seeking God themselves. It's not in the lives on that film for whom there was no meeting with God. It's more in the way Channel 4 continue to approach matters of faith.

What is clear, from his past work, from his twitter followers and followed, is that this was not an agnostic following a group of agnostics on a course for people wanting to explore the claims of Christianity. It was an atheist, embedded with some agnostics, flagging up 'questionable' aspects of Christianity. As Jon Ronson himself has tweeted he didn't pay any attention to the course, he was too busy with filming. There's a mind made up, a position formed and a decision made.

A lot of the time we Christians are accused of being all about black and white, caring only about what the Bible says and not being open minded. Is there anything more prejudiced (a strong word but one that I think it deserves) of setting out to present a film about a group of people engaged with the concept of a personal relationship with God from a position that considers them all to be deluded? Engage with us, talk to us, let's explore what Christianity means in an atmosphere of grace. If both sides consider that maybe not one of us has got the definitive answer on a lot of issues then that would be far more interesting to everyone around the table. Let's see Christians and Atheists work together to do these films, to talk about the supposed tension between Science and God, to explore our histories, to ask big questions and put forward opinions.

Let us talk about the reasons for our faith instead of having them presented for us. It is, fundamentally, not because we've been manipulated, influenced, or coerced. It's because we met, and continue to meet with, Jesus Christ.

It will be interesting to see what the remaining 7 episodes of the Revelations series are made of...

My Sunday's Viewing - Celibacy

We caught a couple of programmes yesterday as our restful weekend drew to an end.

The first was The Big Questions, from Manor School in York. Discussions included the value of Armed Forces Day and whether people should be allowed to wear the Burqa but also on the agenda was the question of allowing Catholic priests to marry.

One of the main critiques was "how can celibates advise on marriage" and there was something deeply ironic in that coming from a group of people, many of whom were married, and some of whom not Christians, who were pouring forth their judgement on celibacy.

I'm not a Roman Catholic, and I'm very happily married so I'm not really qualified to comment on the debate. Except that I think celibacy is an awesome calling.

I think there's something incredibly powerful about celibacy. I think devoting your life, even to 'marriage', to Jesus is as valuable a commitment (if not greater) than the one I made to Christine. Paul is not wrong when he says that being single, realistically, allows you to serve the Kingdom far more readily than having family around you. To live a life in anticipation of glory rather than the temporal pleasures that Nicky Campbell was so keen to point out to the Fathers they were missing.

The truth is that both Christians and the world love pairing up. Celebrity breakups, and patchups sell thousands of glossy magazines a week whilst HTB isn't called Hunt The Bride for nothing. And in that context, what happens to those called to celibacy? To those facing "being left on the shelf"? It doesn't seem like it could be much fun, to feel like you're missing out on something glorious, or letting the side down by not being a couple.

Certainly, when the debate is pitched at a level where people can suggest that paedophilia is the result of celibacy (as one participant on Sunday suggested), it's difficult to approach the topic in an adult fashion that honours the commitment, that recognises different gifts and calls and that provides the scope for people to search after God's heart for the world totally unencumbered by other intimate relationships competing for attention.

It's a shame that no one stuck up for the Catholics, except the Catholics. Seems like the rest of the Body could learn to offer a bit more solidarity not just with our celibate clergymen but with our (temporarily or otherwise) celibate and single brothers and sisters.

Please can we have our ball back?

So, someone has written a book called 'Killing God'. And to support its publication Penguin have surveyed 1000 13-18 year olds. The headlines? 50% of teenagers have never prayed and 16% never to church whilst 600 of them felt that religion 'has a negative influence on the world'.

It would be interesting to know the methodology of the surveying. Whether the questions provided scope to talk about the good as well as the bad. People sometimes hold positions that are contradictory, (cognitive polyphasia to give it its grand title) and nowhere is that more true than in what they believe about spirituality. So it may be they condemn the behaviours of 'the church' but concurrently see Jesus as the Son of God. Or they believe religion has a negative influence on the world because they hear simplistic reporting of 'faith based struggles' that are realistically only about politics and power. Nevertheless, I'm not the only Christian that could find grounds for suggesting the Body hasn't only ever acted as a source of light and hope.

Nevertheless, if two thirds of those surveyed don't believe in God that leaves 33%. Which is not grounds for dismay given that the media is often keen to point out how few people (I'm not sure in what other context 1m is referred to as a few) actively attend church. 1m out of 60m is less than a third. By quite a lot.

Of course that conflicts with the approximately 80% who said in the last census they considered themselves to be Christians. But I don't think we should be discouraged by the disparity between actual Christians and nominal believers. If we are 'the rump' then that's because we're committed to our faith. If we're active in our churches and communities, it's because we believe what we say we believe and have a relationship with God that releases us into our giftings and passions. And that's exciting.

What's also exciting is the challenge posed by public perception. The author of the book, Kevin Brooks said that he wrote it because he wanted to explore the personal attitudes of young people towards organised religion and traditional concepts of God. And certainly the synopsis of the book sounds like it's cashing in on a phenomenon of literature that questions old paradigms (as though that in itself was something new). Here's a book for parents who believe all religion to be false, dangerous and evil to give their children to ensure they can fight off the deceived. And that's a great piece of marketing. But I predict it will sell in both camps because in commissioning such a survey here's a marketing ploy to entice the church to pick it off the shelves. Clever, clever, clever.

"Dawn's dad is a recovering substance abuser, a one-time child molester, and...a born-again Christian. Religion: That's his latest addiction. But as far as Dawn is concerned, the Man Upstairs has robbed her of the father she once loved--drugs, drinks, and all. Which is why Dawn's gone shopping for Bibles. For research. To know her enemy. Because, to get her old dad back, she's going to have to do away with this God guy. She'd just better pray that the fallout from her father's past life of crime doesn't catch up to her first."

So is this the God Delusion for kids? It's about a 15 year old who questions the existence of God but there's little to suggest what it ultimately concludes or information on Mr Brooks' own experience of faith or position on it. His background as a philosopher suggests he's wrestled with these ideas for some time but tragically, it seems he's never really grasped what it is that Christianity is all about. In an interview with the Telegraph, he poses the question of "how can the moralities of an ancient religion relate to the tragedies and disorders of today's broken world?"

As a Christian, I know, fundamentally, that the relevance and truth of God is timeless, absolute and personal meaning that such a question speaks of missed opportunity. When did we drop the ball and lose the discourse? How did the Body of Christ manage to create a situation where people not only see us as a negative influence on the world, but reduced to being about an ancient morality rather than an unconditional personal relationship of grace?

I don't think that clearing up that misconception is rocket science. I don't think that it's problematic to explain that until Jesus tore up the rules of neighbour there wasn't much generosity of spirit towards aliens. I can't help but find it easy to point to groups like the Clapham Sect as the absolute embodiment of transforming the world, for good, in Christ's name. If people see us as negative, it's because we've retreated from the world, no longer giving balance to an image that is often only partially presented. Leaving aside the untold good that the church is doing (Christians Against Poverty, I saw tweet, are helping people respond to a cumulative total of over £40m debt) it's our relevance that's questionable; not God's.

It's time we climbed over the fence (which we probably erected) and retrieved the ball. Though he probably didn't mean to Kevin Brooks has written a book for the church to engage young people with, to build youth work around. A survey on the back of it has said kids don't pray or go to church or even believe in God but at the same time here's a statistical sample that suggests teenagers are receptive to the idea of God in numbers that dwarf church attendance.

The key is always prayer. To pray that those kids don't end up in 30 years' time having never met with Jesus or experienced his body in action. To pray that they at least know what the church represents even if they reject faith. To pray that the church stops waiting for people to fall into church shaped holes in the ground but starts being community for the world, not ourselves. The alternative is nice and simple. We can carry on standing around, waiting for someone else to make the first move towards us, to emerge from our frightening next-door neighbour's overgrown garden clutching the initiative. Perhaps we should dismantle the fence, clear the garden and love our neighbour (who is still frightening, and a little bit crazy, and smells a bit).

And, when all is said and done, y'know we might not find that ball. But, would we need to?

@chrisdjmoyles

At Pentecost the BBC broadcast a service from Kingsgate Community Church in Peterborough. I caught some of it and was very impressed that Pentecost in 2009 still looked like the fun times Acts suggests took place. But stylistically it wasn't a surprise to me. I've been around the church my entire life and I know that church isn't all BCP Morning Prayer (beautiful but a struggle to engage with if your discourse comes from post-modernity) and I know it isn't all the guilt and despondency which quite a lot of people reckon church is.

And in that situation it's no surprise that people could be led to believe that God is dead. Their experience of church seems to indicate a weekly mourning of his passing rather than a celebration of his living.

Anyway, I caught a bit of Chris Moyles and his breakfast show discussing this. I didn't really hear it but I subsequently saw a Facebook post shortly afterwards about how encouraging it was that Chris Moyles was hearing about God and telling the country about it. And earlier today it broke on Twitter and there's messages pinging about all over the place pointing to the YouTube video of it.



I don't know where Chris' local church is. I don't know who his vicar is, or whether there are any Christians at Radio 1 or amongst his circle of friends. Whilst it's great to be able to link to a very famous and influential person praising church going it's ultimately only interesting to Christians. Now, Chris meeting Jesus, that would be worth sending Twitter into meltdown. If all this enthusiasm is married to a slew of invitations that would be ace. I just hope that someone, or many, invite him along to Church, to Alpha, to something that's churchy (or not) but certainly something that might give him pause to consider why it is that a sizeable number of people, many of whom might even listen to his show, support Leeds, and drink beer, are worshipping God on a weekly basis.

Transparency = Clarity = Trust?

At the heart of this furore about expenses is a breakdown in trust.

We think that our politicians have been shafting us and getting away with naughtiness for years. The activities of 20 to 30 of the 650 elected members in Westminster is provoking the kind of outrage and, at the same time, apathy, that has sent Nick Griffin ("RT @TiernanDouieb: In mythology, the Griffin is part lion, part bird. Yet Nick Griffin of the BNP is all cock") and his odious ideas to Brussels on behalf of the British.

The solution, we cry, is for political reform; for shining brighter lights onto the activity of government and scrutinising everything that our political leaders do. In the attempt to find a way of governing the nation that works, we want to ramp up and ramp up the organs of checking up on it.

Such a response says far more about the way in which Britain has been governed in the last 12 years. A competitive obsession with targets, inspection and league tables has clearly socialised the public into thinking if you 'research' things, inspect people and shame those who fail then that results in a better situation.

Maybe it does in schools and hospitals, although there's plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise, that people trick the system, or that 'satisfactory' becomes devalued because it means you aren't good or outstanding.

When it comes to the people who govern, and the relationships we have with those around us does transparency and scrutiny bring greater trust? No, what it brings is an ever increasing bar which we expect people to achieve. Oh, so you think you're squeaky clean do you? Well I've got news for you, I'm going to raise the bar even higher. It gives us a rod to beat people with. And we like nothing more than finding someone to be blameworthy.

There's been a lot of shady goings on but not even 10% of Westminster has been indicted by the Telegraph's campaign. And we forget that at the peril of political discourse and actually trying to make people's lives better. Shockingly (for the naysayers) it seems that Alistair Darling's over confident predictions might not be totally off the mark and that the decisive action taken by the government as the economy went into a tailspin may have been the right thing to do. But the electorate don't believe that.

And we don't believe that because we're obsessed with a belief that those in Westminster are trying to put one over us. So we quest for a transparency with the claim that it will rebuild our trust in politics but whose only goal is checking that people haven't tripped up. And that does nothing to build trust. Because it's built on a foundation of total disenchantment.

Humble accountability that demonstrates the reality of people's hopes, fears, mistakes and dreams is what you and I recognise in the flawed lives of ourselves and those around us. If we try to look at our leaders, and our peers, with x-ray vision or sight that wants to reduce everything to whether or not people are behaving then we get some kind of a warped idea of reality. Transparency supposedly breeds clarity. Actually all it does is cloud the glass with greater suspicion.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."

It's easy to criticise and judge based on the image presented by the media; an image that is political in itself but is only ever enough to sell copy. We don't discuss anything that's going on because we can't move beyond a place of anger and blame. And if we stay obsessed with an idea of disappointing failure then all we will ever be is resounding gongs and clashing symbols.

1 Corinthians 13 is not just for when people get married; it's not just for church; it's not just for Christians. If as a nation we understood that what lies at the heart of relationships is the attitude contained in that then we might have some clarity, and we might have some trust. 2000 years later and I'm not sure there's ever been a better manifesto for relating to one another than this chapter...

Lack of Ambition at Valley Parade

We're Bradford City fans. Next season is going to be depressing.

You might have missed the news in amongst the fanfare of Cristiano's obscene transfer to Real Madrid that Bradford City's Matt Clarke had signed a contract extension. Laughably the Bradford City website says that the 'giant' defender will now form part of the squad aiming for promotion to League 1 next season.

There's no aiming for League 1 next season.

And that's underscored by the other bit of transfer news. Nicky Law has gone to Rotherham. We had Nicky on loan from Sheffield United last season and then again this. And he's a fantastic prospect. There are Blades' fans who thought he was worth a shot in the Premiership and certainly good enough for the Championship. As it was it took Stuart McCall to nurse him back to his best.

At the end of last season after we failed to mount a serious promotion challenge it looked certain he would be coming back. Unfortunately something has caused him to choose the Don Valley running track over Valley Parade.

Ambition? Who wants to end up disappointed anyway. Not to write us off too early but I'm sure that the 2010/11 season will be our year...

Vital Bradford article on the subject here

Twitter Comedy

Much has happened in the two weeks since I last blogged. Life has been busy. Racists have been sent to Brussels. So a bit of light relief is in order...

http://www.twittercomedy.co.uk

If you don't check out all the artists make sure you do find @MitchBenn and @GaryDelaney.

Certainly made me laugh when I ought to have been writing an essay...

Pedlars of Lies

I have no problem with people being given a platform from which to say whatever they want. I have no desire to prevent anyone from saying anything. We are quite capable of controlling what we listen to, distilling the value of it and either accepting or rejecting its worth. This and things like it are the beauty of the freedoms we enjoy.

I do, however, have a problem with those freedoms being used to give credence to lies. And I have a problem with the way in which we can seemingly abandon the big-picture, issue driven, needs orientated discourses in favour of the mud slinging that's dominating Westminster at the moment.

The combination of these things is that there's a likelihood of a big swing to the right in the elections in two weeks' time.

This week we've mostly been receiving pamphlets from the canvassing teams of the parties (and from UKIP in the post from my Grandad). In amongst that was material from the BNP literature containing the perfect mix of half-truth, stereotype, fear and sensationalism to underscore the skillful way in which Nick Griffin is making repugnant views seemingly palatable. Alongside this has been a number of opinion pieces dismayed at the rise of the right but addressing the issues from an aloof position that simply deals with the BNP in the same way the BNP deal with facts. And in response there has been a staggering insight into Britain's mind.

I've seen a number of statements trotted out as glib facts that are anything but.

Their pamphlet contains plenty of them whilst the comments left on newspaper articles repeat the rhetoric and expand the lies.

They'll pull us out of Europe. I am very much pro-Europe and I fail to see what behaving like a stagnant little backwater really seeks to achieve. Isolationism might work if you're Russia or China or even the USA because the economies of scale in such a big operation and the access to a willing and exploitable workforce make it somehow viable. Their Britain, which will have had the most exploitable workforce repatriated and already looks to the world to supply its needs is not going to be an attractive proposition for businesses, for external investment or for us.

Hearteningly though, until the BNP MEPs pull us out from Europe they're going to give 10% of their salaries (although no word on whether they'll follow the MEP expense abuse that far exceeds what's happening in London) to funds that will enable community groups to properly celebrate St George's Day. As though it's money that is preventing people taking the initiative and organizing things. I'd suggest that a lack of community momentum to organize things that mark St George's Day, for example, come from an insularity that is peculiarly British rather than anything else. Minority groups will celebrate their homelands when on foreign soil, the majority bumbles along comfortable in the fact that every day life is every day life and doesn't need remembering or commemorating. Plus, it's not as though the British really need an excuse for a piss-up, which is all St Patrick's and St Andrew's days have become.

Immigration, as you'd expect, features heavily. Whether it's in the opposing moves, that are supported by the major parties, to block the borders to the 80 million low wage Muslim Turks poised to overwhelm the UK (yes, because a system that currently sees a net migration of 147,000 people is suddenly going to see 800 times that number) or having a picture of a doctor saying he's voting BNP because the NHS is under strain from immigrants there's no doubt specks of truth but it's ultimately incredibly misleading.

If the NHS is under strain (ive never had a bad experience myself) it's unlikely to be attributed to one thing alone. How about heart disease, diabetes and lifestyle connected cancers? Or drink/drug related need? Or things to do with sex whether curing disease or bringing life. It's a statement made all the more ludicrous, and disrespectful to our medics by ignoring the valuable contribution made by migration to the NHS' workforce (for the last 60 years) not just as medical professionals but in the auxiliary roles too.

But that must be what is contributing to our reaching retirement and then being at the back of the queue behind the asylum seekers (there were a whopping 5,000 asylum claims last year, 700 more than the previous one but not what I would call an invasion). I've heard this queue mentioned a lot but I'm no closer to working out what lies at its head. Schooling? That's free for all. Health? Again free to all. Benefits? Open to anyone with need (both to be enjoyed or abused by anyone criminal enough to do so). Work? Difficult for everyone but accessible to everyone who is deemed to hold the best qualifications. Like jobs on the continent are if we bothered to learn languages or leave this sceptred isle. But it's clearly that issue driving claims that there should be British jobs for British workers. These recent strikes are another example of British arrogance. All that striking in this way will do is encourage more companies to leave Britain because of a workforce that is petulant and expectant of more and more and more.

Then there's the question of Iraq and Afghanistan. Dealt with in a number of ways. Firstly, Iraq was about oil and therefore wrong, Afghanistan is a foreign war and therefore we should be pulled out. They state our troops are not well equipped (and the infrequent stories that highlight this gloss over the evident disparity in kit between the rarely wounded coalition and the repeatedly pulverised enemy). Oh yeah, and that Muslims in this country don't appreciate their sacrifice because soldiers have been abused in the streets.

It's a clever ploy because it distances them from the fighting on the basis of faith and the source of so such foreign policy discussion and faith based discourse whilst leaving you in no doubt that Islam is dangerous and insidious. It ignores the reality that there are plenty of anti-war protesters who have diminished the efforts of the British forces by pointing an accusatory finger, backed up by the nationwide news coverage of the event, at one particular group and one particular incident.

It's interesting though that there's a contradiction within the party and what they believe when it comes to the interaction of faith and skin colour. A BNP candidate councillor for York said that if there is a black police association from which whites are barred why couldn't the opposite be true. Leaving aside whether that's what normality looks like (no majority 'loses out' when minorities are granted the same opportunities) he went on to say that they don't want to talk about colour at all, just people.

So why then does their propaganda specify Muslims (twice)? Skin colour and faith are clearly very different. Although skin colour isn't important what you believe is enough to make us build up divisions that really we aren't interested in. Evidently this school of thought must be informing the guy who said something along the lines of 'it's not that we don't like Muslims it's just that their faith is incompatible with our Christian heritage'.

Eh?

Christianity tells of God's love for me, for you, for creation. It points out the beauty of being in loving relationship with God and with people like us but Jesus makes it blatantly obvious that actually it's more about being friends to the friendless, striving for justice for the downtrodden and generally pouring out ourselves in service to others particularly if the world thinks your differences are insurmountable.

Be proud that this nation of ours has played host to people from around the world forever. Be proud that in this country your human rights are not only protected but they are proactively promoted throughout the world. Be proud that we are blessed with education, health, welfare, transport, employment regimes and systems that are the envy of the world and that prompt people (without just cause to flee) to leave their homes to search for better life and offer those who have to flee a safety from the harm they might experience at 'home'.

I work in one of the poorest parts of the UK. 6 out of 10 postcodes are amongst the 25% most deprived nationally. And we have an ethnic minority population of 8-9%.

Yet the menu of life in Hill is one of joblessness, benefits, drink, drugs, fractured families, teenage pregnancies, nationally the lowest educational attainment, some terrifying health statistics. And I could go on.

None of those problems come from immigration. None of those problems would be fixed by corporal or capital punishment. And certainly none of those problems are solved by the repatriation of anyone deemed not to be British by ancestry.

It's not enough to say "no platform for racists", thumb our noses and walk off with the moral high ground attached to our feet. It's not enough to be condescending, to assume that people understand and appreciate what's going on behind the propaganda. This is heart and mind stuff, but it's heart and mind stuff that flows from that reluctance to engage. So let's address the issues. Let's talk about Britain being an absolutely mongrel nation that has thrived on immigration and covered the planet by emigration. There is no such thing as being 'British' by ancestry; there's nothing that makes a 5th generation Brit more British than someone whose parents arrived in this country in the 60s, or who has recently been given citizenship.

Get off your bums and use your vote. The European elections use Proportional Representation, that makes it even more important that you do vote. Don't lose sight of what this is really about in the immediate confusion and emotion of this talk about expenses (when really we're splitting hairs over a small proportion of unnecessary expenses against necessary expenses). Evil prospers when good people do nothing.

"He has showed you, o man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God" (Micah 6:8)

When you go to the ballot box vote for the people who will do justice, mercy and humility. Please don't vote for the ones who won't.

Principal Agent

As part of my job in Hull I get to study for an MSc in Public Management in Birmingham (where I am currently in a fairly ropey hotel room). This is a wonderful opportunity but not necessarily one I'm always enthusiastic about (I need to work on cultivating an attitude of gratitude). Before we came down for some lectures on research methodology today and tomorrow I was completing an essay on the insights that the principal-agent theory has in terms of performance management. And it got me thinking.

Before I continue I ought to explain what the principal-agent theory is. Don't run away at the thought of economic theory I'll keep the explanation brief and hopefully straightforward.

If I employ you to do something that makes me the principal and you the agent. I want to minimise the inputs I give you in exchange for a maximum level of effort that ensures I get what I'm looking for from you. You, on the other hand, want me to give you as much reward as possible in exchange for less effort. What we both want is an outcome that suits us both – I want my interests to be maximised, as you do yours.

The principal-agent theory then lets people work out how to design performance incentives or measure effort in order to get the best outcomes for everyone concerned. And it struck me that there's a school of thought about Christianity that looks at us within this framework (even if they don't know it).

On the one hand are those who unwittingly make us the principal and God our agent. That's those who think we've made him up to make us feel better (it's certainly a remarkably complex and well fleshed out crutch that's the product of invention, must be the work of some Machiavellian genius). And there are those who turn to God when the chips are down or when they need something. An ATM saviour who responds to our needs.

Not to suggest that God doesn't answer prayer of course but that we are not the principal in this relationship, it's to refute the suggested that he's an on-call deity should we need a favour. God is obviously the principal, but recognising that doesn't stop the misconceptions from floating about.

I don't know when it was that the church dropped the ball but we seemed to have done so in a big way when it comes to an understanding of the motivation behind our Christianity.

This lens of God as principal and me as his agent means I must be performing because of something God is doing. My motivation for dancing to a Holy tune, perhaps, is fear, a fear of hell, a fear of damnation and a fear of being judged a failure by God. It's an understanding that says I have to comply with a stated norm in order to be accepted as good enough for God. I'm sure there are plenty of people who love God, seek Him and serve Him that reckon that's the nature of our relationship with Him. By my reckoning it's a bit brimstone heavy and grace light which is a tragedy.

Alternatively, if not fear of consequence, then clearly it's all about reward. Heaven is the carrot dangled under our noses that we will get if our behaviours make it possible. Like imagining the God of fear, this God of prizes forms another theological construction that squeezes grace to the margins.

And that's because whilst it is possible to see elements of principal-agent theory in how the world understands us it totally skews the nature of our relationship. It's not a transactional or contracted situation. Our performance is not measured, there are no proxy indicators suggesting whether we are pleasing God or achieving salvation. God loves us for who we are, as we are and irrespective of what we have done or ever will do. It's not contingent upon fulfilling stated aims or meeting certain goals (beyond the having a relationship in a first place which, if it exists, suggests that reconciliation has happened).

The reality of Jesus' sacrifice is that it breaks the idea of principal versus agent and makes them one and the same. Perhaps we've lost sight of that behind the veneer of something transactional because we've seen relationships move away from being selfless in their search for a unity of one flesh and themselves becomes something principal-agentesque. Maybe the church is responsible for advertising this idea of family that places man at the head of a house and wife as subservient to him.

The thing is that's not what I see when I read the oft trotted out Ephesians 5:21-32.

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

I've obviously missed the bit of that which is about servitude or subjugation. Is it not a recognition that both parties give of themselves to the other out of love. Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. And so, if you're in submission through reverence to Christ then as women submit to their husbands so their husbands are submitting to them. Not a transaction, not a greater or lesser role, no one thing making something else happen as a result. Just love.

The problem in much of my public management MSC is that the language is transactional. It's not relational. You won't find love being spoken about when it comes to understanding the interaction between the public and its governing agencies or a contractor and his staff. You won't find love entering the equation when it comes to maximising sales or minimising costs. Yet in the economy of grace the greatest value is to lose, the biggest joy is in giving away. Freedom comes not from the what but from the who. The who of our friends, the who of our family, the who of our communities, churches and colleagues.

If the principal and the agent submit to one another, simply because they want to maximise the interests of the other then greed, self interest and the negativity of desire vanish. So, if the principal agent theory tells the church anything at all it reminds us that our principal does that – God lives in us, trusting us to be His hands and feet and empowering us with the same spirit that created the universe.

I'd like my effort to look like it's the work of an agent responding to the most generous, over-the-top, outrageous contractual arrangement from the principal. Economic theory says that the agent is always looking for the principal to 'reward' them hugely. It says that any principal making the kind of commitment our saviour has they'd be after a commensurate level of response. The magnitude of our riches in Christ are incomprehensible, there's no way that (even if we tried harder) we could come close to matching them with our efforts. Thankfully we don't have to. But I don't want to rock up and meet St Peter saying I never tried to respond to God's grace cos I didn't have to. I'd like to be able to say I could come close. Not because I'm scared of hell, not because if I do God might answer my prayers, not because I want to go to heaven but because I don't want to forget that what God has done for me as I was, continues to do with me as I am and has in store for who I could be isn't for my benefit but is to bless him, those around me and the world.

Interesting thing economics...

HIV Kings Of Europe

According to yesterday's Metro, the UK is HIV king of Europe.

Tragically I'm not surprised.

Whenever we hear the latest statistics that tell of Britain 'leading' Europe in some new way the response is that we need more or better sex education. This follows the premise that information is what sexually active men and women are lacking.

I'm not buying it. I don't believe the solution rests in some golden calf of sexual education that focuses on precautions. I think that there's little more that can be done in school.

We are an incredibly condom-ised society but we also have such a ready proliferation of post coital birth control that cure (of pregnancy) appears preferable to prevention of sexually transmitted life (be it viral or human).

No, I think that the fact Britain leads the way in teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexual disease is because somewhere in our national psyche we don't value relationship with one another as we ought with the result that sex isn't seen as something of consequence. It's casual, not special.

For chunks of my peers, promiscuity is grounds for respect. Sexual conquests are celebrated as an end in themselves. People are reduced to objects of gratification. Lily Allen's most recent offering says that being bad in bed undermines anything positive in a relationship.

But in a throwaway world it's hardly a surprise. Britain is a place where the temporary reigns. And more often than not it is a selfish idea of temporary which doesn't think about the consequences. Dishearteningly that message is reinforced by the media, in politics and through fractured families.

The Pope was recently attacked for saying you don't fix AIDS with condoms. The church is ridiculed for saying that abstinence and faithfulness should be higher priorities. This alternative is easily mocked, just another irrelevant sermon from a completely irrelevant group of people.

The "Death of Christian Britain", as sociologists call the 1960s, has much to commend it. Not least it changed the dynamics of gender (or recaptured New Testament values of equality), beginning a process that sadly has not yet reached completion. But, in addition, by supplanting singular ideas with pluralistic ideals it gave space to people of all faiths, and none, to express their ideas without prior conditions. True pluralism is foundationally about loving your neighbour for who they are and what they think even if that person is someone you would hate to be. But it is critically undermined when it isn't a two way dialogue.

People should not have ideas foisted onto them or be required to live according to my expectations. That's neither gracious nor loving. However, if we don't offer the alternative what's left behind is a vacuum. And that too fails on both counts. When it comes to sex and relationships I think the squeezing of God to the margins has been a bad thing. So called 'free love' seems to have resulted in slavery rather than freedom and painful hollowness instead of loving delight.

I have no doubt that loving and respecting one another unconditionally and selflessly is the model for relationship and I believe that the public commitment of modelling that forever is what makes marriage the perfect context for sex. What I could do is use that to stand in a corner and judge. To jump around on top of the moral high ground claiming victory after a battle that knows only losers. True, I don't think condoms are the answer but in the developing world so much time and effort goes into standing alongside people to tackle the issue. In Australia the Red Cross have little stalls outside night clubs doing that whilst handing out condoms.

The sexual revolution has had side effects. For some reason Britain has borne the brunt of them. But if we're interested in people's lives being transformed by grace and hope could we have done more to support it? Could we take a lead from those Aussies and stand outside nightclubs offering condoms ourselves (alongside our bottles of water and street pastoring)? Not to condone the things we disagree with but to engage with the reality of brokenness around us. To love them by serving them on their terms, not ours.

Too often the problems of the world become the church's pornography; we get to analyse without being involved. We toy with the idea of being part of a culture that has sex on tap. We moralise about its perils. But we keep doing it from Christian holes in the ground that people might, if they're lucky, fall into.

This is why Conversations is exciting.

It's gloves off church because it's passionate about authentically seeking God's heart for transformation. On Wednesday the theme was 'Loving The City' and Dave Magill spoke on Nehemiah's rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls. He asked us what metaphorical walls need rebuilding in York. As someone who lives in the shadow of a broken family (of Christians no less) it's strange this didn't occur to me then. Getting back to the basics of relationship is fundamental. It is impossible to stress the importance of rebuilding relationships built around selfless appreciation, respect and compassion. Sex and everything that is glorious, or sinister, about it lives or dies on the basis of whether those things are present.

We love because we were loved first.

As I saw on Sunday there are people living within touching distance who might never have known what it is to be loved unconditionally, just for being alive.

Except that we know they are.

God loves you; because he loves you; because he loves you; because he loves you; because he loves you; because he loves you; because he loves you...

All we need to do is get that message through.

Cost Benefit

Recently there have been a number of journalists writing articles about church, God and Christianity. Oddly they've not all been entirely negative. Since Dave flagged up Matthew Parris' thoughts from last month I've come across, or been pointed towards, other things most notably here and here.

Nice to see that we Christians are capable of being presented in a positive light. Of course the articles are imperfect and there are things to which we Christians, and those heathen others, could pick on. Problems in their reasoning, or their misconceptions or their opinions but nevertheless these are articles which are refreshing.

Coupled to that refreshment is the wonder of the internet where anyone can hold forth on anything (just like this). And, even better, people can take their cue from what someone has written to delve deeper into the issues at hand.

Predictably, some of the articles have descended into thinly veiled arguments over "my absence of God is better than your God" and vice versa. Clearly, my bias lets me take the undoubtedly condescending, self-righteous and arrogant position that my God is better than the absence of Him but that's another discussion. And one which tends towards going round in circles generating heat rather than light.

What's caught my attention is the following remark...

Both atheists and believers have done evil things (China's cultural revolution to today's Jihadists to name just some). But I do feel that if one were to do a 'cost/benefit' analysis of the two camps- the atheists would have the higher moral ground because we have contributed a lot more to science in general and in particular, the pursuit of life saving medicine.

An interesting thought and not one that I feel particularly well qualified to discuss from the point of view of the premise that, looking at contributions to science, theists have had less impact than their atheist fellows. My gut reaction is that given the durability of Christianity, 2,000 years of thought, invention and design inspired and informed by those worshipping God does not suddenly get undone by a louder atheistic presence (which of course is nothing new).

In terms of the moral high ground, however, it's a position that doesn't show much appreciation of history. The reality, however much we appeared on earth by chance or hold that morality is simply something that occurs naturally, is that it took a very long time for people to think that other people were important.

In Genesis 34 we read about Dinah and the Shechemites. Basically, Dinah, daughter of Jacob (sister of Joseph, he of dressing gown fame) gets defiled by Shechem. The response is brutal and savage, just have a read. It's that kind of an environment into which Moses speaks in Leviticus 24.

Here's a culture that practices rampant, and disproportionate violence being told, in no uncertain terms that actually, if you're going to exact vengeance it should be in correlation to what went on. I appreciate that a stoning for a blasphemy is arguably disproportionate in itself but stick with me (no doubt this will be something to explore at a later date).

You get the whole idea of punishment and revenge turned on its head by Moses. And that persists for quite some considerable time. In fact up until Jesus.

In Judaic culture you were very keen on helping your family, and your tribe but that was where it ended. You helped those you liked. You helped those who might help you back. The concept of the neighbourhood was a closed one.

And history is full of city states, tribes and kingdoms setting off to war against its non-kindred neighbours. Now whilst the thirst for power and the quest for domination didn't end with Jesus the whole idea of what being neighbourly meant didn't so much end as finally got the point. If, in the years after that we've carried on as before it doesn't mean Jesus was lying, just that we might not have been paying enough attention.

Because if we read Matthew 5 it's blatant what Jesus is saying. This is a beautiful exposition of why vengeance is not what's best for us and specifically Jesus takes to task the idea that 'an eye for an eye' is. Instead he says that the best way to respond when someone does you wrong is to take it and offer the chance for them to wrong you further.

Madness.

A madness that only gets worse in Luke 10 when a young lawyer says, so Jesus, how is it that I get eternal life? As ever, Jesus gets him to answer the question himself, whereupon he retorts that you need to love God with everything and to love your neighbours as yourself. Although the answer impresses Jesus the young man wants clarity and says but, who's my neighbour?

With the result that Jesus unleashes the Parable of the Good Samaritan on a truly unsuspecting world. This is the point when the limits on charity, on love and on compassion get undone. When Jesus becomes not just a Messiah for the Jews but effectively declares salvation for all. The moment from which the early church takes the inspiration to turn the world on its head outside of the Jewish nation. The point when all the good which has happened through Christian endeavour can find its point of conception.

Who's my neighbour? It's that person you hate; the one you share nothing in common with; the guy who is something you would hate to be.

Had Jesus not been the one to institute that new covenant based on a relationship with God that flourishes in relationship with others then maybe someone else would have done at a later date. But no matter how much cynicism is poured onto the Biblical Jesus it's not an idea that pops up elsewhere. This is something attributed to him before anyone else.

Of course the church and Christians haven't always lived this out and that is to our corporate regret and shame. But it's workmen rather than tools and whilst I'll see your Crusades and Inquisition it bears raising you the 20th century secular leaders who are no less, if not more, responsible for suffering than the carnage of antiquity.

So if we keep those events out of it in recognition that death by conflict is motivated by a thirst for power irrespective of faith, or none, and return to the cost/benefit analysis it's difficult to agree with the original premise. As I said I can't comment on science, but the sweeping generalisation has certainly agitated Mrs Wellers, instead I can look at the history of selfless love (read charity). And through that lens Jesus' idea of neighbourhood, community and revenge becomes a world altering idea that strikes the Father of all blows for morality, for transforming lives, for putting hope into the middle of dark places.

But then I am exceptionally biased aren't I?

The Future's Bleak

Yesterday I was travelling back to York after spending a couple of days in Devon.

A few minutes after the train had pulled away from the station a young guy walked past, beer can in hand, directing a conversation towards his partner making it clear that she knew he wasn't happy about her alleged sexual indiscretions.

What this guy was saying was colourful to put it mildly and he clearly took great pride in having an audience with everyone able to hear his opinions on those most intimate parts of her body.

I was sat listening to music so was well shielded from what he was saying and I assumed that once he had sat himself down he would shut up. He didn't. I could have turned up my music and carried on ignoring what he was saying but instead, prayerfully taking my life into my own hands, I went and asked him if he wouldn't mind putting a lid on it.

He wasn't keen on the idea and he was even less keen on "someone posh like you" telling him what to do. Instead he took great pride in telling me that he was a very dangerous person, asking me whether I knew who he was (unfortunately I'm no expert on the criminals of Devon) before letting me know that he dealt heroin and crack. As though that would make me either fear or respect him. It did neither. Asking where I was going, York, he said that he was off to Bristol, although to hear his description of the place you would think it to be the embodiment of Gomorrah.

Having never really confronted a drunk and clearly violent drug dealer you don't know how it's going to play but his behaviour wasn't acceptable for me so I told him that. On the condition that I never spoke to him again, he did agree to move carriages. Whether he shut up once he had moved I don't know but by the end of his journey he had made his way back down to where he started the journey and got off the train with his other half and their daughter in tow. Some happy family.

And that's why I'm telling you this. Throughout the whole exchange this guy had his little daughter with him. She must be three at the most as she sits there surrounded by darkness. Her father is effing and blinding (and then some) at the top of his voice with no regard for who might hear; but worse, far worse, is the lack of respect that he has for her mother, or even that her mother has for her father.

There was definitely venom, and there was definitely anger but love?

The reality for that little girl is bleak. Where is her knowledge of love going to come from? Her parents are criminals. If they never get caught then that means a lifestyle outside societal norms. But if they do then she's alone, hoping against hope that her experience of social services will not result in the outcomes that have been, and are, all too prevelant in terms of homelessness, criminality or lack of skills.

How does the cycle of deprivation, of poverty, of pain, of fear, of anger, of suffering get broken in that context? I don't know. This is the stuff of miracles. Without a fundamental reconstruction of the hearts of her parents the future experiences of that girl aren't filled with hope. But that's Jesus' promise, that all our future experiences will be full of hope.

That's not a guarantee against pain or suffering or anything else negative but it's a promise of hope. Hope against hope, that's what I prayed for that little girl. If you're reading this, would you do that too?

I pray that in Exeter and in Bristol God's hands and feet are active in working alongside drug addicts and drug dealers, that the prisons and the police are infected by the viral, guerrilla values of the kingdom, that those providing care for children caught up in these most awful of situations know no limits on their love and compassion.

Would you ask that God would do something for the lives of all three? Challenge him. Beg him. Implore him.

God show us as the church, as your body, as your instruments of grace how we can shine your light into this darkness.

I have absolutely no idea what the future of that girl, her mummy and her daddy will be. I trust that God does.

I hope against hope that she hears and knows Jeremiah 29:11.

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.

Thank you Father that you do.

The acceptable face of apathy?

Over the last year or so I've become incredibly impressed by the tireless efforts of one person who has taken two causes by the scruff of the neck and harnessed social media to push the issues onto individual agendas.

Lance Laifer has championed the causes of malaria and pneumonia both on and off line with remarkable consequences. The 'March of Washingtons', for example, has seen $85k donated (although this is by no means just about facebook) so far whilst thousands of people have joined the Facebook groups, causes and events.

And as far as any of that is concerned I'm not aware of his being spurred on by anything other than the fact that at least 300000000 (three hundred million) people will contract malaria or 4000000 (four million) will die from pneumonia this year.

Reason enough I think you'll agree.

This Saturday just gone was World Malaria Day and as a small way of participating and showing support and solidarity it was suggested that people blackout their Facebook and Twitter profiles. Not requiring anything more than people taking 5 minutes to change their profile pic.

I've been annoying people by inviting them to causes, groups and events as well as giving my 'Status for Humanity'. Unfortunately, only a handful bothered to do anything about it.

Understandably not everyone checks their social media every day but at a weekend the vast majority will at some point.

It's disappointing that more people didn't join in, not because people don't care of that I'm sure but because it's not a priority, because after all it's only something on Facebook or Twitter and for a number of my friends I'm not really bothered.

The problem I have is with the Christians.

There isn't an excuse for not being involved with these campaigns. there's nothing anyone could say to me that would lessen the importance of raising awareness and helping to combat diseases that cripple the poorest in the world. Nothing.

Fortunately global attention is getting to grips with Malaria, it's getting the kind of funding that could start to make real inroads. The global economics shouldn't change that (check globalrichlist.com to see how plentiful our lives are) so maybe lives will start to be saved.

So the grassroots focus is switching to pneumonia. When I was invited to the cause it was a no-brainer to join. Pneumonia is a big deal. Bigger than I had registered. Just visit worldpneumoniaday.org to see. So I looked at my friends and I saw some influential people, other Christians with time and resources, passion and compassion and cherry picked the people I invited.

The response has been rubbish.

This is not an invite to play Attack, it's not getting you to see which fictional character you're most like, nor is it even an invitation for any sort of financial or physical commitment.

It's an invitation to stand shoulder to shoulder with people in need. Bluntly, that's why there's the church. That's why God sent His only son. That's why we are involved as a body. To roll up our sleeves and see people's lives transformed. And to take a lead that shows the world the incredible love of God and the power of grace.

For sure there's an incredible amount of prayer going on but far more often than not God is going to use people to answer them. People like Lance who put the Body of Christ to shame. Is ignoring online campaigning ok? Is ignoring non-church instigated action an acceptable apathy?

I don't think so...

Dividend

The first thing I blogged was a introspection on where I am and how life felt a bit inert. By the end I'd reached a conclusion that inertia is a negative way of looking at waiting. But that actually waiting is trusting in God knowing the best route.

And it appears he does.

At our church weekend one of the congregation had issued a call to prayer for people involved in local government/public policy, basically those involved in shaping society. He invited everyone to the 7am Tuesday prayer meeting to encourage and be encouraged. Unfortunately I couldn't go because I have to be on my train but instead chatted to Phil about how frustrating it was to fall between the two stools of Hull and York.

So, fast forward to this week and I return to the office to find an email waiting for me from the Christian who had been on my interview panel. He's an incredibly busy guy so getting in touch with me should hardly be a priority especially given that outside the interview I've only met him once, when he briefed us as part of our induction...hardly presenting an opportunity to share what excites us about knowing Jesus.

Nevertheless, the email said "I was involved in your interview last year...I recall at the time, that you said that you were a Christian, so I wonder if you might be interested in the "kings breakfast" initiative that we started in January. This is a prayer breakfast for those who work in and around the city; we haven't had such a thing in Hull for over 12 years, so it was exciting to see 78 people get together to pray in January. We are doing it again in May, and I wondered if you wanted to come along"

In my first placement there was a Christian, I've passed the invitation onto her too. In this second placement there's a lady who wears a crucifix but I've not spoken to her, this is a great excuse. And just this week one of my colleagues on the Master's degree in Birmingham wears a cross, with obvious pride, around his neck.

Of course people wear crosses for all kinds of reasons, not all spiritual (although I've yet to see anyone wearing a guillotine round their neck, or an electric chair), so they may be red herrings. Undoubtedly as a Christian I'm sensitive towards seeing Christian paraphenalia (I wear a Global Day of Prayer band around my wrist because random Christian strangers might be encouraged by it) and sensitive to seeing God at work. Sometimes, no doubt, we read too much into things, but on the flip side I'm sure we don't appreciate just how much the church envelopes us. The Body of Christ is home to God's hands and feet so it shouldn't be a great surprise that it's the vehicle of answering prayer.

There's riches in patiently chucking prayer heavenward and seeing God-incidences happen. The dividend of patience is in the heightening of faith, in the encouragement of knowing that the small whisper, the faint flicker of insight wasn't just your imagination. That all those other little God-incidences were of Him and that you can move on from being stuck somewhere stagnantly fretting over what comes next to craning forward to peer expectantly into the (still murky) horizon.

There's a lot of joy to be had in experiencing the completion of patience with the hint of more to come!

Equality & Diversity

So last week I had some training arranged at work in Equality & Diversity. I wasn't really expecting it to be a good day. I'm lucky, these are ideas that come naturally to me and so it felt a bit like a colossal waste of time. This wasn't true of everyone.

The course was led by a British Muslim called Pasha who came from Salford and whose family was Pakistani. And he had a tough crowd. There was one individual in particular who behaved in an absolutely repugnant fashion towards Pasha by spouting the worst kind of ill-informed, ignorant, caricatured and evil opinions. If it had been as part of the wider group discussions that might have been better but as it was it was on one side during a break in a very personal manner.

The tragedy is that there was no way that the rest of the day made any impression whatsoever on him. They were his views and he wasn't going to change them. Equality & Diversity covers Age, Gender, Sexuality, Disability, Faith and Race and tragically you'd probably find plenty of people who would suggest that we as the church don't really employ Equality & Diversity in our theology let alone our practice.

Of course there's the obvious claims that the church suppresses women, that Paul was a misogynist and we are entirely a patriarchal entity. Add to that our hatred of gays. And, don't forget the wars for which we're responsible because of other people's faiths or skin colour.

It's not a very nice picture. And it's so far removed from the person of God as revealed through scripture and Jesus. As Christians we should lead the way when it comes to Equality & Diversity. We should be stood at the forefront of this.

1. LOVE.
We're created for relationships, the Trinity is all about the three persons of God entwined together in relationship and you could succinctly summarise the Bible as being about God hunting out relationship with us in spite of our rejection of Him. If we believe that God has made the earth and everything in it (whatever mechanism he used to do that) then it is all to be cherished, people and planet.

When Jesus gets asked about what is the most important commandment in the law he references the Old Testament law; don't bear grudges, love your neighbour as yourself. At the same time, he reaffirms the first three commandments.

Basically, if we're loving God but treating even our enemies like crap we're at odds with God.

And, more to the point, we love in spite of behaviour because we love with a deep understanding and desire for redemption and reconciliation. We love on the basis of our redemption, of the fact that God loved the world so much that rather than make us do something to fix it, he came and restored it. We should know that you don't have to qualify for a Christian's love.

1 John 4 17-21 underscores that, and I make no apology for publishing this beautiful translation from The Message,

'God is love. When we take up permanent residence in a life of love, we live in God and God lives in us. This way, love has the run of the house, becomes at home and mature in us. So that we're free of worry on Judgment Day – our standing in the world is identical with Christ's. There is no room in love for fear. Well-formed love banishes fear. Since fear is crippling, a fearful life – fear of death, fear of judgment – is one not yet fully formed in love. We, though, are going to love – love and be loved. First we were loved, now we love. He loved us first. If anyone boasts, 'I love God,' and goes right on hating his brother or sister, thinking nothing of it, he is a liar. If he won't love the person he can see, how can he love the God he can't see? The command we have from Christ is blunt: Loving God includes loving people. You've got to love both'

2. CREATION.
God knows us and loves us and made us all as individuals. Christine and I were puzzling over fingerprints the other day and we wondered what the rational position might be. A little googling and the evolutionary case is that fingerprints are all about grip. As for their uniqueness it seemed that the consensus lay in needing to check out chaos theory. All well and good, but grip seems to me to be a perfect example of God's creation ((as seen in this Audi advert) and I'm not satisfied by saying fingerprints are unique because chaos theory shows us that all things are possible.

I'm quite content to see them underlining the uniqueness of a creation which is reiterated time and time again...

Jeremiah 1:5 'Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart.'
Luke 12:7'Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered'
Genesis 1:27'So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.'

Fundamentally, as Christians we believe and recognise that every other person in the world is crafted by God, and not only crafted by Him but absolutely, 100%, head over heels, loved by Him.

3. IDENTITY.
So, we're uniquely made by God, and we're all about love but people are different, and that means that necessarily there are divisions. Fortunately not, Paul's pretty clear that our first identity is in Christ. It's not whether we're male or female, it doesn't rest in our ethnicity or our sexuality. First and foremost, before anything else, we are Christians.

Galatians 3:28 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'

And not only do we identify ourselves as such but because of Easter, God looks at us and doesn't see our messed up selves but he sees Christ. Pure, unblemished and equal with Him.

So in Christ we are equal but in Christ we are also diverse. We're called to be different, called to a freedom of expression, called to be individuals of God glorifying Him in weird and wonderful ways. I'm a little bit passionate about how exciting it is to be a part of the church and how, as a body, we each get to do different things, have different passions, think differently, experience differently but to be unified in our equality in Christ.

The boxes of society shouldn't matter inside the church because we identify in Christ and as Christians we identify each other as bits of the body.

4. THE WORLD.
This is all very well and good when we're in church and in our nice little Christian bubbles but what about the world. What about a world that doesn't recognise God's creation in all things and doesn't value all individuals beyond their past behaviours? What about a place where war is fought on the basis of theological dispute? Where people are spat at in the street by dint of their physical disability? A place where we're ready to talk about evil but ignore redemption?

If we are God's hands and feet (which we are) then Equality & Diversity is our starting point. We're not interested in what people believe, or don't; in how they act, or don't; we're interested in them as people that God wants to have relationship with. And if God wants to have relationship with them then there's a value in their lives far beyond our understanding.

It's not just Equality & Diversity that this informs, it's how we think about Pluralism. We crave pluralism, but one which recognises the freedom of everyone to be themselves, that doesn't restrict in any way what people believe, and how they express that. If our starting point is to love people as they are then that's far more than tolerance, it's even more than respect. As Micah tells us, God has shown us what good looks like, all he requires in return is that we act justly, love mercy and walk humbly.

If we recognise all people as incredible works of God's hands, love them beyond ourselves and remember that we are all equally sinful and blameless. If at the same time we appreciate being individuals of diversity whilst striving for justice, mercy and humility then the legislative and societal demands of Equity and Diversity begin to be irrelevant.

Maybe, just maybe, if the 3 billion Christians in the world exhibited all that we know to be true then Equality & Diversity training would be a thing of the past.

And whilst that would make Pasha redundant, I hope he'd agree that some things in life are better obsolete.