The High Court has backed a council's decision to bar a Christian couple from fostering children because, in the words of Eunice Johns, she and her husband Owen: "were not willing … to tell a small child that the practice of homosexuality was a good thing."
Christian Legal Centre: "fostering by Christians is now in doubt."
Stonewall: "If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service, you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."
Eunice Johns: "All we wanted was to offer a loving home to a child in need. We are prepared to love and accept any child."
Mr and Mrs Johns have fostered 15 children over the last 20 years. There are well over 15,000 children in care at the moment.
Books have a great, and often deep and lasting, impact on people who read them. Good Christian books excite, encourage and equip Christians, and help to bring the gospel clearly and engagingly to "not-yet-Christians."
But equally, a “Christian” book which contains mistakes (theological, not spelling!) can divert, damage or even destroy Christians, and leave non-Christians not knowing what the Bible actually teaches.
Which is why a new book by a popular author looks like it needs a large health warning attached.
Rob Bell, the American pastor who produced the extremely popular Nooma videos, and who is a great communicator and writer, has a new book out this spring, called “Love wins”. Great title, but judging by the publicity, its central message is that hell is empty, because ultimately God will save everyone, whether or not they’ve accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.
It’s important to say this is only the publicity: some people have helpfully pointed out it could just be a brilliant marketing strategy (if it is, then it seems unfortunate to use heaven, hell and salvation as sales-boosting tools).
The publicity video is here: and after watching it, do go here for some Bible-based, honest answers to the questions Bell asks.
For what it’s worth, I find that a helpful place to focus is Jesus’ first words in Mark’s gospel (1 v 15), a summary of His central message. However popular or plausible Rob Bell is, it’s Jesus’ words which must provide the benchmark for whether or not we welcome Bell’s book.
“The kingdom of God is near”.
What’s remarkable is not that those who choose to live without God while misusing his gifts endure life beyond death without God and without any gifts (hell).
What’s remarkable is that for people like that (us) the kingdom of God is still near, reachable, open. In reality, this is what it means to say that Love wins.
“Repent and believe the good news”. What’s wonderful is that anyone who simply:
has a guaranteed, unlose-able eternal place in it. Anyone can be won over by Love, and ask Love to win kingdom life for them.
But the Bible teaches clearly that no one is forced to ask God’s Son (Love in human form) to be their Lord and Saviour. No one is forced to go to a heaven they don’t believe in, ruled by a God they don’t like, loved by a Love they don’t want. That wouldn’t be very loving.
Wiser bloggers than me have commented on the publicity for this book: if you want to know more, check out Justin Taylor and Kevin DeYoung.
“Empirical evidence indicates that God is good for you.”
Or so the Daily Mail told me on Saturday. Its central thrust: if you believe in God and go to religious meetings, you’re happier, healthier and you live longer.
It seemed like a great argument for God.
But as I read through, something troubled me, and eventually I put my finger on it: it was so man-centred. This wasn’t an argument for God existing, and therefore our need to take Him seriously; this was an argument for believing in God whether or not He’s real, because we need to take our own happiness seriously.
What really matters is whether or not God exists in reality; not whether or not the idea of “god” makes us feel better inside.
Towards the end, the article claims to critique atheist missionaries such as Richard Dawkins as leading people up a “blind alley”, on the basis that religious people live longer and have more children. So they’re wrong.
Richard D is, of course, a pretty clever guy, and would make mincemeat of this (as many of the commenters on the online article have done). Just because being religious makes someone happier, healthier or longer-living, doesn’t make it true.
And actually anyone who thinks it's a good idea to become a Christian thinking that it will give them greater worldly happiness, more bodily health, and a longer life will soon find out that they’ve chosen the wrong product.
After all, the man who most embodied a life lived for God died poor and in lonely agony in middle age. And he also warned: “if anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross” (Mark 8 v 34).
Christians—those who know God personally, and seek to live His way—are truly blessed (Psalm 1 v 1). They know their lives have eternal purpose - so can know true satisfaction. They know their lives are eternally saved - so can know real security. They know they will enjoy Christ's riches forever - so can live in contentment now, whatever their circumstances.
But that’s not the same as having health, happiness and long life here and now.
So one final thought: does our evangelism ever sound like this article? Do we ever promise, even if only implicitly, that if someone follows Christ their life will go “better”? Because that’s not how Christ’s evangelism sounded…
One of the perks of working at TGBC is getting a sneak preview of The Briefing before it comes out.
But I must confess that the title of the March issue’s main article, “The lost art of public Bible reading”, didn’t exactly grab me.
The piece itself, though, did. There’ll be more blogs on it soon (or you can just get a copy of The Briefing here): but here’s what jumped out at me as I scanned the first page.
The Bible says to churches “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Timothy 4 v 13).
And the word “devote” can also be translated “addiction”. So you could translate the verse:
“Be addicted to the reading-out-loud of the Bible”.
Wouldn’t it be great if “addicted” accurately described our attitude to God’s word? Hooked. Can’t get enough. Keep going back. Feel the lack of it if we go too long without.
I’d love to be addicted to Scripture. Unfortunately, too often I’m happy going cold turkey. Sometimes I kick the habit altogether.
But tomorrow, as I hear “the public reading of Scripture”, I’ll be praying that I get addicted, hooked on the amazing experience of hearing the God of heaven, the One who flung stars into space, speak to a bunch of his fallen, flawed creatures.
Can’t wait.
Coverage of religion in the news has doubled… to 2% of the total.
That’s the figure in the US comparing 2009 to 2010, anyway. I would guess it’d be still lower in the UK. Does anyone know if similar figures exist for Britain?
And would you like to see more or less coverage of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in the media? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Just to get the conversation started, I tentatively wonder if I’d be happy to see less coverage. Issues surrounding biblical Christianity are often reported negatively and/or ignorantly. It’s noticeable that the top three religious stories covered in the States last year centred on mosque-building controversy, priests’ sex abuse, and Koran burning. Not a great advert for religion.
So perhaps it’s better for people to notice Christianity not on the pages of a newspaper, but in the actions and words of a Christian friend. In which case, no news is good news.
On the flip side, Christian stuff in the media (even if mildly or wildly misreported) can often be a good prompt for conversations with friends. Perhaps all news is good news…
Do comment below!
New blog on the Old Testament
The British Humanist Association is urging people to "tick 'no religion' if you're non-religious" in this year's census.
Their point is that people ticking "Christian" just because they're baptised, or British, skews the data and gives religious groups too much influence over government policy.
I can't help wanting to agree with the strapline of the campaign (though not the reasons behind it):
"If you're not religious, for God's sake say so."
If people didn't assume they were Christians simply because of being sprinkled when young, or the nationality of their passport, or their impressive annual carol service attendance:
And perhaps it would clear the undergrowth of misunderstanding so that Jesus' words would once more amaze people with their simplicity, their offer and their command:
"The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1 v 15).
Maybe I'll write that in the "religion" box on this year's census (in very small letters!)
Interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday (obviously!) as Gordon Brown delivered the latest round of Blair-Brown sniping. This time, the battlefield was religion in politics.
Three opinions were noted:
This has got me thinking. I know I don’t agree with the first (the irony is that by deliberately not "doing God", Campbell was in fact taking God into account, if only by ignoring him. You can't "not do God"). I know I do agree with the third.
But should I agree with the second? In what circumstances might I agree, or disagree?
Can anyone leave a comment outlining in broad terms how Christians should approach politics? Or a useful (short!) book or resource on the subject?
And while I wait for your help, I’m going to take a look at these three helpful articles/sermons:
.jpg)
Six-month-old babies' minds can show signs of future criminal activity, according to an American scientist.
Psychologist Dr Adrian Raine said it might soon be possible to identify future criminals in the first few years of their life.
Apart from the ethical questions about such predictive profiling (it's the plot of the film Minority Report in real life), what struck me was a quotation from Dr Raine in today's Scottish Daily Record:"Seeds of sin are sown early in life."
So according to this scientist, you'll soon be able to tell that a particular baby is likely to sin in a particularly anti-social way later in life. Or, to put it another way, the "seeds" of an area sin are in the helpless baby, years before they actually commit that kind of sin.
But how does he know that the seeds are sown "early in life"? What happens to the baby between being born and being six months old that sows those seeds? Is it how quickly their nappy is changed? Or how much TV they're sat in front of? Or how many rusks they chew on?
Or is it that they're born with the seeds of sin already in them? Could it be true of each person that, as King David put it: "I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51 v 5)? That's part of the doctrine known as "original sin": that as humans we sin because we're sinful, rather than that we're sinful because we sin.
For decades, the mainstream view has been that children are born good, and then slowly corrupted and made evil. Our sin is society's fault, or someone else's fault: it's not our fault. Dr Raine is only one scientist, of course, and his views are by no means widely accepted. But perhaps there's a hint here that in this area, what the scientific community says is catching up with what God's word has been saying for millennia. Not that you'll read about that in any newspaper!
