Interesting comment from Kirsty Young, who’s presenting a new BBC series called “The British at work” from 10th March.
In the last 15 years work has, she says, shifted from “being what we do to who we are”.
If that’s the case, then we’d expect work increasingly to be an idol in people’s lives (my career is what gives me worth, gives me what I need, and what comes first when push comes to shove); and we’d need to communicate the good news of the gospel accordingly.
But I wonder if this shift is in fact quite geographically-specific. Our London commuter suburb is full of “live to work” people, by choice or by necessity. But before London, we lived in Hull, which has a (much healthier) “work to live” kind of outlook. Different idols instead, of course, but work for most people is not a huge part of their identity.
But still, it’s worth people like me, and publishers like us, remembering that what holds true inside the M25 often doesn’t outside it!
I worked as a journalist in the Middle East for many years before I started with The Good Book Company, so I have been following the dramatic upheavals in the region with interest. We continue to pray that the slow move from authoritarian regimes to more open and democratic ones would open a door for the gospel in those countries.
One country that has not yet been touched by the troubles is Pakistan, which is far more Islamic by nature than Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. Those who study international affairs in this region predict that any spread of public unrest to Pakistan could have far more bloody outcomes than what has happened so far. Pakistan has a much stronger and more influential radical Islamic population. Parts of it are hotbeds for terrorist training. The minority of Christians in the country are under constant pressure and persecution.
One constant source of fear is the way that Pakistan's blasphemy laws allow many Christians to be falsely accused of "dishonouring Islam" and imprisoned under threat of execution. It is routinely used by radical Muslims to persecute believers.
Which makes it even more tragic that the only Christian in Pakistan's government, Shahbaz Bhatti, the Minister for Minorities Affairs, has been assassinated by gunmen in the street as he left his mother's house for a cabinet meeting.
He was a Catholic in his 40s, and had made it his goal to overcome faith-based divisions. He had already built unprecedented bridges between religious leaders in Pakistan, but had predicted his death in a remarkable interview on the BBC website.
He is not the first to be removed from Government in this way. In January Salman Taseer, the Governmor of Punjab province, was killed by a bodyguard who said he was angry that the politician opposed the blasphemy laws. To the horror of Pakistan's besieged liberals, many ordinary citizens praised the assassin - a sign of the spread of hardline Islamist thought in the country.
Campaigning group Christian Solidarity Worldwides National Director, Stuart Windsor, commented: Shahbaz Bhatti was known personally to me for twelve years, and we worked closely with him on the causes which he passionately espoused. He was a true patriot who loved his country and wanted to see the realisation of Jinnahs vision of a harmonious, pluralist society.
"He never achieved what he dedicated his life to the eventual repeal of Pakistans blasphemy laws. But he tried, bravely, and his life was a blessing to many."
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.
“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…
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!
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!
This year’s London Men's Convention theme exhorts us to be Faithful to God at work, home, church and in mission, whatever the cost. Convention speakers include:
With solo music from Nathan Tasker and the spine-tingling experience of praising the Lord in a choir of 4000 at the Royal Albert Hall, this will be a convention not to miss. More details from the Christian conventions website or book tickets from the Royal Albert Hall.
“It melts away fears and worries, and puts in their place a sense of security, warmth and calm. This can be a life-changing experience.”
That’s what drunkenness offers, as pointed out by this Telegraph article which picks up on the actor Charlie Sheen’s struggle with the bottle.
And let’s be honest: that’s what drunkenness delivers for many people.
Of course, there’s a downside. Andrew Brown continues: “life for heavy boozers tends to be punctuated with agonizing catastrophes, messes that need to be cleared up, phone calls, pleas for forgiveness.”
But still, alcohol offers us a chance to be the "me that I want to be". It gets rid of inhibitions and gives the confidence to be "yourself".
I wonder if that’s why the traditional line churches (and particularly youth groups) give doesn’t work for people who struggle with drunkenness, as I did for years. I regularly heard: “Don’t get drunk. It’s not good. God doesn’t like it”. And yet the thing is: in many ways, drunkenness is good. And in many ways, I like it!
So this article got me thinking about how I need to remember, and I need to encourage others to remember, the sentence which follows Paul’s famous “no” to getting drunk in Ephesians 5 v 18:
“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery…
“Instead, be filled with the Spirit.”
Why is the answer to the temptation of drunkenness to look at the Spirit? Because the Spirit “melts away fears and worries, and puts in their place a sense of security, warmth, and calm.”
To put it another way, people filled with the Spirit, who work to let the Spirit work in them, “are being transformed into [Christ’s] likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from … the Spirit” (2 Corinthians 3 v 18).
The Spirit offers us the ability to become the me that I want to be: a Christ-like me. And there’s no downside, no morning after, no hangover. There's no need to get drunk because for the Christian, there is something better than the good things alcohol offers. I wonder if that’s why Paul finishes Ephesians 5 v 18 as he does.
