Are Christians Being Persecuted in the UK?

The short answer is probably no. Having watched a programme on Sunday night asking that question, it seemed pretty clear that it's not the case. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has wisely suggested, we need to keep a sense of proportion. Much worse things happen to Christians elsewhere around the world. But much more than this, you can only really consider something persecution if you are prevented from doing something because of something you are or choose to do without good reason. Not being allowed to wear a cross at work doesn't constitute persecution because you don't have to take the job, nor is essential to wear a cross. If they were saying you could never wear a cross, even in your own home, or if they were saying you couldn't have ginger hair at work, then that would be more like persecution.

More realistically, you could say that Christianity is being marginalised. Things that were once the norm no longer are. Beliefs, values and practices are changing, and no longer are things that are, to some, deemed 'Christian' held to by the majority of the land. However, a lot of the people bemoaning this fact don't even follow Christ as their king, and so are more concerned with preserving their own culture than about anything else.

The important question is how do Christians respond as things start to change and these values and practices are no longer considered the norm? On the one hand you can become defensive, inward-looking, and ultimately very selfish, seeing the Christian's role as 'defending the faith', hoping that we don't become infected by the rest of society. On the other hand you can seek to be like Jesus, grounded in your identity in Christ, outward-focused, caring for others, focused not on outward practices but on the underlying worldview of people and their need to know and follow God.

OK, so 'Christianity', or at least its cultural façade, is retreating from mainstream society, but do we feel sorry for ourselves and look inwards, or do we look upwards and outwards, trusting in God, and seeking to know Him more and to make Him known to those around us?

There's no time like Kairos time

Today I completed a 'missions' course called Kairos which I have been taking part in some weekends over the last month or so. There are two words in Greek for 'time'. 'Chronos' refers to a length of time, whereas 'Kairos' refers to a period in time when something special happens. In this course the sense is that now is the time for seeing the world know and follow God.

I was on the course mainly because Transform had signed me up, and so I wasn't in the same place as other people in terms of wanting to explore heading abroad, but it has nevertheless been extremely thought-provoking and given me much to mull over. We spent the first half going through the Biblical 'macrotheme' of being blessed to be a blessing, encapsulated in the promises made to Abraham, and then later to Isaac and to Jacob. The notion here is that God chose a people to be blessed by Him, but with the intention that they should be a beacon to the rest of the world to demonstrate the goodness of God and the need to follow Him. This has really helped me to get a better understanding of the role of Israel, and of a lot of the more difficult passages in the Old Testament, whereby God did all He could to keep them from idolatry and mixing with other races that followed false gods. How could they bless others if they were not following God and were not able to demonstrate to others a good way of living?

The Great Commission given by the Christ to His disciples further demonstrates God's heart that all people groups (nations) of the world should come to know Him, and the images given in the Bible's concluding book, Revelation, are ones where every tribe and tongue worships God. Jesus even said that He would not come again until every nation had been told of the Good News of the Kingdom of God.

As I said, this stuff really clicked and has helped me to see the Bible through eyes that make it come alive and make so much more sense. But much more than this, it's given me a wake-up call to the much bigger perspective God has of life and its meaning. How often have I prayed concerned to the point of worry about whether I should do this or that, make choice A or B, go here or there? My prayers have become so inward focused. Now I've asked these questions with good intentions, wanting to do what is best in God's eyes, what He desires, and yet as I see tribes from remote parts of the world (see below) reacting with joy at the simple message of sins forgiven through following God, I can't help but think God might just be saying "stop worrying about the little things and just focus on me and the bigger picture".

So often I worry about things, or just thoughtlessly get on with things because I want to do them, and when I do pray its just about myself and what I need to do. I need to seek God so much more, to pray without ceasing, seeking his will, and praying for others, whether friends, family, those in my community, or unreached peoples all around the world.

So now is the time, the Kairos, for the Church to see the bigger the picture; to thank God for his amazing blessings, and to seek to be a blessing to the rest of the world, taking the Good News of the Kingdom of God to all people everywhere. And it must start with me.

Thought for lent

At the start of lent here is something interesting I picked up last year from a friend who blogs.

The First Thought of Christmas - Is tolerance a good thing?

Putting to one side the title of this blog, and any thoughts you have about what you should say or do, read this statement and ask yourself whether you think this practice is something that should be celebrated and encouraged:

To allow something that one dislikes or disagrees with to exist or occur without interference.

Apply this statement to a variety of scenarios. The child being bullied in the playground, the X-Factor winner claiming Christmas number one yet again, the tyranny of a country by an oppressive regime, a friend who always interrupts you as you chat with others at the pub, the ever-increasing belly that pertrudes from your torso as age takes its toll on your body's metabolism.

Each of these situations will, for many people, involve things that the individual strongly dislikes or disagrees with, things that really gripes them or drives them to despair. Obviously the extent to which they do will differ, and so too the reasons why. But in each of them, how many of us would turn, look at someone shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, not my business", and think to themself "wow; what a guy". And yet to me it seems that to hold up as a beacon of dignity, class and humanity this value of 'tolerance' is to do exactly that.

Some would say these signs each depict somewhat contradictory messages.

Now, we only have a limited amount of time and energy from which to act and, as such, for some things we might have to say maybe it really doesn't matter. In some cases our dislike may be down to a trifling matter of taste, and perhaps on these occasions diversity of taste is something to be embraced (although arguably whilst we might be inclined to think "yes, let the masses have their way and in droves buy the latest manufactured pop mush" perhaps instead we could make an effort to introduce them to the delights of the more acquired tastes of the latest offering of our favourite Philharmonic, or our idolised punk-thrash-metal band).

The main issue, I feel, is that people mix up arguments of tolerance versus intolerance with deciding how to express that intolerance. The desires that drove a million people to protest against the war in Iraq stem as much from intolerance as those that drove the armed forces of nations to depose Saddam Hussein and conduct the aforementioned war in the first place. Of course the action that resulted from those two incidences of intolerance differed dramatically, but, nevertheless, intolerance it was. Similarly, when faced with a playground bully you wouldn't think to tolerate it, but this intolerance could, on the one hand, mean giving the boy a thump, on the other letting a teacher put him in detention to write some lines and tell him not to do it again, or alternaitvely to seek to understand why he wants to do such a thing (has he been bullied previously, does he feel isolated, are there family troubles at home?) and help him to change and improve his life and those of them around him.

Interestingly, not many of the other Times articles mentioning tolerance (see below) have such a positive view.

As you can probably tell, my inkling in response to the question I pose in the title is that tolerance isn't all it's cracked up to be, something I was reminded of when reading the leading article in yesterday's Times ('A Time for Tolerance'). The writer brings up in his article the role of tolerance within the dynamics of the established Church - something I'll return to later in the week - but it is his closing statement that really puzzles me. He says that to fight the falsehood of other people's views is not the message of Christ, but rather that it is that "we are all, as children, equally blessed and must tolerate and respect what is good in each of us". This is the same Christ that said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". Not really the language of someone saying "so basically do yer best and try not to annoy anyone". No, Jesus wasn't a tolerant chap, as witnessed in his turning of the tables in the temple, in the countless occasions he confronted the religious leaders of the day and, outrageously, stood up for the marginalised and down-trodden, and most importantly in how he allowed himself to be arrested, tried and executed, that he might die for the sins of the world.

Jesus could have looked at the wrong doings of people everywhere and said "that's OK", he could have let people go on their merry way, walking to their death oblivious to the consequences of their choices and actions, but instead he chose not to tolerate it, taking the one action that could actually do anything to change things and reconcile us to God. Even the nativity stories we may have read in the last few days make this clear.

So I wonder; is tolerance just the easy way out? Are we called to be intolerant of the things we see to be wrong and unjust and to make a difference? I have a feeling the answer is yes, but that still leaves the uncomfortable and much, much harder question - what are we then going to do about it?

Twelve Thoughts of Christmas - 2009's lessons

My blogging has been sparse the last few months, but every now and again I've jotted down some thoughts. Perhaps I should have done an advent countdown but I was too late, and, besides, this way I only need half as many thoughts! But anyway, here are some of the things that have struck me over the last twelve months.

Oh, and Happy Christmas to you all!

The 'gaul' of a man who only had to put his hand up (or not get his hand involved in the first place...)

It's the story everyone is talking about at the moment (no, not the Queen's speech, although maybe we can lead the way by introducing a bill encouraging people playing football to not use their hands...). Yes, it's 'Le Hand of God', which completed France's precarious path to qualifying for the 2010 Fifa World Cup, leaving the Irish pushed to one side, sitting on their backsides, with nothing but the knowledge that deserved to win on the night to be their comfort. In all likelihood they'd probably had rather have lost 1-0 than going out in such excruciating circumstances.

Some may say that my title doesn't do Monsieur Henry justice - he did indeed own up, even to the players whilst he was still on the pitch, but, to be honest, he might have well have kept quiet - what help is it admitting it then? At least if you're going to admit it express some kind of remorse. At the very least admit what you did was wrong and against the law and the spirit of the game, let alone good human nature. I can't believe Richard Dunne bought the cop out of it being down to the referee - the referee couldn't see, Thierry could see (not to mention feel) it. The job of the referee is to help enforce the laws of the game. He doesn't go around whispering in the ears of players to tell them not to foul people, not to use your hands or not punch someone in the face. There's some level of co-operation that needs to go on, where that natural inclination is for every player to stick to the rules and admit when they've slipped up if it's needed.

I think the whole episode says a lot about society. One, those backing Henry seem to have this mentality of 'you get as much as you can with as little as possible input', and these people seem to assume that everyone else wishes to behave in this way too. Fortunately, this isn't true. Being a proper man (or woman), is about having integrity, rooted in a sense of right and wrong, and striving to see a better world for all. Take away integrity and you become a liar who swings one way or the other at the drop of a hat, lose a sense of right and wrong and your decisions are of no merit, and without the perspective of a better world you become content with seeing unrealised potential present in the outworking of life. However, and this leads to point two, people do actually seem to see this lack of 'manliness' and get really riled. For something that is essentially just a game, this is remarkable. Whilst this is in no small part due to the overblown nature of football in the modern world, I think it's also due to the high value we intrinsically see in opposing injustice. Irrelevant of whether the Irish 'deserved' to win on the run of play, in that one decision an injustice that saw the most basic of football rules broken and not rectified left the watching public seething. Perhaps this suggests that all is not lost as far as society is concerned - if only we could harness that anger at injustice and direct it towards reducing poverty, climate change and the other more pressing matters of the day - think of the possibilities!

As an aside, someone on the BBC forum suggested this news should have alerted us sooner...!

(Some Biblical advice for Thierry Henry: Micah 6:8)

Animals never fail to amuse...

Bit of an odd story, but those kind of stories are normally the most popular on the BBC website. Never mind the baldness, why are the bears wearing spectacles?

Also, does anyone remember the good old days of Sesame Street? Here are some interesting about them - lots of reminiscing! (here and here)