Whitney – yes, Jesus loves me!

Religion for Atheists results in a new moral certainty.

Alain de Botton has recently suggested a new kind of religion for atheists – one which takes all the best bits of religion such as community, generosity, creativity but leaves behind all the less desirable parts such as the rules and the actual beliefs. Ed West in today’s telegraph commented how this would always end up like an alcohol free lager – missing something crucial and something that doesn’t do much for anybody.

An interesting article – his last paragraph was this:

The real problem is that religion is always replaced by something else. The rise of fads such as homoeopathy is well documented, but more commonly people’s religious desires for certainty, morality and community are transferred to their politics; that is why there is this sense that those outside the communion of correct beliefs today are morally unclean, and new sins such as “racist” and “sexist” replace “heretic” and “sinner”. That is the real “religion for atheists”.

This struck a chord with something that we were discussing on Jon Marlow’s blog, about whether postmodernism was giving way to something else – a sense of ‘correct belief’ where everything outside of the prevailing view is not tolerated, shouted down or responded to with the refrain “You can’t say that!”. We called this ‘neo-conformity’. Interesting that this trend has been spotted by others and I wonder if it is really leading onto a change in era.

The eye is the lamp of the body – Bin Laden photos

This came through to my inbox this week from the London Institute of Contemporary Christianity. What particularly struck me was the assertion that the graphic and violent images of 9/11 have been stored up and re-emerged in the impromptu triumphal celebrations on the day of Bin Laden’s death. See what you think:

Political expediency it may have been, but Barack Obama’s decision not to release photographs of Osama Bin Laden’s body is a welcome act of national self-censorship that constitutes a significantly counter-cultural move.

Ever since news of the al-Qaeda leader’s killing broke, there has been an inevitable drip-feed of ever more graphic images through the media to the viewing public. Iconic portraits of Bin Laden first gave way to stills of the compound and the abandoned American helicopter, and then to video footage from within the house, including the heavily bloodstained bedroom where Bin Laden was shot dead.

The media are eager to capture such images because it is the image that stimulates and sustains public interest in the story, whether on television or online. It’s the ever-present promise of new pictures that keeps us enthralled. The Internet and a growing superfluity of high-definition, touch-screen devices are constantly reinforcing the lesson television first taught us: seeing is believing. Naturally enough, the corollary is also true: in the absence of images there is doubt, or outright disbelief.

So it is that some believe the US should release photographs of Bin Laden’s corpse by way of providing conclusive proof of his death. Nevertheless, the president has decreed that these very graphic images will not be seen. They have been censored on the grounds that their publication would constitute a threat to US national security. I, for one, am inclined to agree with his decision.

Doubtless, national and political self-interest influenced Obama’s decision, but perhaps we should allow for the possibility that so also did a genuine concern for the global greater good. Since the eye is ‘the lamp of the body’ (Matthew 6:22), and just one look can kill the divine image-bearing people we were made to be (Matthew 5:27-29), we all need to consider carefully the imagery to which we expose ourselves, and to which we expose others. Is it not in all our interests to look on that which will enhance our humanity, and to look away from that which will diminish it?

For proof of the compelling power images can exercise over hearts and minds, look no further than those who, having been inundated this past decade with the traumatic images of 9/11, and of the face of the man behind that atrocity, took to the streets this week to celebrate his killing.

Even in our visual age, there are things we really don’t need to see. Trust me.

Nigel Hopper

It reminds me of the much quoted phrase that one 9/11 survivor said – “I can’t find it in me to be glad that one more person is dead”. Forgiveness really does affect us as well as those we are forgiving.

Has Bin Laden been brought to Justice?

Many people are celebrating because Osama Bin Laden has finally been caught and killed after a ten year manhunt following the 911 terrorist attacks. A lot of the comments in news articles that I’ve been reading talk about Osama being brought to justice  - his death being what he deserved. The Times this morning led with the headline: ”Justice is Done!” For sure, Bin Laden’s death has been a cause for celebration for most people with just the cautious few noting that although his death is hugely symbolic not much has changed and there is little cause for celebration.

So has Bin Laden been brought to justice? Is death what he deserved? Was there not a case for taking him alive and bringing him to trial? (Reports claim that he refused to surrender, even hiding behind his wife as the special forces came in. I can see why they did not take him alive so as to give him more of a platform to speak during the trial and rally his troops.)

If this is what Bin Laden deserved, I’m struck by the contrast to some other criminals – those who evade capture for so long and die in peace and quiet in exile such as Idi Amin of Uganda who died in peace in Saudi Arabia. Or Jose Mengele, the Nazi officer who worked at Auschwitz  who died from a massive stroke in exile in Brazil in 1979 at the age of 68 whilst out for his afternoon swim. Or those who, after a killing spree, turn the gun on themselves. None of these people ever faced trial. So often in these cases the voices commenting remark how it is a shame that they will now never be brought to justice, because they are dead.

So is death justice for some people and the avoidance of justice for others? Or does it simply depend on how they die? Is it that a death at the hands of others = justice? And at the hands of themselves or old age = injustice? See how human ideas of what is just change depending on the circumstances.

I wonder if this stems from the perspective that this life is all there is, and that everyone is ‘owed’ a 70-90 year existence. Therefore for those who commit crimes and die early, that is justice done as they have been deprived of 30 or 40 years that were ‘due’ to them. For those that get away with their crimes and die at a respectable age, it is perceived that justice has not been done. However, from a perspective that this life is not all there is, and that there is another life to come, this argument disappears. In the Christian worldview, judgement follows death and resurrection follows judgement and eternal life follows that. In this case, nobody escapes judgement.

Make no mistake that Osama Bin Laden, along with Idi Amin, Josef Mengele and many others have not escaped justice. They have appeared before the judgement seat of God which is far more terrifying than any human court of law. This is justice for them.

But is it not also justice for us? – for we will all die and have to stand before God. If they will be judged after death, will we not also? When we get there, are we confident that God will rule in our favour measured against the yardstick of his justice which never changes? Will we get what we deserve? and if so, what is that?

My reaction to Bin Laden’s death is a quiet satisfaction that the long hunt has been successful, but it is not a cause to rejoice. (How are we supposed to feel?) His death is a reminder that, despite the position and life that I currently enjoy, despite my good health and the hope of years ahead of me, death is coming to all of us. The reaction is to turn our heads towards God and ask for mercy through Jesus, the justice-giver, when our time comes.

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes… For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith. (Rom 1:16-17)

Are men in crisis?

A few weeks ago in The Times Magazine (27/11/10) there were a series of articles about men which all made the point that there is some sort of crisis of masculinity going on. (I can’t seem to find them online) One article contained five mini-biographies of men from their late twenties to early forties who had (at some point) lost their way or were struggling to find fulfilling work and purpose to life. Another article by journalist William Leith argued that traditional male virtues of ‘strength, silence and aggression’ now look like arrogance and greed. All the classic male role models heroes gradually softened and then disappeared. Role models of old – Errol Flynn, John Wayne – gave way to  ‘bumbling, flawed, anti-heroes’ such as Woody Allen, Jack Lemmon, Bill Murray and Michael Douglas. Men were being depicted as flawed, failures, or outright bad. The author of the article said that he flicked through the children’s books of his four year old and didn’t find a good  male role model in them. The men in the stories were either evil, stupid, or absent. (This clearly is not always the case in film and books, but maybe it is increasingly so)

Women were fighting back against years of sexism, and rightly so. After being told for so long they must fit into pre-defined roles, now they have the opportunity to do everything. But Leith argues that this has left men in a bit of a hole as to who they are supposed to be. They are constantly being outperformed by women who rightly want to eradicate the glass ceiling. It starts in school. At age five, more girls than boys can write their own name. Girls outperform boys in their GCSE tests, 72% of them getting A*-C compared with only 65% of boys. More women than men get into university. Six months after leaving, only 6.5% of women graduates are out of work, compared to 10% of men. Even after this, Leith argues, women out perform men. He cites the examples of hedge funds run by women which outperformed those run by men. On average female-run funds rose more before the recent crash, and fell less during it. (There may be questionable statistics here depending on the relative numbers of each.)

This is by no means the first articles of this sort. In 2008 the Daily Mail reported that the midlife crisis for men has shifted earlier as many do not know what to do with themselves. Ten years ago The Guardian ran an article suggesting many of the same things as above, but without any conclusions.

Leith’s conclusion from the Times article is that virtues of the past that went part and parcel of the role of being a man are no longer needed. Men were the providers. They were the ones to sacrifice their time, money or even lives on behalf of their families or nations. They would lift heavy things, go to war, build, farm, hunt and explore. The strength, determination and courage needed for these things in many cases in the Western world no longer seems to be needed. Now, Leith explains, man are supposed to be soft and gentle and caring and many of them don’t know how.

The final article in The Times series picks up on the unease reported by William Leith and addressed whether men are happy. In it, Robert Crampton indirectly points the finger at our consumer society which promises much but fails to deliver

“ We drink more, eat more, watch more sport and pornography than ever before. And it’s not just the baser instincts that have been given free rein; the so-called  higher pleasures are beyond criticism too. Yet living merely to fund the next safari or Armani suit or case of Chateau Lafite is the same, philosophically, as splurging your cash on Stella and scratchcards. And has it made us happy? Well, I don’t see many happy drunks or philanderers about, do you?”

He goes on…

“Live for today, the mantra that dominates our culture, simply does not work for most men. Men want to live for tomorrow. Men need goals, plans, causes, beliefs, structures, direction”

Men need sacrifice. Married men, he argues, are not happier because they have someone do to the hard work for them whilst they can become lazy. They are happier because, to some degree, they are acting and living not solely for their own benefit. Men also need male company, which often they do not have (as workplaces become much more mixed and the traditional male bastions of the working mens club and the regulars in the pub are dying out and old institutions including the Church lose their significance to many).  Above all, he adds, men yearn for something deeper than what present culture gives them.

What is his solution? You can’t turn back the clock on having a great common cause to fight for (such as fascism in the 1930s and 40s) or go back to needing to work to lift your family out of poverty if you are not in it. You also can’t suddenly start believing in God, he claims (I would disagree). His solution is for men to do some work with their hands, read well, take responsibility and think about others. And above all, live according to your conscience.

I think these solutions offer an element of truth, but don’t deal with the heart of the issue. The fact that male attendance in church has fallen as more quickly than female is not the reason for such a ‘crisis of men’ but shows that the church has spectacularly failed to deal with the issue of manhood as much as society has. We could say things about passivity of services and lack of authentic, interactive, challenging community. Undoubtedly men have stopped coming because they have not found it relevant to their lives, and there are clear lessons to be learned from that.

Recently there have been a number of writers engage with the issue, such as John Eldredge and David Murrow (who also has a website about church for men). I’m not sure they’ve hit the heart of the issue either. They offer us a choice between real manhood – a pumped up, goal oriented outdoor-type and something that seems to be considered weak, hippie and, as one writer calls it,  ‘metrosexual’.  They assume the ‘real inner man’ traits are the Godly-man traits and want to recapture them in the church. In Wild at Heart, Eldredge claims, “We are never told to kill the true man within us, never told to get rid of those deep desires for battle and adventure and beauty.” Some pastors have been very successful in reaching out to men, such as Mark Driscoll who also strives to keep a strong masculinity in his preaching and advocates traditional family roles (the woman’s role is to have kids and then stay home and look after them). He has been quoted as saying “ that real men” – like Jesus and John the Baptist – are “are dudes: heterosexual, win-a-fight, punch-you-in-the-nose dudes.” But it has to be noted that whilst Jesus certainly wasn’t the meek and mild feminized version that is often portrayed, he also wasn’t the hunting, shooting and fishing dude either; he didn’t exclusively portray those characteristics that society deems is the definition of masculinity. As God-incarnate, Jesus demonstrates the unity of men and women by being the perfect embodiment of humanity. He used power in controlled ways when it was appropriate, yet he also wept, served his friend by washing their feet, humbled himself before God and laid down his life.

So, where does this leave us with what it means to be a man? Unfortunately I’ve run out of time to write too much more so very briefly, to be human is to strive to become more like Jesus. That doesn’t mean we all become clones, but we pick up the values and attitudes that he exhibited. This includes the desire to stand up for a cause (injustice), practising sacrifice on behalf of others, and for some, to become influential leaders, but it also includes the fruit of the spirit, which includes things like self control, love, kindness. For men and women, to become fully human is to develop in these fruit. We might also look at the gifts of the spirit to find out what God is calling us to do. Once we are using our gifts for God’s glory then happiness will surely be found!

The Bible also mentions some responsibilities of men. We could talk about male and female roles, and how men have a desire to provide and care for the needs of their family but that doesn’t have to be a stringent type casting as Mark Driscoll affirms (and John Stackhouse refutes). Driscoll takes a strong line on those who refuse to look after their families and in one sermon, through a series of caricatures, he gets overly direct and even insulting about men who might still be finding their way. But the elements of challenge were good. In my opinion, Roy McCloughry has a much more balanced and Biblical model.

Throughout the Old Testament men are commanded to stay close to God and teach their children in his way and care for their families. They are to ensure that their families and relatives are provided for. This will involve the right amount of discipline for their children, but will also involve looking after the family’s interests first and treating those under their authority with respect.

The central point of all this is about seeking the Lord. Psalm 1 describes such as person as ‘like a tree planted by streams of water, which yields its fruit in season and whose leaf does not wither’. We could say this person is productive, stable and secure. That is where joy and stability are to be found. This is a challenge that men can grasp hold of, but the church does need to present it in such a way that is true to the challenge that it is. Perhaps the reason why men have been turned off the church in the past is that the reality of the challenge of discipleship has been lost in favour of encouragements about the love and grace of God. Although these are undoubtedly true, the challenge of discipleship is about action, not just inward soul searching. It is about living counter to societies ways in almost every aspect of life and making Jesus Lord of all of it – family, money, time, work, leisure, possessions – everything.

Normans Tebbit speaks about coallition

Norman Tebbit has spectacularly missed the point in his blog for the Telegraph yesterday.

And to cap it all, the leader of the party which should have walked away with a massive majority over a government whose reckless spending has landed us with Greek-style debts is engaged in talks with the losing third party over the terms on which he might be allowed to form a government.

via The Tories will lose the next election if they enter into a coalition with the tainted Lib Dems – Telegraph Blogs.

The point is that Cameron’s Conservatives did not walk away with a massive majority. The country voted and the result is a hung parliament. The country has therefore voted that it wants it’s politicians to talks to each other, there fore that is what he must do. Cameron isn’t obliged to talk to the Lib Dems, he can talk to any of the elected parties to try and form a majority if he wants. Tebbit goes on:

In my view Mr Cameron should make it plain that while he would be willing to form a government and would welcome support from any party, he would offer no hostages, nor concessions as a condition of office.

This may be what Tebbit wants him to do, but Cameron will form no alliances unless he compromises on some things. If he doesn’t want to compromise he can try and form a minority government.

The country has spoken that they do not want a single-party majority government, but wants it’s politicians to talk to each other. Therefore, Mr Tebbit, that is what they should do!

Ashley, John, and Tiger and temptation.

“Go on, nobody will find out. We can sneak into this hotel room, close the door, and I’ll sneak out again later. Nobody needs to find out. It’ll be fun. I won’t tell your wife…”

We have heard a lot about temptation recently with some much publicised celebrity transgressions. I wonder if these thoughts crossed the minds of golfer Tiger Woods, or Chelsea footballers John Terry and Ashley Cole. I’m sure, for them, it seemed worth it at the time – a lust satisfied and a bit of fun – but now, their personal reputations are in tatters as they struggle to maintain their relationships and to deal with damaging newspaper allegations.

Ashley Cole has been the subject of constant newspaper allegations for the last year which culminated last month when his wife, singer Cheryl Cole, announced that they were separating. John Terry, after details of his infidelity were published had to miss Chelsea’s FA Cup game in order to fly out to Dubai to patch things up with his wife. And Tiger Woods, possibly the most talented golfer that ever lived, has not played golf since he was discovered after crashing his car on his own drive at 3am last December. He has since admitted being unfaithful and issued a full and very public apology last week. However, In all three cases, their transgressions have damaged their sporting life, their marriages, and has undermined their credibility as a role model.

As we step into the season of lent, it is the time of the year when we remember not only Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem and the cross, but also the 40 days he spent in the wilderness at the beginning of his ministry as he faced temptation from the Devil. (See Matt 4:1-11 or Luke 4:1-13.)

Jesus has been fasting and praying in the wilderness for 40 days, so in the first temptation the Devil simply encourages him to eat something. “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread” (Matt 4:3).

The Devil’s second suggestion tempts Jesus to take some short cuts in his ministry by doing something spectacular. “‘If you are the Son of God’ he said, ‘Throw yourself down [from the temple]’” (Matt 4:6).

These are much more than simple temptations to do a particular thing. Immediately before his time of fasting, praying and temptation, Jesus was baptised. During the baptism, the Holy Spirit decended upon him and a voice from God was heard saying “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased” (Matt 4:17). The Devil then begins his tempting by saying “If you are God’s son….” So these are temptations for Jesus to step away from and undermine the person that he is and from his role as Messiah and Saviour.

These temptations of Jesus go right to the heart of every human temptation that we or anyone else has ever faced. They are not so much nudges towards a particular indiscretion, but a temptation to step away from the role that God has defined for us. For Christians, the tempter wants us to undermine our roles as God’s children. To us, the Devil might put subtle temptations in our way – “If you are God’s children, he won’t mind you cheating on tax forms” or “Surely God won’t mind an illegal short cut to a noble end?”. Or even “If you are forgiven by Jesus, surely a little bit extra sin won’t matter?” In these, the devil is trying to lure us away from the path of holiness and servanthood and to disown our loving and Heavenly Father.

Each time Jesus responds to temptation, he overcomes it by quoting scripture. Jesus knows what the life of God’s son should look like and we too can know what the life of a follower of Jesus should be like. It is all outlined for us in scripture and we find strength for this way of life in Christian community.

Tiger Woods, John Terry, and Ashley Cole will probably rebuild their careers, win more trophies and make more money. Tiger Woods and john Terry may even rebuild their marriages (lets hope they do and remain faithful), although it all seems to late for Ashley and Cheryl now. But for all of them, rebuilding a reputation will take a lot longer.

You can’t help who you fall in love with

BBC News are carrying an article about a former prison officer, Kelly-Anne McDade, who has just been sentenced to jail time for two things. She had a sexual relationship with a male inmate, resulting in her getting pregnant, and she also smuggled in mobile phones for use by inmates.

I’m not going to probe deeply into the case, but what struck me was the excuse/defense that her solicitor was trying to put forward.

Richard Germain, defending McDade, told the court: “There is no doubt it was an inappropriate relationship, but Ms McDade would say ‘You can’t help who you fall in love with’.”

via BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Inmate-sex prison officer jailed.

This is a myth. You can help who you fall in love with. Perhaps you can’t help who you find attractive, but love is a completely different thing. Love is not an uncontrollable emotion.  Once the impulses of attraction come along, we choose whether to act on them. We choose whether to show love to someone else. There certainly are feelings associated with love, but these feelings themselves are not love. They are merely associated with it. Over all, love is a choice.

If we are attracted to somebody, it doesn’t mean we have to love them. For example, if a married man is attracted to another woman (this itself is not a crime) but he must choose what to do with that attraction. Hopefully he will put in boundaries to remove or reduce the temptation, for the benefit of his marriage. He may avoid that woman and make sure he is never alone with her. Or if he has to meet her and part of his job or something, he could always meet in a public place. He could also confide and be accountable to someone else. There are many ways to reduce the temptation that would inevitably destroy his marriage, and avoid the attraction turning into something else. Each little step is a choice.

We can help who we fall in love with and it is the result of hundreds of little choices.

Update 12/01/12: There is now a more detailed post on the subject here.

People feel let down on the economy

Interesting BBC news article about how people feel let down and disappointed that perhaps there isn’t a group of highly intelligent people running the world who know exactly what they are doing. They are all engaged in a kind of educated guessing game.

In the newsrooms, boardrooms and tearooms of Britain there is a great mistake being made.

In decades of reporting about the city and government, the most widespread belief I have come across is that somewhere there is a group of people who know what they are doing.

This group has the answer for to how best to run the economy, how to run a bank, how to put Ikea cabinets together without screaming and perhaps even how to make a traffic warden smile.

When things go wrong, people don’t just feel disappointed. They feel let down, betrayed and swindled because they feel that our leaders knew what to do to make things better but failed to do the right thing. Either they didn’t care enough or were looking after their own interests rather than the general good…. more

via BBC – Today – Business round-up with Adam Shaw.

Rather than feel disillusioned, surely the answer is to take responsibility for that little part of the world that we, personally have responsibility for. We can all try to keep ourselves to a budget, offer hospitality to those around us, be compassionate with others, build community,  and raise our children well. All this contributes in a small way to the well-being of the world we live in.

Cities which lose their heart.

General Motors did not invent the motor car, but they certainly perfected how to mass produce and sell them. Founded in 1908 when there were only 20,000 vehicles in the entire USA, they quickly outsold the already established pioneer of the industry, Ford. Throughout the years they acquired the Pontiac, Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Opel, Vauxhall, and more recently the Saab brands. Yet the company that at one time was selling over 50% of all cars sold globally is now going through a tough time. Despite being loaned over $50 million from the US government, last month it slipped into bankruptcy protection measures and has been forced to close factories, sell off some brands and discontinue others.

If you go to GM headquarters in Detroit, you can still see the iconic towers of the Renaissance Center shining with all their corporate sheen. They are still in use as the company restructures. But if you go to the outskirts of town the decline is more evident. Factories razed to the ground, warehouses gutted and graffitied, whole communities in decay. The auto industry was the centre of these communities and, in some cities, was the only major employer. Now, according to one BBC correspondent, people are asking “What is the point of Detroit without the motor industry?”

Growing up in North East England in the 1980′s, I have seen this before. The rivers Tyne, Wear and Tees used to be major centres of shipbuilding, at one point building two of every five ships produced in the world. Last month the last remaining shipbuilder on the Tyne moved it’s production to India; Swan Hunter was responsible for building ships such as HMS Illustrious and RMS Carpathia which rescued some of the survivors of the Titanic. It’s was a similar story for pit towns in Yorkshire, Durham and Northumberland, counties which are now littered with small towns with no industry. In the globalised world that we are living in, it is inevitable that industries will move as other countries become able produce things more cheaply. But it still leaves towns and cities such as Detroit which feel like their communities have been destroyed and their hearts and souls have been ripped out of them. We are left asking “What is the point of such towns now?”

In many cases, new technologies and new employment sectors will rise up and provide employment, as has happened in the North East. They usually don’t offer a new centre to the community, but they provide jobs nonetheless. Regardless, cities always have a point, because they are made of people and people are important. However, people derive their importance not from the jobs they do, or the place they live but from God and from each other. When God chose to create people, he put them together in the Garden of Eden. Also, His final vision of this earth is of a heavenly city – a place where people are together, interacting and working, but crucially, the centre of this heavenly city is God himself in Christ. Revelation 21 describes the vision that the apostle John was brought of this city – “I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple.” (Rev 21:22) God is in the centre as the source of and focus for the community.

Of course, out earthly cities fail to live up to that vision. They can often be difficult places with lots of social issues which need to be addressed. They often lack a centre or are centred around systems that will ultimately fail. But although all empires, nations, and corporations will someday fall, God is the author of history and he will remain. This is a truth for these towns and for our own. Church congregations might be small in some places but they can still point towards the God who is the author of history and can live lives worshipping and witnessing, in keeping with the eschatological vision of Revelation 21. They can be God’s hands and feet, offering hope and support in communities that are grieving a lost identity and pointing towards the One who gives purpose and who will never fail.

Other thoughts welcome.