Politicians and Prayers

I heard a discussion on the BBC Radio 4 Sunday programme today about the new Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, and his Christian faith.

You can listen or download it here

Tim was a colleague of mine at St Martin's College in Lancaster (now Uni of Cumbria) where he worked as a senior administrator in one of the faculties. He sometimes attended our midweek chapel worship when he was on campus, so we had a few conversations. I do remember him talking to me about his decision to go into politics. He's well-liked in his nearby constituency, and the testimony to that is that he held on to his seat in the midst of the demise of the Liberal Democrats at the last General Election.

As far as I am aware, Tim has never made any secret of his Christian faith. It's no surprise that being a Christian means you believe in God, and prayer is one of the fundamental activities. It would be quite weird, therefore, to exclude a whole area of one's life from ever being mentioned in one's own prayers. So it logically follows that a politician who is a practising Christian (or indeed of any other theistic faith) is going to bring their work into their prayers.

What's interesting is that this seemed to disconcert John Humphrys and Polly Toynbee. Polly Toynbee seemed to be saying today that he should avoid giving the impression of consulting God, and that thinking God is there is a private matter. What she didn't seem to understand was that it's not really feasible. Christian prayer is about bringing the whole of yourself to God with all your concerns, fears, hopes, dreams, brokenness, thanksgiving, etc. We don't recognise the notion that there are bits of ourselves we can't pray about.
NB It's worth noting that Tim Farron talked about prayer in response to a question on the subject from John Humphrys..

Of course, the fear that lies behind Polly Toynbee's concerns is that a politician with a religious faith might claim that God is 'on their side'. Many people in faith communities will recognise the issues that can arise if someone moves along the spectrum from saying they have prayed about something (which leaves open the answer, and retains some humility about the result) and saying that God has told them to do something. We sometimes see it in over-controlling church leaders, and it has had tragic results in politics and conflicts. I quite agree that such people are terrifying both for those with religious beliefs and those with none. However, that is not a fair description of MPs who have a faith and practise it. In fact, Christians In Parliament is a cross-party association, which indicates that the most active Christian MPs clearly don't think that God inhabits only their party, or is solely 'on their side'.

The whole discussion struck me as quite amusing this morning at our services today, as we prayed for those who govern and those who represent us. If the established church routinely prays for those who carry political responsibility, then I can't see why politicians shouldn't be free to pray for themselves without criticism.

No doubt Tim Farron will face much more scrutiny as he begins the unenviable task of reviving the fortunes of the Lib Dems. I hope the discussion moves on from where it is now, to the direction he wants to take party policy, and how he might make his party electable again. I don't envy him that job, and I reckon he will need all the prayers he can get.

Sermon on Genesis Chapter 1

Sermon for February 23, 2014 on Genesis 1:1 – 2:3

On December 24 1968, Apollo 8 came round the moon and for the first time, human beings saw the earth rise over a horizon. On that mission they read over the radio from orbit above the moon Genesis chapter 1. We’ve just heard that story of Creation from Genesis Chapter 1. What did you think when your heard it? Was it as you picture how it must have happened, or is it so far removed from what you understand that it’s completely irrelevant?

Science tells us that the universe is about 13.2 thousand million years old, and the earth is about 4.5 thousand million years old. This is based on many different scientific observations and calculations, and on the assumption that the scientific processes that enable our complex world to function are consistent. The same scientific laws that mean the lights come on, and I weigh 11 stone 6 have applied and worked throughout the life of the universe and give us that evidence.

On the other hand, if we go with the Bible’s timescale, it’s all much more recent than that. Bishop Ussher of Armagh once calculated from the Bible that the world began in 4004 BC. Some have calculated it as a bit further back than that, but the point remains that a literal reading of the Bible means the world could only be a few thousand years old at most.

How widely is the Bible’s timescale believed? In 2012 a Gallup poll recorded that 46% of Americans believed that God created humans in their present form sometime in the last 10,000 years. Many also believe the earth to be only a few thousand years old. There are now schools in the UK, where creationism, as it is known, is taught on the curriculum alongside scientific analysis as an equal theory. 

Meanwhile, there is an increasingly vocal humanist and atheist voice in the media who not only accept the scientific data, but see the discoveries and insights of science as final proof that religion is nonsense. Richard Dawkins, the author of The God Delusion won’t even bother debating with people who take Genesis literally.

"Just as I wouldn't expect a gynaecologist to have a debate with somebody who believes in the Stork-theory of reproduction, I won't do debates with Young Earth creationists," he said.

So where does that leave us? Does thinking about these things worry or disturb us? Perhaps we would prefer not to think about it, in case it unsettles the faith we have. The problem is that both extremes – the atheists and the creationists end up arguing with each other as if their views are the only two you can hold. And we end up squeezed between people who are downright hostile to our faith, and people whose beliefs defy all the scientific evidence, but say we should believe them to be proper Christians.

None of this is new, of course. Once scientists started making discoveries that challenged the Bible’s account of things the debate started, and we see it most sharply with Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection, or evolution as we usually refer to it. As Christians, we know that without the Bible, our faith makes no sense. It gives us the big story that helps us understand why we are here. Are the only choices to discard the Bible because of science or to discard science by putting blind faith in the Bible? Do you have to be an atheist to be a good scientist?

Speaking as someone with a degree in chemistry, I want to say an emphatic 'no'! Many eminent scientists in a range of expertise have a deeply held Christian faith. The two don't have to be seen as contradicting each other.

So here’s 3 starting points to answer the atheists on one side and the fundamentalists on the other about Genesis 1.

1. Genesis 1 wasn’t written as a scientific text book.

Scientific thinking and method as we know it didn’t exist until fairly recently. At the time Genesis was written, possibly up to 3000 years ago, people understood the world very differently. The world was in a dome, with water above that sometime came through as rain, or rose as floods. So Genesis wasn’t written to answer modern science’s questions. That means that if we go to the Bible looking for things it never set out to tell us, we get funny answers.

Genesis 1 addresses questions about God and about the world, and about human beings and their place within it. It isn’t about the modern disciplines of physics, chemistry or astronomy - it never intended to be. People who know about these things say it’s written in the form of a poem. It’s painting a picture, not recording a documentary.

The Great War - World War 1 - is in the news a lot at the moment*. If you want history, you read history books about the war (and some are busy re-writing those at the moment). But if you want to know what it felt like, or the how it impacted the big questions of belief or faith, you need to read Wilfred Owen or the other war poets. Don't read poetry for science, or science for poetry.

2. Genesis 1 is about God.

Other cultures at the time had stories that look like Genesis. There are other creation and flood stories - one was in the news recently, describing the ark like a huge coracle. But the other cultures had gods who got in a mess, who didn’t always have control. Some of them essentially lived inside creation, and struggled within it. But Genesis 1 speaks of a God who is involved in the universe but beyond it. Look at the text: "In the beginning, God… God said…, God said..., God made... etc.

The God described here isn’t tangled up and held captive by the chaos, He turns it into created order. This is about one God, a supreme God, and a creative God who shares his creativity with creatures he can have a relationship with. This is new stuff in the ancient world, but the author of Genesis tells about the God of Israel in a form familiar to the people of his day.

3. Genesis 1 is about us.

This passage contains one of the most dangerous ideas for the Western world. It could bring down capitalism, and revolutionise the way the world works. Know what it is? It is that we are stewards, not owners. God is generous here – he gives food, skills and abilities, the beauty of the earth and its wonder, the amazing possibilities of being human. But when he places human beings in dominion over creation it’s not “here’s the keys, do what you like”. This earth is somebody else’s property, and the people are accountable.

Our world works on a different basis. Economies are based on people earning, buying, owning and consuming. It relies on people acting as if the only criterion is whether they can afford it, or at least can they find the money from somewhere. But stewardship asks different questions. How would I explain my decisions to spend? Would I share? Do I understand the earth’s resources as on trust? Do I see myself as accountable to God? That’s called stewardship. Ironically the Greek word for stewardship is 'oikonomia' – the word we get economics from.

If we get obsessed with proving things literally in Genesis that defy science and logic, it’s a dead end. Worse, if we get bogged down in that, we forget what it is really trying to say to us.

In Genesis 1 the writer is saying that we need to understand our God, our place in the world, in the order of things, and the wonderful privilege and responsibilities of living within that world. If we could only appreciate that more, perhaps the world would be a safer, more just and more equal place for all to enjoy.

* the post was written in 2014, approaching the centenary of the outbreak of the Great War.

A Local Radio Moment

I caught a bit of the BBC Radio Lancashire Sunday morning show today. They did a feature prompted by the Bishop of Sheffield getting people to listen to a Lily Allen song. Looking at song lyrics and then looking at issues of faith isn't that new - I was doing it with Steve Tilley in the early 1980s, but I am all for looking at themes in contemporary culture. Check out Culturewatch for a site that has loads of resources based on books, film, music and more

Anyway, back to this morning. Some vox-pops of suggestions for songs that have Christian themes were sought out on the street.

The first one was so good, Little Britain couldn't have scripted it better:

Person: "The one by Billy Joel about the woman... you can be just yourself, and he loves you just as you are."

Reporter: "She's always a woman to me. That one?"

Person: "Yes that's the one."

No, I don't think it was. If you don't believe me go here, click Listen now and wind forward to 1hr 20. You have 7 days.

Politics and Religion: that old dualism

A couple of weeks ago our local paper [Morecambe Visitor 12th Jan] published an article about the concern the Bishop of Blackburn had expressed about the impact of cuts on the most vulnerable members of society. It was good to see him making such a clear and public statement about his concern, and that the cuts will have a substantial impact on vulnerable members of our society.

It was disappointing, therefore, to see our MP respond by voicing his"..concern that the Bishop is becoming embroiled in a political argument that goes way beyond his remit as a religious leader." Desmond Tutu once responded to a similar comment that he thought the other person must be reading a different Bible.

We live in an era of fear of politicised religion, and no without justification. The religious right in the US, and extreme Islamist movements both understandably scare people of a secular mindset. However, given the Bishop is a person with influence and a public voice, and (whether you think it right or wrong in principle) he currently has a seat in the House of Lords, it is absolutely right that he speaks out for the poor and vulnerable.

Ironically, one of the thinkers behind the Big Society, Phillip Blond, would be very clear that there should be no dualism between the secular and spiritual. He is very strong on having a holistic and integrated way of thinking about the relationship between the divine and the material world. If a Bishop speaks theologically, he will be speaking politically.

It's also worth remembering times when Churches have privatised religion and limited themselves to speaking only of religious matters. It's not always very comfortable reading. For example, it happened in Germany in the 1930s, albeit with some heroic exceptions. Sometimes those with no public voice need someone to speak for them when it counts, and the Church must play its part.

The Christian Vote

I was interested to see the BBC web page on the effect Christians can have on an election outcome. The power of the religious right in the USA is well documented, but politicians are generally a bit more shy about their faith over here. The New Labour "we don't do God" story is well known, as was Tony Blair's Christian affiliation, but it's an interesting question as to whether the Christian community has any significant effect.

Apparently Christians are more likely to vote than the population in general. It's believed around 80% of practising Christian vote; however they are only a minority of the overall population. It would be interesting to know what the equivalent statistics for other faith communities and also for atheists would be. I suspect that anyone with a commitment to a world-view, rather than being generally 'agnostic' or 'lapsed' has a greater motivation to vote. The exceptions might be those who see extremism as the only way out, or in a very different way, those whose faith means that they are suspicious of engaging with anything 'wordly' like politics.

There are some declarations around to rally Christian interest. Westminster 2010 bills itself a "declaration of Christian conscience". I have sympathy with some of the statements made, such as the stated concern about the poor, the vulnerable and victims of human trafficking. However, it seems to be an alliance of people with a variety of concerns, which also includes some quite socially conservative (with a small 'c') attitudes on family etc. There is a tacit assumption that if you're properly Christian, then you will sign up to it all. I haven't

More open-ended in its aims is the Faithworks declaration, which simply seeks to uphold the positive contribution of Christians and Christian agencies to society in general. Whilst I think that's largely (but not exclusively or uniquely) true, I do wonder why it needs a Declaration? If Christian voluntary activity is good news for local communities, shouldn't that speak for itself? Or maybe we need to be more canny with the media, rather than sign declarations?

Perhaps more generally helpful is the fact that Churches Together in Britain and Ireland (CTBI) have been assisting churches to get together and organise General Election hustings meetings. Some have happened already, but you can find out if there is one in your area here. These offer an opportunity to question candidates and meet them. In my experience, the question raised in these meetings can be be very different from the Paxman interviews on TV. Issues of overseas aid, millennium development goals and more haven't had a lot of press recently.

CTBI also have something you can sign up to - the Sanctuary Pledge. Supported by major faith groups and denominations, it asks candidates to be committed to using positive language and attitudes towards those seeking asylum or sanctuary in the UK. The website has a facility to email candidates, and the commitments don't require you or the candidates to hold any religious faith.

Responses (or lack of them) could be revealing.

Living the Questions

A friend pointed out a new resource, Living the Questions, for getting people to think about the Christian faith. It looks really interesting - actually 4 sets of resources with DVDs and written materials. Some downloadable samples on the site.

With Jack Spong as a contributor, it's likely to be controversial, and with Hans Kung, it's going to be interesting. Looking forward to seeing if UK editions materialise

Penal Substitution (PS)

My good friend and fellow blogger Steve Tilley has blogged here on this subject, so I'm feeling inspired to go do likewise.

As Steve notes, this is a theory of the atonement - an explanation as to why Jesus Christ died on the cross and how it makes a difference for human's relationship with God. It assumes that a judicial punishment has to be administered somewhere in order for it to be possible for God to forgive us, or to have any relationship with us. In this theory, all human beings are guilty of sin, this means they are faced with the penalty of death. The only way God in his love can rescue human beings from this fate is to provide a perfect substitute - Jesus Christ - whose death is acceptable replacement for ours.

Two obvious problems:

1. If God is omnipotent, why is he bound to follow a set of rules. Surely the rulemaker isn't subject to a law outside him, or he wouldn't be God? If his love is the overriding power (and the PS theory acknowledges this) then why is all this trouble necessary. Who's telling God He has to follow this procedure?
2. We die. Genesis 3 teaches that mortality is the consequence of human sin. This is taken up by the PS theory and Jesus' death rescues us from death. But wait a minute, we remain mortal even having received the benefit of the cross. And if the death Gen 3 and Rom 6:23 refer to is spiritual death and not just biological, then that provides two more problems. a) did Jesus die spiritually, because if he didn't, he hasn't gone through everything condemned humanity must face and b) spiritual death sounds more like annihilation than any kind of ongoing existence in hell.

Moreover, Trinitarian theology means that the cross in PS theory logically ends in the scenario of God hitting himself and then telling humans it's OK.
The problem is that all theories of what the cross means fall short of the reality. They can only be metaphors which cast light on the cross but cannot convey the whole meaning. Any theory fails if it is extrapolated to its logical conclusion.

CU, SU and all that Jazz

It's been an interesting time for Christian Unions and their relationship with Student Unions. Our CU at SMC is great - they are flexible, collaborative and good fun. I know it's not always like that, and Chaplaincy-CU relations are not always good. Of course, that's sometimes the Chaplain's fault, and sometimes the CU's. However, times are a-changing, and life may become more difficult for any organisation that wants to retain distinctiveness by insisting that its leadership are signed up to certain values, beliefs or principles.

Ekklesia have proposed some principles for a way forward, which you can read here . The response from the NUS is reported here. A full version of the report is available as a pdf download. When I've had a chance to digest it, I'll say more.

I must admit, I can't quite see how you can have a student Labour society without socialists on the committee - then again the national party manage it without any in Cabinet...

Anyway, here's some light relief whilst you meditate on the dilemmas

Cartoon by Dave Walker. Find more cartoons you can freely re-use on your blog at We Blog Cartoons.

Veils

Looking forward to a meeting next week. One of our students, who is a Muslim, has a presentation to give on the Christian views on the origins of the world, so she's coming to talk to me about Genesis etc. She wears a full veil, with just a slot for her eyes. I don't know the extent of her knowledge of Christianity, so I think I'll leave it to her to ask the questions.

It's going to be an interesting learning experience. I think I'll talk to her about it, especially to see if she has encountered any hostility. Will post again about how it went.

Time flies

Is it really over a month since the last post? Not sure I'm cut out for blogging after all!

Strange shift in the news at the moment - more and more about the conflict between some forms of Islam and Western culture. Obviously there are scary events in the world at the moment, but I'm just concerned that anyone who is a Muslim will start to be viewed with suspicion in the West. My experience as an ordained Anglican is of graciousness and hospitality, which we seek to reciprocate in our Chaplaincy Centre.

Tricky times ahead I fear.