Recently I was part of a discussion group that looked at various aspects of medical ethics. During the conversations we had, many of us reflected on personal encounters with pain whether they be physical, mental or emotional. In the midst of this the seminar leader shared the story of a couple who had been told they were expecting a baby with Edwards syndrome- a condition that meant his life expectancy would be short. They were presented with the possibility of a termination on receipt of this news. For them, though, this was no dilemma. Their Christian faith led them to continue with the pregnancy and so a boy was born. We were told that in his brief life he brought much joy to many people. Indeed when he died some months later friends were moved to bring stories of how their lives had been changed by meeting this dependant bundle of personhood. Such accounts reminded me that  there is much to be learned through suffering. It is not something we welcome but it is an opportunity for us to recognise that we are not in complete control of our lives. And that leads us to further questions about humanity and the existence of God. We should shrink back from becoming complacent or fatalistic but we can resist the clamour for assisted dying. A compassionate response demands improved investment in the hospice movement and our world leading palliative care. Is pain the worst thing we can face? Or is a society that determines when our quality of life has dipped below acceptable?

Admittedly, it’s not my most inspiring of blog titles but I did indeed visit the green and pleasant pastures of The Quinta Conference Centre last week for the annual UCCF student leaders gathering, Forum. This wasn’t a first for me, it was my 9th such journey this time to team teach in two ‘Theology of Social Justice’ workshops. So what impressions grabbed me by the throat as I mused in the company of over 800 students?

Firstly, the combination of serious discipleship peppered with great fun and ridiculous humour. I can’t think of a better way of making an important point about the challenge of following Jesus than encouraging the audience to laugh at themselves and then delivering the inspiration of how it could be different. Graham Daniels told the story of former QPR footballer who earlier in his career as a 17 year old had spoken up at a club Christmas dinner to say something of the significance of celebrating Jesus. But the words just wouldn’t come. So he offered a song instead ‘Thank you Jesus, thank you Lord for loving me’. He made it through all three verses as sniggering colleagues tried to hold it together. As you can imagine, training was a nightmare for a while ‘Come on Dennis, sing us a song!’ But it left an indelible impression on at least one, for later he became a Christian. This account made us all laugh precisely because we can all remember occasions when we felt entirely inadequate in attempting to explain our decision to become a disciple. And it inspired and encouraged us because, despite our faltering words, God chooses to use such weak and trembling vessels.

Secondly, there was such an intentional thread of an all-compassing biblical worldview. This has been such an encouraging development in the conference ethos. Whether it be approach to academic study, involvement in Uni sports teams or influence in the Student Union they are all places where being a Christ-follower should be encouraged, supported and resourced. These are not places where Christians carry out occasional forays to prove their evangelistic bravery but rather places where the Spirit of God is at work enabling the incarnational presence of His people to live and love. Becky Pippert’s challenge to us all was to ‘practise the presence of Christ’- in other words to sense His Lordship in the midst of the struggles of everyday living. By being there and showing the wonders of grace we can point the not-yet-followers to another way.

By modelling and teaching in this way, Forum will deliver a great legacy to the wider church. We will all benefit through being joined by thousands of younger Christians inspired to live differently and equipped to apply Jesus’ message to the every aspect of life.

POLICE & SECURITY

I promise to obey used to be written into every church marriage service, well, for 50% of the participants, anyway. Obedience wasn’t seen as negatively as it is now. But due to the abuse of power, obedience has fallen by the wayside, trampled and cast aside by the individualistic anthem: ‘I will survive’. When trust has been obliterated by postmodern cynicism, what is there left that binds our communities together? Common self-interest is increasingly uncommon, our values and virtues are so diverse that we agree on little. And so rather than commitments of obedience our way of doing life has become  ’I'd like to do what I can get away with’. Do I want to obey the letter of the law on my tax return? Do I want to be scrupulously honest on all insurance documents? No, I don’t want to but there is something bigger at stake than what I want- the truth. We all know that if none of us were truthful on our tax returns the system would fall apart. But if we decide to hide or distort the facts we do so because we think we can get away with it- that we are unaccountable- and that the honest ones will make up the difference. The problem with truth is that it lays claim to all sorts of things I would like to keep under the banner ‘personal freedoms’. I will defend the right to live unhindered lives  but when such freedoms lead to irresponsible parenting, civil disobedience and the peddling of nasty rumours we have to ask questions. Why has it come to this? Why do we all seem to be so hacked off with authority?

Well, if we have no higher sense of authority then we only have ourselves to answer to. If a phone hacker thinks he will be rewarded for getting a great story by illegal means then it’s well worth it. If a rioter thinks society owes him more than his struggling everyday existence, then opportunistic looting seems ideal. God is truth- absolute and personal. I can fool some of the people some of the time, I can even fool myself occasionally, but I cannot hide from the glare of divine truth. Pilate asked Jesus ‘What is truth?’ Truth is the only standard that really matters. Whilst we might think of it as cold and abstract, the Bible is clear, God is truly compassionate and loving. He knows my tendency for self-centredness and he knows I could never justify my actions before him. So he sent his perfect Son to live and die for me. I live knowing that I’m loved and secure but that I’m accountable, too.  And I’m also realistic about human nature. I will challenge and try to shape authority where necessary. I will encourage honesty and cheer on those who give offenders a second chance. And I will ask for your forgiveness when self-righteousness becomes my mechanism for unloving finger-pointing. But hacked off with authority? Not me, Authority has done me every good.

Firstly there are many in the Christian world who are sceptical about the benefits of social media. It is true that it can be a distracting time waster, that it may not last forever and that it can be difficult to get started in engaging with the media savvy community. My observation over the last couple of years is that social media (especially Twitter) has become the ‘City gate’ of our society. It’s where people exchange ideas, challenge assumptions and talk about the most urgent issues of the day. Just as the ‘City gate’ of Jerusalem was a place the influential ignored at their peril, so we should be enthusiastically encouraging engagement by Christians across the land.

Secondly we, the Christian community, have often been poor at pooling our social capital and using it to good effect for campaigning on issues. This is of course fraught with danger. We must choose our issues carefully with wisdom and grace. We should be prepared to reach out to those who don’t share our faith with whom we have a common view on a particular campaigning front. And we shouldn’t let our occasional disagreements with each other stop us from working tirelessly together when we can.

Lack of engagement demonstrates a lack of care. It’s time we used what we have to make a difference for our society.

Sir Alex Ferguson by Andrea Sartorati

Let’s get this straight; I don’t support City, Liverpool, Arsenal, Chelsea or Leeds. But I have been recently musing the widespread adulation of Sir Alex Ferguson that has now led to 2 MPs (Tony Lloyd, Graham Stringer) calling for his elevation to the House of Lords. You cannot argue against the proposition that he is one of the most effective football mangers of all time, the facts speak for themselves. But I am concerned that further public recognition will send very damaging signals to society about attitudes and behaviour in public life. He is a person who regularly uses intimidation as a tool to control others. Psychological intimidation is an outrageous abuse of power in any situation and, such is his position, that he usually holds all the cards (e.g. the recent incident of the exclusion of the journalist who dared to ask about Ryan Giggs). Love is the very opposite of overbearing control- it comes from inner security that generates freedom and encouragement. It is not self-obsessed; it cares more about others than its own reputation. Sir Alex Ferguson has shown that when he feels affronted, he withholds forgiveness and co-operation (e.g. The BBC’s investigations into his son’s activities as a football agent that has led to years of non-communication). These may be understandable reactions but they are hugely damaging to everyone concerned and should be challenged not encouraged by further decoration. A friend once said ‘I’m interested in having courageous conversations’. I hope those around him are having such conversations to help see reconciliation as the better way. And in the meantime, elevation to public office seems entirely inappropriate- do we want playground bullies up and down the land to be given a large, public seal of approval?

A tweet from Tom Harris MP:

The only way Fred Goodwin could be any more unpopular is if his alleged affair had been with Nick Clegg.

It is just over 12 months ago that one man was touring the UK to address crowds of well-wishers, fans and even a few voters in the final stages of the General Election campaign. Buoyed by a strong performance in the leaders’ debates, Nick Clegg appeared to have been elevated to that much envied status of  political pop star. How things have changed. After forming the coalition with the Conservatives, embracing deficit reduction plans and U-turning on tuition fees, he is now the object of opposition scorn where MPs compete to see who can be nastiest to prove their tribal credentials. And even those on the government’s side don’t seem to hold a high opinion:

Mr Clegg was mocked by both Tory and Labour MPs as he gave a statement in the Commons on the proposals, which will now be scrutinised by a committee of 13 peers and 13 MPs, with a report due early next year.  (Discussing the launch of Lord’s reforms- The Daily Telegraph)

He seems to have gone from Palm Sunday adulation to Good Friday mockery in the course of 12 roller coaster months. But this post isn’t about feeling sorry for the Deputy Prime Minister, rather to learn the salutory lesson of human identity. If we base our identity, our value in the opinions of others, then we will be all over the place in our sense of worth. We will think we can change the world one minute, unable to change the sheets the next. We all make mistakes, we all break promises- it’s just that most of us don’t have them beamed up in the full glare of public opinion. Of course, it’s public opinion that got Nick Clegg where he was 12 months ago and if you can’t stand the heat… But our identity is rooted in the image of God implanted in each one of us and that, for all our foolishness, deceit and self-centredness the man who is God was stuck on a tree. This is our worth. This reclaims our identity if we respond to his act of self-sacrifice. It gives us the strength to cope with the fluctuations of praise and criticism, of respect and contempt.We may not have dog mess posted through our letterboxes but we have sharp-tongued exchanges designed to destroy rather than build-up. And it would be wise to know who we are when we face it.

So the referendum is almost upon us and it’s time to put an ‘X’ in a box. Could it be that next time we go to a national poll we place a ’1′ and possibly a ’2′, ’3′ against the options? This AV debate has lurched from the surreal (‘only 3 countries have it’) to exaggeration (‘it’ll do away with safe seats’) and wild inaccuracies (‘it will cost £250 million’) to tribal abuse (‘the death rattle of a right-wing clique’). It’s been hugely unedifying largely because both sides are desperate to capture some interest when the public are preoccupied with their household finances and the Royal Wedding. So here are my thoughts. I argued before the last general election that safe seats under first past the post (FPTP) are a travesty of democracy (I live in one). I’ve witnessed hustings in marginal seats where the outcome is uncertain and I’ve witnessed them in safe seats where everyone is going through the motions. I’ve even heard candidates from safe seats discuss how much time they spend campaigning in other marginals during the election period. I have never lived in a marginal seat and maybe I would get fed up with endless leaflets arriving at 6am for two months before an election. But I do believe it would better if there were more seats with uncertain outcomes so that candidates really gave it everything they’d got. If they had to think not just about first preferences but second, third and fourth it might put them back into contact with people different to themselves. And they might adjust their views to widen their appeal and be more representative. I don’t buy the line that we will inevitably end up with more coalitions (just look at Canada under FPTP or Australia under AV) but even if we did this is about representing more people, more comprehensively and giving more electors a say in their MP. AV will not do away with safe seats but it will lead to fewer of them and more marginals. It will not lead to every MP working harder for your vote (many do their best already) but it will mean that many will listen to a wider cross-section of their constituents. And it won’t solve our cynicism of politicians at a stroke but it will get more of us involved in shaping the political culture. This is not a horse race, it’s about democracy. I’m hopeful of the possibilities that change could bring rather then fearful of it. So I’m putting a ‘X’ in the ‘YES’ box hoping that in future General elections I will be putting ’1′ ’2′ ’3′.

Reading George Pascoe-Watson’s account of the changes in the Foreign Office led me to thinking about relationships and power. In summary, it seems that due to the decline of UK military might the FO is on a relational offensive to make numerous strategic partnerships to act in concert when world events require a supranational voice. So far, so good and many of us will welcome the downgrading of armed diplomacy in favour of a more consensual form. However, there is a niggle in the back of my mind and it is this: Is there still a latent British superiority that informs our approach to international relationships? If the only reason to get involved is to ‘get our way’ then perhaps we are still a bit too big for our boots. We all know that relationships can be easily manipulated by the more savvy especially when the receiver of this new attention is in awe of their new suitor. Let’s hope that the FO team are as good at listening as they are at sharing. For we in the UK have much to learn about working cross-culturally and understanding the realpolitik of emerging nations. True relationships require the hard yards of respect, time and understanding- building a platform for sharing expertise and experience. The outcomes may be very different from pre-conceived ideas but they have much more chance of being mutually beneficial than hastily-arranged diplomatic trysts. So, FO staff, do your jobs well and we will all be much the better off.

The mysteries of the social media age are still being unravelled but the most obvious conclusion is that they have changed the nature of many relationships. Quite what this change is, to which relationships the change applies and how we assess the impact is something I suspect researchers will be hard on the trail of in the coming years. Recently I had the pleasure of giving feedback to a project that looked at this and one of the most striking aspects was the increasing sense of loneliness amongst one of the highest user groups (18-24 year olds). The social researcher, John Cacioppo commented:

‘We are seeing loneliness increase over time… this is going to be a problem with which we need to deal.’

So the problem is not lack of connection- it is exactly the reverse. It seems that the proliferation of electronic connection masks our lack of real relational depth. (counting your Facebook friends, anybody?) Not only this, but it exaggerates our insecurity as we observe others relating online, perceiving that they are gaining fulfilment and significance whereas we are missing out (and in one study that root of relational meltdown, jealousy, reared its very ugly head). Electronic communication can only do so much, there is a lack of nuance, body language, touch and often the tone of online text-based communication is badly lacking. This often leads to an acute awareness of physical isolation that human beings have never encountered in such numbers before. And so our presumptions are turned on their head – whilst we often think that isolation is a growing problem with advancing age it is now at its most significant when adulthood is only just upon us. Theologically, we recognise that relationships are the way we are made, the God who is relationship creates us for relationship with him and relationship with others. So isolation is the very worst thing that can happen to any of us. It’s time as a church that we start addressing this with community-encouraging initiatives amongst first-jobbers because the consequences of inaction for mental health and life prospects are potentially scary.

I once heard it said that an evangelical was someone who had a sneaking suspicion that someone out there was having a better time than they were. It seems that many in the online community can identify with that.

For more information about SUSA click here

For more information about LoveBristol click here