I KNEW I WAS FEELING FED UP

As a 40 year-old, the results of a survey by Relate that it is those aged 35 to 44 who are the most stressed and depressed was not exactly cheering. Apparently this sad state of affairs is the result of working too hard, not having enough money, not having enough sex and having too many family responsibilities. Somewhat perversely, it also seems to be the result of a few people getting promoted high up the corporate ladder while young, which leaves the rest of us feeling left behind and useless. As The Times put it, "if you are less than halfway up the greasy pole by 35, forget it." Or in other words, Ed Miliband being elected to lead the Labour Party aged 40 will cause a bunch of other 40-somethings (and maybe older brothers) to have nervous breakdowns in despair at their own ineptitude.

The Times also reports on how men of this age are seeking to defy their age by attending music festivals or taking up cycling. Having badly sprained my wrist while trying to cycle down some steps last week, I couldn't possibly comment.

But, speaking with the authority that my age gives me, I am not surprised that it is my peers who are so significantly disillusioned with life. Mine is the first generation that has really reaped the full harvest of the social changes inaugurated in the 60's; and I don't think it has done us any good. Consider some of those changes...

We are having children much later, so rather than having kids in, or approaching their teens by the time we turn 40, many of my peers (like Ed) are just in the nappy stage. The sad reality is that a 40 year-old does not have the same physical energy as a 25 year-old, which is why biologically speaking it makes more sense to have babies when you are in your 20's.

We have the psychological anxiety caused by the assumption that relationships will not last. Many of us are not actually married, even if in 'stable' relationships, or a 'very close unit' as Ed describes his relationship with girlfriend Justine. Even if not consciously aware of it, the subconscious expectation that relationships fail adds a psychological burden our forefathers did not share. So many of the parents of friends of my children spend their weekends shuttling children around various ex-partners - it must be exhausting (and that's not even considering the impact on the children of course).

We all work. We have fallen for the myth that it works to both work, and we have geared our economy so that both partners need to work. But this doesn't work.

We do work that doesn't produce anything tangible, and that is ultimately unsatisfying. It is the reason that so many men (particularly men) get to their 40's and decide what they would really like to do is disappear into the woods and make 'things', or decide they want to become property developers. All this frenetic activity that in the end only seems to be moving paper or rearranging spreadsheets doesn't meet our need to create.

We have completely bought the lies of youth culture - it is much more tiring to keep trying to be young than simply to age gracefully.

We have turned our leisure into work - expensive weekends away, expensive hobbies, all involving considerable planning and emotional investment and competitively pursued leave us feeling more tired than our work does.

We have become too integrated with technology, but it leaves us wrung out. Constant toggling from application to application and device to device leaves us with the inability to concentrate on any one thing properly and suffering permanent neural burn.

We have become stooges of the advertising industry. We have come to believe that we really should have whatever we want whenever we want it; that life should always be easy; that sex should always be exotic and earth moving - and we are very disappointed that life is not really like that.

Is there any hope for us? Yes there is - we just need to grow up.

MORE ON WORLD CHANGING

After I had posted a review of James Davison Hunter's To Change the World yesterday, Doug Wilson put up a post on his blog that summarizes far more pithily than I did some concerns with the book. Wilson also links to a fascinating review of To Change the World James K.A. Smith, and then an interview between Smith and Hunter. These posts are all worth reading (if you are interested in Hunter's thesis of course).

Smith's review includes a helpful critique of Hunter's interpretation of the word 'world' which does a much better job than I did in trying to note the biblical tension between loving and hating the world - how world is defined here is obviously crucial.

The interview with Hunter is especially interesting because, while it is short, it seems to me to supply rather more application than his much longer book did - but that is the advantage of a thoughtful interview.

In his post, Wilson is critical of Smith, as well as Hunter - which we would expect from Wilson! - but his point is well made, and worth consideration.

BOOK REVIEW: TO CHANGE THE WORLD

To Change the World, by James Davison Hunter

This book has been garnering a lot of attention within certain sections of the book reading public, and has already been extensively reviewed. It warrants very thorough review, but I will try to keep this one fairly succinct. It is a book that is of particular interest to me in as much that it deals with a similar area to that we are seeking to explore at the Everything Conference, and is one of a small flurry of books that are currently being published on Christian cultural engagement. This is a hot topic area, and one that we need to have some clarity on.

To Change the World is a difficult book for me to review because parts of it I thought brilliant, while other sections were extraordinarily poor. Hunter’s analysis of our cultural failings can be superb, but his application is weak. Analysis is always easier than application, but I came to the end of the book disappointed.

Hunter argues that politics is not the answer to our cultural problems, and that the church has been mistaken where it has tried to tie its mission to politics. In this he is extremely critical of the likes of Charles Colson, who have taught that worldview is key – get enough people thinking right and democracy means that political decision making will catch up with this right thinking, create good law, and cultural wellbeing will follow.

Hunter dismisses this approach, and illustrates it with statistics – if worldview really is the key determinant in shaping culture then it should be the majority opinion that prevails. However, that is demonstrably not the case. For example, 83 percent of Americans believe God was involved in creation, yet it is secular evolutionary theory that is taught in public schools. By contrast, Jews and homosexuals form a tiny percentage of the American population, but have had a disproportionately vast impact on shaping culture – in everything from finance to film.

This leads to Hunter’s contention that it is networks that change culture, not individuals, which he then goes on to illustrate with a brilliant chapter on the history of Christianity. In this he demonstrates that culture changes through, “elites, networks, technology and new institutions.”

At this point, as well as being critical of the likes of Colson, he also takes a swipe at Michael Lindsay, author of another influential book, Faith in the Halls of Power. Hunter says that Lindsay exaggerates the influence evangelicals have in society because those evangelicals who are in positions of influence “are neither operating within dense social networks nor working together coherently with common agendas, not least because they are largely disaffected from the local church.”

With much of this analysis I would be inclined to agree. Clearly America is a strange place, in which evangelicals have apparently huge numbers, and a vibrant counter-culture of ‘Christian’ broadcasting, music, publishing and celebrity, but very little impact on the cultural mainstream. Too much American Christianity has succumbed to moralistic, therapeutic, deism – a barely Christian feel-good faith that reflects the prevailing consumer culture rather than changing it. However, it seems unfortunate that Hunter keeps taking pops at the likes of Colson and Lindsay; and he takes a particularly sharp poke at Andy Crouch’s book Culture Making. (Responses to Hunter by both Colson and Crouch can be found here.)

The middle section of the book is by and large fabulous – a dissection of the way in which power works. Hunter contends that public life has been subsumed by the political – the coercive power of the state has come to dominate – and that Christians have been party to this unfortunate move. He explores Nietzsche’s vital insight of ressentiment – the way by which those who appear to be weak use their weakness to exercise power over those who should be strong – and applies this to various Christian approaches to culture. Ressentiment is all about perception, with those who perceive themselves as weak or aggrieved using this to leverage their own political and cultural power. It is this that has led to the culture of identity politics; and it is not only gays or feminists who have mobilised this way – Christians too have fallen into the ressentiment trap.

Hunter next devotes a chapter to three representative Christian identity groups: The Christian Right, the Christian Left, and the Neo-Anabaptists.

The Christian Right have reacted against perceived threats to the American way in aggressive fashion. They have put all their eggs in the politics basket, and have been often disappointed. The Christian Left have, until recently, been outflanked by the right. Their focus is on ‘justice’, which for them equals economic equality. Hunter points out the irony that the left acts in ressentiment against the right, and ends up using the same political weapons. This means that a Jim Wallis is as much about power play as a Pat Robertson. The chief concern of the neo-Anabaptists is pacifism. They want to keep church and state separate, but ironically also use political means and language to advance their arguments. The neo-Anabaptists get their identity from dissent from the state, which means they end up depending on it for their identity! Theirs is a “passive-aggressive ecclesiology” with very little good to say about anything. “The neo-Anabaptists claim their message is prophetic but in its net effect… it is overwhelmingly a message of anger, disparagement, and negation.”

Hunter also points out that involvement in politics can become an excuse for avoiding responsibility. “It is, after all, much easier to vote for a politician who champions welfare than to adopt a baby born in poverty, to vote for a referendum that would expand health care for seniors than to care for an elderly and infirmed parent, and to rally for racial harmony than to get to know someone of a different race than yours.” The honesty of that sentence made me wince.

Hunter sums up these different Christian cultural approaches as defensive against (the right), relevance to (the left), and purity from (the neo-Anabaptist). He then moves towards the conclusion of his book with his preferred model of faithful presence within. And – sadly – this is where I feel his application looks very pale in comparison with his analysis.

Partly this is because he starts to do theology. Hunter is not a theologian (or even a pastor) but a sociologist and some of his theological conclusions are just wrong. For instance, Hunter states that God “does not use his power instrumentally in ways that force us against our will.” But the whole basis of our salvation is that God does overcome our wills – in our natural selves our wills are totally bent against the will of God. There is nothing in us that would seek after him of our own will. Unless he draws us to himself we would remain dead in our sin. My only hope is that God’s will has triumphed over mine!

He then makes the common mistake of wrongly interpreting Matthew 25. Hunter does what is often done and applies this passage to how we should treat all people, while clearly in the context of the passage Jesus is describing loss or reward dependant on our we treat members of his body, the church.

He says we need to abandon all talk of “advancing the kingdom”, but how then are we to pray “Your kingdom come…”?

In an appeal for Christian unity Hunter dismisses the issues of the Reformation as “on the margins of faith.” Salvation by faith alone a marginal issue?!

He states that America, and the West, was never a Christian civilization. But in the next sentence says ours is, “emphatically a post-Christian culture” (emphasis mine). So which is it? Something can’t be post if it never was!

In his appeal to Christians to be a faithful presence Hunter in effect emphasizes John 3:16, while ignoring 1 John 2:15. the biblical emphasis is that Christians must both love the world and stand distinct from the world, and I don’t feel that Hunter does this tension justice.

And then there is a list of examples of ‘faithful presence within’ – examples of Christians behaving in a way which benefits the culture around them. These are all great, but are really no different from the kinds of examples that Crouch or Colson might give, which makes it hard to see why Hunter is so critical of those men and their approach.

So where does this leave us? As an analysis of how cultures form and work I do think this book is truly magnificent. Hunter carries out his analysis with great erudition, and at times some welcome humour. But it rather feels like listening to a fantastic sermon, which suddenly ends, leaving the congregation with no idea of what they are now actually meant to do. Application is always the tough part, and I don’t think that Hunter helps us very much here. Ironically, I made some of the same criticisms of Crouch’s book, so perhaps this simply illustrates just how tough application is. 

AFGHANISTAN

So, UK forces pulled out of Sangin yesterday, the most dangerous area of Afghanistan. Has our involvement in that tragic country been worthwhile? We have lost a lot of men (337 compared to 255 in the Falklands conflict) and 'victory' is much less tangible than we would want. I guess only time will tell. There is already a lot of picking over the bones though, and significant questions being asked about British strategy and leadership.

I found fascinating this radio interview with Col. Richard Williams, former commander of the SAS. The interview starts at 23 minutes and is well worth listening to.

IS THE POPE A CATHOLIC?

In the pub last night, one of my friends asked, "So what do you think of the pope?" As - sadly - so often is the case, my immediate answer was not nearly so erudite as it would have been had I been given 30 minutes to think about it. The feeling of, "if only I'd thought of that at the time..." is far too common in my experience.

Anyway, the conversation in our little group rambled on to why the Bishop of Rome had not previously been to Britain on an official state visit, and why it was so significant. We had a rather desultory discussion about the Reformation, before quickly moving back to the safer ground of who was growing the hottest chillies, and the current state of house prices.

But of course, a little reflection gave me a clearer view of how I should have answered the question and steered the conversation.

Pope Benedicts visit to Britain does carry freight because the very heart of our constitution is that we are independent from the power of Rome. As the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury entered Westminster Hall yesterday they paused at the spot where Thomas More was condemned for supporting the power of the Pope over the power of Henry VIII. That condemnation has made More a Catholic hero, and a Catholic saint, but - as I was preaching last Sunday at Gateway - More was far from saintly. As the man who led the persecution of my heroes of the faith - such as William Tyndale - it is hard for me to feel much empathy for him. What More represents is the belief that the Pope should control the destinies of men, in this life and in the next. But - praise God! - the Reformation put paid to that.

The liberties that we count as the natural right of the British were born in the overthrow of papal power. Henry VIII was no saint himself, but breaking the power of Rome was an event that helped create our political liberty. Kings, prime ministers and presidents are meant to wield earthly authority, not popes (or pastors!). As a committed non-conformist, I would have liked our Reformation to have gone further, with a total separation of Church and State  - No head of State should also be head of a national church. But at least our head of state is a Protestant!

So welcoming this Pope to the UK is significant because we are in a way welcoming someone who in some measure is the representation of a tyranny we had the fortune to escape. At the distance of 500 years and in a very different world it is hard to feel the significance of this, but significant it is.

The Roman Catholic church is a very different institution from what it was 500 years ago. Personally, I appreciate much Catholic moral teaching, and admire the robustness with which a Benedict or John Paul II call out the inconsistencies and failings of contemporary society. There are many Catholics who are truly my brothers and sisters in Christ. Yet, at the same time the Catholic Church is one still in need of reforming. The abuse of children which has captured so many headlines accompanying this papal visit are one evidence of that. But it is not only the practice of certain corrupt priests that needs reformation - the theology at the heart of Catholicism stands in need of change. The issue for which William Tyndale was executed still stands unresolved - are we saved by faith alone, or by our works?

So, while the Pope is most definitely a Catholic, I am very glad that I am not!

(For rather more insightful insights on the Pope's visit than I am able to offer, Cranmer's opinions are worth checking out. Rather wonderfully, after three months of silence, Cranmer's ashes have been stirred, and he is again indulging us with his pungent insights. His Grace is sometimes rather strong meat, but always entertaining...)

BOOK REVIEW: THE MONEY SECRET

The Money Secret, by Rob Parsons


Last night at Gateway we had a seminar on personal money management, which was excellent. My normal book rec for money matters is The Treasure Principle, which is very much aimed at followers of Christ, but our speaker recommended this book as helpful. It was already on the shelf in our office library (an addition courtesy of new staff member Jon Clark) so this morning I got it down and read it through.

It is indeed a very helpful book! Unlike The Treasure Principle, this book is aimed at a general audience rather than Christians specifically, though Rob Parson's aim is always to make biblical principles applicable to all. It works in the form of a story, describing one womans battle to gain control over her finances, and is a quick read.

The story sets out the perils of debt, the dangers of credit cards, and the false claims of many financial instruments, and plots a path to financial freedom. It is very practical, and would be easy to apply. Well, easy in the sense that what needs to be done is straightforward, but difficult in the sense that doing it is going to take determination and discipline.

I keep fairly tight accounts, but found myself provoked by this book to go to work on my finances once again. If your accounts are not tight but out of control, then this book will also be very useful for you. In fact, I think this book would be so helpful for pretty much anyone to read that I have ordered a load of copies to make available at church.

Managing our money well is made difficult by the way our economy now operates. Plastic rather than cash, the incessant pressure of advertising, and the unpredictability of the economy all conspire against us being good stewards. This book will help you fight back.

AN EXERCISE IN ETHICS

Yesterday daughter No. 1 came home from school with a leaflet about the HPV vaccination and a consent form to let her receive it. Human papillomavirus causes cervical cancer, but the HPV vaccine prevents this in 70% of cases.

Most parents simply sign the consent form but I think it is something worth thinking about, and provides a useful exercise in practical ethics. So lets try to tease it out…

·       First of all, I hate the assumption behind the vaccination. HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, and vaccination against it assumes a girl is going to be sexually promiscuous.

·       1,000 women die from cervical cancer in the UK each year.

·       Our assumption is that our daughter will not have sex with anyone until she is married, and will only have sex with her husband, thus massively reducing the likelihood of her being exposed to the virus.

·       But what if she falls away from God for a time? Or is sexually abused? Or marries a man who has himself been sexually promiscuous and so carries the virus, even if he has subsequently come to faith and a sexually pure lifestyle?

·       Somewhere north of 250,000 women die every year in the UK, so proportionally the risk of death from cervical cancer is low, especially if a woman is not sexually promiscuous.

Where does this leave us? Very practically, it means we are holding onto the form until after the weekend so we can have proper time to consider it. The school put a certain amount of pressure on for it to be returned today, and my daughter claims she was the only girl in her class not to return it today, but I don’t really think that is fair.

Then there is the reality that should my daughter not have the injection she will very possibly be the only girl in her year to refuse it (and as she is at an all girls school that means she really will be the only one!). This would be potentially embarrassing for her; but it might also be a good thing, as she would be able to explain her views on sexuality.

As a summary, on the basis of weighing the risk I don’t think it is necessary for her to have the vaccination – it seems a small enough risk not to worry about. But at the same time I think she is totally free to have the injection if she wants to – this is not a matter of significance to salvation, but something that is an issue for personal conscience and decision. My hope is that over the weekend daughter No. 1 comes to a point of decision, which she is confident in, whichever way she decides to go.

But in many ways what is more important than the decision is the process we have been going through to reach it. If you are a parent don’t let these opportunities pass you by! They are God given moments in which a family can discuss together what messages the world sends us about sexuality and by contrast what our beliefs are. They are a tremendous opportunity to do some theology and cultural analysis together, and to think through complex arguments together. They are gospel moments!

So, don’t just sign the form; don’t be a lazy parent; don’t assume that every medical form that comes home from school is good – think about it, discuss it, pray about it!

BOOK REVIEW: STRAIGHT TO THE HEART OF...

Straight to the Heart of... by Phil Moore


This looks to be an excellent series of devotional commentaries that will help many people get a deeper grasp of the Bible.

As per normal when reviewing books by authors I know, I need to declare an interest in that I know Phil, from serving with him on the Newfrontiers Theology Forum. Phil is one of those irritatingly gifted people who seem to be good at everything! He is a rare combination of brilliant linguist, passionate evangelist, and straight-down-the-line Bible teacher. For years Phil has been writing commentary on the Bible out of his own devotional time (the man doesn't seem to need to sleep, which helps with his productivity) and from those thousands of pages of notes is now churching out the Straight to the Heart series. Volumes on Matthew, Acts & Revelation are already available, with Genesis and 1 & 2 Corinthians due imminently.

I haven't yet read any of these cover to cover, so this is a partial review, but have started to use the commentary on Acts with my family as part of our morning devotions, and yesterday started the one on Revelation with my staff team. If you are looking for detailed word for word exegesis this is not the place to come, but if you are after something that is interesting and engaging to read, yet packed full of spiritual punch you could do a lot worse than buy these books. Phil has worked hard to fill each four-page chapter with illustration and application, but backed up with rock solid theology. It is written at a level my kids can cope with, but is also stimulating for me - which is quite a trick to pull off.

Reading commentaries is to be highly recommended, but I appreciate most people won't be particularly drawn to the technical ones. Of the non-technical commentaries, Phil's are similar in size to the Tyndale series, but far more engaging, and the chapters are shorter and pithier than the Bible Speaks Today series, and so fill a useful niche in the market.

For anyone at Gateway this Sunday we will be selling Straight to the Heart of Acts at the bulk buy price of £6. For anyone not fortunate enough to be at Gateway, you can buy via the normal sources, or check out Phil's website. I really would recommend these books - I think it is going to be a very special series.

OF WAVES AND CROSSES

After yesterdays fun and games at our beach baptisms, Grace and I this morning grabbed our wetsuits and headed for the waves again. There was a 5.5ft swell – ok, maybe not Hawaii, but pretty good for this patch of Southern England, and big enough and choppy enough to give me a good battering. Poole Bay is very shallow, and with our current, unusual weather patterns (easterly wind rather than the prevailing westerly, and Hurricane Earl off the US coast) the waves are breaking over the sand to create a fierce shore dump. Anyway, its perfect for body surfing and getting churned around like an old shoe in a washing machine. It was a bit like getting hit by a 250lb rugby player (a.k.a. Jo Nolan, one of our Gateway year project students!) and a good workout, which was welcome as I ate rather a lot of French cheese last night and needed to burn some calories.

Back home, and over a leisurely lunch (more French cheese) I perused The Times and the reporting of Wayne Rooney’s latest indiscretions, which were revealed “just two days before England’s crucial Euro 2012 qualification game against Switzerland in Basle.” Now, that nearly made me choke on my fromage à croûte lavée. The word crucial derives from the Latin crux – ‘cross’ – and so for Christians has a particular resonance. For something to be truly crucial, it has to have a heaven or hell significance, and a game against Switzerland doesn’t seem to be of quite that magnitude.

I realize my indifference to our national game mystifies many of my friends, but the start of a new league season, and then Euro qualifiers so soon after a poor World Cup leaves me distinctly cold. The constant hype of football and the proliferating number of competitions devalues the whole thing so far as I am concerned. So we beat Bulgaria the other night – wahoo – I mean, Bulgaria, what an achievement – get the bunting out…

The reporting on Rooney bears all the hallmarks of our normal sinful tendency to approach things from the wrong direction – in this case, taking a game far too seriously while viewing a man’s marriage and sexual proclivities as mere entertainment. England vs Switzerland isn’t crucial, but Wayne and Coleen certainly stand at a  crossroads.

When faced with a real crux it is important to make the right call – otherwise we can find ourselves buried under a ton of storm powered water.

EXTREME BAPTISMS

Gateway got back to 'normal' today as we returned to our two meeting format having been back to just one over the summer. After the service(s) we headed for the beach to baptize seven people, and it was certainly the craziest baptism I have been involved in. An Atlantic swell pushing against easterly winds has stirred up the waves and there was an impressive shore dump which the kite surfers were making the most of. Not only navigating our way between the kite lines but actually working out how to get people under the water in these conditions was interesting - in the end we basically waited for a wave to wash over us while pushing people either forward or backward, according to preference.

The good news was that nobody drowned or got swept out towards France!

I like doing baptisms outdoors though. There is something about being in living water, rather than the static water of a baptistry, that seems to add to the drama of the moment. Being baptized in water you really could drown in somehow adds to the symbolism of being raised to new life once safely out of the water.

For the first time since I have been at Gateway we under-catered for the barbeque we had after the baptisms - too many people turning up - not something to complain about! The catering team reckoned that a number of people who had nothing to do with us joined the queue though, assuming we were just providing a hotdog service that anyone could buy into. So it was a bit like feeding the 5,000 as well as contending with the storm.

Sometimes 'normal' is good!