Remembrance Day

On this Remembrance Day we have stood in silence to honour the millions who have fallen so that the world may have peace.

One of the things about the World Wars that is not mentioned enough is their truly global nature. These Wars united humanity in the struggle against evil in a way never seen before or since.

The British 14th army in Burma in 1944/45 was the most multi-racial army in history.

According to Wikipedia these countries fought against the Germans and their allies in the First World War:
 Andorra,  Belgium,  Brazil, Republic of China,  Costa Rica,  Cuba, Czechoslovak Legions, France,  Greece,  Guatemala,  Haiti,  Honduras,  Italy, Japan,  Liberia,  Montenegro,    Nepal,  Nicaragua,  Panama, Portugal,  Romania,  Russia ,  San Marino,  Serbia, Siam (now Thailand),  United Kingdom,  Canada, British India (now India, Bangladesh, Burma and Pakistan),  Newfoundland,  Australia,  New Zealand, Malta,  South Africa, Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe and Zambia), administered by the British South Africa Company, British crown colonies, United States, Philippines,  Puerto Rico

In the Second World War the list is as follows:
 Soviet Union,  United States,  United Kingdom,  China,  France, Poland,  Canada,  Australia,  Yugoslavia,  Greece,  Belgium,  Netherlands,  New Zealand,  Norway,  South Africa, Brazil,  Mexico,  Czechoslovakia, Mongolia,  Philippines

Because of this, it always makes me angry when some people try to use Remembrance Day as a symbol of Nationalism and Isolationism. The two World Wars united people of all races, of all religions and of all colours under a common flag and a common goal.

Let us remember the times we have all worked together in the past, and use those times to give us hope for the future.

A Christian Response to Government

How should Paul's writing in Romans affect how we view this (or any other) Government?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13%3A1-10&version=NIVUK

I am always disappointed to see how many Christians appear to be completely unaware that the Bible says that this (and any other) government have been established by God.

Just as our first thought when dealing with an individual should be "this person was made by God", so we should always remind ourselves when dealing with anyone in authority that "God established this". If we remember that then our response will be much more about improving and prayerfulness than it sometimes is.

Respect and positive engagement to make things better are the correct way forward. Hatred, misrepresentation and abusive comments are not an appropriate way to respond to anyone in political power.

This is not about Michael Gove, it's about what type of people we want to be

If a student where brought to us having been abusive to another student, we would not consider any excuse acceptable. Nothing they could say to us would make us say that actually it was ok to be for them to have been abusive to another human being.

So why do so many teachers think it is ok to be abusive to and about politicians? Why do we accept behaviour from ourselves that we would not accept from students? Is this a good example to set? Is it not, in fact, practically the definition of hypocrisy? We expect one thing from students, while doing the opposite ourselves.

Similarly, if being criticised we are much more likely to listen to constructive criticism. None of us would take kindly to abuse being hurled at us – in fact we would be almost certain to ignore anything such a rude and obnoxious person would say. So why do we think politicians are different? Why do we think they are likely to listen to people who hurl abuse at them? Surely the only way to be listened to is to treat people with respect, offer constructive criticism and open a dialogue?

Similarly, when dealing with disputes at school, we will mediate, get people together, aim for compromise – get people talking and working together to resolve problems. So why do we not hold ourselves to the same standards when having our own disputes with government? We would never accept from students the ‘nuclear’ option of walking out of a lesson – no matter how great the provocation, so why do we think it is ok to do so ourselves by striking?

We spend our time telling students how prejudice and stereotyping is wrong, yet many of us are prejudiced and hold a stereotypical view of political parties. Surely we have an obligation to ensure that we operate from accurate and considered information, rather than lazy and inaccurate stereotypes?

Students will look at how we behave much more than how we speak. If what we say does not match our actions, then they will conclude we have nothing useful to say. Perhaps it is time teachers held themselves to the same standards they (rightly) expect from their students.

 

A good and amusing article on political debate is here: http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/09/21/how-to-debate-politics-civilly/, which I quote a small part of below:

           Disagreement in politics does not a pinhead make.

When it comes to debating politics, men then often create the following faulty syllogism:

·         I’m a very intelligent man and I believe X.

·         This other guy believes Y.

·         Therefore this other guy is a complete moron.

This is what essentially lies at the heart of nasty political discourse. And it’s surely a tempting conclusion to make. But take a step back. Does your “opponent” show other signs of being a feeble-minded moron? Did he graduate from college? Does he have a good job? Does he seem able to function as a normal adult? You know, dress himself, feed himself, and refrain from drooling? Probably so. He’s probably not an imbecile. He just feels differently than you do. He was raised in a home by parents with certain beliefs. He’s had life experiences that are divergent from yours. His faith or lack thereof has shaped him in ways that yours hasn’t. Now, once you have established that your friend is not a pinhead, you can begin to have a polite debate.

If we, the teaching profession, want to be taken seriously, then we need to stop acting in a confrontational and abusive way. We need to accept the truth that the Government is not making changes because it hates teachers, nor is it making changes because it wants to destroy the education system – they are making changes because they genuinely believe that the changes they are making are the best way forward for the education of children in this country. This ought to be the goal of all of us, and we are not going to make significant progress in moving forward together until everybody stops demonising the other side, and starts working together, talking together, and treating each other with respect.

Oh, and we would not accept from our students an argument along the lines of :”when they treat me with respect, I’ll treat them with respect”. We would expect our more mature and sensible students to take the lead in offering an olive branch, and I hope we would expect the same from ourselves.

Challenging our own Beliefs

Yesterday I received a facebook update from the CS Lewis foundation. What surprised me was the number of people who were quite happy to say he was wrong. I made the comment that if you disagreed with CS Lewis, it was probably worth seriously checking that you were right!

Predictably this was interpreted by some as my suggesting that he was always right, which was not the point of what I said at all.

Very often we have an inflated sense of our own perfection when it comes to our beliefs and theology. We  have a tendency to assume that we have a perfect understanding of everything we believe, and therefore a tendency to assume that anyone who holds a different belief to us is wrong.

Because of this, I think one of the most important things we can do is to challenge our own theology. When was the last time you really explored why you believed something to see whether you are right or not? When was the last time you seriously challenged one of your own theological positions to see if it is justified? We are very good at challenging everyone else, but what about ourselves?

Many people accept a version of Christianity put to them by church leaders and others, often without exploring alternative positions in depth. There is also the risk that our beliefs may drift off 'soundness' without our realising it as months or years go by, and we need to be challenging ourselves to make sure we avoid this.

We also as the 21st Century Church are prone to one of the great lies of our society, namely that new things are better than old things. This means we have a tendency to accept any new movement or interpretation as being right for no better reason than that it is new. In reality of course, God never changes, and what was true 50, 100 or 1000 years ago is still true today, and we forget that to our peril.

So next time you find yourself disagreeing with one of the great Christian theologians of the past, perhaps you should consider the possibility that it might be you that is wrong, and take some time to really challenge yourself in the light of their teaching.

The Power of Good News

Normally watching the news is a depressing thing to do, but over the last couple of years we have had several high profile good news events.

1. The Royal Wedding
2. The Queen's Diamond Jubilee
3. The Olympics
4. The Paralympics
5. The birth of Prince George

What I have noticed most is how the effect of celebrating these events changes the whole feel of the country and makes Great Britain a better place.

If for nothing else, we should be grateful to sport and the Royal Family for the opportunities they give us to celebrate!

Perhaps it is time to get onto the news channels and start complaining about the unrelenting bad news. 

Perhaps we need to be pushing the media to start spending more time on celebrating success rather than bemoaning disaster.

Certainly I think we need to be challenging those pessimistic kill-joys who always see the downside (and cost) in good news. The benefits for everyone in the feel-good factor for outweigh anything else, and it's about time we stood up for the power of fun!

On Leadership

Following various Christian organisations on social media, I have noticed a disturbing trend towards judgementalism amongst a certain cohort of people. These 'trolls' seem to expect everyone to agree with them, as well as being perfect - especially if they are leaders. We have seen this with Steve Chalke and Rob Bell this year.

We put our leaders in an impossible situation sometimes, and I would say that the way in which we treat them is sometimes bordering on idolatry. Let me explain what I mean:

1. a leader rises;
2. we put them on a pedestal;
3. since they are human, they fail;
4. we lash out, and condemn them;
5. we discount their entire ministry, past, present and future.

One of the key concepts of our faith is forgiveness. We even out to extend forgiveness to our leaders when they fail. None of us are perfect, we all sin. We therefore all need the forgiveness of others, and should extend forgiveness to all who need it. Jesus even commands us to do so in the Lord's Prayer, and in fact commands us to forgive before we are forgiven. No caveats - no 'if they ask for forgiveness' or 'if they deserve forgiveness' - just forgive them - no strings attached.

So next time a leader lets us down, let us not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Extend forgiveness and help people rebuild themselves after they fall. After all, we should do unto others as we would have them do unto us.

'How to Debate Theology' or 'Let's Not Play Mornington Cross'

Reading comments on blogs and facebook pages I sometimes get the impression that we Christians treat theological debate as a game of 'Mornington Crescent'.

By that I mean that usually in a debate, things go on for a while, everything seems ok, and then someone says something like "The Bible says this and so if you don't agree with me, you don't believe the Bible" and declares themselves the winner. Sometimes, everybody says it and everybody declares themselves the winner.

At this point things descend into brainless abuse all too often ("I don't understand how you can call yourself a Christian if you don't agree with me" - if you're lucky) and anyone watching from outside gets a very poor impression of Christian love and brotherhood.

So how should we respectfully debate our differences?

1) The other person is not an idiot. After all, they got through school, maybe even university. They have jobs, families. They have managed to live as long as they have without killing themselves in a stupid way. They function in civilised society. They are not idiots just because they disagree with you.

2) They have read their Bible, and they understand what they have read. They have just focussed on a different part, or a different emphasis, or a different translation to you. Expecting to win just because you have a good verse to quote (possibly even out of context) is disrespectful.

3) They are not swivel-eyed heretics just because they disagree with you. There are a vast range of different interpretations and beliefs about many different aspects of theology, all of which fall in the envelope of soundness. It is entirely possible for 2 people to hold beliefs that at first glance appear completely incompatible, but for both to be within the range of acceptable interpretation. A good book to look at this is 'The Mosaic of Christian Belief' by Roger E. Olson, which examines the extremes of soundness and sets out a mainstream, middle of the road theology.

4) You are not perfect. It is entirely possible that you are the one in error! :-)

Hopefully, we can all treat each other with respect, view our differences as points of discussion and debate, and celebrate the vast amount of common ground we all share as believers regardless of our differences.