Putting faith in diversity

Tuesday 15th January: Today I went along to a Foreign & Commonwealth Office consultation on 'age and belief as aspects of diversity'. I normally try to give the diversity fundamentalists a wide berth, but given the subject matter it seemed prudent to get involved at an early stage, to help avoid any strange ideas on religious belief finding their way into official policy.

The hour-long discussion was mostly uncontroversial; good points about the need to avoid fostering a 'victim culture' and the potential for conflict between the agendas of different special-interest groups. However, the biggest stir seemed to be caused by a comment that I made near the end.

I suggested that, rather than trying to identify more and more strands of diversity requiring special treatment (adding age and belief to their existing programmes on race, gender, and sexuality will bring the FCO's total to 5), we should instead agree some core principles and apply them equally to everyone. Thus, discrimination in pay or promotion on grounds unrelated to doing the job is unacceptable whether the individual is black, gay, female, octogenarian, zoroastrian, or has any other salient trait that might be considered a factor.

I admit that I didn't come up with this on the spur of the moment. I have been reflecting on how to balance personal freedom and the protection of individuals since the notorious Big Brother racist bullying incident brought it into the public spotlight. I believe that what Jade Goody was guilty of was foul mouthed, mean spirited bullying. It was wrong when directed at Shilpa Shetty (using some of the language of racial stereotypes in the process), it would have been equally wrong directed at any other human being, and it was wrong of Channel 4 to package and distribute it as entertainment. We teach children that bullying has no place in our schools, and we should be similarly intolerant of it in adult life.

This seemed to strike a chord with the FCOs consultation group. The fact is that very few of us still believe that our social ills can be addressed through divisive political correctness. A return to a values-based agenda (which leans heavily on biblical and Christian ideas about the value and dignity of every individual) is long overdue.

...and a blasphemous new year

The BBC have had a strange Christmas season this year.

They began advent by narrowly avoiding prosecution for blasphemy, following a case brought by Christian Voice over their 2005 screening of 'Jerry Springer: The Opera'. Having made a heroic stand for freedom of artistic expression in the courts, they then immediately threw it out of the window by voluntarily choosing to censor out the word 'faggot' from the popular Christmas hit 'Fairytale of New York'. The late Kirsty MacColl's acerbic lyrics were only saved by a public outcry and subsequent climbdown by the bosses of Radio 1 (the fact that Radio 2 had continued to play the song in full couldn't have helped much either).

All this merely goes to demonstrate what most of us already knew. Blasphemy laws (or their modern descendants, political correctness regulations) have never had much to do with protecting God from insult. They do however have everything to do with guarding the sensibilities of the current ruling elite. Whether 17th century ecclesiarchs or 21st century liberal authoritarians, the message is clear: you challenge the official view of the world at your peril.

In light of all this, I was intrigued to see what noted atheist Russell Davies would serve up for the eagerly awaited Doctor Who Christmas Special. Certainly the visually lavish offering was short on peace and goodwill (killer angels very much in evidence), and we were denied the satisfaction of moral justice (the bad guys didn't win, but most of the good guys didn't make it either). Lines like "She's just atoms, doctor... an echo of the ghost of consciousness" and "if you could decide who lives and who dies, that would make you a monster" are familar atheist mantras. Yet in spite of this, Davies portrays a world in which good and evil are very real and actions have clear moral consequences. And as the character Astrid chooses to sacrifice her own life in order that humanity might live, we are presented with a parable of redemption that is about as biblically rooted as they come.

Kylie Minogue as a 'type' of Christ?? To quote my girls' other TV favourite of this Christmas, The Railway Children, "Very beautiful and wonderful things do happen, don't they? And we live most of our lives in the hope of them."

Great expectations

14th December 2007: This morning, my friend Pete Connor and I had breakfast with the Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (OK, us and 150 other people).

With a credit crisis looming and the unprecedented announcement yesterday that a group of central banks are to inject £50 billion into the economy to steady the markets, the timing could hardly have been better. Rachel Lomax comes with one of the most impressive CVs I have ever read (is there anything this woman hasn't done?), and as expected she was infomative on the underlying state of the economy and what the bank is doing to address the short term crisis.

However, the comment that really struck me was in response to a question about consumer confidence. Ms Lomax concluded that "it should remain quite resilient in the short term, because consumers tend to base their spending on expectation of lifetime earnings". Firstly, I have a problem with the idea that credit-card fuelled consumption of more material goods offers an answer to anything (it just so doesn't). But that aside, Lomax's analysis of consumer attitudes is truly frightening. It would appear that we have all already mortgaged our futures in order to fund our current lifestyles, and are effectively committed to spend the rest of our working lives paying them off.

Suffering from stress? Want to spend more time with your family? Like to travel? Want to respond to the call of God on your life? Well sorry - we gave you the money for that house / car / holiday / gadget on the basis of your 'expected lifetime earnings', so now you'd better get on and earn them. No excuses. Go read the small print. Lomax has unwittingly revealed the blueprint for a modern form of slavery. We are slaves not to another human being, but to an even harsher master: our own and everyone else's expectations of the kind of lifestyle we 'ought' to have. No wonder Jesus says that we have only 2 choices: serve God or serve money.

200 years ago, William Wilberforce dedicated his political life to 'the abolition of slavery and the reformation of manners' (ie morals). He was famously successful. According to the Deputy Governor, however, it seems that the old enemy may be back on its feet and ready for a re-match.

One Nation under God?

4th December 2007: tonight I went to St Brides in Fleet Street, a historic church (designed by Christopher Wren, architect of St Pauls Cathedral) which has a specific outreach to journalists and the media. The occasion was a forum run by the Theos think tank entitled 'faith in our media?'. Richard Chartres, Bishop of London, offered a thougtful critique of the relationship between church and the press.

Over drinks afterwards I got chatting to Stephen Backhouse of Theos, author of their recent report on citizenship and patriotism. Stephen's basic argument is that the biblical model of loving your neighbour provides a better basis for good citizenship than either nationalism or the civic patriotism favoured by Gordon Brown. On this point I agree wholeheartedly, but my gripe with the report is that it seems to write off the strong sense of national identity that many people feel without giving serious consideration to its origin or value.

On reflection, there seem to be four kinds of response that Christians make when approaching the nationalism debate:
1) Rejection. "Nations were not part of God's original plan, and represent an aspect of the fall of humanity from grace".
2) Subsumption. "National identity is part of a God-given human diversity, but must take second place to our citizenship in the 'Kingdom of God'".
3) Redemption. "There are aspect of national character which are God-given, inherently good, and should be redeemed and celebrated".
4) Election. "God chooses and appoints specific nations to carry out his will at particular times in history".

To me, the story of God's relationship with human beings in the bible is clearly played out at every level from individuals to communities to nations. On this basis, #1 looks like a non starter (even taking the babel story into account, which I read as judgement on nations rather than nationhood as a curse). I am deeply suspicious of #4, in spite of God undeniably acting through nations in history. This fact should surely be a cause for humility, not pride-filled assertion that any particular group are 'God's chosen people for this hour'.

When I read in Revelation of 'people from every tribe, tongue, people and nation standing before the throne of God', I am drawn to a vision which combines #2 and #3. Here there is no sense of division or strife; humanity stands united under the benvolent rule of Christ. However, the diversity of races, languages and cultures remains as testimony to God's lavish creativity.

If this vision is to be taken at face value, I had better start identifying what aspects of my 'Britishness' are God-given and worthy of nurturing and redeeming. Because on balance, it looks like I am still going to be English in heaven.

Prayer for parliament

29th November 2007: today was my first chance to participate in prayer for parliament, a group that meets every Thusday lunchtime to pray for the UK political scene and Christians who are involved in it.

We meet in Portcullis House, the new building opposite Big Ben where many MPs have their offices. After passing through airport-style security, you can walk freely round a gallery above the central plaza until you arrive at a smart but functional meeting room which overlooks Parliament Square.

The group consists mostly of parliamentary workers; assistants, researchers, support staff. My friend and 24-7 co-conspirator Phil Togwell has already been involved for a couple of years. I certainly won't be 'taking over' from Phil (whose contribution is, how can we put this, 'unique'), but I do hope to come alongside and offer practical support and encouragement as well as simply 'being there'.

We had a good time of prayer and I met some great people, but the overwhelming sense was that this was the start of a marathon, not a sprint. I intend to be here now, every week, until I sense that God is saying otherwise.

First day of the rest of your life

26th November 2007: after several weeks of frantic 'are we really going to do this?' conversations, today I took the train up to Westminster to start my new 'life' working inside Parliament for 24-7 prayer. My first meeting was with the irrepressible David Landrum, a great friend of 24-7 and co-ordinator of Prayer for Parliament, who is to be my sometimes-boss and guide into the jungle of political life.

I guess it's fair to ask at the outset, 'why is a prayer movement getting involved in politics anyway?' Shouldn't we be concentrating on 'spiritual matters' and steering clear of the messy and controversial world of public life? For me, the answer lies in a full understanding of our 3 primary aims: prayer, mission, and justice.

Prayer is the heartbeat, the place where everything starts. Our society is at a crossroads, the GPS is on the blink, and the moral compass got lost under the seat a while back. There is a woeful lack of vision in politics, with all the main UK parties seeming to have 'winning power' as their only discernable goal. There has never been a more important time to take seriously the biblical command to 'pray for rulers and those in authority'!

Jesus call to mission was all embracing. He sends his followers out to every nation and in to every area of life. The political arena is as valid an area for Christian mission as any other; just as broken, just as hurting, just as in need of redemption, and uniquely visible in terms of a place where the Gospel message can be put on display for all to see.

A heart for justice means a heart for individuals; the poor, the oppressed, and the forgotten. However, the causes of injustice in our world are complex and at least some of them can only be addressed at the level of society as a whole. For me, it's time to take a break from pulling drowning people out of the river, take a walk upstream, and try to stop them falling in.