As the dust settles...

So the election has been and gone. The candidates made their pitches, the pollsters made their excuses, and the electorate made their decision (kind of). And the question on everyone's lips is... how did my six hot picks do in their respective seats? If you want the real untold story of this election, read on:

Gavin Shuker fought off a feeble deposit-losing campaign by Esther Rantzen to retain Luton South for Labour. As the result came through sometime after midnight I found myself cheering in the middle of a group of Tories at the Basildon count, which left me with some explaining to do :) Now all the startled Mr Shuker has to do is work out for what purpose he is sitting on those green benches...

Steve Webb is back as predicted, and with the Lib Dems helping to form the new government has landed a ministerial role in the Department of Work & Pensions under the great Iain Duncan-Smith. Phillippa Stroud failed to take Sutton & Cheam, thanks in part to a Daniel 6:4-5 style character assassination attempt by the Observer newspaper, but as former head of the Centre for Social Justice has been given a role a Special Advisor in the same department. With these 3 at the helm, the chance of welfare reform to help lift the poorest in society out of the benefits trap looks brighter than it has done for a generation.

John Mason lost his Glasgow East seat as Labour retrenched to their Scottish heartlands, and Nicky Morgan ed Loughborough off Andy Reed as Labour took a pounding in the English marginals. Overall the Conservative Christian Fellowship enjoyed a very good night, with all their MP members being re-elected and 11 new members entering parliament for the first time.

But possibly the most stunning event of the night was the fall of Evan Harris MP, the Lib Dems atheist Goliath, felled by an unprecedented 16% swing to young Tory Nicola Blackwood. So unexpected that I didn't even find out until 2 days later, and possibility the best news for religious freedom in the UK since the Act of Toleration. No word yet on whether Dr Harris considers this to be an 'act of God', but a lot of prayer groups around Oxfordshire are in no doubt...

Six of the best

If you have come anywhere near a media outlet today, you cannot fail to have noticed that the Prime Minister has called a general election for 6th May. It seems likely that we are about to have one of the biggest changes of MPs in recent history, with some pundits predicting that up to half the seats could find a new posterior sitting on them when parliament returns.

Whether you plan to stay up all night watching progress or go to bed and check the papers in the morning, a lot of Christians have asked who they should be watching out for on election night. We need people with character, wisdom, and integrity in ALL the parties now more than ever, and there are dozens of great Christian men and women standing for election or re-election this time round. So here, with a nod to cross party fairness and a massive disclaimer that they have been chosen almost entirely unscientifically, are my six contests to watch:

1) Gavin Shuker (Labour, Luton South)
The former seat of disgraced Labour MP Margaret Moran and being contested by eccentric TV presenter Esther Rantzen, the result in Luton South is anyone's guess. The Labour party have chosen a local young Christian leader, Gavin Shuker, to try and clean up their image. Gav's wife Lucie is also part of the 24-7prayer UK team. Verdict: prayer is exactly what they'll need, but he could just come through the expected media frenzy to win it.

2) Philippa Stroud (Conservative, Sutton and Cheam)
As head of the 'Centre for Social Justice' think tank, Philippa has been instrumental in bringing social policy and concern for poverty and families to the heart of David Cameron's new Conservative agenda. Now she gets a shot at a parliamentary seat in Sutton and Cheam where the Lib Dems hold a slim majority. Verdict: if she gets in, will be one of the most influential Christian MPs in the next parliament.

3) Steve Webb MP (Liberal Democrat, Thornbury and Yate)
Steve is one of the most liked and respected Christians in the current crop of MPs. Despite the disappearance of his Northavon constituency to boundary changes, he remains in a safe West country Lib Dem stronghold. Verdict: barring upsets he should be back; could suddenly find himself with a lot more influence in a close or hung parliament.

4) John Mason MP (SNP, Glasgow East)
Former baptist missionary and Glasgow Councillor John Mason won one of the most stunning by-election victories of all time when he took one of the safest Labour seats in the country for the SNP in 2008. Conventional wisdom gives him no chance, but that was equally true two years ago. Verdict: needs a miracle to hold on, but has a strong track record in the miracles department...

5) Andy Reed MP and Nicky Morgan (Labour/Conservative, Loughborough)
Loughborough in Leicestershire is a tight Lab/Con marginal; the type of seat where the election is going to be decided. Labour incumbent Andy Reed has been one of the quiet stalwarts of the current parliament (the cross party Christians in Politics and Christians in Parliament groups are run out of his Westminster office); challenger Nicky Morgan is a member of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. Verdict: c'mon Andy and Nicky: give us an uplifting example of political campaigning at it's very best; passionate yet filled with integrity and above reproach.

6) Nicola Blackwood (Conservative, Oxford West and Abingdon)
Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris is one of Britain's best know militant atheists, and has been involved in much of the most anti-Christian legislation of the last decade. Nicola Blackwood is a young Christian activist who has helped shape the Conservatives' social action and international development programmes. On paper the 15% swing she needs to take the seat looks nigh on impossible. Verdict: David vs Goliath. If Nicola wins, even Evan Harris may believe that there is a God!

In praise of Peter Tatchell

I never really expected to write this post. You have to have a certain grudging respect for veteran gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell, but that rarely extends to agreeing with him. He is normally known for putting out the kind of gay supremacist demands which fuel the worst form of political correctness (ie anyone who disagrees should be silenced or removed, by force if necessary).

But writing in The Big Issue recently, even Peter is now acknowledging that multiculturalism is a flawed and failed project. As he puts it: "by asserting and celebrating cultural difference, multi-culturalism can also divide people on racial, religious, and other grounds; emphasising divergences between communities that may later evolve into rivalries and antagonisms... These tensions undermine social cohesion and exemplify a new tribalism, where societies are fragmented into myriad communities, each loyal primarily to themselves and with little interest in the common good. This is dangerous and damaging."

Too right. If Peter is interested in imagining what a post-multicultural society could like like, we may yet even end up working together. Multicuturalism is dead; long live the multi-ethnic British culture.

The wrong kind of sinner?

The Methodist church announced this week that it will ban its members from also being members of the British National Party (BNP). This move comes as the BNP has started flirting with 'Christian nation' rhetoric in it's speeches, which has led Christian groups to become more vociferous in their condemnation (some pretty blunt 'open letters' from church leaders went round in advance of the recent Euro elections too).

There are 3 main reasons why I oppose the BNP. Firstly, they have an openly racist membership policy (black people are not allowed to join). Secondly, they favour a policy of 'voluntary deportation', which would mean that a fair number of my friends would get letters inviting them to leave Britain on day 1 of a BNP administration. And thirdly, Nick Griffin insists on wearing a cross on his lapel despite being diametrically opposed to almost everything that it stands for (grace, reconciliation, that sort of stuff). Jesus would be turning in his grave if he were still in it.

But I'm still not sure about the Methodist move. I'm confident that fair chunks of what the BNP stand for represent 'sin' in a Christian sense. But if we intend to ban sinners from church membership, we may face a membership crisis on a scale that even the Methodists are unused to. Hands up anyone who never covets anything in the face of saturation media advertising? Who never gives in to lu$t despite living in a hypersexualised culture? Who never loves themselves even a tiny bit more than their neighbour? Thought not.

The Church has always been much more eager than Jesus to define certain sins as unforgiveable. In the past, everyone from heretics to homosexuals have been treated in this way, and it has always proved a mistake. Now it seems to be the racists' turn. Living in an area where the BNP can poll up to 20%, I don't have the luxury being able to write people off as unworthy of fellowship because of their politics. Jesus said 'Come to me, all of you who are burdened'. The fears and prejudices that the BNP play on are burdens that we need to lift from people's shoulders, not reasons for rejecting them.

Freedom is only skin deep

This week has brought two more alarming cases of official persecution of Christians in the UK. First off a nurse in Somerset was suspended after offering to pray with a patient (only to be re-instated after a media outcry). Then an experienced foster carer in the North of England was struck off the register after a 16 year old in her care from a Muslim background decided (of her own free choice) to become a Christian.

Most of last year's high profile cases regarding religious freedom seemed to centre around jewellery (silver rings or necklaces bearing crosses). Although these revealed a worrying double standard, Christianity is not defined by wearing certain items of clothing, avoiding certain foods, or praying at a particular time while facing in a particular direction. But to pray for people and communicate the 'good news' of the gospel message are absolute commands of Christ and core fundamentals of our faith. Deny a Christian the right to tell people about Jesus in word and deed, and you leave them little choice but peaceful civil disobedience.

The inconsistencies and injustices in these cases are too many and obvious to even start listing. It is bizarre and sinister that diversity and equality policies which were supposed to protect (amongst other things) religious freedom are being used by a minority of vindictive public sector managers for the purposes of active repression, and are creating a climate of fear where many more get deluded and hoodwinked into doing the same.

And it's not over yet. Today another case emerged of a five year old being reprimanded for talking about her faith to her classmates (and her mother, a school receptionist, is now facing the sack). The government had better speed up its plan to build those 'titan' prisons, because at this rate it is going to need around 10 million new prison places.

Hallelujah!

Well we now know the Christmas number one, and unsurprisingly, it features the winner of the TV show 'X Factor'. What is slightly more surprising is the choice of song. In Alexandra Burke's cover of Leonard Cohen's 'Hallelujah', we have the first Christmas hit to feature biblically themed lyrics since Boney M's camp rendition of 'Mary's Boy Child' in 1978. After 30 years, it seems that even the ultra-conservative producers of a mainstream pop show feel that religeous themes are no longer a taboo subject.

In our increasingly biblically illiterate society, columnists are falling over themselves to explain how the tale of a broken love affair is told through the metaphor of David and Bathsheba, spiced up with a slightly fetishist twist on Samson and Delilah. Does this herald a return to the Bible as one of our key cultural influences? It certainly shows that a quest for spirituality and meaning is back on the mainstream agenda.

Although Hallelujah is unashamed of looking to the Bible for answers, it seems to come with little hope of actually finding them. The keynote here is ambiguity: although the passion is genuine, the hallelujahs are 'cold and broken'. But it's a start.

Jesus was unafraid of ambiguity, and for much of it's history the church has been willing to live with it too. Maybe Alexandra Burke is the standard bearer for a new era of cultural engagement with Christ; not as a trite 'answer' but as the best place to come with our deepest and most urgent questions. Hallelujah to that!

Happy winterval

You hear about it, but you never think it will happen to you. Last week our little Essex town was splashed across the pages of the national press after a local primary school were banned from singing at the town festival because their programme of Christmas carols was deemed too religeous for the 'theme' of the event.

On the one hand, I do feel a bit sorry for the festival committee. They work hard for months trying to put together an event which genuinely does bring the community together for one night each year. Now one member makes a bad decision and they find themselves in the middle of a storm of criticism.

But the more I think about this, I'm glad that it has provoked such a strong reaction. Our forefathers fought and died for the right to freely express their faith in this country. Exactly how did we manage to get from a moderately sane society to one in which a well meaning local volunteer could somehow perceive that banning schoolchildren from singing carols was 'the right thing to do'? And even more worrying, how could a school head teacher (who you would expect to be at least a bit more politically and media savvy) simply roll over and accept it? If anyone along the chain had spoken up, they could have stopped this cruel, inexplicable, divisive, anti-inclusive action right there. But no-one did.

20 years ago society as a whole recognised that racism was wrong, but a lot of it still happened because people 'didn't know any better'. Our thresholds of acceptance are much lower today. We need to be equally intolerant of the creeping religeous persecution which has emerged under the cover of 'political correctness'. Hopefully in Corringham at least, next time someone suggests that it is OK to ban Christianity from public expression, there will be someone there to blow the whistle.

The hair of the dog

So now we know the solution to the borrowing crisis, and it is... more borrowing. Yesterday the government announced that it would cut taxes and spend more public money in an attempt to kick start Britain's stalled economy. This will be funded by a massive increase in public debt, to be paid back in all probability after the next general election. Given that easy borrowing was one of the main causes of our current economic woes, this sounds suspiciously like offering a double whisky as a hangover cure.

There is a lot of talk at the moment about the mismatch between indivdual and collective wisdom. It's wise for individual banks to hoard cash and rebuild their reserves, but collectively this makes the credit crisis even deeper. It's sensible for companies to prepare for recession by cutting costs (and that often means jobs), but the collective result is to deepen the very recession they are trying to guard against. It's probably unavoidable for governments to offer a 'fiscal stimulus' (ie throw lots of public money at the problem), but this reinforces the addiction to consumerism that has led us here in the first place.

It is clear that doing nothing is not an option, and that whetever we do there is going to be pain (which means real people suffering in real ways). This offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make the transition to a saner, more sustainable, less de-humanised approach to creating and stewarding wealth. Which makes it all the more sad that our leaders seem dead set on finding a way back to 'the way things were before'.

One of yesterday's papers called this the 'spend now, pray later' budget. It is a shame that none of those responsible have the vision or courage to reverse that order.

Vanilla faith

I got another email from the Tony Blair Faith Foundation today. And every time they send me something, it gets scarier and scarier.

Blair's initial vision for the foundation (as set out in his Westminster Cathedral speech in April) was to promote the relevance of faith in the modern world, to educate about the role of faith, and to encourage faiths to work together towards achieving the Millenium Development Goals. So far, so good. He was also keen to stress that "The Foundation will expressly not be about chucking faith into a doctrinal melting pot. It is not about losing our own distinctive faith." Trouble is, he seems to have had problems communicating this vision to the staff he has recruited to take it forwards.

Today's email ends with the following quote: 'faith is the belief that human kindness is at the core of our souls. Therefore, it doesn't matter what faith you believe in. What matters is that we all have the ability to use our faiths as a positive catalyst for peace and goodwill in our increasingly interdependent world.' I guess this is superficially inspiring (in the same manner as a Whitney Houston song). But none of the world's great faiths actually believe this kind of vacuous fluff.

Whatever it was that motivated Jesus to go to the cross, it wasn't a vague concept of human kindness or a conviction that it doesn't matter what you believe in. Deploying the redemptive power of faith to targets as challenging as the Millenium Development Goals means recognising and respecting the power and passion of people's beliefs for what they are, not trying to redefine them into some kind of post-religious niceness.

Right now the Tony Blair Faith Foundation aren't promoting the relevance of faith. They are effectively trying to start a new one, and recruit a generation of young people to join it. And that scares me.

Marks out of ten

I walked into Millbank Tower for the the Theos annual lecture this week with high hopes. It's not every day that you get to hear the Director-General of the BBC address the subject of 'faith, morality, and the media'.

It's amazing how disappointed you can be in less than two hours. Not with the event itself, but with Mark Thompson's sterile treatment of the subject. The DG spoke like a guilty man with a good lawyer: defensive, unadventurous, and sticking strictly to his script. The only consolation he must have taken from the night was that it was a lecture not a debate; any half decent opponent would have had a field day.

It appears that the head of our most influential media institution refuses to even contemplate the idea that the contents of our airwaves could have any effect on the moral character of our society. His formula for making editorial judgements was 'the benefits of a programme weighed against the potential offense'. This again abdicates any form of cultural leadership; the only moral failing the BBC now officially recognises is a failure to get away with it. It is also an open invitation to a culture of offense-taking, as it is clear that our national broadcaster chooses to be swayed by brute force of opposition rather than quality of argument.

The overall effect was like watching a man realising in front of a live audience that the words coming out of his mouth were just inherited dogma and actually made no sense. Admittedly it's a tricky subject to wrestle with, but the Director General is paid over three quarters of a million pounds a year to do exactly that.

In best BBC fashion, I am obliged to try and find at least one positive thing to say. As he staggered across the finish line, Mark Thompson observed that "whatever else it is, religion is about story-telling – about stories which are so compelling that they can change the lives of the hearers for ever. There has never been a better moment in history for story-telling". Amen to that.

Time to leave the closet?

This morning I was at a politics and government prayer breakfast put on by the guys at Holy Trinity Brompton. As always, the atmosphere was great and the sense that Christians in political life can share genuine fellowship and unity despite party differences was tangible.

Because it was an off-the-record event, I won't reveal the names of any of the attorney generals, financial secretaries to the treasury, or shadow home secretaries present. However, it did make me realise that Christian faith in public life is not quite such a rare commodity as some would have us believe. Maybe it is Tony Blair's fear that anyone making a public declaration of their beliefs would be branded a 'nutter' that is causing people not just in politics but in sport, media, and the arts to be somewhat backwards about coming forwards.

But it did give me an idea. Maybe we should start an 'outing' website, on which we could publish sordid details of public figures' dalliances as churchwardens, gospel choir singers, or former student Christian Union committee members. Perhaps it would help people to realise that in our tolerant 21st century society it is OK to come 'out of the closet' and admit that you are.. well... yes... a follower of Jesus. Any nominations to the usual address.

Lock, stocks, and 2 smoking Bishops

In an apparently co-ordinated assualt a fortnight ago, the Archbishops of Canterbury and York both waded into the fray surrounding the credit crisis. Dr Williams (in typically measured tone) called us to "recover some sense of the connection between money and material reality", while Dr Sentamu (in characteristically less-than-measured tone) called those responsible "bank robbers and asset strippers" and observed that "One of the ironies about this financial crisis is that it makes action on poverty look utterly achievable".

They have a point. There is a current trend for comparing the money required to tackle global poverty to our spending on luxuries (America's annual expenditure on golf or Europe's on ice cream are two that spring to mind). But whether or not you are willing to forego your 4 iron or 99 flake, the sum is clearly dwarfed by what has been pumped into the banking system over the last few days.

This morning's Metro (London's normally celebrity obsessed free commuter rag) ran with a headline 'Bank Aid', and pointed out that the latest finanicial bail-out is alredy costing 30 times the amount raised by the global band aid / live aid initiative. Not bad for a paper who's other lead story involved Madonna's footwear. I blame the bishops, and a good thing too...

Is it believable that I believe what I believe?

Jamie Whyte's column in the Times on Tuesday was one to make any Christian sit up and think. Buried amongst the narrow minded vitriol and unimaginative sideswipes at Christian politicians was this remarkable prophetic gem:

"Suppose you believed that Heaven exists and that only some of us will qualify to live in it for ever, as the vast majority of Christians claim to. How would this affect your behaviour? It would depend on what you thought were the admission criteria for Heaven. But whatever you took these virtues to be, they would utterly dominate your life. When everlasting bliss is on offer, nothing else matters at all. People who believed in Heaven would surely act quite unlike those who do not. Yet the expected behavioural difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioural test for belief."

I could imagine Jesus saying the same thing (although he would have used shorter words). Though Whyte misses the rather important point that Christians don't believe eternal life can be 'earned' through behaviour, the rest of his observation is spot on.

The great shame is that Jamie Whyte has cleary never met an actual follower of Jesus close up. Having just got back from the 24-7 Prayer movement's annual gathering, I humbly suggest that it would have been a good place to start looking. And of course, if you feel that these guys are having a bit too much fun in the midst of personal sacrifice, a brief trip to the jails of China or North Korea should settle the point once and for all.

But I'm still going to use his article when I preach in church this Sunday.

Counter Ideology

Did you know that the British Government has a ‘Counter Ideology Team’? Until last week neither did I, until I spent a fascinating half day working with them as part of my ‘professional’ job as a consultant advising the Foreign Office on change management.

The Counter Ideology Team’s objective is to “challenge the violent extremist narrative and support the voice of the majority”. Their focus is on British Muslims, and they fund a variety of initiatives to ensure that moderate voices get heard and militants become marginalised.

The very existence of this team raises a whole load of fascinating questions about the likelihood of their success and the implications of their methods. I was still thinking about this when I came across a brilliant quote in Brian McLaren’s thought provoking book on faith and politics “Everything Must Change: Jesus, global crises, and a revolution of hope.” Get this:

“When groups of seemingly disparate people defect and band together in the way of Jesus, they form what we might call unterror cells. They secretly plot detonations of hope. They quietly conspire to set off explosions of spontaneous kindness. They plan gentle coup d’états to replace regimes of domination and oppression with movements of empowerment and service. In a complete overthrow of violent terrorism, they fly airplanes of generosity into towers of need and plant improvised encouragement devices by roadsides in neighbourhoods everywhere, seeking God’s kingdom and God’s equity.”

The answer to radical evil is not moderate anything, but radical good. I dream of a movement whose passionate commitment to the cause of Christ leads them acts of kindness more extreme and audacious than anything the kingdom of darkness can muster. And when the Counter Ideology Team come after me and accuse me of ‘radicalising young people’, I want the charges to stick.

Reportage

It's been a good year for... reports on the role of Christianity in public life. We have endured a long period in which much of what was coming out either seemed to be divorced from the 'real world' or so heavily rooted in it that it was incapable of understanding what faith was really all about. In the last 12 months there have been a number of challenging contributions which at last seem to be hitting the spot.

The Theos think tank launched themselves with 'Doing God', whose title was inspired by Alistair Cameron's infamous 'we don't do God' statement that defined the Blair era. Nick Spencer does a thorough job of clearing up a lot of the misconceptions that plague our understanding of Christian involvement in the public square (on both sides of the debate). The new sequel 'Neither Private nor Privileged' builds on this foundation by offering a vision of exactly what form this engagement ought to take. The conclusion is ambiguous but important: the church must remain faithful to her vision and calling, regardless of the political climate. Where she can succeed in demonstrating and convincing people that this vision embodies the 'public good', there will be significant opportunities to participate in the mechanisms of society.

Closer to the political sharp end, a committee of Christian MPs recently published 'Faith in the Future'. Their aim was to look at what contribution Christians can make in creating a better future for our children. Being a cross party group they fought shy of detailed policy proposals, but do offer a framework against which policies advanced by any of their parties ought to be judged. The report may have lacked the spice of controversy, but I suspect that it will prove a valuable compass for the longer term.

Avoiding controversy was clearly not a priority for the authors of 'Moral but No Compass', a hard hitting study into the relationship between Government and the church (primarily the Church of England). Their conclusions pull no punches: the Government is accused of under recognising the contribution the church makes, of distorting the figures to make this contribution less visible, of deliberately favouring minority religions over mainstream Christianity, and of creating a culture of institutional atheism which discriminates against Christian proposals in the delivery of public services. Their research is thorough, and left Communities minister Hazel Blears furiously denying while appearing very much in denial on the whole issue.

Between the four there is an emerging sense of an objective, a strategy, some tactics, and plenty of ammunition. Uneasy metaphors for followers of the 'Prince of Peace'. It will be intriguing to see how they are put into practise.

No such thing as a free lunch

May 27th: a small group of us had lunch with legendary American Christian political activist Jim Wallis. Whether you entirely agree with Jim's politics (or his theology), it is hard to deny that he is one of the most enduring and effective voices on the U.S. scene right now.

I wrote an article summarising our conversations for the the 24-7 UK website. You can read it here, but it ends as follows:

"24-7 started by praying for the lost; we soon found ourselves propelled onto the streets of Ibiza and Macedonia and Manchester. We started praying for the poor; we felt compelled to go to addicts in Vancouver and prostitutes in Boystown. Now we are feeling a growing sense of urgency to pray for parliament and government. It doesn’t take a grade 1 prophet to work out what happens next. Our vision is ‘to transform the world through movements and communities of Christ centred, mission minded prayer’. We know that politics on its own is not the key to transforming the world, but it looks like it’s definitely going to be a part of the mix."

The ravings of Sindy

The Independent on Sunday (aka the 'Sindy') cused quite a stir yesterday by running a front page article on the 'Evangelical conspiracy' to influence parliament.

It turns out that their gripe is with CARE, the Christian campaigning group who (amongst other things) have about a dozen young people working as interns in MP's offices in and around Westminster.

I know a number of the CARE interns, who must have been surprised (to say the least) to find their names splashed across the front page of a national newspaper yesterday. On the face of it, it is difficult to work out why they have been singled out for such harsh treatment. There are well over a thousand interns working in and around Westminster. Labour MPs frequently have staff members provided by trade unions, Conservatives get their assistants funded by private industry, campaign groups provide researchers, and so on. This is simply how the system works; MPs get resources to represent effectively on their issues of interest, and groups get a chance to participate in the democratic process and ensure their views are heard in the debate. Far from roaming the corridors of power seeking to manipulate unsuspecting MPs (even if such a thing existed), most interns work hard on the mundane aspects of an MP's role: administration, correspondence, and trying to assist ordinary constituents like you and I.

The only question of any substance in the Sindy's rant is that of charitable status. The Charities Commission are already looking at this as part of their review of religeous charities and public benefit. It would be deeply concerning if they concluded that engaging via democratic institutions is no longer deemed to be 'in the public interest'. This is the exactly the kind of social exclusion that extremists of all shades thrive on. However, the impact on CARE would be negligible. The £70K they spend on the intern programme is less than 4% of their budget, and moving it into the 'non-charitable activities' category would be a purely technical adjustment with no real-world effect.

The only explanation for why such a non-issue could make it to the front page of a national newspaper is that the secularist lobby are getting nervous. It is already clear that, far from being a spent force, religeous thinking will be one of the key influences shaping global politics in the 21st century. Despite the best efforts of militant atheist Evan Harris MP to nobble the committee stage, Gordon Brown has already had to make unprecedented concessions in allowing a free vote on the morally controversial Human Fertilisation & Embryology bill.

As Mahatma Ghandi said: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win'. For those of us who are used to having our faith ignored or laughed at, the Sindy have just declared that stage 3 is about to begin. It's going to be a rough and uncomfortable ride, but we can at least take comfort that there is only one more stage to go.

Moses and the credit crunch

14th March 08: today I got a 'phone call from my bank asking if I could lend them some money. They didn't quite put it that way, of course. The actual offer was 'would you like to pay less interest each month?', which it turned out would require me to agree a new, lower borrowing limit on our (partly paid off) flexible mortgage. Evidence (if any more were needed) that the banks are feeling the chill winds of a global credit crisis, and are resorting to ingenious ways to escape from their existing lending commitments in order to release precious cash for use elsewhere.

Moses (circa 1500BC) affirmed that to 'lend to many and borrow from none' would be a sign of God's blessing on a nation. The opposite (becoming an indebted borrower with nothing to lend to others) was bluntly described as a curse. In modern Britain, we seemed to believe that we had managed to reverse this biblical wisdom, with unrestrained consumer spending regarded as a sign of economic health. The resultant 'have whatever you want and have it now' culture has led us to run up an incomprehensible trillion pounds of household debt. Now I am forced to watch people I care about starting to suffer the consequences of their ill-advised spending sprees. Whether you blame cynical commercial organisations or complicitly naive individuals, the result is going to be real hardship for some and financial stress for many.

I declined the bank's kind offer to halve my credit facility in return for saving me a couple of quid a month. This doesn't mean that we are 'safe' as a family; in our interconnected global economy, when one group suffers the pain gets widely distributed. Our best protection is probably to return to some of the oldest economic principles of all. No one individual can solve our economic woes on their own, but with courageous and visionary leadership it is still possible that we can all do so by acting together.

Psychotically Godly Bad-Ass Dude

Feb 08: In the space of a week, I just got paid what I am taking to be a pair of back-handed compliments.

First off, and to the great amusement of our church, Pete Greig described us as a 'psychotically godly family'. While psychosis is not normally regarded as a good thing, there is a one definition which runs along the line of 'perceiving reality in different ways and acting accordingly'. And on that definition, I guess that we are probably guilty as diagnosed.

Then on the Thursday, Lise and I were doing our weekly evening shift on the bar'n'bus, a mobile youth centre run by local Christian volunteers. One of the things that the kids struggle to get their heads around is that we all give up our evenings without being paid, just so that they can have somewhere safe to hang out. On explaining (again) that we do it because Jesus cares about them and therefore so do we, one teenage girl came back with the direct challenge: "so are you a Christian then?" I confirmed that I was. "You don't look like a Christian", she retorted. "You look like some kind of bad-ass dude" (I guess it must have been the leather jacket). Unlike Pete, she then expressed concern that this observation might have offended me, to which I was able to reassure her that it was possibly the nicest thing anyone had said to me all week.

On the bus team we are priviliged to have several kind, gentle, deeply spiritual older ladies. They represent beautifully one aspect of what it means to be a follower of Jesus. But wilder examples like the Celtic Church, the early apostles, and the 18th century missionaries prove that this is not the only aspect. And in the challenging, exposing, often confrontational world of political life, maybe what we need right now is band of psychotically godly bad-ass dudes...

The ayatollah of Canterbury?

Furious controversy this week after Dr Rowan Williams, the head of the Church of England, was apparently quoted as supporting the idea of introducing elements of Islamic Sharia law into the British legal system.

Despite sharing a taste in beards with the spiritual leaders of revolutionary Iran, it appears on closer examination that the Archbishop was not advocating hand chopping as an alternative to community service for first offences of shoplifting. His gripe is with the one-size-fits-all secular legislation that has increasingly started encroaching into areas that used to be regarded as matters of conscience (often religious conscience).

He has watched with alarm as respected Christian adoption agencies have been threatened with closure if they do not comply with new regulations requiring them to place children with gay couples. A similar issue is brewing over the human fertilisation and embryology bill currently passing through parliament.

Dr Williams' solution seems to be a more flexible legislative approach which makes space for religious belief through providing opt-outs and statutory alternatives. And if he is going to advocate this for Christians, he senses that he would also have to support it for Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and everyone else.

This week's reaction must surely show that his approach, whatever its merits, is dead in the water. The British commitment to 'one law for all' goes back to Magna Carta. And thus yet another nail is driven into the coffin of the sacred-secular divide.

The message is clear. If Christians are going to be free to live according to their conscience in modern Britain, they will need to strive vigorously to ensure that the laws of this country continue to reflect broadly Christian values. This can hardly be a bad thing: Moses first made the point that righteous laws are a blessing to any nation. But it seems that the alternative is not just social sub-optimisation but creeping religious persecution.