One of the perks of working at TGBC is getting a sneak preview of The Briefing before it comes out.
But I must confess that the title of the March issue’s main article, “The lost art of public Bible reading”, didn’t exactly grab me.
The piece itself, though, did. There’ll be more blogs on it soon (or you can just get a copy of The Briefing here): but here’s what jumped out at me as I scanned the first page.
The Bible says to churches “Devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture” (1 Timothy 4 v 13).
And the word “devote” can also be translated “addiction”. So you could translate the verse:
“Be addicted to the reading-out-loud of the Bible”.
Wouldn’t it be great if “addicted” accurately described our attitude to God’s word? Hooked. Can’t get enough. Keep going back. Feel the lack of it if we go too long without.
I’d love to be addicted to Scripture. Unfortunately, too often I’m happy going cold turkey. Sometimes I kick the habit altogether.
But tomorrow, as I hear “the public reading of Scripture”, I’ll be praying that I get addicted, hooked on the amazing experience of hearing the God of heaven, the One who flung stars into space, speak to a bunch of his fallen, flawed creatures.
Can’t wait.
Coverage of religion in the news has doubled… to 2% of the total.
That’s the figure in the US comparing 2009 to 2010, anyway. I would guess it’d be still lower in the UK. Does anyone know if similar figures exist for Britain?
And would you like to see more or less coverage of religion in general, and Christianity in particular, in the media? We’d love to hear your thoughts.
Just to get the conversation started, I tentatively wonder if I’d be happy to see less coverage. Issues surrounding biblical Christianity are often reported negatively and/or ignorantly. It’s noticeable that the top three religious stories covered in the States last year centred on mosque-building controversy, priests’ sex abuse, and Koran burning. Not a great advert for religion.
So perhaps it’s better for people to notice Christianity not on the pages of a newspaper, but in the actions and words of a Christian friend. In which case, no news is good news.
On the flip side, Christian stuff in the media (even if mildly or wildly misreported) can often be a good prompt for conversations with friends. Perhaps all news is good news…
Do comment below!
New blog on the Old Testament
The British Humanist Association is urging people to "tick 'no religion' if you're non-religious" in this year's census.
Their point is that people ticking "Christian" just because they're baptised, or British, skews the data and gives religious groups too much influence over government policy.
I can't help wanting to agree with the strapline of the campaign (though not the reasons behind it):
"If you're not religious, for God's sake say so."
If people didn't assume they were Christians simply because of being sprinkled when young, or the nationality of their passport, or their impressive annual carol service attendance:
And perhaps it would clear the undergrowth of misunderstanding so that Jesus' words would once more amaze people with their simplicity, their offer and their command:
"The kingdom of God is near. Repent and believe the good news!" (Mark 1 v 15).
Maybe I'll write that in the "religion" box on this year's census (in very small letters!)
Interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph last Sunday (obviously!) as Gordon Brown delivered the latest round of Blair-Brown sniping. This time, the battlefield was religion in politics.
Three opinions were noted:
This has got me thinking. I know I don’t agree with the first (the irony is that by deliberately not "doing God", Campbell was in fact taking God into account, if only by ignoring him. You can't "not do God"). I know I do agree with the third.
But should I agree with the second? In what circumstances might I agree, or disagree?
Can anyone leave a comment outlining in broad terms how Christians should approach politics? Or a useful (short!) book or resource on the subject?
And while I wait for your help, I’m going to take a look at these three helpful articles/sermons:
.jpg)
Six-month-old babies' minds can show signs of future criminal activity, according to an American scientist.
Psychologist Dr Adrian Raine said it might soon be possible to identify future criminals in the first few years of their life.
Apart from the ethical questions about such predictive profiling (it's the plot of the film Minority Report in real life), what struck me was a quotation from Dr Raine in today's Scottish Daily Record:"Seeds of sin are sown early in life."
So according to this scientist, you'll soon be able to tell that a particular baby is likely to sin in a particularly anti-social way later in life. Or, to put it another way, the "seeds" of an area sin are in the helpless baby, years before they actually commit that kind of sin.
But how does he know that the seeds are sown "early in life"? What happens to the baby between being born and being six months old that sows those seeds? Is it how quickly their nappy is changed? Or how much TV they're sat in front of? Or how many rusks they chew on?
Or is it that they're born with the seeds of sin already in them? Could it be true of each person that, as King David put it: "I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (Psalm 51 v 5)? That's part of the doctrine known as "original sin": that as humans we sin because we're sinful, rather than that we're sinful because we sin.
For decades, the mainstream view has been that children are born good, and then slowly corrupted and made evil. Our sin is society's fault, or someone else's fault: it's not our fault. Dr Raine is only one scientist, of course, and his views are by no means widely accepted. But perhaps there's a hint here that in this area, what the scientific community says is catching up with what God's word has been saying for millennia. Not that you'll read about that in any newspaper!
Being a home group leader is really not easy. For the three years I led a home group, I only rarely felt I'd "got it right", and I found it far harder than preaching or leading or one-to-oneing. How you teach the Bible, how you encourage and guide the discussion, how you phrase questions… these are all things learned mainly through experience/mistakes/stumbling across what works.
Now there's a bit of a short cut: at this new blog for home group leaders, you can find some "potted proverbs". Well worth going to if you're a home group leader, obviously, but also if you're a home group member, so you can see what home groups can and should be, and how you can be a really encouraging part of it.
Just a quick flavour of the latest couple of posts:
This year’s London Men's Convention theme exhorts us to be Faithful to God at work, home, church and in mission, whatever the cost. Convention speakers include:
With solo music from Nathan Tasker and the spine-tingling experience of praising the Lord in a choir of 4000 at the Royal Albert Hall, this will be a convention not to miss. More details from the Christian conventions website or book tickets from the Royal Albert Hall.
Here’s a helpful explanation for why the resurrection isn’t automatically ridiculous, from Paul Perkin, once a theoretical physicist and now vicar of St Mark’s Battersea.
Of course, just because Jesus could have risen doesn’t mean he did. Which brings us onto the wealth of historical evidence for his rising from the dead…
That strikes me as an answer which begins where most people are at, and helps people to see that you don’t have to rule resurrection out as an sensible explanation.
You’ll be able to watch Paul’s full answer, as well as many other great answers to common objections to Christianity, on the new evangelistic Christianity Explored website, which is set to be launched in April along with the new CE DVD and books.
