Here goes...

We start and end each day with prayer We teach our children to pray We read the Scriptures daily We publicly confess our failures to each other & to God weekly We share bread & wine together when we meet We meet together with our local community of fellow Christians  We work hard, for God, not for our employers We give away a proportion of our income, often 10% or more We do not swear We do not get drunk We don't do drugs but experience the energy of the Holy Spirit We remain faithful to our wives and husbands We encourage those who are not married to stay celibate and develop deep friendships We try to meet the needs of the poor as far as we are able We support other Christians elsewhere in the world We try to share our faith with whoever is willing to listen We honour our dead with burial in hope of Resurrection We try to be honest in all our dealings We look for ways to love our neighbour as ourselves W...

The debate on women Bishops often follows familiar tracks. On the one side there is the argument from equality or justice. Men and women are and should be equal; therefore they should have equal rights to posts within society and within the Church. There is therefore no reason why women should not be ordained bishops, as they can do the job just as well as men. On the other side there is the complementarian case. This starts from the position that men and women are different and ‘complementary’ to each other. The argument is then often used to suggest that it is appropriate to reserve some roles for men and others for women. This usually ends up with denying the possibility of women being ordained bishops, or even priests or preachers. Does complementarianism always lead to a denial of the validity of female church leadership? I want to argue that when you take complementarianism seriously (mind you, I don’t really like the term - I want to suggest another which I will come on to i...

Last weekend, there was a bit of discussion around wearing the cross as a public demonstration of Christian faith. Cardinal Keith O'Brien suggests  Christians should openly wear a cross as a symbol of their belief. Giles Fraser , however perfers the empty tomb as a symbol (interesting - what would an empty tomb lapel badge look like?). For him, the cross is a symbol of torture and the domestication of Christianity to empire. To my mind, both miss the point about the way the cross works as a Christian symbol. Originally it was pagans who mocked Christians with the accusation that their leader had been executed on a cross - a form of execution reserved mainly for slaves and criminals - those to be humiliated. The cross was the asymbol of defeat and shame with which Christians were taunted. And yet before long, those very Christians turned the accusation on its head by decorating their churches and signing themselves with the cross with a delicious touch ...

It’s taken me a while, but I’ve been thinking a bit about David Cameron’s recent foray into religion. It received a bit of a mixed reaction from all sides, including the usual rants from the atheists, but also perhaps a surprisingly lukewarm response from Christian voices. Some liked his reminder of our Christian heritage, some thought it was unrealistic given the levels of secularism we now have, some felt his vision of Christianity was too moralistic. I also read a piece by George Monbiot recently in the Guardian about what he called “The great political conflict of our age – between neocons and the millionaires and corporations they support on one side, and social justice campaigners and environmentalists on the other. ” and a lightbulb went on in my mind connecting the two pieces. David Cameron’s version of Christian faith is one of standards, morality, maintaining order and uprightnesss. It is typical of a more right-of-centre appreciation of religion for bringing order an...

Sepp Blatter has done it again. Switzerland's most famous buffoon has managed to alienate most of the human race with his comments about racial abuse in football. According to our beloved head of FIFA, you can get abused for the colour of your skin all game and are then you're meant to shake hands and forget it as if it really doesn't matter. But it does. And we know it does and it isn't good enough to pretend that it doesn't and can just be let go. The public outrage shows our sense of injustice and the desire for judgement - that when something has been done that is fundamentally wrong, it needs to be dealt with properly, not brushed under the carpet. One charge often made against Christian faith is that the doctrine of divine judgement is exclusive and violent. The idea that God should judge is deemed harsh and unacceptable. Instead, the idea of 'indiscriminate hospitality' is supposed to be more worthy of God, who should accept everyone, with no qu...

If you ever wonder whether it is worthwhile praying, and whether it makes any difference, here is a bit of early Christian theology that might help. Tertullian was a Latin-speaking theologian of the C2nd with an ear for a good phrase and a great delight in shocking people. How about this:   " Prayer alone conquers God. But Christ has no desire that it should do any evil deed; he has conferred upon it every power of doing good. Therefore it knows only how to call back the souls of the departed from the journey of death itself, to strengthen the weak, to restore the sick, to cleanse the possessed, to open the doors of prison, to loosen the chains for the innocent. The same prayer absolves sins, repels temptations, puts down persecutions, strengthens the weak-hearted, delights the high-minded, leads wanderers home, soothes the waves, confounds robbers, feeds the poor, governs the rich, lifts up the fallen, supports the unsteady, holds firm those who stand. Pray...