Welfare to work to washed up.

Many thanks to the friend who recently drew my attention to this article in the Guardian. It's an excellent description of the problems facing those on JSA and similar benefits who are trying to move into work, but finding that the only jobs available are unstable or temporary, pay less per week than they would get on benefits.

Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall.

Why are Christians (or some Christians) so bad at communicating their message? I mean, it's not as if it can't be communicated simply. Take John 3.16 for example: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." That's at once simple and incredibly deep, but even small children can understand it (on one level).

So why do some Christians make such a mess of trying to communicate the message? Ok, I admit that it's not always easy to explain what we believe, and I'll admit to having made a mess of it myself on occasion. But some attempts, rather than just failing to get the message across, can do actual harm to people's understanding of Christianity.

Channel 4's "You have been watching" last week looked at religious broadcasting as part of the programme. British broadcasting got off pretty lightly- a quick giggle at Songs of Praise in a semi-affectionate way, then moved on to what's on US TV. Oh dear.

I'm sure not all Christian TV programmes are as bad as the ones featured. But really, you have to wonder who they think is watching them.

A couple of weeks ago they showed a puppet show, with some hideous puppets that would be guaranteed to frighten off any children that could have withstood the shows' moral tone without feeling slightly sick. This week it was the turn of "Bibleman." A bloke, encased in plastic armour and a superhero suit that would look more at home at a kids party rather than on TV, running around helping kids with spiritual or moral problems and destroying comic-book bad guys by quoting the Bible at them.

Now, the idea itself isn't necessarily a particularly bad one. Children's workers and publications use similar things all the time. But it was so badly done all I could do was cringe. Even more than I usually do at kids work. Apart from that, giving kids the idea that all they have to do is memorise bits of the Bible and spout them at bad things and it'll all be ok is rather deceptively simple. You have to learn how to apply that particular bit of scripture and what it is actually telling you to do. You can't just quote it and sit back. The devil is quite capable of using the Bible for his own purposes (see Matthew 4 v6).

Then the programme looked at a kind of chat show presented by two cheerful guys of the type who do their best to perpetuate myths such as that religion the enemy of reason, and that it is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

For example, did you know that the ergonomic design of the banana proves the existence of God beyond doubt? No, I didn't either. Apparently the fact it fits in your hand so well proves that God designed it to be of use to humans. I was actually pleased when someone pointed out that it fits just as well in an ape's hand. You know, the apes the same people say we didn't evolve from.

They also claim (on their website) to be able to prove intelligent design over evolution in 3 minutes, and to show you a "biblical" way to convert your friends by bypassing their sense of reason. I must say, I haven't watched the videos that teach you this. It would just get me too frustrated, angry and sad.

I hate it when my brothers and sisters in faith are mocked for their beliefs. It makes me very, very sad to see what they consider essential to their faith. But really, you can't help but cringe and laugh at some of the things they say. It makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall when I see that somehow, the church has managed to be its own worst enemy when it comes to communicating the gospel message. Satan must be very happy.

Holiday season

A friend of mine has just written a post about the idea of 'staycations,' ie holidays in your home country. Since pretty much every holiday I've ever had (unless you count a couple of school trips) is a 'staycation' by this definition I have to admit to being slightly puzzled by all the fuss. Is the difference between holidays abroad and holidays in the UK really so big? Why isn't the UK a good enough tourist destination for some people- why doesn't it count as a 'proper' holiday, which is an implication of the term 'staycation'?

I went on holiday with some friends last week. It was only 3 nights and I wish it had been a bit longer, but I enjoyed it. It didn't rain at all during the day (unlike last year!) which is an important factor when you're camping. We went by trains, which (most surprisingly!) all ran on time. We carried all our tents and camping gear with us, which isn't the easiest thing to do by train and by foot, although I admit we cheated and got a taxi from the station to the campsite and back because we couldn't face carrying it, and were a bit concerned about time.

We were camping in the Peak District- Buxton, to be precise. We were there, not just because it is a lovely area (although I can remember some good holidays in the Peaks as a child) but mostly because it's where the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival is held every year. This is the third year we've been. The first time, like this, was perfect camping weather during the day- not too hot, but pleasantly warm, with very little rain although it rather cold at night this year. Last year sadly was something of a washout, and a leaking tent didn't help! But we were close enough to civilisation and a warm, dry theatre to sit in in the evenings (not to mention local pubs!) so we survived!

So this year we were happy to divide our days between wandering the countryside looking for an elusive waterfall, patronising the local shops, (particularly the second hand bookshop!) and 'fringe' events at the festival. In the evenings there were G&S performances, we saw excellent productions of The Grand Duke, The Gondoliers and Princess Ida. Not to mention disturbing the local wildlife (and probably the local population) with our singing. And drinking tea.

The point I'm trying to make is that we had a good time. Obviously this kind of trip wouldn't be to everyone's tastes! But would I rather do that or have what many people consider a 'proper' holiday lounging on a Spanish beach? Well, I think that might get a bit boring after a day or two. Of course, I wouldn't mind a bit of sunshine, and a swim in the sea. But do you know, I think I'd choose Buxton with my friends. And the G&S.

The Church and the world

As I try to work out how my faith relates to the world, one question constantly reoccurs to me. That is how far faith is a personal matter, and how far it is a public one. I don't mean whether I should keep it to myself or go around shouting it from the rooftops- the answer to that is simple. I can't keep it to myself, and I don't want to, and I don't think I should. Although I don't think shouting from the rooftops is going to do much good- especially if it's me doing it- my faith affects other people from the way I talk, and live, and act, so I cannot keep it purely to myself.

What I often ask is how far I (and/ or the church) am justified in imposing my view of right and wrong on the whole of society, whose views of what is or isn't wrong may be significantly different. Just because I believe that x is wrong, does that give me the right to try to force people who do not share my beliefs not to do it? In a democracy, the majority decide (at least in theory) what is or is not illegal. Why, if the church is a minority in society, as it sadly is, should we expect the rest of society to do what we say?

That's not to say that the church should conform to society's norms and standards of what is acceptable. Far from it. The church, in its early days, was not connected to the state in any way. They did not expect governments to do as they requested. Quite the opposite- they were the ones who were often outside the law, and prepared to defy society's behavioural norms to obey God. For example, Paul in his letters has plenty to say warning the Christians in Corinth not to get dragged into the demeaning sexual practices which were associated with pagan idols.

Reformer and theologian Martin Luther recognised that even in a 'Christian country' not everyone could be ruled in the same way, and developed his 'Doctrine of the two kingdoms' to explain what the relationship between church and state should be, in his opinion. Without going into too much detail (much of which I can't remember offhand) he recognised that some people would obey God's laws through choice, while others, who do not, cannot be coerced into doing so against their free choice. While I would probably disagree with Luther in some points, I think there's a lot of truth in that. Of course, if everyone agreed to follow God's laws (always supposing they could agree on what that meant!) the world would be a better place. But being realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Another point, and one which the church- often with some justice- is accused of, is of presenting what is merely culture or tradition as an article of faith. For example, the debate around women's leadership in the church has a lot to do with this, and debates over how the biblical passages referring to it are to be interpreted in the light of the culture they were originally written in and to are sadly not likely to go away any time soon.

That's not to say I don't think that leaders of the faith community, such as the archbishops of Canterbury and York shouldn't speak out, (see here) or that the church shouldn't express it's views of what's going on in the country. That's part of our duty to be salt and light to and in the world. We can state what is right and wrong. But can we expect those who don't believe to follow the same standards of behaviour as we do if they don't believe they are right? I'm not sure we can.