Muslim reaction to Osama bin Laden's death; Prince William's trainer-wearing ninja nun; sharia-compliant resorts

So last week's thread was active, wasn't it? You were off-topic at times but you were playing nicely – relatively speaking – I didn't have the heart to break it up. Perhaps the secret to throbbing BTL action is to always include items on the pope, Dawkins and forced/arranged marriages. You could even base a drinking game around it. I'm off on (another) holiday, this time to Egypt, so there will be a pause in service. In the meantime here's a starter to whet your whistle.

• How do Muslims feel about the death of OBL? Are they, as Arsalan Iftikhar, taking to the streets to raise their takbirs to the sky? In an article for CNN he writes: "In addition to the vast majority of Americans who are relieved by his death, there are more than 1 billion Muslims around the world who salute the fact that Bin Laden's ungodly terrorist mischief has finally come to an end." Mischief isn't the word I'd use to describe the activities of a mass-murdering criminal, but let's put that to one side. In a follow-up, Iftikhar does a brief Q&A; for CNN where he explains why Bin Laden was never a Muslim leader but "became a symbol of Muslims with his long beard and turban." Mona Eltahawy has something to say about the frat-boy celebrations at Ground Zero (Fist pumps? Really? This isn't Jersey Shore). Huffington has a religious reaction roundup, while the Atlantic has the top 10 most tweeted Bible verses in response to OBL's death.

• What's going on Down Under? One Roman Catholic bishop has issued a public apology for his past behaviour while another, William Morris, is retiring early after the pope (drink!) basically told him to. To lose one bishop may be regarded as misfortune, to lose two looks like carelessness.

• Ninja nun unveiled. Thank you, Daily Mail, for revealing the name of the Reebok trainer-wearing nun who took pride of place next to the 29-year-old man who married his fiancee last Friday. I feel I can sleep more easily. Step – or rather spring – forward Sister Annaliese Brogden from the Community of the Sisters of the Church, an Anglican order.

• Earlier this week there was a mass at St George's Cathedral, although chances are you won't have read or heard about it. It took place on Monday, when OBL died, and drew up to 2,000 Catholic migrants who live and work in London. During his homily the Right Rev Thomas McMahon, bishop of Brentwood, said it was a "scandal and deeply unjust" that workers, especially migrant ones, were "exploited, taken advantage of and paid less than a living wage".

• I mentioned last week that I was going to a Muslim matchmaking event. This is not the case. I tried to buy a ticket, only to be told that the female places were sold out. I shall have to remain single, for longer. This could be an advertising slogan, except I don't know what the product is.

• When I get hitched – through an arranged marriage or not (drink!) – I will go to this sharia-compliant resort in the Maldives for my honeymoon. Political and environmental issues aside, it could be an interesting initiative for a holiday destination that promotes the sybaritic rather than the ascetic. I'm not saying that Muslims don't know how to have fun but sharia holidays aren't just about being booze-free, it's about modesty and privacy and segregated areas for men and women. As this terrifying but informative diagram explains. And then some.

See you in two weeks

xoxo

In the summer of 1805 a young man set sail on the long, perilous journey to India. He left friends, family and prospects behind in order to serve as a missionary in a foreign land. Already suffering the tuberculosis, the disease that had claimed the life of his mother and would soon also claim his two sisters, he forsook the prospects of a comfortable life as a minister or scholar and traveled to the far side of the world. He did so for the love of India, for the love of the gospel and ultimately for the love of God.

Henry Martyn was a brilliant scholar who studied at Cambridge and won the coveted title of Senior Wrangler which was bestowed upon the student who won the Cambridge University annual mathematics problem-solving competition, and was thus recognized as the University’s best undergraduate mathematician. While he was a brilliant mathematician, he also had a natural proclivity for languages. After his conversion as a young man his mentor Charles Simeon encouraged him to abandon his intention of becoming a lawyer and to dedicate his life to serving God as a missionary. Martyn was subsequently ordained in the Church of England and traveled to India as a chaplain of the East India Company. He was to live only six years after arriving in India, but in that time he produced an incredible body of work. He translated the New Testament, the Anglican Prayer Book and the Anglican Marriage Service into Hindustani; he translated the parables for use in his schools; he also ensured that the Persian translation of the New Testament was the finest possible, translated the Psalms in Persian and oversaw the translation of the Arabic New Testament. This translations were ultimately printed and distributed in the tens of thousands.

While he is remembered primarily as a translator, Martyn was also a pastor and preached on a weekly basis. He desperately desired to see lives changed, yet in his ministry witnessed not a single conversion. While this often left him discouraged, he took refuge in knowing that he had preached the gospel and left the listener without excuse. After his death it was discovered that several people were converted through his ministry and we can only wait until eternity to discover how many were saved by the reading of the Scriptures he translated.

Throughout his ministry Martyn suffered from poor health and often terrible loneliness. He desperately loved a woman he had left behind in England and often wished that he had been able to marry her and enjoy her companionship. Yet he labored on, finding his joy and strength in the Lord.

Thomas Babbington Macaulay memorialized Martyn as follows:

Here Martyn lies. In Manhood’s early bloom
The Christian Hero finds a Pagan tomb.
Religion, sorrowing o’er her favourite son,
Points to the glorious trophies that he won.
Eternal trophies! not with carnage red,
Not stained with tears by hapless captives shed,
But trophies of the Cross! for that dear name,
Through every form of danger, death, and shame,
Onward he journeyed to a happier shore,
Where danger, death, and shame assault no more.

It is fitting, perhaps, that the grave of Henry Martyn, a man who chose to live and die in obscurity, is nowhere to be found. The graveyard where he was laid to rest in Tokat has long since been destroyed in order to make way for building projects. Yet if one ventures to a nearby museum he will find the memorial stone that was erected over his grave many years after his death. The name has been defaced, but the inscription is still legible:

Chaplain of the Hon. East India Company,
Born at Truro, England, February 18, 1781,
Died at Tokat, October 16, 1812.
He laboured for many years in the East, striving to
Benefit mankind both in this work and that to come.
He translated the Holy Scriptures into Hindustani
And Persian,
And preached the God and Savior of whom they testify.
He will long be remembered in the East, where he was
Known as a man of God.

Henry Martyn is an inspiring figure who often reminded me of David Brainerd in his dedication, honesty, transparency and sacrifice. Like Brainerd, he made a lasting, eternal impact in only a few short years. I thoroughly enjoyed reading For the Love of India and eagerly commend it to you.

Sponsor:

 

"in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God."

The Virginia Company was founded and directed by a group of merchants and gentry who were motivated in part by the promise of strong economic returns for their investment. In order to exploit the rumored riches of North America, the company planned to build a trading post. From here they would be able to acquire furs and other valuables from the Indians and to sell them manufactured goods and textiles. The English investors also envisioned a search for gold and silver as well as the development of industries, such as the production of naval stores and the manufacture of wooden shingles.  
The Virginia Company also sought the conversion of the heathen (that is, converting Indians to Protestant Christianity), the expansion of the English kingdom, increased revenues for the king, employment for the English vagrant poor, and a market for English manufactured goods.  

Having been granted a Royal Charter, the Virginia Company in 1607 sent three ships to transport 120 colonists into Chesapeake Bay and establish a colony at Jamestown. For the next decade they would be in conflict with the Native American nations in the area.

The English looked upon the land as being un-owned and undeveloped in spite of the fact that they had to trade with the Indians who lived in the area for food. While the food sometimes included wild game, it was mostly from the crops which the Indians had planted and harvested. The English were delighted by some of the Indian crops, including strawberries (which were described as being larger and tastier than those in England) and persimmons. Persimmon bread was a common Indian gift.

Shortly after arrival, Captain John Smith led a small party up the Chickahominy River and was captured by a group of Powhatan (the tribe) under the leadership of Opechancanough. He was taken before the dominant chief, Powhatan (the title of a person), and was eventually released. Smith, described by his contemporaries as a self-promoting mercenary, reported that he had been kept in a comfortable and friendly fashion. Many years later he would tell a somewhat different story about being on the verge of being clubbed to death when a prominent woman intervened and saved his life. In one version of the story, he named Pocahontas (a nickname meaning the "spoiled child") as the woman who saved his life (she was about 10 years old at the time). He told this story only after the death of Pocahontas and after she had gained some fame among the English.

In 1607, an exploring expedition from the Virginia Company at Jamestown traveled up the James River. When the group encountered some Indians in a canoe, the group's leader, Christopher Newport, asked them for directions. One of them sketched a map of the river, its falls, and two native kingdoms beyond the falls. At the falls, Newport wanted to continue exploring on foot, but was told by Pawatah, a local village leader, that the Monacan would attack them for entering their territory.

In 1608, the English colonists found that most of their store were rotten or had been eaten by rats. The country-side around them had abundant game, and John Smith encouraged the colonists to live off the land. He sent groups to different places to gather food resources. However, many of the colonists preferred to get food by trading with the Indians. Consequently, materials were stripped from the fort so they could be traded to the Indians. Some colonists deserted to live with the Indians whose way of life they preferred.

The English introduced a new trade item to the Powhatan: sky blue Venetian glass beads. The traders told the Indians that these were a rare substance and that they were worn only by kings.

John Smith and a group of Englishmen travelled south on the Chesapeake Bay and up the Patuxent and Rappahannock Rivers. They had a short battle with the Mannahoac in which they wounded and captured Amoroleck. Amoroleck reported that there were four Mannahoac villages on the Rappahannock, each of which had its own leader. When asked what lay beyond the mountains, he indicated that he did not know as the woods were not burnt. The Indians regularly burned the forests to remove the underbrush and to enhance wild game and plants. Woods which were not burned were areas not used by the Indians, and hence "unknown."  

The English explorers also made contact with an Algonquian-speaking group whom they called Tockwogh (possibly Nanticoke?). With the help of the Tockwogh, the English then contacted an Iroquoian-speaking group, the Susquehannock and exchanged gifts with them. The English described the Susquehannock as a "giantlike-people".

Captain John Smith attempted to obtain corn from the Pamunkey who were under the leadership of Opechancanough. When the chief indicated that he was unwilling to trade, the captain held a gun to the chief's breast and threatened to kill him unless their boats were filled with twenty tons of corn. He also told the Pamunkey that if they did not fill his boats with corn, he would fill it with their dead carcasses.

The British in the seventeenth century felt that any legitimate government must have a monarch. In order to "elevate" the Powhatan to the status of a "real" nation, the English attempted to conduct a coronation ceremony for their chief. In this way, the chief would become a "king" and therefore a legitimate ruler in the eyes of the British. The ceremony was a comedy of cultural misunderstandings as the English attempted to choreograph a feudal ceremony in a society in which in two key elements of the ceremony - the crown and the act of bending the knee - were unknown.

One of the things that lured many English colonists to North America were the many rumors of gold and silver just waiting to be found. In 1608, the English colonists heard about an Indian mine in the interior. Lured by the possibility of gold, John Smith and six others with their Potomac guides in chains marched inland to the mine. They found a great hole dug with shells and hatchets. The mine, developed by the Indians to obtain minerals for making body paints, failed to yield any gold.

The first Anglo-Powhatan war began in 1609. The Powhatan felt that the advantages of trading with the English were not enough to warrant the difficulties which they caused. Part of the conflict came from the failure of the English to understand that the basis for the Indian economic system was generalized reciprocity: that is, one gives a gift to another to show that a social relationship exists and to reinforce that relationship and, in return, the recipient of the gift is expected to give another gift in return. When the colonists failed to make a return gift for a present of turkeys sent to them from the Powhatan, the relationship between the two groups was soured.

The violence between the two groups was sporadic and often disorganized. In one instance, the English were warned of an impending attack by Pocahontas. The English seemed to be unaware that her intervention may have been designed and implemented by the tribal council.

The English settlers were aided by Indian allies-Piscataway, Potomac, Nanticoke-who wanted to free themselves from Powhatan domination.

In 1609, an Anglican minister, Robert Gray, defended Indian ownership of the land which culminated in a general recognition of Indian land rights.

In 1610, chief Powhatan told the English settlers to leave his country or to confine themselves to their settlement at Jamestown. The English colonists were aware that the Indians could exterminate them if they so desired. The Powhatan stopped trading with the English and the colonists faced starvation because they could not obtain the corn and other food they needed from the Indians. It is reported that colonists ate their own dead to survive.

The next war began in 1610 when the English colonists, now reinforced by new soldiers and settlers from England, went to war against their Indian neighbors. They attacked the Pasbahegh, Nansemond, Warraskoyack, Kecoughtan, and Chickahominee. For the next four years, the English waged a brutal and atrocity-filled war against the Indians which resembled the English campaigns in Ireland. The English, under the banner of Jesus Christ, waged a religious war against the Indians whom they saw as the dangerous servants of the Devil.

In one attack, the English colonists destroyed a Paspahegh town, killing the female leader (described as the town's "queen") and killing a number of women and children. The women and children were killed after they had been captured. The colonists also burned the town of the Queen of Appamatuck.

In 1613, becoming desperate because of inadequate food supplies, the English colonists sent a ship up the Potomac river in an attempt to reach the Patawamakes and establish friendly trading relations with them.  In establishing friendly relations with the Patawamakes, the English found out that Pocahontas, the favorite daughter of Powhattan, was living among them. They kidnapped her and held her for ransom. To the dismay of the English, no ransom was paid.

As a condition of her release from her English captors, Pocahontas agreed to marry John Rolfe and become known as Rebecca Rolfe. At the marriage ceremony in 1614, Pocahontas was given away by her uncle Opechancanough. Two years later, John Rolfe took Pocahontas to England where she was used as a part of the Virginia Company's campaign to gain support for their American colonies.

The English colonists concluded a formal, written treaty with the Chickahominy in 1614. In the treaty the Indians agreed to send an annual tribute payment of corn to Jamestown. The treaty between the English and the Chickahominy appears to have been masterminded by Opechancanough. He seems to have deluded the English into believing that the Chickahominy could be trusted allies. At the same time, he drew the Chickahominy into a close relationship with the Powhatan confederacy.

By 1616, Opechancanough had talked the English into instructing his warriors in the use of the new snaphance muskets which used a flint-on-steel ignition. In exchange, Openchancanough allowed the English to give his people Christian instruction.

The English colonists in 1616 found that their food crops were low because they had been energetically promoting the raising of tobacco instead of food crops. They sent for their annual tribute of corn from the Chickahominy. The Indians, however, claimed that they had already paid the tribute. The next day, the English opened fire and killed 20-40 Indians. The English were unaware of the fact that they had been manipulated into this incident by Opechancanough who had advised the Chickahominy to resist the English demands and who had told the English that the Chickahominy were killing English cattle and swine.  

The first decade of Jamestown establishes the pattern of English settlement: while they rely on Indian help for their survival, they are insensitive to Indian concerns. They see the "solution" to the Indian "problem" in hard power: those who have the best weapons must be right, regardless of morality or law.  

Laurent Gbagbo a « insisté pour dire qu’il fallait panser les plaies » de la Côte d’Ivoire, a déclaré lundi 2 mai l’archevêque anglican sud-africain Desmond Tutu, après avoir rencontré l’ancien président à Korhogo (nord), dans sa résidence surveillée.

L’archevêque sud-africain, prix Nobel de la paix, est membre du groupe dit des Elders (Anciens), décidé à promouvoir « l’apaisement et la réconciliation ». Il était accompagné de l’ex-secrétaire général de l’ONU Kofi Annan, et de l’ancienne présidente d’Irlande et ex-haut-commissaire aux droits de l’homme de l’ONU, Mary Robinson.

Ils avaient rencontré dimanche 1er mai le chef de l’État ivoirien Alassane Ouattara, au pouvoir depuis l’arrestation le 11 avril de l’ex-président Laurent Gbagbo, après plus de quatre mois de crise post-électorale et quinze jours de guerre.

The royal wedding was a religious ceremony. Why won't the media face up to this fact? Why won't the Church of England?

Kirsty Wark's frozen, disdainful grimace said it all. Anchoring Newsnight on the evening of the royal wedding, she found herself completely at a loss to know how to respond to Martin Bashir's unexpected mention of religion. Presumably invited as a studio guest on the strength of his explosive interview with Princess Diana in 1995, Bashir had the poor taste to point out that the event for which the BBC had been providing round-the-clock coverage was actually a religious service.

Wark and her other two guests – like pretty much every commentator throughout the day - had been largely taken up with the surface imagery of the day's proceeding. Some of this was quite innocent, though not even a hardy, seasoned Newsnight presenter like Wark could resist yet more obsessive indulgence in "that dress". Even myth-busting historian Simon Schama had been getting progressively intoxicated throughout the day with his own gushing monarchical sentimentalism.

Bashir broke ranks by choosing to point out, jarringly but accurately, that other commentators had been ignoring the actual content of the service in Westminster Abbey which was, not surprisingly, religious. Citing the rich theological content of the hymns and scripture reading, he proceeded to offer a brief summary of the bishop of London's homily which had spoken of the wedding not as a royal or a celebrity marriage but – as one might expect from an Anglican bishop - as a Christian event in which marriage is seen as established and sustained by God.

Palpably discomfited, Wark abruptly turned away from Bashir and yanked the discussion back to the day's familiar secular preoccupations. A journalist with a modicum of religious fluency would have followed up Bashir's surprising and arresting remarks with a question such as 'so do you think the religious nature of the service has any real significance for British society today?' Except that the BBC already knows the answer to that question so it needn't even be put.

This is only another familiar episode revealing the religious illiteracy of much of the contemporary British media (CiF Belief excepted, of course). Wark's blanking of Bashir might, perhaps, be defended by media professionals as a necessary consequence of media "neutrality". The argument would be that to have indulged Bashir's remarks about the bishop's Christian theology of marriage might have been seen as favouring a specific religious perspective, or to give undue weight to religion in a secular society more interested in fashion houses than houses of prayer. But completely ignoring the theological content which alone can make any sense at all of the richly-textured liturgical goings on in Westminster Abbey is itself a substantive and controversial statement about the social significance of religion in general and the constitutional significance of Christianity in particular. It may or may not be true that religion has become largely insignificant in British society, but there is no neutral or objective standpoint from which to reach that judgement. Will the media dare to have a serious discussion about that question?

If coverage of the royal wedding poses a question to the media about the principle of journalistic neutrality, the service itself poses a different one to the church about the principle of Anglican establishment. The Church of England cannot be held primarily responsible for the media's ignoring of the theological content of the service over which the church presided (though perhaps it might have stipulated, as a condition of allowing TV cameras into the Abbey, that one of its spokespersons should be given airtime to interpret the service). But it surely is primarily responsible for how far the liturgical offerings it seems so eager to supply to what is a largely inattentive and uncomprehending nation are actually consistent with its own theological integrity, even its self-respect.

For many defenders of establishment, the royal wedding will no doubt provide glorious confirmation of their claim that the church remains the spiritual hub of the nation, sending out signals of transcendence from the heart of a unifying national celebration. For many opponents, it will raise the question whether the meaning of even a robustly orthodox wedding liturgy – for such it certainly was, as Martin Bashir so tactlessly pointed out – is effectively neutered when placed in service of a survival strategy for a political institution with an uncertain future. They will interpret the day's events as yet further evidence of church's captivity to civil religion, and will ask whether on April 29th the church really "served" the nation or rather was "used" by it. Will the church dare to have a serious discussion about that question?

1. Concert Review: James Taylor and Carole King in Denver for Troubadour Reunion Tour
2. History of Guy Fawkes Day: How gunpowder mixed with Parliament
3. History of the 12 Days of Christmas: they follow Christmas?

Among the music choices for the royal wedding, one in particular was a stroke of genius

Each element in a royal occasion like yesterday's wedding in Westminster Abbey is iconic. The music is chosen with particular care from the varied treasures of Anglican tradition to express the characters involved, their faith, and their place in the national drama.

When I worked there and we came to review the funeral service for the Queen Mother, we knew we must represent the fortitude of this remarkable Queen consort through the war. So we inserted into the prayers an ancient text to music by Sir William Harris. "Holy is the true light … lending radiance to them that endured in the heat of the conflict."

For the coronation's 50th anniversary we needed to capture the Queen's sense of self-sacrificial calling. We asked Jonathan Harvey to set the prayer "Remember, O Lord, what thou hast wrought in us and not what we deserve: and as thou hast called us to thy service, make us worthy of our calling …" His music embodied the monarch's aspiration to kingly, priestly service.

The choices yesterday were made with care and imagination.

The always accessible and tuneful John Rutter, in characteristically luscious vein – This is the day that the Lord hath made – certainly represented the couple's reflectively down-to-earth and easy-going style. The young composer Paul Mealor was a nod to Wales – he lives near the couple on Anglesey – and to St Andrews, where it was first performed and the couple first met. Its style – architecturally serene – will no doubt have pleased a royal father for whom music and architecture go hand in hand. Mealor's text, Ubi caritas et amor Deus ibi est (Where there is love and loving-kindness, God is there) – usually sung during the washing of feet on Maundy Thursday – was very apt. It doubtless resonated for the Queen with her visit to the abbey – a week previously – to distribute Maundy money to citizens whose selflessness transforms communities. It was also a strong reminder of the service that will increasingly be asked of bride and groom – future King and Queen – as equally it celebrated the way their love already reveals the sacrificial nature of all true love.

It was surely, however, the unexpected inclusion of Hubert Parry's setting of Blest pair of sirens that was the stroke of pure genius.

John Milton's ode is of course among the finest in the English language. Its choice – like the music before and after the service – made a strong statement about the depth of the national tradition of which the couple are the youngest icons. Equally its threefold exploration of heaven's concordant life, the often discordant nature of sinful humanity and the possibility for a new marriage of earth and heaven both witnessed to the promise at the heart of the Christian story and to the newlyweds' own sense of their spiritual union.

But herein also lay the reality of another union through the bonds of death, which inevitably pressed in on the joy of the wedding. For as the choir implored listeners to "keep in tune with heav'n, till God ere long / To his celestial consort us unite, / To live with him, and sing in endless morn of light," many will have shed a tear for the mother already on another shore and in a greater light.

"Pray, love, remember" suggests Ophelia. As Shakespeare's bust gazed expectantly from Poets' Corner, and chorister voices soared, the happy couple – briefly enjoying the intimacy of a saint's shrine – were themselves reconnecting all three for us in a reflective moment of renewal and hope.

Talking with people is more likely to bring results than talking at them – there's no point casting a whole culture as the enemy

The question: How should we talk about God online?

How we talk about God or gods to others is much the same as how we talk to someone from any other culture – we seek commonalities, and we take heed of what big differences exist.

The main problem is the chasm in attitudes between talking with people and talking at them. For example, one question that has been raised is whether we atheists should talk with believers at all, or only talk at them; the latter being in essence the position advocated by some of those agreeing with the "new atheists". But of those original new atheists, often they can't make up their minds which path they want to take; for example, Sam Harris declares one minute that the enemy is Islam, meaning we westerners should only talk at Muslims, and then in the same breath he says that we must work with moderate Muslims, necessitating talking with them.

In support of a radical enmity towards Islam as a whole, it is often claimed that there are no really moderate Muslims, or that supposed moderatism only covers a secret supremacism. However, people such as Salmaan Taseer prove that wrong, as does the fact that a country like Pakistan is itself in an undeclared civil war mainly between moderate and extremist Muslims – last year alone, the death toll there was 7,435 from terrorism-related incidents. Moderate Muslims are dying in the battle against extremist Islamists, so it makes sense to support those moderates where possible. They work to make the social expression of their religion more liberal – bloggers inside Pakistan such as Raza Rumi, working against extremism in everyday life, or Sana Saleem, co-founder of Gawaahi, working against domestic abuse as well as against religious authoritarianism.

The choices are clear. If you describe an entire religion or culture as the enemy, there is no genuine way you can talk with someone from that camp, you can only talk at them. Talking with people is more likely in the long term to bring results than talking at them – and the question of motives also comes up. Those who only talk at others too often only do it for the sake of their own egos, not for the sake of the alleged goal, which again makes genuine conversation nigh on impossible. The scientific evidence is at hand to show the obvious, that merely lecturing or abusing others will very rarely change their minds.

So how are those of us who are ready for genuine conversation to go about it? And how do we simultaneously guard against being manipulated by extremists or trolls, yet still be able to tackle the difficult questions, the sources of conflict between the different cultures? Making a start is a bottom-up process most of the time; top-down decisions by large organisations too often only result in one-off action. In line with all this, I myself in my blog seek to engage with and to support moderate Pakistani bloggers; and in my weekly blogs round-up I take care to include from the blogosphere science-blogging, as well as blogposts on culture, religion and atheism. This does, in practice, result in the different camps actually beginning to talk with each other, and helps each improve their own communication, and correct misperceptions. But rather than pimp my own (atheist) blog too much, let me here introduce some others who do much the same.

For example, in Britain there is Lesley Fellows, an Anglican priest whose blog encourages conversations between working scientists such as JadeBio and Psycasm as well as Christians, new atheists and old-style atheists. Then there is Joshua Rosenau, who is programs and policy director at the National Centre for Science Education (NCSE) in the US, who works to defend the teaching of evolution, and whose blog often looks critically at how not to defend evolution. Then there is John S Wilkins, an Australian philosopher who does much the same, and many similar bloggers. Do these people have an effect outside the blogosphere, in real life? Sure they do: combined, those blogs are read by a great many, including scientists, atheists, Christians and many more; and the bloggers are often in leading positions in daily life, where they influence more face to face.

One problem for moderates is that they are usually less organised and less highly motivated than extremists; and that can only be overcome by some moderates running around to network with like-minded others. That is what I seek to do. The next problem is how to talk differences – and that is best done by first talking shared values.

Lastly, this God-discussion is mirrored in other but seemingly different debates; for example, the debates on the need for introduction of standards in citizen journalism so as to help factor it into tomorrow's mass media, or in debates on how best to do science-blogging, or teaching of evolution. Again, the same problems arise: abusiveness versus co-operation, hyperbole and rhetoric versus factualness and so on. This indicates that the God-debate is only part of how we talk with others overall, and is nothing special in itself.

A reader writes:

I am not sure if you will read this as I am sure you are a very busy person with all your reading, writing, speaking, traveling and such, particularly with a new book coming out (congratulations by the way and I look forward to reading it!). But in your books it seems that people flood your in box with messages asking for your input and advice into their lives, so, seeing as your books have helped me so much, I figured I would give it a shot.

I am a 23 year old living outside the US. Ever seen I was 15 all I wanted to be was an Anglican Priest, and straight out of High School I went to college to get my Degree in Theology. When I turned 21, I was allowed join the Anglican Seminary and begin my training as a Priest. However it was not what I thought it was going to be and I really clashed and struggled with the Program and with the Leadership of the Seminary. I loved my Parish Placement, learning 'Priestcraft' as my training priest called it but I just hated living at the Seminary and the expectations on my study, training, formation and spirituality were far too great, particularly when I had to support myself finically. Anyway, I decided to leave the Seminary and now I feel really directionless. It's like something I have wanted all my life (as short as it is) has been ripped away from me.

All I want to do is serve God and make the Dream of God a reality on Earth as it is in Heaven. Sometimes I consider my options in Church Planting, but I am afraid that the part of me that is afraid that it's only because I "could't cut it" in the "real" thing. Sometimes I think I will go back one day, but that frightens me so much and I just feel so embarrassed. Sometimes I consider branching out into a different denomination, and Metropolitan Community Church has really attracted me of late and maybe I am being called to be a Pastor there, but at the cost of losing my Anglicanism? That upsets me.

I just feel so lost at the moment and unsure of what to do with my life. I am not one of those people can "just" be a Sunday Christian. My hunger and drive is to preach, teach, lead, listen, minister, pray, heal, and comfit people. I know I am called to minister and lead in some where. I just don't know.

I am not asking for you to guide me or to reveal the answer to me. I am just wondering what advice you could give a 23 year old Kingdom-hungry man?

Continue reading Q & R: From a 23 year-old reader...

Thanks to mmurray for the link.

As the faithful look forward to Easter and the Archbishop of Canterbury prepares to officiate at the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton, it may seem inappropriate to be discussing the future of his Church. But this Easter week, I can't help feeling – more than ever – that the Church of England will not survive my children's lifetime and quite possibly not even my own.

It's not the archaism of state occasions that makes me doubt the relevance of the CofE, nor the sight this Lent of a dozen or more clergy crossing the floor to join the Roman Catholics that has made me despair of its future. Nor is it the statistics showing an ever-diminishing number of English attending their services, although these are bad enough. It's not even the spectacle of the Church wrapping itself in knots around the issues of ordaining women and gay bishops.

These are certainly signals of an institution in decline; a community turning in on itself as its relevance diminishes. But the Church has been here before and revived.

If that were all, one might envision – some of its members do – a leadership coming in to revive its fortunes, re-energise its priests and refresh its doctrines, as happened in Victorian times when Darwinian science and atheism threatened to overwhelm it.

No, the real problem of the Church of England is the factor which no-one seems ready to discuss in public – its role as the established church of the country. For humanists and atheists, this is an outrage; a remnant of a political past that should be dispensed with as soon as possible.

To the broader mass of an increasingly secular public, it means very little – some exotic clothes and ritual prayers on state occasions.

What is really worrying for the future of the Church, however, is that its leaders themselves seem to have ceased to believe in it. A sizable number of clergy and several bishops, would be much happier without the burden of establishment. Free of it, they feel the Church has a better chance to reach out to the young and claim its relevance to modern life.

Even the Archbishop of Canterbury and very likely the Archbishop of York, I suspect, are half, if not wholly, of this view. As for Prince Charles, who will become head of the Church when (and if) he succeeds to the throne, he seems thoroughly uncomfortable with the role in his search to be a popular figurehead for all religions and none.

You can see the temptation. In a multi-cultural Britain, why not a head of state that represents all religions? And in a secular nation, why not a church that can battle for souls without the encumbrance of all the conservative connotations of being the established church? I can see Prince Charles inducing a sigh of relief among the bishops – and a cheer from many vicars – if he announced he wanted to do away with the whole thing.

Only that begs the awkward question of what then does the Anglican Church in Britain amount to if it is not the established church? To listen to some in the Church, you would think it a thriving community that is only being held back by its political branding. The truth may well be the opposite. It is only its position as the established church of the country that keeps it going at all.

Born out of political necessity (as Henry VIII saw it), it has survived by reasserting itself constantly as a nationalist bastion against Roman Catholic Europe in its early centuries; as an arm of imperial ambitions in the 19th century and as a spirit of Britishness during the wars of the 20th century. It was what made us different and decent.

That is not to underestimate its social contribution. As the established church it offers the services of priest and place for the rites of passage – birth, baptism, marriage and death – which remain fundamental needs for people, church-going or not. When tragedy hits a community; there is a killing, an accident, a natural disaster, it is still to the church that people go.

Nor is it to deny that in urban parishes there aren't priests who have manage to reinvigorate their congregations through updated services and community action, or that in rural communities the church does not continue to act as a the focal point of village life. It may not be any longer the "establishment at prayer" that it once was, but it remains the "The Archers at prayer" still. The CofE, as with the Anglican communities in Scotland, Wales and Ireland, has long been associated with class and tied to privilege, but it has had a presence throughout society and that has mattered. However, it is no good any longer pretending that this is good enough to enable it to survive into this century.

Rather like the monarchy itself, it has survived less out of the enthusiasm of the public at large, or its affection, but out of a general sense that, given the alternatives, abolition would seem more trouble than it was worth.

So with the Church. The majority of people are quite happy to profess themselves Christian and Anglican. It's easier to accept than asserting a different faith. But they are not so happy to go to church services or take an active part in its activities.

The figures are truly dire. While non-Christian faiths have grown stronger and the evangelical Christian churches flourish, the story in the Church of England has been one of almost continuous decline since the war.

Despite a series of initiatives such as Back to Church Sunday and some improvement in the numbers of young people participating in church activities, attendance figures amongst Anglicans have dropped by some 10 per cent over the last decade. Only 1.1m people, some 2 per cent of the population, attend church on a weekly basis, and only 1.7m, or 3 per cent, once a month. This in spite of the fact that around half the population still profess themselves Anglicans.

Read on

Malthusian Delusions Grip Australia The anti-population jihad is nothing new. Thomas Malthus was an 18th century economist and Anglican clergyman, whose 'Essay on the Principles of Population' popularised the notion that vice, plague and famine were natural forms of population control.

Below are the religious programmes including services and processions for Holy Week in Lanzarote.

Parish of San Ginés in Arrecife

Holy Monday & Holy Tuesday, April 18 & 19

19.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

19.30 Eucharist and Easter reflection (Eucaristía y reflexión de Semana Santa)

Holy Wednesday, April 20

19.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

19.30 Eucharist (Eucaristía)

20.00 Procession of the Holy Encounter Sermon in the Square La Plazuela (Procesión del Santo Encuentro con Sermón en la Plazuela)

Holy Thursday, April 21

10.00 to 12.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

17.00 to 19.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

19.30 Celebration of the Lord's Supper (Celebración de la Cena del Señor)

23.00 Holy Hour of Prayer, in front of the Monument (Hora Santa de Oración, frente al Monumento)

Good Friday, April 22

09.00 to 11.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

17.00 to 19.00 Confessions (Confesiones)

11.00 Via Crucis procession of the Crucified (Vía Crucis meditado y procesión del Crucificado)

12.00 Sermon on the Seven Words, in the parish church (Sermón de las Siete Palabras, en el templo parroquial)

19.30 Celebration of the Passion and death of the Lord (Celebración de la Pasión y muerte del Señor)

21.00 Procession of the Holy Burial (Procesión del Santo Entierro) Procession of Solitude (Procesión de la Soledad)

Holy Saturday, April 23

22.00  Solemn Easter Vigil with baptisms (Solemne Vigilia Pascual con bautizos)

Easter Sunday, April 24

10.30 Easter Eucharist (Eucaristía de Pascua)

12.00 Easter Eucharist (Eucaristía de Pascua)

19.30 Easter Eucharist (Eucaristía de Pascua)

Anglican Parish of St Laurence in Lanzarote

Maundy Thursday, 21st April

12.30 Holy Communion, commemorating the Last Supper in the Church of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in the old harbour of Puerto del Carmen

Good Friday, 22nd April

13.00 A dramatised reading of the Passion in the Church of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in the old harbour of Puerto del Carmen

18.00 Ecumenical celebration of the Way of the Cross in the Church of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in the old harbour of Puerto del Carmen

Easter Day, 24th April

Easter Communion services will be held at the following locations:

09:30 Avecost Meeting Hall, Calle La Fragata in Costa Teguise

10:00 Church of Nuestra Señora de Nazaret in Nazaret

12:30 Church of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in the old harbour of Puerto del Carmen

17:30 Church of Nuestra Señora del Carmen in the centre of Playa Blanca

Parish of Tías

Holy Thursday, 21st April

09:00 Community prayer (Oración comunitaria), Church San Antonio de Padua in Tías

19:00 Mass Lord’s Supper (Misa-Cena del Señor), Church San Antonio de Padua in Tías

20:30 Mass Lord’s Supper (Misa-Cena del Señor), Church of Puerto del Carmen

21:30 Community prayer before the Blessed Sacrament (Oración comunitaria ante el Santísimo), Church San Antonio de Padua in Tías

Holy Friday, 22nd April

09:00 Community prayer (Oración comunitaria), Church San Antonio de Padua in Tías

11:00 Adoration of the Cross (Adoración de la Cruz), Church of Puerto del Carmen

18:00 Vía Crucis (Vía Crucis Ecuménico), Church of Puerto del Carmen

18:00 Adoration of the cross and Via Crucis  procession (Adoración de la Cruz y al finalizar Vía Crucis) in the streets of Tías

Holy Saturday, 23rd April

21:00 Easter Vigil (Vifilia Pascual), Church San Antonio de Padua in Tias

Related posts:

Church Services in Lanzarote

At the risk of getting into the kind of theological debate I once ended a thriving career in order to avoid, let’s talk. There’s a new book floating around Evangelical circles, Rob Bell’s Love Wins. I have not read this book, but I adore Rob Bell. He’s one of the only preachers I still sometimes listen to via his Nooma series. And he’s among a scant handful of teachers who sometimes still makes me think there might be a place for me in my former profession.

The gist of this book is that maybe it’s not all about theological correctness and saying "the prayer" before you die so you can escape hell and get into heaven. Maybe God is love. Maybe love wins.

As you can imagine, people who are concerned about hell are concerned about this message. They don’t want people to burn for eternity. They want to know what is right and wrong, and they want to you to know it too. Because damn it, the consequences are dire. It's nice, really, given that world view. They just want to keep you safe.

 I do not personally believe in hell. Like the Pastor Carlton Pearson (This American Life :: Heretics), I believe there is enough fall-out right here on earth for our greed, for our selfishness. We create our own hell in the here and now.

To be fair, this means I must also let go of the traditional concept of heaven -- a far more discomforting thought. I believe there is something bigger than us. I believe we go on, in some form, after we leave this corporeal body. And above all, I believe in love. In fact, Love is my religion.

A long time ago, almost a decade ago now, when my faith began to shift, a wise friend once said to me, “I’d rather be loving than right.” At the time we were part of a the team running a church that was “open but not affirming” to the GLBTQ community. Meaning, we’d be nice to gay people but we didn’t really approve of their “life style.” My friend and I disagreed with this approach, and we were struggling to find the language to explain why we needed to live in opposition to our community’s position. We were tired of the debate around who was right -- the conservative theologians or the progressive theologians. We didn’t want to argue within the four walls of the church. We wanted to extend the loving hand of Christ to the world outside. Moreover, we saw so much Christ-like love in our gay friends -- oftentimes, more compassion than we saw within our own selves -- that the dissonance was deafening. So we decided, “I’d rather be loving that right.” Right ceased to be the standard. Love became our banner.

I happened to quote that on the Facebook page of one of my favorite Anglican ministers and someone else replied “I’d rather be loving and right.” I get that. You want to be loving. And you want to love right.

But here’s the thing. What is “right” in a global, post-modern context? When we know now how truth changes across cultures. When quantum physics has shown us how much we do not yet know. When absolutism has -- for the most part -- been abandoned as a relevant philosophy. Is "right" still black and white? How much “right” can we really access? And does it ever change?

What if there is no spoon?

I am not ready to say there is no right or wrong, that there are no absolute Truths. But I know this: My religion -- whatever it is, whatever mix it is -- has not cornered the market on Truth. No one religion does. Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Zoroastrian, Neo-Pagans, Wiccans….we are all just humans grasping at something far larger than us, using myth and metaphor to describe what our minds cannot fully ascertain nor our language fully hold. Some stuff we get right. Some stuff we mess up. Royally. But if Love is the North on our compass, we cannot go too far wrong.

What if today we focused on being loving rather than being right? What if we took as our truth, “It was in love I was created and in love is how I hope I die.” What if you left “right” sitting on the curb and held hands with love instead? Where might it take you? How might you then live?

+++

Rachelle Mee-Chapman is a formerly ordained minister who offers care for creative souls at Magpie Girl. She hosts an online soulcare community at Flock, dedicated to helping women "find a spirituality that fits." Join her for exclusive tips and presents by clicking here.

Photo Credit: _nezemnaya_.

Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, says the government must not wash its hands of its responsibilities

The head of the Roman Catholic church in England and Wales has said David Cameron's "big society" has no teeth and must not be used to mask cuts.

Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, said the government must not "wash its hands" of its responsibilities, indicating the substantial unease among church leaders who fear that the new political emphasis on communities acting for themselves may hit the poor hardest.

The archbishop said the prime minister's project was at a critical stage. "It is all very well to deliver speeches about the need for greater voluntary activity, but there need to be some practical solutions," said Nichols.

"At the moment the big society is lacking a cutting edge. It has no teeth," he told the Sunday Telegraph.

Nichols, like the Anglican archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has spoken of the potential of the big society, with its emphasis on handing greater responsibility to communities. The government's localism bill, introduced last December, gives them influence over council tax increases and the option of taking over state-run services.

Nichols warned however: "Devolving greater power to local authorities should not be used as a cloak for masking central cuts. It is not sufficient for the government, in its localism programme, simply to step back from social need and say this is a local issue.

"We're now at a very critical point, with the philosophy of the big society getting clearer but on the other hand the effects of the cuts becoming real, and there's real pressure about what will happen on the ground." Nichols added that "a government cannot simply cut expenditure, wash its hands of expenditure and expect that the slack will be taken up by greater voluntary activity".

"The poorest are taking the biggest hit while at the same time you see huge bank bonuses and profits and this is not right," he said.

The archbishop expressed his disappointment with the last Labour government in a previous interview with the Sunday Telegraph last year, saying it was "too overarching". He said that "in attempting to create a state that provided everything, it ended up losing touch with the people it was trying to serve".

The Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude said the government was "upfront about the need for cuts" and was ready to launch more "tools" such as the big society bank and training for 5,000 community organisers.

Rowan Williams warned last summer that the big society must not be used as a smokescreen for cuts and the bishop of Leicester, Tim Stevens, made a similar point in December, saying the Church of England would not "collude in government neglect".

However, Williams also said in a lecture last month that the big society represented "an extraordinary opportunity" even if it had "suffered from a lack of definition about the means by which ideals can be realised". This meant big society rhetoric was "all too readily heard by many as aspirational waffle designed to conceal a deeply damaging withdrawal of the state from its responsibilities to the most vulnerable. But cynicism is too easy a response and the opportunity is too important to let pass."

In the last couple of days I've read through 'John Stott - A portrait by his friends',  edited by Chris Wright and published by IVP. There are some fascinating insights into the man and it's an excellent read.

I profoundly disagree with Stott's ecclesiology. Unlike my friend and Anglican sympathiser Carl Trueman I think he was out of order in 1966 (Stott that is) with Dr Lloyd Jones but I can just about forgive him that.

His policy of ''in it to win it'' in the Church of England hasn't led to the reformation he so desired. In fact, I would argue it is leading to disaster. The reform video by Lorna Ashworth on  'the marginalisation of faithful anglicans' is indicative of  a conservative evangelical Anglicanism which has resorted to basically begging the rest of the church of England not to be mean to them. It's difficult not to imagine, if Dr Lloyd Jones were alive today, him saying 'I told you so' and yet there is so much to admire in John Stott. The sheer self discipline of the man. Here is someone who has beat his body that he may attain the prize. (1 Cor 9:27)

The more I read of John Stott the more his Ornithology drives me round the bend. As much as I appreciate him, when are the people who write about him going to realise that most of the folk reading couldn't care less about the birds? 

There are many things about John Stott I struggle with. I was saddened when he wrote on women teachers and his view of hell, whatever it is, is not as clear as it needs to be. From a reformed, confessional perspective it's hard not to think he became somewhat unbalanced on women in ministry and social isues. The whole issue of whether Lausanne really was the cataclysmic, world changing event that is often claimed for is open to debate but there is no question he has had a remarkable world wide influence.

His personal secretary of 60 years, Frances Whitehead, wrote this ''...my earliest impressions of John as a man of the utmost integrity have proved abundantly true.  He was not only a brilliant Bible expositor, but also one who sought constantly to live out what he believed and taught. He was a man of deep convictions and total commitment, and there was no dichotomy between faith and practice. He lived to serve and please God, to bring glory to his name, and to boast in nothing but the cross of Jesus Christ. He rarely, if ever, talked about himself.'' (p59)

His successors at All Souls speak warmly of his influence. He loved the Gospel so much he wanted others, particularly those who followed him, to flourish. There seems to have been no sense in which he undermined. If you compare what happened at Westminster Chapel in the aftermath of the Dr to the transitions of All Souls from John Stott to Michael Baughen to Richard Bewes to Hugh Palmer, you have to say there is much to learn from the Anglicans in this.

Other highlights:

An issue close to Carl's heart will be the chapter on John Stott's influence on the arts and media!!!!!! 

There is a moving chapter by John Wyatt on how John Stott has coped with old age. It'll come to us all.

There may be much I disagree with John Stott about but what came across to me was the overwhelming godliness of the man and  that here is someone who embodies 2 Timothy 2 - he has been the hard working farmer, the disciplined athlete and the focused soldier. The astonishing self discipline that God has used in John Stott is something to give thanks for.