My ‘virtual’ mouth has got me into trouble earlier this week. It was all caused by a carelessly worded article for the teachers in Christ Church Kids. I failed to edit it. It was picked up by a blogger who wrote a response on his site. He’s subsequently threatened to contact a local school and warn them of our evil influence!

The ‘offending’ article is a piece I wrote for the Christ Church Kids’ teachers. I wanted them to understand the significance of their role in the ministry strategy to try and reach Balham for Christ that we’ve adopted at CCB. You can read the whole article here http://richardperkins.blogsome.com/2007/01/23/teaching-in-christ-church-kids/. It wasn’t meant for ‘public’ consumption it was an ‘in house’ piece for our team of able and committed volunteers. It was on the site because it’s also a resource for others to use in their churches. I now realise that it was foolish to think that only sympathetic and like minded individuals would read it. But if I’m honest, I’m amazed anyone other than mates reads anything I’ve written! 

The blogger’s response is a colourful post. You can see it here http://blog.dave.org.uk/archives/001186.html. There’s no denying the sincerity of his beliefs. I guess we could say he’s an ‘evangelist’ for scientific naturalism. He entitles the post ‘a local battle’. The military language was unnerving. What had I written to provoke such unrest? But it’s not me he accuses of instigating conflict. It describes his own determination to initiate war. But what on earth could we have done wrong to provoke such a reaction?

Well here’s the offending excerpt from my article.

‘All Age Church is attempting to reach the Balham area for Christ and an essential part of our appeal is Christ Church Kids. Many of those we aim to reach won’t know that yet but our task is get them in and give them a taste so that they’ll never want to leave. We know it works because it’s happened once.

You’ll know that I’m attempting to cultivate a relationship with Telferscot School so that in partnership with them I am welcome in that school, am invited to run regular assemblies and help out with the teaching of RE. In principal the Head Teacher has given me the go ahead to run a Kids’ Club in the Summer Half Term. My hope is that not only will CC Kids attend but that having built up a favourable reputation and a good rapport kids from the school will want to come. At the end of the holiday club we’ll have a Sunday Meeting at which the kids will perform and make presentations. Although the Holiday Club is some time away we start building our reputation from here. Our kids are the best advert followed secondly by their parents.’

It’s carelessly phrased and if I could write it again I wouldn’t put it that way. In fact I’ve ammended the original article to better express the sense of what I was trying to say and to preserve others from misunderstanding. Nuance was never my strong point anyway! It’s posted now in this form,

‘All Age Church is attempting to reach the Balham area for Christ and an essential part of our appeal is Christ Church Kids. Many of those we aim to reach won’t know that yet but our hope is to persuade them to come along and give them such a good time so that they’ll never want to leave!

You’ll know that I’m cultivating a good relationship with a local school so that in partnership with them I’m welcomed, invited to run regular assemblies and asked to help with the teaching of RE. In principal the Head Teacher has given me the go ahead to run a Kids’ Club in the Summer Half Term. My hope is that not only will CC Kids attend but that having built up a favourable reputation and a good rapport kids from the school will want to come. At the end of the holiday club we’ll have a Sunday Meeting at which the kids will perform and make presentations. Although the Holiday Club is some time away we start building our reputation from here. Our kids are the best advert, followed secondly by their parents.’

All I’m trying to do in that article is explain that to encourage kids and their parents into CCB we need to persuade them of the value of church. We’ll never do that by ‘preaching  to the converted’ and so one thing [amongst many] that we need to be doing is working with the schools.

But this is the guts of his complaint against us. He writes, ‘Doesn’t that sounds sinister to you? The school they are talking about is a primary school. "Our task is get them in and give them a taste so that they’ll never want to leave". Get them early before they can think about what a load of b******* we’re telling them. Teaching children to follow a religion before they are old enough to consider it critically amounts to child abuse. It should be made illegal.’

That’s some accusation. In his opinion we’re sinister proponents of child abuse quite apart from being peddlers of religous nonsense. In response let me say a couple of things.

Christians aren’t sinister. We’re sinners. Forgiven, restored and Spirit empowered sinners. But no genuine follower of Jesus Christ would seek to be sinister.

Jesus commanded his followers to love God with their minds [Matthew 22:37]. This, he taught, was the first commandment. We therefore seek not to bypass the mind but address the mind. The minds of adults and the minds of children so that they might be persuaded of the love of God in Christ.

To his credit the subsequent e-mail exchange has been more measured, polite and concessionary. But it’s fair to say that we’re a country mile away from agreement on anything substantial. He thinks that this world is all that there is and that science adequately explains reality. I’m still convinced that this world is not all that there is and that God’s word is necessary to explain reality. On that fairly fundamental issue there’s not been a lot of movement from either of us. And that’s the problem. Those world views are incompatible. And in one sense whilst we can happily coexist in our virtual world firing arguments back and forwards to each other until the cows come home [or Jesus returns]. But we can’t peacefully coexist when it comes to the education of children. He wants his world view to take pre-eminence and I want mine. We’re both convinced that we’re right. But that’s impossible.

This is what I wrote,

‘Would you allow me to make an observation on your comments? I have no wish to be inflammatory and pour petrol on the fire! You may be surprised to learn that I agree with you in many respects. I too believe that children should be taught to think independently and questions things, especially perhaps when their naivety leaves them vulnerable. That’s why I want to be invited into schools. Churches have a role to play in educating our children [and adults] and I can’t expect anyone else to teach them Christianity. I’d like them to consider the issues for themselves. It’s just that Christianity is being marginalised and silenced perhaps because of ridicule and criticism by vociferous and hostile voices in the media, such as Richard Dawkins. If churches aren’t in schools how will children be able to consider the issues? But we mustn’t be naïve.

Both scientific naturalists and evangelical Christians want to persuade children [and adults] that their conclusions about the nature of reality are correct. Your conclusions are in conflict with mine. We disagree about the existence of God. Both are faith positions. Both are in fact derived from evidence. We disagree about the reliability and interpretation of that information. The freedom of speech allows us to debate those issues and criticise each other’s conclusions. And I’m all for that. If either one of us is wrong we ought to change our minds. The last thing I want to do is be deluded and base my life [and those of my family and congregation] on a lie.

But you’re not really ‘fundamentally opposed’ to the religious indoctrination of children are you? You’d happily convince them of atheistic evolutionary theory it’s just you don’t want Christian indoctrination, isn’t that the case?

For what it’s worth I’m not a 6 day literal creationist - I don’t think that the Bible requires us to believe that’s the case. In my opinion, that’s an overly literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1 which perversely doesn’t pay attention to the text as literature which is beautifully crafted poetry. I guess I’m a ‘Theistic Evolutionist’. But the Bible is concerned more with the ‘why’ question about creation rather than the ‘how’ question. That’s why I’ve parked the issue in my own mind and spend more time concerned with Jesus Christ. But perhaps that’s an issue for another time.’

I’m sure that there’s more that I could have written. But in a very calm and restrained manner I felt that not only had I vented my spleen but that I’d contended for the faith. But perhaps the most important lesson that I’d learned was that I need to watch my words. Especially in a virtual world.