Sitting at the back of church, as I do in the evening congregation, I couldn’t help noticing the effect the late arrival of a handsome bloke had on some of the single women! To be fair to them, they were being playful. But it highlighted the fact that for many of them they still believe that life will really begin when they get their bloke. I’m sure that’s not something limited to the single women, the blokes struggle as well. But they don’t seem to face the same contentment issues as the girls. Perhaps they know that the statistics are weighed in their favour. There are more single Christian women than men. I’m pretty sure it’s not because the blokes are more godly. We’ve got some great girls with real Christlike character. But they still struggle with the situation that the Lord has given to them. That’s why I’m grateful to anyone prepared to comment on this issue. Step forward the lovely Ros Clarke! This is an article from her very brilliant pen on the issue of singleness. It carries credibility because she’s single.

Finally got round to it. Been on the ‘to do’ list for a while now. I’m talking about listening to Tim Keller’s reflections on raising kids in the city. You can find it here.

The first thing that struck me was that this isn’t an attempt to expound the Bible. There’s not a single biblical reference in the entire talk. That doesn’t mean that it’s wrong, or that it’s heretical. It simply means that the Bible is silent about where we decide to raise our kids. And he recognises that. He argues that the motivation for being in the city has to be more posoitive than negative. In other words since the Bible doesn’t say that we have to live in the city, we mustn’t attempt to bind people’s consciences. I think he uses the phrase ‘we have to trap people with the joys of being in the city!’ And so Keller’s reflections are in the realm of wisdom. 

His central thesis is that, in general, the city is a better place to raise the kids. It won’t be right for everyone. It won’t be right for every kid. But, on the whole, the city is not only a possible place to raise a family, it’s a better place.

He acknowledges that three factors make it a hard place to rasie kids. First, because of the prohibitive cost of everything you’ve got less disposable income to invest in your family. Secondly, he talks about the ‘physical logistics on the front nine’ make it harder to get round the city with small kids. In others words transporting small kids in the city can be a real pain. But after that, the ‘back nine’ is a real joy. Thirdly, the educational terrain is complex and hard to navigate since there are so many options and so little cash!

That said he then lists eight counterbalancing factors that sway the pendulum in favour of staying put and not giving flight.

1. The kids will grow up thinking that they live in the real world rather than growing up in the suburbs and straining at the leash to get to the real world. Of course everywhere is the real world but they don’t think like that. The city is where it’s at and they know that. That’s why they want to escape surburbia as soon as they can. But if they grow up in the city they know that they live in the real world.

2.  The kids grow up knowing that you have a real faith. They want to believe that your faith is disconnected to reality. But they can’t do that if they know that you’ve had to work out your Christian discipleship in the real world.

3. The kids will grow up and become self reliant, independent and confident because nothing freaks them out. As a country boy who went to sixth form with mates from the city and then moved to the ‘big smoke’ in his mid twenties, I’ve got to say he’s absolutely right on that one.

4. The kids grow up being adept at handling diversity. Most surbuban white kids don’t grow up with Muslim neighbours and Afro-Caribbean mates. But you do in the city. Their breadth of cultural engagement will far outweigh the kids who grow up out of town.

5. The kids grow up being pushed into family. The city is a relationally intense environment. It ‘forces’ families to spend lots of time together. The commute is less, the house is smaller, there aren’t any fields to escape to. It all adds up to lots of ‘face time’. If you’re into relating with your kids, that’s a good thing.

6. The kids grow up with Christian role models. In the suburbs kids grow up with a peer group. But do you really want them learning about the faith from their teenage mates? On reflection, not really. In the city they get to their teenage years and they see the Christian life being modelled by credible ‘trendy twenties’ whom they respect. In the suburbs they get to see the Christian life being lived out by guys with kids. But who grows up wanting to be like their Dad! In the city they don’t have to.

7. The kids grow up facing the issues. They’ll be exposed to a whole range of ethical issues a long time before the suburban or rural kids. Because London is like a massive University Campus we get to go to College with them before they’re even old enough to apply! They’ll come across homosexuality, drugs, alcohol, crime, sex and so on and we’ll be with them when they do. Unlike the parents in the suburbs who live out there to escape from it.

8. The kids grow up without the pressure to conform. The city is so accommodating of diversity that it’s hard to think of a fad, fashion or obsession that it wouldn’t tolerate. And so the kids get to grow up being themselves, without having to become a carbon copy of others.

I’m not saying that it’ll be easy, but I’m persuaded. You?

In his recent sermon on Relational Evangelism, Pete Matthew, our new assistant pastor at Christ Church Balham, drew our attention to an article by Jamie Whyte. I decided to read it. I’m glad that I did. It’s a great article. Here are some thoughts.

Whyte refuses to believe that there are people who describe themselves as Christian who actually, really and truly believe the fundamentals of the Christian faith. He says,

I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions.

It is possible. It’s actual. I pastor a church where we really do believe that God exists, Jesus was the incarnate Son, salvation was accomplished through his death and resurrection and that this life is not all that there is. We really do exist. We’re not faking it. We may be mistaken, but that’s another issue. But we really do believe what the Bible teaches.

If I’ve understood his argument correctly then it goes something like this.

assertion 1: ‘I’m an atheist and I don’t believe that there’s any evidence for God’.

assertion 2: ‘You’re a Christian and you don’t agree with me’.

conclusion: ‘You must be thick’.

Sophisticated, isn’t it?!

Obviously Whyte doesn’t put it in quite the same way! He writes, 

‘if something defies belief, a good starting position is not to believe it. That is my position. I am not shocked by the persistence of religious belief in the West because I do not believe it exists. It is simply not possible for people who know as much as modern Westerners do to believe in the central tenets of Christianity or the other major religions’.

Christianity doesn’t defy belief. We’re not required to suspend our mental faculties to come to a settled confidence in the existence of God. Christianity challenges unbelief. It does so because there’s every reason to go where the evidence is pointing. And the evidence is pointing us toward the existence of God, a Redeemer and life beyond the grave. 

3. Faith is reasoned belief not wishful thinking

Whyte has to account for the persistence and prevalence of religious belief. Because he’s committed to the idea that no one can be so stupid to believe that it’s true, his answer is to say that we must be unconsciously deluded. He writes,

‘Of course, religious assertion persists. But there are many reasons for saying religious things other than actually believing them. Most often, I suspect, people are expressing their hopes rather than their beliefs - substituting “I believe” for “I wish” in the unconscious endeavour to convince themselves’.

I’m not aware that I’m an unconscious self deluded muppet who unknowingly commits gross hypocrisy. But that’s the thing about being unconscious, isn’t it? You’re not aware. It’s neat but it’s not nice. And actually it’s wrong. Most people are Christian because they’ve been convinced that their previously held convictions were wrong and they’re big enough to change their minds. When people say that ‘I believe’ and they mean ‘I wish’ Whyte calls it Christianity. But we call it superstition. We should be Christians because of the evidence, not in spite of it.

4. Christian policy should be different

Whyte wants to try and explain why religion continues to persist in the American political arena. His answer is that it’s just for show. He might be right. But the reason he says that it’s just for who is that there’s no discernible difference in unbelieving political policy and believing political policy.

‘American politicians obviously do not really believe that we have immortal souls. And they know that voters do not believe it either. They know that, contrary to popular mythology, a politician who approached policy from a truly Christian perspective would be considered an unelectable lunatic’.

I think he’s on the money about being perceived as an unelectable lunatic. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that it’s a completely unfair criticism to make of most American politicians and especially of the two Presidentail candidates. Neither McCain nor Obama belong to explicitly Christian political parties. And America is not a theocracy. I agree that were a Christian party to be elected then there ought to be a distinctive flavour to their policies. But there isn’t. So don’t nail them for failing to make whatever private theologically informed views they may hold into explicit public policy. Any politician operating in a secular liberal democracy needs to be realistic about what influence they can have in the political process. If American were a country full of Bible believing, Jesus loving Christian men and women who wanted to organise the country along Christian principles then things would be different. But they don’t and no one who wanted to do that would get elected.

4. We don’t live like we believe

This is where the article really hits home. At this point, he’s really got a point.

The real test for genuine belief is not what people say, but what they do. To believe something is to be disposed to act upon it. The vast majority of Western Christians fail this test.

He also says,

‘Yet the expected behavioural difference is not to be observed. The vast majority of Christians display a remarkably blasé attitude toward their approaching day of judgment, leading lives almost indistinguishable from those of us open non-believers. Put simply, they fail the behavioural test for belief’.

His point is that if we really believed what we say we believe then it’d show in the way we behave. He’s right on the money, isn’t he? There’s a credibility gap between what we say and what we do. And he’s got a point. In one sense, that’s an accusation that’ll always stick because Christians will always be imperfect works in progress. But just imagine what progress we might make if we narrowed the crebility gap just a little bit.

It’d be worth asking, ‘what should be different in the way I live if I really believe that God is there, if Jesus is my Lord and heaven is real?’

Conclusion

And so as irritated as I was by Whyte’s atheistic attack of Christianity I find I’m more irritated by his unerring ability to convict me of my practical unbelief. I need to believe everything the Bible teaches with such deep conviction that I’m prepared to act on it.