Sudan : Christians good bye

As we have watched the unfolding tragedy of Sudan (and, indeed, its neighbour, South Sudan) much of our attention has been on the horrific bombing of civilian populations in the Nuba mountains with whole villages being forced to live in rock caves like something out of the stoneage. But, as we protest at what happens in those beautiful mountains we must not neglect the quieter attempt to push Christians out of the cities.

On 18 June St. John's Episcopal (Anglican) Church in the Hay Yousif district of Khartoum was simply demolished by local government officials. In the process most of the building's contents were also destroyed. Sudanese authorities claim that the building was demolished because it had no official permit. Church authorities, however, have reminded them that they have been trying to register the church since its opening more than twenty years ago in 1989, but were prevented from doing so by unjust delays by government officials. As St. John's lies in ruins there are understandably fears that other churches will also be destroyed. Earlier in June the authorities threatened to occupy and close a Catholic church, an action only prevented when the congregation occupied the building.

It is not only churches that are being removed from the skyline. A number of Church-run schools have recently been forced to close and threatened with demolition. The local politicians say this is because many Christians have left the area to go to South Sudan (under pressure from the government?) and so there are less Christian children needing schools. The Churches deny this. Most recently the offices of the Sudan Council of Churches and Sudan Aid in Nyala have been forced to close.

I just wonder what would happen in Birmingham, or Chicago or Berlin, if the local council suddenly decided to bulldoze a few mosques and close the office of Islamic Aid?

If the people of Sudan genuinely want an Islamic state then that's fine ... but the Holy Qu'ran demands that they care for 'the people of the book' (Christians) who live in their midst. Bulldozing churches, closing schools, encouraging thousands to flee their homes and go as refugees to South Sudan, does not look to me like the care and consideration the Qu'ran demands.

The frightening question is ... Sudan today, Egypt tomorrow?

How to be Christian in Egypt

Ashley Young just missed a good chance and England's midfield seem to be all over the place (yes, I'm pretending not to watch the football), so perhaps writing my blog might be a little more entertaining on a Sunday night!

The citizens of Egypt just democratically elected a Muslim, a leader of the Muslim Brotherhood in fact, as their new president. Admittedly it was only 51.7% of the those who voted - but that's democracy - it's a lot more people than voted for David Cameron in the UK and we're still stuck with him. So what should Egyptian Christians do?  Some are fearful that there is only one agenda for the Muslim Brotherhood - an Islamic state governed by Sharia law. Others are not so sure. Egypt has too much to loose, they say, by cutting itself off from friendly western democracies. Others, those who can, will simply leave the country as thousands have already done, looking for a new home in Australia, the US, Germany of Britain. But others will stay as Jesus' witnesses in the place that was His childhood refuge.

We have come a lomg way from the early days of the 'Arab Spring' revolution in Egypt and much of the optimism and idealism has evaporated and given way to hard realism. Christians - Copts, Catholics and Evangelicals - are used to suffering in this divided nation. Churches have been bombed, mostasteries bulldozed and leaders imprisoned. But tonight, a friend of mine, Bishop Angaelos of the Coptic Church in Egypt, wrote, "We call for an Egypt for all, one that takes into consideration the value and rights of every citizen, and pray for the new president as he takes on this responsibility. We hope that throughout his service, it is the good of the people of Egypt that will always be core to the decisions he makes at this formative stage and throughout his period in office."  Yes, pray for this Muslim Brotherhood president.  Seems strange but I seem to recall that St. Pasul also suggested something rather similar.

As our Christian friends in Egypt pray for their new president, I shall be praying for them, and for their nation.

Still Italy 0 England 0 - well perhaps I didn't miss much writting the blog! Now I can watch 30 minutes of extra time.

Look out Darwin

What do Jeremy Clarkson and the octopus on the fishmonger's slab have in common? Think about it. It might take you a while so while you work that one out let me introduce you to Professor Simon Conway Morris, a Paleobiologist from Cambridge, who has won a whole series of scientific prizes and now thinks that Darwin might have, well, jumped to the wrong conclusions. It all has to do with "Convergence" - let me explain ...

Back to the octopus and Mr. Clarkson. Have you worked it out yet? Well it appears they both look at you through very similar eyes - eyes that have a lense suspended in fluid focusing light onto light sensitive cells. I must admit I had not looked into octopus eyes before (or even found myself looking into Jeremy Clarkson's eyes!) but it seems that their similarity is highly significant for poor old Mr. Darwin. Why?  Because accordinging to Darwin (and all other biologists) homo sapiens (which we take to include Jeremy) and the octopus come from completely differenmt species that seperated on the evolutionary tree millions of years ago, way before that type of eye developed. It seems they have booth completely independently developed the same eye. Professor Morris tells me, and who am I to argue, that these "convergences" - different species becoming more like each other, developing the same solution to a problem - are remarkably common. So ...

So, when Darwin saw similarities in fossils, and live species, this does not necessarily mean they have a common ancestor, they might just have been facing the same problem (like needing to see) and ended up finding the same solution. Oh dear, Darwin.

Morris is humble enough to admit that he has no idea why species "converge", and by what mechanisms, but he suggests that perhaps life is more of a mystery than Darwin led us to believe.

I'm just left wondering whether it was God who thought of the eye, and after he gave a few to the octopus family He realised that Jeremy might find a couple useful as well - especially when he's driving at speed. But more importantly I'm really encouraged to read a scientist who believes there is still a great deal of mystery about life.   

Shepherd-ruling

My church home group are currently working our way through the prophet Micah - quite challenging stuff! This week we found ourselves in chapter 5 which was quite appropriate really in that we had spent the weekend playing at being royalists. It's amazing how so many British people (and I was one of them) can either ignore or deride our royal family most of the year and then spend four whole days waving the Union flag, singing "God save the Queen", and having lunch out in the street in pouring rain with neighbours we never spoke to before - just because someone called Elizabeth Windsor has been "long to reign (or was it rain?) over us".

Well, Micah, was certainly not a royalist, but he does have some interesting things to say about reigning.

Quite independently two of us in the home group decided that we should use "The Message" version of the Bible this week for our study. I admit I rarely read "The Message" - some sort of intellectual snobbery about it not being a proper translation, just an interpretation, as if the hermaneutical process is somehow secondary to linguistic translation!  Anyway, having been led to "The Message" one phrase really stood out for me. In a passage which I know almost by heart, because we use it every Christmas, (Micah 5:2) Micah speaks prophetically of Israel's king - the Messiah, Jesus - as "the leader who will shepherd-rule Israel". Instantly pictures of Homs jumped into my mind and my ears rang to the tune of Bashar al-Assad, Hosni Mubarak, Muammar Gaddafi, Slobodan Milošević, Idi Amin ...  What a contrast!  And then a quiet sense of gratitude for the young lady who fifty nine years ago was announted with oil in a Christian Cathedral and prayed for God's strength as she dedicated herself to serve her people.

But, I was reminded in our home group, the prophet's words are for me (not just Obama, Kibaki or Pratibha Patil). Shepher-ruling is for me, in my workplace, in my family, amongst my community. Verse 4 of that chapter in Micah goes on " He will stand tall in his shepherd-rule by God's strength, centered in the majesty of God-Revealed."  After the washing up, everyone had gone home, I had put away the Bibles and swept up the crumbs, I rewrote that verse as a prayer:

"May I stand tall as I shepherd-rule by God's strength, centred in the majesty of God-Revealed"

When a friend publishes a book you sort of feel you ought to read it - especially when it only costs £3.95 and spans only 26 pages! When I was sent the information about Nick Sagovsky's new book "The Revelance of Rawls" I was trying to remember whether rawls were some sort of wood working tool or one of those financial packages like 'futures', 'sub-primes', and 'derivatives'. It turns out Rawls, John Rawls, was a political philosopher whom Sagovsky considers to be the most significant of the twentieth century. His concerns were for justice and the creation of just political structures in society.

Sagovsky, who has been Canon Theologian at Westminster Abbey and held professorial chairs at Roehampton and Liverpool Hope Universities, has sub-titled his book(let) "Justice as Fairness in Turbulent Times". In seven short chapters he reviews Rawls' approach to justice and then applies this to our contemporary context of bankers' bonuses, child poverty, Greece's collapsing economy, and environmental destruction. I was interested to see that in his search for justice and fairness Rawls came to reject the Christian faith, not because of its basic doctrines but because of "its persecution" of heretics and dissenters.

So why has Sagovsky resurrected Rawls (who died in 2002) now? Because he feels that he has something to say to us about "fairness" as justice in society today. For example Sagovsky suggests that Rawls would not necessarily have objected to banker's bonuses BUT he would have asked who benefits from these. If it is only the 'already rich' that is unjust, but if it can be reliably shown that these bonuses benefit the most vulnerable and deprived in society (by, for example, providing the sort of financial stability now sadly missing in Greece) then they could be judged just. Rawls had some very interesting criteria for judging what is just - ensuring that all members of society (present and future) have equal access to all basics needed for human thriving. The question Sagovsky raises is, "What do human beings need in order to thrive?" How would a Christian answer that question?

If you are interrsted in justice in society and our current political/economic structural crises then this is a stimulating read.

Rewards for Spiritual Excellence

I was just about to rush off to the station and get my ticket up to London and St. Paul's Cathedral when I had second thoughts this morning. If you haven't heard, St. Paul's is the latest venue for a big '"give away" - £1.1 million in fact, and it all happens today. Why did I cancel my trip?  Well firstly because I think it is very unlikely that the Dalai Lama would actually give his £1 million to me (or even my 'charity of choice') but much more seriously, I am not sure what I think about a cash recognition for spiritual excellence.

I have huge respect for the Dalai Lama, and might have been tempted to go to St. Paul's just to hear him. I am also very happy that he has been awarded this year's Templeton Prize. From what I know of him he appears to be a man of integrity with a sense of the importance of spiritual journeying. My concerns are not about him but about the Templeton Prize.

Apparently the prize is set at £1.1 million to ensure that it is greater than all the Nobel Prizes because of Sir John Templeton’s belief that benefits from discoveries that illuminate spiritual questions are bigger than those from other worthy human endeavours. The prize was first established in 1972. But hang on, do you really prove that spiritual advance, spritual excellence, is more important than advances in science, medicine, peace, or anything else, by throwing money at people. To my (simple) mind awarding £1.1 million to the "winner" seems to completely undermine many of the spiritual values that the Dalai Lama, and more significantly, Jesus, stands for. Am I wrong?  Would Jesus have turned up at St. Paul's this morning if the Templeton Foundation were trying to give him £1.1 million?

By the way if you are still interested to know who the Dalai Lama will give his £1.1 million to you need to watch the presentation live on www.templeton.org at 1.30pm (BST) today.  I won't be watching but if they mention my name please do tell me!

Children speak truthfully

 

When there is a really big bomb blast in Pakistan it hits the headlines in Western newspapers and it might even get two minutes on the evening news, but day by day the children of Pakistan see their future, their prosperity, their country being torn apart by violence.

We conveniently forget, they do not.

Now, the children of Pakistan have been given an opportunity to say what they really think about terrorism - through art. These wonderful, and horrific, pictures come from an exhibition in Islamabad organised by Khawar Azhar.


















You can see a video report from the BBC at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-17862035

Orthopraxic Christians

How do I know whether I am orthodox or you are orthodox? Maybe neither of us is orthodox? Last Thursday I was asked to give a paper to a study group in Oxford composed mainly of Orthodox Christians (of the Russian, Greek, Romanian, etc. variety) but this week on Thursday I will be meeting with another group of orthodox Christians - orthodox Anglicans - those who have felt it necessary to set themselves apart from those within the Anglican Communion who have become rather un-orthodox. I'm referring to the Conference of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FCA) or GAFCON. One newspaper described their conference on Monday as "Anglican rebels descend on London"!

The word 'orthodox' is often used as if it means 'right believing' or 'the correct understanding of the Christian faith' but of course it actually means 'right worship'.  So who should judge whether my worship - that which I do in church, but also the worship offered by the way I live - is 'right'? Surely that is God's prerogative, the one to whom all worship is offered.

Reflecting on my encounters with (in fact, fellowship with) both groups of orthodox Christians, the Eastern Orthodox ones and the Anglican ones, I am tempted to try to invent some new language. I think I want to become an Orthopraxic Christian - one who tries to live correctly, to be a faithful disciple of Jesus, to walk in what the early Christians called "The Way". Of course we do still need to struggle with belief and I have no problems with the slightly heated debates which take place between so called 'orthodox' and 'non-orthodox' Anglicans or between 'Orthodox believers' and 'non-Orthodox believers' - they are all part of the 'right belief' struggle.  But we also need to struggle to get our 'life witness' right - to be orthopraxic - because it will be our orthopraxis which will witness to the power of the Risen Christ as much, as, or even more so than, our orthodox beliefs. My prayer for all of our gatherings is that our struggles for orthodox belief will be bathed in orthopraxis - our love to one another, which speaks of Christ's love for all.

On reflection I don't want to be an Orthopraxic Christian afte all! What I really want to do is to reclaim the title Orthodox for all of us whose heart seeks to worship God rightly, in word and life.

Complete Joy

I'm not the sort of person who normally gets excited by footnotes, especially those little notes you get in the Bible telling you that some ancient text had a spelling mistake in it - honestly, I'm not. But, just once in a while I get hooked.

I was reading the first letter of John and there at the end of the fourth verse (1 John 1:4) I found a little "a" and at the bottom of the page it said "Other ancient manuscripts read your". Well that was it, I just could not contain myself. Should it be "our" or "your"? What's the difference? My research project was underway and dusty books flew off my shelves.

Well you see there is actually a very big difference. John had just been doing his hard hit evangelism. "What was from the beginning, what we saw, what we heard, what we touched, we pass on to you ... basically that Jesus brings God's gift of eternal life" and then he goes on to say, "we told you all this so that your joy could be complete". Well no he doesn't. That is what we would expect him to say, but actually he says "so that our joy may be complete". In fact it seems (and this is where my footnote archaeology came in handy) that some of those ancient monks who copied out the Bible by hand so many times (and wouldn't you be getting tired by the time you got to 1 John and only broth for lunch?) so much expected John to say "your joy" that they ended up writting that even though the Bible they were copying said "our joy".

So why am I getting so worked up about this "our/your" business. Well, because it makes ALL the difference to how we think about evangelism. When the point of evangelism is to make your joy complete, I'm just doing good for your sake - I'm basically a 'do-gooder' but when I grasp that the whole point of evangelism is to make our (my) joy complete we are into a whole different ball game. If you receive the good news of Jesus Christ, if you start to follow Him, I gain a new sister or brother, I have someone new with whom to fellowship, etc. etc. ... my joy is completed. Wow - thank you footnote.

When states divide

In October, when Scotland becomes an independent nation, anyone with a Scottish grandparent will have the right to become a citizen of Scotland. In fact England will insist that anyone with a Scottish grandparent not only becomes a Scottish citizen, but also moves north across the border within one year of independence. For security reasons Scottish citizens expelled from England will only be able to take one small car load of possessions with them. Happy independence!

Well, by now I hope you have realised I made all that up. (If Cameron is still at the station buying his ticket to Glasgow, come home - we love you in Oxford!) But my serious point is that this is exactly what is happening between Sudan and South Sudan right now. With the two countries on the brink of a bitter war (over oil of course!) Sudan has decided that anyone at all with a grandparent from South Sudan (mainly Christians) needs to get out, and get out fast. To make matters worse all barge traffic on the River Nile has been stopped so people can only take with them what they can carry overland ... and then at the border there are all sorts of difficulties with the issuing of identify papers etc. And in the skies above - war planes circle.

When it was just one country (designed by those wonderful British imperialists) Sudan was locked in 25 years of tragic civil war. Now it seems the only difference is that the war is no longer 'civil', just war.

I'm praying for a miracle in Sudan and South Sudan, and I'm hoping our seperation from Scotland (and its oil) might be a little less acrimonious.

Christ was risen yesterday?

What are you supposed to think about on the morning after the day after the resurrection? Last week was easy, the themes and the thoughts spilled out on top of each other ... community, betrayal, anger, death, loss, waiting, anxiety, life, joy, hope. And Easter Monday sort of works as a day to sit (in the rain this year!) and take it all in - Christ is risen, He is risen indeed. But now it's Tuesday.

The temptation, as I packed by briefcase and set off for the office on Easter Tuesday, was to put Easter back in its box and keep it safely for next year, along with the Christmas tree and the palm crosses. Christ was risen on Sunday but now life gets back to normal. It has to, I have a job to do, family to care for, and a life to live. But seriously, can life ever get back to normal? If I understood Easter correctly, I hope I did, then there can be no more 'normal' - not ever again. 'Normal' flew out of the window the moment Jesus flew out of the tomb.

Jesus' risenness is never in the past, it is always here in the present and rushing on into the future - His future. Christ IS risen on Sunday, Christ IS risen on Monday ... you guessed it, Christ IS risen on Tuesday and Wednesday and and and. Good bye normal, welcome living Jesus! Now I have plenty to think about!

Big Apple Jesus

Having my attention drawn to the current cover of Newsweek by a colleague this afternoon, I decided to look back at previous issues. It seems that Newsweek have had a conversion experience! Instead of being stuck in the imaginings of medieval artists and victorian stained glass Jesus has stepped boldly onto the streets of New York - or rather Newsweek have suddenly spotted him there (He was there all along, I suspect, even in NY).

Andrew Sullivan, former editor of The New Republic, takes a hard look in this lead article at the politicisation of American religious institutions, suggesting that many churches and religious establishments in the US are simply used as vehicles for achieving political power. In his frusatration he suggests we "forget the church and follow Jesus". The only problem is that he seems to forget that to follow Jesus is to walk straight back into the church. It is not so easy to divorce Jesus and church - take away the church and you take away the Body of Jesus and end up with a spiritualised, idealised, dis-embodied idea you might want to call Jesus - but it just aint Jesus. The church is messy, distorted, - yes, sinful, but it is the Body of Jesus and if we follow Jesus we have to cope with the church however much it frustrates and pains us! After all it is us.

So, don't forget the church. By all means forget the institution, the establishment, the political Right, heirachy and ecclesial power - but not the Body of Jesus, whose PHYSICAL resurrection we will celebrate again this week. Rather pray for its re-creation in His image.

Mexicans become Muslims - rejoice?

"Hispanics becoming Muslims in the US may actually be a positive step forward for the gospel" says Tim Halls, mission strategist with Latin America Mission. At least that is what Diana Barrera reports in the EMQ this month, having interviewed Halls recently. Apparently Halls went on to suggest that as a growing number of Hispanics adopt the Muslim faith this means that "for the first time in hundreds of years, Muslims are living in the same space as Latino Christians and buying at the same stores and sending their kids to the same schools", which in turn creates an ideal context for sharing the gospel. In effect the Muslim Hispanics (a very small proportion of the growing Hispanic population in the US) are acting as a bridge between the two communities - a bridge the gospel can traverse.

Barrera adds, "We are in a shared space and what comes out of the shared space depends on what the people in it will do. Right now, Muslims feel extremely empowered and Latinos do not." So there seem to be two issues here. One - how do we create genuine 'shared space' where faith conversations can happen naturally? Two - how do we give Christians the confidence, the sense of empowerment to make the best use of that shared space?

Food for thought here not just for American Hispanics, I think.

Tit for tat demonisation?

I had a difficult dilemma today. Let me explain. A good friend of mine, a bishop in Malaysia, sent me some material about a protest being mounted in his country by Christians and asked me to publicise it. Sounds simple - Christians under pressure in an Islamic country, let's stand with them in solidarity, why not?

However the issue concerned a seminar being held tomorrow in Johor State (sponsored by the Education Department of the State and the office of the State Mufti of Johor. The title of the seminar is “Strengthening the Faith, the Dangers of Liberalism and Pluralism and the Threat of Christianisation towards Muslims. What is the role of teachers?” In fact, under protest, the words "Threat of Christianisation" have now been removed from the title but the text of the lecture has not been changed.

So why did I have difficulty in joining my friend's protest? Well, as soon as I read "Threat of Christianisation" I found the words "Threat of Islamicisation" were ringing even more clearly in my ears - words I hear day after day from American preachers, European internet pundits and the prophet who comes up to me after church every time I dare to use the word 'dialogue' in my sermon. In fact, I think this is the very first time I have heard the phrase "Threat of Christianisation" whereas I read of the opposite threat daily in our press. So ... my question was, why is it OK for lectures to be give, books to be published and YouTube videos to circulate warning of an Islamic threat but totally unacceptable to debate the perception of a Christian threat?

Of course I would prefer to do away with all threats, but in a real world we do often find each other threatening and perhaps it is better to talk about it than let the threats grow unhindered in our imaginings.

Yes, I did publish ... but I also voiced my questions - I hope my friend Ng understands.

Next year in Korea

Next year, in 2013, the World Council of Churches (WCC) will find itself holding its next global Assembly in South Korea, the country which some suggest still sends more missionaries per head than any other country in world. So ... mission will definitely be on the agenda.

But Korea not only holds records for the large number of cross-cultural missionaries it has sent out in recent decades, it also faces contined criticism over some of its methods; criticism that comes not least from within the WCC. When Koreans took a leading role in the Tokyo 2010 conference (marking the centenary of Edinburgh 1910) there was no shortage of those prepared to stand up and point a finger at the weaknesses of Korean mission ventures. They were accused of failing to take culture seriously enough, refusing to learn the language of their host community, using their financial power in inappropriate ways, and of failing to learn lessons from the mistakes made by European missionaries in the previous two centuries. Some of this criticism is justified but much is not. In many places Korean missionaries have lived sacrificial, inculturated lives, which have "given birth to much fruit". I had breakfast with one such on Tuesday this week and am proud to have others as good friends.

However there is one point on which we do need to challenge Korean mission movements, as indeed most of those in Europe and the US. They are still heavily committed to the twentieth century model of full-time, long-term, fully-supported missionaries. How appropriate is that in the twenty-first century? Which brings me - at last - to this week! On their way to Korea the WCC (or to be precise, their Conference on World Mission and Evangelism -CWME) are meeting, this week, in Manila - 200 plus church leaders, and their primary focus is mission and evangelism. There can be no more appropriate stopping off point on the way to Korea than the Philippines. Why? Because of the wonderful creativity of the churches of the Philippines who have trained and equipped hundres, perhaps thousands, of migrant workers as missionaries - some going to the least easily reached countries in the world.

I hope those attending the CWME this week, including my Korean friend who bought me breakfast a few days ago, get time to listen to the story of the Philippines Mission Network - and go on their way to Korea challenged and inspired.

What are archbishops for?

In church this morning we prayed for a new archbishop, one who will serve the diocese of Canterbury in south east England, head the Church of England, and provide a point of focus for the worldwide Anglican Communion - to name just three of the many roles that this person will be expected to fulfil. But as John led our prayers this morning I found myself thinking, "But realy, what are archbishops for?" I think I know why we need pastors, ministers or vicars, and bishops sort of make sense, but archbishops?

Over the past couple of days I have been reading the comments of leading religious commentators on the ten years of Rowan Williams' leadership as Archbishop of Canterbury. Whilst many have praised him for his intellect, his wisdom, his humility and his persistent and painful search for understanding and reconciliation within a fractured Anglican Communion, others have spoken of his failed leadership saying he lacked the ability to "bash heads together" and provide much needed "powerful personal leadership".

Personally I am a great admirer of Rowan Williams and I am quite excited about his move to Cambridge where he will regain the freedom he needs to truely become the prophetic Christian leader he is - the freedom to provoke, question, inspire and lead by humble Christian example. Praise God he has decided to escape the shackles of archbishoping before he becomes too drained to offer what we so much need - spiritual leadership.

As I prayed this morning for the man (it will be a man, at least this time round) who will be chosen to lead 70 million Anglicans, I found myself muttering, "In the steps of Jesus ... please God preserve us from head bashers and powermongers ... give us a man of humility, wisdom and prayer, a man who knows that archbishops, even Archbishops of Canterbury, are no more than the rest of us, simple followers of Jesus, trying to keep close to him and his ways.

Thank you Rowan for ten years of your life, years of pain, struggle and misunderstanding. Now may your leadership blossom in freedom.

High profile pain

What does it feel like when your story goes viral on YouTube? If you are a budding musician it could be your great break - a passport to a whole new career. But what if you are the mother who lost her two sons to the Lord's Resitance Army in northern Uganda, or a young man who lies sleepless every night reliving the traumer and brutality of his time serving as a child soldier?

The fact that 79 million people have watched Kony 2012 in the past ten days has led to a major outcry in Uganda, the nation traumaticed for 23 years by the cruelty and obsenity of Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army. Produced by the California based charity Invisible Children, the 30 minute video powerfully tells the story of the abuse of children over two decades in East Africa. Using the idiom of Facebook-style social networking the story told is of the bond that developed between two boys - one a Ugandan boy soldier and the other a young American turned social activist. Viewed from the perspective of a charity seeking to raise funds and engage American young people in social action this video is at the top of its class. But ...

But if you are a family just beginning to come to terms with the pain of lives destroyed by the personal ambitions of Joseph Kony, a video (and poster campaign which will climax across the US on 20 April) which adopts the catch phrase "Make Kony famous" may not be quite so welcome. Sheikh Musa Khalil, the Kadhi of the Muslim region of northern Uganda said in an interview that the film "is likely to traumatize those who were affected" and Bishop Johnson Gakumba, speaking in Gulu said, "While it publicizes the problem, we see it as being outdated. It should have been released in 2003"

So what are Invisible Children trying to do - disgrace a tyrant, stop a war, generate cash for their charity, or simply raise the profile of their work? When thousands of children have been aboused by the Lord's Resistance Army, a charity is doing good work, funds are short, and a powerful video goes viral, how important are the victim's views?

Who moved?

Don't believe them when they tell you Muslims are taking over the world. In fact there are twice as many Christian migrants moving round the world today as there are Muslims. Amazingly there are 214 million migrants in the world today, 49% of them Christian. What a mission force! - 105 million Christians on the move!

These figures and many more come from the latest study of migration by the Pew Research Center, a report that points out that if migrants were considered as one nation they would be the fifth largest nation on earth. The full report can be found at http://www.pewforum.org/faith-on-the-move.aspx

I was fascinated to see that whereas 25% of all Jews are migrants, only 5% of Christians migrate and 4% of Muslims. Hindus and Buddhists on the whole stay put. And where do all of these migrants come from? The top five 'exporting' countries are Mexico (with over 12 million), China, Palestine, India and Vietnam. And where do they go? Well not too hard to guess the top destination - USA, but the next four might be a surprise - Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, and Hong Kong. Europe doesn't feature as a major recipient of migrants at all.

So what about this migrant mission force of 105 mission Christians who travel to another country for work or for other reasons? Well 78% of them end up in the (nominally at least) Christian countries of North America, Latin America and Europe. The other 28% however still represent an amazing 28 million people. Which church or mission agency could deploy 28 million Christian witnesses in Asia, Africa and the Middle East? But these people paid their own travel costs, found their own jobs, carried their own luggage and even organised their own language learning. What would it take for the churches in their countries of origin to equip them to be effective witnesses to the gospel of Jesus Christ in their new home countries? If only 1% were trained that would be well over a quarter of a million Christians living the gospel and sharing the good news of Jesus right across Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Wow!

This report is packed full of interesting statistics but I must end this posting before it gets too long. So, one last fact ... 16% (2.3 million) of all migrants entering the Gulf States are Christian. Think about it!

A 'both and' faith?

"That's heritical" exclaimed an African mission leader, challenging his Indian colleague. We were in the middle of our most lively debate so far in a week of stimulating discussion at the Faith2Share Leadership Consultation - 25 senior mission leaders from Africa, Asia, North America, Brazil, Europe, New Zealand, the Middle East and Central Asia.

The outburst had been stimulated by a paper from a Malaysian mission leader in which he raised the controversial question of 'dual belonging'. In other words, when a Buddhist or Muslim becomes a follower of Jesus do we Christians need to ask them to make a radical break with all their cultural/religious past or is there some way in which they can belong both to their 'heritage' community and their new found Christian community - both at the same time. In a small group discussion someone suggested that Jesus himself was a 'dual belonger' because he never left the community of Jewish faith but critiqued it from the inside whilst founding his own new community of 'Kingdom belongers'. We were also challenged to explain why we never ask secular Europeans to make a radical break with their former secularism, materialism and Enlightenment beliefs when they decide to follow Jesus, whilst we make very costly demands on former Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists.

Of course no heretics were burnt tonight. And we are still not quite sure which of us are the heretics!

Insiders outside

Insiders outside are coming inside in great numbers in the Punjab. If that makes any sense at all?!

I was listening to Rev. I K Abraham, the General Secretary of the Friends Missionary Prayer Band as he led a Bible study this morning for a group of mission leaders brought together by Faith2Share. He spoke on Ephesians 3:6 "This mystery is that through the gospel the Gentiles are heirs together with Israel, members together of one body, and sharers together in the promise of Christ Jesus." I have read that verse many times but never heard the truth behind it expressed so simply and clearly as Abraham put it this morning - the insiders are outside and must be brought in. If we look with the eyes of God there are no 'outsiders', no divisions, all are 'insiders', but some of the 'insiders' are still outside the fellowship of the church and we need to welcome them in.

Abraham went on to tell us of the hundreds of men and women in the Punjab, India, who every day discover that because of Jesus' love for them (his costly love for them on the cross) they are 'insiders' - they belong, they are part of the body of Christ ... and so the visible church grows by hundreds each day.

Now I'm wondering who I treat as outsiders when they are really just insiders left outside in the cold.

Getting the job done

I had a very interesting conversation this afternoon with a colleague from Bishkek in Kyrgyzstan. We had been talking about coaching - not sports coaching but coaching leaders in Christian ministries. Someone else in the group had just said that in 'relational societies' (as contrasted with task orientated societies) it is impossible to get leaders to set goals and keep to them. Over coffee afterwards, Ruslan (not his real name for security reasons) suggested to me that that was rubbish - relational people have many goals, they just don't look like goals to task orientated people because they are not 'task' goals, they are 'relational' goals. Interesting!

As we talked we came to agree that in some societies we set our task goals, our speadsheets, our outcomes, etc. and then as we get going in the business venture, or whatever it is, we begin to form relationships which in the end can become very strong relationships. In other societies, however, we set relational goals - I really want to get to know that guy, I would love to spend more time with her, I could learn a lot from that person, etc. and then as we begin to work on the relationships we discover things we could do together, a business (or a mission or a church) is born and before we know it all sorts of 'task goals' have been achieved simply because some folks enjoyed spending time together.

So ... tasks that build relationships, or relationships that get tasks done - does it matter? Either way the job gets done. The question we parted on and did not answer was, "Did Jesus have "realtional" or "task" goals in his ministry?"

Remembering Shahbaz Bhatti

I just arrived in Turkey a few hours ago, tired from an overnigt flight, but happy to be in the sunshine and to be connecting with old friends, a network of Christians concerned for the witness of Christ in the countries of Central Asia. I opened my Facebook, as very self-respecting technocrat has to do these days within a few minutes of arriving anywhere (!), and the first chat message I saw was from Ken Mwangi, in Kenya. (Thank you Ken.) He began, "I weep and mourn for the work here in Africa", and then goes on to remind me of the sacrifice - unto death in many cases - of the missionaries who brought the gospel to his country. We reflected together how the blood of the martyrs has so often been the seed of the church.

Last time I was at this same gathering I shared fellowship with a great Christian leader from Dagestan, Pastor Artur. He is not here today. He was gunned town in his home town over a year ago. One more martyr from a region which has given more blood for the life of the church than any other during the past century. It is hard to be here without Artur, but we rejoice in the church he planted.

These musings are appropriate today, on 2 March. Today it is exactly a year since Shahbaz Bhatti (pictured above), the only Christian serving in the Cabinet of the Government of Pakistan was gunned down - on 2 March 2011 - as he left his mothers house. Today I will not forget Shahbaz Bhatti, Pastor Artur, Bishop Janani Luwum and so many more. We weep but we rejoice in the blood of the martys.

Science Fundamentalists

The choice not being great on TV last night, I ended up watching the Richard Dimbleby lecture, delivered this year by the Nobel Prize winner, Sir Paul Nurse. Talk about evangelism, he was as good as Billy Graham, but no altar (should that be 'test tube') call. As a scientist (at least by training) myself I was encouraged to hear his powerful advocacy for pure science, science for science sake, and to feel his obvious excitement about scientific enquiry.

But then I started to get worried. He crossed the line. I have come across Muslim fundamentalists, Hindu fundamentalists, and a good few Christian fundamentalists but now I found myself being frightened by a science fundamentalist. According to Nurse science has ALL the answers and there is really no place for politics, religion, belief or conviction, in fact they only get in the way and mess things up.

Towards the end he also drifted into a scary nationalism. Science is to be used to advance the cause of Britain, to make Britain great, to overcome our 'competitors' - he used that word a lot. For me that did not even ring true with science because, in my limited experience, many of the great scientific advances of recent years have come from trans-national cooperation.

Amen, we need more good science ... but science which knows how to talk to faith, to politics and to community. I thought we were learning to live in a joined up world. Obviously not Sir Paul Nurse. "Science is great, long live science"!

Why on earth?

I must have read Mark 1:16 hundreds of times, but this week it just struck me how ridiculous it is! I mean the invitation to Simon, Andrew and the rest to become "fishers of men", to have a role in the mission of God. And that realisation has implications for all our mission.

Let me explain. This call makes no sense at all when you read it in context. In the first few verses of what Mark describes as "the beginning of the good news of Jesus Christ" we see the full reality and power of the Trinity. God the Son is found fully present on earth in the person of Jesus, the carpenter of Nazareth. The Spirit of God descends and takes full control of the situation driving Jesus first into the wilderness and then into ministry in Galilee. God the Father speaks - giving his full approval to this amazing expression of the Missio Dei, the outreaching of God in creation. The full relational life of the Trinity is powerfully described in these few verses and the focus of that God-life is made clear - the redemption of all creation, beginning with us.

So why is the call of Simon and his mates so ridiculous? Because it is so unnecessary, it adds nothing at all to the action. Son of God, empowered by the Spirit and approved by the Father needs no assistants! But the amazing thing is that He actually chooses to invite our participation.

If you really grasp the truth of that verse you will never again dare even to think you are doing God a favour by participation in His mission.