Muslims and Christians ‘can share faith ethically’

Check it out. I've just been considering how we represent the ethics of mission in some of our courses, and this seems to add grist to that mill: Church Times - Muslims and Christians ‘can share faith ethically’: There is a ten-point code of conduct to guide us. Actually seems pretty good. Only the last point might be controversial for some Muslims. The rest are hard to object to in principle. Though, of course, sometimes practice falls short.
"1. both faiths believed they should proclaim their faith by words and attitudes, actions and lifestyles;

2. in language and method, both faiths should recognise that people’s choice of faith was primarily a matter between themselves and God;

3. “sharing our faith should never be coercive”;

4. caring for people should never be manipulated to gain a convert;

5. nor should conversion be linked to inducements;

6. neither faith should diminish the faith of others and each should speak honestly about their own faith;

8. people should be honest about their motivations;

9. they can rejoice with converts but be sensitive to the loss that others felt; and

10. “Whilst we may feel hurt when someone we know and love chooses to leave our faith, we will respect their decision and will not force them to stay, or harass them afterwards.”"

See also Richard Sudworth's comments.

Bishops, more or less

In the general Synod meeting at the end of this week, "there is a diocesan synod motion from Bradford. The diocese wants to reduce the number of bishops and other senior clergy. It points out that, while the number of stipendiary parochial clergy has fallen, there has been no fall in the number of suffra�gan bishops, archdeacons, and other senior clergy.
It asks whether there could be part-stipendiary or self-supporting dignitaries, or whether their work could be shared between teams of parochial clergy. The motion asks the Archbishops’ Council to formulate proposals for a reduction, and bring them to the Synod in three years."
I think we should be asking the kind of question this motion throws us into. My own view is that this is the wrong way to go about the issue. We do need to cut costs, but I can't see how reducing the number of bishops etc will help without a change in their roles. So if we have to consider what bishops etc are for then let's have that debate and decide on that basis. Practicalities impinge: if we stick with episcopal confirmation, then is there a danger that fewer bishops become more focussed on dispensing that particular sacramental?

My preference is to start with the 10 provinces idea which effectively takes a look at the geography and also gives a framework for cutting back on some senior posts and offers savings to dioceses in the form of sharing resources at provincial level. Now, if we baulk at creating more provincial level issues, then I'm comfortable with replacing the idea with that of having 'archdioceses' (like those urban dioceses where they have episcopal areas) but with the aim of sharing across the archdiocese.

I would like to encourage us to consider whether we should do two things instead (and this is a different proposal from the 10 provinces one, though not exclusive of it): one is to extend the equalisation of stipends to all clergy, bishops, archdeacons, deans of cathedrals. I see no argument for calling a salary a 'stipend' if it is going to be differential according to hierarchical status rather than need. Then we can look more sanguinely at the proposal that we actually need more bishops. I would suggest that either bishops cover a deanery-sized area or something the size of about half a dozen deaneries. The aim being to allow bishops to be real supports and coaches to their fellow presbyters (recall, they are still so ordained), they might be also involved in some kind of ministry in a parish or chaplaincy too. Consider that Italian bishops are effectively, I'm told, the bishop for a town or city. That seems a reasonable way forward.
Church Times - July Synod to be leaner, but, with any luck not meaner:

1,000 Quid fines -1k reasons not to volunteer for an ID card

Much though I hate to say it, on this point the Conservatives are right: "how the scheme could be 'voluntary' when they were penalties for failing to provide information for the database: 'If it is a voluntary card, why are there penalties attached for failing to provide that information?' he said, adding that the government should warn people that once they 'volunteer' for a passport or ID card it was then compulsory for the rest of their lives."�1,000 fines to bolster ID cards as�Tories pledge to scrap scheme | Politics | The Guardian:

Christians at Work, some helps

Hereford Dioceses get a hat tip from me for this: CristiansatWork Here's why the issue is important: "Too often we give the impression that work is part of the ‘secular' world and that the ‘real work', God's work, only gets done in church or through the church in our neighbourhoods. It is a fundamental view of the project that life should not be separated into the ‘sacred' and the ‘secular'; all of life is sacred to God and consequently to ourselves. The ‘Christians at Work' project aims to enable people to be more effective in their place of work and encourage Churches to support them, through prayer, teaching and action."
The hat-tip is because they've made materials freely available. I've yet to go through them. Do let me know with a comment on this post if you've seen them and used them and what you think.
Also worth checking out:
The Christian and Paid Work.
Ministry in Daily Life (ECLA).

Talking God in public debate

A heads-up for a useful report from Theos. It's Jonathan Chaplin's Talking God , The legitimacy of Religious Public Reasoning. TalkingGod1.pdf (application/pdf Object) It's particularly useful to those thinking about how secularity and religion co-exist in public space. I recognise useful stuff from the point of being a chaplain in HE and FE as well as the obvious relevance to political debate. At the launch event, the author said something really helpful which encapsulated something I'd been saying for years but never yet found a satisfying way to say.

The majority of commentators appear to think it is inappropriate for religious believers to appeal to their own faith commitments in public debate. The reality is that secular commentators have their own faith commitments. It is just as reasonable for public reasoning to be religious as 'secular'. The challenge for all parties is to ensure that their arguments enrich political debate.

Quite so.

Nuclear weapons: Global Zero is coming

"out of the spotlight, Global Zero, a new alliance of prominent diplomats, military and civic leaders, is beginning to persuade the nuclear powers that there is only one answer to solve this crisis: the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

Presidents Obama and Medvedev are meeting next week. Let's call on them to put their historic pledge into action and lead global efforts to achieve a nuclear free world. Sign the declaration below and help build a massive citizen call to action. Global Zero leaders will deliver it directly to the Presidents of the US and Russia."
Nuclear weapons: Global Zero is coming:

Beggar your neighbour! -The insidiousness of

This ad really got under my skin and not in a good way. The reason is the way that it illustrates and in a sense sanctions or renders unproblematical the notion that happiness may be a zero-sum game: my happiness is increased or bought at the expense of your envy or unhappiness. I think this may be insidious because it legitimises a view of the world where we see happiness or, rather, the things that may contribute to happiness as in short supply and so if we are happy then that means somewhere else someone else has not to be (there has been another seriess of tele ads about similar 'balances'). This could be a slippery slope to accepting gross injustice and inequality ("someone's got to be poor and unhappy, so why should it be me? Alternatively, why shouldn't it be me that's the lucky one: blow the other poor sod.") and it also seems to be relating strongly to the Yin-yang/Force view of the world: it's all about balance. And that latter is only a step away from cosmological dualism; good and evil are equal and opposite forces.

I could say more, but I won't just now as I'm due to help with a Storytelling project run by our church in a local school ...

Advert signif - Free hosted at iimmgg.com