There's a generation gap in charitable giving

 I can't help wondering whether this has some link to the de-Christionising of our country:

 "young people are failing to keep up with their forebears in the generosity stakes". It seems the generation from which the "chuggers" who prowl our high streets are drawn is, paradoxically, less likely to give to charity. But, as the report makes clear, they're just the latest participants in a trend – rates of giving have been declining in the households of the under-50s for decades. Why there's a generation gap in charitable giving | Ed Howker:

 Other research indicates that religious people are more likely to volunteer, and I would link volunteering with giving; one's money the other time and effort.

The article, however, posits another issue:

But today they are wrongfooted on two fronts. For the left it is government's role to fix environmental problems, provide healthcare and address poverty. The right, meanwhile, looks to markets to improve health provision, trade carbon credits and raise standards of living at home and abroad. Both models undermine the value of the individual contributor, leaving him or her to wonder "what's the point"?

 I think I'd find this more convincing were it not for the fact that this same generation are not really getting involved in the political processes and, in my experience, seem cynical both of governmental and private enterprise ability to fix things. Perhaps that has extended also to charitable giving too? I think I still come back to the hypotheses that it is simply that most of them have not been raised with the idea that giving money is something to be encouraged or to be regularly intentional about. It's okay for charity fundraisers like Comic Relief but that hardly constitutes a sustained discipline of charitable giving which, frankly, I have learnt from Christian discipleship. Without a sustained encouragement, I contend, people tend (and I empahisise that; it's not a simple binary do or don't) not to 'self tax' voluntarily. I don't discount entirely a sense of passing up responsibility to state or market, but I think that more important is a socially reinforced vision and encouragement to at least counteract some of the worst of our foul-ups or even to try to make the world a slightly better place.

Demographics of Atheism and Theism

Apparently the blog that this refers back to has been generating a good bit of comment. Here's why (Oh, it's at this page Religion and learning: what we know | Nick Spencer | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk):

"In short, the data seem to be showing two things. First, atheism has historically been a minority movement of better educated and higher-social grade individuals whereas theism has more affinity with the lower and lower-middle class and the less well educated. Second, this is changing, with new theists coming from a higher social grade and being better educated than new atheists."

And it's data in search of a good explanatory theory or narrative, so now's your chance; I'm still puzzling, but I'm interested in any theories or stories to explain it.

The mythical European Umma |

There are some issues that we need not to be fanning the flames of potential hatred and anxiety. This is one of them. And it is worrying that some sections of would-be opinion-forming are keen to ramp up anxiety in order to sell their wares: "the Eurabia myth is one of the most persistent and dangerous of recent years – and the Daily Telegraph fanned the controversy this month with its claims that it had carried out an investigation which revealed that the EU's Muslim population would jump from the current 4-5% to an improbable 20% by 2050."
If that were true, then sure: it would need debate and policy to think about how we respond and plan properly. But is it true? Well, the title of this opinion piece probably clues you in to the author's take (and he has a Muslim-background name, btw). The mythical European Umma | Khaled Diab | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk
But then look at the rebuttal:

Most projections that foresee a massive increase in Europe's Muslim population are based on certain assumptions... that recent immigration trends will continue indefinitely ... that European Muslims will continue to have a significantly higher fertility rate than the population at large. ...

The article places a credible question against the former in the light of the way migration policy is already moving in the EU. The second is also questionable because the evidence is that fertility rates are already starting to converge with Euro average.

I would add that the background of the author gives pause for thought: he is clearly not in favour of an Islamification of Europe. And like previous waves of migration, I'm not sure that we should expect that Muslim background people should retain strongn religiosity any more than Irish and Italians in the early and mid 20th centuries. The evidence in Muslim- majority countries seems to be that religiosity beyond the cultural probably is not much more than in many European societies. This would suggest, I propose, that many nominally Muslim families will increasingly see their sons and daughters and beyond adopt the patterns of life and politics of those around them with a 'return' to Islam for cultural occasions. Without the support of an Islamic state to bolster that, it seems to be the likely outcome to me. The other way, ironically, for the kind of religiosity that the Torygraph fears to be held in place or even to grow is, ironically, to make a big issue of it and so encourage people to hunker down into religious identities.

Those who know Bradford well enough will have seen all of the above at work. When you have heard a Muslim cynically comment on the building of a swanky new Masjid near Bradford centre, then there is pause for thought. His comment was to the effect that he doubted there would be enough of the rising generation sufficiently religiously observant to fill it in 20 years time. Diab suggests, in fact:

I suspect that the future cultural fault lines in Europe will not run along traditional religious lines, but will pit believers against non-believers, creating a kind unity of purpose between conservative Muslims and Christians intent on preserving faith in a "Godless Europe".

Actually, I doubt that, except in informal de-facto terms, perhaps. THere's too much exclusivism on both wings to make that easy. And in any case, I think there are signs that Christians are beginning to learn the lessons about Enlightenment captivity and to see secularisms as just as 'religious' in their own way as religions. If that is so then there won't appear to be much to choose between Islams or secularisms; they'd both be badly-founded thought systems to be applauded and critiqued by gospel standards as they merited.

Baby boomers won't retire quietly

As someone born on the cusp of baby boom and gen X, I'm rather sensitive to this issue, particularly as I seem to be watching church pensions shrinking and the ability of the present giving to make up the actuarial lack diminishing also. So for me the future in 20 years or so seems to require the possibility of continuing some degree of employment. There's more in this helpful article Baby boom Britain won't retire quietly | Society | The Observer And here's the start of why it's important: "Older people are fitter than ever before and many do not want, or cannot afford, to retire at 65. Last week there was a taste of the fights to come with a series of challenges to the government over age discrimination."
The article raises interesting and important issues like this one: "retirement has a class conflict,... between "the working classes who are rather glad to get out of jobs they didn't enjoy and the middle classes and people with more interesting jobs who are desperate to stay in".
And I have to say that I think I already see the evidence of this appearing in the media: "A grey pound will change consumer culture. Materialism and fashions dominated by youthful energy and sexual imagery could disappear under the weight of what economist George Magnus calls "boomerangst" - the interest of babyboomers in the implications of their ageing and an older society."
In terms of what we need to consider in terms of the mission of the churches, this struck me as important: "Health problems that come with old age are seeing a change. "There is a huge rise in the number of older people with depression. Why that is I don't know, but it's certainly increased hugely even in the last year," said Carroll. "We try to reach these people but there are huge waiting lists for our services. Isolation remains a problem."
I'm wondering whether this is the parallel to teenage depression which seems to be linked, I seem to recall, with not really having a sense of purpose. Once people can't immerse themselves in their work and can't distract themselves with whatever money can buy, naked life faces us and it may not look that attractive. That's what the existentialist and nihilist artists have been trying to tell us for the best part of a century: now its truth may be hitting home.

10m more people in UK by 2031

Usual disclaimers: this is based on current trends and could be affected by events, government policies etc. But it looks like we should brace ourselves for further house-price rises above inflation, increased religiosity in society due to immigration of Christians and Muslims from the wider world. I would guess also that this will help to offset our pensions crisis somewhat but will put further strain on the environment. "long-term assumptions of future fertility, life expectancy and migration are higher than past projections. Researchers have raised migration estimates from a net rise of 145,000 per year in 2004 to 190,000-plus each year. They believe that almost half of the UK's population rise of 4.4 million over the next decade will be fuelled by migration. The study also revealed the changing structure of Britain's ageing society as people live longer."
The question I'm asking is how we should respond church-wise. We will have, in all probability, more aging members but also more minority ethnic group members. The need for 'fresh expressions' will continue and a premium will be placed on leadership which is able to be culturally flexible and perhaps even linguistically versatile (who'd have thought ten years ago that we'd need French-speaking liturgical resources in Gateshead?)
What else will these figures imply? Higher proportions of incomes tied up in housing and food bills (peak oil plus less agricultural land locally would push up food prices, probably) so finances for church activities might be harder hit. Therefore continuing to enable tent-maker ministries and low-resource forms of church will be important. The challenge of Islam both in terms of integration and combatting the Saudi-funded Wahhabi and Salafi versions will probably continue to be vitally important.
10m more people in UK by 2031, say researchers | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited

Ministers to press on with new nuclear power stations

Despite the fact that, we are told, ministers are to press on with new nuclear power stations, we can hope that the coalition of the unwilling are enough: "A group of Labour, Lib Dem and SNP MPs warn in a letter published in today's Guardian that 'we should not be politically panicked into accepting a technology that poses a continuing risk in terms of weapons proliferation and terrorism, produces a toxic waste for which no management solution is agreed, benefits from hidden subsidies and tends to undermine the prospects of renewable energy and efforts to increase efficiency'. The letter, also signed by Friends of the Earth, said it was a 'myth' that the lights would go out or that Britain would be far less dependent on gas imports without nuclear."
Apparently the figure in polls in the country show an interesting split. Overall it's 49% to 44% against nuke power. However if you separate out the genders, those in favour among men come out as 62% whereas among women it's 27%. Now why is that? Are men more 'macho' (raised knuckles in the air and grunt 'hunh, hunh') about technological fixes and the industrial scale solution? Are women more connected to the waste problem and empathise with the potential suffering? Can I be any more stereotyped? Could the stereotypes be true?

Anyway, a couple of other things to bear in mind. One is that the government have been forced by a Greenpeace legal challenge, to hold more public enquiry on the matter. The second is the proposed change in planning regulations. The sweetener for the latter is that ordinary people could find it easier to make changes to their houses and interestingly the sales pitch mentions solar panels and wind turbines (pause for raised eyebrow and clearing of throat). On the downside it would cut the time for nuke power stations, airport extra runways and more road to be proposed and then built. Hmmmm.
Thinking of emigrating to Ireland.
In relation to the cited article on planning regs, one commenter (Brian Drury, we salute you) wrote very wittily:

“someone in the audience should blow a raspberry and shout "hypocrite".”
And then they will be arrested, fingerprinted, DNA profiled and charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
New Labour: Tough on freedom - tough on the causes of freedom.

You know, I fear he may be right.

Older fathers

Guardian Unlimited Money | News_ | Money worries delay fatherhood, says survey:
This is an important thing to note in terms of the big impact it could have on church life. Let's just tease out some possibilities on that. There's issues in the CofE related to Christening enquiries. My research shows that men are least likely to think that Christening in whatever form is something that they are wiling to publicly identify with and as their confidence grows with age I suspect that this could feed even more into the diminishing figures recently published. On the other hand, it is likely that they are going to be having children when mid-life is making them ask questions of meaning of life and which having children is likely to exacerbate. There may be opportunities though I think that pitching our response in terms of what kind of world we create for our children may be the most fruitful rather than an Alpha approach.

Also given new interest and entitlements to involvement in parenting it could be that the whole mother and toddler thing will look increasingly different.

Articulate, reasonably financially secure, wanting more involvement in their children's upbringing and perhaps less willing to let the mother's interest in spiritual things be the default position on matters pertaining to spirituality: that's the likely kind of way it looks. MAybe these guys are into midlife issues but do they really see anything in the churches or the lives of Christians around them that make them think that Christ has something helpful to speak into their lives? Remember these are people who may well also be used to various kinds of training stuff that has a vaguely spiritual link [usually new agey].

I may be running way ahead of the facts here, but I would be surprised if some of it didn't check out.

One thing though:
"'The concept of children knowing their grandparents could disappear within a couple of generations if those trends continue,' said Jason Wyer-Smith, of Virgin Money Life Insurance."
Seems to be an issue of not taking into account the bigger picture: when I do funerals for people who've died in old age they have often died in their late 70's or in their 80's or older. Their children are in their 50's and 60's; their grandchildren are teens or twenties or thirties, they often have great grandchildren. Life insurance people haven't been linking up their actuarials with this factoid!