With this being our first Christmas in Britain, we had the opportunity to take part in the Christmas tradition of gathering around the television at 3pm to watch the Queen's Christmas address. What everyone is talking about after this year's address – and what the media is avoiding talking about – is the last part of her speech, where she spoke of the forgiveness of sins that comes through Jesus Christ and her prayer that all would make room in their heart for him.
The various reactions triggered by this are interesting. As I mentioned above, I saw several news reports this morning reviewing the speech, none of which mentioned the last part. But on Twitter and Facebook, I've seen many Christians overflowing with excitement that their Queen would point so clearly to Christ as the hope of the world. While the message itself excites them, of course, the excitement is probably more a result of such a prominent public figure so openly talking about Jesus.
What makes the Queen's speech interesting as well is how it contrasts with a recent speech by Prime Minister David Cameron on the place of Christianity in Britain – she insisting that salvation is found through faith in Jesus, he merely pointing to the role Christianity's values and morals play in shaping British society and his own rather minimal commitment to it.
When I lead the 8:00am service at our church, I sometimes get to pray these words from the Book of Common Prayer:
Almighty and everlasting God...we humbly beseech thee so to dispose and govern the heart of Elizabeth thy servant, our Queen and Governour, that, in all her thoughts, words, and works, she may ever seek thy honour and glory, and study to preserve thy people committed to her charge, in wealth, peace, and godliness.
Having heard her speech, I am glad to know a little more about the faith of the Queen we pray for each week. And we will keep offering these prayers for her, trusting that God will continue to guide and sustain her.
Of the things I have never understood, these are included – why church attendance rises so much at Christmas, and why so many recording artists produce Christmas albums during their career. The only conclusion I can draw is that they must not think about the words they are singing when they sing the traditional hymns of this season.
The church has many great hymns that proclaim the wonderful truths of the Christian faith, but I find that many of our Advent and Christmas hymns make those declarations in an especially poignant way. I was thinking about this yesterday evening during our carol service, looking at the many unfamiliar faces gathered in the church. Why were they there? And why did they so readily sing these songs, even with exuberance?
If people took a moment to think about the lyrics of the Advent and Christmas hymns, I wonder how they would react to something like the third verse of 'Hark! The Herald Angels Sing':
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness! Light and life to all He brings, Ris'n with healing in His wings. Mild He lays His glory by, Born that man no more may die, Born to raise the sons of earth, Born to give them second birth.
Many of these songs are joyful expressions of the wonder of the incarnation. Other songs boldly present a challenge to those who have not confessed Christ as Lord, and demand a response. Consider this verse, from 'Joy to the World':
He rules the world with truth and grace, And makes the nations prove The glories of His righteousness, And wonders of His love.
Yea, Lord, we greet Thee, Born this happy morning, Jesus, to Thee be all glory giv'n!
In November of last year, Al Wolters wrote an excellent article for the online version of Comment magazine, making a similar point about the 'Hallelujah Chorus' in Handel'sMessiah. He notes that despite the overtly religious theme – that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and that his Kingdom rules over all the earth – people in our culture still stand up when the choir sings the majestic chorus. What makes this especially interesting is the juxtaposition of the confession of Christ as Lord, ruling over all the earth, with Psalm 2, which is sung prior to the chorus. Wolters observes,
The meaning is unmistakable. The nations at large conspire against the Lord and against his Anointed, and plan to cast off all restraints that he has imposed on them. But God will only laugh at their defiance, and he (now addressed in the second person) will crush their rebellion and smash them like a piece of pottery. Then the "Hallelujah," with its celebration of the universal triumph of God in Jesus Christ, is sung. And audiences across several continents get to their feet in symbolic endorsement.
What do we make of this? It may be surprising that people who don't consider themselves Christians continue to sing these songs (or even celebrate Christmas, for that matter), but old cultural mores die hard, and that these songs remain so widely known owes to the vestiges of a culture in which Christianity once had a more prominent place.
Still, how can so many people sing the words of these songs and not be taken aback by the startling claims they make? One reason, perhaps, is their familiarity. Repetition serves as an aid to remembering something and implanting it in our mind, but too much repetition can sometimes dull the effect of the thing to be remembered. We hear these songs played over and over again at this time of year, and it may just be that the oft-repeated choruses no longer hit us with the full force of their declarations. More, the power of the message of the church's Advent and Christmas hymns is diluted further when mixed in with the many trivial and meaningless seasonal songs that have been produced over the years, such as the patently ridiculous 'Here Comes Santa Claus.'
Unfortunately, many of those who sing these songs during this season will likely not be in a place where the songs are accompanied by a faithful proclamation of the gospel, underscoring and heralding the powerful truths the hymn-writers penned, challenging the listeners to surrender their lives to the newborn King they sing of. The sad reality is that many of the churches that see a swelling of attendance during the holidays are no longer known for their orthodoxy, and so the bold hymns of Christmas just become happy carols to sing by candlelight.
That being said, it really is quite significant that during this season, even in our day, people will repeatedly hear songs proclaiming that Jesus is Lord broadcast over the airwaves or in their neighbourhoods or in churches all across our towns and cities. Let us hope and pray that as they hear and sing these songs and find themselves confronted with the truth of the gospel, that they would be captivated by the wonder and the promise of the incarnation, and fall on their knees in worship before the Lord of heaven and earth.
Simon Smart, of the Sydney-based Centre for Public Christianity, sat down with Kevin Vanhoozer to talk a little bit about the importance of looking at culture through a theological lens, and the responsibility of the church in the world. Vanhoozer contributed to a book a few years ago called Everyday Theology, which forms the basis for their discussion, and looks at the calling and challenge of living as a faithful disciple of Christ in all parts of life. The two part, 15-minute discussion is below:
A word about the implicit theology held by many who opt for cremation rather than burial. Reasons of hygiene and overcrowding led reformers toward the end of the last century to propose this step, which, as not all Western Christians know, is still firmly opposed by the Eastern Orthodox (despite the shortage of land in Greece at least) as well as by Orthodox Jews and Muslims. But cremation tends, classically, to belong with a Hindu or Buddhist theology, and at a low-grade and popular level...that is the direction toward which our culture is rapidly moving. When people ask for their ashes to be scattered on a favourite hillside or in a well-loved river or along a shoreline, we can sympathize with the feeling (though not, perhaps, with denying the bereaved a specific spot to visit in their grief). But the underlying implication, of a desire simply to be merged back into the created world, without any affirmation of a future life of new embodiment, flies in the face of classic Christian theology.
I am not of course saying that cremation is heretical... I am merely noting that the huge swing toward it in the last century reflects at least in part some of the confusions, both in the church and in the world, [about death and resurrection].
Given our aversion to speaking about death – and that includes Christians – I have not ever heard or been involved in a serious conversation about the theological implications of what we do with the bodies of our dead. What do you think of Wright's assertions? Is this something Christians need to think about more carefully?
Last year, in preparation for our move to England, I read Peter Hitchens’ excellent book, The Rage Against God: Why Faith is the Foundation of Civilisation, which had been lent to me by an English friend. I simply devoured the book. Hitchens’ writing was very engaging, and his perception of British society’s move away from its Christian foundation to almost embracing radical atheism was intriguing.
With the rioting in a few of the major English cities in the past week, I’ve been thinking about the book again and some of Hitchens’ conclusions. British Prime Minister, David Cameron, attributed the rioting and criminal behaviour of those involved to a decay of the moral foundation of Britain in a speech this morning. He is in large part correct, of course, but what he did not address is the moral decay at all levels of British society, including those in positions of power. Hitchens notes,
The British establishment has ceased to be Christian and has inherited a society with Christian forms and traditions. It does not know what to do with them or how to replace them. Into this confusion and emptiness the new militant secularists now seek to bring an aggressive atheism (123).
That ‘aggressive atheism’ takes on all different kinds of forms at different levels of society, but it was perhaps nowhere more visible than in the flames and destruction caused by those who believe they are accountable to no one, free from any externally-imposed moral standard, a generation raised in the shadows of a society vigorously championing their right to entitlement and autonomy.
While Hitchens’ book needs to be read in its entirety to get the full breadth of his argument (and it is a book you really should read), this extended quotation is helpful in light of these recent events:
Christianity is without doubt difficult and taxing, and all of us fail to emulate the perfection of Christ himself. But we are far better for trying than for not trying, and we know that there is forgiveness available for honest failure. My brother’s [the outspoken atheist, Christopher Hitchens] suggestion that we are urged to be superhuman ‘on pain of death and torture’ reveals a misunderstanding both of the nature of the commandments and the extent of forgiveness. There is also some excuse-making involved. The difficult is being described as superhuman. Yes, there is fear in the Christian constitution, as there must be in any system of law and justice. I should be dismayed if deliberate, unrepentant wickedness did not lead to retribution of some kind. But there is far more love offered for those who honestly attempt to follow the law, and unbounded forgiveness for all who seek it – even those who have most vigorously defamed the faith and then embrace it just before the darkness falls. And that is why, while it is perfectly possible for convinced atheists to do absolutely good deeds at great cost to themselves – not least because God so very much wishes them to – it is rather more likely that believing Christians will do such things. And when it comes to the millions of small and tedious good deeds that are needed for a society to function with charity, honesty, and kindness, a shortage of believing Christians will lead to that society’s decay.
We can live at a low level of cooperation by mutual consideration. But as soon as we move beyond subsistence and the smallest units, problems arise that cannot be resolved by mutual decency. Some people grow richer, some are stronger, some acquire weapons. Power comes into being at a very early stage in human society. So do greed, competition for scarce resources, and wars with other groups. Mutual benefit ceases to offer any kind of guide to behaviour. Who is to say, in a city ruled by a single powerful and ruthless family from an impregnable fortress, that the strongest man is not always right?
Just to be clear, I am not proposing that all of a society’s problems would easily be solved if there were more Christians around or by imposing Christian morality through legislation, or that a society should adopt the Christian faith for merely pragmatic reasons. It is much more complex than that. Indeed, history has proved that 'Christian' societies can be terribly oppressive. At the same time, owing to common grace, there have been societies where Christianity has had no significant presence, yet there have been relative degrees of peace and goodness.
That being said, the only foundation that will provide a society with leaders who are servants, citizens who are wholly devoted to the common good, and a rule of law that upholds true freedom, justice, and peace – in short, one which will ensure the flourishing of all its members – is one based on and submissive to the sovereign rule of Jesus Christ. As politically incorrect as it is to say something like this in our day, the events of late require such candor and honesty. Cameron himself recognises the need to be open about society's ills, and is right to confront something like this so frankly.
The one thing he needs to understand, though, is that politicians cannot fix what is fundamentally a spiritual problem.
There are quite a lot of incredible images being posted online from the riots in London over the past few nights, like this one of a burning bus. It is hard to believe that these riots are really happening just a couple of hundred miles south of here. In some ways, it is hard to get your head around this, to see people setting random cars on fire, throwing things at store windows, huge numbers of police in riot gear rushing to restrain people hurling bricks at them.
But here we are. As I have been following the events unfold on Twitter, a lot of the blame seems to be focused on policies the Conservatives have implemented. I am certainly not an authority on the political scene in the UK, but these kinds of blanket accusations are never helpful, nor are they accurate, because of the complexity of the situations. Certainly, the economic conditions in Britain right now are not good, but if terrorizing your community is is how you voice your protest to the situation, the issue goes far deeper than your frustration over not having work. This is symptomatic of significant cultural and social problems, and they are just coming to the fore in an ugly way.
This blog is not usually a forum for commenting on current events, but since this is so close to home, there are a few things I think are worth discussing. In the first place, I don't think you can properly understand the situation without recognising that at the core, human beings are religious beings. Everything we do is either in service to God, or to an idol. The events transpiring in London are fundamentally spiritual in nature. Some people have observed that the youths who are organising and leading a lot of the rioting are laughing and seem to think of this as something of a cheap thrill. In reality, though, it is reflective of the idolatry of their hearts. This is, ultimately, an act of worship in service to the false gods they devote themselves to.
James K.A. Smith, in his excellent book, Desiring the Kingdom, puts forth the idea that human beings are primarily directed to act according to what they love or desire. We do what we do because of what we love, and because we are oriented toward a vision of human flourishing. The problem comes when our ultimate love is reserved for anything but God. We then serve idols and pledge ourselves to distorted ideas of what it means to be human. And so, while the situation in London right now might be allieviated presently by means of significant police presence, and in the future by means of different economic policies, these will never get to the root of the problem. We are not really addressing the issue if we are not addressing the underlying problem of sin and idolatry.
Secondly, and pertinently, the church needs to speak into this situation because these sorts of events testify to the ongoing battle that rages for the heart of the city. We have a tendency in the modern West to avoid talk of the spiritual and the supernatural, but we cannot deny and must not ignore that cities are prime targets for the forces of evil. In the face of this, we need to loudly proclaim the good news of the Kingdom of God, sharing the love of Jesus, and embodying the true justice, peace and freedom that come from acknowledging his Lordship over all of life. It is in worshiping and serving the risen Christ that human beings find their true worth and dignity. The rioting in London testifies to the despair of a generation that is searching and longing for these things. Local churches in the city right now need to seize on to the opportunity to bring hope into a desperate situation.
As the evening draws near again, and the people in London continue to deal with the unrest caused by the riots and the fear of what another night might bring, the collect for Aid against all Perils from the Evening Prayer service in the Book of Common Prayer is fitting:
Lighten our darkness, we beseech thee, O Lord; and by thy great mercy defend us from all perils and dangers of this night; for the love of thy only Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ. Amen.
According to Harvie Conn and Manuel Ortiz, in their book, Urban Ministry: The Kingdom, the City, and the People of God, Mother Theresa once visited the Bronx and said that the people there suffered from a far worse poverty than the people of Calcutta. At face value, it seems like an odd statement to make – how can you even compare such radically different contexts – but it makes more sense when you adopt a more nuanced definition of poverty, such as one Viv Grigg proposes:
Absolute poverty is a term used to describe poverty when people have an absolute insufficiency to meet their basic needs... Relative poverty is found in the developed world and is measured by looking at a person's standard of living relative to others in the community or nation... It is a measure of the extent to which people are on the margins of society.
Conn and Ortiz add that poor people living the Bronx have a much harder time dealing with their poverty because they live side by side with some of the most prosperous people in the world. Their poverty, then, is not so much an absence of material goods, but a poverty of identity. They have a sense of hopelessness, of failure and inferiority. Donald McGavran has written, 'Being poor and hopeless in a society where most are not produces a deep sense of alienation.' Conn and Ortiz continue,
The word most connected with poverty is powerlessness... [David Claerbaut writes,] "Poverty means much more than the absence of money. It is powerlessness and alienation from key institutions of society... The urban poor are almost completely cut off from the wider society and yet are oppressively controlled by it." [Robert] Linthicum explains, "To truly undertand the condition of poverty today, one must understand how power is exercised in the city. Poverty...is the absence of power – the capability of being able to change one's situation."
I read this section with interest because Hull is something of a deprived area, and our church is trying to figure out how best to meet the needs here. There is high unemployment, and the percentage of child poverty in this city is reportedly over 30%. Defining poverty as something more than just the absence of material goods is helpful because it helps us get a fix on the fact that the needs go beyond money, food, and clothes. And so, to deal with the problem of poverty will necessarily involve a great deal more than just throwing money at those in need.
'Our response to this situation,' write Conn and Ortiz, 'ought to be the same as God's. [According to Linthicum,] the cities that house the poor have forced the poor "to live lives that break God's heart and should break ours, as well."'
Shortly after we moved to Orlando, I remember there being a report on the news about speed limits on Interstate 4, the main highway that runs through the city. The police had gone on a blitz writing up speeding tickets because they were concerned about the number of people regularly traveling at 70mph or more on the interstate. When one of the local news teams did an investigation, however, it was discovered that few people actually knew the speed limit of the highway, largely due to poor signage. Adjustable speed limit signs had been installed, but there was one stretch of I-4, something like eight miles long, where none of them were operational.
To their credit, the authorities remedied the problem immediately. However, they proceeded to make a particularly unintelligent decision by going forward with their adjustable speed limit idea. If you have ever driven on I-4, you know how busy it always is and how bad of a drive it can be. And it is precisely these conditions – frequent congestion – that make adjustable speed limits absolutely absurd.
When the signs were originally installed, a guy named Steve Homan, of the Department of Transportation, said, "We want them to drive slower so they can move faster... The idea is to have traffic moving slowly but steadily through a congested area. This will help drivers get through the area quicker."
Apparently, Homan never took a physics class. If he did, he would know that this is what will actually happen: traffic will be heavy, but moving along at a steady 50mph (the actual limit of I-4 through Orlando). But suddenly the speed limit sign up ahead changes to 40mph, and there will be that one guy in the centre lane who will see it and hit the brakes to match the new speed limit. Needless to say, this requires all the cars behind him to brake, and the sudden flurry of brakelights will cause the drivers in the outside lanes to react by braking suddenly as well. This will not simply slow the flow of traffic down to 40mph, but instead will ensure that a half-mile behind the guy who braked first, traffic will come to a grinding halt. It's just like throwing a big rock in the middle of a river. It disrupts the flow and creates a dam-like effect.
By using the adjustable speed limits, it is clear the authorities wanted to do two things: first, they wanted to make traffic flow better by having everyone drive the same speed. As I have already demonstrated (and as anyone who regularly drives I-4 will tell you), they failed miserably. To be fair, though, it's not entirely their fault. There is a lot of traffic on I-4, and the flow problems are not going to be solved by adjusting the speed limits.
Second, and related, they put their faith in a bunch of signs to fix everything. I read an article some time ago arguing that Americans spend so much time watching the ridiculous amount of signage along their roads that they don't focus on what's going on in front of them. This problem only grows when you install signs that do not read the same thing every time you drive by them. I drive a lot of the same roads every day, and I don't need to look at the speed limit signs because I know them all by heart. But when the speed limit is constantly in flux, you can't help but drive along checking every sign to ensure you're not driving at double the speed limit.
But what's more, this is just another way of taking responsibility away from the driver under the guise of improving safety. I am not suggesting that there should be no speed limits, of course, but only that drivers need to be responsible for what they do in varying conditions, such as occasions when traffic is heavy. Changing the speed limit when the interstate gets congested takes their focus off what they need to be focused on and actually makes conditions less safe. We, as a culture – both individuals and government – need to stop thinking that the way to get people to act more responsibily is to impose more external regulations.
What is the solution, then? Well, the only way I-4 is ever going to flow properly is if there are more lanes available and if a number of the major on- and off-ramps are reconstructed (such as the nightmare that is the I-4/408 interchange). Of course, this really cannot be done because shutting I-4 down for any length of time would cause chaos beyond what we can even imagine.
So, the solution I propose is that the adjustable speed limit signs be removed, and static signs be installed. Additionally, the new speed limits need to be higher. You see, the majority of people already travel between 65-70mph, and efforts to slow them down have not worked. To be sure, you have drivers doing the posted speed limit, but that raises the problem I mentioned above of obstructing the flow. I-4 does not need to be 50mph – that is absurdly slow for a major interstate – but would work much better if the limit was higher, say 60mph. Since most people already travel within the acceptable bounds of this limit, you would just be bringing the slower drivers up to speed so that they no longer disrupt the flow. If the police wanted to, they could increase their efforts to enforce a raised limit, but I don't think they would have to since very few travel over 70mph anyway. And when the interstate becomes congested, people will react to what is going on in front of them instead of watching the speed limit signs.
The Department of Transportation needs to stop making decisions based on uninformed hypotheses and take the time to engage with those who drive stretches of road like I-4 everyday. I am sure they feel the need to regulate things like this because they are concerned that are too many people who drive irresponsibly – and there's certainly an element of truth to that – but the way to teach people to be more responsible is not to take the responsibility away from them. They need to learn to react to the road, to the conditions, and to other drivers around them, and this is not done by focusing on speed limit signs. Adjustable speed limits are simply absurd, and they need to go.
