A Better Answer

At 7pm this evening, and through this week, I will be joining with others using the Evangelical Alliance call to prayer in response to riots in England - call to prayer.

This time of rioting and violence seems to have started on Friday last week, see bbc news, when violence broke out during, or near the end, of a protest, which had been peaceful following the death on Thursday of Mr Mark Duggan. As a community we need to find a better answer.

Poverty is not an excuse for violence
If it is claimed that there is poverty in our land, this cannot be denied, some parts of London are 300 times wealthier than others. Poverty is an offence in our socieity which should be robustly addressed, but poverty will never be an excuse for violence.

Injustice is not an excuse for violence
The original protesters were calling for justice following the shooting of Mr Duggan. The cause of justice will never be served by violence. The bereaved family of Mr Duggan will not be comforted to know that other families have been bereaved, that homes and shops have been looted and burned.

Violence is always the wrong answer
The most commonly called for response on radio phone in's or social media sites is for state sponsored violence against the rioters. To respond with violence will only reinforce the perception that violence works. We may succeed in restoring order to the street for a while with water cannon and other violent means, but we will not resolve the underlying issues. There is a myth of 'peace' following violence which we need to lay bear. 'The fight back' (David Cameron's phrase) is the wrong phrase, implying the wrong answer.

There is a better way. Do to others as you would have them do to you. Love others first, without thought of self-benefit. Humility promotes justice. Passive, non-violent protest is always better. The way to fix what is wrong with our society is to build new communities.

I hope that all Christians will unite in prayer for our communities in these days; may God have mercy upon us all.

80-20 or 90-10?

I was reading in the Sept/Oct 2010 Idea, the Evangelical Alliance bi-monthly magazine an article by Phil Green, 'Help people along their faith journey'.

Phil writes, quoting some statistics:
Christian faith is usually firmly established when young: a third of people claim they knew they were Christian before the age of 12; 40% knew somewhere between 12 and 19; 16% in their 20s; and just 9% aged 30 and above. The Faith Journeys project has revealed that the foundation built during childhoos and adolescence is highly significant. (page 22, idea sep/oct 2010)

This struck a chord. 91% of Christians have become Christian before the age of 30. How effectively do we disciple these Christians that they will remain Christian through out the rest of their lives?

We do not give up on the 9% but I think need to ask ourselves how much effort are we putting in to chasing this 9%? Is it too much or too little?

There is a business mantra: 20% of your working effort produces 80% of your results. I'm sure it is simply the similarity of the numbers but I found myself asking, if church engaged 20% of their efforts in work with people under 30 would this achieve a similar result to that recorded by the Faith Journeys project? If so, we should be engaging 80% of our working effort to pursue the 20% or the 9%.
What is the balance of our ministry and service between those under 30 and those over 30?

Thinking of our work with school children, we should definitely increase our expectation that children of school age are well able to make a meaningful commitment to Christian discipleship which will endure into adult life. This should become the express aim and goal of all our work with school age children.