The other day I saw a retweet of a tweet on twitter that urged people not to donate to Christian charities – for the relief effort in Japan needs “blankets and food, not boxes of bibles & Fundamentalist propaganda”. A little digging revealed that the author was a self-professed Atheist fundamentalist.

I had to laugh. First because one form of fundamentalism is as equally un-helpful – indeed wrong – as the other. Epiphanius taught us this back in the late fourth century. When you attack one extreme ideology from the standpoint of another – you’ve lost the argument. Second because Atheists have an image problem – a number of recent surveys and experiments have suggested that Atheists are generally less charitable than people of faith. But these two tangents, while interesting, are not the point of my post.

Having worked in a number of charities I tend to make my donations based on one qualification only: they get the job done. Do they feed the hungry, give shelter to the homeless, provide medicine and surgical care for those who could not possibly afford it or have access to it otherwise, do they bring relief to the battered, the raped, and the lonely? If they have a proven track record of getting the job done they’ll get my money, my support, and where possible even my time and what little talent I might have to offer.

I avoid giving to any charity that clearly has an ideology not grounded in true relief – that is, if their relief efforts are secondary to their prosletysing, or some other agenda. As a self-professed Christian I find I am very uncomfortable with mixing any form of evangelism with bringing relief to people in need.

A crisis such as we’ve witnessed this week in Japan, and last year in Haiti, is a human crisis, it is not a Christian crisis, or an Atheist crisis, or a Muslim crisis – it is simply a human crisis and it demands a human response. Who cares who is responding so long as it is getting the job done. We, all of us, ought to respond to this for no other reason than, that other person is suffering and needs my help.

Obviously my own reference point is Christian theology – my starting point is grounded in a particular intellectual framework. So I see those who are suffering as icons of the living God, and remember Jesus’ teaching: “I say to you whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.” My faith gives me the language and imagery to understand “human-ness”. My charity is an act of devotion.

There is an important element to devotion that is easily forgotten – “When you give alms, do not blow a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do . . . to win praise of others. I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right is doing. . .” The problem with fundamentalism, whether it is Christian fundamentalism, or Atheist fundamentalism is that it significantly narrows your range of options. The fundamentalist says: “I will only help if you accept (or listen to the points of) my ideology”. Or, “I will only donate if you represent my issues”.

The fundamentalist is part of the problem. A fundamentalist is not responding to the crisis because it is a human crisis but because it is an opportunity to be seen in the marketplace, and given the seat of honour by others. “Look how he gave to the ‘right’ charity.” “See how he is promoting our agenda.” The result of course, and again this is from my reference point of Christian faith and devotion, is that the “offering” of devotion comes with strings attached, and is therefore devalued – it is not free, it is not a gift, it is ostensibly an attempt at social bribery.

In my naïveté I’d like to see any organisation that participates in the relief effort in Japan (or anywhere for that matter) have no banners, no logos, no uniforms – nothing that identifies the organisation and its point of reference other than declaring: “food, blankets, medicine, shelter, available here”. Ideologies, because they can (and often do) cloud our judgement and consequently affect our actions, get in the way of getting the job done.

I’ve been watching the “wires” (religious news sources) and have seen an interesting effect of the London/DC Atheist bus campaign; a debate, within the wider Christian community about how to reach out and inspire others with the message of the Gospel. What I’m seeing is both a conversation about the benefit of getting people talking about the issue of faith, or non-faith, as well as the effectiveness (or non-effectiveness) of the ads and counter ads. Here’s just one sample from Christianity Today.

Are you seeing these or similar ads where you are? What is your response to them? What are others you have encountered saying about it?

I’ve been thinking about this bus driver who, last week (I think it was) refused to drive one of London’s new “Athiest busses” because he’s an Evangelical Christian. The story has been reported now on both sides of the Great Pond, but here are two references (A and B) for you to look at and ponder. We’ve talked about it a bit here at GCHQ and while I’m still sitting with some of the questions it raises I wonder: did he also refuse to drive busses advertising abortion services? What about busses with adverts celebrating Diwali and Ramadan? I could go on for another two or three dozen lines with these type of questions. Is this an act of hypocrisy, or is this “drawing the line” somewhere in the sand, and what is that line, what does it say about his expression of Christianity, more importantly, how does it reflect on other Christians – like us?

—- Here too is an NPR report on “Advertising Atheism” – I’ve not listened to it in full yet, but hey, its NPR you know it’ll be good. —

There was a rather fun article on the BBC late last week detailing a new campaign (starting in January) by the British Humanist Association encouraging people to reject religion. Posters (not sure if they are actually posters, but hey) will appear on the sides of the much loathed “bendy buses” around the city declaring in pretty colours: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

What I find entertaining about this new campaign is that while the BHA, and Richard Dawkins (who in part has sponsored this) are very shrill in their attacks on people of faith, they still show respect to the deity by capitalising “god”! But this is not the point of my post.

Looking at the article again today I was struck by the wording – and for some reason I recalled Pascal’s Wager (click here for an interesting Wikipedia on the wager), which states that reason cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, and as such it is best to work on the assumption that God exists, because the longterm benefit (eternal life, happiness, enlightenment) outweighs the possible loss (nothing) of disbelief.

Pascal (who is also interesting because of his connection to the Port Royal community in Paris) argues that you have to choose one or the other – agnosticism simply won’t do – and live your life accordingly. This, of course opens a whole raft of fun and interesting questions about faith, belief, and living out the wager.