Most of us know that the Titanic struck an iceberg on 14 April 1912 and sank early the next morning, with the loss of 1,517 of the 2,223 lives on board. Less well-known is the sinking of the Lusitania, which was torpedoed by a German U-boat on 7 May 1915, taking 1,198 of 1,959 lives on board. The sinking of the Lusitania was a major factor in bringing the United States into war against the German Empire in the First World War.

The two sinkings were notably different in one crucial respect. The Titanic took hours to sink, leaving time for a remarkable human drama on board the sinking ship. The Lusitania sank in just eighteen minutes.

But there was another crucial difference. A new study looks at the difference in the behaviour of the men aboard the two sinking ships and it notes a remarkable difference. Aboard the Titanic, the men generally behaved with great concern for women and children, doing their best to get the women and children into the insufficient seats in the lifeboats. Hundreds of men died with the Titanic, demonstrating a commitment to put the welfare of women and children above their own.

Aboard the sinking Lusitania, the scene was very different. Women and children were less likely than men to survive that disaster, because the men used their natural strength and speed to take the spaces on the lifeboats, with women and children forced out of their way.

As The New York Times summarizes: “On the Titanic, the study found, children were 14.8 percent more likely to survive than adults, while on the Lusitania they were 5.3 percent less likely to do so. And women on the Titanic were 53 percent more likely to survive than men, while on the Lusitania they were 1.1 percent less likely to do so.”

What is the reason for this difference? Time magazine reports one conclusion the researchers arrived at.

There were a lot of factors behind these two distinct survival profiles — the most significant being time. Most shipwrecks are comparatively slow-motion disasters, but there are varying degrees of slow. The Lusitania slipped below the waves a scant 18 min. after the German torpedo hit it. The Titanic stayed afloat for 2 hr. 40 min. — and human behavior differed accordingly. On the Lusitania, the authors of the new paper wrote, “the short-run flight impulse dominated behavior. On the slowly sinking Titanic, there was time for socially determined behavioral patterns to reemerge.”

That theory fits perfectly with the survival data, as all of the Lusitania’s passengers were more likely to engage in what’s known as selfish rationality — a behavior that’s every bit as me-centered as it sounds and that provides an edge to strong, younger males in particular. On the Titanic, the rules concerning gender, class and the gentle treatment of children — in other words, good manners — had a chance to assert themselves.

Al Mohler, influential leader of the Southern Baptists, and a very compelling blogger and broadcaster, comments on this phenomenon and draws some conclusions for feminist thinkers and writers.

There is a huge question looming in this — is it right for men to act with care and concern toward women and children, or is this just an outmoded relic of Victorian morality?

What do modern feminists do with this? Those who stake their lives on the elimination of all meaningful gender distinctions must, if honest, take what they see on the Lusitania as the inevitable result of such a worldview. Are we really to believe that the moral call that makes men act against their own self-preservation is just a socially-constructed artifact of manners?

Aboard the Lusitania, young males acted out of a selfish survival instinct, and women and children were cast aside, left to the waves. Aboard the Titanic, there was time for men to consider what was at stake and to call themselves to a higher morality. There was time for conscience to raise its voice and authority, and for men, young and old, to know and to do their duty.

The Christian worldview based in Scripture explains this in terms of God’s revelation of moral order within the structures of creation, and especially in what we call conscience. Even in our fallen state, this moral knowledge speaks to us, and there is a moral knowledge within us that calls us to do what we otherwise would never do — even what is plainly not in our direct self-interest.

A secular worldview has little at its disposal to explain all this, and is left with some argument based in evolutionary survival behaviors or socially constructed morality. The feminists are in even worse shape in this. They call for a world like the Lusitania, but must hope against hope that the world is really more like the Titanic.

Women and children first. Civilization itself depends upon this kind of moral knowledge. Without it, the entire enterprise of human civilization is destined to sink beneath the waves.

Local Titanic buffs might be surprised (and maybe pleased?) to learn that the sinking of their famous ship continues to provide data for a very contemporary debate.

I hope that I will be able to deliver to him a situation in the denomination in which the PMS crisis is a thing of the past. I had hoped that when I took over from Dr Donald Patton last June that the PMS crisis would be resolved by September with the promised report from the PM’s Working Group. How naive I was! This moderatorial year has been dominated by the crisis which I would love to see resolved before another meeting of the General Assembly is convened.  If that is achieved, then Norman will be able to concentrate on giving a lead with some more positive issues in the church and community, and will enable the church, under God, to move forward.

Norman will remember that he became convenor of the vacancy in the Carnmoney congregation after I resigned in August 2000, and so he has some experience already of mopping up after me.

If it were just one screen and one projector in each meeting house, it might not be so obvious. But given the style and architecture of our buildings, and the fact that in many places the only point visible to everyone assembled in the building is the pulpit, it means that projecting words and images to the whole congregation often requires multiple screens and sometimes several mounted on the front of the gallery. In many places, it is a case of multi-screen church. It is an interesting innovation that raises a number of questions.

Apart from the interesting question as to how much money the whole denomination has spent on all the equipment, the key question has to be “Why?” Why do many of us feel that the congregation’s resources must be used in this way? What is the motivation? Is it more than just “First Ballygoforward has a screen and a projector and we in Second Ballygoforward need to do the same”? Is there a theological or liturgical rationale for projection screens and powerpoint presentations? Is the worship of God’s people significantly enhanced by this innovation?

Undoubtedly some ministers, organists and worship leaders will answer that with the welter of new praise and worship songs and hymns, this new technology allows for a selection of new songs to be used in worship without buying a full, new hymnbook. It makes life simpler for those who plan and lead worship. Some preachers will say that a powerpoint presentation adds interest to the delivery of the sermon. In a predominantly visual age, the church needs to do all it can to communicate effectively with its members and to present itself to visitors in the most attractive way possible. A slide show presentation of the announcements prior to the commencement of the service seems eminently practical and appropriate.

What is clear is that without a hymnbook to hold, many Presbyterians feel very uncomfortable when it comes to singing psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. The problem is that they really don’t know what to do with their hands when they stand up to sing the words of a hymn or a psalm which is projected. The view from the pulpit confirms that a significant percentage of Presbyterian worshippers in almost every congregation with screens look decidedly uncomfortable.

The projection of the words of songs and hymns onto a screen began in churches and fellowships committed to a charismatic style of worship. When freed from the encumbrance of a hymnbook, it meant that worshippers could clap, wave a flag, or raise their hands in worship. Suddenly every worshipper was liberated to engage physically in the worship of God. While there is no virtue in a dead, formal style of worship in which worshippers do not sing and are not engaged with God, reformed Christians have traditionally emphasised the spiritual nature of worship. It’s not the posture of the body (or the hands or arms) that matters, but it is the posture of the heart that really counts with God. In one sense it makes little difference if one reads the words of the hymns from a book or a screen. But the enthusiastic commitment of congregations to projection systems seems to be trying to achieve a bit more than that.

What concerns me much more than a bit of clapping or hand-waving in worship is the introduction of images and pictures into worship. When the technology has been available, I confess that I have been happy to use some pictures of people and places in my sermons to help illustrate key points which I have been trying to make. But does the fact that it is possible to incorporate pictures, movie clips or DVDs in worship make it a good thing to do so? In the past, most congregations have been happy to view a missionary’s slides which illustrate his or her report on their ministry. Some have been very sensitive on this issue and have only allowed missionary slide shows at an after-meeting in the hall or at a mid-week gathering. Maybe there is a need for us to exercise some caution.

It may be useful to remember that on the question of images in worship our reformed forefathers were very clear. They believed that the use of pictures or images in worship allowed for, and possibly encouraged, the breaking of the second commandment. That was why all reformed meeting houses in post-reformation days were traditionally plain, barn-like structures without the images, icons, statues and stained-glass windows that characterised unreformed buildings in both the East and West.

While many good Presbyterians would resist the addition of a statue or an icon in their “sacred space”, would we be quite so opposed to a digital image being used in worship? With the technology so readily available, it’s so easy. But is there a substantial difference between a metal or stone image and a digital one? The argument that such images are simply aids to worship, and are not themselves the objects of worship, is precisely the same argument used by unreformed Christian churches for the inclusion of icons, murals and statues in their buildings.

The architecture of traditional reformed meeting houses was of a central pulpit, visible to all, with an open Bible. That symbolised their fundamental commitment in worship. The primary purpose was to assemble together to worship God, to hear God speak through the reading and preaching of his Word, and to respond to that Word in prayer.

I am not entirely convinced that the introduction of multiple screens in the sanctuary enhances that primary objective of public worship. The question we must ask is this: what are the parameters? What is the appropriate, and what is the inappropriate, use of this innovation?  If our “worship experience” is somehow lacking and is in need of an overhaul, are we trying to develop a technological answer to what is really a spiritual problem? Maybe the time has come for us to engage in some serious discussion and reflection on the theological and liturgical issues connected with multi-screen church.

P.S. Observant readers of this blog will notice that I have risked no images at all in this posting.

The work of the Belfast City Mission dates from 1827. Today the Mission continues its work in a number of neighbourhoods across Belfast, and is seeking to minister in the changing urban context of post-conflict Belfast. Bobi Brown, the current Secretary and leader of the BCM, took me to see some of the current work undertaken by the Mission.

Searchers Cafe on Dublin Road is run by BCM and is a rendezvous for people from many different ethnic backgrounds who have come to live in Belfast. Willie and Stanley are the two mission workers connected with the cafe, and they introduced me to a group of Somalian people who have escaped from the violence of Mogadishu and have come to Belfast in the hope of finding asylum and a secure and peaceful place in which to live. In all kinds of practical ways, the BCM workers are providing support and counsel to these people, and are showing them the love of Christ in a very practical way.

This ability of the BCM to adjust its style and pattern of ministry to the shifting patterns of life in Belfast is crucial to its effectiveness in advancing the kingdom of Christ. Because urban mission and ministry is often messy and untidy, it requires flexibility and dedication from its workers.

I was also able to visit Glencairn City Mission Hall in north-west Belfast which is the centre for ministry in an area where many people have been affected by the Troubles that blighted Belfast for so many years.

George has been the BCM worker in that area for over 20 years and, assisted by David, they supervise a wide range of activities and ministries that touch the lives of many people in Glencairn. The impressive and well-maintained facilities are well-used for the benefit of the local community and for sharing the good news of Jesus Christ in both word and deed. My moderatorial theme of “passion for Christ and compassion for people” is well-illustrated in this excellent ministry.

George brings great energy and commitment to his work, as well as a real love for people and commitment to their welfare. He clearly understands the basic principle that all ministry is relational.

I believe that the remarks which I made at the BCM Rally a few years ago remain relevant.

The Belfast City Mission is one of the oldest urban missions in existence today, reaching the churchless, the careless and the Christless. And from its very inception it was focused on meeting the needs of people wherever they were, particularly those who were poor and disadvantaged. We believe that the Belfast City Mission can continue to be a vehicle that God can use to make a positive impact for Christ in this city and for the benefit of everyone who lives here.

Of course the situation has changed greatly since the mission began all those years ago. One of the main ways in which our world generally has changed in recent decades is in the growth of cities across the world. It is estimated that around 50% of the world’s population live in cities. There has been a massive growth in the population of the cities of our world, as people have flocked from rural communities to seek the prosperity and the jobs offered in the cities. Right now, the world’s population is at an historic turning point. Just this year we reached the point where half the world’s population will be urban. The urban population of 3.3 billion people in 2008 will be larger than the entire global population was in 1967, just 40 years ago.

Cities and urban areas are gaining an estimated 60 million people per year - over 1 million every week. In many developing countries, cities are growing two or three times faster than the overall population. As urban areas - particularly smaller towns and cities - continue to grow in size, about 5 billion people are expected to live in cities by 2030 - about 61 per cent of the global population of 8.1 billion, the UN projects.

And it was that search for work and employment which was the original reason for the growth of Belfast. With the mills and factories of the nineteenth century, people came to live in the city. And by the middle of the 20th century the population of Belfast had grown to 400,000 people. Some cities have had astonishing population growth rates. Dhaka, Bangladesh, for example, nearly doubled in population between 1990 and 2000, gaining some 6 million people. Mumbai (Bombay), India, has now grown to over 17 million, and by 2015 it will probably be the world’s second largest city, after Tokyo, Japan.

In the first decade of this 21st century, cities around the world continue to be engines for economic growth in a global economy, and centres of social change and cultural diversity. Cities attract people from the countryside, from neighbouring countries, and even from around the world. Yet many cities face a crisis. If they cannot cope with the massive influx of people, then poverty will continue to be endemic, and discontent and civil unrest could become chronic.

If the majority of the people in our world will soon be living in cities, and if people matter to God as the Bible says they do, then it shouldn’t surprise us that God is interested in our city and in the people of our city. The call to mission in Belfast is as real and urgent as it was 200 years ago.

But we face a unique challenge here in Belfast. For a variety of reasons, the population of Belfast has declined steadily during the past 50 years. Crime, social deprivation, poor housing and the Troubles have all contributed to people moving out of the city. And unlike other cities in the British Isles, Belfast hasn’t known the same surge of international migrants as places like Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds and Cardiff. Wards like Blackstaff, The Mount, Clonard, Duncairn, New Lodge, Woodvale, Shankhill and the Falls lost more than 15 % of their population between 1991 and 2001. But places like Botanic, Stranmillis and Windsor gained large numbers of students due to the expansion of higher education.

And the planners are proposing that significant steps be taken to make city living more desirable again in Belfast. Through family-friendly residential development, through making the city a safer place to live in by addressing criminal and paramilitary activity, and through the quality of schools and education which this city has to offer, they hope to make Belfast a better and an attractive place to live in. If cities like New York and Vancouver can have centres that are well-populated and have a vibrant, safe and successful 24-hour street life, why not Belfast? And important decisions are being taken so that the population of the city centre and the surrounding areas will begin to increase again. We can see evidence of that beginning in the new Victoria Square and in the proposals for the Titanic Quarter.

Can this city, notorious for its violence and hatred and sectarianism ever be transformed? In face of the problems we face, and the decline in our city population, what does God want us to do? Should we just run away as quickly as we can to the comfortable suburbs or to the provincial towns and escape from the city and give up on it? Not at all. If cities across the world are growing and developing, then we have good reason to believe that Belfast will start to grow again. I believe that God has a plan and purpose for his people here in Belfast. And central to that plan are people who are committed to Christ and to the advancement of his kingdom.

Today’s win was secured by two great tries from former Ulster player, Tommy Bowe. It was Tommy’s clinical finishing that made the difference between the two teams, and he took his opportunities well. There was something particularly sweet about the way he drifted past Wilkinson for the final try.

Rory Best, restored to full fitness, had a good all-round game. He managed to play for the full 80 minutes, and was very busy all over the park. It was good to see Andrew Trimble make an important contribution in defence in the last quarter of the game when Brian O’Driscoll had to come off with concussion. Maybe Declan Kidney will restore Andrew to the starting line-up for one of the last two matches of this championship. With Keith Earls scoring such an excellent try, it would seem that his place is secure.

So, apart from any debate about the relative performances of the two teams, it was a case of Ireland winning by 3 tries to 1. Tonight we are celebrating a great win!

This weekend’s offering is a reflection on anger. It caught my attention because moderators and pastors, a bit like rugby or football referees, are sometimes the recipients of angry comments. I don’t need to elaborate on the range of issues that ignite the anger of my correspondents. The important question is: Is their anger justified? How should I respond? What positive outcome can there be to their anger? Does the fact that they have over-stated their grievance, or expressed themselves badly, negate their main point?

I also have to admit that recently I, too, have been feeling angry a bit more often than usual. The question is: Is my anger appropriate or not? This article suggests that the key difference between good anger and bad anger is what our anger leads to. If it has a positive outcome, then it’s OK to get angry. But if it is purely selfish, and people are crushed or hurt by my anger, then it’s sinful. That’s a good point which is worth making, and one which I need to listen to.

Is Gordon Brown a bully? That is a question that has received a great deal of media attention this week. Is he in the habit of grabbing staff by the collar, shoving them out of way or throwing things across the room? Does he shout, lose his temper and generally intimidate the staff at Number 10 - resulting in several employees phoning bullying help-lines?

It is unlikely that the truth behind these accusations will be easy to ascertain. This FNT article does not intend to explore the allegations to understand what’s true or false. Instead of considering whether or not Gordon Brown needs to book himself into an anger management course, this article introduces what the Bible has to say about anger.

Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, said, “You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgement.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment.” (Matthew 5:22,22a) Challenging words! However, later in the book of Matthew (21:12,13) we read of Jesus, overturning the moneychangers tables in the temple – now if that’s not a display of anger I don’t know what is!!

So what are we to make of this? Was Jesus guilty of hypocrisy, saying one thing yet doing another? That would seem unlikely! Instead, it is common for commentators to use these two passages to distinguish between two types of anger - bad anger and good anger. It’s also a distinction that many anger management courses make.

Bad anger is anger that is unreasonable, hateful and often selfish in its origin. Its outcomes can be abusive, violent and usually uncontrolled. It’s the anger of road rage, someone in front of us makes a mistake, no one expects us to be happy about it, but surely it’s unreasonable to get so worked up about it and wrong to think hateful thoughts and shout unkind words. After all, what good does it do anyone? I suspect it was bad anger that Jesus was comparing to murder.

Good anger is the anger that Jesus displayed the day he overturned the tables of the moneychangers. It wasn’t selfish, he was angry because what they were doing was wrong. The motivation behind good anger is pure. It’s not unreasonable, selfish or hateful. However, it’s not simply motivation that is important, it’s also how the emotion of anger is outworked. I would suggest that Jesus’ actions were appropriate, controlled and achieved a positive outcome. Surely it’s OK to be angry when we discover that MPs have been abusing the expenses system. However, that doesn’t mean a hateful and abusive, even violent, response is appropriate – that wouldn’t lead to a positive outcome. When we learn that countless children are dying each day because they are living in abject poverty, anger would certainly seem to be an appropriate emotion. But, what does that anger motivate us to do?

The Bible doesn’t just talk about our anger; it reveals a God who gets angry. Many people seem to have a picture of God that resembles the behaviour that Gordon Brown is being accused of, a God who lashes out when he gets annoyed. That’s not the picture the Bible paints. God’s anger is not unreasonable and random, it’s reasonable and specific – God anger is directed at sin (Romans 2:5-8). We may struggle to understand the ins and outs of the outworking of God’s anger, but we have to trust him, acknowledging his perfection and goodness, accepting that his actions are more appropriate than we can imagine and are leading towards a positive outcome. The Bible certainly reveals a God who is able to control his anger (Psalm 103:8,9). We’d be in trouble if he couldn’t!

Phil Green, Public Theology Research Assistant

I was aware that I was entering a very different world to the one I normally inhabit. As we were escorted along the corridor to the office of Dr Ian Pearson, Economic Secretary to the Treasury, one of my colleagues whispered loudly, “the corridor of power”. Apart from 10 Downing Street, we were in probably one of the most powerful locations in the UK where key decisions are made that affect the lives of so many people, in the UK and farther afield.

The Treasury website describes significant ways in which it has acted to help financial institutions like Northern Rock, as well as its work in addressing the global problem of debt relief. And it is the same Treasury which is reported to have allowed massive bonuses to be paid to executives in RBS, the bank that failed and that needed vast amounts of money from the Treasury to survive.

Our mission to the Treasury was to seek support for the PMS. In view of the bail-outs of other financial institutions, and the permission to pay such huge bonuses to the executives of a failed bank, one might have expected that the PMS case be given favourable consideration. We presented our case as best we could, but left without having resolved the issues, or having received any firm assurances. As I write, the goal of rescuing the PMS is still not achieved.

Nonetheless, I want to record my visit to the Treasury, but I don’t think it will feature as one of the highlights of this year. The dull and grey picture associated with this post accurately reflects the mood I felt that wet afternoon.

I have no formal training in English literature, although anyone who professes to exegete and apply the literature of the Bible, and especially the poetic literature of the Old Testament, clearly needs some expertise in literary analysis. Maybe someone can help me understand the point that Heaney is making in this poem.

A DRINK OF WATER

She came every morning to draw water
Like an old bat staggering up the field:
The pump’s whooping cough, the bucket’s clatter
And slow diminuendo as it filled,
Announced her. I recall
Her grey apron, the pocked white enamel
Of the brimming bucket, and the treble
Creak of her voice like the pump’s handle.
Nights when a full moon lifted past her gable
It fell back through her window and would lie
Into the water set out on the table.
Where I have dipped to drink again, to be
Faithful to the admonishment on her cup,
Remember the Giver fading off the lip.

Apparently, like many sonnets, “A Drink of Water” turns in the last six lines. Instead of describing a morning, it switches to evening. The profound meaning for the speaker of this individual woman and her daily routine has not yet been explained, and so the point is made at the end.

When the full moon is out, the speaker thinks of this particular woman. Something about her haunts him, and something about her makes him remember her. One commentator says this:

In the last three lines, the latent power of water as an image becomes obvious. Water carries religious overtones, with immersion rituals in particular, as the verb “dipped” suggests. Water is frequently associated with purification, and something about this woman’s water ritual offers the speaker both “admonishment” and purification. Something about her reminds him of sin and the need to erase it. However, the meaning of the old woman is still ambiguous.

In the last line, the power of this lone old woman getting her water is finally explained. Her cup had a phrase on it — “Remember the Giver.” Who the Giver is, of course, is the immediate question. Who gives water, who gives life? These questions might refer to God. However, in Heaney’s unique context of an Irish poet writing in English, it is possible that the “Giver” is England, the source of the words he uses as tools to create a self. Like a man dependent on God’s water for survival, for the gift of life, this is the tale of a poet dependent on a ruler for the gift of language and the sustenance of words.

I must say that I appreciate, and can grasp, the spiritual and religious explanation. It is a well-known biblical metaphor. God is the Giver of water, and the Giver of life, and the water which Jesus gives satisfies our deepest thirst. That is a truth that many may be inclined to forget, and it is the task of all “faithful admonishers” to underscore it.

It is also true that “faithful admonishers” who enter the pulpit every Lord’s Day need to be experts in the use of language as they seek to bring comfort and challenge to their congregations. Clear, creative and careful use of words is the challenge facing every preacher.

Those “words of life” which they share with their congregation also find their origin in the One who is Himself “The Word”.  If the words of the preacher are to have any effect in the lives of his hearers, then it is because the message is delivered in dependence on the One who alone can give life. “Faithful admonishers” need to “remember the Giver”.

There’s a lot going on in this poem by Seamus Heaney. I think I may need more help in trying to exegete it. But, once framed, I will treasure it and it will find its place on my study wall.

I was there last Saturday morning for a men’s breakfast with members of First Ballyeaston congregation as well as a few visitors from other congregations in the East Antrim area. It was a great meal. I reckon that, for lots of reasons, one should only eat a full Ulster fry now and again. But it has to be one of the most tasty meals ever invented.

Even though I often travel that road from Belfast to Larne, I have never stopped at Logwood Mill. My experience last weekend has encouraged me to think again about calling in to see Jim and Amanda when I’m in that part of the world.

The gathering at Snoblogs gave me the opportunity to reflect on my days growing up in East Antrim, and especially to recall the influence which my father had on my life. My father, by his life, communicated what he really loved and what was most important to him, and significantly influenced my life. As fathers and grandfathers, we do the same to our sons.

Albert Schweitzer, the famous medical missionary, said, “Example is not the main thing in life — it is the only thing.” He might have overstated it a bit, but it is undoubtedly true that most of us have been influenced most by the actions of others than by their words. So, on reflection, calling in at Snoblogs regularly  for an Ulster fry may not be my best option. I wonder if they serve green tea and a wee salad?

Two County Tyrone brothers, Brian and Lynden Keys, are organising an event called maizengrace at The Ecclesville Equestrian Centre in Fintona from 10-12 June at which Angus Buchan, a South African farmer with a Scottish name, will speak. All the details are on the website.

There’s a lot of careful and prayerful planning going into this event, and the message which Angus will share will be relevant to people from every walk of life, but especially to those from a rural or agricultural background. All the local church leaders and members have been invited to an information evening next Thursday, 18th February, in the Ecclesville Centre in Fintona. If you are a leader in a rural congregation, and especially if you live west of the Bann, you might plan to take a group along to one of these events. It may prove to be an ‘maizen’ time.