A very subdued Christmas.

I hear tell that it's been Christmas recently. We have been playing pass-the-bug instead, which has been almost as time and attention consuming as a full, jolly Christmas period, but not as much fun.

We did manage a Turkey dinner on Christmas day, but it was a bit like dinner with the seven dwarves - we had Sneezy, Grumpy, Dopey, Achy, Sicky...

I'm honestly not complaining, except about not getting to my own church for weeks, but that's the way it is when you have a number of little children and a weak constitution yourself. Chances are, at this time of the year when it is traditional to share (illnesses, that is), at least one out of six will be unwell.

Only two of the children have significantly runny noses now, and Reuben is unfortunately completely out of sorts, which is most unlike his usual cheerful nature. He has been starting to enjoy his sticklebrick tub Christmas present this afternoon, though.

I was given a miniature Derek Jacobi by my husband, which, when I remove him from the packaging, I shall have lots of fun with, draping a tissue over his shoulders and making him stutter a la 'I Clavdivs'. (In case you're baffled, it's really a Doctor Who action figure of the Master. Although, actually, I'm not sure that would help make sense of this last paragraph. Maybe the fever hasn't gone yet...)

On focusing on the little picture.

Speaking of perspective, one thing I'm not terribly exercised about this festive season is small, sticky, and often colourful. Stamps. I don't actually send a lot of Christmas cards through the post nowadays anyway, but when I do, I'm quite happy with the Queen's head as a decoration.

However, the Royal Mail produce a number of different designs, primarily for the collectors market, really, but a lot of people like to get the little picture stamps released at Christmas especially for sending Christmas cards. That's nice. It's a cosy, harmless, quaint part of being in the UK, and I don't mind it a bit.

What I do get a little weary of, though, is the kerfuffle created when the designs on the stamps aren't sufficiently 'Christian' enough. As I understand it, the design policy at the Royal Mail is to alternate between secular festive designs one year, and religious themed the next.

This year's new designs are centred around that peculiar English tradition of the Pantomime, with Ugly Sisters and Genies and so on, so it's a 'secular' year. Next year someone will no doubt have a paddy because Mary has been painted blue, which was a fuss a couple of years back.

Anyway, take a step back from that for a second. I'm getting chain letters passed to me, claiming with alarm that stamps are becoming less Christian. Stamps. Becoming less Christian. Little sticky squares with the sole purpose of proving that you've paid for postage are about as Christian as the biro you used to write inside the card. I really don't mind at all if the the biro has 'Praise the Lord' in flaky gold lettering down the side, it's just a pen. Stamps are really, truly just stamps.

Many things presage the passing of the Christian era. I find myself unable to believe that whether or not a secular company produces religious-themed stationery every other year is among them.

On using our 'Christian voice'

I'm not a fan of Stephen Green. Occasionally, I will agree with a point he makes, but my heart always sinks into my shoes when I hear a radio or telly presenter announce his name as a spokesman for traditional Christianity. I'm quite sure he means well, but I find myself thinking - why can't we have an eloquent English version of RC Sproul, or Al Mohler, or John MacArthur, or James White? Because Stephen Green always makes the Christian case remarkably badly.

Most usually, he makes headlines for screaming 'blasphemy', when worldlings come along with silly nonsense like this. Do I think it's blasphemy? Of course I do. But it's been done to death as an idea, and in bigger and more influential venues than a room at the Welsh Assembly. Mr Green has publicized the blasphemy, so that it's actually been repeated on national media, and the entire purpose appears to be because he's offended.

Unlike John MacArthur, for example, Green rarely takes the opportunity to give a clear gospel, even though he is actually given quite a bit of airtime. He gets mileage as the odd-bod who producers can bring on to provide a 'talking point', but it's never because he's preached the gospel, it's because he's perpetually 'offended'. I don't mind that people think he's a freak, and I'm sure he doesn't, but the reason they do is because they think he's a self-important reactionary, not because he is preaching the gospel fearlessly.

I am the last person to suggest we should be silent in the face of secular blasphemies and anti-Christian flummery. But our purpose in speaking should always be to advance the cause of the gospel, not to prevent lost people who have no respect for the things of God anyway offending us. Lord, please bless Mr Green with some perspective.

Excuse my absence.

Not got a lot to give you right now, but in lieu of an actual post, I wonder if you could spare prayers for the people of Mumbai, and especially this little boy. My son is only a couple of months younger than him, and the thought of him being left an orphan breaks my heart.