FiSch blog

Error message

Notice: Undefined index: placeholder in mailchimp_signup_subscribe_form() (line 333 of /home/thinkfai/public_html/sites/all/modules/mailchimp/modules/mailchimp_signup/mailchimp_signup.module).

The Forming a Christian Mind Conference

Cambridge has long been a stimulating home for Christian minds. Devout doctors, monks and other medieval scholars helped birth the world-famous university in 1209, key figures in the English Reformation studied, taught and preached in the town, and God-fearing pioneers in many disciplines have been nurtured in the colleges, departments and research institutes that make up the modern university. An inspiring documentary called “Saints and Scholars” tells the story of the development and influence of Christian thought in this historic market town – watch it at the Round Church if you haven’t seen it!

But do we have to look to past centuries to find Christians making intellectual history on the strength of their faith?  We can certainly find a plethora of organisations and initiatives in Cambridge today seeking to nurture that kind of progress.  So let me tell you what happens when six of them collaborate to foster Christian thinking.

The Jubilee CentreCambridge PapersChristian Heritage, the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics, the Faraday Institute and the Christian Graduate Society share a conviction that Christian faith should interact positively with people’s intellectual development.  So once a year they team up to run “Forming a Christian Mind”, a day conference for Christian postgraduates and other early-career researchers.  This year’s event six weeks ago brought 60 people to Cambridge from as far afield as Edinburgh and Paris: a diverse group whether you looked at subjects of study, ages or nationalities. Its theme was “Human Flourishing and the University”.

The opening plenary talk was given by Dr Donald Hay, professor emeritus of economics at Oxford University.  Donald contrasted perspectives from evolutionary psychology, classical economics and social constructivism against Christian theology in addressing the question “What is a person?”, showing how prominent paradigms in different disciplines suggest radically different views.  We were left to think about what elements of truth each of these reductionistic models might contain and how a Christian student might engage with them.

There was then a set of parallel seminars among which participants could choose.  These gave opportunity to interact with senior Christian academics in our disciplines and develop our own perspectives.

The day ended with a plenary session in which Dr Louise Driffill spoke about her teaching on sustainability in the university’s business school.  After sharing some relevant biblical considerations for her subject, Louise gave us time to discuss the relevance of biblical hope for our own areas of research.  This was another stimulating opportunity – and I’m sure that I was not alone in developing more questions than answers once again!

Two things especially encouraged me about this event. The first was how it was preceded by a meeting for people involved in Forming a Christian Mind and other relevant initiatives (Donald Hay’s Developing a Christian Mind in Oxford, Transforming the Mind, the Christian Academic Network and our own Faith-in-Scholarship), to discuss vision and strategy. The second was the sense of energy and enthusiasm among such a crowd of young Christian thinkers wanting to engage our world’s big questions with a lively faith and make intellectual history in our disciplines.

For lots more ideas, links and forthcoming events, see

Christian postgrad groups in action: Manchester and Vancouver!

Continuing our series on local groups, Alan Chettle shares his experiences with us. Alan did his PhD in Manchester and has now gone back to Canada (where he’s spent most of his life) to take up an internship with the Graduate Student Ministry of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship in Vancouver.

How did you get involved in ministry to Christian postgraduates?

The journey began in Manchester, where I started a group from scratch – recruiting friends from church, some of whom then started inviting other Christian postgrad students they knew. Up to 10 people were coming along weekly to have lunch, share scripture and pray with each other. Typically, we met for about an hour, sometimes running a bit longer when discussion was just that much fun.

Did you experience any difficulties?

This was the part of my week I looked forward to the most, but there were always some tensions. First, partially due to my also working on my Ph.D, I didn’t have enough time to offer proper leadership or mentorship to the younger students in the group. Mentorship happened organically as friendships were formed, but it was fairly unstructured.

Second, there wasn’t much space for training others up into leadership. I had to force the issue when I knew my time in Manchester was coming to an end.

Lastly, the group was very insular. It was a good place for us to grow, but we never transitioned to sharing the Gospel vision of transformation and renewal with others. Individually, we had moments of sharing Jesus with our colleagues, but never anything as a community. This partially may have been due to people already having a good church community, and so not always being proactive in getting stuck into each other’s lives. That being said, some members did enter into deep friendship with each other, and those are places where mutual encouragement did flourish.

How has your experience in Canada been so far?

My experience in Canada has a number of key differences. I’m not starting a group from scratch – I’m working with an experienced staff worker, who has been doing graduate student ministry for ten years. The group size is about the same, and our main meeting is on Tuesday evenings. We have dinner together and then a discussion. Our discussion topics have been wide ranging – some of the really fun topics this year have been looking at the fruit of the Spirit applied to academia, and the gifts of the Spirit (1 Corinthians 12) as a model for a gifted community. To be truthful, all of those are a way of casting vision to our students of the cosmic transformation Jesus offers and how we live that out as a community. Repeating our vision for Christ redeeming the university helps it to become ingrained in the minds of our students.

Why is this vision important for Christian postgraduates?

One of the most prevalent issues we face is students buying into the idolisation of academic success, and believing in the scarcity of time, that they have to give all their time, energy and effort to get the fleeting dream dangled in front of them. Practically, this means they’re unwilling to make time for Bible study and meeting other Christian postgraduates, and also are scared to risk being known as a Christian. The growth edge for this group is learning a right balance between fellowship and academic study, which will influence how members spend their time and how much they are willing to risk in sharing the Gospel with their colleagues. One of the joys has been seeing how the group has chosen to become community together, and has done a great job of welcoming newcomers and visitors.

What do the Canadian and UK groups have in common?

I think the strongest commonality is the need to shift people’s perspective to a more communal approach to sharing the Gospel, and developing a high vision for the redemption of academia.

Thanks Alan! May God bless you during this year as an intern, and may others be blessed through you. If you’d like to know more about Alan’s time in Vancouver, you can follow him on his blog.

Christian postgrad groups in action: Nottingham

This week we return to our series on local Christian postgraduate groups with a contribution from the Nottingham group. This group has been running for quite a number of years, with ups and downs. Alison Woodward and Esther Mokori tell us what they are up to at the moment:

Graduate Christian Fellowship (GCF) is a Student Union society at the University of Nottingham which serves postgraduate students, but has also had a fourth year language student and post docs/visiting academics attending in the past three years. We meet weekly during term time, with some holiday socials. Our meetings are open to all.

We openly discuss various topics and we build a Godly support network for each other based on our common study and open minds. Although we all go to different churches and have different cultural and academic backgrounds, that makes us a more open-minded group and we don’t set limits on each other or the Spirit of God. We are more of a family than a small group.

When GCF members reached turning points in their lives, we organised seminars to benefit them, such as our ‘I Do’ night, which discussed marriage and parenthood, and was a great evening of sharing and discussion. We have also hosted talks on whole-life discipleship and discipleship in our research.

We also aim to reach out to non-Christians. We host an International Food Night every year where we serve food from our cultures to postgraduate students for free and host a world-themed quiz. From that, we have had two people seek God at GCF, one coming to our Bible studies on Ephesians every week. We also hosted the Pais Project, who came onto campus and reached out to students with the message ‘Because You’re Loved’.

It is great to hear of the diversity of local groups, but looking back at previous posts (see here and here), some patterns are emerging. One of these is the importance of fellowship with others who are pursuing research to the glory of God. Although your church may be very supportive of your PhD studies and your daily life as a Christian, there may not be anyone who can really enter into the joys and struggles that you face. Being part of a local group makes you realise that you are not on your own. You can share these joys and struggles with others, and you can encourage and challenge each other.

Two years ago at our Faith-in-Scholarship leader’s conference, one of the speakers suggested that local groups could play a role in marking special occasions, like the Nottingham group has done with regard to marriage and parenthood. But maybe the defining PhD rites of passage are submission, the viva and graduation. Maybe we could think about a way of celebrating these in our local groups?

Speaking of the FiSch leader’s conference, there is another one coming up in February…

Are you a Christian postgraduate but not in a local group yet? You can find out if there is a group in your city. And if there is no group yet, why not get something going? We would be more than happy to support you! Do get in touch!

Category errors and ontological confusion

Our series on “good scholarship” has so far considered the logical and lingual aspects of reality.  Here I want to explore a particular kind of offence against principles of both logical distinction and lingual clarification.

Category errors arise when things are referred to in ways that imply they belong to a category of things to which they do not.  They were proposed by Gilbert Ryle in “The Concept of Mind” (1949).  He was concerned about the juxtaposition of “mind” and “body” as two comparable entities.  But the notion proved broadly applicable – and indeed is approached by other philosophers too.

What do category errors look like, and why worry about them?  First consider a harmless metaphor. “This book shines new light on our question”, if taken literally, would be absurd (unless it refers to a genuinely luminescent book) but unlikely to mislead anyone.  Metaphors can liven up our language and also help create terminology: think of electromagnetic “waves”, biodiversity “hotspots” or mental “breakdowns”.  It shouldn’t be difficult to agree that light waves don’t go up and down, biodiversity can’t have a temperature, and minds are not machines – so we needn’t see category errors here.  Next, what about statements?  If someone analysed this blog post, I hope they would allow my opening sentence, “Our series… has so far considered…” to pass as a harmless case. But sometimes category errors are revealing.

In reviewing a paper I once queried a phrase along the lines of, “The threat of extinctions may reduce biodiversity in this region,” because threats are mental perceptions: clearly it was the extinctions that could reduce biodiversity, not the threats.  The authors’ meaning was clear enough – but this kind of subtle category error is commonplace (not least in some student work I read).  In most cases it suggests slightly careless writing: linguistic short-cuts.  Or is it confused thinking?  Either way, I believe it’s a carelessness that can breed problems.  See what you think about the following:

  1. “The brain recognises a threat and responds accordingly”
  2. “A gene for homosexuality”
  3. “Our data reveal…”
  4. “Society expresses its disapproval”

My contention here is that our ways of phrasing ideas can reveal a lot about our worldview: especially what kinds of thing we consider able to affect each other.

So phrase (1) reminds us of the concerns of Ryle, on the grounds that minds are the locus of thought, whereas brains are body organs.  (2) stands for the widespread general denigration among biologists of hypothesising “a gene for X” – partly because  most traits aren’t simply determined by genes (or even alleles).  (3) is one that greatly interests me and needs working out elsewhere: suffice to say for now that no data have ever placed a conclusion in front of me, or spoken to me!  (4) raises the question of what we mean by “society”.

The intriguing question behind all this is, what categories ought we to distinguish?  Why are some ontologies better than others?  While Ryle was concerned with the mind/body dualism, his examples imply many other categories besides.  I’m particularly interested in the Christian philosopher Herman Dooyeweerd's approach to causality. Dooyeweerd proposed that scientific causal accounts (those based on abstractions) should restrict themselves to a single aspect of created reality.  His “aspects” are a set of fifteen categories for types of abstraction and of laws.  More needs to be said about this – but let me end by pointing out that our series on “What is good scholarship?” is based on these aspects, from the analytical aspect onwards.

Clarity as an intellectual virtue

Have you ever thought of clarity as a virtue? In the last post, Roy Clouser started our series on intellectual virtues by explaining the importance of the ‘logical’ or ‘analytical’ aspect of reality for scholarship. Clarity is a norm (a kind of goodness) that presupposes the norm of distinguishing logically; once we have good distinctions, we should seek to communicate these clearly. But why should Christians have anything to say about these basic norms?

It is interesting that the first specific task God gave to Adam, the naming of the animals, (Genesis 2:19–20) was both an analytical and a linguistic operation. Before you can give a name to a species, you’ve first got to identify what makes it different from the other species around it, and this means making generalisations from one animal to a whole group (I don’t think Adam was calling one sheep ‘Bob’ and another ‘Margaret’!). One aspect of the creation mandate for humans to ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ is the idea that we work to bring it under our mastery and into our understanding; as part of this, we need to use our God-given analytical faculties to shine a light on the logical interactions and relationships of the world around us.

What does this mean for us as Christian researchers or postgrads? I think there’s a few key principles here:

  • Analysis is not a neutral act. When we attempt to make abstractions, we’re not just jumping through intellectual hoops, nor are we opening up heroic new vistas for human independence. We are doing what God designed and commanded us to do: exploring, examining and explaining His world. If we remember this, it can give us a sense of purpose in our daily work. If we forget it, we risk distorting the vision He set before us.
  • Clarity is not the same as simplicity. Thinking clearly does not mean ignoring the world’s complexities, which are testament both to God’s rich creativity and also to the chaos our sin has wreaked on our environment. The opposite of clarity is not complexity but confusion. As we approach the world analytically, through our different disciplines, we are working with its complexity, not against it – working to engage with and harness this complexity as part of our act of intellectual worship and service. We can help the church to be confident, and not fearful or suspicious, when faced with complicated truths and situations.
  • Researchers can be servants. The ability to find and describe the relationships between different aspects of reality is a gift, given by God for the common good. Our job is not to make things as complicated as possible, however much that might validate our abilities to ourselves and the academy around us; our job is to engage with complexity for the sake of our broader community, just as Adam gave names to the animals as a first step to domesticating them. Wherever possible, we should be open to ways (however unexpected!) in which our studies can bless our church family.

The Logical Aspect of Reality and Thought

Roy Clouser starts our series on good scholarship with a look at the logical aspect of reality.

We often speak of an idea or plan as “logical” using that as a term of praise. What we usually mean is that the idea makes sense or the plan appears a good way to proceed. But the term “logical” is used in philosophy and the sciences to name a specific kind of properties and laws. According to Reformational Philosophy these properties and laws form a distinct aspect of all creation. Let’s start with the most basic laws of logic, the fundamental logical axioms.

The first logical axiom is the law of non-contradiction. It says that nothing can both be and not-be in the same sense at the same time. Most people employ this law without ever having articulated it to themselves. They know that if someone owes them money, it can’t be true both that the money has been repaid and that it has not been repaid. They know that it either was or wasn’t repaid, and that it can’t be both, because of that law. The second logical law is called the law of excluded middle. That means that it must be true that either the money was repaid or it wasn’t, so it can’t be true that it was neither repaid nor not repaid. Finally, there is the axiom of identity. This law says that a thing is itself and not something else. So applied to the money owed, it says that either it is true that the money was repaid and false that it was not, or it is true that it was not repaid and false that it was.

These laws sound so obvious that at first most people think they must be trivial or simple. In fact they are anything but trivial or simple. They can be used to formulate more specific rules that can be applied to arguments in a rigorous way to determine whether arguments are valid or not.

There are also logical characteristics or “properties” that things can possess. Most views of logic think that the only things that can have logical properties are propositions and arguments, and that the only properties propositions can have are being consistent or inconsistent, and the only properties arguments can have are whether they are valid or invalid. This impoverished view is the result of missing the fact that properties can be possessed passively as well as actively. For example, the statements “The money was repaid” and “The money was not repaid” are actively inconsistent. The term “active” means that they have that property whether anyone knows it or not. But they also have such passive properties as being distinguishable and being analyzable – properties that depend on someone to distinguish or analyze them. In this same way all objects of experience, as well as all the kinds of characteristics they exhibit, can also have such passive properties as being able to be distinguished, abstracted, analyzed, and conceptualized.

For these reasons the Reformational philosophy insists that everything in creation has logical properties and is subject to logical law – not just thoughts, ideas, concepts, and theories, but also things, events, persons, relations, and states of affairs in the world around us. On the other hand, this philosophy clearly restricts the scope of logical laws to creatures. Since God is the creator of the logical aspect of the cosmos as well as all its other aspects, those laws may not be applied to Him to prove His existence. Attempting such a proof is subjecting God to the laws He has imposed on creatures, and thus lowers God to creaturely status by subjecting Him to the laws of the cosmos. Thus whatever can be proven would thereby not be God.

What is good scholarship?

Is academic work a kind of perfectionism? Single-minded focus certainly goes a long way in scholarship. But we must also be circumspect, not forgetting the constraints on our time and resources, our health and the need to make concessions to our audiences when communicating discoveries. All-round perfection will be an elusive goal. So what really is good scholarship, in God’s eyes?

We’re about to begin a series on this theme by looking at a whole suite of kinds of “good”. What do a good argument, a good method, a good speaker and a good deed have in common? Perhaps it’s not so easy to say. The reformational perspective that motivates FiSch relishes the challenge of pursuing different kinds of goodness together – someone has called it “the simultaneous realisation of norms”.

Now, in our academic work we sometimes bump into a thing called research ethics. Perhaps an ethics committee needs to approve your project, and this seems like a bind, concerned with extraneous ethics. But, just as the law no longer feels like constraint when it’s internalised in us, and we need have no fear of rulers if we obey the law (Rom 13), I would argue that there are many types of “good” that we’re already used to considering in our work. We know the importance of good ideas, of getting good value from limited funds and time, of using good reasoning, and of obtaining good outcomes from a project. And we’re trained to keep these “intrinsic” goods in view. Virtuous scholarship is a multifaceted challenge.

All-round goodness

You may remember how the psalmist proclaimed, “there is no one who does good, not even one” (Ps 14:3) – and how this is echoed in Jesus’ claim, “No one is good – except God alone” (Mk 10:18), and Paul quotes it in Romans (3:12). Where does this leave that desire for excellence? This is where it’s important to distinguish different spheres of meaning. The biblical writers clearly assume that we can make valid arguments, build houses to withstand storms and care for animals well. So the bold claims cited above must be concerned with something more. Yes: they refer to righteousness in the eyes of our Creator. This is indeed not something we can just work up. If we don’t love God, good scholarship will clothe us only in filthy rags in His eyes (Is 64:6) – although it surely remains good, in His common grace, for God’s purposes in the world at large. But, conversely, the goodness granted to us when we truly know and believe in Jesus Christ is not only to our eternal benefit. Here and now it will integrate every area of our lives, growing as we work out our salvation (Php 2:12). “Be perfect,” said Jesus, “as your heavenly Father is perfect*” (Mat 5:48).

Some of the themes of our series may surprise you.  We’ll begin with a guest post by philosopher Roy Clouser on the goodness of logic and move on to the goodness of progress.  Later we’ll reach more social (“ethical”) dimensions, and eventually end up in good faith. I hope you find the journey stimulating!


*The Greek teleios in this context suggests whole, perhaps impartial, rather than perfection as an ideal.

An epic 24hrs: the FiSch Leaders’ Conference 2016

In just under four months the 2016 Fisch Leaders’ Conference will be taking place in Leeds. It’s going to be epic; a crucial moment under God’s grace for this cohort of Christian postgraduate leaders.

Fundamentally it promises two things (with a money back guarantee): you will enjoy a time of rest and encouragement as you are fed in a community of Christian scholars; and you will be challenged to grow in your thinking and leadership as you share your experiences and listen to others.

As well as peer-to-peer group discussions, in 2016 our lectures will be provided by the Christian philosophy power couple Drs Adrienne and Jonathan Chaplin. Dr Adrienne Dengerink Chaplin taught philosophical aesthetics at the Institute for Christian Studies (Toronto) and now works as an independent writer. She works on the philosophy of art, has written and lectured globally on aesthetics and art and is co-author of Art and Soul: Signposts for Christians in the Arts. Dr Jonathan Chaplin is the Director of the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics and has written widely on politics, political theory, ethics and Christianity. He is currently a member of the Divinity Faculty in Cambridge and has previously held positions at VU University (Amsterdam) and the Institute of Christian Studies (Toronto).

Over recent years the FiSch Leaders’ Conference has been a wonderful event. We’ve seen local postgraduate group leaders share their struggles and plan new opportunities and we’ve seen new leaders grow in their passion for encouraging others to consider scholarship under Christ’s Lordship. The FiSch Fellows are committed to encouraging and supporting you, this generation of leaders, as Christians in the postgraduate world.

Perhaps however you don’t see yourself as a leader. Well you’re amongst kindred thinkers here, but just to help you out our definition of leadership might be of interest: “taking responsibility for encouraging and supporting Christians in postgraduate education and research”. If that describes you, then you fit, we’re here to help you in your work and this conference is for you.

In under 24hrs expect to make new contacts, develop relationships, enjoy good food, rest in a beautiful home, critique your role in encouraging Christians, be challenged in your thinking, enjoy an inter-disciplinary community, and praise God together for His works. Put the date in the diary now (19th-20th February 2016), and get ready to book your place soon – it’s going to be epic.

FiSch research goes to Rome

The Faith-in-Scholarship working group on ecosystem services is starting to have an impact! Twelve of us started meeting back in February to work on a challenge in conservation science (read about the basic rationale). Now we’ve presented some of our work at an ecological conference in Rome and are working on journal articles. We want to substitute ‘ecosystem services’ with ‘ecosystem values’: read on to find out why.

Two of the themes being pursued are now bearing fruit. The first was a theological one that involved writing an ecological reflection on Psalm 104: this has been done, and we hope to publish it soon on another blog (watch this space for news!). The second theme is more ambitious and philosophical: to critique and enrich the ecosystem services framework. And this is the work that took us to Rome last week.

Environmental conservation is intrinsically an ethical concern: people believe that the destruction of wild places, species and ecosystems by the activities of humans is a bad thing and we want to find ways to minimise these losses. All scientific work has normative foundations – despite the tradition of pretending otherwise – but in conservation science and much of ecology these are sometimes more obvious. So we’re proposing to replace the idea of ecosystem services – an economic metaphor – with that of “ecosystem values”.

We’re offering a scheme for identifying different kinds of ways in which people value wild places, together with some ideas for measuring them. This scheme is based on the non-reductive framework for Christian philosophy that motivates FiSch. I won’t say more while we’re still writing up our work, but we have had interest from a prominent journal in publishing our proposal. Again – watch this space for news!

So what happened in Rome? I had the privilege of representing our group at the conference of the European Ecological Federation, and although I’ve attended many ecological conferences before, this was the first time I’d had “West Yorkshire School of Christian Studies” on my name badge.

The overall theme was “Ecology at the Interface”, meaning an emphasis on interdisciplinarity – which our approach suited well. The conference attracted perhaps 600 delegates from all around Europe and beyond, with nearly this many presentations crammed in to six parallel tracks. Most of these were 15-minute talks – such as ours. When I stood up to speak in one of the final sessions of the week some 35 people were present, and at the end of my talk there were a number of appreciative and helpful questions and comments. I came back with plenty of additional ideas and quite a few useful connections. The next challenge is to explore a virtue ethics approach to our ideas.

Overall, our working group has been tremendously encouraged by this. The work we presented wasn’t explicitly Christian; rather, it draws upon our Christian background (and we represent a broad church). While it will be for each reader of our work to see whether this foundation is evident, we’re confident in our objective of showing that a Christian starting-point can lead to good fruit – even in the sciences.

Thanks to the Marsh Christian Trust and Yeadon IP for funding

‘Hallowed Be Thy Name’ in research

Dr Xia Zhu describes the role of Christian academic groups in her faith:

I was brought up and educated in a system which believes in no god and claims that the reason why so many gods look like men is because they are simply human illusions. Ironically, it was in order to understand a different culture that I was encouraged to read the Bible by a professor from my undergraduate studies. 

My journey with the Lord started in a small Chinese Bible study group: studying Genesis for a whole year, wrestling with the ideas of creation, who Jesus is, and how Christianity is different from other religions. This group really helped me in exploring these questions (not necessarily always with satisfying answers). I continued with the books of John and Romans, exploring questions about ‘sin’, ‘repentance’ and the meaning of the cross. The study of the word of God led to a point where my misconception of the Bible being a book of fairy stories was corrected, and I was enthused with a passion for Christ, to walk His way and please Him.

As much as I enjoyed my PhD – the satisfaction of solving problems and finding reasons behind a phenomenon – I have to confess that I spent much of my time and energy in church-related activities (Bible study groups, sermon translation, theology classes, etc.). These certainly all appear to be ‘godly’ and I was enthusiastic about sharing the gospel (it still thrills me when I see people come to the Lord). PhD and research (as well as other non-church areas), were somehow – I’m not sure when – labelled as ‘secular’, ‘second class’, and not surprisingly ‘of secondary importance’ in my life.  That’s until I met a group of researchers in the Postgraduate Christian Forum (PCF). My first PCF meeting was rather disturbing, as it made it very clear that this group was not about evangelism. This challenged my restricted mindset of gospel sharing, changing people’s hearts and deepening our faith in Christ. This group was grappling with the theme of God’s purpose in each research discipline – and I continued attending.

The wrestling process has been rather rewarding: it has not only opened up my mind, challenging my preset thinking about ‘God’s work’ and ‘God in the workplace’, but also helped me to rediscover God’s purpose and value in research and to re-examine what is ‘secular’. PhD work is not merely satisfying intellectual activity by solving problems, nor just a key to the door of academia. Research is not an instrumental tool for gaining academic recognition and career progression. It is thinking God’s thoughts after Him and truly acknowledging that He is the lord of all (including research!).

The plaques in the old Coventry Cathedral say the following:

‘Hallowed be Thy Name in Industry, God be in my hands and in my making’,
‘Hallowed be Thy Name in Arts, God be in my senses and in my creating’,
‘Hallowed be Thy Name in Commerce, God be at my desk and in my trading’,
‘Hallowed be Thy Name in Government, God be in my plans and in my deciding’
‘Hallowed be Thy Name in Education, God be in my mind and in my growing’.
‘Hallowed be Thy Name in the Home, God be in my heart and in my loving’.

May we also pray:

‘Lord, Hallowed be Thy Name in research, God be in my projects and in my thinking.’