Sixth Form Theology.

For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triungular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would allow the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does in reality have the range to accomodate and interpret such absurd views.

Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?

And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.

 And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.

I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.

Sign the Petition.

It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.

It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.

Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.

Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage

No Brainer!

Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of  establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?

Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.

Giles Fraser, Atonement & Child Abuse.

Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!

Does Jesus Hate Religion? Kinda, Sorta, Not Really

Christian Medical Comment: BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and select...: With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, ...

Jim Swift was 19 years old when he was killed in action in 1918. He has no known grave. He was my father's elder brother.

Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.

The Shard 12th September from platform 6 at London Bridge Station.

Testimony 2

Why is humility such a difficult virtue to aspire to? Perhaps it is because the primordal vice is pride, the desire to have the pre-eminent position and to be second to no-one. I hate the notion that my intellectual abilities may be considered second rate and that I will be despised as a consequence. I want to be respected and well thought of.

Notionally, as a Christian, I aspire to humility but in practice my flesh cries out in protest - I generally consider myself better than others, look out for my own interests and indulge in vain conceir contrary to Philippians 2 v1-11 etc.

When I discuss Christian things with non-believers I am more inclined to talk in a sophisticated way about philosophy of religion out of fear of being looked down on. Perhaps that is why my Christian life lacks real power and why I often feel hollow spiritually. In 1 Corinthians 1 v17b Paul talks of avoiding such sophistication 'lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power'. I want to look intellectually impressive and find the result is empty while 2 Corinthians 4 talks about 'treasures in jars of clay', it looks totally pathetic and yet conceals true riches. The point to bear in mind is that the Kingdom of God subverts the standards of the world and it is well worth reading 1 Corinthians 1 v18-31 in full to get the real impact of what God id doing! It is something I want to take to heart for sure!

The church in Sardis (Rev 3 v1-6) has a reputation for being alive but its incomplete actions belie its orthodoxy. I often feel full of good intentions but they don't often get translated into reality. My deepest regrets in life have never come about by being too dedicated to the Lord Jesus, they have always arisen from my unbelief and compromise. A half hearted believer is in the most pitiful situation of all. With one foot in the world's camp I will never truly taste the joy of the Lord.

When I come across old notes written by myself I discover fossil aspirations which touch on things like personal Bible study and Scripture memory. They are great intentions but if I am half hearted about them I am simply giving way to unbelief aren't I? I find time for other things, general reading and TV etc, which aren't necessarily bad in themselves, but they distract me. I suppose it could be argued that these other things cause me to imbibe the values of the world although in practice I find these values actually wearying to my soul rather than attractive. But perhaps that is sufficient to leave me tired, cynical and dispirited.

The fact is whatever doubts attack me they always prove to be silly and insubstantial. They may be in tune with the world's thinking but on examination invariably prove to be paper tigers. But Jesus' words always ring true. "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".