CALENDAR OF DOOM! [Parte Une].
For Christmas I was given, among other things, a calendar
for 2006. This is no ordinary calendar because it was put
together by a relative, Dawn Divyn, and includes some of
her own photography together with a saying or two for
each month. The aphorisms in question , I assume, are
calculated in a kindly way to challenge my faith.
I appreciate the effort that she has given to this project
and the well meaning motive which lay behind it: for
it is a kindness to try to put me right if one thinks I am
wrong.
Anyway I thought that it might be an interesting exercise
over the year to ruminate on these thoughts of hers and
to test their strength.
So to it:
January 2006. Credibile est, quia ineptum est.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as
true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as
useful." Seneca the Younger (4?BC-65AD).
That is probably a fair reflection on pagan religion by
Seneca - an ancient Roman philosopher and statesman.
The aphorism reflects the snobbery of the Roman
patrician class towards the people who were despised
as ignorant and maleable by those who considered
themselves wise and better fitted to rule.
Jesus torpedoes this sort of smugness when he said:
"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
you have hidden these things from the wise and
understanding and revealed them to little children;
yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Matthew 11v25&26. It pleases God to subvert
human pride by choosing those most despised in
the world's eyes to receive the wisdom of the kingdom
of God. The Christian recognises the folly of putting
one's faith in those generally considered wise by the
pundits!
Oh - the latin quote - that's Tertullian being silly.
Something should not be believed simply because it
is absurd - but rather if something claims to pop
the pomposity of the proud it is at least worth
considering with humility. It is not wisdom as such that
is being questioned but the smug air of conceit that
often blinds those who are wise in their own eyes.
fin
ps. 10th May 06: I recently learnt that Tertullian
never actually said this, it is a commonly
accepted fallacy that he did. It is correct that he did
make the point that sometimes a counter-intuitive statement
has a degree of plausibility because it is not something
one would make up.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Sunday, December 18, 2005
"Sharia by Stealth" Conspiracy Theory.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Apologies to Rob Bradshaw!
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
SWIFTYPETE
My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!
My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
CONNECTING EVIL, SUFFERING AND EMPATHY.
Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.
In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.
If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.
Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?
There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".
Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."
Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.
From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.
The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.
Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!
"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).
A Christian response.
In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.
As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.
We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.
In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.
When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.
In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.
Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".
God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.
Conclusion.
Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.
The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.
[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].
tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.
Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.
In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.
If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.
Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?
There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".
Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."
Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.
From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.
The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.
Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!
"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).
A Christian response.
In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.
As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.
We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.
In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.
When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.
In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.
Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".
God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.
Conclusion.
Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.
The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.
[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].
tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.
Monday, September 05, 2005
BESLAN.
Chechen gunmen took over a school in southern Russia early in September 2004. After a two day standoff, the crisis ended with hundreds of casualties, many of them young children. We were all deeply shocked by these terrible events.
In the aftermath, John Humphrys interviewed the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on Radio 4's Today programme (in the UK). Rowan Williams concurred with the presenter's sentiments that these events are enough to challenge anyone's faith.
I work as a nurse on a children's intensive care unit in a large hospital in London, and so in my own modest way I have witnessed my fair share of children dying and suffering. I am also a Christian and, I believe, reasonably theologically literate. I have worked in intensive care for many years and have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering. For what it is worth I am putting these thoughts down on paper in the hope that someone, somewhere might find them
helpful.
Firstly, in the above mentioned interview, I wasn't entirely sure what the "faith" was which was under discussion. If we are talking about faith in "human nature" then many people's faith will indeed be shattered. If it is the belief that we live in
the best of all possible worlds, then that too is found wanting.
A couple of other "faith" systems bear examination in the context of suffering. There is the Glenn Hoddle line that "these things happen for a reason"; that bad karma is involved. The victims are paying the penalty of their sins in previous lives. There is also the Richard Dawkins view of life that "there is no design, no purpose, no good and no evil. Only blind pitiless indifference". Personally I find both of these responses to suffering inadequate.
While the events of Beslan were created by ruthless people, it does raise important issues for believing Christians. If God intervenes in human affairs as Christians claim, then why didn't he intervene in Beslan? Human sinfulness
explains some suffering, but not all.
When Christians claim to have been party to a miracle, whether it is a big thing such as a "healing" or a little thing like finding a parking space, I hope that they will be sensitive to those souls around them that have prayed for things which
have not come to pass. Why does God apparently answer one person's prayer for a parking space but denies a parent's prayer for their dying child?
We need to have a theology of suffering in place before we enter a time of trial (though even that luxury may be denied us). The technical term for a defence of God in the context of human suffering is a theodicy and this is what I will attempt in the following thoughts.
In a way, when we ask God to intervene we are asking for him to begin his judgment and bring in his kingdom. Most folk naively assume that God will bump off the bad guys. Evil is always a description for the other, never for ourselves.Yes, God will judge murderers - but what about you who murder your brother in your heart? Do you think you will be left standing?
Then why does God delay intervention? God is patiently enduring the degradation of his creation out of mercy, not wanting any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). There is a Jewish term for the distress God feels over us - "The Oddity of God".
We would all like to know all the "whys and wherefores" of particular events. What is God playing at here? What is the purpose of this apparently meaningless suffering? I have seen Christians attribute meanings to their grief, attempting
to rationalise their faith in a loving God with the loss of a child. Yet - at least to me - the "meanings" they settled on seem tawdry and a poor exchange.Personally, I don't know why the child in bed one died, and the other child in bed two survived.
In the abscence of answers to the "whys", what is it then we need to know? We need to know that God is loving and that God is sovereign. It is vital, in my opinion, that we shift the discussion away from arid philosophising (where there is a danger of sounding as if we Christians are justifying suffering). Consider Jesus reaction to suffering. In John 11 we have the story of Jesus, Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Lazarus was ill and his family sent word to Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha gives him a piece of her mind. Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise again" (v23). Martha knows her theology, thank you very much - she believes in the resurrection (v24). Then Jesus says something amazing. "I am the resurrection and the life" (v25). Faith is not a theological abstraction, it is trust in a person. Jesus isn't asking her whether she believes in the resurrection, but whether she believes in him. Of course we know that the story ends with Lazarus being raised to life, but before we get that demonstration of his awesome power, we are given some insight into the mind of God. Jesus is deeply moved and greatly troubled (v33). And Jesus wept (v35). In this we see God suffering along side those who grieve. I may not know the "why" of suffering within God's eternal plan, but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character settled. If I may coin a neologism, in Jesus we see the "Theoddity" of God.
And it is Jesus who will have the last word on Beslan.
[This article was first published in the December 2004 issue of]
[The Briefing, issue 315. Matthias Media/The Good Book ]
[Company. http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ ]
Chechen gunmen took over a school in southern Russia early in September 2004. After a two day standoff, the crisis ended with hundreds of casualties, many of them young children. We were all deeply shocked by these terrible events.
In the aftermath, John Humphrys interviewed the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on Radio 4's Today programme (in the UK). Rowan Williams concurred with the presenter's sentiments that these events are enough to challenge anyone's faith.
I work as a nurse on a children's intensive care unit in a large hospital in London, and so in my own modest way I have witnessed my fair share of children dying and suffering. I am also a Christian and, I believe, reasonably theologically literate. I have worked in intensive care for many years and have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering. For what it is worth I am putting these thoughts down on paper in the hope that someone, somewhere might find them
helpful.
Firstly, in the above mentioned interview, I wasn't entirely sure what the "faith" was which was under discussion. If we are talking about faith in "human nature" then many people's faith will indeed be shattered. If it is the belief that we live in
the best of all possible worlds, then that too is found wanting.
A couple of other "faith" systems bear examination in the context of suffering. There is the Glenn Hoddle line that "these things happen for a reason"; that bad karma is involved. The victims are paying the penalty of their sins in previous lives. There is also the Richard Dawkins view of life that "there is no design, no purpose, no good and no evil. Only blind pitiless indifference". Personally I find both of these responses to suffering inadequate.
While the events of Beslan were created by ruthless people, it does raise important issues for believing Christians. If God intervenes in human affairs as Christians claim, then why didn't he intervene in Beslan? Human sinfulness
explains some suffering, but not all.
When Christians claim to have been party to a miracle, whether it is a big thing such as a "healing" or a little thing like finding a parking space, I hope that they will be sensitive to those souls around them that have prayed for things which
have not come to pass. Why does God apparently answer one person's prayer for a parking space but denies a parent's prayer for their dying child?
We need to have a theology of suffering in place before we enter a time of trial (though even that luxury may be denied us). The technical term for a defence of God in the context of human suffering is a theodicy and this is what I will attempt in the following thoughts.
In a way, when we ask God to intervene we are asking for him to begin his judgment and bring in his kingdom. Most folk naively assume that God will bump off the bad guys. Evil is always a description for the other, never for ourselves.Yes, God will judge murderers - but what about you who murder your brother in your heart? Do you think you will be left standing?
Then why does God delay intervention? God is patiently enduring the degradation of his creation out of mercy, not wanting any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). There is a Jewish term for the distress God feels over us - "The Oddity of God".
We would all like to know all the "whys and wherefores" of particular events. What is God playing at here? What is the purpose of this apparently meaningless suffering? I have seen Christians attribute meanings to their grief, attempting
to rationalise their faith in a loving God with the loss of a child. Yet - at least to me - the "meanings" they settled on seem tawdry and a poor exchange.Personally, I don't know why the child in bed one died, and the other child in bed two survived.
In the abscence of answers to the "whys", what is it then we need to know? We need to know that God is loving and that God is sovereign. It is vital, in my opinion, that we shift the discussion away from arid philosophising (where there is a danger of sounding as if we Christians are justifying suffering). Consider Jesus reaction to suffering. In John 11 we have the story of Jesus, Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Lazarus was ill and his family sent word to Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha gives him a piece of her mind. Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise again" (v23). Martha knows her theology, thank you very much - she believes in the resurrection (v24). Then Jesus says something amazing. "I am the resurrection and the life" (v25). Faith is not a theological abstraction, it is trust in a person. Jesus isn't asking her whether she believes in the resurrection, but whether she believes in him. Of course we know that the story ends with Lazarus being raised to life, but before we get that demonstration of his awesome power, we are given some insight into the mind of God. Jesus is deeply moved and greatly troubled (v33). And Jesus wept (v35). In this we see God suffering along side those who grieve. I may not know the "why" of suffering within God's eternal plan, but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character settled. If I may coin a neologism, in Jesus we see the "Theoddity" of God.
And it is Jesus who will have the last word on Beslan.
[This article was first published in the December 2004 issue of]
[The Briefing, issue 315. Matthias Media/The Good Book ]
[Company. http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ ]
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Back to the Fuchsia!
For my birthday I was booked into a "Men's Colour Day" for a consultation by "House of Colour". It was good fun and for what it is worth I'll give you my thoughts.
The consultation began with a pep talk about how we dress builds confidence and authority etc - as a Christian I wondered if there should be an alternative course in "humility dressing" as opposed to "power dressing"! But I kept this subversive thought to myself!
You may already be aware of the principles behind the assessment - the consultant experiments with a variety of colours to see which suits your skin tone. There are four options named after the seasons. I was fairly confident that I had "blue toned" [as opposed to "yellow toned] skin, which would make me a Summer or Winter - my guess was Summer. But the surprising conclusion was Winter! Certainly the "wrong" colours did look ghastly, but I wasn't quite so convinced
about what was deemed "right".
I cross-checked with Susannah & Trinny's book "What Not To Wear". S&T are a couple of savvy fashionistas here in the UK. They only have three colour palettes -
and of the Winter equivalent they state "you are definately not this if you have hazel eyes [I do], freckles [that's me], or auburn hair [well, allowing for the flecks of grey, I qualify]." Hmmmm. What to make of it all?
Returning to the Susannah & Trinny palettes; in addition to the "what suits you" they had a "what does NOT suit you" colourwise. Using THAT I could combine the two, otherwise incompatible, schemes. By a process of elimination I came back to the original diagnosis! I'm a Winter. Well, I'll go the foot of our stairs!
If there is any value in these things it is in determining what colours DO NOT suit you - but that can be pretty helpful! My advice is: treat the whole thing as a bit of fun, don't get too hung up about what colour is deemed to be "yours". A great piece of advice I once came across is - "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise"!
For my birthday I was booked into a "Men's Colour Day" for a consultation by "House of Colour". It was good fun and for what it is worth I'll give you my thoughts.
The consultation began with a pep talk about how we dress builds confidence and authority etc - as a Christian I wondered if there should be an alternative course in "humility dressing" as opposed to "power dressing"! But I kept this subversive thought to myself!
You may already be aware of the principles behind the assessment - the consultant experiments with a variety of colours to see which suits your skin tone. There are four options named after the seasons. I was fairly confident that I had "blue toned" [as opposed to "yellow toned] skin, which would make me a Summer or Winter - my guess was Summer. But the surprising conclusion was Winter! Certainly the "wrong" colours did look ghastly, but I wasn't quite so convinced
about what was deemed "right".
I cross-checked with Susannah & Trinny's book "What Not To Wear". S&T are a couple of savvy fashionistas here in the UK. They only have three colour palettes -
and of the Winter equivalent they state "you are definately not this if you have hazel eyes [I do], freckles [that's me], or auburn hair [well, allowing for the flecks of grey, I qualify]." Hmmmm. What to make of it all?
Returning to the Susannah & Trinny palettes; in addition to the "what suits you" they had a "what does NOT suit you" colourwise. Using THAT I could combine the two, otherwise incompatible, schemes. By a process of elimination I came back to the original diagnosis! I'm a Winter. Well, I'll go the foot of our stairs!
If there is any value in these things it is in determining what colours DO NOT suit you - but that can be pretty helpful! My advice is: treat the whole thing as a bit of fun, don't get too hung up about what colour is deemed to be "yours". A great piece of advice I once came across is - "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise"!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The "2 Daniels" affair.
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run upto that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run up
to that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
"Jack" Swift (1911-1975), by his son.
My father was born before the British Empire peaked in it's power and, I guess like many of his generation, shared in it's prejudices and in it's finest hour. My father's father died before I was born, but I am told that he was a lovely man. My father's elder brother, "Jim" was killed in action in 1918, aged 19. There is no known grave.
My father could have won a scholarship to a fine school, but rheumatic fever put an end to that dream. Those profligate interwar years did not give second chances. But like many others so rejected he would go on to be a skilled craftsman and a fine NCO when war came again.
He volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the desperate need of Britain's hard pressed army would draft even those with weakened hearts. He married my mother and after a weekend honeymoon in Ilkley, not far from their home town of Bradford, left for the war not to return home for four years. He was with Eisenhower's forces when they invaded North Africa. He flew on board DC-3s [or"Dakotas" as the British called them], ferrying supplies. From Africa he continued his war into Italy and stood on Mount Vesuvius when it erupted in 1944. He ended the war by Lake Como, and I think he had grown to love Italy, though he would never have the opportunity to return.
Having been de-mobbed, he never left these shores again, unless you count our annual trip on the "Yorkshire Lady" around the bay at Scarborough. My parents worked hard in those post
war years ( which had brought no spoils of war) to provide for these little luxuries for me and my older brother and sister; these yearly breaks were the highlight of our childhood.
I remember him coming to my aid as a child when once upon a time I got my head stuck in a porthole of that ship. The time he defended me against my mum when my rabbit invaded the house and made a mess in the home she worked so hard to keep nice. He always used to buy me two ounces of wine gums each evening on his way home from work at the CO-OP department store, "Sunwin House". There were times too when he could be infuriating and opinionated, at least from the perspective of a know-all teenager. I think he aspired to be middle-class and he chose to be a poorly paid salesman who wore a suit to work rather than be a better paid blue-collar worker. I think he was immensely proud that my siblings went to university.
And I think he envied the opportunities our generation took for granted and little appreciated, but I don't think he begrudged us. I don't think he was a bitter man, but perhaps he was a disappointed one, which is a pity because he was content with little. And it is a great blessing
to be content with little.
He became ill - although we didn't realise how seriously -the year before he was due to retire. He was in pain and my last recollection of him alive was when I helped him out of bed and onto the commode. I think he must have hated the humiliation of his teenage son helping him so. But that was the first time I believe I actually did something for him.
Although I think I take after my mother's side of the family, there are times when I look in the mirror - I remind myself of my father.
My father was born before the British Empire peaked in it's power and, I guess like many of his generation, shared in it's prejudices and in it's finest hour. My father's father died before I was born, but I am told that he was a lovely man. My father's elder brother, "Jim" was killed in action in 1918, aged 19. There is no known grave.
My father could have won a scholarship to a fine school, but rheumatic fever put an end to that dream. Those profligate interwar years did not give second chances. But like many others so rejected he would go on to be a skilled craftsman and a fine NCO when war came again.
He volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the desperate need of Britain's hard pressed army would draft even those with weakened hearts. He married my mother and after a weekend honeymoon in Ilkley, not far from their home town of Bradford, left for the war not to return home for four years. He was with Eisenhower's forces when they invaded North Africa. He flew on board DC-3s [or"Dakotas" as the British called them], ferrying supplies. From Africa he continued his war into Italy and stood on Mount Vesuvius when it erupted in 1944. He ended the war by Lake Como, and I think he had grown to love Italy, though he would never have the opportunity to return.
Having been de-mobbed, he never left these shores again, unless you count our annual trip on the "Yorkshire Lady" around the bay at Scarborough. My parents worked hard in those post
war years ( which had brought no spoils of war) to provide for these little luxuries for me and my older brother and sister; these yearly breaks were the highlight of our childhood.
I remember him coming to my aid as a child when once upon a time I got my head stuck in a porthole of that ship. The time he defended me against my mum when my rabbit invaded the house and made a mess in the home she worked so hard to keep nice. He always used to buy me two ounces of wine gums each evening on his way home from work at the CO-OP department store, "Sunwin House". There were times too when he could be infuriating and opinionated, at least from the perspective of a know-all teenager. I think he aspired to be middle-class and he chose to be a poorly paid salesman who wore a suit to work rather than be a better paid blue-collar worker. I think he was immensely proud that my siblings went to university.
And I think he envied the opportunities our generation took for granted and little appreciated, but I don't think he begrudged us. I don't think he was a bitter man, but perhaps he was a disappointed one, which is a pity because he was content with little. And it is a great blessing
to be content with little.
He became ill - although we didn't realise how seriously -the year before he was due to retire. He was in pain and my last recollection of him alive was when I helped him out of bed and onto the commode. I think he must have hated the humiliation of his teenage son helping him so. But that was the first time I believe I actually did something for him.
Although I think I take after my mother's side of the family, there are times when I look in the mirror - I remind myself of my father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)