JANUARY 2006
New Year's Resolution! PLAN AHEA
D!

The Biblical Timeline!

Creation.................................................The New
...........\............................................../ Creation!
............\................................+ _____/
........Fall \............................ / Jesus
...............\/\/\/\/\___________/ is Lord
.................Israel....... exile


In some computer formats this diagram
will appear to be gibberish. Sorry about
that!

Whale Watching!

Just half an hour ago I took a short
walk from my home in North Bermondsey
to the River Thames to watch our
visiting whale go by.

Earlier today after being beached at
low tide up stream it was loaded onto
a barge and is being taken down to the
estuary.

I have never seen a whale before and it
is amazing to see one in the heart of the
city! London seems to have taken it to
its heart - I was surrounded by a crowd
of other curious onlookers. I guess it is
a feel good story - let's hope that it
has a happy ending.

Posted at 16.10 hrs GMT, 21st January 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Post Script at 20.00 hrs GMT.
The Northern Bottlenose Whale which captured
the heart of the nation is reported to have died
whilst in transit to the sea.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Modern Day Prophecy,
The Biblical Timeline &
Politics [American or
otherwise].

Pat Robertson has created (yet another) stir with
tendentious comments on world events this time
with speculation that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine
retribution for conceding land to the Palestinian
authority. He has been widely condemned in blog
world for this - and I fear that all Christians may be
tarred with the same brush, and more importantly
I am concerned that the Gospel of Jesus has been
brought into disrepute. [I am glad to note that Pat
Robertson has subsequently made an apology for
his "insensitivity"]. For anyone interested
I thought I'd briefly explain why (as a reasonably
Biblically literate, Evangelical, "Born Again"
Christian) I can say Pat Robertson was wrong in
the first place.

The Bible is an unfolding narrative of God's
dealings with Humankind *. At one point in
history the nation state of Israel was set up
ostensibly as a light to the nations. As the
narrative unfolds we discover that even this
Kingdom with its idealistic laws and its prophets
cannot reform the human heart. [This does not
mean that what was once wrong has ceased to be
wrong or that God has changed in some way;
it means that God has helped us grow in our
understanding of the problem of human nature
and moves us on from the moralism of rule
keeping - which is why Jesus is so hard on the
Pharisees. An infinitely more radical solution
is required!]. Ultimately the nation goes into
exile and God points ahead to a new kingdom
under God's chosen king. I believe that Jesus
is that king and his kingdom [or "Millennium"]
is presently a spiritual one - though one day we
look forward to his return and the inauguration
of his Kingdom in all it's fulness. This new kingdom
is not limited geographically nor is it restricted
to the physical descendents of Abraham....as
the original promises always indicated they
would have global, if not cosmic, fulfillment. There
is now a larger vision afoot....a plan to recreate
the whole of Creation and draw in the breadth
of Humanity.

Where Pat Robertson is going wrong is in
anachronistically harking back to a point in
the Bible narrative which merely foreshadowed
the Kingdom which Jesus came to bring about.
This colours how middle eastern politics are
viewed (often in lurid technicolour). It also
permits Pat Robertson to see himself in the
role of Old Testament prophet (such as
authoritatively interpreting world events)
- again a role superceded by Christ himself.

Pat Robertson comes out of a school of thought
called "Pre- Millennialist", which views the
restoration of the state of Israel as critical in
God's plan for the world. He may also believe
that the church is mandated by God to have a
role of political leadership over the other
nations. I am an "Amillennialist"* Christian -
I don't believe the Bible teaches either of
these positions....in fact I think that these
are potentially damaging distractions from
the commission which Jesus did give to us.
Pat Robertson once described Amillennialism as
"the end-time apostasy" no less. So... hey...please
blogworld don't lump all evangelical Christians
together in the same boat. [I realise that such
quibbles over words like these will seem rather
esoteric to the outsider but the point I'm making
is "ideas have legs" - i.e. ideas DO have
consequences].

I suspect that evangelical Christians are often
viewed as ultra-right wing because some of us
misunderstand where we are in the Bible
timeline. The plot has moved on from attempting
to build a theocratic nation state, we are now
living in a new era defined by the Cross of Christ.
As a Christian I see little or no value in using political
campaigns to compel non-christians to behave as if
they are believers. In fact most Biblically literate
Christians would come to share the apostle Paul's
view of the limitations of the law in reforming the
human heart. I believe that our role is to faithfully
teach and model the Gospel to the onlooking world.
By all means let's get involved in politics - but let's
not fool ourselves that this will reform human nature,
only the Cross of Christ can do this.

If we do get involved in politics; as Christians
we must demonstrate a rounded political agenda
- it is right to speak out on bio-medical ethics -
but the Bible also has lots to say about other
issues - War & Peace, Poverty & Materialism,
the Environment, Social Justice etc. We should
not allow ourselves to be corralled into a right
wing fiefdom for the benefit of certain politicians.
Let's not get railroaded into a narrower agenda
than God's, which is where some misguided
souls would take us. [It should also be pointed
out to those on the political Left that they too
are guilty of driving away the support of
Evangelicals by demonising them - maybe,
just maybe, that is one reason why the
Democrats lost the US election in 2004 - they
alienated moderate evangelicals rather than
reach out to them].

But back to my main point: gleeful
triumphalism over the misfortune of others
is totally antithetical to the spirit of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is understandable
if we are seen as rather nasty, mean-spirited
and un-Christlike people if the Pat Robertsons
of this world put themselves forward as our
spokesmen. I just want to make it clear that
he does not speak for me.

All comments are welcome!

[1* This should not be confused with the various
theological "dispensations" which some
Pre-Millennialist Christians hold to!]

[2*"Amillennialism" is a bit of a misnomer because
it implies one does not believe in the Kingdom
at all. Perhaps it would be better to refer to it
as a "realised millennialism"- the Kingdom of God
is present here and now for those with the eyes
to see it. For the sake of convenience I will use
the more commonly recognised term].

Post-Script: 21. Jan.06.
I have attempted to represent in diagrammatic
form the Biblical Timeline I have described
unfortunately in some computer formats this
will appear as gibberish! Sorry about that.


tag-line. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat
Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. PatRobertson.

RICHARD DAWKINS'S LATEST
ATTACK ON RELIGION IS AN
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY POLEMIC
NOT WORTHY OF A GREAT
SCIENTIST.

In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK there is an
excellent article by Madeleine Bunting:-

"On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again)
to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a
two-part Channel 4 programme [in the UK], "The Root of
All Evil?" His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them
badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on
Narnia. By all means let's have a serious debate about
religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating
phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's
not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random
anecdotal evidence, there's an unmistakable whiff of
panic; they fear religion is on the march again."

My best guess is that Dawkins's worldview is
dominated by his concepts of evolutionary biology.
It isn't just that he believes this to be true, it is also
that his evolutionary worldview requires this
concept to prevail and vanquish all other contenders.

Bunting continues:-
"There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been
short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all
atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even
more grating, what secularisation there has been has
been is accompanied by the growth of weird
irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As
GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when
people don't believe in God is not that they believe
nothing, it is that they believe anything".

Bunting makes some telling comments about
Dawkins's lack of understanding and charges him
with the very same "hidebound certainty" of which
he accuses believers.

It seems to me that all of us have the capacity to
demonise other people - that is actually the
problem with human nature. We all "otherise
evil" don't we? In Dawkins' case he demonises
anyone with a religious faith as if the secular
ideologies do not also have blood on their hands.
It is that ability to dissociate ourselves from evil
and attribute it exclusively to the "other" which
is actually the first step along the road to doing
something evil ourselves. Any cause can be used
and abused in this way. "The Terror" of the
French revolution which arose out of Enlightement
values is a case in point. Dawkins says that religion
is a means of inducing good people to do evil things
- I will not seek to defend the evil which has been
done in the name of Christ, but it is foolish to
attribute that evil to Christ. In my experience the
Gospel requires me to look inside my own heart and
recognise my capacity for evil. Jesus does not permit
me to "otherise" it but to confront it in myself. And
that is the blindspot in Dawkins's argument - no
atheist can ever say "there but for the grace of God
go I."

Bunting concludes:-
"Let's be clear:it's absolutely right that religion should
be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one
that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men".

The full article can be found on page 30 of
THE GUARDIAN Saturday 7-January-06

Post-Script. Wednesday, 18th January 2006.
It has been put to me since writing this blog that I am
engaging in an "analogous" argument, that is "Evil by A
is okay because B does the the same". That is exactly
what I am NOT saying. So let me take another run at
it. The starting point of this discussion is "The Root of
All Evil?" and Dawkins attributes this evil to those
with a religious faith. By pointing out the evil done by
those without a religious faith I was simply making
the point that Dawkins was making an argument
based on "selective observation" that's all. I was not
seeking to excuse one evil by pointing out another.

Post-Post-Script. Friday, 27th January 2006.
"Nothing returns one quicker to God than the sight
of a scientist with no imagination, no vocabulary,
no sympathy, no comprehension of metaphor, and
no wit, looking soulless and forlorn amid the wonders
of nature." Howard Jacobson on Richard Dawkins,
in The Independent.

Addendum. Sunday, 29th January 2006.
I posted this Jacobson quote [without any additional
words from me] in the comments box of a pro-Dawkins
blog naively assuming that even die-hard Dawkins fans
would find it amusing and, perhaps, even insightful. My
motivation was more mischievous rather than malicious.
I returned later to discover that I had really rattled the
cage of the blogger in question. He had gone through
the quote point by point - at some considerable length
I might add - seeking to defend his hero. First up; if you
are that blogger reading this; it was not my intention to
wind you up so I'm sorry if my comment caused you
grief. But the ironic thing is this cheerless reaction has
actually proven Jacobson correct hasn't it? It does
seem that thorough going materialists are indeed
rather humourless, one dimensional, uncomprehending
people fired up with an irrational anger.... not unlike....
well.... the very fundamentalists they claim to despise!

tag-line.Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins.