THE NIGHT OF THE LONG SKIVES!

British Summer Time ended yesterday night when the clocks went back. Give a thought for those of us nurses and doctors and physios & etc etc etc who were working on the night shift when we had the extra hour! When I volunteered to cover this shift on PICU at the SNC Hospital I hadn't appreciated that daylight saving time was due to change! So while the rest of you got an extra hour in bed we had a very very VERY long shift! The only thing that made it remotely tolerable was the fact that we could take a bit longer over our breaks. In fairness I should add that I worked the short night last spring when the clocks went forward so I guess it all evens out in the end.

Just for the record; we had a 1am BST followed an hour later by 1am Greenwich Mean Time.

On the whole I enjoy working shifts - I like the variety in the work pattern. I also enjoy having time off midweek: you can go places when it's quiet rather than follow the herd working 9-5 and being off when everyone else is!

I even enjoy night shifts: you can actually focus on caring for patients without all the other extraneous hassle which the NHS seems to generate. The only drawback to night duty being that my body clock always wakes me up by midday when I'm trying to sleep, like it's saying 'hey, it's day time you should be up!' But I get by on 3-4 hours sleep. By the end of four night shifts though I usually feel wiped out... I finish four nights on Tuesday morning.

The thing is as I get older I'm not so sure that I can keep up working crazy nurse's shifts but I don't know what else I'd do!

I'm Baffled by Brian D McLaren
& Steve Chalke.

I've recently finished reading a couple of books by putative leaders of the "emerging (or emergent) church" movement. Brian D McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" and Steve Chalke's "The Lost Message of Jesus". I wanted to know more about this movement and rather than rely on secondhand accounts I thought I'd better go to the source and see what they had to say for themselves.

I have to say that I am not a little baffled by their books. I don't understand why anyone thinks they are breaking new ground because there is nothing original in either book.

I found very little to disagree with for the first hundred pages or so with these books. There are some ungainly phrases which are open to misinterpretation but I appreciate that these books are 'pop theology' and are not meant for serious analysis; even so it would be better to get the basics right. Also, we all have anecdotal horror stories about churches we've encountered - the real issue is how far can one generalise from them without perpetrating an injustice oneself?!

All the criticisms they make of contemporary Evangelicalism are ones I would echo - not least because I've been guilty of them myself! There is indeed a tendency toward pharasaism in Evangelicalism, no-one is denying that. "Works" based 'religion' is the natural default setting of all human beings after all. Consequently it should come as no surprise to find a 'formal evangelicalism' which is actually no better than any other of the world's religions! Only an understanding of 'Grace' will cure this - and that is a unique feature of the Gospel.... and it is something so wonderful it is difficult for us to grasp, even when one has been in the faith for over thirty years like me. However the danger inherent within a movement which seeks to create a 'new' church by its own lights is that it merely creates a new pharisaism with all the elitist presumptions of 'superiority'. That is the lesson of history with all supposedly radical church movements.... they're never as radical as they suppose themselves to be! I know because I've been there before!

I suppose the major point of departure comes when Steve Chalke starts to discuss the Cross of Christ. First of all let me say that I do not recognise his caricature of this doctrine so I won't take offence at it.... he is attacking someone but it can't be me! The fact that he talks about it being "morally dubious" and is antithetical to the notion of a God of Love is one attack too far and is worthy of a response, I cannot let that go unanswered

I believe that if God takes on himself a penalty rightly due to me - there is no inconsistency with his nature as a God of love. I am speaking as a Trinitarian Christian you understand.... Christ is not something outside of God... it is God himself who takes on himself the penalty rightly due to me - isn't that an act of love?!

Also - it is very important to realise - that love is not only about mercy. Isn't love about justice too. Is it loving to let all the world's injustices go with a 'it doesn't matter' shrug of the shoulders? (Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur etc or the social ills closer to home. In the course of time these examples will appear dated and quaint - the future reader will (I am sure) be able to substitute your own contemporary examples!) Doesn't love ever get passionate about wrongdoing - and if so how do you think that that is expressed? And if I count myself amongst the evil (rather than the self righteous) what is my escape - assuming I need to escape? How do I pay for the things I've done wrong? If I conclude that I cannot do this can I trust someone else to do it for me?

You might ask 'How can one person pay a penalty for someone else?' I was with my brother-in-law when we drove into a 'pay & display' car park. (I don't mean to be trivial when I use this as an example - I am merely demonstrating that these concepts are not 'rocket science'). He queued to get the ticket while I stood nearby. He realised that he had no coins for the machine and called to me. Yes, I had the right change and paid what he could not. No-one, but no-one, in that queue that day said "Hey! You can't do that!" Incidentally no-one, but no-one said "If you pay for him you have to pay for us all!"

Too often we draw in our own culture into our interpretation of the Bible and I believe Chalke is thinking in terms of modern criminal law when the better model is civil law... CS lewis made this very point over fifty years ago. The "dubious morality" charge is actually bound up in an unstated modernistic presumption of "equity" - the dubious notion that no distinction can ever be made about anybody for any reason. There is no issue here which demands the redrafting of classical protestant doctrine which seems to be the end point Chalke is driving toward. The real issue is this - how far do we go along the road of accepting the world's theology in order to curry favour? And what do we acheive thereby?

At one point Chalke relates how a friend had asked a group of scholars and ministers for a simple one sentence definition of the Jesus' message - nothing satisfactory emerged from the discussion. This is a rather revealing tale.... but not for the reason he thinks. The phrasing of the question imposed a false presupposition that the message of Jesus is somehow different to what Jesus came to do. No wonder people were confused.... and that should tell you something. The message of Jesus is 'the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'. Jesus did not come to deliver a word from God but to be The Word! Surely someone would think to say something like "for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God" 1 Peter 3 v18? I thought about what Steve Chalke wrote and it occurs to me that maybe the people his friend had asked don't believe in penal substitution either (or weren't prepared to own up to it in his prescence) and when you think about Chalke's challenge from that perspective how DO you define the Gospel sans 'penal substitution'? I'd be stumped too!


As for Brian D McLaren I had no real issue with his book (outside the general comments above) until the appendices! Entitled "Why didn't we get it sooner?" I was baffled and scribbled in the margin -"but you haven't said anything original!" (Even the stuff that was wrong wasn't new!) It is not a little arrogant to presume that you are the first person to point out the inconsistencies of the evangelical church with the Gospel we proclaim. Carl Henry did this over sixty years ago - and I bet he wasn't the first. If you review my blog you will find much the same stuff here. In fact, quite coincidentally, my home church is currently running a series of lunch time talks on the subject "RSVP - Jesus unveils Heaven's surprising guest list" - with individual talks on 'Jesus is anti-pride', 'Jesus is anti-religion' and 'Jesus is pro-outcast'.* I haven't heard the earlier talks or even know who the speaker is; but I'm prepared to bet everyone out there in blogworld 100 to 1 that all the issues dear to McLaren & Chalke will be addressed there.... as they always have been from faithful Bible teaching churches the world over. It makes you wonder what circles McLaren & Chalke move in.

It maybe the case that McLaren & Chalke have led relatively sheltered Christian lives and ministries within triumphalist and separationist churches for whom this sort of cultural engagement was alien and whose corporate lives were marked by unreality; it is only now that they are reacting against these attitudes. They have some, perhaps many, cogent criticisms to make of evangelical practice - but it will not be the first time that well-meaning men have allowed their enthusiasm for their particular hobby horse to get the better of their judgement.








Recommended further reading: "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" by Don Carson.

Recommended audio: Tim Keller who spoke at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly 2007 on the theme "Defining Times: What is an Evangelical?" Available from Proclamation Trust at http://www.proctrust.org.uk/

* No doubt these talks will be available from St Helen's Media in due course.

ULLSWATER! THE DODDS!
And THE RAVEN!

For many years I have travelled up to The English Lake District by train and camped out near Lake Ullswater to explore the surrounding fells. These mountains are described in Wainwright's "Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells" books 1 and 2, 'The Eastern Fells' and 'The Far Eastern Fells' respectively. I generally camp out for about five to seven nights usually in the Autumn at a campsite at Pooley Bridge. A few years ago I set myself the goal of tackling all the major elevations around Ullswater.

The most famous fell in this region is Helvellyn at 950m but it has some sizeable companions such as the equally challenging Fairfield (873m) or - to the east of the lake - High Street (828m). I had covered the highest fells in my target group with the exception of Stybarrow Dodd, Watson's Dodd and Great Dodd which were my main objectives for this trip. I also revisited my old friend Helvellyn - I've lost count how many times I've ventured up there but I never tire of it. I've also learnt to appreciate the lesser fells - as a young man I always wanted to do the highest and the toughest mountains - but I long since realised that these are not automatically the most interesting climbs, sometimes the most beautiful and challenging things in life modestly draw little attention to themselves.

Someone might ask 'why base yourself at Pooley when that is the furthest end of the lake away from the mountains?' It's because I love the journey along Ullswater and while it may not be the most practical location for a base it is aesthetically pleasing. For example the day I did the 'Dodds' I caught the early morning bus towards Patterdale and all along the lake one could see this thick layer of mist brooding over the still water - it was magical. Also at the end of the day, when I've completed a walk, I adore the "steamer" ride back along the lake. It is wonderful to sit on board "Raven" and watch the mountains go by on my way back to my camp.

Recommended eateries: "Fellbites" in Glenridding and "The Sun Inn" at Pooley.

I love Ullswater because it is so unspoilt - I find the usual tourist rat-run along the A591 and Windermere hideously busy and best avoided. If you want my advice keep well to the East or West of that axis. In any event I generally start my walks at first light - that way I have the mountains to myself and rarely meet anyone else until I'm well on my way down.

One lovely aspect of camping out so far away from the 'light pollution' of big cities is the night sky. One evening I lay out in my sleeping bag and gazed at the canopy above. I could see the Milky Way and myriads of brilliant stars. Occasionally one could see satellites in orbit serenely sailing from one horizon to the other. Meteors would flash into view and just as quickly vanish in a burst of light. One morning when I threw back the cover of my tent there was the planet Venus, the "Morning Star", like a dazzling jewel in a velvet sky. Absolutely brilliant.

My dream home would be a residential boat-house in a secluded corner of Ullswater!

Euthanasia and the Arguments
of Straw Men!

From time to time one hears supporters of euthanasia pressing their case in the national media. To judge from the "debate" one would probably conclude that it is the 'accepted custom and practice' for patients to be allowed to die in pain and that health care professionals are solely concerned with employing every conceivable technology to prolong every individuals life to the last uttermost second regardless of the pain involved and the patient's (or their family's) wishes.

I have to tell you in all candour I have NEVER witnessed this scenario in over the twenty five years of my nursing career - the bulk of which has been in critical care. Funny that.

Funny that the commonly accepted "truth'"is that only those who are in favour of euthanasia are motivated by compassion and the rest of us are motivated soley by professional arrogance. There is not a little humbug attached to the argument of the euthanasia lobby.

I qualified as a registered nurse twenty five years ago. I went on to do my paediatric course and subsequently worked on a childrens cancer ward before making a move into Paediatric Intensive Care. I feel that I have earned the right to speak on the subject of euthanasia.

Advocates of euthanasia generally set up a phoney scenario of a patient dying in agony when compassion would demand that we put them out of their misery. As someone who has worked extensively in a variety of critical care settings I can tell you that I find such allegations utterly repugnant and a slur on my
profession. If someone does die in pain that is a matter of professional incompetence not (as euthanasia advocates would have it) accepted 'custom and practice'. And frankly I cannot help but feel that the public is being hoodwinked by their spurious arguments.

There is no excuse for anyone to die in pain. None whatsoever. This is a 'no brainer' as issues go. Period. If you find yourself witnessing such a scenario then I would say that that is clinical mismanagment.There is no excuse for it.

I will give as much pain relief as is required to prevent pain - if their disease process is such that that required analgesia actually foreshortens their life - then so be it. That is NOT euthanasia, that is pain control. As a Christian and a nurse I have no issue with this.... it is a none issue! (It is exactly the same situation as giving any drug with a known side-effect in such circumstances).

Perhaps it is a dated term but no-one seems to mention the principle of "double effect". This is where one carries out one action i.e. to control pain, but which secondarily foreshortens life.

Euthanasia (which is Greek literally meaning 'good death') actually means intentionally terminating a life as the primary purpose.

Now some one will say that this is splitting hairs but I will reply that speaking as someone at the coal-face of these ethical dilemmas this distinction is crystal clear... there is no ambiguity. Killing someone is murder, dying as a consequence of a pathological disorder which professional people are trying but failing to arrest is an entirely different matter.

The real question is why are the advocates of euthanasia pushing a "false choice" argument? Presumably it's simply because the truth will not do.

Another 'straw man' is the implication that patients are having medical treatment "forced" upon them. But the reality is that everyone has the right to refuse treatment, to compel someone to undergo procedures they have declined is assault. (There are some rare instances where perhaps a patients mental state causes medical staff to follow through a legal process to compel a patient (or the parent of a sick child) to have treatment....but that is not the issue in view here). Sadly it is my experience that such legal proceedings that do occur are more often when a parent refuses to let go of a loved child - and insist on futile attempts at resuscitation.... it is heart breaking for all concerned. The purpose of medical treatment is to support a patient through an acute episode of illness to a point where they have recovered sufficiently not to require such support. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible, then in my view, the removal of this life support causes no ethical problems - we are merely allowing the pathological process to takes its course. I have been involved in countless such discussions and contrary to the arguments put forward by the pro-euthanasia lobby there are no legal ambiguities about it.

Another 'straw man' is that somehow people like me are in some sort of legal limbo and therefore society should sanction euthanasia. That is yet more codswallop! If I sound irritated - I am. I detest being used as bait to manipulate an unsuspecting public.

The REAL question is this; when so many 'straw men' are being marshalled to emotionally intimidate the innocent onlooker into sanctioning the demise of our fellow human beings where do you think the REAL end point of this argument is?

If anyone wants to take issue with me the comments box is open as always.

AN APOCRYPHAL STORY.

2006 was my sciatica year when I was incapacitated for a few weeks with excruciating back pain. It took several months to resolve sufficiently for me to return to clinical work. I've been back at work properly for a year now but it was only few weeks ago that I discovered that there is a story about me doing the rounds from that period. It is entirely apocryphal, but I thought that it was so good I'd post it in my 'blog'.

While I was incapacitated and house bound some unctous visitor came to encourage me (so the story goes). Presumably she believed in the ennobling power of suffering because she is said to have said "I expect that God must be teaching you an awful lot through all of this!"

I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bl++dy painful a back can be!" The story is entirely apocryphal of course.... but it is what I would have said!!!