Wintery Boxing Day in Berkshire.

The Shard from Great Maze Pond.

A Beautiful Fox just came right up to our Kitchen Door! Not the usual mangey types one gets in Central London!

The Shard from Mincing Lane, EC3.

"Religion is a Force for Good" - discuss!

In a recent public debate Tony Blair argued in favour of this proposition and Christopher Hitchens against. But much of this so-called discussion, it seems to me, is framed in post-modern language which inevitably predetermines the conclusion. Not surprisingly Christopher Hitchens had the better of the debate while Tony Blair seemed hesitant and defensive.

For example, to discuss "faith" as an abstract condition without any reference as to what that "faith" is in is completely non-sensical. Personally I am often mystified as to what people actually mean when the "faith" word is bandied around like this. This concept of faith as an abstraction is surely a post-modern imposition which invariably skews sensible discussion; it treats "faith" as a personal attribute rather than having an objective focus. The post-modern is more concerned with the journey itself rather the destination because that resolves all discussion about value judgements by internalising them as a matter of personal taste. The post-modern probably thinks he or she is doing you a favour, but by patronising people like this they are actually quite insulting without ever realising it... all because they do not have the conceptual framework to gain any meaningful insight.

The same applies to the "religion" word (barely a Biblical word at all!). The post-modern will lump all "religion" together as if it is an indistinguishable mass; and perhaps to the undiscerning it is. But it is not part of my worldview to endorse all "religion" - far from it. I could not argue that all religion is a force for good... or that even most of it is. In fact such a concept is actually anti-thetical to my belief in Jesus Christ, who made a number of exclusive truth claims.

I wonder why Tony Blair allowed himself to get into a discussion framed in terms which are, in actuality, indefensible! It is like being set up with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question - there is no good answer!

Tree

Christian Medical Comment: Don’t believe everything you read in the Washingto...

Christian Medical Comment: Don’t believe everything you read in the Washingto...: "I recently blogged about an adjournment debate in the House of Commons in which Nadine Dorries MP spoke about the mental health consequences..."

The Shard from Great Maze Pond.

Tree

The Sola Panel | Equal and Complementary: a review

The Sola Panel | Equal and Complementary: a review

What is the opposite of Love? I've often heard people say 'hate' in reply to this question. Someone suggested 'indifference' - which is a little closer to the mark - but I believe the answer is 'self-love'. True love recognises that one is NOT the centre of the universe and that the focus is other than oneself. True love questions our concepts of 'autonomy', 'individuality' and 'self-actualisation'. If we primarily see relationships as a means to self-fulfillment then that is not love.

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: 'Christian Medical Comment' makes Jubilee Centre's...

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: 'Christian Medical Comment' makes Jubilee Centre's...: "The Jubilee Centre has just published a list of the seven best Christian blogs that seek to demonstrate the continued relevance of the Bible..."

The Shard from Tooley Street.

The Shard from St Thomas' Street.

The Shard from Great Maze Pond.

Tree

The Shard from the end of Druid Street.

Tree

British Humanist Association.

I was very amused today to receive a recruitment leaflet for the British Humanist Association; spelling mistakes aside it is quite hilarious to see one's own beliefs are misconstrued by those who think they know better. I needed a good laugh. Thanks!

One of the many unsubstantiated assertions made in this literature is the assumption that a belief in God is irrational. I do not accept that premise. I believe that it is perfectly rational to believe in God. Nor do I accept that the BHA has the monopoly on rationality it supposes.

What a bizarre world the BHA lives in if it assumes that people like myself believe what we do for no readily apparent reason. Surely a rational human being would conclude that people like myself must have their reasons for believing what they do even if one doesn't accept those reasons oneself? I would argue that I have a coherant philosophy of life which accords with the world I experience.

I think what the BHA is trying to say is that they believe that life, the universe and everything can be explained in purely material terms. They would regard that as a simple statement of fact. But to say that one does not believe that it can all be explained in purely material terms is regarded by them as a "faith statement" when grammatically they are equivalent clauses. Why interpret one clause one way and make out the other to be of an entirely different order? There is an unexamined presupposition there.

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: Chilean Miner’s T-Shirt gives testimony to Jesus Christ: ‘To him is the honor and the glory’

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: Chilean Miner’s T-Shirt gives testimony to Jesus Christ: ‘To him is the honor and the glory’

Video: evangelical preacher is one of 33 miners rescued in Chile

Video: evangelical preacher is one of 33 miners rescued in Chile

The Shard from Tooley Street.

The Shard from More London.

The Shard from St Thomas Street

The Sola Panel | Complementarianism and egalitarianism (part 2): The coming divide (ii)

The Sola Panel | Complementarianism and egalitarianism (part 2): The coming divide (ii)

Qur'an Burning in Florida. It has been reported on the news that a church in Gainsville, Florida, is proposing to burn copies of the Qur'an in order to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Ostensibly justified as a protest against militant Islam it is difficult to see how this action will not alienate all Muslims, and indeed appal all people of good-will. As a Christian, and as an Evangelical Christian at that, I want to go on record and state that this proposed action falls far short of the conduct all followers of Jesus are called to follow. The tendency among some professed Christians toward loathing and fear of Muslims in general is a denial of the Evangelical faith we claim to profess; instead of loathing we should respond with love, instead of fear we should respond with faith. I can only assume the church in question are publicity seeking but in doing so they have not brought any honour to the name of the Lord Jesus and one day they will have to account for that to Him.

Tree.

Heidelberg Catechism.
How are you right with God?

Only by true faith in Jesus Christ (1).
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grieviously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them (2),
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (3),
nevertheless - without my deserving it at all (4),
out of sheer grace (5),
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (6),
as if I had never sinned or been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me (7).

All I need to do is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart (8).

1. Romans 3 v21-28; Ephesians 2 v8-9.
2. Romans 3 v9-10.
3. Romans 7 v23.
4. Titus 3 v4-5.
5. Romans 3 v24; Ephesians 2 v8.
6. Romans 4 v3-5; 2 Corinthians 5 v17-19; 1 John 2 v1-2.
7. Romans 4 v24-25; 2 Corinthians 5 v21.
8. John 3 v18; Acts 16 v30-31.

Back Pain Again!
There is an apocryphal story told about the time in 2006 when I was laid up for weeks with back pain. The story goes that some sanctimonious person said to me, "God must be teaching you a lot through all of this." To which I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bloody painful a back can be!"
None of this is true, but it is what I would have said!

The Shard from Bedale Street by Borough Market.

The Shard from Great Maze Pond.

Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962).

Niebuhr's comment about modern theology sadly seems to be increasingly true of evangelical preaching too...

"A God without wrath, brings men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."

It seems to me that unless we have the courage of our convictions and teach key ideas like Sin, Wrath, Judgement and the Cross, the Evangelical Church will have nothing of worth to say to the on-looking world. We will be compelled to reflect back to the world what it finds congenial. There is a coherent philospohical message in the Gospel, but when we compromise on any of these teachings a sceptical world will point out that our message has ceased to have any coherence.
Unless we understand sin and God's anger towards it we will not have a realistic understanding of the world we live in nor an understanding of the conflicted nature of humanity, nor will we be able to adequately describe who Jesus is, or what his ministry meant, we will be supremely unable to explain the purpose of the Cross.

The Shard from the junction of Duke Hill Street and London Bridge.

The Shard from Great Maze Pond.

Tube Home after Night,
Monday Faces go to Work:
Chuckle of Contrast.

"The Dictatorship of Relativism!"

Pope Benedict XVI criticised the post-modern trend toward a form of Moral Relativism which will ultimately render society incapable of formulating any coherent ethical foundation. Without a shared moral basis society will fracture into atomised individuals cut off from each other with only their personal self interest as a guiding principle. Society's capacity to discuss in a meaningful way the issues of the day will be steadily eroded. His point being that in a thoroughly relativised world we will cease to have the ability to have any meaningful public discourse.

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Analysis" attempted to tackle this topic at 9.30pm on Sunday 4th July 2010 under the chairmanship of presenter Ed Stourton.
Among the contributors were Dr Rowan Williams, Ann Widdecombe and Islamic scholar Ruzwan Mohammed who sympathised with the Pope's concern. Their protagonists were Simon Blackburn, Leslie Green & Stephen Wang.

It could have been an interesting programme but the latter group made a very poor showing. It was as if certain philosophical propositions, ie theirs, were taken to be so self evidently true and the alternative so patently false that they didn't need to engage with the discussion at all.

One of the professors of philosophy made the point that just as the Nazis stigmatised Jews so the Pope was doing to Relativists. It struck me that this was a feeble argument and bordered on smear tactics rather than a serious rebuttal of Benedict's philosophical objections. Also; as deplorable as the recent child abuse scandal within the RC Church is, it isn't strictly relevant to this discussion yet that was raised several times. Although I am not a Catholic I do not believe that one can condemn a whole people group for the faults of some. Where the RC Church as an institution has failed it has, albeit belatedly, sought to put its house in order. My point is the protagonists were determined not so much to debate the topic as sneer.

One of them pointed out that we do not live in a relativistic world anyway, people do stop and intervene when they see wrong doing. But I believe this misses the point entirely - yes some do intervene, they still have some moral compass, but it is not uncommon to hear of others walking by and refusing to get involved. There may be many reasons why such people do walk by on the other side of the street but the question being asked is are some doing so because of the pervasive relativistic attitude of "don't judge" & "don't get involved" they have lost their moral compass? It seemed to me that that self evident question was never adequately discussed.

What should have been an interesting discussion was the usual parade of BBC scoffers for whom a serious discussion was beneath their contempt.

Actually- when you think about it - doesn't that prove the point Pope Benedict was attempting to make? We have indeed lost the ability for constructive public discourse. How ironic!

post script; 15th July 2010.
Someone suggested that I should share these comments with the BBC. As a matter of principle for every negative comment I send to the media I try and have two positive comments to share about other programmes. I can't honestly say that the BBC have been very receptive to constructive criticism in my experience. Anyway the on-line comments restrict you to 350 characters (including spaces!) but my comment reads as follows:
Your critics of "Dictatorship of Relativism" made snide comments about the proposition but did not adequately engage in the topic at hand. Either the content was very poorly edited or you need to find better contributors who can properly critique this proposition. Maybe we have indeed lost the capacity for mature public discourse = QED to Benedict!

Lunchtime Service at St Helen's Bishopsgate!

If I can't get to church on Sunday because of my shift pattern I try to get to a midweek lunch time service instead.

St Helen's is located in The City near 'The Gherkin' and all the talks are downloadable for free from www.shmedia.org.uk

William Taylor is currently doing a series of talks from the Gospel of Luke. Can I recommend his series called 'Light & Lies' order code SE10/023-s1-ACD.

The Shard from Tooley Street.

What is "Fairness"?
After the recent World Cup final in which Spain beat The Netherlands the Dutch coach, Bert Van Marwijk, complained that the referee was clearly biased against them because the ref had given far more 'yellow cards' against the Dutch compared to the Spanish.
At face value this is clearly true - the Netherlands team did indeed have a disproportionate number of bookings compared to their rivals and this raises the issue of "fairness" and what we mean by the word.
One of the earliest moral debates children raise is the question of how 'fair' or 'unfair' something is, and we all naturally assume we know what we mean by being 'fair'. Politicians use the word 'fairness' regularly. But what do we all mean the same thing?
If we apply a simplistic statistical model to the Spain v Netherlands game then clearly the referee was biased against the Dutch. And the logical solution would be to issue bookings on an equitable basis - a statistical model would require a simple 50-50 split. If we did this then the statistics would demonstrate 'equality', which in modern thinking is synonymous with 'fairness'.
However a "retributive" understanding of 'fairness' would apportion bookings according to the offence whoever committed them or whatever "statistical anomaly" arose.
Clearly in Marwijk's opinion the statistics settle the matter. All I can say to that is 'what a travesty of justice he would seek to impose on any sporting nation - it is shameful that anyone should seek to justify their team's disgraceful performance on this basis! Shame on you!'
Shame on you!
Provided the same rule applies to all 'without fear or favour' then we have 'fairness', the rule of law and at least a partial understanding of what The Bible calls justice.

That Mitchell and Webb Look: Homeopathic A&E

MOMBASA 2010.

The latest cardiac surgical team has just returned from Mombasa after caring for 16 patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Mr David Anderson was the surgeon and most of the team also came from the Evelina Children's Hospital in London.
I was part of the nursing team caring for the children following surgery to correct their congenital heart defects. We were based at The Mombasa Hospital who had kindly allowed us to use some of their facilities in their ICU.
After 6 days the tally stands at 3 ("old") PDAs, 2 ASDs, 2 VSDs, 1 Partial AVSD, 4 Mitral Valve Repairs, 1 Sub-Aortic Resection, 1 Tetralogy of Fallot, 1 Glenn Shunt and 1 fifteen year old Coarctation.
This is my fourth such trip to Kenya, but my first to Mombasa, all my previous experience was in Nairobi at the Kenyatta National Hospital.

Mombasa 2010!

I'll be flying out to Kenya in a few hours time to join a team doing open heart surgery on children who would otherwise not have the opportunity for this kind of treatment.
I will be part of the post-op team caring for the children while they need ventilatory and cardiovascular support.
This will the fourth such trip I will have done.

The Shard from Tooley Street

The Shard from St Thomas' Street.

Typhoid Booster!

I have just had my Typhoid Booster in readiness for a Cardiac Surgery trip to Kenya in June. Next stop Mombasa!

More Fallen Blossom.

The Tree and the Fallen Blossom.

The Shard from Platform 6 at London Bridge Station.

Homosexual Marriage.

Marriage is by definition a Sexual relationship. Genital activity between people of the same gender, whatever else it might be, is by definition Asexual, therefore it is not marriage.
The biological definition of Sex is intercourse between members of opposite sexes of the same species. None of this is rocket science.

Tree in full bloom!

Prof Orlando Figes.
I can't help being amused by the furore over Prof Orlando Figes' anonymous on-line rubbishing of his fellow academics' books. Figes has written some wonderful books about Russian history and it seems incredible that he should stoop to such low tactics.
From a Christian perspective though, it confirms my view that one can be wonderfully talented and still be a prat!

Ex Opere Operato!

A casual observer might wonder why I have taken such a keen interest in the subject of baptism. It isn't just that there is a school of thought called "Federal Vision" doing the rounds in Anglican Evangelical circles, my interest predates this. I am a Charge Nurse who has worked in children's intensive care for over a decade and a half. I have lost count of the number of infants I've seen die; not I hasten to add because our death rates are higher than anyone else's - it's just that I've been on this scene a long time! Not surprisingly I've puzzled over the subject of infant salvation and the related topic of the role of infant baptism.... or is it related?

There was an incident recently where the parents wanted their dying child baptised into the RC church. "In Extremis" it is not unknown for healthcare professionals to baptise infants - ironically I had to describe to an RC colleague what she would need to do to perform the rite.

As I understand it, according to Canon Law 861, an RC baptism is only valid in such circumstances if the person performing the rite does so with the "requisite intention", ie does the healthcare professional intend what the Church intends by the act? This seems, at face value, to be a denial of the principle of ex opere operato. How can anyone have assurance that they know what your intentions are?

The link between the parents faith and their child's salvation is broken by the intrusion of a third party, in the form an individual or institution, or so it seems to me. I have always taken the view that 1 Corinthians 7 v14, which indicates that the children of believers are "holy", is sufficient ground for assurance.

I have been challenged that such a stance "denies the sign" to the infant, a curious accusation. Yet it strikes me that Baptism does not make the child holy to the Lord but the parents faith does - in fact the rite is not mentioned in the Corinthian passage at all. In this circumstance I would not "deny" the parents the sign if that's what they want - but the sign of Baptism does not alter the childs status in God's sight one iota.

I suppose this begs the question as to who exactly is the sign aimed at? Is it for the infant's benefit, the parents', the Church's or God's? (And if you want to hedge your bets and say 'all of the above' we will need to unpick them individually!)

The use of the term Covenant in this context can be a bit confusing. God makes promises to mankind which can be called covenantal, fair enough. But sometimes the word does not mean a unilateral promise but implies a degree of conditionality - "I will do this, if you will do that..." So when the rite of Baptism is said to be 'covenantal' it raises some confusion, in my mind at least, as to what we are saying. Are we saying the infant's salvation turns on the rite of Baptism being performed correctly?

When I hear the word 'covenant' used in the context of Baptism it could mean (a) simply that the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' [fair enough] or (b) the promise of salvation is to 'you and your children' on condition of Baptism. I personally do not find the use of this word in this context very helpful when it's meaning is left 'hanging in the air' unexplained.

Would I Baptise an infant 'in extremis' if asked to do so? Yes, if the parents affirmed their faith in Jesus. But the rite simply acknowledges a status which already exists, it does not move the child into a covenantal relationship with God, that would not be my 'requisite intention', a la Canon Law 861. The 'sign' - in such circumstances - may be a comfort to the parents in their loss and a witness to their faith in Christ for the on-looking public.

I have very fond memories of my time at Guy's Hospital so here are a couple of photographs in honour of the place. I know Guy's Tower is not the most elegant of buildings but it is now part of my personal history.

Blossoming.

Pink Blossom Starts to Appear.

Isn't it strange?
Isn't it strange that those who claim to have a 'high view of the Church' usually seem to have a low view of the role of the laity!?

Pink Blossom just starting to Appear!

The Buds Start to Blossom.

The Shard from Great Maze Pond (II).

The Shard from Tooley Street (II) just starting to emerge. Guy's Tower in the background.

Single Pass Albumin Dialysis (SPAD).

When will the buds burst into life?