Wednesday, January 27, 2010


"GOD'S PHILOSOPHERS: How the Medieval World laid the Foundations of Modern Science" by James Hannam.

I suspect that the word 'medieval' conjures up images in your mind of ignorance and superstition and that would have been true of me until I read this book which is deliciously subversive of our modern conceits about this period of history. James Hannam redresses the dark propaganda of the Humanists who have effectively written off a thousand years of human progress.

The ancient classical world's take on science was dominated by the writings of Aristotle who was considered the final authority. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century these writings were taken up by the medieval scholars - and over time found wanting. In fact the Church became the repository of learning and while the Church could be very defensive about its monopoly on Theology as an academic discipline, "Natural Philosophy", as science was then known, was an open field. The Christian doctrine of Creation - which emphasised that God and his Creation were separate entities made the study of Creation, and naturalistic explanations of it, possible. It was these scholars who first started to apply mathematics to physics; eg 'mean speed theorem' was not devised by Galileo but by 12th century scholars! And contrary to popular opinion the number 'zero' was not banned nor did these scholastics believe the world was flat; fears for the safety of Columbus' expedition were not founded on 'flat earth theory' but on the fact that the explorer grossly underestimated the size of the globe! Christian scholars travelled to the Islamic world without any seeming prejudice to learn from their contemporaries there. Nor were 'Christian' armies more likely to burn down libraries than any other contemporary army.

So how come we moderns have such a dim view of medieval scholasticism? Hannam points to The Renaissance (14th -17th Century) skewing our perspective of history. Moderns suppose The Renaissance to be about the rebirth of learning after a dark hiatus in human history but Hannam convincingly demonstrates that The Renaissance was actually a reactionary movement which looked back to the ancient classical world as unsurpassed. Consequently Humanist education centred exclusively upon the study of Latin and Greek classical literature, a feature which dominated European education for the following three or four centuries. It also meant a reinstatment of Aristotle - the progress made by the medieval scholastics being effectively junked.... or plagiarised by others as original work!

Another consequence of The Renaissance was, paradoxically, the death of the Latin language. After the fall of the Roman Empire Latin had continued to be used by the succesor nations and had continued to evolve as a European lingua franca but The Renaissance by insisting on a reversion to the "purer" Latin of ancient times was rather snobbish about Latin's modern incarnation and it became unfashionable to speak it.

Humanist education (by which is meant the study of ancient classical literature) despised the Christian era and looked back to the ancient pagan world with nostalgia - the legacy of this outlook is still present with us.

Hannam's book is wonderfully subversive of our modern conceit and questions many of our unexamined assumptions about the medieval period. I highly recommend this book.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Equality Law and the Christian Church.

Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.

There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).

So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.

It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Did Aliens help to line up Woolworths stores?

In last Saturday's edition of The Guardian newspaper (16th Jan 2010) was a brilliant "Bad Science" article by Ben Goldacre. He reports that a researcher called Tom Brooks had analysed 1,500 prehistoric monuments and had found that all of them were on a grid of isosceles triangles, each pointing to the next site. "Such is the mathematical precision, it is inconceivable that this could have been carried out by the primitive indigenous culture we have always associated with such structures" Brooks is quoted as saying. In fact he does not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial help!

Matt Parker, who is based at the School of Mathematical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London applied the same techniques used by Brooks to the now defunct Woolworths stores. The results revealed an exact and precise geometric placement of the Woolworths locations, by "skipping over the vast majority, and only choosing the few that happen to line up" with 1,500 locations, Brooks had almost twice as much data to choose from.... so it is not surprising he could make his pattern fit selective evidence.

Imagine it, in some future era someone might look back using Brooks' technique and trace the patterns of the ancient Woolworths stores and conclude we must have had help from an alien civilisation!

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

John the Baptistic (2).
I am grateful to have been reminded that Adult Baptism is not without some controversy. Back in 1979 I joined a pioneering charismatic church in Bradford which had very clear views on adult baptism. (Incidentally isn't it curious how such churches could be quite legalistic?)

They took the view that only Baptism by "full immersion" was valid. It was suggested that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (that's another story!) might be hindered by disobeying God's ordinance. I remember querying this with one of the elders; "what if you don't quite immerse [the candidate] completely? What if you stumble at the key moment and don't quite immerse them, you know.... a bit of their head is still showing... would their baptism be invalid?" I don't recall ever getting a satisfactory answer beyond a withering "stupid boy" look! which I took to mean "I'd make sure I did it right!" So I'm still unclear what they ever meant by 'valid'.

It did make me think that, maybe unwittingly, this particular church had an overly sacramental view of the ordinance.... by which I mean, not performing the ritual correctly could materially affect one's relationship with God! It struck me then to be a denial of God's grace, and I still consider it to be a denial of God's grace now. I note that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance" (Ch 29, part 4). This seems to me to be way too prescriptive. Why and in what way is this mode essential? "Essential" is a very strong word to apply, particularly if they actually meant pertaining to the essence of Baptism! It strikes me as ridiculous to dogmatize about the mode of Baptism. Don't get me wrong, my instinct is toward "full immersion" because that fits the symbolism (of burial & resurrection) better but my greater instinct is not to make a ritual a barrier to fellowship with a believer who takes a different view!

Incidentally I recall William Taylor, the rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, making exactly the same point about "full immersion" during a Sunday morning sermon and how legalism on this point can be a sign that we are more Galatian than Christian!

Since 1979 and my encounter with the Bradford elder I mentioned I have been fairly agnostic on the mode of Baptism. The question really is 'what is the essence of Baptism'? It is all well and good to agree to differ on secondary issues - but what happens when one party sees it as a primary issue?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

AVATAR.

Yesterday I went to seen the movie "Avatar" in 3D - stunning movie with very imaginative CGI. It was a long movie but I didn't feel that it was long, the action kept me entertained right the way through.
The storyline about the Military-Industrial Complex destroying the nature loving/tree hugging inhabitants of the beautiful world of 'Pandora' is ho-hum. I suppose it is meant to be a parable for our times. The takeaway message is that all living things are fundamentally interconnected and that by diminishing nature we ultimately only hurt ourselves, Humanity needs to live in harmony with Nature.
This is all very charming of-course, but the problem I have with such nature worship is that the Nature we have in mind is not nature as it truly is, cruel and arbitrary, but a sanitised version that is majestic and fundamentally good. Maybe the message is 'computer generated' too!
I must go find a tree to hug now!

PS 2nd Feb 2010. I see that Avatar has been nominated for best film Oscar - I guess it will win for its sheer novelty value. The CGI is very good in 3D but I did hear the plot described as "Pocahontas in Space" which I thought was very apt until I heard Mark Kermode call it "Dances with Smurfs"! Priceless.
It seems to me that there is a lot of nonsense about Avatar being the most succesful movie ever on the basis that it has taken the most in ticket receipts - firstly cinemas are charging a premium for the 3D aspect of Avatar, so the price is inflated at the outset and more importantly monetary inflation naturally means that the most recent films gross "more". In 1940 a cinema might charge $1 to see "Gone with the Wind" to go see a comparable movie now will cost much more. The best measure of a film's popularity is not ticket receipts but total number of tickets sold - on this measure ("bums on seats!") "Gone with the Wind" is easily the winner.... by a very long way!
Is 3D the future of cinema? I hope not! Because that would imply that the cinema will focus on the visuals at the expense of good storytelling. 3D is fine for a movie which is all about the visuals, but the best films are rich in plot and characters. I hope the visual component does not displace these other dimensions, I really do!

Thursday, January 14, 2010

"From Life's First Cry"; a liturgical introduction to infant baptism.

For reasons which become apparent as this series of 'blog' articles unfolds I have decided to start towards the back of Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation".

In Appendix 3 is a suggested liturgical introduction to a baptismal service for infants which includes the following paragraph "God said to Abraham in Genesis 17 that the promises he signed and sealed through circumcision were for Abraham and also for his children - that he would be their God and they would be his people. Hence the children of believers were circumcised as babies under the Old Covenant". The next paragraph starts "this privilege has never expressly been taken away from our little ones..." etc.

Firstly a general observation; it is interesting that circumcision here is placed in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic Covenant which is generally where the New Testament writers and their antagonists placed it. Surely the logic of this Abrahamic association is for a continuation of circumcision into the NT era and yet there clearly is some sort of discontinuity over circumcision as the NT era dawns.

Secondly; it seems a bit of a stretch to assert that it was "believers" who had their children circumcised under the Old Covenant. One immediately thinks of the pharisees who were assiduous about all matters of the law and undoubtedly had their children circumcised - surely they and their predecessors wouldn't be described as "believers". Conversely Timothy was raised in a Godly household and wasn't circumcised!

Thirdly, isn't it the case that people may have their child circumcised for more cultural reasons than as an expression of faith? If we are to assume a covenantal relationship exists between God and the circumcised/baptised why limit the sacrament to "believers" anyway? The logic of the sacrament is that the baptised have a covenantal claim to have their children baptised whether they believe or not.

Fourthly; it strikes me that this liturgy blurs the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the "Old Covenant" - it simply assumes that they are the one and the same when clearly they are not, Gal 3 draws a clear distinction.

In fairness I should add that when Lee introduces this liturgy he writes that this suggested format "no doubt has its shortcomings", and that it is not a formula he would use unthinkingly in every circumstance.

Friday, January 08, 2010

JOHN THE BAPTISTIC.

Our midweek Bible study group has been looking at the Gospel of John and I got to thinking about the baptism performed by John the Baptist and the controversy it provoked among the religious authorities of his day.

In John chapter one a delegation arrives to quiz John about his ministry and they specifically challenge him about his authority to baptise. John is calling upon the Covenant people of God (Israel) to repent and turn around. Clearly this rite had some End Time significance because they question his identity - if he is not 'the Christ', 'the prophet' or 'Elijah' on what basis can he baptise people. By what right could someone set themselves up to offer a sacrament to a people already circumcised?

At this point John points beyond the symbolism of what he is doing to the one who is to come after him; he can get people wet but the One he is heralding will 'baptise with the Holy Spirit.' Clearly something new is about to happen.

It strikes me that there is some considerable controversy about baptism within Anglican Evangelical circles. The issue is not about the baptism of believers - no one in this debate has an issue with this - the issue is about the baptism of the infants of believers and what significance this 'sign' or 'seal' has.

For those of us who are sceptical but accepting of infant baptism we will find ourselves challenged with the accusation that "believers' baptism" really arises from the modern day concepts of consent and self-autonomy, and consequently has little to do with a Gospel of Grace where faith is seen as a gift of God. This compromise with the spirit of the age is called "baptistic".

Readers of this 'blog' will already know that I have puzzled over the issue of infant baptism - and indeed puzzled over the passion felt by Paedobaptists that goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I recently heard reported that one noted speaker said that not to baptise infants was actually to disobey God.... and would use Reformed Theology as his basis for this assertion. Indeed another proponent of Paedobaptism has argued that one cannot be 'Baptistic' and a 'Reformed' Christian because these are a theological contradiction!

To try and help unravel some of the theology about Baptism I thought that I might start a little series of discussions here looking at Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation" published by The Latimer Trust. Lee was a curate here at St Helen's Bishopsgate until 2009 when he moved on to pursue an academic career in Cambridge. I think that his booklet puts forward a case in favour of infant baptism and that this provides a useful foil to help move this discussion forward in a constructive way.

It goes without saying I take a different view on these matters so watch this space.

Wednesday, January 06, 2010

Snow on the Tree today.

Cranes
above
The
Shard











Cranes Above "The Shard"! Photos taken this morning from Tooley Street with "Guy's Tower" in the background.
And a close-up taken from St Thomas' Street from outside Guy's Hospital.

Tuesday, January 05, 2010

Anjem Choudary, Wooton Bassett and a Christian Response.

Wooton Bassett is a small town in Wiltshire near the Royal Air Force base to which the bodies of fallen British servicemen are repatriated. In recent years the town has become the scene for dignified grief as many funeral corteges have passed through and the townspeople taking these sad sights to heart have turned out to pay their respects.

It is not surprising then that the planned anti-war march through Wooton Bassett by an Islamic group headed by Anjem Choudary should have caused such deep outrage among many people. It should be pointed out that in no sense could the good people of Wooton Bassett be described as pro-war; regardless of ones views about the politics of war one can still grieve for those who die serving their country.

I suppose the obvious point to make is that, never having heard of Anjem Choudary, this is simply a crass publicity stunt by an unrepresentative group who wish to gain some notoriety for themselves. Whether the march goes ahead or not the angry response has acheived exactly what he calculated it would do - it has granted him a national platform.

It should also be pointed out that there will be those on the far-right of British politics who will also seek to exploit people's natural anger by taking advantage of this march. Anjem Choudary's march is a gift to them too! The far-right will seek to paint all Muslims as closet jihadists and any event which can be used to this end will exploited ruthlessly to the full.

Indeed I would argue that between radical Islamic groups and the British far-right there is some mutually re-enforcing ideological myth-making going on. If people's anger at Anjem Choudary can be hitched to an anti-muslim agenda then the far-right is well served for obvious reasons; and if that anger alienates Muslims from mainsteam national life then groups like Anjem Choudary's can only grow in strength. As Christians we need to be very cautious about how we respond to these challenges - shall we engage in some sort of 'culture war' or will we allow the Gospel of God's Grace help shape our response?

As an Evangelical Christian I don't want my natural anger to be exploited by either of these odious groups and I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to have some critical self-reflection before giving vent to any sense of moral outrage. It is better - in the final analysis - to suffer a wrong than lash out indiscriminately at others. Indeed a dignified refusal to 'respond in kind' is actually the bravest and hardest thing to do - but that is ultimately our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ; to display by our actions and words the Grace of God to a world naturally inclined to anger, self righteousness and hatred. This is an opportunity to manifest by our love that the Kingdom of God is present among us!