Thursday, February 25, 2010

Melvyn Bragg on Calvinism.

I really enjoy the BBC Radio 4 programme "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg. With a few invited experts he will discuss some esoteric subject for 45 minutes and help his audience to stretch their intellectual reach. I love the series as a whole.

Today Melvyn and his guests discussed Calvinism. I suppose I always feel rather cheated when the media tackle some Christian theme because they often focus on the socio-political aspects of the topic ,which is fair enough as far as it goes, but it is often to the exclusion of all else.

Sadly this programme ran true to form; the biographical details were covered, tick; the psycho-social aspects were explored, tick; and the political implications were discussed, tick. But I find it hard to conceive how one can talk about Calvinism without adequately discussing the theology of Grace!

All these other themes - as valid as they are - are actually peripheral. It would be like discussing the American Revolution, the characters and battles, but fail to discuss the underlying political philosophy.... the reason behind it all.

It is frustrating to be an informed listener when the media's experts, as erudite as they are, haven't really got to the heart of the matter. But maybe I shouldn't be so surprised because grace is a very difficult subject to grasp............

Wednesday, February 24, 2010


Fred Karno's Army.

Reading "The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry" I am pleased to see that they have included the songs sung by ordinary soldiers. The usual war poets (Brooke, Owen & Sassoon etc) just don't do a great deal for me but I do find these songs far more compelling.


I particularly like this one called "Fred Karno's Army" which is sung irreverently to the tune of the hymn "The Church's One Foundation"! What I like about the songs of the British infantry in World War One is how self-deprecating they are - this is just one wonderful example.

"We are Fred Karno's Army, the ragtime infantry.
We cannot fight, we cannot shoot, what bleeding use are we?
And when we get to Berlin we'll hear the Kaiser say,
'Hoch! Hoch! Mein Gott, what a bloody rotten lot are the ragtime infantry.'

Fred Karno was a late 19th/early 20th century British music hall comedian who specialised in slap-stick humour, he is credited with the custard-pie-in-face gag and worked with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel before they moved onto bigger and better things with the advent of cinema.

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Baptism of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
While reading John Julius Norwich's history of "Byzantium" I stumbled across an account of Constantine's baptism which isn't entirely irrelevant to the musings I've indulged in on that topic in this 'blog'. Most readers will be aware that Constantine the Great is the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It might come as a surprise to learn that he was only baptised when he was on his deathbed in 337AD, twenty five years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he is said to have seen the symbol of the Cross in the sky and told to "conquer with this sign".

I quote JJN;
Why - the question has been asked all through history - why did Constantine delay his baptism until he was on his deathbed? The most obvious answer - and the most likely - is Gibbon's:
"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered."
There was indeed nothing unusual, in those early days of Christianity, in deferring baptism until the last possible moment; forty three years later, we shall find the devout Theodosius the Great doing much the same.

I guess there is a certain logic to this approach to baptism if one starts with an overly sacramental view of the ordinance. No doubt a Roman emperor might anticipate having to engage in some realpolitik which may not sit easily with a Christian conscience. Constantine was guilty of many sins not least the murder of his wife and son; so, given this understanding of baptism, it might indeed be "prudent" to defer it.

The problem with Constantine's baptism is that it seems to be a crude attempt to manipulate God Himself. It is as if Constantine is placing his faith in the rite rather than in God. But more than that Constantine seems to believe that only those sins committed prior to baptism are covered and after that 'you are on your own!' Saved by grace but kept by works sort of thinking!

Of course it is not for me to say whether Constantine is saved or not ("The Lord knows those who are his!") but I do think that it is worth noting those points where 'alarm bells' start ringing. Am I accusing anyone of following Constantine's baptismal logic? No, I am not aiming this at those fellow believers who hold to Covenantal Theology (eg LG). I do wonder how easily it sits with those who hold to Federal Vision theology though.

I accept that I will be accused of attempting an 'argument from absurdity' - that I have selected some very extreme and untypical examples to critique - but my purpose is not to project these views onto anyone in particular but to offer them up as interesting discussion points. Well...... at least I find them interesting!

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Pluto is not a planet; get over it!

Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!

Monday, February 15, 2010

DOUBT IN PERSPECTIVE.

Unbelief is an act of will, rather than a difficulty in understanding.

Doubt often means asking questions or voicing uncertainties from the standpoint of faith. You believe - but you have difficulties with that faith, or are worried about it in some way. Faith and doubt aren't mutually exclusive - but faith and unbelief are.


Doubt is probably a permanent feature of the Christian life. It's like some kind of spiritual growing pain. Sometimes, it recedes into the background; at other times, it comes to the forefront, making its presence felt with a vengeance. A medical practitioner I knew once remarked that life was a permanent battle against all sorts of diseases, with good health being little more than an ability to keep disease at at bay. For some people, the life of faith often seems like that - a permanent battle against doubt. It is helpful to think of doubt as a symptom of our human frailty, of our reluctance to trust God. Let's develop this by thinking about how people come to faith.



Coming to faith - with unresolved doubts.

One way of understanding conversion runs like this. What stops people from coming to faith in God is doubt. After wrestling with these various doubts and overcoming them, the way is clear to come to faith. Coming to faith this happens once all doubt has been cleared out of the way. Faith excludes doubt! Now it is quite possible that some people do come to faith this way. However, most do not. Experience suggests that a rather different way of understanding conversion is more reliable.


Many people feel deeply attracted by the gospel, despite their doubts. On the one hand, their doubts are real, and hold them back from faith; on the other, the pull of the gospel is strong, and draws them towards faith. In the end, they decide to put their trust in God and in Jesus Christ, despite unresolved anxieties and difficulties. They are still in two minds. They hope their doubts and difficulties will be sorted out as they grow in faith. The seventeenth-century philosopher Francis bacon commended this way in his Advancement of Learning (1605): 'If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts; but if he is content to begin with doubts, he will end in certainties.'

An analogy may make this clearer. Suppose you are at a really boring party one evening, when you meet someone you feel drawn to. You get to know this person, and, as time goes on, realize you're falling in love. However, you hold back from allowing the relationship to develop any further. After all, you don't really know the other person that well. There might be some dark side to their character. Can you really trust them? And, like many people, you may have a sense of personal inadequacy: what, you wonder, could this other person possibly see in you? Could they ever possibly fall in love with you? You are profoundly attracted to them, yet you hold back. You have doubts. You're in two minds about it.


Now in this situation, you have two options. You can still hold back, and become a prisoner of your doubts and hesitations. If we all did this all the time, we'd miss out on many of life's great adventures and surprises - including both falling in love and discovering the Christian faith. Or you can take a risk. You can say, 'I'm going to give this a try, and hope that my doubts and anxieties will be resolved as things go on.' And so you allow the relationship to develop.


Many people become Christians in that kind of spirit. They are aware of the enormous attraction of the gospel; they are deeply moved by the thought of Jesus Christ dying for their sins; they are excited by the great gospel promises of forgiveness and newness of life. Or they have experienced glimpses of transcendence, and just know there is a God out there. They decide to reach out in faith, and claim these as their own. As for their doubts and anxieties? They hope they will be resolved and put in their proper perspective as their relationship with God develops. 'I believe; help my unbelief!' (Mark 9:24).



Quoted from pages 14 & 15 of "Doubt in Perspective" by Alister McGrath., published by Inter-Varsity Press (IVP), ISBN: 978-1-84474-137-3.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

"THE WALL!"

THE TROUBLE WITH STUDENTS & THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP!

In the article entitled "Now and Then - the trouble with students, in the June 2008 issue of Paediatric Nursing (20,5,12), the author discussed the enduring problem of 'the theory-practice gap' and reflected, helpfully, on the history of the clinical nurse teacher role, which has long since vanished. The article implies that Nursing blundered into the theory-practice gap haplessly, rather than it being a considered decision, taken consciously by the movers and shakers of the nursing profession at the time.

I recall one of my RGN tutors in the early 1980's at St James' University Hospital in Leeds lamenting the fact that the school of nursing was set back from the hospital and not an integral part of the building.

When I returned to "Jimmy's" in the late 1980's to do my paediatric course, our tutor took the opposite view. She thought that a physical gap was essential to create good practice. In fact, she advocated building a wall between the school and the hospital and having a separate entrance.

This tutor was instrumental in setting up up the paediatric branch of what was then known as 'Project 2000'. She, and presumably her generation of nurse leaders, were determined to recreate the Nursing profession along an entirely new model. Any suggestion we made were treated with with scorn despite the fact that we were already qualified nurses with several years' clinical experience. The attitude was that our clinical experience would 'contaminate' the new students with bad practices. In her view it was essential to break that cycle.

Nurse education was not perfect prior to 'Project 2000' , but student nurses were valued members of the clinical team; today's students do not have that sense of belonging and lose out in terms of clinical practice which is actually where theory and reality meet. When I completed my third year I was ready to be in charge of a surgical ward on nights as my first job as a staff nurse; today's students do not have that confidence.

The 'theory-practice gap' did not come about by the law of unintended consequences, it was the ideologically driven rejection of clinical experience that created that rift.