Christian Medical Comment: BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and select...: With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, ...

Jim Swift was 19 years old when he was killed in action in 1918. He has no known grave. He was my father's elder brother.

Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.

It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.

The Shard 12th September from platform 6 at London Bridge Station.

Testimony 2

Why is humility such a difficult virtue to aspire to? Perhaps it is because the primordal vice is pride, the desire to have the pre-eminent position and to be second to no-one. I hate the notion that my intellectual abilities may be considered second rate and that I will be despised as a consequence. I want to be respected and well thought of.

Notionally, as a Christian, I aspire to humility but in practice my flesh cries out in protest - I generally consider myself better than others, look out for my own interests and indulge in vain conceir contrary to Philippians 2 v1-11 etc.

When I discuss Christian things with non-believers I am more inclined to talk in a sophisticated way about philosophy of religion out of fear of being looked down on. Perhaps that is why my Christian life lacks real power and why I often feel hollow spiritually. In 1 Corinthians 1 v17b Paul talks of avoiding such sophistication 'lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power'. I want to look intellectually impressive and find the result is empty while 2 Corinthians 4 talks about 'treasures in jars of clay', it looks totally pathetic and yet conceals true riches. The point to bear in mind is that the Kingdom of God subverts the standards of the world and it is well worth reading 1 Corinthians 1 v18-31 in full to get the real impact of what God id doing! It is something I want to take to heart for sure!

The church in Sardis (Rev 3 v1-6) has a reputation for being alive but its incomplete actions belie its orthodoxy. I often feel full of good intentions but they don't often get translated into reality. My deepest regrets in life have never come about by being too dedicated to the Lord Jesus, they have always arisen from my unbelief and compromise. A half hearted believer is in the most pitiful situation of all. With one foot in the world's camp I will never truly taste the joy of the Lord.

When I come across old notes written by myself I discover fossil aspirations which touch on things like personal Bible study and Scripture memory. They are great intentions but if I am half hearted about them I am simply giving way to unbelief aren't I? I find time for other things, general reading and TV etc, which aren't necessarily bad in themselves, but they distract me. I suppose it could be argued that these other things cause me to imbibe the values of the world although in practice I find these values actually wearying to my soul rather than attractive. But perhaps that is sufficient to leave me tired, cynical and dispirited.

The fact is whatever doubts attack me they always prove to be silly and insubstantial. They may be in tune with the world's thinking but on examination invariably prove to be paper tigers. But Jesus' words always ring true. "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Researchers Receive Threats From Militants.

There was a report in The Observer (UK) on 21st August 2011 which indicated that some researchers into CFS received death threats if they suggested that there was a psychological component to this condition.

I was intrigued by this report because a few years ago I wrote a critical but not unkind book review for 'Evangelicals Now' on a title called "On Eagle's Wings" which proposed a Christian perspective on ME. I took issue with some of the unhelpful aspects of this book and suggested that this was a treatable psychosomatic illness. I hasten to add that 'psychosomatic' does not mean it is unreal or that it is not distressing. But after the review was published I received a flurry of rancorous letters denouncing me personally.

Many accused me of saying things I had not said in my review. What was clear from these letters was a profound sense of shame the writers felt at being labelled as having a psychological, rather than a physical, illness. Nothing in my review intimated that I despised people with psychological illnesses but that was something these correspondents bitterly projected onto me. I couldn't help reflecting that this feeling of shame, self loathing, alienation, however one describes it, was possibly a major component of the underlying condition.

Clearly that sense of shame was an aggravating feature of the condition they suffered - and I addressed that sympathetically in my review. I hope this recent news report will give some cause for self reflection among those who press for a particular interpretation of ME and will be more gracious to those who genuinely seek to help even if they differ in opinion.

Atheist Promises.

Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.

"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."

I think that is more revealing than the author realises!

V for Vendetta, Moral Relativism and the Riots.
A few days ago I watched a movie called "V for Vendetta" about a superhero terrorist, called 'V', dressed in the guise of Guy Fawkes bringing down a future dystopian British state in an anarchist revolution. Directed by James McTeigue and based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore it was released in 2006,  reportedly having been delayed following the July 2005 bombings. The Guy Fawkes mask has since become an iconic image used in anti-government demonstrations.

'V' starts by blowing up the Old Bailey and acheives his apotheosis by destroying the Houses of Parliament. These buildings are naively described as mere "symbols" - no consideration is taken for anyone killed by these bombs - either by 'V' or incidentally by the director. The people surge out into the streets en masse in support, all dressed as 'V', to confront the police. The film ends by them all removing their Guy Fawkes masks; this is a revolution where everyone is free to be exactly what they want. The voice over as the credit rolls reveal that this is all about "Humanism". Clearly the state is viewed as crushing human freedom, it and its agents are to be opposed.

Given the recent riots I could not help reflecting on this movie and the moral solipsism it promotes, whereby everyone finds freedom by being a law unto themselves, accountable to no-one but themselves. In a relativistic age one creates ones own moral compass without reference to anyone or anything else. It seems odd to me that this should be considered such a revolutionary idea when in reality it is the natural default setting of all of us. Of course the movie is not responsible for these recent events but it does reflect a relativistic ambivalence to wrong-doing promoted as radical chic by those opinion makers who shape our culture. I would question whether this vision is as liberating as its promoters claim; what happens when one persons freedom impinges on the freedom of another? And don't freedoms also come with responsibilities? If the recent riots have a common theme perhaps it is that moral solipsism which says I am only accountable to myself - which is actually the logical conclusion of Humanism.

Perhaps the dystopian threat is not always from the state (which is an easy target) but also from the media which filter and channel public discourse. Taking the movie 'V for Vendetta' as an example it is no surprise that the film contrives to have an anti-christian theme. The Christians warped worldview has crushed Humanity by force and it is time for the tables to be turned or so the Vendetta propaganda goes. This particular revolution has Christians scapegoated as the anti-social element... what a perverse view of the world this is. Am I surprised? Not in the least, see John 15 v18!

"The Shard" from Tooley Street.

New Bogeymen and the Media Meta Narrative.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.

The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.

Anders Behring Brevik & Christian Fundamentalism.

Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.

Testimony.

My earliest memories are of growing up in a hardworking, Working Class home in 1960's Bradford. My family were very moral upright RCs of Irish extraction who regularly attended Mass. My father was 46 years old, and considered 'old', when I was born. I think he aspired to be Middle Class and he was proud that my brother and sister went to university. There was a large age gap between me and my siblings, and my brother's aspiration was to be a true proletarian by becoming a Marxist and a drop-out while at university. So my homelife was a confusion of Catholicism and (revolutionary) politics.

Never a strong Catholic I made a conscious decision to be a 'raving atheist' in my early teens. I was a firm believer in scientific progress (scientism really; although I did not know it as such at the time). I confused the idea of science explaining something with science explaining something away. I was very influenced by the naive optimism of the Sci-Fi I read, (I veered towards 'cosmism', again another term I was then unaware of), as I drank in the undeclared assumptions of my age.

When I was 17 I heard a garbled Gospel message of sorts which went something like; "God has a perfect plan for your life", "he'd be grateful to have you on his team", "why not give him a chance?" I suppose the message appealed to my ego-centric view of the universe - I was a teenager afterall and shared the conceits of my age that life owed me something! It seemed all too plausible that I had a destiny to fulfil.

Of course this "Gospel" message was woefully inadequate but it was the start of something; which only goes to prove that by sheer grace alone God can use any means to turn someone to him. At the time I would not have considered myself to be in any 'need' of God at all; I would have seen myself as a perfectly moral, upright sort of person - just the sort of person God would want on his side! I did not see myself as needing God's forgiveness - at least not much when I compared myself to others.

It was only over time that the truth began to dawn on me; being morally upright did not make me right with God. I had to unlearn the assumptions I had grown up with and I had to junk a lot of the triumphalist stuff I had initially been taught by well-meaning but misguided Christians who claimed the Bible as their authority. Perhaps at this stage I could have thrown the whole thing over and claim to have become disillusioned by the false promises I had been made. But by then I was drawn to the person of Jesus; whatever falsehoods I had been fed, by both unbeliever and believer alike, I realised that Jesus was special and what he said rang true! When he said "come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" that resonated with me.

The words that rang true sprang from the same Bible that was derided by the atheist and thoughtlessly handled by the Christian. There was a depth in this Word that lay unrecognised and unheeded by the ignorant.

Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the morally upright and the religiously punctilious... and he drew his theology from the Bible! His Gospel is deeply unattractive to all the self satisfied because it calls on us to put our trust in God rather than our own selves and our ability to be good people. It wasn't what I expected to hear and I wouldn't have known these things unless Jesus had revealed them. It had taken several years but I could see myself in the mirror that Jesus held up to my face! I realised that I was not the person I had once supposed myself to be. I could identify with the apostle Peter when he said to Jesus "who else can we turn to? You have the words of eternal life" when Jesus was being deserted by the fickle crowds. By a tortuous route I had come to trust in Jesus and develop an appetite for the Bible.

When Jesus died on the Cross it was my old self that died there too and the life I now live is his gift of resurrection life to me. The question I had had to ask myself was this; was I going to trust in myself or was I going to trust in him?

If you think I am still not much like Jesus you'd be right - but think what sort of person I might now be without him! I am a work in progress you know!!!

The Sola Panel One more sip of the coffee

The God No One Believes in!
The Sola Panel Disproving God

I love this sign by the road side on the way to the Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi!

Nairobi!

Today a team of us from the Evelina Children's Hospital will fly out to Kenya for 8 days. The plan is to do open heart operations on children born with cardiac defects who would not otherwise have access to this sort of surgery. We will be based at the Kenyatta National Hospital in Nairobi and will take over one of their operating theatres. My role will be to help run an improvised Paediatric Intensive Care Unit on one of the wards there. And we will try and blitz as many operations as we can in the time available. This will be my fifth such trip. It will be very hard work but it is an adventure!

Neverland Matrix.

I was once caring for an 8 year old who was critically ill in Intensive Care; Ventilated, on multiple inotropes and on CVVH.
A relative was keeping a vigil by her bed side during the night. In the small hours when everything was quiet we got to talking. He held the young girl's hand and quietly shook his head.
'When I watch TV and I've had enough sadness - I press the doofer and its gone and everything is happy. When I'm fed up with the news and all that stuff I just go...' He mimed pointing a TV remote control. 'One click...', he clacked his tongue, '...and its gone from my life'. He sighed.
'Well... I keep clicking and it is all still here.... it doesn't go away!' he said.

The world as presented by TV is a double illusion. It not only portrays a distorted sense of reality; it also implies a distorted measure of control of that reality. Cocooned from the hardships most humans face daily a viewer drinking deeply in the media well may sincerely believe that 'all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds'... and if it isn't we can always turn over.

It is only when real reality intervenes that our perspective is reorientated and both those perceptions, a false reality and a phoney sense of control, are shown to be illusions. How many people go through life mired in illusion, thinking that perception is the reality? What does it take to wake people up?

OSAMA BIN LADEN.

It feels unseemly to take satisfaction in the death of anyone... and anyway real justice will not be done until the Lord Jesus has the final word!

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS, also known as CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS).

In the course of my 30 year career, most of it in a critical care setting, I have never seen anyone admitted to hospital with ME, I have never seen anyone in Intensive Care with ME and I have certainly never seen anyone die of it.
Not until now that is; in a recent court case Kay Gildersdale was acquitted of murder after killing her daughter who suffered from ME. This case is deeply troubling; are we saying that it is okay to kill people with psycho-somatic illnesses?
The Euthanasia lobby have welcomed the outcome of this trial and it sets a very worrying precedent. When people demand physician assisted suicide for the pain they feel are we discussing physical pain (which can be alleviated with opiates if neccesary) or are we talking about existential angst? By which I mean the pain of living in a fallen world?

EGALITARIAN JUSTICE versus RETRIBUTIVE JUSTICE. After the 2010 Soccer World Cup Final in which the Netherlands lost to Spain the manager of the losing team complained bitterly that they had been treated unfairly by the referee. Bert Van Marwijk pointed to the match statistics as proof of grotesquely biased decisions by the officials. The Netherlands had received 28 bookings compared to Spain's 19, and the Netherlands had been further penalised by having Heitinga sent off, meaning their team was reduced to ten men compared to Spain's eleven. Using statistics alone as a meaure of fairness that would indeed seem to indicate a heavy bias against the Dutch side. If we are to judge these things on an egalitarian basis one would expect the statistics to be evenly balanced at the end of the match and it is to this that Van Manwijk pointed. In an Egalitarian framework the penalties should have distributed evenly by the end point. In contrast a Retributive framework awards penalties according to infractions against an objective standard. The reality of that football match was that the Dutch team played an extremely dirty game involving some quite vicious fouls. Personally I think Marwijk's team was lucky not to have been down to nine men! It was thoroughly disgraceful behaviour on their part which led to the disproportionate number of bookings. But think about it, what if the referee had applied Egalitarian justice? That would have meant that the Spanish would have received an equal number of bookings. Think about the implications of that; in such a situation there is no incentive to play by the rules, in fact quite the opposite, you "may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb". There will inevitably be a deterioration in the standard of behaviour as perverse incentives are introduced by an Egalitarian/Statistical frame of justice. But let's face it you can't get more even-handed than condemning the innocent with the guilty!

NIALL FERGUSON, THE PROTESTANT WORK ETHIC AND THE RING OF TRUTH . Last night on Channel 4 we had the final part of historian Niall Ferguson's analysis of "Civilization: Is the West History?" Over the preceding weeks he has pointed to several (what he calls) 'killer apps' which enabled the West to progress in a way that other cultures could not; these included Competition, Science, Medicine and Democracy. Last night we had "the Protestant Work Ethic". I believe that Niall Ferguson is correct in saying that part of the West, that is Europe, has learnt to despise the work ethic while other cultures have embraced it. Do we live to work or work to live? I believe we live to be active and creative. Furthermore he is correct in his observations that the Chinese have more Christians than the whole of Europe! As a European Christian I think that is wonderful! Truly wonderful and a remarkable testimony to the work of the Holy Spirit despite decades of persecution the church there has prospered! Christianity can no longer be perceived as a western phenomena - and quite rightly so - because it never was! In contrast to the USA Europe has sold its share of the Christian heritage for a mess of pottage. As a Christian from Europe I can see the consequences of such a dereliction. Niall Ferguson is perceptive in parts; he alludes to a loss of faith within European society which now requires the affirmation of all beliefs, no matter how crackpot, on the basis that no belief is any better than any other. He has hit the nail on the head there. But his solution is not however a reaffirmation of Protestant Christianity but a renewal of faith in ourselves.... hmmm. The problem there is that Europe has already been engaged in an experiment of substituting faith in God for faith in humanity. At that point, you will realise, that Niall Ferguson has lost the plot of his own argument. There has never been a loss of faith in ourselves! Indeed that faith has always been humankinds fundamental problem. The reality is once one abolishes God one also abolishes Man! What do I mean by that? I will argue that the intellectual environment cultivated by Protestant Christianity (which is shorthand for genuine, biblical, apostolic Christianity) has had a number of positive consequences for society and that when we abolish God and substitute Man in his place negative consequences follow. I will follow up this train of thought in the next couple of months by looking at 'Democracy & the Rule of Law' and 'Science' as attributes of a Christian worldview under a series called 'The Ring of Truth'. But for now I will confine myself to the 'Protestant Work Ethic'. I will add one caveat; Capitalism is not the ultimate goal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ! From his description I do not believe Niall Ferguson really understood the work ethic. Properly understood it is not about living driven lives under the whip hand of God. It is actually about realising that a believer can glorify God in whatever sphere of life they find themselves in. One does not have to become a priest, monk or nun in order to serve God, one can do so whatever one's circumstances if one's attitude is right. The split between the sacred and secular was broken down and different sets of spiritual and moral standards no longer applied... all are equally called. This is what was meant by the Protestant/Biblical concept of "the priesthood of all believers"; which is also a democratising influence but I'll leave that for another day! Why is it particularly a 'Protestant' work ethic? The priesthood of all believers implies a degree of activism, involvment and personal engagement which will be absent in societies which defer to a special priestly caste. I recall a commentator once saying that the difference between north and south America was that in the south the settlers came to find paradise and in the north they came to build it! That has more than a ring of truth about it. Critics of 'religion' will point out that it reduces the believer to helpless passivity. Well, there may be more than a ring of truth to that too. But I will argue that Protestant/Biblical Christianity is the exception which proves the rule. The work ethic founded on the Creation mandate of Genesis is hardly a call to inaction!

Veteran presenter slams ‘Guardianistas’ at the BBC "VETERAN PRESENTER SLAMS 'GUARDIANISTAS' AT BBC." Michael Buerk criticises the BBC for its bias and for taking its creed from the Guardian newspaper. The piece is interesting although I do find the use of the phrase 'political correctness' overused and tiresome these days. I also feel very strongly that the word liberal (a great word!) is too often misapplied to the metropolitan elite who in practice do not believe in liberty but have taken on themselves the role of policing those beliefs they disapprove of. They have a meddling statist attitude which presuposes that they know best for everyone.

Tree

The Shard

ORIGINAL SIN & THE "BIBLE'S BURIED SECRETS". In the final episode of Dr Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series she seeks to locate The Garden of Eden. Her conclusion is that the Adam & Eve story and the account of their subsequent Fall can be traced back to the Temple, Judah's king and the Fall of Jerusalem to the Babylonian Empire in 586bc. I consider myself fairly clued up on Biblical literature and have some familiarity with opposing positions, but I cannot say I have ever heard of this hypothesis before. Of course that doesn't mean it is wrong, just that it is almost certainly wrong. It is very important to say that the drive in academic circles is always to innovate; if you want to make a reputation for yourself in academia you have to find a novel angle. That impetus is not always conducive to conserving what is good. If you want to make a name for yourself some public exposure, controversy and novelty are the name of the game. She said the concept of original sin has had a "devastating" effect on human affairs because it implicated everyone but if the real story relates to one particular king's hubris then humanity can say, as she did, "we are off the hook!" Humanity is innocent of evil. The link between the Garden of Eden and Solomon's Temple seems tenuous - it is just as likely that the garden decoration in the Temple is symbolic of something earlier. But even if one concluded that the Bible we have was largely constructed during the Babylonian exile that does not negate the message. If it is strikingly different from the original source all the more reason to ask 'why?' What are the writers of the Bible getting at? It strikes me that the questions raised by the TV programme always stop short; in so far as the Bible has buried secrets why not dig deeper? I can't help but conclude that the series has an agenda, it isn't difficult to perceive what it is. Smear words like "devastating" when attached to concepts like 'original sin' imply that she has a humanist outlook. Her 'straw man' argument about Eve as the cause of evil imply she has a Feminist agenda. But the real feature of this TV series is Post-Modernism; from Dr Stavrakopoulou's point of view it does not matter what the evidence actually is, it is sufficient that this is true for her. A Post-Modernist does not believe in objective reality and that is dangerous for a historian (as for a scientist!) because then the focus shifts from the external realities to the internal and subjective encounter of how 'I' see it and what it means for 'me' as if somehow our present day self-serving worldview is what this history is primarily about. Given this; it is no wonder that the presenter inserts present day priorities into her historical interpretation. Clearly Dr Stavrakopolou is hostile to the concept of 'original sin' and that informs her historical reconstruction. It is not unreasonable to ask if the Bible has got it so wrong regarding evil what is the correct view? She does not answer that. If evil is something which does not touch us all then who does it touch? It is very easy to 'otherise' human evil by identifying a convenient outgroup who can be demonised while we claim to be totally innocent ourselves. Humanists, Atheists, Feminists and Post-Moderns all have their favoured outgroups - in fact that sort of moral fingerpointing is a major feature of human nature... and 'original sin'! The Christian position, drawn from the Eden story, is unique in that it recognises our own culpability. In the words of Alexander Solzhenitsyn from 'The Gulag Archipelago' "If only there were evil people some where insidiously committing evil deeds and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being."

Tree

PAED-IATRIC INTENSIVE CARE & PAED-IATRIC CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY AT THE EVELINA.

Evelina Children's Hospital

Professorships have been awarded to Mr David Anderson and Dr Ian Murdoch. This is not just a personal honour for them but also recognises the work done within the PICU as a whole at ECH in London. Mr Anderson is one of the leading cardiac surgeons in the world. Dr Murdoch is the lead consultant who consolidated the work of PICU at Guy's Hospital and pioneered the paediatric retrieval service there in the early 1990's. All these services moved from Guy's to St Thomas' in 2005 into a modern purpose built wing becoming known as the Evelina Children's Hospital. It is no surprise that this institution came top in the recent Kennedy review.... and by some margin!

Personally it has been an enormous privilege to have been part of this whole remarkable enterprise for the last twenty years!

These awards are well deserved. Congratulations!

http://www.strs.nhs.uk/

Bible's Buried Secrets. Thinking of Francesca Stavrakopoulou's TV series I am reminded of historian Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing analysis of 'scientific history', "we exist in and for our own time: why should we judge our predecessors as if they were less self-sufficient: as if they existed for us and should be judged by us? Every age has its own social context, its own intellectual climate, and takes it for granted, it is not explicitly expressed in the documents of the time: it has to be deduced and reconstructed. It also deserves respect... To discern the intellectual climate of the past is one of the most difficult tasks of the historian, but it is also one of the most necessary. To neglect it - to use terms like 'rational', 'superstitious', 'progressive', 'reactionary', as if only that was rational which obeyed our rules of reason, only that progressive which pointed to us - is worse than wrong: it is vulgar". It is pretty obvious that the presenter is imposing on the evidence a narrative which suits her agenda. For example in episode one she makes a big deal about the Bible not appreciating how significant Omri was. Firstly, I already knew about Omri - not from this TV series as if this is some startling new evidence cunningly hidden by people motivated by a malevolent faith - but years ago in a sermon at church! As important as Omri's stature may be to an academic the fact is, theologically speaking, he is a minnow. To understand the documents and artefacts from another culture require a sensitivity to that culture which is not aided by thrusting on it a demand to fit in with current priorities. The evidence she presents can be interpreted several ways not just the one way she is promoting. Dr Stavrakopoulou often litters her commentary with 'peacock' words which suggest she is being daringly original when actually this is pretty well known stuff and is not as devastating to believers as she constantly asserts. Episode two starts with a false assertion, that the Bible teaches that Israel was a monotheistic culture and that her "careful reading" suggests an alternative which shatters the foundation of Christianity. This is a 'straw man'. Apart from being smug it is self evident nonsense; the Bible is very clear that ancient Israel was not faithful to its calling and did indeed worship Baal, Asherah and the whole Canaanite pantheon. And that Yahweh worship was syncretistically blended with Canaanite religion is well known. That does not require "careful reading", that is a major theme of the Bible story. Her assertion that 'El' is the personal name for one of the Canaanite gods rather than a generic word for 'god' and that it is this god the Bible describes is torturing the evidence to fit her narrative. The juxtaposition of images of scientists extracting evidence from the ground against those of people prostrating themselves before religious images while incense swings in the air is pretty crass editing but at least it indicates the agenda. Just as the presenter uses 'peacock' words to big-up her own status she uses 'smear' words to put down opinions she disapproves of and wishes the viewer to disapprove of too. It is not very clever stuff, in fact as propaganda it is very superficial. But then the purpose of the TV series is not to change the minds of those who have some background Bible knowledge, it is clearly aimed to confirm those who are ignorant of the Bible in their ignorance. POST SCRIPT: 12 April 2011. For further reading I will recommend 'On The Reliability Of The Old Testament' by K.A. Kitchen.

Tree

The Sola Panel What makes ‘progressive’ progressive?

The Shard from Tooley Street.

The Romantic Revolution by Tim Blanning.

Post-Modernism is often assumed to be a 21st Century response to the misplaced certainties of the modern era. This book raises the intriguing suggestion that an earlier movement prefigures this development by some way.

Tim Blanning makes a convincing case that the Romantic movement was a reaction against the reductionistic certainties of the Enlightenment and the dehumanising consequences of the new industries of the late 18th and early 19th Centuries.

"Three great revolutions rocked the world around the beginning of the 19th Century. The first two - the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution - have inspired the greatest volume of literature. But the third - the Romantic Revolution - was perhaps the most fundamental, radical and far-reaching. From Wordsworth, Coleridge, Burns and Byron, to Beethoven, Rossini, Berlioz, Liszt and Wagner, to Goya, Blake, Turner and Delacroix collectively brought about an alternative revolution".
"'Absolute inwardness' is how Tim Blanning defines the essence of romanticism. From this derives virtually all the cultural axioms of the modern world: the stress on genius, originality and individual expression; the dominance of music; the obsession with sexuality, dreams and the subconscious; the role of the public as patron; the worship of art and artists."

Artists became the high priests of a new religion which venerated paintings, poetry and music. Indeed the concept of spirituality around this time shifted from the religious to the artistic. The Romantics worshipped nature - but not nature as it truly is but an idealised version of it. As a consequence they abhorred any organised religion in favour of subjective deism. The real wonder of the last two centuries has been the resilience of the church to withstand such cultural unpopularity.
The scientific revolution which had diminished the universe and life into a few objective fundamental laws was too reductionistic for the romantics who sought to affirm the value of humanity and yet they were inevitably compelled, as Blanning puts it, to resort to 'absolute inwardness' - turning inside themselves to find value and beauty. To contrast themselves from the Enlightenment which used the metaphor of daylight the romantics applied the alternative metaphor of night-time; a realm of dreams, emotion and subjectivity. For them nature was not to be tamed by the rational.
The problem for the romantic was to find themselves idealising not just nature but the world as it is; as Alexander Pope wrote:

"All nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All Chance, Direction, which thou canst not see;
All Discord, Harmony not understood.
All partial Evil, universal Good:
and, in spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite,
One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right."

From a Christian such an outlook is optimistic in the extreme and at variance with the world as it truly is. The world is far from ideal. So far as I know Tim Blanning is not a Christian but as with all sensitive, informed commentators their observations will chime with the Christian world-view. The book is a brilliant commentary on the culture of the West and its anomie or moral rootlessness. The Christian can affirm the empirical method of science but reject its naturalism and reductionism; that science describes the truth and nothing but the truth yet is not the whole truth. Equally the Christian can affirm the value of humanity and nature without the error of deifying them. Ultimate value is not found by 'absolute inwardness' as if we are the centre of the Universe but it is found in God, who is beyond the outermost reaches of nature. Such a God is also far greater than our inner selves. The Christian rejects the twin errors of deism and subjectivism, and avoids the false optimism of those who believe in the perfectability of humanity.

In recent years there has been an attempt to forge a Scientific History which rejects all that is past and affirms universalist values. Tim Blanning quotes Hugh Trevor-Roper's scathing analysis;
"We exist in and for our own time: why should we judge our predecessors as if they were less self-sufficient: as if they existed for us and should be judged by us? Every age has its own social context, its own intellectual climate, and takes it for granted, it is not explicitly expressed in the documents of the time: it has to be deduced and reconstructed. It also deserves respect... To discern the intellectual climate of the past is one of the most neccesary. To neglect it - to use terms like 'rational', 'superstitious', 'progressive', 'reactionary', as if only that was rational which obeyed our rules of reason, only that progressive which pointed to us - is worse than wrong: it is vulgar."

The intriguing conclusion is that what we call post-modernism may merely prove to be the logical extension of the romantic movement. The post-modernist rejects the grand narrative, teleology and rationalism. They have a strong emphasis on hedonism and the need to escape the mundane realities. Music - as the least rational of the arts - is one of the defining features of youth culture. Not to mention the use of narcotics or the fascination with the gothic. These were all features of the Romantic Revolution.
'How do you annoy a post-modernist?' 'Tell him is not original'!

A Response to Patrick Sookhdeo on Halal Meat. The December 2010 issue of "Evangelicals Now" carried a full page article by Patrick Sookhdeo concerning the general sale of Halal meat in UK supermarkets. The question he posed was this; 'should Christians eat Halal meat?' The March issue of EN published a letter I wrote in response to Patrick Sookhdeo's piece. Dear Sir, The article 'Supermarket Halal' starts well by giving an overview of the biblical position regarding meat sacrificed to idols and that faithful Christians need not feel compromised by eating halal meat. Patrick Sookhdeo mentions two contexts where the eating of such meat may be problematic: where a weaker brother's conscience may be adversely affected by our example or where we are publicly associating ourselves with the deity to whom the meat has been sacrificed. So far so good. But I am frankly baffled by the author then leaping to the conclusion that eating halal meat purchased in a supermarket can mean we are 'embracing Islamic law' and 'furthering the Islamisation of society'! These assertions simply do not follow from his exegesis and consequently look contrived. If the conclusions do not flow from sound Bible teaching the casual onlooker may conclude that evangelicals are simply stirring up people's fears about national identity. To imply some sort of Islamic conspiracy is unwarranted and the suspicion will arise that we are fellow travellers with some very dubious political elements. This concern will compromise our witness to what is afterall a minority group who will have cause to fear the tone we have struck. Of course, this whole halal discussion could be resolved by adequate food labelling, but if I do eat halal unknowingly, what of it? My faith in Jesus is not compromised even if I knowingly share a halal meal with a Muslim friend or enjoy a curry on Brick Lane. Everday scenarios are covered by 1 Corinthians 10:25 and it is extremely difficult to pinpoint the real life contexts that lead to the consequences EN predicts. Surely, in so far as halal is an issue at all, it can be a means to demonstrate the freedom in Christ we have from all such dietary concerns. In fact, to take an overly ostentatious stance against certain foods runs the risk of appearing to be just as legalistic as any Islamist! Irony aside, there is a major spiritual question here, but it is not about what we eat, it is about whether, as Christians, we respond to these sorts of issues with faith and love, or are we motivated by unbiblical fears? Sadly, this article and EN are veering towards the latter: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out. Sincerely, Peter Swift. Addendum: It is not my wish denigrate the work Patrick Sookhdeo has done over the years in helping support hard-pressed Christian minorities overseas. My concern is that such work may be tarnished by ill considered teachings in a field where he is considered by some to be an authority.

According to a news report on AFP a fox, nicknamed 'Romeo', has been living on the 72nd floor of the UK's tallest building. Having evaded capture for two weeks he was finally cornered and then released in some nearby open ground. The Shard is under construction south of the river near London Bridge and will be Europe's highest skyscraper when it it is completed.

Tree

The Shard

Christian counsellor targeted by homosexual activist

Presumably the purpose of this 'sting' is to put any counsellor on notice that they too may be targetted, publicly pilloried and have their livelihood threatened unless they conform to the new orthodoxy. Who authorised the media to act as 'thought-police'?

That question is posed to the journalist in question. I am not endorsing the therapy being offered I am simply posing the question as to whether it is right to offer help to someone who requests it?
I have in mind a potential scenario in my own work situation. What if a parent of a child on my PICU claimed to be a Christian and realising that I was one too prevailed on me to pray with them. What if that subsequently turned out to be a similar 'sting' and the journal in question then reported me to my professional body for misconduct? I suspect that the journalists realise that a Christian is honour-bound to meet such a request for help and this is a cheap way to gain a good headline and the plaudits of the chattering classes. But the consequence for myself could be that I am driven from my profession. So my concern is about the point of principal which is being endorsed by the media; ie entrapment is okay provided it is a socially defenceless person targetted and that the media are hereby empowered to open a window on individual souls. It is the tabloidisation of private conscience.

It is not just that such a 'sting' is deceitful - it is deceitful on multiple levels. And the net effect is draw into question whether we should ever offer to help someone who asks for it if such help may not have the approval of the media. Perhaps that is a question this particular journal should ask itself.