Sunday, December 16, 2012
Human, Humane, Humanity.
Incomprehensible actions comfortingly described as "inhuman" turn out, on reflection, to be all too human.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Jimmy Savile and The Misogyny of Liberalism.
There was an editorial in the UK news magazine "The Week", 13th October 2012, by Caroline Law which I have reproduced below. The title above this post is my own interpretation of her comments...
"It was different back then. That's one of the explanations given for how Jimmy Savile got away with molesting girls for so long. Savile, who prowled the corridors of schools and hospitals in search of victims, appears to have been far more calculated in his predations than most. But it is undeniable that many pop stars and DJs routinely exploited young female fans in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even paraded underage girlfriends, yet were not prosecuted. (Jailed for seven years in 2001, Jonathan King was a rare exception; but then he molested teenage boys).
This is often put down to the casual misogyny of the time, but it was more than that. In the era of free love, parents worried, as they do now, about 'dirty old men', but there was also a feeling in the air that sex was something that everyone should enjoy, children included. So much so, there was even an activist group called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). From 1974 to 1984, PIE openly campaigned for greater acceptance of paedophilia, lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent, and helped paedophiles make contact with one another. And it had influential friends. No less a group than The National Council for Civil Liberties, now called Liberty and then run by future Labour minister Patricia Hewitt, was affiliated to PIE. Consenting sex between adults and children was harmless they argued, and shouldn't be illegal. Perhaps that's how BBC bosses rationalised away the rumours about Savile. They were in respectable company."
"It was different back then. That's one of the explanations given for how Jimmy Savile got away with molesting girls for so long. Savile, who prowled the corridors of schools and hospitals in search of victims, appears to have been far more calculated in his predations than most. But it is undeniable that many pop stars and DJs routinely exploited young female fans in the 1960s and 1970s. Some even paraded underage girlfriends, yet were not prosecuted. (Jailed for seven years in 2001, Jonathan King was a rare exception; but then he molested teenage boys).
This is often put down to the casual misogyny of the time, but it was more than that. In the era of free love, parents worried, as they do now, about 'dirty old men', but there was also a feeling in the air that sex was something that everyone should enjoy, children included. So much so, there was even an activist group called the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). From 1974 to 1984, PIE openly campaigned for greater acceptance of paedophilia, lobbied for the abolition of the age of consent, and helped paedophiles make contact with one another. And it had influential friends. No less a group than The National Council for Civil Liberties, now called Liberty and then run by future Labour minister Patricia Hewitt, was affiliated to PIE. Consenting sex between adults and children was harmless they argued, and shouldn't be illegal. Perhaps that's how BBC bosses rationalised away the rumours about Savile. They were in respectable company."
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Parents who Believe in Miracles are "torturing" Dying Children.
An article published recently in The Journal of Medical Ethics, in the UK, cited over two hundred cases where the parents' religious beliefs adversely affected the care of children in intensive care. In the majority of cases there was some meeting of minds but in 17 cases no accommodation was possible between the parents and the medical staff caring for their dying children. The authors, who included medical staff at Great Ormond Street Hospital along with their chaplaincy department, expressed concern that there was an increasing number of instances where parents required futile and intrusive treatment in the expectation of a miraculous recovery. The ethical issue was whether parents had the right to 'stonewall' the medical judgement of the health professionals and impose their religious beliefs on their children with pointless medical interventions.
'Christian Nurses & Midwives' (CNM) addressed this very problem in the Spring 2007 issue of CNM News, number 17, in an article titled 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' I was the author of that article and given the current interest in the media I thought I would revisit this issue here. I will start with a major caveat - I have only read the abstract of the JME article and some of the media comment resulting from it. I am not a subscriber to JME so I can't comment in detail on the piece in question. But given my prior interest in this topic I hope my thoughts will be helpful to the reader.
CNM gave some consideration to the interaction of 'faith' and medical treatment in the light of some cases not dissimilar to the ones cited by JME. Those were instances I had personal knowledge of in my work in Paediatric Intensive Care over twenty years and as a committed Christian I could bring to bear some insight into the predicament the parents of dying children face in the context of their 'faith' position. I too have met parents who wished to continue medical treatment in the hope of divine intervention and wrestled with the ethical dilemma of such demands as well as having to reflect on my own understanding of my own 'faith' position. My article 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' arose out of these demanding challenges.
The obvious point to make is that parents who seek medical treatment in the hope of a miraculous outcome are not doing so from a considered conviction borne of their faith as the JME authors intimate. Such a position is self evidently paradoxical and conflicted; why is the hoped for miracle contingent on human effort?! Theologically it is ill-considered. In fact if a belief in miracles was the driving motivation it ought logically to give rise to the opposite problem - of parents refusing reasonable medical treatment. So the dynamic is not the superficially stated position, the true dynamic lay elsewhere.
In 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' I set the stated 'faith' in the context of a faith community with a self deluding and self re-enforcing faulty theology. The media reports of the JME article set the parents up as discrete individuals with little social context. However it struck me that these individuals exist in the context of a 'faith' community and one, as a committed evangelical Christian, I would argue has a faulty theology which has triumphalistic expectations and a 'party' line to be adhered to. The sheer paradox I've already alluded to should be a clue that it is faulty on every level. For every miraculous deliverance in the Biblical text there are more accounts of suffering. And while it is entirely appropriate to pray for deliverance it is difficult to reconcile the naive notion that Christians are above the common suffering of humanity with the stories of Job, Jeremiah, Jesus or Paul. The conflict JME points to is not between secular values and Christianity as it implies, it is actually between Christian values and worldly ones defined by which kingdom we seek to belong to; is it a 'this worldly one' or a 'heavenly one'? From that perspective the JME authors have far more in common with the parents they despise than either have with authentic Biblical Christianity!
I am troubled by reports of the JME article which use words like 'torturing' and 'stonewall' (these may not be in the original JME article of course) which are clearly weighted to prejudice the reader and draw them on to a particular side of the debate. The discussion actually comes to centre on 'distributive justice' - a disingenuous term which means 'health care rationing' - ie each individual is entitled to only so much of health care product at the discretion of the health care professional. That is the core issue here. I'm not sure I would want that sort of power or responsibility but that is the end point the JME authors are pointing to.... an ethical debate about whether agents of the state have the power to decide the fate of your children.
'Hard cases make bad law' means that when we make generalities based on relatively rare events we are only creating a future injustice. Even assuming that the JME article is merely attempting to stir up a debate, rather than being a tendentious polemic, the problem is that it is theologically and socially naive. No doctor is compelled to 'torture' a dying child... This is mere journalistic hyperbole! If this is to be a mature discussion then such histrionics need to be set aside.
And before you comment on this article check out the one I did in 2007!
How would I deal with these ethical situations? If I thought that there was no realistic prospect of recovery despite all our efforts in intensive care - I would tell the parents we had come to the end of all that Man can do... an acknowledgement a secular humanist is far more likely to choke on than a believer. Yet such an admission instantly resolves the clash of worldviews and focuses the discussion where it should be both medically and theologically without any contrived phoney war between the two. These parents should be treated as any other parent in a grief state of 'bargaining' or 'denial'.
What these parents most fear is not breaking faith with God, but breaking faith with their dying child.
'Christian Nurses & Midwives' (CNM) addressed this very problem in the Spring 2007 issue of CNM News, number 17, in an article titled 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' I was the author of that article and given the current interest in the media I thought I would revisit this issue here. I will start with a major caveat - I have only read the abstract of the JME article and some of the media comment resulting from it. I am not a subscriber to JME so I can't comment in detail on the piece in question. But given my prior interest in this topic I hope my thoughts will be helpful to the reader.
CNM gave some consideration to the interaction of 'faith' and medical treatment in the light of some cases not dissimilar to the ones cited by JME. Those were instances I had personal knowledge of in my work in Paediatric Intensive Care over twenty years and as a committed Christian I could bring to bear some insight into the predicament the parents of dying children face in the context of their 'faith' position. I too have met parents who wished to continue medical treatment in the hope of divine intervention and wrestled with the ethical dilemma of such demands as well as having to reflect on my own understanding of my own 'faith' position. My article 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' arose out of these demanding challenges.
The obvious point to make is that parents who seek medical treatment in the hope of a miraculous outcome are not doing so from a considered conviction borne of their faith as the JME authors intimate. Such a position is self evidently paradoxical and conflicted; why is the hoped for miracle contingent on human effort?! Theologically it is ill-considered. In fact if a belief in miracles was the driving motivation it ought logically to give rise to the opposite problem - of parents refusing reasonable medical treatment. So the dynamic is not the superficially stated position, the true dynamic lay elsewhere.
In 'Faith in Faith or Faith in God?' I set the stated 'faith' in the context of a faith community with a self deluding and self re-enforcing faulty theology. The media reports of the JME article set the parents up as discrete individuals with little social context. However it struck me that these individuals exist in the context of a 'faith' community and one, as a committed evangelical Christian, I would argue has a faulty theology which has triumphalistic expectations and a 'party' line to be adhered to. The sheer paradox I've already alluded to should be a clue that it is faulty on every level. For every miraculous deliverance in the Biblical text there are more accounts of suffering. And while it is entirely appropriate to pray for deliverance it is difficult to reconcile the naive notion that Christians are above the common suffering of humanity with the stories of Job, Jeremiah, Jesus or Paul. The conflict JME points to is not between secular values and Christianity as it implies, it is actually between Christian values and worldly ones defined by which kingdom we seek to belong to; is it a 'this worldly one' or a 'heavenly one'? From that perspective the JME authors have far more in common with the parents they despise than either have with authentic Biblical Christianity!
I am troubled by reports of the JME article which use words like 'torturing' and 'stonewall' (these may not be in the original JME article of course) which are clearly weighted to prejudice the reader and draw them on to a particular side of the debate. The discussion actually comes to centre on 'distributive justice' - a disingenuous term which means 'health care rationing' - ie each individual is entitled to only so much of health care product at the discretion of the health care professional. That is the core issue here. I'm not sure I would want that sort of power or responsibility but that is the end point the JME authors are pointing to.... an ethical debate about whether agents of the state have the power to decide the fate of your children.
'Hard cases make bad law' means that when we make generalities based on relatively rare events we are only creating a future injustice. Even assuming that the JME article is merely attempting to stir up a debate, rather than being a tendentious polemic, the problem is that it is theologically and socially naive. No doctor is compelled to 'torture' a dying child... This is mere journalistic hyperbole! If this is to be a mature discussion then such histrionics need to be set aside.
And before you comment on this article check out the one I did in 2007!
How would I deal with these ethical situations? If I thought that there was no realistic prospect of recovery despite all our efforts in intensive care - I would tell the parents we had come to the end of all that Man can do... an acknowledgement a secular humanist is far more likely to choke on than a believer. Yet such an admission instantly resolves the clash of worldviews and focuses the discussion where it should be both medically and theologically without any contrived phoney war between the two. These parents should be treated as any other parent in a grief state of 'bargaining' or 'denial'.
What these parents most fear is not breaking faith with God, but breaking faith with their dying child.
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Gender, Authority & Sexuality.
Excellent talk this morning at church on Gender, Authority and Sexuality. Check out www.shmedia.org.uk for free mp3 downloads. Or try iphone: http://goo.gl/G5Y2C or Android: http://goo/Owl2Bl or search for "St Helen's" on Apple App or on Google Play.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Monday, July 02, 2012
The Injustice of Liberalism.
This morning I was listening to BBC Radio 4's "Start the Week" hosted by Andrew Marr discussing national identity. One of his guests was Maajid Nawaz who used to be a leading figure within an Islamist group called Hizb ut-Tahrir. The BBC website says of him 'from Islamist extremist to champion of democracy' and describes how he became radicalised as a young man by the racism he personally faced in the UK and then by the Bosnian conflict of the 1990's.
The discussion was largely insightful and helpful but hit a sour note when Maajid was presented with a leading question about whether Islamic Extremism was a response to the rise of "Christian Evangelism" (sic). [The terms in which the question was couched betrayed a shameful ignorance of the meaning of the words employed!] Maajid concurred with the view expressed by one of the other panellists.
How convenient. So the line being presented on national radio is that Islamic Extremism is ultimately the responsibility of Christians. In this meta-narrative the secular, liberal, humanist dumps the responsibility for terrorism into the laps of an innocent community because they want to believe the illusion that no-one could possibly take issue with the virtues they feel they alone represent. The meta-narrative they want to impart to the listener is that all conflict is fuelled by "others" and if only they would conform to the secular, liberal, humanist position the world would be a happier place. It is that claim to a 'helicopter perspective' and moral superiority which jars.
By condemning the innocent with the guilty this sort of Liberalism discredits itself - it is not concerned about justice, it is more concerned about pushing a particular ideological interpretation of the world. And that ideological interpretation places a Liberal elite as the sole moral judge. The word 'liberal' is one we all aspire to; to be open, caring, generous etc are wonderful things but these virtues are not the exclusive preserve of those who parade themselves as 'Liberal'. In fact it is my contention that the Liberal is not liberal as this morning's discussion intimated. Someone who is liberal would seek to get their facts straight first, nor would they rush to judgement, nor would they issue a blanket condemnation by association. However a Liberal would, so it seems, happily do all these things.
What do people mean by 'the rise of Christian Evangelism'? If they mean 'the Christian Right' is it really fair to attribute Islamic terrorism to this? Surely an Islamist is just as likely to take offence at secular humanism and its values as to Christianity! This notion that Christian Evangelism and islamic Extremism are two sides of the same coin is a quack diagnosis clutched at by fearful individuals who desperately want a simple explanation of the world they find themselves in. Unfortunately in the process they condemn the innocent with the guilty.
The discussion was largely insightful and helpful but hit a sour note when Maajid was presented with a leading question about whether Islamic Extremism was a response to the rise of "Christian Evangelism" (sic). [The terms in which the question was couched betrayed a shameful ignorance of the meaning of the words employed!] Maajid concurred with the view expressed by one of the other panellists.
How convenient. So the line being presented on national radio is that Islamic Extremism is ultimately the responsibility of Christians. In this meta-narrative the secular, liberal, humanist dumps the responsibility for terrorism into the laps of an innocent community because they want to believe the illusion that no-one could possibly take issue with the virtues they feel they alone represent. The meta-narrative they want to impart to the listener is that all conflict is fuelled by "others" and if only they would conform to the secular, liberal, humanist position the world would be a happier place. It is that claim to a 'helicopter perspective' and moral superiority which jars.
By condemning the innocent with the guilty this sort of Liberalism discredits itself - it is not concerned about justice, it is more concerned about pushing a particular ideological interpretation of the world. And that ideological interpretation places a Liberal elite as the sole moral judge. The word 'liberal' is one we all aspire to; to be open, caring, generous etc are wonderful things but these virtues are not the exclusive preserve of those who parade themselves as 'Liberal'. In fact it is my contention that the Liberal is not liberal as this morning's discussion intimated. Someone who is liberal would seek to get their facts straight first, nor would they rush to judgement, nor would they issue a blanket condemnation by association. However a Liberal would, so it seems, happily do all these things.
What do people mean by 'the rise of Christian Evangelism'? If they mean 'the Christian Right' is it really fair to attribute Islamic terrorism to this? Surely an Islamist is just as likely to take offence at secular humanism and its values as to Christianity! This notion that Christian Evangelism and islamic Extremism are two sides of the same coin is a quack diagnosis clutched at by fearful individuals who desperately want a simple explanation of the world they find themselves in. Unfortunately in the process they condemn the innocent with the guilty.
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
The Corpus Clock and 'The Years the Locust has Eaten'!
The Corpus Clock is a feature on the corner of Corpus Christi College in Cambridge. A giant locust eats the passing seconds and is described by John Taylor who conceived the clock as a "Chronophage" - literally a 'time eater'! There is an inscription in Latin which means 'the world passes away and the lust thereof', taken from 1 John 2 v17. Although this sentiment is true in itself my first thought on seeing this clock was to reflect on the wonderful promise in the Old Testament book of 'Joel' in 2 v25 which says 'I will restore to you the years the locust has eaten!' As creatures we are limited by time, but those who trust in the Lord need not be tyrannised by time!
Friday, June 08, 2012
'These are the Days of Elijah' a poem by Peter Swift.
These are the days of Elijah,
the prophets' word restored,
new apostles arising
bring us the Word of the Lord.
All the options covered,
be vague and so obscure,
selective recall, hindsight
the prophets word made sure.
These are the days of Elijah,
false prophets' palms are greased,
seers consulted like tarot,
the sheep exist to be fleeced.
the prophets' word restored,
new apostles arising
bring us the Word of the Lord.
All the options covered,
be vague and so obscure,
selective recall, hindsight
the prophets word made sure.
These are the days of Elijah,
false prophets' palms are greased,
seers consulted like tarot,
the sheep exist to be fleeced.
Monday, June 04, 2012
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Philippians 3 v1-11.
I recently led a Bible Study at church on Philippians 3 v1-11. The Apostle Paul tells the hard pressed church in Philippi to 'rejoice' and 'look out'. In fact one 'rejoice' to three 'look outs'. Paul is very concerned about a wave of false teachers about to fall upon this church.
It isn't difficult to see what sorts of things this new wave will be preaching. These teachers will be quite proud of their credentials and their authority. The Philippians will be tempted to respond in one of two ways; they will probably feel inferior to these people and/or will want to emulate them. Their qualifications as big fish however is undermined by Paul who points out that he has all the same religious credentials these characters have... but he counts it as rubbish!
The natural default setting of us humans is towards 'works religion'. We believe that, if God exists, he has nothing to complain about with us. Why should God need to forgive us anything? We haven't done anyone any harm we say... but if we are honest with ourselves we know that that is not true! We are not blameless. Nor can we can claim we are in God's good books because of our birthright or any supposed good deeds we have done. If we do we are literally being self-righteous, trusting in ourselves; just as these false teachers were.
What is the alternative? Paul wants the church to stand strong against the tsunami of false teaching he can see hurtling their way. Paul has all the same qualifications these phoney teachers have and a good deal more but paul counts all this as rubbish compared to the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ and what he accomplished for us on the Cross. Our security rests, not on our abilities or credentials, but solely on what Jesus has done for us already.
But he takes it a stage further. We are not to find our security in the 'Doctrines of Grace' as if theological rectitude will keep us safe. We are to 'Rejoice!' in the Doctrines of Grace. These will only keep us safe when we truly grasp what Jesus has done for us and respond appropriately. When we find our source of joy in Christ alone we won't be tempted or awed by anything else.
The only thing which will truly keep us safe is the joy of the Lord!
It isn't difficult to see what sorts of things this new wave will be preaching. These teachers will be quite proud of their credentials and their authority. The Philippians will be tempted to respond in one of two ways; they will probably feel inferior to these people and/or will want to emulate them. Their qualifications as big fish however is undermined by Paul who points out that he has all the same religious credentials these characters have... but he counts it as rubbish!
The natural default setting of us humans is towards 'works religion'. We believe that, if God exists, he has nothing to complain about with us. Why should God need to forgive us anything? We haven't done anyone any harm we say... but if we are honest with ourselves we know that that is not true! We are not blameless. Nor can we can claim we are in God's good books because of our birthright or any supposed good deeds we have done. If we do we are literally being self-righteous, trusting in ourselves; just as these false teachers were.
What is the alternative? Paul wants the church to stand strong against the tsunami of false teaching he can see hurtling their way. Paul has all the same qualifications these phoney teachers have and a good deal more but paul counts all this as rubbish compared to the surpassing worth of Jesus Christ and what he accomplished for us on the Cross. Our security rests, not on our abilities or credentials, but solely on what Jesus has done for us already.
But he takes it a stage further. We are not to find our security in the 'Doctrines of Grace' as if theological rectitude will keep us safe. We are to 'Rejoice!' in the Doctrines of Grace. These will only keep us safe when we truly grasp what Jesus has done for us and respond appropriately. When we find our source of joy in Christ alone we won't be tempted or awed by anything else.
The only thing which will truly keep us safe is the joy of the Lord!
Sunday, April 22, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Sixth Form Theology.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Sign the Petition.
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
No Brainer!
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?
Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?
Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Giles Fraser, Atonement & Child Abuse.
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Monday, January 16, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)