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.

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!