DAN BAKER'S AUNT SALLY.

October 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:

"Faith is a cop-out. It is intellectual bankruptcy.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith,
then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its
own merits." Dan Baker.

"Aah.......this is obviously some strange usage of the word 'faith'
that I wasn't previously aware of!" (Apologies to Douglas Adams
and 'Arthur Dent'!)

One cannot have faith in something [that is trust it] unless at
some level you are convinced it already has merit. Derrrrr!

It makes you wonder what the apostle Paul was doing in Athens
debating with Epicurean and Stoic philosophers, or why he
spent two years "reasoning daily in the Hall of Tyrannus" with
all-comers [see Acts 17 &19!]. Incidentally what have I been
doing this last year with "Calendar of Doom" if not arguing the
merits of the case?

To have a mature dialogue on issues that divide us requires an
agreement over what exactly we disagree on! Can I recommend
Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" published by IVP:
GB ISBN 0-85110-652-8 or USA ISBN 0-310-28670-0. The
contents give a surprisingly accesible account of evangelical beliefs.
Chapter 35 and specifically pages 710 & 711 puts paid to a couple
of commonly accepted, but laughable, concepts of 'faith' including
the irrational belief in something despite the abscence of evidence
version which yanked Dan Baker's chain. There is a good explanation
there of what 'faith' really means in the context of the evangelical
faith [and frankly I'm not an apologist for any other kind].

Biblically speaking 'faith' is not so much about believing abstract
assertions, it is more akin to trusting in the character of a personal
being and the promises they make. A Christian is someone who
believes that there is ample evidence to justify not merely a belief
in God's existence but crucially to trust in God's character. Now
Dan Baker will almost certainly not accept that evidence as
compelling - but that is a totally different issue to simply asserting
that Christians have put the 'faith' cart before the evidential horse!

Rather than view 'faith' as some special category of knowledge semi-
detached from reality, it is important to say that we all put our trust
in others from time-to-time [eg the pilot of my holiday flight, the
cook who prepared my meal, even the compiler of the bus timetable
etc etc etc]. All civilisation hinges on those little quantum packets of
trust we both give and receive. But we have already covered a lot of
this ground back in February's "Calendar of Doom" when we looked
at 'Doubt & Certainty' with Voltaire. Incidentally the compiler of the
'agnostic calendar' was asserting 'faith' in Dan Baker when they chose
his quotation - they trusted in the veracity of his accusation.

Let us hope that it was not the case that he thought it is sufficient
merely to caricature and misrepresent someone else's position. If so
it can only be the gallery he is playing to. Or it might simply be that
he hasn't done enough background reading before launching his
attack.

Either way; when he sorts himself out his little homily against
"intellectual bankruptcy" will be a tad more credible.




tagline: Dan Baker. Misrepresentation. Caricature. Versus. Peter
Swift. Faith. Gospel. Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Christianity.
swiftypete. Jesus. Jesus Christ. Intellectual. Mature. Calendar of
Doom. The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy. H2G2. 'Safe'. The
God Delusion.

REVELATION: a Beast of a Book!

This Saturday at my church [St Helen's Bishopsgate in
London] we had a day long introduction to the book of
'Revelation' for the the Bible Study leaders [aka "SLOBS"!].
I am one of the small-group leaders and this was our
opportunity to collect our thoughts before launching
into this series of studies. Personally I have some misgivings
about using this book for a participatory Bible study but
that is the challenge I guess.

Revelation is a 'happy hunting ground' for all sorts of strange
teachings and cults.....and some despair of ever truly under-
standing it. The best advice I can give is, get the 'big picture'
before being drawn into discussions about particularities.
The key to any Bible book is often found in its broadest
perspective. The book of Revelation suffers from folk
rushing in to interpretation and application without first
getting a grasp of the broad structure of the book.....which
reduces it to a Christian version of 'Nostradamus'. Revelation
has a repeating cycle of sevens using symbolisms which
would make perfect sense to the first century readers.....
why else would John have written it? The themes the book
explores are relevant throughout history......why else did God
include it in the canon of scripture? The only substantial future
event yet to unfold is Christ's Return. We must guard against
the temptation to believe that our generation and our
nation has a exceptional role to play in this drama.

Can I recommend a couple of books? "Revelation Unwrapped"
by John Richardson: ISBN 0 9524894 2 2 (UK) or ISBN
0 646 28287 5 (AUS). This is only 74 pages long but it provides
a good handle on 'the big picture' and critiques less helpful
interpretations by well-meaning but off key Bible teachers
who are often certain and seldom right! Bible believing
Christians affirm "primary literal inspiration of scripture" but
some good hearted people assume that this must also require
literal interpretation of the text. This invariably causes
problems when we need to understand symbolic or figurative
language - of which 'apocalyptic' literature is full - and leads
to a wooden literalism which often misses the point the Bible
is teaching.

My personal view [which should not be thought of as having
any official status with my church] is that it is unfortunate that
some Christians are content to take their theology from pulp
paperback prophecy rather than draw it from the source of
God's Word.......this results in a 'group think' which is hard to
justify when put to the test. I do appreciate that there will be
people out there whose trust in the Bible is founded upon a
supposed correlation between the Bible's apocalyptic books
and specific contemporary world events; however I am compelled
to say that such naivety will not pass the test of time. Can I urge
you to look deeper within the Bible text for its real meaning?
If not, you risk founding your faith upon shifting interpretive
sand and not on the bed rock of God's Word. Be wary of
teachers who effectively take the Bible away from you and
render you dependant on their insights rather than help you see
God's Word for yourself.

Another book I would recommend is Graeme Goldworthy's
"The Gospel in Revelation". Again another surprisingly short
book [not to be confused with his similarly titled tome] which
is pure gold! ISBN 0 85364630 9. As a rule of thumb the very
best Bible commentaries are not written by academics for
academics, but by those with a pastoral background for pastors;
the Bible is pastoral theology when all is said and done!

Anyway if you fancy following along our studies in Revelation
these coming months you can access the material at
www.centralfocus.org.uk Better still if you are around London
why not sign up with one of our groups? Details can be found at
www.st-helens.org.uk Studies start 4th October with an
introductory talk by John Richardson - author of "Revelation
Unwrapped"!

tagline: The Beast, the Whore, the Lamb, the Mark, the Bible,
Revelation, revelation.

postscript: 6 Nov 06. I should have also recommended the
excellent BST commentary by Michael Wilcock "The Message of
Revelation" published by IVP. ISBN 0-85110-964-0.
Some people find Paul Barnett's "Apocalypse Now and Then"
helpful; published by Aquila Press ISBN 1 875861 41 6.

49er

Last week I had my 49th Birthday. To mark the occasion I thought
I would quote something which (I think) Bob Hope once said;

"When you are 20 you care desperately what other people think of
you. When you are 40 you are past caring what other people think
of you. When you are 60 you realise that other people were never
thinking about you in the first place".

I wish I'd thought of saying that!

In 1985 I spent a few months with "Youth with a Mission" at Holmsted
Manor in England doing a "Discipleship Training Course" (a mini pre-
Toronto Toronto if you get my drift). 1987-88 I went on to do a year
at The King's Lodge at the "School of Biblical Studies" under Charlie
Bassett which provided a much needed counter balance to the
previous charismania and helped give me a superb overview of the
Bible.

Have you noticed how a lot of parachurch organisations emphasise the
"youff" element? YWAM [pronounced why-wham incidentally], Youth
for Christ, Teen Challenge, Campus Crusade, Young Life etc to name
but a few. Now that I've hit middle age, what groups are aimed at the
likes of us?
I want to flag up the possibility of launching a new organisation called
OGWAM....Old Geezers with a Mission. If you think that this is a good
idea please send fabulous amounts of money to my off-shore bank
account!

RICHARD DAWKINS: but is it
"life as we know it"?

September 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;

"If we want to postulate a deity capable of engineering
all the organized complexity in the world, either instant-
aneously or by guiding evolution, that deity must already
have been vastly complex in the first place. The creationist,
whether a naive Bible-thumper or an educated bishop,
simply postulates an already existing being of prodigious
intelligence and complexity. If we are going to allow
ourselves the luxury of postulating organized complexity
without offering an explanation, we might as well make a
job of it and simply postulate the existence of life as we
know it!" Richard Dawkins.

Ah, but that is the question isn't it? Is it really an explanation for
"life as we know it"? Dawkins view of "life" is that 'fish are machines
for replicating DNA in the sea, birds are machines for replicating
DNA in the air and people are machines for replicating DNA on land'.
The question that is crying out to be answered is; is this an adequate
description for "life as we know it"? It is akin to someone saying
that they have a blueprint of an aircraft and assure you that this
tells them everything there is to know about flying! It has all the
lucid simplicity of the madman - I doubt that you would have faith
in such a person to fly an aircraft you were aboard that's for sure!
[And we all put our trust in other people at some time or other].

What am I driving at? Sure DNA helps replicate creatures, I don't
deny that. What I do deny is that this explains everything about
"life as we know it". Dawkins uses the word "life" to mean 'bio-mass'
and nothing else because a materialist is blind to the non material
dimensions of "LIFE" in all its fullness. "LIFE as we know it" is
much more richly textured and the non-material things we
experience are just as real; imagination, creativity, justice, love
(and hate), good (and evil), joy (and sadness) all make up a fuller
picture of "life as it exists".

Dawkins once wrote "in a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going
to get lucky, and we won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any
justice. The universe [has] no design, no purpose, no evil, no good;
nothing but blind pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares.
DNA just is, and we dance to its music." As an explanation for LIFE
is this adequate? To a materialist with a minimalist abstract notion
of life; yes.

But it seems to me that there are universal principles of justice as if
there is a natural law written into the fabric of the Cosmos - and
such law makes little sense without a law-giver. We care about the
suffering of those involved in natural or manmade disasters when
Dawkins' abstractions logically require indifference. DNA doesn't
care but personal beings do. Bafflingly even Dawkins uses words like
"evil" and "wicked" to describe those people [like me] he does not
approve of, as if even he is compelled at a subconscious level to
acknowledge that such categories exist [as with all such barrackroom
moralists his anger is peppered indiscriminately about - nonetheless
even he is a grudging witness to the reality of non-material values].
Why should I think that Dawkins is any more perceptive about LIFE?

All moralists [whether they realise it or not] have a simple formula
in their heads and it goes like this "the world would be a far
better place without.................people in it
(fill in the blank space)"."Evil" is always a
description of someone other than ourselves; it is
only the Christian who recognises that it is their name that should
be there! This is what Christians call "repentance" - the
acknowledgement of ones own evil, indeed it is this which makes a
Christian Christian (and is not to be confused with those who are only
notionally "christian").

Dawkins postulates life as an abstraction but LIFE as it is actually
lived [beyond the lucidity of the madman] is not an abstraction
LIFE is personal. From these thoughts I would argue that there is
adequate evidence of a cosmic creative lawgiver; one who is
personal; one who has nothing to learn from us about love and justice
- and thus is someone to whom I am accountable for the evil [aka
abscence of love & justice] which infests my heart and in whom I,
as a Christian, trust to pilot me home safely because I know that
I cannot do it.

I don't postulate I observe.



tagline: Calendar of Doom. swiftypete. swiftypete. the swiftypete. the
swiftypete blog. Peter Swift is swiftypete. life. existence. meaning.
reductionism. versus. christianity. richard dawkins. Peter Swift
is the swiftypete. The God Delusion.

post-script: I had intended to talk about "Cosmic Fine Tuning" as material
evidence of a creator but I've written enough already and it will have to wait
for another day.
post-post-script: There are some good articles on Genesis and Science in the
October 06 edition of "The Briefing" [issue 337]. Back issues can be obtained
from http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ or http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/

INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
does "infinity" exist?

I cannot help but feel that there are a number of
semantic misconceptions surrounding the concept
of "Intelligent Design" [ID]. The chief one being:
is ID scientific? And how do you define "science"?

The commonsense approach would be to say that
science is evidence based. Those of us who would
seek physical evidence of "design" would hope
that such evidence [if found] would [in principle] be
accepted as "scientific".

But it seems to me the debates surrounding ID
founder not on evidence but on one's philosophy of
science. For some, "science" is by definition natural-
istic and rejects the "supernatural" [a distinction
they themselves created], so on such a definition
any evidence of design cannot be science for that
very reason - the conclusion is built into the
definition. If they label something "supernatural"
it immediately makes it inadmissable as scientific
evidence. In a universe full of remarkable
implausabilities some are ruled in and others are
ruled out. The debate about "Creation Science" is
particularly acute in the USA where the state
education system is bound by the principle of
the separation of church and state.......and there
the debate is not science but the philosophy of
science. In short the presuppositions one starts
with determine the outcome - no wonder these
discussions are often debates of the deaf.

The concept of "Intelligent Design" stands or
falls on the principle of 'irreducible complexity'
[it is a falsifiable theory] and seeks to discover
biological systems [which can be studied objectively]
that cannot function in a precursor state [testable].
The classic example is the mousetrap comprising
spring, catch, trap and base plate; it cannot
function without all the components in place.
(It might have served a different function in a
precursor state - but the onus is on the naysayer
to state what that function was). A mousetrap
cannot evolve piece by piece - it is all or nothing -
hence 'irreducible complexity'. There are any
number of biological systems which fall into this
category.
Is it so unreasonable to ask about the origin of such
systems? At this stage no one is invoking God as
an explanation - we are merely raising biological
questions, but the materialist will invoke the
"slippery slope " argument. It is a paradigm they
are not prepared to explore.
Conversely, from a Christian perspective, the limit
in the creationist's argument is that even if we prove
the likelihood of a creator on material grounds, we are
still not able to identify conclusively who that Creator
is, not without special revelation anyway. So there is
only a limited mileage in the ID argument to start with.

But returning to the "Secular Fundamentalists" as
my chief target...someone will object and say that in
an infinite universe all sorts of improbable things will
happen. But it seems to me that one cannot
airily wave the word "infinity" over any given
problem and magic it away. You disallow one set
of improbabilities but admit this set (which
serves the same "god" function) because it fits your
preconceived ideas better - why is that?

Can I be provocative? Does "infinity" exist anyway?
Yes, I know it exists as a mathematical notion.
Yes, I know that space is infinite (albeit bounded). But
these are beside the point. Crucial to the materialists'
argument is not the size of the vacuum of space; what
matters to the materialist is matter [well, it would,
wouldn't it?] What matters is the stuff which makes
the world we inhabit and forms every biological sytem.

Is matter infinite? Well no it is not. According to the
Cornell University website the mass of the observable
universe has been calculated to be 25 billion galaxies
worth (and that includes dark matter). From this we
know that the universe will continue to expand - there
isn't enough mass (and so gravity) ever to draw
it back together. Indeed Cornell University go on to
say that the universe isn't big enough to contain
another Earth with another You! If we can quantify
the mass of the universe it is ipso facto not infinite and
does not contain the infinite possibilities you think it
should.

Given that - what is so unreasonable about flagging
up the "what if God does exist?" question?

T.I. CLOUGH & CO,
Solicitors, Bradford.
My first job.

When I left school in the Summer of 1976 I was nearly 19 years old.
My first job was as a trainee 'legal executive' with a firm of lawyers in
my hometown.

I worked in the criminal litigation department specialising in cases
being defended in 'Crown Court' - that is the 'superior' criminal court in
England & Wales (Scotland has a different legal system). And yes,
this is the court where the judge and barristers wear wigs and gowns!

I would read all the prosecution statements and write "a brief" giving a
synopsis of the case as I saw it. This would go to the barrister who
would defend our firm's client in court. I would also interview the
defendants and their witnesses. Sometimes I would instruct a private
detective to make enquiries on our behalf and sometimes I would do
the sleuthing myself - which I can assure you is no where near as
glamorous as it sounds! We covered cases right across the north of
England and the whole spectrum of serious crime.

When my cases came to court I would sit behind our barrister in the
well of the court and make notes on the evidence on their behalf. My
job was to ensure our side of the case flowed smoothly and that all
our witnesses were still on side; it is so embarrassing when your
own witness turns "hostile" once they get on the witness stand and
that's when the statement I took from them becomes critical in under-
mining their U-turn!

I spent four years doing this sort of work and I am grateful for the
insight it helped to give me into the ways of the world. To find oneself
mixing with the bad, the mad and the sad at the margins of our society
was a revelation.

I was once on a case out of town defending a guy on burglary charges
who, although he was out on bail, fully expected to be sent to prison
when his case concluded that afternoon. It was not unusual for our
clients to get themselves plastered in the local pub at lunchtime in these
circumstances. As it happened in this instance the judge was minded
to suspend his sentence. So there we were after the hearing with our
client breathing beery fumes over me explaining that he had no money
left in order to get home having spent every penny on booze. I gave him
some out of my own pocket. "I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave
I'll pay you back" he said. I told him not to worry about it. Experience
had taught me that sincerity is in inverse proportion to such declamations.
Of course I heard nothing more about it, until that is I bumped into
him a year or so later in our office reception. He was a habitual
burglar so that isn't altogether surprising. "I remember you", he said,
"I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave I'll pay you back [the money]".
Again I told him to forget it, "just write it off" I said. No, no he would
not hear of doing such a thing "I will pay you back". He never did.
I knew he never would. But isn't it curious? He could have accepted
my offer to 'write it off' - he didn't even have to say a thank you - all
he had to do was agree. But it is as if he was offered it as a free gift and
yet chose to steal it instead by making a promise he had no intention
of keeping. He could have walked away scot free but chose not to.
There is a parable in there somewhere.

Sometimes I'd be asked by other Christians how I felt defending
people who were obviously guilty. I would say that everyone is
entitled to have their day in court and put their side of the story.
Besides everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right? The
depressing thing was seeing the same old faces time after time,
recidivists doing "a life sentence on the installment plan!"

I quit T.I. Cloughs in 1980 and worked briefly as an oddjob man for
Harvestime Publishing before I started my nurse training. I had decided
that the law was not for me and I wanted to do something more
constructive with my working life - I know it sounds corny - but that's
why I moved into nursing as a career.

It is tempting to think crime is something that is always done by "the
criminal classes", the unsavoury element in society, the misfits and
antisocial types; not "decent" middle class people like ourselves.
I heard that T.I. Cloughs were closed down a couple of years ago after
the 'Serious Fraud Office' prosecuted some of the lawyers there. One of
them is still on the run and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest.

How's that for irony?

The Path of Brighteousness.

Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.

Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!

As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'

In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.

As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.

To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!

So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?

It's a funny old world isn't it?



tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.


postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.

Dick Lucas, The Rector Emeritus,
St Helen's Bishopsgate, London.

Dick Lucas became the rector of St Helen's when it
was a moribund church in the early 1960's. Located in
the heart of the financial district in London the church
established a ministry reaching out to those who
worked in "The Square Mile". Over the following
decades the congregation grew and now has a sizeable
student work. In recent years St Helen's has started to
plant a number of churches in the London area and
continues to support Gospel work in the UK and
overseas. Founded on the conviction that when the
Bible is taught God's Word is heard, Dick was instrumental
in reviving the concept of "expository preaching"; in
fact the satirical website "Ship of Fools" described Dick
as 'the Pope of evangelical preachers"! I have benefitted
enormously from the ministry of the St Helen's team
over the 15 years I've been a member there.

Dick, who turned 80 last year, retired as rector a few
years ago but continues to do work for "Proclamation
Trust" and is a guest preacher at a number of evangelical
events around the world.
I heard a story about Dick: after he retired he started
attending an independent evangelical church near his home
(no doubt to give the new rector some elbow room). One
morning at this church one of the deacons, trying to suss
out where this Anglican clergyman fitted into the grand
scheme of things, quizzed him on the conferences he had
attended recently to gauge just how "sound" he was. [In some
circles the term 'anglican' and 'apostate' are virtually
synonymous!] Dick clearly impressed the deacon with the
range of "reformed" conferences he had been to and the
deacon was mightily reassured about the newcomer as a
result. Dick commented afterwards, "I didn't have the heart
to tell him that I hadn't just attended these conferences but
preached at them!"

This August - while our current rector takes a well earned
Summer holiday - Dick will be preaching each Sunday
morning on the theme of "Words of Comfort on Knowing
God". If you want to hear him in person our church is a
'stones throw' from "The Gherkin" in the heart of The City
in London and our morning service starts at 10:15am
[though as of September this will change to 10:30am].
Details can be found at http://www.st-helens.org.uk/ not just
for our Sunday services but also all the mid-week meetings
including the lunchtime services.
Alternatively talks can be obtained or downloaded from
St Helen's Media at http://www.shmedia.org.uk/

BERTRAND RUSSELL on
"The Conscience of Savages!"

August 2006's thought from my Agnostic Calendar is;

"Then you have to say one or other of two things.
Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of
mankind.....which happens to include yourself - or
He deliberately says things not true in talking to
the consciences of savages."
Bertrand Russell. "A Debate on the Existence of God"
(1948) in [sic]

Bertie doesn't seem to have really grasped the issue here.
God has spoken to all people - what they then do with that
revelation is the point of contention. We have already covered
some of this ground back in May's "Calendar of Doom" with
Carl Sagan so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice it to say
that the people Bertie calls savages are made in God's image
and enjoy His blessings and His general revelation.

As a Christian I do not expect less of "the savage" than I do
of an urbane European philosopher! And as a Christian I do not
expect more from the latter either. Indeed one might have thought
that Bertie would have learnt something from his own experience; in
his earlier career he professed some less than savoury opinions on
race and eugenics - in fairness that was a fairly common failing with
many such early twentieth century philosophers.

The point is; Bertie is uncomprehending of the possibility that
something has gone wrong at our end of the chain of communication
with God and we are morally responsible for that. [Think about this
issue from the perspective of International Law and cross cultural
concepts of justice - don't get too hung up on the cant of ivory tower
philosophers]. When people justify brutality to their own
moral satisfaction (in Auschwitz, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia,
London, New York, Madrid, Abu Gharaib, Iraq, Beirut - any point of
the compass you care to name in fact!) does Bertrand Russell really
believe that there is nothing wrong with human consciences? Well, on
the strength of this quote apparently so..............................................




tagline; Calendar of Doom.

Niall Ferguson and
"The War of the World".

Earlier this week the revisionist historian Niall
Ferguson concluded his TV series on Channel 4
in the UK. His contention is that the conflicts of
the 20th Century were not ideological in nature
but fundamentally ethnic. Human ability to
treat other people as "alien" enables them to
indulge in "ethnic cleansing" without the empathy
of fellow feeling. How are we able to treat each
other as if we have come from another planet?
I often wonder if at heart all evil is actually a lack
of empathy - the inability to put oneself in someone
else's shoes.

I have to say that Ferguson's thesis seems to me
to be a re-hash of Samuel Huntington's "The Clash
of Civilizations" rather than anything desperately
original as the TV promo promised. [I've looked at
Huntington's ideas in a blog back in March '06 if
you're sufficiently interested!]

Having concluded that the world's conflicts often
defy simple explanation Ferguson goes on to attempt
a simple explanation = 'too many young men needing
economic prospects'. This is rather too simplistic in
my view, I think (for what it's worth) that young, poor
men are not so much the cause of conflict as the
unwitting foot soldiers of events outside of their
control. But then why should a historian have any
particular insight into the future?

Ferguson's final remarks which made an appeal to our
common humanity were belied by the lack of common-
ality his programmes highlighted. As a Christian I
can understand his attempt to appeal to some higher
concept which will enable us to treat each other as fully
human, but such a concept -it seems to me- cannot be
centred in humanity - we must look beyond ourselves
to truly understand ourselves. Indeed Ferguson's
appeal rests on the ability to empathise - yet to build
a philosophy on ourselves, as all Humanists do, is
actually a subtle denial of the need for empathy. How
often have you heard someones crime described as
"inhuman"? Or have you called someone "inhuman"?
The truth is what we pointlessly call "inhuman" is in
reality all too human. By calling it "inhuman" we are
making a vain attempt to distance ourselves from it
by "alienising" it [what I call "otherising" it!] I am a
Christian because the Gospel of Jesus helps me see
the world as it actually is, and Jesus does not seek to
comfort me with silly notions of my own innate
goodness but confronts me -and us all- with our
alienation from the One who is the source of all love.

"If only there were evil people some where insidiously
commiting 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." Alexander Solzhenitsyn
in 'The Gulag Archipelago'.

CHURCH HOUSE FELLOWSHIP, BRADFORD, UK. 1979-1981. For three years I belonged to, what was then, a movement whose star was rising. Locally it was called "Church House Fellowship" after thinking better of initially calling itself "The Bradford Church" no less! In other circles it was often referred to as "Harvestime" [which was actually the name of it's associated publishing business] or sometimes called "Restoration" [which was the name of it's magazine]. They were probably most identified at the time with The Dales Bible Week which they organised annually at The Great Yorkshire Show Ground, near Harrogate, UK. The church itself had been formed in the mid 1970's under the leadership of Bryn Jones (a modern day self styled "Apostle") who brought together three like minded churches in the West Yorkshire area. Although it may seem rather incongruous Bradford was one of the pioneering centres of the new born Charismatic Movement. By the time I joined Church House Fellowship Bryn had re-located to the USA and the church was being led by his brother Keri (who would also be later `recognised' as an "Apostle". [They were both from South Wales incidentally]. In fairness I should say that I had little direct contact with the "Apostles" and so the following experiences relate to their immediate lieutenants. My understanding now of the Biblical qualifications for apostleship are that they must be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1v22, 1 Cor15 v1-11 etc) so there is no such thing as a "modern day apostle". But I didn't realise this at the time. I was 21 years old when I was wowed by the seemingly inexorable rise of this particular church [or it may be that it created a big stir in a very small pond!] Whatever the reason I met up with one of the elders of Church House Fellowship (who I will denote as DaM) who gave me a "prophecy" that, inter alia, God had a job for me that no-one else could do. Of course it was all very exciting but, in retrospect, I can see that this message was full of "Barnum" statements that could equally apply to anyone. But at the time I gave enormous importance to this message - it turned my head and fed my vanity. Not surprisingly I joined Church House Fellowship shortly after leaving my previous church, which I am ashamed to say, I had come to describe as "spiritually dead"! I had accepted Church House Fellowship's teaching on "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (I had actually become a Christian a little over three years earlier), but this "Baptism", they said, was a distinct event from conversion .....some people have got it.....and some haven't. I distinctly recall CmD saying how privileged we were to have it because some people of his acquaintance had begged God for it and had not been given it. (This implies a level of capriciousness on God's part which I now feel is a terrible slur on God's character - Luke 11 v13). I don't believe for one instant that that was CmD's intention but he had clearly not thought through the implications of what he was saying. Whatever the motive there was a degree of spiritual one-up-manship in our attitude towards others which belied the graciousness of Christ. Church House Fellowship was viewed with some suspicion by other churches in the city for "sheep stealing" and because it was thought to have certain 'cultish' features to it, not least it's emphasis on "shepherding" and "submission" in regard to the leadership. Of course Church House Fellowship poured scorn on the more fanciful rumours which circulated on the grapevine but there was an element of truth to them. I recall having a discussion with one of the elders (DiS) who suggested that "if I had the faith for it, the elders could choose a wife for me"! I didn't have sufficient confidence- even then in my most credulous phase - to take him up on the offer, maybe because I was too bashful but I was certainly left speechless by his proposal. This was not exceptional, the expectation was that church members would `submit' career decisions and marriage plans to the eldership. Conceived as the loving concern of intimate friends this might pass muster but the real problem was the sheer self belief of the leadership in its own prophetic role. One speaker (GwD) said that even if the leaders seemingly made a mistake it would still be `right' in God's plan. Any hint of dissent would be met by dark parallels with Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16. One episode in particular in those years bears examination: all the members were interviewed and some [no doubt in a kindly way] were asked to leave the church; not because they had done anything wrong but because it was felt that they weren't keen enough or because they made too many pastoral demands on the eldership. This seems outrageous to me now because I can see how this attitude reflects the "Colossian Heresy" (the notion of spiritual elitism) Col 2v18. Of course, at the time, I was intoxicated by this elitism - especially as I was an insider! The vision of Church House Fellowship (as preposterous as it now seems) was that we would be an elite that would restore the world wide church to its first century glory and power as a prelude to the Return of Christ. There was to be a restoration of the "Ephesian 4" ministries - hence the justification, nay neccesity, for modern day apostles. Indeed on more than one occasion it was stated that ultimately there would only be one church - and ours was to be at the heart of it! (Which makes it all the more baffling that anyone could be asked to leave!) It was indeed intoxicating to believe that one belonged to God's elite and that the future belonged to us. It was often said that whereas other generations had failed to "bring in the kingdom" this one would succeed. If this made me boorish towards outsiders.....it is something I deeply regret now. Was God at work there in Church House Fellowship? Yes; of course, but the key thing to remember is that God is a God of grace - he even blesses arrogant, vain, boorish people but we wrongly assumed that somehow we had earned God's approval by our inherent brilliance......and that is not an uncommon mistake. Since then it has seemed to me to be absolutely critical not to confuse the Biblical concept of the "Elect" (chosen by grace) with the dubious idea of an elite! That makes me a Calvinist (and if you are in sympathy with my comments I have to say that makes you one too!) A cursory glance at the example of the Corinthian Church should alert us to the fallacy of such elitism 2 Cor 4. A Christian is `a work in progress' and not yet the glorified end product, unless we realise this we will be consumed by self-righteousness and triumphalism....or we will be destroyed by the man-made standard of perfectionism we set and fail to live upto. I will not say all of Church House Fellowship was bad, there were some wonderful people there. There were also some wonderful leaders such as Arthur Wallis (who was based in Bradford shortly before his untimely death). Whatever its faults there was a sense of excitement and expectation and a closeness that was genuine. If I had to choose a moment when I started to grow disillusioned with Church House Fellowship I would have to highlight the time when JcW was sent from St Louis by Bryn in the USA to give a series of talks. The church had always emphasised the importance of `tithing' (giving one tenth) one's gross income, but JcW took this to a new level. During one of his talks he said that it was morally wrong to give away what God had blessed you with and to give it to someone he had not so blessed. I took issue with him on this teaching after the talk. I had hoped that the leadership might distance itself from such an ungenerous and ungracious message but Keri actually took the opportunity to emphasise that this particular line had full eldership approval. The focus on 'tithing' then became 'the more you give [to the church] the more you'll get' [from God], on the basis that "God is no man's debtor" etc. I grew increasingly uneasy at the whole 'power', 'success', 'health' and 'prosperity' gospel they moved into. It seemed to me to be a materialistic, one dimensional notion of the Gospel and one that was actually, thoroughly unchristian! Alarm bells started to ring in my head, I felt very uneasy about it all, but I didn't know then how to articulate what I know now and the eldership were not minded to assist me. My personal expectations of the leadership were - of course - wildly unrealistic and immature. I expected them to be as insightful, discerning, caring and "prophetic" as they claimed to be. Maybe I was particularly vulnerable in that my father had died three years before I joined CHF but it would be unfair to present myself as a victim in this situation - I wanted to believe in them. In retrospect I probably warmed to the paternalistic style of leadership and I certainly craved their affirmation and approval. There was an element of complicity in my victimhood if you like. But the leadership did foster a cult of personality so I'm not minded to be too self critical. My disillusionment with them was directly proportional to my initial credulity, perhaps if I had taken Church House Fellowship with a pince of salt and not at face value I wouldn't have tied myself in knots! But I was very serious minded and I did take things at face value. Things came to a head in a none too articulate way in September of 1981. I met with some of the elders to discuss my misgivings which I lacked the words to express, so we parted in mutual incomprehension. Perhaps this was the inevitable clash of the "visionary" with someone like me with a valet mind. Their vision was that Church House Fellowship and its circle would so impress the watching world by it's material prosperity and miraculous healing that they would be compelled to join. Among their final words were these; "one day (if you are still walking with the Lord) you'll be faced with having to rejoin our church because it will be the only one"! I would be lying if I said that that thought didn't haunt me for the following decade. Of course it was nonsense, but they had obviously gotten underneath my skin - and the fear of being confronted again by these people [as irrational as it seems now] made me very reserved with my other Christian friends. Maybe they too would one day be absorbed into this juggernaut and I would be left behind.......at least that was my fear. The classic put down in my final meeting was "So you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong!?" I found them overbearing and left - but there was always that nagging thought in the following years - "what if I am wrong?" The continuing expansion of this church certainly seemed to confirm all the seemingly pretentious talk of the eldership. It was only after I left Yorkshire and moved to London in early 1991 that I could start to see all these things in their proper perspective. Their church loomed larger in my head than it ultimately proved to be in reality. I joined an evangelical church with an excellent Bible teaching ministry. No longer moving in those circles I don't know what became of the Jones brothers or their circle of churches. But it seems that, for whatever reason, they lost momentum, possibly because other Charismatic churches came on the scene and they no longer cornered the market. I am given to understand that the Bradford branch of their outfit has long since renewed itself along a different model....the jury is still out as to whether that is for the better. If you are sufficiently interested there was a sympathetic account written about the rise of Church House Fellowship by Andrew Walker in "Restoring the Kingdom". The latest edition was published by Eagle in 1998. Why am I writing this? And why now? First up, all these events are over half-a-lifetime ago from my perspective so I sincerely hope that any sting in what I have said here will have been drawn by now. In any event one's perspective on these things is always better when seen in a larger context and as it turned out I needed this time to judge those heady days aright. In the meantime it may well be that the protagonists I've indicated have all since come to a better mind on these issues anyway, so I have not used their names but an annotation; unfortunately it isn't really possible not to identify the Joneses but I hope that they will forgive me. It was never my intention to cause unneccesary hurt to those people who acted in good faith. More importantly, even if I had had the means to lash out at Church House Fellowship, I was reluctant at the time to bring the church (the wider church that is) into disrepute because that may have reflected badly, by association, with the Gopsel of Jesus Christ. The onlooking world often jumps to the illogical conclusion that because Christians often fail to be Christ-like the example of The Christ is somehow discredited. (If nothing else I hope that this article can help correct such perverse logic). Having started on this account of what was, after all, only a brief couple of years out of my life I found my initial draft grew out of all proportion and became therapeutic in the writing. Perhaps, on reflection, this indicates actually how significant those years were to me both on a psychological level and in terms of my subsequent spiritual development. Why should anyone care? Good question! In many respects I do not look upon my experiences at Church House Fellowship as particularly unique and so I'm writing this in the hope that others will find these thoughts helpful. Maybe there are other groups and individuals out there that are making similar claims for themselves and are gathering a following among young, impressionable, misinformed Christians who are left wide open to abuse for want of good Bible teaching. "There is nothing new under the Sun" said the Preacher! post script 14/02/2010. At www.davidmatthew.org.uk/restorationhist.html there is an article about the Restoration movement written by David Matthew who I met in 1979. He was part of the leadership team in Bradford and this article is written from a sympathetic insider's point of view. It gives a good overview of the movement but doesn't address some of the main concerns voiced at the time about the Church's direction; eg its authoritarian tendencies. The article also plays down the significance of prosperity teaching within the Church, I recall it having far greater prominence than the author is prepared to admit. With those provisos I hope that this link is helpful. ------------------------------------------------------------------ tag-line: CHF. Church House Fellowship, North Parade, Bradford. Harvestime. Harvestime Publishing, Hall Lane, Bradford. The Dales Bible Week, Great Yorkshire Showground. Bryn Jones. Keri Jones. Bryn & Keri Jones. Modern Day Apostles. Restoration Magazine. Early Charismatic Movement UK. Arthur Wallis. Latter Rains. God's Chosen Fast. Dominion. Reconstructionism. Reconstructionist. Triumphalism. Christian Counter Culture. Versus. North. England. Wales. Great Britain. Europe. New. Covenant. Ephesian 4 ministries. City of God, Thomas Danby College, Leeds. Bradford Church. 1979. 1980. 1981. 1982. 1983. The Bradford Church. Restoration. Elect or Elite? Restorationism. Restorationist. Life Abundant. Premillennialism. Premillennialist. Morality. Grace. Postmillennialism. Postmillennialist. Amillennialism. Amillennialist. Centre. Center. Peter Swift. swiftypete. The church; elect or elite?

Christian Intolerance Rightly
Understood!

"In any final analysis, it is clear everything that is good,
true and beautiful has it's origin in God, mediated to men
through that living word who has been from eternity the
revealer of the God-head.
"Did he not say that he is the light that lighteth every man?
The Christian then can trace all that is best in non-christian
religions to it's ultimate source and origin and give him
thanks. Similarly, all that is evil, false and unlovely comes
from below, for God is light and in him is no darkness at
all.
"These other religions then, like so much else in the world
of men, are made up of elements whose ultimate origins are
diverse. But in so far as these diverse elements have been
welded into systems which serve only to divert and keep
men from that way of salvation and life which cost God
himself the incarnation and the cross, the Christian must
regard them as satanic substitutes, however good they may
be in parts. This intolerance, if intolerance it be, is not that
of a sectarian and insensitive spirit, but is necessarily inherent
in the nature of the Christian message."

Professor Norman Anderson in the preface to "The World's
Religions".

QUENTIN SMITH & THE MYSTERY OF EVIL.

July 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;

"So how do theists respond to arguments like
this? [The Argument from Evil]. They say there is
a reason for evil, but it is a mystery. Well,let
me tell you this: I'm actually one hundred feet
tall even though I only appear to be six feet tall.
You ask me for proof of this. I have a simple
answer: it's a mystery. Just accept my word for it
on faith. And that's just the logic theists use in
their discussions of evil." Quentin Smith.

It may be that there are theists who believe that
evil has a purpose....karmic realinement for
instance (simple cause and effect = people get what
they deserve). A Christian is not such a theist - my
best guess is; evil as evil does not "have a
reason", it is chaos and abscence of reason, it is
Creation evacuated of all it's God given properties
- love, tenderness, empathy, creativity,joy, humour
etc. Evil is an imposter which serves no direct
purpose - indeed it cannot, for it is not part of
God's creative purpose and is antithetical to it.
Quentin Smith is naive if he expects evil to parcel
itself out justly; that is not the nature
of the beast is it? It is not without reason that
the Christian scriptures often refer to evil as
"lawlessness" - the antithesis of justice and
civilisation.

Evil exists only in the same way that the cold
exists or the darkness exists - they are the
abscence of heat and light. Furthermore if evil
was a natural part of how the world ticks ["nature
red in tooth and claw" etc] it shouldn't logically
even register on our radar because we have evolved
within its atmosphere and absorbed it - but it
does bother us, why is that? Maybe we live in a
moral universe.

Or maybe evil bothers us in an evil way! We humans
have a pathological need to shift the blame for
evil onto others and even attribute it to God. It
is the same fault the Devil has - the need to play
the "eternal victim" - in his eyes no one has
suffered more than he. The real mystery is why do
we nurture evil in our own hearts and make peace
with it? The "reason for evil" is that it is the
means by which we "otherise" evil. We see the speck
in our brothers eye and fail to see the plank in
our own! We say we have a problem with evil....
in actuality we don't.

The real question Quentin Smith is reaching for
is "why does God tolerate evil?" - he certainly
permits it for now, but that is far from saying
that it serves a purpose, at least not in and of
itself. But we have already covered this ground
with Einstein back in April's "Calendar of Doom".
God does have an unfolding plan to contain and
eradicate evil, and he may even, from time-to-time,
subvert people's evil designs to his own purposes
.....how else could a God of love respond to the
desecration of the world he created? Remember that
biblically speaking we are in the fourth act of a
five part drama. The final curtain has yet to fall.
Christians crave for God's kingdom to come; justice
to reign and evil to be destroyed. What everyone
fails to see is that we [you, me and everyone else]
are also part of the problem. We often smugly think
God should bump off the people we don't approve of
- that's pharisaism for you! Why do you think you
will be spared....what is it that you are trusting
in?... or who are you trusting in? When you are
called to account; what is it that you are going to
say to God?

There is a problem and it is this; how does God
"square the circle" of expressing his perfect love
as perfect justice with expressing his perfect love
as perfect mercy? It is quite a conundrum but I
believe God vindicates himself at The Cross!


tagline: Calendar of Doom. Nature of evil. Cross.
Jesus Christ. Judgement. Justice. Mercy. Human Nature.
Self. Righteouness. Pharisees. Pharisaical. Pharisaism. God's plan.
Justification. Atonement. God's. Plan. Versus. Compassion. Empathy.

Post-script:-
One final thought - unlike QS I firmly believe that
there is no lack of integrity in saying "I don't
know" when faced with a baffling question. That
does not mean that one won't think about the issue
and get back to them. Oh - and he's not 100 feet
tall because that is measurable - not everything
of importance can be quantified so easily....it
doesn't mean that they don't exist.