"Plebgate" is a peculiar UK controversy which has escalated out of all proportion... and for good reason! The initial cause was the allegation that a UK government minister, Andrew Mitchell MP, called officers in the Downing Street security cordon "plebs", the resulting publicity made it inevitable that the minister resigned his post. ("Pleb" is considered a patronising insult in the UK, while to call someone, its antonym, a "toff" for some reason passes without notice; but such is the reverse snobbery of public discourse in the UK).
As it turns out the Security TV footage does not accord with the police account and subsequent police inquiries have been fraught with mendacious self serving commentary. It turns out that Andrew Mitchell may be the victim of a police "fit up"!
Internet trolls have made the point that the ongoing inquiries and the cost incurred are merely the product of MPs seeking to protect their own but I believe these people miss the point entirely. If the police can "fit up" a government minister then how can any of us feel safe?
Regardless of the cost this incident needs to be investigated and if the police officers are found culpable they should be prosecuted. This particular incident comes on the back of the Hillsborough Inquiry, the mistaken shooting of Charles de Menezes in 2005, the police assault on, and subsequent death of, Ian Tomlinson etc etc etc. The fact is few police officers are ever called to account, the worst sanction often being that they resign on a full pension.
My opinions of the police were first formed a long time before any of these particular incidents. When I left school in 1976, aged 19, my first job was as a 'legal executive' in the criminal litigation department of a firm of solicitors in Bradford in the north of England. Over the course of the four years that I worked there preparing defence cases for hearing in the Crown Court (UK's superior criminal court) I moved from the naive opinion of 'if you can't trust the police who can you trust?' to one of deep scepticism. My role was to interview defence witnesses, brief the defending barrister and attend court as a note taker and adviser.
During my time at TI Clough & Co, solicitors, Market Street, Bradford, there were several cases where I was convinced the defendants had been "fitted up" by the police and in all of them, Thank God, they were acquitted. They were many less clear cut cases where the defendant was probably guilty and yet one suspected that the evidence produced by the police was concocted. Policing was then, and for all I know still is, about identifying a suspect and then finding the evidence to convict them. Let me explain why this procedure is flawed.
I had a case where a woman was being prosecuted for a serious assault on her infant. Her partner said she had done it and she herself had confessed to it. It seemed an open and shut case on the 'get the suspect and then collate the evidence'. But I sensed she was lying to protect her partner. The case came to trial at the Crown Court and fortunately the barrister felt as I did. Professionally speaking what we did next was totally unethical - even though we had been clearly instructed by our own client that she wanted to plead guilty, we cajoled her into making a 'Not Guilty' plea! As the trial unfolded we picked holes in the police case and we ignored her subsequent instructions that she wanted to plead guilty. We suspected her partner was continuing to pressurise her, but we fobbed off her instructions. The barrister spoke to me privately, "you do realise what we are doing is unethical?" I wish I had made some sort of noble comment at this point but I think I just laughed, "yeah, right!".
Our defendant, and the infant who was assaulted, were ill served by the police and the law; it is not cynical to say that the law is not the same as justice. It leaves me cold when I hear smug pundits in the media who seem to believe that the law provides Mankind with adequate notions of right and wrong, and put their trust in legal procedure. Humanists have misplaced faith in the fundamental goodness of Mankind. Human institutions are fallible and it is foolish to trust them so implicitly. I agree with King David who said, 'let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into the hands of men!'
Realising that we could never get our client to give evidence in her own defence we set about destroying the police case before it ever got to that stage. And Thank God, by the end of the prosecution evidence we persuaded the judge to throw the case out! We got her off. Of course, having backed the wrong horse, the police could not now get a conviction on the real culprit. The leading police officer even asked our advice on the issue - I wasn't overly impressed by his intelligence I have to say.
The lesson of all this; there is much talk in the media about 'transparency' and 'ethics' in public life generally not just with regard to policing, but it seems to me that "transparency" is not a substitute for trust and "ethics" are no substitute for righteousness.
Friday, October 25, 2013
Sunday, July 07, 2013
Friday, June 28, 2013
Friday, May 03, 2013
Ryan Anderson debates gay marriage with Piers Morgan
Sunday, April 21, 2013
St Helen's Bishopsgate - Resources - Blog
St Helen's Bishopsgate - Resources - Blog
Parts 2 & 3 of the Introduction to the Gospel of Mark.
Parts 2 & 3 of the Introduction to the Gospel of Mark.
Monday, April 15, 2013
St Helen's Bishopsgate - Resources - ST HELEN'S TRAINING
St Helen's Bishopsgate - Resources - ST HELEN'S TRAINING
St Helen's pioneered the use of "RML" (Read Mark Learn) and I really benefitted from joining a Bible study group looking at the Gospel of Mark in the early 1990's. It is great to see some of the content being made more widely available, especially in equipping Bible study leaders to handle the Word of God more skilfully.
St Helen's pioneered the use of "RML" (Read Mark Learn) and I really benefitted from joining a Bible study group looking at the Gospel of Mark in the early 1990's. It is great to see some of the content being made more widely available, especially in equipping Bible study leaders to handle the Word of God more skilfully.
Friday, March 15, 2013
The Day I Realised I Wasn't a Catholic!
I was raised in a Catholic family and attended RC schools until I was 18. Three of my Grandparents were Irish who moved to Bradford in the north of England before WW1, but I never knew them because they had all died before I was born. So to say that I come from an Irish Catholic family is a bit of a stretch because we had no links with the old country, and if asked I would have said I was from Yorkshire. In fact the only Grandparent I did know was a true Yorkshireman. Bradford was a boom town in the 19th Century and attracted Irish people looking for work. My Irish Grandfather, Patrick, had several brothers who emigrated to the USA. Bradford obviously had its attractions, with a sizeable population of Irish descent, even having its own soccer team, Bradford Park Avenue with its Celtic-like strip. Bradford City Football Club being its protestant counterpart.
If my ties to Ireland were tenuous my connection to the RC church was little better - I did the stuff required by the Catholic school system but had no personal attachment or sense of belonging. At primary school it was expected that all the lads would serve as altar boys in the parish church on a Sunday. I refused point blank, not that I was making any courageous sort of 'statement' by it, I just felt it looked daft! I gathered later that the Head-Sister (we were taught by nuns) spoke to my parents about this; 'doesn't he realise what an honour it is?!' In fairness to my parents, who were regular church-goers, they never pressed the issue and when I was 13 they allowed me to decide if I still wanted to go to church. I did not.
Despite going through a 'raving atheist' phase in my teens, in one respect being Catholic did remain with me. In the late 1960's when I was 10 or 11 years old 'The Troubles' started in Northern Ireland and I vividly recall the parish priest coming to our house and speaking to my mother about the possibility of the violence spilling over to the UK mainland. My mother was in genuine fear and even though I didn't understand all that was said, being of a sensitive nature too I registered that sense of foreboding. Occasionally school would finish early and I recall that we would be told to go home directly when rumours circulated that gangs were planning to target Catholic kids - often in response to some IRA bomb outrage. Looking back now it may seem far-fetched that 'The Troubles' should affect us but the fear was genuine enough at the time, even if it never came to anything.
When I was 17 I started attending an Evangelical church and it grieved me that some people I knew felt a sense of betrayal far more acutely then than when I had ceased to attend Mass.
Later when I left school, in 1976, my first job was working in the Criminal Litigation department of a firm of solicitors in Bradford. The senior partner was an amiable gent called Desmond Joyce who, as this story will go on to relate, was a pillar of the Irish Catholic community, a point I had completely failed to register. One day I took a phone call for Mr Joyce from his golf partner arranging a game, I wrote down his name phonetically having asked him to repeat it a couple of times. Later I passed on the message to the Senior Partner, 'an Italian bloke called for you' I said. He looked mystified, slowly I read out the name, 'a Signor Roncelli'. Mr Joyce looked at me in despair, 'that should be Monsignor Ron Kelly, stupid boy!'
That was the day I realised that I really wasn't a Catholic!
If my ties to Ireland were tenuous my connection to the RC church was little better - I did the stuff required by the Catholic school system but had no personal attachment or sense of belonging. At primary school it was expected that all the lads would serve as altar boys in the parish church on a Sunday. I refused point blank, not that I was making any courageous sort of 'statement' by it, I just felt it looked daft! I gathered later that the Head-Sister (we were taught by nuns) spoke to my parents about this; 'doesn't he realise what an honour it is?!' In fairness to my parents, who were regular church-goers, they never pressed the issue and when I was 13 they allowed me to decide if I still wanted to go to church. I did not.
Despite going through a 'raving atheist' phase in my teens, in one respect being Catholic did remain with me. In the late 1960's when I was 10 or 11 years old 'The Troubles' started in Northern Ireland and I vividly recall the parish priest coming to our house and speaking to my mother about the possibility of the violence spilling over to the UK mainland. My mother was in genuine fear and even though I didn't understand all that was said, being of a sensitive nature too I registered that sense of foreboding. Occasionally school would finish early and I recall that we would be told to go home directly when rumours circulated that gangs were planning to target Catholic kids - often in response to some IRA bomb outrage. Looking back now it may seem far-fetched that 'The Troubles' should affect us but the fear was genuine enough at the time, even if it never came to anything.
When I was 17 I started attending an Evangelical church and it grieved me that some people I knew felt a sense of betrayal far more acutely then than when I had ceased to attend Mass.
Later when I left school, in 1976, my first job was working in the Criminal Litigation department of a firm of solicitors in Bradford. The senior partner was an amiable gent called Desmond Joyce who, as this story will go on to relate, was a pillar of the Irish Catholic community, a point I had completely failed to register. One day I took a phone call for Mr Joyce from his golf partner arranging a game, I wrote down his name phonetically having asked him to repeat it a couple of times. Later I passed on the message to the Senior Partner, 'an Italian bloke called for you' I said. He looked mystified, slowly I read out the name, 'a Signor Roncelli'. Mr Joyce looked at me in despair, 'that should be Monsignor Ron Kelly, stupid boy!'
That was the day I realised that I really wasn't a Catholic!
Sunday, February 17, 2013
"The Handmaid's Tale" by Margaret Atwood.
As soon as I started reading this it immediately reminded me of an earlier novel by Robert Heinlein called "Revolt 2100", the basic plot is the same; a theocratic regime takes over the USA. Even some of the key characters such as "The Commander" in THT is similar to "The Prophet" in R2100, "The Handmaid" in THT has a similar role the "The Virgin" in R2100 (it is a purely honorific title of course!) Neither story is great literature but "The Handmaid's Tale" has been praised out of all proportion to its merit. I can only think that this is because it is ideologically 'right on'. Personally I found the plot implausible, but that may reflect the author's paranoid worldview. By all accounts this was written as a serious warning about the threat Christian Fundamentalism poses to democracy; which has to be either paranoia or a cynical attempt to use fear to manipulate the reader. What is certain is that no Christian I know of would feel comfortable with the Republic of Gilead and its activities. I don't think the plot has been well thought through, there are several internal contradictions - a puritanical regime forcing someone to work in a brothel? It doesn't sound likely. The book is a bit of a blunt instrument if it is genuinely meant to make a serious point. But then again I don't believe the polemic is aimed at anyone with a background knowledge of the Bible - it is aimed to confirm the prejudices of the ignorant.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)