Ryan Anderson debates gay marriage with Piers Morgan

I had never heard of Ryan Anderson before but he stands up well to hostile cross examination by Piers Morgan and guests. Clearly set up for a fall he more than holds his own and despite being goaded remains courteous throughout. Well done!

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.

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

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

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

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

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

The Sola Panel One more sip of the coffee

The Sola Panel What makes ‘progressive’ progressive?

Christian counsellor targeted by homosexual activist

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

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

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

"Religion is a Force for Good" - discuss!

In a recent public debate Tony Blair argued in favour of this proposition and Christopher Hitchens against. But much of this so-called discussion, it seems to me, is framed in post-modern language which inevitably predetermines the conclusion. Not surprisingly Christopher Hitchens had the better of the debate while Tony Blair seemed hesitant and defensive.

For example, to discuss "faith" as an abstract condition without any reference as to what that "faith" is in is completely non-sensical. Personally I am often mystified as to what people actually mean when the "faith" word is bandied around like this. This concept of faith as an abstraction is surely a post-modern imposition which invariably skews sensible discussion; it treats "faith" as a personal attribute rather than having an objective focus. The post-modern is more concerned with the journey itself rather the destination because that resolves all discussion about value judgements by internalising them as a matter of personal taste. The post-modern probably thinks he or she is doing you a favour, but by patronising people like this they are actually quite insulting without ever realising it... all because they do not have the conceptual framework to gain any meaningful insight.

The same applies to the "religion" word (barely a Biblical word at all!). The post-modern will lump all "religion" together as if it is an indistinguishable mass; and perhaps to the undiscerning it is. But it is not part of my worldview to endorse all "religion" - far from it. I could not argue that all religion is a force for good... or that even most of it is. In fact such a concept is actually anti-thetical to my belief in Jesus Christ, who made a number of exclusive truth claims.

I wonder why Tony Blair allowed himself to get into a discussion framed in terms which are, in actuality, indefensible! It is like being set up with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question - there is no good answer!

What is the opposite of Love? I've often heard people say 'hate' in reply to this question. Someone suggested 'indifference' - which is a little closer to the mark - but I believe the answer is 'self-love'. True love recognises that one is NOT the centre of the universe and that the focus is other than oneself. True love questions our concepts of 'autonomy', 'individuality' and 'self-actualisation'. If we primarily see relationships as a means to self-fulfillment then that is not love.

British Humanist Association.

I was very amused today to receive a recruitment leaflet for the British Humanist Association; spelling mistakes aside it is quite hilarious to see one's own beliefs are misconstrued by those who think they know better. I needed a good laugh. Thanks!

One of the many unsubstantiated assertions made in this literature is the assumption that a belief in God is irrational. I do not accept that premise. I believe that it is perfectly rational to believe in God. Nor do I accept that the BHA has the monopoly on rationality it supposes.

What a bizarre world the BHA lives in if it assumes that people like myself believe what we do for no readily apparent reason. Surely a rational human being would conclude that people like myself must have their reasons for believing what they do even if one doesn't accept those reasons oneself? I would argue that I have a coherant philosophy of life which accords with the world I experience.

I think what the BHA is trying to say is that they believe that life, the universe and everything can be explained in purely material terms. They would regard that as a simple statement of fact. But to say that one does not believe that it can all be explained in purely material terms is regarded by them as a "faith statement" when grammatically they are equivalent clauses. Why interpret one clause one way and make out the other to be of an entirely different order? There is an unexamined presupposition there.

Qur'an Burning in Florida. It has been reported on the news that a church in Gainsville, Florida, is proposing to burn copies of the Qur'an in order to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Ostensibly justified as a protest against militant Islam it is difficult to see how this action will not alienate all Muslims, and indeed appal all people of good-will. As a Christian, and as an Evangelical Christian at that, I want to go on record and state that this proposed action falls far short of the conduct all followers of Jesus are called to follow. The tendency among some professed Christians toward loathing and fear of Muslims in general is a denial of the Evangelical faith we claim to profess; instead of loathing we should respond with love, instead of fear we should respond with faith. I can only assume the church in question are publicity seeking but in doing so they have not brought any honour to the name of the Lord Jesus and one day they will have to account for that to Him.

"The Dictatorship of Relativism!"

Pope Benedict XVI criticised the post-modern trend toward a form of Moral Relativism which will ultimately render society incapable of formulating any coherent ethical foundation. Without a shared moral basis society will fracture into atomised individuals cut off from each other with only their personal self interest as a guiding principle. Society's capacity to discuss in a meaningful way the issues of the day will be steadily eroded. His point being that in a thoroughly relativised world we will cease to have the ability to have any meaningful public discourse.

The BBC Radio 4 programme "Analysis" attempted to tackle this topic at 9.30pm on Sunday 4th July 2010 under the chairmanship of presenter Ed Stourton.
Among the contributors were Dr Rowan Williams, Ann Widdecombe and Islamic scholar Ruzwan Mohammed who sympathised with the Pope's concern. Their protagonists were Simon Blackburn, Leslie Green & Stephen Wang.

It could have been an interesting programme but the latter group made a very poor showing. It was as if certain philosophical propositions, ie theirs, were taken to be so self evidently true and the alternative so patently false that they didn't need to engage with the discussion at all.

One of the professors of philosophy made the point that just as the Nazis stigmatised Jews so the Pope was doing to Relativists. It struck me that this was a feeble argument and bordered on smear tactics rather than a serious rebuttal of Benedict's philosophical objections. Also; as deplorable as the recent child abuse scandal within the RC Church is, it isn't strictly relevant to this discussion yet that was raised several times. Although I am not a Catholic I do not believe that one can condemn a whole people group for the faults of some. Where the RC Church as an institution has failed it has, albeit belatedly, sought to put its house in order. My point is the protagonists were determined not so much to debate the topic as sneer.

One of them pointed out that we do not live in a relativistic world anyway, people do stop and intervene when they see wrong doing. But I believe this misses the point entirely - yes some do intervene, they still have some moral compass, but it is not uncommon to hear of others walking by and refusing to get involved. There may be many reasons why such people do walk by on the other side of the street but the question being asked is are some doing so because of the pervasive relativistic attitude of "don't judge" & "don't get involved" they have lost their moral compass? It seemed to me that that self evident question was never adequately discussed.

What should have been an interesting discussion was the usual parade of BBC scoffers for whom a serious discussion was beneath their contempt.

Actually- when you think about it - doesn't that prove the point Pope Benedict was attempting to make? We have indeed lost the ability for constructive public discourse. How ironic!

post script; 15th July 2010.
Someone suggested that I should share these comments with the BBC. As a matter of principle for every negative comment I send to the media I try and have two positive comments to share about other programmes. I can't honestly say that the BBC have been very receptive to constructive criticism in my experience. Anyway the on-line comments restrict you to 350 characters (including spaces!) but my comment reads as follows:
Your critics of "Dictatorship of Relativism" made snide comments about the proposition but did not adequately engage in the topic at hand. Either the content was very poorly edited or you need to find better contributors who can properly critique this proposition. Maybe we have indeed lost the capacity for mature public discourse = QED to Benedict!

Lunchtime Service at St Helen's Bishopsgate!

If I can't get to church on Sunday because of my shift pattern I try to get to a midweek lunch time service instead.

St Helen's is located in The City near 'The Gherkin' and all the talks are downloadable for free from www.shmedia.org.uk

William Taylor is currently doing a series of talks from the Gospel of Luke. Can I recommend his series called 'Light & Lies' order code SE10/023-s1-ACD.

What is "Fairness"?
After the recent World Cup final in which Spain beat The Netherlands the Dutch coach, Bert Van Marwijk, complained that the referee was clearly biased against them because the ref had given far more 'yellow cards' against the Dutch compared to the Spanish.
At face value this is clearly true - the Netherlands team did indeed have a disproportionate number of bookings compared to their rivals and this raises the issue of "fairness" and what we mean by the word.
One of the earliest moral debates children raise is the question of how 'fair' or 'unfair' something is, and we all naturally assume we know what we mean by being 'fair'. Politicians use the word 'fairness' regularly. But what do we all mean the same thing?
If we apply a simplistic statistical model to the Spain v Netherlands game then clearly the referee was biased against the Dutch. And the logical solution would be to issue bookings on an equitable basis - a statistical model would require a simple 50-50 split. If we did this then the statistics would demonstrate 'equality', which in modern thinking is synonymous with 'fairness'.
However a "retributive" understanding of 'fairness' would apportion bookings according to the offence whoever committed them or whatever "statistical anomaly" arose.
Clearly in Marwijk's opinion the statistics settle the matter. All I can say to that is 'what a travesty of justice he would seek to impose on any sporting nation - it is shameful that anyone should seek to justify their team's disgraceful performance on this basis! Shame on you!'
Shame on you!
Provided the same rule applies to all 'without fear or favour' then we have 'fairness', the rule of law and at least a partial understanding of what The Bible calls justice.

Homosexual Marriage.

Marriage is by definition a Sexual relationship. Genital activity between people of the same gender, whatever else it might be, is by definition Asexual, therefore it is not marriage.
The biological definition of Sex is intercourse between members of opposite sexes of the same species. None of this is rocket science.

Prof Orlando Figes.
I can't help being amused by the furore over Prof Orlando Figes' anonymous on-line rubbishing of his fellow academics' books. Figes has written some wonderful books about Russian history and it seems incredible that he should stoop to such low tactics.
From a Christian perspective though, it confirms my view that one can be wonderfully talented and still be a prat!

Catholic Adoption Agency & Gay Rights.

A Leeds based Catholic Adoption Agency has won a High Court case against certain 'sexual orientation regulations' (part of the Equality Bill) which would compel it not to draw a distinction between same-sex adoptors and more conventional relationships.
A variety of lobby groups (Stonewall, The Secular Society, Humanist Society etc) have denounced this ruling as immoral and bigotted. A same-sex couple interviewed on the BBC TV the other night felt deeply angered that they were being discriminated against.
There was no evidence, to the best of recollection, that this couple had been refused adoption by this agency. Indeed one is tempted to ask why would they apply to such an agency in the first place? It should also be pointed out that no-one has an absolute 'right to have a child'!
The moral outrage seems rather contrived to say the least.

It seems that the High Court took the view that the work done by the agency in managing 'difficult to place' children was such that to effectively close them down would be a wholly unwarranted consequence of enforcing Harriet Harman's brainchild.

It would be silly to assert that the church is being persecuted by the state. And yet it strikes me that the church as a whole and other Christian institutions are being "set up" by state sponsored legislation which will encourage vexatious litigation from hostile lobby groups and individuals with their own agendas. Pressure from them and an unsympathetic media will increasingly bear down on the work done by Christian charities.

The precedent our Liberal masters are seeking to create is that the State will in future police individual consciences. No you won't be thrown into prison, but you will be subject to public vilification and, in some circumstances, the loss of your livelihood if you defy the Liberal Establishment. They might permit you a conscience just so long as you don't actually do anything with it!

Persecution of the church by the state has simply taken a modern twist - it's now contracted out!

"Evangelicals are a Force for Good", says Nicholas Kristof in The New York Times.

What is the largest US-based international relief organisation? Save the Children? Care? Neither, says Nicholas Kristof; it's actually World Vision, a Seattle-based Christian group. The organisation has 40,000 staff in nearly 100 countries - more people than all the other big US relief groups combined. While the American view of evangelicals is still shaped by "preening television blowhards and hypocrites", the reality is that a growing number of conservative Christians are "acknowledging that to be 'pro-life' must mean more than opposing abortion". They are getting out there and helping the needy, doing "superb work" on issues such as Aids and malaria. And, contrary to the myth, it's not all about proselytising. Today, such groups as World Vision "ban the use of aid to lure anyone into a religious conversion". Secular liberals, who have a "snooty" disdain for all faith-based groups, haven't recognised their contribution. Indeed, some are pushing to end the long-standing practice of channeling US aid through such groups. That would be a "catastrophe", since it would destroy many of the "indispensable networks" the US relies on to distribute emergency aid. America mustn't make the world's most vulnerable people the casualties of its own "cultural war".



As quoted in The Week, issue 757, 13 March 2010. http://www.theweek.co.uk/

"Emperor's New Clothes"!

Visiting 'Tate Modern' today I cannot help feeling that some modern art is a lot of pretentious nonsense, in fact I felt that there was more artistic merit in some of the graffiti further along the Southbank!

I had a similar experience a few months ago when visiting the Futurist exhibition at the Tate - and then going on to 'Dan Dare' at the Science Museum. The Futurist manifesto (a sort of proto-fascism in my opinion) was juvenile and the art-work little better but the 1950's British Sci-Fi hero had the merit of being truly prescient and having some cool cartoon images.