"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.

Anders Behring Brevik & Christian Fundamentalism.

Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.

UGANDAN LAW ON HOMOSEXUALITY!

There is a proposal in Uganda to pass a law which would include the ultimate sanction against homosexuals.
From an Evangelical Christian perspective I have never understood the church invoking the methods of the world to make people behave as if they are Christian. Such lobbying, at home and abroad, effectively substitutes law instead of grace, judgment instead of mercy and belies our professed trust in the sovereignty of God. When we use the methods of the world, or approve of them, we are in danger of bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ into disrepute.
In the final analysis only Christ can change people's hearts and these sorts of Post-Millennialist projects to enculturate non-believers into Christianity leaves me cold.
"Not by might, nor by power but by my Spirit, says the Lord of hosts", Zechariah 4 v6.

The Bible Timeline.

One of the problems in understanding how to read the Bible and make relevant applications from it is our tendency to read it 'in the flat' without making any allowance for context. There are many sincere Bible believing Christians who misapply the text because they do not allow for what I will call The Bible Timeline. What do I mean? The Bible is an unfolding story of God's salvation plan for mankind.... it has a beginning, a middle and an end. If you focus on one element of this unfolding story at the expense of the rest you will misunderstand it all.

I would argue that there are five acts in the Bible story (not to be confused with the Dispensations of certain Fundamentalist groups). They are Creation, Fall, Kingdom of Israel, Kingdom of God and the New Creation.

If in their mind's eye they focus on 'Creation' only - they will conclude that we live in the best of all possible worlds.... and they will have a 'Pollyann-ish' type Christianity. It will be an idealised, sentimental Christianity - actually it will be sub-Christian because it will hold to a naive belief in the perfectability of human nature outside of Christ. And it will be a belief system that will quickly hit the buffers when something evil occurs, because it has no theology of evil. It will be unable to conceive of the possibility of any sort of 'righteous indignation' at injustice and therefore God should have no issue with humanity as it is currently understood. It will be perplexed when noble, talented people do something wicked, or when suffering befalls those they consider 'innocent'.

If you emphasise the 'Fall' to the exclusion of all else - you will conclude that there is nothing good to be said about humanity and will have an unbalanced and unbiblical view of the positive things about Creation; effectively following Pagan Greek thought which held that matter itself was inherently evil.You may also deny any redemptive possibilities in those people you consider 'beyond the pale'.

Sometimes you will find some church folk talking as if we live (or ought to live) in a theocratic state - and here I believe that they are reading themselves into the 'Israel' section of the Bible narrative. They feel that somehow we will become a godly nation if only we could enact some godly laws. They will tend toward moralism rather than the grace of God and consequently they may perceive evil as an external rather than an internal enemy.... they will "otherise" evil. (Evil will always be a description of those in the 'outgroup' - they will never consider themselves evil ). It's possible that they will adopt a naive 'cause and effect' view of blessing and misfortune... 'obey the rules you get blessed, disobey and something bad will happen'. I say 'naive' because in reality this form of spiritual one-up-man-ship was rubbished by the Old Testament prophets let alone Jesus! They may also consider themselves as having some sort of prophetic role modelled on Elijah or Elisha. You may hear these people talking loosely about certain countries being "Christian" nations - which of course they are not. God's plan has moved on from simple nation building and has become something altogether 'cosmic'! We must read the Old Testament from the perspective of Jesus. (Please note: this does not mean that what was wrong BC becomes okay AD, far from it. Nor does it mean that Christians should not play an active role in a participatory democracy - we are obliged to speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves). What it does mean is that God's salvation plan has made a step change with the advent of Christ.

You will also find some church people talking as if we are already in the 'New Creation'. For them all is "glory now!" Triumphalism, miracles galore, prosperity, sinless perfectionism etc will be the idealistic marks of such believers. This is unreality; and the danger here is that sincere (if misguided) people will make promises on God's behalf that God has reserved for a future time.... this is not to deny the possibility of a measure of glory now as the Kingdom of God breaks in upon this present age.... but the final consummation is not yet. The problem here is that expectations will be unfulfilled and people will become disillusioned.... or worse, they will live in a fantasy world cut off from reality.

I believe that we are in the fourth act of the five part Bible drama. This in my view accurately describes the world we actually live in.... it is a wonderful creation which should be celebrated joyfully as God's gift, but something rotten has entered the hearts of people and consequently creation is marred by evil, injustice and suffering.... a state of affairs God cannot tolerate indefinately.

God's rescue plan is to bring about a restoration of his creation = "God's people, in God's place, under God's king". This was foreshadowed in the Old Testament but finds it's fulfillment in Jesus Christ. Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom of God but right now we live in an overlap of the ages while we wait for him to return to establish his kingdom in full. There is an uneasy co-existence of these rival kingdoms for the time being. The role of the church is to live out the values of God's kingdom even while we live in this present age. This does not mean that the church is perfected, it does not mean that Christian people are ideal. The Church is not co-terminus with the Kingdom of God. Christians are a work in progress... realising this can save us from the cynicism that may come from disappointing servants of Christ.

"The Clash of Fundamentalisms!"

The Clash of Fundamentalisms is a phrase I believe was coined by Tariq Ali who is a left wing political commentator in the UK. I am a firm believer in broadening my intellectual horizons so I read all sorts of stuff; I don't neccesarily agree with all that I read but I do benefit from the exposure to conflicting ideas. I find some of Tariq Ali's political analysis over-simplistic but it is always refreshing to read something from a totally unfamilar perspective! "The Clash of Fundamentalisms" is the title of a book he wrote in 2002.

The phrase is one that has cropped up (I note) in some serious news magazines in the UK but has been used in a way alien to Tariq Ali's original meaning. As with all such phrases they acquire a life of their own and ultimately come to represent something quite different to the author's intentions. The "Fundamentalisms" he had in view were those of Radical Islam versus Modernity or The Enlightenment. But the subsequent pundits use the phrase to mean a conflict between a form of Christian Fundamentalism represented by the Evangelical Right in the USA (fronted allegedly by George Bush) and Islamic terrorism, which are treated by the pundits as moral equivalents. In their view Evangelicals have brought down on all our heads a dreadful Islamic nemesis!

Their thesis is that Islamic terrorism arose in direct response to the proselytizing activity of Evangelicals over the last three centuries and that the war in Iraq is merely the latest manifestation of this. I believe this is utter nonsense of course.

Personally I believe that Tariq Ali's grasp on the facts is better - radical Islam has an issue with The Enlightenment - it is the godlessness of The West they are combatting not evangelicalism per se. If the pundits really do believe that people like me have provoked terrorist outrages they are very seriously mistaken. I also note that some pundits believe that people like me "make the world safe for terrorists!" Toleration, properly understood, starts where approval ends.... a point "Liberals" have yet to grasp. It isn't difficult to see where this line of reasoning is taking us - the "Liberal" is positioning himself as an innocent victim of a conflict in which he has no stake - he can equitably condemn both sides as equally evil and can vilify them all even handedly.

But having said that there are some issues here which do need to be seriously examined and the time has come to draw together a few threads as this 'blog' starts to wind down. First up we need to define what we mean by "Fundamentalism". In the early 20th Century a series of books entitled "The Fundamentals" was written by a number of leading Christian writers who sought to define Protestant Christianity in the face of the rise a combative "Liberal" theology. "The Fundamentals" were actually a broad set of beliefs but ones most Evangelicals could muster around.

In the following decades "Fundamental-ISM" arose which had a MUCH narrower remit. It has a "Dispensational" interpretation of the Gospel which brought in tow certain understandings of Middle Eastern politics which I (among many Evangelical Christians) do not identify with! "Fundamentalism" also acquired a separationist streak. This brand of Christianity was popularised by the Scofield Study Bible which was published nearly 100 years ago and caught on in a big way in the USA. The Scofield theology was later popularised in a series of books on pop prophecy. I can understand why onlookers might worry about the politics of Fundamentalism drawn from these dubious sources.

I once attended a private seminar at which a Dispensational preacher I will call Mark Sugary spoke. He had us complete a series of questions on 'Are You Born Again?' One question he had was our view on the state of the Mid-East peace process (such as it was at the time); if one thought it was 'a good idea' one might well NOT be a Christian was his conclusion! As an Evangelical Christian I took issue with him on this. He defended himself vigorously - he was NOT saying one cannot be a Christian and believe in Middle Eastern peace merely that that MIGHT indicate that you are not a Christian - my argument was that very question was utterly irrelevant because one is saved by faith in Christ alone and he was introducing another factor: it seemed to me that he was adding criteria the Bible does not demand of a believer, he reasserted that it did.... faith in Christ and the modern state of Israel were bound up inextricably together in his view. We had to agree to disagree but the reality is his opinion is not (what I will term) Classical Evangelicalism it is a modern innovation - and this, let me add, is no mere hair-splitting it is crucial to what we understand Jesus is about. Modern day "Christian Fundamentalism" isn't quite as Christian as it thinks and I have little sympathy for it but "The Fundamentals" I have no issue with..... so am I a "Fundamentalist" or not - you tell me?!

Of course in more recent years the term fundamentalism has been applied to any religiously motivated group - especially terrorist movements.

The crucial question it seems to me is "what is your understanding of The Kingdom of God"? Depending on where you place yourself in the Bible Time-Line you will position yourself on the current political map.... and whether as Jew, Christian or Muslim you believe that human force brings in God's Kingdom. I believe the Biblical position is that the Kingdom is a present spiritual reality (to be fulfilled physically when Christ returns) but those who believe in Eretz (ie Greater) Israel or an Islamic Caliphate (Kalifah) or any sort of theocracy may indeed feel mandated to use physical force. More anon about this in "The Bible Time-Line" blog to follow - but suffice to say that "Classical Evangelicalism" completely rejects the notion of any form of compulsion to bring about The Kingdom of God.... force is antithetical to its nature.... this is a uniquely Evangelical reason for the separation of church and state!

So where does that leave me? I am not recognised as a fellow believer by these Christian Fundamentalists and I feel under the cosh from "Liberals" (so called) who have no grasp on spiritual realities and who regard us all as 'tarred with the same brush'.... but let's face it you can't get much more equitable than condemning the innocent with the guilty! It was ever thus!

EVANGELICALS:
ELECT or ELITE?

The book "Father and Son" by Edmund
Gosse is an autobiographical account
of Gosse's relationship with his
evangelical father while growing up
in the mid nineteenth century. Some of
his observations and experiences resonate
with my own spiritual journey so it was a
fascinating and touching story. In many
respects his criticism of evangelicalism
(his parents were part of the Plymouth
Brethren) are ones I would endorse.
Gosse is right to point out the dehumanising
nature of religion when innocent pursuits
are arbitrarily counted as 'sinful'. And it
wasn't that Gosse's father was meaning to
be a dreadful ogre - his actions were meant
for the best - and that is the real issue isn't it?

What turns a reasonable, loving, caring father
into an ogre if it wasn't his evangelicalism?!

I believe that we can pinpoint the problem:
there is just a great a danger in living above
the line of God's Word as living below it!
(A crucial distinction between 'evangelicalism'
as a sociological phenomenon and the ideal
of the body of evangelical doctrine to which
all evangelicals ostensibly hold).

What does that distinction mean in practice?

The Pharisees of Jesus' day were orthodox,
upright people whose lives, in many respects,
were praiseworthy. The problem is in their
desire to remain unsullied by the world they
hedged themselves around with religious
requirements which God never asked for.

Not surprisingly they came to see themselves
as God's elite and that fed their spiritual pride.
Spiritual pride is an abomination to God.
They didn't just presume they were 'okay' -
they presume that they are better than okay!
Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, said
"Beware of practising your righteousness
before other people in order to be seen by
them..." Jesus challenges us with the question
'who are you trying to impress?' It is perfectly
possible to have orthodox beliefs but use
them in a self serving way - God says to
such people 'you sought the admiration of
your contemporaries.... and that is the only
reward you will get!'

It isn't wrong to seek to love and serve God
with all your heart - but it is possible to want
to do this in such a way as to be admired by
other people for it! And that poisons our
relationship with God. It is the comparing
which reveals the true state of our hearts.
Are we doing something solely to please God
or to compare ourselves favourably against
others?

'Others may be content to serve God to "X "
extent', we say, 'but I can do better'. Gosse's
father confused being "elect" with being "elite",
just as the Pharisees did, and as we continue
to do! Not surprisingly when life does not
follow the contours they had confidently
predicted - they felt some degree of grievance
against a God who had not come good on the
bargain they had foisted on Him; holding
God to account for promises He had never
made. God will not be so manipulated.


Their sense of grievance at the 'sacrifices' they
had made to no effect on a God impervious to
their demands is testimony to the nature of
the bargaining relationship they had with God
belying the evangelical doctrine they wore as
a badge of distinction!


It is not surprising that Jesus preferred the
company of prostitutes and swindlers because
they understood what the sheer grace of God
means: they had no spiritual pretensions, they
were 'elect' (that is, chosen by God to receive
His mercy) but they also knew they were not a
spiritual 'elite' - and that is the point every
true Christian needs to come to; where do you
really put your trust - in Christ's righteousness
alone or your own self righteouness?
There is no middle ground.

I should know because I was once full of it... my
spiritual credentials! Now I'm an evangelical:
elect but not "elite"!

ISLAM, EVANGELICALISM &
THE INDIAN MUTINY of 1857.


This is a letter I e-mailed to "History Magazine"
published by the BBC in response to a piece
entitled "Clash of Civilisations?" published in
the May 2007 edition, Vol 8 no 5.
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/

"May I take issue with some opinions within
the above article? Diarmaid MacCulloch makes
the point that Wahhabism had no influence
on 19th & 20th Century Islamic calls for
Indian Independence; but Charles Allen,
in his book "God's Terrorists" charts a direct
link between the two and one which
incidentally predates any Evangelical
influence which MacCulloch blames for
religious tension.
If Charles Allen is right, then to term The
Indian Mutiny "The First War of Indian
Independence" is a misnomer because it
was in reality a Jihadi movement which had
no common ground with the majority Hindu
population - no wonder the latter were
uncertain how to respond to The Mutiny.
I should add that these observations aside it
was a very thought provoking article."



"GOD'S TERRORISTS: The Wahhabi Cult and
the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad" by
Charles Allen, published by Abacus 2007,
see http://www.godsterrorists.co.uk/
ISBN 978-0-349-11879-6.


ps I hope to 'blog' a piece on the theme of
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms" in the next
month or two.

"THE MILLENNIUM!"
= Jesus is Lord!

Considering the amount of theological
ink which has been used up over the
years to describe 'The Millennium'
of chapter 20 of the Book of
Revelation one would think that the
church would have reached some sort
of consensus about its significance.
My co-leader was preparing this study
when she phoned me to say it had her
stumped and could I help; I said to
her "I would absolutely love to lead
a study on Revelation 20!"

So before we leave our review of the
last book of the Bible, I'd like to
end with some comments on this
important topic culled from my
study prep.

The issue isn't as esoteric as it
sounds because upon this interpret-
ation turns ones understanding of
'The Kingdom of God' which Jesus
came to inaugurate: this in turn
colours what we understand to be
the future of God's people and even
determines who qualifies as "God's
people". Some camps even use one's
interpretation of the Millennium
as a test of one's orthodoxy. This
is sad because what I am about to
say will cause some of my brothers
and sisters in Christ to fall out
with me, though assuredly I have
not fallen out with them.

It seems clear to me that (as
with "The 144,000" we discussed
last month) "The Millennium"
(that is 1,000 years) is a
metaphor for The Kingdom of God
as a present reality. Now some
good hearted people will object
by replying "how can you claim
we are in The Millennium now,
the world is in such a state that
it is an insult to say that God
rules! And besides which doesn't
20 v3 state that Satan is bound
during the Millennium - how can
that be a present reality?"

The crucial thing to say in reply
is that the passage specifies
exactly in what way Satan is bound,
it does not say he cannot continue
to do evil - it does say that there
is one supreme evil he cannot do;
he cannot "deceive the nations any
longer". The Good News of Jesus
Christ is out and Satan can do
nothing to contain it!

Those who come to faith in Jesus
are described as enjoying "the first
resurrection" (that is why being
"Born Again" is such a powerful
metaphor); note that those who
merely have the second (physical)
resurrection only do not share in
the blessing of the "First
Resurrection... over such the second
death has no power" v6. Someone once
summarised this by saying, 'He who
is born twice dies once, he who is
born once dies twice!"

Isn't this exactly the same theology
Paul describes in Ephesians 2 v1-10?
For sure it is couched in different
language, in a different genre, by
a different human author - but the
divine authorship shines through both
because it is the one and the same
message! There is a wonderful
consistency about it.

Jesus is Lord!




ps Incidentally why do some
people take 'the Mark of the Beast'
to be literal, when they would
never dream of interpreting 'the
Mark of The Lamb' this way - the
lack of consistency in some so-called
"literal" readings of these Revelation
metaphors should give some pause for
thought.

The 144,000.

Central Focus Bible Studies follow the
academic year and last term we concluded
our look at the book of Revelation.This
coming term we will be studying "The Upper
Room Discourse" (John 14-17). We have an
introductory talk on Wednesday 25th April
starting at 8pm at St Andrew's in St Mary
Axe, next to "The Gherkin" in the City of
London. If you are in the vicinity why not
drop in?

But before we move on from Revelation
I have a couple of observations I would
like to pass on to blogworld.
I led our group's study on Revelation
chapter 7 when we considered the
significance of "The 144,000"!
Is this a literal number? Or is it a
metaphor? The Jehovah's Witnesses
have gotten into any number of
twists and turns over this, but so
too have some of my brethren. The
real mystery is why has it produced
such bafflement? Because the very
same passage includes clues about
how it should be understood!

First up; the list of names suggesting
"Israel", isn't as straight forward as it
looks - which any modest student of
the Bible already knows.

The key to understanding it as a
metaphor is that it "says" it is a
metaphor! John "hears" the number
'144,000' and their "Names" - but
when he sees he sees a countless
number from all tribes and nations!
All literalists are stuck at this point
[to them the passage simply describes
what "is"] they do not see the meaning
beyond.

"What does '144,000' mean?" I asked at
our Bible study. "It's the complete
number" someone said, " it's twelve
times twelve times one thousand -
the superlative complete number!"

"That is absolutely right!" I replied,
"but that is what the number IS,
the question is, what does the number
MEAN?"

Obviously my telepathy wasn't all it
could be as I was met with a pregnant
pause! "What do we mean by a
superlative complete number?" I went
on.

"Why is it 12,000 - 12,000 - 12,000 etc?
Why not 11,999?

Obviously the group was stumped so I
put in my answer - in all that countless
number no one is missing! Everyone who
is meant to be there, will be there! And
furthermore they will be there by name!
Not a single one will be missing!
THAT IS WHAT THE METAPHOR MEANS!

THE ANACHRONISTIC CALVINIST.

One of the issues which Christians debate among
themselves is the issue of 'free-will' versus
'pre-destination'. In essence the question is;
'what, if anything, do we contribute to our
own salvation?'

Once I was discussing this topic with a relative
who dismissed me as a "Calvinist".... as if that
alone was sufficient to clinch the argument from
his point of view! Upto that point in time I had
never actually read anything by John Calvin;
I'd heard of him but never read anything by him.
The opinions my relative had taken such exception
to were founded exclusively on Ephesians 2 despite
his assertion to the contrary. In any event; so what?
Being accused of having Calvinistic tendencies isn't
proof that my grasp of Ephesians 2 was wrong. And
quite why he thought I would alight on this 16th
century French protestant author and attribute
all authority to his words for no readily apparent
reason remains a mystery to me to this day.

That said I have no reason to suppose that I am
not a Calvinist - I can only assume that the man
was expounding the very thing I'd seen for myself
in Ephesians. For this reason I would describe
myself as an "Anachronistic Calvinist"! I drew
my theology from the Bible and later discovered
that a label was attributed to it. The fact that
the word "Calvinist" is used pejoratively is fine
by me; I am not ashamed of the New Testament
message about the sheer grace of God towards
sinners like me. And I understand why many
people detest such a message.... it is a challenge
to human pride.

Before I read Ephesians chapter two I had a
notion that salvation worked like this; Jesus has
contributed 99.99999999999999999999999999%
of what I need to be saved, I just need to add my
0.00000000000000000000000000000001%
to make it effective. As I read what Jesus and his
disciples taught I quickly realised that there was
a HUGE problem with this theory. It means that
Jesus actually saves no-one! For sure no-one is
saved without Him but all that he did at The Cross
is ineffectual - it saves nobody if we don't add
something to it to make it work. On this reckoning
Jesus saves everyone potentially but no one in
actuality. It is my 0.000000000000000000001%
which really provides the magic ingredient - it may
be small but it is that that makes all the difference
between being saved and not being saved. Do
you see the issue? Am I saved by the grace of
Jesus Christ alone, or is it a case of "Jesus plus
something else"? (Which inevitably degenerates
to "Something Else plus jesus!" especially when
human egos are involved). Remember that even
our faith is a gift of God" so that no-one can boast"
Eph 2 v9.

If my theory was right there is something intrinsic
to me which aids my salvation. I am somehow
intrinsically more loving, or more humble, or more
innately 'sprititual' than others; something within
me that makes me better than my neighbour.
Do you see the problem? Grace properly
understood means God's totally unmerited favour.
Even "my" faith is in reality God's gift! See Ephesians
2 v8. And that is good news!
Totally unmerited favour. Wow! Thank God!
Thank God my salvation isn't down to me -
not even 0.0000000000000000001% worth - if
it was I would be lost for sure! God alone is
glorified when we acknowledge the depth of his
amazing grace.

Speaking to another acquaintance about these
things, she said "but how can I be sure I'm saved
if it's all down to God?" [This injects uncertainty
she implied]. She went on to say "I know that I
will always be found faithful" [and on that basis she
can have assurance of salvation]. When I heard her
say this I could shudder for her - if she couldn't
see that she was relying on her self rather than
Christ I'm not sure I could explain it to her.

It is worth saying at this point that the phrase
"self righteous Christian" is a contradiction in
terms. An individual who has put their trust in
Jesus is claiming Christ's righteous in place of
their own because they realise their own
righteousness is "as filthy rags" to quote the
prophet Isaiah. You can trust in yourself and
your own merits or you can trust exclusively
in the merits of Jesus Christ when you stand
before God but you cannot do both. This is not
to say that some people don't want it both ways
and are prepared to give it a try! The question
ultimately is this: who or what exactlty are
you putting your trust in?

Paul writes in Philippians 3 that he considers all
the religious 'brownie points' he'd earned by
religious observances prior to his conversion
(yes, he was "religious" before he got converted
from it!) as 'rubbish' "that I may gain Christ and
be found in him, not having a righteouness of my
own..... but that which comes through faith in
Christ". ['Faith' in the 100% sense, not the
99.999999999999999999999999999% version].
This is the big difference between 'religion' (which
is about clocking up merit by means of religious
observances which is the natural default setting of
us humans - bearing in mind that even atheists
have their means of moral 'one-upmanship') and
The Gospel of Jesus which is about trust in him
and a positive rejection of all such self confidence
..... even if it is only 0.0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000001%.

ps To this day I haven't yet read "Calvin's Institutes"
but then neither had the Apostle Paul - I guess that
makes him an "Anachronistic Calvinist" as well! Hmm....
Jesus too!

The REVELATION of
JESUS CHRIST.

The book of Revelation consists of seven
cycles of seven. After each of the 'sevens'
we get an action replay - taken from a
slightly different angle (which is why
there are so many "final" battles!) The
sequence can be charted as follows (with
the relevant chapters in brackets):-

Prologue (1)...........Letters (2-3) = 1st 7.
[replay]
Interlude (4-5)......Seals (6) = 2nd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (7).........Trumpets (8-9) = 3rd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (10-11)...Beasts (12-14) = 4th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (15)........Plagues (16) = 5th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (17-18)...Visions (19-20) = 6th 7.
[replay]
[No Interlude] Final 'Sabbath' Consummation.

Once one realises that the book isn't linear
but a series of repeating cycles then its
message and meaning become much clearer.
The book is not a Christian version of
Nostradamus, which is how it is often abused,
it is exactly what the author says it is; "The
Revelation of Jesus Christ" 1v1.

When our focus starts to slip from Jesus and
draws us into speculative conspiracy theories
alarm bells should start to ring! If the focus
isn't Jesus the message can't be Christian can
it?

THE GOD DELUSION.

As a prelude to the Christmas season can I make a plea
to all my fans out there in blog-world? Please do not put
a copy of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" in my
Christmas stocking!

It seems to me that this guy has achieved a prominence
way beyond his abilities by making a career out of winding
up Christians like myself. Our protestations of innocence at
his anti-religion scattergun diatribes only boost his notoriety
and his subsequent book sales. The real challenge Dawkins
presents us with is not his huffing and puffing but our own
internal urge to rise to his bait!

The best thing to do is ignore him. So my New Year's
Resolution is; his name will not appear again in this blog.

For Richard Dawkins' fans out there let me pose a challenge
to you. In "The Sunday Telegraph" review section 'Seven'
published in the UK on 17th the Dawkins' line about religion
is repeated that killing is 'something you might well do if
you've been taught from babyhood upwards that your God
will approve of such behaviour. You don't have to produce
evidence to support your belief. You simply say, "It's my
faith", and are blind to any argument. If part of your faith is
the righteousness of killing infidels or apostates, then that
does seem to me to go further than the ordinary aggression
which you [the interviewer] attribute to humans anyway.'

Well I suppose you might think that given such a scenario
- just as any secular demagogue did with their dissidents.
The issue is; is the nature of religious faith inherently evil
in a way that, say, totalitarianism is not? Apparently
Dawkins would say 'yes'. I don't rate his chances at having
a cosy chat with the likes of Robespierre, Stalin or Pol Pot....
but hey what do I know? I suspect that what Dawkins really
means is not that rational argument is impossible with those
of a religious persuasion, but that such a dialogue is
impossible for him! And that is quite a different matter.
Dawkins may well lack the empathy required for reasoned
discussion but it is illogical to conclude that no-one else can
do it either. To have a rational argument requires making
some attempt to understand the other person's rationale and
just because it is not his rationale does not mean that there
is not a rationale; Dawkins doesn't have to agree with it to
try to understand it. At least you and I are managing to have
a reasonable discussion right now aren't we?

I don't know why I take this so personally because I don't
recognise Dawkins' caricature - maybe I'm more sensitive
than most. Okay the challenge is this: let's get down to
cases, search my blog and find some evidence for the
notion that I advocate killing people. Go a step further -
search the audio library of my church - there are several
decades worth of talks there - where is the evidence that
anyone there has ever urged violence? http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
He says it's from babyhood - okay; check out the Sunday
School material at http://www.tntministries.org.uk/ - where is the
proof that children are being taught to kill in God's name?
And remember - in all of this - we are not discussing
whether Christians fail to live by the principles they advocate,
but whether those principles are themselves inherently evil
....that is the 'Dawkins Doctrine'.

The Christian position is that God alone has the right to
judge an individuals' heart - I cannot do it because I do
not know what God knows. Not only that but I have no
right to do this in God's name because I too am a sinner,
who will be judged against the measure I use! And there's
the rub - one would have to construe God's deferred
judgement as a present day mandate. The Gospel requires
me to forgive others on the basis that God in Christ has
forgiven me. The petty grievances I nurture must be
relinquished in the light of the forgiveness of God I've
received. Those of you who have suffered some dreadful
crime must also seek to forgive but that ability to forgive
one's enemies is not founded upon a shrug of the shoulders
in a "it doesn't matter", vague, sort of way. It is founded on
the ability to commit our deepest wounds to a just God, who
sees all our hurts and who judges wisely, and to whom we
and our assailants will one day be required to give a full
account. Furthermore as a Christian I cannot despise a fellow
sinner because 'there but for the grace of God go I!' God's
love is expressed in two ways - his love of mercy and his love
of justice. I cannot see how he'll square that circle - but I
trust that he can do it - and in reality that is what 'faith' is,
trusting in the character of God revealed in Christ.

If you find this murderous evidence I'll join you on your side
of the barricade - and you know who else will be there?
Jesus! You might not have heard that he taught his disciples
to 'turn the other cheek' and 'love your enemies' etc and
the apostle Paul also concurs in Romans 12v14-21. [I do not
mean to be patronising in saying all this; if you source your
information from the likes of Dawkins you may well not know
that it is upon Jesus that the Christian attitude to others is
to be founded]. Of course you will find 'crack pots' if
you look hard enough [you find them in every society] but
it is entirely disingenuous to talk up these examples as
representative.

In fact there is an interesting scrap between Jesus and
his disciples in Luke chapter 9 v51-56 which is very inform-
ative. Jesus is en route to Jerusalem and is passing through
a Samaritan village which rejects him; his disciples ask if
he wants them to call down fire from heaven on the villagers.
Jesus rebukes his apostles and continues his weary way to
The Cross.







tagline: Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion. Dawkins' God Delusion.

Postscript: for further reading can I recommend Alister McGrath's
"Dawkins' God". Blackwell Publishing ISBN-13: 978-11-4051-2538-3.

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.