Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Media. Show all posts
Friday, May 03, 2013
Ryan Anderson debates gay marriage with Piers Morgan
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.
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.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Sign the Petition.
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Giles Fraser, Atonement & Child Abuse.
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Monday, August 01, 2011
New Bogeymen and the Media Meta Narrative.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.
The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.
The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Neverland Matrix.
I was once caring for an 8 year old who was critically ill in Intensive Care; Ventilated, on multiple inotropes and on CVVH.
A relative was keeping a vigil by her bed side during the night. In the small hours when everything was quiet we got to talking. He held the young girl's hand and quietly shook his head.
'When I watch TV and I've had enough sadness - I press the doofer and its gone and everything is happy. When I'm fed up with the news and all that stuff I just go...' He mimed pointing a TV remote control. 'One click...', he clacked his tongue, '...and its gone from my life'. He sighed.
'Well... I keep clicking and it is all still here.... it doesn't go away!' he said.
The world as presented by TV is a double illusion. It not only portrays a distorted sense of reality; it also implies a distorted measure of control of that reality. Cocooned from the hardships most humans face daily a viewer drinking deeply in the media well may sincerely believe that 'all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds'... and if it isn't we can always turn over.
It is only when real reality intervenes that our perspective is reorientated and both those perceptions, a false reality and a phoney sense of control, are shown to be illusions. How many people go through life mired in illusion, thinking that perception is the reality? What does it take to wake people up?
I was once caring for an 8 year old who was critically ill in Intensive Care; Ventilated, on multiple inotropes and on CVVH.
A relative was keeping a vigil by her bed side during the night. In the small hours when everything was quiet we got to talking. He held the young girl's hand and quietly shook his head.
'When I watch TV and I've had enough sadness - I press the doofer and its gone and everything is happy. When I'm fed up with the news and all that stuff I just go...' He mimed pointing a TV remote control. 'One click...', he clacked his tongue, '...and its gone from my life'. He sighed.
'Well... I keep clicking and it is all still here.... it doesn't go away!' he said.
The world as presented by TV is a double illusion. It not only portrays a distorted sense of reality; it also implies a distorted measure of control of that reality. Cocooned from the hardships most humans face daily a viewer drinking deeply in the media well may sincerely believe that 'all is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds'... and if it isn't we can always turn over.
It is only when real reality intervenes that our perspective is reorientated and both those perceptions, a false reality and a phoney sense of control, are shown to be illusions. How many people go through life mired in illusion, thinking that perception is the reality? What does it take to wake people up?
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Veteran presenter slams ‘Guardianistas’ at the BBC "VETERAN PRESENTER SLAMS 'GUARDIANISTAS' AT BBC." Michael Buerk criticises the BBC for its bias and for taking its creed from the Guardian newspaper. The piece is interesting although I do find the use of the phrase 'political correctness' overused and tiresome these days. I also feel very strongly that the word liberal (a great word!) is too often misapplied to the metropolitan elite who in practice do not believe in liberty but have taken on themselves the role of policing those beliefs they disapprove of. They have a meddling statist attitude which presuposes that they know best for everyone.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
"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!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
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!
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!
Saturday, March 06, 2010
"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.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Melvyn Bragg on Calvinism.
I really enjoy the BBC Radio 4 programme "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg. With a few invited experts he will discuss some esoteric subject for 45 minutes and help his audience to stretch their intellectual reach. I love the series as a whole.
Today Melvyn and his guests discussed Calvinism. I suppose I always feel rather cheated when the media tackle some Christian theme because they often focus on the socio-political aspects of the topic ,which is fair enough as far as it goes, but it is often to the exclusion of all else.
Sadly this programme ran true to form; the biographical details were covered, tick; the psycho-social aspects were explored, tick; and the political implications were discussed, tick. But I find it hard to conceive how one can talk about Calvinism without adequately discussing the theology of Grace!
All these other themes - as valid as they are - are actually peripheral. It would be like discussing the American Revolution, the characters and battles, but fail to discuss the underlying political philosophy.... the reason behind it all.
It is frustrating to be an informed listener when the media's experts, as erudite as they are, haven't really got to the heart of the matter. But maybe I shouldn't be so surprised because grace is a very difficult subject to grasp............
I really enjoy the BBC Radio 4 programme "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg. With a few invited experts he will discuss some esoteric subject for 45 minutes and help his audience to stretch their intellectual reach. I love the series as a whole.
Today Melvyn and his guests discussed Calvinism. I suppose I always feel rather cheated when the media tackle some Christian theme because they often focus on the socio-political aspects of the topic ,which is fair enough as far as it goes, but it is often to the exclusion of all else.
Sadly this programme ran true to form; the biographical details were covered, tick; the psycho-social aspects were explored, tick; and the political implications were discussed, tick. But I find it hard to conceive how one can talk about Calvinism without adequately discussing the theology of Grace!
All these other themes - as valid as they are - are actually peripheral. It would be like discussing the American Revolution, the characters and battles, but fail to discuss the underlying political philosophy.... the reason behind it all.
It is frustrating to be an informed listener when the media's experts, as erudite as they are, haven't really got to the heart of the matter. But maybe I shouldn't be so surprised because grace is a very difficult subject to grasp............
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Equality Law and the Christian Church.
Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.
There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).
So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.
It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?
Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.
There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).
So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.
It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?
Monday, May 25, 2009
Clifford Longley.I love listening to radio 4 - unfortunately there are occasional bits of grit in my breakfast that have to be endured like "Thought for the Day" on the "Today" programme. This morning I had that awful sinking feeling as I listened to the contributor.
Clifford Longley is a journalist with a long career commenting on religious affairs so it is more with a sense of depression rather than any other emotion that I say what I am about to say. I barely know where to start in unravelling his confection of platitudes... any way here goes.
The notion that people make ethical decisions based on whether they believe they may be rewarded or punished and that atheists, having no such motive, can actually operate on a higher ethical plane leaves me speechless. This is such a childish notion.
The adult reality is that people make ethical decisions based on the worldview they hold to. If one is a thoughtful Christian one makes Christian decisions. An atheist will make choices consistent with that worldview. If it happens that one is an atheist who follows a none Social-Darwinian ethical process then one does so because one instinctively knows (by God's 'Common Grace'!) that such a course is right even if one finds oneself acting in a logically inconsistent manner. That is hardly operating on a higher plane.
The bishop CL was damning on air I suspect was actually pointing out that our values arise from the worldview we hold to be true. Reading between the lines of CL's garbled account the poor bishop was probably simply affirming a Christ centred worldview (which is his job afterall!) but that obviously went completely over CL's head.
A Christian may act unChristianly/Atheistically. An Atheist may act unAtheistically/Christianly. It all depends on the operating worldview. But this is all beside the point because merit is not earned in God's eyes by what we do. That implies that correct ethical choices put us in God's good books but that is not how it works! We all foul up from time to time - so the adult issue is how now do we get right with God given the reality of our failure? As a Christian I believe in Jesus not in my capacity to make correct ethical choices. A Christian, by definition, is someone who has come to a point of repentance rather than the media caricature of someone who is self-righteous, ie someone who believes that they always make correct choices!
As a Christian I seek to make ethical and personal choices consistent with the world as it actually is; though in my weakness I often feel brow-beaten by media pundits pushing the official line and find myself compromising against my better judgement. And when I do fail my primary concern is not fear of being punished it is the sense I have of not having 'walked worthily of Lord'. Others may make ethical choices on worldviews they are in a better place to explain. I seek to make choices which please the Lord, so reward/punishment are not the primary consideration! The ethical debate lies elsewhere entirely in the nature of reality and truth and relationship with God.
Clifford Longley's piece this morning is merely yet another example of the infantilisation of religious discussion in the country when it is crying out for informed comment and debate.
Monday, April 20, 2009
RCN Consultation onAssisted Suicide.
The Royal College of Nursing in the UK is presently carrying out a consultation among it members to see what the consensus of professional opinion is about 'assisted suicide'. So if you are a member and have an opinion on this topic you have until 22 May 2009 to send your views into the RCN.
One of the worrying aspects of this so-called "debate" is how the pro-euthanasia lobby frequently misrepresent the issues in the media and not infrequently caricature people who object to euthanasia as motivated by ill-will or sheer ignorance.
For example; the case is often put forward that it is accepted 'custom & practice' for patients to die in pain and that they are subjected to unwanted medical interventions. These commonly accepted fallacies are repeated so often and so authoritatively that the innocent public are unduly influenced by them. It is no surprise that public opinion is moving towards euthanasia but the fact is they are faced with the phoney "false choice" argument ie 'do you want your loved ones to die in agony, yes or no?' Who in their right minds would say anything but 'no!' given that proposition?
I have worked in children's and adult's critical care for more years than I care to remember and I can honestly say that I do not recognise the caricature of our profession.
First up, it is NOT acceptable practice for patients to be in pain - that is not acceptable and there is no excuse for it. If the disease process is such that pain control foreshortens life then so be it - that is not euthanasia or assisted suicide - that is effective pain management. This is exactly the same legal situation as someone dying as a consequence of any other medical treatment aimed at controlling the disease process.
Secondly, everyone has a right to refuse medical treatment. All interventions require informed consent. No one has any intervention "forced" on them - indeed to do so is a criminal offence! (There are some legal exceptions of course - when the mental capacity of the patient may be in doubt - in which case there are legal procedures to be followed). In my experience it is more often the case that family members insist on medical interventions when the professional consensus is that further treatment is futile.
Thirdly, the withdrawal of treatment is not euthanasia or assisted suicide. The purpose of medical treatment is to enable the patient to make a recovery. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible then active treatment may be withdrawn and the disease process allowed to take its course.
None of the above are the cause of any ethical or professional dilemma! Okay? Clearly the truth does not suit the pro-euthanasia lobby's arguments which is why they resort to caricature.
When the pro-euthanasia lobby stress the 'pain' people are suffering we must of course exclude physical pain because that can and should be adequately treated. I suspect the 'pain' they refer to is existential pain - the pain we will all have to face at some time in our lives as human beings living in a fractured world. How far do you really want to push the limits of state sanctioned suicide as a cure for this? It is no surprise to me to hear that people who are physically healthy but feeling depressed are being offered suicide at a Swiss clinic. Given everything I have said above about the reality of pain control and informed consent and withdrawal of treatment I do not see where the pro-euthanasia lobby is attempting to take society except down the same route.
Oh! And no I am not motivated by ill-will!!!
ps there is a video about this RCN consultation at http://www.policyreview.tv/embed239/882
Monday, April 13, 2009
Thought for the Day.
Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney in London, was giving this morning's "Thought for the Day" on BBC radio 4's "Today" programme. He took issue with those Christians who emphasise the significance of the Cross. He said that such an emphasis "left the resurrection 'with nothing to do'!" It seems rather self evident to me that you cannot have the resurrection without first having the cross and actually, when you think about it, the cross gives profound meaning and significance to the resurrection.
But Giles clearly has an issue with the Cross as "all about violence and retribution". In a way, that is not unusual, many people (such as Steve Chalke etc) find the atonement concept outrageous. They will say that it is fundamentally unjust but I think what they actually baulk at is the neccesity of the Cross. Human nature is not so bad that any atonement is neccesary; which is a Humanist worldview rather a Christian one.
For Giles the Cross is an example of Christ sharing in humanity's suffering... please do not misuderstand me, that is perfectly true and I am not denying it, but while it is the truth and nothing but the truth it is not the whole truth. Jesus himself said that his death would have a much richer, far deeper meaning than that, the Cross is not a later theological construct as some allege.
The thing is what really struck me was that Giles sounded so angry about it all - there was some venom in his delivery that astonished me. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised because he was in the unfortunate position of proposing a poorer and shallower theology than the one he was attacking. Or maybe he was deliberately trying to be provocative.
No doubt some of my fellow Evangelicals might be considering penning a robust counter-attack. I hope that they will do so graciously in a way that will speak to him rather than merely confirm his preconceived ideas. We need to respond with grace if we are to defend the Gospel of Grace.
I notice that Giles Fraser also had a column in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday attacking the Cross in pretty much the same terms as Steve Chalke did a few years back when he described it as "cosmic child abuse". (Incidentally the media seems to have given a fair wind to this particular theological stance hasn't it?) Obviously it is difficult to gauge the tone of a written piece but, again, Giles does seem to be a very angry man.
The fact that an innocent party is punished in my place IS unfair and unjust. But this is an act done in the context of Trinitarian Christianity (it will make no sense outside such a worldview!) God willingly takes on HIMSELF the punishment rightly due to me. That is indeed unjust, but God is a God of Grace.... and grace is not about getting what I deserve - quite the contrary! Not only do I not receive what I do deserve, but I also receive what I do not deserve in exchange (the righteousness of Jesus himself!) and I have all the privileges that come with it. [God's Riches At Christ's Expense!]
One day we will all face God; are you going to front up to him and demand justice? Or like me you may not have such confidence in your own righteousness in which case you, like me, will not be asking for justice but asking for mercy and grace!
Giles Fraser, the vicar of Putney in London, was giving this morning's "Thought for the Day" on BBC radio 4's "Today" programme. He took issue with those Christians who emphasise the significance of the Cross. He said that such an emphasis "left the resurrection 'with nothing to do'!" It seems rather self evident to me that you cannot have the resurrection without first having the cross and actually, when you think about it, the cross gives profound meaning and significance to the resurrection.
But Giles clearly has an issue with the Cross as "all about violence and retribution". In a way, that is not unusual, many people (such as Steve Chalke etc) find the atonement concept outrageous. They will say that it is fundamentally unjust but I think what they actually baulk at is the neccesity of the Cross. Human nature is not so bad that any atonement is neccesary; which is a Humanist worldview rather a Christian one.
For Giles the Cross is an example of Christ sharing in humanity's suffering... please do not misuderstand me, that is perfectly true and I am not denying it, but while it is the truth and nothing but the truth it is not the whole truth. Jesus himself said that his death would have a much richer, far deeper meaning than that, the Cross is not a later theological construct as some allege.
The thing is what really struck me was that Giles sounded so angry about it all - there was some venom in his delivery that astonished me. But perhaps I shouldn't be surprised because he was in the unfortunate position of proposing a poorer and shallower theology than the one he was attacking. Or maybe he was deliberately trying to be provocative.
No doubt some of my fellow Evangelicals might be considering penning a robust counter-attack. I hope that they will do so graciously in a way that will speak to him rather than merely confirm his preconceived ideas. We need to respond with grace if we are to defend the Gospel of Grace.
I notice that Giles Fraser also had a column in the Guardian newspaper on Saturday attacking the Cross in pretty much the same terms as Steve Chalke did a few years back when he described it as "cosmic child abuse". (Incidentally the media seems to have given a fair wind to this particular theological stance hasn't it?) Obviously it is difficult to gauge the tone of a written piece but, again, Giles does seem to be a very angry man.
The fact that an innocent party is punished in my place IS unfair and unjust. But this is an act done in the context of Trinitarian Christianity (it will make no sense outside such a worldview!) God willingly takes on HIMSELF the punishment rightly due to me. That is indeed unjust, but God is a God of Grace.... and grace is not about getting what I deserve - quite the contrary! Not only do I not receive what I do deserve, but I also receive what I do not deserve in exchange (the righteousness of Jesus himself!) and I have all the privileges that come with it. [God's Riches At Christ's Expense!]
One day we will all face God; are you going to front up to him and demand justice? Or like me you may not have such confidence in your own righteousness in which case you, like me, will not be asking for justice but asking for mercy and grace!
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"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!
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)