SCIATICA ! - and the Gift of Time!

On the morning of my planned departure to the Lake District
I awoke at 5am with an absolutely excruciating pain in my left thigh.
I phoned NHS Direct - 0845 4647 - who took some details and
passed my case to the on-call Doctor at my local surgery.

The upshot is I probably have a problem with my Lumbar
Spine - could be a prolapsed disc compressing my sciatic
nerve. Maybe I'm a bit of a wuss but I have to say I have
rarely ever had such pain before so I'm thankful to have
been prescribed Diclofenac, Dihydrocodeine and Paracetamol
(aka Acetaminophen in the USA), along with some Diazepam.

In all of this there are mercies I can truly thank Jesus for;
[1] that it hadn't happened the next day when I would
have been stuck on a campsite, or [2] worse still to have found
myself immobilised by pain on a mountain....taking up the
valuable time of a mountain rescue team.

Although my mobility is severely curtailed, I have been given
the valuable gift of time having been signed off from work. All
the books I've never gotten around to finding time for I can read
now. Also during the night when I've been unable to sleep I've
listened to some great audio-books - Bill Bryson's "A Short
History of Nearly Everything", Tom Holland's "Persian Fire"
(a gripping account of the war between ancient Greece and Persia)
and Robert Harris' "Pompeii". [Amazon.co.uk are going to do some
great trade with me over the next few weeks!]

I read Alister McGrath's "Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes
and the Meaning of Life" in one sitting.....that is a cracking
book from a Christian perspective - well argued in both
senses of the phrase; thoughtful and gracious! [I wish more
Christian literature was like it!]

Time is a precious gift - maybe I have been given the
opportunity to come good on all those past New Years'
Resolutions I usually end up forwarding!

This is a photo of me in 2002 on top of Helvellyn in the Lake district.
I first went to the
Lakes on a school excursion in the early 1970's. Apart from the occasional trip to the seaside I had never been outside of a town. One day on this excursion we went to Borrowdale and
climbed Great Gable. I was totally awestruck by the sight of these amazing mountains -
I had never seen the like in my entire life! I fell in love with the place and I have returned here whenever I could.

In the immediate aftermath of this school trip I used to regularly get myself invited to visit my cousins who had just moved to Skipton in North Yorkshire - the bus journey was magical to me as streets and factories gave way to open fields and hills. It was like journeying from one planet to another.
I had no idea that the Yorkshire Dales were on my doorstep! I had learned to love the grandeur of such open spaces.
As I write this I am planning on a camping trip back to the Lakes to continue my exploration of the Ullswater area.l

CARL SAGAN:
Out of the Silent Planet!

May 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-
"What I'm saying is, if God wanted to send us a message,
and ancient writings were the only way he could think of
doing it, he could have done a better job." Dr Arroway
in Carl Sagan's ["CONTACT"].

First off, it should come as no surprise that God has spoken
throughout history - so the writings would be ancient wouldn't they?
From a Christian perspective God is not limited to writing - he
speaks through Creation (Romans 1), he speaks to the
consciences of people (Romans 2) and we believe that God
has revealed himself definitively by being born as a human
being and so revealing God to man in Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1).

On the specific issue of ancient texts it is clear on any objective
count that when one compares other ancient writings, such as
the Mesopotamian creation, flood and Gilgamesh stories etc,
with the Bible one realises that it is in a different league. While
the other texts relate amoral tales of the pantheon the Bible
lays a foundation of ethical monotheism and as such touches
us directly in a way that the other texts cannot (as we saw last
March with Gene Roddenberry). This is not to say that the
pagan writings are not gripping yarns. Equally this is not to say
that it is always easy for christians to correctly apply the Biblical
text, which is why we are keen to ensure that it is set in the right
context....in a nutshell we are living in the fourth act of a five part
drama!

Sagan was instrumental in the design of the plaques fitted to the
Voyager spacecraft launched in the 1970's to explore the outer
solar system; these robots are now heading out into interstellar
space. Wouldn't it be ironic if in the future these were recovered
by some extra-terrestrial civilisation only to be met with the same
sniffy disdain as Sagan's? What if they too looked with contempt
at this, what will be by then, ancient writing - (well it would be
wouldn't it?) - "Is this the only way Sagan could think of sending
a message?!" - and missed the true significance of what was before
them; "you are not alone!"

The real issue here is not the antiquity of the communication, or
the mode or even the efficiency of the revelation - the real issue
is the message itself....because of the implications it may have
for the recipient. The problem is not transmission but receptivity,
the recognition that "we are not alone" theologically means we are
not the centre of the universe, and some people will find that hard
to hear.



tagline: Calendar of Doom.

THE MATERIALIST.

As an explanation of the world, materialism has
a sort of insane simplicity. It has just the quality
of the madman's argument; we have a sense of it
covering everything and the sense of it leaving
everything out. Contemplate some able and
sincere materialist, as, for instance Mr McCabe
[a noted anti-Christian rationalist of his day],
and you will have exactly this unique sensation.

He understands everything, and everything does
not seem worth understanding. His cosmos may
be complete in every rivet and cog-wheel, but still
his cosmos is smaller than our world. Somehow
his scheme, like the lucid scheme of the madman,
seems unconscious of the alien energies and the
large indifference of the earth, of fighting peoples
or proud mothers, or first love or fear upon the
sea. The earth is so very large, and the cosmos is
so very small. The cosmos is about the smallest
hole that a man can hide his head in.

GK Chesterton (1874-1936) from his book
"Orthodoxy", published 1908.

"JESUS OF THE SCARS"
by Edward Shillito.

The other gods were strong;
but thou wast weak;
they rode, but thou didst
stumble to a throne;
but to our wounds only
God's wounds can speak,
and not a god has wounds,
but thou alone.

ALBERT EINSTEIN QUESTIONS
THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

April 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:
"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurence,
including every human action, every human thought,
and every human feeling and aspiration is also His
work; how is it possible to think of holding men
responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such
an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and
rewards He would to a certain extent be passing
judgment on Himself. How can this be combined
with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to
Him?" Albert Einstein, "Out of My Later Years"
(New York: Philosophical Library, 1950) p27.

It seems to me that, Christians -who have actually
wrestled with these issues more than they are credited
with- can put the question more succinctly; "how do we
reconcile God's sovereignty with human responsibility?"

The obvious point to make is that Albert is confusing
being all powerful with being all initiating. That actually
isn't the Christian case, not even to a Calvinist like me!
It is certainly true that the scriptures never present God
as the victim of circumstance, but rather as someone
who works out his redemptive purposes irrespective of
events initiated by free agents. There is a redemptive
outcome to which God's actions drive. We see this with
Joseph, sold into slavery by his brothers. In Genesis
50v20 Joseph describes this act of betrayal as follows,
"you intended to harm me, but God intended it for good
to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of
many lives." We see this principle worked out supremely
in the cross of Christ; Peter on the day of Pentecost said
"this man was handed over to you by God's set purpose
and fore-knowledge; and you, with the help of wicked
men, put him to death by nailing him to the cross..."
Acts 2v23. And in so doing God did pass judgment on
himself, though not in the way Albert means. God is
never wrongfooted by evil, but rather he has set in
train - through the cross of Christ - a redemptive
purpose in human history.

No analogy is ever quite perfect but try this one for
size; when a chief fire fighter says "the fire is under
control" that officer is saying 'that fire is going
nowhere and it will be extinguished'. It may be that
the fire is quenched here and allowed to burn out
elsewhere, but it is being controlled, contained and
defeated. "Why not dynamite the building and destroy
the fire instantly" one might reply. The reason is because
there are people inside who need to be rescued first and
the motto of this fire department is 'the saving of many
lives'! God isn't ready yet to bring the house crashing
down but that does not mean he has made peace with
evil. Indeed this is an example of something God
cannot do. God cannot forebear evil indefinitely, not
because he is somehow constrained by evil but because
he is constrained by love.

Of course it is always possible to insult the fire officer as
an arrogant pompous ass who doesn't know what he
is doing. You might even have the gall to accuse him
of being the fire-starter - in which case, in fairness, one
would have to check what the fire has cost him personally
and in this instance it cost him dear. In the final analysis
there is only one issue: are you going to trust the fire
fighter or the fire?




Tagline, Calendar of Doom.

EUROPEAN UNION LANGUAGE
HARMONISATION DIRECTIVE.

It is agreed that English will be the official language
of the European Union, rather than German, the
other possibility. As part of the negotiations, Her
Majesty's Government conceded that English
spelling had some room for improvement and has
accepted a 5-year phase-inplan for what will be
known as Euro-English.

In the first year, "s" will replace the soft "c".
Sertainly this will be selebrated by sivil servants.
The hard "c" will be dropped in favour of "k".
This should klear up konfusion, and keyboards
kan have one letter fewer. There will be growing
publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the
troublesome "ph" will be replaced by "f". So words
like fotograf will be 20% shorter. In the third year,
publik akseptance of the new spelling kan be
expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated
changes are possible.

Governments will enkourage the removal of double
letters which have always ben a deterent to akurate
speling. Al wil also agre that the silent "e" is a disgras
and something of a horibl mes. By the fourth year
pepl wil be respeptiv to replasing "th" with "z" and
"w" with "v", so that during ze fifz yer ze unesesary
"o" kan be droped from vords containing "ou". After
ziz fifz yer, ve vil hav a sensibl riten styl. Zer vil be no
mor trubl or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to
undastand ech oza. Ze drem of a united urop vil
finali kum tru.

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

Shortly after the collapse of Communism it was
common in some circles to concur with Francis
Fukuyama's idea that we had reached "The End
of History". The great ideological battle was over
and liberal democracy had triumphed. 'Events'
would still happen, but Western civilization had
prevailed. In due course, its world view and values
would be accepted across the globe.

Fifteen years later this comforting notion looks
rather quaint and naive. Inthe mid 1990s Samuel
Huntington published his book THE CLASH OF
CIVILIZATIONS AND THE REMAKING OF WORLD
ORDER. In essence, he believes that the new world
order consists of six to nine civilizational blocs
(depending on how one counts them). They are all
mutually incompatible and destined to clash from
time to time. The book made a big impact, especially
as its publication pre-dated the events of 11 September
2001 by several years and seemed prescient in its
vision. the book was also warmly spoken of in
evangelical circles. But perhaps what was lacking
was a thoroughgoing analysis of Huntington's
ideas in the context of the Kingdom of God - not so
much from a missiological point of view, but from the
perspective of Western Christianity. The question I
want to raise is this: by over-emphasising the
'Christian' credentials of the West, are we Western
Christians more likely to be drawn into civilizational
clashes than our non-western brothers and sisters
in Christ who may have grasped the radical nature
of the Kingdom of God better than us? In short: how
do we Western Christians define who we are?

Huntington's civilizations are all 'religious' in nature,
or at least ethno-religious. They are as follows:

WESTERN CHRISTIANITY: Europe, North America,
Australia, New Zealand and some parts of the pacific
rim.

EASTERN ORTHODOXY: Russia, Greece, Serbia and
the Caucasus region.

ISLAM: The Arab nations, South-West Asia, Central
Asia, Caucasus region, Indonesia and parts of the
Pacific rim.

SINIC: China and nations of the Chinese diaspora,
and Indo-China (Japan, Buddhist nations). Described
as Confucian which is a 'good fit' with the hierarchial/
collective nature of Communism.

HINDU: Indian sub-continent.

AFRICAN: Sub-Saharan Africa and Guyana region of
South America.

LATIN AMERICA: South and Central America (though
arguably this might be considered as linked to the
West).

These 'civilizations' each have a distinct identity, and
individuals within them find the core of their identity
from them. They view each other with varying degrees
of mutual incomprehension. Where their geographical
boundaries meet there may be physical conflict. For
example, in Bosnia three of these civilizations come
together: Western Christian (Croatian), Orthodox
Christian (Serbian) and Islam. Huntington's diagnosis
seems to explain the deep roots of the Bosnian war, as
well as many other wars across the world. Because
civilization touches on the individual's sense of identity
and kinship, these clashes can never be negotiated away
or resolved. Warring civilizations may reach a point of
exhaustion and call a truce, but that will not remove
the root cause of the conflict. The civilizations have
irreconcilable characters.

Besides conflict at the interfaces of civilizations, some
nations are described as 'cleft' or 'torn' nations, contain-
ing within themselves populations of different civil-
izations or nations unsure of their identity. Australia,
for example, is described as a 'torn' country; there has
been some internal debate as to whether Australia
should consider itself itself part of Asia (which it is
geographically) or whether it should look back to its
European origins and cultural links with the West. In
the 1990s this debate was bitter and acrimonious
because it touched the Australian sense of identity.
But it is an issue every society has to face: how do we
identify ourselves? Who do we identify with? What
values do we hold in common? More to the point,
how do Western evangelicals identify ourselves?
Who are our kin?

If a Muslim becomes a Christian, the civilizational
cost is self-evident; he becomes estranged from his
roots, and those he leaves behind are dismayed at
the 'civilizational defection' their loved one has
undergone. The cost of becoming a disciple of Jesus
is to leave behind the civilizations of this world and
find one's identity within the Kingdom of God. What
a tragedy if that cost is cheapened by being perceived
as a move westward rather than heavenward!

As a Western evangelical Christian, I struggle with a
double-mindedness borne out of an ongoing internal
conflict. I have been taught (and wished to believe)
that I am part of a 'Christian' nation - one historically
rooted in the gospel and blessed by God as a result.
Consequently there is little or no civilizational cost
involved in becoming a Christian. And if 'Christian'
values and morality have been eclipsed in society,
it is merely a temporary aberration which Christians
should strive to reverse. This would concur with
Huntington's analysis of Western civilization as being
'Christian'. But in our stage of God's strategy, the
Bible narrative has shifted from the limited concept
of a nation-state of God's people to something much
more dynamic with global and cosmic implications:
the Kingdom of God. The promises to Abraham to
bless all the nations (Genesis 2) are mediated via
David's kingdom into Jesus' breathtakingly expansive
vision of the Kingdom. It is tempting to draw flattering,
but deceptive, parallels with the ancient kingdom of
Israel and our own nation. The biblical narrative has
since moved on. To use the adjective 'Christian' in
national terms is sub-biblical in its understanding of
the sweep of scripture. The model Jesus gave us was of
leaven, not a pure nation - a diaspora of God's people
encompassing the earth. This mandate enables us to
engage postively with our culture and national life
while avoiding the dangers of politicising the church.
If we slip into politics with a 'nation' agenda, we will
be seen, not merely as creatures of the political right,
but even of the ultra far-right, with disastrous
consequences for our witness to the nations.

The other half of my divided Western soul is deeply
and profoundly uncomfortable with this identification
of the West with Christ. Firstly, there are more Christians
outside the West who are 'blessed' with a clear civil-
ization vs. Kingdom conflict and blessed with a clearer
sense of 'kin' within the community of the saints.

Secondly, there is little to commend the gospel of Christ
within the history of the West's dealings with other
civilizations. It has proved itself little better than any
other self-regarding, avaricious empire - albeit with
the leaven of a godly diaspora who have made a postive
contribution to the history of the host Western nations.
Huntington quotes a speech by Malcolm Rifkind who,
as the then Defence Secretary of the UK, set about
defining the roots of European civilization and completely
omitted any reference to Christianity. I shudder to think
what Western civilization would look like if it had been
left to its pagan origins.

Thirdly, and most crucially, any over-identification of
the Kingdom of God with any of these civilizations makes
a 'this-worldly' attitude among believers inevitable - an
attitude which has deeply corroded the soul of Western
evangelical Christianity. Our Western civilization has
mired us in compromise, and we have lost any sense of
just how radical the Kingdom of God truly is. I suspect
that, as a Christian, I need to 'defect' from the West in the
same way as a member of any other civilization needs to
if they are to come to Christ. The people of the Kingdom
of God are defined exclusively by the Gospel. They are
our true kin, Jesus is our King, and we are the poorer
for our compromise.

Fourthly, a warning: if Huntington's analysis is correct,
these civilizations will clash when the opportunity arises.
Given the 'religious' character of civilizations, if evangelical
Christians over-identify with the West, we may find
ourselves leading the charge into conflict. What price the
gospel then? Imagine a world fifty years from now,
struggling to come to terms with the aftermath of a
civilizational war in which the West was a protagonist.
When attention turns to the role played by the evangelical
church in the pre-war period, will the conclusion be that
the church fanned the flames of conflict, or that it modelled
grace to a world bent on war?

This article was first published in the February 2006 edition of
'The Briefing' (issue No 329). The publishers can be contacted as follows;
in Australia http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/
or in the UK at http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/

Post Script: 2nd May 06. A lengthy rebuttal to this article of mine
appears as a letter from Stephen Hurworth of Perth in Australia in
the "Interchange" section of the May 2006 issue of "The Briefing",
issue 332. He's entitled to take a crack at me, but I stand by my
article.


tagline: Clash of Civilizations. Clash of Civilisations. Religious Conflict.
Evangelical Church. Kingdom of God. Kin. Kinship. Identity.

THE BEST SWIFTYPETE BLOG!

When I started this blog last August I thought
I'd chosen a pretty good blog-name. I figured
it was original and sounded quite techno savvy
for a middle-aged "info-peasant"! I was keen
to create a really interesting blog.

Of course I quickly realised that "swiftypete" was
NOT original. Others had also thought of it much
to my chagrin. There is a Pittsburgh Steelers fan
[well done on winning the NFL Superbowl by
the way] called swiftyPETE and an aussie film
reviewer known as Swiftypete - with a capital
'S' - [whose taste is very different from mine].*

I don't want to prejudice my chances of yet having
exclusive use of this name but I think my ambitions
are much more modest now - I can aim to be one of
the top 100 swiftypete blogs!!!

*postscript: 12/12/2006; I have written the occasional
film review myself to wind up my rival! Remember my
name is all lower case!

GENE RODDENBERRY &
THE GENESIS STORY!

March 2006's thought from my Agnostic
calendar is: "We must question the story
logic of having an all-knowing, all power-
ful God, who creates faulty Humans, and
then blames them for his own mistakes."
Gene Roddenberry. Contributed by Larry
Reyka.

The point at issue here is whether the literature
of Genesis "coheres" as a story - we are not
discussing if it is 'true' but merely if it hangs
together as a story.
The teaching point of Genesis is that God created
all things and that the Creation is good....really,
really good.....the earth, food, drink, sex are all
really good, people are wonderful creatures with
amazing talents. And God said it was all good
back there in the Genesis story long before the pagan
philosophers of ancient Greece came and distorted
our thinking on these things. Creation is something
to be celebrated.

But something happened to change this idyllic
situation and the Genesis story attempts to
explain what that was and why the world we see,
is the way it is.
If you think the Genesis account is a quaint tale
about a couple, a talking snake and an apple you
have missed the point of this story. When God
commands Adam & Eve not to eat of the tree of
the knowledge of good & evil we are confronted
with the question "will they [and do we] seek to
self determine what is good and what is evil -
or will they allow God to be God? Do they
want God to be God? The notion that we
could be like God is floated and doubt in his
goodness introduced. Last month we discussed
"certainty and doubt" with Voltaire and concluded
that it is absurd for humans to claim certainty -
because that would require having the perspective
of God. And yet we do claim to have this ability
and the certainty which comes with it, as absurd
as it is.

They make choices which fracture their relation-
ship with God, each other and with Creation. Setting
the story in the idyll of the Garden of Eden indicates
that they were not set up to fail. But we should also
see that this is not just their story, it is my story too
...I have made the same choices in life. This is my
narrative written there - and it is your narrative too.
We broke faith with God when we decided he was
irrelevant and that we could replace him. Isn't that
the Genesis story?

God is no more 'blameworthy' for evil than one could
say that the murder of Abel by his brother Cain was
the fault of brotherhood - which is what they were
actually created for. We were not set up to fail, but
we do. Genesis describes "the Cain in me" and our
breaking of faith with each other. It seems to me that
the story of Genesis does "cohere" but more than that
it holds up a mirror to us, and it describes the common
human experience. I have murdered people in my heart,
I have taken satisfaction in the misfortune of others,
I have wished evil was a little darker than it already is.
The Genesis story logic holds up a mirror to my soul
and reveals a face I don't show anyone else - that's why
I don't just believe it "coheres" but that it has the
'ring of truth' about it!

Next month we are invited by Einstein to consider
God's interaction with evil - because he does have
a plan to confront it and to restore his Creation....
how else could a God of love respond? In Genesis
there is a promise about a "seed" - a future hope born
of mankind. More anon.

tagline. Calendar of Doom.

JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES &
THE TROJAN HORSE!

While trawling through blog world I came
across some Christians whose love for a
particular version of the Bible seems to
have affected their better judgement. The
result is that they are unwittingly conceding
the argument we have with JWs over the
Trinity.

Let me explain; these Christians argument goes as
follows:- certain modern Bible versions relegate
one particular verse to the footnotes [eg 1 John 5v7].
This verse has a strong Trinitarian content but has
generally been thought to be a later addition. So
these good hearted Christians are naturally outraged
and decry this as a terrible compromise of a critical
Bible doctrine. they insist that only their favoured
Bible translation faithfully reflects this truth and that
real Christians should stick to this one and reject
other, more modern,translations as fatally flawed.

At this point I could imagine an onlooking Jehovah's
Witness smiling and saying, "so you are telling me
that the whole edifice of Trinitarian theology stands
or falls on a handful of verses in one Bible translation
which are disputed by the majority of the original texts?!"
I bet he or she couldn't believe their luck when they
turned up on your doorstep!

Of course the whole argument is vacuous. One verse
may be disputed, but the doctrine of the Trinity rests on
infinitely more evidence than that. Our Christian bloggers
have made a well intentioned but dreadful error of
judgement in implying the critical nature of Bible versions
in this matter.

I would suggest, for starters, that one looks up the
prophecies attributed to Jehovah (upper case LORD in
most regular Bibles) which are subsequently fulfilled by
Jesus Christ. One also needs to check out what Jesus
claimed for himself, John chapter 8 has some interesting
surprises.

If any JW out there in blog world wants to take issue with
me I am open for comments. [Comments mark you - over
lengthy sermons WILL be deleted - you can use your own
blog space for that!]

ST HELEN'S BISHOPSGATE,
LONDON.

Exactly fifteen years ago today, in 1991, I made the
move from Yorkshire to London thinking I would only
be here for a year or two. How wrong can you be?
I have been here half my adult life which is quite a
scary thought.

I have enjoyed London it is a great city with a real
buzz, but it can also be a rootless sort of place too,
where we all live together in civilised indifference.
As much as I have loved being a Londoner I cannot
say that this is where I would wish to retire. I am
of an age when I want to put down some solid roots
within a smaller community.

I am really pleased that I joined a good church within
a few days of my arrival and I've stayed a member
there since. It has been an enormous privilege to be
part of St Helen's Bishopsgate where the Bible
teaching has been second to none. I would never have
believed that I would end up in an Anglican church
coming -as I had- from a strictly free, charismatic sort
of church background. The fact is I had grown weary
of simplistic theology and pop prophecy but knew
enough to know that I craved some solid spiritual food
and that is something St Helen's has in spades. The
church also provided me with some sense of community
in an otherwise anonymous city.

It always seems rather a curious allegation that
Christians in general and evangelicals in particular are
"unthinking". The truth is as a Christian living in a
materialistic society I have been compelled to think
through so many issues and sift my own motivations
as God's word does it's work. You cannot simply
drift with the spirit of the age and be a committed
Christian - you have to swim against the current and
that requires thoughtful commitment from the heart.
Of course at this point the gainsayers will say that
St Helen's is too "intellectual" - you can't win can you?
Either Christians are too unthinking or they think too
much, if you're not guilty of the one they'll get you on
the other! You have to laugh don't you? It seems to me
that it isn't helpful to pay too much attention to the
attitude of the world.

Anyway! My point is if you are thinking of coming to
London and you're looking for a church why not
check us out!

www.st-helens.org.uk

I should add that the views expressed in this blog are
entirely my own as a member of St Helen's and it should
not be inferred that they represent any official position
of that church.
God Bless.






---------------------------------------------------------
tagline: Peter Swift. 1991. Guy's Hospital. London.
SHB. St Helen's. St Helen's Bishopsgate.
---------------------------------------------------------

Patrick Sookhdeo.

Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.

It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.

In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?

A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?

Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.

THE DANISH CARTOON ROW!
& a Christian response to it.

In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.

"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."

The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.


Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.

"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."

VOLTAIRE on Doubt & Certainty!

February 2006's thought from my agnostic
calendar is; "Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd." Voltaire.

On balance I'm with Voltaire on this one. One would
need to be all wise and omniscient to have the certainty
Voltaire alludes to. Humans are limited in time and
space, so our knowledge can only ever be provisional
and tentative.

Jesus does not despise the faith of the man who cries
"I believe, help my unbelief!" Mark 9v24. And the
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 talks about "knowing
in part...the partial passing away...giving up childish
ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly...Now I know
in part; then I shall fully know, even as I have been
fully known". Paul can say this because he grasps that
the Gospel isn't merely a set of propositions. It IS
propositional, but it is not JUST a set of propositions.
Paul realises that Christians need to grow into those
truths and we won't know it all this side of heaven. It
would be absurd to imply that the instant a Christian
becomes a Christian - crash, bang, wallop he or she
should know everything with certainty. A disciple is
"a work in progress!" There isn't a problem with the
transmitter but there is a problem with the receiver.
The Christian knows this and asks the Holy Spirit to
help him grow in understanding. This is why we are
called disciples and not sooth-sayers. God does not
require us to be superhuman - merely to recognise
that we are human.

Christians teach "the sufficiency of scripture", not
that it's a comprehensive compendium of all possible
knowledge, past, present and future. Rather it is
better to say that scripture is sufficient for us to
have confidence to direct the believer in matters of
faith and conduct. That is the common sense approach
.....and that is what it claims for itself.

It seems to me that real life never deals in "certainty".
Nor do we live our lives in a haze of doubt. Voltaire is
in danger of setting up "doubt" and "certainty" as a
false dichotomy when real life actually resides between
those two. In 1980 I did my first [and only] solo parachute
jump. Was I "certain" the parachute would work? Well,
actually no - I couldn't claim certainty for it or for the
reserve if the main failed. Does that mean I was in "doubt"?
Well; no - I wouldn't have left the ground if I was - instead
I made a judgement, one I was prepared to act on. We make
similar judgements each day in real life, well away from the
absurdities thrown up by the extremes of language [what
happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object - sort of thing!] To ask, am I "certain" I will arrive
safely home from work today? Or am I "certain" this salmon
mousse I am about to eat won't kill me? isn't how real life
actually ticks is it? We do not have that degree of control
and autonomy. What we do is make a judgement call. Just
as I entrusted myself to the parachute all those years ago
I am now entrusting myself to Christ - I have made a
judgement and believe he is trustworthy.

"Certainty" [or at least the desire for it] is more to do with
a desire for autonomy - being an island "entire of itself" and
making a "judgement" turns on what one has trusted in -
the recognition of the limitations of oneself and ones
connectedness with things outside of oneself, which inherently
mean dependence...and risk...as all relationships do. A child
(unaware of the dangers of electricity) who is told not to
stick it's fingers in the electric socket must make a judgement
call - to trust the carer or to believe the worst of them - it
cannot "know" autonomously.

"Certainty" is indeed absurd, but perhaps we can say that
"doubt in oneself " is the beginning of wisdom.

tag-line. Voltaire. Calendar of Doom. Certainty. Doubt.

JANUARY 2006
New Year's Resolution! PLAN AHEA
D!

The Biblical Timeline!

Creation.................................................The New
...........\............................................../ Creation!
............\................................+ _____/
........Fall \............................ / Jesus
...............\/\/\/\/\___________/ is Lord
.................Israel....... exile


In some computer formats this diagram
will appear to be gibberish. Sorry about
that!

Whale Watching!

Just half an hour ago I took a short
walk from my home in North Bermondsey
to the River Thames to watch our
visiting whale go by.

Earlier today after being beached at
low tide up stream it was loaded onto
a barge and is being taken down to the
estuary.

I have never seen a whale before and it
is amazing to see one in the heart of the
city! London seems to have taken it to
its heart - I was surrounded by a crowd
of other curious onlookers. I guess it is
a feel good story - let's hope that it
has a happy ending.

Posted at 16.10 hrs GMT, 21st January 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Post Script at 20.00 hrs GMT.
The Northern Bottlenose Whale which captured
the heart of the nation is reported to have died
whilst in transit to the sea.

PAT ROBERTSON:
Modern Day Prophecy,
The Biblical Timeline &
Politics [American or
otherwise].

Pat Robertson has created (yet another) stir with
tendentious comments on world events this time
with speculation that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine
retribution for conceding land to the Palestinian
authority. He has been widely condemned in blog
world for this - and I fear that all Christians may be
tarred with the same brush, and more importantly
I am concerned that the Gospel of Jesus has been
brought into disrepute. [I am glad to note that Pat
Robertson has subsequently made an apology for
his "insensitivity"]. For anyone interested
I thought I'd briefly explain why (as a reasonably
Biblically literate, Evangelical, "Born Again"
Christian) I can say Pat Robertson was wrong in
the first place.

The Bible is an unfolding narrative of God's
dealings with Humankind *. At one point in
history the nation state of Israel was set up
ostensibly as a light to the nations. As the
narrative unfolds we discover that even this
Kingdom with its idealistic laws and its prophets
cannot reform the human heart. [This does not
mean that what was once wrong has ceased to be
wrong or that God has changed in some way;
it means that God has helped us grow in our
understanding of the problem of human nature
and moves us on from the moralism of rule
keeping - which is why Jesus is so hard on the
Pharisees. An infinitely more radical solution
is required!]. Ultimately the nation goes into
exile and God points ahead to a new kingdom
under God's chosen king. I believe that Jesus
is that king and his kingdom [or "Millennium"]
is presently a spiritual one - though one day we
look forward to his return and the inauguration
of his Kingdom in all it's fulness. This new kingdom
is not limited geographically nor is it restricted
to the physical descendents of Abraham....as
the original promises always indicated they
would have global, if not cosmic, fulfillment. There
is now a larger vision afoot....a plan to recreate
the whole of Creation and draw in the breadth
of Humanity.

Where Pat Robertson is going wrong is in
anachronistically harking back to a point in
the Bible narrative which merely foreshadowed
the Kingdom which Jesus came to bring about.
This colours how middle eastern politics are
viewed (often in lurid technicolour). It also
permits Pat Robertson to see himself in the
role of Old Testament prophet (such as
authoritatively interpreting world events)
- again a role superceded by Christ himself.

Pat Robertson comes out of a school of thought
called "Pre- Millennialist", which views the
restoration of the state of Israel as critical in
God's plan for the world. He may also believe
that the church is mandated by God to have a
role of political leadership over the other
nations. I am an "Amillennialist"* Christian -
I don't believe the Bible teaches either of
these positions....in fact I think that these
are potentially damaging distractions from
the commission which Jesus did give to us.
Pat Robertson once described Amillennialism as
"the end-time apostasy" no less. So... hey...please
blogworld don't lump all evangelical Christians
together in the same boat. [I realise that such
quibbles over words like these will seem rather
esoteric to the outsider but the point I'm making
is "ideas have legs" - i.e. ideas DO have
consequences].

I suspect that evangelical Christians are often
viewed as ultra-right wing because some of us
misunderstand where we are in the Bible
timeline. The plot has moved on from attempting
to build a theocratic nation state, we are now
living in a new era defined by the Cross of Christ.
As a Christian I see little or no value in using political
campaigns to compel non-christians to behave as if
they are believers. In fact most Biblically literate
Christians would come to share the apostle Paul's
view of the limitations of the law in reforming the
human heart. I believe that our role is to faithfully
teach and model the Gospel to the onlooking world.
By all means let's get involved in politics - but let's
not fool ourselves that this will reform human nature,
only the Cross of Christ can do this.

If we do get involved in politics; as Christians
we must demonstrate a rounded political agenda
- it is right to speak out on bio-medical ethics -
but the Bible also has lots to say about other
issues - War & Peace, Poverty & Materialism,
the Environment, Social Justice etc. We should
not allow ourselves to be corralled into a right
wing fiefdom for the benefit of certain politicians.
Let's not get railroaded into a narrower agenda
than God's, which is where some misguided
souls would take us. [It should also be pointed
out to those on the political Left that they too
are guilty of driving away the support of
Evangelicals by demonising them - maybe,
just maybe, that is one reason why the
Democrats lost the US election in 2004 - they
alienated moderate evangelicals rather than
reach out to them].

But back to my main point: gleeful
triumphalism over the misfortune of others
is totally antithetical to the spirit of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is understandable
if we are seen as rather nasty, mean-spirited
and un-Christlike people if the Pat Robertsons
of this world put themselves forward as our
spokesmen. I just want to make it clear that
he does not speak for me.

All comments are welcome!

[1* This should not be confused with the various
theological "dispensations" which some
Pre-Millennialist Christians hold to!]

[2*"Amillennialism" is a bit of a misnomer because
it implies one does not believe in the Kingdom
at all. Perhaps it would be better to refer to it
as a "realised millennialism"- the Kingdom of God
is present here and now for those with the eyes
to see it. For the sake of convenience I will use
the more commonly recognised term].

Post-Script: 21. Jan.06.
I have attempted to represent in diagrammatic
form the Biblical Timeline I have described
unfortunately in some computer formats this
will appear as gibberish! Sorry about that.


tag-line. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat
Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. PatRobertson.

RICHARD DAWKINS'S LATEST
ATTACK ON RELIGION IS AN
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY POLEMIC
NOT WORTHY OF A GREAT
SCIENTIST.

In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK there is an
excellent article by Madeleine Bunting:-

"On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again)
to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a
two-part Channel 4 programme [in the UK], "The Root of
All Evil?" His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them
badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on
Narnia. By all means let's have a serious debate about
religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating
phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's
not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random
anecdotal evidence, there's an unmistakable whiff of
panic; they fear religion is on the march again."

My best guess is that Dawkins's worldview is
dominated by his concepts of evolutionary biology.
It isn't just that he believes this to be true, it is also
that his evolutionary worldview requires this
concept to prevail and vanquish all other contenders.

Bunting continues:-
"There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been
short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all
atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even
more grating, what secularisation there has been has
been is accompanied by the growth of weird
irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As
GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when
people don't believe in God is not that they believe
nothing, it is that they believe anything".

Bunting makes some telling comments about
Dawkins's lack of understanding and charges him
with the very same "hidebound certainty" of which
he accuses believers.

It seems to me that all of us have the capacity to
demonise other people - that is actually the
problem with human nature. We all "otherise
evil" don't we? In Dawkins' case he demonises
anyone with a religious faith as if the secular
ideologies do not also have blood on their hands.
It is that ability to dissociate ourselves from evil
and attribute it exclusively to the "other" which
is actually the first step along the road to doing
something evil ourselves. Any cause can be used
and abused in this way. "The Terror" of the
French revolution which arose out of Enlightement
values is a case in point. Dawkins says that religion
is a means of inducing good people to do evil things
- I will not seek to defend the evil which has been
done in the name of Christ, but it is foolish to
attribute that evil to Christ. In my experience the
Gospel requires me to look inside my own heart and
recognise my capacity for evil. Jesus does not permit
me to "otherise" it but to confront it in myself. And
that is the blindspot in Dawkins's argument - no
atheist can ever say "there but for the grace of God
go I."

Bunting concludes:-
"Let's be clear:it's absolutely right that religion should
be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one
that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men".

The full article can be found on page 30 of
THE GUARDIAN Saturday 7-January-06

Post-Script. Wednesday, 18th January 2006.
It has been put to me since writing this blog that I am
engaging in an "analogous" argument, that is "Evil by A
is okay because B does the the same". That is exactly
what I am NOT saying. So let me take another run at
it. The starting point of this discussion is "The Root of
All Evil?" and Dawkins attributes this evil to those
with a religious faith. By pointing out the evil done by
those without a religious faith I was simply making
the point that Dawkins was making an argument
based on "selective observation" that's all. I was not
seeking to excuse one evil by pointing out another.

Post-Post-Script. Friday, 27th January 2006.
"Nothing returns one quicker to God than the sight
of a scientist with no imagination, no vocabulary,
no sympathy, no comprehension of metaphor, and
no wit, looking soulless and forlorn amid the wonders
of nature." Howard Jacobson on Richard Dawkins,
in The Independent.

Addendum. Sunday, 29th January 2006.
I posted this Jacobson quote [without any additional
words from me] in the comments box of a pro-Dawkins
blog naively assuming that even die-hard Dawkins fans
would find it amusing and, perhaps, even insightful. My
motivation was more mischievous rather than malicious.
I returned later to discover that I had really rattled the
cage of the blogger in question. He had gone through
the quote point by point - at some considerable length
I might add - seeking to defend his hero. First up; if you
are that blogger reading this; it was not my intention to
wind you up so I'm sorry if my comment caused you
grief. But the ironic thing is this cheerless reaction has
actually proven Jacobson correct hasn't it? It does
seem that thorough going materialists are indeed
rather humourless, one dimensional, uncomprehending
people fired up with an irrational anger.... not unlike....
well.... the very fundamentalists they claim to despise!

tag-line.Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins.

CALENDAR OF DOOM! [Parte Une].

For Christmas I was given, among other things, a calendar
for 2006. This is no ordinary calendar because it was put
together by a relative, Dawn Divyn, and includes some of
her own photography together with a saying or two for
each month. The aphorisms in question , I assume, are
calculated in a kindly way to challenge my faith.
I appreciate the effort that she has given to this project
and the well meaning motive which lay behind it: for
it is a kindness to try to put me right if one thinks I am
wrong.

Anyway I thought that it might be an interesting exercise
over the year to ruminate on these thoughts of hers and
to test their strength.

So to it:
January 2006. Credibile est, quia ineptum est.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as
true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as
useful." Seneca the Younger (4?BC-65AD).

That is probably a fair reflection on pagan religion by
Seneca - an ancient Roman philosopher and statesman.
The aphorism reflects the snobbery of the Roman
patrician class towards the people who were despised
as ignorant and maleable by those who considered
themselves wise and better fitted to rule.

Jesus torpedoes this sort of smugness when he said:
"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
you have hidden these things from the wise and
understanding and revealed them to little children;
yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Matthew 11v25&26. It pleases God to subvert
human pride by choosing those most despised in
the world's eyes to receive the wisdom of the kingdom
of God. The Christian recognises the folly of putting
one's faith in those generally considered wise by the
pundits!

Oh - the latin quote - that's Tertullian being silly.
Something should not be believed simply because it
is absurd - but rather if something claims to pop
the pomposity of the proud it is at least worth
considering with humility. It is not wisdom as such that
is being questioned but the smug air of conceit that
often blinds those who are wise in their own eyes.

fin




ps. 10th May 06: I recently learnt that Tertullian
never actually said this, it is a commonly
accepted fallacy that he did. It is correct that he did
make the point that sometimes a counter-intuitive statement
has a degree of plausibility because it is not something
one would make up.

"Sharia by Stealth" Conspiracy Theory.

There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.

This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".

As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.

Apologies to Rob Bradshaw!

I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .

I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.

In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.

I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].

As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?

This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!

By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.

As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?

If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.

All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!

if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk

SWIFTYPETE

My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!

An Irish Joke!

An Irishman goes to a building site looking
for work. The foreman interviews him and
asks:

"What's the difference between a joist and
a girder?"

The Irishman replies:

"Joyce wrote 'Ulysses' and Goethe wrote
'Faust'!"

CONNECTING EVIL, SUFFERING AND EMPATHY.

Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.

In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.

If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.

Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?

There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".

Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."

Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.

From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.

The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.

Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!

"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).

A Christian response.

In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.

As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.

We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.

In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.

When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.

In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.

Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".

God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.

Conclusion.

Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.

The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.

[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].

tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.