ISLAM, EVANGELICALISM &
THE INDIAN MUTINY of 1857.
This is a letter I e-mailed to "History Magazine"
published by the BBC in response to a piece
entitled "Clash of Civilisations?" published in
the May 2007 edition, Vol 8 no 5.
http://www.bbchistorymagazine.com/
"May I take issue with some opinions within
the above article? Diarmaid MacCulloch makes
the point that Wahhabism had no influence
on 19th & 20th Century Islamic calls for
Indian Independence; but Charles Allen,
in his book "God's Terrorists" charts a direct
link between the two and one which
incidentally predates any Evangelical
influence which MacCulloch blames for
religious tension.
If Charles Allen is right, then to term The
Indian Mutiny "The First War of Indian
Independence" is a misnomer because it
was in reality a Jihadi movement which had
no common ground with the majority Hindu
population - no wonder the latter were
uncertain how to respond to The Mutiny.
I should add that these observations aside it
was a very thought provoking article."
"GOD'S TERRORISTS: The Wahhabi Cult and
the Hidden Roots of Modern Jihad" by
Charles Allen, published by Abacus 2007,
see http://www.godsterrorists.co.uk/
ISBN 978-0-349-11879-6.
ps I hope to 'blog' a piece on the theme of
"The Clash of Fundamentalisms" in the next
month or two.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Friday, June 08, 2007
LUCA - our part time cat!
Readers of this blog will remember that
last Summer we were adopted by a cat we
called Luca and I thought that it was time
to give you all an update.
Last year I put a collar on her (along with
our phone number) and the curious thing
was after a few weeks she pitched up with
someone else's collar (sans contact details)!
Hmmm... I can't help feeling that the little
minx was out for some free veterinary
treatment! Not that we begrudge her that
because we've grown very fond of her.
Taking a pet to the vet's was a whole new
experience for me. The pets created a
bond between all the people in the
waiting room - unlike any similar
situation I've been in for sure. A little girl
came over to me and said how lovely my cat
was and I got to tell her Luca's story (normally
the little girl would probably have been
discouraged [quite rightly!] from approaching
strange men!) One chap was there with an
elderly spaniel - he was quite tearful: the dog
had been his mother's who had passed
away the year before and now the dog
itself was ill. He had brought it in to be
put down. I really felt for him; this wasn't
just an animal it was a family member and
a connection with his mother!
Despite Luca's shenanigans she still comes
by - and when its wet she'll curl up by the
radiator and sleep before heading off to
her mystery home in the evening.
She claimed a fleecy blanket as her own.
Luca stood on it, purring like crazy and
spent half-an-hour gently kneading it
with her paws. A cat loving friend said
that that could be a sign that she was
deprived of her mother at an early age.
But then again this was the same expert
who was convinced Luca was a tom cat!
(We had originally called her Lucas
until we realised our mistake!)
Readers of this blog will remember that
last Summer we were adopted by a cat we
called Luca and I thought that it was time
to give you all an update.
Last year I put a collar on her (along with
our phone number) and the curious thing
was after a few weeks she pitched up with
someone else's collar (sans contact details)!
Hmmm... I can't help feeling that the little
minx was out for some free veterinary
treatment! Not that we begrudge her that
because we've grown very fond of her.
Taking a pet to the vet's was a whole new
experience for me. The pets created a
bond between all the people in the
waiting room - unlike any similar
situation I've been in for sure. A little girl
came over to me and said how lovely my cat
was and I got to tell her Luca's story (normally
the little girl would probably have been
discouraged [quite rightly!] from approaching
strange men!) One chap was there with an
elderly spaniel - he was quite tearful: the dog
had been his mother's who had passed
away the year before and now the dog
itself was ill. He had brought it in to be
put down. I really felt for him; this wasn't
just an animal it was a family member and
a connection with his mother!
Despite Luca's shenanigans she still comes
by - and when its wet she'll curl up by the
radiator and sleep before heading off to
her mystery home in the evening.
She claimed a fleecy blanket as her own.
Luca stood on it, purring like crazy and
spent half-an-hour gently kneading it
with her paws. A cat loving friend said
that that could be a sign that she was
deprived of her mother at an early age.
But then again this was the same expert
who was convinced Luca was a tom cat!
(We had originally called her Lucas
until we realised our mistake!)
Friday, June 01, 2007
ARTHUR C CLARKE,
PROFILES OF THE FUTURE
and A SPIRITUAL ODYSSEY.
As a teenager I read all of Arthur C Clarke's
books. He is widely known as a writer of
science fiction, but he also wrote articles
about the future of science and technology.
As an ardent teenage atheist I shared in the
rosey technocratic vision of the future when
humanity would shake off the petty
superstititions of the past and launch itself
into the Cosmos to forge a brave new
world. Of course it was rather naive but
it was the 1970's and I was a teenager,
come on!
One book by Arthur C. Clarke was called
"Profiles of the Future" and it made a
real impact on me at the time.
If I recall correctly it was in this book that
he made a startling assertion; that there
was a 'timebomb ticking underneath
Christianity' and went on to say that
contact with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
would deliver a fatal blow to the Biblical
worldview that mankind was made in
God's image and, as such, is the pinnacle
of God's creation. As a juvenile argument
this might pass muster, but the question is
what "image" does AC imagine God
shares with humanity? And, in any event,
I fail to understand why extra-terrestrials
wouldn't share God's 'communicable
attributes' - after all what have those to
do with mere physical form? Since then,
the reader will realise, that I have come
to a much richer understanding of who
God is.
Any student of the history of the sciences
will realise that ever since humankind
realised that the points of light in the night
sky we called planets are worlds in their
own right it was commonly supposed that
they were all inhabited. This caused no
great problems theologically for the
millions of believers at the time. Allan
Chapman wrote an excellent article on
this topic in "Astronomy Now" magazine
a few years ago.
In fact the Christian author CS Lewis wrote
a series of science fiction novels which
predate AC Clarke's work. CS Lewis had
no problem with non humanoid extra
terrestrial intelligent beings. If you read
his novels you will realise that the people
he had most problem with were the
de-humanised humans bent on cosmic
colonisation not these other much more
sympathetic beings to whom the Earth
is known, not without reason, as "The
Silent Planet"!
As a teen I was also deeply impressed by
AC's "2001: a space odyssey", this novel
(and movie) had the fundamental merit
of ending in mystery as mankind makes
its first contact with a higher extra
terrestrial civilisation (there was a
numinescent encounter with beings
utterly "other"). "2001" was based
on AC's previous novel "Childhood's End"
and a short story "The Sentinel". The
subsequent sequels "2010" and "3001"
clarify AC's vision of this mysterious alien
civilisation - a rather creaky computer
programme, with some dodgey ethics
(actually they are only us writ large aren't
they?) to which plucky humanity upload a
computer virus in the name of "deicide"!
AC's vision of God is very limited and, not
unlike Philip Pullman's interpretation
of God, is ultimately a reassuring comfort
blanket to the atheist. Incidentally isn't
the Pullman series 'His Dark Materials'
just Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' with
the humour stripped out?!
AC's understanding of religion in "3001"
seems shockingly one dimensional and
ignorant (sorry, that's the only word
which will do!) and it isn't surprising
therefore that he regards "religion"
(whatever that means!) as a "socio-
pathology".
Most atheists - and I used to be one -
are surprisingly ignorant for intelligent
people... I guess that's why they hold
such rosey views about humankind...
most atheist visionaries do... but the
reality when such visions become
concrete is always hideous. Atheist
visionary utopias always are.
PROFILES OF THE FUTURE
and A SPIRITUAL ODYSSEY.
As a teenager I read all of Arthur C Clarke's
books. He is widely known as a writer of
science fiction, but he also wrote articles
about the future of science and technology.
As an ardent teenage atheist I shared in the
rosey technocratic vision of the future when
humanity would shake off the petty
superstititions of the past and launch itself
into the Cosmos to forge a brave new
world. Of course it was rather naive but
it was the 1970's and I was a teenager,
come on!
One book by Arthur C. Clarke was called
"Profiles of the Future" and it made a
real impact on me at the time.
If I recall correctly it was in this book that
he made a startling assertion; that there
was a 'timebomb ticking underneath
Christianity' and went on to say that
contact with Extra Terrestrial Intelligence
would deliver a fatal blow to the Biblical
worldview that mankind was made in
God's image and, as such, is the pinnacle
of God's creation. As a juvenile argument
this might pass muster, but the question is
what "image" does AC imagine God
shares with humanity? And, in any event,
I fail to understand why extra-terrestrials
wouldn't share God's 'communicable
attributes' - after all what have those to
do with mere physical form? Since then,
the reader will realise, that I have come
to a much richer understanding of who
God is.
Any student of the history of the sciences
will realise that ever since humankind
realised that the points of light in the night
sky we called planets are worlds in their
own right it was commonly supposed that
they were all inhabited. This caused no
great problems theologically for the
millions of believers at the time. Allan
Chapman wrote an excellent article on
this topic in "Astronomy Now" magazine
a few years ago.
In fact the Christian author CS Lewis wrote
a series of science fiction novels which
predate AC Clarke's work. CS Lewis had
no problem with non humanoid extra
terrestrial intelligent beings. If you read
his novels you will realise that the people
he had most problem with were the
de-humanised humans bent on cosmic
colonisation not these other much more
sympathetic beings to whom the Earth
is known, not without reason, as "The
Silent Planet"!
As a teen I was also deeply impressed by
AC's "2001: a space odyssey", this novel
(and movie) had the fundamental merit
of ending in mystery as mankind makes
its first contact with a higher extra
terrestrial civilisation (there was a
numinescent encounter with beings
utterly "other"). "2001" was based
on AC's previous novel "Childhood's End"
and a short story "The Sentinel". The
subsequent sequels "2010" and "3001"
clarify AC's vision of this mysterious alien
civilisation - a rather creaky computer
programme, with some dodgey ethics
(actually they are only us writ large aren't
they?) to which plucky humanity upload a
computer virus in the name of "deicide"!
AC's vision of God is very limited and, not
unlike Philip Pullman's interpretation
of God, is ultimately a reassuring comfort
blanket to the atheist. Incidentally isn't
the Pullman series 'His Dark Materials'
just Terry Pratchett's 'Discworld' with
the humour stripped out?!
AC's understanding of religion in "3001"
seems shockingly one dimensional and
ignorant (sorry, that's the only word
which will do!) and it isn't surprising
therefore that he regards "religion"
(whatever that means!) as a "socio-
pathology".
Most atheists - and I used to be one -
are surprisingly ignorant for intelligent
people... I guess that's why they hold
such rosey views about humankind...
most atheist visionaries do... but the
reality when such visions become
concrete is always hideous. Atheist
visionary utopias always are.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
"THE MILLENNIUM!"
= Jesus is Lord!
Considering the amount of theological
ink which has been used up over the
years to describe 'The Millennium'
of chapter 20 of the Book of
Revelation one would think that the
church would have reached some sort
of consensus about its significance.
My co-leader was preparing this study
when she phoned me to say it had her
stumped and could I help; I said to
her "I would absolutely love to lead
a study on Revelation 20!"
So before we leave our review of the
last book of the Bible, I'd like to
end with some comments on this
important topic culled from my
study prep.
The issue isn't as esoteric as it
sounds because upon this interpret-
ation turns ones understanding of
'The Kingdom of God' which Jesus
came to inaugurate: this in turn
colours what we understand to be
the future of God's people and even
determines who qualifies as "God's
people". Some camps even use one's
interpretation of the Millennium
as a test of one's orthodoxy. This
is sad because what I am about to
say will cause some of my brothers
and sisters in Christ to fall out
with me, though assuredly I have
not fallen out with them.
It seems clear to me that (as
with "The 144,000" we discussed
last month) "The Millennium"
(that is 1,000 years) is a
metaphor for The Kingdom of God
as a present reality. Now some
good hearted people will object
by replying "how can you claim
we are in The Millennium now,
the world is in such a state that
it is an insult to say that God
rules! And besides which doesn't
20 v3 state that Satan is bound
during the Millennium - how can
that be a present reality?"
The crucial thing to say in reply
is that the passage specifies
exactly in what way Satan is bound,
it does not say he cannot continue
to do evil - it does say that there
is one supreme evil he cannot do;
he cannot "deceive the nations any
longer". The Good News of Jesus
Christ is out and Satan can do
nothing to contain it!
Those who come to faith in Jesus
are described as enjoying "the first
resurrection" (that is why being
"Born Again" is such a powerful
metaphor); note that those who
merely have the second (physical)
resurrection only do not share in
the blessing of the "First
Resurrection... over such the second
death has no power" v6. Someone once
summarised this by saying, 'He who
is born twice dies once, he who is
born once dies twice!"
Isn't this exactly the same theology
Paul describes in Ephesians 2 v1-10?
For sure it is couched in different
language, in a different genre, by
a different human author - but the
divine authorship shines through both
because it is the one and the same
message! There is a wonderful
consistency about it.
Jesus is Lord!
ps Incidentally why do some
people take 'the Mark of the Beast'
to be literal, when they would
never dream of interpreting 'the
Mark of The Lamb' this way - the
lack of consistency in some so-called
"literal" readings of these Revelation
metaphors should give some pause for
thought.
= Jesus is Lord!
Considering the amount of theological
ink which has been used up over the
years to describe 'The Millennium'
of chapter 20 of the Book of
Revelation one would think that the
church would have reached some sort
of consensus about its significance.
My co-leader was preparing this study
when she phoned me to say it had her
stumped and could I help; I said to
her "I would absolutely love to lead
a study on Revelation 20!"
So before we leave our review of the
last book of the Bible, I'd like to
end with some comments on this
important topic culled from my
study prep.
The issue isn't as esoteric as it
sounds because upon this interpret-
ation turns ones understanding of
'The Kingdom of God' which Jesus
came to inaugurate: this in turn
colours what we understand to be
the future of God's people and even
determines who qualifies as "God's
people". Some camps even use one's
interpretation of the Millennium
as a test of one's orthodoxy. This
is sad because what I am about to
say will cause some of my brothers
and sisters in Christ to fall out
with me, though assuredly I have
not fallen out with them.
It seems clear to me that (as
with "The 144,000" we discussed
last month) "The Millennium"
(that is 1,000 years) is a
metaphor for The Kingdom of God
as a present reality. Now some
good hearted people will object
by replying "how can you claim
we are in The Millennium now,
the world is in such a state that
it is an insult to say that God
rules! And besides which doesn't
20 v3 state that Satan is bound
during the Millennium - how can
that be a present reality?"
The crucial thing to say in reply
is that the passage specifies
exactly in what way Satan is bound,
it does not say he cannot continue
to do evil - it does say that there
is one supreme evil he cannot do;
he cannot "deceive the nations any
longer". The Good News of Jesus
Christ is out and Satan can do
nothing to contain it!
Those who come to faith in Jesus
are described as enjoying "the first
resurrection" (that is why being
"Born Again" is such a powerful
metaphor); note that those who
merely have the second (physical)
resurrection only do not share in
the blessing of the "First
Resurrection... over such the second
death has no power" v6. Someone once
summarised this by saying, 'He who
is born twice dies once, he who is
born once dies twice!"
Isn't this exactly the same theology
Paul describes in Ephesians 2 v1-10?
For sure it is couched in different
language, in a different genre, by
a different human author - but the
divine authorship shines through both
because it is the one and the same
message! There is a wonderful
consistency about it.
Jesus is Lord!
ps Incidentally why do some
people take 'the Mark of the Beast'
to be literal, when they would
never dream of interpreting 'the
Mark of The Lamb' this way - the
lack of consistency in some so-called
"literal" readings of these Revelation
metaphors should give some pause for
thought.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
MALHAM.
According to Bill Bryson, American travel
writer, wit and honourary Yorkshireman
"Malhamdale is the finest place there is
until I have died and seen heaven
(assuming they let me at least have a
glance), but until that day comes, it will
certainly do."
Malham is one of those haunts you find
yourself returning to time after time and
yet never tire of. I first came here nearly
thirty years ago and have visited it regularly
ever since- especially during the time I lived
in Leeds. The A65 was always the "Road to
Adventure"! And some wonderful friends
shared that route with me back then.
After an incredibly busy week away in Nairobi
I needed some time out, so Helen & I stayed
in a B&B in Malham, North Yorkshire, for a
couple of nights.
Yesterday we climbed up Gordale Scar, walked
up to Malham Tarn and returned via 'Dry
Valley' to Malham Cove. The waterfall at
Gordale was in full flood after the recent
rain and I got thoroughly drenched by the
spray as we climbed the central buttress.
Fortunately the weather was kind and I
dried out on the walk above. Each component
of this walk is so different revealing one
aspect after another to this amazing
landscape; waterfalls, canyons, open
water, limestone paving and fantastic
views. In his pictorial guide 'Walks in
Limestone Country' A. Wainwright
says, "Dry Valley leads to the
dangerous brink of the precipice
above Malham Cove. The quickest way
down (a great time saver) is to fall
over the edge but, instead of doing this,
cross the limestone pavement on the
right to a stile, whence a path winds
down to the Cove."
The scenery around Malham is hard
to describe; its Yorkshire's equivalent to
the Grand Canyon! The white limestone
seemingly stretching for miles seems
unearthly. I have often felt that I could
be on another planet in such an eerie
landscape. (Having recently re-subscribed
to 'Astronomy Now' magazine: isn't it weird
how "artists impressions" of the surface of
Mars always include a Pen-Y-Ghent
lookalike?!) Maybe that's why I love this
countryside - my grandfather loved to come
here too.
It will be a sad day when I can no longer
climb up Gordale Scar.
According to Bill Bryson, American travel
writer, wit and honourary Yorkshireman
"Malhamdale is the finest place there is
until I have died and seen heaven
(assuming they let me at least have a
glance), but until that day comes, it will
certainly do."
Malham is one of those haunts you find
yourself returning to time after time and
yet never tire of. I first came here nearly
thirty years ago and have visited it regularly
ever since- especially during the time I lived
in Leeds. The A65 was always the "Road to
Adventure"! And some wonderful friends
shared that route with me back then.
After an incredibly busy week away in Nairobi
I needed some time out, so Helen & I stayed
in a B&B in Malham, North Yorkshire, for a
couple of nights.
Yesterday we climbed up Gordale Scar, walked
up to Malham Tarn and returned via 'Dry
Valley' to Malham Cove. The waterfall at
Gordale was in full flood after the recent
rain and I got thoroughly drenched by the
spray as we climbed the central buttress.
Fortunately the weather was kind and I
dried out on the walk above. Each component
of this walk is so different revealing one
aspect after another to this amazing
landscape; waterfalls, canyons, open
water, limestone paving and fantastic
views. In his pictorial guide 'Walks in
Limestone Country' A. Wainwright
says, "Dry Valley leads to the
dangerous brink of the precipice
above Malham Cove. The quickest way
down (a great time saver) is to fall
over the edge but, instead of doing this,
cross the limestone pavement on the
right to a stile, whence a path winds
down to the Cove."
The scenery around Malham is hard
to describe; its Yorkshire's equivalent to
the Grand Canyon! The white limestone
seemingly stretching for miles seems
unearthly. I have often felt that I could
be on another planet in such an eerie
landscape. (Having recently re-subscribed
to 'Astronomy Now' magazine: isn't it weird
how "artists impressions" of the surface of
Mars always include a Pen-Y-Ghent
lookalike?!) Maybe that's why I love this
countryside - my grandfather loved to come
here too.
It will be a sad day when I can no longer
climb up Gordale Scar.
Monday, May 07, 2007
OUT OF AFRICA!
I arrived back in the UK from Nairobi
this morning after having had an
amazing week working on an
improvised Paediatric Intensive Care
Unit at the Kenyatta National Hospital
caring for children (and some adults)
after 'open heart surgery'!
Some of my colleagues at the 'Saline
Nerve Child Hospital' in London have
gone on previous medical missions
with a charity called 'MEAK' = Medical
& Educational Aid to Kenya to work
for a week at the KNH, but this was
my first such trip. Besides which I have
never even been to Africa before.
The advantage of taking a dinosaur
like me along is that I remember how
patients were "specialed" twenty plus
years ago and how we had to improvise.
These days everything is so hi-tech in
the West we have machines to do stuff
for us, but in Africa some procedures
require some imagination.
In all MEAK financed 22 operations for
about £20,000 - which is the cost of
one heart operation in the UK! All of
the patients were doing well when we
left with the exception of one babe
who has a chest infection... we were
worried about him and it was a wrench
to have to leave.
Top marks to David Anderson our
brilliant surgeon and Claire Barker our
intensivist.
The nurses who all gave up a weeks
annual leave to go deserve praise.
The theatre (OR) team are amazing
especially considering that some are
self-employed and had to pay other
people to stand in for them in their
abscence!
I will write more anon but right now
I'm whacked and need to rest - but
it's been a brilliant week and I
absolutely loved Africa! Whatever
failings the continent has the people
there are fun-loving and incredibly
long-suffering.
God Bless Africa!
Post Script. 12th May 07.
On the day we left Nairobi we had to
re-intubate one of the infants we had
operated on. He had developed a
bad chest infection and wasn't able to
breathe byhimself.
We had to put him back on a ventilator
(what the newspapers call "a life
support machine"!) After such a
positive week that put a dampener on
our final day.
But I am glad to report that we have
since heard that he has made a good
recovery and is doing fine.
Well done to all the team back there
at The Kenyatta National Hospital!
I arrived back in the UK from Nairobi
this morning after having had an
amazing week working on an
improvised Paediatric Intensive Care
Unit at the Kenyatta National Hospital
caring for children (and some adults)
after 'open heart surgery'!
Some of my colleagues at the 'Saline
Nerve Child Hospital' in London have
gone on previous medical missions
with a charity called 'MEAK' = Medical
& Educational Aid to Kenya to work
for a week at the KNH, but this was
my first such trip. Besides which I have
never even been to Africa before.
The advantage of taking a dinosaur
like me along is that I remember how
patients were "specialed" twenty plus
years ago and how we had to improvise.
These days everything is so hi-tech in
the West we have machines to do stuff
for us, but in Africa some procedures
require some imagination.
In all MEAK financed 22 operations for
about £20,000 - which is the cost of
one heart operation in the UK! All of
the patients were doing well when we
left with the exception of one babe
who has a chest infection... we were
worried about him and it was a wrench
to have to leave.
Top marks to David Anderson our
brilliant surgeon and Claire Barker our
intensivist.
The nurses who all gave up a weeks
annual leave to go deserve praise.
The theatre (OR) team are amazing
especially considering that some are
self-employed and had to pay other
people to stand in for them in their
abscence!
I will write more anon but right now
I'm whacked and need to rest - but
it's been a brilliant week and I
absolutely loved Africa! Whatever
failings the continent has the people
there are fun-loving and incredibly
long-suffering.
God Bless Africa!
Post Script. 12th May 07.
On the day we left Nairobi we had to
re-intubate one of the infants we had
operated on. He had developed a
bad chest infection and wasn't able to
breathe byhimself.
We had to put him back on a ventilator
(what the newspapers call "a life
support machine"!) After such a
positive week that put a dampener on
our final day.
But I am glad to report that we have
since heard that he has made a good
recovery and is doing fine.
Well done to all the team back there
at The Kenyatta National Hospital!
Friday, April 27, 2007
MISSION TO KENYA!
Tonight I will be flying to Nairobi with some
of my work colleagues as part of a team
organised by a charity called 'MEAK'
(Medical & Educational Aid to Kenya).
www.meak.org
The plan is for us to take over an operating
theatre at the Kenyatta National Hospital
for a week and do the kind of 'open heart'
surgery patients there wouldn't normally
have access to. I'm part of the children's
intensive care team. I have never been to
Africa before so it will be a terrific experience
for me.
Twenty years ago I spent some time with
'YWAM' (Youth with a Mission) doing some
short term evangelistic mission; I only went to
Denmark and felt not a little admiration for
those who went further afield. In my own small
way I hope that I can make a difference this
coming week even if it is not a Christian
enterprise as such.
God Willing I'll file a report upon my return!
Tonight I will be flying to Nairobi with some
of my work colleagues as part of a team
organised by a charity called 'MEAK'
(Medical & Educational Aid to Kenya).
www.meak.org
The plan is for us to take over an operating
theatre at the Kenyatta National Hospital
for a week and do the kind of 'open heart'
surgery patients there wouldn't normally
have access to. I'm part of the children's
intensive care team. I have never been to
Africa before so it will be a terrific experience
for me.
Twenty years ago I spent some time with
'YWAM' (Youth with a Mission) doing some
short term evangelistic mission; I only went to
Denmark and felt not a little admiration for
those who went further afield. In my own small
way I hope that I can make a difference this
coming week even if it is not a Christian
enterprise as such.
God Willing I'll file a report upon my return!
Saturday, April 21, 2007
The 144,000.
Central Focus Bible Studies follow the
academic year and last term we concluded
our look at the book of Revelation.This
coming term we will be studying "The Upper
Room Discourse" (John 14-17). We have an
introductory talk on Wednesday 25th April
starting at 8pm at St Andrew's in St Mary
Axe, next to "The Gherkin" in the City of
London. If you are in the vicinity why not
drop in?
But before we move on from Revelation
I have a couple of observations I would
like to pass on to blogworld.
I led our group's study on Revelation
chapter 7 when we considered the
significance of "The 144,000"!
Is this a literal number? Or is it a
metaphor? The Jehovah's Witnesses
have gotten into any number of
twists and turns over this, but so
too have some of my brethren. The
real mystery is why has it produced
such bafflement? Because the very
same passage includes clues about
how it should be understood!
First up; the list of names suggesting
"Israel", isn't as straight forward as it
looks - which any modest student of
the Bible already knows.
The key to understanding it as a
metaphor is that it "says" it is a
metaphor! John "hears" the number
'144,000' and their "Names" - but
when he sees he sees a countless
number from all tribes and nations!
All literalists are stuck at this point
[to them the passage simply describes
what "is"] they do not see the meaning
beyond.
"What does '144,000' mean?" I asked at
our Bible study. "It's the complete
number" someone said, " it's twelve
times twelve times one thousand -
the superlative complete number!"
"That is absolutely right!" I replied,
"but that is what the number IS,
the question is, what does the number
MEAN?"
Obviously my telepathy wasn't all it
could be as I was met with a pregnant
pause! "What do we mean by a
superlative complete number?" I went
on.
"Why is it 12,000 - 12,000 - 12,000 etc?
Why not 11,999?
Obviously the group was stumped so I
put in my answer - in all that countless
number no one is missing! Everyone who
is meant to be there, will be there! And
furthermore they will be there by name!
Not a single one will be missing!
THAT IS WHAT THE METAPHOR MEANS!
Central Focus Bible Studies follow the
academic year and last term we concluded
our look at the book of Revelation.This
coming term we will be studying "The Upper
Room Discourse" (John 14-17). We have an
introductory talk on Wednesday 25th April
starting at 8pm at St Andrew's in St Mary
Axe, next to "The Gherkin" in the City of
London. If you are in the vicinity why not
drop in?
But before we move on from Revelation
I have a couple of observations I would
like to pass on to blogworld.
I led our group's study on Revelation
chapter 7 when we considered the
significance of "The 144,000"!
Is this a literal number? Or is it a
metaphor? The Jehovah's Witnesses
have gotten into any number of
twists and turns over this, but so
too have some of my brethren. The
real mystery is why has it produced
such bafflement? Because the very
same passage includes clues about
how it should be understood!
First up; the list of names suggesting
"Israel", isn't as straight forward as it
looks - which any modest student of
the Bible already knows.
The key to understanding it as a
metaphor is that it "says" it is a
metaphor! John "hears" the number
'144,000' and their "Names" - but
when he sees he sees a countless
number from all tribes and nations!
All literalists are stuck at this point
[to them the passage simply describes
what "is"] they do not see the meaning
beyond.
"What does '144,000' mean?" I asked at
our Bible study. "It's the complete
number" someone said, " it's twelve
times twelve times one thousand -
the superlative complete number!"
"That is absolutely right!" I replied,
"but that is what the number IS,
the question is, what does the number
MEAN?"
Obviously my telepathy wasn't all it
could be as I was met with a pregnant
pause! "What do we mean by a
superlative complete number?" I went
on.
"Why is it 12,000 - 12,000 - 12,000 etc?
Why not 11,999?
Obviously the group was stumped so I
put in my answer - in all that countless
number no one is missing! Everyone who
is meant to be there, will be there! And
furthermore they will be there by name!
Not a single one will be missing!
THAT IS WHAT THE METAPHOR MEANS!
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
G.K. CHESTERTON on Humility.
"What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.
Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty
has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was
never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about
himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been
exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man
does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert -
himself."
Quoted from the chapter called "The Suicide of Thought"
in his book "Orthodoxy", published in 1908.
"What we suffer from today is humility in the wrong place.
Modesty has moved from the organ of ambition. Modesty
has settled upon the organ of conviction; where it was
never meant to be. A man was meant to be doubtful about
himself, but undoubting about the truth; this has been
exactly reversed. Nowadays the part of a man that a man
does assert is exactly the part he ought not to assert -
himself."
Quoted from the chapter called "The Suicide of Thought"
in his book "Orthodoxy", published in 1908.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
ARGY-BARGY ABOUT
PENAL SUBSTITUTION!
In so far as the watching world takes any
interest in Christian doctrine it should
come as no surprise that the subject of
"penal substitution" is the one to come
under the fiercest attack.
"Penal substitution" is the belief that
on the cross Jesus bore the punishment
rightly due to sinful humanity in their
place. From first to last the sacrifice of
Jesus is about God's love and mercy
towards an undeserving mankind. As
such it is hardly surprising that it should
be so vehemently attacked for it
presupposes that we need rescuing...
principally from God Himself.
In recent days there has been a furore in
the media surrounding comments made by
the Dean of St Albans attacking this belief.
His supporters have also waded in. And,
unsurprisingly my fellow Evangelicals have
risen to the bait. The media love this sort
of argy-bargy; it makes for great theatre
and perhaps that's why the Dean was
invited to speak on BBC radio... it would
entertain the listeners and give the Dean
a 'puff'. (Pun intended!)
While it is tempting to want equal air time
to rebut the Dean's opinions I personally
have the gravest doubts about the wisdom
of joining in a public fracas - TV & Radio
are not conducive to thoughtful exposition
of Christian doctrine. These are media
suited to the instant 'sound bite', not to
considered reflection. Beyond showing
that evangelicals are correct, we will only
win such arguments by demonstrating
that our theology is much deeper and far
richer and ultimately more life changing
than the Dean's views. You can't do that in
a sound bite! Our opponents can achieve
their aims: we cannot.
By participating in media argy bargy we
may score points within our own
constituency but we often fail to connect
with the wider audience; we concede a
propaganda coup to our opponents and we
confer the benediction of 'impartiality' to
a media that is anything but. The best
response is to faithfully teach the Bible, as
we always have, from the public pulpit and
graciously refuse to be so easily baited.
I believe that we should respond with the
care and the grace our doctrine of "penal
substitution" demands of us - and so shame
those who claim the mantle of Christ and yet
misrepresent this most wonderful of all
Christian doctrines.
ps 15-April-07.
There is a new book out which comes with a
great recommendation (I've ordered it!)
"PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS:
rediscovering the glory of penal substitution",
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey & Andrew Sach.
Published by IVP.
PENAL SUBSTITUTION!
In so far as the watching world takes any
interest in Christian doctrine it should
come as no surprise that the subject of
"penal substitution" is the one to come
under the fiercest attack.
"Penal substitution" is the belief that
on the cross Jesus bore the punishment
rightly due to sinful humanity in their
place. From first to last the sacrifice of
Jesus is about God's love and mercy
towards an undeserving mankind. As
such it is hardly surprising that it should
be so vehemently attacked for it
presupposes that we need rescuing...
principally from God Himself.
In recent days there has been a furore in
the media surrounding comments made by
the Dean of St Albans attacking this belief.
His supporters have also waded in. And,
unsurprisingly my fellow Evangelicals have
risen to the bait. The media love this sort
of argy-bargy; it makes for great theatre
and perhaps that's why the Dean was
invited to speak on BBC radio... it would
entertain the listeners and give the Dean
a 'puff'. (Pun intended!)
While it is tempting to want equal air time
to rebut the Dean's opinions I personally
have the gravest doubts about the wisdom
of joining in a public fracas - TV & Radio
are not conducive to thoughtful exposition
of Christian doctrine. These are media
suited to the instant 'sound bite', not to
considered reflection. Beyond showing
that evangelicals are correct, we will only
win such arguments by demonstrating
that our theology is much deeper and far
richer and ultimately more life changing
than the Dean's views. You can't do that in
a sound bite! Our opponents can achieve
their aims: we cannot.
By participating in media argy bargy we
may score points within our own
constituency but we often fail to connect
with the wider audience; we concede a
propaganda coup to our opponents and we
confer the benediction of 'impartiality' to
a media that is anything but. The best
response is to faithfully teach the Bible, as
we always have, from the public pulpit and
graciously refuse to be so easily baited.
I believe that we should respond with the
care and the grace our doctrine of "penal
substitution" demands of us - and so shame
those who claim the mantle of Christ and yet
misrepresent this most wonderful of all
Christian doctrines.
ps 15-April-07.
There is a new book out which comes with a
great recommendation (I've ordered it!)
"PIERCED FOR OUR TRANSGRESSIONS:
rediscovering the glory of penal substitution",
by Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey & Andrew Sach.
Published by IVP.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Monday, April 02, 2007
THE ANACHRONISTIC CALVINIST.
One of the issues which Christians debate among
themselves is the issue of 'free-will' versus
'pre-destination'. In essence the question is;
'what, if anything, do we contribute to our
own salvation?'
Once I was discussing this topic with a relative
who dismissed me as a "Calvinist".... as if that
alone was sufficient to clinch the argument from
his point of view! Upto that point in time I had
never actually read anything by John Calvin;
I'd heard of him but never read anything by him.
The opinions my relative had taken such exception
to were founded exclusively on Ephesians 2 despite
his assertion to the contrary. In any event; so what?
Being accused of having Calvinistic tendencies isn't
proof that my grasp of Ephesians 2 was wrong. And
quite why he thought I would alight on this 16th
century French protestant author and attribute
all authority to his words for no readily apparent
reason remains a mystery to me to this day.
That said I have no reason to suppose that I am
not a Calvinist - I can only assume that the man
was expounding the very thing I'd seen for myself
in Ephesians. For this reason I would describe
myself as an "Anachronistic Calvinist"! I drew
my theology from the Bible and later discovered
that a label was attributed to it. The fact that
the word "Calvinist" is used pejoratively is fine
by me; I am not ashamed of the New Testament
message about the sheer grace of God towards
sinners like me. And I understand why many
people detest such a message.... it is a challenge
to human pride.
Before I read Ephesians chapter two I had a
notion that salvation worked like this; Jesus has
contributed 99.99999999999999999999999999%
of what I need to be saved, I just need to add my
0.00000000000000000000000000000001%
to make it effective. As I read what Jesus and his
disciples taught I quickly realised that there was
a HUGE problem with this theory. It means that
Jesus actually saves no-one! For sure no-one is
saved without Him but all that he did at The Cross
is ineffectual - it saves nobody if we don't add
something to it to make it work. On this reckoning
Jesus saves everyone potentially but no one in
actuality. It is my 0.000000000000000000001%
which really provides the magic ingredient - it may
be small but it is that that makes all the difference
between being saved and not being saved. Do
you see the issue? Am I saved by the grace of
Jesus Christ alone, or is it a case of "Jesus plus
something else"? (Which inevitably degenerates
to "Something Else plus jesus!" especially when
human egos are involved). Remember that even
our faith is a gift of God" so that no-one can boast"
Eph 2 v9.
If my theory was right there is something intrinsic
to me which aids my salvation. I am somehow
intrinsically more loving, or more humble, or more
innately 'sprititual' than others; something within
me that makes me better than my neighbour.
Do you see the problem? Grace properly
understood means God's totally unmerited favour.
Even "my" faith is in reality God's gift! See Ephesians
2 v8. And that is good news!
Totally unmerited favour. Wow! Thank God!
Thank God my salvation isn't down to me -
not even 0.0000000000000000001% worth - if
it was I would be lost for sure! God alone is
glorified when we acknowledge the depth of his
amazing grace.
Speaking to another acquaintance about these
things, she said "but how can I be sure I'm saved
if it's all down to God?" [This injects uncertainty
she implied]. She went on to say "I know that I
will always be found faithful" [and on that basis she
can have assurance of salvation]. When I heard her
say this I could shudder for her - if she couldn't
see that she was relying on her self rather than
Christ I'm not sure I could explain it to her.
It is worth saying at this point that the phrase
"self righteous Christian" is a contradiction in
terms. An individual who has put their trust in
Jesus is claiming Christ's righteous in place of
their own because they realise their own
righteousness is "as filthy rags" to quote the
prophet Isaiah. You can trust in yourself and
your own merits or you can trust exclusively
in the merits of Jesus Christ when you stand
before God but you cannot do both. This is not
to say that some people don't want it both ways
and are prepared to give it a try! The question
ultimately is this: who or what exactlty are
you putting your trust in?
Paul writes in Philippians 3 that he considers all
the religious 'brownie points' he'd earned by
religious observances prior to his conversion
(yes, he was "religious" before he got converted
from it!) as 'rubbish' "that I may gain Christ and
be found in him, not having a righteouness of my
own..... but that which comes through faith in
Christ". ['Faith' in the 100% sense, not the
99.999999999999999999999999999% version].
This is the big difference between 'religion' (which
is about clocking up merit by means of religious
observances which is the natural default setting of
us humans - bearing in mind that even atheists
have their means of moral 'one-upmanship') and
The Gospel of Jesus which is about trust in him
and a positive rejection of all such self confidence
..... even if it is only 0.0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000001%.
ps To this day I haven't yet read "Calvin's Institutes"
but then neither had the Apostle Paul - I guess that
makes him an "Anachronistic Calvinist" as well! Hmm....
Jesus too!
One of the issues which Christians debate among
themselves is the issue of 'free-will' versus
'pre-destination'. In essence the question is;
'what, if anything, do we contribute to our
own salvation?'
Once I was discussing this topic with a relative
who dismissed me as a "Calvinist".... as if that
alone was sufficient to clinch the argument from
his point of view! Upto that point in time I had
never actually read anything by John Calvin;
I'd heard of him but never read anything by him.
The opinions my relative had taken such exception
to were founded exclusively on Ephesians 2 despite
his assertion to the contrary. In any event; so what?
Being accused of having Calvinistic tendencies isn't
proof that my grasp of Ephesians 2 was wrong. And
quite why he thought I would alight on this 16th
century French protestant author and attribute
all authority to his words for no readily apparent
reason remains a mystery to me to this day.
That said I have no reason to suppose that I am
not a Calvinist - I can only assume that the man
was expounding the very thing I'd seen for myself
in Ephesians. For this reason I would describe
myself as an "Anachronistic Calvinist"! I drew
my theology from the Bible and later discovered
that a label was attributed to it. The fact that
the word "Calvinist" is used pejoratively is fine
by me; I am not ashamed of the New Testament
message about the sheer grace of God towards
sinners like me. And I understand why many
people detest such a message.... it is a challenge
to human pride.
Before I read Ephesians chapter two I had a
notion that salvation worked like this; Jesus has
contributed 99.99999999999999999999999999%
of what I need to be saved, I just need to add my
0.00000000000000000000000000000001%
to make it effective. As I read what Jesus and his
disciples taught I quickly realised that there was
a HUGE problem with this theory. It means that
Jesus actually saves no-one! For sure no-one is
saved without Him but all that he did at The Cross
is ineffectual - it saves nobody if we don't add
something to it to make it work. On this reckoning
Jesus saves everyone potentially but no one in
actuality. It is my 0.000000000000000000001%
which really provides the magic ingredient - it may
be small but it is that that makes all the difference
between being saved and not being saved. Do
you see the issue? Am I saved by the grace of
Jesus Christ alone, or is it a case of "Jesus plus
something else"? (Which inevitably degenerates
to "Something Else plus jesus!" especially when
human egos are involved). Remember that even
our faith is a gift of God" so that no-one can boast"
Eph 2 v9.
If my theory was right there is something intrinsic
to me which aids my salvation. I am somehow
intrinsically more loving, or more humble, or more
innately 'sprititual' than others; something within
me that makes me better than my neighbour.
Do you see the problem? Grace properly
understood means God's totally unmerited favour.
Even "my" faith is in reality God's gift! See Ephesians
2 v8. And that is good news!
Totally unmerited favour. Wow! Thank God!
Thank God my salvation isn't down to me -
not even 0.0000000000000000001% worth - if
it was I would be lost for sure! God alone is
glorified when we acknowledge the depth of his
amazing grace.
Speaking to another acquaintance about these
things, she said "but how can I be sure I'm saved
if it's all down to God?" [This injects uncertainty
she implied]. She went on to say "I know that I
will always be found faithful" [and on that basis she
can have assurance of salvation]. When I heard her
say this I could shudder for her - if she couldn't
see that she was relying on her self rather than
Christ I'm not sure I could explain it to her.
It is worth saying at this point that the phrase
"self righteous Christian" is a contradiction in
terms. An individual who has put their trust in
Jesus is claiming Christ's righteous in place of
their own because they realise their own
righteousness is "as filthy rags" to quote the
prophet Isaiah. You can trust in yourself and
your own merits or you can trust exclusively
in the merits of Jesus Christ when you stand
before God but you cannot do both. This is not
to say that some people don't want it both ways
and are prepared to give it a try! The question
ultimately is this: who or what exactlty are
you putting your trust in?
Paul writes in Philippians 3 that he considers all
the religious 'brownie points' he'd earned by
religious observances prior to his conversion
(yes, he was "religious" before he got converted
from it!) as 'rubbish' "that I may gain Christ and
be found in him, not having a righteouness of my
own..... but that which comes through faith in
Christ". ['Faith' in the 100% sense, not the
99.999999999999999999999999999% version].
This is the big difference between 'religion' (which
is about clocking up merit by means of religious
observances which is the natural default setting of
us humans - bearing in mind that even atheists
have their means of moral 'one-upmanship') and
The Gospel of Jesus which is about trust in him
and a positive rejection of all such self confidence
..... even if it is only 0.0000000000000000000
0000000000000000000000000000000001%.
ps To this day I haven't yet read "Calvin's Institutes"
but then neither had the Apostle Paul - I guess that
makes him an "Anachronistic Calvinist" as well! Hmm....
Jesus too!
Sunday, April 01, 2007
Monday, March 26, 2007
BENEDICT XVI on Relativism.
"Today a particularly insidious obstacle to the
task of education is the massive presence in our
society and culture of that relativism which,
recognising nothing as definitive, leaves as the
ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.
And under the semblance of freedom it becomes
a prison for each one, for it separates people
from one another, locking each person into his
or her own ego."
Pope Benedict XVI speaking at a conference of
educationalists.
I chose this quotation, not because it comes from
a pope but, because he aptly expresses the problem
with 'relativism' as a sociological phenomenon.
For those of you who believe that 'relativism' is the
only absolute I would like to open up the discussion.
Benedict XVI points out the consequences of this
'relativism'; I would like to take issue with one of
its supposed foundations.
A few months ago I was listening to a debate about
'relativism' on the radio. Heaven knows where the
BBC get their pundits from but one of the panel
asserted that Einstein had provided the scientific
basis underpinning the philosophy of 'relativism'.
'Einstein proves Relativism to be true' [that is
everything is relative to each other - there are
no fixed points of reference].
While his fellow panellists acknowledged the
self evident truth of this I was shouting at the
radio! "You don't understand Relativity at all
do you!?" Even lay people have heard of e=mc2
which means energy equals mass times constant
squared. Einstein never said 'everything is
relative to everything else', he actually said mass
and energy are relative to a fixed constant - in
this case the speed of light.There are constants,
there are fixed reference points.
I suppose if something is repeated often enough
for long enough 'relativism' will become the received
wisdom. That however will never make it true.
The reality is that the human heart doesn't want
any reference outside of itself and its desires.
Whatever the BBC pundits say 'Relativism' has no
scientific basis - its basis is really found in our
self centred human nature.
I do not believe that for every proposition
there is always an equally valid opposite.
There is such a thing as objective truth, the
Cosmos does have its fixed reference points.
"Today a particularly insidious obstacle to the
task of education is the massive presence in our
society and culture of that relativism which,
recognising nothing as definitive, leaves as the
ultimate criterion only the self with its desires.
And under the semblance of freedom it becomes
a prison for each one, for it separates people
from one another, locking each person into his
or her own ego."
Pope Benedict XVI speaking at a conference of
educationalists.
I chose this quotation, not because it comes from
a pope but, because he aptly expresses the problem
with 'relativism' as a sociological phenomenon.
For those of you who believe that 'relativism' is the
only absolute I would like to open up the discussion.
Benedict XVI points out the consequences of this
'relativism'; I would like to take issue with one of
its supposed foundations.
A few months ago I was listening to a debate about
'relativism' on the radio. Heaven knows where the
BBC get their pundits from but one of the panel
asserted that Einstein had provided the scientific
basis underpinning the philosophy of 'relativism'.
'Einstein proves Relativism to be true' [that is
everything is relative to each other - there are
no fixed points of reference].
While his fellow panellists acknowledged the
self evident truth of this I was shouting at the
radio! "You don't understand Relativity at all
do you!?" Even lay people have heard of e=mc2
which means energy equals mass times constant
squared. Einstein never said 'everything is
relative to everything else', he actually said mass
and energy are relative to a fixed constant - in
this case the speed of light.There are constants,
there are fixed reference points.
I suppose if something is repeated often enough
for long enough 'relativism' will become the received
wisdom. That however will never make it true.
The reality is that the human heart doesn't want
any reference outside of itself and its desires.
Whatever the BBC pundits say 'Relativism' has no
scientific basis - its basis is really found in our
self centred human nature.
I do not believe that for every proposition
there is always an equally valid opposite.
There is such a thing as objective truth, the
Cosmos does have its fixed reference points.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The REVELATION of
JESUS CHRIST.
The book of Revelation consists of seven
cycles of seven. After each of the 'sevens'
we get an action replay - taken from a
slightly different angle (which is why
there are so many "final" battles!) The
sequence can be charted as follows (with
the relevant chapters in brackets):-
Prologue (1)...........Letters (2-3) = 1st 7.
[replay]
Interlude (4-5)......Seals (6) = 2nd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (7).........Trumpets (8-9) = 3rd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (10-11)...Beasts (12-14) = 4th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (15)........Plagues (16) = 5th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (17-18)...Visions (19-20) = 6th 7.
[replay]
[No Interlude] Final 'Sabbath' Consummation.
Once one realises that the book isn't linear
but a series of repeating cycles then its
message and meaning become much clearer.
The book is not a Christian version of
Nostradamus, which is how it is often abused,
it is exactly what the author says it is; "The
Revelation of Jesus Christ" 1v1.
When our focus starts to slip from Jesus and
draws us into speculative conspiracy theories
alarm bells should start to ring! If the focus
isn't Jesus the message can't be Christian can
it?
JESUS CHRIST.
The book of Revelation consists of seven
cycles of seven. After each of the 'sevens'
we get an action replay - taken from a
slightly different angle (which is why
there are so many "final" battles!) The
sequence can be charted as follows (with
the relevant chapters in brackets):-
Prologue (1)...........Letters (2-3) = 1st 7.
[replay]
Interlude (4-5)......Seals (6) = 2nd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (7).........Trumpets (8-9) = 3rd 7.
[replay]
Interlude (10-11)...Beasts (12-14) = 4th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (15)........Plagues (16) = 5th 7.
[replay]
Interlude (17-18)...Visions (19-20) = 6th 7.
[replay]
[No Interlude] Final 'Sabbath' Consummation.
Once one realises that the book isn't linear
but a series of repeating cycles then its
message and meaning become much clearer.
The book is not a Christian version of
Nostradamus, which is how it is often abused,
it is exactly what the author says it is; "The
Revelation of Jesus Christ" 1v1.
When our focus starts to slip from Jesus and
draws us into speculative conspiracy theories
alarm bells should start to ring! If the focus
isn't Jesus the message can't be Christian can
it?
Sunday, March 11, 2007
FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION.
There has been a concerted attempt at some
British universities
to have the Christian Union
banned from their campuses. The ostensible
justification for this is that because 'CU's will
only allow believing Christians to act in a
leadership capacity this contravenes equal
opportunies legislation.
'CU's are affiliated with UCCF which has an
evangelical basis of faith open to public
scrutiny so one one is under any illusion
about what they believe and there is no
confusion about their purpose. It is entirely
reasonable to expect the leaders to share
these principles and if someone does not
they are entirely at liberty to join or create
another group more in tune with their beliefs.
I wouldn't be eligible to lead a university
'Islamic Society' but I don't feel my human
rights have been infringed. There needs to
be a good dose of common sense injected
into some of our academic circles.
The use of laudable anti-discriminatory
sanctions in this way will only discredit this
process. The suspicion is that those forcing
the issue have another agenda. On their
argument one would logically expect
the various student political groups also to be
banned on the basis that they too do not allow
those of opposing beliefs onto their executive
committees either.
The only purpose these actions can serve is to
hinder the lawful association and activities of
Christian students. In case someone suggests
that the use of the term 'Christian' is some
sort of ruse to subvert legitimate anti-racist
policies and de facto means 'all white', I would
point out that the vast majority of the world's
Christians are not of European origin they are
African and Asian! I would go so far as to say
that, properly understood, Christianity is one
of the few trans racial groupings you will find
on campus!
If you are in sympathy with my comments and
if you are a UK citizen then why not sign a
petition on the "No 10" website to that effect?
It will only take a minute... the link is...
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/culeaders
and please forward this blog to any interested
parties as a matter of urgency.
If you are not a UK citizen then do pray for the
witness of the church here which is being
squeezed by the forces of intolerance
masquerading as something else.
There has been a concerted attempt at some
British universities
to have the Christian Union
banned from their campuses. The ostensible
justification for this is that because 'CU's will
only allow believing Christians to act in a
leadership capacity this contravenes equal
opportunies legislation.
'CU's are affiliated with UCCF which has an
evangelical basis of faith open to public
scrutiny so one one is under any illusion
about what they believe and there is no
confusion about their purpose. It is entirely
reasonable to expect the leaders to share
these principles and if someone does not
they are entirely at liberty to join or create
another group more in tune with their beliefs.
I wouldn't be eligible to lead a university
'Islamic Society' but I don't feel my human
rights have been infringed. There needs to
be a good dose of common sense injected
into some of our academic circles.
The use of laudable anti-discriminatory
sanctions in this way will only discredit this
process. The suspicion is that those forcing
the issue have another agenda. On their
argument one would logically expect
the various student political groups also to be
banned on the basis that they too do not allow
those of opposing beliefs onto their executive
committees either.
The only purpose these actions can serve is to
hinder the lawful association and activities of
Christian students. In case someone suggests
that the use of the term 'Christian' is some
sort of ruse to subvert legitimate anti-racist
policies and de facto means 'all white', I would
point out that the vast majority of the world's
Christians are not of European origin they are
African and Asian! I would go so far as to say
that, properly understood, Christianity is one
of the few trans racial groupings you will find
on campus!
If you are in sympathy with my comments and
if you are a UK citizen then why not sign a
petition on the "No 10" website to that effect?
It will only take a minute... the link is...
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/culeaders
and please forward this blog to any interested
parties as a matter of urgency.
If you are not a UK citizen then do pray for the
witness of the church here which is being
squeezed by the forces of intolerance
masquerading as something else.
Sunday, March 04, 2007
"THE HISTORY BOYS";
a play by Alan Bennett.
The other day I went to see Alan Bennett's play
'The History Boys' at Wyndhams Theatre in the
West End. I am a fan of Bennett's work and was
looking forward to this production which had had
great reviews.
The plot-line is that half a dozen boys at a state
school in the 1980s are preparing for entrance exams to
Oxford and Cambridge Universities. The task of tutoring
them falls to two markedly different teachers. The
avuncular 'Hector' and the young, ambitious 'Tom'.
Hector sees his role as helping educate his students
to be rounded human beings while all around him
the priorities are 'targets', 'league tables' and 'exams'
rather than people. Hector is a very likeable
character; Tom however is more in tune with the
cynical spirit of the age - and the immediate task
at hand. So far so good.
The plot started to come unglued for me when a second
storyline was introduced. Hector is caught touching the
genitals of one of his students. Somehow this act is
passed off as a minor indiscretion which the buffoon of
a headteacher blows out of all proportion by insisting
that Hector takes early retirement (rather than have him
face professional disgrace). The audience's sympathies
were being directed to Hector, who, as I said earlier, was
in every other respect an appealing character.
There was a serious issue here which the author
glossed over. The "elephant in the room" was the
apparent abuse of trust between a respected teacher and
his students and we were encouraged to laugh it off.
Of course the "boys" portrayed were in their late teens
so there is no question of a teacher interfering with
'minors'. And yet I felt uncomfortable with the side of
the storyline we were being steered to support.
The "boys" were too self confident of their sexual
identity for it to ring true of teenagers. The implication
is that - underneath all that diffidence and callowness-
young people are much more knowing and consenting
than they truly are. The fact that the students Hector
fondled became 'accessories after the fact' is neither
here nor there and anyway isn't that the psychological
strategy employed by most paedophiles?
Sorry Alan I was a fan but I'm not so sure now.
ps Do you think I've blown my chances of getting into
Cambridge? I guess I'll just have to settle for Oxford
instead!
a play by Alan Bennett.
The other day I went to see Alan Bennett's play
'The History Boys' at Wyndhams Theatre in the
West End. I am a fan of Bennett's work and was
looking forward to this production which had had
great reviews.
The plot-line is that half a dozen boys at a state
school in the 1980s are preparing for entrance exams to
Oxford and Cambridge Universities. The task of tutoring
them falls to two markedly different teachers. The
avuncular 'Hector' and the young, ambitious 'Tom'.
Hector sees his role as helping educate his students
to be rounded human beings while all around him
the priorities are 'targets', 'league tables' and 'exams'
rather than people. Hector is a very likeable
character; Tom however is more in tune with the
cynical spirit of the age - and the immediate task
at hand. So far so good.
The plot started to come unglued for me when a second
storyline was introduced. Hector is caught touching the
genitals of one of his students. Somehow this act is
passed off as a minor indiscretion which the buffoon of
a headteacher blows out of all proportion by insisting
that Hector takes early retirement (rather than have him
face professional disgrace). The audience's sympathies
were being directed to Hector, who, as I said earlier, was
in every other respect an appealing character.
There was a serious issue here which the author
glossed over. The "elephant in the room" was the
apparent abuse of trust between a respected teacher and
his students and we were encouraged to laugh it off.
Of course the "boys" portrayed were in their late teens
so there is no question of a teacher interfering with
'minors'. And yet I felt uncomfortable with the side of
the storyline we were being steered to support.
The "boys" were too self confident of their sexual
identity for it to ring true of teenagers. The implication
is that - underneath all that diffidence and callowness-
young people are much more knowing and consenting
than they truly are. The fact that the students Hector
fondled became 'accessories after the fact' is neither
here nor there and anyway isn't that the psychological
strategy employed by most paedophiles?
Sorry Alan I was a fan but I'm not so sure now.
ps Do you think I've blown my chances of getting into
Cambridge? I guess I'll just have to settle for Oxford
instead!
Thursday, March 01, 2007
TOTAL LUNAR ECLIPSE;
3rd March 2007.
For the first time in well over two years
a total eclipse of the Moon will be visible
from the UK. It can be sighted across
Europe and Africa, weather permitting
of course.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon
passes into the Earth's shadow when
they line up with the Sun. All six hours
and five minutes of the event will be
visible from the UK.
First contact with the faint 'penumbral'
(partial) shadow takes place at 8:18pm
GMT, followed by a slight darkening of
the lower left hand edge of the Moon
(its leading edge). This shade should be
readily visible by the time of first 'umbral'
(full) shadow at 9:30pm.
The Moon will continue its entry into the
darkest part of the Earth's shadow, and
increasing 'bite' will be taken out of the
left side of the Moon until it is completely
immersed in shadow at 10:44pm.
During maximum eclipse (totality) at
11:21pm observers may witness a near
invisible Moon or one that is coppery-red
or orange in colour.
Totality ends at 11:58pm, with the last
umbral contact at 01:11am and last
penumbral contact at 02:24am.
Enjoy.
3rd March 2007.
For the first time in well over two years
a total eclipse of the Moon will be visible
from the UK. It can be sighted across
Europe and Africa, weather permitting
of course.
A Lunar Eclipse occurs when the Moon
passes into the Earth's shadow when
they line up with the Sun. All six hours
and five minutes of the event will be
visible from the UK.
First contact with the faint 'penumbral'
(partial) shadow takes place at 8:18pm
GMT, followed by a slight darkening of
the lower left hand edge of the Moon
(its leading edge). This shade should be
readily visible by the time of first 'umbral'
(full) shadow at 9:30pm.
The Moon will continue its entry into the
darkest part of the Earth's shadow, and
increasing 'bite' will be taken out of the
left side of the Moon until it is completely
immersed in shadow at 10:44pm.
During maximum eclipse (totality) at
11:21pm observers may witness a near
invisible Moon or one that is coppery-red
or orange in colour.
Totality ends at 11:58pm, with the last
umbral contact at 01:11am and last
penumbral contact at 02:24am.
Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)