Happy 20th Birthday to our beautiful niece Anna!

Last year when you stayed with us you took a shine to our "Lemon Jelly" album so we've ordered you a copy from Amazon, it should be with you soon. We hope you enjoy it!

God Bless,
Pete & Helen.


ps Don't play it too loud!

Baptism Service for Harry C & Lucy G this morning.

William Taylor led a baptismal service at church this morning for two infants. The nice thing about St Helen's Bishopsgate is that although there are differing views on baptism within the church family these are not the cause of any friction between us.

Some people feel that baptism is an initiation rite into the covenant akin to the Old Testament practice of circumcision. Others see no such link. This goes back to something I wrote last Friday about continuity/ discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. Some folk think there is a lot of continuity and others (like me) think there is less, I'm at one point on the spectrum and others are further along from me.

Just because I see more discontinuity it would be a terrible misrepresentation to imply that children are not important to me or that the children of believers are not precious to God. In 1 Corinthians 7 v14 the children of believers are described as 'holy'; but please note that they are holy already on account of having a believing parent, baptism is not to be misconstrued as adding a dash extra holiness to this. Baptism is a very public ceremony to welcome these infants into the local church family; actually when you think about it is the public aspect that makes it special otherwise if it was purely a sacramental thing then one could do it entirely privately. The reality is it is a church family, community event and not a private rite.

St Helen's also has believers' baptism by full immersion. This practice is treated with scepticism by some churches. The important thing is that here at St Helen's we can come together in peace and unity despite differences on secondary matters because we aim to keep the Gospel of Jesus Christ central in our church life.

William was very careful to point out that baptising these infants does not make them Christian - that is something that only God can do. Faith is a gift from God, so the sign of baptism cannot, somehow, bring about the thing signified. That is God's prerogative.

"Federal Vision" (aka Auburn Avenue Theology).

Until last Summer I had never even heard of "Federal Vision" and since then I have done a bit of a crash course to get up to speed as it has become a hot topic within some churches and organisations I know of. (St Helen's is not directly affected I hasten to add!). Trawling the internet is a bit of a minefield - you find skilful proponents of "Fed Vis" and passionate critics, along with 'the good, the bad and the ugly' voices in between. In a nutshell "Federal Vision" seeks to reaffirm the importance of the sacraments within the life of the church and indeed to reform our view of the Church itself. In support of these ideas they look to the Westminster Confession and Book 4 of John Calvin's "Institutes of Christian Religion" among other worthy sources, so at first glance it would be unfair to say that these people are outside the Reformed faith or that they are heretics. The most visible practice of the movement is a passionate belief in infant baptism for reasons which will become clear below.

Reading "The Baptized Body", by Peter J Leithart, has shaken me and caused me to review what it is I believe. I thought that we, the Reformed church, were all singing from the same hymn sheet. Have I so badly read the Bible that I have imposed on it my own pre-suppositions? An issue for me is, have I misidentified myself as a 'Reformed' christian? To be a 5 point Calvinist seemingly isn't enough. Can I still at least say I'm reformed with a small 'r'? But then again John Calvin didn't actually write 'The 5 Points'; they were written by his successors and dedicated to him. Nonetheless I feel a bit of an orphan.

I am not an academic theologian but I consider myself to be a reasonably well read layman who has a clear idea about what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is about; and even if I do not know how to winkle out every nuance hidden within the curlicues of academic vocabulary I am sufficiently concerned to make this modest attempt. It may be that in writing on this topic I am making a right charlie of myself and merely displaying my ignorance for all of blog world to see - but I would far rather run that risk than say nothing.

Not knowing where to start - or frankly which source to trust - I figured the best place to begin was with some of the literature written by Peter J Leithart who is a leading proponent of "Fed Vis". This movement arose within reformed circles in the Presbyterian Church of the USA but has made significant inroads into the reformed scene in the UK. And when I say significant this is not mere hyperbole.

Peter Leithart's seminal book is "The Baptized Body". He asserts that when the word baptism is used in the New Testament it normally means the sacrament of water Baptism. I will have to consider the texts carefully again but if he is correct then the rite does achieve some remarkable things for the recipient. In Leithart's view water Baptism is a 'radical life transforming event'. But I always thought that the word "baptism" has a range of meanings or at least it could be used as a metaphor. Could not the word be legitimately translated as "immersed" rather than being transliterated from the Greek without neccesarily doing an injustice to the text? Is it so unfair, as Leithart suggests, to treat the word "baptism" as shorthand for the process of conversion which culminates in a public, symbolic identification with Christ's death and resurrection (a rite of passage if you like) and official welcome into the local church community? Leithart thinks this is playing fast and loose with the plain meaning of the text; put simply 'the sign effects what it signifies'. I do find that hard to swallow because it does seem to set these texts at odds with many others that seem to impute the benefits of salvation to the believer by the sheer grace of God alone without the agency of the sacraments. I will have to think on these things some more, but I am still inclined to view baptism as a testimony to regeneration rather than a regenerative act in itself!

There are some helpful correctives in the book. When we come to Christ we are called to be part of the church community and not just live our lives in splendid spiritual isolation. We also need to be aware of the dangers of an inward looking, pietistic form of spirituality. Both these stress "me" and "my walk with God" to the exclusion of our relationships with other believers. A distinction is drawn between the personal and the individual in the Fed Vis lexicon - personal is good: individual bad, an issue that will pop up again in this essay. Leithart makes a fair point about infants being able to form trusting relationships and that there isn't some magical age of responsibility; but that argument really scores against Arminianism rather than believers' baptism as such because faith is a gift of God at whatever age.

Here I want to draw attention to the problem of language and why Federal Visionists(?), Federal Visionaries(?), Federal Visionistas(?) often find themselves 'talking past' people like me... and indeed start to arouse concern. Fed Visers are very intelligent and articulate people who use language with precision - usually borne out of academic rigour - but the words used mean something signifcantly different to the men and women in the pew, or at least the evangelical in the pew. For example the word "Reformed" is used of this theology but something much more sacramental is meant by it than I would hitherto have thought possible. I accept this is probably sheer ignorance on my part.

That aside I am troubled by several aspects of the book, which I read genuinely in good faith. A lot of the words with which we are familiar on the evangelical scene seem to be radically redefined by "Fed Vis" eg, "regeneration", "sanctification" and even "justification" are to be applied to anyone who happens to be Water Baptised regardless of whether they are ultimately saved. "Baptism" texts can be advanced which seem to imply these amazing benefits - but, of course, for Leithart that almost invariably means literal water Baptism and invariably fall short, in the final analysis, of actual salvation. I can't help feeling that this 'radical life transforming event' is not so life transforming after all! Within this new lexicon it is possible to be justified, adopted, sanctified and regenerate and yet ultimately remain unsaved.

The crux of the sacrament is to induct the recipient into civic society. This is a fundamental reorientation away from the Gospel which saves sinners through individual repentance and faith in Christ to a Gospel which seeks social and cultural change through the agency of the Church as a formal institution. In this context it is easy to see why infants can, indeed must, be regenerated and encultured into the Church by means of Baptism. The concept of believers' baptism is treated with some scepticism on the basis that the notion of choice is an illusion derived from our modern worldly mindset. The "baptistic" approach of believers' baptism, is viewed by Fed Vis as deeply suspect and compromised by worldly pre-suppositions rather than being truly Biblical. Maybe I missed a step in the argument somewhere but (as I said earlier) I've always viewed faith as a gift from God. None of these criticisms 'hit home' and I wonder if he really has Arminianism in his sights rather than the target he claims.

Please note that not all paedo-baptists are Fed Vis! There is a spectrum of thought within the church community as to how much continuity or discontinuity exists between the Old and the New Covenant. I tend toward the discontinuity end of the spectrum but others see much more continuity ie, water baptism is the new sign of the covenant taking over from the OT sign of circumcision. Water baptism is, for them, an appropriate sign used to include infants within the covenant people of God; personally I'm not convinced but I do not regard this theology as "beyond the pale" by any means. Maybe this was where John Calvin was positioned. The question is how much further down this Covenantal spectrum is Fed Vis and at what point do we consider it to have crossed the line? Or put another way, do the proponents of FV regard us, sotto voce, as too far up the line?

The essence of the argument goes much further beyond infant Baptism because it turns on our understanding of "the Body of Christ. Leithart says our concept of "The Body of Christ" should be taken literally to mean just that, it is not a metaphor. If I read him correctly he seems to be saying that the Church is an incarnation of Christ in the world today - to say otherwise is to be guilty of Nestorianism no less! Hence the 'federal' tag ('federal' being a Latin derivative alternatively translated as 'covenantal' in English). The body of believers are in a federal/covenantal union with Christ. I don't have a huge problem with this provided we take care to distinguish between the Body and the Head. I cannot help but feel that Leithart sees the Church as sharing in the Headship/Dominion of Christ. Here it is useful to say that "Fed Vis" is firmly 'Post-Millennial' in its philosophy, which means that, in its opinion, Jesus will return after a glorious millennial Church age during which the world's culture, economics and politics will have been transformed through the agency of the Church. (A-millennialists interpret the 1,000 year reign of Revelation ch. 20 as a present reality we call "the Kingdom of God" which will find its complete fulfillment when Christ returns. Pre-millennialists see Christ as returning beforehand to inaugurate his kingdom in the modern land of Israel).

The discussion within Evangelicalism about Christ and Culture in recent years has been a helpful way of thinking Christianly about how we interact with the world around us and as a way of proclaiming the Gospel meaningfully in a variety of settings. But the "Fed Vis" position seems to be that redeeming culture is the principal mission of the Church, which is a step up from classic "post-millennialism". The classic Post-Millennialists I've met would say that culture will be transformed coincidentally as people come to faith in Christ; I don't have a problem with this conceptually because they recognise that "the heart of the matter is the matter of the heart!" You cannot change anything until the human heart is changed! However I worry that Fed Vis sees our primary mission as changing people's presuppositions as an end in itself, if so then they have started to lose sight of the grace of God and its ability to change the human heart; "not by might nor by power, but by my spirit" says the Lord Almighty. The danger in my view is that the Fed Vis version of post-millennialism will substitute mere formalism for spiritual reality as people are enculturated into Christianity and their confidence is focused on the institutions of the Church.

Perhaps the profoundest difference I have with Leithart is his view on assurance. I just cannot see how Baptism, or the Church minister's "absolution"(!) for that matter, offers objective assurance of anything. Indeed I would argue that the danger here is of placing our faith in people or institutions or rites rather than in Christ alone. Maybe Leithart would deny this on the basis that the Church is Christ, but I'm not convinced. Assurance can only be assurance when the focus is taken away from ourselves or our particular group and placed in Christ exclusively. I have assurance precisely because I have trusted Jesus and have no confidence in myself or any one or any thing else to see me right. I think Leithart would say that this is an unhealthy, disembodied, spiritualised, pietistic kind of belief. I think he is wrong.

I have to say that if Leithart is correct in his theology then my understanding of grace is actually wide of the mark, for the following reason: God would have instituted certain rites and religious practices, not as "a means of grace" - as if it were funnelled by the sacraments - but as grace itself! Not merely would these rites be crucial to our faith but faith itself would actually be more about sharing in the life of the Church community as expressed through the sacraments and less about who we have come to put our trust in. When Jesus promised the thief next to him on the cross "today you will be with me in paradise" the thief had had no opportunity to be water Baptised (ie in Leithart's theology = adopted, sanctified, justified, regenerated etc) did he? I cannot help but conclude that Federal Vision has moved from the concept of "by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone".... it's not that they neccesarily deny any of those beliefs per se, it is that they deny the 'alones' by making something critical of the sacraments.

I can understand why one Fed Viser I heard of described himself as a "Reformed Catholic". And, at least, that also leaves the door open for me to call myself a Reformed Protestant; I'm not an orphan after all!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

post-script: Monday 16th March 2009. I've been reading chapter 11 of the Westminster Confession (about Justification) and frankly it is difficult to square it with Leithart's take on the subject: Leithart says as much himself. Justification is about 'effective calling' in the W Conf (Rom 8 v30 etc) and for Leithart it is about the possibility of new life.

It seems to me that the contrast is between "Justification (in this strong Rom 8v30 sense) by Faith" versus "Justification (in the diluted Leithart sense) by Faithfulness"! Unless I've got completely the wrong end of the stick (and I am open to being put right!); this is no mere academic discussion, this is about the soul of the Evangelical/Reformed faith no less.

I'll have to make this a topic for a future 'blog' I think.

Rules of Engagement!
To facilitate useful discussion I have a few house-rules for anyone posting comments on this 'blog'.

1) This is my blog and as editor I reserve the right to... well... edit!

2) Behave as a guest in my home. See rule 1.

3) Anonymous comments may be deleted. See rule 1.

4) Try and be succinct; you can always come back and build on previous comments, treatises will be deleted. See rule 1.

5) Unauthorised Links to other sites will be deleted as a matter of principle. See rule 1.

6) With due regard to the laws of natural justice these rules are subject to arbitrary and capricious change without warning! See rule 1.

Communion.

Charlie Skrine led the service this morning and when it came to communion invited "everyone who trusts and loves the Lord" to share in it.

Today Helen & I helped with communion at church. We had a strategy worked out; one starts with one row and the other takes the next one from the opposite aisle... that way we then pick up the bread & wine the other has launched. Sounds simple doesn't it? Not so in reality!

Row 1: this is Helen's row but I'm stood too far forward so the lady next to me thinks I'm about to pass the bread to her! Ooops quick step back. Sorry luv.

Row 2: Bread Away! Pause... now launch wine, not forgetting a tissue to wipe the cup. So far so good. Helen collects at the far end.

Waiting for row 1 to finish; bread done phew! But wait for wine.... come on, come on! Oh no the wine's stalled!

Row 3: Helen has relaunched bread followed by wine. But I'm still stuck by row 1! Bread & Wine both zip along row 3 in lightening speed as I am picking up belated wine from the first row.

Row 4: Collecting the proceeds from 1 and having dashed to row 3 to receive the bread & wine I'm like Manuel juggling plates and glasses and simultaneously launch them on Rows 4 & 5. The tissues, the tissues! Don't forget the tissues.

Of course there are no stallers on either row so Helen has to shuffle all four items to rows 6 & 7: Oh no!... stallers in both rows! So we have bread & wine stalled on one and wine only stalled on the other but the bread has zipped along again! So I'm holding one bread but daren't move to row 8 for fear of missing something! The wine's stalled because Helen has run out of tissue paper. This comedy of errors continues as we work towards the back.

All the other servers have finished and are offering to help. Oh no, please don't complicate things any more than they already are!

Finished. Phew.

Charlie Skrine winds up the service.

Helen & I both realised later that in all the kerfuffle we never actually took communion today! I don't believe the Lord Jesus thinks any the less of us for it though!

"Look on the bright side," I said to Helen, "we won't be asked to help again!"

Central Focus.

Thursday night is our Bible study night. There are about a dozen groups which meet centrally at St Helen's in the heart of London. We have a meal together and then have an hour or so studying a Bible passage. Isn't it interesting that so much of our church family activity starts with a meal?

This year we have been looking at 1 Corinthians which is a letter the apostle Paul wrote to a newly founded church in Greece during the first century. It was a port city with a racey reputation.

The thing which has struck me so far this year is how Corinthian we all are! The church at Corinth had a firm grasp of the liberty they had come in to now that they were in Christ, but they were so fixated on their 'rights' that they had lost sight of the fact that Jesus requires us to be prepared to forgo those 'rights' for the sake of our brother & sisters. Love is about putting the other person first.

As it happens last Thursday we were looking at 1 Cor 11 v17-34 which is about the shambles the Corinthian church made of the Lord's Supper! He reminds them that this meal is a means by which a disparate group of people come together to share a meal in remembrance of the Lord Jesus' death on the cross. These people from all social classes and racial groups are meant to come together for them to express their unity together as "the body of Christ" around a common meal - all these individuals come together to be one. Not unlike baptism when an individual publically proclaims their faith in Christ and is welcomed into the local church. Both sacraments are centred on the historical reality of the cross and are not about little "me".

We are called into a community defined as a people purely by the fact that we belong to Christ. So Paul takes a dim view of the factionalism and selfishness these Corinthian believers indulge in. Paul has to remind them, in all their self indulgence, that communion is about proclaiming together the Lord's death until he returns because they seem to have forgotten its true purpose - it should be approached with our minds and hearts engaged it is not primarily a sensory experience!

It's a timely reminder because we are having the Lord's Supper this Sunday.

The Corinthians were a fractious lot and we are not immune to being the same. Christians are not perfected beings but a 'work in progress'; we say and do stupid, selfish, insensitive things.... things which do not reflect well on the Lord we claim to follow. It would be great never to make a mistake but sadly that isn't realistic. The key is to make sure we judge ourselves aright - we need to have that capacity for critical self reflection which Paul urges. If we do that then we can remove the barriers in our communion with each other.

"The Shack" by Wm Paul Young

is a surprise bestseller and is doing the rounds within Christian circles, often hailed as a modern day "Pilgrim's Progress" no less!

It is "notoriously difficult to write a good review about a bad book" and I appreciate that this particular book has touched a lot of peoples' hearts. But I believe that they have not so much had an encounter with God but with a candy floss deity who reflects our own post modern values back to us.

The embittered hero, Mack, is invited to meet with God in "The Shack" which is where his young daughter was murdered several years previously. He encounters God in a variety of incarnations and is profoundly changed as a consequence. In my opinion, while the book does contain the odd nugget of gold (more ably expressed elsewhere) it is in truth a sentimental journey into the sort of God our age craves. As such it says much more about ourselves than it ever reveals about God.

This God is so respectful of human rights that he would never violate them; he refuses power because that is coercive by definition. (The Church is a power structure - of course!) God so loves mankind and respects its independence so much he limits himself against any responsibility for events, to interfere would be a denial of love. Given the book's plot presumably God is too loving to intervene to rescue the young daughter. (The problem of evil is not so easily answered!) I would imagine most grieving parents would rather God was a bit less 'respectful' and a bit more intervening. Either way the hero seems satisfied with this as an explanation. Indeed why should Shack-God intervene anyway? The God of The Shack isn't even vaguely disappointed with anyone because S/he has no 'expectations of humanity only expectancy' whatever that means! Presumably Shack-God is not even disappointed with the serial killer!

The God of The Shack will not judge sin (if there is such a thing) because 'it is its own punishment'. I don't see in the book how this principle is worked out in the life of the child's murderer. And it is a curious fact that the author concludes the novel by having the serial killer caught and imprisoned. When push comes to shove we all actually crave some sort of justice. We do want God to be angry when cruelty and evil are encountered: in fact it would be amoral if He wasn't angry. Shack-God never gets angry. We all know that the axiom of sin being its own punishment doesn't work in the real world and the author knows it too otherwise the book's conclusion would have been different. Again doesn't this reflect our society's conflicted view of sin? We want justice but we are not prepared to take the responsibility of making a judgment; we have a 'don't get involved' and 'don't be judgmental' approach to situations. Our post-modern world makes a virtue out of not caring and Shack-God's respectful 'hands off' approach to Mankind is in reality indifference by another name. Thank God Jesus did not look on the world with "benign neglect"!

In Shack-world there is no concept of sin or evil - it seems that being 'messed up' emotionally is the closest we ever get to it. We are somehow the victims of our circumstances. In this context forgiveness is a self-help therapy to get over those who have hurt us: forgiveness is never something of which we are in need of course. Which means that sin (in so far as it exists at all) is never a description of ourselves but always of someone other than us. Well, The Shack isn't exactly breaking new ground there is it? Everyone "otherises" evil don't they?

The Shack has no Cross. At the heart of the Christian faith is the Cross which reveals how God demonstrates his love for us; at the Cross His perfect love as expressed by his outrage at evil is reconciled with His perfect love as expressed in mercy.

The Shack is a cross-less christianity and consequently it is also graceless. There is a poor understanding of sin (which is odd given the occasion for this divine encounter!) and there is no concept of God's holiness. In the Bible when people encounter God they are profoundly shaken by His prescence. They are deeply conscious of their own unworthiness and are awed by God and are changed as a consequence. But this is not the God the world - or even some Christians - feel is marketable.

Mack's wife, Nan, is mentioned tangentially as a nurse who works on a cancer ward and who, as a Christian, has written about the subject of 'suffering'. I would have been curious to know how her theology held up under the pain she was feeling and, indeed, how Mack related to her spiritual understanding. That might have been a segue into the pastoral issues surrounding evil, suffering and redemption but it wasn't a path the book took us down.

As I said earlier; this book reflects our own sorry age, God is reduced to a therapeutic agent for those of us who recognise that we are 'messed up'. Was it my imagination or does Shack-God keep using the catch-phrase of Dr Phil McGraw "how's that working for you?" as the hero's behaviour is put under the spot light? Please don't get me wrong; I like "Dr Phil" (a US TV psychiatrist) I just don't think our model of God should be drawn from day-time TV.

At one point in the book Mack is reassured that the murdered daughter isn't really out of his family's life because they will continue to encounter her in their dreams! This is only one example of the cloyingly sentimental approach of the author. It is a gooey, sticky, candy floss God we encounter here, all sweetness and no substance. It is not a book I would give to any grieving parent.

The book's advocates promise an exploration of evil and redemption, it promises much and delivers little.... what we actually encounter is a godless deity who incarnates our society's value system.

Resurrection!

Last autumn we attempted to improve the soil condition of our garden by sifting out all the stones and digging in some decent compost. The stones and dead bulbs were dumped in an empty compost bag and left to itself for the winter.

This week on surveying the garden the flower beds are as lifeless as they always tended to be. But the discarded bag of rubble has a host of golden daffodils! Truly, truly, the bulbs that the gardener rejected have become the finest display in the garden!

In the spirit of the compost bag I have decided, against my better judgment, to revive my old blog; so after one year, two months and eight days, or if you prefer 436 days or even 37,670,400 seconds, this will be the first of a whole new series of Swiftypete. Not that I am entirely reconciled to the whole self-promotion thing. But who knows what might come of this.... who knows?

This is me on top of Helvellyn in the Lake District!

NURSING - IN SEARCH OF IDENTITY.

Imagine the scene. It is a busy ward in a large teaching hospital. A patient has collapsed, is unresponsive, there is no pulse. A "Crash Call" goes out. The nurses start cardiac massage. The 'resus' trolley is wheeled up, the de-fib fetched. The 'Crash Team' come running up the corridor. Cannula inserted, nervous fingers snap open ampoules. Adrenaline, Calcium, DC shock. No output. As the drama unfolds a nurse steps forward and commences massage - not cardiac massage but foot massage.

In the ensuing exchange of conversation with the Senior Registrar, the nurse asserts that as a practitioner in Reflexology she alone is treating the patient's underlying disease, all the rest were merely treating symptoms. Sounds far-fetched? I'm reliably informed that this very scenario was played out in a London hospital recently. It invites the question, "What's going on in society in general and nursing in particular?"

There is a sea change at work in our culture. For three centuries or more the prevailing philosophy within western culture has been modernism. This emphasised the human intellect and the scientific, technological, rational approach to life. It is a materialist philosophy, rejecting any notion of the spiritual. Such a world-view questions the existence of a Creator and asserts that everything can be explained in secular and reductionistic terms.

Most of us will have had contact with some institution of higher education. Within these academic circles, modernism is the over-arching belief system. Until recently this has been the influence that has helped shape Medicine and Nursing as we know them, particularly as they move away from their earlier Christian roots. But now we are witnessing a sea-change. So while once-upon-a-time the general public showed great respect and deference to scientific experts, now attitudes are changing. People are more likely to question, probe and doubt the words of scientists. Indeed, whereas once science was viewed as mankind's hope for a better future, now people are more likely to blame it and the technology it has spawned for causing more problems than it has solved. The belief in inevitable progress is defunct.

This tendency occurring in society as a whole is magnified with nursing. Nursing as a profession is currently seeking to discover an identity of it's own, one that will make it distinctive from Medicine. In my view nurses will inevitably turn to alternative forms of medicine simply because they are alternative. The emerging 'post-modernist' nurse will emphasise the emotional, the intuitive and the holistic, as opposed to the rational, objective, quantifiable and material. As a thorough-going pluralist, the new nurse will accept that there are many different points of view about everything, all of which are equally valid. Indeed any "truth claim" is by definition coercive and domineering, aimed at forcing others to conform to someone else's version of the truth. In this context it is not surprising that an article in the Nursing Times last year urges nurses to avoid making moral judgements if one is asked to obtain the services of a prostitute for a client.

Although Christians have never felt entirely comfortable within modernist professions which denied the spiritual, Christians could at least work within Nursing and Medicine, appreciating the benefits of science but recognising that it did not present a complete picture of what it is to be human. Now, however, we are increasingly being faced not with a denial of spirituality, but with alternative spiritualities often dressed up as complementary therapy. It is easy to feel threatened and overwhelmed by the challenge that faces us at the start of the twenty-first century. I suspect that within Nursing, we will continue to see an on-going tussle between two opposing schools of thought, the post-modernist and a reactive modernist rear-guard action.

These are not easy times for Christians. And yet this situation presents Christians with an opportunity. "Spirituality" is on the agenda, and as Christian nurses we will need to prayerfully consider how best to use these new opportunities. Like the modernist, we too believe in objective truth and that it is knowable. But at the same time we appreciate the limitations of human knowledge and that to be human cannot be fully explained in purely material terms. The spirituality we would profess is one of dependence upon God, rather than one which depends on us manipulating real or supposed spiritual forces.

This article was first published in the Spring 2001 issue of "TRIPLE HELIX" and is reproduced here with the kind permission of the Christian Medical Fellowship.

"DAYS OF ELIJAH!"

These are the "Days of Elijah", The "prophet's" word restored, New "Apostles" are arising, to bring us the Word of the LORD.

The Bible is yesterdays word and written scripture is dry, so we itch for new revelation, without new things we die.

"The prophet" speaks life, and yet your child lies dying. "It's you and your faith at fault, the prophet can't be lying!"

All the options covered, be vague and so obscure, selective recall, hindsight - the "prophet's" word made sure.

These are the "Days of Elijah", false prophets palms are greased, seers consulted like tarot and the sheep exist to be fleeced.

Lit Obit!

For nearly two and a half years I have foisted my intellectual pretensions upon an unsuspecting world which, truth be told, never actually asked for my opinion, and the time therefore has come to wind up this blog. I have a couple of articles in the pipeline but, as promised earlier this year, I will not continue blogging into 2008. To be frank I don't feel entirely comfortable curating my thoughts in a self-aggrandizing way to the onlooking world as if my person has something special to offer... and yet I did also sincerely desire to make a statement of sorts about where I stand on some of the issues of the day. I have only "something special" in the sense that I have been touched by God's love, there is nothing special as such about me personally. I am hugely impressed by the number of really good evangelical teachers and scholars out there too - so I'm not sure what I'm adding by means of my 'blog' anymore.

It is true that a few years ago I wanted to explore the doubts and challenges which had occured to me as a Christian and see how they stood up to examination. Were my answers equal to the questions posed by non-christians? Were the answers really satisfying to ME as an individual believer? Being a Christian has not been a cosey experience - Jesus never said it would be! - instead it has caused me to explore the fiercest criticisms and my own misgivings to see how the Gospel holds up.

What the reader makes of these I will have to leave to you. By way of a general disclaimer; the opinions in this 'blog' are entirely my own and it should not be inferred that they represent in any way the views of the various groups of which I am a member - any fault is my fault alone. If at times I sound irascible I hope the reader will be kind to me and weigh what I say on its merits. If you are inclined to conclude that I am a poor representative to speak on behalf of Jesus Christ you are undoubtedly correct.... my life is not all it should be.... or could be.... or will be. And if you are of a mind to conclude that I cannot possibly be a believer think how much worse I might have been if I wasn't a Christian at all!

LUCA SWIFT!

A couple of days ago I received a post card from the vet's addressed to "Luca Swift". As readers of this blog may recall 'Luca' is the name of our "part time cat" - not, I hasten to add, that she is a cat some of the time and something else at other times! - rather it is the case that she would occasionally deign to grace us with her company, eat our food and bask by the radiator on cold wet days before returning to her secret home.... she was a mystery. She was a cat who led a double life!

Over the months we grew very fond of her and so it is only appropriate that she should now be receiving her own correspondence at our address!

The sad thing to report though is that we haven't seen her in over two months now and suspect that she has moved on to pastures new. I never figured myself as a "cat" sort of person but I do miss her!

The Bible Timeline.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The Clash of Fundamentalisms!"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JONATHAN SWIFT.

You just knew that I had to have at least one quotation from my namesake!

"I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed."
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745).

DANIEL BEAK V.C. ... and my Grandad.

A year ago I wrote about my grandfather's experiences in the First World War as an NCO in the Royal Naval Division. I had had to reconstruct the account from his service record which I found online in the National Archive because he never actually spoke that much about the war right up until the time he died over 35 years ago.

My grandfather was wounded on 13th November 1916 when the 63rd Royal Naval Division was involved in a major operation to destroy a German held salient at Beaucourt near Beaumont Hamel (probably held by the 'Leipzig Regiment'). For years afterwards this date would be commemorated as 'Beaucourt Day' by the survivors of this closing phase of the Somme campaign known variously as the Battle of the Ancre or the Tenth Phase of the Battle of the Somme. My grandfather was in "Howe" battalion when they launched their assault that fateful morning. I recently saw some photographs of the battlefield and I was horrified to see the fields of mud they would have had to run over when they 'went over the top'. The casualties they suffered were horrendous. I have just discovered that out of close on 1,000 men 'Howe' battalion only had 21 left unscathed when all their final objectives were taken several hours later. The attack was considered an outstanding success.

My grandfather was in hospital for a couple of months and then seems to have spent 1917 working as an instructor back in England. I think he may have spent some time at a "grenade school" at Bretton's Bench in the New Forest, where recruits would have been trained in the use of munitions to clear trenches and obstacles.

In 1918 he returned to combat on The Western Front and was posted to 'Drake' battalion 'Howe' battalion having been disbanded. I was amazed to discover that during the closing months of the war when the allies were advancing on the Hindenburg Line 'Drake' battalion played a pivotal role in the British offensive. As the attack faltered 'Drake' battalion provided some backbone to the assault. My grandfather's immediate battalion commander was called Daniel Beak and for actions carried out principally on 25th August he was awarded the Victoria Cross (the UK's highest award for bravery): interestingly the citation says he was accompanied by a 'runner' during this action. My grandfather dismissively described himself as just 'a runner' and curiously his service record shows that he was wounded for a second time within 24 hours of Beak's charge!

It was only when I turned up this record did any of the family even realise that grandad, my mother's father, had been wounded for a second time. My mother wasn't even aware that grandad had been at the Somme! Of course I have to be careful in how I interpret all of this because I would like to believe it was my grandad who was with Beak that day - but it does make you wonder doesn't it? What is for sure is that he was with this unit at the right time and in the right place when they attacked the German defences and he was wounded in action the very next day as the fighting continued.

I think the thing I most admire about this story is NOT that my grandad was a hero - which he undoubtedly was whatever role he played - but that he never drew attention to the fact!

"GOD IS NOT GREAT!"

Christopher Hitchens recently published a book by this title in which he attributes all of Humanity's ills to "religion" in one guise or another. The word 'religion' isn't one I entirely feel comfortable with because it is hardly a Biblical word at all and it is a word which often brings a lot of preconceived notions in tow which I don't believe are very helpful. I am a Christian but I do not consider myself "religious"! But for the sake of argument let's stick with the word Hitchens uses.

Hitchens is another shrill voice in a recent spate of attacks upon religion. There seems to be an element of panic within the intelligentsia which once confidently predicted the extinction of all religions and anticipated the inevitable dawn of a new rationalist era. The resurgence of religion as a force on the world stage has left these complacent opinion shapers non-plussed and fearful for the future of humanity. History is not following their script.

Hitchens appears to attribute all evil to religion and all good to the Humanist cause. To this end he conveniently redefines the secular ideologies of Hitler and Stalin as "religions" and dragoons Christians like Martin Luther King and Dietrich Bonhoeffer into the ranks of the Humanists! So much special pleading will cause even the most ardent Hitchens' fan some pause for thought surely! It seems to me a rather desperate expedient which causes him to twist the facts to fit his ideologically driven argument... and surely it is the ideologue's desire to rewrite history we all should beware! It is the natural default setting of humans to "otherise" evil - to attribute all that is wrong with the world to some outgroup and to make out that one's own tribe is on the side of the angels. And surely it is that condemnation of the innocent with the guilty for ideological reasons that is the real cause of evil.... Hitchens has fallen head first into that trap.... secularists are all good, religionists are all bad in a 'cowboys and indians' argument.

There is one aspect of Hitchens' argument which does bear some consideration. The means by which he redefines Nazism and Stalinism as "religions" is their "messianic" and utopian pretentions. And in that regard he is not wrong. But it is precisely those pretentions which caused thoughtful (as opposed to duped)Christians at the time to see these ideologies as anti-thetical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.... in a very real sense these belief systems were "Anti-Christ" systems. The Bible already had a category for critiquing such movements when history shows that it took a good deal longer for the intelligentsia to realise these idols had feet of clay. As astonishing as it seems now there were many western secularists and humanists who defended Stalin and the Soviet system as a force for good. At the time the Stalinist and the Nazi would have argued that their beliefs were firmly founded on scientific rationalism - Marxist economics and Social Darwinism respectively, each claiming the imprimatur of scientific certainty. They certainly would never have regarded these as matters of 'faith'! And certainly not faith in God! Given that historical background, the question is how can you ever know whether your beliefs are truly rational? And if Hitchens' idea is correct how can you ever know if your beliefs are even truly secular?

Applying Hitchens' criteria Humanism is a "religion" because it has a utopian vision of mankind and even if it lacks a specific "messiah" figure it certainly exalts the human spirit so that each individual is their own saviour. Oh and it even has its own heresy hunters too!

In the final anaysis it is only the Gospel which accurately describes the world as it truly is. Quite why it is assumed that people like me make irrational "leaps of faith" rather than weigh up which viewpoint actually describes the world as it really is is a mystery to me, the truth is I never could make the credulous "leap of faith" required by humanist doctrine! When such dogma repeatedly misdiagnoses the human condition and Jesus gets it unerringly right everytime I don't consider that much of a 'leap' at all!

The solution to all anti-christ ideologies is not secularism (whatever that now means!) but Jesus - the real Christ.

THE NIGHT OF THE LONG SKIVES!

British Summer Time ended yesterday night when the clocks went back. Give a thought for those of us nurses and doctors and physios & etc etc etc who were working on the night shift when we had the extra hour! When I volunteered to cover this shift on PICU at the SNC Hospital I hadn't appreciated that daylight saving time was due to change! So while the rest of you got an extra hour in bed we had a very very VERY long shift! The only thing that made it remotely tolerable was the fact that we could take a bit longer over our breaks. In fairness I should add that I worked the short night last spring when the clocks went forward so I guess it all evens out in the end.

Just for the record; we had a 1am BST followed an hour later by 1am Greenwich Mean Time.

On the whole I enjoy working shifts - I like the variety in the work pattern. I also enjoy having time off midweek: you can go places when it's quiet rather than follow the herd working 9-5 and being off when everyone else is!

I even enjoy night shifts: you can actually focus on caring for patients without all the other extraneous hassle which the NHS seems to generate. The only drawback to night duty being that my body clock always wakes me up by midday when I'm trying to sleep, like it's saying 'hey, it's day time you should be up!' But I get by on 3-4 hours sleep. By the end of four night shifts though I usually feel wiped out... I finish four nights on Tuesday morning.

The thing is as I get older I'm not so sure that I can keep up working crazy nurse's shifts but I don't know what else I'd do!

I'm Baffled by Brian D McLaren
& Steve Chalke.

I've recently finished reading a couple of books by putative leaders of the "emerging (or emergent) church" movement. Brian D McLaren's "The Secret Message of Jesus" and Steve Chalke's "The Lost Message of Jesus". I wanted to know more about this movement and rather than rely on secondhand accounts I thought I'd better go to the source and see what they had to say for themselves.

I have to say that I am not a little baffled by their books. I don't understand why anyone thinks they are breaking new ground because there is nothing original in either book.

I found very little to disagree with for the first hundred pages or so with these books. There are some ungainly phrases which are open to misinterpretation but I appreciate that these books are 'pop theology' and are not meant for serious analysis; even so it would be better to get the basics right. Also, we all have anecdotal horror stories about churches we've encountered - the real issue is how far can one generalise from them without perpetrating an injustice oneself?!

All the criticisms they make of contemporary Evangelicalism are ones I would echo - not least because I've been guilty of them myself! There is indeed a tendency toward pharasaism in Evangelicalism, no-one is denying that. "Works" based 'religion' is the natural default setting of all human beings after all. Consequently it should come as no surprise to find a 'formal evangelicalism' which is actually no better than any other of the world's religions! Only an understanding of 'Grace' will cure this - and that is a unique feature of the Gospel.... and it is something so wonderful it is difficult for us to grasp, even when one has been in the faith for over thirty years like me. However the danger inherent within a movement which seeks to create a 'new' church by its own lights is that it merely creates a new pharisaism with all the elitist presumptions of 'superiority'. That is the lesson of history with all supposedly radical church movements.... they're never as radical as they suppose themselves to be! I know because I've been there before!

I suppose the major point of departure comes when Steve Chalke starts to discuss the Cross of Christ. First of all let me say that I do not recognise his caricature of this doctrine so I won't take offence at it.... he is attacking someone but it can't be me! The fact that he talks about it being "morally dubious" and is antithetical to the notion of a God of Love is one attack too far and is worthy of a response, I cannot let that go unanswered

I believe that if God takes on himself a penalty rightly due to me - there is no inconsistency with his nature as a God of love. I am speaking as a Trinitarian Christian you understand.... Christ is not something outside of God... it is God himself who takes on himself the penalty rightly due to me - isn't that an act of love?!

Also - it is very important to realise - that love is not only about mercy. Isn't love about justice too. Is it loving to let all the world's injustices go with a 'it doesn't matter' shrug of the shoulders? (Auschwitz, Cambodia, Bosnia, Darfur etc or the social ills closer to home. In the course of time these examples will appear dated and quaint - the future reader will (I am sure) be able to substitute your own contemporary examples!) Doesn't love ever get passionate about wrongdoing - and if so how do you think that that is expressed? And if I count myself amongst the evil (rather than the self righteous) what is my escape - assuming I need to escape? How do I pay for the things I've done wrong? If I conclude that I cannot do this can I trust someone else to do it for me?

You might ask 'How can one person pay a penalty for someone else?' I was with my brother-in-law when we drove into a 'pay & display' car park. (I don't mean to be trivial when I use this as an example - I am merely demonstrating that these concepts are not 'rocket science'). He queued to get the ticket while I stood nearby. He realised that he had no coins for the machine and called to me. Yes, I had the right change and paid what he could not. No-one, but no-one, in that queue that day said "Hey! You can't do that!" Incidentally no-one, but no-one said "If you pay for him you have to pay for us all!"

Too often we draw in our own culture into our interpretation of the Bible and I believe Chalke is thinking in terms of modern criminal law when the better model is civil law... CS lewis made this very point over fifty years ago. The "dubious morality" charge is actually bound up in an unstated modernistic presumption of "equity" - the dubious notion that no distinction can ever be made about anybody for any reason. There is no issue here which demands the redrafting of classical protestant doctrine which seems to be the end point Chalke is driving toward. The real issue is this - how far do we go along the road of accepting the world's theology in order to curry favour? And what do we acheive thereby?

At one point Chalke relates how a friend had asked a group of scholars and ministers for a simple one sentence definition of the Jesus' message - nothing satisfactory emerged from the discussion. This is a rather revealing tale.... but not for the reason he thinks. The phrasing of the question imposed a false presupposition that the message of Jesus is somehow different to what Jesus came to do. No wonder people were confused.... and that should tell you something. The message of Jesus is 'the good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep'. Jesus did not come to deliver a word from God but to be The Word! Surely someone would think to say something like "for Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring [us] to God" 1 Peter 3 v18? I thought about what Steve Chalke wrote and it occurs to me that maybe the people his friend had asked don't believe in penal substitution either (or weren't prepared to own up to it in his prescence) and when you think about Chalke's challenge from that perspective how DO you define the Gospel sans 'penal substitution'? I'd be stumped too!


As for Brian D McLaren I had no real issue with his book (outside the general comments above) until the appendices! Entitled "Why didn't we get it sooner?" I was baffled and scribbled in the margin -"but you haven't said anything original!" (Even the stuff that was wrong wasn't new!) It is not a little arrogant to presume that you are the first person to point out the inconsistencies of the evangelical church with the Gospel we proclaim. Carl Henry did this over sixty years ago - and I bet he wasn't the first. If you review my blog you will find much the same stuff here. In fact, quite coincidentally, my home church is currently running a series of lunch time talks on the subject "RSVP - Jesus unveils Heaven's surprising guest list" - with individual talks on 'Jesus is anti-pride', 'Jesus is anti-religion' and 'Jesus is pro-outcast'.* I haven't heard the earlier talks or even know who the speaker is; but I'm prepared to bet everyone out there in blogworld 100 to 1 that all the issues dear to McLaren & Chalke will be addressed there.... as they always have been from faithful Bible teaching churches the world over. It makes you wonder what circles McLaren & Chalke move in.

It maybe the case that McLaren & Chalke have led relatively sheltered Christian lives and ministries within triumphalist and separationist churches for whom this sort of cultural engagement was alien and whose corporate lives were marked by unreality; it is only now that they are reacting against these attitudes. They have some, perhaps many, cogent criticisms to make of evangelical practice - but it will not be the first time that well-meaning men have allowed their enthusiasm for their particular hobby horse to get the better of their judgement.








Recommended further reading: "Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church" by Don Carson.

Recommended audio: Tim Keller who spoke at the Evangelical Ministers Assembly 2007 on the theme "Defining Times: What is an Evangelical?" Available from Proclamation Trust at http://www.proctrust.org.uk/

* No doubt these talks will be available from St Helen's Media in due course.

ULLSWATER! THE DODDS!
And THE RAVEN!

For many years I have travelled up to The English Lake District by train and camped out near Lake Ullswater to explore the surrounding fells. These mountains are described in Wainwright's "Pictorial Guides to the Lakeland Fells" books 1 and 2, 'The Eastern Fells' and 'The Far Eastern Fells' respectively. I generally camp out for about five to seven nights usually in the Autumn at a campsite at Pooley Bridge. A few years ago I set myself the goal of tackling all the major elevations around Ullswater.

The most famous fell in this region is Helvellyn at 950m but it has some sizeable companions such as the equally challenging Fairfield (873m) or - to the east of the lake - High Street (828m). I had covered the highest fells in my target group with the exception of Stybarrow Dodd, Watson's Dodd and Great Dodd which were my main objectives for this trip. I also revisited my old friend Helvellyn - I've lost count how many times I've ventured up there but I never tire of it. I've also learnt to appreciate the lesser fells - as a young man I always wanted to do the highest and the toughest mountains - but I long since realised that these are not automatically the most interesting climbs, sometimes the most beautiful and challenging things in life modestly draw little attention to themselves.

Someone might ask 'why base yourself at Pooley when that is the furthest end of the lake away from the mountains?' It's because I love the journey along Ullswater and while it may not be the most practical location for a base it is aesthetically pleasing. For example the day I did the 'Dodds' I caught the early morning bus towards Patterdale and all along the lake one could see this thick layer of mist brooding over the still water - it was magical. Also at the end of the day, when I've completed a walk, I adore the "steamer" ride back along the lake. It is wonderful to sit on board "Raven" and watch the mountains go by on my way back to my camp.

Recommended eateries: "Fellbites" in Glenridding and "The Sun Inn" at Pooley.

I love Ullswater because it is so unspoilt - I find the usual tourist rat-run along the A591 and Windermere hideously busy and best avoided. If you want my advice keep well to the East or West of that axis. In any event I generally start my walks at first light - that way I have the mountains to myself and rarely meet anyone else until I'm well on my way down.

One lovely aspect of camping out so far away from the 'light pollution' of big cities is the night sky. One evening I lay out in my sleeping bag and gazed at the canopy above. I could see the Milky Way and myriads of brilliant stars. Occasionally one could see satellites in orbit serenely sailing from one horizon to the other. Meteors would flash into view and just as quickly vanish in a burst of light. One morning when I threw back the cover of my tent there was the planet Venus, the "Morning Star", like a dazzling jewel in a velvet sky. Absolutely brilliant.

My dream home would be a residential boat-house in a secluded corner of Ullswater!

Euthanasia and the Arguments
of Straw Men!

From time to time one hears supporters of euthanasia pressing their case in the national media. To judge from the "debate" one would probably conclude that it is the 'accepted custom and practice' for patients to be allowed to die in pain and that health care professionals are solely concerned with employing every conceivable technology to prolong every individuals life to the last uttermost second regardless of the pain involved and the patient's (or their family's) wishes.

I have to tell you in all candour I have NEVER witnessed this scenario in over the twenty five years of my nursing career - the bulk of which has been in critical care. Funny that.

Funny that the commonly accepted "truth'"is that only those who are in favour of euthanasia are motivated by compassion and the rest of us are motivated soley by professional arrogance. There is not a little humbug attached to the argument of the euthanasia lobby.

I qualified as a registered nurse twenty five years ago. I went on to do my paediatric course and subsequently worked on a childrens cancer ward before making a move into Paediatric Intensive Care. I feel that I have earned the right to speak on the subject of euthanasia.

Advocates of euthanasia generally set up a phoney scenario of a patient dying in agony when compassion would demand that we put them out of their misery. As someone who has worked extensively in a variety of critical care settings I can tell you that I find such allegations utterly repugnant and a slur on my
profession. If someone does die in pain that is a matter of professional incompetence not (as euthanasia advocates would have it) accepted 'custom and practice'. And frankly I cannot help but feel that the public is being hoodwinked by their spurious arguments.

There is no excuse for anyone to die in pain. None whatsoever. This is a 'no brainer' as issues go. Period. If you find yourself witnessing such a scenario then I would say that that is clinical mismanagment.There is no excuse for it.

I will give as much pain relief as is required to prevent pain - if their disease process is such that that required analgesia actually foreshortens their life - then so be it. That is NOT euthanasia, that is pain control. As a Christian and a nurse I have no issue with this.... it is a none issue! (It is exactly the same situation as giving any drug with a known side-effect in such circumstances).

Perhaps it is a dated term but no-one seems to mention the principle of "double effect". This is where one carries out one action i.e. to control pain, but which secondarily foreshortens life.

Euthanasia (which is Greek literally meaning 'good death') actually means intentionally terminating a life as the primary purpose.

Now some one will say that this is splitting hairs but I will reply that speaking as someone at the coal-face of these ethical dilemmas this distinction is crystal clear... there is no ambiguity. Killing someone is murder, dying as a consequence of a pathological disorder which professional people are trying but failing to arrest is an entirely different matter.

The real question is why are the advocates of euthanasia pushing a "false choice" argument? Presumably it's simply because the truth will not do.

Another 'straw man' is the implication that patients are having medical treatment "forced" upon them. But the reality is that everyone has the right to refuse treatment, to compel someone to undergo procedures they have declined is assault. (There are some rare instances where perhaps a patients mental state causes medical staff to follow through a legal process to compel a patient (or the parent of a sick child) to have treatment....but that is not the issue in view here). Sadly it is my experience that such legal proceedings that do occur are more often when a parent refuses to let go of a loved child - and insist on futile attempts at resuscitation.... it is heart breaking for all concerned. The purpose of medical treatment is to support a patient through an acute episode of illness to a point where they have recovered sufficiently not to require such support. If the consensus of opinion is that no such recovery is possible, then in my view, the removal of this life support causes no ethical problems - we are merely allowing the pathological process to takes its course. I have been involved in countless such discussions and contrary to the arguments put forward by the pro-euthanasia lobby there are no legal ambiguities about it.

Another 'straw man' is that somehow people like me are in some sort of legal limbo and therefore society should sanction euthanasia. That is yet more codswallop! If I sound irritated - I am. I detest being used as bait to manipulate an unsuspecting public.

The REAL question is this; when so many 'straw men' are being marshalled to emotionally intimidate the innocent onlooker into sanctioning the demise of our fellow human beings where do you think the REAL end point of this argument is?

If anyone wants to take issue with me the comments box is open as always.

AN APOCRYPHAL STORY.

2006 was my sciatica year when I was incapacitated for a few weeks with excruciating back pain. It took several months to resolve sufficiently for me to return to clinical work. I've been back at work properly for a year now but it was only few weeks ago that I discovered that there is a story about me doing the rounds from that period. It is entirely apocryphal, but I thought that it was so good I'd post it in my 'blog'.

While I was incapacitated and house bound some unctous visitor came to encourage me (so the story goes). Presumably she believed in the ennobling power of suffering because she is said to have said "I expect that God must be teaching you an awful lot through all of this!"

I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bl++dy painful a back can be!" The story is entirely apocryphal of course.... but it is what I would have said!!!