CHURCH HOUSE FELLOWSHIP, BRADFORD, UK. 1979-1981. For three years I belonged to, what was then, a movement whose star was rising. Locally it was called "Church House Fellowship" after thinking better of initially calling itself "The Bradford Church" no less! In other circles it was often referred to as "Harvestime" [which was actually the name of it's associated publishing business] or sometimes called "Restoration" [which was the name of it's magazine]. They were probably most identified at the time with The Dales Bible Week which they organised annually at The Great Yorkshire Show Ground, near Harrogate, UK. The church itself had been formed in the mid 1970's under the leadership of Bryn Jones (a modern day self styled "Apostle") who brought together three like minded churches in the West Yorkshire area. Although it may seem rather incongruous Bradford was one of the pioneering centres of the new born Charismatic Movement. By the time I joined Church House Fellowship Bryn had re-located to the USA and the church was being led by his brother Keri (who would also be later `recognised' as an "Apostle". [They were both from South Wales incidentally]. In fairness I should say that I had little direct contact with the "Apostles" and so the following experiences relate to their immediate lieutenants. My understanding now of the Biblical qualifications for apostleship are that they must be an eyewitness to the resurrection of Jesus (Acts 1v22, 1 Cor15 v1-11 etc) so there is no such thing as a "modern day apostle". But I didn't realise this at the time. I was 21 years old when I was wowed by the seemingly inexorable rise of this particular church [or it may be that it created a big stir in a very small pond!] Whatever the reason I met up with one of the elders of Church House Fellowship (who I will denote as DaM) who gave me a "prophecy" that, inter alia, God had a job for me that no-one else could do. Of course it was all very exciting but, in retrospect, I can see that this message was full of "Barnum" statements that could equally apply to anyone. But at the time I gave enormous importance to this message - it turned my head and fed my vanity. Not surprisingly I joined Church House Fellowship shortly after leaving my previous church, which I am ashamed to say, I had come to describe as "spiritually dead"! I had accepted Church House Fellowship's teaching on "Baptism in the Holy Spirit" (I had actually become a Christian a little over three years earlier), but this "Baptism", they said, was a distinct event from conversion .....some people have got it.....and some haven't. I distinctly recall CmD saying how privileged we were to have it because some people of his acquaintance had begged God for it and had not been given it. (This implies a level of capriciousness on God's part which I now feel is a terrible slur on God's character - Luke 11 v13). I don't believe for one instant that that was CmD's intention but he had clearly not thought through the implications of what he was saying. Whatever the motive there was a degree of spiritual one-up-manship in our attitude towards others which belied the graciousness of Christ. Church House Fellowship was viewed with some suspicion by other churches in the city for "sheep stealing" and because it was thought to have certain 'cultish' features to it, not least it's emphasis on "shepherding" and "submission" in regard to the leadership. Of course Church House Fellowship poured scorn on the more fanciful rumours which circulated on the grapevine but there was an element of truth to them. I recall having a discussion with one of the elders (DiS) who suggested that "if I had the faith for it, the elders could choose a wife for me"! I didn't have sufficient confidence- even then in my most credulous phase - to take him up on the offer, maybe because I was too bashful but I was certainly left speechless by his proposal. This was not exceptional, the expectation was that church members would `submit' career decisions and marriage plans to the eldership. Conceived as the loving concern of intimate friends this might pass muster but the real problem was the sheer self belief of the leadership in its own prophetic role. One speaker (GwD) said that even if the leaders seemingly made a mistake it would still be `right' in God's plan. Any hint of dissent would be met by dark parallels with Korah's rebellion in Numbers 16. One episode in particular in those years bears examination: all the members were interviewed and some [no doubt in a kindly way] were asked to leave the church; not because they had done anything wrong but because it was felt that they weren't keen enough or because they made too many pastoral demands on the eldership. This seems outrageous to me now because I can see how this attitude reflects the "Colossian Heresy" (the notion of spiritual elitism) Col 2v18. Of course, at the time, I was intoxicated by this elitism - especially as I was an insider! The vision of Church House Fellowship (as preposterous as it now seems) was that we would be an elite that would restore the world wide church to its first century glory and power as a prelude to the Return of Christ. There was to be a restoration of the "Ephesian 4" ministries - hence the justification, nay neccesity, for modern day apostles. Indeed on more than one occasion it was stated that ultimately there would only be one church - and ours was to be at the heart of it! (Which makes it all the more baffling that anyone could be asked to leave!) It was indeed intoxicating to believe that one belonged to God's elite and that the future belonged to us. It was often said that whereas other generations had failed to "bring in the kingdom" this one would succeed. If this made me boorish towards outsiders.....it is something I deeply regret now. Was God at work there in Church House Fellowship? Yes; of course, but the key thing to remember is that God is a God of grace - he even blesses arrogant, vain, boorish people but we wrongly assumed that somehow we had earned God's approval by our inherent brilliance......and that is not an uncommon mistake. Since then it has seemed to me to be absolutely critical not to confuse the Biblical concept of the "Elect" (chosen by grace) with the dubious idea of an elite! That makes me a Calvinist (and if you are in sympathy with my comments I have to say that makes you one too!) A cursory glance at the example of the Corinthian Church should alert us to the fallacy of such elitism 2 Cor 4. A Christian is `a work in progress' and not yet the glorified end product, unless we realise this we will be consumed by self-righteousness and triumphalism....or we will be destroyed by the man-made standard of perfectionism we set and fail to live upto. I will not say all of Church House Fellowship was bad, there were some wonderful people there. There were also some wonderful leaders such as Arthur Wallis (who was based in Bradford shortly before his untimely death). Whatever its faults there was a sense of excitement and expectation and a closeness that was genuine. If I had to choose a moment when I started to grow disillusioned with Church House Fellowship I would have to highlight the time when JcW was sent from St Louis by Bryn in the USA to give a series of talks. The church had always emphasised the importance of `tithing' (giving one tenth) one's gross income, but JcW took this to a new level. During one of his talks he said that it was morally wrong to give away what God had blessed you with and to give it to someone he had not so blessed. I took issue with him on this teaching after the talk. I had hoped that the leadership might distance itself from such an ungenerous and ungracious message but Keri actually took the opportunity to emphasise that this particular line had full eldership approval. The focus on 'tithing' then became 'the more you give [to the church] the more you'll get' [from God], on the basis that "God is no man's debtor" etc. I grew increasingly uneasy at the whole 'power', 'success', 'health' and 'prosperity' gospel they moved into. It seemed to me to be a materialistic, one dimensional notion of the Gospel and one that was actually, thoroughly unchristian! Alarm bells started to ring in my head, I felt very uneasy about it all, but I didn't know then how to articulate what I know now and the eldership were not minded to assist me. My personal expectations of the leadership were - of course - wildly unrealistic and immature. I expected them to be as insightful, discerning, caring and "prophetic" as they claimed to be. Maybe I was particularly vulnerable in that my father had died three years before I joined CHF but it would be unfair to present myself as a victim in this situation - I wanted to believe in them. In retrospect I probably warmed to the paternalistic style of leadership and I certainly craved their affirmation and approval. There was an element of complicity in my victimhood if you like. But the leadership did foster a cult of personality so I'm not minded to be too self critical. My disillusionment with them was directly proportional to my initial credulity, perhaps if I had taken Church House Fellowship with a pince of salt and not at face value I wouldn't have tied myself in knots! But I was very serious minded and I did take things at face value. Things came to a head in a none too articulate way in September of 1981. I met with some of the elders to discuss my misgivings which I lacked the words to express, so we parted in mutual incomprehension. Perhaps this was the inevitable clash of the "visionary" with someone like me with a valet mind. Their vision was that Church House Fellowship and its circle would so impress the watching world by it's material prosperity and miraculous healing that they would be compelled to join. Among their final words were these; "one day (if you are still walking with the Lord) you'll be faced with having to rejoin our church because it will be the only one"! I would be lying if I said that that thought didn't haunt me for the following decade. Of course it was nonsense, but they had obviously gotten underneath my skin - and the fear of being confronted again by these people [as irrational as it seems now] made me very reserved with my other Christian friends. Maybe they too would one day be absorbed into this juggernaut and I would be left behind.......at least that was my fear. The classic put down in my final meeting was "So you think that you are right and everyone else is wrong!?" I found them overbearing and left - but there was always that nagging thought in the following years - "what if I am wrong?" The continuing expansion of this church certainly seemed to confirm all the seemingly pretentious talk of the eldership. It was only after I left Yorkshire and moved to London in early 1991 that I could start to see all these things in their proper perspective. Their church loomed larger in my head than it ultimately proved to be in reality. I joined an evangelical church with an excellent Bible teaching ministry. No longer moving in those circles I don't know what became of the Jones brothers or their circle of churches. But it seems that, for whatever reason, they lost momentum, possibly because other Charismatic churches came on the scene and they no longer cornered the market. I am given to understand that the Bradford branch of their outfit has long since renewed itself along a different model....the jury is still out as to whether that is for the better. If you are sufficiently interested there was a sympathetic account written about the rise of Church House Fellowship by Andrew Walker in "Restoring the Kingdom". The latest edition was published by Eagle in 1998. Why am I writing this? And why now? First up, all these events are over half-a-lifetime ago from my perspective so I sincerely hope that any sting in what I have said here will have been drawn by now. In any event one's perspective on these things is always better when seen in a larger context and as it turned out I needed this time to judge those heady days aright. In the meantime it may well be that the protagonists I've indicated have all since come to a better mind on these issues anyway, so I have not used their names but an annotation; unfortunately it isn't really possible not to identify the Joneses but I hope that they will forgive me. It was never my intention to cause unneccesary hurt to those people who acted in good faith. More importantly, even if I had had the means to lash out at Church House Fellowship, I was reluctant at the time to bring the church (the wider church that is) into disrepute because that may have reflected badly, by association, with the Gopsel of Jesus Christ. The onlooking world often jumps to the illogical conclusion that because Christians often fail to be Christ-like the example of The Christ is somehow discredited. (If nothing else I hope that this article can help correct such perverse logic). Having started on this account of what was, after all, only a brief couple of years out of my life I found my initial draft grew out of all proportion and became therapeutic in the writing. Perhaps, on reflection, this indicates actually how significant those years were to me both on a psychological level and in terms of my subsequent spiritual development. Why should anyone care? Good question! In many respects I do not look upon my experiences at Church House Fellowship as particularly unique and so I'm writing this in the hope that others will find these thoughts helpful. Maybe there are other groups and individuals out there that are making similar claims for themselves and are gathering a following among young, impressionable, misinformed Christians who are left wide open to abuse for want of good Bible teaching. "There is nothing new under the Sun" said the Preacher! post script 14/02/2010. At www.davidmatthew.org.uk/restorationhist.html there is an article about the Restoration movement written by David Matthew who I met in 1979. He was part of the leadership team in Bradford and this article is written from a sympathetic insider's point of view. It gives a good overview of the movement but doesn't address some of the main concerns voiced at the time about the Church's direction; eg its authoritarian tendencies. The article also plays down the significance of prosperity teaching within the Church, I recall it having far greater prominence than the author is prepared to admit. With those provisos I hope that this link is helpful. ------------------------------------------------------------------ tag-line: CHF. Church House Fellowship, North Parade, Bradford. Harvestime. Harvestime Publishing, Hall Lane, Bradford. The Dales Bible Week, Great Yorkshire Showground. Bryn Jones. Keri Jones. Bryn & Keri Jones. Modern Day Apostles. Restoration Magazine. Early Charismatic Movement UK. Arthur Wallis. Latter Rains. God's Chosen Fast. Dominion. Reconstructionism. Reconstructionist. Triumphalism. Christian Counter Culture. Versus. North. England. Wales. Great Britain. Europe. New. Covenant. Ephesian 4 ministries. City of God, Thomas Danby College, Leeds. Bradford Church. 1979. 1980. 1981. 1982. 1983. The Bradford Church. Restoration. Elect or Elite? Restorationism. Restorationist. Life Abundant. Premillennialism. Premillennialist. Morality. Grace. Postmillennialism. Postmillennialist. Amillennialism. Amillennialist. Centre. Center. Peter Swift. swiftypete. The church; elect or elite?

Christian Intolerance Rightly
Understood!

"In any final analysis, it is clear everything that is good,
true and beautiful has it's origin in God, mediated to men
through that living word who has been from eternity the
revealer of the God-head.
"Did he not say that he is the light that lighteth every man?
The Christian then can trace all that is best in non-christian
religions to it's ultimate source and origin and give him
thanks. Similarly, all that is evil, false and unlovely comes
from below, for God is light and in him is no darkness at
all.
"These other religions then, like so much else in the world
of men, are made up of elements whose ultimate origins are
diverse. But in so far as these diverse elements have been
welded into systems which serve only to divert and keep
men from that way of salvation and life which cost God
himself the incarnation and the cross, the Christian must
regard them as satanic substitutes, however good they may
be in parts. This intolerance, if intolerance it be, is not that
of a sectarian and insensitive spirit, but is necessarily inherent
in the nature of the Christian message."

Professor Norman Anderson in the preface to "The World's
Religions".

QUENTIN SMITH & THE MYSTERY OF EVIL.

July 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is;

"So how do theists respond to arguments like
this? [The Argument from Evil]. They say there is
a reason for evil, but it is a mystery. Well,let
me tell you this: I'm actually one hundred feet
tall even though I only appear to be six feet tall.
You ask me for proof of this. I have a simple
answer: it's a mystery. Just accept my word for it
on faith. And that's just the logic theists use in
their discussions of evil." Quentin Smith.

It may be that there are theists who believe that
evil has a purpose....karmic realinement for
instance (simple cause and effect = people get what
they deserve). A Christian is not such a theist - my
best guess is; evil as evil does not "have a
reason", it is chaos and abscence of reason, it is
Creation evacuated of all it's God given properties
- love, tenderness, empathy, creativity,joy, humour
etc. Evil is an imposter which serves no direct
purpose - indeed it cannot, for it is not part of
God's creative purpose and is antithetical to it.
Quentin Smith is naive if he expects evil to parcel
itself out justly; that is not the nature
of the beast is it? It is not without reason that
the Christian scriptures often refer to evil as
"lawlessness" - the antithesis of justice and
civilisation.

Evil exists only in the same way that the cold
exists or the darkness exists - they are the
abscence of heat and light. Furthermore if evil
was a natural part of how the world ticks ["nature
red in tooth and claw" etc] it shouldn't logically
even register on our radar because we have evolved
within its atmosphere and absorbed it - but it
does bother us, why is that? Maybe we live in a
moral universe.

Or maybe evil bothers us in an evil way! We humans
have a pathological need to shift the blame for
evil onto others and even attribute it to God. It
is the same fault the Devil has - the need to play
the "eternal victim" - in his eyes no one has
suffered more than he. The real mystery is why do
we nurture evil in our own hearts and make peace
with it? The "reason for evil" is that it is the
means by which we "otherise" evil. We see the speck
in our brothers eye and fail to see the plank in
our own! We say we have a problem with evil....
in actuality we don't.

The real question Quentin Smith is reaching for
is "why does God tolerate evil?" - he certainly
permits it for now, but that is far from saying
that it serves a purpose, at least not in and of
itself. But we have already covered this ground
with Einstein back in April's "Calendar of Doom".
God does have an unfolding plan to contain and
eradicate evil, and he may even, from time-to-time,
subvert people's evil designs to his own purposes
.....how else could a God of love respond to the
desecration of the world he created? Remember that
biblically speaking we are in the fourth act of a
five part drama. The final curtain has yet to fall.
Christians crave for God's kingdom to come; justice
to reign and evil to be destroyed. What everyone
fails to see is that we [you, me and everyone else]
are also part of the problem. We often smugly think
God should bump off the people we don't approve of
- that's pharisaism for you! Why do you think you
will be spared....what is it that you are trusting
in?... or who are you trusting in? When you are
called to account; what is it that you are going to
say to God?

There is a problem and it is this; how does God
"square the circle" of expressing his perfect love
as perfect justice with expressing his perfect love
as perfect mercy? It is quite a conundrum but I
believe God vindicates himself at The Cross!


tagline: Calendar of Doom. Nature of evil. Cross.
Jesus Christ. Judgement. Justice. Mercy. Human Nature.
Self. Righteouness. Pharisees. Pharisaical. Pharisaism. God's plan.
Justification. Atonement. God's. Plan. Versus. Compassion. Empathy.

Post-script:-
One final thought - unlike QS I firmly believe that
there is no lack of integrity in saying "I don't
know" when faced with a baffling question. That
does not mean that one won't think about the issue
and get back to them. Oh - and he's not 100 feet
tall because that is measurable - not everything
of importance can be quantified so easily....it
doesn't mean that they don't exist.

OLNY SARMT PLOPEE CAN RAED TIHS!

I cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was
rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig
to rscheearch at Cmabdrige Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht
oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoantnt tihng is taht
the frist and lsat lteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
taotl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is
bcuasee the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istelf, but
the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? Yeah, and I awlyas tghuhot
slpelnig was ipmorantt!

St JAMES' UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, LEEDS [aka "Jimmy's"]. 1981-85. It is almost exactly twenty five years ago that I started my nurse training at Jimmy's in Leeds. At the time it was [and perhaps still is] the largest teaching hospital in Europe. There was an active Nurses' Christian Fellowship [NCF] group there which I got involved with and later went on to help lead. Later in life I had the privilege to help re-launch a group for Christian nurses called "Christian Nurses & Midwives" [CNM] but that's another story...check out http://www.cnm.org.uk/ if you're interested! I recall one funny incident as a student there; I was working on a ward and it was lunchtime. I was merrily serving out meals from a food trolley when one of the qualified staff sidled up to me and whispered in my ear that I was doing a great job but that she couldn't quite understand why I was ladeling chocolate sauce for the dessert onto the roast beef! I was so embarrassed! Of course, there were difficult experiences too. My most chilling memory was to watch someone die of bleeding oesophageal varices. Yet I look back on my time at "Jimmy's" with a lot of fond memories - the whole experience was very formative. Nurse training then was [and perhaps still is] one way of "putting an old head on young shoulders"! And the friends I made were an enormous support and help - more so than I probably credited them with at the time. We also had some great adventures together exploring The Dales, The Peaks and The Lakes. I made some wonderful friends there - people who proved better friends to me than I ever was to them. ---------------------------------------------------------- tagline: Peter Swift. St James's University Hospital. Leeds. 1981. 1982. 1983. 1984. 1985. School of Nursing. RGN. Student Nurse. Staff Nurse. RSCN. Nurse Training. NCF. Nurses' Christian Fellowship. ----------------------------------------------------------

WAYNE ROONEY'S
METATARSAL!

If I hear another word about Wayne
Rooney's big toe on the news I think
my intestines will erupt through my
thorax and throttle my brain in a
desperate bid to preserve my sanity!
Please let's keep some sense of
proportion about this business, there
are bigger news items out there surely!

I wish the England lads all the best - play
as well as we know you can - just don't
disgrace yourselves, that's all! And
that goes for the fans too!
That would be a result!

06:06:06 & the coming of
the anti-christ!
Am I missing something?
But doesn't this date come
around every century?!

BERTRAND RUSSELL:
interplanetary teapot.

June 2006's thought from my agnostic calendar is:-

"I think that in philosophical strictness at the level
where one doubts the existence of material objects
and holds that the world may have existed for only
five minutes, I ought to call myself an agnostic; but,
for all practical purposes, I am an atheist. I do not
think the existence of the Christian God any more
probable than the existence of the gods of Olympus
or Valhalla. To take another illustration: nobody
can prove that there is not between Earth and Mars
a china teapot revolving in an elliptic orbit, but
nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken
into account in practice. I think the Christian God
just as unlikely." [Bertrand Russell].

I think Bertrand is trying to say it is impossible to prove
a negative - one cannot prove God does not exist any more
than one can disprove the interplanetary teapot theory.
Which is all very drole of course - and would be a perfectly
fair point...if he had left it at that. But he stretches the point
way too far, to breaking point in fact, and makes at least
one assertion which is patently false....all because he does
not understand agnosticism. [He makes a few other silly
points which for the sake of brevity I will let pass]. I have
to say in all candour that the notional challenge to "prove
God's non-existence" isn't one I've ever made [or heard
made] to a non-believer, probably because the subject is
far too important to leave the initiative with the sceptic.

Agnosticism is a perfectly sound position from an intellectual
point of view - but what Bertrand fails to grasp, as many do,
is that agnosticism does not work in practice. His apparently
casual move toward atheism is actually an imperative driven by
"the impossibility of agnosticism" [to quote Joseph Ratzinger].

In the real world one has to come down one side or the other;
to act as if God exists or to act as if God does not exist -
precisely because of the values involved one cannot be neutral.
And it is here that Bertie has got it so wrong - it does matter
in practice. How one views the world and ones fellow creatures
turns on the issue of God.

If it didn't matter I wouldn't be writing this - and presumably
you wouldn't be reading it!

tagline; Calendar of Doom.

Killing Spree! Crazed Londoner
in night-time garden massacre!

It was like this you see, I'd been taking these pills for
my backpain - I've been on them weeks now. And I'm
taking sleeping pills on top of them like. Sometimes
they help me sleep for a few hours and sometimes I
get these "dreams".

Anyway one night I'd had all these pills and had had
a nightmare, besides I couldn't sleep cos I was in pain,
so I hobbles downstairs to make myself a cup of tea. It's
2 or 3 O'Clock in the morning. I has my tea....and
then I'm not sure if I'm awake or dreaming....maybe
it was the pills that was making me confused like!
Or MAYBE they're really helping me see things
straight for the first time! Because everthing becomes
clear to me.

You see I realise that they are out there....in the garden
....but they don't know I'm awake....they think I'm tucked
up in bed don't they? These neighbours of mine have
never liked me....I could never prove anything but I
was sure they were plotting against me.....they mess up
my garden at night [every night!] when I'm not around....
they don't have the guts to do it in daylight! Stinking cowards!
And then it comes to me like a "revelation!" This is it! I can
catch the blighters red handed......cos they won't be expecting
me will they?!

Quick as a flash I grabs a torch and a weapon and I
charges out into the garden in the dead of night - and
the bastards are there! Scores of 'em! BANG! Slug there.
BANG! Slug there. I go mental like and I can't stop and
when I've finished they're all these bodies lying there all
around me.

The snails didn't fair much better either.

CHESSWORLD.NET

While I have been laid up with back pain and sciatica I have been keeping myself amused by playing Chess on the internet. If you fancy your chances against me [or any number of other players] you can subscribe to chessworld.net and look me up. But it will cost you £12.00, or $22.50 or €17.50 for a one year full membership subscription. Or you can just come along as a guest and play for free.

My cousin, Mike Carney, taught me how to play Chess over thirty-five years ago. Unfortunately the only set we had was missing several key pieces, so
I learnt to play with only one bishop and/or only one knight. In retrospect it was a surreal introduction to the game, and Mike was a formidable opponent.

Even as a young teen Mike had an impressive intellect and I stood in awe of him. While I read science fiction he would be reading Wittgenstein! [I kid you not!] Mike had much more capacity for hard work than me and this combined with his natural gifts quickly took him onto better schools and ultimately to university. I had that typical teen conceit that success would come to me naturally without any undue effort - in fact "effort " was just `not the done thing' - not least because it drew the attention of the school yard bully.

In retrospect it is a little puzzling how Mike and I struck up such a strong frienship. Perhaps it was that we came from an extended Roman Catholic family and had become ardent atheists while retaining the angst of the recusant outsider. In any event we were the same age and as we all understand, most thirteen year olds know what's wrong with the world
and it isn't them!

Mike and I lost touch - our academic trajectories took us in very different directions. And I became a Christian in 1975 when I was seventeen. I never could buy into the notion of moral relativity because, it seemed to me
self evident that, there is such a thing as "Natural Law", a la Aquinas but actually preceded by Paul in Romans 1 and 2. I simply could not see my way to the conclusion that "everything is relative!" This was a regression from Mike's perspective and I had yet to learn to disagree agreeably with people. His take on my conversion was that I had lurched into obscurantism
and, in fairness, I did little to demonstrate the grace of Jesus to him.

Ironically thanks to the churches I have belonged to over the years I have developed an interest in apologetics [countering objections to the Christian
Gospel ] and that has taken me into the philosophical areas Mike explored years ago. If I had my time over again we could probably have a "good argument" - in the sense of being both thoughtful and gracious! I guess I am a late developer.



*****************************************************************
Post-Script, 12th June 06.
When you start playing with Chessworld.net you have a nominal score of 1400. You gain so many points for a win and so many for a draw and have points deducted if you lose. After a shaky start I've managed to get to 1511. If any of you out there rose to my challenge to play and I declined the game I am very sorry. I realise now that there are only so many games one can keep tabs on. Maybe try again later?

****************************************************************
Post-Post-Script, 18th June 06.
It's a calendar month since I joined chessworld.net and my rating has taken a beating in that time...down to 1326 currently. I came across a "centile" of my performance and it was 26%! If I understand this correctly that means I'm way below average. I have changed my "stated strength" from `intermediate' [which is what I initially, genuinely, thought was my standard] to `beginner'. Maybe I've always had much too high an opinion of myself and it is quite liberatingto discover a more realistic appraisal of oneself! Truth is always preferable to self delusion and true freedom can be found in humility - which, when all is said and done, is merely seeing things the way they really are. And this is not just about Chess; it's about "face"!

SCIATICA ! - and the Gift of Time!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CARL SAGAN:
Out of the Silent Planet!

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

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

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

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

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



tagline: Calendar of Doom.

THE MATERIALIST.

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

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

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

"JESUS OF THE SCARS"
by Edward Shillito.

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

ALBERT EINSTEIN QUESTIONS
THE CHARACTER OF GOD.

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

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

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

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

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




Tagline, Calendar of Doom.

EUROPEAN UNION LANGUAGE
HARMONISATION DIRECTIVE.

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

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

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

THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS
AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HINDU: Indian sub-continent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

THE BEST SWIFTYPETE BLOG!

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

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

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

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

GENE RODDENBERRY &
THE GENESIS STORY!

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

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

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

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

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

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

tagline. Calendar of Doom.