JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES &
THE TROJAN HORSE!
While trawling through blog world I came
across some Christians whose love for a
particular version of the Bible seems to
have affected their better judgement. The
result is that they are unwittingly conceding
the argument we have with JWs over the
Trinity.
Let me explain; these Christians argument goes as
follows:- certain modern Bible versions relegate
one particular verse to the footnotes [eg 1 John 5v7].
This verse has a strong Trinitarian content but has
generally been thought to be a later addition. So
these good hearted Christians are naturally outraged
and decry this as a terrible compromise of a critical
Bible doctrine. they insist that only their favoured
Bible translation faithfully reflects this truth and that
real Christians should stick to this one and reject
other, more modern,translations as fatally flawed.
At this point I could imagine an onlooking Jehovah's
Witness smiling and saying, "so you are telling me
that the whole edifice of Trinitarian theology stands
or falls on a handful of verses in one Bible translation
which are disputed by the majority of the original texts?!"
I bet he or she couldn't believe their luck when they
turned up on your doorstep!
Of course the whole argument is vacuous. One verse
may be disputed, but the doctrine of the Trinity rests on
infinitely more evidence than that. Our Christian bloggers
have made a well intentioned but dreadful error of
judgement in implying the critical nature of Bible versions
in this matter.
I would suggest, for starters, that one looks up the
prophecies attributed to Jehovah (upper case LORD in
most regular Bibles) which are subsequently fulfilled by
Jesus Christ. One also needs to check out what Jesus
claimed for himself, John chapter 8 has some interesting
surprises.
If any JW out there in blog world wants to take issue with
me I am open for comments. [Comments mark you - over
lengthy sermons WILL be deleted - you can use your own
blog space for that!]
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
ST HELEN'S BISHOPSGATE,
LONDON.
Exactly fifteen years ago today, in 1991, I made the
move from Yorkshire to London thinking I would only
be here for a year or two. How wrong can you be?
I have been here half my adult life which is quite a
scary thought.
I have enjoyed London it is a great city with a real
buzz, but it can also be a rootless sort of place too,
where we all live together in civilised indifference.
As much as I have loved being a Londoner I cannot
say that this is where I would wish to retire. I am
of an age when I want to put down some solid roots
within a smaller community.
I am really pleased that I joined a good church within
a few days of my arrival and I've stayed a member
there since. It has been an enormous privilege to be
part of St Helen's Bishopsgate where the Bible
teaching has been second to none. I would never have
believed that I would end up in an Anglican church
coming -as I had- from a strictly free, charismatic sort
of church background. The fact is I had grown weary
of simplistic theology and pop prophecy but knew
enough to know that I craved some solid spiritual food
and that is something St Helen's has in spades. The
church also provided me with some sense of community
in an otherwise anonymous city.
It always seems rather a curious allegation that
Christians in general and evangelicals in particular are
"unthinking". The truth is as a Christian living in a
materialistic society I have been compelled to think
through so many issues and sift my own motivations
as God's word does it's work. You cannot simply
drift with the spirit of the age and be a committed
Christian - you have to swim against the current and
that requires thoughtful commitment from the heart.
Of course at this point the gainsayers will say that
St Helen's is too "intellectual" - you can't win can you?
Either Christians are too unthinking or they think too
much, if you're not guilty of the one they'll get you on
the other! You have to laugh don't you? It seems to me
that it isn't helpful to pay too much attention to the
attitude of the world.
Anyway! My point is if you are thinking of coming to
London and you're looking for a church why not
check us out!
www.st-helens.org.uk
I should add that the views expressed in this blog are
entirely my own as a member of St Helen's and it should
not be inferred that they represent any official position
of that church.
God Bless.
---------------------------------------------------------
tagline: Peter Swift. 1991. Guy's Hospital. London.
SHB. St Helen's. St Helen's Bishopsgate.
---------------------------------------------------------
LONDON.
Exactly fifteen years ago today, in 1991, I made the
move from Yorkshire to London thinking I would only
be here for a year or two. How wrong can you be?
I have been here half my adult life which is quite a
scary thought.
I have enjoyed London it is a great city with a real
buzz, but it can also be a rootless sort of place too,
where we all live together in civilised indifference.
As much as I have loved being a Londoner I cannot
say that this is where I would wish to retire. I am
of an age when I want to put down some solid roots
within a smaller community.
I am really pleased that I joined a good church within
a few days of my arrival and I've stayed a member
there since. It has been an enormous privilege to be
part of St Helen's Bishopsgate where the Bible
teaching has been second to none. I would never have
believed that I would end up in an Anglican church
coming -as I had- from a strictly free, charismatic sort
of church background. The fact is I had grown weary
of simplistic theology and pop prophecy but knew
enough to know that I craved some solid spiritual food
and that is something St Helen's has in spades. The
church also provided me with some sense of community
in an otherwise anonymous city.
It always seems rather a curious allegation that
Christians in general and evangelicals in particular are
"unthinking". The truth is as a Christian living in a
materialistic society I have been compelled to think
through so many issues and sift my own motivations
as God's word does it's work. You cannot simply
drift with the spirit of the age and be a committed
Christian - you have to swim against the current and
that requires thoughtful commitment from the heart.
Of course at this point the gainsayers will say that
St Helen's is too "intellectual" - you can't win can you?
Either Christians are too unthinking or they think too
much, if you're not guilty of the one they'll get you on
the other! You have to laugh don't you? It seems to me
that it isn't helpful to pay too much attention to the
attitude of the world.
Anyway! My point is if you are thinking of coming to
London and you're looking for a church why not
check us out!
www.st-helens.org.uk
I should add that the views expressed in this blog are
entirely my own as a member of St Helen's and it should
not be inferred that they represent any official position
of that church.
God Bless.
---------------------------------------------------------
tagline: Peter Swift. 1991. Guy's Hospital. London.
SHB. St Helen's. St Helen's Bishopsgate.
---------------------------------------------------------
Saturday, February 11, 2006
Patrick Sookhdeo.
Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.
It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.
In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?
A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?
Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.
Patrick Sookhdeo heads up a couple of Christian organisations
and has the ear of some of the leading lights of the evangelical
church in the UK. He has had some quite extensive exposure
in the evangelical press in this country - but I have a problem
with him.
It seems to me that while he consistently talks up the threat
presented by Islam in the UK he does not offer a genuinely
Christian analysis of that problem. He presents Islam as a
terrible threat and leaves it at that. This -it seems to me- is
woefully inadequate. As a Christian I need to know how to
respond Christianly to this issue and that is something
Sookhdeo consistently fails to give a lead on. What strikes
me about his writing is the gracelessness of it all....as if
the Gospel has nothing to say about how Christians should
respond to these sorts of challenges. I do not deny that
there is a challenge - that is not the point at issue here -
the lack of guidance is the issue I have with Sookhdeo.
In last December's issue of the Barnabas Fund's magazine
was an insert requesting information from churches in the
UK about Muslim attacks on believers here. First up; if such
attacks do occur I will deplore them, but I do not have
sufficient confidence in Sookhdeo to collate such information.
It seems to me that he is only too willing to talk up the threat
level rather than dispassionately sift the evidence. What
standard of proof is he looking for? Beyond reasonable doubt?
Balance of probability? Reasonable suspicion? What if some
church premises are vandalised or a white happens to be
mugged by an asian looking guy - will these events be
classified as Muslims persecuting Christians?
A couple of years ago a friend of mine (who happens to be an
elder of an inner city church) was threatened by a gang of
asian youths. The fact that this was a drug gang resisting the
influence of the local church may not register as such with
Sookhdeo. Will this be clocked up as a Muslim attack? Will
he be that picky?
Reviewing his articles in the Evangelical press in 2005 the
striking feature is that they could be lifted and reprinted
in publications of the far right. They wouldn't even need to
edit out the Gospel because it's not there. That is what
troubles me about his message.........it is not authentically
Christian.
Saturday, February 04, 2006
THE DANISH CARTOON ROW!
& a Christian response to it.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."
The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.
Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.
"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."
& a Christian response to it.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK
there is an excellent letter from Joel Edwards,
General Director of the Evangelical Alliance.
"In a week when many celebrated the defence of
free speech in the racial and religious hatred bill,
but then had to swallow the consequences of
liberty with the BNP [British National Party]
court case victory, we are presented with
another challenge. Islam is known as a religion
of peace. In light of the controversial publication
of Danish cartoons showing the prophet Muhammad,
here is an opportunity to engage with a bemused
public and sceptical press about Islam and to
recognise that in a liberal democracy arguments
must be won through engagement and not
intimidation. The Evangelical Alliance supports
the Muslim Council of Britain for distancing itself
from violence. As Christians we understand only
too well the pain still caused by seeing one's faith
ridiculed, but urge Muslims to defend their beliefs
through dialogue."
The letter can be found on page 35 of The Guardian,
Saturday, 4th February 2006.
Post-Script. 7th Feb 06.
I had a letter of my own published in today's
Guardian regarding the police reaction to the
slogans used at last Friday's demo in London.
"The police have been unfairly criticised in my
view for taking a softly softly approach to the
inflammatory rhetoric at what was otherwise
a peaceful demonstration. What would the
headlines have said if they had waded in purely
on the strength of the language used? It's time
to take a deep breath and calm down."
Thursday, February 02, 2006
VOLTAIRE on Doubt & Certainty!
February 2006's thought from my agnostic
calendar is; "Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd." Voltaire.
On balance I'm with Voltaire on this one. One would
need to be all wise and omniscient to have the certainty
Voltaire alludes to. Humans are limited in time and
space, so our knowledge can only ever be provisional
and tentative.
Jesus does not despise the faith of the man who cries
"I believe, help my unbelief!" Mark 9v24. And the
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 talks about "knowing
in part...the partial passing away...giving up childish
ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly...Now I know
in part; then I shall fully know, even as I have been
fully known". Paul can say this because he grasps that
the Gospel isn't merely a set of propositions. It IS
propositional, but it is not JUST a set of propositions.
Paul realises that Christians need to grow into those
truths and we won't know it all this side of heaven. It
would be absurd to imply that the instant a Christian
becomes a Christian - crash, bang, wallop he or she
should know everything with certainty. A disciple is
"a work in progress!" There isn't a problem with the
transmitter but there is a problem with the receiver.
The Christian knows this and asks the Holy Spirit to
help him grow in understanding. This is why we are
called disciples and not sooth-sayers. God does not
require us to be superhuman - merely to recognise
that we are human.
Christians teach "the sufficiency of scripture", not
that it's a comprehensive compendium of all possible
knowledge, past, present and future. Rather it is
better to say that scripture is sufficient for us to
have confidence to direct the believer in matters of
faith and conduct. That is the common sense approach
.....and that is what it claims for itself.
It seems to me that real life never deals in "certainty".
Nor do we live our lives in a haze of doubt. Voltaire is
in danger of setting up "doubt" and "certainty" as a
false dichotomy when real life actually resides between
those two. In 1980 I did my first [and only] solo parachute
jump. Was I "certain" the parachute would work? Well,
actually no - I couldn't claim certainty for it or for the
reserve if the main failed. Does that mean I was in "doubt"?
Well; no - I wouldn't have left the ground if I was - instead
I made a judgement, one I was prepared to act on. We make
similar judgements each day in real life, well away from the
absurdities thrown up by the extremes of language [what
happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object - sort of thing!] To ask, am I "certain" I will arrive
safely home from work today? Or am I "certain" this salmon
mousse I am about to eat won't kill me? isn't how real life
actually ticks is it? We do not have that degree of control
and autonomy. What we do is make a judgement call. Just
as I entrusted myself to the parachute all those years ago
I am now entrusting myself to Christ - I have made a
judgement and believe he is trustworthy.
"Certainty" [or at least the desire for it] is more to do with
a desire for autonomy - being an island "entire of itself" and
making a "judgement" turns on what one has trusted in -
the recognition of the limitations of oneself and ones
connectedness with things outside of oneself, which inherently
mean dependence...and risk...as all relationships do. A child
(unaware of the dangers of electricity) who is told not to
stick it's fingers in the electric socket must make a judgement
call - to trust the carer or to believe the worst of them - it
cannot "know" autonomously.
"Certainty" is indeed absurd, but perhaps we can say that
"doubt in oneself " is the beginning of wisdom.
February 2006's thought from my agnostic
calendar is; "Doubt is not a pleasant condition,
but certainty is absurd." Voltaire.
On balance I'm with Voltaire on this one. One would
need to be all wise and omniscient to have the certainty
Voltaire alludes to. Humans are limited in time and
space, so our knowledge can only ever be provisional
and tentative.
Jesus does not despise the faith of the man who cries
"I believe, help my unbelief!" Mark 9v24. And the
Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 talks about "knowing
in part...the partial passing away...giving up childish
ways. For now we see in a mirror dimly...Now I know
in part; then I shall fully know, even as I have been
fully known". Paul can say this because he grasps that
the Gospel isn't merely a set of propositions. It IS
propositional, but it is not JUST a set of propositions.
Paul realises that Christians need to grow into those
truths and we won't know it all this side of heaven. It
would be absurd to imply that the instant a Christian
becomes a Christian - crash, bang, wallop he or she
should know everything with certainty. A disciple is
"a work in progress!" There isn't a problem with the
transmitter but there is a problem with the receiver.
The Christian knows this and asks the Holy Spirit to
help him grow in understanding. This is why we are
called disciples and not sooth-sayers. God does not
require us to be superhuman - merely to recognise
that we are human.
Christians teach "the sufficiency of scripture", not
that it's a comprehensive compendium of all possible
knowledge, past, present and future. Rather it is
better to say that scripture is sufficient for us to
have confidence to direct the believer in matters of
faith and conduct. That is the common sense approach
.....and that is what it claims for itself.
It seems to me that real life never deals in "certainty".
Nor do we live our lives in a haze of doubt. Voltaire is
in danger of setting up "doubt" and "certainty" as a
false dichotomy when real life actually resides between
those two. In 1980 I did my first [and only] solo parachute
jump. Was I "certain" the parachute would work? Well,
actually no - I couldn't claim certainty for it or for the
reserve if the main failed. Does that mean I was in "doubt"?
Well; no - I wouldn't have left the ground if I was - instead
I made a judgement, one I was prepared to act on. We make
similar judgements each day in real life, well away from the
absurdities thrown up by the extremes of language [what
happens when an irresistible force meets an immovable
object - sort of thing!] To ask, am I "certain" I will arrive
safely home from work today? Or am I "certain" this salmon
mousse I am about to eat won't kill me? isn't how real life
actually ticks is it? We do not have that degree of control
and autonomy. What we do is make a judgement call. Just
as I entrusted myself to the parachute all those years ago
I am now entrusting myself to Christ - I have made a
judgement and believe he is trustworthy.
"Certainty" [or at least the desire for it] is more to do with
a desire for autonomy - being an island "entire of itself" and
making a "judgement" turns on what one has trusted in -
the recognition of the limitations of oneself and ones
connectedness with things outside of oneself, which inherently
mean dependence...and risk...as all relationships do. A child
(unaware of the dangers of electricity) who is told not to
stick it's fingers in the electric socket must make a judgement
call - to trust the carer or to believe the worst of them - it
cannot "know" autonomously.
"Certainty" is indeed absurd, but perhaps we can say that
"doubt in oneself " is the beginning of wisdom.
tag-line. Voltaire. Calendar of Doom. Certainty. Doubt.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Saturday, January 21, 2006
The Biblical Timeline!
Creation.................................................The New
...........\............................................../ Creation!
............\................................+ _____/
........Fall \............................ / Jesus
...............\/\/\/\/\___________/ is Lord
.................Israel....... exile
In some computer formats this diagram
will appear to be gibberish. Sorry about
that!
Creation.................................................The New
...........\............................................../ Creation!
............\................................+ _____/
........Fall \............................ / Jesus
...............\/\/\/\/\___________/ is Lord
.................Israel....... exile
In some computer formats this diagram
will appear to be gibberish. Sorry about
that!
Whale Watching!
Just half an hour ago I took a short
walk from my home in North Bermondsey
to the River Thames to watch our
visiting whale go by.
Earlier today after being beached at
low tide up stream it was loaded onto
a barge and is being taken down to the
estuary.
I have never seen a whale before and it
is amazing to see one in the heart of the
city! London seems to have taken it to
its heart - I was surrounded by a crowd
of other curious onlookers. I guess it is
a feel good story - let's hope that it
has a happy ending.
Posted at 16.10 hrs GMT, 21st January 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Post Script at 20.00 hrs GMT.
The Northern Bottlenose Whale which captured
the heart of the nation is reported to have died
whilst in transit to the sea.
Just half an hour ago I took a short
walk from my home in North Bermondsey
to the River Thames to watch our
visiting whale go by.
Earlier today after being beached at
low tide up stream it was loaded onto
a barge and is being taken down to the
estuary.
I have never seen a whale before and it
is amazing to see one in the heart of the
city! London seems to have taken it to
its heart - I was surrounded by a crowd
of other curious onlookers. I guess it is
a feel good story - let's hope that it
has a happy ending.
Posted at 16.10 hrs GMT, 21st January 2006.
-------------------------------------------------
Post Script at 20.00 hrs GMT.
The Northern Bottlenose Whale which captured
the heart of the nation is reported to have died
whilst in transit to the sea.
Sunday, January 08, 2006
PAT ROBERTSON:
Modern Day Prophecy,
The Biblical Timeline &
Politics [American or
otherwise].
Pat Robertson has created (yet another) stir with
tendentious comments on world events this time
with speculation that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine
retribution for conceding land to the Palestinian
authority. He has been widely condemned in blog
world for this - and I fear that all Christians may be
tarred with the same brush, and more importantly
I am concerned that the Gospel of Jesus has been
brought into disrepute. [I am glad to note that Pat
Robertson has subsequently made an apology for
his "insensitivity"]. For anyone interested
I thought I'd briefly explain why (as a reasonably
Biblically literate, Evangelical, "Born Again"
Christian) I can say Pat Robertson was wrong in
the first place.
The Bible is an unfolding narrative of God's
dealings with Humankind *. At one point in
history the nation state of Israel was set up
ostensibly as a light to the nations. As the
narrative unfolds we discover that even this
Kingdom with its idealistic laws and its prophets
cannot reform the human heart. [This does not
mean that what was once wrong has ceased to be
wrong or that God has changed in some way;
it means that God has helped us grow in our
understanding of the problem of human nature
and moves us on from the moralism of rule
keeping - which is why Jesus is so hard on the
Pharisees. An infinitely more radical solution
is required!]. Ultimately the nation goes into
exile and God points ahead to a new kingdom
under God's chosen king. I believe that Jesus
is that king and his kingdom [or "Millennium"]
is presently a spiritual one - though one day we
look forward to his return and the inauguration
of his Kingdom in all it's fulness. This new kingdom
is not limited geographically nor is it restricted
to the physical descendents of Abraham....as
the original promises always indicated they
would have global, if not cosmic, fulfillment. There
is now a larger vision afoot....a plan to recreate
the whole of Creation and draw in the breadth
of Humanity.
Where Pat Robertson is going wrong is in
anachronistically harking back to a point in
the Bible narrative which merely foreshadowed
the Kingdom which Jesus came to bring about.
This colours how middle eastern politics are
viewed (often in lurid technicolour). It also
permits Pat Robertson to see himself in the
role of Old Testament prophet (such as
authoritatively interpreting world events)
- again a role superceded by Christ himself.
Pat Robertson comes out of a school of thought
called "Pre- Millennialist", which views the
restoration of the state of Israel as critical in
God's plan for the world. He may also believe
that the church is mandated by God to have a
role of political leadership over the other
nations. I am an "Amillennialist"* Christian -
I don't believe the Bible teaches either of
these positions....in fact I think that these
are potentially damaging distractions from
the commission which Jesus did give to us.
Pat Robertson once described Amillennialism as
"the end-time apostasy" no less. So... hey...please
blogworld don't lump all evangelical Christians
together in the same boat. [I realise that such
quibbles over words like these will seem rather
esoteric to the outsider but the point I'm making
is "ideas have legs" - i.e. ideas DO have
consequences].
I suspect that evangelical Christians are often
viewed as ultra-right wing because some of us
misunderstand where we are in the Bible
timeline. The plot has moved on from attempting
to build a theocratic nation state, we are now
living in a new era defined by the Cross of Christ.
As a Christian I see little or no value in using political
campaigns to compel non-christians to behave as if
they are believers. In fact most Biblically literate
Christians would come to share the apostle Paul's
view of the limitations of the law in reforming the
human heart. I believe that our role is to faithfully
teach and model the Gospel to the onlooking world.
By all means let's get involved in politics - but let's
not fool ourselves that this will reform human nature,
only the Cross of Christ can do this.
If we do get involved in politics; as Christians
we must demonstrate a rounded political agenda
- it is right to speak out on bio-medical ethics -
but the Bible also has lots to say about other
issues - War & Peace, Poverty & Materialism,
the Environment, Social Justice etc. We should
not allow ourselves to be corralled into a right
wing fiefdom for the benefit of certain politicians.
Let's not get railroaded into a narrower agenda
than God's, which is where some misguided
souls would take us. [It should also be pointed
out to those on the political Left that they too
are guilty of driving away the support of
Evangelicals by demonising them - maybe,
just maybe, that is one reason why the
Democrats lost the US election in 2004 - they
alienated moderate evangelicals rather than
reach out to them].
But back to my main point: gleeful
triumphalism over the misfortune of others
is totally antithetical to the spirit of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is understandable
if we are seen as rather nasty, mean-spirited
and un-Christlike people if the Pat Robertsons
of this world put themselves forward as our
spokesmen. I just want to make it clear that
he does not speak for me.
All comments are welcome!
[1* This should not be confused with the various
theological "dispensations" which some
Pre-Millennialist Christians hold to!]
[2*"Amillennialism" is a bit of a misnomer because
it implies one does not believe in the Kingdom
at all. Perhaps it would be better to refer to it
as a "realised millennialism"- the Kingdom of God
is present here and now for those with the eyes
to see it. For the sake of convenience I will use
the more commonly recognised term].
Post-Script: 21. Jan.06.
I have attempted to represent in diagrammatic
form the Biblical Timeline I have described
unfortunately in some computer formats this
will appear as gibberish! Sorry about that.
tag-line. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat
Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. PatRobertson.
Modern Day Prophecy,
The Biblical Timeline &
Politics [American or
otherwise].
Pat Robertson has created (yet another) stir with
tendentious comments on world events this time
with speculation that Ariel Sharon's stroke is divine
retribution for conceding land to the Palestinian
authority. He has been widely condemned in blog
world for this - and I fear that all Christians may be
tarred with the same brush, and more importantly
I am concerned that the Gospel of Jesus has been
brought into disrepute. [I am glad to note that Pat
Robertson has subsequently made an apology for
his "insensitivity"]. For anyone interested
I thought I'd briefly explain why (as a reasonably
Biblically literate, Evangelical, "Born Again"
Christian) I can say Pat Robertson was wrong in
the first place.
The Bible is an unfolding narrative of God's
dealings with Humankind *. At one point in
history the nation state of Israel was set up
ostensibly as a light to the nations. As the
narrative unfolds we discover that even this
Kingdom with its idealistic laws and its prophets
cannot reform the human heart. [This does not
mean that what was once wrong has ceased to be
wrong or that God has changed in some way;
it means that God has helped us grow in our
understanding of the problem of human nature
and moves us on from the moralism of rule
keeping - which is why Jesus is so hard on the
Pharisees. An infinitely more radical solution
is required!]. Ultimately the nation goes into
exile and God points ahead to a new kingdom
under God's chosen king. I believe that Jesus
is that king and his kingdom [or "Millennium"]
is presently a spiritual one - though one day we
look forward to his return and the inauguration
of his Kingdom in all it's fulness. This new kingdom
is not limited geographically nor is it restricted
to the physical descendents of Abraham....as
the original promises always indicated they
would have global, if not cosmic, fulfillment. There
is now a larger vision afoot....a plan to recreate
the whole of Creation and draw in the breadth
of Humanity.
Where Pat Robertson is going wrong is in
anachronistically harking back to a point in
the Bible narrative which merely foreshadowed
the Kingdom which Jesus came to bring about.
This colours how middle eastern politics are
viewed (often in lurid technicolour). It also
permits Pat Robertson to see himself in the
role of Old Testament prophet (such as
authoritatively interpreting world events)
- again a role superceded by Christ himself.
Pat Robertson comes out of a school of thought
called "Pre- Millennialist", which views the
restoration of the state of Israel as critical in
God's plan for the world. He may also believe
that the church is mandated by God to have a
role of political leadership over the other
nations. I am an "Amillennialist"* Christian -
I don't believe the Bible teaches either of
these positions....in fact I think that these
are potentially damaging distractions from
the commission which Jesus did give to us.
Pat Robertson once described Amillennialism as
"the end-time apostasy" no less. So... hey...please
blogworld don't lump all evangelical Christians
together in the same boat. [I realise that such
quibbles over words like these will seem rather
esoteric to the outsider but the point I'm making
is "ideas have legs" - i.e. ideas DO have
consequences].
I suspect that evangelical Christians are often
viewed as ultra-right wing because some of us
misunderstand where we are in the Bible
timeline. The plot has moved on from attempting
to build a theocratic nation state, we are now
living in a new era defined by the Cross of Christ.
As a Christian I see little or no value in using political
campaigns to compel non-christians to behave as if
they are believers. In fact most Biblically literate
Christians would come to share the apostle Paul's
view of the limitations of the law in reforming the
human heart. I believe that our role is to faithfully
teach and model the Gospel to the onlooking world.
By all means let's get involved in politics - but let's
not fool ourselves that this will reform human nature,
only the Cross of Christ can do this.
If we do get involved in politics; as Christians
we must demonstrate a rounded political agenda
- it is right to speak out on bio-medical ethics -
but the Bible also has lots to say about other
issues - War & Peace, Poverty & Materialism,
the Environment, Social Justice etc. We should
not allow ourselves to be corralled into a right
wing fiefdom for the benefit of certain politicians.
Let's not get railroaded into a narrower agenda
than God's, which is where some misguided
souls would take us. [It should also be pointed
out to those on the political Left that they too
are guilty of driving away the support of
Evangelicals by demonising them - maybe,
just maybe, that is one reason why the
Democrats lost the US election in 2004 - they
alienated moderate evangelicals rather than
reach out to them].
But back to my main point: gleeful
triumphalism over the misfortune of others
is totally antithetical to the spirit of the
gospel of Jesus Christ. It is understandable
if we are seen as rather nasty, mean-spirited
and un-Christlike people if the Pat Robertsons
of this world put themselves forward as our
spokesmen. I just want to make it clear that
he does not speak for me.
All comments are welcome!
[1* This should not be confused with the various
theological "dispensations" which some
Pre-Millennialist Christians hold to!]
[2*"Amillennialism" is a bit of a misnomer because
it implies one does not believe in the Kingdom
at all. Perhaps it would be better to refer to it
as a "realised millennialism"- the Kingdom of God
is present here and now for those with the eyes
to see it. For the sake of convenience I will use
the more commonly recognised term].
Post-Script: 21. Jan.06.
I have attempted to represent in diagrammatic
form the Biblical Timeline I have described
unfortunately in some computer formats this
will appear as gibberish! Sorry about that.
tag-line. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat
Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson. Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson. PatRobertson.
Saturday, January 07, 2006
RICHARD DAWKINS'S LATEST
ATTACK ON RELIGION IS AN
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY POLEMIC
NOT WORTHY OF A GREAT
SCIENTIST.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK there is an
excellent article by Madeleine Bunting:-
"On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again)
to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a
two-part Channel 4 programme [in the UK], "The Root of
All Evil?" His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them
badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on
Narnia. By all means let's have a serious debate about
religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating
phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's
not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random
anecdotal evidence, there's an unmistakable whiff of
panic; they fear religion is on the march again."
My best guess is that Dawkins's worldview is
dominated by his concepts of evolutionary biology.
It isn't just that he believes this to be true, it is also
that his evolutionary worldview requires this
concept to prevail and vanquish all other contenders.
Bunting continues:-
"There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been
short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all
atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even
more grating, what secularisation there has been has
been is accompanied by the growth of weird
irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As
GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when
people don't believe in God is not that they believe
nothing, it is that they believe anything".
Bunting makes some telling comments about
Dawkins's lack of understanding and charges him
with the very same "hidebound certainty" of which
he accuses believers.
It seems to me that all of us have the capacity to
demonise other people - that is actually the
problem with human nature. We all "otherise
evil" don't we? In Dawkins' case he demonises
anyone with a religious faith as if the secular
ideologies do not also have blood on their hands.
It is that ability to dissociate ourselves from evil
and attribute it exclusively to the "other" which
is actually the first step along the road to doing
something evil ourselves. Any cause can be used
and abused in this way. "The Terror" of the
French revolution which arose out of Enlightement
values is a case in point. Dawkins says that religion
is a means of inducing good people to do evil things
- I will not seek to defend the evil which has been
done in the name of Christ, but it is foolish to
attribute that evil to Christ. In my experience the
Gospel requires me to look inside my own heart and
recognise my capacity for evil. Jesus does not permit
me to "otherise" it but to confront it in myself. And
that is the blindspot in Dawkins's argument - no
atheist can ever say "there but for the grace of God
go I."
Bunting concludes:-
"Let's be clear:it's absolutely right that religion should
be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one
that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men".
The full article can be found on page 30 of
THE GUARDIAN Saturday 7-January-06
Post-Script. Wednesday, 18th January 2006.
It has been put to me since writing this blog that I am
engaging in an "analogous" argument, that is "Evil by A
is okay because B does the the same". That is exactly
what I am NOT saying. So let me take another run at
it. The starting point of this discussion is "The Root of
All Evil?" and Dawkins attributes this evil to those
with a religious faith. By pointing out the evil done by
those without a religious faith I was simply making
the point that Dawkins was making an argument
based on "selective observation" that's all. I was not
seeking to excuse one evil by pointing out another.
Post-Post-Script. Friday, 27th January 2006.
"Nothing returns one quicker to God than the sight
of a scientist with no imagination, no vocabulary,
no sympathy, no comprehension of metaphor, and
no wit, looking soulless and forlorn amid the wonders
of nature." Howard Jacobson on Richard Dawkins,
in The Independent.
Addendum. Sunday, 29th January 2006.
I posted this Jacobson quote [without any additional
words from me] in the comments box of a pro-Dawkins
blog naively assuming that even die-hard Dawkins fans
would find it amusing and, perhaps, even insightful. My
motivation was more mischievous rather than malicious.
I returned later to discover that I had really rattled the
cage of the blogger in question. He had gone through
the quote point by point - at some considerable length
I might add - seeking to defend his hero. First up; if you
are that blogger reading this; it was not my intention to
wind you up so I'm sorry if my comment caused you
grief. But the ironic thing is this cheerless reaction has
actually proven Jacobson correct hasn't it? It does
seem that thorough going materialists are indeed
rather humourless, one dimensional, uncomprehending
people fired up with an irrational anger.... not unlike....
well.... the very fundamentalists they claim to despise!
tag-line.Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins.
ATTACK ON RELIGION IS AN
INTELLECTUALLY LAZY POLEMIC
NOT WORTHY OF A GREAT
SCIENTIST.
In today's Guardian newspaper in the UK there is an
excellent article by Madeleine Bunting:-
"On Monday, it's Richard Dawkins's turn (yet again)
to take up the cudgels against religious faith in a
two-part Channel 4 programme [in the UK], "The Root of
All Evil?" His voice is one of the loudest in an increasingly
shrill chorus of atheist humanists; something has got them
badly rattled. They even turned their bitter invective on
Narnia. By all means let's have a serious debate about
religious belief, one of the most complex and fascinating
phenomena on the planet, but the suspicion is that it's
not what this chorus wants. Behind unsubstantiated
assertions, sweeping generalisations and random
anecdotal evidence, there's an unmistakable whiff of
panic; they fear religion is on the march again."
My best guess is that Dawkins's worldview is
dominated by his concepts of evolutionary biology.
It isn't just that he believes this to be true, it is also
that his evolutionary worldview requires this
concept to prevail and vanquish all other contenders.
Bunting continues:-
"There's an aggrieved frustration that they've been
short-changed by history; we were supposed to be all
atheist rationalists by now. Secularisation was
supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even
more grating, what secularisation there has been has
been is accompanied by the growth of weird
irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As
GK Chesterton pointed out, the problem when
people don't believe in God is not that they believe
nothing, it is that they believe anything".
Bunting makes some telling comments about
Dawkins's lack of understanding and charges him
with the very same "hidebound certainty" of which
he accuses believers.
It seems to me that all of us have the capacity to
demonise other people - that is actually the
problem with human nature. We all "otherise
evil" don't we? In Dawkins' case he demonises
anyone with a religious faith as if the secular
ideologies do not also have blood on their hands.
It is that ability to dissociate ourselves from evil
and attribute it exclusively to the "other" which
is actually the first step along the road to doing
something evil ourselves. Any cause can be used
and abused in this way. "The Terror" of the
French revolution which arose out of Enlightement
values is a case in point. Dawkins says that religion
is a means of inducing good people to do evil things
- I will not seek to defend the evil which has been
done in the name of Christ, but it is foolish to
attribute that evil to Christ. In my experience the
Gospel requires me to look inside my own heart and
recognise my capacity for evil. Jesus does not permit
me to "otherise" it but to confront it in myself. And
that is the blindspot in Dawkins's argument - no
atheist can ever say "there but for the grace of God
go I."
Bunting concludes:-
"Let's be clear:it's absolutely right that religion should
be subjected to a vigorous critique, but let's have one
that doesn't waste time knocking down straw men".
The full article can be found on page 30 of
THE GUARDIAN Saturday 7-January-06
Post-Script. Wednesday, 18th January 2006.
It has been put to me since writing this blog that I am
engaging in an "analogous" argument, that is "Evil by A
is okay because B does the the same". That is exactly
what I am NOT saying. So let me take another run at
it. The starting point of this discussion is "The Root of
All Evil?" and Dawkins attributes this evil to those
with a religious faith. By pointing out the evil done by
those without a religious faith I was simply making
the point that Dawkins was making an argument
based on "selective observation" that's all. I was not
seeking to excuse one evil by pointing out another.
Post-Post-Script. Friday, 27th January 2006.
"Nothing returns one quicker to God than the sight
of a scientist with no imagination, no vocabulary,
no sympathy, no comprehension of metaphor, and
no wit, looking soulless and forlorn amid the wonders
of nature." Howard Jacobson on Richard Dawkins,
in The Independent.
Addendum. Sunday, 29th January 2006.
I posted this Jacobson quote [without any additional
words from me] in the comments box of a pro-Dawkins
blog naively assuming that even die-hard Dawkins fans
would find it amusing and, perhaps, even insightful. My
motivation was more mischievous rather than malicious.
I returned later to discover that I had really rattled the
cage of the blogger in question. He had gone through
the quote point by point - at some considerable length
I might add - seeking to defend his hero. First up; if you
are that blogger reading this; it was not my intention to
wind you up so I'm sorry if my comment caused you
grief. But the ironic thing is this cheerless reaction has
actually proven Jacobson correct hasn't it? It does
seem that thorough going materialists are indeed
rather humourless, one dimensional, uncomprehending
people fired up with an irrational anger.... not unlike....
well.... the very fundamentalists they claim to despise!
tag-line.Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins,Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard
Dawkins, Richard Dawkins, Richard Dawkins.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
CALENDAR OF DOOM! [Parte Une].
For Christmas I was given, among other things, a calendar
for 2006. This is no ordinary calendar because it was put
together by a relative, Dawn Divyn, and includes some of
her own photography together with a saying or two for
each month. The aphorisms in question , I assume, are
calculated in a kindly way to challenge my faith.
I appreciate the effort that she has given to this project
and the well meaning motive which lay behind it: for
it is a kindness to try to put me right if one thinks I am
wrong.
Anyway I thought that it might be an interesting exercise
over the year to ruminate on these thoughts of hers and
to test their strength.
So to it:
January 2006. Credibile est, quia ineptum est.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as
true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as
useful." Seneca the Younger (4?BC-65AD).
That is probably a fair reflection on pagan religion by
Seneca - an ancient Roman philosopher and statesman.
The aphorism reflects the snobbery of the Roman
patrician class towards the people who were despised
as ignorant and maleable by those who considered
themselves wise and better fitted to rule.
Jesus torpedoes this sort of smugness when he said:
"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
you have hidden these things from the wise and
understanding and revealed them to little children;
yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Matthew 11v25&26. It pleases God to subvert
human pride by choosing those most despised in
the world's eyes to receive the wisdom of the kingdom
of God. The Christian recognises the folly of putting
one's faith in those generally considered wise by the
pundits!
Oh - the latin quote - that's Tertullian being silly.
Something should not be believed simply because it
is absurd - but rather if something claims to pop
the pomposity of the proud it is at least worth
considering with humility. It is not wisdom as such that
is being questioned but the smug air of conceit that
often blinds those who are wise in their own eyes.
fin
ps. 10th May 06: I recently learnt that Tertullian
never actually said this, it is a commonly
accepted fallacy that he did. It is correct that he did
make the point that sometimes a counter-intuitive statement
has a degree of plausibility because it is not something
one would make up.
For Christmas I was given, among other things, a calendar
for 2006. This is no ordinary calendar because it was put
together by a relative, Dawn Divyn, and includes some of
her own photography together with a saying or two for
each month. The aphorisms in question , I assume, are
calculated in a kindly way to challenge my faith.
I appreciate the effort that she has given to this project
and the well meaning motive which lay behind it: for
it is a kindness to try to put me right if one thinks I am
wrong.
Anyway I thought that it might be an interesting exercise
over the year to ruminate on these thoughts of hers and
to test their strength.
So to it:
January 2006. Credibile est, quia ineptum est.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as
true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as
useful." Seneca the Younger (4?BC-65AD).
That is probably a fair reflection on pagan religion by
Seneca - an ancient Roman philosopher and statesman.
The aphorism reflects the snobbery of the Roman
patrician class towards the people who were despised
as ignorant and maleable by those who considered
themselves wise and better fitted to rule.
Jesus torpedoes this sort of smugness when he said:
"I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that
you have hidden these things from the wise and
understanding and revealed them to little children;
yes, Father, for such was your gracious will."
Matthew 11v25&26. It pleases God to subvert
human pride by choosing those most despised in
the world's eyes to receive the wisdom of the kingdom
of God. The Christian recognises the folly of putting
one's faith in those generally considered wise by the
pundits!
Oh - the latin quote - that's Tertullian being silly.
Something should not be believed simply because it
is absurd - but rather if something claims to pop
the pomposity of the proud it is at least worth
considering with humility. It is not wisdom as such that
is being questioned but the smug air of conceit that
often blinds those who are wise in their own eyes.
fin
ps. 10th May 06: I recently learnt that Tertullian
never actually said this, it is a commonly
accepted fallacy that he did. It is correct that he did
make the point that sometimes a counter-intuitive statement
has a degree of plausibility because it is not something
one would make up.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
"Sharia by Stealth" Conspiracy Theory.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
There seems to be an idea currently being peddled
around evangelical circles in the UK of a rather
unsavoury conspiracy; that Muslims are (over time)
seeking to take over the country and subvert it's
democratic institutions.
This notion has been put about by a couple of lobby
groups who have their own agendas and who
are attempting to garner support for themselves
from among Evangelical Christians by appealing to
base populism. Personally I am intensely
suspicious of the motives of anyone using such fears
as a persuader. "By their fruit you shall know them".
As an Evangelical Christian I wish to make it clear
that such groups do not speak on my behalf nor,
in my view, do they have the right to claim to speak on
behalf of Evangelical Christians generally. Their
message of gracelessness and fear is totally antithetical
to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and it is corrosive to our
witness to the onlooking world. I would urge
discerning Christians to graciously show these
interlopers the door.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Apologies to Rob Bradshaw!
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
I want to apologise to poor Rob Bradshaw at
biblicalstudies.org.uk for my ungracious and
cranky outburst over the Daniel Scot affair.
The poor guy has taken some stick from me
about all this - which is not really his
responsibility - he is just passing on what he
has been "reliably" told. I just happened to find him
while trawling through the internet reviewing
material relating to DS .
I suppose I feel rather cranky about this
case because it has become a rallying
point for the evangelical church against Islam
and if I understand the case correctly I think
we are the ones in the wrong.
In the "August 2005 archive" you will find the gist
of the case [The "2 Daniels" Affair] so I won't
repeat myself here. I do not particularly have a
gripe with DS - I do have a gripe with the wider
evangelical church [of which I count myself a
member] for egging him on into this confrontation
with the Islamic Council of Victoria and the
Australian courts [VCAT - Victoria Civil &
Administrative Tribunal], and the following
remarks are addressed to that wider
evangelical community.
I appreciate that the church wishes to
assert it's independence from state
interference. Actually I agree that such
legislation regarding "religious vilification"
is a restriction on freedom of speech. I
would rather have a frank free-for-all
than a prissy discussion limited by law.
[But evangelicals need to appreciate that
such freedom also puts us in the firing
line and we will need to learn to respond
with the graciousness we claim to live by;
for example demos over "Jerry Springer
the Opera" do not sit easily with this].
As evangelical christians we are required
to respect the law of the land, even if we
disagree with it, unless we are obliged to
compromise the Gospel. This case has
often been misrepresented in our circles
variously as DS being maliciously prosecuted
for merely "conducting a seminar on Islam" or
as "DS facing jail for criticising fundamentalist
Islam" - these are disingenuous; and they
never had "the ring of truth" about them. If you
read the Higgins judgement it was precisely
because DS did not focus his tendentious
comments on Islamic Fundamentalism but on
all Muslims generally that he was found to have
breached the law. And if he faces jail at all it is
for contempt of court for wilfully refusing to
make an apology as instructed. DS has been
given a prominence beyond his gifting - it
will not be the first time a godly man's
enthusiasm for his subject has outstripped his
judgement. Instead of trying to lovingly
correct this guy, DS has been set up to test the
law in the state of Victoria - but the
issues under discussion are not the
uniqueness of Jesus Christ, that he
is God's Son (and thus cannot be
superceded by any other revelation),
and that by his sacrifice on the Cross
he has redeemed all those who put
their exclusive trust in him. No, the
issues under discussion are: how we
to understand the Koran and whether
the Muslim community tacitly support
terrorism and if there is a
sinister plot afoot to take over the
country. This was NOT what I was
initially lead to believe this case was about.
They are hardly key Gospel issues
are they?
This indicates to me that despite
our assertion that this case is all about
freedom of speech to preach the
Gospel; the hard evidence actually
suggests it is all about freedom of
speech to express our fear of Islam.
The question I want to pose to my
fellow Christians is [the rationality
of this fear aside]; is this an
appropriate response for us and
what does it reveal about the true
state of our faith? Even if your
worst fears come true we are in
God's hands not theirs!
By giving way to fear we are in
danger of merely being children of
our age and we have lost the
perspective that the children of
God should have. I do not blame
the church - but I am troubled
by an apparent lack of integrity by some.
I can only assume that our leaders are
being unduly influenced by certain opinion
shapers into adopting a conspiracy
theory of a "Sharia by Stealth" plot
to take over the country.
As an Evangelical Christian I believe
we must resist this hyperbole and inject
a good dose of grace and commonsense in
to this debate. I will go on record and
say that I am intensely suspicious of
the motives of anyone who uses such
fears as a persuader! The Muslim
population in the UK is 2.7% - I
believe that they have far more cause
to be in fear than we have - so let's
keep things in proportion eh?
If I have wound up people over this
business I want to say sorry - but I
feel compelled to speak out because
we are in serious danger of dis-
gracing ourselves. This cause may
have the unwitting effect of
politicising evangelical christians
in a way that has been relatively
unknown on this side of the
world and will place us, not
merely on the right, but on the
ultra-far-right of politics. This
will be disasterous to our
witness to the onlooking world.
I am writing this in the hope that
our leaders will take note of this
danger.
All comments are welcome and will be
published in full..............please write......
but expect a robust response..................
you are especially welcome if you have
joined us from Rob Bradshaw's blog!
if you want a strictly private forum you
can contact me directly at
peterswift57@yahoo.co.uk
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
SWIFTYPETE
My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!
My name is Peter Swift and I
want to make it perfectly
clear to any other inter-
lopers on the internet that
the name "swiftypete" is
my blog persona and
mine exclusively. I hereby
assert my "intellectual
property right" over the
name Swiftypete.
Some-one rabitting
about a film "American
Pie" is nothing to do with
me! Honest!
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
CONNECTING EVIL, SUFFERING AND EMPATHY.
Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.
In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.
If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.
Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?
There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".
Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."
Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.
From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.
The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.
Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!
"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).
A Christian response.
In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.
As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.
We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.
In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.
When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.
In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.
Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".
God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.
Conclusion.
Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.
The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.
[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].
tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.
Having worked in children's intensive care for ten years in all,
I have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering.
Not that I can claim to have anything desperately original to say,
but at least these thoughts come from someone at the "coal face",
albeit as an observer.
In September 2004 the world was confronted with the school
siege in Beslan, which resulted in hundreds of young children
being killed. Then in December 2004 we were shocked by the
scale of the Asian tsunami.
If we had faith in the fundamental goodness of humanity then
Beslan should have shaken our complacency. If we naively
believed that we live in the best of all possible worlds then the
tsunami should alert us to the truth. We share an unstable
fragile planet with rotten people like ourselves. If we hadn't
thought about evil and suffering before we have no excuse
now. Every culture, every faith, every ideology must have
some sort of response to the suffering it witnesses. For
Christians evil and suffering are not an awkward side issue;
they are the core problem to which the Gospel boldly claims
to be the solution. The Biblical narrative in Genesis 1-3
explains why we live in a world of great beauty, populated
with wonderfully gifted people, which has fallen into a state
of dis-ease.
Meaningless or "Meaning-Full"?
There are two equal and opposite responses to evil and
suffering. The first is that all such suffering is "Meaningless".
Richard Dawkins says:
"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic
replication, some people are going to get hurt, other
people are going to get lucky, and we won't find any
rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe
we observe has precisely the properties we should
expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose,
no evil and no good; nothing but blind, pitiless
indifference. DNA neither knows, nor cares. DNA
just is, and we dance to its music."
Another view from the "meaningless" belief systems might
be the Buddhist who says that suffering is merely an illusion.
Both Dawkins and the Buddhist say that such questions of
morality are "all in the mind", and if we instinctively recognise
certain actions or events to be evil, then it is our instincts
which are wrong.
From a Christian perspective this response to suffering is at
best inadequate and at worst is itself an act of moral cowardice
in not facing the reality of evil which any sensitive observer of
human affairs can recognise.
The opposite reaction to the "meaningless" outlooks is to say
that the suffering is "meaning-full" [in the sense of being
over full of meaning]. Fawzan-al Fawzan, who preaches on
Islamic TV networks, said that the Tsunami victims died
because they deserved to. Several years ago Glenn Hoddle
was forced to resign as England's football manager for saying
something similar in the context of disabled children -
"these things happen for a reason". Bad karma in Hindu
tradition can be invoked to justify suffering. It purports that
unfortunates are being punished appropriately for evil they
have committed in previous lives. In all the "meaning-full"
schemes of things there is a simple cause and effect relation-
ship. The disaster or epidemic take out the evil doers. The
suicide bomber or hostage taker can justify his actions by
saying that it is God who determines who is worthy of death,
he is merely a tool of divine providence. The sufferer is not
a victim worthy of compassion but a "sinner". At the same
time, because I am NOT ill, murdered or otherwise ill
favoured, I cannot be a "sinner". QED.
Sin and ill-fortune are equated in "meaning-full" theologies,
which is why they do not have a philosophy of compassion
beyond meritorious alms giving. If we understand this then
we will immediately begin to understand the purpose of
healing in Jesus' ministry and why it was so challenging to
the prevailing attitudes of the day. Jesus is THE physician
of the body and the sin-sick soul, not the executioner!
"Meaning-full" theologies will always assume that sin is a
problem for someone other than themselves and that only
judgment, rather than grace, will be the result. It is the
natural default setting of us humans to assume that God
will bump off "the bad guys" (such as the Beslan hostage
takers) and accept me. Evil is never a description of
ourselves, but is always applicable to the "other", to
"them" or whoever the "outgroup" happens to be. And
we know that God will judge murderers - but what about
we who murder our brother in our heart? Why do we
presume that we will be left standing? What is it that we
are trusting in? Jesus reserved his harshest criticism for
the self-righteous (e.g. Matthew 23 & Mark 12v38-40).
A Christian response.
In Luke 13 Jesus is asked about the victims of a Roman
atrocity and others killed when a building collapsed. Jesus
replies, "Do you think that these were worse sinners
than all the others?....No....but unless you repent you will
all likewise perish". These events were not "meaning-full"
but neither were they meaningless. If such crises give us
pause for thought and cause us to examine our own lives
and our desperate need to be right with God then it is at
least meaningful. The awful truth is that we are all evil
doers worthy of such judgment. That is how I know that
the Gospel is true, because it holds a mirror before me
and reveals a face I don't dare show anyone else, and
yet reassures me of a God who knows me and loves me
totally.
As a Christian who has worked in Paediatric Intensive
Care I have witnessed my fair share of misfortune, and
seen that it is natural for people to look for significance
in their loss. Some Christians naively assume that they
can interpret the mind of God from events. Although I
am suspicious of such attempts, just because I cannot
conceive of the purpose doesn't mean that there isn't
one.
We must therefore help those for whom we care to
avoid over analysing their situation, seeking out "the
lesson to be learned!" while helping them to make sense
of their suffering and tragedy.
In doing this we need to turn to the scriptures. The
Bible has a great deal to say about suffering - especially
when compounded by it's apparent meaninglessness.
The universe, as Dawkins observed earlier, is apparently
without "any rhyme or reason". The Bible describes
this state as "the creation subjected to futility" (Romans
8 v20-22). Dawkins was right up to a point (Ecclesiastes
1 v1 would agree!), but that is not the whole truth.
When I face a distressing, perplexing situation at work
and my theological absractions are dust in my mouth,
and there are no easy answers, what THEN do I need
to know? I need to know that God is loving and that he
is all-powerful.
In John 11 v1-44, Lazarus was ill and his family sent
word for Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he
delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha
gives him a piece of her mind - "where were you when
we needed you?" Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise
again". Martha knows her theology, thank you very
much - she believes in the resurrection. But Jesus says
something amazing "I am the resurrection and the life".
True faith is never a theological abstraction; it is trust
in a person. Of course Jesus goes on to demonstrate his
awesome power by raising Lazarus, but before we get
there we are given some insight into the heart of the
Trinity. Jesus as God is deeply moved and greatly
troubled. And he weeps. In this we see God suffering
along side those who grieve (see Isaiah 63v9). I may
not know the "why" of suffering within God's plan,
but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character
settled.
Faith is ultimately relational and is not a theological
abstraction - perhaps that is why the philosophical
answers to suffering are arid and unsatisfactory.
Abstractions can never take the place of a personal God.
That is why Christians need to get onto the subject of
Jesus ASAP if we are to address evil and suffering in
anything like a meaningful way - if we don't we will
sound like we are justifying suffering. Someone's
question about suffering and injustice, which we airily
pick over, may conceal a deeper pain. Do take care to
find "the question behind the question".
God has not been indifferent to the suffering of the world,
but in Christ he has clothed himself with human
frailty and acted decisively in history at the Cross.
Conclusion.
Evil and suffering, far from demonstrating the non-
existence of God, actaully alert us to the fact that we
live in a moral and personal universe. Indifference is not
a godly option. And only Jesus adequately addresses the
deepest of deepest needs in mankind - to be reconciled to
the Creator. Evil and suffering are not magicked away but
in the fullness of time, for those who take refuge in him,
God "will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and
death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning
nor crying nor pain any more". In a sense, when we want
the suffering to end, we areasking God to bring in his
Kingdom. And ultimately the only "tradegy" is the pain of
those who reject the grief-stricken Christ (Matthew 23
v37-39). Only when Jesus' kingdom comes in all it's
fullness will the conundrum of reconciling God's love,
as expressed in his perfect justice, be reconciled with his
love expressed as mercy.
The Beslan hostage-takers and tsunami victims and you and
I will all stand before the flawlessly fair judge who knows all
our hearts. Only then will the Universe, in which we have
always felt ill at ease, be put the right way up.
[This article was first published in the Autumn 2005 edition
of "CNM News". The "Christian Nurses & Midwives"
organisation website can be found at http://www.cnm.org.uk/ ].
tagline: 'Meaningless or "Meaning-full"?' Evil & suffering in
God's World. God's plan. Understanding God's purposes.
Life is meaningless. Life. Meaning. Meaningful. God. Hope.
Monday, September 05, 2005
BESLAN.
Chechen gunmen took over a school in southern Russia early in September 2004. After a two day standoff, the crisis ended with hundreds of casualties, many of them young children. We were all deeply shocked by these terrible events.
In the aftermath, John Humphrys interviewed the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on Radio 4's Today programme (in the UK). Rowan Williams concurred with the presenter's sentiments that these events are enough to challenge anyone's faith.
I work as a nurse on a children's intensive care unit in a large hospital in London, and so in my own modest way I have witnessed my fair share of children dying and suffering. I am also a Christian and, I believe, reasonably theologically literate. I have worked in intensive care for many years and have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering. For what it is worth I am putting these thoughts down on paper in the hope that someone, somewhere might find them
helpful.
Firstly, in the above mentioned interview, I wasn't entirely sure what the "faith" was which was under discussion. If we are talking about faith in "human nature" then many people's faith will indeed be shattered. If it is the belief that we live in
the best of all possible worlds, then that too is found wanting.
A couple of other "faith" systems bear examination in the context of suffering. There is the Glenn Hoddle line that "these things happen for a reason"; that bad karma is involved. The victims are paying the penalty of their sins in previous lives. There is also the Richard Dawkins view of life that "there is no design, no purpose, no good and no evil. Only blind pitiless indifference". Personally I find both of these responses to suffering inadequate.
While the events of Beslan were created by ruthless people, it does raise important issues for believing Christians. If God intervenes in human affairs as Christians claim, then why didn't he intervene in Beslan? Human sinfulness
explains some suffering, but not all.
When Christians claim to have been party to a miracle, whether it is a big thing such as a "healing" or a little thing like finding a parking space, I hope that they will be sensitive to those souls around them that have prayed for things which
have not come to pass. Why does God apparently answer one person's prayer for a parking space but denies a parent's prayer for their dying child?
We need to have a theology of suffering in place before we enter a time of trial (though even that luxury may be denied us). The technical term for a defence of God in the context of human suffering is a theodicy and this is what I will attempt in the following thoughts.
In a way, when we ask God to intervene we are asking for him to begin his judgment and bring in his kingdom. Most folk naively assume that God will bump off the bad guys. Evil is always a description for the other, never for ourselves.Yes, God will judge murderers - but what about you who murder your brother in your heart? Do you think you will be left standing?
Then why does God delay intervention? God is patiently enduring the degradation of his creation out of mercy, not wanting any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). There is a Jewish term for the distress God feels over us - "The Oddity of God".
We would all like to know all the "whys and wherefores" of particular events. What is God playing at here? What is the purpose of this apparently meaningless suffering? I have seen Christians attribute meanings to their grief, attempting
to rationalise their faith in a loving God with the loss of a child. Yet - at least to me - the "meanings" they settled on seem tawdry and a poor exchange.Personally, I don't know why the child in bed one died, and the other child in bed two survived.
In the abscence of answers to the "whys", what is it then we need to know? We need to know that God is loving and that God is sovereign. It is vital, in my opinion, that we shift the discussion away from arid philosophising (where there is a danger of sounding as if we Christians are justifying suffering). Consider Jesus reaction to suffering. In John 11 we have the story of Jesus, Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Lazarus was ill and his family sent word to Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha gives him a piece of her mind. Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise again" (v23). Martha knows her theology, thank you very much - she believes in the resurrection (v24). Then Jesus says something amazing. "I am the resurrection and the life" (v25). Faith is not a theological abstraction, it is trust in a person. Jesus isn't asking her whether she believes in the resurrection, but whether she believes in him. Of course we know that the story ends with Lazarus being raised to life, but before we get that demonstration of his awesome power, we are given some insight into the mind of God. Jesus is deeply moved and greatly troubled (v33). And Jesus wept (v35). In this we see God suffering along side those who grieve. I may not know the "why" of suffering within God's eternal plan, but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character settled. If I may coin a neologism, in Jesus we see the "Theoddity" of God.
And it is Jesus who will have the last word on Beslan.
[This article was first published in the December 2004 issue of]
[The Briefing, issue 315. Matthias Media/The Good Book ]
[Company. http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ ]
Chechen gunmen took over a school in southern Russia early in September 2004. After a two day standoff, the crisis ended with hundreds of casualties, many of them young children. We were all deeply shocked by these terrible events.
In the aftermath, John Humphrys interviewed the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on Radio 4's Today programme (in the UK). Rowan Williams concurred with the presenter's sentiments that these events are enough to challenge anyone's faith.
I work as a nurse on a children's intensive care unit in a large hospital in London, and so in my own modest way I have witnessed my fair share of children dying and suffering. I am also a Christian and, I believe, reasonably theologically literate. I have worked in intensive care for many years and have given some thought to the whole subject of suffering. For what it is worth I am putting these thoughts down on paper in the hope that someone, somewhere might find them
helpful.
Firstly, in the above mentioned interview, I wasn't entirely sure what the "faith" was which was under discussion. If we are talking about faith in "human nature" then many people's faith will indeed be shattered. If it is the belief that we live in
the best of all possible worlds, then that too is found wanting.
A couple of other "faith" systems bear examination in the context of suffering. There is the Glenn Hoddle line that "these things happen for a reason"; that bad karma is involved. The victims are paying the penalty of their sins in previous lives. There is also the Richard Dawkins view of life that "there is no design, no purpose, no good and no evil. Only blind pitiless indifference". Personally I find both of these responses to suffering inadequate.
While the events of Beslan were created by ruthless people, it does raise important issues for believing Christians. If God intervenes in human affairs as Christians claim, then why didn't he intervene in Beslan? Human sinfulness
explains some suffering, but not all.
When Christians claim to have been party to a miracle, whether it is a big thing such as a "healing" or a little thing like finding a parking space, I hope that they will be sensitive to those souls around them that have prayed for things which
have not come to pass. Why does God apparently answer one person's prayer for a parking space but denies a parent's prayer for their dying child?
We need to have a theology of suffering in place before we enter a time of trial (though even that luxury may be denied us). The technical term for a defence of God in the context of human suffering is a theodicy and this is what I will attempt in the following thoughts.
In a way, when we ask God to intervene we are asking for him to begin his judgment and bring in his kingdom. Most folk naively assume that God will bump off the bad guys. Evil is always a description for the other, never for ourselves.Yes, God will judge murderers - but what about you who murder your brother in your heart? Do you think you will be left standing?
Then why does God delay intervention? God is patiently enduring the degradation of his creation out of mercy, not wanting any to perish (2 Peter 3:9). There is a Jewish term for the distress God feels over us - "The Oddity of God".
We would all like to know all the "whys and wherefores" of particular events. What is God playing at here? What is the purpose of this apparently meaningless suffering? I have seen Christians attribute meanings to their grief, attempting
to rationalise their faith in a loving God with the loss of a child. Yet - at least to me - the "meanings" they settled on seem tawdry and a poor exchange.Personally, I don't know why the child in bed one died, and the other child in bed two survived.
In the abscence of answers to the "whys", what is it then we need to know? We need to know that God is loving and that God is sovereign. It is vital, in my opinion, that we shift the discussion away from arid philosophising (where there is a danger of sounding as if we Christians are justifying suffering). Consider Jesus reaction to suffering. In John 11 we have the story of Jesus, Martha, Mary and Lazarus (John 11:1-44). Lazarus was ill and his family sent word to Jesus to come to their aid. Inexplicably he delays his departure, and when he arrives Martha gives him a piece of her mind. Jesus replies, "Your brother will rise again" (v23). Martha knows her theology, thank you very much - she believes in the resurrection (v24). Then Jesus says something amazing. "I am the resurrection and the life" (v25). Faith is not a theological abstraction, it is trust in a person. Jesus isn't asking her whether she believes in the resurrection, but whether she believes in him. Of course we know that the story ends with Lazarus being raised to life, but before we get that demonstration of his awesome power, we are given some insight into the mind of God. Jesus is deeply moved and greatly troubled (v33). And Jesus wept (v35). In this we see God suffering along side those who grieve. I may not know the "why" of suffering within God's eternal plan, but in Jesus I have the "who" question of God's character settled. If I may coin a neologism, in Jesus we see the "Theoddity" of God.
And it is Jesus who will have the last word on Beslan.
[This article was first published in the December 2004 issue of]
[The Briefing, issue 315. Matthias Media/The Good Book ]
[Company. http://www.thegoodbook.co.uk/ ]
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Back to the Fuchsia!
For my birthday I was booked into a "Men's Colour Day" for a consultation by "House of Colour". It was good fun and for what it is worth I'll give you my thoughts.
The consultation began with a pep talk about how we dress builds confidence and authority etc - as a Christian I wondered if there should be an alternative course in "humility dressing" as opposed to "power dressing"! But I kept this subversive thought to myself!
You may already be aware of the principles behind the assessment - the consultant experiments with a variety of colours to see which suits your skin tone. There are four options named after the seasons. I was fairly confident that I had "blue toned" [as opposed to "yellow toned] skin, which would make me a Summer or Winter - my guess was Summer. But the surprising conclusion was Winter! Certainly the "wrong" colours did look ghastly, but I wasn't quite so convinced
about what was deemed "right".
I cross-checked with Susannah & Trinny's book "What Not To Wear". S&T are a couple of savvy fashionistas here in the UK. They only have three colour palettes -
and of the Winter equivalent they state "you are definately not this if you have hazel eyes [I do], freckles [that's me], or auburn hair [well, allowing for the flecks of grey, I qualify]." Hmmmm. What to make of it all?
Returning to the Susannah & Trinny palettes; in addition to the "what suits you" they had a "what does NOT suit you" colourwise. Using THAT I could combine the two, otherwise incompatible, schemes. By a process of elimination I came back to the original diagnosis! I'm a Winter. Well, I'll go the foot of our stairs!
If there is any value in these things it is in determining what colours DO NOT suit you - but that can be pretty helpful! My advice is: treat the whole thing as a bit of fun, don't get too hung up about what colour is deemed to be "yours". A great piece of advice I once came across is - "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise"!
For my birthday I was booked into a "Men's Colour Day" for a consultation by "House of Colour". It was good fun and for what it is worth I'll give you my thoughts.
The consultation began with a pep talk about how we dress builds confidence and authority etc - as a Christian I wondered if there should be an alternative course in "humility dressing" as opposed to "power dressing"! But I kept this subversive thought to myself!
You may already be aware of the principles behind the assessment - the consultant experiments with a variety of colours to see which suits your skin tone. There are four options named after the seasons. I was fairly confident that I had "blue toned" [as opposed to "yellow toned] skin, which would make me a Summer or Winter - my guess was Summer. But the surprising conclusion was Winter! Certainly the "wrong" colours did look ghastly, but I wasn't quite so convinced
about what was deemed "right".
I cross-checked with Susannah & Trinny's book "What Not To Wear". S&T are a couple of savvy fashionistas here in the UK. They only have three colour palettes -
and of the Winter equivalent they state "you are definately not this if you have hazel eyes [I do], freckles [that's me], or auburn hair [well, allowing for the flecks of grey, I qualify]." Hmmmm. What to make of it all?
Returning to the Susannah & Trinny palettes; in addition to the "what suits you" they had a "what does NOT suit you" colourwise. Using THAT I could combine the two, otherwise incompatible, schemes. By a process of elimination I came back to the original diagnosis! I'm a Winter. Well, I'll go the foot of our stairs!
If there is any value in these things it is in determining what colours DO NOT suit you - but that can be pretty helpful! My advice is: treat the whole thing as a bit of fun, don't get too hung up about what colour is deemed to be "yours". A great piece of advice I once came across is - "rules are for the obedience of fools and the guidance of the wise"!
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
The "2 Daniels" affair.
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run upto that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
Daniel Scot and Daniel Nalliah recently lost a case brought against them by the "Islamic Council of Victoria" in Australia, under that state's "anti-vilification" laws. The case arose out of comments made by Daniel Scot at a seminar which caused offence to some Muslims sent to monitor the content. I first became aware of the case when I read a report of the case in the August 2005 edition of "Evangelicals Now" published in the UK.
Personally I was shocked by the report but not for the reason the correspondent
might have wished. I was dismayed by [a] what the report seemed to confirm was said at the seminar and [b] by the graceless tone of the article itself. If you
are sufficiently interested you'll need to check it out for yourself because I am not repeating that tosh here. [Evangelicals Now, August 2005, page 9]. Make up your own mind.
People have remonstrated with me that this is simply an issue of "freedom of speech". Okay, I can understand that. Maybe it is a bad idea to have a law
regulating what might/might not cause offence to people of different faiths.
Perhaps people should have the right to say crass things without fear of prosecution. I don't have a problem with that as an argument. But I do
think that this case bears further examination than it's caricature currently
allows. We must be careful to distinguish between defending the "freedom of
the pulpit" to proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ, and condoning any
and every abuse of that public platform by preachers speaking "off-message".
Uncritical support of the "2 Daniels" may backfire; here are a few of my
"rules of engagement" for anyone to comment on.
1] If Christians go head to head with the law of the land they need to make sure that it is done for the right reason and in the right way. As a Christian I believe that we should apply the test of "causing no offence but the offence of the Cross",
by this standard what was said at the seminar does not pass muster. "Tap-room
theology" is for the tap-room to justify not the church, sometimes such comments are all too human [say after the London Bombings when people are
frightened] and as such can be forgivable, but they are certainly not Christlike.
I believe that we should model the grace we preach.
2] It is one thing to critique a belief system, it is something else again to single out a particular faith group for wholesale condemnation. To do this in God's
name - as the article seems to suggest - escalates the stakes again and sadly
shows that we ourselves have become Jihadists/Crusaders in our own way!
3] The Daniels perceptions of Islam may be technically correct for all I know,
but what they say the Koran teaches isn't automatically translated into direct
action by it's readers. This is self evident, not all Muslims turn to terrorism.
Which suggests to me that there are shades of opinion within Islam. It could be that Daniel Scot has a particular view of Islam borne out of his own difficult time in Pakistan. If so, why didn't some church leader at one of the series of seminars say to him, "Brother, I am concerned that some of the things you have been saying will appear ungracious and unkind. It may be that what
you have said could bring the gospel into disrepute and such language is unlikely to win over our Muslim neighbours. It may be that your teaching is deeply influenced by the very difficult experiences you have had in Pakistan. Let's talk it over". No evangelical church I know of allows uncritical access to it's public platfrom for people to speak "off-message".Perhaps if the Australian evangelical church had drawn a distinction between defending the "freedom of the pulpit" against state interference while dissociating itself from the intemperate sentiments expressed on that occasion it would not now be caught up in an unholy mess, which can only be described as a "culture war" - which has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and has more in common with ultra-right wing politics. This campaign may prove to be very costly - not least to Daniel Scot himself.
4] It is very unscientific but I've trawled through some Christian websites which comment on Islam. It seems to me that the discussion is almost always in terms of "threat" or a coming "Clash of Civilisations". A few seem to relish the prospect of a war between Islam and The West. The question I want to raise is have Christians so sold out to "The West" that we have lost sight of where our true citizenship actually lies? Is the church engaged in a "culture war" at the expense of proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ? Do we have confidence in the Gospel - or do we give way to fear and hostility towards those we are called to love? This alone may distinguish us from the far-right.
Concluding Thought:
Let's assume that the world is indeed destined to spiral down into a "Clash of Civilisations", imagine the world 50 years from now living in the aftermath of a Third World War, and attention turns to the role played by the evangelical church in the run up
to that conflict. Will they conclude that the church fanned the flames of that conflict, or that they modelled grace to a world bent on war?
"Jack" Swift (1911-1975), by his son.
My father was born before the British Empire peaked in it's power and, I guess like many of his generation, shared in it's prejudices and in it's finest hour. My father's father died before I was born, but I am told that he was a lovely man. My father's elder brother, "Jim" was killed in action in 1918, aged 19. There is no known grave.
My father could have won a scholarship to a fine school, but rheumatic fever put an end to that dream. Those profligate interwar years did not give second chances. But like many others so rejected he would go on to be a skilled craftsman and a fine NCO when war came again.
He volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the desperate need of Britain's hard pressed army would draft even those with weakened hearts. He married my mother and after a weekend honeymoon in Ilkley, not far from their home town of Bradford, left for the war not to return home for four years. He was with Eisenhower's forces when they invaded North Africa. He flew on board DC-3s [or"Dakotas" as the British called them], ferrying supplies. From Africa he continued his war into Italy and stood on Mount Vesuvius when it erupted in 1944. He ended the war by Lake Como, and I think he had grown to love Italy, though he would never have the opportunity to return.
Having been de-mobbed, he never left these shores again, unless you count our annual trip on the "Yorkshire Lady" around the bay at Scarborough. My parents worked hard in those post
war years ( which had brought no spoils of war) to provide for these little luxuries for me and my older brother and sister; these yearly breaks were the highlight of our childhood.
I remember him coming to my aid as a child when once upon a time I got my head stuck in a porthole of that ship. The time he defended me against my mum when my rabbit invaded the house and made a mess in the home she worked so hard to keep nice. He always used to buy me two ounces of wine gums each evening on his way home from work at the CO-OP department store, "Sunwin House". There were times too when he could be infuriating and opinionated, at least from the perspective of a know-all teenager. I think he aspired to be middle-class and he chose to be a poorly paid salesman who wore a suit to work rather than be a better paid blue-collar worker. I think he was immensely proud that my siblings went to university.
And I think he envied the opportunities our generation took for granted and little appreciated, but I don't think he begrudged us. I don't think he was a bitter man, but perhaps he was a disappointed one, which is a pity because he was content with little. And it is a great blessing
to be content with little.
He became ill - although we didn't realise how seriously -the year before he was due to retire. He was in pain and my last recollection of him alive was when I helped him out of bed and onto the commode. I think he must have hated the humiliation of his teenage son helping him so. But that was the first time I believe I actually did something for him.
Although I think I take after my mother's side of the family, there are times when I look in the mirror - I remind myself of my father.
My father was born before the British Empire peaked in it's power and, I guess like many of his generation, shared in it's prejudices and in it's finest hour. My father's father died before I was born, but I am told that he was a lovely man. My father's elder brother, "Jim" was killed in action in 1918, aged 19. There is no known grave.
My father could have won a scholarship to a fine school, but rheumatic fever put an end to that dream. Those profligate interwar years did not give second chances. But like many others so rejected he would go on to be a skilled craftsman and a fine NCO when war came again.
He volunteered for the Royal Air Force before the desperate need of Britain's hard pressed army would draft even those with weakened hearts. He married my mother and after a weekend honeymoon in Ilkley, not far from their home town of Bradford, left for the war not to return home for four years. He was with Eisenhower's forces when they invaded North Africa. He flew on board DC-3s [or"Dakotas" as the British called them], ferrying supplies. From Africa he continued his war into Italy and stood on Mount Vesuvius when it erupted in 1944. He ended the war by Lake Como, and I think he had grown to love Italy, though he would never have the opportunity to return.
Having been de-mobbed, he never left these shores again, unless you count our annual trip on the "Yorkshire Lady" around the bay at Scarborough. My parents worked hard in those post
war years ( which had brought no spoils of war) to provide for these little luxuries for me and my older brother and sister; these yearly breaks were the highlight of our childhood.
I remember him coming to my aid as a child when once upon a time I got my head stuck in a porthole of that ship. The time he defended me against my mum when my rabbit invaded the house and made a mess in the home she worked so hard to keep nice. He always used to buy me two ounces of wine gums each evening on his way home from work at the CO-OP department store, "Sunwin House". There were times too when he could be infuriating and opinionated, at least from the perspective of a know-all teenager. I think he aspired to be middle-class and he chose to be a poorly paid salesman who wore a suit to work rather than be a better paid blue-collar worker. I think he was immensely proud that my siblings went to university.
And I think he envied the opportunities our generation took for granted and little appreciated, but I don't think he begrudged us. I don't think he was a bitter man, but perhaps he was a disappointed one, which is a pity because he was content with little. And it is a great blessing
to be content with little.
He became ill - although we didn't realise how seriously -the year before he was due to retire. He was in pain and my last recollection of him alive was when I helped him out of bed and onto the commode. I think he must have hated the humiliation of his teenage son helping him so. But that was the first time I believe I actually did something for him.
Although I think I take after my mother's side of the family, there are times when I look in the mirror - I remind myself of my father.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)