Melvyn Bragg on Calvinism.

I really enjoy the BBC Radio 4 programme "In Our Time" with Melvyn Bragg. With a few invited experts he will discuss some esoteric subject for 45 minutes and help his audience to stretch their intellectual reach. I love the series as a whole.

Today Melvyn and his guests discussed Calvinism. I suppose I always feel rather cheated when the media tackle some Christian theme because they often focus on the socio-political aspects of the topic ,which is fair enough as far as it goes, but it is often to the exclusion of all else.

Sadly this programme ran true to form; the biographical details were covered, tick; the psycho-social aspects were explored, tick; and the political implications were discussed, tick. But I find it hard to conceive how one can talk about Calvinism without adequately discussing the theology of Grace!

All these other themes - as valid as they are - are actually peripheral. It would be like discussing the American Revolution, the characters and battles, but fail to discuss the underlying political philosophy.... the reason behind it all.

It is frustrating to be an informed listener when the media's experts, as erudite as they are, haven't really got to the heart of the matter. But maybe I shouldn't be so surprised because grace is a very difficult subject to grasp............

Fred Karno's Army.

Reading "The Penguin Book of First World War Poetry" I am pleased to see that they have included the songs sung by ordinary soldiers. The usual war poets (Brooke, Owen & Sassoon etc) just don't do a great deal for me but I do find these songs far more compelling.

I particularly like this one called "Fred Karno's Army" which is sung irreverently to the tune of the hymn "The Church's One Foundation"! What I like about the songs of the British infantry in World War One is how self-deprecating they are - this is just one wonderful example.

"We are Fred Karno's Army, the ragtime infantry.

We cannot fight, we cannot shoot, what bleeding use are we?

And when we get to Berlin we'll hear the Kaiser say,

'Hoch! Hoch! Mein Gott, what a bloody rotten lot are the ragtime infantry.'

Fred Karno was a late 19th/early 20th century British music hall comedian who specialised in slap-stick humour, he is credited with the custard-pie-in-face gag and worked with the likes of Charlie Chaplin and Stan Laurel before they moved onto bigger and better things with the advent of cinema.

The Baptism of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
While reading John Julius Norwich's history of "Byzantium" I stumbled across an account of Constantine's baptism which isn't entirely irrelevant to the musings I've indulged in on that topic in this 'blog'. Most readers will be aware that Constantine the Great is the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It might come as a surprise to learn that he was only baptised when he was on his deathbed in 337AD, twenty five years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he is said to have seen the symbol of the Cross in the sky and told to "conquer with this sign".

I quote JJN;
Why - the question has been asked all through history - why did Constantine delay his baptism until he was on his deathbed? The most obvious answer - and the most likely - is Gibbon's:
"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered."
There was indeed nothing unusual, in those early days of Christianity, in deferring baptism until the last possible moment; forty three years later, we shall find the devout Theodosius the Great doing much the same.

I guess there is a certain logic to this approach to baptism if one starts with an overly sacramental view of the ordinance. No doubt a Roman emperor might anticipate having to engage in some realpolitik which may not sit easily with a Christian conscience. Constantine was guilty of many sins not least the murder of his wife and son; so, given this understanding of baptism, it might indeed be "prudent" to defer it.

The problem with Constantine's baptism is that it seems to be a crude attempt to manipulate God Himself. It is as if Constantine is placing his faith in the rite rather than in God. But more than that Constantine seems to believe that only those sins committed prior to baptism are covered and after that 'you are on your own!' Saved by grace but kept by works sort of thinking!

Of course it is not for me to say whether Constantine is saved or not ("The Lord knows those who are his!") but I do think that it is worth noting those points where 'alarm bells' start ringing. Am I accusing anyone of following Constantine's baptismal logic? No, I am not aiming this at those fellow believers who hold to Covenantal Theology (eg LG). I do wonder how easily it sits with those who hold to Federal Vision theology though.

I accept that I will be accused of attempting an 'argument from absurdity' - that I have selected some very extreme and untypical examples to critique - but my purpose is not to project these views onto anyone in particular but to offer them up as interesting discussion points. Well...... at least I find them interesting!

Pluto is not a planet; get over it!

Eighty years ago today "Pluto" was discovered and classed as the ninth planet of the Solar System.
In 2006 the "International Astronomical Union", the only official body which can classify and name celestial bodies, demoted Pluto and reduced us to eight planets - but not before making idiots of themselves by initially including other objects as planets and boosting the number temporarily to twelve! Pluto has the consolation prize of being classed as a "dwarf planet", a completely spurious concept in my opinion! The only thing "dwarf planets" have in common is that they are roughly spherical, any body over 300 miles in diameter will have enough gravity to render itself spherical.
When it was first discovered Pluto was thought to be several times the size of Earth and easily fell within the then accepted definition of a planet. But over the subsequent years its size has been revised down to about Earth's size, then the size of our Moon and ever down...... one wag said that if Pluto continued to lose mass at this rate it would cease to exist by the centenary of its discovery!
One reason for the apparent loss of mass was the discovery in 1978 that "Pluto" was actually two objects orbitting each other - Pluto and Charon. Since then many more objects have been identified in the outer reaches of the Solar System which have caused astronomers to revise how we look at our celestial neighbours. In fact there are thought to be countless numbers of such icey bodies at the outer margins of the Solar System and that these are the source of comets, which are periodically sent our way by the influence of the gas planets.
When one plots such things as size, orbital properties, composition etc the Solar System easily breaks down into four quite distinct groups (five if you include the Sun); the 'Rocky Planets' (Mercury, Venus, Earth & Mars), then the asteroids, followed by the 'Gas Planets' (Jupiter. Saturn, Uranus & Neptune) and in the outer reaches 'Kuiper Belt Objects' - of which Pluto and Charon are an example.... and not even the largest!
Pluto is not the outermost planet, it is among the innermost KBOs. Sorry but there you have it!

DOUBT IN PERSPECTIVE.

Unbelief is an act of will, rather than a difficulty in understanding.

Doubt often means asking questions or voicing uncertainties from the standpoint of faith. You believe - but you have difficulties with that faith, or are worried about it in some way. Faith and doubt aren't mutually exclusive - but faith and unbelief are.


Doubt is probably a permanent feature of the Christian life. It's like some kind of spiritual growing pain. Sometimes, it recedes into the background; at other times, it comes to the forefront, making its presence felt with a vengeance. A medical practitioner I knew once remarked that life was a permanent battle against all sorts of diseases, with good health being little more than an ability to keep disease at at bay. For some people, the life of faith often seems like that - a permanent battle against doubt. It is helpful to think of doubt as a symptom of our human frailty, of our reluctance to trust God. Let's develop this by thinking about how people come to faith.



Coming to faith - with unresolved doubts.

One way of understanding conversion runs like this. What stops people from coming to faith in God is doubt. After wrestling with these various doubts and overcoming them, the way is clear to come to faith. Coming to faith this happens once all doubt has been cleared out of the way. Faith excludes doubt! Now it is quite possible that some people do come to faith this way. However, most do not. Experience suggests that a rather different way of understanding conversion is more reliable.


Many people feel deeply attracted by the gospel, despite their doubts. On the one hand, their doubts are real, and hold them back from faith; on the other, the pull of the gospel is strong, and draws them towards faith. In the end, they decide to put their trust in God and in Jesus Christ, despite unresolved anxieties and difficulties. They are still in two minds. They hope their doubts and difficulties will be sorted out as they grow in faith. The seventeenth-century philosopher Francis bacon commended this way in his Advancement of Learning (1605): 'If a man will begin with certainties, he will end in doubts; but if he is content to begin with doubts, he will end in certainties.'

An analogy may make this clearer. Suppose you are at a really boring party one evening, when you meet someone you feel drawn to. You get to know this person, and, as time goes on, realize you're falling in love. However, you hold back from allowing the relationship to develop any further. After all, you don't really know the other person that well. There might be some dark side to their character. Can you really trust them? And, like many people, you may have a sense of personal inadequacy: what, you wonder, could this other person possibly see in you? Could they ever possibly fall in love with you? You are profoundly attracted to them, yet you hold back. You have doubts. You're in two minds about it.


Now in this situation, you have two options. You can still hold back, and become a prisoner of your doubts and hesitations. If we all did this all the time, we'd miss out on many of life's great adventures and surprises - including both falling in love and discovering the Christian faith. Or you can take a risk. You can say, 'I'm going to give this a try, and hope that my doubts and anxieties will be resolved as things go on.' And so you allow the relationship to develop.


Many people become Christians in that kind of spirit. They are aware of the enormous attraction of the gospel; they are deeply moved by the thought of Jesus Christ dying for their sins; they are excited by the great gospel promises of forgiveness and newness of life. Or they have experienced glimpses of transcendence, and just know there is a God out there. They decide to reach out in faith, and claim these as their own. As for their doubts and anxieties? They hope they will be resolved and put in their proper perspective as their relationship with God develops. 'I believe; help my unbelief!' (Mark 9:24).



Quoted from pages 14 & 15 of "Doubt in Perspective" by Alister McGrath., published by Inter-Varsity Press (IVP), ISBN: 978-1-84474-137-3.

"THE WALL!"

THE TROUBLE WITH STUDENTS & THE THEORY-PRACTICE GAP!

In the article entitled "Now and Then - the trouble with students, in the June 2008 issue of Paediatric Nursing (20,5,12), the author discussed the enduring problem of 'the theory-practice gap' and reflected, helpfully, on the history of the clinical nurse teacher role, which has long since vanished. The article implies that Nursing blundered into the theory-practice gap haplessly, rather than it being a considered decision, taken consciously by the movers and shakers of the nursing profession at the time.

I recall one of my RGN tutors in the early 1980's at St James' University Hospital in Leeds lamenting the fact that the school of nursing was set back from the hospital and not an integral part of the building.

When I returned to "Jimmy's" in the late 1980's to do my paediatric course, our tutor took the opposite view. She thought that a physical gap was essential to create good practice. In fact, she advocated building a wall between the school and the hospital and having a separate entrance.

This tutor was instrumental in setting up up the paediatric branch of what was then known as 'Project 2000'. She, and presumably her generation of nurse leaders, were determined to recreate the Nursing profession along an entirely new model. Any suggestion we made were treated with with scorn despite the fact that we were already qualified nurses with several years' clinical experience. The attitude was that our clinical experience would 'contaminate' the new students with bad practices. In her view it was essential to break that cycle.

Nurse education was not perfect prior to 'Project 2000' , but student nurses were valued members of the clinical team; today's students do not have that sense of belonging and lose out in terms of clinical practice which is actually where theory and reality meet. When I completed my third year I was ready to be in charge of a surgical ward on nights as my first job as a staff nurse; today's students do not have that confidence.

The 'theory-practice gap' did not come about by the law of unintended consequences, it was the ideologically driven rejection of clinical experience that created that rift.

"GOD'S PHILOSOPHERS: How the Medieval World laid the Foundations of Modern Science" by James Hannam.

I suspect that the word 'medieval' conjures up images in your mind of ignorance and superstition and that would have been true of me until I read this book which is deliciously subversive of our modern conceits about this period of history. James Hannam redresses the dark propaganda of the Humanists who have effectively written off a thousand years of human progress.

The ancient classical world's take on science was dominated by the writings of Aristotle who was considered the final authority. After the fall of the Roman Empire in the 5th Century these writings were taken up by the medieval scholars - and over time found wanting. In fact the Church became the repository of learning and while the Church could be very defensive about its monopoly on Theology as an academic discipline, "Natural Philosophy", as science was then known, was an open field. The Christian doctrine of Creation - which emphasised that God and his Creation were separate entities made the study of Creation, and naturalistic explanations of it, possible. It was these scholars who first started to apply mathematics to physics; eg 'mean speed theorem' was not devised by Galileo but by 12th century scholars! And contrary to popular opinion the number 'zero' was not banned nor did these scholastics believe the world was flat; fears for the safety of Columbus' expedition were not founded on 'flat earth theory' but on the fact that the explorer grossly underestimated the size of the globe! Christian scholars travelled to the Islamic world without any seeming prejudice to learn from their contemporaries there. Nor were 'Christian' armies more likely to burn down libraries than any other contemporary army.

So how come we moderns have such a dim view of medieval scholasticism? Hannam points to The Renaissance (14th -17th Century) skewing our perspective of history. Moderns suppose The Renaissance to be about the rebirth of learning after a dark hiatus in human history but Hannam convincingly demonstrates that The Renaissance was actually a reactionary movement which looked back to the ancient classical world as unsurpassed. Consequently Humanist education centred exclusively upon the study of Latin and Greek classical literature, a feature which dominated European education for the following three or four centuries. It also meant a reinstatment of Aristotle - the progress made by the medieval scholastics being effectively junked.... or plagiarised by others as original work!

Another consequence of The Renaissance was, paradoxically, the death of the Latin language. After the fall of the Roman Empire Latin had continued to be used by the succesor nations and had continued to evolve as a European lingua franca but The Renaissance by insisting on a reversion to the "purer" Latin of ancient times was rather snobbish about Latin's modern incarnation and it became unfashionable to speak it.

Humanist education (by which is meant the study of ancient classical literature) despised the Christian era and looked back to the ancient pagan world with nostalgia - the legacy of this outlook is still present with us.

Hannam's book is wonderfully subversive of our modern conceit and questions many of our unexamined assumptions about the medieval period. I highly recommend this book.

Equality Law and the Christian Church.

Three amendments proposed by Baroness O'Cathain were approved by the House of Lords last night. These will help the church to continue to employ Christians ............. for the present.

There are two very important things to emphasise about the churches' stance over this issue, especially to those who will regard these amendments as an illiberal step. Firstly, the Christian church is committed to the principle of equality, St Paul wrote that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female" (Galatians 3 v28), there are no race, class or gender inequalities in God's eyes. Equality was a Christian concept long before our liberal establishment claimed it as its own invention. Our society describes as "community" ever more tightly defined and exclusive groups but the church is one of the most diverse communities within the UK today - in fact it is one of the few which genuinely draws together people from a diverse range of backgrounds. Thinking specifically about gay issues it is important to say that the church does employ gay people, but as with all Christian disciples, their lives must reflect the ethos of the organisation they will directly or indirectly represent, again St Paul said on these sorts of issues "and such were some of you" (1 Cor 6 v11).

So, secondly, the point of the churches' opposition to the government's Equality Bill is not to exclude some people groups from being employed by the church but rather to allow the church to employ professing Christians. The issue at stake is the independence of the church from state control.

It is a curious anomaly that our liberal establisment has excluded political parties from its Equality Bill; and indeed it would be incongruous if the law required such parties to appoint people who did not share their beliefs. Given that, is it so unreasonable for churches to seek similar consideration?

Did Aliens help to line up Woolworths stores?

In last Saturday's edition of The Guardian newspaper (16th Jan 2010) was a brilliant "Bad Science" article by Ben Goldacre. He reports that a researcher called Tom Brooks had analysed 1,500 prehistoric monuments and had found that all of them were on a grid of isosceles triangles, each pointing to the next site. "Such is the mathematical precision, it is inconceivable that this could have been carried out by the primitive indigenous culture we have always associated with such structures" Brooks is quoted as saying. In fact he does not rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial help!

Matt Parker, who is based at the School of Mathematical Sciences at Queen Mary, University of London applied the same techniques used by Brooks to the now defunct Woolworths stores. The results revealed an exact and precise geometric placement of the Woolworths locations, by "skipping over the vast majority, and only choosing the few that happen to line up" with 1,500 locations, Brooks had almost twice as much data to choose from.... so it is not surprising he could make his pattern fit selective evidence.

Imagine it, in some future era someone might look back using Brooks' technique and trace the patterns of the ancient Woolworths stores and conclude we must have had help from an alien civilisation!

John the Baptistic (2).
I am grateful to have been reminded that Adult Baptism is not without some controversy. Back in 1979 I joined a pioneering charismatic church in Bradford which had very clear views on adult baptism. (Incidentally isn't it curious how such churches could be quite legalistic?)

They took the view that only Baptism by "full immersion" was valid. It was suggested that the "Baptism of the Holy Spirit" (that's another story!) might be hindered by disobeying God's ordinance. I remember querying this with one of the elders; "what if you don't quite immerse [the candidate] completely? What if you stumble at the key moment and don't quite immerse them, you know.... a bit of their head is still showing... would their baptism be invalid?" I don't recall ever getting a satisfactory answer beyond a withering "stupid boy" look! which I took to mean "I'd make sure I did it right!" So I'm still unclear what they ever meant by 'valid'.

It did make me think that, maybe unwittingly, this particular church had an overly sacramental view of the ordinance.... by which I mean, not performing the ritual correctly could materially affect one's relationship with God! It struck me then to be a denial of God's grace, and I still consider it to be a denial of God's grace now. I note that the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith states "Immersion, that is to say, the dipping of the believer in water, is essential for the due administration of this ordinance" (Ch 29, part 4). This seems to me to be way too prescriptive. Why and in what way is this mode essential? "Essential" is a very strong word to apply, particularly if they actually meant pertaining to the essence of Baptism! It strikes me as ridiculous to dogmatize about the mode of Baptism. Don't get me wrong, my instinct is toward "full immersion" because that fits the symbolism (of burial & resurrection) better but my greater instinct is not to make a ritual a barrier to fellowship with a believer who takes a different view!

Incidentally I recall William Taylor, the rector of St Helen's Bishopsgate, making exactly the same point about "full immersion" during a Sunday morning sermon and how legalism on this point can be a sign that we are more Galatian than Christian!

Since 1979 and my encounter with the Bradford elder I mentioned I have been fairly agnostic on the mode of Baptism. The question really is 'what is the essence of Baptism'? It is all well and good to agree to differ on secondary issues - but what happens when one party sees it as a primary issue?

AVATAR.

Yesterday I went to seen the movie "Avatar" in 3D - stunning movie with very imaginative CGI. It was a long movie but I didn't feel that it was long, the action kept me entertained right the way through.
The storyline about the Military-Industrial Complex destroying the nature loving/tree hugging inhabitants of the beautiful world of 'Pandora' is ho-hum. I suppose it is meant to be a parable for our times. The takeaway message is that all living things are fundamentally interconnected and that by diminishing nature we ultimately only hurt ourselves, Humanity needs to live in harmony with Nature.
This is all very charming of-course, but the problem I have with such nature worship is that the Nature we have in mind is not nature as it truly is, cruel and arbitrary, but a sanitised version that is majestic and fundamentally good. Maybe the message is 'computer generated' too!
I must go find a tree to hug now!

PS 2nd Feb 2010. I see that Avatar has been nominated for best film Oscar - I guess it will win for its sheer novelty value. The CGI is very good in 3D but I did hear the plot described as "Pocahontas in Space" which I thought was very apt until I heard Mark Kermode call it "Dances with Smurfs"! Priceless.
It seems to me that there is a lot of nonsense about Avatar being the most succesful movie ever on the basis that it has taken the most in ticket receipts - firstly cinemas are charging a premium for the 3D aspect of Avatar, so the price is inflated at the outset and more importantly monetary inflation naturally means that the most recent films gross "more". In 1940 a cinema might charge $1 to see "Gone with the Wind" to go see a comparable movie now will cost much more. The best measure of a film's popularity is not ticket receipts but total number of tickets sold - on this measure ("bums on seats!") "Gone with the Wind" is easily the winner.... by a very long way!
Is 3D the future of cinema? I hope not! Because that would imply that the cinema will focus on the visuals at the expense of good storytelling. 3D is fine for a movie which is all about the visuals, but the best films are rich in plot and characters. I hope the visual component does not displace these other dimensions, I really do!

"From Life's First Cry"; a liturgical introduction to infant baptism.

For reasons which become apparent as this series of 'blog' articles unfolds I have decided to start towards the back of Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation".

In Appendix 3 is a suggested liturgical introduction to a baptismal service for infants which includes the following paragraph "God said to Abraham in Genesis 17 that the promises he signed and sealed through circumcision were for Abraham and also for his children - that he would be their God and they would be his people. Hence the children of believers were circumcised as babies under the Old Covenant". The next paragraph starts "this privilege has never expressly been taken away from our little ones..." etc.

Firstly a general observation; it is interesting that circumcision here is placed in the context of the Abrahamic Covenant rather than the Mosaic Covenant which is generally where the New Testament writers and their antagonists placed it. Surely the logic of this Abrahamic association is for a continuation of circumcision into the NT era and yet there clearly is some sort of discontinuity over circumcision as the NT era dawns.

Secondly; it seems a bit of a stretch to assert that it was "believers" who had their children circumcised under the Old Covenant. One immediately thinks of the pharisees who were assiduous about all matters of the law and undoubtedly had their children circumcised - surely they and their predecessors wouldn't be described as "believers". Conversely Timothy was raised in a Godly household and wasn't circumcised!

Thirdly, isn't it the case that people may have their child circumcised for more cultural reasons than as an expression of faith? If we are to assume a covenantal relationship exists between God and the circumcised/baptised why limit the sacrament to "believers" anyway? The logic of the sacrament is that the baptised have a covenantal claim to have their children baptised whether they believe or not.

Fourthly; it strikes me that this liturgy blurs the distinction between the Abrahamic Covenant and the "Old Covenant" - it simply assumes that they are the one and the same when clearly they are not, Gal 3 draws a clear distinction.

In fairness I should add that when Lee introduces this liturgy he writes that this suggested format "no doubt has its shortcomings", and that it is not a formula he would use unthinkingly in every circumstance.

JOHN THE BAPTISTIC.

Our midweek Bible study group has been looking at the Gospel of John and I got to thinking about the baptism performed by John the Baptist and the controversy it provoked among the religious authorities of his day.

In John chapter one a delegation arrives to quiz John about his ministry and they specifically challenge him about his authority to baptise. John is calling upon the Covenant people of God (Israel) to repent and turn around. Clearly this rite had some End Time significance because they question his identity - if he is not 'the Christ', 'the prophet' or 'Elijah' on what basis can he baptise people. By what right could someone set themselves up to offer a sacrament to a people already circumcised?

At this point John points beyond the symbolism of what he is doing to the one who is to come after him; he can get people wet but the One he is heralding will 'baptise with the Holy Spirit.' Clearly something new is about to happen.

It strikes me that there is some considerable controversy about baptism within Anglican Evangelical circles. The issue is not about the baptism of believers - no one in this debate has an issue with this - the issue is about the baptism of the infants of believers and what significance this 'sign' or 'seal' has.

For those of us who are sceptical but accepting of infant baptism we will find ourselves challenged with the accusation that "believers' baptism" really arises from the modern day concepts of consent and self-autonomy, and consequently has little to do with a Gospel of Grace where faith is seen as a gift of God. This compromise with the spirit of the age is called "baptistic".

Readers of this 'blog' will already know that I have puzzled over the issue of infant baptism - and indeed puzzled over the passion felt by Paedobaptists that goes beyond a simple difference of opinion. I recently heard reported that one noted speaker said that not to baptise infants was actually to disobey God.... and would use Reformed Theology as his basis for this assertion. Indeed another proponent of Paedobaptism has argued that one cannot be 'Baptistic' and a 'Reformed' Christian because these are a theological contradiction!

To try and help unravel some of the theology about Baptism I thought that I might start a little series of discussions here looking at Lee Gatiss' booklet "From Life's First Cry: John Owen on infant baptism and infant salvation" published by The Latimer Trust. Lee was a curate here at St Helen's Bishopsgate until 2009 when he moved on to pursue an academic career in Cambridge. I think that his booklet puts forward a case in favour of infant baptism and that this provides a useful foil to help move this discussion forward in a constructive way.

It goes without saying I take a different view on these matters so watch this space.

Snow on the Tree today.

Cranes
above
The
Shard











Cranes Above "The Shard"! Photos taken this morning from Tooley Street with "Guy's Tower" in the background.
And a close-up taken from St Thomas' Street from outside Guy's Hospital.

Anjem Choudary, Wooton Bassett and a Christian Response.

Wooton Bassett is a small town in Wiltshire near the Royal Air Force base to which the bodies of fallen British servicemen are repatriated. In recent years the town has become the scene for dignified grief as many funeral corteges have passed through and the townspeople taking these sad sights to heart have turned out to pay their respects.

It is not surprising then that the planned anti-war march through Wooton Bassett by an Islamic group headed by Anjem Choudary should have caused such deep outrage among many people. It should be pointed out that in no sense could the good people of Wooton Bassett be described as pro-war; regardless of ones views about the politics of war one can still grieve for those who die serving their country.

I suppose the obvious point to make is that, never having heard of Anjem Choudary, this is simply a crass publicity stunt by an unrepresentative group who wish to gain some notoriety for themselves. Whether the march goes ahead or not the angry response has acheived exactly what he calculated it would do - it has granted him a national platform.

It should also be pointed out that there will be those on the far-right of British politics who will also seek to exploit people's natural anger by taking advantage of this march. Anjem Choudary's march is a gift to them too! The far-right will seek to paint all Muslims as closet jihadists and any event which can be used to this end will exploited ruthlessly to the full.

Indeed I would argue that between radical Islamic groups and the British far-right there is some mutually re-enforcing ideological myth-making going on. If people's anger at Anjem Choudary can be hitched to an anti-muslim agenda then the far-right is well served for obvious reasons; and if that anger alienates Muslims from mainsteam national life then groups like Anjem Choudary's can only grow in strength. As Christians we need to be very cautious about how we respond to these challenges - shall we engage in some sort of 'culture war' or will we allow the Gospel of God's Grace help shape our response?

As an Evangelical Christian I don't want my natural anger to be exploited by either of these odious groups and I believe that the Lord Jesus would want us to have some critical self-reflection before giving vent to any sense of moral outrage. It is better - in the final analysis - to suffer a wrong than lash out indiscriminately at others. Indeed a dignified refusal to 'respond in kind' is actually the bravest and hardest thing to do - but that is ultimately our calling as disciples of Jesus Christ; to display by our actions and words the Grace of God to a world naturally inclined to anger, self righteousness and hatred. This is an opportunity to manifest by our love that the Kingdom of God is present among us!

Winter Solstice!
Occurs today at 17:47 GMT when the North Pole is tilted 23.5 degrees away from the Sun.
This represents the shortest amount of daylight in the Northern hemisphere. From now the days get longer until the Summer Solstice when the North Pole is tilted 23.5 degrees towards the Sun.

Today at The Shard.

A Father's Anger, Health Care Administration and the Philosophy of Science.

It is not unusual for parents of children in 'intensive care' to vent their anger and frustration on staff members. One accepts that people under stress can display the recognised signs of grief; "denial", "bargaining", "anger" and "acceptance". These signs are not confined to the bereaved but can also be manifested in those who grieve for their child's suffering. Thank God that the vast majority of kids on our unit do get better! Our mortality rate is about 4% which compares favourably with comparable units.

Of course, understanably, such statistics cut little ice with parents, for them a death is not a fraction it is the loss of a loved one and that is 100%. Even when seriously ill children recover it should not be inferred that the parents are unscathed psychologically; they still had the fear of loss to contend with. They may also be grieving for the 'loss of innocence' - not their child's neccesarily - but their own! People can have a rather 'Pollyannish' view of life which a visit to PICU rudely contradicts, it isn't surprising then that parents feel a deep sense of anger at society for having sold them a lie - that 'all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds'!

Recently one father had a 'go at me'. He could not comprehend 'how in this day and age' medical science had no clear cut answer to an issue he raised. He was quite angry about it and I listened - I hope with good grace - to his frustrations. Of course I had no answer to his technical question although I could have replied "do you really want to discuss The Philosophy of Science?" I suspected he did not. His frustration arose out of a misconception about science; in his worldview "science" was about concrete facts, settled knowledge which can be looked up in a text book. But the reality is "science" does not deal in such certainties, what Mankind "knows" is only ever provisional - we must constantly re-evaluate our knowledge and revise our practice in the light of new information. Medical science is no exception, especially when one is dealing with complex and dynamic disease processes.

Another naive idea which came to grief was his view, of what I will term, his "entitlement" within the UK's National Health Service. I suppose, again, I could have asked "do you really want to talk about 'Social Policy and Health Administration'?" I suspected he did not. He clearly felt that having paid more than his fair share in taxes he was entitled to more than he felt he was getting. I listened - again I hope with good grace - to his frustrations. The answer I could have given would have been inappropriate; 'however much you have paid in tax it is no where near enough! And I bet at the last election you didn't vote for higher taxation did you?!' The demand for all health care services way outstrips the supply and the electorate needs to wake up to that reality. The government is not some rich uncle who can dig ever deeper into his infinite pockets, it is the tax payer who funds the health service and in a world with 'third party payment' we can always be very generous with other people's money can't we? But we live in a democracy where politicians will promise more and more while the electorate is prepared to pay less and less. This irreconcilable conflict is taken out on the people who have to break the bad news to a naive public that the State cannot always provide what they demand and that is usually the same people who are haplessly trying to make the system work!

Western society has produced a generation with a profound sense of what life owes to them. People feel some sort of entitlement from life which is bolstered by our concepts of 'rights' - as if our 'rights' are absolute and written as immutable laws into the very fabric of the cosmos rather than relative and subject to the vagaries of humanity.

But, of course, I didn't say any of this. This father was grieving, but not for his child, who was ultimately discharged from our unit alive and well - he was grieving for the death of his naive worldview!

The tree is now bare.