A follower of Jesus; Peter Swift, born Bradford in West Yorkshire, UK in 1957. Lakeland Hill Walker, Armchair Astronaut, Amateurish Writer and Wannabe Renaissance Man. Charge Nurse who has worked in Children's Intensive Care for over twenty years. Married to Helen: sadly no kids. Based in London... dream home, a boat-house by Lake Ullswater, a villa in Turkey or a ski-slope in Poland... or a house in North Bermondsey!
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Qur'an Burning in Florida. It has been reported on the news that a church in Gainsville, Florida, is proposing to burn copies of the Qur'an in order to mark the ninth anniversary of 9/11. Ostensibly justified as a protest against militant Islam it is difficult to see how this action will not alienate all Muslims, and indeed appal all people of good-will. As a Christian, and as an Evangelical Christian at that, I want to go on record and state that this proposed action falls far short of the conduct all followers of Jesus are called to follow. The tendency among some professed Christians toward loathing and fear of Muslims in general is a denial of the Evangelical faith we claim to profess; instead of loathing we should respond with love, instead of fear we should respond with faith. I can only assume the church in question are publicity seeking but in doing so they have not brought any honour to the name of the Lord Jesus and one day they will have to account for that to Him.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Sunday, September 05, 2010
Heidelberg Catechism.
How are you right with God?
Only by true faith in Jesus Christ (1).
Even though my conscience accuses me
of having grieviously sinned against all God's commandments
and of never having kept any of them (2),
and even though I am still inclined toward all evil (3),
nevertheless - without my deserving it at all (4),
out of sheer grace (5),
God grants and credits to me
the perfect satisfaction, righteousness, and holiness of Christ (6),
as if I had never sinned or been a sinner,
as if I had been as perfectly obedient
as Christ was obedient for me (7).
All I need to do is to accept this gift of God with a believing heart (8).
1. Romans 3 v21-28; Ephesians 2 v8-9.
2. Romans 3 v9-10.
3. Romans 7 v23.
4. Titus 3 v4-5.
5. Romans 3 v24; Ephesians 2 v8.
6. Romans 4 v3-5; 2 Corinthians 5 v17-19; 1 John 2 v1-2.
7. Romans 4 v24-25; 2 Corinthians 5 v21.
8. John 3 v18; Acts 16 v30-31.
Labels:
Calvinism,
Conversion,
Dawn,
Evangelicalism,
Evil,
Faith,
Gospel,
Humility,
me myself and I,
Moral Compass,
Penal Substitution,
Religion,
Repentance,
Retributive Justice,
St Helen's Bishopsgate
Monday, August 30, 2010
Back Pain Again!
There is an apocryphal story told about the time in 2006 when I was laid up for weeks with back pain. The story goes that some sanctimonious person said to me, "God must be teaching you a lot through all of this." To which I am said to have replied, "Yes, how bloody painful a back can be!"
None of this is true, but it is what I would have said!
Monday, August 09, 2010
Richard Niebuhr (1894-1962).
Niebuhr's comment about modern theology sadly seems to be increasingly true of evangelical preaching too...
"A God without wrath, brings men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."
It seems to me that unless we have the courage of our convictions and teach key ideas like Sin, Wrath, Judgement and the Cross, the Evangelical Church will have nothing of worth to say to the on-looking world. We will be compelled to reflect back to the world what it finds congenial. There is a coherent philospohical message in the Gospel, but when we compromise on any of these teachings a sceptical world will point out that our message has ceased to have any coherence.
Unless we understand sin and God's anger towards it we will not have a realistic understanding of the world we live in nor an understanding of the conflicted nature of humanity, nor will we be able to adequately describe who Jesus is, or what his ministry meant, we will be supremely unable to explain the purpose of the Cross.
Niebuhr's comment about modern theology sadly seems to be increasingly true of evangelical preaching too...
"A God without wrath, brings men without sin, into a kingdom without judgement, through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross."
It seems to me that unless we have the courage of our convictions and teach key ideas like Sin, Wrath, Judgement and the Cross, the Evangelical Church will have nothing of worth to say to the on-looking world. We will be compelled to reflect back to the world what it finds congenial. There is a coherent philospohical message in the Gospel, but when we compromise on any of these teachings a sceptical world will point out that our message has ceased to have any coherence.
Unless we understand sin and God's anger towards it we will not have a realistic understanding of the world we live in nor an understanding of the conflicted nature of humanity, nor will we be able to adequately describe who Jesus is, or what his ministry meant, we will be supremely unable to explain the purpose of the Cross.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
"The Dictatorship of Relativism!"
Pope Benedict XVI criticised the post-modern trend toward a form of Moral Relativism which will ultimately render society incapable of formulating any coherent ethical foundation. Without a shared moral basis society will fracture into atomised individuals cut off from each other with only their personal self interest as a guiding principle. Society's capacity to discuss in a meaningful way the issues of the day will be steadily eroded. His point being that in a thoroughly relativised world we will cease to have the ability to have any meaningful public discourse.
The BBC Radio 4 programme "Analysis" attempted to tackle this topic at 9.30pm on Sunday 4th July 2010 under the chairmanship of presenter Ed Stourton.
Among the contributors were Dr Rowan Williams, Ann Widdecombe and Islamic scholar Ruzwan Mohammed who sympathised with the Pope's concern. Their protagonists were Simon Blackburn, Leslie Green & Stephen Wang.
It could have been an interesting programme but the latter group made a very poor showing. It was as if certain philosophical propositions, ie theirs, were taken to be so self evidently true and the alternative so patently false that they didn't need to engage with the discussion at all.
One of the professors of philosophy made the point that just as the Nazis stigmatised Jews so the Pope was doing to Relativists. It struck me that this was a feeble argument and bordered on smear tactics rather than a serious rebuttal of Benedict's philosophical objections. Also; as deplorable as the recent child abuse scandal within the RC Church is, it isn't strictly relevant to this discussion yet that was raised several times. Although I am not a Catholic I do not believe that one can condemn a whole people group for the faults of some. Where the RC Church as an institution has failed it has, albeit belatedly, sought to put its house in order. My point is the protagonists were determined not so much to debate the topic as sneer.
One of them pointed out that we do not live in a relativistic world anyway, people do stop and intervene when they see wrong doing. But I believe this misses the point entirely - yes some do intervene, they still have some moral compass, but it is not uncommon to hear of others walking by and refusing to get involved. There may be many reasons why such people do walk by on the other side of the street but the question being asked is are some doing so because of the pervasive relativistic attitude of "don't judge" & "don't get involved" they have lost their moral compass? It seemed to me that that self evident question was never adequately discussed.
What should have been an interesting discussion was the usual parade of BBC scoffers for whom a serious discussion was beneath their contempt.
Actually- when you think about it - doesn't that prove the point Pope Benedict was attempting to make? We have indeed lost the ability for constructive public discourse. How ironic!
post script; 15th July 2010.
Someone suggested that I should share these comments with the BBC. As a matter of principle for every negative comment I send to the media I try and have two positive comments to share about other programmes. I can't honestly say that the BBC have been very receptive to constructive criticism in my experience. Anyway the on-line comments restrict you to 350 characters (including spaces!) but my comment reads as follows:
Your critics of "Dictatorship of Relativism" made snide comments about the proposition but did not adequately engage in the topic at hand. Either the content was very poorly edited or you need to find better contributors who can properly critique this proposition. Maybe we have indeed lost the capacity for mature public discourse = QED to Benedict!
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Lunchtime Service at St Helen's Bishopsgate!
If I can't get to church on Sunday because of my shift pattern I try to get to a midweek lunch time service instead.
St Helen's is located in The City near 'The Gherkin' and all the talks are downloadable for free from www.shmedia.org.uk
William Taylor is currently doing a series of talks from the Gospel of Luke. Can I recommend his series called 'Light & Lies' order code SE10/023-s1-ACD.
What is "Fairness"?
After the recent World Cup final in which Spain beat The Netherlands the Dutch coach, Bert Van Marwijk, complained that the referee was clearly biased against them because the ref had given far more 'yellow cards' against the Dutch compared to the Spanish.
At face value this is clearly true - the Netherlands team did indeed have a disproportionate number of bookings compared to their rivals and this raises the issue of "fairness" and what we mean by the word.
One of the earliest moral debates children raise is the question of how 'fair' or 'unfair' something is, and we all naturally assume we know what we mean by being 'fair'. Politicians use the word 'fairness' regularly. But what do we all mean the same thing?
If we apply a simplistic statistical model to the Spain v Netherlands game then clearly the referee was biased against the Dutch. And the logical solution would be to issue bookings on an equitable basis - a statistical model would require a simple 50-50 split. If we did this then the statistics would demonstrate 'equality', which in modern thinking is synonymous with 'fairness'.
However a "retributive" understanding of 'fairness' would apportion bookings according to the offence whoever committed them or whatever "statistical anomaly" arose.
Clearly in Marwijk's opinion the statistics settle the matter. All I can say to that is 'what a travesty of justice he would seek to impose on any sporting nation - it is shameful that anyone should seek to justify their team's disgraceful performance on this basis! Shame on you!'
Shame on you!
Provided the same rule applies to all 'without fear or favour' then we have 'fairness', the rule of law and at least a partial understanding of what The Bible calls justice.
After the recent World Cup final in which Spain beat The Netherlands the Dutch coach, Bert Van Marwijk, complained that the referee was clearly biased against them because the ref had given far more 'yellow cards' against the Dutch compared to the Spanish.
At face value this is clearly true - the Netherlands team did indeed have a disproportionate number of bookings compared to their rivals and this raises the issue of "fairness" and what we mean by the word.
One of the earliest moral debates children raise is the question of how 'fair' or 'unfair' something is, and we all naturally assume we know what we mean by being 'fair'. Politicians use the word 'fairness' regularly. But what do we all mean the same thing?
If we apply a simplistic statistical model to the Spain v Netherlands game then clearly the referee was biased against the Dutch. And the logical solution would be to issue bookings on an equitable basis - a statistical model would require a simple 50-50 split. If we did this then the statistics would demonstrate 'equality', which in modern thinking is synonymous with 'fairness'.
However a "retributive" understanding of 'fairness' would apportion bookings according to the offence whoever committed them or whatever "statistical anomaly" arose.
Clearly in Marwijk's opinion the statistics settle the matter. All I can say to that is 'what a travesty of justice he would seek to impose on any sporting nation - it is shameful that anyone should seek to justify their team's disgraceful performance on this basis! Shame on you!'
Shame on you!
Provided the same rule applies to all 'without fear or favour' then we have 'fairness', the rule of law and at least a partial understanding of what The Bible calls justice.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Sunday, June 27, 2010
MOMBASA 2010.
The latest cardiac surgical team has just returned from Mombasa after caring for 16 patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Mr David Anderson was the surgeon and most of the team also came from the Evelina Children's Hospital in London.
I was part of the nursing team caring for the children following surgery to correct their congenital heart defects. We were based at The Mombasa Hospital who had kindly allowed us to use some of their facilities in their ICU.
After 6 days the tally stands at 3 ("old") PDAs, 2 ASDs, 2 VSDs, 1 Partial AVSD, 4 Mitral Valve Repairs, 1 Sub-Aortic Resection, 1 Tetralogy of Fallot, 1 Glenn Shunt and 1 fifteen year old Coarctation.
This is my fourth such trip to Kenya, but my first to Mombasa, all my previous experience was in Nairobi at the Kenyatta National Hospital.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
Mombasa 2010!
I'll be flying out to Kenya in a few hours time to join a team doing open heart surgery on children who would otherwise not have the opportunity for this kind of treatment.
I will be part of the post-op team caring for the children while they need ventilatory and cardiovascular support.
This will the fourth such trip I will have done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)