Sunday, February 27, 2011


According to a news report on AFP a fox, nicknamed 'Romeo', has been living on the 72nd floor of the UK's tallest building. Having evaded capture for two weeks he was finally cornered and then released in some nearby open ground. The Shard is under construction south of the river near London Bridge and will be Europe's highest skyscraper when it it is completed.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Christian counsellor targeted by homosexual activist

Presumably the purpose of this 'sting' is to put any counsellor on notice that they too may be targetted, publicly pilloried and have their livelihood threatened unless they conform to the new orthodoxy. Who authorised the media to act as 'thought-police'?

That question is posed to the journalist in question. I am not endorsing the therapy being offered I am simply posing the question as to whether it is right to offer help to someone who requests it?
I have in mind a potential scenario in my own work situation. What if a parent of a child on my PICU claimed to be a Christian and realising that I was one too prevailed on me to pray with them. What if that subsequently turned out to be a similar 'sting' and the journal in question then reported me to my professional body for misconduct? I suspect that the journalists realise that a Christian is honour-bound to meet such a request for help and this is a cheap way to gain a good headline and the plaudits of the chattering classes. But the consequence for myself could be that I am driven from my profession. So my concern is about the point of principal which is being endorsed by the media; ie entrapment is okay provided it is a socially defenceless person targetted and that the media are hereby empowered to open a window on individual souls. It is the tabloidisation of private conscience.

It is not just that such a 'sting' is deceitful - it is deceitful on multiple levels. And the net effect is draw into question whether we should ever offer to help someone who asks for it if such help may not have the approval of the media. Perhaps that is a question this particular journal should ask itself.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Friday, December 24, 2010

Sunday, December 19, 2010


A Beautiful Fox just came right up to our Kitchen Door! Not the usual mangey types one gets in Central London!

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Saturday, December 11, 2010

"Religion is a Force for Good" - discuss!

In a recent public debate Tony Blair argued in favour of this proposition and Christopher Hitchens against. But much of this so-called discussion, it seems to me, is framed in post-modern language which inevitably predetermines the conclusion. Not surprisingly Christopher Hitchens had the better of the debate while Tony Blair seemed hesitant and defensive.

For example, to discuss "faith" as an abstract condition without any reference as to what that "faith" is in is completely non-sensical. Personally I am often mystified as to what people actually mean when the "faith" word is bandied around like this. This concept of faith as an abstraction is surely a post-modern imposition which invariably skews sensible discussion; it treats "faith" as a personal attribute rather than having an objective focus. The post-modern is more concerned with the journey itself rather the destination because that resolves all discussion about value judgements by internalising them as a matter of personal taste. The post-modern probably thinks he or she is doing you a favour, but by patronising people like this they are actually quite insulting without ever realising it... all because they do not have the conceptual framework to gain any meaningful insight.

The same applies to the "religion" word (barely a Biblical word at all!). The post-modern will lump all "religion" together as if it is an indistinguishable mass; and perhaps to the undiscerning it is. But it is not part of my worldview to endorse all "religion" - far from it. I could not argue that all religion is a force for good... or that even most of it is. In fact such a concept is actually anti-thetical to my belief in Jesus Christ, who made a number of exclusive truth claims.

I wonder why Tony Blair allowed himself to get into a discussion framed in terms which are, in actuality, indefensible! It is like being set up with the "have you stopped beating your wife?" question - there is no good answer!

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Monday, November 15, 2010

Thursday, November 04, 2010

What is the opposite of Love? I've often heard people say 'hate' in reply to this question. Someone suggested 'indifference' - which is a little closer to the mark - but I believe the answer is 'self-love'. True love recognises that one is NOT the centre of the universe and that the focus is other than oneself. True love questions our concepts of 'autonomy', 'individuality' and 'self-actualisation'. If we primarily see relationships as a means to self-fulfillment then that is not love.

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: 'Christian Medical Comment' makes Jubilee Centre's...

Peter Saunders - Christian Medical Comment: 'Christian Medical Comment' makes Jubilee Centre's...: "The Jubilee Centre has just published a list of the seven best Christian blogs that seek to demonstrate the continued relevance of the Bible..."