Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Sixth Form Theology.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
For non UK readers the "Sixth Form" is a High School designation. When I was in the 6th form in the 1970's some, what now appear tired, forms of theological discussion were considered devastating to the Christian cause. The "imperfection of nature" was one such argument. Arthur C Clarke, a leading thinker of his age, had postulated an ideal Human form; it would be triangular and with an eye on top. This ideal design would allow rain to run off and the upward looking eye would enable the ideal Human to avoid large falling objects.
Of course this assumes that the only problems for Humanity's existence are rain water and large falling objects.
Quite how someone of obvious intellectual ability came to such pathetic conclusions is anyone's guess: although the Bible does take such silly posturing in its stride... the wise of this world are fools.
Someone, I won't say who, recently suggested that the imperfection of the oespheageal and tracheal tract implies an imperfection of design unworthy of a benevolent creator. My problem with this argument is several. For a start who has ever claimed 'perfection' as a design feature?
And then are we not setting up a phoney linguistic contradiction between 'perfection' and 'dysfunctional' which in actuality does not exist - ie something may be perfectly functional even if it is not considered by some to be 'perfect' - like Arthur C Clarke.
And even allowing for all of the above the startlingly obvious point is that perhaps nature requires a certain economy of effort - perhaps it makes sense for a single structure to perform duplicate functions.
There is nothing inherently 'wrong' about that.
I find myself a little surprised to find myself revisiting discussions of my school age, which are intellectually out dated by 30 years, as if they are current. They are not. These are silly and trivial objections.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Sign the Petition.
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
It seems to me to be a fairly clear observation in nature that male and female together form a compatible unit. There is a clear intention in nature for the two sexes to compliment each other sexually. Indeed in procreation each provides half the chromosomes neccesary to form a new individual.
It is a misnomer to describe homosexual or lesbian relationships as "sexual" because by definition they cannot be sexual, to be "sexual" requires one female and one male. Homosexual relationships are Asexual by definition.
Marriage is a sexual relationship and by definition is a joining together of one male and one female.
Governments do not own marriage and it is not for Parliament or any institution to seek to redefine it.
Coalition For Marriage
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
No Brainer!
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?
Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.
Antonio Gramsci was an Italian Marxist thinker in the mid 20th century who defined two revolutionary concepts - revolution by manouvre and revolution by position. Revolution by manouvre is the physical action of taking power. Revolution by position is the act of establishing oneself within the conciousness of the individual that makes the revolution inevitable. The Gramscian concept is that one reaches a point where "The Revolution" becomes so common-sensical in the popular imagination that it comes about of its own accord. The key concept here is this - when does something cease to be 'ideological' and become 'common sense'?
Let me give a current example: In conversation with someone I will call CH the Middle Ages were an unmitigated intellectual disaster fostered by Christianity. The self evident fact - so far as he was concerned - was that Christianity had plunged Western Civilisation into the Dark Ages. And the "Fact" was that his enlightened view of life had brought a revival of learning out of this Dark Age. Moreover that this interpretation of history was "Fact"!
Vainly I pointed out that Dark Ages were due to the incursion of pagan invaders and that the Christian Church was the repository of classical learning. I also gently intimated the Carolingian and 12th Century 'Renaissance' don't fit his simplistic interpretation of history - but ignorant of these - he was inclined to consider these considerations mere bluff.
The point I am driving to is this. So far as he is concerned it is a "No Brainer" - Christianity brought about the Dark Ages - he does not need to engage his brain... the Gramscian revolution has occured... what requires careful thought has been bypassed...
To be a Christian one needs to engage ones Brain.
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Giles Fraser, Atonement & Child Abuse.
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Last week on BBC Radio 4's "Thought for the Day" Giles Fraser commented on the recent discussion about whether it is ever right for parents to smack their children. He related how he had been beaten when he attended boarding school. He was saddened, he said, by the prominent role played by Christians in "the smacking debate" and denounced what he described as a false "atonement theory" for turning a religion of love and compassion into one which could condone abuse. He applied the slippery slope argument - when does a well meant smack morph into a punch?
Giles Fraser has a reputation for being a bit of an intellectual in theological circles but I have to say in all candour that what I've heard from him is invariably quite shallow. Well, it is actually worse than shallow because in his indignation he unjustly points an accusing finger at others. It seems to me that someone with passion for truth and justice would take the time to realise that the main issue Christians have in the "smacking debate" is not a delight in violence but concern for the principal that it is for parents, not the state, to decide on what is appropriate chastisement. No one condones the violence Giles Fraser takes issue with and it is quite mendacious and unjust to imply that some Christians do. It seems to me that Giles Fraser is himself guilty of abusing others when he makes such a broadcast on national radio.
The "atonement theory" he objects to presumably is the one taught in the Bible. That Jesus propitiates God's anger by identifying himself with Mankind and paying the penalty rightly due to us. Quite how this supposedly justifies child abuse is a moot point. Perhaps Giles Fraser starts with the unstated assumption that all anger is wrong by definition - yet he himself expressed his indignation that his younger brother suffered the same abuse as he did when his sibling came to the same school. In all the passion of his talk there was not a lot of joined up thinking. It has always struck me that sloganeering is not conducive to thoughtful discussion.
From what Giles Fraser said, my guess is that he attributes to God the same perverse motivation his school teachers had. But that is unjust. Not all anger is wrong. Indeed I would argue that a God of love and compassion does burn with righteous anger over the things one person can do to another. Love and anger are not mutually exclusive. But I would argue that only the God whose face we see in Jesus Christ can actually square that circle. Humanly speaking we have the responsibility to vindicate the innocent and protect them from the guilty... and that might require a difficult judgment call. But to do otherwise is to condone by inaction the wicked acts of others. But then again another barely articulated assumption that Giles Fraser made was that Human nature is fundamentally good and therefore there is nothing much for God to get angry about.
Giles Fraser certainly sounded like he was angry about something - but he was hitting out at the wrong things!
Monday, January 16, 2012
Monday, December 19, 2011
Christian Medical Comment: BBC uses distortion, hype, exaggeration and select...: With the consultation about legalizing same-sex marriage already underway in Scotland and with the Westminster consultation about to start, ...
Friday, November 11, 2011
Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Oxford Professor for the Public Understanding of Science.
It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.
It is reported that the professor has refused to debate the existence of God with philosopher William Lane Craig when the latter visits the UK. I suppose I find this striking because the professor has largely built his career on such controversy rather than any solid scientific research and such debates fall well within his 'job description'. The suspicion is that the professor is more comfortable bullying "creationists" rather than engaging in any meaningful dialogue with more sophisticated protagonists. It has struck me that the professor's grasp of the issues has always been poor and he has lazily resorted to caricature of his opponents rather than examine what they actually say. Maybe in the final analysis a debate with William Lane Craig was likely to prove too much like hard work.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Saturday, October 15, 2011
Testimony 2
Why is humility such a difficult virtue to aspire to? Perhaps it is because the primordal vice is pride, the desire to have the pre-eminent position and to be second to no-one. I hate the notion that my intellectual abilities may be considered second rate and that I will be despised as a consequence. I want to be respected and well thought of.
Notionally, as a Christian, I aspire to humility but in practice my flesh cries out in protest - I generally consider myself better than others, look out for my own interests and indulge in vain conceir contrary to Philippians 2 v1-11 etc.
When I discuss Christian things with non-believers I am more inclined to talk in a sophisticated way about philosophy of religion out of fear of being looked down on. Perhaps that is why my Christian life lacks real power and why I often feel hollow spiritually. In 1 Corinthians 1 v17b Paul talks of avoiding such sophistication 'lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power'. I want to look intellectually impressive and find the result is empty while 2 Corinthians 4 talks about 'treasures in jars of clay', it looks totally pathetic and yet conceals true riches. The point to bear in mind is that the Kingdom of God subverts the standards of the world and it is well worth reading 1 Corinthians 1 v18-31 in full to get the real impact of what God id doing! It is something I want to take to heart for sure!
The church in Sardis (Rev 3 v1-6) has a reputation for being alive but its incomplete actions belie its orthodoxy. I often feel full of good intentions but they don't often get translated into reality. My deepest regrets in life have never come about by being too dedicated to the Lord Jesus, they have always arisen from my unbelief and compromise. A half hearted believer is in the most pitiful situation of all. With one foot in the world's camp I will never truly taste the joy of the Lord.
When I come across old notes written by myself I discover fossil aspirations which touch on things like personal Bible study and Scripture memory. They are great intentions but if I am half hearted about them I am simply giving way to unbelief aren't I? I find time for other things, general reading and TV etc, which aren't necessarily bad in themselves, but they distract me. I suppose it could be argued that these other things cause me to imbibe the values of the world although in practice I find these values actually wearying to my soul rather than attractive. But perhaps that is sufficient to leave me tired, cynical and dispirited.
The fact is whatever doubts attack me they always prove to be silly and insubstantial. They may be in tune with the world's thinking but on examination invariably prove to be paper tigers. But Jesus' words always ring true. "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".
Why is humility such a difficult virtue to aspire to? Perhaps it is because the primordal vice is pride, the desire to have the pre-eminent position and to be second to no-one. I hate the notion that my intellectual abilities may be considered second rate and that I will be despised as a consequence. I want to be respected and well thought of.
Notionally, as a Christian, I aspire to humility but in practice my flesh cries out in protest - I generally consider myself better than others, look out for my own interests and indulge in vain conceir contrary to Philippians 2 v1-11 etc.
When I discuss Christian things with non-believers I am more inclined to talk in a sophisticated way about philosophy of religion out of fear of being looked down on. Perhaps that is why my Christian life lacks real power and why I often feel hollow spiritually. In 1 Corinthians 1 v17b Paul talks of avoiding such sophistication 'lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power'. I want to look intellectually impressive and find the result is empty while 2 Corinthians 4 talks about 'treasures in jars of clay', it looks totally pathetic and yet conceals true riches. The point to bear in mind is that the Kingdom of God subverts the standards of the world and it is well worth reading 1 Corinthians 1 v18-31 in full to get the real impact of what God id doing! It is something I want to take to heart for sure!
The church in Sardis (Rev 3 v1-6) has a reputation for being alive but its incomplete actions belie its orthodoxy. I often feel full of good intentions but they don't often get translated into reality. My deepest regrets in life have never come about by being too dedicated to the Lord Jesus, they have always arisen from my unbelief and compromise. A half hearted believer is in the most pitiful situation of all. With one foot in the world's camp I will never truly taste the joy of the Lord.
When I come across old notes written by myself I discover fossil aspirations which touch on things like personal Bible study and Scripture memory. They are great intentions but if I am half hearted about them I am simply giving way to unbelief aren't I? I find time for other things, general reading and TV etc, which aren't necessarily bad in themselves, but they distract me. I suppose it could be argued that these other things cause me to imbibe the values of the world although in practice I find these values actually wearying to my soul rather than attractive. But perhaps that is sufficient to leave me tired, cynical and dispirited.
The fact is whatever doubts attack me they always prove to be silly and insubstantial. They may be in tune with the world's thinking but on examination invariably prove to be paper tigers. But Jesus' words always ring true. "Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light".
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) Researchers Receive Threats From Militants.
There was a report in The Observer (UK) on 21st August 2011 which indicated that some researchers into CFS received death threats if they suggested that there was a psychological component to this condition.
I was intrigued by this report because a few years ago I wrote a critical but not unkind book review for 'Evangelicals Now' on a title called "On Eagle's Wings" which proposed a Christian perspective on ME. I took issue with some of the unhelpful aspects of this book and suggested that this was a treatable psychosomatic illness. I hasten to add that 'psychosomatic' does not mean it is unreal or that it is not distressing. But after the review was published I received a flurry of rancorous letters denouncing me personally.
Many accused me of saying things I had not said in my review. What was clear from these letters was a profound sense of shame the writers felt at being labelled as having a psychological, rather than a physical, illness. Nothing in my review intimated that I despised people with psychological illnesses but that was something these correspondents bitterly projected onto me. I couldn't help reflecting that this feeling of shame, self loathing, alienation, however one describes it, was possibly a major component of the underlying condition.
Clearly that sense of shame was an aggravating feature of the condition they suffered - and I addressed that sympathetically in my review. I hope this recent news report will give some cause for self reflection among those who press for a particular interpretation of ME and will be more gracious to those who genuinely seek to help even if they differ in opinion.
There was a report in The Observer (UK) on 21st August 2011 which indicated that some researchers into CFS received death threats if they suggested that there was a psychological component to this condition.
I was intrigued by this report because a few years ago I wrote a critical but not unkind book review for 'Evangelicals Now' on a title called "On Eagle's Wings" which proposed a Christian perspective on ME. I took issue with some of the unhelpful aspects of this book and suggested that this was a treatable psychosomatic illness. I hasten to add that 'psychosomatic' does not mean it is unreal or that it is not distressing. But after the review was published I received a flurry of rancorous letters denouncing me personally.
Many accused me of saying things I had not said in my review. What was clear from these letters was a profound sense of shame the writers felt at being labelled as having a psychological, rather than a physical, illness. Nothing in my review intimated that I despised people with psychological illnesses but that was something these correspondents bitterly projected onto me. I couldn't help reflecting that this feeling of shame, self loathing, alienation, however one describes it, was possibly a major component of the underlying condition.
Clearly that sense of shame was an aggravating feature of the condition they suffered - and I addressed that sympathetically in my review. I hope this recent news report will give some cause for self reflection among those who press for a particular interpretation of ME and will be more gracious to those who genuinely seek to help even if they differ in opinion.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Atheist Promises.
Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.
"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."
I think that is more revealing than the author realises!
Atheists are campaigning against the Brownie oath (they obviously don't have anything better to do with their time!) and to that end a number of letters have been exchanged in the press. This letter in The Telegraph, London, 16th August 2011 particularly caught my eye.
"As an atheist former Brownie who questioned the overwhelmingly selfless message of servitude in the promise, I suggest replacing the words 'to love my God' with 'to love myself'."
I think that is more revealing than the author realises!
Monday, August 15, 2011
V for Vendetta, Moral Relativism and the Riots.
A few days ago I watched a movie called "V for Vendetta" about a superhero terrorist, called 'V', dressed in the guise of Guy Fawkes bringing down a future dystopian British state in an anarchist revolution. Directed by James McTeigue and based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore it was released in 2006, reportedly having been delayed following the July 2005 bombings. The Guy Fawkes mask has since become an iconic image used in anti-government demonstrations.
'V' starts by blowing up the Old Bailey and acheives his apotheosis by destroying the Houses of Parliament. These buildings are naively described as mere "symbols" - no consideration is taken for anyone killed by these bombs - either by 'V' or incidentally by the director. The people surge out into the streets en masse in support, all dressed as 'V', to confront the police. The film ends by them all removing their Guy Fawkes masks; this is a revolution where everyone is free to be exactly what they want. The voice over as the credit rolls reveal that this is all about "Humanism". Clearly the state is viewed as crushing human freedom, it and its agents are to be opposed.
Given the recent riots I could not help reflecting on this movie and the moral solipsism it promotes, whereby everyone finds freedom by being a law unto themselves, accountable to no-one but themselves. In a relativistic age one creates ones own moral compass without reference to anyone or anything else. It seems odd to me that this should be considered such a revolutionary idea when in reality it is the natural default setting of all of us. Of course the movie is not responsible for these recent events but it does reflect a relativistic ambivalence to wrong-doing promoted as radical chic by those opinion makers who shape our culture. I would question whether this vision is as liberating as its promoters claim; what happens when one persons freedom impinges on the freedom of another? And don't freedoms also come with responsibilities? If the recent riots have a common theme perhaps it is that moral solipsism which says I am only accountable to myself - which is actually the logical conclusion of Humanism.
Perhaps the dystopian threat is not always from the state (which is an easy target) but also from the media which filter and channel public discourse. Taking the movie 'V for Vendetta' as an example it is no surprise that the film contrives to have an anti-christian theme. The Christians warped worldview has crushed Humanity by force and it is time for the tables to be turned or so the Vendetta propaganda goes. This particular revolution has Christians scapegoated as the anti-social element... what a perverse view of the world this is. Am I surprised? Not in the least, see John 15 v18!
A few days ago I watched a movie called "V for Vendetta" about a superhero terrorist, called 'V', dressed in the guise of Guy Fawkes bringing down a future dystopian British state in an anarchist revolution. Directed by James McTeigue and based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore it was released in 2006, reportedly having been delayed following the July 2005 bombings. The Guy Fawkes mask has since become an iconic image used in anti-government demonstrations.
'V' starts by blowing up the Old Bailey and acheives his apotheosis by destroying the Houses of Parliament. These buildings are naively described as mere "symbols" - no consideration is taken for anyone killed by these bombs - either by 'V' or incidentally by the director. The people surge out into the streets en masse in support, all dressed as 'V', to confront the police. The film ends by them all removing their Guy Fawkes masks; this is a revolution where everyone is free to be exactly what they want. The voice over as the credit rolls reveal that this is all about "Humanism". Clearly the state is viewed as crushing human freedom, it and its agents are to be opposed.
Given the recent riots I could not help reflecting on this movie and the moral solipsism it promotes, whereby everyone finds freedom by being a law unto themselves, accountable to no-one but themselves. In a relativistic age one creates ones own moral compass without reference to anyone or anything else. It seems odd to me that this should be considered such a revolutionary idea when in reality it is the natural default setting of all of us. Of course the movie is not responsible for these recent events but it does reflect a relativistic ambivalence to wrong-doing promoted as radical chic by those opinion makers who shape our culture. I would question whether this vision is as liberating as its promoters claim; what happens when one persons freedom impinges on the freedom of another? And don't freedoms also come with responsibilities? If the recent riots have a common theme perhaps it is that moral solipsism which says I am only accountable to myself - which is actually the logical conclusion of Humanism.
Perhaps the dystopian threat is not always from the state (which is an easy target) but also from the media which filter and channel public discourse. Taking the movie 'V for Vendetta' as an example it is no surprise that the film contrives to have an anti-christian theme. The Christians warped worldview has crushed Humanity by force and it is time for the tables to be turned or so the Vendetta propaganda goes. This particular revolution has Christians scapegoated as the anti-social element... what a perverse view of the world this is. Am I surprised? Not in the least, see John 15 v18!
Sunday, August 14, 2011
Monday, August 01, 2011
New Bogeymen and the Media Meta Narrative.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.
The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.
I've been thinking a lot recently about how the media report on religious crazies and how they 'tag' them. The media is rightly criticised for quoting people like of Anjem Choudary as if he is representative of the wider Muslim community. But the same logic also applies to the likes of Terry Jones, the Qu'ran burning pastor, or failed prophet Harold Camping. Quite why the media give these eccentric characters such prominence when they would never dream of giving similar coverage to mainsteam Evangelicals is mystifying. And who gives these men the 'tag' of being Evangelical in the first place? If they describe themselves as such, so be it, I'll have to live with that; but if that 'tag' has been attributed to them by the media one may question their motives for doing so.
The suspicion in my mind is that the media is creating a sense of fear and loathing among its audience and using that fear to promote a narrative of its own. That narrative views all religious belief as a socio-pathology and to that end promotes a new set of bogeymen to scare the public into condemning the innocent along with the guilty. This bleak prospect is eased by the thought that by so doing the media demonstrate - to those with eyes to see - that its alleged Liberal values, of justice, fairness and impartiality, are so much pious cant.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Anders Behring Brevik & Christian Fundamentalism.
Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.
Following the dreadful massacre last Friday in Norway I have been deeply disturbed by some of the media coverage. The BBC reported that Brevik was a "Christian Fundamentalist" and repeated this description several times over the course of the weekend. He was also said to "hold extreme Christian views".
So far as I can see the origin of this story line started with one Norwegian policeman describing Brevik as a "Christian Fundamentalist" and this was picked up by the media who ran with it.
One wonders why the editors embraced and reproduced this narrative so uncritically.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Testimony.
My earliest memories are of growing up in a hardworking, Working Class home in 1960's Bradford. My family were very moral upright RCs of Irish extraction who regularly attended Mass. My father was 46 years old, and considered 'old', when I was born. I think he aspired to be Middle Class and he was proud that my brother and sister went to university. There was a large age gap between me and my siblings, and my brother's aspiration was to be a true proletarian by becoming a Marxist and a drop-out while at university. So my homelife was a confusion of Catholicism and (revolutionary) politics.
Never a strong Catholic I made a conscious decision to be a 'raving atheist' in my early teens. I was a firm believer in scientific progress (scientism really; although I did not know it as such at the time). I confused the idea of science explaining something with science explaining something away. I was very influenced by the naive optimism of the Sci-Fi I read, (I veered towards 'cosmism', again another term I was then unaware of), as I drank in the undeclared assumptions of my age.
When I was 17 I heard a garbled Gospel message of sorts which went something like; "God has a perfect plan for your life", "he'd be grateful to have you on his team", "why not give him a chance?" I suppose the message appealed to my ego-centric view of the universe - I was a teenager afterall and shared the conceits of my age that life owed me something! It seemed all too plausible that I had a destiny to fulfil.
Of course this "Gospel" message was woefully inadequate but it was the start of something; which only goes to prove that by sheer grace alone God can use any means to turn someone to him. At the time I would not have considered myself to be in any 'need' of God at all; I would have seen myself as a perfectly moral, upright sort of person - just the sort of person God would want on his side! I did not see myself as needing God's forgiveness - at least not much when I compared myself to others.
It was only over time that the truth began to dawn on me; being morally upright did not make me right with God. I had to unlearn the assumptions I had grown up with and I had to junk a lot of the triumphalist stuff I had initially been taught by well-meaning but misguided Christians who claimed the Bible as their authority. Perhaps at this stage I could have thrown the whole thing over and claim to have become disillusioned by the false promises I had been made. But by then I was drawn to the person of Jesus; whatever falsehoods I had been fed, by both unbeliever and believer alike, I realised that Jesus was special and what he said rang true! When he said "come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" that resonated with me.
The words that rang true sprang from the same Bible that was derided by the atheist and thoughtlessly handled by the Christian. There was a depth in this Word that lay unrecognised and unheeded by the ignorant.
Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the morally upright and the religiously punctilious... and he drew his theology from the Bible! His Gospel is deeply unattractive to all the self satisfied because it calls on us to put our trust in God rather than our own selves and our ability to be good people. It wasn't what I expected to hear and I wouldn't have known these things unless Jesus had revealed them. It had taken several years but I could see myself in the mirror that Jesus held up to my face! I realised that I was not the person I had once supposed myself to be. I could identify with the apostle Peter when he said to Jesus "who else can we turn to? You have the words of eternal life" when Jesus was being deserted by the fickle crowds. By a tortuous route I had come to trust in Jesus and develop an appetite for the Bible.
When Jesus died on the Cross it was my old self that died there too and the life I now live is his gift of resurrection life to me. The question I had had to ask myself was this; was I going to trust in myself or was I going to trust in him?
If you think I am still not much like Jesus you'd be right - but think what sort of person I might now be without him! I am a work in progress you know!!!
My earliest memories are of growing up in a hardworking, Working Class home in 1960's Bradford. My family were very moral upright RCs of Irish extraction who regularly attended Mass. My father was 46 years old, and considered 'old', when I was born. I think he aspired to be Middle Class and he was proud that my brother and sister went to university. There was a large age gap between me and my siblings, and my brother's aspiration was to be a true proletarian by becoming a Marxist and a drop-out while at university. So my homelife was a confusion of Catholicism and (revolutionary) politics.
Never a strong Catholic I made a conscious decision to be a 'raving atheist' in my early teens. I was a firm believer in scientific progress (scientism really; although I did not know it as such at the time). I confused the idea of science explaining something with science explaining something away. I was very influenced by the naive optimism of the Sci-Fi I read, (I veered towards 'cosmism', again another term I was then unaware of), as I drank in the undeclared assumptions of my age.
When I was 17 I heard a garbled Gospel message of sorts which went something like; "God has a perfect plan for your life", "he'd be grateful to have you on his team", "why not give him a chance?" I suppose the message appealed to my ego-centric view of the universe - I was a teenager afterall and shared the conceits of my age that life owed me something! It seemed all too plausible that I had a destiny to fulfil.
Of course this "Gospel" message was woefully inadequate but it was the start of something; which only goes to prove that by sheer grace alone God can use any means to turn someone to him. At the time I would not have considered myself to be in any 'need' of God at all; I would have seen myself as a perfectly moral, upright sort of person - just the sort of person God would want on his side! I did not see myself as needing God's forgiveness - at least not much when I compared myself to others.
It was only over time that the truth began to dawn on me; being morally upright did not make me right with God. I had to unlearn the assumptions I had grown up with and I had to junk a lot of the triumphalist stuff I had initially been taught by well-meaning but misguided Christians who claimed the Bible as their authority. Perhaps at this stage I could have thrown the whole thing over and claim to have become disillusioned by the false promises I had been made. But by then I was drawn to the person of Jesus; whatever falsehoods I had been fed, by both unbeliever and believer alike, I realised that Jesus was special and what he said rang true! When he said "come to me, all who labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest" that resonated with me.
The words that rang true sprang from the same Bible that was derided by the atheist and thoughtlessly handled by the Christian. There was a depth in this Word that lay unrecognised and unheeded by the ignorant.
Jesus reserved some of his harshest criticisms for the morally upright and the religiously punctilious... and he drew his theology from the Bible! His Gospel is deeply unattractive to all the self satisfied because it calls on us to put our trust in God rather than our own selves and our ability to be good people. It wasn't what I expected to hear and I wouldn't have known these things unless Jesus had revealed them. It had taken several years but I could see myself in the mirror that Jesus held up to my face! I realised that I was not the person I had once supposed myself to be. I could identify with the apostle Peter when he said to Jesus "who else can we turn to? You have the words of eternal life" when Jesus was being deserted by the fickle crowds. By a tortuous route I had come to trust in Jesus and develop an appetite for the Bible.
When Jesus died on the Cross it was my old self that died there too and the life I now live is his gift of resurrection life to me. The question I had had to ask myself was this; was I going to trust in myself or was I going to trust in him?
If you think I am still not much like Jesus you'd be right - but think what sort of person I might now be without him! I am a work in progress you know!!!
Monday, June 20, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)