ESITLO

Impacts upon civil liberties, and what Labour needs to learn

2010-05-19T02:21:00.000-07:00

In a speech today, Nick Clegg is due to pledge the "biggest shake-up of our democracy" in 178 years.

Some of this is to be applauded, although the 55% parliament dissolution proposal is not.

Firstly, Clegg's defense of the Human Rights Act, which the Tores have previously pledged to replace, is good news. To quote in a Times interview today, "any government would tamper with it at its peril".

Secondly, he proposes to scrap the ID card scheme and accompanying National Identity Register, all future biometric passports, and the children's Contact Point Database. He also proposes to ensure that CCTV is "properly regulated", and will restrict the storage of innocent people's DNA.

These second points includes some of those policies the Labour government should have never proposed, introduced or, in the case of CCTVs, allowed to pervade our public environment to the degree they have.

David Miliband has asked people for their ideas. We can't turn back the clock, but I hope he (and other Labour politicians) will come to understand how such policies are diametrically opposed to what the Labour party should stand for.

The business leaders who thought they could have it all

2010-05-17T12:41:00.000-07:00

The Labour government proposed raising national insurance, something which would not have come into effect until 2011, when the recovery would have been well under way. The Tories shouted loud and clear that such a rise would be a tax on jobs. Business leaders agreed. Not least Justin King, boss of Sainsbury's.

What the Conservatives forgot to mention (but of course we all knew) is that they would abolish the NI rise by increasing VAT. Justin King didn't like that. Suddenly, his joy at Labour not winning the election turned to concern. Removing VAT exemptions on food would hit the poorest shoppers the most, he said. How thoughtful! Of course, increasing VAT would hit non-food items - something upon which the supermarkets are increasingly relying. At the bottom of it all, what Justin King et al are most concerned about is the impact upon profits, whether that be from VAT or NI. The very businesses that criticised the jobs tax will see a downward spiral in profits.

Which takes me to my next point. NI rises do hit people, but they are mildly progressive. Increasing VAT is regressive. Those who will be most hit by increases and possible extension of VAT are the poor, old and ill. This is well trodden ground, but it needs repeating.

Independent economic forecasting

2010-05-17T04:02:00.000-07:00

George Osborne has just announced that government economic forecasting will now be undertaken independently.

On the surface, this sounds like a good idea. As Osborne says, budgets will now fit the forecast, not vice versa.

One problem I foresee is that government can now blame someone else for getting the forecasts wrong. Government forecasting helps to create accountability e.g. 'We got it wrong'. Government forecasting comes with the caveat that this is the government forecasting the figures, and therefore should be treated with some caution and balanced with other organisations' forecasts.

Related to this, government can look at these independent figures and then say, 'This is just one set of figures. We need to look at others' (which unsurprisingly, will look better). Which means we will be worse off than we are now.

If you were hoping for that new school in your area...

2010-05-17T01:06:00.000-07:00

The previous government set aside an £8.5bn annual budget for new schools. Now, we hear that the new Conservative government plans on redirecting some of that money to help start the community/parent organised free schools the Conservatives had promised in the run up to the election.

Under the plans, secondary schools in authorities that have been approved to enter the Building Schools for the Future project but have not yet named their contractors may now lose their funding. Monies originally allocated to such projects will be diverted to private organisations, parent and teacher groups, who will be allowed to start a new school.

This will come as a serious blow. In March, the previous schools secretary, Ed Balls, announced £420m in funding for new and refurbished secondary schools in Buckinghamshire, Cornwall, Gateshead, Lincolnshire, Oxfordshire and Sutton. In April, a £61.5m project for Cumbria was also approved. All of these are now under review.

A concern that I have is that these 'Swedish' style schools are actually closer in style to similar schools in America, many of which actually underperform and even perform worse than those they have replaced.

There will also be an inevitable delay in the building of new schools. The funding will be stopped in the hope that new community groups and organisations will come forward. And in its almost ideological drive to get these new schools built, I wonder just how little the whole new school project and parents and organisations will be closely examined? Suitably qualified, experienced, financed and planned? Pah! Mere trivialities.

Perhaps my biggest concern is that just how many of these 'community' schools will be organised by nice middle class educated parents in nice middle class areas at the expense of existing schools and schools which would have otherwise been built under the last government's plans situated in less desirable, less affluent and less privileged areas? As long as my Hermione is okay, who cares about your Britney?

On the dissolution of parliament

2010-05-14T12:34:00.000-07:00

There is a proposal to be put to the UK parliament to allow MPs to dissolve parliament, but only if 55% of MPs vote to do so.

Right now, people tend to believe that the current position is such that a 'no-confidence' vote (when half of MPs plus one vote 'no-confidence') will automatically lead to the dissolution of Parliament. This is not the case. The current position is that MPs have no power to dissolve parliament. This is a matter for the prime minister, who asks the Queen to do so and can currently do so at any time of his or her choosing within a five-year term. An argument put forth by proponents of the new proposal is that it puts more power in the hands of MPs.

In reality, a no-confidence vote would currently give little choice to a Prime Minister. S/he is expected to dissolve parliament were a vote of no-confidence to pass. However, a major reason we should be against the 55% proposal is that should it pass, and MPs were to subsequently pass a no-confidence vote on the government, that government would be able to act against the majority will of Parliament and continue governing because the 55% rule would lend that government legitimacy which it currently would not have. (With suspicion of Parliament rarely having been greater than it is now, what message does this proposal send to the electorate?.) Parliament could be in the position in which the majority of MPs has no confidence in the government, but government is able to carry on because less than 55% of MPs have voted for Parliament's dissolution. This sounds less of a democracy and more of a dictatorship by the minority (something which we would expect the LibDems to be against!).

My prediction for the 2010 UK general election

2010-05-05T12:06:00.000-07:00

The polls say that the Conservatives have a nine point or so lead over Labour. But apparently, 40% of voters haven't decided for whom to vote. It's these in whom we should be most interested.

Research shows that people who are unsure about a selection of options are, when forced to make a decision, more likely than not to go with what they know. If these undecideds choose to vote rather than stay at home, then a greater proportion than those who have already decided, will vote Labour.

It's also the case that history consistently shows that those who are top in the polls don't achieve those shares. Think back to 1992 and 1997. In 1992, Labour was up front, but didn't win. In 1997, Labour's share was not where near what the polls suggested it would be.

Put them both together, and we are looking at a fall in the Conservative share and a rise in the Labour share. We are also looking at a fall in Lib Dem share, which will impact other parties' shares, because when it comes to the cross, as been happening already, people will think about some of their policies. People would like an alternative to the big two, but they will consider them too risky, especially Clegg.

The most recent poll by Populus gives Conservatives 37%, Labour 28% and LibDems 27%. I would suggest that Conservatives will achieve 33%, Labour 33% and LibDems 25%. Translated to seats, using the BBC Election Seat Calculator, the Conservatives will gain 224 seats, Labour 324 seats, and LibDems 73 seats. This seat share is surprising, but my analysis is more about share.

That Observer article

2010-05-05T04:24:00.000-07:00

For some Christians, it was ‘sickening’, for others it was ‘hypocritical’ and ‘hateful’.

The story that recently ran in The Observer about Philippa Stroud and her apparent attitudes and activities around homosexuality raised similar comments from people who would not call themselves Christians. The difference between the two are that the former feel that the Observer’s article is biased against Christians and full of untruths. For the latter, the story just shows how the Conservatives (and ‘the Church’) haven’t changed and are full of bigots.

The heat this story has generated among tweeters and bloggers, although strangely not across the press, makes this story worthy of an in-depth and informed critique. This blog post isn’t one of these.

At the outset, let me confess that there was something about the responses from Christians that far outweighed the article itself. Perhaps deep down, Christians feel they are consistently given a bad press, and this article is yet another ‘biased, anti-Christian, liberal diatribe’ against them, and so these comments and blogs are more of a response to (what they perceive to be) the general ‘stream of anti-Christian hatred’? Interestingly, one thing that leads me to concluding this is what they believe is that whilst going through the tweets and responses, I found very few specific criticisms of the piece, just general dislike for it. So much for critical and informed thought.

As a Christian myself, I can see the ‘Church’ has form when it comes to sin, and it seems to me that many Christians are reluctant or unable to reflexively think about exactly how badly behaved the ‘Church’ and people professing to be Christians can be. Hardly surprising then that the media doesn’t have many good words for the Church. To name a few, child abuse, financial scandals, politicians confessing to be Christians going to war arguably illegally. Yes, and there are even those who profess that homosexuals will go to hell (e.g. http://www.ccfon.org/view.php?id=1039). Some Christians do lots of good things, some do lots of bad things too. Some professing Christians seem not to be Christians at all.

So, what exactly is in the article for which Christians will take offense? Take the title of the article: ‘Rising Tory star Philippa Stroud ran prayer sessions to 'cure' gay people.’

On the one hand, the intention is to communicate how terrible this is. For the average Observer/Guardian reader, and even wider society, people are free to be and practise their sexual orientation, free of state, legal and social interference. Given this, Christians may rightly or wrongly accuse the writer of being anti-Christian. But so what? Christians may also responds that this accusation is incorrect. “We don’t’ believe that homosexuality can be cured”’ Well, that’s not entirely true. There are both Christian and secular psychologists, psychiatrists and counsellors who believe that homosexual desire can be traced back to childhood. There are Christians who explicitly or implicitly believe that homosexuality can be ‘cured’ (e.g. http://www.christianhealingmin.org/newsletter/archives/healing/homosexuality.php). I'm sure that most of these aren't based around the premise ‘come to Jesus and he’ll set you free,’ but you wouldn’t expect any newspaper to enter into the nuances of Christian psychotherapy.. Further, to quote one church elder from the same group of churches as Stroud, “Show me a person who has issues with their sexuality, and I will show you a person who has had issues with his or her father.” Bit of a wide-ranging conclusion, that. Whether homosexuality should be seen as 'curable' is dependent upon the judgment made.

Which takes me to my next point. There seems to be a real lack of thought and discussion among Christians about how to respond to homosexuality. In many instances, I think that a more liberal understanding of homosexuality in society has oriented some Christians to subtly and unintentionally change their responses. But we lack a consistent and informed response beyond the ‘well, it’s wrong isn’t it’, which simply will not do. Perhaps there isn’t a single response, but homosexuality isn’t a frequent subject of any discussion in Christian circles, let alone informed and measured discussion.

The first paragraph. Stroud founded a church that has tried to ‘cure’ homosexuals by driving out their ‘demons’ through prayer. Admittedly, at the very least it’s overly simplistic. But firstly, again we seem to expect too much from unbelievers. For most people today, Christians are nuts; at the very least, weird. Don’t many evangelicals believe in demons and their impacts upon some people’s lives? Many of the things Christians believe form part of a completely different world view than unbelievers. Jesus being God? A man raised from the dead who is alive today? This paragraph is written with a huge paintbrush, but hateful toward Christians? Sickening? I don’t’ think so.

This opening paragraph is used to configure a particular interpretation of the next two paragraphs. Stroud, who has these really weird and harmful beliefs about homosexuals and homosexuality, has informed Conservative policy related to families, communities and societies. Thus, they are hugely flawed. Given this reading, the subject of the piece is less about Stroud and homosexuality, and more about Conservatives and how Conservative policy has been informed. The former (Stroud and homosexuality) is a springboard for judgement about the latter.

But let’s go on. What do people in the article have to say about Stroud and her Church? We read about Abi. Is this story so monstrous? Abi concludes, “She (Stroud) really believed things like homosexuality, transsexualism and addiction could be fixed just by prayer, all in the name of Jesus." Frankly, I’m not sure what is so distasteful here for Christians, if indeed this forms part of their overall criticism of the article. It may be simplistic, but for many Christians, Jesus does ‘heal’ people. And I’ve heard these kinds of prayers. Addiction can be fixed by prayer? Jackie Pullinger anyone? I would say Abi’s comment is more of a reflection of what has often been the ‘quick n easy’ solutions provided by some Christians who have been reluctant to deeply engage with people and with the serious business of counselling (‘navel gazing, surely!’ to which I respond ‘read John 4:4-42’).

Move onto ‘T’, whose only criticism seems to be, it was only after he "took a break" from the church that his depression lifted. "It was the church's attitude towards my sexuality that was the issue," he recalled. Hardly sickening or hateful. He even goes onto say “"My impression is that she genuinely cares about people," he said of Stroud. "Her personal beliefs may get in the way sometimes, but she is a positive person." Sounds pretty positive to me.

Next, we read about Angela Paterson, who was an administrator at the Bedford church. She said: "With hindsight, the thing that freaks me out was everybody praying that a demon would be cast out of me because I was gay. Anything – drugs, alcohol or homosexuality, they thought you had a demon in you." Negative stuff, but it doesn’t seem to have occurred to many Christians that they are now laying in the bed they have previously made. Some Christians have moved beyond this. But again, we do have a history, and there are still a number of Christians who believe and teach this. We seem to object to journalists highlighting, what is for many, our history and embarrassments. ‘How dare they?’ appears to be our response.

The article then goes on to quote from Stroud’s book, ‘God’s heart for the poor’. Perhaps they have taken them out of context. I don’t know. I haven’t read it. But what is there for Christians to object to here? When she says, "I'd say the bottom line is to remember your spiritual authority as a child of God. He is so much more powerful than anything else" I think, ‘wow, a journalist quoting someone who is saying that God is so much more powerful than anything else? Sure, the intention of the writer is to dismiss, but what do we expect? There is someone in the media quoting the greatness of our God.

Thus, although there are Christians who can’t believe how one sided this article is, my view is that it seems remarkably balanced when subject to scrutiny. Nevertheless, we may say it only tells one half of the story. But let’s remember, Stroud refused to talk to the Observer, and so we are left merely with the response of Summerskill from Stonewall. We can’t have it both ways.

Moving beyond this article, I think there is a much broader comment to make. Why should the media pick up on this in particular? As I have said, we Christians have history around homosexuality, and we are rightfully open to accusations of hypocrisy, among others. ‘So, homosexuality is a sin? What about accusations of infidelity among Christians, including their leaders? What about child abuse scandals among Christian workers? (And they’re not all Catholics, by the way!). The words ‘speck’ and ‘plank’ come to mind.

Frankly, I wonder why we don’t have headlines such as the following, which would far more represent Jesus’ and the apostles’ teaching? What we say may not always be picked up by the media, but we need to be saying these things in the first place, unpalatable though they may seem

“Rising Tory star tells rich people in her constituency to sell some of what they have and give to the poor”

“Rising Labour star tells local church members to sell some of their land they own and give to those in need”

“Rising LibDem star tells politicians not to deny justice to immigrants” (Malachi 3:5)

Why I think Labour will even get a majority

2010-04-26T12:43:00.000-07:00

Hung Parliament, balanced Parliament. It'll lead to a run on the pound, scream the Tories.

Well, I don't think we'll even get to find out what will happen because, against what the polls seem to say, we are set for a Labour majority.

Why?

Remember 1992? Labour in the lead, and it was the Sun wot won it for the Tories. And the Tories faced the same problem they have now. Our electoral system tends to prefer Labour. It only requires the polls to be undercounting Labour votes for Labour to win a majority, such is our undemocratic method for constituting Parliament.

In 1992, Kinnock was not able to turn the unpopularity of the Tories to Labour's advantage. This is the same now, only with the Tories in Labour's position. What is most amazing is that Cameron has not been able to turn Labour's unpopularity to the Tories' advantage. The last couple of years have been a dismal failure for the Conservatives. Thirteen years of Labour, a vastly unpopular war, an economic recession, record deficits, and he still hasn't been able to turn people to the Tory party. Look at the polls, the electorate doesn't want Labour, but it certainly doesn't want a Tory government either.

Many polls suggest people want a balanced Parliament. I actually think this is the greatest concern. When you've got the two big parties and the electorate doesn't want either of them, where is there to go? The LibDems and a balanced Parliament. This desire for a balanced Parliament indicates that people are fed up with politics as is. They want change, but it isn't the change the Tories are offering.

My experience of being 'unhealthy'

2010-02-05T01:45:00.000-08:00

We tend to think of health and illness as things with objective realities. This is to say, both are truths that exist 'outside' of ourselves.

We should be suspicious of this, and I'll given you an example of why I'm thinking about this. For the last three months or so, I have had blood samples taken from my arm to measure my vitamin B12 levels. My GP has told me on each occasion that these levels are abnormal.

This was until two weeks ago, when I had another blood test. On this occasion, my GP told me I was okay. Although pleased, I was nevertheless surprised. I explained that I hadn't been taking any supplements, and I wanted to see if a slight change in diet might have an impact. It was only then that she told me that my B12 levels hadn't actually changed. Rather, the BMA had recently altered what is a normal level for B12 level in a person.

Three weeks ago I was unhealthy and in need of more B12. Zip forward a few days, and with no change in my B12 level, I'm fine.

Why the Haiti earthquake is not a natural disaster

2010-01-28T02:13:00.000-08:00

I was going to type out a some of my thoughts about the Haiti Earthquake, but decided it would be both an interesting exercise and much faster to put them in a video. It's not professional or polished, so please keep your expectations in check.

Our new home

2009-05-05T12:31:00.000-07:00

So, this is a testimony really. A while back, you may have read about the house in which we were living - small, no central heating, small water heater, feeling a bit like rats in a cage etc. I also mentioned that we had been praying for a couple of years for a new home. Well, we are now living in that home; we have been here since 1 April.

Praying for our home had its 'ups and downs', and I believe God has taught me some things about praying during that time. God is here. He hear's us when we talk with Him and we ask of Him. I have learned more about believing God. We know that God can do anything. I sincerely believe He can. It seems that a problem we have though, is whether God will do what we ask. And it seems that faith is often more about the latter than about the former. So, when we pray, we might think, "God can do this". But Jesus' teaching seems to lean toward a command that we believe God will answer our prayers (although I am aware of scriptures where Jesus also teaches the former).

A verse that is perhaps cited most is Mark 11:26, "Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours." This is a scripture I read a lot when I'm praying for something. Meditating on this one day, I began thinking about all those answers to prayer that people have received but they just haven't believed it. Jesus is saying believe you have received it. He wouldn't ask us to believe something that isn't true, so I figure that when we ask for something, we receive it, but we may not know it. Now, I know that some of you might be thinking, "this sounds like that 'prosperity gospel' thing". Well, you can call it that if you like, but I'm going on what Jesus is saying here, and if I'm interpreting it incorrectly, then please feel free to leave a comment.

So, not long after praying for our new home, I began believing that I had received it. I started thanking God for it, but kept on praying that God would 'bring it in' as it were, that is, that I would see it and we'd move into it.

Now I also think a lot about hope. Faith is the assurance of things hoped for; it is even (to cite Terry Virgo in most recent blog entry) the 'substance of things hoped for' (NKJV). So, what was it that I was hoping for? Well, I told God what I would like. Not arrogantly, but as Josie or Kess (our daughters) might tell me what they wanted, that is, like a child. A detached house, offroad parking, lots of room, a big garden. I pictured in my mind what I wanted, and I thanked God for it; for the house that I had. I was just waiting to see it, and I prayed to see it. And I was sure of it; I was assured of it; I had the substance of it. According to Vine's, 'hupostasis' (assurance or substance') is about giving substance to. Hope seems to be partly about having a blueprint, and faith brings substance to that. It makes it real. You are so confident in it, not as though it is real, but because it is real.

In January this year, some friends told us of a house they had just vacated whilst their house was being redesigned (Guildford is a bit like that). It was even better than that I had hoped for (God is able to give us immeasurably more than we can ask or imagine), with a conservatory as well. But, it was also more than we could afford. I was a little disappointed, but hope doesn't disappoint. I said to God that I believed that he had answered our prayers, and I continued to thank Him for the house we had. But then, we made an offer on the rent, and praise God, this was accepted, and we moved in on 1 April.

I have been thinking about God answering prayer, and why he does this. He loves us, sure, but he more than this, God seeks his own glory and for us to glorify Him in everything. I prayed for God to glorify Himself through the house he gave to us, and I pray the same for the business I started up earlier this year. So answered prayer is not centred upon us but Him, that He may be glorified in everything.

Faith, works and sovereignty

2009-02-09T11:36:00.000-08:00

My life group and I did a study a study last week that included Matthew 25: 31-46. Included in this passage is the following:

25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 25:36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.’ 25:37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 25:38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or naked and clothe you? 25:39 When did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 25:40 And the king will answer them, ‘I tell you the truth, just as you did it for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did it for me.’

As we were reading this, I thought of the early church whose members would sell their belongings for those in need. How much their example exists in stunning contrast to how so quickly we offer to pray for people, offer a quick prayer, and then promptly forget about them! At least, that's what I have often done.

James tells us that faith without works is useless. Faith drives us to action. It might be prayer, but when we hear of a brother or sister in need, dare I say that our first action might not be to pray but to think about how we can meet that person's need? Do we always need to pray? Do we often use prayer as a bit of a 'cop out'?

I reckon that some of this behaviour and way of thinking draws from our (mis)understanding of the sovereignty of God. We think that God's in control (which he is), and in his sovereignty he will drive someone to give money, time, whatever, to the person in need. Sometimes he might, but perhaps this is often at the root of the cop out in our lives? 'After all, if God wants me to give to such and such, he'll tell me', we think. To depend upon the sovereignty of God in this way (which isn't to understand it correctly and depend upon it at all!) - to leave it up to him to work some kind of miracle - seems to relegate the abundant teaching and examples that are set in the New and Old Testament about how the people of God are to meet the needs of each other. And what a motivation the above passage gives us! When I do something for my brother or sister, then I'm doing it for Christ. Wow! But also, how different might church be different if we thought and acted like this?

On suffering

2009-01-27T04:15:00.000-08:00

*Apologies in advance to people in my Life Group - you're probably tired of me banging on about this:)*

We are 'doing' a three week series at our church on the theme of suffering. A significant problem I have is that I'm not sure what 'suffering' is. Do I suffer? Am I suffering right now? It seems to me that much of what we might consider to be suffering is actually the consequence of interpretation. One person's suffering is another person's mild discomfort. What I perceive to be something I 'suffer' someone else might perceive as just an occurrence.

An example would be the house which we rent. It has no central heating, no shower, a kitchen and bathroom that are at least thirty years old, a bath that is even older, carpets that are wearing pretty thin, and a bathroom that is on the ground floor right at the back of the house, behind the kitchen. It has no double glazing, and Delia mops the upstairs windows of condensation every morning. The house is also small, although I am grateful for a separate dining room that leads off our very small kitchen space. What seems to make this more bitter is that the owners are Christians and, moreover, clergy (should I expect more of a member of the clergy than I would other Christians? I'm not sure).

Most days I am faced with how 'unusual' we are among our peers. We live in the middle of Guildford, and most of our peers are professionals (there seems to be a remarkable number of solicitors and accountants living here). We're pretty middle class in terms of our education and culture, and so there is a highly obvious and jarring disjuncture between how people initially think of us and what they then find out about us in terms of where and how we live.

We would love to find another house, but renting in Guildford is hugely expensive. Our house is (unsurprisingly!) comparatively cheap. A similar house along our road would rent for about £1,100 per month at a guess. A larger home than ours with (gasp!) central heating and a shower would be in the region of £1,300 per month. Simply, we can not afford this.

A friend a couple of days ago told us about a chap who wanted to rent out his four bedroom house with conservatory, central heating and shower(!) for a reasonable rent. He has a 'social conscience', and is a Christian, she told us, and so might be amenable to radically reducing the rent. It's a lovely house. I'd love to live in it, and Delia would even more so. Thus, along we went yesterday, and, indeed, it is lovely, and instead of charging the full market cost, we could possibly have it for around £1,300.

But we can't afford that. And so, for now, here we live. Delia and I have been praying for somewhere else to live, for around three years now. I believe I have received it too (Mark 11:24). I have this semi-detached house, which is painted white with around four bedrooms (one for my office as I work from home). It has its own drive way as well (and a shower and central heating). In fact, it looks remarkably like the house we saw yesterday.

So, I have been thinking for a while now, do we suffer because of the house we live in? On the one hand, I am so grateful for somewhere to live and that this somewhere is liveable. I often remind myself and think of people who are 'less fortunate' than ourselves. There are people even in Guildford who are homeless. And I think of DR Congo, of Gaza, of Darfur. So, I am comparatively and richly blessed, and most days I thank God for what we have.

But also, day to day life has its challenges living here. I have another 'interpretation' - I don't like having a daily wash down in the bath, I don't enjoy waking in the cold and then going round the house switching on the (expensive) electrical heaters for a couple of hours (at the most). I don't enjoy feeling like a rat in cramped space. (There is a definite correlation between familial disharmony and space. For example when my brother in law and his family of six (in total) moved from a cottage into a large farmhouse, they noticed a rapid decline in 'disagreements', bickering and so on.)

So, do I suffer? Clearly, not very much when compared to people who don't have a home or who are living six to a room. But also, I and my family clearly do, just in different ways and to a different degree. And we have hope, and we have peace. Hope deferred makes the heart grow sick. I have the hope of somewhere else to live. I sincerely believe this, I just don't know when I'll see it. But also, and more overwhelmingly, I have the hope of heaven. My family is here only for a short while. This discomfort won't last long.

So, perhaps we all suffer, and if heaven is the standard, then anything this side of it must involve some form of suffering. Understood like this, perhaps suffering can be defined as 'lack' - anything that falls short of perfection. Suffering is life and parts thereof that fall short of how life should be, of what for which we were made.

Anyway, I have to go. Delia will be home soon, and, as a treat, I'm going to turn the heater on downstairs.

A response to Adrian Warnock

2009-01-13T11:52:00.000-08:00

Adrian Warnock recently blogged this article at http://tinyurl.com/8trpf8. Below is my brief response to this, which is basically a summarised re-run of what I have said before.

Given many evangelical Christian writers' desire to wrestle with scripture and account for the world in which we live, I am always surprised with some of the poor thinking we give to epistemology. Adrian's blog entry is short and so perhaps his actual views are more nuanced, however it can be used as a springboard for a 'conversation' to which I freely invite anyone to contribute here.

Adrian appeals to science as some kind of proof that objective truth exists. This is problematic on two counts. Firstly, science is strewn with theories, accounts and events which demonstrate that 'truth' is always being either 'improved' upon, undermined, argued over, uncertain or fought over. Popper's notion of falsification and Kuhn's notion of paradigms demonstrate this, as do debates over particle physics, quantum theory and a grand theory of everything. Indeed, most scientists stress the notion of theory over scientific 'fact', and that theory can and should be improved upon.

Secondly, it is problematic because to appeal to an objective truth, that is to say, 'out there', seems to undermine the sovereignty of God with reference to truth. To appeal to an objective truth is to appeal to something outside of God. If something is good, then it is because God defines it as such (vis the creation), if something is holy, it is because God defines it as such. God identifies things for us by speaking for them. God defines the world for us. Science is not a locus of truth; God is truth.

This takes us to Adrian's position regarding the Bible. The Bible is the word of God. I believe this. However, I am uncertain at what 'point' the Bible is God's word. I have argued before that developments in translation and texts are emblematic of how languages are themselves constructions. Arguments and debates over writers' intentions, and the nuances and particularities of languages in relation to societies demonstrate this. All scripture is God breathed, but it appears to us in language that by its very 'nature' has to be limited. This is one reason we need the Spirit; Jesus has not left us alone. And, as I have said before, what should drive us to worship and adoration is that God allows us to use language, limited as it is, to describe Him, communicate with Him and worship Him at all. How can the finite and imperfect credibly describe the infinite and perfect? Praise God that He allows us to do this, and that we have all of eternity to describe Him and worship Him - we require eternity to do so!

Carols, Christmas and religion

2008-12-23T14:08:00.001-08:00

I heard on Radio 4 a couple of days ago that despite the apparent decline in regular 'church' attendance here in the UK, attendance at carol services leading up to Christmas this year shows an overall increase over last year. For example, St Albans' Cathedral has put on six extra carol services.

It would be easy to conclude that this increased attendance reflects a growth in interest in what Christmas is about. Although this may be the case, I would suggest that this is due more to a growth in a religion is an 'add-on' to one's life, where religion can be partly defined as a set of rules and regulations to which someone expresses some form of commitment on one's own terms. It is something that we 'do', rather than something God does. In this sense, attendance at a Carol service can be indicative of an attempt to continue to organise and structure one's own life, partly by tryingto conform to some external rules and regulations, and so facilitate one's life - to make it easier to manage and practice.

'Going to Church'

2008-12-22T12:54:00.000-08:00

I was a bit troubled by Mark Driscoll's most recent blog entry about the lowest attendance at Mars Hill Church, Seattle 'in years (http://tinyurl.com/8nv8o2). Apparently because a lot of people don't go to a Sunday morning meeting because of a lot of snow, we can see the difference between those who see Church as 'a job' and those who see it as a 'calling'. Although I understand where he is coming from, I would rather take a more indirect approach to encouraging those who did not attend to think about why they did not attend, and then to draw a difference between the two. But secondly, I think it also raises questions about the nature of 'Church' and meetings, and the value we place upon them. A Sunday morning meeting of 5,000 people seems to me to be primarily for worship together and for teaching. Though important, I would be more concerned if people didn't attend their mid week cell/community (call them what you will) meetings. Perhaps it is at these 'meetings' (particularly the latter) where 'Church' is (or should be) made most evident. So, Mark, although I think you have a point, a greater point may be derived from answers to the question: 'how many people attended your mid week group this week?'

The birth and death of Jesus

2008-12-19T05:02:00.000-08:00

I have been thinking about the two most profound events in history.

Although the gospels don't go into huge detail about where and how in fact Jesus was born, we know from Luke that Mary placed Jesus in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. Perhaps this was on the ground floor of a house (similar to some rural areas of eastern Europe), because we read in Matthew that the Magi found Jesus in a house.

So, was Jesus born in a stable? I'm not sure we know. But it is evident that it wasn't a clean, hygenic birth. A manger is a trough from which animals eat. And where there are animals, there is the horrid smell and presence of shit and piss. There would have been blood too - not only because of the after-birth but probably also because of his mother's physical age and that Jesus was her first child. Ponder this with the revelation that God was born into it and we don't know what to say for we can not sufficiently imagine the birth of God, nor what it implies.

Thinking about the birth of Jesus seems to lead automatically to thinking about his death. Hanging on a cross, most probably naked. Very visible. On display for earth, hell and heaven to see. Then I think about what happened when he died. The bowels of bodies relax when they die, and so they defecate. Is it any wonder that the cross is such foolishness to those who are perishing? Yet to us, this person who is both God and man is the very wisdom of God, and we have eternity to think about it and worship him for it.

So, I ponder God on a cross, but like his birth, I can not really imagine it to the degree it demands. And right now, all this drives me to think about how much the world should be in awe of this thing called 'Christmas', and thereby to think about the depth of his grace because we are not.

A short note on constructivism, the Bible and God*

2008-12-03T11:46:00.000-08:00

*At the outset, this note does not do justice to this topic, and is more an outline of something that requires much more consideration

In his book "Don't Waste Your Life", John Piper provides a brief critique of existentialism in order to argue for an objective 'reality' - an 'essence' if you like. According to Piper, existentialism posits that existence precedes essence, that is, we create essence. Essence doesn't exist 'out there', rather, we create it. To counter the 'existentialist' view of the world, Piper gives the example of the sky:

"There is a sky up there to be seen. You may look up ten thousand times and say you don't see it. But that has absolutely no effect on its objective existence. It is there." (2003, p17)

The goal of this blog post isn't to criticise Piper, but to make an intervention. There is this 'thing' called the 'sky', but what counts as the 'sky' is an upshot of 'readings', or observations, discussions, arguments and so on, of this phenomenon that we call the 'sky'. Taking the sky as an example might appear trivial, but read the following scenario:

A child walking along the street looks up and exclaims to her father: "Look, a balloon! Up in the sky." Meanwhile, I'm sitting on the fifth floor of a building, just as I'm reading this John Piper excerpt. The balloon passes my window. I look up, as Piper suggests, and I see the sky.

For the girl, the balloon is in the sky. For me on the fifth floor, the sky isn't outside my window, but 'up there'. Another time, I might be flying on a plane, and I would feel that I am 'in the sky'. I wouldn't need to look 'up there', even though I might be reading Piper's book at the time, and he tells me that the sky is 'up there'!

At best then, objects are the result or consequence of negotiation and agreement. Our knowledge of what this thing called sky 'is' continues to develop according to where we are, for example and, for instance, as we understand what constitutes atoms and molecules and as the constituents of the 'sky' alter, for example through climate change. Objects do not speak for themselves, they do not have intrinsic meanings, but have to spoken for.

Taking this notion that objects have to be spoken for, throughout the story of creation we read of God identifying different phenomena he created:

Gen 1:5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
Gen 1:8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
Gen 1:10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."

Here, God tells us what these things are, he speaks for them, he identifies them for us.

This notion of the absence of essence can be translated to texts. The meanings of texts we read aren't determined. It is a well rehearsed argument that, rather, we want to understand the preferred reading of a text. Thus, 'good' texts are those that are written in such a way as to make a particular reading more likely. This is to say, then, that although all readings are possible, not all readings are likely. This is why most times we understand a text as it is intended (or rather, close to that intention), but at other times we 'misunderstand' a text (that is, we don't make the 'correct reading i.e. the intended reading). Sometimes, what the 'text is actually saying' is quite confusing. Consider, for example, debates around Romans 5:1 and Romans 3:25.

When talking about the Bible though, we understand from 2 Peter "prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit", and from 2 Timothy that "all scripture is God breathed." But, of course, the Bible has been translated many times, and 'improvements' to those translations and developments in the meanings of particular words and phrases continue to be made. The words themselves were written in a series of human languages, each with their own nuances and terms that were particular to the societies in which they were constructed. And as we read those texts, we interpret them according to how we understand individual words and strings of words that make up a sentence, a paragraph, and a letter for example.

Read the following passage from Terry Virgo's most recent blog post:

"In our post-modern generation it’s common for Bible study groups to encourage each person to ‘Tell us what these verses mean to you personally,’ without any real attempt to discover what the text is actually saying or to challenge individuals to change their lives accordingly."

I understand the point Terry is making here, but words in the Bible don't speak for themselves. They are 'written'; they are artefacts of human language and subject even to disagreements about what they 'mean'. We want to understand the original texts, breathed by God, written down by people, being moved by the Holy Spirit, are intended to mean. As we are, how can we do this? Praise God, Jesus hasn't left us alone! The Holy Spirit helps us in our weaknesses. The Holy Spirit helps us to understand what we read. He is able to interpret for us. Nevertheless, the limitations of language remain, and are made evident in this passage: "We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express" (Romans 8:26).

What is profoundly important and humbling is that God has condescended to used words to communicate with human beings, to enable human beings to use language, limited as it is, to express truths about Him through scripture, and to allow us to use words to describe Him and worship Him. It is wondrous that our knowing God, through the work of the Holy Spirit, moves beyond words, yet when we try to express our knowing God in words, those words do not and can not suffice. Words can not in any way represent God sufficiently, and it is by His grace that He allows us to describe Him and communicate with him at all through words.

"Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (I Cor 13:12).

I think that Christians often find 'post-modern' critiques about texts problematic and even disconcerting because we don't like uncertainty. We don't like the idea that most 'truths' aren't what they seem to be. They become complicated and opened up to negotiation and disagreement. Importantly, it should be said that it is less the case that language theorists have tended to argue that there is no essence but rather, essence cannot be 'got at'. There is this thing called 'sky', but what it is, is up for grabs. God is 'there' (Schaeffer), but if we read the Bible without the grace of God to understand Him, that is, through the supernatural power of the Holy Spirit, then we are left with the problem of never being able to 'know' God. We are left with the problem of language. However, even now, we only know in part. How wonderful then, the prospect that one day we will be able to search the infinite depths of God face to face - that is, unhindered by forms of mediation (a mirror, language etc) - and, from this, be compelled to worship Him for eternity!

The use of 'may' and 'might' in NT translations

2008-11-19T01:46:00.001-08:00

A while ago I came across this great website run by Christians, that is dedicated to answering questions about the "God, Jesus, the Bible. or theology".

So, I had been thinking about why the term 'may' or 'might' are often used in translations from the Greek in statements about truth, instead of 'will', 'would' or 'shall', for instance. For example, in Rom 14:9 the Greek word `kurieush` is in the subjunctive mood - the mood of possibility and potentiality. Here, (or so I thought) `may` could easily be replaced with `would` because the proceding part is guaranteed i.e. Jesus would be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

I sent off a question asking about this, and received the following very useful answer (however, if anyone wishes to make a comment, please do so):

Answered By: Stuart
Answer: Your question addresses an important translation point. The reason that “may” is often used in translations of these passages, even though the preceding condition is truly satisfied (and therefore one might be tempted to substitute the word “would”) is that Paul in these verses did not only communicate what would happen, but also, why the outcome can occur. In other words, Paul also communicates the logical reason why the outcome may occur logically, and thus, why the outcome in such instances, when the preceding condition is satisfied, surely will.

So in these instances, God through Paul gives us a double blessing. For example, in Rom 6:4, we discover not only that we who are in Christ will walk in newness of life, but we also discover why we will do so. It is because of the two preceding conditions: we have been buried with Christ through baptism into death; and Christ was raised from the dead. These two conditions have truly been satisfied. There is no doubt whatsoever that we who are in Christ will indeed walk in newness of life. But the subjunctive mood is used here not to indicate the possibility (as if maybe we might not walk in newness of life), but to indicate the logic of why the outcome will take place.

This is formally called the “axiomatic use of the subjunctive.” It does not in such instances indicate uncertain or only probable outcomes, but rather axiomatic truths: “If A is true, then (we may assume) also B is true.”

This more obscure use of the subjunctive is sometimes a bit hard to grasp at first because the subjunctive mood in Greek has a wider range of meanings than the subjunctive mood in English. You have run across this nuance because you have a diligent approach to understanding and using NT Greek. Good for you!

Church as 'place'

2008-11-08T09:31:00.000-08:00

I've recently been reading this book about the concept of 'place', and how it has been understood differently within and across geography, sociology and related subjects. Although I have been reading it primarily for thinking about a project I'm going to be starting some time next year, it has stimulated some inital thoughts about the the church in late modern society that I note here (though necessarily need expanding upon).

Despite the dominant secular meaning of a 'church' being a building (often replicated by Christians), the New Testament writers seem to understand and portray a 'church' as being an individual fellowship of believers under the authority of eldership, which exists within the the corporate body of believers, also referred to as 'the Church'. So, we might talk about the 'Church in Ephesus'. Today, this is complicated by there often being a number of Churches within a single city (although I'm not sure if this might also have occurred in New Testament times), but together, these believers might also be called a Church, for example 'the Church in Guildford'.

The emphasis upon a church as a 'body of people' does not preclude there being some purchase in thinking about how a church has some attributes of 'place'. A cursory glance shows how churches (as people) generally tend to be geographically located in space, and a church's members tend to attach a subjective and shared set of meanings to their particular church that help to locate it in a particular space. We talk about 'going to church', we have a feeling of what it is like 'to be there' and to belong to it, and it is something in which we 'dwell'.

However, how we may talk about a church can also reflect how location is not a necessary attriubute of 'place'. We may speak of and experience a virtual world or a gypsy camp as places, even though they aren't located anywhere in particular, or if so, only temporarily. This, in turn, reflects how 'place' is imagined (which does not mean that it is not 'real' in the sense that it is experienced and given meanings that make a 'place' real) in that it is constructed or socially defined: we make it what it is, which reflexively informs our experience of it. If something is experienced as 'place' (within the meanings that people share and attribute to this concept), then it is. (As an aside, Christians often have a problem with the notion of 'social constructivism', often because of an inadequate understanding of what it means or its value, but more on this in a separate post.)

Two implications (among others) exist for partly understanding the church as 'place'. The first is related to the notion of 'authentic', and the second is related to the local and the global.

1) Briefly, town and cities, especially at their 'centres' (partly established through commerce, retail, town planning, people's everyday routines and how people talk about their towns and cities [socially constructed, see?]), are often talked about and represented and experienced as increasingly homogenous places, exemplified by the presence of national retailers, coffee shops, shopping malls, banks, estate agents, and so on. Go to one town, and it often looks very much like another. Thus, people often talk about the demise of 'community', and in turn, we find that the very businesses that are said to have helped generate this homogeneity often adopt the notion of community in their marketing and in their activities. Starbucks, and Borders and Waterstones bookshops are good examples. This is seen as inauthentic because, of course, they have a goal in mind - to establish their brand as a 'way of life', a life 'style'. They're in it for the money.

A church (by which I do mean people and not a building) inhabiting the centre of the city (that is, something that feels like a place inhabiting space [and I'm not talking merely about a church office!]) can offer and highlight a radical disjuncture between the aforementioned (inauthentic) social and economic culture practiced in urban centres, and an (authentic) life lived out by Christians and offered by Jesus Christ. Such a church is something to which people can 'come', 'inhabit', feel 'cared for', 'belong', be nurtured, nurture others, and affect the local and the global in His name.

2) Towns and cities may have physical boundaries, but these help to conceal their interconnectedness e.g. roads, communication (increasingly via the internet), airports, train stations, retail, multi-cultural inhabitants, international students, and so on. Map out all of these and you will see the globalised facet of most of our towns and cities. This helps then to undermine the notion of 'place' as being boundied. Towns and cities are sites of cultural and social plurality, they can be uncomfortable for those that have inhabited them for a while, they test our generally ideas and preconceptions of people 'outside' who then come in, they aren't settled but are always in flux (or 'processural'), and they may become unidentifiable in terms of what they were, over time.

Places, then, aren't generally fixed: they change, and they aren't bounded. It doesn't take much to translate this to churches. By being 'sited' at the centres of towns and cities, spatially, culturally and socially, then churches should reflect its absence of boundaries and 'do' this absence even better - to be sites of welcome, to receive and embrace people from afar, to be people in the world, to send people out into it, to be globally local.

What can evangelicals learn from this election?

2008-11-05T02:53:00.000-08:00

In previous elections, GW Bush has depended hugely upon the vote from evangelicals. And many of them are disappointed, particularly because he hasn't acted sufficiently on abortion.

Evangelicals aren't the only 'disappointed'. Many people (though not necessarily evangelicals) voted for Obama, not primarily out of a rejection of McCain but of GWB's inactivity concerning the poor, the ill, social security, the old, the environment, and so on. For evangelicals I believe there is a huge message to come out of this election: it isn't enough to be single issue voters on abortion. The Obama presidency may well be a catastrophe for the unborn (e.g. here), but evangelicals need to think deeply about their role in not having held the executive to account on issues alongside abortion.

For many evangelicals, abortion fits into a simple, undemanding dichotomous way of thinking: right or wrong (also exemplified by the GWB maxim, 'you're either with us, or against us). It's relatively easy to sit back and tell government to 'ban abortion'. It's also a clear cut issue for some evangelicals because unborn children are labelled 'innocent': 'they're innocent and worthy of our concern'. But thinking about the poor, about human rights and so on, and to then act demands that we step outside of our often narrow view and experiences of our everyday and not so everyday world.

Some will argue for 'small government' and that it is the Church's responsibility to think about the poor and so on. But the Church needs to engage in two ways: directly and via government. The Church can and should make a positive and profound direct impact upon society through action on the ground. It should be visibly engaging with issues other than just abortion, and I long for this. And many Churches are doing this right now: they are making a big difference. But I believe this needs to be matched by demands upon government to act as well, fallen though it is. (On the other hand, I do of course realise that people who push government to act upon issues concerning the poor and so on can be just as guilty of 'leaving it up to government', of not actually doing anything.)

So, there are a few points to be made. Evangelicals need to give care and attention to social issues alongside the (overriding) issue of abortion. It needs to push government to act and hold government to account on these issues. This needs to be accompanied by direct action. It isn't enough just to vote every four years. Take care of the poor, care for the environment, lobby politicians, demonstrate for change, ACT.