Christianity not left wing? It’s not supposed to be toffee-nosed, either

Image via Wikipedia

Agreeing as I do with easily 95% of what appears in Christianity-is-Not-Left-Wing, it goes against the grain somewhat to feel obliged to take public issue with its observations.

Its latest pronouncement on faith, however, cannot go unchallenged.

“I always worry about Christians, usually in the media, who claim to have (had) ‘a crisis of faith’. No problems up to that point – we all surely do. What is troubling however, is when they go on to speak of ‘doubting the existence of God’ as a part of this. No ‘born again’ believer who has encountered God’s intervention in his/her life can possibly say this.

“If your problem is a periodical disbelief in God – then I must ask you whether or not God was only ever a mere opinion to you?”

Full disclosure: I have been known to tick both boxes in the first paragraph of this extract.

I am struggling, though, to imagine a crisis of faith that doesn’t involve doubt in God’s existence. If He seems deaf or far off, that may be disappointing or frustrating but there can be no ‘crisis’, surely, if you remain satisfied that He is in overall control?

I suffer, I know, from a readiness to examine all opinions that serves me better on some occasions than it does on others. The rise of New Atheism these last five years has forced me to examine what I have believed in all my life, not because I’m subconsciously seeking a way out but because I have no intention of going down without a fight.

This process is not plain sailing. Regardless of how you ultimately assess the arguments against religion, there is a multitude of them out there, all of it readily accessible via the Internet, much of it couched in stridently abusive terms and some of it posing arguments that offer genuine food for thought.

Some days, you enter the fray and sustain only scratches. Other days, however, the tumult shakes you to the core and you look to the sky and genuinely wonder.

By CiNLW’s standards, this apparently marks me down as some spiritual dilettante who is merely playing at being a Christian. Unfortunately, I don’t think anyone who just plays at this game would devote several hours a week to studying blogs and websites written by atheists and Christian apologists alike, in order to define the topics on which his faith hinges and the arguments both for and against. Anyone who views such behaviour as betrayal, I invite to look at it from a different angle.

Much as I grow increasingly unimpressed at Richard Dawkins‘ lofty disdain for those who dare have a different view to his own, I will be forever grateful to him for making me get off my backside and look long and hard at what I have signed up to.

Because of him, I have read articles on quantum physics and human psychology, watched documentaries on astronomy and Biblical history that would have otherwise passed me by. Far from being cheapened by this exercise, my faith has been invigorated by it.

I have been to the front line of this, perhaps the ultimate debate. I have learnt to roll with the punches and, most importantly, to stop fearing my doubts, a crippling burden some Christians seem to regard as mandatory.

What was once a complacent faith wheeled into public view one day in every seven is now a daily-engaged, battle-hardened work in progress, warts and all. If the alternative is to be a Pollyanna Christian who sticks his fingers in his ears and sings la-la-la at the first sight of an approaching scientist, then I’ll take my chances.

If my resentment at CiNLW‘s sentiments were merely personal, then this response would  have never been written. When what feels like half of cyberspace thinks you’re a ***** sky-fairy, Jeebus-loving ****** and frequently says so, a little well-intentioned reproval from those on your own side causes barely a twinge. What angers me, however, is that they might be read by recent converts to the faith, who are grappling with the very real conflicts between the world they have just entered and the one they left behind, and who might conclude that they were never really the right sort for this Christianity thing in the first place. Ah, we have doubts: game over, then.

I don’t know what type of church the person behind CiNLW attends but I have to say that there is a whiff of smug superiority about his comments that smacks of  the Evangelical camp. They do neither him nor our shared cause any credit whatsoever.

………………………………………………………………

Christians don’t need apologetics? Think again.

Location, location, location not this Imam’s strongpoint

Image by World Economic Forum via Flickr

You’d think Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf might have absorbed a lesson or two about picking his spot, given the furore sparked by the Islamic community centre (“it’s a mosque,” critics insist) that he plans to build in the vicinity of the World Trade Centre site.

It would seem not, however, after he chose a speech at Edinburgh University’s Prince Alwaleed Centre for the Study of Islam in which to offer the following opinion:

 ”I don’t think we should allow, in our communities, space for those who wish to abridge the freedoms of another person on the basis of their religion, race, language or gender. I think we have to combat those tendencies.” 

These are fine words but they would sit a little more comfortably with me if I could be reassured that the Imam has publicly made similar comments of late in Algeria, Norway, Pakistan and Iran.

I don’t deny that Edinburgh can get a bit spicy on the sectarian front when Hibs and Hearts meet but of all the places aching for the benefit of  Imam Feisal’s wisdom, I would suggest that the Scottish capital currently comes some way down the list.

Disproportionate representation as Cameron flails at God and democracy alike

Image via Wikipedia

Forget ‘nice but dim’, there was a nasty and dangerous side on show last week as David Cameron made his views known, firstly on the homosexuality / religion debate and then on the EU and the little matter of British people actually having a say in whether they belong to it.

If you’re an atheist, the former pronouncement may merely have stirred you to a passing nod of approval. If you’re a Christian, however, whether liberal or conservative in your thoughts on sexual orientation, the Prime Minister’s shallowness on the matter was there for all to see.

I would question whether he has even bothered to read the scriptural pronouncements on homosexuality, let alone considered the possibility that one can disapprove of homosexual acts without wishing any harm or oppression on those who engage in them.

Sadly, although far from unpredictably, Cameron sounds like a man who is simply keen to be seen shouting with the larger crowd. Homosexuality, ironically, now has a quasi-deity status all of its own and all other views, no matter how nuanced or quietly reasoned, must bow before it.

As one who saw through the Soundbite Kid early in his political career, I’m not surprised to find that Cameron has neither the philosophical skills nor courage to tackle this citadel with anything other than the most trite of soundbites.

Who defines ‘broad-minded’ exactly, Prime Minister? Suppose I start coveting your wife this weekend: by what authority would you, presumably, switch off your own ‘welcoming’ tolerance at that point?

Now cards have to go on the table here: personally, I sit reluctantly on the fence where this issue is concerned, regularly agonising over whether St Paul’s denouncement of homosexuality in his First Letter to the Romans reflects the word of God or merely the social mores of the age.

Oh that it were the latter. Being able to live and let live as my innate instinct hankers for, would be wonderful. Alas, I’m not oblivious to the dangers of convenient cherry-picking where the Bible’s rules and regs are concerned. Not something that would appear to trouble our Prime Minister.

And then, for the non-believer, a bittersweet moment indeed. With the grunt of approval for Cameron’s stance on sexuality barely past his lips, he was confronted with the latter’s view on the secular nicety of democratic process.

No-one could be oblivious to the idea that the EU in its current form is being foisted upon a people who have had no say in the matter, yet Cameron’s opinion is clear. A vote? And let the oiks upset the applecart? Perish the thought.

Again, one can only wonder how far this position has been thought through. Has anyone in Cabinet pointed out to Mr Cameron just how astonishingly contrary his thinking looks in this supposed mother of democracies? And can we least count on consistency and tactful silence from our leader next time Robert Mugabe is in the crosshairs of the developed world for alleged vote-rigging?

In his renderings to both God and Caesar these last few days, David Cameron has not emerged with credit. Depending on your beliefs, he will be judged on one of his pronouncements on a day to be appointed. As for the other, the jury needs to start making its way back in now, loudly and emphatically. This whole EU referendum thing looks more sinister by the week.

Comedians and the Bible – the laugh’s on whom, exactly?

Cover of Ricky Gervais

Funny though they generally are, the satirical version of those grating motivational office posters comes something of a cropper in this attack on the tax man.

Yes, it raises a smile but anyone with a reasonable knowledge of the Bible will soon spot that the headline and the text don’t add up.

The whole point of this quote from Jesus is that we are to pay the world its dues, as we are to God. None of us delight in paying taxes but up to a point they are a perfectly reasonable way of paying for the way of life we all too often take for granted, so no, I don’t believe God Hates Taxes automatically follows on from the quote beneath it.

In isolation, I probably wouldn’t have given it a second thought but I mention it only because it adds to the frequently unholy alliance that ensues whenever wits turn their attention to the Bible.

I bow to few men in my admiration of the late Bill Hicks‘ satirical ability but even he showed a significant ignorance of his subject matter with this comment on Christians and the cross:

“A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he ever wants to see a f***in’ cross? It’s kind of like going up to Jackie Onassis with a little sniper, rifle pendant on. ‘Hey Jackie, just thinking of John…””

Well actually Bill (and I suspect even a few kids from a half-decent Sunday School could have picked you up on this one) given that the whole gist of the New Testament is that Christ conquered death, I doubt that the mere trappings of death would bother him in the slightest. Regardless of whether you believe  the Resurrection occurred, the joke is based on a false premise.

Then there was Ricky Gervais on Alan Carr‘s chat show a while ago. Openly atheistic, Gervais was asked by his host if he ever toyed with the idea of at least trying to do the church thing, just to hedge his bets?

No, he replied, because if he ever did have to account to God for his beliefs, he would just remind the Almighty that it was He who had made him that way.

At which point, God would press the ‘fail’ buzzer, because free will is another central tenet of Christianity. We are free to be what we wish in this life although we will one day have to account for how we used that freedom. Atheism is Ricky Gervais’ call, no-one else’s.

For the mother and father of non sequiturs, however, you had to hear Jason Manford‘s classic over the Christmas holiday. I forget the TV programme he was on but he made a crack about Katie Price writing another novel.

“That makes it four books of fiction she’s produced,” he pointed out. “Two more than God.”

Jason, please: if God is indeed responsible for the books that make up the Bible (and there are actually 66 of them, or 77 if you’re Catholic)  they are hardly likely to be fiction, are they?

Now I don’t mean to be prissy here. I smiled at all three gags and I enjoy the work of all three men. Nor do I have a problem with God and Jesus being lampooned. They have survived far worse and I take a certain perverse satisfaction from the fact that even Their greatest detractors can’t seem to get Them entirely out of their system. No-one makes Thor or Aphrodite gags, after all.

But if you’re going to poke fun at something; please, a little research beforehand, yes?

Holocaust or not – don’t say “sorry”, act sorry

Image via Wikipedia

It’s a competitive category, to be sure, but right up there among the biggest drags of political correctness has to be the symbolic apology.

Believe me, I try to tread lightly where slavery or the Holocaust are concerned, but  watching French rail firm SNCF become the latest institution to be made to jump through hoops for the sins of its forefathers strikes me as the most monumental misdirection of energy. If talk is cheap, apologetic talk from people who weren’t even born when the offences in question were being committed is surely the loose change of rhetoric.

“Don’t say sorry, act sorry,” I tell my kids when they step out of line and I’m inclined to take the same stance on a larger stage.

I’m neither black nor Jewish, so I appreciate that I can only speculate here, but my speculation nonetheless is that were I to fall in either of those camps, hand-wringing apologies for the distant past would mean rather less to me than proof positive that the lessons of that past had been emphatically learned.

If SNCF is colour-blind in the way it runs its business; if its bosses treat staff and customers – without exception – as they themselves would wish to be treated and if it makes no attempt to gloss over the skeletons in its cupboard, then I speculate that I’m happy.

And as an aside, I’m struck by the way the duress element of this story is subtly sneered at, as if were the flimsiest of excuses: not the first time I’ve seen this happen whenever the 21st century turns its scrupulous spotlight upon the impossible dilemmas of a continent at war.

It’s easy to be noble about the concept of “just obeying orders” from a safe distance. Pray God we’ll never have such orders barked at us in our lifetime…

“Start the train or expect a call from the Gestapo.”

“Start the train or take your place with the passengers.”

“Start the train or your wife and kids are on the next one.”

We all like to think we’d know how to act under that kind of pressure, for how could we ever live with ourselves otherwise?

But if it came to it? I really don’t know at all. And I doubt I’m the only one.

Jesus and clothing arguments

Image via Wikipedia

.

.

Older Son may be becoming a bit of a theological handful.

“Haven’t you got anything a little smarter to wear for church?” I just asked him.

“No,” he replied, “but then when did Jesus ever dress for the occasion…?

Does the Bible say miracles have to be serious?

It’s a common objection to the existence of God – “if He’s there, why doesn’t He give us a sign?”

Well, if the Gospels aren’t quite enough for you, would you care to consider the unfortunate case of the new Lord Mayor of Leicester, Colin Hall?

It’s only days ago that he made his philosophical stance perfectly clear (and in the interests of balance, I quote from the Guardian rather than the Daily Mail)…

“Councillor Colin Hall’s first move was to appoint fellow secularist campaigners as his Lady Mayoress and his chaplain. The former post went to Eleanor Davidson, who conducts humanist celebrations, and the latter to Allan Hayes, president of Leicester’s secular society. Last week Hall refused to attend the traditional cathedral service that welcomes new Lord Mayors. He had asked for the service to be more inclusive of other faiths, and of humanism; he wanted the Lady Mayoress to read a humanist text, and his chaplain to give an address. When the bishop asked to see the sermon in advance, the mayor and his secularist sidekicks pulled out.

“Hall has also announced the banning of prayers before monthly council meetings…”

Now, the Lord Mayor has more pressing concerns on his agenda, namely apologising to all and sundry after his trousers fell to his ankles when he stood to address a gathering of schoolchildren.

Mere coincidence, as I’m sure he, his Mayoress and “chaplain” would be at pains to point out.

On the other hand, this is a God whom Richard Dawkins describes as “a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Sounds like He wouldn’t think twice when it came to a pair of recalcitrant trousers.

Confused messages on Fathers’ Day

Image via Wikipedia

Having already picked up on the Holy Mother namedropping that’s crept into our services, I’m not entirely surprised to discover that our new vicar wants to be addressed as ‘Father’.

One more Church of England cleric whose love of Roman Catholicism doesn’t quite match his love of sexual intercourse.

I sometimes wonder how the real-deal ‘fathers’ on the Roman side of the schism view such Protestant wannabes.

In much the same way Britain’s regular Army traditionally views its Territorial counterparts, perhaps?

C’mon Aussie, c’mon…

Image via Wikipedia

Our Australian vicar has invited his visiting father (also a clergyman) to preach at our church later this morning.

Dream scenario: it turns into a thinly-veiled rant against imperialism, he gets his first slow handclap five minutes in and the whole exercise degenerates into wanton name-calling.

But I’m not holding my breath.

Busking the new cultural battleground

Image by Tiago Rïbeiro via Flickr

Say it ain’t so.

Older son plays his new guitar in a Birmingham high street. Favourably received in the main, he collects £18 in his equally new guitar case.

The sole conscientious objector, he tells me on the ‘phone later, is a gentleman of Arabic origin who rants at him in a foreign tongue for a few moments, shakes a fist and nods contemptuously in the direction of the lad’s musical earnings, before wandering off.

I hope he was either drunk, disturbed, or simply having a bad day.

I hope he was anything other than a glimpse of the future.