Why make the snake?

Right now I am supposed to be leaving for a conference in Bury-St-Edmunds on evangelism, but I can’t go until I’ve posted something on what is surely the biggest question in Judæo-Christian theology — not least because I’m preaching on it on Sunday night (less than 48 hours to go!).

The question is this: why did God make the snake?

I refer, of course, to Genesis 3:1, “Now the serpent was more cunning than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made.”

The first point is that the snake is a ‘beast of the field’. This itself is more extraordinary than most of us realize. In preparation for the sermon series of which Sunday night forms a part, I’ve read through John Walton’s, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament. What struck me most forcibly after reading this is that, in the context of its time, the truly, totally, amazing thing about Genesis 1 has nothing to do with ‘days’ or the duration of the creation event. It is, rather, the total absence of the gods who populated the ancient world and who drove the diverse phenomena of which it was composed, such as sun, moon, fertility and so on.

The readers of Genesis 1 would hardly have batted an eyelid over the issue that seems most to tax us — did it, or did it not, take 144 hours to make everything? (though come to think of it, that surely has a certain biblical ‘resonance’) — but would have been overwhelmed by the viewpoint that there is only one God and that everything else is a ‘thing’.

Indeed, the viewpoint of Genesis 1 seems to establish the basis on which we can treat the world as, in the proper sense, a ‘natural’ order, rather than as a disconnected, even perhaps conflicting, series of ‘divine’ manifestations.

All that is very wonderful. And it is, of course, relevant to my main question insofar as the tempter in the Garden is emphatically not a ‘divinity’. On the contrary, the snake is a creature ‘which the Lord had made’. There is, therefore, no ‘opposing force’ to the creator God, YHWH. Later in the Bible, we see that there is a force at work which is not, for us, an observable part of nature — the Satan. But Genesis 3 establishes the point, which is never in question, that the Satan poses no threat to his creator, however, much he may conspire against him and his creation.

It seems there is also a root similarity between the Hebrew for ‘serpent’ (nāchāsh), and the word for sorcerer or diviner (nāchash), which may be of some significance.

More important, though, is the similarity between the consecutives descriptions of the serpent in 3:1 as ‘cunning’ (‘ārum), and the man and the woman in 2:25 as ‘naked’ (‘arumim, pl from ‘ārom). Surely we are meant to detect a link here, which is born out by the first effect of the Fall, that the man and woman ‘see’ their nakedness and are ashamed. Might we call this, in the words of my putative sermon title, a snake’s-eye view?

But why did God do it? I am forced back on the notion of the ‘Felix Culpa’ — the ‘Blessed Sin’ which brought about God’s plans and purposes for incarnation and redemption.

Moreover, I think this challenges our easy acceptance that the world God made in Genesis 1-2 was ‘perfect’. In the biblical sense, it clearly was not — that is to say, it was not ‘complete’ or ‘finished’. Specifically, Mankind was not finished.

On the contrary, in Genesis 3:5 the serpent is able to say to the woman that if she will eat of the fruit, “you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” And in 3:22 God himself affirms that this is true, “the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.”

Now in itself this is surely a good thing. Has not God made us ‘in his image’ (Gen 1:26)? And according to Scripture, knowing good and evil is the requirement of a wise king or a mature adult.

And yet the consequence of the Fall is a world of sin and evil, pain and disease, hatred, conflict and death. Felix Culpa?

Meanwhile, I am now very late!

Revd John P Richardson
31 January 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Magna Carta, my ****!

Imagine living in a society where the details of every child, and their parents or carers, was held on a central government database which could be accessed by an unspecified range of ‘interested parties’ including, but not necessarily confined to, those working in education, health, social care and law enforcement, but also unspecified ‘voluntary organisations’.

The point of this database? The public reason is so that, should the child be 'at risk', anyone in any of these organizations can quickly know who else is working with them:

“... if a professional believes a child is at risk they may have no immediate way of knowing whether other services are already in contact with that child. The Government believes a fully operational system could save at least 5 million hours of professionals’ time, currently wasted trying to track down who else, if anyone, is helping the child.”

But no evidence is given for this belief, nor does it say whether it is per week, month, year or decade that this 570 years of non-stop work is ‘wasted’, nor does it say who these ‘professionals’ are — whether they are GPs or secretarial staff.

Every child must therefore be registered. However, if a child is in an ‘at risk’ category, “children with particular vulnerable circumstances, such as children from families on police protection schemes, or where one parent has been the victim of domestic abuse, or in certain cases where the child has been adopted,” their records will be “shielded”.

Children from secure homes and backgrounds will, however, have their full records accessible to the users.

Imagine it? You’re already in it.

John Richardson
27 January 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Just where is the Church?

Today I was briefly looking online at a paper by a certain Colin Podmore, titled The Governance of the Church of England and the Anglican Communion, to be presented at the next General Synod in February. In it we find what I consider to be the ‘institutional revisionist’ understanding now dominant in the Church of England, and it is thus worth reading the following three paragraphs in full:

2.2 ... the diocese is the fundamental unit of the Church. In England, dioceses came first historically. There were, of course, always local places of worship, but territorial parishes were formed only in the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries (between 300 and 600 years after St Augustine’s arrival in Canterbury in 597). The diocese is not an aggregation of parishes; rather, it is (in the technical sense) a ‘local church’, of which the diocesan bishop is the ‘principal minister’. It is not primarily a unit of administration but a portion of the people of God gathered around the diocesan see and its bishop. Dioceses are sub-divided into parishes. These are, of course, the most local expressions of the Church and the place in which people experience its life. In that sense they are its basic units, but the Church of England is an episcopal not a congregational church.

2.3 The Canons of the Church of England state that the diocesan bishop is ‘the chief pastor of all that are within his diocese, as well laity as clergy, and their father in God’. Bishops have a particular responsibility for apostolic teaching and doctrinal orthodoxy and are to be themselves ‘an example of righteous and godly living’. They also have responsibility for worship, with the right ‘of conducting, ordering, controlling and authorising all services’. They are ministers of unity, charged ‘to set forward and maintain quietness, love and peace among all men’ and ‘to promote peace and reconciliation in the Church and in the world and… [to] strive for the visible unity of Christ’s Church’.

2.4 Both the 1662 Ordinal and the Common Worship Ordination Services understand bishops to be the successors of the Apostles as pastors of Christ’s flock. As such, each bishop is not only a guardian of the apostolic faith but also a leader in mission (an apostle being one who is sent out), charged with ‘proclaiming the gospel of God’s kingdom and leading his people in mission.’ The diocesan bishop ‘has within his diocese jurisdiction as Ordinary, except in places and over persons exempt by law or custom’ and ‘by virtue of his office and consecration, is required to administer discipline’. Most importantly in this context, the 1662 Ordinal understands the office of bishop to be one of ‘Government in the Church of Christ’, and in the Common Worship rite those ordained bishop are told: ‘You are to govern Christ’s people in truth.’

It is the triumphant apogee of the viewpoint, exemplified by Paul Avis in his The Anglican Understanding of the Church, that,

The ‘local church’ in Anglican ecclesiology denotes ... the community of word and sacrament gathered, governed and led by the bishop. (p 77)

Thus Avis observes that when Article XIX, Of the Church, describes the the “visible Church of Christ” as “a congregation of faithful men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached and the sacraments be duly ministered”,

The Article is not primarily referring to what we understand by a worshipping congregation in a parish ... but to a ‘particular’ church, which for the English Reformers meant a national church made up of dioceses.

Hence he asserts, as does Podmore above,

For Anglican ecclesiology, the ‘congregation’ in the strict sense is the diocese. (ibid)

Regarding the Articles, however, it is an assertion that is surely hoist on Avis’s own petard of denying that the Article refers to the local congregation, for although the Articles do indeed recgonize boundaries in the universal Church, within which decisions may be made about, for example, traditions and ceremonies, these apply to the national church (Article XXIV), not to the diocese. Even though the bishop holds a recognized office, the diocese is arguably not a recognizable ecclesial unit within the Prayer Book, Ordinal and Articles for anything other than the exercise of episcopal discipline and governance.

The real problem for Avis’s argument (and for Podmore’s position) is that Article XIX refers to the visible Church, and hence to the preaching of the Word of God and the ministering of the Sacraments. Yet it is quite clear that the place where word and sacrament are made ‘visible’ is not ‘the diocese’.

Thus no diocesan bishop assembles his diocese to preach to them and administer the sacraments, and no one, asking to be shown the ‘visible church’ in accordance with Article XIX, would be content with a guided tour round the diocese which excluded actual congregations. Why, the bishop is not even master of his own cathedral! (That privilege belongs firmly to the Dean, especially within the Church of England.) Yes, he is the ‘chief pastor’, but his is not the church visible. That exists where not only common sense, but Scripture, says it exists — where the people actually gather, and physically hear the word, receive the sacraments and encourage one another to love and good works (Heb 10:25).

Of course the church does not only exist at the ‘congregational’ level. But that is where the identifying features of ‘church’ are manifested. A diocese, by contrast, is neither a “particular or National church”, nor a place where the Word of God is preached and the sacraments ministered. Those functions, as Articles XXIII demonstrates, are performed by those who are duly authorised “by men who have public authority given unto them in the congregation to call and send ministers into the Lord’s vineyard”. In the Church of England, such authorising and sending is done by the bishops. But the ministry of word and sacrament is done by those so authorised and sent, rather than the bishops, and the congregation is where they are ministering, rather than where the bishop is.

This is why it is sad that Podmore’s paper seems to overlook entirely the crucial role of the presbyter in preserving the doctrinal orthodoxy of the Church. For in the 1662 Ordinal it is not just the bishop but the priest who is charged to “banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God’s Word”.

Indeed, a comparison of the respective commitments required from bishops and priests in the Ordinal is salutory, insofar as it clearly presumes that ‘hands on’ ministry belongs to the latter, rather than the former. Thus, after asking the bishop-to-be whether he is persuaded that Scripture contains “all Doctrine required as necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ”, the Archbishop continues,

Will you then faithfully exercise yourself in the Holy Scriptures, and call upon God by prayer for the true understanding of the same; so that you may be able by them to teach and exhort with wholesome Doctrine, and to withstand and convince the gainsayers?

To which the candidate answers,

I will so do, by the help of God.

But to the priest, after the same question, he says,

Will you then give your faithful diligence always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same, according to the Commandments of God; so that you may teach the people committed to your Cure and Charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same? (emphasis added)

The bishop is indeed asked,

Are you ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away from the Church all erroneous and strange doctrine contrary to God’s Word; and both privately and openly to call upon and encourage others to the same?

The bishop is clearly meant to encourage his clergy in this task, but it is the priest who works at the coalface:

Will you be ready [as above] and to use both public and private monitions and exhortations, as well to the sick as to the whole, within your Cures, as need shall require, and occasion shall be given?

Finally, we must not forget how the architect of Reformed Anglicanism regarded the officers of the Church. For Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, priests were not officers of the bishop but of the Crown:

The ministers of God’s word under his majesty be the bishops, parsons, vicars, and such other priests as be appointed by his highness to that ministration: as for example, the bishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Duresme, the bishop of Winchester, the parson of Winwick, &c. All the said officers and ministers, as well of the one sort as of the other, be appointed, assigned, and elected in every place, by the laws and orders of kings and princes. (‘Questions and Answers Concerning the Sacraments and the Appointment and Power of Bishops and Priests’ in Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Ed J E B Cox [Cambridge: The Parker Society, 1846, reproduced by Regent College Publishing], 116, emphasis added)

We may, of course, dispute what the Archbishop said, but we cannot simply ignore it and, as it were stuff our fingers in our ears and sing loudly that the Church of England is different today. Cranmer had his reasons, and if we claim to be adherents of that ‘particular or national Church’ which he, more than any other individual, moulded into its present shape, we must understand what he was saying then, and what it means for us today.

The bishop is not the minister of the local church, because the local church is not the diocese. The bishop is indeed the chief pastor within Anglicanism. But he is also the delegator-in-chief, and it is where we find the word preached, the sacraments ministered, the people gathered and the Spirit present that we find the Church visibly and physically manifested.

Revd John P Richardson
23 January 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

How the State kept the Church of England 'moderate'

A fascinating insight into the workings of the appointment of Church of England bishops in the postwar years can be gleaned from a letter, reproduced here in the Church Times, from the then Prime Minister's Appointments Secretary to Harold MacMillan.

This was before James Callaghan introduced the changes which led to the present system of the Crown Nominations Commission, so the system itself was very different. However one suspects, on present performance, that the underlying ethos of 'moderation' and 'balance' has not changed very much at all.

Most revealing, perhaps, are the Secretary, David Stephens', remarks about Donald Coggan, then Bishop of Bradford, and widely regarded, with affection, as an evangelical Archbishop of Canterbury in his day. Stephens writes in positive terms:

The Bishop of Bradford, Donald Coggan, is much younger [than Michael Ramsey, then Archbishop of York] (51 in October) but is coming on fast, and is about the only member of the Bishops’ Bench who earns unqualified praise from all quarters.

Nevertheless, part of his thinking is the concern for balance:

He [Coggan] would make an excellent Archbishop of York, if it were decided to move Ramsey to Canterbury.

Coggan's later preferment is also contemplated at this stage:

He would also make a possible Archbishop of Canterbury if it were decided to leave Ramsey at York.

On Coggan's evangelicalism, however, Stephens has this to say:

He is too big a man to have any definitive party allegiance, and has grown from an evangelical background into a central churchman.

Nevertheless, Coggan's churchmanship is still useful:

His evangelical back ground would provide a balance to Ramsey’s tendencies in the opposite direction, and together they would be a truly representative pair of Archbishops.

Those of us with any great familiarity with the Church of England's hierarchy will groan at a scenario familiar in announcements of preferments over the years: "The new Bishop of So-and-So comes from an evangelical background ..." That may be so, but promotion to the higher echelons of the Church of England has generally been dependent on evidence that the individual in question has, in Stephens' words, "grown from" such a "background", rather than retaining "any definitive party allegiance". (It matters not, incidentally, whether Coggan was evangelical - what matters, in the case of him and others, is that he was perceived by those in charge of the process, as not being too evangelical.)

Indeed, it sometimes seems preferable to those making the appointments that no-one on the bench of bishops should have anything too "definitive" about them at all. The result, however, is that the one thing definitely promoted is liberalism, for reasons identified by the recently-deceased Richard John Neuhaus, when he wrote of 'The Unhappy Fate of Optional Orthodoxy':

When orthodoxy is optional, it is admitted under a rule of liberal tolerance that cannot help but be intolerant of talk about right and wrong, true and false. It is therefore a conditional admission, depending upon orthodoxy’s good behavior. The orthodox may be permitted to believe this or that and to do this or that as a matter of sufferance, allowing them to indulge their inclination, preference, or personal taste. But it is an intolerable violation of the etiquette by which one is tolerated if one has the effrontery to propose that this or that is normative for others.

A well-mannered church can put up with a few orthodox eccentrics, and can even take pride in being so very inclusive. “Oh, poor Johnson thinks we’re all heretics,” says the bishop, chuckling between sips of his sherry. The bishop is manifestly pleased that there is somebody, even if it is only poor old Johnson, who thinks he is so adventuresome as to be a heretic. And he is pleased with himself for keeping Johnson around to make him pleased with himself. If, however, Johnson’s views had the slightest chance of prevailing and thereby threatening the bishop’s general sense of security and well-being, well, then it would be an entirely different matter.

So it was that some church bodies muddled through for a long time with leaderships that trimmed doctrine to the dictates of academic fashion and popular prejudice (the two, more often than not, being the same) while permitting the orthodox option as a kindness to those so inclined, and as testimony to the “balance” so cherished by placeholders radically devoted to the middle way.

How true that clearly was for the 'placeholders' in the Church of England of the 1950s and 60s. But it would be foolish to imagine things are very different today. The process has moved on from the day when Crown Appointments really were appointments by the Crown. However, even though the Church itself has a much larger say in the matter, the policy towards churchmanship remains the same: Quieta non movere. Or in simpler terms, Don't rock the boat.

Revd John P Richardson

19 January 2009 

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Lancet puts 'Origin of Species' above Bible, Qur'an

For reasons I've quite forgotten I'm on the mailing list for The Lancet, which today has sent me this wonderful example of hyperbole (or bull****, depending on your viewpoint):

We are delighted to send you a link to your own copy of Darwin's Gift, a special issue published by The Lancet . Darwin's Gift celebrates the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of the most important work of non-fiction in history: On the Origin of Species.

You'll find essays about Darwin's life and work, and the enduring legacy of his remarkable theory of evolution.

These were Darwin's gifts to all of us; on the occasion of these anniversaries, this book is our gift to you.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Extracts from the Archbishop of York's speech to The Smith Institute

From the Archbishop of York's speech, here. (Some of his analysis reminds me of my own thoughts on history and memory, here [No (hi)story, No Identity.]):

The social reforms implemented by the Labour Party after the 1945 General Election, led to the creation of the Welfare State. The range of Acts including the Family Allowances Act 1945, the National Insurance Act 1946 and the National Health Service Act 1946, addressed the five giants of deprivation [Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness].

[...] For the first time, everyone was entitled to a reasonable income if they were unemployed, a proper pension, paid holidays and above all, free healthcare. If you became sick, the state would care for you. There are many countries in the world that still do not enjoy these entitlements today.

Built into these reforms was a strong conviction that the state should provide support as needed. However it was not to encourage dependency. Beveridge envisaged that workers could and should seek to improve conditions for their families.

The reforms which Tawney, Temple and Beveridge achieved in the 1940s represented the apogee of a shared 'big vision' for Britain in the last century. Intellectuals, church leaders and government agreed both on the big vision and on the ways in which it could be delivered.

It is a tragedy, to me, that we have increasingly lost this big vision.

In the following section, I will explore how it happened and what the results have been. Memory is important. For any community that loses its memory becomes senile. Memory loss has made Britain sleep-walk on streets supposedly paved with gold, but sadly littered with promissory notes whose cash value is the credit crunch and the economic downturn as well as a becoming country that is not a ease with itself.

[...]

How have we lost the big vision and how has it affected us?

[...] Increasingly we are living in a society which is ill at ease with itself. The reason for this is, I believe, because we have lost our vision of what we are about. We have also lost our confidence to develop a new vision. Why is this and why is it so serious?

Let me start with the Beveridge's reforms themselves. Some would argue that they have failed, and it has become increasingly difficult for our governments to deliver these objectives. My judgement is the opposite. I believe that Beveridge succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

Britain achieved a National Health Service which became a model for Europe and the rest of the world. The United Kingdom has provided income and support to those who are sick, unemployed or incapacitated in many other ways. And at long last we have the minimum wage. Courage is now required of all of us to turn this into a living wage. Britain has developed an educational system which provides a free and full education for all. But sadly, until recently top-up fees at universities were unheard of!

So what has gone wrong? Well, our expectations have risen exponentially as we have seen with the NHS. Also, the NHS success has meant that we are all living longer – much longer in fact. As a result, we need far more medical services and pensions. We are victims of our own success!

[...] 

We have also become a more self-absorbed society. I believe that one of the key factors which has contributed to our loss of the big vision for our country, has been the loss of the Empire. I am aware that this is a controversial view. But whilst Britain had an Empire, a large merchant navy, a large manufacturing industry and commerce, and significant numbers engaged in armed forces, and an expatriate Civil Service in the colonies, it encouraged an outward-looking perspective.

As the vision for Britain became more introspective, I believe we became more self-absorbed. Hugh Montefiore, in his Installation Sermon as the sixth Bishop of Birmingham on 4 March 1978 said that, "No-one can lead a fully human life unless he has a worthy aim in life. I sometimes fear that the people of this great country, having shed an Empire, have also lost a noble vision for their future. How can we rediscover our self-confidence and self-esteem as a nation? What do we really want for our beloved land? Man cannot live by bread alone, nor yet by cash alone. We need a nobler aim in life than an annual increase in take-home pay. [...] ....

Such worthy aims will not come from economics or from sociology, not from science or from politics, but from the Spirit of God welling up in the hearts of men." (An Installation Sermon, p.20 in 'Taking Our Past Into Our Future' Hugh Montefiore, 1978, Fount Paperbacks UK)

As the winds of change were blowing the British Empire away, the United Kingdom was rapidly becoming what has come to be termed a multi-cultural society.

It is important to see this within its historical context. Britain has always been a place of refuge to those seeking asylum and also for those seeking a new economic life here. For example, there were over 250,000 Jews living in Britain at the start of the First World War. They integrated and in the main, were accepted.

What happened after the Second World War was a different phenomenon. For the first time, significant numbers of immigrants from a non Judaeo-Christian background came to settle in the UK.

[...] migrants to Britain from the 1960s onwards have made their home with their cultural rights protected under legislation framed under a multi-cultural perspective. Consequently any sense of a shared common culture is eroded risking increasing segregation.

In all these developments, the lack of a common 'big vision' and the implications of this are becoming increasingly evident. I believe this has been characterised by over-cautious policy-formation, fear and irritation.

Since 2001, the government has tried hard to address the problems born of a multi-cultural approach through social cohesion. There have been no less than five major government reports on social cohesion since 2001. Although worthy, few have managed to fulfil their stated aims. The main reason for this is because, despite the rhetoric, governments have been reluctant to delegate real powers to local communities.

There has also been a reluctance to acknowledge the strong Judaeo-Christian heritage which has shaped our language, our laws, our education and our hard-won civil rights.

The Church of England has also lost its nerve during this period. It acted prophetically in 1985 with the publication of Faith in the City.

[...] 

This was a real and courageous witness of Christians standing up and proclaiming the value and rights of those who were weakest in our society. In many ways, it was the high point both in vision and witness by the church since the big vision of Tawney, Temple and Beveridge in 1942.

But, on facing savage attack by not only those in government but other powerful figures in society, the Church of England lost its nerve. Stung by the accusation that the Report was 'Marxist', the Church of England turned inwards and failed to maintain a big vision. It focused on pastoral and social projects, and did not pursue the other two characteristics of prophetic wisdom: speaking out what the Church believed God was calling England to become as well as speaking out on behalf of the voiceless and the unheard in the market square.

[...]

In this situation we need to be sure that that the call to 'Britishness' is not in fact a call to exclusiveness rather than inclusiveness. It is important for us to identify and celebrate the values and commitments we share rather than requiring people to 'opt into Britishness'.

The devolution of power to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is also relevant for our concept of Britishness. We will need to consider how this affects our sense of belonging and our sense of what it is to be English in the English nation.

But these recent developments are also an indication that the sense of national identity is not as dead as some people might fear, and that there is a place for the big vision. Indeed there are numerous indications that there is a return to the desire for a coherent and inclusive cultural identity, and an ethic of society.

So how do we regain a big vision for Britain? How do we regain a vision such as that which Beveridge, Tawney and Temple developed so successfully?

"For it is essential that we have a big vision for 'without a vision, the people perish' (Proverbs 29:18).

III Regaining the big vision for Britain

I think the answer lies in going back to this original vision and seeing what lessons it has to teach us. In particular, I believe that the principles that inspired William Temple are highly illuminating.

In his Christianity and the Social Order, William Temple identified three core social principles.

These were seminal and were to inspire the reforms he called for and which were largely realised in the Beveridge Report. They were:

First, Freedom: the person is primary and not the state. The first aim of social progress is to give fullest scope to personal powers of which the highest is the power to choose. Freedom therefore is the goal of politics. Power to the people.
However, it should be freedom for as well as freedom from. In other words, people are called to contribute as well as receive liberty.

Second, Social fellowship: we are social beings and belong in community. The family and local community are of paramount importance. The government must recognise the importance of voluntary groups such a churches, trade unions, etc.

Third, Service: we should continually ask ourselves, 'where can I give my best service?'

These principles give a framework in which we can begin to build up a big vision for our time. Let me show you why I believe this is the case.

[...]

I believe that reclaiming our faith heritage is central to regaining our big vision for Britain. Over the past fifty years, we have become less confident as a nation and as faith groups to talk about faith in God in public life.

Some secularists have argued that faith is declining and should therefore no longer be tolerated in public life.

The classic example of this is Alistair Campbell's intervention in the middle of Tony Blair's interview with Vanity Fair in 2003. When the interviewer asked Blair about his faith, Campbell intervened, "Is he on God? We don't do God. I'm sorry, we don't do God". This example shows the extent to which it is hard to integrate religion into public policy discussion in Britain today. However, the 2001 census figures show us that we should be less fearful of claiming our religious heritage. Religion is a core aspect of people's identity and will not be relegated to the private sphere.

Our new vision for Britain must not just be political but ethical as well. Aristotle regarded politics as 'ethics writ large'. The political arguments in Britain today about the management of the economy and public services do not seem to live up to this principle. We need to re-assess the relationship between ourselves and government.

[...]

We can go two ways today. Either we can degenerate into a more self-absorbed, more frightened, more desperate society in which it is 'dog eats dog' and each person must fend for themselves. But there is no future in this. Or we can decide to work together to build a new vision for Britain based on the recognition that we all belong, we all matter and we can all make a difference. We can all adopt as our motto that of the Scouts and Girl Guides, Duty to God, duty to the Queen, and duty to the neighbour.

I want to end with another quotation this time from one of my favourite story-tellers, Antoine de Saint-Exupéry who expresses perfectly the essence of what I have called for tonight:

If you want to build a ship
Don't herd people together to collect or buy wood
Don't summon them to prepare tools,
And don't assign them tasks and work;
But rather teach them and inspire in them a yearning for
The endless immensity of the sea

Let us all do it. Let us all do it now.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Fall of Empire and rise of multiculturalism has destroyed Britain's 'big idea'

Interesting thoughts from the Archbishop of York which don't seem to be getting wide coverage in the Christian blogosphere.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Modern Art and the death of ...

Here is another great piece by 'Theodore Dalrymple', this time on modern art:

The successful modern artist’s subject is himself, not in any genuinely self-examining way that would tell us something about the human condition, but as an ego to distinguish himself from other egos, as distinctly and noisily as he can. Like Oscar Wilde at the New York customs, he has nothing to declare but his genius: which, if he is lucky, will lead to fame and fortune. Of all the artistic disciplines nowadays, self-advertisement is by far the most important.

This is reflected in the training that art students now undergo. Rarely do they receive any formal training in (say) drawing or painting.

[...] It is true that they are sometimes taught just a little art history. I had what was for me a memorable conversation with an art student when she was my patient. She was in her second year of art school, and told me that one of the things she enjoyed most about it was art history. I asked what they taught in art history.

‘The first year,’ she said, ‘we did African art. But now in the second year we’re doing western art.’

I asked what particular aspect of western art they were doing.

‘Roy Liechtenstein.’

As satire would be impossible, so commentary would be superfluous. The task is not so much to criticise as to understand: that is to say, to understand how and why this terrible shallowness has triumphed so completely almost everywhere in the west.

I am reminded of the thesis of the late, great Hans R Rookmaker, put forward in his seminal Modern Art and the Death of a Culture, that the history of art shows us both the rise and the decline of Western civilization, at the heart of which lies the rise and decline of Protestant spirituality.

Although he eschews a spiritual analysis, Jacques Barzun also identifies a decline in the Western 'spirit', in his From Dawn to Decadence: 500 Years of Western Cultural Life.

One of the (several) tragedies of recent evangelical history is that in the 1970s some attempts were being made to integrate theology and artistic culture.  This relied, however, on what might be called a 'confident Calvinism', which on the one hand recognized that every area of life could and should be brought under God's sovereignty, but which, on the other hand, also had a very particular theological perspective.

Unsurprisingly, this has now largely ceased as some branches of evangelicalism have given up on the (Protestestant) theology and others have given up on the culture.

Perhaps there is still time for a reawakening. Personally, I have long been struck by the fact that the first result of someone being filled with the Holy Spirit in the Bible is that they are gifted with artistic endowment (Exodus 31:1-5).

A quick Google took me to this website for Christian Artists, but I wonder what happened to that earlier promise? (And also what happened to the old members of the CYFA Arts Workshop - now thereby hangs a tale!)

JPR

10 January 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Everything is more complicated than we think ...

Watching the television and reading the other British media, it is clear what the problem is in the Middle East - a ghastly attack by a powerful state on the neighbour it has itself oppressed for decades, involving a disproportionate use of force in response to 'pinprick' rocket attacks.

Well, maybe. But watch this video and recognize at least the validity of one question it raises: "Why is it OK for Muslims to kill Muslims?" Why have there been no demonstrators on the streets of London complaining about, for example, suicide bombers in Iraq who deliberately, constantly, frequently slay other Iraqis on an industrial scale? Or similar attacks in Pakistan, where if a Mosque is blown up it seems invariably to be by another Muslim?

Watch it to the end, and you may at least come away thinking there are no easy 'heroes and villains'.

Maybe I've just become a victim of 'black propaganda'. Who knows? But God only knows what the rest of this year will be like.

JPR
10 January 2008

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Godwin's Law, Israel and human hatred

I can't help noting how Godwin's Law seems to be particularly apposite in modern discussions of Israel.

The original Law, let us remind ourselves, says that "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."

Just to explain, 'Usenet' was one of the earliest internet discussion fora, and an event with a 'probability of one' is a dead-certainty. In plain English, then, the longer an internet discussion continues the more likely it is that someone will compare something (or someone) with Hitler, the Nazis, etc.

In recent public discourse about Israel, however, far from having to wait a considerable length of time, such comparisons seem to have become de rigeur.  Take these reported 'sound bites': 

“Gaza is a ghetto, in exactly the same way that the Warsaw Ghetto was, and people are trapped in it.” - Ken Livingstone

“[The Israelis] will continue to create a Warsaw Ghetto in the Middle East.” - Brian Eno

“Those murdering [the occupants of Gaza] are the equivalent of those who murdered the Jews in Warsaw in 1942.” - George Galloway

(These are from a thought-provoking article by David Aaronovitch on the whole issue of such comparisons.)

Even more worrying, given the facts of religious history, is the Pope's justice minister, Cardinal Renato Martino, apparently likening the Gaza Strip to a "big concentration camp".

Importantly, Godwin's Law does not say that such comparisons cannot be made. Nor, as is often assumed, does it suggests that anyone invoking Hitler or the Nazis has thereby lost the argument. It is certainly not inappropriate, for example, to compare a military rally to 'Nuremberg' or a policy of true and deliberate genocide (such as took place in Rwanda) to the 'Final Solution'.

The problem is, if Messrs Livingstone and Galloway indeed used terms like "exactly the same way " or "the equivalent of" they are patently wrong on points almost too numerous to list (though Aaronovitch gives it a go).

So why do they do this? (Mr Livingstone seems particularly fond of such comparisons.) It is hard to believe that they, or those using similar language, are historically unaware of the differences. They are not covert 'Holocaust Deniers' who would seriously argue that, in the end, what happened in Warsaw was really no more than what is happening in Gaza - hideously bad, perhaps, but still not part of a systematic and systemic plot to eradicate an entire people.

It is similarly hard to believe that they are self-deluded, simply not realizing their over-extended use of language.

So why is there this frequent and (moreover) narrow use of a particular hyperbole? Why not a comparison with Britain in the Boer War, for example? What drives the speaker to use the analogy? The answer may lie at several levels.

The most obvious, perhaps, identified by Aaronovitch, is the 'doing unto others as you would not wish done unto yourself' syndrome. And, particularly from a Christian point of view, there is considerable validity to this criticism. One of my memories of boyhood films and books about the Second World War is the point where the hero stops someone from mistreating a German with the words, "No! That would make us as bad as them." And one of the great lessons of history is that there is, indeed, a moral high-ground which must be maintained. (Indeed, it is this which continues to fuel unease about the role of Bomber Command in the last war.)

However, such 'high ground' cannot exist in isolation, or be appealed to in a selective fashion. In other words, morality must be part of a wider culture and not become, itself, a selective 'weapon' for bashing one side and not the other. The moral high ground can only be occupied, in the end, by those who generally occupy a moral landscape.

Another factor is the assault on what is seen as a 'victim' mentality which Israel and the Jews use to justify their actions. Yet victim mentalities are widespread and are dangerously deployed in support of all kinds of actions in ways which generally escape criticism. Islamist propaganda uses images of dead Muslim children to stir up hatred against the West generally and Israel and the Jews specifically, in just the same way as Allied propaganda did in the First and Second World Wars.

This goes back to the issue above, about a 'moral landscape'. The danger here is of falling into the fallacy of the tu quoque ('you also') argument: "You have killed our schoolchildren, and so we are justified in killing yours." A moment's thought shows, however, that if killing schoolchildren is wrong, then either it is wrong whoever does it and for whatever reason it is done, or it is only wrong in certain circumstances. The moral issue is then whether it is right deliberately to take actions which lead to the death of schoolchildren because one's own schoolchildren have been killed. But this is to get into subtleties which lie beyond most such conflicts.

One suspects, however, that the reason for the frequency of odious comparisons between Israel and Nazism is itself much more odious, and that is simply that people hate Israel viscerally, and therefore they make the comparison because they feel the same way about Israel as they do about Nazi Germany.

Of course, one may indeed hate something with good reason. Hate, like wrath, or even violence, may be the appropriate response to the appropriate object. The trouble is that in human hands (or minds), hatred is always fraught with danger. Worst of all, it feeds voraciously on our own desires, so as to prompt the worst of our words and actions. To look at a face full of hatred is to look into the heart from which come "evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly". Only those who know themselves - or rather who know that they don't know themselves - can afford to hate:

Do I not hate those who hate you, O Lord,

and abhor those who rise up against you?

I have nothing but hatred for them;

I count them my enemies.

Search me, O God, and know my heart;

test me and know my anxious thoughts.

See if there is any offensive way in me,

and lead me in the way everlasting. (Psalm 139:21-24, NIV)

For the rest of us, when we feel the thrilling intoxication of hatred rising in our chests, it is time to fall on our knees and ask God to take it from us.

Meanwhile, we must watch out for any expressions of hatred for Israel, not because the Jews are 'God's chosen', or because Zion is his 'holy hill', but because we are human beings, and human beings must never be allowed to hate easily or for very long.

Revd John P Richardson

8 January 2009

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

From the Hamas Covenant 1988

From the Hamas Covenant, The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement, 18 August 1988:

Introduction

Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it" (The Martyr, Imam Hassan al-Banna, of blessed memory).

Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and Allah's victory is realised.

Article 7

The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said:

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Moslems fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Moslems, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (evidently a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Moslem).


Peaceful Solutions, Initiatives and International Conferences:

Article Thirteen:

Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement. Abusing any part of Palestine is abuse directed against part of religion. Nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its religion. Its members have been fed on that. For the sake of hoisting the banner of Allah over their homeland they fight. "Allah will be prominent, but most people do not know."

Now and then the call goes out for the convening of an international conference to look for ways of solving the (Palestinian) question. Some accept, others reject the idea, for this or other reason, with one stipulation or more for consent to convening the conference and participating in it. Knowing the parties constituting the conference, their past and present attitudes towards Moslem problems, the Islamic Resistance Movement does not consider these conferences capable of realising the demands, restoring the rights or doing justice to the oppressed. These conferences are only ways of setting the infidels in the land of the Moslems as arbitraters. When did the infidels do justice to the believers?

"But the Jews will not be pleased with thee, neither the Christians, until thou follow their religion; say, The direction of Allah is the true direction. And verily if thou follow their desires, after the knowledge which hath been given thee, thou shalt find no patron or protector against Allah." (The Cow - verse 120).

There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors. The Palestinian people know better than to consent to having their future, rights and fate toyed with.


Article 27

with all our appreciation for The Palestinian Liberation Organization - and what it can develop into - and without belittling its role in the Arab-Israeli conflict, we are unable to exchange the present or future Islamic Palestine with the secular idea. The Islamic nature of Palestine is part of our religion and whoever takes his religion lightly is a loser.


Article 28

The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Arab countries surrounding Israel are asked to open their borders before the fighters from among the Arab and Islamic nations so that they could consolidate their efforts with those of their Moslem brethren in Palestine.

As for the other Arab and Islamic countries, they are asked to facilitate the movement of the fighters from and to it, and this is the least thing they could do.

We should not forget to remind every Moslem that when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women."

Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."


Article 32

The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road. The Movement adds its efforts to the efforts of all those who are active in the Palestinian arena. Arab and Islamic Peoples should augment by further steps on their part; Islamic groupings all over the Arab world should also do the same, since all of these are the best-equipped for the future role in the fight with the warmongering Jews.

"..and we have put enmity and hatred between them, until the day of resurrection. So often as they shall kindle a fire of war, Allah shall extinguish it; and they shall set their minds to act corruptly in the earth, but Allah loveth not the corrupt doers." (The Table - verse 64).

See also here, The Islamic Movement That Just Won't Die.

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Installing FAX Services for Windows XP

You may be finding, as I did, that you can't install the Windows Fax service on your computer, despite doing everything right via the Control Panel.

I have found a way to resolve this problem, which has worked for two machines (both mine). If you try this, you do so entirely at your own risk. I have no way of knowing whether it has affected other parts of my computers and I take no responsibility if it fries yours!

I would also mention that I found the solution via this website, so thanks and kudos to them. Notice, you will need a Windows XP disc (Professional or Home Edition didn’t seem to matter, but the reinstallation discs that came with my laptop didn't work, so I had to use the full-version disc that came with the desktop.)

I would underline the caution that I’ve since found on Microsoft’s own website. According to Microsoft, the problem is that “secedit.sdb in %windir%\security\database\ may be damaged”. So before anything else, make a backup copy of the secedit.sdb file. I didn't, so I may yet find this wasn't such a good idea!

Then this is pretty much what I did:

1. Click Start, Run, and type or copy-and-paste this into the window:

esentutl /p %windir%\security\database\secedit.sdb

2. Click OK.

3. A black ‘command window’ will open and you will also get a dire warning: “You should only run Repair on damaged or corrupted data bases. Repair will not apply information in the transaction log files to the database, and may cause information to be lost. Do you want to proceed?”

4. I didn’t know what it meant, either, but I really needed that Fax sending, so I clicked ‘Yes’. Your computer, your call!

5. Not a lot seemed to happen, but now is the time to go back to trying to reinstall the Fax Services via the Control Panel. Use 'Start', 'Add or Remove Programs' and 'Add/Remove Windows Components'. Tick the box for Fax Services and it should now install.

6. Provided a full Windows XP disc (not one of those pathetic 'reinstall' things that comes with a laptop) is loaded into the CD Rom, it seems suddenly all to work OK. I now have the Fax Services up and running on both machines and have succesfully sent a fax, so it worked for me.

7. If it works for you, post a message!

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.

Oliver Barclay, CEEC and lessons from Evangelical history

The Church of England Newspaper has published today a letter from Oliver Barclay, author of a history of English Evangelicalism, in response to an earlier article by Colin Craston, a veteran of the first NEAC Conference, deeply critical of Conservative (what Barclay prefers to call 'Classical') Evangelicals. I reproduce it below, with apologies to the CEN for nicking it, but with a link where you can subscribe to the online edition for £15 per annum here.

I think the letter neatly sums up our problems as well as being a useful bit of history.

Sir, Colin Craston (December 12) does not go back far enough in his history of the Church of England Evangelical Council (CEEC). It grew out of a situation in which evangelicals were sharply divided between the Conservative Evangelical and Liberal Evangelical wings of the evangelical movement. The liberals were numerically dominant and had their own literature and as an alternative to Keswick, their own convention at Cromer, etc. There were very few conservatives (Classical Evangelicals is a better term than conservative) in the precursor to Synod or other influential positions and varying degrees of liberal views were held by the many who thought of themselves as evangelicals. Many liberal evangelicals were warmly devotional and godly people who had been brought up in a more classical tradition. I knew some of the leaders personally from 1938.

The CEEC grew from a small private committee set by UCCF (then IVF). I was secretary and Alan Stibbs and other conservatives formed the group to try to develop a strategy to recover lost ground for the Classical tradition. When it was decided to make it a public body it separated from the interdenominational IVF and I withdrew. John Stott and Dick Lucas took over the leadership at first. There was however, before long a change of policy and in an attempt to include all those who liked to be called evangelical, they drew in a number of liberals, to the dismay of Alan Stibbs and his co-workers.

Today there is a new sizeable liberal evangelicalism, though it rarely likes the name and includes many who do not want to draw too much of a distinction between evangelical teaching and the rest of the Church of England. The standing ovation for a speech by Archbishop Runcie at NEAC showed just how things had developed. If this is the present situation it is going to be extremely difficult and probably impossible to pull all evangelicals together. If CEEC becomes another liberal evangelica organization it should look back and see what happened to the liberal evangelicalism of the 1930-50 period, when it virtually disappeared for lack of doctrinal coherence.

It was left to others to recover the classical witness with new leaders and new organizations.

Oliver Barclay
Leicester

When posting your comments please give a full name and location. Comments without this information may not be posted.