It is Time...

I've experienced a time when I've started to notice the waters are lapping at my feet. There is no threat in this for me, I just feel that I'm entering a phase where change is afoot. I think it all started rougly after a home group meeting, where I'd spoken to a friend and highlighted some of my grievences and my own dissatisfaction both with them and my own contribution to them. To my perception t seems that some of the classic damage I've taken in the past has led me to me throwing up a few robust defecnces. Some of these are understandable. Given my past decisions and the fact it took a case of divine intervention to snap me out of it and give me the courage to break away... I'm cautious in regards to leaving myself exposed to the same weaknesses that led to my earlier downfall. However that hasn't stopped me  from throwing up my own set of "Excalibur tests" for good measure.

I think that night at home group was a way of setting the scene -  a reminder of the state of play as it has stood.

A couple of weeks later, I was due to preach om Isaiah 42, and I chose to use the paternal/maternal instincrts of the eagle as my theme. In truth this has been something that had been close to my heart for many years... and it just seemed to fit naturally to the theme (it was Trinity Sunday), In short, I portrayed the Trinity in terms of the Father being  the parental eagle watching over us, the Son being the first born eagle that has tasken flight and shows us the where to go and how  we grow to go in that direction, and the Spirit as the breeze that lifts the chick when the time is right... to give it the courage to take the step off

Things have taken an interesting turn of late. the ledge. One of the points I made to the congregation was that if we are the chick in the nest, there is no wrong in wheat place we find ourselves. We might need to see where Jesus has led us before going... we may be waiting for the Spirit to  empower us. We might feel that we have takemn a tumble and our ego is bruised... but the Father is able to pick us up and set us ready for another go when the time is right.

I didn't think too much about the implications of that last one for myself... then it happened.

An unexpected opportunity arose that on the face of things completetely terrified me. Somebody had posed me a scenario that completely blindsided me (I'm not going into detail here, as at the moment it is still live). My paranoia, mistrust and fear had kicked in and I went into automatic shutdown.

It took me a week to emerge from that state by which time it might be too late, but I wrote all my feelings down and got it out of my system - why I am the way I am and why I'm so reticent. Kind of hard to do that because nobody ever asks me about stuff like that... and maybe when I do offer a response (or perhaps because of that fact), they are just as uncomfortable about what comes out. However, I did leave my response with a positive end and the prosepect of hope.

Not long after this, I felt God was reminding me of an image from a book I'd read (Grail in Stephen Lawhead's Pendragon Cycle). In the book there is a low point where King Arthur has hit rock bottom and is in the doldrums - his sword has been stolen, his queen has been kidnapped and his trusted righthand man has apparently betrayed him. Following this scene, Merlin confronts the king and prophetically strikes the floor with his staff repeatedly and with each strike, he urges the king to shake off what drags him down and look to the state of play an, I got the feeling that God was rep0d encourages him - he needs to rise up and resolve the situation and not leave himself in this fitful sulk.

Likewise, I got the feeling that God was repeatedly striking my floor and telling me to get up and no choke myself on the past. For after all, past is merely prologue... and we are only doomed to repeat if we do not learn from it. I think maybe I've been overlearning it.

On TikTok I've recently come across a few posts with a sermon illustration about the painting "Checkmate". How the human player is in despair becasuse the devil player has seemingly won. The anecdote in  the TikToks talk is basically that the king has one last move to make and the human player is saveable.  Now I've read up on the painting and apparently the literal anecdote isn't true because its hard to tell what the pieces in it resemble on the board. However the moral is true... because the same could certainly be said of the devil's pieces. If we can't see how he's got checkmate, then I would argue his position is not a dead cert either.  I think the truth behind that painting is that it is a character study.  The man who thinks he is losing has given in to his fears and is accepting the devil at his word.  But the thing is that the devil is a confidence trickster. He doesn't have checkmate - he's never hadd checkmate, but his sole objective is to terrify you and bluff you intop thinking he has. Never remove yourself from the game - listen to God's encouragement and accept his guidance and it is never over until God says it is over.

So anyway, a week has passed since all that happened... but confronted about my own sense of checkmate... I feel like I'm clawing my way back and have got a renewed sense of positivity. Whatever happens, I've learned not to retreat and cave on the broad stroke theme of this lesson. Yes, the specific  circumstance may not pan out... I may lose another piece... but I will not allow the devil to put so much emphasis on that piece... I'm going to push on his king instead. In good time and God's grace, I have faith that the landscape will change. Whatever major pieces of lost, I have a fistful of pawns.... and they are only a step away from becoming knights, rooks, bishops and who knows, even a queen.

This morning at church we wee reading Genesis 22 - God's testing of Abraham. We were asked in the sermon what things that we might be holding onto that God might be asking us to let go of. My heart at this point was drawn to an exchange from Babylon 5... because I was thinking there wasn't much I could add to the conversation... and God was reminding me otherwise:

Marcus Cole : You asked me to give something up, Delenn. I don't have anything left. It's all gone. My brother was the last of our family and he died because of my stupidity. He warned me of the Shadows; I didn't listen. And when they came, I lost, him, our home, the colony where we'd grown up, a woman I was quite fond of. I escaped with only the clothes on my back, and went off in search of these "Rangers" that he'd been going on about. Because he believed in them, and in you. Everything I was, everything I had, all of it, died that night. I don't have anything left to give.

Delenn : Then that is exactly what you must give up. Yes, you have lost much, endured much, sacrificed greatly. But you cling to the memory of your sacrifices, of all the things you have lost or left behind. They drag behind you, like chains of your own making. They can have a terrible power over you, Marcus: the power of grief, and loss, and regret. Yes, you have let go of the people, places and things, but you have not let go of the pain. You have not forgiven yourself.

Marcus Cole : For what?

Delenn : Being alive

There it was again, God's not going to let this go... he's not going to let me go either. It's down to me to rise up from the ashes and have faith that he's going to remove the dead weight that has held me in check. All I need to do is to take courage and stand upon the rock. The only thing that stand between a vibrant pridelands filled with life and the current perceived state of affairs, is a roar!

Contact

Happy First Contact Day everybody.

In the Star Trek universe, April 5th (in the year 2063), the Vulcan race makes contact with Earth as a result of the flight of the Phoenix spacecraft flown by Zefram Cochrane:

Also if you are a fan of Babylon 5 (to your credit), you may know that the 7th April marks another first contact day for humanity - that of humans and Centauri.

Babylon 5 also celebrates a First Contact Day Around this time.

First Contact in science fiction normally represents a sea-change in the fortunes of the human race, an even that leads to a renaissance of technological and socio-political advancement... or in some cases to cataclysm.  Often it leads to humanity reaching for the stars and spreading its influence across the galaxy.  In Star Trek, it leads to the end of many of humanity's self imposed troubles and basic survival struggles.

As time goes on, fans of Star Trek commemorate the event and even here in Britain, the National Space Centre plays host to a gathering of fans who meet to celebrate (this year they are attempting to break the world record for redshirts in one place).

I can't help thinking that there's a better way to celebrate though, one that is all inclusive.  Here, today on Earth... we have yet to encounter sentient alien life and are not therefore as yet challenged or encouraged in a manner in which such a discovery would present us.  As a Christian I do believe we have had a very unique and special first contact - with God himself (something I wrote about two years ago), so I think there are other ways of looking at it.

Let's look at those famous words of dialogue from the franchise (taken from the Next Generation format):

Space, the final frontier.

These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise.

It's continuing mission: to explore strange new worlds,

to seek out new life and new civilisations,

to boldly go where no one has gone before.

While none of us have an interstellar spacecraft at our disposal, each of us is on a similar journey in life.  Our hearts, minds and souls contain the culture we carry to the outside world... and our bodies are the vessels with which we carry them to the universe outside.

So here are my suggestions/challenges for how you can celebrate First Contact Day throughout the course of this weekend in the everyday world... and stay true to the maxim of Star Trek:

1. Go to an unfamiliar place - a new pub,  a new cafe, coffee shop, place of worship, library etc or visit a new town and study the environment around you.
2. Follow some new people on Twitter or other social media... preferably someone random and not suggested by your feed.
3. In each of those places try and strike up a conversation with an unfamiliar face - make first contact.  You get bonus points if you connect with someone of a different worldview or background.

From my own Christian perspective, this is what the early church was best at - not just proselytising... but listening and observing the culture and needs of the people around it before sharing the wisdom of the Gospel message. True evangelism requires ears and heart... not just mouth. St Paul listened to the people of Athens and learnt about their shrine to an "unknown god", before proclaiming his belief in who that God was. I also believe that in a couple of verses, the Bible has its own version of the Star Trek intro:

"He said to them: ‘It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.’"

Acts 1:7-8

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Matthew 28:19-20

However you choose to spend the next couple of days, may you live long... and prosper.

• What things do you think we can do to celebrate First Contact Day?
• Are you doing anything to commemorate it?

A Right Old Ding Dong... Or Is It?

In the past 24 hours I have, like everybody else in The British Isles, been totally smothered by the news blanket surrounding the death of Lady Thatcher.

What surprised me most was how much Russell Brand's article resonated with me. Like Brand, the vast majority of my childhood was spent growing up under the shadow of Margaret Thatcher... and like Brand, childhood insulated me against much of what was going on during much of that time.  I was also far more interested and preoccupied in things like Knight Rider, The A-Team, Airwolf, Transformers and Star Fleet to really notice.  I can tell you that my tender protozoic grasp of politics in the early 80's was limited to an understanding that "The Government are the good guys because... well they are the Government, it's their job" and an absolutely morbid gut-wrenching fear that I would be called up to fight in The Falklands War if it carried on until I was 16... because all I knew of relatively modern war was limited to what I had been taught about the World Wars, at school.

However, again like Russell Brand I have grown and have developed my own ideology and political world view... and I have my own understanding of what Lady Thatcher did to and/or for this country.

None of which I really want to focus on in this post.

Instead I want to look at the way that people have reacted to her death.  Without going into detail, I'm not a massive fan of a lot of Margaret Thatcher's policies... so from a political perspective, I'm unable to deeply mourn her loss.  As much as Thatcher has become the subject of hagiography through the granting of a ceremonial funeral and an emergency recall of Parliament to pay tribute and discuss her legacy, she has equally been the subject of demonising... such is/was her divisive nature. I see images of people throwing parties... placards, graffiti and tweets calling on Thatcher to "rot in pieces" or "burn in Hell", and heard the story of how there has been an active campaign to thrust Judy Garland's "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead" to the number one position in the music charts. These are things that turn my stomach. I was raised with the old fashioned idea that you should not speak ill of the dead - De mortuis nil nisi bonum. This puts me at odds with those who believe that  sentiment is just an old superstitious throwback to the notion that the dead could somehow retain power or influence over the living, and that while the tradition is still appropriate in the presence of people we have known privately... it doesn't need to be applicable to people who have lived in the public eye and had massive impact on the lives of everyone.

I'll let you into a little secret though.  It is not superstition... but a very real truth. You don't even have to believe in an afterlife to know this either. The simple fact is: if you allow yourself to be consumed by hatred and anger for any person - even after they are gone, then they do retain power and influence over you... because they are affecting your behaviour in a negative way. There have been many people throughout history who have committed atrocities worthy of utter loathing... and it is absolutely right that when we see acts of injustice and deep political wrongdoing, we treat them with the contempt they deserve.  Yet as a Christian I personally can't see how I can justify holding those feelings for a person while maintaining a belief that such an attitude is in any way compatible with a place in the Kingdom of God. I cannot see how continual hatred for a person (however disagreeable), is reconcilable with a relationship with the God of love.

Some might argue that 1 John 4:20 tells us that this is only so with respect to those whose beliefs we share, but I would argue that the parable of the Good Samaritan shows us that actually, the love God requires us to assume and the hatred he requires us to discard... go way beyond that. After all in the time  and culture of Christ, the Samaritans were regarded with utter hostility and yet it is the mercy of the "enemy" that is the key point of the story.

In fact God even illustrates his attitude to "bad people" in the Old Testament:

"Say to them, ‘As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live. Turn! Turn from your evil ways!"

Ezekiel 33:11a

If God takes no pleasure when the wicked decline or fall... why should we? Where is our justification?

Like it or not, however monstrous her policies were and no matter how her reputation or legacy present her... Margaret Thatcher was in fact just as human as you or I... as her decline into frailty so adequately demonstrated.

Russell Brand described Thatcher's end in these terms:

"The blunt, pathetic reality today is that a little old lady has died, who in the winter of her life had to water roses alone under police supervision. If you behave like there's no such thing as society, in the end there isn't."

If anything, if we consider a person to have died under a spell of evil... they are to be pitied... not loathed. So the question I find myself asking is this: If God does not express hatred towards a person (however bad), and is calling us to walk with him in love for the unloved and unlovable... then what good does hating do to a victim, especially when the subject of their hatred is no longer around to answer to it? How do they benefit from such rage? I do not mean to say that the pain and injustice felt by the many people who lost livelihoods or loved ones is not justified. I just wish to reemphasise that point I made earlier... that if we hold on to hatred for people... and let our actions be motivated by that negativity, then it is those people who are controlling us - not ourselves... and not God.

So what are we to do when we find ourselves confronted with such feelings?

Having been watching the third season of Babylon 5 recently, I keep finding my mind drifting back to the episode Dust to Dust. In this episode G'Kar - the renegade leader of a race called the Narns, takes a drug that grants him telepathic ability temporarily.  Whilst under its influence he seeks out his nemesis - Londo Mollari, who is the representative of a race of aliens who have bombed his world back into the stone age, slaughtered millions of his people and forced many survivors into slave camps.  He has every reason to be angry... he has lost everything. Yet in his rage, he has a quite unexpected epiphany:

 

I think the lesson G'Kar learns here is very relevant to us and teaches us a better way to react to gross injustices.  Does it matter who wounded society? Who is right and who is wrong in terms of ideology? Is it not more important to recognise the needs of those who have been caught up in the wake of those ideologies and are suffering because of them? Rather than be angry and bitter to a person who cannot be changed or reasoned with.  Is it not better instead to devote that energy into something positive to help those who remain? To save by hook or by crook anyone we can?

 

What if all those people who have bought "Ding Dong The Witch is Dead", had instead bought "He Ain't Heavy, He's My Brother" by the Justice Collective? That is a song that praises the kind of selfless Good Samaritan spirit that if we all adopted in the face of oppression, would see us through many a dark hour and more than that, it raises money for a cause that recognises one of the injustices in the Thatcher era.

 

What if rather than celebrating the death of a person or hurling abuse at the mortal remains of an old, dead woman who can no longer bring either pain or joy to anyone - what if people instead decided to channel that energy into something better and brighter. To make that day the start of a knew philanthropic journey... not to moan at the perceived injustices caused by what somebody's ideology stood for... but to actually work contrary to it by being a goodwill ambassador... doing what we can, wherever we can to help others?

 

You have the opportunity here and now to choose, to become something greater and nobler and more difficult than you have been before. The universe does not offer such chances often... don't waste it on spite, use it for good. Walk the path of the Good Samaritan.

If you are short of a few ideas, you can visit this site which provides links to charities that support groups and individuals who suffered in the wake of Thatcherite policies. I don't necessarily endorse all of these charities... but I feel it important to facilitate the free choice of anybody reading who feels motivated to act in this way.

 

Militant Christianity

Today, during the ongoing trial over his murder of 77 innocent people on July 22nd last year, Anders Behring Breivik said something that one might think struck very close to the bone for people like me. Principally he said the following:

 "I am a militant Christian; to prevent the de-Christianisation of Europe is very important."

How do those of us who are Christians reconcile his radicalised statement with our own interpretation of the faith? After all, I dare say there are a few secularists out there who are rubbing their hands and nodding "knowingly" under a false assumption that this confirms what they have maintained all along.

As  far as I am concerned, the simple truth is that people like Breivik have no idea what a militant Christian actually is... and it is motives and actions such as his that threaten to de-Christianise Europe. For that matter... isn't "militant Christian" actually an oxymoron?

Well, the dictionary defines the word "militant" to mean "favouring confrontational or violent methods in support of a political or social cause". Now to the world, that usually entails destructive acts and aggression. However the Bible teaches us this to the very contrary:

 "The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."

Galatians 5:19-21

A good half of the acts listed above could be directly attributed to the behaviour exhibited by Breivik last year. In fact Jesus himself said that the behaviour we all manifest comes from our nature deep within. Good acts and thoughts come from those who have the goodness of God within them, whereas those who brood over hatred, fear and darkness exhibit actions that reflect those evils.

Having just left Holy Week behind, we have reminded ourselves of Christ's commitment to physical non violence.  Whenever a hint of physical revolt or rebellion was waved under his nose, he was quick as lightning to dismiss or defuse it:

When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, ‘Lord, should we strike with our swords?’  And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear.  But Jesus answered, ‘No more of this!’ And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.  Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders, who had come for him, ‘Am I leading a rebellion, that you have come with swords and clubs?

Luke 22:49-52 

When things were at their darkest it was not in Jesus' mind to harm his oppressors or maim and kill those who thought differently... but rather to heal and reconcile instead.

"Those who live by the sword..."
Jesus calls us to abandon  violent lives, full of hate & fear.

It occurs to me that when the spiritual chips appear to be down, the deepest truths about who and what we are tend to be revealed to the world at large. Those who are rooted in fear will attempt to wrestle control back from the universe and assert their own designs on how it should operate. Those who are rooted in love do their utmost to hold the course despite their deep anguish.

It is easy to be seduced by the paranoid rhetoric that surrounds those who oppose multiculturalism... maybe not to the same extent that it appears to have warped Anders Behring Breivik, but there are dangers for us all nonetheless. In the midst of this, we must not forget that the Early Church shared none of these fears. Christ and the early Christians lived in a multicultural society. They lived under the secular rule of an Empire that had pantheons full of foreign gods. Even in Judea the presence of Roman culture was keenly felt even while Judaism was still tolerated. If the progenitor of our faith and his earliest followers, were able to be assertive about their own beliefs in the midst of  all the competing cultures that were geographically encroaching on them, then why would we be any different? If we accept God's kingdom is not of this world then why are we so obsessed with exerting cultural control through secular power? Is this the battle we should be fighting?

Which brings me to my main and final point.... what *I* believe a militant Christian is.

I believe that militant Christians are those that hold most fiercely to the Kingdom values - Those who are aggressive in their determination to be a compassionate follower of Christ - people who love unreservedly, who forgive utterly and who trust unswervingly. We do have an enemy... one we should fight relentlessly and aggressively without surrendering, conceding or capitulating, but our enemy is not quite who or what you might think.

Who is our enemy? I think the Bible makes it abundantly clear:

^"For we are not wrestling with flesh and blood [contending only with physical opponents], but against the despotisms, against the powers, against [the master spirits who are] the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spirit forces of wickedness in the heavenly (supernatural) sphere."

Ephesians 6:11 (AMP)

Normally I use the NIV translation but I wanted to make certain there was no room for ambiguity about who the Bible identifies as the opposition. Is our enemy found in the faces of people who hold different beliefs and values?

No. Of course not.

I heard these words on Babylon 5 once and I have never forgotten them:

Every day, here and at home, we are warned about the enemy. But who is the enemy? Is it the alien? Well, we are all alien to one another. Is it the one who believes differently than we do? No, oh no, my friends. The enemy is fear. The enemy is ignorance. The enemy is the one who tells you that you must hate that which is different. Because, in the end, that hate will turn on you. And that same hate will destroy you.

Our enemy is fear, hatred and the spiritual forces that cultivate these destructive forces. We don't need to hate people and we mustn't hate them, no matter how different or alien they appear to be.  As much as the Bible tells us who our enemy is, it goes to even greater lengths to remind us of who our neighbour is... and who we should love, even if they don't deserve it.

So if there is a militant Christianity... where do we find it?

To that end, I leave you with this final thought:

Militant Christianity is not found on the blood stained sword; it is found on the tear stained cheek.

ABC... Easy as 1 2 3?

After reading about the Church of England's decision to allow open online consultation over the appointment of the next Archbishop of Canterbury, and having read reactions from Vicky Beeching and the tongue-in-cheek folks at Ship of Fools, I felt inspired to write up my own "unique" look at some unusual alternative candidates who it might be worth considering.

Who Will succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury?

If you are a regular follower of my blog... I think you know what to expect. A poll will follow at the end, which I would be honoured if you would please vote on... and remember it is just for fun. :)

Candidate 1: Gandalf the White (The Lord of the Rings)

As you are probably aware, throughout his tenure as existing Archbishop of Canterbury (and possibly even prior to this), Rowan Williams picked up the affectionate nickname of Gandalf. I even joked a few weeks ago that after his resignation, Rowan would return to the role as Rowan the White. However let us consider for a moment the possibility that the ACTUAL Gandalf inherited the role of Primate. Having one of Tolkien's Istari on board, would come in extremely handy. Apart from demonstrating powerful magical abilities, effective combat against the forces of evil and dispensing wisdom to the the peoples of Middle Earth, as Archbishop Gandalf would guarantee a world beating display of New Year fireworks along the Thames during his tenure. Oh and he already has a handy stick.

Candidate 2: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Star Wars)

If beards are your thing and you want an alternative to Gandalf, why not choose old Ben? In an illustrious career only slightly marred by one pastoral failure with an apprentice (although... true, it did lead to the subsequent near extinction of his order), Ben Kenobi would be a great choice for a Church of England seeking to reach out to a generation yearning for action and purpose, that feels forgotten and trapped in a bleak environment. Furthermore if anything nasty should befall him, he'll just return with an eerie blue glow and hand out even more inspirational advice to the Anglican Communion.

Candidate 3: Ambassador Kosh Naranek (Babylon 5)

Perhaps an outside choice in science fiction circles, Kosh might just prove to be an important bridge between a church that is sometimes perceived as distant and disconnected from society. The Vorlons faced similar accusations (Kosh himself didn't help by implying they took no interest in the affairs of others), however to the very contrary they had a finger in every single pie and were very involved in the affairs of others. The Vorlons in general were bastions of order... but Kosh demonstrated a genuine care and compassion for the aliens he encountered that was unique. It is true that half the things he said would confuse even the best cryptic crossword solver, but you can't doubt his motives or his achievements.... and although shy and retiring... when he comes out of his shell his actions can be perceived to be angelic.  However... be very wary of the guy who follows after him.

Candidate 4: Spock (Star Trek)

Spock would surely have to be the logical choice.  Although half human and capable of emotion, his unswerving devotion to the merits of logic would ensure that personal feeling would not compromise any theological debates. Also... let's not forget that Spock himself has a certain level of insight into the meaning of great personal sacrifice and resurrection which are surely invaluable. However, it should be noted that whilst logic and theology have their place and might endear him to some traditionalists, a lack of emotion might equally isolate him from charismatics and liberals... and this should be borne in mind.

Candidate 5: The Doctor (Doctor Who)

"It's a mitre. I wear a mitre now. Mitres are cool!" He's defended the planet Earth from hostile forces an innumerable amount of times, he has gone face to face with demons and even the Devil himself. Having been compared to a god on several occasions, could the beloved time-travelling wild old man of the universe have a realistic role in shaping the Anglican Church of the future? It is certainly true that Christians should be like the TARDIS (living lives that are bigger on the inside than on the outside), however churches should definitely be the other way round - bigger on the outside (in the community), than on the inside (within its walls). The Doctor would probably take issue with forms of worship that didn't get congregations to think about and engage with what they believed in... he'd be very much against anything that lulled people into what he perceived as a mindless conforming pattern like the Cybermen. However The Doctor would be excellent at travelling across the entire length and breadth of the Church of England with his TARDIS (only missing important appointments by a couple of years every now and then), and he could offer something unique that other candidates could not - a personal pilgrimage to see events from the Bible as they happened. Some might question whether a Time Lord who is difficult to tie down in any place and time is fit for permanent office, but let's not forget he held the Presidency of the High Council of Gallifrey for a time.

So there are my amusing alternatives. Please do vote and if you have any other alternatives or serious suggestions, please do get in touch and comment below... I'd love to hear what you have to say...

Who Should Be The Next Archbishop of Canterbury?

Community

I've been doing some thinking with regard to various things and want to revisit my previous post on the topic of the recent riots. As I mentioned before, I do see them as a symptom of something far larger... an inconvenient truth that is being swept under the carpet because it presents us with something ugly that we ALL need to deal with.

It was very interesting to see the different responses of Tony Blair and David Cameron with regard to their perception of the social problems at the heart of the issue.  Cameron put it like this:

"The greed and thuggery we saw during the riots did not come out of nowhere," he said. "There are deep problems in our society that have been growing for a long time: a decline in responsibility, a rise in selfishness, a growing sense that individual rights come before anything else."

However Blair countered this by stating Britain, as a whole, is not in the grip of some general "moral decline"and that:

"The big cause is the group of young, alienated, disaffected youth who are outside the social mainstream and who live in a culture at odds with any canons of proper behaviour. And here's where I don't agree with much of the commentary. In my experience, they are an absolutely specific problem that requires deeply specific solutions."

In my own view, there is truth in both their perspectives... just not the complete truth. I do believe we have witnessed a moral decline in our society... but I think it is wrong to put this down merely to a blurring of the borders between right and wrong. I believe it is down to a shift in perspective of who matters. Western society has become decadent... and as we are increasingly dazzled by the sights and sounds of this material world, the still small voice of calm that speaks of mutual dependency and connectedness can get drowned out.

It is interesting how materialism actively encourages us to gravitate away from "us" and more towards "me". Just look at the products out there and how they have become named in such a manner as to glorify the self:

iTunes, iPlayer, iPad, iPod, iTeddy, iDog, iPoo (yes... there apparently really IS an app for that... ugh!), i Robot (well.. maybe one day, we can hope), and the Independent's sister newspaper simply called "i".

Everything it seems is i... i... i... or actually... is it really "ME! ME! ME!"?  

It is at this point that I rather sheepishly look at the header of my own blog and ask myself if I am enthusiastically hurling stones whilst standing in a glass house. I don't think, but do call me on it if you disagree.

Community means looking beyond ourselves... together.

Yes, there has been a rise in selfishness... but I believe it is wrong for us to lay the blame solely at the door of disaffected youth. Is it not true that bankers and rogue traders have demonstrated a selfishness unique to them... one that led to the economic crisis we find ourselves in now? Is it not also true that the MPs guilty of misusing expenses for personal gain were also guilty? Or what of the energy firms who continue to push up prices regardless of the damage it causes to people who can scarcely afford to keep themselves warm in the winter months. Or how about greedy property tycoons who allow for house prices to inflate to such a level that only a select few can afford to live in them... and then they wonder why there is a crash because people can't reconcile their finances with the amount the property prices have risen to. The tendrils of self centredness creep in to every part of society and try to choke each one of us into turning away from the importance of community. Some are more affected than others, but make no mistake... it crouches at the door of all of us and we must do what we can to reject it or at least keep it in check.

When treating an illness, a doctor may prescribe more than one medication. One kind will deal with the root cause of the illness... whilst the other will act as symptom relief. It occurs to me then, that we too must do something to treat the wounds of our society. The problem of disaffected youth is a symptom problem and not a root problem. As Blair suggests, it does require a specific solution... but any work done to resolve it will be undone within less than a generation, if we do not at the same time treat the pandemic.

We've seen part of the bigger solution in the way many people have rallied to clean up, repair, restore and help victims in the wake of the riots... but it needs to go beyond this.

Community needs to be more than reactive. Community needs to be proactive.

We need to look beyond our cliquey little cells and our ivory towers and mingle. We talk about disaffected people or uncultured people, or irresponsible people... but how can anyone learn a culture unless someone shares it with them? How can someone belong... if others are not daring enough to go out there and invite... not from afar but shoulder to shoulder?  I know what it is like to stand on the outside looking in... and I'm ashamed to say that I know this from a Christian perspective. If *I* feel that way and am part of the family of Christ, I can only imagine how someone who has no connection to the Church feel when all they see is a closed door.

One of the things I hate about modern politics is how it has become more and more about focus groups - looking at the specific wants and needs of particular groups and currying favour with them in order to gain power. I think this is counter productive; if we value any part of society over another... it breeds isolation and disaffection and groups with very different aims or attitudes begin to come into conflict.

Community must rise above this, it must be so much more than this. We need to draw the threads back together and learn that our actions have consequences for everyone else and not just a select few people who we meet regularly.

Community... it's a big word... isn't it? As it should be. If we truly value it, we must stop thinking in terms of our private universes. It is not enough just to think of yourself and/or your spouse and/or your children. Yes... these things demand time and maintenance but I put it to you that by robbing others of your own input in their lives, you in turn rob yourself of the help that can come from them in return.

Christ summarised the Law in two concepts - loving God above all and loving your neighbour as yourself. The apostle John went on to say that anyone who loves God but mistreats his brother man, is a liar. Now in the Old Testament, God gave his people a hard time through the prophet Malachi. He cautioned them that the difficulties they experienced were because they were not giving him what they owed him... but that if they changed their hearts and fulfilled their obligations, he would pour forth his blessing in amazing ways.

In a way, I want to draw all the points in that last paragraph together. Those of us who call ourselves Christians do our best to try and live in a way that pleases God, we try to give him the worship, the love, the time and resources befitting of a relationship with him. However... if we do that and don't invest time, resources and love in our brother man - our community, isn't that counter-productive? As much as Malachi's people robbed God directly... are we not doing the same indirectly when we neglect to benefit the lives of those around us?

One can be the loneliest number... and yet when we learn to use that number in the right context it is the least loneliest. The spirit of true community means understanding that we are all one... not just in times of crisis, but all the time.

We are one.

All Alone in the Night?

Haven't blogged for a while, so I'd catch up by bringing you up to speed with my most recent actions.

If you are a regular reader, you may recall that back in 2009 I decided to change my meditation for Maundy Thursday. I did it as a response to having been to the Mount of Olives and concluding that perhaps the best place to get a feel for what happened back in the Garden of Gethsemane (if such a thing as at all possible - I believe we can only get a glimpse at best), I took my time of meditation into the wild... and sat on a hill overlooking the town.

Alas, last year I was unable to repeat the experience due to torrential rain. So this year - armed with the promise of a good weather (and what glorious weather it is), I resolved to return. I was especially nervous this year because the last time I went to the hill (last Autumn), there was a ridiculously oversized aggressive looking bull grazing there. As I reached the bridleway that led to the hill, my torch failed... so aside from the limited light afforded by the torch utility on my iPhone Sonic Screwdriver App... I was walking by faith, not by sight.

So many emotions ran through my head as I sat at the foot of the daffodil cross in the dead of night. There was the fear of being discovered by a surly farmer wondering what I was doing... or shish kebabed by an even surlier bull. I even had thoughts of bandits or rogues jumping out from the treeline. Or worse... LARPers.

That's the thing about the dark... isn't it? It amplifies everything... especially the negative. every sound you hear could be something coming to eat you... or worse. It gives you a great sense of being surrounded by threats and being devoid of support... alone.

That gives you some idea of some of the thoughts going through Jesus' head as his disciples lay sleeping in the background... as the wind blew, the tree branches clacked together ominously... and as the faint glow of torches and conspiratorial voices in the distance drew ominously nearer.

For him the threats were very real... as events on Good Friday proved.

Emotions are often one of the most stalwart and trustworthy allies in our human arsenal... they give us an impression of how we should respond to the world around us... and yet at times, they can quite easily be at odds with the facts.

Jesus above all people, knew that he was not alone in the garden. He prayed to his Father... who he shared a unique relationship with.... and yet from his words to his disciples, it's clear that he felt very much alone.

I find that very reassuring.

There are times when all of us feel alone... even if we know God... it can seem very much like we are fighting our battles alone. If the Son of God struggled with emotions like that, then we can be sure that the Father does not frown on us too hard when we find ourselves feeling that way.

The only thing he asks of us is that we are honest and give our emotions and struggles over to him.  If you look at the Gospel... that's exactly what Jesus did. How often though, do we cling tightly to our struggles? We become so obsessed with our battles and so proud about acknowledging they way we feel, that we neglect our greatest ally. Sometimes will not remove our circumstances... just as he did not remove "the cup" for Jesus (in the case of the former it's because we are not the centre of the universe, in the case of the latter it was because God esteemed humanity to be so precious to Him... that he deemed the suffering of his son as mandatory). Even if our circumstances are not changed though... we have the promise of God's presence and support in our lives and I don't think that is something we should dismiss as a consolation prize.

Another thing I've been doing of late, is rewatching Babylon 5. About a week or so ago I was in the latter end of Season 1. It was then that I hit upon the idea of trying to get to the season 3 episode "Passing Through Gethsemane" by Maundy Thursday... as the importance placed on events in the garden... are a central theme to the episode.

At one point the character of Brother Edward (played by Brad Dourif), is asked what is at the core of his beliefs. This is his answer:

"On the night before our Lord was crucified, he spent the night alone in the garden of Gethsemane and he knew that they were going to come for him and in a moment of weakness he asked if this cup could pass from him if he could be spared the pain and death that would come with morning; and of course the cup would not pass and the soldiers would come to Gethsemane; but he did not have to be there when they arrived. He could have chosen to leave... to postpone the inevitable for a few hours or even days. He knew what would happen but he chose to stay, to sacrifice himself and thus atone for the sins of others. A very fragile, human moment... and I've often thought about that night and I honestly don't know if I would have had the courage to have stayed."

Again it reinforces the loneliness and anguish experienced by Christ in Gethsemane... it also underlines his absolute resolve in completing his mission... the redemption of humanity. At the same time it challenges us about the level of our own convictions. When everything is called into question, when the cost is high and spiritual, emotional or even physical adversity loom over us... are we prepared to stand by our beliefs?

Brother Edward later discovers that he has a hidden past... he was once a serial killer who had been mind wiped for his crimes.... years later as an utterly benign and humble monk, he is forced to discover this truth when the relatives of his victims seek him out for revenge. Edward finds himself in a similar scenario to Christ... and following his example. He too, chooses to remain:

I find this scene extremely moving... especially the sincerity and compassion offered to Edward from Brother Theo (played by Louis Turenne), such is its impact on me that I actually well up with tears.

In his dying moments, Edward is filled with fear. Is there enough forgiveness for him... given what he has done? Theo reassures him that there is and administers the last rites.

If you ever find yourself asking yourself if there is enough forgiveness available to what you have done... then be assured the same is true for you. God's forgiveness is not based on a numeric accumulation of the wrongs you have done offset against Christ's sacrifice. It is dependent on only two things: Christ's sacrifice once for all, itself... and your genuine desire to repent of what you have done.

It doesn't matter what you have done. As long as you are willing to turn away from it with contrition, salvation and forgiveness are yours.

The final words Jesus chose to utter as he died on the cross are all about completion. Jesus effectively says it's done, over; the debt is paid, the law is satisfied.  From the minutest misdemeanor to the most grievous violation... everything is covered.

So my message to you today is simply this. If you genuinely seek forgiveness... it's there for you. Grab it with both hands and embrace it with all your heart.

Men and Superman

About the same time that I was having my positive epiphany last week, I had the fortune to have another -perhaps slightly apocryphal but no less valid one.

I caught a rumour on the wind that implied that JMS (Joe Straczynski of Babylon 5 fame... bust most of you knew that already and if you didn't where have you been?), was signing on with DC Comics to write for Superman and wonder Woman.

I've been deeply impressed with JMS' storytelling abilities... initially (or so I thought) through Babylon 5, but also from an early age as it seems he had a big hand in an old cartoon I loved as a kid (Jayce and the Wheeled Warriors).

Lately he's been turning his attention to comic book writing. As you will know through my blogging on the topic... I greatly appreciated the direction he was taking Spider-Man through story lines like "The Other", and I connected with them on a spiritual level. I was greatly upset when Joe Quesada decided to essentially remould Spider-Man in his own image.... and especially in the manner in which it was done. Notably Straczynski had his name left off the issue that rang in those changes.

He then moved onto Thor (I've only just got the first two graphic novels... yes I don't buy comics, I have to at least pretend I'm mature and get them in graphic novel format), it seems apparent to me that he is using Thor's mythos to explore similar themes - rebirth and claiming your real heritage... and it has me hooked.

Anyway back to that rumour; upon checking it out, I stumbled across an article entitled No Limits, written by JMS himself. I've provided a link to the main article but for the purposes of this article, I'll repost some of it here:

One of my very earliest memories as a child is of watching one of the Superman cartoons created by Max Fleischer. In particular, a scene where Superman puts his cape around Lois Lane to protect her from an incoming tide of molten metal. I imprinted on that image like a baby duck, and a lot of what I laughingly call my personality was formed in that moment (which is why a cel-recreation of that image is one of the first things you see upon entering my home, before you get to the row of wall after wall covered with artwork by Alex Ross, Curt Swan and others, as well as just about every bit of Superman memorabilia ever produced).

As a kid growing up in the mean streets of New Jersey, Superman was an icon for me. It was a tough life: we moved about 21 times in my first 17 years, we didn’t have much money, and every day was a struggle. When I told grown-ups that I was going to be a writer someday, nobody listened, nobody thought I had a chance, because as far as teachers were concerned, kids like me who came from nowhere and nothing were dead-enders, destined to end up working at the gas station at best or in jail at worst. Writers were supposed to be Ivory Tower guys with leather patches on the elbows of their smoking jackets, who went to the right schools and came from the right families. I lived in the world of No, a place populated by bullies and street fights and tenements, with no possibility of escape.

But Superman…see, Superman could do anything. If there was some place he didn’t want to be, he could just fly away. And he couldn’t be hurt, which to a kid who got beat up pretty regularly in fights and elsewhere was a pretty attractive idea. Superman taught me the morals and ethics I draw up on to this day: to play fair, not to lie, and to be willing to put yourself between harm and those you care about.

If Superman could do anything, then maybe I had a chance. Maybe I could become a writer. Maybe I could even learn to fly. That symbol, the S, became a badge for me, and growing up I always made sure I had it somewhere on me, like a shaman’s charm. That may sound silly, and from a grown-up perspective it probably is silly, but as Henry Kissinger once said, it has the added benefit of being true. And it helped me get through the hard times, which is why I continue that practice to this day…right now it’s on a key-chain in my pocket.

For me, and I suspect for a lot of people, that symbol stands for the belief in our own potentiality, in what we think we can do, and try, and aspire to. I was watching the news recently, and they were showing Palestinian protests, followed by a story on the night life scene in LA, and later on, a live report from London about something or other…and in the background of each of those stories there was somebody wearing a Superman t-shirt or cap. It’s universal.

And there’s a reason for that, a secret no one knows, but I’ll tell you, because of how long I’ve known you, and our longstanding friendship.

And the secret is this:

The Superman symbol is Kryptonian for No Limits.

And whether or not you speak Kryptonian (or Kryptonese), you know that…you know that deep inside, where even the cynicism of the world cannot reach.

I’ve told this story before in other places, so at risk of being redundant…back a few years ago, I was at the Chicago Comic Con when a guy in his 20s grabbed a bunch of expensive stuff off a table in the dealer’s room and made a run for it. The owner ran after him down the aisle, yelling “stop him!” As he came in my direction, everybody parted like the Red Sea.

I brought him down like a gazelle, and we held him untnil the police showed up.
Afterward, one of the con organizers said to me, “Why’d you do that? He’s a big guy, you could’ve gotten hurt.”

And I pointed to where I’d been standing when it happened: right in front of a ten-foot-tall cut-out of Superman. “How could I stand in front of that, in front of him,” I said, “and do nothing?”

On a personal level, JMS pretty much sums up verbatim who I think Superman is and what he as an archetype represents. I also resonated with the words. You see... I haven't had a rough background... but for my own reasons, I too have lived in the world of No. And the description of others as coming from Ivory Towers? Again, that's been where I've been dwelling for the past couple of months in terms of the attitudes I have held towards my peers. They are in their Ivory Towers, and I have been just trying to keep it together in the hope that I can build something myself someday (but God forbid  it should ever take the form of an Ivory Tower).

Do you know something? I once received a dog tag with a Superman symbol on it... and I used to wear it round my neck until a couple of months ago.... but upon reading that article, and upon having that profound experience last week... that tag now adorns my neck once more.

Faith manages... and hope survives... against all odds.

I want to finish by turning my attention to something JMS said about Superman that I think is very relevant for Christians. Many of us wear badges or articles that identify us with our faith... but how many of us live up to those ideals while holding those badges up?

JMS recounts how he took down a petty thief and when asked why he took such a risk, his answer was simple:

“How could I stand in front of that, in front of him,” I said, “and do nothing?”

Shouldn't that be OUR action and OUR response when we are acting as Christ's ambassadors? No I'm not saying we should all go out and physically confront shoplifters  (although... that said...). I'm saying that if we are going to go around with our WWJD bracelets on our wrists, our ICTHUS fish in our cars and crucifixes around our necks... we had better start living up to the ideals that those articles identify us with!

How can WE stand in front of HIM,  in front of JESUS and do nothing?

Scripture is pretty clear that we need to live fruitful lives that demonstrate love to our neighbours and even our enemies. Scripture tells us that the measure we use will be used on us... and that whatever we do to the least of our brethren... we do it to Jesus himself.

Isn't this a wake up call? And if it isn't... shouldn't it be?

Let's live up to what we have already attained... in order that others may have a shot at grasping it for themselves.

Peace and blessings to you all

N

The Inconvenience of Truth

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to the subject of truth, hard truth and nothing but the potent driving force of truth.

A few of my friends are going through personal struggles at the moment, struggles which I am acutely aware revolve around them needing to face something about themselves that they are uncomfortable with.

Much as we may admire the validity of truth, even it's necessity... equally we find we are uncomfortable with the concept.

Truth by it's very nature leaves us naked and cold, beneath the gaze of the watching world. In the book of Genesis, it's the realisation of literal nakedness, that drives man to first hide from God...

... and he's been running like a madman ever since.

I have some friends I used to know at church. They went to university and never came back. However, when I or other people from our shared background try to add them as friends to something as trivial as Facebook, they universally ignore us. I truly believe they are so afraid that we will hit them with the belief mallet, that they run a mile.

I find that sad.

I've always tried to accept people where they in their lives... even if their path leads them somewhere I am not comfortable with. It's their choice, their life... and they must do as they see fit.

I truly believe that such people are afraid... not so much of the people they used to know, but more about the fact that in revisiting the past, they have to ask hard questions about where they are now.Faced with that decision, it's sometimes easy to see why people prefer to hide in the dark... underneath the duvet.

And on a much more serious note...

For those of you who are not aware, today is Holocaust Memorial Day... it is a day when the need for truth is great. We live in an age where evil men, men who in an attempt to justify their vile politics and beliefs, seek to deny or cover up the deeds of their political ancestors. "The Holocaust didn't happen!" is their battle cry... or often they are more subtle and merely try to play down the figures...

... but how can you play down astronomical figures that reach well into the millions?

Think about that for a second and don't look at it as if it's merely another number... millions!

That's all your family... gone.

All your friends... gone.

All your neighbours... gone.

The simple truth is that too many people were cruelly snatched away from this life for it to be so casually dismissed as it is by some. Heck - even if it were just one person, that would be one person too much... nobody deserves to live and eventually die like that... nobody.

People who committed such atrocities and those who seek to deny them, adopt such a position because deep down they know how so very wrong their dark ideologies are. They have to harden their hearts and blind themselves to it... because that is the only way they can justify themselves.

Jesus once commented on the human habit of hiding from the truth:

"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."

John 3:19-21

Some of that is a bit heavy... and some of it seems nonsensical. Are all men wilfully evil, are we to be lumped in with those who approve of genocide? Well no, Jesus isn't saying we all go round looking for innocent children to butcher, he's saying that we are all corrupted by our human nature, broken by it... and under it's and influence. It's our sinfulness that wants to hide... you've all heard of the mythical "11th" commandment- don't get caught out. Make no mistake. though.. whether our sins are as despicable as genocide or typically menial (as most people's probably are by comparison); the final fate of a life spent outside of the grace of God, is the same... death.

We must all face the truth... we must all face up to what we have done. However... there is hope.

Facing the truth is not so much about facing up to what you have done. Truth is about facing him.

Real truth is a person:

Jesus said "I am the way and the truth and the life".

He also said that if we followed him (in his strength), that we would know the truth and the truth would set us free.

Knowing Jesus is freedom.

But what of truly evil men who repent? You know... the ones who turn to God after a life of despicable acts? What does Jesus mean when he says that it may be plainly seen that what these people have done has been done through God? Does he mean that all the evil that men do, is fuelled by God?

No.

What he means, is that when these people turn around from their wickedness and turn away from their vile acts, it is God who enabled them to do it.

All that is required on our part, is that we turn to Jesus and look at him. If we constantly look at what we have done, we get dragged down into the miry clay. If we fix our gaze on him, his love compels us to rise out of the pit. We have to let him look at the depths of our heart... and understand that no matter what we have done, we are not beyond salvation. The only thing that will not be forgiven is our unwillingness to be forgiven... our stubborn refusal to accept his grace.

In the Babylon 5 episode, The Very Long Night of Londo Mollari, the titular character has a near fatal heart attack and whilst unconscious goes through an arduous epiphany. He stubbornly refuses to face what he's done to the character of G'Kar, only two words are required of him. Two genuine, heartfelt words that will set him free from his perilous condition...

"I'm sorry"

That is merely a picture... but it is the same. All we need to do in order to be saved, is take the courage to look at Jesus - let him know how genuinely sorry we are for our broken ways, and he will transform us with his love.

There's an old worship song that comes to mind... and I think I'll part with it's words for now, leaving it as a meditation for you to contemplate.... whoever you are and whatever you've done:

God of grace, I turn my face
To You, I cannot hide
My nakedness, my shame, my guilt
Are all before Your eyes

Strivings and all anguished dreams
In rags lie at my feet
And only grace provides the way
For me to stand complete

And Your grace clothes me in righteousness
And Your mercy covers me in love
Your life adorns and beautifies
I stand complete in You

© 1990 Sovereign Lifestyle Music

UnBEARable

I've been following the news with regard to the plight of Gillian Gibbons, with some interest this week.

It is utter madness.

I understand that in Islamic law, it is wrong to portray anything as Mohamed; we've been through that episode in Europe last year with the furore concerning the Mohamed cartoons. I recall commenting at the time that the principle difference between Jesus and Mohamed over personal slander, was that Jesus endured it... whilst Mohamed legislated against it (in my view, to preserve his public image).

We could talk theology here... but what is the point? The root of this argument is less about theology and more about the nature of children. Reports suggest that Ms Gibbons merely facilitated the discussion about what to name the "offending" teddy bear; the children drew their own conclusions.

The children no doubt chose to name the teddy after character they were familiar with... and why not? After all, we live in a culture where the name Mohamed is charting in the top flight of name choices; for a child, theology doesn't even enter their minds over such things.

Furthermore, Sudan is possibly one of the last places on Earth that could claim to be in a position to make moral life and death judgements. They need to get their own house in order and make sure the Darfur conflict is fully resolved before making such assumptions collectively as a people.

This kind of news story gets me riled because it plays directly into the radical secularists hands. I'm talking about the kind of people who practically come out in hives when you mention the words "religion","faith", "God" or even "spirituality". Yes... a lot of bad has been done in the name of God... but that is not a reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Godly people have been a force for positive change throughout history.

People might be reading this and saying "but if they said it about Jesus, you'd be the same".

No I wouldn't.

As I have stated before... Jesus did not legislate to protect himself, he came to endure the scorn of men... and redeem them despite it:

"He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering. Like one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed."

Isaiah 53:3-5

Jesus wasn't concerned with how men perceived him because he knew who he was and his Father - God, affirmed it publicly.

I am utterly convinced that Jesus reaction would be completely different, because he understands the hearts, minds and souls of little children:

"Then people brought little children to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them. But the disciples rebuked them. Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." When he had placed his hands on them, he went on from there."

Matthew 19:13-15

"He called a little child, whom he placed among them. And he said: "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever takes a humble place—becoming like this child—is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever welcomes one such child in my name welcomes me."

Matthew 18:2-5

Jesus would never call for the death of someone over such a thing... he even said blasphemy against him (the Son), would be forgiven (not that it's an excuse for us to partake in it). T conclude on a lighter note, I'll say that the harshest thing he'd do would probably be something along the lines of what Captain Sheridan did when confronted with a similar situation in Babylon 5:

Space the offending teddy... and not a human being for pities sake!

The Battle for Science Fiction's Soul

I promised the other day that I would respond to an article I had read recently in TV Zone magazine (issue #216).

The item (entitled "Deep Thought"), was written by John Binns. He posed the question "Why are Science Fiction series so obsessed with mystical themes such as destiny?"


By looking at an array of television shows including Heroes, Lost, Battlestar Galactica, Babylon 5, Doctor Who and Quantum Leap - from his own subjective viewpoint, he voiced concern that some science fiction programmes were playing fast and loose with evolutionary theory and by misunderstanding what evolution means... were threatening to let religion in through the back door.

Binns suggests that:

"the prosaic truth of natural selection is that the only choice that matters to a gene sequence is whether the individual who carries it decides to have children; everything else, at least as far as evolution is concerned, is irrelevant."

He even went as far in his criticism of modern science fiction, as to say that:

"Doctor Who has joined a cultural pantheon that understands so little of the concept of evolution that it might as well be an act of God after all"

Binns has made the classic mistake of believing that evolutionary theory is the exclusive property of atheism.

It really isn't.

I have many Christian friends who have a genuine and passionate relationship with God and yet are prepared to consider that Genesis is allegorical. There are many reputable scientists who feel the same way - too many to list. They believe in evolution as part of God's creative process... and so do not subscribe to the view that Binns expresses.

I could turn this post into an exploration of the various different ways that Christians choose to understand the created order... and there are several - contrary to the popular misnomer, not every Christian is a literal 6 day believer. However, I am writing this as a response to an attack on fiction not fact... and so now is not the time.

Binns also writes about the ideas of God, religion and fate working their way into science fiction:

"What's worrying about this trend is not just that it has persisted and made it into the mainstream, but that it has blended with a general ignorance about what evolution means, threatening to let religion in to popular culture by the back door."

Binns is clearly imposing his subjective view on us in this article. I stress once again, that there is no singular view on "what evolution means". Scientifically minded atheists are entitle to their views. However as I have pointed out before when being critical of Richard Dawkins, their views are not sacrosanct by any means. Their views when it comes to "why", are equally subjective... and we do well to be cautious of them when they preach their own flavour of fundamentalism.

The right to "freedom of religion" (inclusive of atheism, humanism and agnosticism), must not be superseded by "freedom from religion". The former is inclusive, the latter exclusive.

Science fiction writers should be absolutely free to express any theistic or atheistic viewpoint they desire. Lets remember that roughly only 16% of people don't subscribe to a theistic belief of some nature, so it is wrong that only 16% of people get a say in what input goes into popular culture. Religion and faith in themselves are not a threat and should not be seen as something to keep out of popular culture. If it were the case, most of my blog posts would never exist... because I frequently reference popular culture, so did the apostle Paul for that matter(but there the comparison ends).

Besides, even if you could eradicate purposeful theistic parallels, the ideas and principles are so saturated into the collective psyche that religious allegory, ideology, iconography and imagery would continue to influence created works.

It should be noted that J. Michael Straczynski, creator of Babylon 5 is actually an atheist. However he does not seek to impose his atheism on his audience. He accepts that religion plays an important role in peoples lives - and often plays on it (remaining assertive with his atheism but never aggressive). Here is a sequence from the first season episode The Parliament of Dreams:

Note that the first in line is an atheist. It is beautiful sequence is it not? Staczynski is objective, he holds his creative microscope up to religion and he is equally favourable and critical towards it. I believe that is a good attitude to have towards writing.

Returning to Binns who concludes in his article:

"In other words there's nothing wrong with a few outlandish non scientific ideas in the dramas we watch; the only thing to be careful of is when they're masquerading as something else. And when a drama presents itself as knowledgeable about something as important as evolution, we should be able to expect not a bundle of pseudo-religious ideas masquerading as science, but something more like the real thing."

In conclusion, I would like to encourage John Binns to take some time out to become knowledgeable about something as important as other people's beliefs... and how they interact and co-exist with scientific theory. Science is not equipped to make bold philosophical and ideological statements in itself, it is not designed to... and the last time a political organisation decided to hijack scientific theory (oddly enough evolution), for it's purposes; millions of people ended up in furnaces. Faith and reason both have their role to play and we should not be afraid of embracing either. Science fiction should continue to flourish in a carnival of religious and scientific diversity.