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?

Not All Differences Should Be Tolerated

Normally it's an arrogance to assume your own culture is superior to that of another.

However there are exceptions.

I should explain...

Recently I've been giving thought to the recent tragic death of Gayle Williams - a charity worker who was based in Afghanistan. The Taleban took her life because they believed she was spreading Christianity.

Militants have been targeting Christians in the country for some time, but what makes this especially tragic is that they are so blind to the good in others (probably wilfully blind), that they can't see beyond their hatred of what is different.

It doesn't matter that Serve Afghanistan is committed to helping disabled people in Afghan communities... all they could see was that this lady was different because of her beliefs... and for some crazed reason... that was justifiable enough reason in their sight to kill.

And that ladies and gentlemen is why I believe in this respect, our culture IS superior. We would not tolerate the killing of anyone on the basis of their belief... we find the very idea disgusting. We have seen what racial/cultural intolerance can do when left unchecked... how many millions died in the last century because of the ideals of a few insane people? These thoughts are not far from us as we prepare to commemorate the price paid to rid the western world of such tyranny, over 60 years ago.

Some people say we have no right sharing our differences with others in their own country and should respect the local culture without trying to impact upon it... yes, there is a valid point there... to a certain extent.

Except for one thing - nobody has a right to restrict an idea or a philosophy by an imaginary line around a patch of land. Every human being has the right to decide to believe as they will... it's not something that governments or militias should have any say in whatsoever.

I have a friend who is currently doing aid work in another south-east Asian country, and she lives under the shadow of being exposed to these potential dangers every day. So naturally this is a concern for me.

Some countries such as North Korea even take unspeakably revolting steps to prevent access to positions of faith that differ to that of the State... or punish their own people for daring to believe differently... and this is unacceptable.

It's a far cry from the kind of comfy world that we in the West are used to, where our governments responses to other cultures is to accommodate and assimilate (sometimes at the expense of what we might perceive our own heritage to be).

Personally I think everyone on the planet should be allowed to propagate their own beliefs and opinions so long as they don't conduct a "negative campaign", that is to say... adopt the tactic of attacking another person's culture. I certainly don't think the Early Church did that. I believe it's primary tactic was to emphasise the merits of living in Christ.

I know some may be reading this and thinking that those who are "foolish" enough to subscribe to a belief system can't complain when someone with a strong disagreement comes along with an objection... and to them I say, take the log out of your own eye - that's your own prejudice telling you that...and the sooner you wise up to it, the better off you'll be. This isn't something that is restricted to religion, faith and belief.

How many things - be they sublime or ridiculous, are people prepared to hurt or kill others over?

One of the darker aspects of human nature, is that when we are gathered in sufficient number, there is a temptation to view the smaller different groups with disdain, disgust and even hostility.

But we are better than this... we don't have to accept this stupid animalistic side to our natures... we are something better and nobler - all of us... and if half the world needs waking up to that, maybe that's something we need to look at.

But not through the crosshairs of a weapons periscope, or down the barrel of a gun.

Am I a "Cultural Polytheist"?

I have a confession to make.

As a child, I started to develop an interest in the myths and legends of the the ancient world - Greek, Roman and Norse. I used to love the stories. So I wonder... am I actually a cultural polytheist?

It should be pointed out that my love of these stories has not really shaped any of my mainstream beliefs. OK, so I have an outlandish theory that the ancient myths might in some way be related to the passage in Genesis that refers to the Nephilim... but I certainly don't believe in the pantheon of false gods from ancient polytheism.

For the record I don't consider myself a cultural polytheist, nor I am certain did C.S. Lewis or Tolkien (despite their great love of mythology), and neither did St. Paul (who actually quoted a few Greek hymns and altered their meanings... applying them to Christ). These people were all immersed in diverse cultures that they drew inspiration from. For Lewis and Tolkien, that was looking at how mythology worked as a precursor for the Gospel message. For St. Paul, it was assimilating the culture to make the Gospel more accessible to a wider audience.

Going back further into antiquity; in the Old Testament we have characters like Daniel who refused to even pay lip service when asked to worship a statue of Nebuchadnezzar. This resulted in him infamously being sent as a snack for the king's pet lions (a fate Daniel escaped by virtue of divine intervention). Why did he feel the need to do this? He could have just pretended... he knew that it was all nonsense, surely it didn't matter whether he feigned worship, for nobody would know. However Daniel wasn't built like that; as far as he was concerned, he would know and God would know... and that was enough for him. Whether you agree with that point of view or not, you seriously have to respect the man for sticking to his principles when the personal cost could have been the ultimate one.

However, lets not beat about the bush any longer. This article is not about whether I consider myself a "cultural polytheist"at all; in fact I'd laugh you out of the room if you suggested it. I consider it a pretentious label, with no real meaning. I am of course really referring to Richard Dawkin's recent assertion that he in fact is a "cultural christian".

He claims his willingness to sing Christmas carols is evidence of this... but that just makes him hypocritical in my book. If you don't believe the words you are singing... then you shouldn't be singing them. If you don't believe the sentiments and words of a prayer or creed, then you should not utter it. It is a dangerous game because words really do have power.

I have told you on record of the times I have altered a praise song's lyrics, or not sung a hymn because I disagree with the theology in them. If I don't believe something or agree with it... pretending isn't really an option.

Furthermore he claims that he does not want to stop Christian traditions. This must come as a massive disappointment to the National Secular Society (which he is an honorary associate of).

For they claim:

"Religion should be a matter of private conscience, for the home and place of worship; it must not have privileged input into the political arena where history shows it to bring conflict and injustice."

So that's carol singing out the window then.

Not that I'm knocking Dawkin's claims. If he does not want to slap a ban on evangelism, that's fine by me. That's where the imbalance is you see... the most ardent secularists want to be able to peddle their views openly without allowing religions to have the same footing. If secularists want an open forum for their views, that's fine... but true free speech demands that they demonstrate the same level of respect to theists.

Lets examine that quote from the National Secular Society again.

Do they really claim that history has demonstrated that religion has nothing positive to offer in the political arena? Really?

How about Abolition? That's a pretty big hole in the argument... and what about racial civil rights? William Wilberforce and Martin Luther King must be spinning in their graves at that ridiculous assertion. Christianity was championing civil rights long before the National Secular Society came along and started stealing fire.

I would argue that in fact, it is neither religion, belief (two different things) or secularism that cause harm in themselves. I would say that the weight of history demonstrates that it is in fact the human condition. You can call it what you want... but I call it the sinful nature.

I don't think a person can really claim to be merely a "cultural christian". Ok, sometimes a man may have doubts about just where he is in the spectrum of faith... but when it all boils down to it, you are either a Christian or you are not. Christianity is not about mere religious practice. In truth it should surpass all this.

Christ came to transform us, that we may no longer conform to the sinful nature - the human condition:

"Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will."

Romans 12:2

He came to set us free from the very things that bind us to our willingness to hurt others. "Cultural Christianity" if it exists at all, is not equipped to do that, for it does not provide access to God - the source of all goodness. That is something only Jesus could do... and through Jesus we can be filled with the Holy Spirit, who equips us with the power and freedom to obey the Father.

Christmas is a good time to ponder where you are with regard to God. If you consider yourself a "cultural christian", I strongly encourage you to consider these words from Isaiah:

"The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honour me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is made up only of rules taught by men."

Isaiah 29:13

Is that you? Do you follow God by singing songs and saying words that you don't really engage with? I'm not saying you should abandon using those forms of worship... but I am saying that you should examine the words you are saying with your heart.

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.

Pride & Prejudice

On the news this morning, the presenters were talking about a new film adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice". I can't believe it; this must be the umpteenth time in recent years, that this particular book has been adapted for TV/Film.

I'm not a great fan of Jane Austen literature, its not that I don't like a romantic story... I just don't like the setting. I dislike English culture from Georgian through to Edwardian times... the people were far too repressed. The language was wrong, the clothes were wrong... everything was just plain wrong. Those people needed soul! Generally, cultures seem to start descending downhill when the men start wearing tights! I think the rot probably started with the Norman invasion, prior to that the Celts and Saxons had been pretty passionate about their art, music and beliefs. After that with the aristocracies taking over... everything became about control.

Anyway, watching this news triggered an odd debate between me and my father (at 8:25am is an odd time for these things to happen).

It started with me moaning about the film and asking why it was so popular that it could be done to death again and again without people noticing. Dad believes that it is because the plot deals with the rights and wrongs of people living in a "have/have not" society, the poor being denied anything be it jobs or relationships... simply because of their station in life, which is always relevant to any audience.

That took us on to Hurricane Katrina, and how all the rich people got out... but the poorer ethnic communities by and large were the ones left behind to suffer; be they black, Cajun, Latino or native.

Then we hopped on to church matters. Dad pointed out that there are people in his church who are on a mission committee, but that they spend a lot of their time making contacts with people who are wealthy, using it as an excuse for hob-nobbing. Dad sees that as hypocritical as they are what he calls the "church, church" the people who make out that they are the most devout and yet they talk to the popular cliques, rather than reaching out to people who have no-one. When the money from that clique dries up... they move on to the next bunch.

I then spoke of my disgruntlement with the church. How I saw our diocese as being highly Pharisaical and corrupt. The Archbishop of Canterbury has urged Anglicans to "think global, act local". How can we do this, when the diocese keeps ratcheting up the parish share every year, it is THEY who are spending money doing the global stuff. We have to pay more and more to them... leaving practically nothing for community work or outreach in our own areas. If that wasn't bad enough, a year has passed and they still haven't appointed a new vicar... and yet they still insist on taking full payment for clergy personnel! Meanwhile, John and Trish are forced to provide constant leadership, which is an unfair burden for them. Hopefully as time goes on, more of us will be able to help them.

Proverbs 30:15 says the leech has two daughters, "Give! Give!" they cry. how is it any different with these people? I sincerely pray God convicts the General Synod and every diocese, I am getting so upset about it i am preparing to write an assertive letter to the higher echelons of church leadership. It's time the Anglican church got back to basics - early church basics.

After all this it was 8:40am and I had to scoot fast, as I had work.