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.

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 Blair Legacy:

So we are finally released from the hold of Tony Blair... for now at least.

Looking at the positive changes his administration has brought in, we finally have the hope of lasting peace in Northern Ireland and we also have a minimum wage... on the surface at least, Britain seems to be enjoying a period of economic prosperity. We have even cast off the shadow of World War 2 debt.

Dig below the surface however... and we see all the negative changes. Prisons full to bursting and judges actually releasing convicted criminals early onto the streets, a health service that under a Labour government has found itself floundering and tied up in red tape... genuine people suffering whilst the cheats and benefits fraudsters (people who have the brains to work their way around a form... but who don't put their assets to use in work or the community), prosper more and more. Civil liberties have been attacked and depleted in the name of counter terrorism. We now live in an age of politics where substance bows and gives way to style... the soundbite reigns supreme.

Then of course we have the repercussions of Blair's foreign policies, most notably in Iraq. Britain's reputation for international fair play has been badly bruised and tarnished. Oh yes we knocked off a couple of dictators... but what have we left in their place? A wake of carnage and destruction where the blood of innocent Iraqis and Afghans is spilled and mixed with that of our own troops on a daily basis.

All this... all this and more. I argue that Blair's true legacy is like Ridley Scott's alien. We thought it was bad when he was stuck to us like a limpet... we might be forgiven for thinking we have been released from the effects of his political decisions. However, something dark and deadly gestates within this country now... it may take 20-30 years but there is a dark cloud on the horizon. It may be avoided, but the danger is real.

Blair has exacerbated the natural tribalism in the collective subconscious. His policies have polarised different groups against one another he has helped to fundamentally raise tensions between:

• The old and the young.
• Islam and Christianity.
• Theists and secularists.
• The home nations, especially Scotland and England.
• The indigenous and migrant communities.

You watch, in the first instance it'll start to go wrong when the baby boom generation (who are reaching pensionable age now), become infirm and in need of increased medical care. They are the largest age group... closely followed by the mass of children in the past 10-15 years who have been born in need of benefits (for whatever reasons). In the middle of that is my age group... the smallest age group. We are going to have to pay out on two very large fronts in about 20 years. I don't really need to go into detail between the troubles of radicalized Islam and how Christianity is currently perceived, thanks to US & UK foreign policy and the fact that Blair and Bush wear their own flavour of "Christianity" firmly on their lapels . As a direct consequence of those tensions, secularists are hopping up and down preaching the abolition of public religion, which of course is a moronic and intellectually bankrupt gesture... not to mention extremely hypocritical!

I don't really need to go on with the other issues. I think I've made my point.

We may as well have had Harold Saxon elected as Prime Minister!

Indeed what this country really does need right now IS a Doctor!

In my next blog I'll look at what my thoughts are on the Brown Government as it takes it's first steps out of the crib.

In the meantime (and trying my best to avoid being a fundamentalist Christian), I'll conclude in the words of W.B. Yeats with my concern over Blair's new role as Peace Envoy to the Middle East:

The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

The Trouble with Secularism

The other day I blogged about the curiously misunderstood relationship between politics and Christianity. Lo and behold in the week following, there has been a flurry of debate concerning the future role of Christianity in the state of Britain. It comes in the wake of an Evangelical Alliance think tank publishing their views about Prince Charles' desire to be "Defender of Faith" not just "Defender of the Faith", you can read about the story here.

So where do I stand in all this?

I want to go back to something I said in that earlier post I referred to:

Christianity is not about using political power and statutory authority to
enforce belief among non-believers. Do I believe God is calling all of humanity
to righteousness? Yes of course... but at the end of the day, every person has
to choose salvation for themselves... you can lead a horse to water but you
can't make it drink!

I'd be lying if I said I didn't want everyone in this land to know the love of Christ and accept his as their God... and I'd be disappointed if the people of this nation become stiff-necked and heart hearted and rejected God. However, if the people in their free will choose to do that... I don't believe in forcing them back by rule of law.

In fact, were Charles to get his way, I'd actually see it as an opportunity for the Church of England to get itself right before God. At the moment, because it is the state religion, the CofE has to take a broad view on many things. Due to the pressures put on it by its role as part of the state, it is not free to be what God would shape it to be. It can't be controversial.... because it has to be inclusive of every man woman and child of this nation. What is more, the higher echelons of the Church of England's infrastructure are shackled under secular authority. Every bishop or archbishop you see, is vetted by the Prime Minister... in the past I was ignorant of such things, but when Tony Blair came into power... he took the role much more seriously than other PM's. As I mentioned before, Blair's brand of Christianity appears to be a highly compromised one... which is inclusive of and contaminated by other religious philosophies. It's disturbing when somebody of that caliber starts moving his yes men into positions of authority within the church.

You may ask what right has a religion to force it's views on the state? A fair question... and you already know my answer to that. I in turn now ask you what right the state has to interfere in matters of faith and doctrine?

The strongest advocate of secularism in the UK is unsurprisingly the National Secular Society. - an organization that I have special vitriol for. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with people choosing atheism or humanism as an option... but the NSS is a different creature. In the past, it has lobbied the UN to pursue a "Freedom from Religion" policy instead of the current UN policy of "Freedom of Religion". What that basically means is that religion being a personal thing, could only be exercised in the home or a place of worship. Speaking in a public forum on religious matters would be illegal... which technically I would assume would class this blog as illegal too.

Now the National Secular Society boasts being made up of the greatest atheistic/humanistic minds of our generation... people like Professor Richard Dawkins. With all this grey matter at their disposal, I would have thought the fundamental flaw of their argument was obvious. By pressurize governments and the UN for such a proposal, they become the very monster they have accused organized religion of being. They are trying to force people to comply to their own narrow minded point of view.

Not subscribing to a religion doesn't make you objective in your arguments here... because you are still expressing a point of view. Atheism, agnosticism, and humanism are subjective. It is therefore wrong for people who follow those paths, to impose a gagging order on people who think differently. Do we really want to walk down the footpath that China and North Korea have walked along for so long? I think not. Freedom of religion works fine. The National Secular Society should learn to grow up and shut up on such issues... and put their minds towards more productive matters.

The Bible says that Faith without deeds is dead... but I would say that the same goes for Reason. If you have been gifted with intelligence, use it to benefit God (should you believe in him) and/or mankind. Don't use the talents you have been given to further a paranoid agenda.