A New Year Prayer

I know it's early, but some of you will have beds to go to (or will see this tomorrow): Regardless, I trust, hope and pray that you and yours will have a most blessed, peaceful and joy-filled New Year.

(Click on the image to see it full-size if it's too small).

Wars and rumours of wars . . .

 . .  do not be alarmed!

Well that's what it says in my Bible (Matthew twenty-four, verse six: 'You will hear of wars and rumours of wars, but do not be alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.') and I have to assume that it is a worthwhile thing to keep in mind as this morning I am finding so many prophets of doom predicting a 'firm and robust' American response to Russian boots on the soil of Ukraine. The reservists in that nation are being mobilised and this act of unwarranted aggression by Putin, who has gone from Sochi good guy to clown overnight (always was I fear), needs to be (and will be) dealt with politically.

To my colleagues who are writing that this is 'something spiritual' all I can say is 'Duh, really?'

There are always differences and conflicts and the way forward is by politics to do what politics does best rather than look to soldiers settling the dispute in the way that they do (which is politics backed by physical engagement as a last resort). As we move towards the end of our presence in Afghanistan the last thing we need is a new engagement!



Please pray

Please read more than one account of the situation and be informed when praying and intelligent when talking to God and those around you.

The only thing holy in war is the Bible that is used to pray over the dead - speak, pray, preach and be prepared (as the very last resort) to fight for peace.

Child Soldiers and the British Army

I have to say that I am rather sad to hear today that 'The Church' is violently opposed to the British Army recruiting 16yr olds into it on the grounds that we oppose 'Child Soldiers'.

The reality is that an organisation 'Child Soldiers International' (CSI) has sent a letter to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) protesting about sixteen year olds joining the Army. There are many reports and interviews flying around and people wittering on about the Army 'no longer routinely deploying children into conflict,' and some are even claiming that we are, 'No better than those in Central Africa,' when it comes to child soldiers.

But I have to say the signatories of the CSI document don't speak for me and here's why:

1. I have seen more lives changed for the better than the worse by recruiting younger men.

I've seen kids escape lifestyles and environments that would have potentially seen them criminalised, impirsoned, abused and even dead. Their time in the army changed who they were and made them different men, and better citizens.

2. The youngest death in conflict I know of was that of a soldier depyoed days after his 18th birthday and the reality is that any death, conflict or otherwise, is a tragedy and the clichéd 'doing what they loved' doesn't make it any difference. Raising the entry age to 20 or 21 as some suggest is an interesting suggestion - does this mean that there is a lesser wrong or sadness in a KIA situation fir those who are older? Of course not - all emotive tosh I'm afraid for ALL deaths in conflict are awful and tragic.

(And there are so many who already misunderstand Remembrance and foolishly talk about glorifying war and the like - this is part of the same ignorance and spin).

3. I would rather see the less than a thousand youngster who join up each year being taught a trade and receiving education in a military setting than sitting around as NEETs and getting into trouble with the law and the community in which they live. Raise the age to 20/21 and we'd be able to restrict our I take because of their criminal records perhaps?

4. The ability to join the army rather than be conscripted or coerced is something that seems to be being overlooked (or perhaps ignored) here. Those who join tend to do so because they want to join  -  I've met some where the family 'encouraged' them and whilst some left after a brief stay - as many found they liked their new family and stayed to see out a significant career.

So here we are - using the te minute rule - my internal dialogue and my external views if asked today.

I would rather see youngsters come, find the Values and Standards of the British Army (which are life changing) and get some education and opportunities to get fit and test themselves (in our family that's what Air Cadets and the Duke of Edinburgh's Award provide) in a variety of settings.

And if you really care about Child Soldiers - February 12 is 'Red Hand Day'

Be vocal then.

Pax

Science and Faith: poles apart?

Well, perhaps not, for there are many quotes which both challenge and settle my belief that my science and technology backgrounds are comfortably found in bed with the issues of faith and belief. Here are four (of many) voices from the scientific world (and one from Richard Dawkins, source of the meme):

Astronomer Fred Hoyle:
A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

Cosmologist Carl Sagan, has this to say:
'Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognise our place in an immensity of light-years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual...The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.'

It's not rocket science, but if it were then who else should we turn to for a comment but Wernher Von Braun (probably THE rocket scientist);
'I find it as difficult to understand a scientist who does not acknowledge the presence of a superior rationality behind the existence of the universe as it is to comprehend a theologian who would deny the advances of science.'

Physicist Nevill Mott, helps us further with the words:
'Science can have a purifying effect on religion, freeing it from beliefs of a pre-scientific age and helping us to a truer conception of God. At the same time, I am far from believing that science will ever give us the answers to all our questions.'

And for a bit of light relief, Richard Dawkins, being under the influence of evolutionary enlightenment is driven by his memes to tell us:
'A delusion is something that people believe in despite a total lack of evidence.'

After the other quotes it's good to have the views of someone who is a recognised authority when it comes to faith, science and delusional thinking, isn't it?

Happy Friday

New Atheists - different from the old?

Whilst I am hoping to find some people who will state their cases and explain what they think their position is called and what it believes (or perhaps doesn't), one of the conversations I have had this week was from a someone who was a devotee of Dawkins. They used the man's name repeatedly and spoke of the 'irrational beliefs' and 'delusions' of the 'religious'. They (note: it was them, not me!!) sneered at the philosophical emptiness of the old style atheists, putting them down as merely playing at being atheists.

New atheists, my companion said, 'Weren't interested in conversation but were, 'concerned with ridding the world of the religious faith groups and bringing about a new world order through social, political and educational means. 'We need to teach our kids that there's only us and that the God thing merely brings separation and causes wars, famine and poverty.' 

It is obvious that somewhere in the mix is something fuelled by the actions of fundamentalist believers and the twin towers for they, and other acts of violence, all featured in the conversation. It was also obvious that whilst we might be able to find some commonality between those who consider themselves to be new atheists, there are also very many differences (and for me one of these is that many of those who appeared to embrace it were very much of the red top tabloid variety!).

This is not meant as a put down but as a reference to the simplistic and unquestioning acceptance of some who fail to examine or challenge those whom they quote;  and the manner in which the adoption of the 'blame culture' tactics whereby all the world's ill can be laid at the door of a few groups:
those who have,
the politicians, and
the believers

(Interestingly what appears to the common element in all three is 'God' (really - don't see that but perhaps I wouldn't).

So who are the patriarchs of the new atheist movement ('old atheists' have Russell, Huxley and the like)?

Well, to name but a few there are: Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Robert Park and many other major and minor prophets besides. What is interesting is that I don't see any clear thinkers in terms of philosophy or logic and there's a 'scientific' element (real and pseudo) behind everything which makes me think that perhaps we'd be better off relabelling 'new atheist' as 'enlightenment or renaissance II' (the first being 'if we can understand it we can control it', the second being 'if we use science we can deny it'?).

As the conversation progressed I was told that: 'The old atheists merely appear content to deny the existence of God and consider all the arguments, proofs and statements regarding God as ultimately false - and having thought thus, God disappears in a puff of logic! Not so the new brigade who want more. Their faith in science puts paid to the old faith in God.'

Another interesting observation in the conversation was the view: That just as Christianity trumped the pagan beliefs so too has scientificism (is that really a word?) trumped faith. This is a new world order: one that will see an end to famine, war and inequality for science can be the measure by which justice and order are made real and, 'Science is the only real way of knowing – everything else is just superstitious nonsense'

So perhaps I'm getting a clearer picture of what new atheism is (well in one person's view anyway) in that it is the new Messiah, 'Truth', that will lead us into understanding, knowledge and freedom from the cancer of faith and the multiplicity of gods that call for our attention, obeisance and defence in battle when deemed necessary (For as I was told: 'Remember the crusades and the inquisition, the result of religion!').

'Without faith, we will be better as well as wiser. Conflict is a result of misunderstanding, of which Faith is the paradigm.' (I think this is a paraphrase of Hitchens or Dawkins - can't find the direct quote so would lean towards Dawkins - clarification most welcome).

A nicer way of explaining away wars and conflicts (note I didn't say ALL) and selling the new atheism as the panacea to all ills and the vanquishing force against the evils of faith and religion (I see faith and religion as different things but others appear to see them as synonymous and interchangeable - What is certain is that the intended interpretation is that without 'faith' we will be well, peaceful and of one accord).

What concerns me is that I can see within the conversation that some think a faith in a lack of faith might lead to a new (atheist) world order. I think I'd rather have a faith-based, moral and ethical society (for there is much of that in the faith communities) rather than a function or scientific one!
Perhaps I am unsettled by the hints of things past that made me think we were looking to revisit the past with this striving for the utopic future it promises.

But that might just be me.

Twenty minutes of banging the keyboard, drinking tea and eating toast complete - over to you.

Pax

ps. I have modified this post to show where the comments were from my companion and the underlined segment is intended to show the ownership of the comments relating to the old order of atheism.

Thanks

What colour are you? (When Christians collide)

One of the most unsettling and destabilising elements that one can encounter is that of being 'taken out' by those who were previously thought of as being on the same side as you. This act of fratricide, also known as 'blue on blue' (blue being the colour designation for 'friendly forces'), is more likely to be the result of incompetence or error rather than an act of betrayal.

There is also the act of being taken out by those whom one assumed to be neutral (the colour designation for this being green) which gives rise to the 'green on blue' definition we hear from time to time when we find members of our forces being killed by those who we perceived not to be our enemies..

In conflict situations the colours are simple to understand:

Red = Enemy forces,
Blue = Friendly forces,
Green = Neutral forces, 
Yellow = unknown forces

One of the saddest elements I encounter in the area of 'church' is the 'blue on blue' situation where those who are (supposedly) on the same side actively engage in damaging another of their number.

This might manifest in a bit of internecine back-biting (sometimes theological or perhaps more commonly because of perceived threats) and sometimes in a bit of sneering (the 'looking down the nose that the OT speaks so poorly of) and spin. One of the most common instances I encounter is that where an issue crops up and a position is stated with the suffice, 'Not like them . . .'!

We all know that 'a house divided against itself cannot stand (Matt 12) and yet I'm ashamed to sat that I find many of us failing to engage in promoting unity; for we'd rather look to our own little kingdom than live for the Kingdom of God. Perhaps we need to remember that the zealot (who lives for his own cause and kingdom) cries out that,  'Those who aren't for us are against us,' whilst those who seek to build the Kingdom of God acknowledge that, 'Those who aren't against us are for us!'

The only line that needs to exist is that which separates sinful from righteous and when we find sin we act to help those caught up in it to cross that line and act rightly. We might not always agree on matters of choice or theology, liturgy or musicianship but these should never be show-stoppers and should never result in us damaging, or being damaged by, other believers.

And even when we've got that sorted, there will still be the odd 'Negligent discharge' (what we call it when someone fires off a round accidentally) that takes someone out - we have all fired those verbal bullets that result in others on the same side of us being wounded I'm sure.

But perhaps before we plan, plot or speak out we should consider the issue and let our response be guided by that wonderfully effective (and yet often also trite) question:

What Would Jesus Do?

I expect flak from those people who are coloured red and understand the fact that those in green, neutrals, are sometimes merely people who haven't made up their mind that they oppose me - But when when I see someone who is blue I don't expect to have to defend myself against them and neither should they. When I, or they, are in the wrong I would hope that what we find is 'gentle' correction and support - for we all fall, fail and stumble.

My prayer is that when we do it doesn't become a 'blue on blue'  or turn those who are green into a nice red colour!

Pax

Vicars using bad words in church!

It is a very sad fact to admit but I am meeting more and more church leaders who live in fear of their membership. The walk on egg shells and regard their life as one that, like Damocles, has a sword hanging above it.

They preach that which they know will avoid the four 'C's of church life (Conflict, Controversy, Criticism and Catastrophe which come together to form another 'C' - Crisis!

There are those who know that the very mention of yet another 'C' word - Commitment will cause a shuffling of feet and eyes that avoid making contact with the speaker. "They come to the services they choose to attend and think I should be grateful," moaned one frustrated (and looking for another job) cleric. The problem was that those who moaned the most about lack of opportunity to lead and 'be in charge' (BIC) of things for the BIC gene is one of the most prevalent genetic problems that Church finds itself plagued by. There are so many who suffer from it and yet, when given the opportunity fail to turn up when they should or complete the task they have taken on.

A different cleric explained how there was a spoken desire to see the numbers attending church grow among the church council but when asked who was willing to get involved in new ventures all gave their excuses for not being involved. When they started one of the projects on the list the attendance was phenomenal - almost all the church turned out. But sadly, as this was an evangelistic venture it was hoped that some from outside the church family might also be there. But there were none.

A month later and the leader, along with many others who had been at the first evening, failed to appear and when telephoned after the thing had ended explained that they'd had a hard week and hadn't had time to do anything and so decided not to come! The silly Vicar told the would be leader that that was unacceptable at many levels and used that terrible 'commitment' word! The result  and the of this was that at the next PCC, resignations from both council and the church were given and the project ceased and the church became divided (and diminished).

For many of us, it seems that talking about that idyllic state of 'Church Growth' is what keeps the punters happy. Well it does as long as it doesn't call upon people to actually be 'Committed' and get out and do. This is reflected in the number of churches that I happen across where the evening service has ceded to 'Simply Come Dowton to the Antiques Fair' television programmes. "They don't come to the evening services because they are in conflict with television, or as in the case of one church I happened across, the local pub's 'Prize Quiz Night!'.

So, to cut a long blog short here's the beginning of a list of words to avoid and the way to use them should you really have to (add your own to the comments - they're always useful):

Commitment - something that we wish to see in others

Evangelism - something that we bring an 'evangelist' in to do

Giving - Something that we wish other people would do

Attending - Something that applies to others because you're here!

Pax

Kim-Jong-Dead

No longer Ki,-Jong-Ill, that star of Team America has finally loosed his mortal coil and passed over the reigns (sic) to his son, Kim-Jong-Un (let's hope he's going to be a good 'Un).

Whilst so many of us might wonder what this has to do with us, the potential for a show of force from the new leader (or perhaps more so the military might who may make him a puppet) with nuclear or missile tests and other silliness might just spill over into something to take up the reins from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Seems that there is a need to pray for peace, wisdom and stability in what is, potentially, something quite worrying.

Pax