Regarding Christians and politics, a really super question that has been posed is:
"Is it better to back an honest athiest, who has the integrity to admit he is not a man of faith, or a man who says he is a Christian, because he thinks he ought to, but doesn't back the words up with any action."
This is a question that really brings many of the political issues into close focus and highlights many issues for the Christian, especially when it comes to having a vote that support the right things and the right people.
There are a number of issues by which people seek to define 'Christian' and these bleed over from Church (universal) into the political scene. Some examples:
I meet many Christians who support abortion and meet others who would regard this as a non-Christian stance and would therefore deny the Christian status of the first group.
I meet many who support homosexuality as a lifestyle seeing Civil partnerships and 'gay marriage' and having the view that fidelity not sex is all that matters when it comes to relationships. Those holding the opposing views see the first group as liberal and effectively flawed or even non-Christians.
I meet many who support euthanasia and 'assisted dying' and yet, again, there are many who would doubt the Christian reality of these people.
The list is endless and the views are more diverse than the polarised extremes given above and, of course, the combinations of views mean that there are more combinations and permutations of view than there are people to hold them. To vote for a 'Christian' Party might be a salve and even a source of (self?) righteous political outworking but what if that vote is impotent and leads to the election of one who will do things that are contrary to God's commands?
In Isaiah chapter forty-five we find Cyrus, the King of Persia, being referred to as God's 'anointed'. Regarding this (and the other four Persian kings too I presume?) the comment has been made, "I think we have to say, better a wise atheist than a stupid Christian."
Now there's a challenge to me. Is it black and white or must we engage with the grey areas too?
Friday, 14 May 2010
Bomber Command Memorial
I see that Bomber Command is to (at last) have a memorial to the memory of the 55,573 aircrew and members of its ranks. This is right and fitting and although some bleeding hearts will doubtless complain that this honours people who acted wrongly - this is merely a demonstration of the paucity of something in them I fear.
The reality is that these young men gave their lives to a cause they believed in and, even when they did not agree with the means, obeyed the orders they were given and took to the air.
All that remains now is that those who served in Bomber Command need to be recognised for their service and awarded the medal they rightly deserve. It's not a making right of things that would be considered wrong in terms of the modern understanding of proportionality, humanity and the like (if you want to know more - look up Laws of Armed Conflict in the internet) but a recognition that they served, as did all who were engaged in the 1939 - 1939 conflict, and gave their lives to doing what was asked of them. An average operational life experience of six weeks meant that every take-off was a game of Russian Roulette - and yet, because of their courage, commitment and determination, they continued to fly. This needs to be recognised for what it is.
I might add that the day after I have done the funeral service of a member of the Pathfinder force, Archie Anson DFC, that the stories of missions flown, crashes survived and Prisoner of War experiences (including the 'long march') only seek to convince me further that the award of a medal should be made.
Take a look at the memorial on the BBC site.
I leave you with the words of Councillor Alastair Moss, chairman of Westminster City Council's planning applications sub committee:
"This new landmark for London is a fitting tribute to the heroes of Bomber Command who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. It is a sign of this country's gratitude to these exceptional people who were brave enough to fight for us and it will stand as an iconic London monument marking how good came to triumph over evil for many generations to come."
The reality is that these young men gave their lives to a cause they believed in and, even when they did not agree with the means, obeyed the orders they were given and took to the air.
All that remains now is that those who served in Bomber Command need to be recognised for their service and awarded the medal they rightly deserve. It's not a making right of things that would be considered wrong in terms of the modern understanding of proportionality, humanity and the like (if you want to know more - look up Laws of Armed Conflict in the internet) but a recognition that they served, as did all who were engaged in the 1939 - 1939 conflict, and gave their lives to doing what was asked of them. An average operational life experience of six weeks meant that every take-off was a game of Russian Roulette - and yet, because of their courage, commitment and determination, they continued to fly. This needs to be recognised for what it is.
I might add that the day after I have done the funeral service of a member of the Pathfinder force, Archie Anson DFC, that the stories of missions flown, crashes survived and Prisoner of War experiences (including the 'long march') only seek to convince me further that the award of a medal should be made.
Take a look at the memorial on the BBC site.
I leave you with the words of Councillor Alastair Moss, chairman of Westminster City Council's planning applications sub committee:
"This new landmark for London is a fitting tribute to the heroes of Bomber Command who made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom. It is a sign of this country's gratitude to these exceptional people who were brave enough to fight for us and it will stand as an iconic London monument marking how good came to triumph over evil for many generations to come."
Thursday, 13 May 2010
Caption Contest - 10
Well my life is pretty much in order (Thank You God), but my study isn't.
I won't tell you some of the comments that others have made of my ordered temporal reality, you can have a go yourself:
Enjoy!
I won't tell you some of the comments that others have made of my ordered temporal reality, you can have a go yourself:
Enjoy!
Wednesday, 12 May 2010
Christians and politics
Where do being Christian and being 'political' coalesce?
Having been brought up in the reality that the Church of England was predominantly the Conservative party at prayer, I was often told that Christians and politics didn't mix. When I was involved in the trade union movement I found that almost all those who were active in the running of their branch were also to be found left of centre when it came to politics. They were, generally, socialists or communists and were also dyed in the wool atheists.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses," my colleagues (or as they would often have it, comrades or brothers) would say. Church is there to oppress the working classes and to keep them under the thumb of the Church, State and capitalists. Church is the tool of the ruling class as the oft quoted verse from 'All things B&B' clearly demonstrates that God puts people in their place and keeps them there:
The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,And ordered their estate.
Well, actually the Karl Marx quote is merely a snippet from his critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'. What he actually said was:
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
The purpose of religion is to provide comfort in this life by bringing forth an illusion of comfort and a hope of better things when this life ends. In the 'sigh' of the oppressed hope and solace are found in this 'illusion' but Marx wanted stark reality - this is all you get and you need to ensure that all get a fair deal from it - removing the peaks and troughs and leaving all to live in a happy average is the desire - not pie in the sky in the great by and by' (a sort of steak on the plate while you wait theology).
Another problem is that 'the man' control commerce, government and religion and so shapes the psyche and the contentment factor of the proletariat, that is the drones, of society such that they see their 'suffering' as part of the price of being.
So, can we be political and be Christian? Should Christians only be right-wing? Can we have a truly Christian party? Was jesus really nothing more than a Communist philosopher?
Now government is sorted (for now at least) I'm going to return to these questions - they are important and have many implications for us as individuals and as citizens of the places in which we find ourselves.
Having been brought up in the reality that the Church of England was predominantly the Conservative party at prayer, I was often told that Christians and politics didn't mix. When I was involved in the trade union movement I found that almost all those who were active in the running of their branch were also to be found left of centre when it came to politics. They were, generally, socialists or communists and were also dyed in the wool atheists.
"Religion is the opiate of the masses," my colleagues (or as they would often have it, comrades or brothers) would say. Church is there to oppress the working classes and to keep them under the thumb of the Church, State and capitalists. Church is the tool of the ruling class as the oft quoted verse from 'All things B&B' clearly demonstrates that God puts people in their place and keeps them there:
The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate,
GOD made them, high or lowly,And ordered their estate.
Well, actually the Karl Marx quote is merely a snippet from his critique of Hegel's 'Philosophy of Right'. What he actually said was:
"Religious distress is at the same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions."
The purpose of religion is to provide comfort in this life by bringing forth an illusion of comfort and a hope of better things when this life ends. In the 'sigh' of the oppressed hope and solace are found in this 'illusion' but Marx wanted stark reality - this is all you get and you need to ensure that all get a fair deal from it - removing the peaks and troughs and leaving all to live in a happy average is the desire - not pie in the sky in the great by and by' (a sort of steak on the plate while you wait theology).
Another problem is that 'the man' control commerce, government and religion and so shapes the psyche and the contentment factor of the proletariat, that is the drones, of society such that they see their 'suffering' as part of the price of being.
So, can we be political and be Christian? Should Christians only be right-wing? Can we have a truly Christian party? Was jesus really nothing more than a Communist philosopher?
Now government is sorted (for now at least) I'm going to return to these questions - they are important and have many implications for us as individuals and as citizens of the places in which we find ourselves.
Tuesday, 11 May 2010
And so it begins . .
David Cameron is the new Prime Minister and Gordon Brown is busy packing up his personal belongings and thinking about his memoirs (I guess).
Lots to be done and undoubtedly many election issues to be dropped (some I am sure thankfully - like the inheritance tax issue and the like) and some sticky ones to be grasped.
I think that Gordon has been a superlative number two and perhaps an unfortunate number one. Had that he'd been surrounded by people of the same calibre and commitment as him, perhaps the tale would have been different. Whatever, I'm praying for him and his family as he moves out of the spotlight - at least the family will see more of him now as I understand that unlike his predecessor, he won't be taking the gravy train around the lecture halls.
As for the incoming government, I hope Cameron proves himself to be a good leader and an honest partner with those with whom he forms government (and the same for Clegg and his people in return).
We have an in-tray full of crises and now perhaps we might start to see them addressed. Let's pray that they are addressed in a manner that supports all the people of the Uk and upholds God's commandments to use.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed."
Ro 13: 1 - 7
God bless our land, those who live within our shores and those who rule over it.
Lots to be done and undoubtedly many election issues to be dropped (some I am sure thankfully - like the inheritance tax issue and the like) and some sticky ones to be grasped.
I think that Gordon has been a superlative number two and perhaps an unfortunate number one. Had that he'd been surrounded by people of the same calibre and commitment as him, perhaps the tale would have been different. Whatever, I'm praying for him and his family as he moves out of the spotlight - at least the family will see more of him now as I understand that unlike his predecessor, he won't be taking the gravy train around the lecture halls.
As for the incoming government, I hope Cameron proves himself to be a good leader and an honest partner with those with whom he forms government (and the same for Clegg and his people in return).
We have an in-tray full of crises and now perhaps we might start to see them addressed. Let's pray that they are addressed in a manner that supports all the people of the Uk and upholds God's commandments to use.
"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for she is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience. For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed."
Ro 13: 1 - 7
God bless our land, those who live within our shores and those who rule over it.
All we need now is Alice!
For words are now meaning whatsoever we wish them to mean. David Laws, has been 'urged' to meet with Labour (which I understand Clegg was already doing in secret anyway) to form a 'strong government, something which is indeed in the national interest.
I totally agree with this sentiment because we need a government that will have the ability, and the will, to make the necessary cuts and take some decisive action. BUT unless something is different in the new look political system that we are seeing unfold from the world that I inhabit, this must surely be a Conservative - Liberal Democrat government.
Actually, what is important is not a strong government but a a government that will give the Lib Dems the holy grail of PR, the only way that they think they will ever gain power (which I don't think they will and feel that this current debacle explains why they are destined to be little more than a back bench party).
I am reminded of an illustration that I heard from a pulpit many years ago.
A man is at a party and he spends much of the evening with a beautiful young lady. She is bright, she is witty and she sparkles all evening. Towards the end the man asks if she'd like to come back to her place for sex. "I'll give you five hundred pounds if you do," says the man. The girls immediately agrees and they leave for his house.
On the way to the house the man asks the girls if she'd accept one hundred pounds for having sex with him. "What sort of girl do you think I am?"asks the girl indignantly.
"Oh, we've already established that," said the man, "We're merely haggling!"
Seems to me that there are many parallels between this story and in the situation we see unfolding before us in the UK political scene.
“Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov. 4:23).
I totally agree with this sentiment because we need a government that will have the ability, and the will, to make the necessary cuts and take some decisive action. BUT unless something is different in the new look political system that we are seeing unfold from the world that I inhabit, this must surely be a Conservative - Liberal Democrat government.
Actually, what is important is not a strong government but a a government that will give the Lib Dems the holy grail of PR, the only way that they think they will ever gain power (which I don't think they will and feel that this current debacle explains why they are destined to be little more than a back bench party).
I am reminded of an illustration that I heard from a pulpit many years ago.
A man is at a party and he spends much of the evening with a beautiful young lady. She is bright, she is witty and she sparkles all evening. Towards the end the man asks if she'd like to come back to her place for sex. "I'll give you five hundred pounds if you do," says the man. The girls immediately agrees and they leave for his house.
On the way to the house the man asks the girls if she'd accept one hundred pounds for having sex with him. "What sort of girl do you think I am?"asks the girl indignantly.
"Oh, we've already established that," said the man, "We're merely haggling!"
Seems to me that there are many parallels between this story and in the situation we see unfolding before us in the UK political scene.
“Above all else, guard your heart, for it is the wellspring of life” (Prov. 4:23).
Numbers, opinions and our politics
Angus Robinson of the SNP has just added his voice to a Lib-Lab coalition. Whatever it is, it can't have Conservatives running the country.
The man is entitled to his opinion but of course, regardless of his reasons it might not reflect the real position that we find ourselves in after the votes were counted:
Conservatives 306 36% of the votes cast
Labour 258 29% of the votes cast
Lib Dem 57 23% of the votes cast
We all talk about 326 as being the majority and this would lead us to think that this is the magic number (as we have 650 members of the lower house). There are some maths to be done here (thank you gavin) to show what the real number that is needed to be 'stable' government is:
We start at 650 MPs - from this we remove the Speaker of the House (a Conservative) and his three deputies = 646
From the 646 we can remove the five Sinn Fein MPs (who don't ever take their seats) = 641
Having reached the figure of 641, we can see that an effective majority is actually 321.
Having just read Nick Robinson's Blog, I thought I merely add his words here as a reference and food for (prayerful) thought:
Gordon Brown has made an audacious bid, not just to keep Labour in power but to reshape British politics by creating the sort of coalition not seen in Britain since the Second World War.
The Prime Minister was told by Cabinet colleagues and by senior Liberal Democrats that there was little in the way of policy to stop their two parties working together, but that he was a barrier, in part because he was seen as uncollegiate, in part because his continued presence was regarded as electorally toxic.
This solution still raises a number of problems, however, which the Conservatives and critics in the media are sure to raise:
is it legitimate for Gordon Brown and Labour to stay in office, having lost this election?
is it right for a new Prime Minister to be chosen, not by voters, but by Labour party members?
And can such a coalition be strong and stable given that in parliamentary terms it has the equivalent number of MPs to Harold Wilson or John Major's governments, which were hardly strong or stable.
However the real question tonight is for Nick Clegg. Does he now stick to his chosen path and do a deal with the Conservatives to the fury of many in his party or does he switch to Labour, risking the wrath of those who will accuse him of creating a coalition of losers?"
(I've placed this just under today's blog as I think it is helpful)
The man is entitled to his opinion but of course, regardless of his reasons it might not reflect the real position that we find ourselves in after the votes were counted:
Conservatives 306 36% of the votes cast
Labour 258 29% of the votes cast
Lib Dem 57 23% of the votes cast
We all talk about 326 as being the majority and this would lead us to think that this is the magic number (as we have 650 members of the lower house). There are some maths to be done here (thank you gavin) to show what the real number that is needed to be 'stable' government is:
We start at 650 MPs - from this we remove the Speaker of the House (a Conservative) and his three deputies = 646
From the 646 we can remove the five Sinn Fein MPs (who don't ever take their seats) = 641
Having reached the figure of 641, we can see that an effective majority is actually 321.
Having just read Nick Robinson's Blog, I thought I merely add his words here as a reference and food for (prayerful) thought:
Gordon Brown has made an audacious bid, not just to keep Labour in power but to reshape British politics by creating the sort of coalition not seen in Britain since the Second World War.
The Prime Minister was told by Cabinet colleagues and by senior Liberal Democrats that there was little in the way of policy to stop their two parties working together, but that he was a barrier, in part because he was seen as uncollegiate, in part because his continued presence was regarded as electorally toxic.
This solution still raises a number of problems, however, which the Conservatives and critics in the media are sure to raise:
is it legitimate for Gordon Brown and Labour to stay in office, having lost this election?
is it right for a new Prime Minister to be chosen, not by voters, but by Labour party members?
And can such a coalition be strong and stable given that in parliamentary terms it has the equivalent number of MPs to Harold Wilson or John Major's governments, which were hardly strong or stable.
However the real question tonight is for Nick Clegg. Does he now stick to his chosen path and do a deal with the Conservatives to the fury of many in his party or does he switch to Labour, risking the wrath of those who will accuse him of creating a coalition of losers?"
(I've placed this just under today's blog as I think it is helpful)
Monday, 10 May 2010
Where on earth is integrity to be found?
What on earth is going on with the politics of the United Kingdom? Clegg is publicly meeting with the Tories and (if the press are to be believed) holding talks with Mandelson and Balls in secret at the same time. Not a great deal of integrity on show here, more like talking about marriage with one party (publicly) and playing away from home (privately).
Now I understand that Brown is to stand down and therefore, as with Blair, passing what is potentially the leadership of Great Britain to someone who was not standing as Leader of their Party and was not therefore in the frame to occupy the office of Prime Minister and who was not present in the televised debates and so didn't meet the criteria for the personality contest either.
We are looking at having a deal between the two lesser parties (out of the three) in terms of the popular vote and seats (combined) and having potentially a Prime Minister who might be Milliband, Balls or one of the other lacklustre candidates who has neither mandate not the right to say they were the choice on election day.
Seems that there is a most awful situation brewing in that there is something now very obvious with the political system and the parties within the UK.
God help us!
(modified to ensure people aren't confused enough to think there's any parallel between PM and President :) )
Now I understand that Brown is to stand down and therefore, as with Blair, passing what is potentially the leadership of Great Britain to someone who was not standing as Leader of their Party and was not therefore in the frame to occupy the office of Prime Minister and who was not present in the televised debates and so didn't meet the criteria for the personality contest either.
We are looking at having a deal between the two lesser parties (out of the three) in terms of the popular vote and seats (combined) and having potentially a Prime Minister who might be Milliband, Balls or one of the other lacklustre candidates who has neither mandate not the right to say they were the choice on election day.
Seems that there is a most awful situation brewing in that there is something now very obvious with the political system and the parties within the UK.
God help us!
(modified to ensure people aren't confused enough to think there's any parallel between PM and President :) )
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)