Thursday, August 30, 2007
TWO POSTINGS
in a month. That's gotta be some kind of anti-record for the site. So quick time to put this one in. In fairness to myself I have been well busy, as one says. Anyways....
in a month. That's gotta be some kind of anti-record for the site. So quick time to put this one in. In fairness to myself I have been well busy, as one says. Anyways....
 | You scored as Classical Liberal, You are a classical liberal. You are sceptical about much of the historicity of the Bible, and the most important thing Jesus has done is to set us a good moral example that we are to follow. Doctrines like the trinity and the incarnation are speculative and not really important, and in the face of science and philosophy the surest way we can be certain about God is by our inner awareness of him. Discipleship is expressed by good moral behaviour, but inward religious feeling is most important.
What's your theological worldview? created with QuizFarm.com |
Thursday, December 22, 2005
MERRY CHRISTMAS AND HAPPY HANUKKAH
As you may have noticed I am far to busy in my real life to do any regular posting at the moment so I figured I might as well take a proper break until real-world issues have been decisively dealt with. That means I will not be back until Monday, January 9.
I am as always bemused by the arguments being traded over Christmas. There are some Christians who complain that the event has lost its religious meaning. I don’t find that quite convincing as the real Christian festival is Easter after all: And on the third day he rose again . . . and all that. That’s the key to Christianity. Christmas is really more a social and cultural event, a festive occasion to bring families together. Of course I am not downplaying Christmas’ religious meaning. I am simply saying that the event is more about family, rather than faith. That said, for me the two are strongly bound together, and I am sure many will agree with me. I think the reason for that is that Christianity’s core message, is also what ties us to our families: the combination of duty and love.
Normally I don’t go for this multi-culti-stuff, but I thought here’s a good political reason to include a Happy Hanukkah this year. Also, the coming year sees the 350th anniversary of the return of the Jews to these shores.
I am not going to wish readers a happy new year, because frankly, it’s a meaningless event. That’s not to disparage it though: after all, the dearth of meaning is surely the whole attraction of it.
Wishing you all a good following days, whatever you make of them.
As you may have noticed I am far to busy in my real life to do any regular posting at the moment so I figured I might as well take a proper break until real-world issues have been decisively dealt with. That means I will not be back until Monday, January 9.
I am as always bemused by the arguments being traded over Christmas. There are some Christians who complain that the event has lost its religious meaning. I don’t find that quite convincing as the real Christian festival is Easter after all: And on the third day he rose again . . . and all that. That’s the key to Christianity. Christmas is really more a social and cultural event, a festive occasion to bring families together. Of course I am not downplaying Christmas’ religious meaning. I am simply saying that the event is more about family, rather than faith. That said, for me the two are strongly bound together, and I am sure many will agree with me. I think the reason for that is that Christianity’s core message, is also what ties us to our families: the combination of duty and love.
Normally I don’t go for this multi-culti-stuff, but I thought here’s a good political reason to include a Happy Hanukkah this year. Also, the coming year sees the 350th anniversary of the return of the Jews to these shores.
I am not going to wish readers a happy new year, because frankly, it’s a meaningless event. That’s not to disparage it though: after all, the dearth of meaning is surely the whole attraction of it.
Wishing you all a good following days, whatever you make of them.
Labels: Church, nation, religion
Monday, November 28, 2005
NOTES: THE EU-JUGGERNAUT, PRESERVING THE CHURCH, LOSING OUR MORALE OVER IRAQ, APPEARANCE OF NEW TORY FOREIGN POLICY?, ARMENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL REFERENDUM
Whilst I complained that many people in this country were going slack in regards to the expansion of EU (and less recently), that was more of an aside, I had little idea just how fast and far the EU was actually going. In the Speccie's cover story Anthony Brown recounts some of the major development from only the past few months. It is pretty dizzying reading. Whilst one could try to find solace in Brown's remark that
Whilst I complained that many people in this country were going slack in regards to the expansion of EU (and less recently), that was more of an aside, I had little idea just how fast and far the EU was actually going. In the Speccie's cover story Anthony Brown recounts some of the major development from only the past few months. It is pretty dizzying reading. Whilst one could try to find solace in Brown's remark that
Like a disabled person on crutches who defies his disability by climbing a mountain, or the cancer victim who runs marathons, the threat of paralysis seems to have spurred the EU into a frenzy of activity.
I fear the EU is simply doing its usual thing in flying under the radar. Again it's a shame that the main press doesn't really pick these stories up properly. In turn of course that leads to angry-old-man-syndrome when it suddenly becomes apparent that the EU has instigated some mind bogglingly stupid and rightfully unpopular move like forcing out the Red Ensign. Well, probably too late if true. By the time you see the result of EU regulations or an expansion of EU institutional competences it's probably already too late to do anything about it - that's how it works. It's time the wider public got to understand this better. It's good of the Speccie to run these stories (and reminds me why we really need it), but that is just not enough.
Having spent the day in Canterbury I am impressively reminded why I stand by the Church of England, despite some of its growing troubles. When you look at the Cathedral but also some of the smaller Church buildings spread around you are not immediately struck by it. It's when you look closer, that what really conveys the quiet splendour of the Anglican faith are the little details and the air of historical matter-of-courseness that accompanies the Church and its works. It certainly grew on me again while I was there.
In Saturday's Times Matthew Parris has an interesting comment on Iraq, in which he says that whatever we may consciously argue, subconsciously we all agree on Iraq having failed. I am afraid I know what he means. When Iraq hawks talk and particularly blog amongst themselves it all seems less bad, but the moment you open a newspaper, switch on the telly or the radio you can't avoid this sinking feeling. I see no reason (yet?) to change my mind over invading and occupying Iraq, but the emotional commitment to the enterprise had been gone for a long time. In the lead up to the invasion there was a real feeling that things were changing for the better, and this was a just and necessary war that it was a pleasure to be an advocate for. I can't really say when that tipping point came. Looking back there are two points that stand out for me.
The first was Bush's "mission accomplished" show. At the moment when the war was going into its more difficult phase of reestablishing order in Iraq Bush was effectively saying there's nothing to do anymore, let's go home. That built up exactly the wrong kind fo expectation both in the military and the public. After you've created the impression that the job is as good as done and you then say, "yes, but I need to send an extra two hundred thousand troops in for at least a year" (a realistic war plan I would wager), people are going baulk at that. I think this is when I began feeling that our leaders were possibly going to mess things up.
The second was the David Kelly affair. Whether or not Andrew Gilligan was journalistically right or not to blow the wmd story up at a time when public support was already beginning to wane I will leave to others to debate; ultimately there’s nothing that can be done about freedom of the press, even if that freedom gets used badly. But again like Bush’s speech this was in the transformationary phase of the war. To run a proper nation building war effort would have required public backing. The Kelly affair set off the then sheer endless stream of officials past and present rolling out supposed exposes about wmd lies. This helped undermine public morale. Why the Government was so incompetent in meeting this bad pr remains a mystery to me, given how good they are normally at spinning.
But both those incidences I think we’re instrumental in pushing the emotional dimension of the Iraq war debate in the wrong direction. To be sure, there is plenty that went wrong policy and argument wise to be sure.
If you read the Economist's fine leader on Iraq this week you are struck by the level of disappointment that seeps through the comment. That is a feeling I sadly share. What makes it worse is that I know it's possibly too late to make a real shift in strategy. That would also be politically difficulty increasingly in Iraq itself now I guess. Otherwise I think this posting from more than two years ago describes what would needed to be done.
(As an aside, advocating the invasion of Iraq may have been a pleasure, but socially comfortable it wasn't; I guess people don't really like debating politics properly in a social environment; it's more about finding commonality with other, which intensifies ten-fold the displaesure on realising the other side diagrees with you.)
So what template would a Tory Government do to deal with such a situation? Not easy to tell. Back in June I had pointed out that the Conservatives needed to debate and develop clear thinking on foreign policy. Whilst Michael Howard's positions had already hinted in an interventionist, hawkish and sovereignist direction, it seems that outlook is gaining traction amongst the Tories. In this week's Speccie Peter Oborne reports on a London meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. Plenty of up and coming Tories in there. It certainly looks like this is where the Conservatives seem to be heading in terms of forging a new foreign policy consensus. This will definitely help the Conservatives win the next election. After all, one of my favourites themes I like to go on about is how you can’t fight properly in politics if you don’t have certainty on the national strategy, Britain’s place in the world and on how you would decide matters of war and peace. Even if there is a wide political range in the Henry Jackson Society itself, most are centre-right and I think it is no safe to say that therefore the Tory revival edges closer.
(see also Stephen Pollard)
After the doubtful occurances during Azerbaijan’s elections recently, time to turn to another South Caucasus state and an expression of public will, the constitutional amendment referendum in Armenia. The proposal would most importantly have moved powers away from the presidency towards parliament. After first hearing about it I thought this looks a lot more promising avenue for bringing genuine democracy into the post-Soviet sphere than trying to do so in single big steps such as revolutions or general elections. By gradually starting to move things from the bottom up, piece by piece, chances are far better that the democracy that emerges from that will hold. Sadly, it seems the referendum has followed the dubious routes that similar events have gone in the ex-USSR. Shame really. Hopefully it will work one day.
Having spent the day in Canterbury I am impressively reminded why I stand by the Church of England, despite some of its growing troubles. When you look at the Cathedral but also some of the smaller Church buildings spread around you are not immediately struck by it. It's when you look closer, that what really conveys the quiet splendour of the Anglican faith are the little details and the air of historical matter-of-courseness that accompanies the Church and its works. It certainly grew on me again while I was there.
In Saturday's Times Matthew Parris has an interesting comment on Iraq, in which he says that whatever we may consciously argue, subconsciously we all agree on Iraq having failed. I am afraid I know what he means. When Iraq hawks talk and particularly blog amongst themselves it all seems less bad, but the moment you open a newspaper, switch on the telly or the radio you can't avoid this sinking feeling. I see no reason (yet?) to change my mind over invading and occupying Iraq, but the emotional commitment to the enterprise had been gone for a long time. In the lead up to the invasion there was a real feeling that things were changing for the better, and this was a just and necessary war that it was a pleasure to be an advocate for. I can't really say when that tipping point came. Looking back there are two points that stand out for me.
The first was Bush's "mission accomplished" show. At the moment when the war was going into its more difficult phase of reestablishing order in Iraq Bush was effectively saying there's nothing to do anymore, let's go home. That built up exactly the wrong kind fo expectation both in the military and the public. After you've created the impression that the job is as good as done and you then say, "yes, but I need to send an extra two hundred thousand troops in for at least a year" (a realistic war plan I would wager), people are going baulk at that. I think this is when I began feeling that our leaders were possibly going to mess things up.
The second was the David Kelly affair. Whether or not Andrew Gilligan was journalistically right or not to blow the wmd story up at a time when public support was already beginning to wane I will leave to others to debate; ultimately there’s nothing that can be done about freedom of the press, even if that freedom gets used badly. But again like Bush’s speech this was in the transformationary phase of the war. To run a proper nation building war effort would have required public backing. The Kelly affair set off the then sheer endless stream of officials past and present rolling out supposed exposes about wmd lies. This helped undermine public morale. Why the Government was so incompetent in meeting this bad pr remains a mystery to me, given how good they are normally at spinning.
But both those incidences I think we’re instrumental in pushing the emotional dimension of the Iraq war debate in the wrong direction. To be sure, there is plenty that went wrong policy and argument wise to be sure.
If you read the Economist's fine leader on Iraq this week you are struck by the level of disappointment that seeps through the comment. That is a feeling I sadly share. What makes it worse is that I know it's possibly too late to make a real shift in strategy. That would also be politically difficulty increasingly in Iraq itself now I guess. Otherwise I think this posting from more than two years ago describes what would needed to be done.
(As an aside, advocating the invasion of Iraq may have been a pleasure, but socially comfortable it wasn't; I guess people don't really like debating politics properly in a social environment; it's more about finding commonality with other, which intensifies ten-fold the displaesure on realising the other side diagrees with you.)
So what template would a Tory Government do to deal with such a situation? Not easy to tell. Back in June I had pointed out that the Conservatives needed to debate and develop clear thinking on foreign policy. Whilst Michael Howard's positions had already hinted in an interventionist, hawkish and sovereignist direction, it seems that outlook is gaining traction amongst the Tories. In this week's Speccie Peter Oborne reports on a London meeting of the Henry Jackson Society. Plenty of up and coming Tories in there. It certainly looks like this is where the Conservatives seem to be heading in terms of forging a new foreign policy consensus. This will definitely help the Conservatives win the next election. After all, one of my favourites themes I like to go on about is how you can’t fight properly in politics if you don’t have certainty on the national strategy, Britain’s place in the world and on how you would decide matters of war and peace. Even if there is a wide political range in the Henry Jackson Society itself, most are centre-right and I think it is no safe to say that therefore the Tory revival edges closer.
(see also Stephen Pollard)
After the doubtful occurances during Azerbaijan’s elections recently, time to turn to another South Caucasus state and an expression of public will, the constitutional amendment referendum in Armenia. The proposal would most importantly have moved powers away from the presidency towards parliament. After first hearing about it I thought this looks a lot more promising avenue for bringing genuine democracy into the post-Soviet sphere than trying to do so in single big steps such as revolutions or general elections. By gradually starting to move things from the bottom up, piece by piece, chances are far better that the democracy that emerges from that will hold. Sadly, it seems the referendum has followed the dubious routes that similar events have gone in the ex-USSR. Shame really. Hopefully it will work one day.
Labels: Armenia, Church, EU, global affairs, Iraq, media, religion
Monday, September 19, 2005
THE LIBDEMS AT PRAYER?
The old joke about us used to be that the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. Given current news, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the C of E is the LibDems at prayer? Oh dear. I despair of this good Church sometimes.
The old joke about us used to be that the Church of England was the Tory Party at prayer. Given current news, wouldn't it be more accurate to say the C of E is the LibDems at prayer? Oh dear. I despair of this good Church sometimes.
More on this to follow soon . . .
Updated: Although an older post and not related to the current happenings, LimeyPundity has a great post about pacifism and Christianity. Other commentary so far seems to share my negative first impression. Via Stephen Pollard, she doesn't seem very impressed, as does Laban Tall, who links to Thinking Anglicans, a sort of news weblog about C of E affairs (looks good), who have a round up of related news stories.
Updated: Although an older post and not related to the current happenings, LimeyPundity has a great post about pacifism and Christianity. Other commentary so far seems to share my negative first impression. Via Stephen Pollard, she doesn't seem very impressed, as does Laban Tall, who links to Thinking Anglicans, a sort of news weblog about C of E affairs (looks good), who have a round up of related news stories.
Labels: Church, politics, religion
Friday, February 25, 2005
TRASHING THE ANGLICAN CHURCH?
I supposed I’m supposed to be relieved by this sort of “compromise” that the Canadian and American churches are being asked to leave the Anglican consultancy body temporarily for three years because they recognize gay clergymen and perform same-sex marriages. This is of course the opposite of what I raised as a solution a while ago (though did I really use the term “progressive message”? *shudder*). And I am not relived at all.
Needless to say I’m unhappy with the current situation and I am still maintaining that the proper Anglican way to deal with this issue would have been ignoring it. It is simply inappropriate to drag such personal issues out into the open instead of keeping them in the intimacy of private life where they belong. And to be absolutely sure about this I am hereby criticising both sides in the argument. It is a spectacle very unbecoming of the Church, indulging in these bouts of therapeutic exhibitionism and ritualised homophobia.
(Just for the sake of being complete I should perhaps add that personally I am completely in favour of gay clergy, but I am as now opposed to gay marriage in Church because of the meaning that I believe such marriage to have; incidentally a completely different issue from the question of civil gay marriage and the possibility of asking for God’s blessing for such marriages.)
I supposed I’m supposed to be relieved by this sort of “compromise” that the Canadian and American churches are being asked to leave the Anglican consultancy body temporarily for three years because they recognize gay clergymen and perform same-sex marriages. This is of course the opposite of what I raised as a solution a while ago (though did I really use the term “progressive message”? *shudder*). And I am not relived at all.
Needless to say I’m unhappy with the current situation and I am still maintaining that the proper Anglican way to deal with this issue would have been ignoring it. It is simply inappropriate to drag such personal issues out into the open instead of keeping them in the intimacy of private life where they belong. And to be absolutely sure about this I am hereby criticising both sides in the argument. It is a spectacle very unbecoming of the Church, indulging in these bouts of therapeutic exhibitionism and ritualised homophobia.
(Just for the sake of being complete I should perhaps add that personally I am completely in favour of gay clergy, but I am as now opposed to gay marriage in Church because of the meaning that I believe such marriage to have; incidentally a completely different issue from the question of civil gay marriage and the possibility of asking for God’s blessing for such marriages.)
Sunday, February 06, 2005
ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN AND SINGLE?
Feeling lonely? Just can’t find the rigth partner to go forth and multiply? Well, help is at hand:
Feeling lonely? Just can’t find the rigth partner to go forth and multiply? Well, help is at hand:
You bet. At least it remains serious by helpfully reminding us of the words from the good Book:
“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and they will become one flesh” Genesis 2:24
I know I shouldn’t mock this sort of thing, you know, being an Anglican myself and it being the Lord’s day all that, but still there’s something slightly comical about the whole thing.
Update:Some useful tips on marriage.
Labels: Church, humour etc., religion
Saturday, August 14, 2004
SELF HATING BISHOP, UPDATE
Now, I'm perfectly aware that in the big scheme of the world's affairs this whole episode doesn't really matter that much, but I've been unable so far to get my teeth out of it, now that they've sunk in. A fairly new blogger cuts the bishy some slack (btw, what a cool title for a conservative blog, Salisbury Pages):
Now, I'm perfectly aware that in the big scheme of the world's affairs this whole episode doesn't really matter that much, but I've been unable so far to get my teeth out of it, now that they've sunk in. A fairly new blogger cuts the bishy some slack (btw, what a cool title for a conservative blog, Salisbury Pages):
Bishop Lowe is right to remind patriotic, right of centre, Christians (of whom I'm unashamedly one) that they aren't called to put country before God, although in fairness he should also have pointed out that they are called to give the state the things due to it, which certainly include a high degree of personal loyalty. I'm not convinced that I Vow to Thee my Country does call us to put country before God, just before "all earthly things", but he's probably right to remind us of the dangers of unquestioning nationalism. He's just wrong to condemn nationalism unquestioningly.
I disagree with that point, because that is exactly why I think Bishop Lowe's comment is so wrong. I vow to Thee my Country not unabashedly patriotic and miles away from any sort of jingoism, in fact it simply restates in a moving manner the old dictum about rendering unto Caesar what is his due. This is the point: it asks that you put all earthly desires and wants behind that of the nation. Lowe's objection is therefore baseless. My soul and my conscience is not an "earthly thing". If the State's actions contradict these, as a Christian, I have the duty to say no. But when it is only about earthly things, my job, my car, my profit margins, a life of luxury or anything of the sort, my being a Christian is reconciled with being a member of a nation. (I'll leave aside that I also have a duty towards fellow humans who are not a member of my nation, because, contrary to popular opinion, these differing loyalties mostly don't conflict with each other anyway.) As I pointed out clearly yesterday, the C of E is a State Church, and it is entirely consistent that it has hymns and other elements of worship that reflect this fact. After all, this is a free country, if you find such closeness of Church and State spooky, you can easily hop out and go somewhere else, such as an Episcopal church (well I think it's funny. . . ). Why the Bishop of Hulme isn't able or willing to recognize something so obvious to an unskilled layman like me is a bit of different story though, but more on that another day.
Labels: Church, nation, religion
Friday, August 13, 2004
An Anglican bishop wants to ban the hymn I Vow To Thee My Country - because it echoes Hitler's Germany and is "heretical".
For some reason my irritation hasn't subsided yet. I vow to Thee my Country is one of my favourite hymns, both musically and lyrically, so I suppose I can't really give it a rest. Laban Tall and "Tom Paine" have dealt with some of the key stupidities and so I urge you to give their posts a look too.
But the thing that I want to moan about now is the man's choice. His choice to become a part of the Church, when he quite obviously deeply disapproves of some key elements of it. Why did he join the Church in the first place? I mean, come on, it's even called the Church of England. It is the official Church of the British State and its head is also the embodiment of the State. To suddenly discover, after several decades of serving your way upwards to the position of bishop, that this institution had patriotic elements in it is rather unconvincing now, isn't it. He knew what he committing himself to. If that is not the kind of Christianity he wanted, he was and is entirely free to change his denomination or set up his own church. But there is no reason why he should now be allowed to start changing the C of E just like that. As I've pointed out over at Silent Running, the problem is the gulf between the leaders and the people of the C of E.
No doubt the number of people turning their backs on the C of E in alienation will only be increased by such behaviour of the Church's leadership. But I'm am not one of those who is for turning my back, at Silent Running, Gray Monk, articulates why I don't abandon the Church:
To those who want to see the C of E recover its sanity I say this - please join the congregations, please challenge the vicars, but do so from within the fold. Outside it you are not heard by those hiding inside. Inside you can do some good.
Just so.
Not all the commentary at Silent Running on the issue is quite such worthwhile, however. Opines an Andrew Ian Dodge:
Not all the commentary at Silent Running on the issue is quite such worthwhile, however. Opines an Andrew Ian Dodge:
The CoE has surrendered to Islam. They are more concerned about not upsetting Islamists than they are taking care of their own flock.
What?! The C of E's self-destruction has nothing to do with Islam. To insinuate otherwise looks more like an attempt to sneak some mindless Islamophobia through the back door and that is the last thing we need. This Dodge's comment is in fact a syndrome of something else. In a way, as I've argued before, the decline of sensible religion and confidence in our nation is one of the main causes for Islamophobia. While Bishop Lowe's leftist shenanigans can only further add to this, anti-Islamic prejudice would make any alternative to the currently dominant views in the C of E unpalatable.
A wholly disappointing and alienating affair.
A wholly disappointing and alienating affair.
Labels: Church, Islam, nation, religion
Saturday, August 23, 2003
IS THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DOOMED? I know I’m a little late reacting to this, but my parents have been around and needed to be entertained. A Theo Hobson, whose name sounds familiar although quite say from where, has penned a short piece in the Guardian in which he convincingly predicts the final demise of the Church of England. His basic premise is that the Church’s foundation was a unity between Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals, which was only possible because of the linkage between state and church established about five centuries ago. Although the process of disestablishment started long ago it is only now that it is beginning to get serious. Read the whole article it’s well worth it.
If New Labour keeps on winning it is quite clear to me that Rowan Williams will have been the last Archbishop of Canterbury selected by the Prime Minister. It is also impossible that a future Conservative government would reverse disestablishment, so I think that we Anglicans need to start thinking about a future in which the CofE will no longer exist as a unified and institutionalised church. I agree with Hobson that this will bring a religious reawakening to Britain. I just find it disappointing that it doesn’t seem to be possible that this can happen in a unified Anglican church. Unlike Hobson I am also more concerned about the possibility that in places where the church used to bind people together, such as in rural areas or abroad where I am at the moment, the need to choose either the evangelical path or the more traditional one, will split communities to the extent that they won’t be large and strong enough to even maintain a proper church. That is in essence where my main fear for Anglicanism lies I suppose. On a positive note, I have to say that all these conflicts and problems don’t impact on actual everyday church life and that’s a good reason to be optimistic.
If New Labour keeps on winning it is quite clear to me that Rowan Williams will have been the last Archbishop of Canterbury selected by the Prime Minister. It is also impossible that a future Conservative government would reverse disestablishment, so I think that we Anglicans need to start thinking about a future in which the CofE will no longer exist as a unified and institutionalised church. I agree with Hobson that this will bring a religious reawakening to Britain. I just find it disappointing that it doesn’t seem to be possible that this can happen in a unified Anglican church. Unlike Hobson I am also more concerned about the possibility that in places where the church used to bind people together, such as in rural areas or abroad where I am at the moment, the need to choose either the evangelical path or the more traditional one, will split communities to the extent that they won’t be large and strong enough to even maintain a proper church. That is in essence where my main fear for Anglicanism lies I suppose. On a positive note, I have to say that all these conflicts and problems don’t impact on actual everyday church life and that’s a good reason to be optimistic.
Labels: Church, nation, religion
