Hope for all?

As I said in my last post, time has a strange habit. The discussion of the next life here occurs whilst thousands have died in Japan, and Libya, particularly, in two very different sets of circumstances- overwhelmed by nature, fighting against countrymen, whatever. To speak of God's wrath kindled against sinful humanity may sound fine in abstract, context-less theologyland, but how is it presented to a world that is ever-wracked by grief and disaster? So far, I have not seen a voice from the 'hellfire and perdition' brigade attempt to bridge the theology-pastoral gap that their doctrines really can create, and I would be interested to hear the account they give.

For my own part, I cannot deny there is a serious problem in the God that willingly lets at the very least, the honest and humble seekers and doubters, or the sincere and good believers of other faiths find are expected to find themselves sharing in the punishment of truly heinous people- should I somehow be fortunate enough to make it to paradise (whatever it is) how can my joy be complete knowing that those prayed for, those I forgave and thought worthy of forgiveness and non-judgement following the example of Christ, those I laughed and wept and lived with are out there suffering, perpetually and unrelentingly and more besides? Who in those circumstances would not like Paul or Moses, cry out to be cut off or blotted out in the place of others? How could anyone who has tried to follow God and goodness possibly resign themselves to such suffering?

Fortunately, I think, I hope, God may not do so, and what started this thought process is the reading of the Church Fathers- in particular Athanasius, who really set the ball rolling for me, and it is his understanding of salvation that has me cautiously shifting towards the idea that actually, there may be something substantial, rather than just my hope (or fear, perhaps) that means God may really have the final victory over all.

I rely quite heavily on his work De Incarnatione for this particular fragment of my recent thoughts- I intend to outline a brief sketch here of some key ideas and what they have challenged me to consider. Chiefly among the considerations are a serious engagement with what it means for creation to be good, and what it is for humans to be in the 'image' and 'likeness' of God, and just what an Incarnational faith might mean- after all, why do we make so much of the last week of his life; were those 33 prior years just by the by, even though they were 33 years of God being with us?

Like all Christian Theologians, Athanasius begins his account of salvation by going back to creation and the fall. There was a time yes, when humankind was better than it was before- but not perfect it seems, Athanasius insists that physical death is a biological fact of life, part of the created order- Adam's immortality springs from his contemplation of God- "For man is by nature mortal in that he was created from nothing. But because of his likeness to him who exists, if he had kept this through contemplating God, he would have blunted his natural corruption and would have remained incorruptable..." (DI 4). The Fall then represents humankind as turning away from the contemplation of eternal things to earthly things, that is things which tend to non-existence, and in Athansius (as in Augustine) evil is non-existence (existence being the product of God, and therefore good), for which we suffer the 'corruption' of death, physical and spiritual entropy - the collapse of our self effectively into dust. Hardly a befitting end for something created to share in the relationship of God in incorruptibility.

Humanity therefore started life living under grace, contemplating the word, but with the rupture of that link we turned to earthly things and became unable to escape this lower form of life. What is interesting to note is that this has very little at it's root to do with Sin. Death is not the decreed punishment for disobedience and death is not the merit of our misdeeds. Rather it is about our being, our nature being damaged, and an incapability to respond to the divine. Athanasius in fact specifically mentions this in chapter 7 "...what should God have done? Demand repentance from men for the transgression? ... Repentance gives no exemption form the consequences of nature, but merely looses sins. If therefore, there had been only sin and not its consequence of corruption, repentance would have been very well". It's not about satisfying the demands of justice or honour it seems - rather salvation is therapeutic in nature; making humanity right again. What I'm delighted to hear is that contemporary Orthodox also take this view of 'salvation as healing' as can be seen here and here for instance.

So what is going on in the plan of salvation? Well, with mankind now unable to see beyond earthly things, it becomes eminently necessary for the Son to take on flesh so that they might again turn to God. But there is something yet more important. Athanaisus of course is most famous for establishing the fully divine status of the Son against Arius, and the reason for this seems to stem in part from soteriological considerations- how could something not truly God fully do the will of God, and conversely how can someone not truly human act on behalf of all humans? Yet what I want to highlight here is that the important implication is that God actually, voluntarily particpates in human life, and being God thus transforms it. Since the fall, many things happen to man that are unknown to God, pain, fear, suffering, bodily desire and so on, and God remarkable rather despising these things, embraces them and so makes them proper to him. God acts as a re-creative agent- Christ transforms what was simply earthly into heavenly things, as Athanasius himself succinctly puts it- 'For what the human body of the Word suffered, this the Word, united to it, attributed it to himself, in order that we might be enabled to participate in the divinity of the Word” (Epistle to Epictetus)" The final thing to overcome of course being death itself.

This to me makes eminent sense, it identifies there is something deeper than sin going on; after all, God forgives sins in the Old Testament and Christ forgives sins before his death, furthermore its highly affirming of human existence and presents to us a God who doesn't expect us to transcend ourselves in order to reach him, try to hide our weaknesses (my mind turns to the Westboro Baptist Church as Louis Theroux presented them the other week) but instead really met us where we were and whom we can turn literally everything over to in the knowledge that he understands and can even see it in a holy light. Finally it also means that the whole life of Jesus in the gospels is not contingent- everything is important and grace begins upon arrival and not merely at the exit.

Now Athanasius supposedly wrote all this when he was in his early twenties, a staggering achievement if true. I myself can offer no such grand sweeping opus, but when I read all this it did spark one little thought: If the last word in Salvation is not 'justice' but 'restoration', if the work Christ is to transform humans back from disorder to order- how can the work be said to be finished if there exists in perpetuity a place of thorough disorder and baseness, namely hell - how can that place be proper to God? Can the work be really finished until all are redeemed? Particularly if we live in circumstances where our humanity is not so far from Divinity?

That last point though takes us closer to a real Universalist in Gregory of Nyssa, and I plan to stop with Athanasius.

After a long period of absence...

I return once more from the hectic merry-go-round that is the University term, and find myself brimming with things that I really wish I had written about, but just never managed to. I missed out on the sale of the forests, the shape of the AV campaign, the seemingly endless reports of examples in the Tory-Lib Dem plans where the rich get off far lighter than those who can ill-afford it, and of course the fracas in north Africa. There is the upcoming TUC march to consider- and there have been many interesting things emerging from my sojourn in Oxford- I've met the architect of the Anglican Covenant, there was an interesting talk over the treatment of asylum seekers and the possibility of the borderless world, I have gained a community organizing internship in East London for the summer, run by the same guys who trained Barack Obama. Exciting things indeed and hopefully I will cover those things in the upcoming weeks. But what do I turn to first midst this array of topics?

However I'm going to start strangely enough, with what I've been studying, which is patristics. That's right, long dead theologians splitting hairs over how Jesus can exactly be 'God' and 'Man' or how the Spirit relates to the Father and Son. Seemingly trying to square their splendidly jewish scriptures with the subtleties of greek philosophy in order to appear intellectually credible- I can see many a protestant purist seeing this period as the one of decline and contamination of the 'pure gospel' with pagan thought, and indeed a great many more not solely walking in Luther's footsteps questioning just how relevant any of it is.

Apart from humbly suggesting that many, many Christians are forever trying to make sense of the figure of Christ through paradigms, ideas and analogies they are familiar with, which often includes assumptions drawn from the surrounding culture[1], that ultimately, it is the work of these men that give much of Christianity its distinctive shape, ideas and flavour; their conclusions (summarised in Councils like Nicaea, Chacedon, Alexandria) still remain the litmus-test of Christian Orthodoxy. Every baptised church member (apparently) affirms the views they set forth.

All very well and good one might say, but what possible relation can one find to these ancient thinkers to something happening today in order to blog about it (I think it's fair to label this blog as more current events 'table talk' than a reflective summa theologiae or Institutes- that is when I write at all, of course). However providence moves in funny ways and I have learnt that at the end of the month Rob Bell is publishing a new book- 'love wins'.

LOVE WINS. - Available March 15th from Rob Bell on Vimeo.

Just watch it, look at what he's saying- he's not implying [stage whisper] universalism, is he?

Well, one can imagine the absolute brouhaha that would result with such a suggestion from such an influential figure in the contemporary Christian world and it meets with strong rebuttal from (I imagine) all over the web, though I cite just one example. What intrigues me is how the argument often seems to be that this is somehow moving away from 'tradition' it's an INSIDIOUS. LIBERAL. TREND. Both new and the result of nothing more than the pressures of the culture, forcing silly old Rob to sell out on the TRUTH.

I hope you can see where this is now heading. The synchronicity of providence never ceases to amuse and amaze- for it is just the case that actually, through reading the Church Fathers, I too am beginning to inch towards the Universalist position myself. There may just be, the possibility that the gift of grace is really extended to all, that salvation is something that extends to all humans, so that God may be all in all (1 Cor 15.28), and that God '...desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth' (1 Tim 2.4) because through the work of Christ 'God was pleased to reconcile himself to all things, whether on earth or in heaven... (Col 1.20). And it is there, right in the early days of the Church- as it formulates an understanding of the person of Christ, the nature of God and so on and so forth, many of the ancient fathers also seemed to embrace the total and all-pervading victory of God over chaos and evil. And if we can accept that we owe rather more to the Church Fathers than we'd care to admit in formulating the orthodoxy we recite today (even though we frequently fail to understand their thought today[2]) then perhaps we should also be listening carefully to what they say on other matters? After all the Church is an entity that grows organically, rather than being constantly reinvented, the past is never (entirely) thrown out, so who knows where welcoming the past back into our church more fully in this instance may lead us?

Given the length of this post already, I shall outline how I have reached this conclusion very soon, thus much of this post appears to be little more than a book promotion and note of apology. Having said that of course, I am very sorry for my silence and I do think that this latest book is definitely going to be one worth reading. However there is one more aspect- my own contribution on this topic is going to be tiny, underwhelming and related simply to the church Fathers. I was going to write it today, but I found that the truly excellent Richard Beck is also blogging about universalism.

At the current day of posting, there are six entries, the first of which can be found RIGHT HERE that will deal far more fully and generally with the subject of universal salvation and part of the reason I am refraining from writing my twopence today is because I think it would be worth my time as well to read them all, so for now I will leave it in his capable hands.

Hopefully, the gap between this post and the subsequent will be distinctly less than the one that preceeded this post!

[1] I think it is a given that we can neither escape our 'history' or our 'location', which I am labeling as conditions of our participation in a certain intellectual and social climate which stems from our physical selves being dimensionally finite and bound by temporality- such is human nature. Our thought is even shaped by our language and how we understand particular words, it's a real minefield!

[2] Most modern theologians tend to be loose on these doctrinal questions, sometimes even rejecting the conclusions- here one could cite the favouring of divine passability - whilst in the pulpits and congregation there seems to be a strong tendency to veer between modalism and tritheism in describing God in the western church.

Democracy and 'UK Democracy'...Still quite far apart.

Ah, the new year, there truly is no time like it- The unwelcome realization that you really shouldn't have left quite so much to do before Christmas, and you know you would have kept your resolutions better had you not suddenly found yourself presented with this festering mass of work to do before you could even think of improving yourself and so you start 2011 just like every other year; unready, confused, hungover.

With the possible exception of hungover, that description neatly ties in with how I would describe the 'Yes' and 'No' campaigns on this small constitutional matter of electoral reform in favour of AV (oh what seamless transition that was!). With the news that 114 LAbour MPs will not be backing it I have finally been motivated from my indifference to take a look at just what arguments are being put forward in this debate. Excitingly, this is my first 100% politics post, I hope you enjoy reading it as much as I loathed writing it.

I rather wish I hadn't looked into it- call me cynical if you must, but all I can see is doublespeak and a certain patronising attitude towards the undecided reader, and I don't make these claims lightly.

The 'No' Campaign have of course already picked up on the big achille's heel of Yes campaign- namely that a great many on it do not actually think AV is actually a real replacement for FPTP- especially those who have secured this referendum, the Liberal Democrats- who have long argued in favour of a system of Proportional Representation, which AV is certainly not. One would think there would be some acknowledgement of this by the 'yes' crowd- but no, instead I am presented with all the glories of this system, how it is so much more democratic, gives the people more choice, more power- they make it feel like it's the answer to all their electoral-reforming prayers.

Really? Is it that good? Is this what you really want? The whole thing smacks of gimmicky compromise and it doesn't really give people much more choice than the original system. This actually is part-way acknowledged by the campaign- at no point do they assert that voting for your actual preferred party will count towards anything, merely that instead of purely tactical voting, your first choice will lose, but your vote can bolster support for someone you dislike slightly less than all the others.

According to the BBC, had AV been in place at the last election, Labour would have in fact picked up 4 MORE seats with just 29% of the vote than they did under FPTP- and whilst the Lib Dems would have gained far more seats, they'd still be tiny in comparison to the big 2. So much for breaking the stranglehold of the 'Punch and Judy Politics'. At no point do these people seem to face up to the question: Is it really worth so much effort for such little change?

However, if the Yes campaign appears to be in denial about what it stands for, the 'No' campaign is even weirder. When it comes to campaigning against AV there seems to be 2 obvious routes to proceed down, either opting to defend the merits of the present system and decrying AV as an innovation too far, or instead arguing that it doesn't go far enough in solving our 'democratic deficit' and opposing in favour of something considered better than either.

The thing with the 'No' Campaign is that they try to do both at once! If one looks at their 3 main reasons for voting no, the first two imply support for FPTP which in typical thought gives strong government, simplicity and clear majorities, yet the third argues that AV is not democratic solemnly averring at one point that 'A No vote will defend fair votes and is a call for real reform'.

Obviously 'doing nothing and keeping the system' cannot be anyone's definition of reform- although with the perplexing grammar ('A No vote stops minority party voters – like BNP supporters – getting more than one vote when the votes are counted') and the rather obvious falsehoods ('A No vote ensures people vote for who and what a candidate is, as opposed to who and what a candidate is not'), who knows what they really mean to mean?

If the 'No' group seem unclear in their thinking on their website their leaflet gives it away. If one is able to withstand the glare of the fluorescent purple and yellow one can see down the right hand side a column entitled 'WHY THE CURRENT SYSTEM WORKS'. So it would seem after all that our most democratic option is in fact FPTP.

Ri-ight...

Perhaps they really do think that a system in which a candidate can achieve less than half the votes and still win overall is fair, or believe a system where a party can achieve 29% of the vote and walk away with 39.7% of the seats, whilst third place on 23% of the vote get just 10.1% of the seats really reflects voter choice. Is it fair when in the 2005 election, 70% of the votes cast were wasted, either discounted or excess to need? As a voter who has yet to see their vote count towards anyone actually getting elected I can tell you it doesn't really feel like the system is working for me. The whole edifice seems a crime against both mathematics and common sense, but honest, it's fair and democratic! Tradition stands vindicated! It is the only system for the UK!

Except of course it isn't is it- amidst all these claims of extremists entering and turmoil in politics, the 'No' Campaigners seem to have forgotten how limited First Past the Post is in this country. Let's take a look. Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliamentary elections? They use the Additional Member System that keep constituencies yet also give more proportional results through 'top-up lists' selected through PR. The Northern Irish Assembly? Single Transferable Vote- pure PR which involves ranking candidates. London MAyoral elections? Supplementary Vote, where first and second preferences are listed, and for EU representatives we use the List System- another form of PR.

So why say that it would be too complicated or difficult to implement or would result in pandaemonium? Most of this country does just fine with it so why should we be denied a chance for our vote to actually count for something at national level?

I believe that anyone who honestly appraises the electoral systems in place in the UK would have to concede that they don't seem to be doing any harm at all, whist the system they're defending leads to tactical voting, safe seats, excludes smaller parties and racks up wasted votes. So what could possibly motivate these people to support it? These 114 MPs to defy their manifesto and oppose their leader?

I can only see one real reason, and perhaps this is where the cynicism bites hardest- the clue is perhaps in a sentence of the 'No' leaflet 'we think it is right to be suspicious why the party that is pushing in the change is the Liberal Democrats.' Could that be because they have most to gain from a change to the system perchance? Are these people opposing AV because it supports the Lib Dems and will weaken the two main parties?

Is it about scoring political points off rivals and maintaining a privileged position if not for the self, then for the Party you support in the legislature?

FPTP is a winner-takes-all system, which strongly encourages a two-party system- voting for a third candidate may see your least favourite choice gaining the seat- best to vote for the one most likely to beat them in that case. Could it be that these people are upholding FPTP because it keeps them in power, allows them to push their agenda unhindered- and never mind if John Public actually wants it or not Labour or the Conservatives (depending on which side one is on) knows what's best and you're just going to have to swallow whatever they give you.

I must admit I am a stalwart democrat at heart- a voter should vote for who they want to vote for, and if that's not Labour then so be it. Strong government can be derived from able politicians co-operating, as the current tory-led government shows- let us not for one moment pretend that much of what is happening now would not have done so had the Conservatives won outright. Able politicians make good government, not majorities delivered by unfair systems. By opening up real democratic choice, Labour runs the risk of being weakened, potentially even cast into electoral oblivion- but then if this party has so failed to show the people either its competence to govern, or that it really cares about they think then it deserves electoral oblivion. No party has the divine right to rule, and no party should honestly think it really has all the best answers to the hard questions- it is a shame if they should think that shutting out a wider range of opinion and insight actually enchances decision making.

It feels rather like the Spitting Image sketch: The two idiot system is here to stay!

This of course has not resolved which way I'm going to vote. I think it's a question of what will really get a genuinely democratic system to appear? Will a 'No' kill the dream of reform full-stop? Will a 'Yes' merely entrench a system that does not really solve the problems that I feel so strongly about?

In 150 words (1)

Basically, the thinking behind this post is that a lot has been going on and I'd quite like to talk about some of it but have found myself rather without the hours to spare at the moment, so as an interesting writing exercise, I'm seeing if I can condense my key thoughts into 150 words or less- quality not quantity, right? All Titles link to the main article.

So without further ado I present you the deep and brief thoughts of yours truly on:

Miliband's reforms raise more questions than answers (New Statesman)

Behold, the bright future of Labour has arrived! And if we thought Blair’s New Labour washed Red flags whiter than white, here’s Milliband, seemingly trying to expunge the Union influence from the party- suggesting a weakening of their electoral power and capping their financial clout. I can’t really see how introducing another electoral college, of non-members, is a good idea so await robust explanation.

The funding matter is more difficult- Labour and the Unions are historically inseparable- but an opportunity to choke contributions from rich individuals and in a small way diminish the clout of business in government is tempting. If State funding plays a major part too, then it does give more even footing to smaller parties- look what happened when Nick Clegg got just that in the televised debates- the election was far more interesting. Democracy could gain from this, even if it’s not great for the unions.

Only half of Britons say UK is a Christian country (Telegraph)

So George Carey is on the warpath again, using these poll results to decry the ebbing influence of Christianity over national life. It’s unfortunate that the very next thing he says cites an instance where ‘exercising Christianity’ appears to be promoting intolerance- and whatever the reasoning behind it that appearance leaves an impression.

What benefit could there be from a Christian Society? The historical precedents aren't brilliant for models of what it could be, and Carey’s plight illuminates the weaknesses of liberal society when it dissolves into different groups jealously guarding their interests- and surely one where ‘Christianity’ merely gets what it wants isn't Carey’s vision of a Christian society either. Better models would be Pilsdon and Iona- Community is bounded by faith, yet it also allows them to be open and generous, celebrating individuality (though not individualism)- they’re not sour-faced moralists. I wonder if Carey wants that either though?

Online Petition plan for Parliament to go ahead (BBC)

Public Opinion is great and with this new plan, apparently whatever hack cause or populist whim must soon, providing if it gains enough signatures, be debated in the Commons. Unaided by comparisons to the X Factor, the idea seems particularly crass and already screams ‘smokescreen!’

Cranmer posts well on the real difficulties- looking for a different angle I will complain that it will do nothing for obesity figures- once upon a time you’d go on marches, collect signatures in the street, knock on doors- fresh air and exercise! Now activism can be done from the sofa! Well no, actually.

‘Liking’ things on facebook doesn’t make you an activist and neither does this. Virtual debate is too easily removed from real life concerns, and already these petitions must have ‘eligibility’. I hope people reject this sham voice- push for more local autonomy, and when passions run high; to the streets!

----------

So there you go, I hope you enjoyed it. Now I wished a happy New Year a couple of days ago and have since failed to stop posting, however I really believe this will be the last one until January, likely early January- I couldn't squeeze the 114 Labour MPs against AV into 150 words. That though is by the by.

So to all (or should that be a forlorn any?) readers regarding this, I wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Reading- the last 24 hours

Andrew Brown has once commented that he feels that Rowan Williams' thought often seems to be dictated by the dialogue he seems to have with whatever book he's reading at a given moment.

I think there may rather be something in this- after all, as I read his foreward to his new book 'Crisis and Recovery' he talks of reclaiming economics for the humanities and notes:

'We have learned to tolerate forms of thinking that, because they are essentially reductive, tempt us to imagine that the "real world" is the one of conflict and profit- and that the social imagination, the cultivation of relationship, the transformation of an environment into intelligible and beautiful form is so much decorative blather.'

I'm always happy to see 'blather' used in public discourse, but more importantly, Rowan presumably thinks (and I strongly agree) that this should not at all be the case, Our knowledge in the realms of what is often called 'the subjective' (often dismissively) remains meaningful, as does our imaginative sense of self- and can be used to guide our thinking in how this relates to others. This seems to have a strong resonance with the book 'Absence of mind' by Marilynne Robinson- , which of course Rowan Williams has written a review of.

I of course am little different- I too am reading Marilynne Robinson (and have to admit to needing a dictionary next to me as I do). So far I've only got past the introduction but I think I understand the thrust of that passage- nevertheless I've felt it necessary to reimagine it in terms of a musical analogy- no doubt brought on by the fact I've just finished 'Coffee with Mozart':

So, I was sat the other day with a group of friends and we were, yes, all having coffee, and being such clever people our conversation turned to the deep topics of life, of meaning, of being, of love.* Then in a moment of inspiration, I take up a pen and some Manuscript paper and quickly sketch out a brief melody and ask my friends what it was.

"Why!" exclaimed the first, a talented Musician "This is the start of Bellini's Casta Diva- I can hear it in my head! Such beauty!" And began to cry.

The second was deeply perturbed by this 'This is silly' he said 'it is just a few markings on a page, ink and paper- nothing more'

The third said, after a moment of reflection, 'What it is is a genius, in my minds eye, first standing in awe as the inspiration hits him, then frantically scribbling away at that piano to try and release this tension and share this beauty he has found with the world. Here lies his testimony."

"I like music" said the fourth.

Now- which one of these people provided the correct answer?

That, at any rate, is how I try to provide a way to myself of exploring the weaknesses of the particular kind of thinking that Robinson wished to disparage. I look forward immensely to watch her rip apart the pseudo-scientific theories that govern much of our common discourse on mind.

Armed with the suggestion that we are not simply and always powerless pawns in the face of social forces allows ourselves to equip the weapon of imagination to rework our social relationships and thus recast the economic models we no longer believe ourselves subject to. This is nothing new for the Church, of course as the successive essays in "Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society" (Ed. Susan R. Holman) demonstrate. Particularly pertinent to this topic is the Essay Rudolf Brändle who shows that in John Chrysostom's imagining of Christ as in the least of all people in Matthew 25.31-46, he was given a way to fuse faith and grace with works, which enabled him to constantly hammer his rich parishioners in homily after brilliant homily for the lack of compassion and almsgiving- far more important things he felt, than asceticism and piety. This tradition perhaps continues down today with, as coincidence would have it, Rowan Williams using the festive period to suggest the rich need to shoulder more of the burden the UK is facing, amongst other things.

What other essays in Wealth and Poverty show though is that often the Church often lacks a comprehensive critique of the structural and cultural causes of poverty- so perhaps 'Crisis and Recovery' marks a step in the right direction for really challenging the fundamental ills that disfigure our society that perhaps can also avoid the kind of 'scientific determinism' (Marxism being a very notable example, also brought up by Robinson) which seek to rob us of any sense of being able to make a real difference to the status Quo.

I like books; but what was this blog post about?

*Not unlike, I notice, the men in Machado De Assis' short story "The Mirror: A Sketch for a New theory of the Human Soul"

Christmas TV, Justice and the Shape of the World

Boxing Day. The day after THE DAY. I must say I do enjoy it. Though no early rise for me to go out and fight my way through the sales, rather it's the most idle day of my calender (and whatever my roommate at College says, I try not to have that many). I have spent the day in pajamas and you know, I don't regret it.

So what has my epic and productive day been spent doing? I do have a pile of books to negotiate, including (finally) The Spirit Level, and yes, I know I'm late to that particular party but I don't think that's going to undermine the key findings, however I've not quite managed to get round to them, instead I've been catching up on Christmas Day TV. Specifically Doctor Who and Murder on the Orient Express.

Admittedly I saw Doctor Who on Christmas day, but I think amidst the festivities and the interruption of food and drink I rather missed some of the finer points. Murder on the Orient Express I did actually miss, we'd moved on to carols in our house and frankly I think I got a lot more out of it watching it alone today as opposed to dozing in the corner surrounded by conversation so light it felt like I was taking a warm bath in chatter.

Anyway, whatever day I happen to be watching it on it's all still very, very exciting. very Exciting because I happen to be a big fanatic of both and watch both avidly (to the extent that I still really enjoyed re-watching the Doctor, and quite possibly will watch the whole thing again in the coming days) they are both characters that inspire me to some extent- I say it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to be like either of them. Though it would have to be either really- they are two very, very different characters. (Warning, spoilers do follow on from here)

One of the things that surprised me with this latest Poirot offering was the prevalence of Religion. In all the episodes of Poirot I've seen (and my family did subscribe to that magazine that hands out a DVD of every Poirot, so I've seen a few) something quite so personal has never been open to the viewer before- but it's not just him, another prays, God and Jesus are constantly referenced- but to focus on this is to mask the real use of all this talk. For what is very apparent in this Poirot is the dichotomy of 'real' justice vs. the processes of the law. For the the first time (I think) something other than the ingenious solution of a crime is being teased out by the programme. God becomes useful as a locus of 'objective good' that can legitimately counter Poirot's insistence of 'obeying the rules' as a way of keeping good order in society- even to the extent of horrifying consequences (we see him even defend the stoning of an adulteress because it's the penalty for breaking the rules). The problem is that one individual's understanding of what constitutes justice may also result in horrifying consequences. After all, somebody is subject to a pre-meditated murder in revenge for what they did. That's not an insignificant point.

Poirot on the whole is shown constantly equating the right thing with the lawful thing- with his strong preference for total order (even the eggs must be of exactly the same size s'il-vous-plait!) this is not at all surprising, and he would probably find breaking the law to be an unthinkable act, and this contrasts strikingly with the Doctor, who in this Christmas special feels free to totally rewrite a life and invade an individual's memories in order to save 4,003 individuals. On the face simply of ends, one could easily argue that this was the 'right' thing to do but what of the precedents? More importantly of course, we see that the Doctor considers himself the highest authority he knows, he'll even interfere with the whole time stream to achieve his ends- I don't honestly think one could be any more of a 'free spirit' than one who subverts the very laws of the physical universe and risks temporal paradox just to get what he wants!

The flipside of course is that the Doctor is not an selfish character, he is motivations are always outward looking and well-intentioned, this is what gives him his consistency, this is as close as to the 'objective good' as we get with the Doctor, and even this is shaky. What we see throughout series after series is the Doctor's morality being rather subjectively applied and often situationally-dependent and Poirot sees the flaw in this- if there exist no structural bonds and we become 'laws unto ourselves'...even if we have the noblest of intentions how do we stop those who would abuse others for their own gain? The System is imperfect he says, but it stops the worst abuses. The Doctor's actions have led to war and genocide, having no more authority than himself has left him unable to control the secondary effects of his actions.

What links them of course is their brilliance, their intelligence- they make thinking cool, and I really like that, but from that point they seem to radically diverge. I said at the top of this post I wouldn't mind being either of them, but I could only be either of them it seems. In a world that has seen such systems as apartheid, the fascist and communist regimes for example it is not hard to see that obeying the authorities does not always equate with what is morally right- Acts 5.29 'We must obey God, rather than men' echoes strongly in my mind. The question is though is it better to work within and try and change that system for the better or do as much as you can as you are if necessary in opposition to the authorities- although your scope will be narrower?

For me it would try to be a matter of which results in the most good- and working within the systems involve making compromises on many other issues to score any big wins for the better- is that a moral burden that should be shouldered? Though as my friend noted when I brought this up, without authority, organization and direction one can find themselves merely treating symptoms their whole life and not solving the root structural causes of problems. It may be more praiseworthy on an individual level when a family that has little food shares it with a starving beggar and risk their own welfare compared to the man who simply directs the requisitioning of others food for wider distribution with little personal loss to himself. But the latter has done more to stop the hunger of the community in the long run than the family has.

I suppose which one is a better route depends on how one answers the question of whether it really matters if people don't want to hand over their food to this requisitioning force, and perhaps it's a sign of weakness on my part, but for me it most definitely matters- I cannot countenance the idea of using force to achieve an end- I believe that no matter what it has done for the community materially, socially, it has made a net loss that can have dire consequences in the future. Thus in my pacifistic principles I have found something that constitutes a consistent good for myself.

However that is just me, and in this era of apparent 'betrayal' by the lib dems, and a disconnected conservative frontbench of millionaires who are prescribing a highly regressive cuts regime I suppose the question beckons more than ever; is it time to start trying to take matters more into our own hands and make our voices heard rather than letting those in power just get on with it? In a democracy, we are supposedly the masters, but are our 'servants' acting according to our general will? Should we support, start looking beyond the practioners of conventional politics? Have they been finally revealed redundant, active obstacles in the making of a better world? Are they to be reformed, replaced or destroyed utterly?

Perhaps the last word should rest with Poirot, who seems in this instance to ignore his personal philsophy and take the law into his own hands, letting the murderers go free. This probably isn't surprising; the victim was truly diabolic, the court system corrupt and unjust and the crowd consensus was that these were good people. Whether they were of not is for the viewer to judge, but I suspect the scriptwriters really want to nudge the audience in one particular direction. Nevertheless the scene shows that no 'principal for consistency' is in fact ever 100% consistently applied by humans, nor should we expect it to be. To do so would be to diminish our humanity which feels as well as thinks- it's illuminating that after this momentous act, this act of 'making the right choice' we see Poirot cry (Also something never before seen and entirely unlike him). He also made the choice of the heart.

I also notice that before and after this act he fingers his Rosary.

We must obey God rather than Men.

Once more unto the Barricades!

We Need "to show solidarity with the large numbers of people who are suffering as a result of government cutbacks".

We also must raise protest "on behalf of those losing their jobs, seeing their public services undermined, their hopes for higher education jeopardised, or their fears realised through the creation of what increasingly seems like a less caring, more brutalised society, and where vast bonuses form the contemptuous retort to any mention of restraint, and the black economy of the super-tax dodger is seen as a legitimate moral code"

Who could the speaker of these words possibly be? Is it an irate Len McCluskey sounding another call to arms? Is it Ed Miliband changing his mind and finally deciding to reveal his true colours as 'Red Ed'; the monster from the wild and desolate hinterlands of the left that the Tory press always knew him to be?

Well no, not exactly- it is in fact the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade.

Look at him! Look at Nicholas Reade! He clearly has 'dangerous Radical' and 'Turbulent Priest' written all over him. The clerical collar gives him away. The Full article can be found here.

I am really of course, supportive of stories that show the Church concerned with the poor rather than gays or women for a change, though I am though intrigued by what is meant by 'christian protest', as if it is somehow objectively different from other protests.

Perhaps he does, after all people are already quite used to Christians standing in the street shouting random slogans at them or else handing out battered-looking leaflets- This being the case, maybe we do need to sharpen our approach when it comes to protest. After a quick brainstorm I've come up with some suggestions which I humbly submit for the Bishop:

1) Possibly something like this- though with a change of words? Perhaps we should chant James 5:1-6 antiphonally? Or for the more modern worshipper of course perhaps turn it into a new four chord song involving hand-raising and a frustratingly catchy chorus?

2) Why stick to forming a mere human chain when one can form a human Rosary?

3) In the spirit of the liturgical season, when challenged by police or store-owners, insist that you were led to this point by a star and can't really move on until 'something miraculous has happened'.

Of course, the best examples of biblical, and whilst there is of course the option of writing scathing letters or overturning money tables, I think they'll be expecting that sort of thing the crafty dodgers, so instead I offer 2 of my personal favourites-

4) Marry a prostitute- give birth to children and name them things like 'Fatally Compromised' or 'Forsaken by God' (Hosea 1)

5) Lie on your left side for 390 days without turning over and on your right for 40 days, eat only bread baked using cow manure as fuel, when this period is up take a sword and cut off your hair and beard- proceed then to burn 1/3 of it, scatter 1/3 of it to the wind and with the remaining third, walk around attacking it with the sword. (Ezekiel 4, 5)

Now if that doesn't show the authorities we mean business, I don't think we will ever get the message through to the authorities. I look forward to seeing the Bishop on the warpath in the new year.

Finally I would just like to wish anyone reading this a very Merry Christmas, I hope the day itself is particularly good and happy. I would offer best wishes for the New Year, but I'm not sure if I'll find something to say before then, so maybe, maybe a Happy New Year to you as well!

A day at the races

I'm very pleased to say that despite the lack of action in my own home town of Swindon, I was able to make it to the UK Uncut Pay Day protest in Oxford instead. Though why Swindon doesn't have one when the Vodafone and Topshop shops are actually within feet of each other is a mystery. I digress however, and there seems to have been some good coverage of the day, particularly from the Daily Mail (My thanks to UK Uncut for highlighting this on Twitter)- I suppose that ultimately paying one's fair share of tax is something most people find an unobjectionable position to hold.

Alas there are no pictures to share, but there were a good handful of us down, particularly those who have been involved in the Occupied Oxford campaign. Taking rather a different tack from those who have been occupying the shops or gluing themselves to windows, we held the 'Monaco tax dodgers' grand prix' armed with cardboard racers, each sponsored by a various companies associated with tax avoidance, including Vodaphone, BHS, Barclays (my own noble steed), Boots and a few others. We then spent the next hour and a half and more perhaps racing around the high streets outside the different shops (and very occasionally into the shops s well!) chanting, handing out leaflets, and having a rather good time whilst we were at it.

It was a good day out, and was I think, only enhanced by the fact that we had to run through the snow, and contra Toby Young the onlookers (thankfully!) seemed mostly amused by our antics and interested in what we were saying- we got our message out and hopefully some people took it on board. Whilst I'm looking at that article in fact, I have to ask if some trashy consumer item is really going to advantage the poorest in our society over public services that are being cut. ("Even if this method of protest was successful and Vodafone and Top Shop ended up paying more tax, it wouldn’t be ordinary people that would benefit. On the contrary, the higher taxes would immediately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. How, precisely, is that going to help “the poorest and most vulnerable”?) Cut, I hasten to add, because we're told the money must come from somewhere, but for some reason not from those most able to afford it.

The fundamental discrepancy of this of course, along with the accompanying hypocrisy of the 'we're all in this together' rhetoric of a certain coalition governemnt, is what UK Uncut is trying to highlight, and even if it does cause minor inconvenience (as any protest inevitable must) I think it is a worthwhile hue and cry to raise, and I certainly hope to join in yet more and perhaps, perhaps the message will catch on and then who knows? Maybe some of that avoided tax may find its way back to the government and channeled back to where it could really benefit the UK public most.

The Politics of Jesus, no fast answers

It is strange with so much going on- the loss of up to 100,000 public sector jobs, the possibility of a rise in absolute Child poverty for the first time in 15 years according to the IFS or the deeply discomforting treatment of Jody McIntyre by the politicians and the press or the Beeb, that I would decide to pick a blog post about Mehdi Hasan's recent article over the politics of Jesus in conjunction with Mike Ion's article to the same end focusing though on the nativity.

The other things of course deserve comment, they should not be allowed to pass by without mention lest they be ignored by a wider public, though in the last case it has already been done with such blistering brilliance by Laurie Penny that there is truly nothing further to say on my part.

Fact of the matter is though that coming from a religious perspective as I do, the so-called politics of Christ and the Gospels surely comes at the heart of whatever response I should wish to make. In trying to align myself towards the divine goodness, the words and deeds of the Incarnate Deity should act as an anchor, a polar object which other ideas revolve around. For a theological response to have any worth in its contribution to a debate it must find agreement with its sources.

And I wish I could say that I felt the matter was as open and shut as Mike and Mehdi wish to make out, but I can't quite see the evidence for the assertion either that Jesus would likely have been throwing stones at Fred Goodwin's house, or that the implications for the Roman Empire were the 'single most important fact' of the Nativity. My principal objection to this is that both these sorts of views actually represent and narrowing, and a limiting of the Gospel proclamation.

There is always a certian amount of twisting involved when we apply 19th century social and economic theories to what has preceded it- and we shouldn't automatically assume that a particular action is always prompted by the same motivations. Ultimately, I do not believe that Jesus should be seen as a left-wing activist bent on improving society. This isn't the whole story. We should be careful about portraying Jesus as a political figure at all- if we look at the gospels in their wholeness, rather than commit the factionalist/fundamentalist error of quoting scripture shorn of wider context and then assume the fragment speaks for the whole, then it becomes quite clear that there is a distinct...otherworldly quialty to Jesus.

Jesus came to preach the Kingdom of God, not tear down the Kingdoms of Men. His activity, his mission, his very being is directed towards the will of God, and his ministry is not presented as simply a shaking up of the earthly order (quite the opposite in fact) but rather a cosmic 'game-changer' in the relationship between God and Man, that also opens itself to a reshuffling of human relationships towards each other.

I don't wish to claim that Jesus is right wing, left wing whatever wing really. The Jesus of the gospel accounts always seems to evade sloppy categorization and anyone who takes the accounts seriously would have a hard time trying to make him the poster boy for any social movement. This is not the first time of course that individuals have tried to make a political figure out of the Messiah when Mike Ion asserts the most important thing about Jesus is that he represents 'a drastic political challenge to the imperial power of Rome.' He makes common cause with many first century Jews who hoped, nay, expected the same thing. The Messiah was meant to be a political liberator who would restore Israel to its former glory. Yet the Messiah when he came did no such thing.

If Jesus overthrew Roman Rule, he picked the most impractical way of doing it; wandering around and engaging in religious teaching and dispute before getting executed as a criminal, leaving behind a seminal faith that would later go on and eventually ally themselves with the Empire- the effects of which can still be felt today, notably with the Bishops in the Lords for example.

I am not saying of course that one cannot be Christian and stand up for the things outlined in Mehdi's article, I truly believe that one can hold both without tension; Jesus is a countercultural character- he associates with the marginalised of society and dishes out a strong critique of the religious authorities and teaches that he who is last shall be first, but we shouldn't try to impose a political, ideological system onto this. There must be room for the religious, spiritual dimension to the message of Christ if we are to understand him at all. Healing the sick isn't signalling support for a tax-funded system of healthcare its a revelation of what the future holds and what a life of faith entails. It seems more likely to me that the workers at the vineyard is more likely first and foremost about salvation in the fullest sense being available whenever one takes it rather than being literally about workers wages.

My fear is that by hammering Jesus into a particular ideological straitjacket we risk alienating those of religious sentiment but with different political opinions. Jesus is not a partisan, for the faithful at least, he is meant to act as a force for unity and holding together the contradictions that arise between people. He is a bridge, not a barricade. the idea that any side would want to score cheap points by claiming him for their own is a little disgraceful. It's difficult to know who the other 'side' is meant to be- simplistic media reporting would suggest 'Evangelicals = Right Wing' yet Lausanne shows us that a commitment to social (and increasingly environmental) justice is not just a preserve of the liberals or mainliners. Yet by exploring the spiritual/religious side there is common ground, which can open up fruitful discussion as to how the Kingdom of God would be organized, what discipleship entails and so on.

Jesus may appear left wing, but when he sat down on the mountain, he did not outline his view of society and the reasons for its injustices and then plan how to topple the lot, no he rather gave commands that every disciple was meant to follow- and how to work them out as part of an active citizenship, he seems to have allowed space for personal consideration and growth, and I hope that we will be able to do it united in faith rather than divided by politics.