The Worrying Infusion of Plato

“Heaven is totally overrated. It seems boring. Clouds, listening to people play the harp. It should be somewhere you can’t wait to go, like a luxury hotel. Maybe blue skies and soft music were enough to keep people in line in the 17th century, but Heaven has to step it up a bit. They're basically getting by because they only have to be better than Hell” – Joel Stein, columnist for the Los Angeles Times. Quotated on several million Starbucks take-away cup #230

The influence of Plato has been mentioned on various comments on the blog before, so I was interested to hear Doug Wilson explain how pervasive Platonic ideas have been in our culture - and especially our understanding of heaven. In his sermon, the New Ordinary, here, he paints a very accurate picture of how many evangelicals wrongly perceive heaven - as the end point of history. Heaven is neither the end nor the aim of history. And yet Christians often perpetuate the unhelpful myth that heaven is some eternal disembodied state of nirvana-like bliss that is what we're all destined for when this life of pain is over. And we wonder why people don't want to be become Christians! Who wants that kind of eternity?

The reality is that we are not distinct from our bodies. We are our bodies. Our bodies are not carry-cases for our brains or souls. We are not Platonic shadows of some disembodied truth. But to listen to the language of much evangelical preaching, you would think the gospel is some form of Platonic Gnosticism. We are not 'just passing through this life'. Jesus was raised from the dead, physically and really. And we preach this message not to show that we believe the Bible is true, and to show we're not liberals (as Wilson points out), but because Jesus is beginning the rescue plan which continues through human history, ending in the defeat of death.

As Morrissey might have sung, "Heaven knows I'm post-millennial now..."

A Year of Blogging and Wilberforce still wins

My first blog entry was almost exactly a year ago with quite a few blogs about William Wilberforce - a wonderful, godly man whom, upon reflection after a year of blogging, I admire even more! Why? Because he embodies all that's good about Evangelicalism.

Here's the problem. In Britain, I sense Evangelicals are feeling distant from society, cut off from culture and squeezed by the state. This is largely self-inflicted. We have disengaged from politics, handed the care of the poor, sick and elderly over to the increasingly-secular State and now wonder why no-one listens to us or takes us seriously. This is compounded by a suspicion of art, culture and media which has been present in Evangelicalism since the Reformation. (The Reformers themselves, I don't think, were suspicious of art and culture, but their descendants surely are. Or have been). As I have noted before, CS Lewis, Tolkein, Dorothy L Sayers and GK Chesterton were not evangelicals. If they turned up an evangelical church then, or now, most ministers would have no idea how to talk to them.

Things are changing. Evangelicals are trying to engage with society, government and the media. We are trying to 'connect' with our friends and neighbours through culture. Christian bookshops now burst with books about pop culture, and how to watch movies (albeit they only ever discuss the Matrix, Magnolia and Lord of the Rings). Evangelical churches know that they need to establish 'community' and reach out in some way, but no one really knows how or what to do. I sense an intense desire among evangelicals to be relevant again.

I don't think Wilberforce was interested in any of these things. He wasn't trying to be relevant so he could subvert world-views in order to have conversations about Jesus. He wasn't trying to build community so he could draw people into church. He just lived the gospel. He was generous, cheerful and fun to be with. He was concerned for the poor and the rich. He took criticism on the chin and used his own rhetorical skills for the glory of God. He could have been Prime Minister, but he eschewed the highest office in order to do the work he's been given to do.

In short, he was salt and light. He remains a great inspiration

Compelling Storytelling

I've just realised that there are two types of television. The kind that is designed to keep you watching to the end, and the kind that isn't. Surely, all television is meant to be watched? Yes. But what is the point of it? What's the aim of the show? Who's paying for it? How is it being transmitted? What do on earth am I talking about? Let's go through the types of television.

Type 1 - The kind of television that is meant to keep you watching all the way to the end. Why? Because the programme is on commercial television, and the only reason the programme exists it to sell products. Without the sponsors, this show would not exist. In fact, public service television can operate the same way. The need to justify funding can create the same atmosphere. People must watch. The whole thing. To the end. Or we stop paying for this programme to be made. Clearly, almost all television falls into this category.

Type 2 - The kind of television that simply 'is' because it is what it is. This is television with all constraints removed. No sponsor or paymaster to please. This is television for its own sake. This is storytelling because the story needs to be told - in this way and no other. This is almost impossibly in television unless you have very deep pockets, so it applies more to novels. Fiction is a very commercialised and always has been - but sometime, someone just digs in and carves out a classic that no-one asked for. And they read all the way to the end because they want to. Think Tolkein's Lord of the Rings. There was someone who simply wanted to tell his story his way. If you get lost in the Forest or Marshes, so be it.

The problem with Type 1 is the bottom line. Every decision you make will be governed by the principle - will this keep people watching. Whereas the advantage of Type 2 the bottom line is - is this true to the story?

The advantage of Type 1 is that encourages you to keep things interesting. The problem with Type 2 is it that you can be easily become deathly dull. Witness vanity projects of movie start, like Travolta's Battlefield Earth.

This dynamic is changing. People are buying DVD boxed sets - and watching the series all the way through without commercials. That's how I watch House and Seinfeld. Sooner or later, it will be possible to go straight to DVD - and that this will be a good, or at least liberating, thing.

The Internet is also changing this. It is increasingly possible to 'find an audience' for the TV show, or podcast, novel or album. The paymasters are losing their grip.

And there is an opportunity for Christians to work out how the landscape is changing, make truly distinctive programmes and create culture, freed from the need for everything to be some kind of mainstream. Freed from the bottom line of Type 1, its need for regular, contrived cliffhangers every 11 minutes and all the other worries of 'stay tuned' TV. Will we embrace this freedom when it comes, or keep making media for The Man?

Using your talents

What is your pension plan for? I've neatly sidestepped this question so far by not earning enough money to start saving in this way, but I'm starting to think that I should (both earn some decent money and save...).

But what are we saving for? If we are made by God to work, why are we planning periods in our life when we do not work? Many work for years, stashing away money in a pension so they can live the life of Reilly when they finally quit. For some golfing holidays, cruises and wine-tastings are a perpetual fantasy during another board meeting or strategy seminar. Isn't that a shame? It's worse than that for Christians. It's disobedience.

In the end, many retired folk end up filling their day with non-paid work commitments. My parents seem to be busier now than when they were running a farm, although they do spend many weeks in their caravan (which, for me, would count as hardship not holiday...). Saving for a period of unpaid work is, perhaps, a healthier option.

Whatever you're currently thinking about, it's worth thinking about that money that you put into a pension fund and forget about for thirty odd years. Why not use it for building the kingdom? Mark Jones Parry has had some interesting thoughts on what we do with our pensions here.

Little Donkey

There is no entry for 'Donkey' in the New Bible Dictionary, which is a shame. And yet Jesus triumphally processes into Jerusalem on one, an event we celebrate on Palm Sunday. What are we to make of this odd occurence.

I think we are meant to laugh. Laugh at Jesus? No. Laugh at Jesus' subversiveness and sense of humour? Yes. My worry is that we miss the incongruity and the comedy here for fear of irreverence. But it's such a plainly comic image, let us pause to giggle for at least a moment.

We may think we understand it if we faithfully look up Zechariah 9 and read the following:
9 Rejoice greatly, O Daughter of Zion!
Shout, Daughter of Jerusalem!
See, your king comes to you,
righteous and having salvation,
gentle and riding on a donkey,
on a colt, the foal of a donkey.
10 I will take away the chariots from Ephraim
and the war-horses from Jerusalem,
and the battle bow will be broken.
He will proclaim peace to the nations.
His rule will extend from sea to sea
and from the River to the ends of the earth.

"Aha," we may think to ourselves. "Now I understand what's going on. Jesus is showing that he is God's promised King, riding into Israel. And this is the king who will take away the chariots from Ephraim - and all that. He will be the one who brings peace. Yes, I see."

If we respond like that, as many Evangelicals have no doubt done all over the world, I think we've missed out. Please let me draw your attention to the image before us. Jesus, the creator and sustainer of the universe, God's chosen king and messiah, clip-clopping into Jerusalem on a colt. It's not even an adult donkey. His feet must almost be dragging along the ground and the scene is rather curious.

Imagine standing there being in the crowd. What are you thinking? "The king is coming! Jesus Christ, the one who controls the weather, who heals the sick and raises the dead! He feeds the multitudes and turns water into wine. There is nothing this man can't do! He is truly our king coming to claim his throne. Look here he comes. Oh. What's he riding? Is that... a donkey? It's not even a big one. Man, couldn't he at least find a small chariot? Or a be carried in a chair? What on earth is he playing at? This isn't the king I had in mind..."

Let's be honest. The donkey is so unimpressive a steed it's comical. And that's the point, isn it? The Pharisees and the chief priests couldn't get their heads around this subversive king. How could God's chosen King be a carpenter's son, an itinerant preacher - a plain-looking ordinary man? He wasn't a Julius Caesar. He wasn't a Socrates. He wasn't a carpenter. He didn't ride a chariot. In fact, he came to destroy chariots - and he can do destroy the mighty armies of this world sitting on a little donkey. Doesn't that make you want to know more about this wonderful, powerful, self-confident king? And does that make you smile? Works for me...

Imagining the Future

Science Fiction writers play a key role in the development of technology and imagining the future. They imagine new forms of technology and how they are integrated in society. They create new worlds, new life forms and new ways of living. And it's all very exciting.

It's a shame there aren't really any Social Fiction writers, who could reimagine the bits of life that are boring, but ludicrously important. Like taxation. Yesterday, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced another micro-managed, over-taxing, over-spending budget to help the government achieve objectives it has no business aiming for, and that it stands no chance of achieving. Can a government really achieve and end to child poverty? Of course not. Especially not this one, which taxes the poor so relentlessly.

The way we live now is not inevitable. Nor it is necessarily progressive. It's just different to how it was. And different to how it will be. Try imagining it differently. Try imagining stupid ideas too. Try imaging counter-cultural ideas. Try imagining policies or ways of living you find objectionable. And then imagine how things would look if they came about.

Try imagining a completely different taxation system. It's easy if you try. How about if you scrapped child benefit? Don't make it means tested. Bin it. Completely. How about scrapping working family tax credit? And a whole bunch of other tax credits and allowances? You also scrap taxing the poor. Anyone earning less than £18,000 paid no income tax or national insurance. None. Not a penny. You effectively be giving them £4000. Wouldn't that cushion the blow of not getting £20 a week in child benefit and other allowances? You'd also save millions on civil servants who are paid well (and have wonderful pensions) to take the poor's money in taxation and give it back to them in a heavily reduced and restricted form. These civil servants are educated, able people. They could easily get jobs elsewhere. Where would they work?

Imagine scrapping the fuel allowance for the elderly. Imagine not taxing their basic state pension and letting them decide what to do with their benefits.

Imagine scrapping road tax. Maybe instead you pay an annual tax after your MOT based on mileage, engine size and your postcode (which takes into account local transport services). Or pay nothing at all. Imagine if telephone were taxed as heavily as cars. Or the price of water rose and fell like oil prices.

Imagine scrapping free education. Imagine scrapping the need to raise tens of billions of pounds in taxation to pay for it and allowing people to decide for themselves how to educate their children. Imagine what range of schools would emerge.

Imagine scrapping free healthcare. Imagine not needing to find £90 billion from the electorate. What would tax rates look like then? Imagine getting used to paying £15 to see your doctor (just like it does to go the dentist or optician at the moment). Imagine the effect that would have. Imagine a health co-operative. Imagine a charity hospital.

Imagine a government that does not feel the need to redistribute wealth through a taxation system. Imagine if they left that up to the people. How would they go about doing it voluntarily? What would happen if they didn't?

Imagine a government that was solely concerned with justice and the defence of the realm. Imagine if that government did nothing else. Nothing. What would political parties look like? And how would elections be?

Imagine if the local council scrapped street lighting. Who would pay for it? And how? How would it change the way we live? And relate to our neighbours?

Imagine if the local council did not pick up your rubbish. What system would emerge in its place?

Imagine if it was culturally unacceptable to put your parents into a home? How different would your life look? How would you plan it differently?


Now, I don't agree with all of the above 'imaginings' but it's worth thinking about how things could change. If we scrapped stuff, something else will turn up. What will it look like?

Now imagine if some politicians presented a genuine imaginative alternative. Imagine if Christians had an imagination. Imagine if they prayed imaginatively. And how would God answer those prayers, given that he is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask of imagine?

The State and the Poor

Libby Purves has just gone up in my opinion. The reason is here.

Stereotypes, hyperbole and passion

Evangelicals Christians often back away hyperbole - considering it to be lying. That's understandable. We want to be those who tell the truth, as Christ did. We want to be tell the truth like Jesus did. But how did he tell the truth? Often, he used hyperbole and exaggeration.

The obvious example is Luke 14:26: "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple." How does that square with the command to honour your father and mother? Is he telling his followers to sin? No. He's using hyperbole to make his point. We can all see that, and we can know that and yet many of us freak out when we hear others use hyperbole or exaggeration. We rush to issue qualifiers and caveats.

Sometimes people use hyperbole to flatter themselves. eg. "I caught a fish this big". That's simply exaggeration for pride - and pride is obviously sin. So let's not get too hung up on the dangers of hyperbole here.

As I've been thinking about 'stereotype' jokes, I've come to realise that stereotypes are a form of hyberbole. Stereotypes say 'this people group are like this' (eg. the French are obsessed with food) or 'people in this profession normally do this' (eg. Doctors have appalling handwriting). Some French people aren't interested in food, and some doctors write beautifully. But the stereotype is a literary device, used and understood knowingly.

The problem is that using hyperbole needs to leave certain things unsaid - and here I think is a crucial problem with modern Evangelicalism. We don't like ambiguity. We want everything nailed down, explained, broken down, unpacked and dealt with. It's the antithesis of Art - hence the unhappy relationship Evangelical has had with the arts for the last few hundred years. We don't like ambiguity which is why we're always preaching Paul's letters to ourselves rather than the stories of the Old Testament, which require imagination to get into and understand. We can't - and shouldn't - break every story down into bullet points with simple propositions. We need to understand the story, embrace the intangibles and prepare to be moved.

I'm increasingly convinced that Jesus in particular - and the Bible in general - gives us permission to speak far more radically, creatively and boldly than we might be at first comfortable with. We must not let the desire to qualify everything get in the way of forceful literary expression.

A few days ago, I was questioning the general standard of preaching - mainly from the perspective of how well connected preachers are with the lives of their congregation. Perhaps another problem is a lack of passion. The passion may well not be lacking from the man who preaches, but he can be so hamstrung by a poor appreciation of literature and rhetoric, he is unable to say add any great emphasis to anything because he must always pander to our societies desire to add qualifications and caveats to every statement. Perhaps that's the appeal of the likes of Mark Driscoll (see pic below) and John Piper - who preach forcefully and controversially butunashamedly and unapologetically. They have their critics - especially Driscoll - but many are praising God that these men have spoken the truth so plainly.

Have you heard the one about the Frenchman?

Here’s a joke:
An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman go into a pub. The Englishman says something conventional and unremarkable. The Scotsman in some way demonstrates he is thrifty. The Irishman demonstrates he has misunderstood the entire situation and everyone laughs at him.

Okay, so it’s not a joke, but it’s the format of a joke. Who is the joke about? These days, it’s a joke about stupid people. The English have a stereotype of a simple, uneducated Irishman, mainly because the English exploited and surpressed the Irish for hundreds of years. But the Irish economy is in pretty good shape now and is now surging ahead. Does the Irish stereotype still fit? Not really.

Stereotypes are not static. They move with the times. A few years ago, a joke that would have been about a hapless Irishman become a joke about David Beckham – whom people assumed was stupid. I’m not sure he is. He is softly spoken and has a fairly high pitched voice, but stupid that makes him not. I note that he’s considerably richer than everyone who reads this blog combined so he’s not that stupid.

Here’s a European joke:
In Heaven, the mechanics are German, the chefs are French, the police are British, the lovers are Italian and everything is organized by the Swiss. In Hell, the mechanics are French, the police are German, the chefs are British, the lovers are Swiss and everything is organized by the Italians.

It seems fairly harmless. What’s the joke? That the Germans are efficious, the British are poor cooks, the Swiss are unromantic and the Italians are a shambles. For some interesting insight on attitudes on European prejudices written by an outsider, have a look here.

So, is it okay for English Christians to tell jokes about the French? By and large, yes. It isn’t racist to do jokes about the various foibles of the French. But what’s the joke for? There are a variety of kinds of jokes and there is a place for all of them.

1. A joke told between equals. This is essentially banter, not designed to cause offence. Let’s be honest. The French and the English are not all that different. We’ve had an uneven relationship over the last thousand years, but at the moment, we’re on the same side. We’re large, industrious, wealthy countries and we’re not afraid of each other. Not really. So a joke about the French obsession with food is probably fine. It’s worth watching Flushed Away. There is a French character – a Frog! Who’d have thought it? – voiced by Jean Reno. There are some very funny jokes at the expense of the French, but they’re clearly not meant to wound.

I wonder whether Nathaneal’s comment “"Nazareth! Can anything good come from there?" falls into this category. Also, Paul’s agreement with the statement "Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons" rather than leaping to their defence is funny.

2. A joke told by the righteous against the unrighteous. Here a joke is being made to make a satirical point, to teach or rebuke. Let’s return to the French again. It is my opinion that trade tariffs and subsidies are a bad thing. And the existence of European agricultural tariffs and subsidies is very bad for farmers in poor countries in Africa who need trade. Therefore, I’d be happy to make some fairly stinging jokes about the French desire to protect their own farmers at the expense of the poor farmers in Africa. Again, there’s a stereotype here. I’m sure plenty of Frenchmen are keen to see an end to tarrifs and subsidies, but the point still stands.

A lot of Biblical humour falls in this category, especially much of Jesus’ devastating comments about the Pharisees and Temple priest, and even the Jews as a whole. The jokes are intended to offend in order to change minds or highlight wrong-thinking. Also, one could count Paul’s comment in Galatians 5:12 about judaisers. “I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” There are plenty of examples of some harsh comments to satirise, mock and pour scorn on folly and sin.

Christians seem reluctant to use this form of comedy but we must reclaim it. It’s very Biblical. To those who would be satirists, Douglas Wilson has written some very helpful comments here.

3. A joke told by the oppressor against the oppressed. This is comedy used to humiliate, oppress and marginalise. Clearly this is one that Christians would seek to avoid. This category doesn’t really apply to English/French jokes – although it would if you had your penpal over from France and your fellow English classmates told a steady stream of anti-French jokes in order to make your poor penpal feel bad and small. This is why it’s inappropriate for an Englishman to tell Pakistani jokes – even though there are 160 million Pakistanis in Pakistan. In Britain they are a minority and frequently get a rough deal from those who are simply prejudiced. It would be irresponsible to make jokes about Pakistanis, perhaps even valid satirical ones, if we were increasing injustice and their suffering.

It is this category that reminds us how important context is. As Christians – with a desire for legalism – we want hard and fast rules that we can obey in all places at all times. But we know that things don’t work like that. There is a time and place for everything. A time for jokes and a time to keep schtumm. A time to mock and a time to encourage. Is it okay to tell a string of Jewish jokes? If you’re Jackie Mason on a West End stage, yes. The jokes are told from within a community with affection. If you’re a skinhead and leading a fascist rally, no. The jokes are being told to humiliate, oppress and encourage hatred.


I’m sure there are more ‘joke categories’ than the ones above, but they’re a start. It might be worth thinking about some case studies. Eg. Bart vs Australia – the Simpsons episode putting the boot into Australia. I’m told it went down very badly there. And what about the ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ joke about the French in the Simpsons?


One final comment: Christian brothers and sisters have different sensibilities and sensitivities. We must bear them in mind when making jokes. Some of us would be happy to be in a room when some jokes are told that would make others very embarrassed. We shouldn’t use our freedom in Christ for licence. Our freedom should not be a stumbling block for others. Equally, those of us who are more sensitive should not judge other so quickly for their sense of humour. All basic Romans 14 stuff, but quickly and easily forgotten when people are getting hot and bothered about jokes.

Stereotyping Comedy

A couple of links for now:

Here's a great sketch posted on Youtube by the BBC. It was one of a series of sketches in Armstrong and Miller. (You can find them as well on Youtube by clicking the links) Are these sketches saying that young people are feckless, stupid and shallow?

Also, here is a really helpful sermon called "Imagination, Theology, and Life" by Pastor Duane Garner at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church. What's particularly interesting and relevant is his discussion about how Jesus frequently didn't nuance what he said. We always want to add caveats to Jesus' words - but he doesn't do that. Have a listen. Well worth the effort of downloading and sticking on an iPod.

If you know anyone running the London Marathon...

Here's a plug for a service my church is holding on Saturday 12th April for Marathon runners and their families and supporters (who will be otherwise engaged on Sunday morning).

THE STREETS OF THE CITY: PRE-FLORA LONDON MARATHON SERVICE 2008

6pm, Saturday 12th April 2008

6pm, at Christ Church Mayfair, there will be a church service for Marathon Runners, their families, friends and supporters. Andy Mason, Minister of St John’s, Chelsea, will be preaching on “Zechariah 8: The Streets of the City.” The service will last approx 1hr.

Afterwards, all are invited to stay for a pasta supper served in the church.

Please REGISTER FOR SUPPER VIA THE CONTACT PAGE here.
Christ Church Mayfair is on Down Street , off Piccadilly near Hyde Park Corner, close to the Marathon finishing line!

On Sunday 13 April 2008
For supporters waiting for their runner to finish (!) there will be a service at 10.15 and for runners who have finished who have enough energy and their supporters there will be a service at 6.30 on Sunday 13 April 2008.

For more information, location details, tubes and buses, see here.