Bletchley Park in Trouble

I've written an article on my Hut 33 blog about the financial crisis at Bletchley Park.

Over the past seventy years, Bletchley Park has beaten the odds on a number of occasions. The most obvious odds to overcome were the chances of cracking the Enigma code that began emanating from Germany in the late 1930s. Boffins were bundled into vans, linguists rounded up and all manner of experts approached to work on the problem. But the entire enterprise was nearly stillborn before it had even got underway. Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair had to defeat the insurmountable object that was the British Civil Service. Securing the funds for buying Bletchley Park took so long, Sir Hugh ended up spending £7500 of his own money on the building (c. £1.2m by today’s earnings)

With the site secured, they finally had some luck cracking Enigma. They rapidly discovered... read the rest here.

Romans 16

I've just been looking at Romans 16 - which is often over looked after we've all got excited about Romans 1-8. Some stagger through Romans 9-11. Some linger on Romans 12 and 13. Some skim Romans 14-15. But let's face it, who really gives much time to Romans 16. Okay, maybe it feels like most of the meat has been taken off the bone, but we can make some pretty good stock with Romans 16. Here are a few thoughts:

Individuals matter to Paul
Apostolic ministry is not just about getting theology right. Certainly we need to defend orthodox theology. But the ministry is about people – individuals. They each need different encouragements and admonitions. There are no specific tellings-off here, as there are in other epistles. All are greeted and some warmly commended in some way. Do we, those of us who are leaders, elders or ministers, share Paul’s concern and devotion to individuals? Or are we more interested in systems, preaching programmes, commentaries and national influence?

Prominence of women
Those who throw rocks at Reformed Evangelicals for their stance on the ordination of women (ie. Not wishing women to run congregations) normally reserve their best throwing stones for the apostle Paul and his alleged misogyny. Sometimes, they take everything else that Paul offers. They just decide our culture must have this one right and that Paul, being single, didn’t ‘get’ women. This could not be further from the truth. The early church, as well as churches today, depend on women! Look at the list in Chapter 16 – and note that he commends Phoebe. Then greets Priscilla and Aquila, who offer their house up for church use. In fact, they risked their lives for Paul! Then he greets Epenetus, and then Mary. Assuming Aquila is female, three of the first four names in this chapter are women. Reformed Evangelicals should be the first to acknowledge the role of women in their congregations – but this does not necessarily mean ordination and female headship of congregations. Catch the rock that are thrown, and lob them back.

Warnings, warnings, warnings
One of Paul’s most common themes throughout his letters is the danger of false teaching, false prophets and those who use smooth talk and flattery to get into people’s lives. He does so again here, whilst also appealing for unity. Which seems odd. Evangelicals today have a reputation for splintering and causing division. But what does Paul actually say here? He warns against those who cause division on the basis of teaching contrary to orthodox Christian teaching. Evangelicals should stick together but they should be careful with whom they stick. They must not be naïve. If someone is seeking to twist and distort any part of the basic tenets of the Gospel, we don’t make things is ambiguous as possible in order to accommodate them. We “keep away from them.” If those who believe that unity is more important than sounds teaching, let them do what they want. We stick with the teaching we have learned.

And finally
Finally, there’s a wonderful doxology that reminds us that God who establishes the gospel. He has revealed it through the ages and now it’s been made known – so that nations might believe and obey. Our prayer should not just be for our friends and neighbours to come to Christ – but our nation! Do we really pray that? Do we think it possible? Paul did. So should we.

Don't Waste Your Humor

'Don't Waste Your Humor' is the title of a talk that I was informed of by CJ Mahaney.

Two things concern me here. Use of the word 'Humor' rather than 'comedy', 'jokes' or 'laughing' is a sign that 'humor' and comedy in general is about to get a getting kicking. Secondly, 'humor' should be spelt 'humour'.

But I haven't heard the talk yet. I'm going to listen to it today. It's here.

Women's Work

When I grow up, I hope to be GK Chesterton. Seriously.

Here's some of his stuff my wife found on the girltalk website.

"[W]hen people begin to talk about this domestic duty as not merely difficult but trivial and dreary, I simply give up the question. For I cannot with the utmost energy of imagination conceive what they mean. When domesticity, for instance, is called drudgery, all the difficulty arises from a double meaning in the word. If drudgery only means dreadfully hard work, I admit the woman drudges in the home, as a man might drudge [at his work]. But if it means that the hard work is more heavy because it is trifling, colorless and of small import to the soul, then as I say, I give it up; I do not know what the words mean…. I can understand how this might exhaust the mind, but I cannot imagine how it could narrow it. How can it be a large career to tell other people's children [arithmetic], and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute. I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness."

Knocked Up

Last night, I watched Knocked Up. A horrible title for a film that is better than it looks. At heart, it's a film about relationships. And very little to do with babies - which is fortunate as prevailing attitudes in the West to child-bearing are so far from anything resembling biblical values that it depresses me even to think about it. Children are a blessing from God, in and of themselves. They are not something you do, or a way of developing as a person. A society which is wondering whether it can 'afford to bring more children into an over-crowded world' is a society which doesn't understand God's kindness, provision and abundance. In fact, it's a society which doesn't know God.

Fortunately, the film is not about that, but the way in which one couple are forced together through circumstance (pregnancy). In fact, in a very old-fashion way, they decide to try and make it work. And despite their various problems and rows, they do. The feckless layabout at the centre of the film, Ben, who is broke and living like an overgrown child, finally grows up and puts away childlish things. This takes place alongside the heroine's unhappily married sister who thinks her husband is cheating on her. Out of the mouth of this husband character come some real expressions of self-loathing and existential despair. He wants to get away from his wife because she wants to be with him all the time. He can't handle that and ultimately can't understand why anyone would ever want to be with him. The problem is that his wife comes across as bossy and controlling.

As a result of this, people accuse the film's writer and director of being sexist. This seems surprising to me since, in my opinion, the men come across as the selfish idiots and the women as more sinned against than sinning. But the women are not perfect. Women are not perfect. A film which says men are awful and women are great is sexist and unhelpful. This film addresses that central problem many of us face - the differences between men and women and how they relate to each other.

In exploring this the film succeeds in the way that The Break Up doesn't. But the Break-Up contains a memorable useful line that explains the film well. Jennifer Aniston's character wants Vince Vaugh's character to help with the washing up. After much complaining he does and Aniston says 'No, I don't want you to help.' Vaughn is baffled. Aniston then says 'I want you to want to help.' It's the same sentiment in Knocked-Up. Both women want their men to be there for them, without having to tell them all the time what to do. Both men recoil at being told what to do - unable to take responsibility or show initiative - and retreat. And both the men and the women end up miserable. It's the fecklessness of Adam from Genesis repeated again. The man abrogates his responsibility and so the women steps up and takes his place, or insists that the man steps up.

It's all there in the film. The film is sometimes foul and f-word laden. But sadly this is normal speech for many and I can't berate the film for reflecting society thus. Apart from that, the film has some wonderful and terrific jokes. And I recommend it.

What America Needs

Comedy can often say things better than reporting or discussion. Here's a great example at the Onion. (Apologies for some adverts on the page that may contain foul language)

Television and Truth

I'm organising an event of a church about Television. I'm honing in on the difficulty that television has in 'telling the truth'. There'll be discussions and questions without necessarily arriving at a neat Christian answer. Anyway, here's a briefing document that might be worth a look.


Can Television handle the truth?
In July 2007 there was great controversy about footage of the queen – edited to make it look like she had walked out of a photo-shoot. Ultimately it caused the downfall of the Controller of BBC1, Peter Fincham. After a few more scandals, including the good ship Blue Peter and the legendary Richard and Judy, it appear that lies were commonplace in the media. It appeared that television cannot handle the truth. No one was entirely surprised by this, but after a whirlwind of media self-examination, hand-wringing and some hefty fines, it turned out that people wanted the truth.

But what does that truth look like? What is ‘honest’ or ‘truthful’ television? The reality is that everything is edited. Everything has to be edited. When your spouse says ‘How was you’re day?’ you don’t give them a minute-by-minute account. You highlight and summarise. How accurate that summary is depends on a lot of things. Events are happening all over the world and yet the news always seems to fit into a half-hour bulletin – and we’re happy to accept that is a necessity, or we’d spend our entire lives what the news in real time. Every week, a TV expert fines a failing restaurant, shop or family and managed to turn things round in about an hour. The problem is that editing programmes, and retelling stories once the footage has all been shot is so easy and tempting.

Watch this clip from Charlie Brooker’s Screenwipe which makes the point far better than I could!

Is that clip a fair representation of what goes on in TV production?

But why are programme-makers tempted to edit in that way? Why does anyone distort the truth? To impress someone… In the case of television, the viewers and the TV controllers.

So the question may not be, can television handle the truth but…
Can the viewers handle the truth?
The truth is that life is messy, hard-to-explain, and doesn’t normally have convenient pauses for ad-breaks. It is hard to summarise – and portray accurately and honestly.
Let’s be honest, the viewers are liars themselves – constantly exaggerating stories, fibbing and deceiving people. Why expect TV makes to be any different?
Viewers want excitement, good stories and a fair amount of titillation. (Look at the books and magazines they buy. Celebrity gossip etc.)

The question then is who decides what the TV networks show? Should give people what they want (sensation)? Or what they say they want (truth)?

So maybe the question is:
Can the TV Networks handle the truth?
The TV Networks need audiences to justify their existence – either to make money (ITV & Sky etc) or fulfil their remit (BBC & Channel 4) They need ratings. They need to pull people away from other programmes in order to watch their own. How do they do that? ‘Quality’ broadcasting is one thing, but there’s not much of it around. And it doesn’t always deliver ratings anyway. (The audience for plenty of TV ‘successes’ are often very small.) Should there simply be less television? Is that even an option in a deregulated digital market place?

What are TV Networks’ responsibilities? And why does television deserve such scrutiny?
It is visual – we are visual beings and extremely influenced by what we see.
It is commonplace – there’s a TV in every home. Our society is extremely influenced by what’s on our televisions.

It’s also worth bearing in mind that TV Networks can only broadcast programmes that TV companies are prepared to make (and make money on. Sometimes the truth is time-consuming and expensive to film). If the networks issue dictates demanding ‘truth’ from their programmes, are the TV production companies able to respond in such a competitive market place?

Can TV Companies handle the truth?
They need to sell programmes to make money (Hatrick, RDF etc) for themselves and/or fulfil their remit (BBC Production). What are TV companies’ responsibilities? They’re just trying to make a living.

And what’s the problem with manipulating the truth for the sake of a good story?

What is the difference between manipulating a ‘reality’ show – that everyone knows is contrived – and TV drama – that everyone also knows isn’t real?

What about the ‘truthfulness’ of drama and comedy in the values it espouses? Do certain TV show advocate lifestyles that others would say are anti-social and destructive?

And what does these problems the truth tell us about ourselves as people? Why does lying bother us at all?

Creationism and Scientism

If you read my blog, you probably read Douglas Wilson's too. And the Venerable David Field's. But in case you didn't see David Field's link to Douglas Wilson's blog, you should see this.

It's rare occurrence, but I don't completely agree with what Douglas Wilson is saying. I'm 100% behind the principle. But I'm don't consider Creationism to be a non-negotiable fundamental of Reformed Evangelical faith. But Wilson makes a point about Christian cultural slippage. This I wholeheartedly agree with. Christians - evangelicals and liberals - keep hitching their wagons to the wrong thing. The liberals hook up political correctness. Evangelicals are getting stuck into Fair Trade. Everyone's jumping on the environmental band wagon. And we are all enthralled by the supremacy of Science and the State. The particular issue here is Science on which I'd like to make one comment.

Science is good. But not God. I'm very wary of those who waves large banners for science. I'm almost as wary of those who wave placards at science. Because of advances in science, my baby daughter has a 500% improved chance of making it to her 18th birthday than she did five hundred years ago. This is a wonderful thing. And a sign of God's grace and kindness. Equally science is, and constantly remains, our current best guest. And the dogmatic cheerleading of the Dawkins brigade will look dumb in five hundred years. The scientists of 2508 will laugh at the science of Dawkins, snigger at Stephen Hawking, and roll around on the floor at nanotechnology (boy, they thought there were so clever!). They will view our Nobel Prize winners with the same regard that we esteem 16th Century scientists. We spot the odd bright guy and applaud his efforts, but snigger at the fact that William Harvey's discovery of Blood Circulation in 1628 was surely downright obvious to anyone with half a brain.

What's my point? Science dates. Theology does not. Or at least, good Theology does not. I'm unhappy with 17th Century science. But I'm very happy with 17th Century theology. John Owen, arguably the greatest Theologian from these shores, wrote a big pile of books that I'm sure I would happily endorse if I ever got round to reading them. (Incidentally, Owen had 11 children, 10 of whom died in infancy. He'd have liked a bit more science). A hundred years before him, Cranmer and Co were writing wonderful, beautiful liturgy. Calvin was churning out his Institutes. A thousand years earlier, Athanasius was defending and expounding the uniqueness and divinity of Christ. Orthodox Christian teaching may be expressed differently, and wear different hats and cloaks, but it's the same yesterday, today and forever (with footnotes where we're not entirely sure).

So Christians should not hitch their wagon to any passing horse or cart. Wilson thinks Christians in Britain may have sold out to Scientism. I think they/we probably have - but I'm still unconvinced about Seven Day Creation, partly because Science isn't all bad and is right sometimes. I'm more worried about that fact we've sold out to Statism, and continually endorse politicians who want us to be grateful to them for providing for all our needs. That is a far more worrying and insidious creeping doom. Worse, it's also crept and made itself at home.

Form Filling

There is nothing more frustrating than filling in forms. On Tuesday night, I had to fill in a form in order to claim Child Tax Credit - which isn't much money but worth having. After weeks of trying to find out what it is and how we claim, and some calls to a hotline which, when too busy, just said 'We're busy. Call another time'. Click. Well done, government, the form eventually arrived. I had to fill it in and - even though it comes from HM Revenues and Customs - I had to tell them stuff they already new. In fact, I had to tell them my address, which is odd considering they mailed me the form. (Incidentally, the picture on the right is not us)

It's the same with the NHS. You see a different doctor every time, endlessly repeating symptoms and previous appointments and saying 'Oh, the last doctor said it might x or y'. I sometimes wonder if anyone who works for the government ever writes anything down. But we know they do, because they keep asking us for money. Well, not asking, insisting we give them a variety of astonished taxes (and in the case of petrol, the charge VAT on the petrol duty. A double tax! Well done government!)

So what's the alternative? There is one solution. A government that knows everything about me. A government which keeps records - securely - without leaving them on pen drives on a 137 Bus or posting them by mistake on Facebook by a cut and paste-happy civil servant. This clearly costs a lot of money. Well, it costs the government a lot of money. It's the sort of thing Tesco's have sorted out with a few hundred million pounds of their own money. It would obviously take the government several billion pounds of taxpayers money to achieve a more clunky and unwieldy system that's immediately outdated the moment it's switched on.

But we would then have the Big Brother our society seems to want. A government that can ride to the rescue and secure all of our needs because it knows exactly who were are, where we are and it's software can predict which services will need and when. It's a government that can send us a 'get well' card when we're ill. It can register Child Tax Credit for us so that we don't have to do it when we're oddly busy doing other things like changing nappies and trying to sleep. It can sort out our pensions, sort out our hospital and charge us for the amount of road we actually use. Wonderful! It can tell where we go to church. What that church teaches. What we're likely to think. Whether those thought are acceptable in the view of the Government Committee for acceptable standards of Theology. It can mean there is never any difference between married couples, unmarried couples, co-habiting couples and gay couples. It can ensure that we never say our religion is better than anyone else's so that no-one ever has to feel bad. And it will generate forms and fill them in for us! How convenient. Surely that has to be worth it?

Or is there another alternative? How about a system in which there is no Child Tax Credit managed by salaried civil servants whose wages are paid by taxing the poor? How about a system in which you don't tax people on a minimum wage? How about a system in which 95% of people with children don't claim Child Benefit, Child Tax Credit or Working Families Tax Credit because they get to keep their money in the first place? (Yes, the poorest need help - and we should help them! That is a no-brainer - but even if we think that the government is the best way of doing this (which I don't) we can surely agree that an expensive system of taxation is a bad one?) And how about a system in which you don't give people of limited literacy and numeracy extensive, complex forms to fill in and several calculations to do? Frankly, if you're able to fill in a government form requesting financial help, you're probably capable of getting a job that means you don't need government help.

This government - and the previous one, and undoubtedly the next - is not a government interested in helping the poor. This is a government interested in being seen to help the poor, of making the poor grateful to posturing politicians, of taxing the poor most heavily and of giving this money to educated, middle-class civil servants who easily find jobs in the private sector. The sooner a political party has the guts to espouse an alternative, the better.

BBC7

While we all process the results of Synod, some light entertainment.

If you don't mind a touch of vanity, I'd like to plug a repeat of my first radio sitcom 'Think the Unthinkable' which is on BBC7. Quite frequently. You can find it here. You should be able to listen again later. It's from Series 2 and features a company called 'Blue Herring'. I think it contains one of my favourite exchanges with Daisy.

Incidentally, the first series is still available on CD from Amazon and other retailers.


Later this month, I hope to announce details of my novel. Excited? (No need to leave a comment if you're not.)

Who's your friend?

I'm back from my holidays. I had a great time (thank you for asking). I also bought some original art from a gallery in Devon. Something by Madeleine Millington. Wonderful.

Anyway, in two weeks - or just over - I'd forgotten how heavy my work-bag is which I donned this morning for the first time in a fortnight. But normal service must be resumed.

With Gafcon having just met, the synod meeting and the Lambeth Conference about to meet there are lots of shifting alliances within the Anglican Communion - a denomation to which I belong. Many outsiders find the divisions and debates utterly baffling. This is a shame but inevitable. Not being church members, they're simply not going to understand what's at stake - in the same way that I find the Financial Times completely bewildering.

But because of this shattered and embarrassing shop front, many within the church (and some with no knowledge but lots of opinions without) state that the church should unite at all costs. The most important thing, they say, is unity. Sadly, the most important thing is not a thing but a person - God. I'm more interested in His opinion than the clergy's, various lobbies', the government's, the media's and, well, anyone's.

Those who call for unity at all costs rarely wish to give ground themselves. They say that their own opinion is sufficiently broad to encompass a range of views (which it is not) and declare that anyone not prepared to come to them is beyond negotiation or 'extreme'. This is a disingenuous way to negotiate but a common one. So-called liberals love to exclude non-Liberals and label the non-liberals exclusive.

If we can't agree even on what should be agreed upon, we have a problem. So let's defer to God, rather than simply work a form of words we can all sign with a clear conscience - or a sufficiently dulled one. And if we have to walk away from each other in order to stand before God, then we can mourn, but we don't sacrifice theological integrity for the idol of unity. The worst stench in the world is the smoke of the pyre of truth.

For me, here is the nub. Many who have abandoned Biblical Truth (yes, I use capitals 'B' and 'T') are discovering that their churches are not becoming more relevant, more hip and more full. Quite the opposite. They are sliding into obscurity. Churches are being closed every week in Britain alone. Why? Because they are chasing culture, not changing it, not moulding into the communities God has shown he wants in the Bible. Amid the controversy and noise, the Church of England spend plenty of time discussion how to turn churches into tourist attractions, presumably so that foreign visitors can see what a Christian nation we used to be. My point is that the church is frequently worried about who she can be friends with now, in order to be more relevant, hip and full. But the church needs to be far more careful about forming alliances in face of overwhelming odds. I read Isaiah 30 this morning - in which Israel is warned about who they make alliances with. Here are some highlights.

1 "Woe to the obstinate children,"
declares the LORD,
"to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance,
but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin;
2 who go down to Egypt without consulting me;
who look for help to Pharaoh's protection, to Egypt's shade for refuge...

5 ... everyone will be put to shame because of a people useless to them,
who bring neither help nor advantage, but only shame and disgrace."

6 An oracle concerning the animals of the Negev:
Through a land of hardship and distress,
of lions and lionesses,
of adders and darting snakes,
the envoys carry their riches on donkeys' backs,
their treasures on the humps of camels,
to that unprofitable nation,

7 to Egypt, whose help is utterly useless.
Therefore I call her
Rahab the Do-Nothing...

9 ...These are rebellious people, deceitful children,
children unwilling to listen to the LORD's instruction.

10 They say to the seers,
"See no more visions!"
and to the prophets,
"Give us no more visions of what is right!
Tell us pleasant things, prophesy illusions.

11 Leave this way, get off this path,
and stop confronting us with the Holy One of Israel!"

12 Therefore, this is what the Holy One of Israel says:
"Because you have rejected this message,
relied on oppression and depended on deceit,

13 this sin will become for you
like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
that collapses suddenly, in an instant."