More John Tayor Gatto

Not long ago, I blogged about John Taylo Gatto, who's book Dumbing Us Down is a withering attack on mass-state-education. That's here. Really provokative and useful, I think. If you want to read some of his stuff for free, a speech he gave to a home-schooling network has been reproduced on the web here.

Daniel Hannan, MEP, gives Brown both barrels

You may have already seen the MEPs withering attack on the Prime Minister which became an internet sensation in the last 48 hours. Naturally, the mainstream media missed it because ultimately, they believe the state will ride to the rescue and that Gordon Brown is doing the right thing to save Britain from financial catastrophe. Naturally, Channel 4 news covered the fact that no-one covered this story (how meta is that?) - and in so doing, leapt to the defence our truly dreadful national leader who's devaluation of the currency should have been his cue to resign. (Instead, Brown grinned his way through Hannan's speech, knowing the media, who hold the real power, will do nothing to harm him for now). Anyway, if you want to push the count towards 1.5 million views, have a look here.

Jesus's Use of Humour, Sarcasm and other things that just aren't on.

There is a book called The Humor of Christ - by the wonderfully named Elton Trueblood. It's out of print. Pity. I'd really like to read it. But a few weeks ago, I was thinking specifically about the humour employed by Christ. Many people struggle with the idea of Christ using humour because they have a distorted perception of offence.

Many people, including Christians, seem to think that you should be able to tell a joke in all situations, and if you can’t, you shouldn’t tell them. We like to think that some jokes are allowed. And some aren’t. And if you can’t tell the joke to your grandmother, you can’t tell them to your colleagues.

This is complete rubbish. Context matters.

Secondly, many people, including Christians, think that if you’ve caused someone to take offence, you’ve committed a sin; that if you tell a joke that offends someone, or could have offended someone if they’d been there, or made someone feel bad, then you shouldn’t have told the joke. This is also complete rubbish.

If we’re Christians, we do want to be kind and compassionate, but most of all, we want to be like Christ. If we look at what the Bible says, and see what Jesus said, to whom, in what context and how, we’ll see a wide range of ways of talking, which include jokes, many of which would definitely caused offence to some.

Jesus uses a wide range of methods in his preaching and teaching ministry and in day-to-day contact with the people he meets:

Mockery/Impersonation
Matt 6:2, 5, 16

2So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men… 5 And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men… 16When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting.

Name-calling
Matthew 3:7, 12:34, 23;33 - You brood of vipers!
Matthew 16:23 - Get behind me, Satan!
Matthew 23 – hypocrites! Blind guides! Whitewashed tombs! Snakes! Vipers! Murderers!


Sarcasm/ Exaggeration
Can you imagine the tone of voice in Mark 7:9?
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!

Matthew 23:24 - You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

Look at Matthew 18 – The Unmerciful Servant

23"Therefore, the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants. 24As he began the settlement, a man who owed him ten thousand talents was brought to him… 28But when that servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

As you can imagine, then, Jesus caused massive offence. That’s why they killed him. Because he offended people. He humiliated the Pharisees and the Sadduccess.
The Temple priests and the religious authorities. Rich rulers and the proud and self-righteous. It’s debatable that Jesus preaching and teaching ministry is even more offensive now than it was at the time.

So, are these jokes gone wrong? No! They’re jokes gone right. Jesus is full of grace and truth – and speaks the truth, and hits his target. It’s not as if the offence caused by Jesus is unavoidable. It’s intentional. Jesus spoke to people in order to move them to repentence, or rebuke them for their sin.

Can Christians be offensive? Yes. Sometimes they should be. Sometimes, it would be a sin not to be!

Does Jesus always speak like this? No. He doesn’t. How does he talk to Simon, the Pharisees in Luke 7? And the sinful woman who is in the house at the time? What did he say to the Pharisee in private? Did he give him both barrels? And what did he say to a woman who was, presumably, selling her body for sex.

Look at Luke 7

39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."
40Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you…"
48Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49The other guests began to say among themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
50Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."

It’s interesting how different Jesus is, there. It’s interesting how kind and compassionately Jesus speaks with outsiders. Or those vilified by society. How does he talk to lepers? To the lame? The blind? Zaccheus when he saw him sitting up in a tree? Zaccheus was a tax-collector who was very rich. Did Jesus tear a strip off him for extorting money through over-taxing people and lining his own pocket?

Luke 19:5 - When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today."

Jesus sees a man who is desperate to change – and desperate to enter the kingdom of God. So Jesus doesn’t rub Zaccheus’ nose in his own sin. He says ‘Get the beers in and order a curry. I’m coming over to your place.’

And this in itself causes offence to others. They said, “Jesus is eating with a sinner. Isn’t it terrible?”

So what determines how we, as Christian, speak? What determines what we say and what we joke about? Is it how offended the intended listener will be? Not necessarily? Is it how offended an unintended listener will be? It probably shouldn’t be.

It’s very hard to lay down rules here – because that’s what we want. We want rules to follow – and rules to point to when someone is offended, so we can say ‘Hey I didn’t break the rules’. But the subject of comedy is far more complex than that.

Comedy Thoughts

Glen Scrivener has been thinking about Comedy and Christianity here and on following posts. He also quotes some of CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters here. Click around. Lots there.

Christopher Logue

My friend Kieron recently made me aware of the work of a poet called Christopher Logue. He writes pithy, witty poems - some long, some short. Some have made me laugh at loud. I don't own any of his work at the moment, which is a shame. Most of it is out of print.

He is alive and old and living in Camberwell in London. His wife is the critic Rosemary Hill. He was awarded the CBE in 2007 - despite having once penned a pornographic novel under the pseudonym Count Palmiro Vicarion.

You get the measure of him in the foreword to his intruiging and humurous work New Numbers published in the 1960s, I believe. Here are some highlights:

This book was written in order to change the world
and published at 12/- (softback), 25/- (hardback) by Cape
of 30 Bedford Square, London, WCI
(a building formerly occupied by the Czarist Embassy)
in 1969.
It is generously scattered with dirty words
particularly on pages 9, 31, 17 and 45,
and was written by © Logue
a sexy young girl living among corrupted villagers
who keeps her innocence through love;
its weight is 7.926 oz,
its burning temperature is Fahrenheit 451,
and it was printed in Great Britain by
Butler & Tanner of London and Frome.
On the day of publication its price would buy
11 cut loaves,
3 yards of drip-dry nylon,
25 gallons of boiling dishwater,
5 rounds of MI carbine ammunition,
or a cheap critic:
what do you expect for 12/- Paradise Lost?

This book will offend a number of people,
some of them influential people;
its commercial potential is slight,
the working classes will ignore it,
the middle classes will not buy it,
the ruling class will bolt it with a smile,
for I am a Western Art Treasure!
What right do I have to complain?
Nobody asked me to write it, yet
be sure I will complain.

...

If this book doesn't change you
give it no house space;
if having read it you
are the same person you
were before picking it up,
then throw it away.

Wonderful. You can read the rest of the foreword here.

Neo-Calvinism noticed

According to Time Magazine, Neo-Calvinism is a force to be reckoned with in 2009. Meaningless, of course. But nice to be noticed. It's here.

Bad Science - Good Book

When you thumb through the newspapers, being surprised, entertained and appalled in equal measure, you sometimes come across a story you happen to know something about. In my case, those articles are Radio Comedy or Christianity. As you read, you discover woeful and basic errors are frequently being made, terms that mean different things used interchangeably – and all that. One day, I hope to meet a religious correspondent who actually knows that an Evangelical is – and how being Evangelical is different from being Evangelistic. Man, that gets on my nerves. Once you finish the article of ignorance, though, you turn the page and are surprised to learn that asbestos is good for you and that life has been found on Venus.

Someone else who gets even more furious at the newspapers than me is Ben Goldacre. And he works for one. He writes a column for the Guardian called Bad Science. And he has just published a book of the same title. He is passionate about science done properly – and reported accurately. And he despairs at sloppy poorly reported, faddish and downright dangerous reporting of science stories that have no basis in research at all. Often, headlines bear no relation to the findings of the report in question.

He also has a theory that the newspapera employ a lot of arts graduates who simply don't understand science and the scientific process - although I'm sure he'd be the first to admit that this is purely conjecture.

As you can tell, I’ve just read his book and it’s great. In fact, it’s essential reading for all thinking people. And it's a great piece of work. Oh, and you can see Mr Goldacre doing a wonderful job of debunking bad science on Newsnight here.

United we stand...

I am currently looking favourably on the United Reformed Church. They are kindly allowing us to use their building for our church - and have been thorough welcoming to us. I attended a United Reformed Church in Durham while I was a student there. But the name 'United Reformed Church' has always caused me to smirk. The possiblity of something being both reformed and united is usually rather remote. Reformed theologians divide faster than salmonella bacteria (and I mean that in the nicest possible way).

It puts me in mind of the Emo Phillips joke:

Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"

He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.

(that joke has been published on the web by the author himself - here).

So why do I mention this? I bring it up mainly because there is a skirmish going on a some of the lesser known battlefields of Reformed Theology. Most Evangelicals in Britain have never heard of Federal Vision. It is an affiliation of Presbyterian ministers and theologians in America who have put together some thoughts and clarification on Reformed Presbyterian theology. In case you've never heard of them at all, and need a handle, they're Calvinists.

Douglas Wilson is among there number - and you will see this blog links to blog, and that I regularly quote him, talk about his books and have greatly benefited from his wisdom. Angels in the Architecture, The Serrated Edge and To a Thousand Generations are brilliant. Do I agree with him on everything? No. Most things? Probably. Is that okay? I think so.

The difference are subtle and really hard to pin down. I listened to an hour-long discussion between Wilson and Michael Horton (who hosts the excellent White Horse Inn podcasts) It took them half an hour to find out exactly where they disagreed, and when they talk about the disagreement, I just couldn't see who was saying what - it seemed to detailed and nuanced. Clearly Federal Vision have different approach, but they're very happy with the original Westminster Confession - which is a lengthy and unambiguous doctrinal basis.

But some are worried about Federal Vision - and have been for some time. And there are rumblings and mutterings and some fallings out behind closed doors. I do not propose to debate the merits and failings of the Federal Vision theology. My point is purely this. I have been greatly influenced and blessed by the preaching and writing of DA Carson, John Piper, Tim Keller, Marc Driscoll, Philip Jensen, Richard Coekin and numerous others. I read a cracking book by Randy Newman called Questioning Evangelism which has made a huge impact on me. Do they agree with each other on everything? No. Do they share platforms? Often.

If that list of names got together and scrutinised one of their own number, would theological differences be thrown up? Certainly! Big ones. For a start, Piper's a baptist. Jensen's an Anglican. They disagree. They all have different emphases and staring points. But it's okay. I'm a bit sad that the Federal Vision has been picked out and subjected to very bright shining lights and now that differences have been discovered, they're now deemed questionable by some. Can we agree to disagree in conscience on some small points of doctrine and move on? I fear not.

Credit Crunch

There's a nice cartoon strip partially explaining the crunch here.

Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism

This week, I finished reading Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism. It's great - and thoroughly liberating for someone who really doesn't buy into the prevailing spirit of Statism. The book is almost exclusively American, and there were lots of references I didn't understand. But what Goldberg does is examine why the Left are so skilled at taking the moral high-ground; how they seem to 'care' the most; and how anyone who opposed them is incorrectly labelled a Fascist.

Goldberg turns the tables nicely. Far from right-winger being fascists, it is the pro-state utopians who are employing fascistic methods. Fascism is use of politics to impose a world-view on a population, and intervene into every area of life in order to achieve the vision of a greater nation. This can be done by coercion, deception or with a smile on its face. It's normally achieved through crisis and/or war. It can happen through economic depression - or the manufacture of a great Enemy. The First World War was politically very useful to American progressive. The Neo-Cons under Bush had their 'War on Terror'. The Germans had their humiliation of Versailles and Great Depression. Arguably, some do the same with Global Warming. Undoubtedly, it's happening now with the Credit Crunch. When politicians say 'The time for politics is over. We need action' - get ready for fascism. The government is given carte blanche to meddle in all our lives , our families, our homes and our churches in order to fight this Big Enemy, which could be Child Poverty or Global Warming.

Now, don't freak out. Fascism is not racism. Fascism is often prejudiced and biased against (or for) one people group or another. Mussolini was pro-Italian, but not anti-semitic to a Hilterian extent. Unions sometimes want the state to keep out foreign workers to protect their own interests. Naturally this can easily tip-over into racism. But not necessarily. Whatever the outcome, the state is mobilised and can do whatever it wants to achieve its ends. Hitler started the Hitler Youth which endlessly went on and on about nutrition for children - since their parents could clearly not be trusted to 'do the right thing'. Endless edicts, instructions and directives were given by Nazi politicians in telling people how to be 'good Germans'. How to pull together to make their nation great. These youths were then sacrificed on the altar of conquest - an altar that they willingly went to, knowing their fate.

We have a government that wants us to 'think right'. We have a government that wants citizenship tests so that foreigners know how 'great' Britain is. We have a government that has made certain thoughts illegal. If you stab someone, you might get a year in prison. If you stab someone because they're a different race, you'll get two years. Surely the crime is stabbing. Racism is vile, hateful and anti-social. But illegal? And how can that be illegal when Harriet Harman, deputy Prime Minister, wants to legalise positive discrimination? Even though any immigrant that comes to our shores will have to sit a test so they know how jolly lucky they are to be in our country, not stuck in their terrible, hopeless homeland. We are governed by self-defeating nincompoops. Fascist nincompoops who tell us what to think, what to eat, how to raise our children and how a twelve year-old boy should use a condom. And for that, they would like us to be grateful, and have their cabinet meeting minutes kept private so we don't know what they are thinking. It's ugly and foolish. And I refuse to let people on the Left make me feel bad for wanting less government.

I've whinged about the state enough recently. If you want more, read Goldberg's book. I won't blog about politics for a while now. Promise.

ps. On a radio comedy show the other day, a famously Left-wing comedian was expressing despair and outrage that a city banker was receiving an enormous pension despite wrecking his bank. He was furious that the government said that the pension was in the terms of the contract and that they couldn't break the law. The comedian exploded that 'Look, it's the government! They can do what they like! They can bring in the It Just Doesn't Sit Right Bill 2009' Hmm. Saying that government have carte blanche to pick on people we just don't like to take away money we don't think they should have sounds a lot like fascism to me.

Some more clues

What is the point of a crossword clue? In one sense it's a zero-sum puzzle. A setter takes an hour or two fitting words into a grid. And then takes another hour or two to compose clues to encrypt them. The crossword cracker then spends an hour or two reversing the process. And both have a great time! What's going on? What just happened?

Crosswords, for most of us, are pleasure. Not many people in the world have to do them. They are fun. Moreover, there is little commercial incentive to set them. Crosswords are hardly big business. Tens of thousands of books are sold containing dozens of crosswords, but crossword-setters are rarely showered with money for their efforts. Which must mean it's more about the work and the pleasure than the money. And here's the overlap - work and pleasure. In a crossword, work and pleasure are everything. And intertwined. It is unnecessary, but worthwhile; superfluous but satisfying; and addictive.

Sometimes, I wonder what working in the new Jerusalem will be like. Christians can look forward to a real and physical eternity - working. Man was made to work. It is not a curse or a punishment. Work is good. So what will work look like and feel like when we do it forever without sin? We find it hard to imagine - doctors help the sick, but they'll be no diseases in heaven. Schoolmasters teach children - but there will be no children. The police arrest criminals, but there will be no crime. Ministers preach the word, but we will all know Him and see His face. So what is there to do?

Adam was made to work - and go from glory to glory. Did Adam need to work or he'd starve? No, there were seed bearing plants that were good for food. He and his descendants didn't need to work to stay alive since there was no sin - or death. So why work? If he hadn't sinned, would Adam have been wondering around looking for things to do? No. We work because we're made to work. And when we fulfill our function, or step into our destiny, we derive the deepest of joys and satisfy our innermost cravings. We don't work because we have to. We work because that's what we are. Crosswords are pointless, wonderful work. And I plan to do them for eternity.

In that context, then, I've been twittering as John Fellowes. Here are some clues in case you've got nothing better to do...
Let wastrel ruin financial centre (4,6) Solution here
Timeless offence by girl taking cover with this! (8) Solution here.
Rebel leader, king, I’ll follow after wound, note. (6,8) Solution here
Be gentler managing protected land (9) Solution here
Unusual mad stranger excels at chess (11) Solution here
Clever prank, but empty (8) Solution here
Sporting contest’s interval protects small trademark? Pity. (4,5) Solution here
They kick about endless donations; this year - gone (4,6) Solution here

Qualities of Leadership

I read a wonderful, and funny, verse of the Bible this morning. Isaiah 3:6. It reminded me of the currently state of politics and business - and the mess we find ourselves in. Our problem, which is, in part, a judgment on our society, is that we have low standards for our leaders. Here is the verse:

6 A man will seize one of his brothers
at his father's home, and say,
"You have a cloak, you be our leader;
take charge of this heap of ruins!"

What is the qualification for leadership in this verse? Ownership of slightly fancy piece of clothing. Our businesses and banks have been shipwrecked because they have been led by inferior leaders who were in place because they were 'good with people' or 'knew their stuff' or 'done their time'. Our politicians are flushing away billions of pounds they don't have because they have 'good media skills' or 'good party connections'. Our churches are poorly led by men, and women, put in place because they have 'good communication skills' and are funny, or good-looking. What are the true qualities of leadership? More than owning a cloak. And we, as those who pick leaders, should have higher standards.

Keeping the Rain off...

My friend Stephanie Imbeau is responsible for this splendid creation - not the pics. The work itself. Nice work:



And by day:


See how it was all put together here.

And a nice big version of the pic by night here.

At last - Mugabe's methods vindicated!

Isn't it tragic how a great, visionary leader like Robert Mugabe can be so misunderstood? And now, finally, the Bank of England are doing economics 'The Bobby-M Way'. Printing money! He's been doing it for years and now they all have so much money they're carrying it around in wheelbarrows... Lucky them!

The Bank of England today announced they were 'creating' £75 billion. Just like that. This is money ex nihilo. They have spoken it into being. One wonders who exactly they think they are. In so doing, they have, of course, devalued every pound in every pocket all over Britain. Proportionally, then, this will hit the poor the hardest, but this is about banking, not the poor. We'll worry about them later. Maybe.

This is surely the final, panicking act of a desperate government. The Bank of England is 'independent'. But they can't just unilaterally print bits of paper bearing the Queen's head without the permission of someone, surely? Did they even ask Her Majesty? If Gordon Brown, the longest serving chancellor and front runner for 'Fiddler of the Decade While the City Burns' Award, had any honour, he would resign. In fact, he would drive to Buckhingham Palace, put the keys to Number 10 through the letter box and drive off into oblivion at speed.

In America, Obama has been much cleverer. He's announced a new New Deal and will be spending hundreds of billions of pounds he doesn't have on a little more than an economic inkling. There is simply no evidence that it will work - and some evidence it will make it worse. I'm more careful with my money than that. But then, this isn't Obama's money. It's the money of his children. They'll be paying for this well into their retirement. So while Obama is taking money from his children, The Bank of England is simply pick-pocketting everyone. Why steal from the future when you can half-inch from the present?

Surely the 'creation' of non-existent wealth is what created this financial catastrophe? Bankers were so busy selling options of derivatives of the concept of the possiblity of returns on bonds that no-one had idea who gave who a tenner. Magically, that tenner was worth about £4000. And no-one could quite explain why. This is illusory wealth. And the Bank of England have decided to combat it with equally fictitious money. This is like throwing a drowning man a bucket of water.

The Bank of England felt they had to do something after Gordon Brown attempted to rectify a bloated economy based on over-spending by consumers, but cutting VAT so that people could just go and out and spend more money than they had like the old days when no-one realise how hopeless a chancellor he was. He was a bit annoyed when it didn't work. Then he threw billions at the the banks, hoping they'd lend people money at favourable rates, so the people could go on spending like nothing was wrong. And it didn't work. So what now? Invent money. Thanks, Gordon. The Tories of kicking themselves that they didn't think of it first.

This is a shameful day for the British government - and a shameful day for the nation since I don't hear anyone calling for the hopeless Premier to do the decent thing, admit utter failure and resign.

Charlie Brooker's noticed it too...

Following on from my last post, about the confusion between left and right, I was interested to read Charlie Brooker's column in the Guardian. I always enjoy Brooker's writing who is funny and full of rage, and incredibly sharp when it comes to our relationship with media. He is, in fact, the Guardian's answer to Jeremy Clarkson. (He makes the consistently wonderful Screenwipe for BBC4, and you can read a collection of his work in a book called Dawn of the Dumb.)

Following Jack Straw's refusal to release minutes of the cabinet's meeting in which the decision was made to launch a war in Iraq, Charlie says he's finally snapped. He has fresh contempt for politicians and how they control our lives with scant regard for the the people they control and coerce.

(Again, remember that The Guardian in on the left. It's pro-state. It believes that governments can and should fix things. So can someone explain how can a Socialist government go about doing that without coercion and heavy taxation...?)

One or two Brooker highlights from the article:

They do what they want, these [politicians], and you and I are cut out of the conversation. I'm sure they're dimly aware we still exist. They must spot us occasionally, through the window, jumping up and down in the cold with our funny placards... although come to think of it, they can't even see us through the window, since they banned peaceful protest within a mile of Parliament.

Instead they pick us up on a monitor, courtesy of one of the 15bn CCTV cameras that scrutinise our every move in the name of security. On the screen you're nothing but a tiny monochrome blob; two-dimensional and faceless. And that's just how they like it...

It's all over. The politicians have finally shut us out of their game for good and we have nowhere left to turn. We're not part of their world any more. We don't even speak the same language. We're the ants in their garden. The bacteria in their stools. They have nothing but contempt for us. They snivel and lie and duck questions on torture - on torture, for [goodness] sake - while demanding we respect their authority.

Read the whole raging article here.