Hut 33 Recording - 25th May 2009

In case you're interested, the first recording of Hut 33, Series 3 for BBC Radio 4 will be on May 25th at the Radio Theatre in London. No idea when the other two recordings will be - our cast have this annoying habit of becoming very famous and being asked to star in other shows. Ludicrous. But we've got them for May 25th.

The show is about code-breakers at Bletchley Park (above) during World War Two. Archie is a Geordie self-taught mathematical genius who fancies himself as a socialist. Charles is a Professor of Linguistics at St Sebastian's College, Oxford. Trapped in the middle is the young, naive Gordon who wishes everyone could just be friends. (In structure, it's not a million miles away from Only When I Laugh with James Bolam and Peter Bowles. In the hospital?). It's funnier than it sounds. At least I think so. Should you wish to apply for tickets, go here.

Imagining Perfection

One of my passions is equipping and encouraging creative Christians for their work. As has been noted on previous posting many times, this is often made very difficult in an evangelical context because we often - and have - lapsed into a theology and ecclesiology that says that evangelism is not the big thing, but the thing. The only thing. Therefore, the work of the Christian artist or creative is deemed to be a 'missed opportunity' if it isn't explicit Christian or evangelistic.

In order to understand why creative works - and indeed why anyone works - we need to understand the past and the future. All things were created by God and men and women were made to fill the earth and subdue it. To tend the garden and increase in number. This would involve learning how to raise children, how to feed larger numbers of people, how to build houses, how to organise cities, how to develop science, economics and academy in general - not to work out how to fight sin and minimise the curse, because there was not meant to be sin or curse. With or without the fall, the plan was - and is - to take God's glorious creation, rule over it and bring him ever increasing glory.

But we sinned, rejected God and needed reconciliation. On the Last Day, when sin is removed, death defeated and Satan destroyed, we'll get back to normal. The problem is that we're so infected by sin, enthralled by the world as it is, and blinded to how the world should, could and will be - that we can't even imagine what 'good work' looks like. We need to paint more vivid pictures of how the glorious future will be.

There will be no need of doctors - but will there be no science? There will be no need for weed killer - but will there be no pharmacology? There will be no crime - but will there be no lawyers? There will be no natural disasters - but will there be no news journalists?

If not, now will a society of several billion real people function for ever?

Christians must reclaim their glorious future and work towards it, anticipating it. Our actions and work will undoubtedly be explicitly evangelistic at times - but a Christian artist or filmmaker does his job to the glory of God by doing it well - making honest, authentic, engaging films. He does this just as a Christian accountant does his job to the glory of God by producing honest, accurate accounts. The accountant does not need to put an icthus on every page, or try to turn all the numbers into Holy number and insist on adding up in Base 7.

What will that new creation look like? How will it be? Field, Searles and Baxter have colloborated to produce this.

Creativity and the Church

What is the place of creative work within the church?

The blog post on the subject on Thursday generated a number of interesting comments. It contained a link to a 'Letter to Christian Creatives' - in particular those involved in churches making things look good and sound right. Have a quick look here, making sure you read all the way to the end and come back...

It's a cleverly written letter that achieves exactly what it sets out to achieve. It creates suspicion and antipathy between Creatives and their Christian paymasters. Even better, it creates suspicion between three groups - Church creatives, their ministers/masters - and the congregation. The claim is that the latter really aren't affected by art, design or creativity anything like as much as the creatives would like to think. And in one way this is true. But what it neatly avoids is the question of 'Who is the design for?'.

Let's look at a case study: Why spend three hours designing a logo for a Christian event? Or why spend a day writing, filming and editing a trailer for that event? There are some good reasons:

1. So that advertising will be effective, eye-catching and arresting - meaning that the right people will hear about the event and be keen to attend.

2. It makes the church look like they're in touch with the media/design and creativity. We don't want our churches to present a false gospel that in order to become a Christian, you have to return culturally and artistically to the 1870.

So we're seeking the opinion of everyone here - and trying to please them - except God. Why design something to the best of your ability? Because it's an act of Worship. Why spend an extra hour making an edit perfect, rather than just good? Because God, like us, has high standards - and we bring him honour when we aim for those standards. It's not about obsession with beauty in itself - it is about obsession with the Beauty of God! He is beautiful - and made us to be creative. And those of us that are professionally creative are right to pursue excellence.

But we are to do so in a way that honours the body of Christ. The Church has many parts. Those that design the literature and produce the videos are forefinger clicking the mouse. Not the brain, the nose or the left leg. The Church needs everyone to do the job they were called to do for the benefit of others, to the glory of God. To allow ourselves to be dragged into diminishing the ministry, service, role and validity of the ministry of others is a dangerous thing. So I probably shouldn't have brought it up.

Last year, I gave a talk at the Co-Mission Media Forum called the Beauty of God, in which I tried to work out why creative Christians can struggle in evangelical churches. You can down load that from here here.

AN Wilson Returns...

An astonishing piece here from the Daily Mail in which AN Wilson talks about his return to the Christian faith. He makes some very pertinent points - and shows no little humility in discussing his previous beliefs.

Being Proud of St George

You could argue that the English have an identity crisis. In fact, the crisis is so bad that our national day, St George’s Day, is almost universally ignored. It was on Thursday, by the way. St George’s day has only one tradition. Not drinking warm beer, singing Jerusalem or sitting at a cricket match which isn’t played because of rain – April 23rd would normally be the perfect day for that. The only tradition on St George’s day is to wonder whether it’s okay to fly the flag of St George. Of England. Or, more accurately, Eng-er-land.

The flag makes some uncomfortable – since it has those ‘Eng-er-land’ nationalistic overtones. But then, isn’t that what you’d want on your national day? But St George’s flag has other associations. It has the ring of the crusader about it. Picture the flag and the image of a knight in full armour is not far away.

It should be no surprise then, that in 2006, when the London Marathon fell on St George’s Day, Lloyd Scott did the course in full armour dragging a dragon. It took him 8 days and he raised £1.8 million for charity.

The association between St George’s flag and the crusading knight is a real one. The irony is that crusades were launched against the Turks and St George was probably Turkish. And he is famous for slaying dragons, which don’t exist. And besides, England is a Protestant so we shouldn’t really do saints anyway.

So we return to the question – what’s wrong with flying the national flag for a day and being proud of being English and everything that’s great about England? Just like the Welsh do on St David’s Day. And the Irish on St Patrick’s Day. Well, nothing, really. But it is a Christian thing to do? Are we not citizens of heaven – where there will be people of every tribe and tongue? Yes. There will be Welsh, Irish, Scots, and even some Australians in heaven.

But it’s worth noting why there’s an issue here. It’s the same issue that’s behind why at every sporting contest the Scots will support anyone against the English. It’s because the English have traditionally been the dominant power. Huge castles were built in Wales by the English to assert English rule. Bloody battles were fought against the Scots for the same reason. And the treatment of the Irish by the English over the last thousand years is very much a story of English domination and oppression. And the English, as the dominant power within Britain, have flexed their muscles all over the world. Less than a hundred years ago, the British Empire covered a quarter of the world’s land and population. 458 million were under the Union Jack – and of course St George’s Cross is right at the heart of that flag.

How should we respond? The English have every right to fly their own flag with some degree of pride. I’m certainly proud of being English. But how do I respond as a Christian Englishman? Well, it rather depends on your attitude to power and the past.

In actual fact, St George himself is an example of how Christians should behave. He was in a position of power. Serving in the Roman Army at the rank of tribune, he must have felt unstoppable. But when an edict came that all Christians in the army should offer a sacrifice to pagan Gods, he didn’t hold onto that power. He gave it up – refused to offer sacrifices to pagan Gods and was executed. His attitude was the same as that of Christ Jesus. Like Christ, he gave up a position of power and authority and was executed. The flag of St George may be associated with military strength but there is also a wonderful streak of Christian humility.

A Letter to Christian Creatives

Just read an interesting piece here. Annoying at first, but make sure you read to the very end...

The Inadequacy of Law

One of the phenomena that fascinates me about living in Britain is how much we dislike politicians, and how commonly we hear stories about their moral failure - and then how much more power we wish to ascribe them. Power, taxation and more power. So this latest debacle about MPs - and their expenses - should come as no surprise, and will not mean that their unprecendented powers are in any way diminished. The Conservatives have made no gains from the Home Secretary's indiscretions, since the people at large assume that all MPs have the snouts firmly wedged in the trough, which is sad, since this is not the case. But the Tories know that if they cause a stink, their own expenses will be gone through with a fine-toothed comb, and so they have remained suspiciously mute throughout the proceedings.

It has been pointed out that the MPs have done nothing wrong. They have not actually broken the regulations surrounding their expense claims. Those who have declared certain premises 'second homes', and claiming whacking allowances for so doing have acted within the law.

MPs, and the Prime Minister (bless him), have called for a reform of these regulations. Which is interesting. If they knew the regulations were faulty and allowed too much latitude, why did they not call for this before since they knew they could make expense claims that were effectively dishonest, but legal?

The Law is an ass. The law does not deliver what we want it too - and it certainly does not deliver honest MPs. Honesty should be obvious without law. And law does not bring justice. Nor does it bring grace. Those are the two things we most need and crave.

Our MPs abided by the law - and were still found wanting. Some MPs, I'm sure, abided by the spirit of the law. They must have known they could have made money by declaring certain things in certain ways, but decided against it. I really hope there were some. And that all of the Christian MPs are in that group.

Here's the point. The power and money we keep giving our government turns into Law. As if law can transform the hearts and minds out our society. What we need are honest MPs who don't need a law for them to do the right thing. Just as we need an honest population who don't need tomes of laws, regulations and government initiatives in order for them to do the right thing. This will not come about with law. But the gospel of Christ.

Streets of the City - London Marathon Service

I've been involved in this Church service for those involved in the London Marathon which is this Sunday. the service itself is taking place on Saturday 25th April at 6.30pm at Christ Church Mayfair, Down Street, London (not too far from the finish line). The service is an hour long, and followed by a pasta supper. It is primarily for runners and their families/supporters who will be otherwise engaged on Sunday morning when they would normally be in church. It is also designed to be a welcome to those from outside London who don't know anyone in London and might otherwise be kicking their heels (very dangerous the night before a marathon). And it will be suitable for anyone - including those who would never normally go to church. If you know anyone interested, they need to contact Christ Church Mayfair by clicking here - and going to the bottom left and clicking 'contact' and saying how many are coming. (I'm working on getting that link to be more obvious).

Planet Narnia

You may have already seen this, but if not - and you're in the UK - go see at one. It's the latest BBC1 documentary about CS Lewis - and the book which unlocks the imagery and themes of Narnia. Splendid stuff. Have a look here, while it's still up on iPlayer. The last ten minutes are a hopeless digression, but apart from that, it's pretty good.

Where Evangelicals fear to tread?

Every few years, there is a Christian publishing phenomenon. Currently, it’s The Shack – which places the three person of God in a shack in, where else, but the American North-West. Before that, it was the Lahaye and Jenkins ‘Left Behind’ books, about the Rapture, the Apocalypse and End Times.

Before that, it was ‘This Present Darkness’ by Frank Peretti in 1986, followed up with Piercing the Darkness two years later – selling over three million copies between them. When a book sells that many copies, you have to take it seriously. These Peretti books are works of fiction and speculation but they portray angels, demons and spiritual warfare in a way that the Bible doesn’t. It suggests, for example, that demons are territorial, that they have carved up the world and look after different zones. This theology has become very popular – and was promoted by a guy called Peter Wagner and even influenced some major missionary organizations who thought their missionary activities stood no chance of success until specific named territorial demons were bound and destroyed.

If you start looking at demons and angels, and then start ranking them, giving them names and placing them into schemes, systems and hierarchies, you’re doing something that Bible as a whole does not do. Undoubtedly, there is an order to creation, but we’re not told what it is.


We get glimpses and glances – and some terms are used interchangeably. The Bible speaks of angels a fair amount. More on what they do later. But it mentions archangels specifically only twice. Once in 1 Thess 4:6. And then again in Jude 1:9 in which the archangel is called Michael. Is Gabriel an archangel too? Probably. In Luke 1:19 we are told he stands in the presence of God. Do angels have wings? Standard angels seem not to, no. But Seraphim – angelic beings - do have wings. What are they? They’re only mentioned once in the bible, in Isaiah 6. And then you have Cherubim, mentioned many more times – most famously barring the way back to the tree of life. And then they are carved onto the Ark of the Convenant. They crop up a number of times in the Old Testament. But only once in the New Testament (in Hebrews). And they have wings too. Does that make them higher or lower than angels? We’re not told. What about Watchers, Holy ones and Sons of God – all apparently different terms used for angelic beings?

For those of us who like systems and hierarchies, it’s all very frustrating – and it probably explains why so few Evangelicals have written about them. The New Bible Dictionary devotes less than a page to the word ‘angels’. And at least 8 pages to ‘Egypt’. Why is that? Karl Barth suggested that some angelogies are little more than "a weary shrug of the shoulders". This seems a fair critique. Perhaps in our quest to avoid dramatic, and heretical, deliverance ministry, we have gone too far in the other direction? Fortunately, I've found a paper from Tyndale house on the subject - published 15 years ago... Still, I look forward to reading it. It's here.

Early Baptism Story

Here's a splendid subversive story by Pete Jackson. It's about baptism. I find this way of thinking very helpful and persuasive - and certainly informed by thinking when it came to baptising my daughter.

Bring on the Substitute!

It is currently very fashionable to deny a doctrine boringly called 'Penal Substituionary Atonement'. In layman's terms - that means the previously uncontroversial assertion Jesus Christ died for us in our place (substitution) to take the punishment we deserve (penal) so that we can have peace with God (Atonement).

A few years, Steve Chalke claimed that he doesn't want to believe in a God who punishes his own Son in our place - famously calling this 'divine child abuse'. Of course, if he believes in any kind of sovereign God, why did he allow His Son, Jesus Christ, to die at all? Saying that Jesus dies as a heroic victim, rather than as our substitute or representative, doesn't solve anything. To dig out your way out of that, you'd have to claim that God either didn't know it was going to happen (despite Jesus predicting his own death several times) or God did know but couldn't do anything (odd, given that Jesus himself could raise the dead). Either way, God the Father is allowing God the Son to die a painful death at the hands of men.

More recently, Giles Fraser has taken up the gauntlet and penned a piece for the Guardian's website. He writes:

For too long, Christians have put up with a theory of salvation that has at its core the idea that God requires the sacrifice of his own son so that human sin can be cancelled... The fact this is a disgusting idea, and morally degenerate, is obvious to all but those indoctrinated into a very narrow reading of the cross.

It's hard to know where to begin with such a statement. To say that God would never demand sacrifice implies that the Old Testament contains no such idea. And if it does, that the pastoral epistles would expressly deny it. Which they don't. Or that the idea is not found in the Gospel accounts themsevles. Which it is. Denying Jesus' sacfricial death seems to me like denying that electricity has anything to do with magnetism. If you told that to a physicist, they'd just look at you with squinty eyes, shake their head and walk away.

Much ink, and e-ink, has been spilled on this subject, so there's not much point in saying more. You could read Consuming Passions: Why the Killing of Jesus Really Matters - a series of articles edited by Simon Barrow and Jonathan Bartley, available here. Then you could read Pierced For Our Transgressions by Jeffery, Ovey and Sach.

To me, the consistent them of penal substituionary atonement runs all the way the through the Bible in a vivid and unmissable way. It doesn't strike me as an 'evangelical' doctrine. But an Orthodox, historic one. I'm persuaded of this not least because Jesus was crucified during Passover, when lambs were sacrificed to save their first-born from perishing at the hands of the Angel of Death so that the captives could enter the Promised Land - and at the end of time, all shall honour the Lamb. This doesn't seem all that subtle, hidden, covert or twisted to me.

But do I 'like it'? Do I 'enjoy it'? In one sense I do, because I believe in the God's word the Bible. Do I like the idea that Jesus was sacrificed for me? No! It's humiliating - for me and Him. Do I want violence? Of course not! The cross is disgusting. God became man. And we cynically betrayed and killed him in the most violent way imaginable. And mocked him and humiliated him. This is not pretty. It is an offence. But how much more is God offended by our godlessness?

The idea was in some senses a Supreme Victim who can identify with is no comfort. And it implies that God is simply going to say that our sin ultimately doesn't matter and that it can just be ignored, rather than punished and dealt with. Is that a fair universe? It implies that God was powerless to save his Son from death. Is that a God worthy of belief. And it ignores that the Bible actually says - which, for me, is the deal-breaker. After all, by what measure is the sacrifice of Christ 'disgusting' or 'morally degenerate'. On what are these morals based?

The second of the 39 Articles of Giles Fraser's Church of England contains this:

... Christ, very God and very man, who truly suffered, was crucified, dead, and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for all actual sins of men.

I'm wondering at which Anglican Synod this was revoked or specifically denied.

Read the whole article here. It's attracted plenty of comments. Which is, after all, free.

Comedy and the Bible talk available

Last August, I gave a talk at the Greenbelt festival on this subject:

Comedy and the Bible
The Bible is not generally considered a funny book. In fact, much comedy has been derived from its seriousness. And yet the Bible contains Whitehall farces, knock-about slapstick, word-play, and plenty of rude bits. James Cary hopes to point them out to you and explain why little donkeys are funny, especially when Jesus rides them.

The talk has been available here for months. You have to pay, though. Sorry. If it's any consolation, I probably won't get any of the money. This script of this talk has not been 'blogged' although there is a fair amount of content on the subject if you click around. A good place to start would be here - where a couple of people have kindly left broadly positive reviews.

Easter Video

The guys at St Helen's Bishopsgate have put together an interesting, well-produced bit of film about Easter. Have a look here.

Tony Benn

Here's a recent article I wrote for Third Way magazine called Courage and Conviction. It begins rather surprisingly:

I’m a fan of Tony Benn. Who isn’t? He’s a national treasure, along with Lords Cricket Ground, Radio 4 and Boots the chemist. Coach parties should be organised to his house – for which he would, no doubt, whip up a batch of brownies and tell stories about the time he got to choose the stamp designs as Postmaster General.

Read the rest here.

It's a Cross. Seriously.

This morning, I attended a meditative Good Friday service at my church. As I sat and pondered and prayed (mainly pondered), I considered what a preposterous symbol for Christianity the cross actually is. And yet so wonderfully counter-cultural and unique.

From my seat, I could see a wooden cross and began to think about what the cross symbolises. Here are some of the things that I thought of. The cross symbolises:

The Imaginative Violence of Man - Crucifixion is the vilest and most painful of punishment. Victims are beaten and whipped, nailed to a cross naked and slowly asphyxiatein utter agony. Paul's Letter to the Romans contains the phrases 'Inventors of Evil'. This is one of those times. The very concept of crucifixion is a shameful blot on human history. And yet Christianity takes on humanity as it is. There is no point pretending that the human race is anything other than a cruel, violent, sadistic bunch.

The Attempted Murder of God by Man. Jesus was the most wonderful man who ever lived. And still is. He healed the sick, brought sight to the blind and even raised the dead. And we killed him. His death was no accident. It was a travesty of justice and a violent, bloody end. 'God is dead' is a famous quotation. In one sense, it's almost true. God would be dead if humanity had anything to with it. God came to earth as a man, Jesus Christ, and a few years into his ministry, we had him wrongfully accused and put to death. The cross reminds us of this. Our godlessness is not something we can ignore - or should ever forget.

The Self-Sacrifice of God. God is not stupid. He knows what we're like. And yet he came to earth anyway, knowing what would happen. And yet he did so willingly because he loves us. Jesus was mocked on the cross. "He saved others, but he cannot save himself". This is, of course, ironic. Jesus could have called on ten thousand angels to take him from the cross and avenge the affront to God. But he did not. He chose not to save himself. At the heart of Christianity is a cross which models of obedience, submission and humility. How could we ever be ashamed of our faith and our God?

The symbol for Christianity is an extraordinary one. It reminds us of our own violence and godlessness - and of Christ's humility and love. Symbols and icons are normally positive and progressive. Communism has the hammer and sickle - the tools of the proud worker. Slogans like 'survival of the fittest' sum up secularising science, emphasising power and strength. Christianity has a cross. Moreover, it commemorates the day on which man tries to murder God as 'Good' Friday.

Reformation Studies

I'm listening to an MP3 talk about Calvin - who is 500 this year, as you probably already know. What's interesting to me is that whenever I hear evangelicals talk about Calvin, Luther and other reformers, a slightly skewed perspective is continually offered. I studied the Reformation in some detail at University, and the perspective offered in the secular space is, as you would expect, different. But more persuasive.

What I mean is this: The Reformation was not historically inevitable. Evangelicals take great delight in explaining the parlous state of The Church (for there was only one) in 1510. Christendom was rife with abuse and corruption, nepotism and ignorance. The Bible was not available in one's own tongue - only in Latin. And it was kept under lock and key by a priest. Who might not even understand latin. It was a crime to possess a Bible. Superstition was rife. Ignorance was common among priests as well as laity. Saints' bones were literally idolised. Indulgences were preached, bought and sold - enabling time off purgatory since Christ's atoning sacrifice was both insufficient (as a means of grace to the individual) but abundant (and therefore saleable). All of this is true and well documented.

But was there widespread discontent? Were the masses clamouring to read Bibles of their own? Was the repressive monolithic church unable to keep their monopoly on interpreted, controlling truth? No, no and no. There is little evidence of widespread popular theological support, or spiritual hunger for, a Reformed, Evangelical faith. How could there be? Nobody knew what the Bible said because it was locked away and in a foreign language!

Clearly some members of an educated minority rediscovered the doctrine of Justification is by Faith. Luther wrote vicious and entertaining pamphlets - but many people would have enjoyed the attack on the Church, who were all-powerful, just as we enjoy the public mocking of all-powerful politicians today. Was there some genuine spiritual hunger and renewal? Undoubtedly. But widespread? Hardly. The surviving evidence points very must towards conservatism, caution and a suspicion of reading.

The spark lit by Luther was fanned into flame by 'coincidence' - or Providence, depending on your theology. He was fortunate to be kept under the wing of the Elector of Saxony who held a very large collection of Holy relics. The Elector of Saxony was delighted that an obscure monk was putting the boot into Rome, and the Cardinals collecting money for indulgences (as he wanted the money himself when they visited his own relics). The printing press, the antic-clericalism and a whole bunch of other events created a perfect storm for the Catholics. They didn't see they were heading for the rocks for about ten different reasons. The guy in the crows nest was asleep. It was foggy. The boat was leaky. They had the wrong map. And it was upside down. Etc etc.

In England, the reformation was cynically caused and manipulated by Henry VIII in his quest (and God-given duty, he thought) to provide a male heir and a smooth accession when he died. This is undeniable! In the process, all kinds of theological gymnastics took place. Not all of it good. Cranmer, a wonderful man much used by God, was a freak appointment as Archbishop. He was politically useful once Wolsey had failed in his task to find a Catholic solution. Thomas Cromwell's role as the new Thomas More was equally expedient - and helpful to promote the minority Protestant faith. The son that succeeded Henry, Edward, was educated as a Protestant. But he died young, and was replaced by ardently Catholic Mary, who caused such a song and dance about reimposing Roman Catholicism, that when Elizabeth came along, Protestantism didn't seem all that bad.

Pointing this out, however, seems disloyal to the Protestants. To say they 'got lucky' implies that they were not worthy winners. (They arguably didn't win, anyway. There are at least a billion catholics worldwide) People may dispute various facts written above. But the case that the Protestant Reformation was in any way a mass movement is historical hooey.

What shall we say, then? That Protestantism is a sham and the religion of chancers? By no means! To me, the historical improbability of the European and English Reformations is all the more evidence of its divine heritage. It's like Joseph ending up Prime Minister of Egypt. Preposterously unlikely and wonderful true by God's grace.

Moreover, to say the masses were spiritually hungry perhaps implies that human thinking is less dark than it actually is. In 1510, there was on church, unchallenged and doing very nicely thank you. The system of Latin Mass, transubstantiation, relics, purgatory and indulgences is a coherent in itself of sorts, undemanding on the part of the congregations and ultimately attractive. It's a works-based system. And that is the system that we would choose, given the choice. Because we're darkened in our thinking, without God's grace.

Discuss.

Come Clean by Miriam Jones

My talented friend Miriam Jones has embarked on a project called Solitary Songs. It involves writing a song a month and recording all by herself. Hey, it's harder than it sounds. But she makes it sound simple. That's why she's so good at it. Anyhoo, have a listen to Come Clean here.