Posts
Recently, I wrote this for Third Way Magazine:
In many ways, Napoleon Bonaparte is a model of leadership. He inspired a nation to follow him, albeit in an unjust cause of conquest, and he did not lose a battle until 1815 where his Imperial Guard died for their leader. He also appreciated one crucial characteristic for leaders - good fortune. He is said to have wanted leaders who were lucky. Talent and honour were all very well, but they could be wiped away with a thunder storm.
Four years ago, Michael Vaughan proved himself to be a lucky England captain. McGrath's treading on a cricket ball and a couple of umpiring decisions kept England in the series for long enough to regain the Ashes amid national jubilation. Andrew Strauss may need more than luck this summer.
But does luck cover a multitude of sins? On current form, our MPs have plenty of sins to cover. Some stuck to the rules and showed poor judgment. Some failed to keep track of their own financial affairs and were found wanting. Others have no idea how inappropriate it is to... read the rest here.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Bletchley Park Benefit - Tues 3rd November
If you're in London on 3rd November, in the Bloomsbury area, you - or someone you know - may be interested in this comedy event I'm putting together. Should be fun.
Monday, 29 June 2009
One last thing on Osteen
There's an insightful article about Joel Osteen by the very sensible Michael Horton here. Worth a look if you're still interested.
Wilson on Healthcare
One generally annoyance for me is that it's impossible to discuss the NHS in Britain in a sane and rational way. I'm not entirely sure for the reason. It's partly that health is such a serious matter, and partly because we're programmed to be proud of the NHS, regardless of its consistent sociopathic behaviour.
My dad very recently had emergency brain surgery in a great neuroscience department of a hospital. And he is now convalescing in a ward that looks like it was built in 1941. It's a total disgrace. Plus, I had to explain to him what had happened and which hospital he was currently in, since no-one else had bothered to do so. My metaphor for the NHS still stands. The NHS, I always say, is like a crap boyfriend - who you're really grateful for at some key moments, and but are ultimately infuriated by.
What normally happens though, is that after dramatic surgery people say things like 'Hey, I bet you're glad about the NHS now?' or 'Maybe it isn't so bad afterall...' This is even more infuriating as it dunderheadedly presupposes that if there weren't an NHS there would simply be no healthcare system at all. No chain of usable hospitals at all. Or at least only one eye-wateringly expensive private system. That is like saying - "if there was no Tesco, Sainsburys or ASDA, millions of people would be without food". No, they would get their food from others in a different way. If there were no NHS, there would be other non-national 'health services'. And a different system altogther.
When people congratulate the NHS for saving lives, they are mistaking individual surgeons and doctors, and advances in medical science, with the NHS. If the superb surgeon who operated on my dad was not employed by the NHS, he probably would not be a postman or surveyor. He'd still be an excellent surgeon in a different hospital run in a different way, operating on my dad. And maybe that other hospital, my dad's ward would have matching curtains that both reach down to the window sill and keep out the light. It's the little things that tell you about the big ones.
I mention this as Doug Wilson makes some useful comments about Obama's latest healthcare pronouncements here. And here. I like this bit:
My dad very recently had emergency brain surgery in a great neuroscience department of a hospital. And he is now convalescing in a ward that looks like it was built in 1941. It's a total disgrace. Plus, I had to explain to him what had happened and which hospital he was currently in, since no-one else had bothered to do so. My metaphor for the NHS still stands. The NHS, I always say, is like a crap boyfriend - who you're really grateful for at some key moments, and but are ultimately infuriated by.
What normally happens though, is that after dramatic surgery people say things like 'Hey, I bet you're glad about the NHS now?' or 'Maybe it isn't so bad afterall...' This is even more infuriating as it dunderheadedly presupposes that if there weren't an NHS there would simply be no healthcare system at all. No chain of usable hospitals at all. Or at least only one eye-wateringly expensive private system. That is like saying - "if there was no Tesco, Sainsburys or ASDA, millions of people would be without food". No, they would get their food from others in a different way. If there were no NHS, there would be other non-national 'health services'. And a different system altogther.
When people congratulate the NHS for saving lives, they are mistaking individual surgeons and doctors, and advances in medical science, with the NHS. If the superb surgeon who operated on my dad was not employed by the NHS, he probably would not be a postman or surveyor. He'd still be an excellent surgeon in a different hospital run in a different way, operating on my dad. And maybe that other hospital, my dad's ward would have matching curtains that both reach down to the window sill and keep out the light. It's the little things that tell you about the big ones.
I mention this as Doug Wilson makes some useful comments about Obama's latest healthcare pronouncements here. And here. I like this bit:
Support your church's missionaries. Give to the inner city work that your denomination sponsors. Jesus said to give in His name. He never told us to go out there and take in His name.
The Church is called to be an organization of worshippers, worship that results in a glorious overflow of givers. The statists, leftists, do-gooders, and sob-sisters are an organization of confused takers. They talk as though they are giving, but the whole thing is a sham. They give only what they have previously seized by force. And to crown this glorious hypocrisy, they preen themselves on their ethical conscience and moral superiority. But there are few spectacles worse than thugs with guns acting all Sermon-on-the-Mounty.
Thursday, 25 June 2009
Driscoll on Osteen
You may already have seen or heard this, but it is helpful.
The only problem with Driscoll's argument is that the prosperity teacher could say 'Christ suffered so you don't have to.' But that argument doesn't really hold since the Apostle Paul, a spirit-filled follower of Christ, did not experience health and wealth. He was dogged by a thorn in his flesh and was beaten, hated and opposed everywhere. He, and all the apostles, taught Christians to expect persecution trials and sufferings.
The only problem with Driscoll's argument is that the prosperity teacher could say 'Christ suffered so you don't have to.' But that argument doesn't really hold since the Apostle Paul, a spirit-filled follower of Christ, did not experience health and wealth. He was dogged by a thorn in his flesh and was beaten, hated and opposed everywhere. He, and all the apostles, taught Christians to expect persecution trials and sufferings.
Wednesday, 24 June 2009
Joel Osteen
One of the outcomes of having Sky television in your home, and a small child, is that you end up watching obscure channels in the early hours. On a religious channel, I watched Joel Osteen this morning. He preached for nearly half an hour. Well, he didn't preach. He talked to 16,000 people about their lives with reference to God.
For those who don't know, Joel Osteen is the pastor of one of the largest churches in America - Lakewood Church, in Houston Texas. He inherited the church and the pulpit from his father. His father built up the church, then died. Joel, having never preached before, took over. Until that point, he was the TV producer of the church's output (with no theological training). He became pastor overnight. The fact that Biblical qualifications for leadership, eldership and preaching ministry were completely by-passed is, sadly, very telling.
Joel Osteen is magical. He looks like a really nice guy. And you know, I bet he is. What's more, I'll bet he's not even in this for the money, or even the adulation, the power or the popularity - even though he teaches that if you have enough faith, God will give you money, power and lots of friends. He really does teach that. He said so this morning. So maybe it would be curious if he didn't want those things for himself. But then, he already has them. Where next? The Whitehouse?
At the start of his sermon, he got everyone to raise a Bible in their hand, asked for God's power, and then preached as if he'd never really understood what the Bible was talking about. At all. He talked about having a special kind of faith that really believes in God's power. And so he used Joshua's prayer to stop the sun, and Martha's appeal to Jesus with regard to Lazarus, as examples of people with a special faith asking God to do big things.
Clearly this is dire exegesis. In one sense, the points are valid as far as they go, but they are not the main, or even secondary, point. And if that is your ONLY Bible teaching bit in the sermon, you've got serious problems. But it's even worse than that. He effectively talks about God giving you the desires of your heart. If your business is in trouble, and it's the worst recession in a century, have special faith, pray to a God who can raise the dead - and he WILL bring you in new clients. He will heal your diseases and give you the friends that you want. Er, no Joel. No. No. No. He may. In his kindness he often does. But the best thing to do with your desires is align them to God's desires. To seek delight in Him. Ask for joy, grace, wisdom, humility and godliness. Not friends, security, prosperity and a twice the money that your father had.
Naturally Joel Osteen does not address why there are problems in his congregations lives. The assumption is that your are never the author of your own downfall. He talks about struggling in tough times. Getting through unfortunate ill health. But he doesn't address why these things come about. He has no perception that our poor circumstances, failing business and troubled marriages can be brought about by our own folly, godlessness, pride or greed. There is no call to repent of sins that lead us into dark places from which we need rescuing. There is no sense that God's people receive discipline from their heavenly father in order to teach them patience, repentance and dependence on God's promises.
So, what is the difference between Joel Osteen and, say, John Piper, who also preaches to a mega-church? John Piper pleads with his congregation to find joy in God himself, in Christ, his character and righteousness. Joel Osteen tells to continue to find joy in earthly things, and that God in heaven will grant them the desires of their idolatrous hearts if they have enough faith.
For those who don't know, Joel Osteen is the pastor of one of the largest churches in America - Lakewood Church, in Houston Texas. He inherited the church and the pulpit from his father. His father built up the church, then died. Joel, having never preached before, took over. Until that point, he was the TV producer of the church's output (with no theological training). He became pastor overnight. The fact that Biblical qualifications for leadership, eldership and preaching ministry were completely by-passed is, sadly, very telling.
Joel Osteen is magical. He looks like a really nice guy. And you know, I bet he is. What's more, I'll bet he's not even in this for the money, or even the adulation, the power or the popularity - even though he teaches that if you have enough faith, God will give you money, power and lots of friends. He really does teach that. He said so this morning. So maybe it would be curious if he didn't want those things for himself. But then, he already has them. Where next? The Whitehouse?At the start of his sermon, he got everyone to raise a Bible in their hand, asked for God's power, and then preached as if he'd never really understood what the Bible was talking about. At all. He talked about having a special kind of faith that really believes in God's power. And so he used Joshua's prayer to stop the sun, and Martha's appeal to Jesus with regard to Lazarus, as examples of people with a special faith asking God to do big things.
Clearly this is dire exegesis. In one sense, the points are valid as far as they go, but they are not the main, or even secondary, point. And if that is your ONLY Bible teaching bit in the sermon, you've got serious problems. But it's even worse than that. He effectively talks about God giving you the desires of your heart. If your business is in trouble, and it's the worst recession in a century, have special faith, pray to a God who can raise the dead - and he WILL bring you in new clients. He will heal your diseases and give you the friends that you want. Er, no Joel. No. No. No. He may. In his kindness he often does. But the best thing to do with your desires is align them to God's desires. To seek delight in Him. Ask for joy, grace, wisdom, humility and godliness. Not friends, security, prosperity and a twice the money that your father had.
Naturally Joel Osteen does not address why there are problems in his congregations lives. The assumption is that your are never the author of your own downfall. He talks about struggling in tough times. Getting through unfortunate ill health. But he doesn't address why these things come about. He has no perception that our poor circumstances, failing business and troubled marriages can be brought about by our own folly, godlessness, pride or greed. There is no call to repent of sins that lead us into dark places from which we need rescuing. There is no sense that God's people receive discipline from their heavenly father in order to teach them patience, repentance and dependence on God's promises.
So, what is the difference between Joel Osteen and, say, John Piper, who also preaches to a mega-church? John Piper pleads with his congregation to find joy in God himself, in Christ, his character and righteousness. Joel Osteen tells to continue to find joy in earthly things, and that God in heaven will grant them the desires of their idolatrous hearts if they have enough faith.
Tuesday, 23 June 2009
Telling Stories
I became aware of David Sedaris through This American Life. He's a story-teller and humorist, who has many wonderful stories of his absurd life, growing up, getting involved in performance art and being gay. He's a phenomenon who plays to large crowds in dozens of cities. Hardly anyone in London has heard of him, however, even though he lives there (although he also lives some of the year in France).
Sedaris's stories are meant to be non-fiction, but recently Alex Heard of New Republic magazine accused Sedaris of exaggerating and embellishing stories to breaking point, and that his claim to be a non-fiction writer was highly questionable. In an interview in the Guardian, Sedaris says this:
So when is a lie not a lie? This is not an area that Christians - especially evangelicals - handle well. We generally consider hyberbole to be a euphemism for lying. In fact, the Bible uses exaggeration rather a lot. But the moment you say that, Christians can start to freak out, lay hands on you in prayer or attempt to drive out demons. Jesus talks about hating your father or mother - which would be a sin if you took him at his word. He is using hyperbole. Clearly, we mustn't use hyperbole as a label for anything we find unpalatable or extreme. The gospel is extreme and all-consuming. But here's another case. Job 1.
It's a very stylised form of writing - and when Job's life disintergrates, the way it is written is comic in style. Look:
Did it actually happen exactly that way? Word for word? Or is the narrator playing with the scene for effect? If he is, that's okay isn't it? Or is this the slippery, inescapable slope that causes one to hurtle into post-modernism? No. It isn't.
Sedaris's stories are meant to be non-fiction, but recently Alex Heard of New Republic magazine accused Sedaris of exaggerating and embellishing stories to breaking point, and that his claim to be a non-fiction writer was highly questionable. In an interview in the Guardian, Sedaris says this:
"You know, if you tell a funny story at the dinner table in front of 10 people, nine of them will laugh, and one of them will say that's not true. Now, I never say that to people. I'm never the 'that's not true' guy when someone tells a funny story. And I don't like the 'that's not true' guy. I've always hated that person. And all of a sudden those people are like the arbiters; in America, that's who we're hearing from."
So when is a lie not a lie? This is not an area that Christians - especially evangelicals - handle well. We generally consider hyberbole to be a euphemism for lying. In fact, the Bible uses exaggeration rather a lot. But the moment you say that, Christians can start to freak out, lay hands on you in prayer or attempt to drive out demons. Jesus talks about hating your father or mother - which would be a sin if you took him at his word. He is using hyperbole. Clearly, we mustn't use hyperbole as a label for anything we find unpalatable or extreme. The gospel is extreme and all-consuming. But here's another case. Job 1.
It's a very stylised form of writing - and when Job's life disintergrates, the way it is written is comic in style. Look:
13 One day when Job's sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 14 a messenger came to Job and said, "The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, 15 and the Sabeans attacked and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The fire of God fell from the sky and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
17 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, "The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and carried them off. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, "Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother's house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!"
Did it actually happen exactly that way? Word for word? Or is the narrator playing with the scene for effect? If he is, that's okay isn't it? Or is this the slippery, inescapable slope that causes one to hurtle into post-modernism? No. It isn't.
Monday, 22 June 2009
TV Ratings
It is often said that TV ratings are going down and down. And TV execs fall over themselves to explain why and how. It's never the programmes. Never. It's trends. It's the Xbox. It's the fragmentation of families. It's multi-platform interactive media. It's,... it's... something else. It must be. It has to be.
And yet there are some TV shows that get monster ratings. Britain's Got Talent is, sadly, one of them. The Apprentice, also sadly, is another. But one BBC2 show trounces everything else in terms of audience and buzz. Top Gear's Stig unveiling got 7.1m viewers. That's a lot for BBC2. Okay, it's not the same as X Factor or whatever, but it does tell us that 7.1m are prepared to watch something on BBC2. So when a show gets less than 1.5 million, which is rather often, it may be because the programme isn't actually all that good. Just a thought.
And yet there are some TV shows that get monster ratings. Britain's Got Talent is, sadly, one of them. The Apprentice, also sadly, is another. But one BBC2 show trounces everything else in terms of audience and buzz. Top Gear's Stig unveiling got 7.1m viewers. That's a lot for BBC2. Okay, it's not the same as X Factor or whatever, but it does tell us that 7.1m are prepared to watch something on BBC2. So when a show gets less than 1.5 million, which is rather often, it may be because the programme isn't actually all that good. Just a thought.
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Kevin Max and Miriam Jones
The wonderfully talented singer-songwriter Miriam Jones is supporting Kevin Max (formerly of uber-selling Christian-megastar-famed DC Talk) at the Lantern Arts Centre, of all places, in Raynes Park - near Wimbledon - on Friday 3rd July 2009. If you live anywhere close, get along. Kevin's great, and very experienced. His record speaks for itself. And his records speak for themselves. But Miriam is really something special. Her songs are full of surprising, thoughtful lyrics and the tunes are inventive, original and yet somehow comforting. Read more about Miriam, hear some songs and find gig details here.
The Friendly Man
I've been listening to another episode of This American Life - and was really interested by one of the stories that could be found here. Act 2, The Friendly Man, deals with the issue of reporting stories, and what sort of uplifting stories people want to hear - and the reality behind those stories. I recommend taking ten minutes out to listen and reflect, especially if you work in news journalism or non-fiction. (Click, "full episode" on the left, wait for some of it download and go c. 19:00 minutes).
Monday, 15 June 2009
Sheer Delight
A few days ago, I wondered about a Biblical definition of 'entertainment'. That is, after all, my job. I write situation comedy. Comedy succeeds when it amuses and entertains. And only when it amuses and entertains. It may challenge and question and satirise - but when it does so without entertaining or causing amusement, it's called drama. Or it's just lousy comedy.
But what is the point of it? How can a Christian justify 'mere' entertainment? Is it only light relief? Or a way of getting someone's attention before giving them something more important. Comedy performs a number of functions - but when it's just playful and, well, pointless, what's the point?
The other night, my daughter - who is sixteen months old - was in her room with the light out. And giggling. She'd found something about her cot, about a toy, about the way that the universe works - and was delighted by it.
She is equally delighted by nursery rhymes, at the sounds of words. The words themselves are broadly rubbish. And some of them are downright unpleasant. Read some old nursery rhymes. You'd be amazed. Rocky a bye baby, in the tree top is vile story! But the words and the sounds and the tone are wonderful.
Those who like crosswords are delighted by words and how they fit together; how words can have different meanings in different contexts. And how words contain other words that mean exactly the opposite of the bigger word.
Those who enjoy nature are delighted by the creation - how the universe, how nature and the ecosystem fit together.
Something that makes you understand life, how it works and how God has caused it to be is delightful. Art, that doesn't necessarily challenge or arrest you, but amuses and delights you, is still something worthy. Now surely that's entertainment?
But what is the point of it? How can a Christian justify 'mere' entertainment? Is it only light relief? Or a way of getting someone's attention before giving them something more important. Comedy performs a number of functions - but when it's just playful and, well, pointless, what's the point?
The other night, my daughter - who is sixteen months old - was in her room with the light out. And giggling. She'd found something about her cot, about a toy, about the way that the universe works - and was delighted by it.
She is equally delighted by nursery rhymes, at the sounds of words. The words themselves are broadly rubbish. And some of them are downright unpleasant. Read some old nursery rhymes. You'd be amazed. Rocky a bye baby, in the tree top is vile story! But the words and the sounds and the tone are wonderful.
Those who like crosswords are delighted by words and how they fit together; how words can have different meanings in different contexts. And how words contain other words that mean exactly the opposite of the bigger word.
Those who enjoy nature are delighted by the creation - how the universe, how nature and the ecosystem fit together.
Something that makes you understand life, how it works and how God has caused it to be is delightful. Art, that doesn't necessarily challenge or arrest you, but amuses and delights you, is still something worthy. Now surely that's entertainment?
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Scientific Idiocy
Modern day Evangelicals can be as dumb about science as their forbears, finding suspicious activity everywhere - and often we end up sounding like anti-academic maniacs. Well, there seems to be a sensible campaign called Sense About Science. I became aware of it after Simon Singh ran into libel trouble with some chiropracters. Simon Singh is a superb science journalist and has written two books that have read - Fermat's Last Theorem and The Code Book. He is very gifted at explain science, maths and difficult concepts without dumbing them down. But after a comment piece in the Guardian last year questioning chiropractic effectiveness for certain treatments - especially in children - the Chiropracters' association decided against asserting their claims with science or evidence, but decided instead to sue him under libel laws. And it could end up cost Mr Singh hundreds of thousands of pounds - since he is presumed guilty and has to spend time and money defending himself. Crazy. It is not just a scientific issue but a legal one. Read all about it here in Mr Singh's own clear considered words.
Wednesday, 10 June 2009
Triumphal Entry
I've just been reading Jesus triumphal entry. I've commented on the surprise of the donkey - and it's comedic function - here. But today I spotted something else as I read the account in Matthew.
The theme of hypocrisy and bad religion is so common in the Bible that it's very easy to miss it. It's extremely common in Jesus' ministry. His harshest words, his longest diatribes and his most vicious satire are always directed at the people who think they have religion sorted.
So it's easy to miss that Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey, with the crowd waving palms, a symbol of national identity - and that finally Jesus was expected to do something to vindicate Israel and kick out the Roman oppressors. The donkey subverts that expectation. He is saying that he is building a different sort of kingdom. He is planning a different sort of deliverance.
But the subversion continues. Jesus doesn't take his supernatural powers to the Roman army barracks to destroy them. He doesn't send a storm on them, or summon an Army of Angels. He heads straight to the Temple, because it is a disgrace to his Father's name. And he uses a whip, not an angelic Host, because he is gracious. Do we understand that we will be part of the refining process, not self-satisfied viewers from the sidelines. If Jesus took a whip into you church, would what table would he turn over?
The theme of hypocrisy and bad religion is so common in the Bible that it's very easy to miss it. It's extremely common in Jesus' ministry. His harshest words, his longest diatribes and his most vicious satire are always directed at the people who think they have religion sorted.
So it's easy to miss that Jesus enters Jerusalem on a donkey, with the crowd waving palms, a symbol of national identity - and that finally Jesus was expected to do something to vindicate Israel and kick out the Roman oppressors. The donkey subverts that expectation. He is saying that he is building a different sort of kingdom. He is planning a different sort of deliverance.
But the subversion continues. Jesus doesn't take his supernatural powers to the Roman army barracks to destroy them. He doesn't send a storm on them, or summon an Army of Angels. He heads straight to the Temple, because it is a disgrace to his Father's name. And he uses a whip, not an angelic Host, because he is gracious. Do we understand that we will be part of the refining process, not self-satisfied viewers from the sidelines. If Jesus took a whip into you church, would what table would he turn over?
Tuesday, 9 June 2009
Majestic Radio
Here's a splendid piece of radio that I heard a while ago. It's 'The Super' edition of This American Life - ie. it is about superintendents of buildings and the tall tales they tell... Click 'full episode' on the left of the page and you can listen to the whole thing.
Sunday, 7 June 2009
D-Day Anniversary Prize Crossword
Go here for a D-Day themed prize crossword. The prize is, of course, a copy of my book Crossword Ends in Violence (5), so no big deal. Hopefully the crossword itself will prove fun (if you haven't already done it).
Friday, 5 June 2009
Elections
Christians often despair at the parties on offer in British politics. It is not at all obvious who Christians should vote for. Today, I was conflicted between two or three options as I stood in the cubicle with pencil in hand, wondering where to put the cross for the European elections.
One thing made it harder to decide - in this election, I had to vote for a party rather than a person. My MP is a Conservative called Greg Hands. I'd vote for him because I've had some correspondence with him and think he's good for this constituency and the conservative party. I'd vote for him, even though I'm somewhat luke warm on the party itself. In fact, I didn't vote for that party today. Today, I was offered a bunch of Tory MPs, some of whom will be elected depending on how many votes they get. So who to vote for?
But the other thing that emerged that there is one thing Christians can do to serve - run the elections. We may be ambivalent about the parties, but giving everyone an equal voice is surely a good thing. People are required to man polling stations, count votes and perform all manner of functions. Isn't that a good way to serve our communities?
One thing made it harder to decide - in this election, I had to vote for a party rather than a person. My MP is a Conservative called Greg Hands. I'd vote for him because I've had some correspondence with him and think he's good for this constituency and the conservative party. I'd vote for him, even though I'm somewhat luke warm on the party itself. In fact, I didn't vote for that party today. Today, I was offered a bunch of Tory MPs, some of whom will be elected depending on how many votes they get. So who to vote for?
But the other thing that emerged that there is one thing Christians can do to serve - run the elections. We may be ambivalent about the parties, but giving everyone an equal voice is surely a good thing. People are required to man polling stations, count votes and perform all manner of functions. Isn't that a good way to serve our communities?
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Surprised by Excellence
In the last few weeks, I've been reading bits of classic literature for research purposes - and realised that CS Lewis is right. Plato is far easier to read than books about Plato. I had a look at his Republic and found it very readable. I also read the beginning of Chesterton's Orthodoxy and find it delightful.
My thinking, then, is to read more proper books. I'm making a list of twelve significant works of non-fiction from across the centuries that I hope to read in the next year, alongside other lousier more modern books. And my rule to myself is that I cannot resume my subscription to The Economist until I have read all twelve.
The list is provisional - and it is up to you, reader, to persuade me to ditch one of the books on my list in favor of another.
Here are the twelve:
1. The Republic Plato
2. Institutes Jean Calvin
3. The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4. Leviathon Thomas Hobbes
5. The Rights of Man Thomas Paine
6. On Liberty John Stuart Mill
7. City of God Augustine
8. Orthodoxy GK Chesterton
9. Understanding Media Marshall McLuhan
10. Thus Spoke Zarathustra Friedrich Nietzsche
11. The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith
12. In Praise of Folly Erasmus
This is partly personal taste - and a fair of amount of political theory there, but as good a place to start as any. Your comments, dire warnings and encouragements are welcome.
My thinking, then, is to read more proper books. I'm making a list of twelve significant works of non-fiction from across the centuries that I hope to read in the next year, alongside other lousier more modern books. And my rule to myself is that I cannot resume my subscription to The Economist until I have read all twelve.
The list is provisional - and it is up to you, reader, to persuade me to ditch one of the books on my list in favor of another.
Here are the twelve:
1. The Republic Plato
2. Institutes Jean Calvin
3. The Social Contract Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4. Leviathon Thomas Hobbes
5. The Rights of Man Thomas Paine
6. On Liberty John Stuart Mill
7. City of God Augustine
8. Orthodoxy GK Chesterton
9. Understanding Media Marshall McLuhan
10. Thus Spoke Zarathustra Friedrich Nietzsche
11. The Wealth of Nations Adam Smith
12. In Praise of Folly Erasmus
This is partly personal taste - and a fair of amount of political theory there, but as good a place to start as any. Your comments, dire warnings and encouragements are welcome.
The Power of Comedy
When I first started thinking about comedy from a theological perspective, one thing that struck me was how comedy is, to some extent, a power play. God can laugh at the folly of man:
Listening to Barrett Fisher talk to Ken Myers on a podcast bonus track (details below), I was reminded of this. Fisher suggests that knowing a joke or riddle gives you power over someone else, which is perhaps why children like to tell jokes - especially Knock-knock jokes. Normally the jokes themselves are fairly lame. And frequently the child doesn't fully understand them. But when the know a joke, a child has a feeling of power over an adult rarely afforded them. And when an adult laughs in delight at a child jokes, that's a real buzz for them.
Knowing something the protagonist of the story does not know can often produce comedy. We laugh at our hero barging into a room that we know is going to be bad for him. The reveal is not the funniest part. It is knowing that our hero is walking into something that is the real kick.
Another thing that raised a smile as I listened is the importance of 'expectation coming to nought' - a very important factor in the comedy, which exploits between our expectations and reality - is found in the work of Immannuel Kant, who has to be one of the more turgid and dull, albeit important, important theologians since the reformation.
Anyway, find Vol. 69 - Barrett Fisher, on the history of very serious thinking about what makes something funny and plenty else here.
The One enthroned in heaven laughs;God is more powerful that man. So he gets to laugh. But man makes a grave mistake when laughing at God, as Sarah does when God tells her that she will have a son. To laugh in that situation is tantamount to saying 'I know better than you'.
the Lord scoffs at them. Psalm 2:4
Listening to Barrett Fisher talk to Ken Myers on a podcast bonus track (details below), I was reminded of this. Fisher suggests that knowing a joke or riddle gives you power over someone else, which is perhaps why children like to tell jokes - especially Knock-knock jokes. Normally the jokes themselves are fairly lame. And frequently the child doesn't fully understand them. But when the know a joke, a child has a feeling of power over an adult rarely afforded them. And when an adult laughs in delight at a child jokes, that's a real buzz for them.
Knowing something the protagonist of the story does not know can often produce comedy. We laugh at our hero barging into a room that we know is going to be bad for him. The reveal is not the funniest part. It is knowing that our hero is walking into something that is the real kick.
Another thing that raised a smile as I listened is the importance of 'expectation coming to nought' - a very important factor in the comedy, which exploits between our expectations and reality - is found in the work of Immannuel Kant, who has to be one of the more turgid and dull, albeit important, important theologians since the reformation.
Anyway, find Vol. 69 - Barrett Fisher, on the history of very serious thinking about what makes something funny and plenty else here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)