Best of Both Worlds

A Case of Conscience

2009-12-16T13:01:00.004Z

As you would expect, the Guardian has printed a piece of comment about the Lillian Ladele civil ceremonies case here. Symon Hill has argued that Christians should be glad that Lillian lost her case because there are lots of Christians who are fed up that Christianity is used as an excuse for homophobia.

A comment piece does not need to be balanced, and naturally the piece isn't. There is a fig-leaf of it provided when he writes:

I understand how many Christians have come to the appallingly mistaken conclusion that homosexuality is wrong. To my shame, I admit that when I became a Christian in my late teens, I was persuaded to adopt such a view myself.

So far, so fair! He goes on to say:

Ladele is routinely described as a "Christian registrar" in headlines, as if this in itself explained her attitude. I'm not questioning Ladele's commitment to Christianity, but the media's constant use of the phrase sadly reinforces the equation of Christianity with homophobia, playing into the hands of the pro-Ladele camp.

This mistakenly assumes that the public perception is that Christianity is homophobic. I don't know how he can argue this since pro-gay groups have successfully dominated the national debate on gay clergy and civil partnerships. The man in the street, on encountering an unmarried clergyman would probably assume he was gay. And wouldn't have a problem with it - whilst acknowledging that some people, for whatever reason, do have a problem with it.

I don't propose to go through the motions of the debate on homosexuality. It never changes anyone's mind anyway. My concern is about the relationship of the conscience to the State. Do we want a state that makes people do things that the person in question thinks are wrong? To take an extreme example, what about a nurse who refuses to take part in an abortion? Presumably, the line is that the nurse should acknowledge that it's the woman's right to choose, the law has not been broken, she's being paid by the state so should damned well get on with her job and leave her so-called religious faith at the door. What a horrible scenario. And yet, I can't see it not happening. A Healthcare trust could, presumably, fire a medical profession for their 'faith'.

This issue also, of course, highlights the breathtakingly idiotic legislation that has been passed in recent years, guaranteeing freedoms, rights and entitlements for people with religious faith, and people with sexual preferences. And there are points at which these hopelessly written pieces of law contradict one another. Surely Lillian Ladele has a right to freedom to practice her faith? And yet surely the gay couples in her borough have a right to marry? Did they not realise this when they wrote it down in the statute book. I'm sure the Queen would have realised when she signed the papers, but she probably also realised it was too late.

The truth is Symon Hill speaks for a huge group of people who are very happy with the state being used to force people to think differently, principally by changing the way they behave. This is, in my view, a truly terrible thing. Even worse is the fact that it doesn't seem to concern anyone that we are marching continually in this direction, giving more and more power to the state, allowing them to pass more and more laws, and giving the police more and more powers to enforce them.

Symon Hill, like many others, would strongly argue for a separation of church and state. As would I. I even have sympathy for his statement that "groups such as the Christan Institute hark back to a Christendom situation."

But we mean very different things by that idea of a separation between Church and State. He wants church to remain separate and faith to be private - and for the state to enforce a version of watered down Protestantism masquerading as Western Secularism. Ultimately, this is using the state, legislation and ultimately brute force to make people think what they think. It astonishes me how many Christians are prepared to go along with this. The grounds for emigration have never been stronger and increase by the year.

After all, do we want to live in a country where the state forces employees to do things which that person considers to be morally wrong? Apparently, most of us do. Not me.

The Comedy of Christmas

2009-12-14T11:30:00.003Z

Comedy is about subversion. It takes our expectation and turns them on their head. Comedy exploits the gap between how things are and how things are meant to be. So when you think about it, Christmas is funny.

Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, is worthy of all praise and honour. So where is he born? A palace? A mansion? No. A stable. A cold, draughty stable. Among animals. The order of the universe starts with God, goes through angels to humans and then into the animals. And yet the angelic host announce that Emmanuel, God with us, will be born among the animals. Extraordinary.

Bethlehem was packed out with people returning home for an administrative census. Solders and officials were running around with piece of papyrus and keeping records, failing to note down that the most significant human being who ever lived had just been born. The census had been ordered from Rome, the seat of all power in the Roman world. They knew nothing of what had happened. King Herod, the vile and cynical local puppet king, found out when some foreign magi stumbled in asking for directions. And they had got as far as they had through the ancient, highly dubious art of astrology.

The news is, of course, announced by choirs of angels, who come down and terrify the onlookers with their shining purity. Where would you expect this announcement to take place? The Temple, surely? The very epicentre of Jewish worship. Somewhere in Jerusalem at least, in front of crowds, rulers, dignitaries and people who could pass on the message?

Nope. Picture a hillside with some big burly shepherds, watching out over their flocks in the fading light. They are given the good news first. Shepherds. We already know this and have forgotten how stunningly subversive this is. God tells working classes blokes where to find a baby who is Christ the Lord.

And so, the scene is set for the nativity tableau. Jesus, the king of the universe, lying in a cattle trough. He is being presented gifts by foreign pagan kings who know something is up. He is being fawned over by huge, strapping shepherds. There are no priests, no teachers of the law, no pharisees, no sadducees. No Roman soldiers or government officials. God always does things his way. Not our way.

Of course, as we've already mentioned, one ruler does find what's happened. Herod understands something of what's happened - a threat to his power has been born. A descendant of the King David has been born. And he reacts in the way that shows us exactly why humanity needs saving. Herod responds with paranoid, vicious infanticide. What's more, he finds no shortage of henchman prepared to carry out his wishes. Is it any wonder that God does things his way, not ours?

Blueprint 2010 - special offer

2009-12-10T10:44:00.004Z

The next Blueprint conference - for Christians in Media, Arts, Design and Music - is on 13th Feb 2010 at The Factory in Raynes Park, London.

We will be thinking about how creative work fits into the eternity, the New Heavens and the New Earth. The theme is 'Their works shall follow them'. We are looking forward to hearing teaching from Ellis Potter and Jim Paul on this subject. In the afternoon, there will be a number of optional seminars, including Ros Clarke speaking on the depiction of sex in the media, and I'll be doing a session on Causing Offence. More sessions to be announced. There'll be ample opportunities to chat, discuss and think through issues, as well as lots of Bible teaching.

The event is run by The Co-Mission Initiative, a network of evangelical churches in London. But it is open to all. The idea is to provide a conference that supports other Christian media networks - of which there are at least three. Members of Medianet, Artisan and The Arts Centre Group are warmly invited - and many attented the previous conference in February this year.

The event is primarily for Christians working in the creative industries, but non-professionals and armchair enthusiasts are very welcome to attend. The conference is mainly a cultural creation, rather than cultural appreciation.

Tickets are £15 (£10 for Students). But if you book before Christmas, it's only £12. This includes a sandwich lunch. Find out more here.

Worship House Media

2009-12-10T10:42:00.001Z

Here are some useful resources that are creative and well put-together - and would work well in an evangelistic carol service.

Where Do Comedians Go When They Die?

2009-12-08T11:15:00.003Z

Milton Jones has written a book about life as a comedian - a fictionalised account of the trials of being a jobbing comedian. And he got it published and everything. And it looks great. I hope to read a copy very soon - but for now, have a look here for a review on Chortle and here to buy it on Amazon.

Ebeneezer Good?

2009-12-07T10:29:00.002Z

Here's a short talk I gave a family Christmas service on Sunday (hence the simplistic language!):

At Christmas, we think back the birth of Jesus Christ as a baby, as was promised in the old testament. During Advent, we think forward to when Jesus Christ will come back, as he promised throughout the Bible. So it’s like Jesus birth and return are the two big marker posts in history. But how are we supposed to live now?

The story of a Christmas Carol gives us a clue, but only a clue. It’s about a man called Ebeneezer scrooge who is mean, and grumpy and bad. Ebeenezer Scrooge is mean – but there is one good thing about him. He is honest. He loves money and everyone knows it. He doesn’t try to put a respectable face on his meanness. He doesn’t care who knows it. But he is mean.

All of us can be like Ebeneezer Scrooge at times. We don’t want to be generous. We don’t want to share the things we have. And if someone has something we don’t have, we want it. Put a child in a room of toys, he’ll play with a toy. Put in another child and he’ll want to play with the same toy. Being kind and sharing doesn’t come naturally to us, if we’re honest.

So how can we be the kind of person God made us to be? How can we live like the Lord Jesus Christ? We can’t. Not on our own. We need God’s help to live like God’s son, Jesus Christ. What does that look like?

Well, in a Christmas Carol, Ebeneezer Scrooge is visited by three spirits. There is a supernatural intervention in his life in which he is confront by the shameful reality of his own life, his meanness, his cold-heartedness – and where ultimately where that will lead.

But when the spirits leave, he’s on his own to try and make the best of it. He is changed, but for how long? We don’t know what becomes of Ebeneezer Scrooge. If there was a sequel, I wouldn’t be surprised if he’d gone back to his old, mean ways and needed another terrifying night.

And we know that might well be true of us. It’s so hard to change our behaviour, that it doesn’t just take a miracle, or supernatural intervention, but an on-going process of change. One that lasts our whole lives. Well, that is exactly what find in the Bible. Specifically in Ezekiel 11:19 – written hundreds of years before that first Christmas.

I will give them an undivided heart and put a new spirit in them; I will remove from them their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh.

God will give us a new spirit, the Holy Spirit, and who will change our hearts from stone to flesh. He will do that for anyone who asks. Many of us here have done that, and are slowly slowly changing to be more like Christ. If that’s not something you’ve done, why not consider finding out more about the Lord Jesus who was born on Christmas Day, and will return to judge – and make everything right, and fair and good – as it should be.

More Dogmatic Atheists

2009-11-21T13:19:00.004Z

It's always interesting, amusing and a bit sad when atheist who claim to be liberal run out of things to say and end up turning their attention to other people's children. A one-time colleague of mine, Ariane Sherine - who is thoroughly delightful, by the way - has raised so much money for her atheistic bus campaign that they needed to run some more to use up the funds. So the Guardian, as you would expect, kindly obliged by letting Ariane write it all up here.

The idea behind the campaign is to stop 'labelling' children. Dawkins is very hot on this. Children aren't Christians until they decide to be. They can't be labelled until they've made the choice for themselves (so clearly he's an Arminian Baptist Atheist. It takes all sorts.) I guess he is against the indoctrination of children and to many people this will seem highly sensible and reasonable.

It is, of course, bafflingly self-defeating. Dawkins, Sherine and company are determined that my children not be brought up as Christians or labelled as such, but given a 'neutral' label of their own. Dawkins would contend that all faiths are equally stupid. More generous, less deranged people could argue that religion is highly subjective and relative. (It isn't. But go with it). Ariane Sherine is less dogmatic, I think, and is sceptical about religion and God, rather than furious. So let's call this position 'Sherinism'. Sherinism is, therefore, the view that children should not be labelled with any religion and considered 'non-religious'. Therefore, as far as Sherinism goes, my children should be taught that a. religion is optional, b. religion is based on preference c. religion is never objectively true.

There's obviously a problem here. Sherinism is as dogmatic and propositional as any other worldview, not a bland, magnolia, absence of faith. What's more, Sherinism is, in my view, wrong on three counts. Religion is not optional. We are all worshippers. The only question is what/whom do we worship. Religion is not based on preference. Some religions exclude others and make absolute claims. And Christianity is at least at pains to be objectively true, or else Christ lived, died and rose again for nothing. I'm interested that Ariane wants to push Sherinism onto my children. Sorry, Ariane. It ain't happening. You teach your own kids whatever you want (and I mean that). Mine are being raised as Christians.

But here's the real wonderful kicker. God will not be mocked. This will be obvious to everyone one day, but he likes to put in warm-up gags and there's one here, in today's Times. The two children chosen to front this advertising campaign turned out to be happily raised as evangelicals. Their father is Brad Mason, drummer for Noel Richards - and the pictures are library shots. (Putting your own kids in library pictures for use in advertising - that's a different story). But read all about it here.

Comedy and Offence

2009-11-18T10:44:00.003Z

There's a lot of this around at the moment, isn't there? Paranoia everywhere. Some comedians making jokes that are hard to defend, and the public/newspapers acting hysterically. It won't do. There's an article in the Independent here. It's interesting in all these discussions that there is very little moral element. It's more about rules and what you can and can't say - and when you should and shouldn't say it. Frankie Boyle's jokes about Rebecca Adlington where unnecessary and cheap. That says more about Frankie Boyle than anyone else. My friend Lauri has also blogged some thoughts here. I always say that offence is a very bad way of measuring the validity of a joke. I really must write a book on this...

Hut 33 - Unlucky for Some

2009-11-16T13:35:00.003Z

On my Hut 33 blog here, I make some comments on the latest episode called Unlucky for Some, which is about religion and superstition.

Freelance Fury

2009-11-16T13:02:00.003Z

A week or so ago, I was delighted to discover a house in Fulham that I could afford to live in. It's on the same street as our previous place, next door to someone my sister happens to know. Small world. Anyway, it's a house at reasonable price. Having said that, I can't actually afford it, but some people are kindly helping us live there so that we can remain involved with our church. Doing so, on a single income, would otherwise be impossible for us at the moment, since I don't work for an investment bank, or have my own sitcom on BBC1. (I have a share of sitcom on BBC2 - that's not enough, apparently).

So I go through the vetting procedures - for which I have to pay - in order that my income can be verified. Naturally, if I had a salaried job, that would be easy since all the verifiers need to is call my employer and check I earn what I say do. Wonderful. Cast iron. There is of course no change that I would be fired from my salary position and that this flimsy assurance is anything other than a snapshot of my current salaried statues.

As it happens, I do not have a salary, since I am freelance. And have always been. Not once since leaving university have I had a salaried job. And despite the fact that I have tax returns, and a literary agent who processes the vast majority of my income - having never once defaulted on any payment of any kind, having zero debt and good character witnesses (as well as two years of happy tenancy via the same Estate Agents), I still seem to be a borderline case.

Given the millions of people in Britain who are self-employed, this seems like utter madness. Do they really think I'm planning to go through the pain and nuisance of moving into a house that I have no prospect of being able to afford? Does this happen often? I guess it does, and I'm paying penalty for that fact that the world is full of fools. (I too am I fool. Just not a financial fool). But it's driving me crazy and I just thought I would share that. And I do feel better now, thank you.

More Money by Martin Amis

2009-11-12T15:08:00.003Z

I was pleased that people had strong feelings about Money by Amis - or at least that sort of literature. I've decided against reading on for a variety of reasons, lack of time being one of them. But fortunately, my curiosity might be satisfied by how it turns out by this TV adaptation of it!

But should we watch the TV version? Some people argue that you can't judge something unless you've seen it. There is obviously some merit in this argument. That said, one doesn't need to watch a vampire movie to make legitimate comments about that vampire movie. Clearly, the comments will not be very nuanced.

I faced this dilemma a while when I had to take part in a BBC internal discussion about religion and offence. Stewart Lee, co-writer of Jerry Springer the Opera was on the panel, and he has said that he won't discuss it with anyone who hasn't seen it. One could argue that I shouldn't watch it because I should focus on whatever is good, holy and pure, etc (see Phillipians). But how could I discuss the programme with Stewart in any meaningful way if I had not seen it?

Did I want to watch it? Not really. Did I feel I should? Yes. Did I watch it? Yes. Was I offended? In places, yes, very. Did I laugh at some of the jokes? Some. Did I sin by watching it? No. When Christ is portrayed in a humiliating way, I am not tempted to laugh at Christ, but am sad that this scene is being played. And I'm offended for Jesus sake.

Being offended is usually a good thing - it implies one has standards. Of course, sometimes one is offended because of personal pride and the joke was intended to offend. This is satire. And this is why there seem to be few hard and fast rules since comedy, offence and pride are all interwoven. There's more to be said here, especially in view of yet another furore about comedy and offence in the process (Frankie Boyle on Rebecca Adlington, and Jimmy Carr on our brave boys.) But my blogging time is up for today. (I really really should get round to writing that book on this...)

Miranda BBC2 at 8.30pm

2009-11-09T18:32:00.002Z

Tonight is the first episode of a new sitcom called 'Miranda'. It stars Miranda Hart and is a show based around her life, struggles, friends and foibles. And it's ace.

I have to declare an interest - I was involved in episodes 2-6 (so not tonight's one). I technically co-wrote three of them, and am an additional writer on the other two, but it didn't quite work like that. I sat in a room with Miranda and a chap called Richard and we went through stories and ideas and jokes - but the show is very much Miranda's own, which is great because she really knows what works for her. And she worked incredibly hard on the scripts to get them just right. And I think she succeeded.

The BBC have spotted there's very little swearing in it and that it's a lovely, silly show, so have decided to air it at 8.30pm. Can't quite remember the last time BBC2 did that. But I'm all in favour.

The studio audience went mad for it. The BBC are quite excited about. Ignoring the critics (always best), the only people left now are the viewers. So it's over to you...

You can also catch it on iplayer here.

Money in the Bin

2009-11-04T12:20:00.003Z

I've been meaning to get round to reading Money by Martin Amis for a few years. I read a short extract of it in a book by David Lodge about writing fiction (The Art of Fiction, which is excellent, by the way). The book is about British writer/director who's pretty much addicted to anything going. The quote that hooked me was:

In LA, you can’t do anything unless you drive. Now I can’t do anything unless I drink. And the drink-drive combination, it really isn’t possible out there... So what can a poor boy do? You come out of the hotel, the Vraimont... You walk left, you walk right, you are a bank rat on a busy river. This restaurant serves no drink, this one serves no meat, this one serves no heterosexuals. You can get your chimp shampooed, you can get your dick tattooed, twenty-four hours, but can you get lunch? And should you see a sign on the far side of the street flashing BEEF -- BOOZE -- NO STRINGS, then you can forget it. The only way to get across the road is to be born there.

It's that last line that got me and I decided to find a copy and read it. A found a copy a few months ago and started last week. The only problem is that fifty pages in, Martin Amis has painted such a vivid picture of this dreadful character, called 'Self', that I simply don't want to read on. I've just read some adventures in New York (which was not a pleasant place to be in the early 1980s, when the book was written). And I almost threw it in the bin. Almost. Shoud I? I'm sure the book is well-constructed and there's a justifiable artistic reason for all this sleaze, but I just makes me feel ill. Please advise. Bin?

When is an Advisor not an Advisor?

2009-11-02T11:15:00.003Z

When he works for this current government. Professor Nutt, the Chief Advisor to the government on drugs, was sacked for expressing a view that was different from Government policy.

Clearly, the current administration is so deranged and insistent on conformity that they insist all scientists re-intepret all scientific data to fit in with government policy. That's a shame, and a worrying sign. And one doesn't want to bandy the F-word around willy nilly but it is, technically, Fascism.

It is the Home Secretary's duty to formulate policy (any kind of policy from this government would be a welcome change. It won't happen, of course, since this government has simply no idea what government is actually for.) But Professor Nutt is a scientist who looks at data, one would hope, and gives honest opinions on it from a scientific point of view. He's not elected, or a member of the government, or member of the Labour Party. He's good at science. Mr Johnson is a politician who has to make a decision that takes that scientific opinion into account, but he is not obliged to legislate purely scientific. The minister will take other decisions into account - such as morality, cost and public opinion. (Whether these are adequate criteria for any government decision is higly questionable, but that is the current custom).

Sadly, our next Prime Minister, David Cameron, has sympathised with Mr Johnson by saying that the Professor Nutt's comments were badly put. "I don't think what Professor Nutt said about the respective merits of taking ecstasy and riding horses was a particularly good way of putting it," said PM-to-be. Perhaps he should have said that Professor Nutt is free to express whatever he wants in whatever way he wants - as long as it is consistent with scientific data. And perhaps it's the press's duty not to whip up the slightest disagreement between our elected ministers who are not scientists and their non-elected advisors who are scientists. We live in confused times. I wish I was more optimistic about sea-change in May. I don't think we'll be getting one any time soon.

A Fraction of the Whole

2009-10-29T00:18:00.003Z

I finally finished this epic novel - all 711 pages of it. It's a debut work by an Australian called Steve Toltz. It was shortlisted for the Man Booker Prize 2008 - so it's a proper book. Not your average thriller, although this book is extremely thrilling in places.

It begins in a prison cell, and much ink is entertainingly spilt about how the protagonist, Jaspar Dean, got there. He tells the most extraordinary story which largely focusses on Jaspar's father Martin, a man who thinks far too much. He questions everything, doubts everything and sees through everything and everyone. As you might expect, this makes him ultimately go mad. There is much talk on about God, gods, philosophy and politics. Martin is (intentionally) the most infuriating character and there was a big sigh of relief for me when he met his fate - and quite a lot of the story is told from his point of you. Like father like son, there is much overlap - and concerns that Jaspar is turning into his father.

Enough of the what's it about. Was it any good? Yes. It was. Lots of wonderful turns of phrase, set-pieces and laugh-out loud moments - bits that you want to read aloud to your spouse, and some bits you'd never read aloud to anyone since you're ashamed to admit you find it funny. The book is undoubtedly gloomy and, as I mentioned, infuriating and this is clearly intentional. It reminded me of Tibor Fischer and Christopher Brookmyre in that fact that the strangest things happen and no one seems a bit surprised.

But it's long. Too long. Far too long. Especially towards the end where there was lost of talk and not much happening. The Independent said:
My only reservation about this novel is that it is rather too long. By page 711, I was distinctly glad that the exploits and insights of the Dean clan had come to an end, and the wilful perversity of the style had started to cloy well before that. If it had ended 200 pages earlier, I might have given it five stars.
I'd go further than that. I thoroughly recommend you by this book and stop reading at page 226. Seriously. Lots of good books are 226 pages or fewer. (The 39 Steps and The Great Gatsby for starters so you're in good company). When I reached the end of that section I thought "Wow! That feels like an ending to me. A good one at that. What on earth is going to happen in the next 500 pages?" As it turns out, a lot. More people die. In fact almost every character. And, well, it starts to get a bit ridiculous. The book sunk in my estimations the further I read. It was obviously good enough to get me to the end. The prose is good. But by page 500 I was determined to finish it, or it's like running a marathon and giving up at Mile 20.

My overwhelming impression of the book is positive one - and I enjoyed seeing what happens when a man doubts everthing. It feels like a GK Chesterton or CS Lewis - that the man who sees through everything ultimately sees nothing at all. And nothingness is quite a spectacle. Martin Dean in this book shows what that looks like. It looks like a living hell.

X-Factor. I mean it.

2009-10-25T20:27:00.002Z

No, the title of this blog post is not a reference to something else. It really is about X-Factor. I'm watching it on TV as I type. Seriously. I watched it last night too. And I'm wondering who's going to be voted off.

Let's not get bogged down in how and why I'm watching it. I haven't seen any reality TV since Nasty Nick was thrown out of the Big Brother house in the year 2000. A couple of things are interesting to me in this X-Factor.

The first is the wailing audience who are desparate to cheer anything and everyone. They hate it when the judges are mean. This show is a really blatant example of how people are relational - and determined to find someone to worship and cheer for. I'm not saying it must be stopped because it's idolatry. It's just interesting that this show is a huge phenomenon, and it's very hard not to get swept along by the current once you put your toe in the water. I genuinely care about some of the contestants, and others I want to be voted off (mainly because they're just not as good at singing and someone, well nearly everyone, has to lose).

The other thing of interest is the thing I share with the contestants: the only person's opinion I'm interested in is Simon Cowell's. It's not just that he's very important and owns the show and all that. It's just that he is very critical, shrewd and tough and therefore he is really the only whose praise means something. Cheryl Cole and Dani Minogue tend to say how well they thought everyone did. And so their praise has no value.

What do we want from a judge? Praise? Vindication? No. We want honesty. Forunately, that is the God we find in the Bible. He doesn't tell us everything's okay, because it isn't. He doesn't tell we're perfect, because we're not. He doesn't say he loves us just the way we are and He doesn't want us to change - but he does want us to change to be more like his son. Fortunately, he enables us to do that by His Spirit.

The Big Machine

2009-10-21T17:01:00.002+01:00

I've blogged about episode 2 of series 3 Hut 33 here.

The Taxpayer

2009-10-20T14:10:00.003+01:00

Some friends of mine on twitter have been getting vexed about comments from The Taxpayers Alliance. This got me thinking about who they are, what they're for and taxation in general - a subject I need no encouragement to go back to.

The Taxpayers Alliance perform a few useful functions. They are a voice of accountability in an age of high government spending. They question and challenge the government - which is something Her Majesty's opposition seem unable or unwilling to do, mainly because they will spend roughly the same amount of money in the similar, give or take the odd billion.

Their mission statement is clearly laid out. Here are some highlights:

The TaxPayers' Alliance is Britain's independent grassroots campaign for lower taxes. After years of being ignored by politicians of all parties, the TPA is committed to forcing politicians to listen to ordinary taxpayers.

Taxes keep on rising but there is very little improvement in the quality of schools, hospitals and transport provided by government... The government is riddled with waste and inefficiency... High taxes are damaging the British economy and our way of life is suffering as a result... In the long-run, higher taxes make us all poorer.

The TPA's mission is:
• To reverse the perception that big government is necessary and irreversible
• To explain the benefits of a low tax economy
• To give taxpayers a voice in the corridors of power

To this end, the TaxPayers' Alliance will:
• Oppose all tax rises
• Oppose EU tax harmonisation
• Seek the abolition of inheritance tax
• Criticise all examples of wasteful and unnecessary spending
• Champion opportunities for votes on tax and spend

So, they have a strong ideology. Or so it seems. What there seems to be a lack of is basic philosophy. It appears that their central thesis is that big government does not work, never works, and should be opposed because it's making us all poorer. This is soley an economic argument. It fails address the reason for taxation, or indeed whether the state has any right to tax, to provide a monopoly on some public services, or even provide public services at all. Scandanavia seems to model a large state that works quite well. Is socialism or statism defective because it doesn't work? And for whom does it not work? We need to go deeper.

This lack of true ideology can make them sound rather shrill - lamenting the poor use of tax-payers money. My friend Kevin tweeted this: "I hate the way they imply they speak for me because I pay tax. No you don't, take your no welfare state ideas elsewhere." Interesting. And he makes a very good point. The taxpayers of Britain disagree about how their taxes should be spent and, indeed, what the purpose of taxation is. For some, taxation is about wealth redistribution and provision of public services as a basic human right. For others, it's more cost-effective that the state provide services, so it's paying your national subscription. For others, it's giving the state money to invest in projects to make us all richer and healthier - that's what Gordon Brown call 'investment' when he's splurging billions on public services, as if their is any prospect of a return on that investment.

What is taxation? What is the point of it? And therefore how much is just? How much is necessary? How much is right? No-one seems terribly interested in discussing this and yet it lies at the heart of the very fabric of our government. Maintaining law and order and defending the realm is only a fraction of what the government spends. What - or who - gives it the right to collect taxation for others things? If it's the people by public mandate, that is one thing. But what if those people don't agree? And why should the people be the ultimate authority - if there is a greater authority in heaven who has made his views known? Lots of questions - and few seem prepared to think about the answers.

One Big Brother Happy Family

2009-10-18T21:29:00.003+01:00

Those who currently govern us love to think they are rather wonderful at anything they turn their hand to. As it happens, they are not. What's more, even if they were, it would necessarily be their right to do certain things. One of them is educating our children. It is the duty of the parents to ensure children are well-educated. Despite grade-inflation, constant interference, mass truancy and general adult illiteracy, the government still thinks it is highly competent in this area - even much of the actual work is done by churches, both Anglican and Catholic.

There are some who chose to educate their children by themselves. It's a tall order these days - labour intensive and a big domestic decision, and one I think we will be making in favour of home-schooling. Naturally the government doesn't like it when we get on and do things ourselves - and insist our regulating it, supervising it, setting targets and curricula, which of course somewhat defeats the object. They also have no right to interfere in this way. They plan to extend this powers. One such way to weasel into the family unit is to check how things are going by interviewing the child alone without the parents present. Not even the police have the power to do that.

Concerned? I would be. In fact, I am. I'm glad the Christian Concern for Our Nation have highlighted this issue. Read all about it here.

Hut 33 Series 3 on iPlayer

2009-10-15T16:11:00.000+01:00

For the next week, you can listen to Episode 1 of Series 3 of Hut 33 on iPlayer - here. This episode is actually about codebreaking, which sounds obvious given the premise of the sitcom, but it much harder to do that you might think. I've had one or two people quite indignant that, as a sitcom, we don't concentrate on the codebreaking anywhere near enough. Of course, sitcoms are about characters and people, not ideas. Hut 33 is not about the war - well, it is. It's about class war. It's about the clash of world-views between Archie, the common man, whose time is coming, and Charles, the posh don, whose time is passing. Gordon is stuck in between as the peace-maker. And the war is what pushes this unlikely trio together, as was the case in the war. It is often given as the reason for Churchill's astonishing defeat after the war; Britain, for the first time, really saw how the other half lived, and they didn't like it. Anyway, hope you enjoy the episode.

Gran Torino

2009-09-26T14:48:00.003+01:00

On Wednesday night, I saw Gran Torino - and loved it. It wasn't about what I had been lead to believe. The set-up is Clint Eastwood as a veteran of the Korean War living next door to an Asian family. Clearly he is going to have a problem with this. In fact, the whole area is broadly Asian. (What is interesting, and brave, is that the first racist statement comes from the Vietnamese granny next door, who curses at Clint Eastwood for being the only white man left in the area.)

The film is not about racism, however. It becomes more about justice, relationships, gangland behaviour and religion. All of them are dealt with in interesting ways. The film begins and ends in church. Clint Eastwood (Walt) is burying his wife at the start of the film, but clearly has a life of regrets. He also finds his own family deeply disappointing, for good reason. They appear to have no real time for their dad and give the impression, rather blatantly, that they are waiting for him to die. Fairly quickly, he is absorbed into the family next door. A friend who saw the film disliked it for this reason - it seemed too quick and rather unnatural. I didn't mind that, and given his enforced solitude, it did not seem so unbelievable.

As the film unfolds, Clint/Walt has to deal with the guilt of things he has done in the past and intervenes in the situation next door, and ultimately achieves something that the law by itself can never truly achieve - justice.

To say any more would spoil it. Watch it. And let's talk again.

Leaders into Temptation

2009-09-18T22:16:00.002+01:00

From the July edition of 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... Read the rest here.

Blueprint Annual Gathering 2010

2009-09-16T18:43:00.006+01:00

Doing good work is time-consuming and hard. Why do it? What is the eternal value of being a creative? What is the point of technical excellence? Does our work matter? For how long? Doesn’t it all get wiped away at The End anyway? What is The End? And how does knowing the answers to any of these questions actually help?

BLUEPRINT is new name for the Co-Mission Media Forum. The aim is to equip Christians to do good work. Take that how you will. Earlier this year, on a very cold Saturday in February, over a hundred of us gathered for the first time and heard from great teaching from Gavin McGrath and others. Next year, we'll be gathering on Saturday 13th February 2010 at the Factory in Raynes Park, London. This time, we're welcoming special guests Ellis Potter and Jim Paul, speaking on the title 'Their works shall follow them'. Together we'll be thinking about questions of eternity and how our work, creativity and skills fit into that. There'll be other sessions and seminars too. And lunch (very important) and a chance to chat to like-minded folk and others who are going through the same trials and tribulations. There's a bit more info here.

Tickets are £15 for the whole day, including lunch (£10 for students/unwaged). You can't buy tickets just yet, but you can put in your diary, tell others about it by forwarding the flyer (below). You can say you're attending the conference on Facebook here and you'll receive updates about how to get hold of tickets, and any other info about the day itself.

Milton Jones Rides again (again)

2009-09-16T12:29:00.002+01:00

The show I write with Milton Jones - Another Case of Milton Jones - is being repeated on BBC Radio 4 on Tuesday nights at 11.30pm. If, like most normal people, you're asleep, or trying to be asleep at that point in time, you can listen to it on iPlayer here. As luck would have it (or Providence), the first episode has overtones of the Da Vinci code (the week that Dan Brown's latest page-turner has been released).

The PM says Sorry

2009-09-11T12:05:00.003+01:00

... for the way Alan Turing was treated for being gay. It's interesting that Gordon Brown is happy to do this. He is happy to say sorry for something that clearly isn't his fault and could never be pinned on him.

He isn't happy to say sorry for things that are his fault. As Prime Minister, he could ensure that the nation's vibrant history, especially its heritage of computer science and technology, is adequately funded. And he could ensure Bletchley Park is properly funded. He and his ministers consistently chose not to do that.

He could, of course, apologise for failing to make adequate provision for a down-turn in the economy, having assumed he'd found a magic formula for an end to the boom bust economy. The hubris is truly astonishing. He could have done something. He fiddled the figures and now London is burning. He should say sorry. He won't.

He could do something about a punitive, micro-managed, over-staffed tax system that makes millions dependent on the state and the poor are the most over-taxed. And have to fill in the most complex forms. And their taxes pay for a hundred thousand civil servants who move the money round the government and hand the poor back their own money. He could do something about that. But he can't (because of his pride and politics) and he won't.

So this apology to Turing is hardly worth anything, in my view, since nothing is as stake and it has cost the PM nothing not say it.