Redeeming an Unmentionable Word

Rugby League player Dave Hadfield recounts that he was once transferred between clubs during the half-time interval, wearing shirts of both Oulton Rangers and Hemel Stags in one match. How his erstwhile team-mates treated him on the pitch after his radical switch of loyalties he does not record! Changes of loyalty, purpose and identity always provoke a reaction, not just in sport.Essential to the Christian view of the spiritual life is just such a transition. The problem is that the word once routinely used to describe it has fallen into disrepute.  The dodgy word, is of course, “repent”! Formerly considered to be the standard stuff of the spiritual life, it has become the domain of swivel-eyed loons yelling at people in shopping centres.

The comic-actor Tamsin Greig performed a hilarious impromptu routine on the Graham Norton Show in which she talked about her atheist neighbour who dog-sits for her. The story goes that she gives her new dog a mad-name which her neighbour will be required to yell in the park in order to call it back to heel. The name of the new dog? Of course, it was “Repent!”

One of the issues is that the word is routinely misunderstood. Many people remember the monks in Monty Python and The Holy Grail beating themselves with wooden planks. Indeed, during the Great Plagues in England, there were flaggelists who did just that.

Believing that the Black Death was an outpouring of the wrath of God, they sought to punish themselves in order to deflect this wrath from the populace. But this is a misunderstanding of what Jesus meant when he called people to “repent”.

What do Christians mean when they talk about “repentance”? When Dave Hadfield swapped rugby teams he first changed shirts – he publicly identified with the new team. More important, though, was the understanding that he would completely change his direction of play.

There is nothing self-flagellating about this transfer. After all, the Bible is insistent that entry to the Christian faith is entirely founded upon the grace of God and doesn’t require either self-denigrating acts of flagellation any more than self-enhancing acts of charity.

In fact, the picture is that the passion of Christ has completed any necessary flagellation for the whole of humanity.

Nevertheless, this free transfer has immediate and life-changing implications. That is, nothing less than a complete change in our goals, aims and direction of play. This essentially involves heartfelt changes in patterns of behaviour.

In the West today these typically involve a change to the way we relate to the big beasts of the human psyche, (money, sex and power): how we regard possessions, ourselves and others.

Christians make no claim to being “good people”; rather, they are people who need forgiveness. In our sporting metaphor, we still make errors on the pitch, score dreadful own-goals, and give away penalties.

However, pursuing those things is no longer part of our identity, our purpose, or intention; rather we are deeply committed to a new direction of play.

Properly understood, repentance is both required and life-giving. It is required because Jesus demands it. In fact, the very first words the New Testament records Jesus as preaching are “Repent for the Kingdom of God is near”.

Attempts to remove the notion of repentance from Christianity have been common throughout history. Some have thought that repentance is an affront to the idea that God saves us by his grace, not our efforts.

This is fraught with problems, not least that this free grace changes us radically. Some have tried to merely add a religious veneer to their lives; but something deeper is required.

Faith in Jesus Christ is one side of the coin. The other is repentance, which means embracing this new identity, owning a new loyalty and heading back out onto the pitch, in new colours, ready to begin to play for a different team.

Repentance is the moment at which the love, grace, joy and transforming power of God flows into a person; and the business of making them more Christlike begins. Repentance is not some self-flagellating ritual nor an optional-extra; it is the departure lounge for eternal life.

Don’t expect your former team-mates to welcome your change of loyalty, though. It can be rough out on the pitch.

--
This article first appeared in The Scotsman: here.

Book Notes: The Best of A.A. Gill

The back cover of this anthology of the late journalist's columns reads that it is: "by turns controversial, uplifting, unflinching, sad, funny and furious". It is also ranges through being deeply sad, beautifully observed, and written; vulgar, offensive, nasty and brilliant. That's quite a stack of adjectives for one writer!

The book begins with a series of articles from Gill's celebrated food column. There are some terrific bits in here, such as his wonderfully evocative description of life in a busy high-end London restaurant kitchen; his hilarious diatribe against vegetarianism, and his written skewering of certain over-priced, over estimated and under-performing restaurants. This section of the book is rather good fun.

The best section of the book by a country mile is his travel writing which forms its second section. Gill's descriptions, especially of Africa are so moving, vivid and brilliantly observed (both in terms of what he sees, and his own responses to what he sees). His poise, sight and ability to respond to Africa in the most brilliantly chosen words - is at times breathtaking. Quite remarkable. It is in fact the section of the book I will return to again.

The TV section which follows, sees Gill appreciating the good and excoriating the dreadful in popular culture (just as a clue, Alan Bennett = good. Peppa Pig = bad). While the final section entitles "Life" is an odd collection of unlined pieces on things as diverse as Fatherhood, Death, Dyslexia, Pornography, Glastonbury and ageing. On Fatherhood, Gill is quite brilliant, on Glastonbury utterly depressing and on pornography so crude that I honestly couldn't read it - it was actually really unpleasant. 

I picked this book up almost by accident, in search of well-crafted, powerful (even beautiful) prose. Despite the inclusion of a couple of pretty grim articles, the book as a whole didn't disappoint. The writing about Africa in particular was so vivid and compelling, that the reader call almost smell the place. These travel pieces were worth the price of the book alone.

Film Notes: Camera Buff

Like many people I first came across Krzysztof Kieślowski through his later work such as The Three Colours Trilogy, made after his move to France from his native Poland. Only later did I stumble across his earlier, rougher films such as the Decalogue series, made in the drabber environment of Soviet-era Polish communism. This film, Camera Buff, comes from amongst these earlier pieces, made in 1979.

The first striking think about the film is that it is a period-piece for its time. The Soviet-era architecture, cars, clothes, and factories are obvious. What then hits the viewer is the social-economic setting of the film. The obvious heavy-industrial context, with wheezing factories belting fumes from their modernist chimneys, is the backdrop for a series of relationships which too are located in time and space. The deadening bureaucracy which controls the factory is typical of the era, as are the depictions of an adequate but basic life in the stagnant command-economy. Over all these relationships lurks the chubby party-boss, whose role is to oversee all the people and operations in the plant and the town for the party-state, and to protect the sacred Marxist-Leninist ideology. All this dates the film in the Cold-War era of the East generally, but what is even more interesting is that in 1979, it was obviously acceptable to portray the party boss interfering and censoring the film in a way which would not have made it to the screen in 1970, let alone before 1951.

The film itself concerns Filip Mosz, a factory worker deftly played by Jerzy Stuhr, who gets a film camera with which to record the life of his first child, who is born near the start of the film. The camera is obviously a scarce resource, and the party demand that he use it to film the jubilee of the factory in which he works. This is successful, and leads to the establishment of a small film unit at the plant, making party-approved pieces - but Mosz's slightly artistic takes on everyday life gain wider plaudits, much to the anxiety of the party.

The tension between art and political control forms only a sub-plot however. The main theme is the obsession of the artist, and the way in which it takes over his life, causing great strain within his marriage. The lens through which Mosz increasingly lives his life becomes that of an observer, and recorder of life; not a full participant in it. This process is seen as even when not filming, he views scenes in his life and marriage - as if through a lens; forming a square with his hands to imagine how the scene would appear on film; to the increasing distress to his wife (Malgorzata Zabkowska as Irka Mosz). His cinemtographical exploits also unintentionally damage colleagues on the way too, a price he seems willing to accept for his art.

In one sense the film points to the way in which art and creativity provides a meaning for a man in an empty, drab, and highly controlled world. If the bleak nature of the vast monoform flats in which he lives, and the dispiriting nature of his work as a buyer for a factory in a command-economy which was unresponsive to his needs; was the problem, then Mosz found his outlet in capturing things as beautiful, natural and innocent as pigeons on the wing, or road-menders toil. However, Camera Buff now looks strangely prophetic in the sense that in the mobile phone/social media era there seems to be a strong pull (dare I say it, especially amongst the young!) (I know, I'm an old fart), to film and observe life and the world - rather than fully participate in it. I love my camera, and for a long time took it everywhere, but I was away that sometimes capturing an image was at odds with enjoying experiencing the reality of it. Banksy, in his own inimitable style views it like this:

In 1979, Krzysztof Kieślowski imagined it like this:

Film Notes: For The Love of God

I have to confess to being a bit of a history nerd. Having spent several years studying it, accumulated countless books and an insatiable reading habit, I find the past utterly absorbing. It's common to hear politics, ethics, education, nationalism or multiculturalism being described as 'a battleground of ideas', but every historian is equally aware that our view of the past is every bit as contentious. We are all aware of "Black History Month", which has grown steadily in significance, as the once accepted racism which erased Black people from our historical consciousness has been increasingly rejected. Historians once looked for great themes and great men (yes, it was usually just men!); many these days look for "usable pasts"; which are often little more than selective trawls for evidence with which to weaponise history for contemporary polemics.

Religious history, has of course been subject to both these trends. Biographies of saints and martyrs have been produced to stir the devotions of the faithful; while the memory of atrocities committed in the name of "belief a", are kept alive by the adherents of "belief b".

What we make of the history of the church, is then something of great importance, and not just for history geeks like me. How the history of Christianity is handled is a significant marker in the current battle of ideas. Of course some Christians want to paint a picture of unbridled progress and blessing; while some atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens, wish to portray every aspect of the church's record as being fundamentally malign.

Perhaps only the foolish, unwary or brave would step into this vast field of two millenia of contention! Certainly the aim of presenting a fair and balanced picture of the church's moral and ethical record, which is neither a Hitchensesque hatchet-job or a series of 'lives of the saints' hagiographies is a bold one. However, this is exactly what CPX (The Centre for Public Christianity in Australia) have done in a 90 minute film entitled "For The Love of God: How The Church is Both Better And Worse Than You Ever Imagined". Fearing the worst, I watched this film with some trepidation, but they have really pulled it off, it is a great piece of work.

 

Filmed with high quality production values, CPX presenters John Dickson, Justine Toh and Simon Smart, are filmed in locations around the world, where Christians have made an impact for good or ill; and assessed the history. They tell stories such as massacres in the Crusades perpetrated on innocent Muslims in the name of Christianity, to Martin Luther King Jr's noble quest for Civil Rights; from Christian failures to oppose Nazism, to roots of Western charity and philanthropy in the early church as it was persecuted by Roman Emperors. The story telling is enhanced by dramatic readings of historical texts, and segments of academics discussing and assessing the meaning of the stories.

Wonderfully put together, well-researched, and presented in a lively style, the film itself is compelling viewing. The analysis is fascinating too; as they seek to assess where the church has gone wrong and where it has made a contribution. John Lennox, the noted Christian professor of Mathematics at Oxford describes the 'shame' of some of the things done in Northern Ireland in the name of Christianity. On the other hand Rowan Williams explores the way in which many disputes driven by other factors such as land, power, or resources have gained a religious veneer or justification; but were not inherently caused by clashes of belief.

The treatment of Colonialism is quite remarkable. Coming from Australia the film begins with the damage done to Aboriginal people by the white settlers, who brought everything from land-seizures to new diseases to Australia; sometimes justified in the name of Christianity. Yet, they also show that it was Christians who almost uniquely rejected a racist hierarchy of races, because they couldn't accept social-Darwinism, as their faith told them that all people were made in the image of God. Likewise the role of William Carey in India is examined, and not just in term of his exemplary work in education, and development. His long campaign against 'Sati' (widow-burning) can be seen as either imposing western values on India; or as a bold step towards the equality of the sexes, and thoroughly in line with the idea that basic human rights are universal, not allocated by the powerful; or awarded in response to capacity or contribution. This, likewise is an idea which only became embedded in western culture when Christian ethics replaced Greco-Roman morality in which things such an infanticide were almost de rigueur.

Robert Woodberry's thesis that Protestant missionaries have left a massively positive contribution towards social and economic flourishing in virtually every context in which they operated, is also given a well-deserved hearing.

Equally fascinating was the (perhaps not immediately obvious) subject of character. The weight of evidence that the ancients, despite all their philosophical sophistication, saw humility as despicable; was very well explained. The Christian view of the cross of Christ. the humiliated God, was radically counter cultural; and leads directly to so many of the values which we in the west assume are universal, but actually are rooted in Christianity.

Finally the filmakers ask us to examine the record of the church, as it stands up against the teachings of Jesus Christ himself. The obvious point that Jesus' ethical teaching commands great respect isn't laboured, but rather what is observed is that where the church has stuck to his words and example, it has been beautiful; but where it has veered off into contemporary cultures, it has looked ugly. Central to this discussion is Jesus' charge to his people to "love their enemies". This main thesis is explored through a charming musical metaphor, which I won't explain, but will leave you to enjoy on the film.

The film can be viewed as a single 90 minute "Cinema Cut" or in several shorter episodes; 1) War and Peace, 2) Rights and Wrongs, 3) Rich and Poor, 4) Power and Humility. It can be rented or purchased online, for streaming or by buying the DVD from https://www.publicchristianity.org/fortheloveofgod/ from where free clips, and study guides for groups or schools can also be downloaded.

This honest film leaves little room either for Christian triumphalism on one hand, or mud-slinging anti-Christian polemics on the other. In that sense, CPX have done a remarkable job in opening up a sensible discussion in which the very real contributions of Christian ethics, and Jesus' teaching can be  seen alongside many of the sins of the church. As such the film will perhaps contain surprises for people on both sides of that debate. There is some uneasy viewing for Christians, especially on the Crusades and the Nazis; while some secularists will be alarmed at the extent to which so many of the values we celebrate in the western liberal tradition have distinctly Christian roots, and were pioneered in history by Christians. Furthermore, many of them are grounded in Christian beliefs, and sustained by them, and indeed inseparable from them.

CPX are to be congratulated on the way in which they have stepped so nimbly across this historical minefield, and produced such a stimulating, thought-provoking film, which is both visually stunning and academically rigorous.

Interview with Jonathan Veira

Whether performing opera, gospel, or comedy, Jonathan Veira is known as a larger-than-life character, with a powerful voice and big laugh. When I spoke to Jonathan, I found him in a thoughtful mood, reflecting insightfully on fame, art, work, and the faith that inspires him.

How did you get into opera? I’m guessing it wasn’t the suggestion of a careers teacher?!

JV: My careers advice at school was rubbish! But I had a music teacher who was brilliant at encouraging me. I was terribly bullied, but he took me under his wing and gave me the key to practice rooms, where I started to do music all the way up through ‘A’-level. Whenever I did things on stage he said “Jonathan has ‘it’!” So he pushed me and pushed me and encouraged me to go on to further study.

At university they said to me, “you aren’t very good at the viola, why don’t you have singing lessons?!” In my first singing lesson I thought the professor would want me to sing like a classical singer, so I did my impression of one. Now I’ve ended up singing for the last 34 years professionally… doing an impression of an opera singer; I just hope nobody finds out! 

Then I studied music as a postgraduate, won some national singing competitions, which got me noticed by the famous Glyndebourne Opera Company who asked me to audition, and gave me a job!

What was your first lead role?

JV: Well, you start with a lot of comprimario roles, an aria here or there; but my first ‘lead’ was when I did The Magic Flute. When I was 30 I did Falstaff.

That’s quite young for Falstaff!

JV: Yes, it was very young, and it was frightening actually. But I was starting to learn what I was doing. Recently “Stage Magazine” said, “Jonathan Veira is the best in the UK at doing these roles”, so now, at 55, I think it’s time to retire, while I’m still the best!

The Guardian review of you in La Cenerentola described it as, “High Camp, irony, and huge fun”; it sounds like a cross between Rossini and Monty Python!

JV: In my operas I want people to laugh out loud. I don’t care about sensibilities, I’m not posh, I’m quite earthy, I suppose, and I like people to laugh at stuff that’s funny.

And you like playing villains too!

JV: Yeah – I do! Goodies can be fairly one-dimensional.  Baddies are usually the parts which are etched by the writers more carefully. The goodies are well… good aren’t they?! They say the right things, do the right things, like Cinderella.

The Marriage of Figaro, is a dark comedy; all about what was called the Droit du seigneur, which means the right of Counts to have the virgins of the village. But then what follows is redemption because the bad person turns good; so there’s somewhere for you to go with a villain.  Don Giovanni, though, gets his comeuppance, because he doesn’t repent. So I do like playing villains! I don’t celebrate how bad they are, but you have to be bad in order to make sure that the good comes out.

Some interpreters see Christ allusions in Billy Budd and you played the mutinous Claggert in there, to set the story up!

JV: Yes – exactly right, Claggert was one of those who was almost totally evil, but yet there’s one moment where he delivers: I want to love but I can’t ! He teeters on the edge, which is very interesting to play. Finally Billy dies almost sacrificially, a sacrifice is made so that that goodness can be seen. I mean what else is there?

Music is an extraordinary gift of God to humanity

JV: Well, if it’s not, …. I don’t know what is!!

I think we are creative people made in the image of a creator God

JV: I think so. “The man who hath not music in his soul, is fit for treason, stratagems and spoils!”, that’s Shakespeare, but the great poet O’Shaugnessy says “we are the music makers”, those who create order from chaos. Music puts order into a chaotic world. I intervene and I create the sound, the rhythm, the tone, the beauty. I can’t put my finger on it, but it’s something spiritual, something transcendent that happens when I sing. Now, I have been given that gift, and I haven’t been given any others, I can’t do anything else, I’m useless!

But along with the gift, there is a lot of discipline in your art; how long does it take you to learn a part?

JV: It took me initially six months to learn a role. I’m partially dyslexic, so I do it over and over again.

To be the best at something they say you have to invest about 10,000 hours. I’ve done my 10,000 hours, so now I know the process of learning. But some of these roles take me months to learn. Some of them in Czech are very difficult.

You are actually called to be professional, with a big work ethic. I think there is something about being Christian in the way that you work; where you honour the people who come to hear you. I was quite ill recently, and I had to go on and do a show, which I got through with God’s help. People said to me, “Why didn’t you just cancel?” But I have a responsibility to my audience.

How many languages have you performed in?

JV: Eight! In whatever the opera is written in, be it Russian, French, German, Italian, Swedish, and a lot of Czech.

Is it hard to deliver jokes, in a language that isn’t your own?

JV: Yes – but you’ve got your body as well, not just your voice. You have your face, your hands, your body position. It does mean that you have to work harder than if you are singing in English. I would say that I didn’t really know what I was doing until about 1990. You only really start learning when you perform in front of people who have paid two-hundred pounds a ticket, where you either sink or swim, because opera is a ruthless world!

If you could choose one performance from those thirty-two years, as the one you are most proud of, which would it be?

JV: I remember doing Falstaff in Denmark at the Verdi Festival. Danish audiences don’t applaud a lot, and they certainly don’t give standing ovations. At the end of the first night, fifteen-hundred people all stood to their feet! I wept, I really did – I wept. There are times like that…

Then there are times when I perform with my sons. They are great musicians on their own, but if you ask me for a great or favourite moment, it’s when we come together!

Then, when I did Mozart’s The Magic Flute with the famous conductor Jane Glover. It was a huge performance for me, and I came on for my bow to three-thousand people giving a standing ovation. I looked behind me because I thought someone else had walked on!!

But there are two sides to every story. After the applause in Denmark, everyone came back to the dressing room, saying, “oh how marvellous, blah blah blah”, but then I went out of the stage door into the cold. It was snowing, and I went back to my hotel. As I walked out into the street, nobody knew who I was, nobody knew what I’d just done, there was an emptiness…. I thought of people without faith; what do they do? Obviously they will drink, they will take drugs and have affairs, doing what they need to do to fill that void, because applause is a drug. So when you get back in the hotel, and there’s nobody to give you adulation, it brings you right down to the brass tacks of who you are, and how you want to live and what is it that motivates you.

And which came first, Christian faith or professional singing?

JV: Oh, faith. I was brought-up in the Christian Brethren and I came to faith quite early, but I didn’t really know what it was until I went to university.

So what is at the centre of the faith you developed at University?

JV: The person of Jesus! People can get bogged down in church ‘stuff’.  But what we must look at first is the character and person of Jesus and if we don’t do that, if we don’t understand who he is; everything else pales into insignificance. When Jesus isn’t central, what becomes central is ‘my place in the church’, which doesn’t actually matter! So, I’m a Christian today, not just for Sunday, not just when I do my shows, but when you catch me now. Here’s who I am, this is me; and that is both a weakness and a strength.

You’ve never hidden your faith in the opera world though.

JV: No

How have people responded?

JV: Some people are antagonistic and want an argument! I don’t present myself as some kind of virtuous perfect guy, I just turn up and start working. I sometimes lose my temper, like everyone else does; but it’s how I then go and apologise that contextualises my faith. I don’t take my Bible to work and preach at people; but people do want to talk to me. Someone recently came to me asking “What do you think about faith? Is it difficult to be a Christian?” and I said to him, “Yes it is.” But it’s no more difficult to be a Christian singer than a Christian banker or anything else. You take in your core values, and your faith. You walk in with Jesus and you walk out with him.

Christians are deliberately very misunderstood, by an atheistic media who want to decry faith. But rather than shout and scream about that I just say, “well this is me; you can criticise me as much as you like. I’m doing my job, I’m doing it well”.

How do people respond when you talk about your faith in Jesus in your one-man show?

JV:  We’ve always wanted my shows to be a place where people could bring their non-church friends where they wouldn’t be embarrassed or made to cringe. I just talk about my faith and share it in song. And I have lots of responses, from total elation to utter disgust; from “how could you mention your faith; what’s that got to do with anything!”; to “I can’t believe you’ve made me think about faith, and now I’ve become a Christian!”

And you sing songs like, “I want Jesus to walk with me”

JV: Yeah by Eric Bibb! It’s one of the most wonderful songs. I often close my shows with that song, followed by “How Great Thou Art”.

What’s your next musical project?

JV: At the moment I have backed away from opera, I’m still doing it, but when I choose to. I’m now touring my one-man show “Song and Tales”.

Do you have any musical ambitions left?

JV: There’s one I would love to do… Sweeny Todd! I played the judge in Sweeny Todd, at Covent Garden with the legendary Stephen Sondheim. Todd is the arch-baddie; but one who’s been wronged. And there is also redemption for him, somewhere in there! I would fancy that.

What about personal ambitions?

JV: I did want to play cricket for England but that ship has sailed I’m afraid. Offstage, I always want to be a better person because ultimately, “singing is more than a job, but it’s less than a life!”

So what makes a complete life?

JV: I think having God in your life gives you context. It settles you where you are, tells you where you are in the universe: that you’re not the centre of it, but that GOD is, and He loves you.

__________________________

http://www.jonathanveira.com/

This was first published in SOLAS Magazine, reproduced with permission.

Film Notes: Of Gods And Men

I picked up this DVD for a quid, in a sale of old LoveFilm stock. In the days before Netflix and downloading was a thing, postal DVD services were popular; but their demise led to some amazing deals. I'd heard that this was a 'film worth watching' and without knowing much about it at all, picked it up on the off chance. It turned out to be a deeply sad, very moving, and rather profound film.

The setting is Algeria in 1996, as the government start to lose control of the state, and Islamist militants cause misery and chaos in their quest for an Islamic revolution. In a remote corner of the country a small Roman Catholic monastery had functioned for years. Alongside their own rituals, and devotions, they served the community and provided healthcare and support. The film depicts them as being very much part of the community, in which they served; sharing life, hospitality and friendships across the religious divide.

The central plot of the film is whether the monks should abandon the monastery and flee, either to a safer monastery in Africa, or indeed back to France; as Islamist atrocities take place with ever increasing frequency - and in ever closer proximity to them. They face, essentially, a decision to run away from their calling, or to face death for it. The Muslim villagers certainly do not want the monks to leave - but to face up to the threat of the extremists alongside them. The discussions around the small monastery table in which they debate this decision are amongst the best moments in the film. One monk, determined to stay, says to a younger colleague (who wants to leave), "we already gave up our lives, when we decided to follow Christ". Strong stuff indeed.

As the film draws to a climax, the monks with sorrow and resolve, face up to the inevitability that as non-Muslims in an Islamist take-over, they are doomed. With their songs, liturgies, and around the eucharist; they re-affirm their faith even as the dark clouds gather around them.

This is actually a true story. Which possibly explains why there is more detail about the two monks who survived the ordeal; than the mystery about the deaths of the rest of those who did not. We see, finally, the sad group being led away to their deaths; and a caption reading that nothing is know about who murdered them. 

Lambert Wilson gives a really strong performance as the head monk, alongside Michael Edward Lonsdale as Luc - the medical brother, It's a slow film; in that the rhythms of life in the monastery which have survived generations are depicted. It's not an action film, in that the plot develops as much in the brooding tension and the monks' response to it; as in the actual civil war. That kind of cinema is far harder to write and produce than action; but it is done very well indeed here.

The film is a stunning protest against religious extremism, religion violence and intolerance. This message, along with the context of the last monks in an ancient monastery in Muslim lands, is somewhat reminiscent of William Dalrymple's stunning book, From the Holy Mountain. Although set further east, amongst the Orthodox and Coptic churches, not the French Catholics of Algeria, the extinction of these people and orders is a parallel story; and very worth reading.

The monks in this film share a 'Last Supper' together, waiting to face death, as Christ did before them. One wavering monk faces up to this with the biblical quotation, ''no servant is greater than his master'- in other words, if martyrdom was good enough for Christ himself, who am I to demand anything more? With their faith and integrity intact, they are then led away.

FORB (freedom of religion and belief), as enshrined in Article 18 of the UN Convention on Human Rights; is under more strain then in 1996 when these awful events occurred. Tragically, CSW (the Christian charity that works for freedom of religion for all people, of all faiths or none) reports that this is increasingly the case in Algeria. Click here to read more.

Book Notes: Fools Rush in Where Monkeys Fear to Tread (Taking Aim at Everyone) by Carl Trueman

Trueman is, I think, a one-off. A serious academic, working currently at Princeton; a British minister in the American Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a historian engaged in the development of ideas, a reformed conservative who engages meaningfully with Roman Catholicism, and a robust defender of his savage critiques of ..... well, everyone really. He might also be the first really funny Calvinist since Spurgeon! He has opinions, very strong opinions, which he seems more than willing to put into print too. I spoke to him once, and found him witty, engaging, and thoroughly good company - and his passionately held opinions, love them or loathe them; are actually the result of serious thought and engagement with the issues.

When I picked up a Trueman book last week which was subtitled "taking aim at everyone", I knew it was going to be a read which would at times involve several laugh-out-loud moments, several sharp intakes of breath and several derisory snorts. I was not disappointed on any of those criteria! In fact, Fools Rush In, like a theological edition of Private Eye, succeeds in both entertaining and informing the reader, while skewering the unwise, the pompous and the hypocritical. Trueman has the disarming ability of not appearing to take himself to seriously either, which makes his stinging critiques of others easier to bear - as he seems to have no problem reflecting on his own sins, follies and foibles and those of his fellow Reformed crowd, as he does on those of other people and groups. In fact, if anything it is people who profess Reformed theology but indulge in worldy, or pragmatic foolishness who are the 'lucky' recipients of the most pointed helpings of Trueman's spicy invective.

Amongst the targets Truman demolishes in this book are self-centred 'Christian' bloggers and their (my! :-)) ) pointless outpourings; worse those who use them for self-promotion, constantly re-tweeting praise about themselves. He berates adults who cannot grow up, handle criticism, and are permanently adolescent, in comparison with his Grandfather, who was a working man aged 13. He throws out the charge that the celebrity culture has infected the church, especially the young trendy Reformed churches who ought to know better. His description of a wishy-washy ecumenical multi-sensory service; packed with high-brow academics with their brains firmly in the 'off' position is as hilarious as it is naughty. The insights he offers into the nature of Christian service, in 'welcome to wherever you are' are really wise and helpful, while his assessment of the notorious Chic tracts is as funny as it is sadly accurate.Catholicism, it's greatness and its folly is analysed; and the (sadly unnamed) Christian writer who used a ghost writer for his book is excoriated. 

One chapter stands out as especially relevant to today's debates - especially those which take place on social media. His essay "Am I bovverred?" analyses the role of 'hurt' and 'pain' in contemporary debates, Although written maybe a decade ago, this piece has become more important over the intervening years. His basic argument (written with his usual verve), is that the categories of 'hurtful' or 'affirming'; are replacing the categories of  'true' and 'false' in public discourse. As such, people hold their opinions as part of themselves; and therefore beyond reasoned debate. They state their views, along with their biography explaining why it matters; but then cry 'hate-speech', if anyone dares to engage critically with their work. This has happened again this week. A well-known author has published a theologically charged memoir, and when theologians have questioned the ideas in book; claimed victim-status as a way of shutting down the debate. Trueman, his critics should note, saw this coming. 

In turns wise, funny, outrageous and principled; Fools Rush In is a cracking good read. 

Book Notes: The House of Elrig by Gavin Maxwell

I have very distinct memories of reading Maxwell's famous "Ring of Bright Water", many years ago while sitting in the Arizona Desert. The intensely dry heat, the crumbly sand between my toes. the desert insects and the bold cacti, formed a strange accompaniment to Maxwell's easy prose, as he spoke of his life with otters, and the sea, and the lush green rain-soaked western isles of Scotland. I remember the book as disarmingly charming, whimsical - and creating in me a strange longing for the familiar shapes of Scotland; and for the sensation of cold rain on my face.

I picked up The House of Elrig, Maxwell's memoir of childhood, simply having enjoyed his other work so much. Although undoubtedly the work of the same writer, there is a vast world of difference between the two volumes. Bright Water is hugely enjoyable, and while it references a unique lifestyle - it does so in places I know, and takes place not that long before I was born. The House of Elrig, on the other hand seems to come from another time and place quite outside my experience, or really my understanding. That's not really the biggest difference though, which is that while Bright Water is delightful; The House of Elrig, I found if anything, slightly disturbing.

My initial impression of the book was that it was a window into a world I knew nothing about. I hadn't realised that Maxwell was of such aristocratic stock, and that he had grown up in a mansion in Galloway. The early stories are all of grouse-moors, tweed-clad shooting parties, servants, ghillies and roaming the estate in the company of a bizarre cast of eccentric titled relatives; some of whom I have stumbled across in history books, as they were members of various cabinets in Westminster governments between the wars. His yearly commute between great houses around the country, was described in detail - and something I found most odd. 

Strangely, Maxwell dwells little on the absence of his Father, who was killed in the opening salvos of the First World War. He tries to explain that this absence was simply his childhood normality, and that he thought little of it - other than seeing the physical memorabilia in the home. Yet - the absence of his father seems to be the unspoken central theme of the book, whether he intended this or not. His oddly intense relationship to his mother, was the first sign of this; followed by the separation from her for boarding school which reads almost like a bereavement. This reads like the start of a  psychcologists case-study.

I found the descriptions of the English public schools of the mid-Twentieth Century very weird indeed. As the product of a weak comprehensive education, I sometimes looked in envy at the perceived advantages of the exclusive education of the privileged elites who lived in our town. Maxwell's reminiscences of anxiety, loneliness, rituals and a veritable cast of misfits or weirdos amongst staff; make me think that Abbotsford Comprehensive, wasn't so bad after all. Maxwell's descriptions of what passed as 'sex education', which mostly amounted to veiled, incomprehensible warnings against masturbation; are beyond dreadful, and maybe as embarrassing to read, as they were for young Maxwell to endure. Maxwell's search for a father-figure amongst older boys, teachers, and uncles, again almost unacknowledged, seems to also be a profound, and unsettling subject in the book. He hints at, but simultaneously denies, that there was a sexual element to these relationships. It's hard to say whether he is inviting the reader to read more that he says into his words or not - what we can certainly say is that some of this (such as secret nighttime meetings with a teacher), would be absolutely in breach of current standards of child protection. His later teenage obsession with his sexual awakening might not be anything unusual, but he writes about it with a curious candour, perhaps telling us more than we might want to know in what sounds like catharsis.

While school was often miserable, Maxwell projected most of his longings on The House of Elrig, which represented belonging, freedom, home and the opportunity to spend time with animals (keeping them, killing them, catalogue-ing the, and drawing them). This love of animals which would so much shape his later life was formed here, in the Galloway Hills. The suspicion that he was more at ease with animals than people is also never that far from the surface of the narrative. School life came to an end after a life-threatening illness almost took him, as a seventeen year old. He was administered the last-rites as Henoch's Purpura gripped his adolescent frame, and internal bleeding sapped his energy. Surprisingly, he survived - despite the misdiagnosis of his birthmarks as ecchymoses by the celebrated Dr, Lord Horder! (Many readers of this blog will have come across Horder from the biography of Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, the noted Welsh preacher, who was Horder's assistant prior to his Christian ministry).

Lurking in the background throughout this strange tale is the family religion of the Maxwell and Persies. Maxwell makes frequent references to this, but doesn't name the sect in question until the very end of the book. What we learn is that his family, while happy to attend mainstream churches when away from home, were ardent adherents of a Christian group which was tight-knit, and specialised in producing ecstatic experiences, trance-like states, and strange prophetic utterances, in their congregations; they required members to pray from their incomprehensible prayer-books, and frowned upon such things as contraception. While basically orthodox in their core Christian theology, their innovation was an insistence that they were the restored supernatural New Testament Church, and their leaders Apostles. Bear in mind that this was home life, while starchy, formal, rigid stiff-upper-lip Anglicanism was Maxwell's term-time experience. No wonder, he found the whole thing mistifying! Only at the end of the book does he reveal that "our church", was the Irvingites (formally the Catholic Apostolic Church), a very eccentric and now defunct sect, which in some ways pre-figured contemporary Pentecostalism.

Finally, it's rather a sad book. Maxwell appears as a shy, embarrassed, confused, insecure, unwell young man who longed to go back to Elrig and ascend the moors. The glaring absence of his father seems to be the great elephant-in-the-room (or is that the elephant on the page), which would make Maxwell, another victim of the Great War. Although the book ends, with Maxwell and a friend, roaming the Elrig estate, it's hard not to imagine that the road ahead will not be easy for this youngster, after all that the War, the dreadful schools, the strange people, inflicted upon him.

"Inventing the Universe" - A Conversation with Prof Alister A. McGrath

A while ago, I had the pleasure of speaking to Dr Alister A. McGrath, who is Prof. of Science and Religion at Oxford University, about his new book. While some of this was published in Solas Magazine, this is the whole interview,  reproduced here with permission, following the demise of that publication.

___

Tell us about your new book, “Inventing the Universe”. What is it about? Why did you write it, and who is it pitched at?

AEM:  I wrote it because I wanted to explain to people the kind of journey I made from being an atheist, who thought that science explained everything – and that was it; to a Christian, who sees science as very important as filling in parts of a picture, but that there is a bigger picture as well. So I am writing this for anyone who is interested in the whole area of science and faith, I think particularly for scientist who are Christians who want to articulate the way they think more clearly, or for other people who just want to know that there are other ways of holding science and faith together – which is why I use the language of “enrichment”, which is effect allow us to see a bigger picture of reality in which both science and faith have very important roles to play.

Something of an intellectual autobiography as well, then?

AEM: Well, it is actually, yes! So its really me saying that over a 40 year period, this is what I have come to think – does this help you!? It’s not saying, “this is right”, it’s saying, “this is what I have found my way towards, and if it helps you, I’ll be delighted!”

I notice that in the book you often refer to the “warfare model”, of Science versus Christianity. Why do you think that has come to dominate – at least in the public discourse, so much, and seize people’s minds, and create such a problem for giving the Christian faith, or Christian apologetics, even a fair hearing?

AEM: I think it’s become a defining narrative or our culture. In part, because it’s been propagated by a media who tend to just repeat what everyone’s said in the past. But more importantly, I think, the New Atheism, has made this conflict narrative as normative, in other words “this is the way it is”. And I think that when you have very influential cultural figures supporting this, its quite difficult to break that stranglehold. And so, one of the things I say, is that we need to tell a different story and show that, a) it makes more sense of things and b), it’s much more exciting and attractive.

How do we help people to hear Christian apologetics when their plausibility structure has already told them that what we are saying is irrelevant?

AEM: Well what I think you need to do is to say, “look, here is a narrative which has been suppressed, here is a way of thinking that people are trying to drown out”. They find it threatening, they find it challenging, and we need to say that they may not like it, but they’ve got to hear it. You owe it to us to give us a hearing. I think that is something we need to say. C.S. Lewis; I don’t know if you know his sermon called “The Weight of Glory”?

Yes!

AEM: Well in it, he says, look, the dominant narrative in our culture is, ‘what you see is what you get’, and he says we have been ‘entranced’ by that, and we need to break that spell! And then he says something interesting, he says, the way of breaking a spell is by casting a better spell! What he means by that is portraying Christianity in an attractive, intelligible, and an imaginatively compelling way, so that people stop and say, ‘we’ve got to think about this’. And we haven’t done that very well.

And the media is encaptured by this vision? And prevents people like you being heard at the public level, I suppose?

AEM: It’s become the dominant media narrative. If you read Charles Taylor’s book, “The Secular Age”, he talks about how this sort of thing happens, and the difficulty is that once a narrative takes root, anyone who contradicts it is seen as being irrational. And Taylor says, that once that mindset develops it’s very, very hard to break it. So we’ve got to see ourselves as a counterculture, a fifth-column, (or something like that), but we are subversives who are challenging the dominant narrative – a) because it’s wrong but b), because it’s pressing a much more meaningful and exciting narrative.

And your book is going towards doing that..

AEM: Well, it’s a small step in that direction, I mean, scholarship disproved this ‘conflict narrative’ a generation ago, but it’s taken ages for it to filter through to the media who keep on repeating this old fashioned out-dated approach.

Is this a book you’ve been wanting to write for a long time? I notice that previously you’ve published books addressing particular New Atheists and their thought, or about CS Lewis as a Christian apologist; but this is drawing back and looking at the bigger picture? Is this something you’ve been working towards for a while?

AEM: It is! (we’re just getting into a cab, so there will be a gap for a minute or so). Yes, basically this is a book I have been meaning to write for ages, and it is cast as a personal journey because that is much more interesting format – and it does raise all the intellectual issues I’ve raised elsewhere, but it does it in a much better form and I introduce a lot of new material that I think people will find really interesting.

I was impressed because I’m not a scientist (my background is in history) but it did make a lot of scientific ideas accessible to a non-scientist reader like me which was one of the things that I found so exciting about it.

AEM: Well, it is written for a general audience, although I think scientists will particularly like it. In fact we’ve just been doing a programme here at Premier Radio in which I’ve been debating with a leading British physicist – who is also president of the British Humanist Association, and actually we had an incredibly civil and interesting conversation because basically my science is right, and that makes it much harder for atheists to write it off. But also because it gets a really good conversation underway.

Interesting you were speaking to a physicist, One of my friends who is a physicist asked me to ask you, “Is it harder to be a biologist who is a believer than a physicist”? Because he knows so many  people in physics and maths who are believers and so few in life sciences/biology..

AEM: And that’s my experience too. I think the answer is ‘yes’, and that’s partly because if you think of someone like Richard Dawkins, Biology has been ‘weaponised’, (if I can use that phrase), whereas Physics has not, if anything Physics is going in the other direction. Physics is very, very, supportive of a generally theistic world-view. Whereas Biology, precisely because, if interpreted in a certain way, seems to be anti-theistic, is being seized upon and in effect being made the weapon of choice by those who want to continue the conflict narrative and also offer an atheist apologetic.

Delving a little more into the book. The idea of ‘multiple maps’ seems to be a key idea in the book, to reconcile the supposed conflict between science and faith. Can you tell us what you mean by multiple maps, what did you have in mind here?

AEM: What I mean is, let me put it like this, assuming there is a big picture, science gives us one bit of that picture – religion gives us another bit. We want to see the full big picture, that means that we need to recognize that science is going to tell us some things, but not others and its really saying, ‘Look you can approach things from only one perspective and say that’s all there is to it’; but that’s simply unacceptable because if you are simply a scientist and you say that’s it. then you leave out massive things like the issue of meaning, the issue of value and so on. And so the idea of ‘multiple maps’ is to ensure that you have a full palate of colours to do justice to the richness of the world, our experience and so on,  and it seems to me that that is a helpful metaphor for people to get into their heads the idea that any approach that says there is only one map and that’s it – is simply going to miss out on a lot of interesting stuff.

Which also would not just be an assault on Atheist Scientists, but also on Christian Fundamentalists, I suppose?

AEM: Absolutely. I think that what they’re doing is in effect locking themselves into a very small area and saying ‘this is it’ and I’m not able to dialogue with anyone beyond that. The method I’m adopting in effect is a wonderful platform for apologetics because it is saying, ‘look, we can talk and a very good conversation is going to be had here’, and in effect Christianity has a marvellous contribution to make, and it cannot be ridiculed, it cannot be ignored, there is something very significant here which needs to be heard.

Was I right in thinking that ‘multiple maps’ are the big idea of the book? A centralising thought?

AEM: I think it is a big idea – I supplement it with other approaches to make sure that there are other approaches that I personally find helpful. But I know from talking to people that the ‘multiple maps’ idea is so accessible that people find it very, very useful and I think in apologetics it has got a lot to offer.

And thought if multiple maps were a big idea in the book, “Scientism” was the big target in the book, Can you tell me (our readers), what do you mean by ‘scientism’, and the overreach of science/

AEM: Sure. Scientism is a non-Scientific viewpoint which says that science answers all meaningful questions and that if science can’t answer questions then they are not meaningful. So – in effect science tells us what the meaning of life is, it tells us what is good and what is bad. And you do find people like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris particularly – I don’t know if you’ve read his book on moral landscape, that’s very much the line that he’s taking. And my point is simple this, that this is an abuse of science! Science is science, you’ve got make sure that you respect it, not convert it into something else, and when science is done properly it has limits, and that is the best way of preserving its identity, its integrity, by forcing it to answer questions which its methods don’t allow it to do. So what I am saying is, I am protesting strongly against those scientists who exaggerate the explanatory capacity of science and I know the scientific community would do the same.

So why is there this persistent element among some quarters of science that wants to over-reach, into scientism. Is it purely a power-play or … what is driving that agenda?

AEM: It’s partly a power-play because some scientists feel threatened by cultural developments which they see as marginalising themselves. But the real answer goes back to that conflict narrative. It’s all about an understanding about intellectual history which sees a trajectory from the dark ages, to a modern, enlightenment period in which reason and science, are the drivers of progress and therefore science is the guarantor of rationality and progress, and anything else such as religion is seen as backward and unhelpful. And that is a world-view, not an empirical observation. That is in effect the imposition of a world-view and science is being ‘weaponised’ to consolidate that world-view.

 ‘Weaponised’ that word again! But are there any other key things from the book, that you’d like to mention, which I haven’t asked you about?

AEM: Well I think there are two things to emphasise. One is that I do not in any way criticise science. I think science is wonderful, I think it is great, but incomplete. We need a full picture, not just a partial picture. That’s very important.  And secondly, I do hope that the book will encourage Christians to talk about these things, to feel more confident about their faith, but also to begin to really open up some of the questions I raise in that book, in public.

And where is your research and writing going to take you next?

AEM: Well, the next big book, written for an identical audience, is going to be on ‘what are we?’, ‘what is human nature?’, and that is a big debate in today’s culture and its going to be looking a scientific insights, cultural insights, philosophical insights, and in effect saying, ‘look there is a big problem in the naïve enlightenment view of humanity, which still dominates Western-culture, and here’s a better way of looking at it.’ And it will be very sympathetic, very friendly towards traditional Christian ideas of ‘The Image of God” and sin and so on, so in effect it will be absolutely rigorous in terms of engaging with where we are, but at the same time it will offer a perspective which often isn’t heard. And that will enter into a debate… I don’t know if you have read John Gray’s book, “Straw Dogs”, things like that. It really is entering into a big discussion underway right now about what is human nature that’s essential to so many political, social, and religious debates.

So is that a book-length treatment of what you probed at in Ch6, of the present book

AEM: Yes – that expanding it to a complete book, and taking off into new directions as well. Same readership, same length book, but the big topic is what’s in ch6 [of Imagining the Universe], but that will be expanded massively.

____________________________________

Alister McGrath is the Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, and Fellow of Harris Manchester College, Oxford. After initial academic work in the natural sciences, Alister turned to the study of theology and intellectual history, while also engaging in broader cultural debates about the rationality and relevance of the Christian faith. He is the author of many academic and theological works, as well as the bestselling The Dawkins Delusion and his acclaimed C. S. Lewis - A Life.

Book Notes: Dawkins' God, Genes, Memes and the Meaning of Life by Alister McGrath

Alister McGrath's response to the various writings of Richard Dawkins is now a little out-of-date, having been published prior to Dawkins God Delusion (2006), in which Dawkins pushed his ideas even further. McGrath, it should be noted also responded to that book in The Dawkins Delusion? (2007) and updated this one. This volume from 2005, is however fascinating, and insightful, and gives some useful and sober background to the debates which became rather shrill after Dawkins somewhat ill-tempered subsequent diatribe.

McGrath began his academic career as a molecular biologist, which he pursued to PhD and research levels at Oxford. His subsequent career involved theology and the history of ideas, and a later PhD in that; leading to gaining the Andreas Idreos professor of science and religion at the University of. Oxford. The history of ideas is littered with people who are highly competent in one field, and as such do not appreciate their limitations in others. A recent notorious case involved a renowned theologian making foolish statements about science, simply failing to recognise the limits of his competence. McGrath is on the other hand a competent commentator here; and this is part of his complaint against Dawkins, that his scientific brilliance does not make him a good philosopher or guide to the meaning or purpose of life; in fact Dawkins very assertion that science is competent to do this, is the basis of the problem.

McGrath begins with a very useful guide to Dawkins main publications up until 2005. In good science/faith books, I often find that as someone with a very limited background in science (but having studied the history of ideas at some length), I learn more about science, than anything else. The admiration McGrath has for Dawkins academic work, especially his contribution to genetics (The Selfish Gene), is apparent, and his explanation of Dawkins work, is especially good, as his appreciation for Dawkins ability to communicate science to the public.

The conflict arises however when Dawkins moves from raw science, into the world of ideas, starting with The Blind Watchmaker. McGrath here, rather forcefully demonstrates that Dawkins repeatedly hammers one particular view of faith, which is actually a grotesque parody of what Christians (in particular) view it as. Furthermore, Dawkins expends great energy comparing what he sees as the Christian view of science, and demolishing it with science. McGrath's view is that this is the classic straw-man argument; because what he actually demolishes is William Paley's English 19th Century view of science, which was only ever a theological cul-de-sac, totally unrepresentative of Christianity as a whole, either historically, or today. McGrath's view is that Dawkins misleads his readers, as to the nature of faith, either by ignorance or deception, in order to maintain the 'warfare' model of science versus faith; which is at least a century and a half out of date. (!) The fact that McGrath provides several examples of places in which Dawkins misquotes, misreads or misunderstands faith positions and writers, only adds weight to his argument. That Dawkins re-cycles popular misquotations from church-history to score points suggests that he hasn't engaged with the things he wishes to dismiss, as carefully as his academic credentials would suggest that he might.

If McGrath is highly respectful of Dawkins work in biology, he is bordering on scathing about his attempts to use Darwinism as a tool for explaining how ideas work, Before it became social-media slang for a funny, satirical joke, picture or video shared across the internet; Dawkins proposed the "Meme", as the equivalent of the gene, in the realm of ideas. McGrath assesses the evidence for Dawkins view of the meme, and is withering in his dismissal of the concept, as unscientific. Dawkins end-point, of course, is to view any form of theism as a mental virus, an illness or form of insanity - rather than a reasonable response to the evidence we have. McGrath is deeply unconvinced, and explains why.

The book ends on what should have been a hopeful note; a plea for faith and science to actually engage with each other in an open, honest and respectful examination of evidence, search for truth and exploration of our humanity. Deploring closed minds on either side of the debate, McGrath hoped for a better standard of discussion. Looking back over the intervening years since McGrath wrote those words, it now seems rather sad, that despite such reasoned voices, there were those such as certain religious fundamentalists, and The New Atheists, who actually took this discussion to new lows.

It seems to me that while there are vast numbers of academics, pursuing research and adding to the sum of knowledge within their respective fields: human progress is held back by our failure to integrate the key insights of different disciplines. McGrath has at least done the hard work of reaching the heights of academia in two distinct arenas; and as such should at least be given a hearing when he critiques those who stand on one hill, dismissing out of hand, things they know little about on another. In this regard, the original edition of Dawkins' God (Genes, Memes and The Meaning of Life), is an excellent, if now slightly dated, place to start.