Will Boris Johnson Get Over It ?

It has been widely reported, and blogged, that Boris Johnson has stepped in to ban an advertisement from London buses because it suggests that gay sentiment is not established at birth, but instead is a lifestyle choice. For this audacity the Mayor of London has decided that it needs to be banned - see for instance the Guardian report here.  Of course this ban has increased the reach of the advert across the internet way beyond the impact of a few London buses, and it will likely run and run as it seems to have forced a breach of contract with the involvement now of lawyers.

Johnson is reported to have said that: "London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance." Of course the ironic incoherence of such a statement is lost in our modern world, where one can be both tolerant and intolerant at the same time. Such fluidity in the meaning and use of words has historically been a route to tyranny where even the concept of human value becomes relative as it loses its objective meaning, and for Christians the loss of freedom of thought and conscience is becoming a reality, as George Carey has also recently pointed out. The backers of this campaign are reported to be orthodox Anglicans, not your average religious fanatic, but they receive a kicking from Johnson nonetheless. Perhaps Johnson with his classical training is happy with platonic 'double truths', but real love can only come out of coherence and honest dialogue.

There is nothing unloving about discussing the origin of gay sentiment, in fact just to say to a confused young person that they are gay and must give into it is a recipe for increased confusion, not for clarity of thought. From the words of Jesus - it is the truth that sets us free (John 8:32). Let us at least have an honest debate about it. Sadly, this is just one area in our modern society where reason and debate are suppressed and anyone who dares to question is personally vilified. Other areas include xxxxxxx xxxxxx and xxxxxxxx.

Killing Unwanted Babies in the BMJ ?

An article has appeared in the British Medical Journal suggesting it should be acceptable to kill unwanted babies. The article is (misguidedly) justified on the grounds of free speech. In response the Daily Mail has published an article on its website available here

It reads that "Francesca Minerva [a philosopher and medical ethicist with links to Oxford University], argues a young baby is not a real person and so killing it in the first days after birth is little different to aborting it in the womb." She is reported to have suggested that "Doctors should have the right to kill newborn babies because they are disabled, too expensive or simply unwanted by their mothers.'

Lord Alton, who is chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Pro-Life, has responded in the Catholic Herald that: ‘It is profoundly disturbing, indeed shocking, to see the way in which opinion-formers within the medical profession have ditched the professional belief of the healer to uphold the sanctity of human life for this impoverished and inhumane defence of child destruction.’

This is indeed profoundly disturbing. But then what basis do humanist or secular ethicists have other than subjective criteria based upon human sentiment? It is indeed the Christian world view that values all people and upholds the sanctity of life, where transcendent moral laws are accepted as being given by the divine creator. For all their protestations, humanist and secularists invite us to live in a moral and lawless vacuum. The so-called Brave New World they invite us to live in is not a nice place at all.

Farewell to Prof. Terry Hamblin

With sadness we note the death of creation supporter Prof. Terry Hamblin. A leader in his scientific field of cancer research Professor Hamblin will be missed by those who knew him. A comment has been placed on the CSM website and in the Telegraph

Are the BHA and BCSE Campaigns in Breach of The Equality Act 2010?

The British Humanist Association is boasting that they have stopped Intelligent Design and Creationism from being discussed in free schools. http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/961 They claim that the'Government has changed 'Free School model funding agreement to ban creationist schools.' If so, is the Government even in breach of its obligations under the Equality Act 2010? Of course the truth is probably more subtle than the BHA claims. But you can read about their campaign here; http://www.humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-schools/countering-creationism

The Equality Act 2010 makes some interesting demands. "The act covers nine protected characteristics, which cannot be used as a reason to treat people unfairly. Every person has one or more of the protected characteristics, so the act protects everyone against unfair treatment." The protected characteristics include religion or belief.

"The Equality Act sets out the different ways in which it is unlawful to treat someone, such as direct and indirect discrimination, harassment, victimisation and failing to make a reasonable adjustment for a disabled person.

The act prohibits unfair treatment in the workplace, when providing goods, facilities and services, when exercising public functions, in the disposal and management of premises, in education and by associations (such as private clubs)."

So here is my question. Are the BHA and BCSE, who campaign against creationism being discussed even as a religious position in schools, working against the law? Do they respect religious diversity or do they wish to establish the dominance of humanism in society and silence those of religious faith ?

Word and Spirit - Smith Wigglesworth Prophecy

I have been thinking recently about the Word and Spirit prophecy of Smith Wigglesworth. Adrian Warnock has for instance posted it on his blog. http://adrianwarnock.com/2007/07/toam-prophecy-from-smith-wigglesworth/

I think some may know a little bit about what it is to be filled with God's Spirit, but the question I want to ask here is what does it mean for the Church to be committed to God's Word? One aspect I would raise that is relevant to this blog is what a commitment to God's Word implies for our belief in God's work in creation, and the debate between creationists and evolutionists. Of course this is tied up with the interpretation of Scripture as well, but how should we understand such a commitment? I would suggest that for Wigglesworth it is related to belief in God's power in the world because of his wide experience in seeing God bring healing to many people, even raising some from the dead. So what about God's Word and divine power in the act of Creation?

On the wider question of what it might mean for Church identity, David Stroud has offered some very interesting thoughts for the New Frontiers group, but it does have wider relevance for others as well. 

http://adrianwarnock.com/2007/07/toam-session-7-david-stroud-on-identity/
Andrew S

The Fall, Creation and Genesis. Can you Adam and Eve It?

Here are some thoughts on Evolution, Creation and the Fall courtesy of Denis Alexander writing in a Guardian Comment is Free article at Christmas Evolution, Christmas and the Atonement: We are not descended from Adam and Eve – but still, Jesus was born to save us - 23rd December 2011

It is firstly to be hoped that Christians on both sides of the creation-evolution divide can learn to dialogue with each other. So this is offered in the context of respectful dialogue. Alexander speaks of the ‘Fact’ of evolution, but we may wonder what experiment he might point sceptics to in order to justify such a categorical statement. Many people remain sceptical of evolution for lack of hard evidence, and no amount of mere rhetoric will persuade otherwise. Of course there is evidence for micro-evolution, but Alexander's claim for evolution extends beyond what can be demostrated through direct observation i.e. it is not repeatable science. Furthermore, scientists usually express reticence even with experimental support, so why use such strong language when the 'evidence' seems to be in the form of a narrative?

Alexander blames the doctrine of the Fall on Augustine, and instead claims that Origen’s view of Adam and Eve and the Fall more closely mirrors his own. However, VJ Torley has pointed out that Origen’s view wasn’t actually that different from Augustine Philo and Origen are not your friends, Dr. Alexander: A short survey of what two Biblical allegorists taught about Adam and Eve

Writing further he comments that “Nowhere does the Bible teach that physical death originates with the sin of Adam, nor that sin is inherited from Adam...” There are though that many Reformed theologians who say that the Bible does indeed assert that; for instance Commentaries on Romans by Osborn (IVP) and Moo (Eerdsman), (i.e. Romans 5:12); Henri Blocher has written similarly in a chapter in a recent book editted by Alexander's friend Sam Berry (with Noble) Darwin, Creation and the Fall

But what I find most perplexing is this final statement ‘Evolution's gift is a complex brain that endows humanity with free will, enabling personal moral responsibilities towards our neighbour and towards God.’ Does he really believe that not only has our physical make-up evolved, but moral awareness and responsibility have evolved too? Of course he believes that God is behind evolution too, so why does he feel the need to write such a statement that appears to the uninitiated to be a challenge to Christian theology in terms of who we are as human beings made in God's image; that is with volitional, emotional, rational and relational capacities? Surely the glory belongs to Jesus Christ at Christmas as the Creator of all things (John 1:3 'Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made').
Andrew S 

Understanding Faith in Society

There are a couple of articles in the Guardian 'Comment is Free' blog. Nick Spencer usefully responds to Trevor Phillips who seemed to misunderstand the nature of faith and action in society. Phillips was accused of suggesting that some Christian groups, because they seek to uphold their faith, are less willing to integrate into modern society than some muslims. Spencer believes Phillips fails to grasp the importance of faith to people. Source: Nick Spencer - Trevor Phillips is muddled on faith and equality - The EHRC cannot have it both ways – faith communities are either right or wrong to adhere to their beliefs

Secondly, Salman Hameed writes an item about creation belief and evolution and the methodology of science. Hameed writes that "Some – maybe most – of the blame [for lack of understanding of science] can be attributed to an education system that does not train people to think critically. Similarly, most people do not understand methodologies of science and the way theories get accepted. For some, scientific evidence has no role in the way they envision the world." The problem with this statement is that science is not just about criticism, but about a balance between criticism and intuition as Michael Polanyi pointed out. Truth in science is therefore determined by a careful balance between the two exercised through the moral conscience. Source: Salman Hameed - When evidence is powerless - Beliefs that give meaning to life can't be dislodged by factual evidence

Peter Singer, Ethics and Belief in God.

There is an interesting item about ethics and the environment in the Guardian 'Comment is Free' by Mark Vernon - Without belief in moral truths, how can we care about climate change? - Peter Singer admits his brand of utilitarianism struggles with the challenge of climate change in a way Christian ethics does not.

Singer comments that he 'regrets' he doesn't believe in God and that he seems to accept that only faith in a creator can properly ground objective morality.

Tim Mulgan, professor of moral and political philosophy at the University of St Andrews also offered some interesting comments. According to Vernon, he explained "why ethical objectivism may be vital to making a robust ethical case against environmental degradation." This is because "Only a doctrine of creation can affirm that we are fundamentally linked to the natural order manifest on Earth. The fantasy of fleeing this planet, or disappearing into virtual reality, won't actually do. Our island home matters because the lives of human beings go well only when her natural systems go well too. Or, as the psalmist intuited many centuries ago: "Truth shall spring out of the earth."

Aborting girls?

The BBC is reporting a story about abortion in India, and the preference for having male children over female ones. With the possibility now of determining a child's sex before birth there is a relative increase in the number of abortions (foeticide) and even infanticide of baby girls as opposed to male abortions. This is leading to a greater number of male children under 6 years old. The main reason is that male children attract a large dowry for the family upon marriage. A similar situation has arisen in China where there is a preference for male children.

See India's unwanted girls

It will be interesting to see how this impacts upon the whole question of the ethics of abortion generally.

BCSE, Education Policy and Respecting Religious Diversity

The BCSE, with support from Ekklesia, are campaigning to restrict some religious groups from presenting their views freely, and therefore in a way that respects their beliefs. They wish to stop creationists from claiming any scientific validity for their position. In other words, creationists may only speak in schools if they maintain that their views are not real or even false.  I have blogged about this here

So what will be lost by this? Children will be prevented from asking questions in a way that allows them to think for themselves, but instead will be encouraged to think of education in terms of learning 'official facts.' This will not prepare children for higher education where ideas are debated with more freedom. Science itself will potentially be damaged by this, because science advances through dialogue and is not based on authority. Children from religious backgrounds will feel that their beliefs are not respected in the classroom and will turn off of learning altogether.

One may hope that government ministers have greater wisdom when considering policy in light of campaigns from various pressure groups.