Conservative Christian Bashing

Following on from the last blog entry, and recent comments by Dean Jeffrey John, there is clearly a need for a calm, loving discussion surrounding gay issues. Evidence suggests that Christian conservatives are misrepresented by the gay lobby, one commentator, Rev. Mel White, goes so far as to suggest the conservative position is akin to Holy Terrorism and recently a security guard at the Family Research Council in America has been shot and wounded in an incident that may have been linked to such bitter rhetoric.

Here in the UK Dean Jeffrey John has told gays not to listen to conservative Anglicans and asserted that the official position of the Church, held for centuries, is 'morally contemptible.'

Of course on the other side Christians have not always shown the love of Christ as it should and perhaps made gays feel unwelcome in the Church, which is a shame also. But there does need to be honesty and integrity in debate here. John accuses the Church of not showing integrity, but to deliberately misrepresent the traditionalist position so that gays are led to believe they are unwelcome in conservative churches does not show integrity. Instead, whether you agree with the conservative position or not, it represents a reasoned and long held position that is based upon the presence of the transforming grace and love of Christ in the world.

Jeffrey John Attacks the Church of England for Upholding Traditional Values

Jeffrey John writing in the Guardian Comment is Free section in effect slanders the Church of which he is a Canon and displays little love and grace towards his brethren who have legitimate concerns about Church and State policy. There is perhaps an indecent haste in the way pressure for change in marriage law is being pursued with bitter accusations against traditionalists. Under Rowan Williams, the church has failed gay people

What I find unhelpful about this piece is the way in which it is assumed automatically that anyone who seeks to uphold traditional conservative values towards marriage is homophobic. John writes that the policy of the Anglican Church ‘is morally contemptible.’ However, Rowan Williams has at least struggled to maintain unity within a Church that holds a wide diversity of views, and has respected the views of Anglicans across the world where modern western secular approaches to ethics are unknown.

John is however critical of African Christians commenting that “About half the world's Anglicans are African, and the majority of them are in violently homophobic countries whose churches back harsh punishments against homosexuals, right up to the death penalty.” John here omits to say that the call for the death penalty for homosexual acts in Uganda for instance is limited to repeated acts of sexual abuse towards children and those under care. Abuse of children, admittedly mainly sexual abuse by men against girls (and also child sacrifice), in African countries is a major problem that needs to be dealt with firmly, and Christians are right to try and address the problems. However, harsh penalties for consenting sexual acts are regrettable. Even for those who consider it to be morally wrong justice does need to be proportionate, and there may be many things that are immoral that are not illegal. But John’s diatribe against African Christians, that is Christian people with black skin, is deeply unhelpful and could be seen as western liberal elitism, if not liberal racism. It certainly doesn’t help African Christians extend loving Christian values across Africa. There is an assumption in this piece by John that the views of African Christians who hold to a more conservative ethical foundation are to be ignored. It would seem that for liberals democracy only goes so far. This might seem like western cultural imperialism by a liberal elite.

In terms of equality John taps into what I would call Humean rights as opposed to human rights. That is rights are given to people and groups on the basis of subjective sentiment and not according to a person’s intrinsic value, nor according to rational debate, nor with consideration of corresponding duties. The problem for liberalism is that ultimately ethics become relative. For Christian liberals the practice of reinterpreting scripture to suit one’s own views effectively destroys the basis for objectivity in ethical standards; in effect they cut off the branch on which they sit. We are left in a potentially dangerous place where human sentiment may turn against upholding the value of all human beings; an example being Nazi Germany where Jews, gays and others were persecuted and some put to death. Let us also have a rational and calm debate about the cause of gay sentiment; is it really a given at birth or is it something that arises through upbringing, or environment or something else? Is it nature or nurture; is it intrinsic or extrinsic to who we are as human beings? Admittedly for some it is strongly felt, although for others the recent growth in the gay community suggests it is partly a passing fashion. Also through history, as the Old Testament relates, the community of faith has ebbed and flowed between periods of liberalism and periods of conservatism. However these questions matter when we are dealing with questions of rights and equality so let us at least have a fair and honest debate. Instead of attacking African Christians and fellow Anglicans John needs to work with his fellow believers to help bring an end to sexual and other abuse of children, and to develop and campaign for a proportionate system of justice because these are Christian values that we can all accept and desire to see extended.

Why Synthetic Biology Needs to Hear Religious Voices

Adam Rutherford argues that we need to meddle more, not less, with the genes of biological organisms. Writing in the Guardian Comment is Free Synthetic biology: 'playing God' is vital if we are to create a better future for all - The present gains and future benefits of synthetic biology are too great for it to be written off with fear-mongering maxims  he is critical of environmentalists and religious groups for apparently seeking to restrict scientific discovery.

However, he muddies the waters by confusing scientific discovery with technology. He writes for instance

"That accusation has been made in attacks against many of the major scientific advances of the modern era, including Watson and Crick's description of the structure of DNA in 1953; the birth of the first IVF baby, Louise Brown, in 1978; the creation of Dolly the sheep in 1997; and the sequencing of the human genome in 2001. In all these scenarios, it's not clear exactly what "playing God" actually means."

I am not sure what evidence he has for the claim that religious people have been critical of scientific discoveries such as unravelling the mystery of DNA, or the human genome sequencing, but there are legitimate concerns about the technological use of knowledge that arises out of science. Dolly the Sheep being an example of where the technology failed; the poor animal inherited an already aged gene pool from its 'mother.' Scientists though always seem keen to rush ahead before sufficient knowledge is gathered, promoting their work to keep research grants flowing.

Genetic engineering needs to be carefully scrutinised to avoid the mistakes of the past that an unfettered belief in secular progress delivers. Those who hold that there is something sacred about living organism are right to raise concerns. Often genetic engineering is driven by profit, sometimes in ways that seek to control free market access to crops for instance. There is something wrong about seeking to place an intellectual property right on something given for free by God. Even where farmers resist the use of such crops they are taken to court for breach of IPRs because of contamination. The polluter doesn't pay when genetic engineering is linked to profit, and scientists are intrinsically linked to the flow of money in research institutions from such businesses. 

Of course there are some advances that are good and it would be wrong to stop scientific research altogether, but ethically we need to allow religious voices to be heard in science if scientific progress is to be harnessed so as to provide useful service for humanity, and not profit for a few with the environment damaged along the way.

Are The Rephaim Already Defeated? Giant's Causeway Brings Out True Colours

Andrew Brown writes in the Guardian and asks What made the creationist footprints in the Giant's Causeway visitor centre? He comes up with the usual ‘bash-the-creationists’ stuff we expect from the Guardian, but fails to engage in understanding foundational commitments that are necessary in science. Instead he accuses creationists of lying and preaching conspiracy theories. But creationists have grown to expect critics to misunderstand the issues. So I won't bother to enlighten him here.

And Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox get in on the act, throwing out tired insults for effect; Cox even descends to swearing instead of offering a scientific argument. Dawkins thinks that creationists are 'intellectual baboons' engaged in 'ignorant bigotry.' Cox comments that ‘to suggest there is any debate that Earth is 4.54 billion years old is pure s***.' (It rhymes with manure). It is hardly worth responding to.

Comments by Brown though are worth commenting on. As well as being liars and stupid, Brown now comes up with the notion that creationists are somehow malevolent. He writes that ‘Creationism isn't a kind of benevolent nonsense, like most forms of New Age belief systems. It's malevolent…’ So for believing ‘nonsense’ and being verbally abused rather viciously in the media creationists are now to be thought of as ‘evil’ as well? Is that really what you mean Mr Brown? Although we live an age when every ‘phobia’ is becoming a criminal offence, some beliefs are still to be subject to the Orwellian ‘two minutes of hate.’

Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/richard-dawkins-creationism-at-giants-causeway-is-intellectual-baboonism-16181959.html#ixzz20DvtLDJY

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