Wednesday 16 December 2015

Split ends or what has happened at Gilcomston?

I hear on the grapevine that a prominent conservative evangelical former Church of Scotland in Aberdeen has been so careless as to lose its beloved minister of many years standing, with whom it made its exit from the ever-more-contaminated-by-liberalism national church. This is not good. I am not surprised it has been kept relatively quiet. Nor am I surprised that all has not gone according to plan. That plan presumably saw the church now uncontaminated rise soaring from the ashes of the national church and be free to pursue an unalloyed and pure calling according to its vision of the Biblical Way. Falling out with its minister cannot have been part of that plan. But then when you lose that accountability to anyone but yourself, (oh, and God and His Word of course, although that only seems to matter some of the time), then of course, like Israel of old, every man may do what seems right in his own eyes.

The framework with which working within a larger church institution provides us is a hugely important, and provides a much needed bulwark against many evils which can befall the church, including that of giving us a means of due process through which disagreements among the leaders can be sifted and decided upon, by others, under whose authority we put ourselves. Sure, it's a mixed blessing, belonging to a church which entertains a "mixed economy" (clever speak which means "all sorts"). The decision making councils may decide things which are anathema to us. But continuing to belong has never in the Church of Scotland been equated with the giving of assent to these decsions, even if sometimes we have to obey them, and we hold among our members and even office bearers people who believe in adult baptism and have undergone it (despite "One Lord, one faith, one Baptism"), and we have coped with that. Those who left were spoiling for a reason to do so, and the decision on gay ministers gave them that. But it was the tip of the iceberg of growing disaffection. They were wrong to leave. Their leaving weakened the Church of Scotland massively, left a huge hole in the centre of Glasgow, (although that was not entirely their fault), and has contibuted to the fracturing of the image of the church. And those who have left are now exposed to exactly the kind of thing we see happening in Aberdeen. One fracture line may lead to another. They closed the Forth Road Bridge because that happens, I hope no other churches will close or be lost and that more ministers who have served long and faithfully and acceptably, will not suddenly find themselves being hard pressed by Kirk Sessions who are finding their voice and a new authority unencumbered by Presbyteries or General Assemblies.

Tuesday 8 December 2015

So, the de-Christianising of our society is moving on apace. Christianity seems, according to some reports, already to be a minority religion. Perhaps this will get us the same levels of respect and consideration that are happily meted out to every other faith except Christianity. Already we have CE instead of AD and BCE instead of BC, and Winter Festival is appearing more and more as the pseudonymn for Christmas. What will happen to poor old Santa (Saint Claus)? Will this move signal his demise too, in favour of the Snow Queen or Jack Frost perhaps? Will Christians be allowed to use the word I wonder, in our secular future? I note a report which calls for the ending of the legal requirement to have a daily act of worship in Schools south of the Scottish Border, (We never had such legislation in Scotland because it was never thought to be needed, we were so thoroughly immersed in our presbyterianism up here.) I can understand the thinking behind moving away from an act of worship, which is after all an expression of faith, but I hope schools will still be required to teach and give majority time in RE to Christianity, as the faith which gives our society its context.

Maybe as we move further away from our Christian roots, we who still confess the Christian Faith, will hear less and less the name of Jesus being used as a swear word, or perhaps the powers that be will make it an offence to use it in such a way, to protect the rights and sensitivities of a religious minority. Perhaps someone should bring a case of religious discrimination against the use of the name Jesus as a swear word, as it is grossly offensive to Christians. And maybe too, the government will stop making us be the custodians of the country's religious architectural heritage.If you disown it, be prepared to lose it. Instead of Kirks up and down the land having to pay costly fees to keep their ancient buildings up to scratch, we'll be able to say to the government - if you want to keep it, pay for it. You know, I can see a stack of gains coming our way, brothers and sisters.

May all your Winter Festivals be merry and bright.
O, and merry Christmas too.

Saturday 9 May 2015

Who won the election?

Well who'd have thought we'd all get it so wrong. I was convinced that a taste of coalition compromise which seemed to work would enable the electorate to be even more bold in following their own preferences. But in the aftermath one hears on the media time after time, people explaining why they voted against lifelong or instinctive preferences for either the Tories or the SNP. Perhaps Jim Murphy was right about the Scottish scene when he said that people voted SNP thinking they'd get Labour, moderated by the SNP. (Italics mine). But if Scottish voters thought they could trust the SNP better, then perhaps we shouldn't be surprised that the English felt the same about not quite trusting Labour.

I think many of us feel really sorry for all those committed, principled and hard working MP's who lost their seats. The Labour toll in Scotland and the Lib Dem toll across the country has indeed been wounding. I'd like to see both parties come back from the ground up as it were, and I fervently hope that at least one of them will commit to something that we the elctorate desperately want to see: openess, transparency and honesty. Politicians who will answer questions directly, succinctly and honestly, who will call a stupid or provocative question just that, and tell us things as they really are. For example, I'd like to know things like how much money the NHS in Scotland costs at the moment, and how much is being proposed to spend in the next year, and rough menu of things which the additional spend could buy. I'd like to be told, "No, the public can't get this, this and that from the current funds available for NHS/Education/Welfare spend. If we want to do this this and that, we'd need extra cash and this is exactly how we as a party would like to get that cash." Wouldn't that be refreshing? I'd like to see the opposition party leader at question time refusing to get into a public school type verbal brawling match, and instead give the leader opposite credit for doing good things, and ask questions that were not designed to discredit the other party but simply to gain information.  Surely one of these broken parties could not only reinvent themselves, but reinvent how we do politics too? That would get my vote.

Tuesday 28 April 2015

Who will win the election?

Writing a blog is a hard taskmaster. It sits there in the undercover of my electronic clutter and every now and again I'm ambushed by a guilty thought which takes me in this direction. The link on our church's webpage is another rather provocative reminder to me of my literary inertia. Anyhow, this week I'm a little ahead of the game, so am able to spare the moment or two that this takes. I'm ahead of the game not only because my weekly preparation is ahead of schedule, but because I've got a rather busy schedule to do with the election behind me as well. No, I'm not standing for election, and I've not been out there canvassing for some party or other, but I was quite busy organising a local hustings, or public question time event with our local parliamentary candidates, and we were fortunate enough to get the sitting candidate and the main rivals to come along.
It was a most interesting evening from a few different perspectives. I found the audience an interesting mix of camp followers and engaged and knowledgable local people many of whom were new to my aquaintance. The candidates themselves were interesting too, as of course they would be. They represented a healthhy range of experience, age and attitude, and so I discovered that I had a good and varied "menu" from which to choose on polling day.
Now, I chanced to see some of Panorama's "Who will win the election?" programme with Nate Silver, the American polster who gets it right. One of the points he made was that the polls get it wrong because they don't really manage to take into consideration "the local influence", part of which is our knowledge of the local candidates. So what is at work is more than party loyalties and preferences, but sympathies and preferences for people who have impressed or disappointed us outwith a party political arena. That's why I like local engagement with our political players. We might still vote along party lines, but we might be stimulated not to as well. It can upset the apple cart. I beleive that whatever the outcome of this election, it will underline the message of the last election, which was that the 2 party monopoly is over. Days of negotiation, compromise, cooperation, constructive dialogue lie ahead. And you know what? I think we, the electorate, and the way in which parliament works shall all win in those circumstances.

Wednesday 11 February 2015

Fry and God



Well, Stephen Fry’s been having a very public go at God. And of course he’s stirred up some interesting responses: Russell Brand for one!! And David Robertson the Christian Scientist/Philosopher has a response out there too.



Both Brand and Robertson make good points. Basically Fry, a clever bloke by all accounts, has made the mistake of assuming that it would be God’s job, if God existed, to make and keep the world perfect. That’s what Fry thinks God should be for. Robertson makes the point that love is what it’s all about and challenges the Fry point of view by asking what a so called perfect world would have to be like. Brand challenges the criticism of religions in general that takes them quite literally and ignores the deeper spiritual message that drives them. Good for him.

One of Fry’s criticisms of Jesus is that some his sayings are “twee” and impractical, like the one about letting the person without sin cast the first stone. Fry omits to give Jesus the credit for having just saved the life of the adulterous woman with that little line. And no-one has ever suggested that that saying should or ought to become the basis for world jurisprudence, least of all Jesus. Fry also takes the very easy and emotionally loaded line of using disease in children as a club with which to bash Theism. There are many devout believers in God who have watched their children succumb to dreadful diseases and who have not tried to blame God for this.

It looks like Fry is having a go at the God of Christianity in particular, although presumably all forms of God are included in his attitude. He does not pause to think that because of the Christian Faith, he can very safely and easily say what he does, because one of the hallmarks of contemporary Christian society is that it offers safety and protection to those even who disagree with it.

I know Christianity has a lot of bad stuff to answer for, and that is why some people who are a bit angry at its still rather venerated position in British society, feel they can rant at it.  But it is neither wise nor clever to come to a conclusion about something’s validity, usefulness or worth based on the worst examples of it. (I rather like the way Brand uses this argument with regard to football!)