Rhythm and Views

The Tree of Life

2011-07-27T00:27:00.024+01:00

The Tree of Life is more of a work of art than a movie. It is beautiful. It’s over a week since I’ve seen it and I’m still trying to get my head round it. It seems to me to be an attempt by an unusual director (Terrence Malick) to portray the breadth and depth of the experience of being human. There is little traditional plot. *Spoiler* This movie is probably not like anything you’ve seen before! Artistic sequences of nature, colour and shape are as much a part of the plot as the O’Brien family. Some people hate it and it’s easy to see why. It is ambitious. Almost pretentious. Probably genius.

The film starts with God in Job 38:4,7

"Where were you when I laid the foundations of the Earth, when the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"

At one point one of the boys asks his mother “Tell us a story from before we can remember”. And that is what Malick does. He briefly dips his toe into a real life story before quickly jumping out again, as if to give human suffering some perspective, to a view of the universe before mankind. Set to this music, we are treated to a breathtakingly beautiful collage of images portraying the birth of the universe. Without any apology for leaving the plot behind he draws the viewer into something akin to an extended car or perfume ad but with our planet and life advertised as the product and ends up with something which could be described as worship.

So what’s the movie about? I don’t want to spoil the story but in a way the story doesn’t seem to matter. There is a plot but it is not really the focus. Language and dialogue is almost under-emphasised perhaps in case it gets in the way of telling the story.

We learn about events from Jack O’Brien (Sean Penn) - the only character in the movie with a first name. And gradually we unravel a story about him (and his parents) struggling to come to terms with the death of his brother. It is largely filled with glimpses into his childhood memories. Jack’s perspective on his brother’s death is filtered through the prism of his upbringing. I guess we are all products of our childhood. We see scenes of his father’s anger (Brad Pitt), Jacks jealousy towards his brother, his rebellion against his father (echoes of Cain and Abel), and his mother’s grace and unconditional love. Apparently Malick grew up in a similar small American town and his younger brother committed suicide when studying the guitar in Spain which at least helped me make some autobiographical sense of the plot.

But the rest of the movie is also a celebration of life - we see birth, beauty, grace, hard work, mercy and forgiveness. There are scenes of love: romance, brotherly love, and parental love. But yet like ‘The Thin Red Line’ (also directed by Malick) it is uncompromising in its portrayal of this fallen world. It does not hide the ugliness and brokenness of human nature too - anger, cruelty, death, temptation, failure, jealousy, resentment and grief. We cannot escape the pain of this life - at least not yet.

It has been described by others as ‘a poem’, ‘a prayer’, ‘a hymn to life’ or ‘a psalm’. Perhaps it’s a lament - some of the pieces on the soundtrack are requiems. It is deeply Spiritual and yet it does not provide easy answers about the meaning of life. We all have a story. And in that sense, I suppose like any movie, we identify with the experience of life. But we also identify with the deeper questions from the narrator voice-over, literally crying out to God for purpose and answers. “Why? What are we doing here? Where were you? You let a boy die. Why should I be good when you aren’t?” Like the rest of us, it is a journey of faith. And on the surface of the movie there aren’t a lot of answers.

It seems like a view of God from Job’s perspective. “Life is tough. Don’t question me.” But there are some subtle hints that Malick believes there is more than that. At the end of the movie, in a moving role reversal of what God has done for us, we hear Mrs O’Brien whisper “I give him to you . . . I give you my son”. She has come through her grief to a place of accepting and faith. And the director invites us to do the same.

One of the songs played during the final credits is listed as Hymn 87: Welcome Happy Morning. (HT).

"Welcome, happy morning! Age to age shall say:
hell today is vanquished, heaven is won today!
Lo! the dead is living, God for evermore!
Him their true Creator, all his works adore!
Thou, of life the Author, death didst undergo,
tread the path of darkness, saving strength to show;
come then, true and faithful, now fulfill thy word,
'tis thine own third morning! rise, O buried Lord!
Loose the souls long prisoned, bound with Satan's chain;
all that now is fallen raise to life again;
show thy face in brightness, bid the nations see;
bring again our daylight: day returns with thee!"

I can’t say for certain what Malick believes but I believe that it is only because of Jesus we have hope. We have hope for the future. Death is not the end. The resurrection is real. The Bible doesn’t teach “pie in the sky when you die” or that we will play harps on clouds forever. Instead for those who take that step of faith we can look forward to resurrected life in new physical bodies as part of a new worshipping fellowship on this earth which will be completely restored. I believe we will be able to enjoy many of the good things we already enjoy here including music, art, food, nature, beauty, work, discovery, creativity - all done as worship of our Creator.

And because of Jesus we also have hope for forgiveness and the redemption of our past no matter what they hold. There is some suggestion that Jack comes to a realisation of this in his soul searching. I believe in a God who rescues people. Ultimately Jesus’ death reveals the depth of God’s sacrificial love for us when he completely dealt with our sins and our shame at the cross. The resurrection and the subsequent coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost demonstrates the power of God to conquer death, break the hold of sin and defeat the power of the devil. And we are offered that chance to share in that death and resurrection of Jesus. Baptism is a picture of this – we go down into water/death and up into resurrection life. Jesus came to bring freedom which means we don’t have to live in our old world life anymore. “If anyone is in Christ – he IS a new creation.” 2 Cor 5:17

And finally, Jesus gives us hope for today. Our salvation is ‘worked out’ in our ordinary every day lives. The church is called to be a loving community of people who enjoy the benefits of reconciliation with God, inward peace with themselves and renewed relationship with each other. We are enabled to take this resurrection ‘new creation’ energy and let it loose on the world. Into all areas of life. In church and outside. Politics. Economics. Law. Medicine. Culture. Art. Music. Literature. The environment. The list goes on. We get to live life now to the full in the sure hope of God's certain future!

The tree of life is described twice in the Bible. Initially in Genesis 3:22 after the fall when relationships are broken and sin enters the world. Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden so that they would not eat from the tree of life and live for ever. And it is mentioned again at the end of the Bible after Jesus comes back in judgement, there is a picture of the new world in Revelation 22:1-2.

"Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."

This is when the fall is reversed and the power of God’s love finally makes ‘all the bad things come untrue’. And it is love we are called to start practising now. It’s our duty. Our destiny. Love demonstrates resurrection life. People who truly hope will be people enabled to love and forgive in a new way. Conversely people who are living by rule of love will be people who are learning more deeply how to hope.

It is a sad movie but one which inspires me to hope. Did I mention it's beautiful?

Avatar

2010-01-07T22:39:00.011Z

I'm back after a bit of a blogging hiatus! So . . . Avatar then. I'm not sure what I expected. I had seen some of the hype but we haven't been to the cinema in months so partly went to experience the 3D. And visually, director James Cameron's $300million 3D graphics were impressive, despite the annoying glasses. Although I think 3D is a gimmick to get people going to the cinema again and not something which will really catch on.

Spoiler Warning (ie don't read on if you haven't seen the movie)
The plot however was relatively unsubtle. We've seen this basic story before but it was retold well and the graphics don't distract from the narrative. It's basically a sci-fi mixup of Dances with Wolves and The Matrix! Avatar is set in the year 2154 on the planet Pandora. The natives perfect existance is under threat from humans in search of a rare mineral which could save planet earth from extinction. Its hard to miss the lesson of the greedy humans who have turned their attention from destroying earth to plundering and exploiting another planet paradise instead. The key to most good sci-fi movies is that they're actually movies about us disguised as movies about other planets. The Na'vi aliens are essentially another race of humans and the film touches on love, war, injustice and culture clashes, with plenty of politics and eco-politics thrown in.

But I want to focus on some of the theology. On one level this story can be dismissed as pantheism, a faith that equates God with Nature, and calls humanity into religious communion with the natural world. There are definitely elements of gaia worship but I do think there is a deeper spiritual story here and some Biblical parallels. Pandora is a perfect world where the people commune with God and with nature - like when Adam and Eve walked with God on our planet before the fall. And like the garden of Eden, there are two sacred trees - the 'home tree' and the 'tree of souls (or voices)'. After the fall, God banished Adam and Eve from the garden so they would not eat from the tree of life (Genesis 1:21). The humans in Avatar are trying to get back to the tree of life for the one mineral they need: unobtainium (I told you it was unsubtle - a bit like Asterix!). So Cameron puts mankind back in the garden and again we fall: sin, greed, exploitation and murder.

While the humans of the future seem to be completely secular, the Na'vi people are defined by their worship. But this is not true pantheism. These people, I mean aliens, do not worship everything, but only one god: Eywa (nearly Yahweh). Nor is this god just a cosmic energy force, but one who communes with her people and actively answers prayer and intervenes in their battles.

Ironically salvation for the Na'vi from the humans comes through another human, Grace Augustine (surely a reference to St Augustine's doctrine of grace) and her avatar program. The main character, Jake Sully, is a paraplegic ex-marine. He seems to symbolise the human race and like his planet is paralysed and sully-ed. As he spends more time with these new people his old ways seem less and less important to him to the point where he abandons his old life to become part of the tribe. He enters this new paradise through the Na'vi avatar body as a messiah like figure - fully human, yet fully Na'vi - trusted by both sides as the perfect mediator. What a great picture of what Jesus did for us. Avatar actually means 'incarnation' in Sanskrit! He brings them a message of salvation and eventually leads them to victory over the human 'sky people'. He even gets that moment at the beginning when Eywa anointed him like a dove from heaven. Later he goes to the tree of souls as a high priest to ask for divine help on behalf of the people. At the end Jake is fully initiated into Na'vi society by actually transforming his consciousness into his avatar, a process which he describes as being "born again" which allows him to live in his new, perfect body.

Overall I would say that it does live up to the hype and is worth seeing. It's not perfect but it is the next step in computer animation. Often movies contain spiritual symbols which can easily be overlooked. Cameron's theology (as is mine) is far from perfect but it's too blatant to ignore. Avatar is full of opportunites to discuss spirituality, faith, protection of the planet, and how to relate to other cultures. Big movies become part of our culture and are an insight into how many people understand spiritual things. I'm still waiting for Nelly's book on pop culture!

Finally as with many of the other names, I'm sure that the name of the planet, Pandora was not an accident. In the Greek creation myth she is the Eve character created as the first woman by the gods (read it here). She was given a box by Zeus which she was told not to open. Like Eve, Pandora's curiosity leads her to eventually open the box releasing all the evils into the world. The story finishes when she opens the box again to release 'hope' which had been left inside. Despite her actions and the consequences of her disobedience there was still hope for mankind. In Cameron's world this is likely a message that there is still a possiblity of redemption for our planet and the human race if we get our act together. As Christians we know that our Hope is fulfilled in Jesus precisely because we are incapable of getting our act together. Biblical 'hope' is not just a positive feeling but a confident expectation that what God promised will happen. Paul talks about the 'hope of the gospel' (Col 1:23). This is the good news of the hope of forgiveness for the worst of sinners (a weeping prostitute saved by faith), the hope of reconciliation (the prodigal son coming home), the hope of holiness (the leper cleansed by Jesus' touch) and it available to all. "Come!" Whoever is thirsty, let him come; and whoever wishes, let him take the free gift of the water of life. (Rev 22:17)

And I didn't even mention 'Hell's Gate' or the floating 'Hallelujah Mountains'!

Ignore the critics

2009-06-30T22:10:00.004+01:00

“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”
- Theodore Roosevelt

Wife for life

2008-10-01T00:05:00.004+01:00

I love my wife. I love her even more now than I did three years ago. Asking her to marry me is the best decision I've made so far in my short life. Some days I feel qualified to write about marriage. Some days I get it so wrong. But as it's our wedding anniversary, I thought I would attempt a marriage post! Here are a few of my recent thoughts about marriage.

I believe in marriage. I believe that God created it and with Him at the centre, it works. . . for individuals and for society. Marriage is a symbol of the relationship between Christ and the church. When it works, it reflects God's character, love, and forgiveness.

What is christian marriage? It's a solemn commitment in front of God (and man) to love, honour, cherish and maintain exclusive intimacy, through anything, until death. It's a promise (and a covenant) to commit and submit. With no get-out-clause! It's hard work and it requires trust. And it's risky: you have no control whether the other person will behave or keep their promise. It's not like a business contract where each party is in the deal for what they can get out of it. That kind of relationship ultimately breaks down when one (or both) no longer gets what they want or think they deserve.

At its most romantic, marriage is two people so crazy in love with each other that they can't live apart. But emotions, situations and people change. Feelings alone won't hold a couple together forever. Love, as a feeling, is beautiful, magical and can be described but not easily defined. But marriage is different. It has to be. It's not an emotion but a real and concrete daily decision. By definition, this is not romantic but practical.

We are made for relationships. I believe that it is possible for any man and any woman to fall in love with each other. Physically, emotionally, properly, in every way. The attraction may or may not happen immediately but given the opportunity, time and sometimes hard work, true love (with all the feelings!) is possible. That's why arranged marriages can (although not always) be successful and filled with love. And why there is always hope for 'dying' marriages.

Here's the secret: It's not about finding a completely perfect person, or someone who will tick every box. They don't exist! Nor is it about waiting for the right feelings! Feelings are great but can be so deceptive (both for and against a decision). Although your heart has to be involved, actually choosing who to marry should be (mostly) a head decision.

So how do you find "the one"? I'm no expert but here are my tips! First, get your head sorted out. Wait until you are mature enough to know who you are and what you want out of life. Then decide what sort of person you are looking for. What qualities are essential? Don't just settle for anybody! Find (that's the tricky bit!) someone you are willing to trust. Be intentional. Choose to get to know that person and be known by them. Find out what makes them tick. What do they want in life? What is their relationship with God like? Will they build you up or pull you down? Choose to fall in love.

Next you need to independently decide whether or not you are ready to commit to loving and serving that one person - for life. (Ok - they need to do the same thing). It's still not about the feelings! Pray. God may guide clearly but it's also easy to misinterpret 'signs'. Take advice, but it has to be your decision. When you are completely sure in your own heart and mind that you are ready give/surrender/submit to someone else, then you have found "the one".

Then do it! Grab the opportunity with both hands - there is incredible blessing in doing it right. Commit. Promise. Love. Choose to keep falling in love. For life. True love is about giving, not receiving. Its about putting someone else's needs before your own. Unlike a romantic fairytale, it's a real (and sometimes difficult) journey of daily making that other person "the one". Then the feelings you have for each other will grow and deepen as you experience life together.

The Dark Knight

2008-08-10T18:06:00.012+01:00

Spoiler Warning (ie. don't read unless you've seen the film)
So we went to see the new Batman movie to see what all the fuss was about. And yes, it does live up to the hype. It's big names, big action and it goes a bit deeper and darker than most comic book thrillers. But in classic comic book style it was still good versus evil, the law versus the lawless, right versus wrong, the Batman (and the good cops/lawyers) against the Joker (and the bad cops/criminals) in a battle for Gotham's (civilization as we know it) soul.

Bruce Wayne is an ordinary man and a philanthropist who dresses up as a bat at night to do battle with evil. It seems people will still pay money for that! When his parents were murdered, he chose to dedicate his life, time and money to to fighting crime in the city of Gotham. While not as blatant as Superman there are shades of Batman as a messianic figure. He loves justice and loves his people. He works behind the scenes to protect people. He never feels the need to defend himself. At the end when the Joker seems to have won, in an act of grace and forgiveness, Batman sacrifices himself and his reputation for something greater. "That's the point of Batman," Alfred (Michael Caine) tells Bruce Wayne/Batman. "He can make the choice no one else can make, the right one." However, unlike other superheroes, he possesses no superpowers. So while he is fully superhero, he is still fully man and as such is a flawed hero. As a vigilante he is no stranger to committing acts of violence and his jealousy at times clouds his judgement. The shades of right and wrong become blurred. Is violence ok if protecting others from violence? What about using torture to protect lives? Given the right circumstances, does power always corrupt?

Batman's nemesis, The Joker is convincingly evil, has a wicked sense of humour and is completely mad (think somewhere between Hannibal Lecter and Jim Carey in The Mask. Like a comic book version of the movie Heat, The Batman and The Joker try to outmaneuver each other. A lot of hype has surrounded Heath Ledger's recent suicide but it has to be said that he plays 'The Joker' superbly. He has no regard for anything or anyone and is reckless (and interestingly also suicidal) in his quest to terrorise a city. He is an agent of chaos and a criminal mastermind and has an uncanny ability to always be one step ahead. This is a 'post 9-11' Gotham city which raises more dilemmas: Is democracy strong enough to protect a city against an enemy with no rules? Surely a city with Batman in charge, with his 'judge&jury' act and his 'ends-justify-the-means' ethics of torture and total surveillance would be safer? How can you fight against/ protect yourself from a man who has no regard for his own life or the lives of others and whose only goal is to bring terror (?a suicide bomber)?

On the other side Batman is quite similar to the Joker: both insane, obsessive, and masked vigilantes. Unlike Batman and Harvey Dent/Two Face you only see one persona of The Joker and don't know anything of his past story. He drives the plot by being consistently unpredictable. He seems to know people better than they know themselves and (?like Satan) takes it upon himself to bring out the worst in people. He manages to devise situations (?temptations) which push all the characters (Batman, the police, the law, and the citizens of Gotham) to their breaking point (think Kevin Spacey in Se7en). He says: “The only sensible way to live in this world is without rules” and in this sense he makes the most sense by tapping into the cultural zeitgeist. Call it 'postmodern' if you like but it's hard to deny that we live in a society which has rejected God as their moral centre. Each individual must decide for themselves where to draw the line so that the logical conclusion is that we all must allowed the right to pursue our own desires. When you mix moral relativism with total depravity you ultimately get anarchy. The ugly fact is that that this depravity lurks inside of each of us. We (personally and as a society) need a moral grounding and (I would argue) God's help to enable us to rise above our base nature.

The Gotham civilians are fickle. They love batman when things are going well. When not so well, they blame him for the trouble they're in. They need a saviour but they don't really deserve one. One of the final scenes leaves mankind with some hope. Two ferries with convicts on one and "innocents" on the other have the chance to blow each other up to save their own boat. Both groups in the end do the unexpected thing by showing that we also have the ability to choose good. The Batman is an inspiration because he is a man living up to his potential and inspiring others to join him.

I also liked the descent into madness of Harvey "The White Knight" Dent. He started the movie as an agent of justice who made his own luck. The coin he flipped had a head on both sides. He was in control of his own destiny. His personal torture into Two Face caused by the Joker's madness meant that he no longer believed in anything greater than chance. This too as a worldview was shown to be folly.

This is more than just a comic book movie. Although violent (and not for kids) the characters have real depth so that the viewer cares what happens to them. It is definitely not predictable and the cinematography and special effects are awesome. I would definitely recommend it.

Short Term Missions

2008-07-23T19:40:00.021+01:00

(nb. this is just a few of my thoughts and opinions on STM - not intended to be critical of any particular program or group)

It's easy to be critical. It's harder to suggest how to change things. At present, this is largely an issue for the Western Church although God knows that we need missionaries here too. I usually like to start with where I'm coming from: I have been on a short term summer team to Romania. I have lived as an MK in Nigeria and seen teams come and go. I've travelled a good bit and I (humbly) know a bit about the global church. I believe in Missio Dei - that mission is part of God's nature. I believe that we have good news and that we are commanded by Jesus to go into all the world and preach it. I also believe that we are called to a missional day-to-day life in our own community and local church. (See here for a interesting discussion on the word 'missional')

I was motivated by a link (HT:TSK) to this Washington Post article which contained the following information:

"A Princeton University study found that 1.6 million people took short-term mission trips -- an average of eight days -- in 2005. Estimates of the money spent on these trips is upward of $2.4 billion a year. Vacation destinations are especially popular: Recent research has found that the Bahamas receives one short-term missionary for every 15 residents. At the same time, the number of long-term American missionaries, who go abroad from several years to a lifetime, has fallen, according to a Wheaton College study done last year. A 2006 study in Honduras found that short-term mission groups spent an average of $30,000 on their trips to build one home that a local group could construct for $2,000."

Here are some problems I have with (badly done) Short Term Missions:

In my opinion, most short term teams are more for the benefit of the people on the teams more than the people they go to "serve". If they are only about us going, then we're exploiting another culture for our own benefit.
Religious tourism. I have seen this. It's easy to jump on the summer short term mission bandwagon - get to see the world, get a great tan, get some photos with some poor kids and feel like you're making a difference! It's harsh, but in my experience is sometimes close to the truth. I have met these people on mission trips. They have no real interest in the people they meet but are there for the experience. Think: Prince Harry or Madonna celebrity photo ops.
Expense. Could the money raised be used to support longer term missionaries or local church workers? Admittedly, it might not be possible to raise any money for a cause people know nothing about unless these people go on the trip.
It takes up valuable time and energy at the receiving end looking after the team.
They should not be seen as a substitute for supporting or going on longer term mission.
They are done with wrong motives. They should never be a status symbol in the church or as a salve for a guilty conscience.

Good things about Short Term Missions:

They can work. Jesus sent his disciples out on short term teams. (Mark 6:7-12) The fruit of mission does not necessarily depend on the duration of the commitment.
The people going on the trips do benefit. That's not a bad thing. With good leadership, the whole process is a form of discipleship for (usually) young believers. Benefits include: developing faith; developing healthy relationships with other Christians; giving people an opportunity to serve others, bringing hope to the needy, expanding horizons, and giving people cross cultural experience. It is hard to get involved and usually care about making a difference somewhere unless you have seen it for yourself. And they are better and a less selfish way of spending a summer holiday than just going on a foreign holiday.
Foreign mission trips can change perspectives. Travel and cross cultural experience broadens the mind and helps us to see that God is at work across the world. They can propel people into longer term missions and increase their passion for home mission. It is also good to realise that poverty is not close to becoming 'history'. Worldwide, there is a lot of daily deprivation/sickness/suffering that money shelters us from. It raises questions: Why am I so blessed? What is my duty? How is God calling me to make a difference?
They benefit the sending church by making them more outwardly focused.
When done right, they can impact churches and communities across the world.

Short term mission teams should:

Be God centred. They should seek to honour God. They should seek to bring him glory. They should seek God for his guidance about where/when/what to do instead of just going with a set agenda. God can powerfully use anyone who submits to him so they must go in prayer and seek His annointing. Above all the team should love and be a witness of God's love - acts of service must glorify Him, not the team.
Build relationships between the sending body and the people who live there. I believe that the aim should be one of developing a longer term commitment to future teams/ future missionaries/ financial support as appropriate. Everyone would benefit more from longer term teams (but then they wouldn't be short term teams!). Short term teams can be a springboard to something better. Go with a perspective of what God is doing before, during and after you show up!
Know their purpose. This should be something needs discussion with the local church/ receiving partners. If the purpose is evangelism then the this is essential so that any new believers will not be abandoned when they leave. If the purpose is a service team - like Habitat for Humanity - the team goes to accomplish a task which will benefit local believers. Again best if this is suggested by the local church eg. something they need or which they could not afford themselves. Questions: Will this take work away from local people? Would the community benefit more from the money spent to get the team there? How can the team also work to build relationships?
Be aware of the culture. This is true for any kind of missions. The relationship between the west and the developing world is complicated. Historically and today this is often one of exploitation. Mission teams can change this but also can foster anti-western feeling through insensitivity and arrogance. We have a lot to learn from the developing world church about faith and relying on God.

In summary, short term teams should not be a substitute for a life of mission. However, percieved criticisms of them should not be used as an excuse not to go. If you're thinking about mission (and you should be!) - go on a short term team. Then go long term. There are many different types of short term teams. Go with an established mission organisation who have developed local partnerships. Be inspired by getting to know some missionaries. Click here to read some missionary blogs!

Passion for Life

2008-02-03T23:42:00.000Z

I admit this is a bit of a rant against a new Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill currently being debated in the UK Parliament. I had the privilege of attending a public meeting in Belfast on Thursday night, called the "Passion for Life" tour. The event was run by LIFE, CARE, and RTL and was well attended by local politicians and clergy. The bill is currently going through the House of Lords and will return to the House of Commons for some final amendments before the final vote to pass this as law. Although backed by the government, the bill originates from the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Authority (HFEA), an "independent regulator overseeing fertility treatments and embryo research". I have reservations about much of what the HFEA has recommended to government. It is seemingly (in my opinion) an organisation bereft of any ethical standards and with a distinct lack of respect for human life.

Let me start with what I believe: human life begins at conception. It has to! At that point it is alive by any definition and already completely unique to any other human ever created. There is no other milestone which I can point to where that life suddenly becomes a human being. And I have studied embryology and child development! In my current job I am involved in a lot of antenatal scanning and I recently became a parent. All of which makes this much more personal for me. Because an early embryo/fetus cannot survive without nutrients from its mother does not make it less of a person. Even when born, a baby is completely helpless and dependent on its parents to keep on living. It can't communicate yet but then neither can a person in a coma - that's not a reason to switch off their life support. And it certainly can't defend itself - which is why we must fight for it. Obviously I'm against abortion, but I'm also against experimenting on embryos (currently allowed in the UK up until 14 days).

The argument states that further experimentation on embryos (including creating hybrids and eventually cloning) is "vital" in mankind's fight against disease. Obviously disease causes suffering and alleviating suffering is a good thing. But at what cost? Utilitarian ethics are championed where the end justifies the means. Really? Where does that stop? Human dignity must impose certain moral constraints on medical research. What about performing painful experiments on children or the vulnerable to find a cure for cancer? What about ending someones life to stop their perceived suffering? Would the ghoulish experiments of Nazi doctors be morally justified if they ultimately resulted in discoveries that alleviated human suffering? Is suffering a benchmark of human dignity? Or can suffering ever be good for us?

The holy grail of these experiments has always been the creation of stem cells. Simply put, these are special "source" or "starter" cells which have the ability to grow into different types of adult tissue. The hope is that these will one day be used to treat/ cure diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's disease (although progress on this has been slow). And while an embryo is full of stem cells, it is not the only source. Scientists have recently shown that they can create stem cells from other body cells with out the need to create or destroy embryos. Problem solved! We can now potentially get the same cures from the stem cells but without the ethical dilemmas.

Let me outline a number of new (worrying) elements in this bill as it stands. It will allow:

* The increased use of embryos in stem cell research, despite available alternatives.

* The creation of animal/ human hybrid (up to 50%) embryos . These have recently been promoted in the media to try and change public opinion. Again they are unnecessary and in my opinion, unethical. No one knows where this will lead or what we can create. Are these still human? Are they created in the image of God? As Mark Durkan MLA said this week, this is 'scientific joyriding'!

* Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis allowing created embryos to be screened for any unwanted traits and if not perfect, destroyed prior to implantation. This is an extension of the current discrimination which allows handicapped babies (including minor problems like cleft palate and club foot) in the UK to be aborted up until birth. If it is wrong to discriminate against a disabled person then it is still wrong before they are born.

* The creation of saviour siblings. These are human beings, no longer seen as someone but as something. They are designed with the purpose of harvesting their cells and organs for another child. Where is their human dignity? How will they be affected? What does the future hold for 'designer babies'?

* The removal of "the need for a Father" from law and birth certificates. Already a father has no legal rights over his unborn child but this further undermines fatherhood. Legally this would mean, for example, that if a lesbian couple has a child together by IVF (already possible) that the child can never know who his/her biological father was. While sadly many children grow up without fathers, for the state to make it as if they are unnecessary and never existed will only serve to further undermine the family.

* The liberalisation of the abortion law in the UK includes certification of abortion by only one doctor and allowing abortions to be carried out more easily (eg. in GP surgeries). Another amendment seeks to remove the conscientious objection rights which would bar professionals who do not support abortion from providing information, support, and counselling to women considering whether or not to have an abortion in case they bias a woman's decision.

* Finally, the last and most worrying of all for me is an amendment to the bill which would legally extend the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. This is against the wishes of the majority and all four main political parties here yet would still be legal if this is added to the bill.

So, if you're still reading, please join me in writing to your MP (I've got postcards!) to oppose this bill. And also write to Gordon Brown to ask him to allow MPs a free vote on this ethical issue (rather than a whipped vote with a strong government majority).

Essential links:
* The HFE Bill in full
* A summary of the ethics of this bill (CMF)
* The 'Passion for Life' Campaign
* Lord Alton of Liverpool

Hark! The herald angels sing!

2007-12-24T22:20:00.000Z

I haven't had much free time lately. I want to try and blog about becoming a Dad sometime. Its still so new, awesome and at times overwhelming for us both. As someone said to me recently "the world is suddenly a much more beautiful place and a much more scary place at the same time". New life is so beautiful yet so vulnerable. I got a chance to listen to some carols for the first time today and now I'm really in a Christmas mood. I was struck by how much profound theology and great poetry there is in the old carols. Specifically 'Hark! The Herald Angels Sing' by John Wesley reminded me of the incredible mystery of Christmas.

“Long ago God spoke to the fathers by the prophets at different times and in different ways.” Then He sent His Son. (Hebrews 1:1-3)

Hark! The herald angels sing "Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled"

This is the essence of the gospel. All nations are blessed through it.

Joyful, all ye nations rise. Join the triumph of the skies.
With the angelic host proclaim: "Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing "Glory to the newborn King!"

We celebrate the incarnation. "And the Word (Christ) became flesh (human, incarnate) and tabernacled (fixed His tent of flesh, lived awhile) among us" (John 1:14)

God, the Son, who always was . . .

Christ by highest heaven adored. Christ the everlasting Lord!

. . . came to earth, born of a virgin, 'as man' and 'with man'. It's described in Philippians 2 (theologically 'the Kenosis'). God Himself relinquished his position, 'emptied himself' and obediently submitted himself to the Father's will.

Late in time behold Him come. Offspring of a Virgin's womb.
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see. Hail the incarnate Deity.
Pleased as man with man to dwell, Jesus, our Immanuel.
Hark! The herald angels sing "Glory to the newborn King!"

Jesus, the Christ, came to glorify God . . .

Hail the heaven-born Prince of Peace! Hail the Sun of Righteousness!

. . . to redeem us from sin and death . . .

Light and life to all He brings. Risen with healing in His wings

. . . and to reconcile man to God.

Mild He lays His glory by. Born that man no more may die.
Born to raise the sons of earth. Born to give them second birth.
Hark! The herald angels sing "Glory to the newborn King!"

The carol has become part of the institution and tradition of Christmas. Let's celebrate Jesus, the "newborn King," our "Prince of Peace," "Sun of Righteousness," "Everlasting Lord," "Incarnate Deity," and, best of all, "Immanuel" — "God with us."

He's a thinker!

2007-11-06T20:45:00.000Z

It's a comin'!

2007-10-30T22:08:00.000Z

Something good is worth waiting for. But that's not a message we hear very often. We are not used to waiting for anything. We can walk into a take-away and get a hot meal in minutes. We can buy almost anything we want a short distance from home. With the internet and mobiles we have instantaneous communication so don't have to wait for letters. The time it would take us to reach most remote parts of the world can now be measured in hours. And even our ethics have lost patience. Why wait til marriage for sex? Patience is no longer a virtue. "Live for today!"

What was it like for the people of Israel, waiting hundreds of years for the messiah to come? Trusting a promise, but not knowing when it would be fulfilled. Every year we compress those centuries of hope (and doubt) into the few weeks of advent. Advent, like pregnancy, is a time of waiting. Not just for the baby. For a future hope. The potential of something better.

And pregnancy is a good analogy. It something we have no control over. Not over timing. Not over sustaining the heartbeat. Not over growth. Not over sickness. Not over labour. Only hope in God. It's incredible how a mother's body is perfectly designed as a safe environment for that tiny spark of life to grow into a baby. I understand now that ante-natal care does not really do anything except look for problems. The doctors are a bit like journalists who watch events and report on them but don't really have any control over them. So much of how (and even what) actually happens is still a mystery. And even midwives don't really change the outcome (sorry Mum). They are just there to help mother and baby through what was going to happen anyway. And it all takes nine months - as part of the design! It gives 40 weeks for the mum and dad to get their heads round the miracle and prepare themselves to be parents. It's a long time. I know now that we are different people now than we were in February. We have changed (?matured) through a difficult pregnancy. Many times we prayed that it could all be over. Maybe we weren't ready yet?

I love the irony in the story of Zechariah and Elizabeth. They had lost hope of ever having a child until God showed up and promised them a son. Zechariah and his wife were old and you could forgive him for loosing hope and doubting God. But afterwards, he couldn't speak another word until John was born. Imagine how long those months must have been for him as he learned to listen and wait on God. Finally God came through, like he promised, and Zechariah had a son. Then he spoke. "He is to be called John". So simple and obedient. All that thinking and submitting to God - the wait was over. He praised God and prophesied. The lesson was to trust God and not give up hope. Through that child (John the Baptist) God began to prepare the world for the fulfillment of His plan and the arrival of His son. Everything was about to change.

Michael Card sings,

The Lord God said when time was full
He would shine His light in the darkness
He said a virgin would conceive
And give birth to the Promise
For a thousand years the dreamers dreamt
And hoped to see His love
The Promise showed their wildest dreams
had simply not been wild enough
But the Promise showed their wildest dreams
Had simply not been wild enough.
The Promise was love and the Promise was life
The Promise meant light to the world
Living proof that Yahweh saves
For the name of the Promise was Jesus.

Also watch: The Miracle of Life

Euthanasia

2007-10-24T10:02:00.000+01:00

BBC NI has been doing a series called 'living longer' about issues affecting older people. I'm not sure if it is corporation bias or there are new efforts afoot to change legislation but last week they showed (in my opinion) a fairly biased segment about a depressed woman who wanted the right to end her own life. I not against a fair debate of issues, just impartial journalism. Anyway, here's why I'm strongly against Euthanasia:

The ethics of the debate are over 'the intentional killing of a person because of suffering or illness endured by that person'. There is much overlap between assisted suicide and euthanasia and while the differences are obvious, the objections are similar. Most people arguing for the right to die, are actually arguing for the right to be killed by a doctor. I disagree with this on several levels. What is the job of a doctor if not to protect and prolong life? Also, medical science is always progressing giving us new treatments and helping us to extend life. If, as a society, we start killing people with 'incurable' illnesses, we will deny ourselves these potential cures. I believe that legalising assisted suicide is just a stepping stone to euthanasia. First it becomes ok to stand by while someone kills themselves. Then it is ok to help them do it. Then it becomes ok to do it for them at their request. The bottom of the moral slide ends with society choosing to end the lives of those who are dying, sick, mentally unwell, 'a burden', ?disabled, ?confused, ?old. Where does it stop? What gives us the right to decide which lives have less quality or value?

I find it bizarre that the media is so vocal about preventing teen suicide, yet when a depressed cancer patient expresses the same emotions, it's ok because its 'their right'!? Patients with terminal illnesses are vulnerable. They often suffer from depression and anxiety. They may be confused or disoriented. They often fear the future and further suffering. They worry about being 'a burden'. As with our birth, we have a lack of control over the timing of our own death which is difficult for patients and their families to deal with. It is hard for someone in this difficult situation to be objective. I believe that a civilised society has a responsibility to protect its most vulnerable members. And while it is important to protect individual rights, rarely does anyone commit suicide in isolation. It is a decision which deeply affects friends, family and even healthcare staff.

A terminal illness causes people to evaluate their priorities and reflect on their lives. A horrible diagnosis becomes an opportunity to right wrongs, mend relationships, and rediscover friendships. There is often some time for the patient (and family) to prepare both mentally and spiritually for death. Many discover or rediscover God close to them through such a painful period. I don't want to minimize or trivialise suffering. It is certainly a test of faith and character. I cannot say how I would act or react in someone else's shoes. However, much is written (even in Scripture) about the ability of hardship and suffering to bring maturity of character and a deepening of faith. The palliative period is also an opportunity for family and friends to care for and practically love the dying person. Suffering is part of life and sharing in this suffering is part of what makes us human.

In my experience, the fiercest proponents are often people who knew someone who died in unpleasant circumstances with suboptimal palliative care. I have worked in Oncology and Palliative Care. There is a common misconception that the only option to dying a horrible painful death is to end life prematurely. There have been significant advances in Palliative care in the UK recently along with a brilliant hospice movement which means that there is a third option of good palliative care which gives people 'dignity in death'. Although we can never fully eliminate suffering, and there are still some patients who do not receive optimum care, our aim still should be to improve our standards of care not change the law to eliminate those patients.

Ultimately I am strongly against Euthanasia because I believe that all human life is created in the image of God and is therefore extremely precious. Life itself is not worth less when we grow old, get sick, become confused or loose hope. We must fight to protect the vulnerable and always aim to bring hope to the depressed and compassion to the suffering.

Essential links:
* Care NOT Killing is a UK-based alliance of people aiming to promote palliative care and oppose euthanasia

* Don't Waste Your Cancer by John Piper. A radical view of a cancer diagnosis.

China's children

2007-10-12T00:38:00.000+01:00

I watched a very tragic documentary this week about children abducted and trafficked in China. (Some clips here) Because we're having a baby, I've been thinking a lot about becoming a parent. Is it a human right? What about the right to brothers or sisters?! Or Aunts and Uncles?! And what effect on the world will a nation of 'little emperors' have? China's 'One Child Policy' has a lot of critics and this documentary does not do it any favours. But on further reflection I can't decide which is worse: 1. A policy of stopping people from having children. 2. Large families in many other countries who live in extreme poverty with high infant mortality because they cannot afford good food or health care for so many children. 3. Or the practice of just aborting babies after they've been created if you decide you don't want them. Anyway, I'm incredibly scared and excited about becoming a father and the documentary made me realise again how much we have to be thankful for in this country.

Here are some interesting links:
* Brilliant satire: 10 Ways for Worship Leaders to Hinder the Church.
* Explore some fascinating world statistics.
* Bono on shrinking God
* That Dawkins vs Lennox Debate (Audio)

What's missing?

2007-10-02T00:28:00.000+01:00

I've no good excuses for not blogging in a while. I have however recently discovered the joy of Google Reader so have been doing a lot of reading. Check out my favourite posts in the shared items box on the right. I've been trying to update them regularly.

We went to see a play called "Scenes from the Big Picture" last Thursday. I really enjoyed getting out and seeing some good theatre. It is a play by Owen McCafferty, a Belfast playwright, which portrayed a day in the life of 21 characters in Belfast. The overlapping stories painted a picture of hurting and broken people which, while dramatic and shocking at times, was a pretty accurate insight into Belfast life. I think what struck me most was was what was missing: the lack of hope for any of the characters. The play was devoid of any real joy, and laughter was fueled by alcohol or drugs. It reminded me that when we watch movies/plays/TV we are entering a fictional world created in the mind of the author/playwright which on the surface may look very similar to our own world. But the key difference is that this substitute world leaves out God. I believe that the real world is held together by God. Whether we acknowledge Him or not, He created it and he runs it. He cares about me and the details of my life and ultimately I can rely on Him for the big picture and know that whatever happens, He will redeem this world in the end. Maranatha!

When will I be famous?

2007-08-28T00:28:00.000+01:00

I recently heard Ricky Gervais ranting about fame (the concept not the musical) on the radio. He was critical of modern culture's obsession with celebrity and I have to say that I agree with him. A survey of pre-school children in November showed that almost a third of children (31%) want to be a celebrity when they grow up. The list ranked fame (1st) above some more traditional childhood dreams such as firefighter (2nd), astronaut (4th), train driver (7th), or vet (8th). Ironically, their dream is not even being famous for doing something amazing - that bit doesn't seem to matter - just famous!

I love 'The X Factor' for the stream of predictably talentless and extremely deluded people who are searching for an easy way to the top. At least in theory, the show aims to find talent which otherwise might never have been discovered. Meanwhile, other reality shows continue to churn out increasing numbers of desperate 'celebrities' who are famous for no other reason than they are! These are often people will do anything for that "15 minutes of fame", but at what cost? Fame itself is being devalued. If anyone can achieve it, why is it worth getting? I have nothing against genuinely talented people being famous (eg great sportspeople, musicians, writers, artists, scientists, even some actors/actresses) for something they've accomplished. But when fame becomes an end in itself, it is meaningless.

Many people also covet wealth and power but the desire for fame is different. I think it springs from an exaggeration of a deeper longing in us to be noticed, wanted, and loved. All children compete for this attention from their parents and (I've posted on this before) on one level all of us are competing with each other to be noticed, wanted and loved. Nor is this desire is a recent phenomena, even Jesus' disciples desired fame. Yet studies and perhaps common sense will show us that achieving fame is not, in itself, ultimately satisfying. The Bible teaches that true fulfillment comes, not through glorifying ourselves, but by giving glory to God. When we truly realise that Jesus loves us, accepts us and wants a relationship with us, it reverses our motivation for living from a desire to be worshipped to a desire to worship Him.

Elvis vs MLK

2007-08-16T17:10:00.000+01:00

I think Elvis a fascinating character. He said (and I resonate with), "Rock and roll music, if you like it, and you feel it, you can't help but move to it. That's what happens to me. I have to move around. I can't stand still. I've tried it, and I can't do it". He was the first American pop idol. He fused country and blues to create rock 'n' roll and is credited by many with changing the face of popular music in the 1950s. As John Lennon once said, "Before Elvis, there was nothing". His music bridged cultural and racial divides. He was a singer, entertainer, actor, sex symbol, and soldier while staying an ordinary man with faults and addictions.

But he's not going away! With many of his singles recently re-released, Elvis is now the biggest selling solo artist of all time and his albums continue to sell. BBC Radio ranked him second in a list of the greatest English language singers of the 20th century. Rolling Stone Magazine ranked him third in their 2004 list of the 100 Greatest Artists of all time. There are an estimated 35,000 Elvis impersonators worldwide. He (his estate) is worth more in death than in life, and has now become a sort of mythical quasi-religious figure with even rumours that he faked his own death and is still alive somewhere. His home in Memphis, Graceland has been turned into a shrine with over 600,000 visiting annually. Graceland's ethos is summed up by graffiti on the wall outside: "Elvis=World Peace". Paul Simon sings "I've a reason to believe we all will be received in Graceland" And all still are. This week, an estimated 75,000 fans travelled to Memphis from around the world to mark the 30th anniversary of his death accompanied by scenes which can only be described as worship.

I have to say at this point, I just don't get it! He was charismatic and entertaining. I like the music (although I don't own any albums). I've watched some of his movies and the '68 Comeback Special. I've even been to Graceland, but I just don't get it! I can't figure out why he is so revered around the world.

The day I went to Graceland, I also went to the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis. You might recognise it as the motel where Martin Luther King Jr was shot. I was struck by the similarities. King also died young (aged 39), (Elvis died aged 42), both in the city of Memphis. Both have memorial museums in the city. Both had large followings. But the similarities end there. Elvis Presley's later years were consumed by fame and money and he eventually died as a result of drug misuse. Apart from his great music, his legacy is a nice house and a large collection of jumpsuits. King's legacy was to inspire a revolution in America which changed many lives. While the museum is a memorial to him, it also chronicles the civil rights movement and continues to "inspire participation in civil and human rights efforts globally". He was also a great Christian preacher. I left Graceland with feeling that Elvis death (and largely his life too) was tragic and pointless. But I left the Civil Rights Museum inspired and challenged by Martin Luther King and his message of freedom and equality. I know which legacy I'd rather leave behind.

Sacrificial service

2007-08-05T12:02:00.000+01:00

In the context of our church going through transition, we're at a point where some big decisions need to be made. Who will lead the body? Are we ready to serve/obey? How much of leadership is specific guidance from God and how much is experience/wisdom? How can we be a missional church? Here's another quote:

“Churches imagine that the less they ask or expect of believers, the more popular they will become and the more contented the worshippers will be. The reverse is true. Those who ask little find that the little they ask is resented or resisted; those who ask much find that they are given much and strengthened by the giving. For it is only as lives begin to intersect in sacrificial ways that the church starts to develop its own internal culture, and it is only in this context that the reality of God will both weigh heavily on the church and be preserved in its life.”
David Wells (Author of God in the Wasteland)

Brainwashed?

2007-07-30T12:32:00.000+01:00

So I found myself watching the vacuous drivel that is the Heaven and Earth show before church on Sunday morning. To be honest it is so nauseatingly inclusive that I'm surprised they still call it the 'Heaven and Earth' show for fear of offending people who don't believe in heaven! Anyway, they had found an vocal atheist stand-up comedian whose father is (wait for it) an Anglican vicar! You could hear the excitement in Gloria's voice, gloating in this marvellous incongruity. What did the Dad think? Was he going to condemn his son or be as tolerant and 'accepting' of his son's choice as the rest of us? While he did his best to say that he still loved his son, I was struck by the sadness in his eyes.

It got me thinking about being a father. Realistically, I have a mind of my own to examine what I believe. I was not brainwashed as a child nor have I the power to 'abuse' my own children into accepting or rejecting my faith. I believe that it is only through God's grace that anyone comes to have a relationship with him. All I am left with is to be (like my parents) a faithful witness to the gospel in front of my kids and the rest is up to God.

Democracy

2007-07-23T23:52:00.000+01:00

Does it matter that the recent Nigerian elections were apparently a shambles? Are Fatah or Hamas the real palestinean leaders? Are Maliki and Karzai 'puppet presidents'? Should we care? Is democracy the best form of government? Or is democracy (as Winston Churchill said) "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"!

I have several problems with (even non corrupt) democracy as a form of government:

The people are not always right! Just because everyone has a choice, doesn't mean they know the right thing to do or even what's best for them. Ignorance, folly, and propaganda mean that a truly democratic majority vote does not necessarily equal "right". Wise leaders must be able, when needed, to temper or even defy the will of the people for the good of the country. With some issues (for example national security) the government will have access to private information and may have to make unpopular decisions. Controversial decisions may be in the best interest of the country (eg. GM crops, road pricing or nuclear energy) but would not be supported in a vote.
Democracy must be flawed in order to even work. No country has a fully democratic system as giving all people a choice on every decision would be practically unworkable. Stable democracy as we know it requires the vast majority of decisions to be taken by elected representatives and civil servants. This can lead to apathy and poor voter turnout. However, this may be a good thing! (see my first point)
Democratically elected politicians have to please the voters. Joe Public is generally pro-local-economy and pro-government-spending but anti-taxes and anti-foreigners. He will generally vote for the politician who shares (or pretends to share) his particular bias. This delivers lousy government - like in Northern Ireland where this has led to single issue politics, neglecting other important issues and the country suffers.
The majority vote may lead to discrimination towards minorities. This is especially true if the minority group is underrepresented in government and can occur in urban vs. rural, public vs. private sector, as well as with racial/tribal/geographical inequalities (common in African democracies).
Democratic governments often only think in the short term. They might look for popular "quick fixes" which will get votes at the expense of long term development. For example, taking out a massive loan in order to cut taxes and increase public spending would be popular now but unfair on future governments.
National democracy cannot handle international issues like global environment, free trade, international crises, etc.
Even democracy has been tainted by celebrity (Example: Arnold Swarchenegger). Increased media attention in modern politics leads to more dumbing down and candidates who think that being on TV is, by itself, an achievement. The media has its own biases and can influence who wins an election. People are influenced by media to vote for the more charismatic candidate rather than the best candidate. Example: London mayor. Thanks to a free press, even the government gets drawn into "spinning" stories. This also means that our elected political leaders are forced to react to the issues that the unelected press moguls choose to pursue rather than following a pro-active agenda.
The candidate with the most money usually wins the election and those without access to such funding are either excluded from the process or forced to compromise with wealthy backers in order to secure financial support.
(In a party system)
The voter cannot vote for or against a particular issue but only for a party or candidate and is therefore forced to support all or none of their policies.
In a system with more than two parties, a party which represents less than a majority of the electorate can gain power.

Things I do like about democracy:

In a stable and peaceful society, it works.
It keeps the people happy because they generally believe that they have a voice and are encouraged to participate.
Separate branches of government check and balance each other in constructive debate.
Minority groups have a right and the ability to shape policy.
Bad leaders can be (and are) voted out of power.
It preserves and promotes civil liberties including freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion, etc.

I do believe in democracy but also that forcing democracy upon people is undemocratic. In theory, I think that rule by an enlightened and benevolent dictator would be a better system, but I know that power corrupts and this would be impossible to create or maintain. So until we come up with something better I agree with Mr Churchill!

Suicide

2007-07-08T22:18:00.000+01:00

My current job in psychiatry involves a lot of bargaining with people contemplating suicide. Anyway, it's got me thinking about suicide a lot recently. (I know what that sounds like - not really!) I wondered whether to blog about this or not. Doctors used to be discouraged from asking depressed patients about suicidal thoughts for fear of putting it in their heads! But current advice is that its always better to ask!

Suicide is one of those things which is a big part of our psyche, although its never really talked about. Phrases such as 'assisted suicide', 'suicide pacts', 'copycat suicides', 'suicide notes', or 'suicide bombers' immediately conjure up opinions and emotions. Here's the tutorial bit: Suicide is now more popular than ever with rates increasing by 60% worldwide over the last 45 years. The World Health Organization estimates that (again worldwide) approximately one million people (16 per 100,000) kill themselves annually. That's one death every 40 seconds! It's now in the top three leading causes of death in those aged 15-44 (both sexes). People are running out of hope and it's affecting all parts of society. A recent Royal College of Psychiatrists questionnaire suggested that 20% of junior doctors have considered suicide over the "deeply flawed" application system for training posts!

Suicide rates are highest in the former Soviet Bloc countries, rising dramatically after the fall of communism, Even Northern Ireland is experiencing a 'suicide epidemic', apparently another 'legacy of the troubles'. Our steadily-increasing annual numbers have nearly doubled in the last few years. There have been many reasons postulated for this rise. These include changing gender role expectations, increasing unemployment, poverty, alcohol and drug misuse and a breakdown in traditional family structures with a lack of social support. For some communities, 'the troubles' gave people a common sense of purpose and an identity to defend which may explain why peacetime and a loss of these things have boosted suicide figures in these areas. Some attempts are a "cry for help" from people who think they can no longer cope with the pressures of life rather than a genuine desire to die. Tragically, these people often succeed. Women attempt suicide more often than men but (in my experience) actually want to kill themselves less often. Men attempt it less often but more violently and are more likely to succeed.

The predominant view of modern society is that suicide is a mental illness. While it is more common in all forms of mental illness (especially depression), this is only part of the answer. Psychological contributing factors include poor coping skills, fear, pain, social/parental/job pressures, trauma, and grief. Not to mention the spiritual battle of depression generally ignored by modern medicine. Without getting into the spiritual ethics of suicide, Jesus said "The thief comes to steal, kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full". (John 10:10) Interestingly, even the French existentialist philosophers, Camus and Sartre, who did not believe in anything beyond this life, saw suicide as a rejection of freedom. They argued that instead of fleeing the absurd meaninglessness of life, we should embrace life passionately. I disagree with the philosophy but I echo that sentiment. No matter what we've done or what life has thrown us, Jesus loves us and offers life, hope, joy and a purpose. Giving up is never the best option.

Jesus again: "Are you tired? Worn out? Burned out on religion? Come to me. Get away with me and you'll recover your life. I'll show you how to take a real rest. Walk with me and work with me—watch how I do it. Learn the unforced rhythms of grace. I won't lay anything heavy or ill-fitting on you. Keep company with me and you'll learn to live freely and lightly." (Matt 11:28-30, The Message)

Bart Campolo

2007-07-06T22:52:00.000+01:00

I love that Summer Madness has become Ireland's largest Christian festival. It's come a long way from the early days in Gosford and now boasts a wide range of top seminars, speakers and bands. Also, the introduction of StreetReach allows kids to 'be Jesus' to communities in Belfast. But I was disappointed that Bart Campolo (son of Tony Campolo) was chosen as the main speaker this year – mainly because I don't like his theology. He recently wrote a controversial article in The Journal of Student Ministries called "The Limits of God's Grace", a response to a letter from a 9-year old girl who had been raped. Admittedly, questions like this are among the hardest to answer but his personal theodicy borders on heresy. While it is not wrong to ask questions (even of God), Campolo goes further by giving some disconcerting answers.

He says "I don’t hate God because I don’t believe God is fully in control of this world yet . . . I believe He is always doing the best He can, within the limits of human freedom, which even He cannot escape" and "I don’t suppose He knows or controls everything that is going to happen". This theology (like his father's) could be described as 'open theism' and is far removed from what I believe the Bible teaches about God. Campolo believes that God's sovereignty and omniscience are limited by his creation of humans as free agents. Also that God is "completely good, entirely loving, and perfectly forgiving", that suffering is caused by Satan but will eventually be redeemed by God, who "is doing all that He can to overcome evil and will utterly triumph in the end". He also purports universal salvation although apparently without stopping "believing in the punishment of hell, but only to stop believing that such punishment has no end. The end of hell, like everything else, is the grace of God". With some degree of pride he states that "I can not worship any God who is not at least as compassionate as I am".

While I also would take issue with his position on abortion, gay marriage and population control, his view on the authority of the Bible worries me the most. A statement (from his attempt to answer the resulting storm of protest created by the first article) reads "I study and preach from the Bible not because I think it is clear, coherent, consistent, inerrant, or divinely dictated word for word, but rather because both history and my own experience have convinced me that our God consistently chooses to speaks through the Bible, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the fact that it is none of those things".

There is no doubt that Bart Campolo works hard to change (and even bring Jesus into) difficult lives on the streets of Philadelphia. However when faced with choosing to believe in limiting my own free will or the ultimate sovereignty of God, I must defer to my creator who reigns with justice and mercy.

Gospel of fulfilment

2007-07-05T22:32:00.000+01:00

I read a great quote this week:

“The contemporary church generally proclaims a gospel of fulfilment. This gospel is influenced by the non-Christian psychologist Abraham Maslow and his hierarchy of needs. His point is that people move from basic survival needs to higher needs of actualising their full potential to be and do all that they desire. The problem with Maslow's theory is simple but significant. He establishes each individual human being as their own god, on their own mission, pursuing their own glory. In this framework, I do not exist for God but rather God exists for me. For example, if the Lord's Prayer were rewritten according to Maslow's priorities, it would read "My kingdom come, my will be done, for mine is the kingdom, power, and glory. . ."

The contemporary church's gospel of fulfillment essentially accepts Maslow's faulty hierarchy and teaches that God exists to enable each of us to actualize our full potential. So in this therapeutic gospel, you use Jesus to achieve your ends, which can vary from health to wealth to emotional contentment, or whatever personal vision you have for your own glory. What hinders the fulfilment of our full potential is not that we are sinners but rather that we don't love ourselves enough and don't have enough self-esteem and positive thinking. God exists to worship us, by telling us how lovable we are. In this gospel, the cross is an echo of my own great worth, since God found me so lovable and so valuable that he was willing to die for me so that I could love myself, believe in myself, and achieve my full glory.”
Mark Driscoll. Confessions of a Reformissional Rev

I think that speaks for itself. This kind of self-help gospel devalues both God and Christ's atonement for us. The purpose of Jesus' incarnation, death and resurrection was to bring glory to God by showing us His character and by reconciling man to Him. The 'covenant of redemption' was fulfilled by Jesus (the Son), bringing glory to God (the Father) through his work on earth, and by the Father, glorifying the Son in turn by giving Him the chosen and raising Him up to reign. The old gospel was firstly about sin and our need for righteousness, while the new (false) gospel makes Jesus irrelevant and aims to satisfy me by giving me good self esteem, personal fulfillment and emotional well-being. While we know that "nothing can separate us from the love of God" (Rom 8:38-39), Jesus did not offer his disciples an easy ride. In fact he promised them "in this world you will have trouble" (John 16:33). My purpose in life should be to worship Him by living a holy life that will bring Him glory. May God save me from chasing after a false gospel.

Who am I?

2007-06-28T22:00:00.000+01:00

I'm aware that as someone with a (now public) opinion on things I believe it is important to state up-front my worldview and writing biases and to give a reason for the hope that I have. This started as a small list but has grown as I have tried to define more clearly what I believe and who I am. Much of this declaration of my self and my faith is purely for my benefit and may challenge the reader but is not meant to judge or offend. This is also liable to change, be revised and probably be expanded.

I am a Husband, Dad-to-be, Pilgrim, MK/TCK. I graduated from QUB in 2004 as a medical doctor. I believe that medicine is an art and science and a vocation. My career goal is simply to end up doing a job which, if I wasn't doing it, no one else would be. I married my best friend, Karen, in 10/05. She's a good lawyer so I don't loose sleep over perhaps being sued! I attended secondary school in three different continents and although I live in Belfast now, part of my heart will always be African. I have a wide global worldview with an African and European perspective. I am not patriotic. I love to exercise my mind and am always critical of my world/culture/beliefs. I have an open mind and know that my worldview tomorrow may change. I aim to know myself.

My Faith. I believe in the existence of the soul. I believe that God exists and rewards those who earnestly seek Him. I don't believe that anyone can scientifically or philosophically prove this but I don't need them to - that's why its called faith. I am compelled to believe because I am gripped by the profundity and beauty of grace as revealed by Jesus. My faith is not a get out of jail free card, a fashion accessory, or a security blanket. My raison d'être is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever and I believe that all of life can be (should be) lived as worship. My journey of faith is a deepening relationship with a the person of God. I agree with the principle of an ongoing 'open source' discussion of theology. I don't have all the answers. I love knowledge and reason but pray for wisdom. I believe in the objectivity of truth, value and knowledge. I believe in the truth, authority and inerrancy of the Bible as well as spiritual revelation through the Holy Spirit today. I believe that Jesus is eternal God and the only way to God. I believe that He became man, lived without sin, died as a substitute for sinners, and resurrected in triumphant victory over Satan, sin and death. He is now exalted as King of Kings and Lord of Lords and will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe we should always respect and honour the history of the church without getting stuck in the past. The current label on my theology box is (mostly) reformed evangelical but I like to think outside the box. I have a heart for relational mission and for the materially poor. I attend a post-charismatic, 'emerging' but not 'emergent' church. I believe church must contextualise to communicate. I support cultural 'relevant-ism' that doesn't water-down doctrine or succumb to cultural 'relativism'. I subscribe to some creeds including the modern Evangelical Alliance Basis of Faith, and the older Apostles' Creed, Athanasian Creed, and Nicene Creed. I also concur with the Heidleberg Catechism. I believe in both (but cannot fully explain) man's free will and God's irresistible grace. I believe in justification sola fide but that faith without action is dead. I believe in the power of love. I believe in the value of spiritual discipline including prayer, fasting and meditation. I believe in miracles, original sin, heaven, a literal hell, the reality of the devil and spiritual warfare, the Trinity, the Virgin birth, substitutionary atonement, covenant theology, and predestination. However with all areas of faith I admit there's a plank in my own eye and I often have many more questions than solid answers.

I believe that God is sovereign over every part of life. I believe that our universe shows evidence of an intelligent designer. I also believe in an old earth and acknowledge some scientific evidence for evolution. I believe that science will only ever explain some of what I believe, but there is no conflict between my faith and science. I believe that our world belongs to God and that he has entrusted us with the responsibility of sustaining and caring for it. I believe that this world is not my home but also in abundant eternal life which begins here on earth. I believe that creativity, beauty, imagination, art, music, dance, laughter, and poetry are glimpses of the future 'new heaven and new earth'. I know that the greatest pleasures in life come from simple things. I believe that godliness with contentment is great gain. I believe that moments of happiness, sorrow, joy, suffering, affection and gratitude emphasize our humanity and open our eyes to God. I believe that suffering is inevitable but this does not lead me to conclude that God is either weak or uncaring. I believe in investing in personal relationships. I believe there is potential in everyone to to achieve greatness but also a great inherent capacity in all of us for evil. I believe what a person is in private is closer to their true character and that this cannot be divorced from their public face.

I believe that men and women are different yet complementary. I believe a stable society is built on marriage and the family (although its ok to be single). I believe that sex in marriage is holy and beautiful, that True Love Waits and that marriage is for life. I believe that no man is an island and that we find fulfillment and satisfaction in family, friends and the wider world in which we have an influence. I believe I can learn from great men and women of faith but I hate the current cult of celebrity. I respect age and believe that wisdom comes from maturity. I like the sentiment of carpe diem but also have dreams and ambitions to seize my future. I believe that life is short and extremely fragile. I love life but do not fear death, only dying. I believe in the sanctity of human life, created (different from animals) in the image of God. I am pro-life in every meaning of that phrase. I believe that human life begins at conception and while there may be good medical outcomes from stem cell research I disapprove of experimentation on embryos. I support regulated animal testing. I believe in care not killing. I believe in the principle (although always not the practice) of capital punishment. I also believe prison should be more about rehabilitation than retribution. I believe in the discipline and dignity of work that brings fulfillment and gives purpose to life. I believe that generosity and altruism bring their own rewards.

I believe in justice, tolerance, the principles of democracy and man's right to be wrong, however I have yet to be convinced that democracy is always the best form of government. Politically I am slightly right of centre on most but not all issues. I believe all men are created equal. I believe in individual freedom and the right to privacy and I worry that our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. I support strict gun control legislation. I agree with the separation of church and state as long as there is freedom of religion. I believe that individuals have rights to individual freedom coupled with responsibilities to society to behave ethically. I believe capitalism works because humans are basically selfish. I am not communist but believe in making both poverty and wealth 'history'. I believe that the planet is warming but suspect that this may be independent of CO2 emissions. I support the welfare state (despite its problems). I don't think the NHS is in as bad a state as everyone makes out. I agree with progressive taxation. I admit I thought there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

I believe that travel and reading broaden the mind. I believe in gravity! I believe in the power of positive thinking and that self belief is somehow a factor in success. I also believe in self fulfilling prophecies. I believe that all I really need to know about life, I learned in kindergarten. I believe that if you eat something you don't like 12 times, you can acquire a taste for it. I voted yes in the Good Friday Agreement. I would support a new flag for Northern Ireland and a move away from single issue party politics. I was a Chelsea fan before the Russian Revolution. I feel let down by Lawrie Sanchez. I don't believe in chiropractors and think that homeopathy is a load of rubbish. I also think that both drug companies and oil companies are born evil.

My Personality. I am an optimist. I'm not a perfectionist but I like things to be right! I am a procrastinator and usually fairly laid back. I am usually more introverted than extroverted. I like organisation (preferably out of the spotlight) but am not scared of leading. I trust my judgement before my emotions. I like a challenge. I aim to keep my word.

The Silence of God

2007-06-24T19:12:00.000+01:00

(Zion said) "The LORD has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me."
(God's reply) "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! See, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands"
Isaiah 49:14-16 (NIV)

God seems very quiet to us right now. We can do nothing but cling on to verses like these. That's the real meaning of faith. My wife, Karen is vomiting again. Both of us are wondering if this will be her sixth admission to hospital with hyperemesis in 3 months. There will be an end to this but it still seems a long way off. Not getting any answers to our prayers and we're tired of asking "why?"

Blood Diamond

2007-06-22T13:12:00.000+01:00

Spoiler Warning (ie. don't read unless you've seen the film)
I enjoyed Blood Diamond and would recommend it. Set during the Sierra Leone civil war in the 1990s it focuses on the story of 'conflict' or 'blood diamonds' sold to finance the rebel war. Its violent and thrilling but also informative and challenging.

But I have several problems with it. Like many Hollywood films about Africa, this is really a movie about white people in Africa. Danny Archer (Leonardo Di Caprio) is the Zimbabwean mercenary looking for a quick buck. Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) is the American investigative journalist on a mission. Their story against the backdrop of nameless black faces slaughtering and being slaughtered. Largely one dimensional inhuman characters, these are the faces we are used to seeing in concentration camps (as Maddy says "1 min on CNN between the sport and the weather"). Every black person in the film is either a victim or a monster. This is the same director (Zwick) who made The (laughable) Last Samurai the story of a white guy (Tom Cruise, who else?) who singlehandedly saves the mighty Japanese empire and ancient traditions from themselves. On one hand I'm supposed to be appalled by the slaughter of innocent black people (directly funded by my diamonds) while being entertained on the other hand by the seemingly invincible Di Caprio also killing like a regular action hero. The film does contain a chilling but accurate portrayal of the indoctrination and use of child soldiers, a practice common in Africa's wars.

The exception is the token noble African, Solomon Vande (Djimon Hounsou). His ticket to getting his life and family back together is to find the diamond he buried and while Di Caprio spends the movie obsessed with the gem, Solomon is really searching for his son, Dia (-mond "get it"). He is played well by Hounsou (who plays virtually the same person in Amistad) but the character is a gormless, bland and naive man (except for the scene where he kills the rebel army commander) who is rescued by the resourceful and charismatic white guy.

The main character, Danny Archer, is the likable bad guy who makes the right decision in the end (although admittedly only after he knows he's dying). Mukiwa, the "white boy in Africa" who (according to the director) has more emotional investment in Africa than any of the Africans in the film. He is told by the (white) colonel that the dirt in Africa is red because it is soaked with their blood and that they can never leave because "Africa runs through their veins", foreshadowing both their bloody deaths. There is less of an effort to point out the amount of black African blood split on the same soil.

Jennifer Connelly’s character, Maddy Bowen, exists only to spout statistics and educate us on what is going on. As one review I read put it, she's like one of those characters you bump into in a video game who you have to talk to and get essential information so you can advance to the next level. She gets her story and helps to save one man and his family by getting them out of the horror of Africa to the safety of London. Everyone is happy and those bad diamond guys get their comeuppance. Everyone gets a warm feeling inside but it doesn't solve any problems? The love story was marginal and (thankfully) didn't get the usual Hollywood treatment.

As I've said, this is a story about 'the West' in West Africa, aimed at a largely (white) first world audience. We buy the diamonds. We keep Africa in poverty through debt and unfair trade. Maddy says "People back home wouldn't buy a diamond ring if they knew it had cost someone a hand," Says who? Again well intentioned but who cares? Now we do know. What difference does it make? Although, the ongoing exploitation of Africa is a story which needs to be told, the cynic in me says this film is more of the same. Hollywood exploiting the African story for box office accolades.

My opinion on Blogs

2007-06-20T17:08:00.000+01:00

Things I don't like about blogs:

I don't have time to write one! Like many bloggers before me (there are 200 million abandoned blogs on the Internet), I'll likely start with a flourish but am unlikely to keep up quality or consistency.
Churning out blogs at speed may (and often does) lead to 'dumbing down' and a lack of depth/research/interest in subsequent blogs. Many end up writing for the sake of it, without anything to say. Quick, brainstormed ideas are prized over craft and compelling prose. Blurbs of thoughts in the present but perhaps not relevant for the future.
They are unnecessarily public. A diary or journal entry blog is a private experience, a one sided conversation, a feeling or thought which should stay private. Writing it down may be therapeutic but writing it in public is often unhelpful at best, and at worst narcisisstic. It can be damaging for the person writing it or the person they are writing about. The responsibility of keeping sensitive information private should outweigh the catharsis of writing.
Conversely, they are dangerously private. Unless the author is known to the reader, a blogger is essentially anonymous, hiding behind an online identity. This is different from a newspaper or a magazine article because an online blogger can say anything without any sort of censorship or editing process. If I reading a newspaper, magazine or journal, I know what to expect. For example, The Guardian (newspaper) will give me a liberal, left of centre viewpoint on issues while The Daily Mail will present a conservative, tabloid, Middle English view. Even comments will be moderated. Facts in (eg. medical) journals can be trusted because they are peer-reviewed by experts. However, in the 'blogosphere' there is often no way of even knowing a blogger's viewpoint or if they have any authority to write on a given subject. Blog opinions are presented as fact so that accuracy (and therefore truth) is dependent on the blogger. Blogging is democracy at its most extreme: "I have the right to speak and be heard". Not because I've earned it or because I have any credentials. Just because I think. Very Descartes. This culture of incredible choice also allows us (the reader) to choose to read (out of the big picture) only the bits of religion/philosophy/etc that we like/understand/agree with. Everyone is a self proclaimed pundit but the danger is that the value of that content and authority is reduced to zero.

Things I like about blogs:

They provide a current, up-to-date analysis of the world at one moment in time.
They are non linear. Unlike paper, blog text takes on its own identity of clips and hyperlinks allowing the reader a deeper understanding and enjoyment from the text. It is not defined by the amount of space it takes up. At times, marvellously chaotic, you don't know what's coming up next or where the next link will take you.
They allow people a voice. A blog is an individual creative freedom of expression which is independent of its audience. There is a theraputic freedom to enjoy writing for the sake of it.
They provide a unique insight into the mind of the author.

Hotel Rwanda

2006-12-02T12:41:00.000Z

As one review I read put it, "this is one of those films which gives you nightmares but you should see it anyway". It made me cry. I think my perspective on this may be unusual. As my heart is part African, I could not look at Rwandans murdering themselves and think "how awful". I was convicted to search my own heart. These were not stupid robots or bloodthirsty savages. These were ordinary people, growing up in a tough and violent society where life is cheap. Where all families loose several children to preventable diseases. Where people die frequently from preventable road accidents. Where young girls commonly die in childbirth. Where millions live daily with disease, extreme poverty and death. These killers were men with families to protect. Men with babies at home with big tummies and bowed legs who cry because they are hungry. Men who toil all daylight hours to scrape a living. Men who are angry with the corruption of their own leaders. Men who are bombarded with pictures of a 'better', opulent, hedonistic western lifestyle daily on their TV and advertising boards. Men who dream of one day getting out and creating a better life for the ones they love. Jesus says that the roots of murder are in hate. But hate can begin with something more benign, even resentment against people we perceive to be different or who we see as a threat to our way of life (these attitudes are common in any society, including Belfast). History (and Belgium) created a situation where two tribes, living side by side for hundreds of years, now had claims to one European-created country. Tribes with ancient grievances and land disputes on both sides. Previous unresolved minor violent clashes creating resentment between neighbours - which festered over time into hate. At the right moment and with the right lies ("this is war, not murder") these men rose up to fight for what they see to be their rights, their family, their culture, their homeland. This has the potential to happen anywhere, and as history shows us, it frequently does. Rwanda, like most of Africa, was a country without a strong police force (or at least a neutral police force) to intervene between rival factions with water cannons and tear gas. Violence and murder, without repercussions, were too easy. And once that line is crossed by an individual, hatred and anger only deepens, in an attempt to justify murder. Once such a society becomes lawless and desensitised, genocide becomes inevitable.

Aside from the excuses and reasons for it, this was a great evil. Dallaire himself said that he shook hands with the devil. However, as with the Jewish holocaust, let's not kid ourselves. This same evil lurks in each of our sinful hearts! The danger with such genocide memorials is that I think "OK - so this is what evil looks like" or "It's terrible that there are such evil people in the world". No! That potential is part of me, but for God's grace in my life and my society! It is in our nature as humans to hate and all of us have the capacity to destroy life. I cried last night for the injustice of the world. I cried for the unfair dichotomy which exists where rich meets poor. I cried for the depravity potential I recognise in myself - to hate, abuse, torture, rape, kill or even just stand back and allow evil to triumph. I cried for one good man who also wanted the best for his family. A man who, partly because of his cross-cultural marriage, was less prejudiced and had broader horizons. A man who acted out of love. (nb. the ability to love is also part of what makes us human although curiously this too can arouse passions which can be twisted into a motivation for evil). I cried for a man powerless to fight injustice in the face of violence yet who finds the strength to do what the rest of the world would not. I cried for a man powerless to act like a man and fight for his own rights/family/life. This is a film about the best and worst of mankind. About security and insecurities. I cried from deep in my own fear and inadequacy. Do I have what it takes? Would I have the courage to do the right thing if my life (or lives of my family) was on the line? Am I man enough? How far am I ready to go for those I love?

Tsunami

2006-09-02T13:37:00.000+01:00

I was not here when you spoke the world into being.

When you created all from nothing.
Your ways are not man's ways.
Far beyond understanding, your waves indiscriminate in the extreme
Fishermen and surfers. Young and old. Rich and poor. Guilty?
Who can stand before your mighty onslaught?

Tsunami, a nightmare wedding guest who scatters colourful bodies like confetti.
Packed carriages smashed, like a model railway, brushed aside in sibling rage.
Like cold soup on an king's palate, families swallowed and spat out.
Children tossed aside; unwanted dolls from Neptune's pram.
Arms and legs jut from the swamps like a vision of hell.
Love torn assunder by an angry, unfeeling wall.

Horrible accident or fair judgment?
Did you not see? Or did you look away?

But you alone are God and I worship. Forgive my rebellion. You give and take away. Surely you are terrible in your vengeance.

How long O Lord?

(Written in 02/2005)

Rhythm

2006-05-26T15:46:00.000+01:00

rhythm (rĭTH'um) n. is movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions. rhythm is the daily rise and fall of the tides. rhythm is the patterned, recurring alternations of contrasting elements of sound or speech. rhythm is the seasons sliding from summer to winter and back. rhythm is the pattern of music in time. rhythm is essential to all poetry and some prose. rhythm is the pattern or flow of spoken sound. rhythm is the arrangement of stressed and unstressed syllables or long and short syllables. rhythm is the sun rising and setting. rhythm in a book or a film is created by the repetition of words, phrases, incidents, themes, images, and symbols. rhythm is a regular or harmonious pattern created by lines, forms, and colors in painting, sculpture, and other visual arts. rhythm is procedure or routine of regularly recurring elements, activities, or factors. rhythm in medicine is movement or variation characterized by the regular recurrence or alternation of different quantities or conditions. rhythm is my heartbeat.

If you look at the word rhythm for long enough it stops looking like a real word.

Grace

2006-05-26T09:40:00.000+01:00

All of us have an inbuilt sense of fairness. This is obvious in kids from around the age of 5 that they know whether they are being treated justly. "Why does he get to stay up later than me?" "She got a bigger bit!" We also have an inbuilt sense of competition. Darwinists claim this is the driving force behind evolution. A 'natural selection' that drives us to survive over our neighbour.
Competition pervades every part of being human. We constantly compare ourselves to others. How we look, act, think. What we do, how much we earn, what car we drive. Is it just genetic? Evolution? Is is psychological? From childhood wounds driving our insecurity? Do we just long for acceptance? Admiration? Affection? Love?

It's this constant competition that makes us criticise others. Anything to make us feel better about ourselves. To set us apart (or above) the crowd. I've been reading a great book called "Searching for God Knows What" this week. It was talking about the same thing - as if we're caught in that old moral dilemma of the lifeboat with less life jackets than passengers. Someone has to decide who gets the life jackets. Whose life is more valuable? The point is the same - that we all live as if we are trying to prove that our life is worth something. That we have something that the next person doesn't which makes us superior.

This is why the concept of grace is so hard to get. It's in direct conflict with our human nature. There's nothing we can do to earn it. There is no logic to it. Nothing that can explain why it is offered to me and not the next person. It's not fair.