Beyond the Grave.....

My mind has turned recently, in an entirely non-morbid way, to one of the biggest topics of all: life and death.

The boast of heraldry, the pomp of pow'r,
And all that beauty, all that wealth e'er gave
Awaits alike th'inevitable hour.
The paths of glory lead but to the grave.

So wrote Thomas Gray over 260 years ago in his ‘Elegy Written in a County Churchyard’.

He was entirely right. Regardless of how we live our lives they end in the same way: all paths alike lead to the grave. Much ink has been spilled and many words have been spoken, reflecting on what might lie beyond. With various degrees of certainty heaven, hell, bliss or oblivion have been promoted by preachers, philosophers and magazine columnists. Martyrs have endured the flames, suicide bombers have strapped on their vests of destiny and quieter souls have bowed their heads in prayer, each in the hope of a greater life after death.

What lies beyond the final closing of our eyes none can know for certain. Faith promises a gateway to eternal life, scepticism suggests an end of the road. Either way, there is nothing I can do about the reality of it. No amount of faith will alter my final demise if all that I am comes to and end at death; no amount of scepticism will obliterate God if the presence of God awaits me. How strange it is then that I should ever allow myself to treat the question of life after death as if it were a fantastically difficult version of a Rubik’s Cube that I ought to be able to solve if only I were to think long enough and hard enough about it.

All of this suggests that I ought to concentrate on something that I can do something about: life before death.

‘God is love’ wrote St John; ‘love is all you need’ wrote John Lennon.  If St John is right so too is John Lennon. What this means for me is that I can spend considerably less time thinking about the other side of the grave and considerably more time determining how I will live this side of the grave.

As Thomas Gray observed centuries before the advent of our empty celebrity culture, nothing of substance will remain of our fame, riches or ambition. What might remain on earth, if we are truly blessed, will be lasting memories in a few hearts of love that we gave and love that we shared.  To hell with the rest……

The Great Bible Fraud

This week, I came across a group of people offering passers-by a free booklet entitled. ‘What the Bible Really Teaches’.  I was hit with a mixture of anger, sorrow and irritation.  The individuals looked perfectly pleasant and, as far as I could tell, had no idea that they were engaging in spiritual fraud. Harsh words, I know, but I believe justified.

In claiming that the Bible teaches anything and that they were able to discern what that teaching is, the group of evangelists were unjustifiably crediting both themselves and the Bible with accomplishments and qualities that do not exist.

In the first instance, it ought to be blatantly obvious that there are myriads of interpretations of the Bible; for any group to believe that they have got it entirely right is stunningly arrogant and narrow-minded. Of course, everyone is entitled to argue the rightness of their interpretation and the wrongness of everyone else’s, but can we really take seriously such a grandiose claim?  It would be merely ridiculous if not for the fact that many vulnerable people constantly fall prey to such absolute claims and end up in bondage to others, afraid to question whatever orthodoxy is being peddled in case they fall foul of whatever version of God is being promoted.

Even more pernicious than a group claiming to have all the truth is the idea that the Bible teaches anything.  The Bible is not a person.  If we say that the Bible ‘teaches’ we enter the realms of idolatry (or for those who don’t believe in God, the realms of fanciful fundamentalism).  If God exists, as I believe God does, and if God has revealed God-self in and through some of the experiences of the ancient Israelites, culminating in the great self-revelation in Jesus, it is God who teaches us, not the Bible.

This is not simply splitting hairs.  It seems to be part of human nature to want both to take short-cuts to achieving what we most desire while, if at all possible, wielding as much power and influence over others as we can.  I believe that the Bible contains invaluable truths and that we can learn invaluable lessons from God as we read it, but it is not something out of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings; it has no ‘magic’ or ‘power’ in itself. With genuine respect to my atheist and agnostic friends, I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that God desires us to seek and to discover the truth; it does not come pre-packed on a plate or in a tome and it is certainly not restricted to the pages of a booklet (or the utterances of preachers) claiming to know ‘What the Bible Really Teaches’

Is Islam 'Spawned in Hell'?

Controversy has surrounded a Belfast preacher’s comments that Islam ‘is a doctrine spawned in hell’.  Northern Ireland’s First Minister appeared to support him, then apologised to Northern Ireland’s Muslim community for ‘any offence caused’. Moral outrage has been bounced around like a beach-ball by social commentators, politicians, church leaders and the press. The preacher is under hate-crime investigation by the police.

While I disagree both with the comments expressed and their proclamation during a service of worship, it is crucially important that we think through our reaction to this incident. In the United Kingdom and most of the rest of Europe the right to criticise or to disparage any system of thought is upheld.  The relevant piece of legislation states:

‘Nothing….. prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system’.

What is not permissible in law is to attack people who adhere to a particular religious, political or philosophical viewpoint.  Again, the relevant laws state:

‘A person is guilty of an offence if, with intent to cause a person harassment, alarm or distress, he— (a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or (b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress’.

‘A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if— (a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or (b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby’.

The balance is carefully set and ought to be maintained with equal care: people are protected; religions and philosophies are not.

The Belfast preacher, also spoke in unacceptable terms of Muslims not being trustworthy and of there being Muslim ‘cells’ (similar to IRA cells) throughout Great Britain, equating Muslims with extreme Islamists. For these comments he is, rightly, under police investigation.

Is Islam ‘spawned in hell? I do not believe so, but preachers are entitled to say so if that is what they think. Are Muslims untrustworthy? No more and no less than any other group of people. Are they terrorists?  This is a preposterous and dangerous thing to say and to encourage people to embrace this thought deserves censure.  Paradoxically, however, some of those censuring the Belfast preacher have come dangerously close to engaging in hate-speech themselves; genuine tolerance, it seems, doesn’t come easily…..

The Thought-Police are Alive and Well

Two well-publicised incidents of private conversations-made public have caught my attention: the Chief Executive of the Premier League’s sexist emails and the Prince of Wales’ comments likening Putin to Hitler. I oppose sexism and I dislike lazy historical parallels, but it is an underlying issue that is exercising my mind: the public policing of personal opinion.

Leaving to one side the motivation behind those who ‘expose’ personal comments and the sanctimonious manner in which the media deals with such exposures, is it right to judge a person’s ability to do his or her job on the basis of which opinions they might hold or express in private?  This is a thorny issue and it affects more than public figures; there are many cases of co-workers embroiled in disciplinary procedures because of perceived offence.

There is no doubt that if we discover that individuals hold opinions that are odious to us, it will affect how we think of them.  We might be offended, outraged or angry and we might choose to have as little to do with them as possible.  This is, however, very different from saying that if people hold odious opinions they cannot, or ought not to be allowed, to do their jobs.

I hate discrimination and I am more than happy to challenge it either in private or in public and I have no time for the ‘nod and wink’ culture that suggests that as long as we are ‘all mates together’ we can engage in racist, sexist or any-other-ist talk. If I have any backbone, I will challenge opinions that I find offensive.

I am, however, deeply concerned by the attitude that suggests that offensive opinions ought to be punished.  I accept that some opinions equate to ‘hate-speech’ and are illegal or they equate to harassment or bullying and are rightly matters for disciplinary procedures, but most offensive statements fall short of that mark.  There is no ‘right not to be offended’ even though we do have a right not to be treated in a deliberately offensive manner.  Too often that distinction is not recognised. 

Once we go down the road of punishing people for their opinions (however offensive they might be) instead of opposing them by counter-argument we head down the road of censorship and heresy trials.  Centuries ago people were burnt at the stake because they held theological opinions that outraged their contemporaries but which are barely understood by most people today.  We need to be extremely careful that we don’t simply replace one type of inquisition by another.

We Can't Hide Behind the 'N-Word'

The ‘N-word’ has been in the News over the past week or so with two BBC presenters being called to account; one for muttering it under his breath and another for playing an old version of ‘The Sun Has Got His Hat On’.  The famous TV personality got his knuckles rapped; the little-known local radio presenter got sacked (although the BBC later offered to reinstate him once it realised that he had not known that the offensive word was part of the original lyrics).

The word is now deemed to be so offensive that it cannot be uttered or written and must be substituted in conversation by ‘the N-word’.  Is this an over-reaction or a necessary guard against incipient racism?

I general, I am in favour of free-speech and take a dim view of people taking offence at robust language, but I do believe that certain lines ought to be drawn and not crossed.  Some words have a history that makes their social use equivalent to assault and ‘nigger’ is one of them.  Their use ought not to be permitted any more than a slap to the face ought to be dismissed as a mere ‘domestic tiff’.

The term, when used by any white person cannot be divorced from the appalling legacy of slavery, humiliation, discrimination and oppression that black people suffered for generations.  It does not matter if, had the tables been turned, black people might have treated white people in a similar way; the facts are that history happened the way it did.  In our culture, it is essential that the history of black-white relationships is not glossed over.

The truth is that only a few decades ago it was acceptable for ‘back and white minstrels’ to appear in prime-time TV shows, for the word ‘nigger’ to guarantee a laugh when slipped into a flagging sit-com script and for children to be treated to a ‘white-washed’ version of slavery in Disney’s ‘Song of the South’.  Gibbering and cowering black men were ‘humorously’ contrasted with courageous whites in comedy horror movies and it was thought to be hilarious to throw bananas at black footballers (the banana throwing continues, but no one pretends that it’s funny).

I sympathise with the hapless local radio DJ who did not preview a song that he was going to play, but careless (never mind intentionally offensive) social use of the term is dangerous.  Even deliberately satirical use of the term ought to be handled with care.  Racism lurks at every white person’s door; just think of why (if you are white) you might want to put ‘the other side of the argument’ to this article.  I do have a problem, however, with the use of ‘the N-word’; ‘nigger’ is an ugly, destructive word and its use ought not to be sanitised…..ever.

Turning a Blind Eye: The Politics of Policing

‘Political interference’ in policing is in the News once more following the arrest and questioning of Sinn Fein leader Gerry Adams with regard to the 1972 IRA murder of Jean McConville.  On the face of it, this is a simple matter: if Mr Adams was criminally involved in her horrific death he ought to be charged, tried, convicted and sentenced; if not, he ought to be released from custody and given an apology. 

This analysis, however, depends on strict adherence to the principle that justice must be blind to every factor other than the guilt or innocence of individuals who, rightly or wrongly, have been implicated in a crime. The police ought to investigate all suspected crimes with vigour and the courts ought to apply the law without fear or favour.  Straightforward as it sounds (and much as I should like to endorse it), there are problems with this approach.

In the first instance, what about crimes that ought not to be classified as such?  In the UK it used to be a crime for consenting adults to engage in ‘homosexual acts’.  Was it just for the police and the courts blindly to pursue the application of this law?  Similarly, ought police to be banging on the doors of countless adolescents’ bedrooms (not to mention those of their parents) at the first whiff of cannabis-laden smoke when police resources are stretched and there is little evidence that such a pursuit would have any positive effect?

Even in cases of murder, criminal proceedings are not always the best way forward.  In the aftermath of the appalling Rwandan genocide the only way to heal a traumatised society was to exchange criminal proceedings for reconciliation procedures that blended guilt with forgiveness rather than conviction with punishment.  There is also little doubt that the Northern Ireland Peace Process would have foundered had a blind eye not been turned to some criminal paramilitary activity while negotiations were ongoing. 

It is clearly unacceptable for police and the judiciary to be simple extensions of political parties or governments. In such cases all hopes of impartial policing disappear as can be seen, for example, in the recent history of Egypt.  The criminal justice system, however, cannot fail to be a reflection of the society in which it is imbedded.  That means that ‘political’ decisions have to be made all the time with regard to which crimes to pursue.  At times, in order to effect personal, communal and social cohesion or healing, a blind eye might have to be turned or an alternative approach taken, although such policies ought to be rigorously justified in every single instance. That this should be so is an unsavoury admission of human failure and impotence, but to pretend otherwise does justice to no one.

Amsterdam's Red Light District: Freedom or Bondage?

My wife and I were in Amsterdam this week and one evening we made our way to what we were told was the best Tibetan restaurant in the city.  En route, we passed through part of ‘De Wallen’, the famed/infamous Red Light District.

I understand that the majority of sex workers are coerced into ‘the industry’; something that is entirely reprehensible.  In this blog, however, I want to reflect on those sex workers in Amsterdam’s Red Light district who state that their involvement is a genuinely free, commercial choice.  For the purposes of this article, I will not dispute their claim.

I am not remotely prudish, I respect individuals’ freedom to engage in the consensual sexual activities of their choice, I acknowledge that some people might choose to become sex workers, that there are many reasons why people choose to engage their services and, in general, I prefer regulation to prohibition in the arena of ‘public morality’.  I was, nonetheless, disturbed by my fleeting experience of De Wallen.  

In truth, I was initially a little slow on the uptake; we entered the area in daylight so red lights were at a minimum.  I mistook the first young woman I saw for a lingerie manikin until she waved; in my defence her window was beside a clothes shop.

There might well be racier windows in the area, but in the ones we passed on our way to the restaurant, greater ‘exposure’ could be encountered on hundreds of Mediterranean beaches.  The poses were not provocative; indeed listlessness pervaded.  What I found disturbing was the fact that it was happening at all.

I felt a kind of hollow sadness and despair that anyone, male or female, might choose to put themselves on display so that others could ‘rent’ their bodies for a few minutes of non-relational sex.  That anyone should consider ‘renting’, I found chilling.  The whole thing smacked of those disgraceful accounts of slave auctions from the past.  For bodies to be reduced to commodities and for sex to be reduced to manipulating bits and pieces of anatomy, I found profoundly dehumanising.  Perhaps in pornography, some half-hearted pretence might be made that desire, passion or mutual lust is involved; in DeWallen no pretence at all was evident.

There was no respect to be discerned anywhere.  I gained no impression that the women were being treated with respect by anyone and I could see absolutely no reason why, at most, the women ought to treat their clients with anything other than disdain.  It was an untrammeled exercise in personal liberty, devoid of personal relationship.  To quote one of the great commentators on human nature, Leonard Cohen, ‘It looks like freedom, but it feels like death’

Easter: Does it Add Up?

I recently saw the following post on facebook:

‘Add the Numbers:

Nineteen minus five + 4 – 3 x 2 + 7

Solve this….’

Most people make the mistake of ignoring the initial instruction to ADD the numbers; instead they perform the calculation.  The host website states that the right answer is 16 (adding together 4, 3, 2 and 7). This, however, is open to challenge: have the hosts confused the word ‘numbers’ with the words ‘figures’ or ‘digits?  ‘Nineteen’ and ‘five’ are still numbers even if they are written as words rather than expressed as figures.  The correct answer might, therefore, be 40 (or forty).

What has this to do with Easter?  I have spent a lot of time recently discussing with individuals and groups whether the resurrection of Jesus ought to be understood ’physically’, ‘spiritually’ or ‘symbolically’.  The answer to this depends largely on how we read the source material of the New Testament.  For example, ought we to read the Gospels as history understood in essentially modern terms, as history understood primarily in ancient terms, as examples of ancient writings known as ‘lives’ (a type of ‘dramatised’ biography or docudrama) or as documents that primarily contain material designed to portray the significance of Jesus even though some biographical details might also be present?

Enough books to fill a good-sized library have been written in attempts to ‘prove’ each of the above positions (and others).  Such arguments are important; seeking the truth is always to be commended especially when the truth is hotly disputed. 

What is missing, however, in much of what is written about the resurrection is attention being given to the equivalent of the initial instruction in the teaser above.  The point of the resurrection narratives, according to John’s Gospel, is to encourage people to believe in Jesus so that their own lives might also be transformed.  In the final analysis, it doesn’t matter so much how the resurrection happened; what matters is that Jesus continues to live in a transformed manner.  The nature of that transformation is a matter of debate and long may the debate continue; the point of the transformation is that we might find someone worthy of following, someone ‘we can believe in’.

The form of that belief and the ways in which we might follow Jesus will also vary from person to person.  My conviction is that once we get to the point of believing that Jesus is truly worth following we are in for a life-time of exploration, development and challenge.  At a personal level, Easter is not so much about theories and doctrines as it is about a particularly striking person and the continuing impact he can have in my life.  If the resurrection doesn’t make a difference in me what does it really matter to me?

Blood Moons and the End of the World

The night of April 14/15th sees the first of four ‘blood moons’ (a ‘tetrad’ of total full-moon eclipses) to occur over the next eighteen months.  Two of these will fall on the feast of Passover and two on the feast of Tabernacles: cue televangelists with predictions of ‘significant events’.  One such, John Hagee, has written a best-selling book on the topic, citing Joel 2: 31 ‘The sun will be turned to darkness, and the moon to blood before the great and dreadful day of the LORD comes’, glibly ignoring the fact that even if this is to be understood in astronomical terms, it speaks primarily of a solar eclipse.

Hagee’s thesis is that every time a series of blood moons coincides with either Passover or Tabernacles, it is God’s way of letting the world know that something momentous is going to happen with regard to the Jewish people/Israel.  In evidence he quotes 1492 when Jews were expelled from Spain, 1948 when the State of Israel came into existence and 1967 when Israel won the six-day war against its Arab neighbours. Impressive stuff, some might think, but sadly for those who like to think that God habitually uses the solar system to send coded messages to those ‘in the know’, a little examination brings the entire thesis crashing down.

The first two events outlined above happened before their associated blood moon sequences occurred, rendering them pretty ineffectual as prophetic warnings; the ‘coincidence’ was out by a year or so; not the sort of accuracy one might expect from God.  There have also been blood moon sequences falling on Jewish festivals (which conveniently occur only on full moons) that coincided with…absolutely nothing.  It is also a little ironic that, at most, only the final ‘blood moon’ will be observable from Israel, the land of the original prophecy; all four, of course, will be visible from the USA.

What all of this underlines is that there is a willingness, even a desperation, among many people to find proof of some sort of divine control over human affairs.  The world is going to hell on a hand-cart, they believe, so God needs to show up somehow to reassure believers that all is not lost.

I don’t disagree with their analysis of the state of the world; war, poverty, hunger, abuse, discrimination, slavery and downright badness are rampant.  Thus it has always been.  God’s presence, however, is not to be looked for in the stars (seriously, one star of Bethlehem story and we’re fixated), but in the words and actions of people who are determined to swim against the tide of evil that threatens to over-run societies; people who (whether they realise it or not) are sufficiently infused by the spirit of God to stand up and make a difference.  We don’t need to look to the heavens; just at ourselves.     

Genocide and Kate's Skirt

This week marks the 20^th anniversary of the beginning of one hundred days of insanity that resulted in more than 800,000 people being killed in the Rwandan genocide. 

The details of the murders are horrific: shootings, mutilations and mass burnings were common place; often victims were specifically sought out and ‘executed’ by those known personally to them.  Age, sex or infirmity offered no protection from the bloody carnage.

The atrocities were made all the more horrific in that many murders took place in or near churches, where terrified people huddled together seeking protection.  Not only did hate-fuelled groups ignore any suggestion that they were ‘on holy ground’, incredibly in many cases the murderers were regular worshippers in church, sometimes even clergy.

Of course, not all Christians acted in this way; there are many accounts of clergy and others hiding potential victims, sometimes risking their lives to do so.  I have to ask, however, was that anything more than ought to have been expected of anyone who made a claim to be a follower of Jesus?

One story that has emerged over the past few days has stood out particularly for me.  It is of a woman whose baby was killed by a machete-wielding church choir member who then slashed her in the head, severed her right hand and left her for dead.  Some years later, the man met with her, knelt before her and asked for forgiveness.  Almost unbelievably, she forgave him and they now both work together for a charity that seeks to provide ongoing help to victims of the genocide.

His account of how easy it was for him to turn from his Christian principles, to be seduced by ethnic hatred, is chilling to the core.  After the first few murders, he explained, he just stopped thinking about it, choosing to believe that he was ridding his country of vermin.  It all sounds so familiar.  The depth of humanity, spirituality and love that enabled his victim to forgive him is beyond my ability to comment on.  He now feels intensely for his victims and experiences ongoing remorse for his actions; something that might well not have happened had his victim not forgiven him. 

Of course, we all know that for the tabloid media, the death of one white British child is more newsworthy than the death of a hundred or more black Africans.  A plane crash in ‘the developed world’ will blot our genocide in Africa.  There was something particularly crass, however, in one of the UK tabloid’s coverage yesterday.  Its commentary on the Rwandan genocide was placed alongside snickering comment about the Duchess of Cambridge’s skirt billowing in the wind.  Hundreds of thousands of Africans killed, injured or traumatised; oh well, at least they didn’t suffer a wardrobe malfunction….