A Laughing Stock

Ewan takes me to task for describing the activities of Rep anthony Weiner as risible.  In a comment on Bring Back Sin he writes, “I do not think the description of Weiner’s pathetic and sordid behaviour as ‘risible escapades’ to be at all appropriate. I know it is true the Lord ‘laughs at the wicked’ but I sense it does not apply in the way suggested by the phrasing here. What he did was shameful and brought disgrace to himself and no doubt distress to his family. We certainly shouldn’t laugh indulgently at such actions as if they were minor infractions.”

Ewan has a point. The actions of Weiner in tweeting lewd pictures of himself to young women and girls was despicable. His initial stubborn refusal to resign was unfortunately only to be expected. Such behaviour, especially  in an elected representative tasked with legislating for the community, is to be roundly condemned. The only area in which Edwin and I differ is in the tactics we use to deal with such incidents.

As we look at Scriptures, especially the Old Testament we see that the prophets had a somewhat robust way of dealing with those who threw over God’s instructions for life. Outright condemnation was a typical response, but not the sole one.

We find them using plain abuse as Amos did in describing the wealthy women of his day who exploited the poor as “cows of Bashan” Amos 4:1. Ezekiel employed a number of symbolic actions, including eating food cooked on human excrement, to make God’s point concerning Jerusalem Ezekiel 4,5.

Most startling perhaps is what occurs in one of the great dramatic events of Scripture, the contest on Mount Carmel I Kings 18. There, as the priests of Baal called on their god,  danced around and frantically slashed themselves Elijah did not denounce them, he mocked them, he employed sarcasm. “Perhaps your god is deep in
thought, could he be busy on another project, or has he nodded off? Maybe he is relieving himself on the toilet,” is a fair paraphrase of Elijah’s response.

Mockery or laughter is not necessarily indulgent, it can be an appropriate response to wrongdoing, even to evil. In the case of Weiner mockery can be considered a fitting response, amongst others. As Ewan points out what he did was not a minor infraction. Weiner did something despicable and yet clung to his position. He acted in a way which he would have condemned in others and yet insisted he had done nothing wrong. He brought shame to his family and acted as though he were shameless. In such a situation laughter and mockery can be the right response to the self-righteous who appear impervious to reasoned criticism. It is difficult to maintain position when you are a laughing stock.

We should use all the tools at our command in the endeavour to uphold God’s law, that includes humour. General Booth supposedly asked why the devil should have all the good tunes. Perhaps we should ask why the devil should have all the laughter.

The Arab Spring Blossoms

The Arab Spring has flowered. Tellecoms mogul Naguid Sawiris is the son of Egypt’s richest man and the nation’s largest private  employer. In the new freedom gained in Egypt he used his wealth to found the secular Free Egyptians Party. In the past he has remarked that after the Arab Spring so many women in Egypt now wear the veil that he feels like a ‘foreigner’ in his own country. He also tweets and has an internet site. And he is in big trouble.

His offence is to have posted pictures which have aroused the ire of certain influential sections of the newly free progressive Egyptian society which we all welcomed. Well some did. No he did not follow the lead of Anthony Weiner, nor did he post cartoons of Muhammad with a goat. He posted cartoons of Mickey and Minnie Mouse.

Mickey wore a beard, Minnie a veil, and both were clothed in the type of garb favoured by Islamist fundamentalists. Underneath was the caption “Mickey and Minnie after.” After what? After the revolution is complete and the Islamists take over, as they shall?

Professor Ahmed Mahmoud Kareema of the Sharia Department of Al-Azhar University claims that Sawiris would have been accused of being anti-Semitic or
anti-Christian if he had posted a cartoon of the Mouse family clothed as a Jews or as Coptic priests. Sawiris’ supposed crime was insulting religion.

Anti-Semitic cartoons are so common in Egypt that no one remarks upon them and no one has ever been prosecuted for drawing, publishing or disseminating them. Christians are being attacked and murdered in newly free Egypt with what seems like impunity.

When I stumbled across professor Kareema’s statement I spent a few minutes trying to imagine the professors and lecturers I know, especially those engaged in theological studies, demanding that people be prosecuted for exercising free speech. Nope, yet more wasted time. But then Islam is different, very different.

As a Coptic Christian Sawiris should have known better. He has apologised and points out that he was joking. Humour is not a noted characteristic of Islamic fundamentalists. It is difficult to imagine the ayatollahs having a good laugh at our ‘edgier’ comedians, except perhaps when they were making mock of Christians. The Islamists would of course be free from insult from our cutting edge, pushing the boundaries comedians. They have noted how the wind blows and pick their targets carefully. After all Rowan Williams, of “Old Fuzzy Beard” as he has been called is unlikely to issue a fatwa or encourage the beheading of the lineup at the Comedy Store.

60,000 have already signed up on Facebook condemning Sawiris. Meanwhile15
lawyers from the Salafi movement, a purist Islamic sect, have called on the prosecutor general to  prosecute Sawiris for insulting religion. The Salafis men tend to wear long beards, their women the niquab or burkah.

The Facebook revolution is in full swing. It’s not only the good guys who can use their thumbs. If Hitler were about he would be tweeting or texting his BFF’s, “Yo Dude. Death 2 defilers of the blood. Send them to camps B4 they infect us all.”

The only good thing which will emerge from the Arab Spring is that in a year or two there will be a lot of Egyptian restaurants opening up in the West.

Bring Back Sin

The first to hit the radar in a big way was Michael Douglas, now ‘sex addicts’ are spreading like E-coli. Tiger Woods had his adulteries emblazoned on our  televison screens for weeks. More recently we have had the politician Anthony Weiner whose risible escapades have hogged the headlines in the USA. Just before that in the UK there was Ryan Giggs who according to his loyal wife, “Has an illness and he needs my help.”

It’s not only the rich and famous. Sex addiction and consequent referrals to clinics for treatment are said to be on the rise throughout Europe, America and Australia. The American Association on Sexual Problems claims that more than 15% of the US population is addicted to sex. Treatment for this condition is apparently vital. Referring to Giggs one expert in the field told Associated Press, “He needs treatment,” because without medical intervention “sex addicts can go completely out of control and destroy their lives.”

The re-branding of promiscuity as a psychological condition or illness is harmful. Not so much in itself but because it is symptomatic of our increasing failure as a society to grasp the importance of personal responsibility. Whenever we reduce personal responsibility we reduce human dignity.

We are in a situation where it is increasingly difficult to make moral judgments concerning the actions of human beings. That this failure is prevalent in trendy society should come as no surprise, at one stroke it absolves the individual of guilt and sometimes even confers status. “Alcohol addict” or “Sex addict” which do you think some guy would rather be?

Instead of being sexual predators or self-centred lechers such people can regard themselves as ‘victims’ of an addiction, and as we supposedly know addicts are powerless until they have hit bottom, admit their inability to conquer their addiction and seek help outwith themselves. Personal powerlessness becomes the defining attribute of their lives. They are helpless victims beyond their own control, in the grip of something bigger than themselves.

The ‘aholics’ are spreading like tryffids, consuming the population. Workaholics, shopaholics, chocaholics, helpaholics, exerciseaholics, addiction to mobile-phones, cream buns, the internet, controlling behaviour, any bad habit or anti-social behaviour can and will be recast as an addiction and medicalised.

We have accepted as a given the concept that individuals are unable to control their own urges and behaviour. This destroys the very notion of personal responsibility and moral independence. The only way in which a predatory lecherous male on the make can be held to be irresponsible is if he fails to seek treatment for his condition. To seek to take charge of one’s own life and exercise self-control is now re-cast as being irresponsible and in denial.

What is alarming is that in the Church we have largely accepted the way of the world and moved into a situation where we are increasingly reluctant to describe immoral behaviour as sinful in case it causes feelings of guilt and shame. Instead, even in the Church, we employ the language of therapy rather than the language of Scripture. The therapeutic fatalism which teaches that we are personally helpless before our psychological conditioning means that what were once deadly sins are now regarded as personality disorders deserving treatment rather than transgressions demanding repentance.

Christian theology until recently has always held that individuals were responsible before God for their own actions, good or ill. Instead of being harsh and condemnatory as caricatured by progressives this gives the individual dignity and status, not merely a helpless victim but a responsible participant in life. When we abandon biblical principles we find we abandon respect for humanity.

Birth of Science

“As everybody knows.” When we hear this phrase our first inclination should be to immediately question what everybody knows.

One thing that “everybody knows” is that science and Christianity are mutually opposed. Whether it is the schoolboy studying chemistry certain that science disproves the Bible or Richard Dawkins fulminating against the supposedly pernicious influence of faith we given with the impression that Christianity and modern science are irreconcilable. One professor of chemistry recently said “It is deplorable that in modern-day Oxford the study of theology is taken so seriously that there is a professorship. You might as well have a chair in fantasy.” Serious thinkers, it seems, have replaced the fanciful myths of Christianity with the hard facts of science.

However, when we look at the history of science we find that it was a distinctly Christian worldview which provided the foundation and impetus for modern scientific investigation. During the middle ages it was the rediscovery of the biblical concept of creation which motivated scientific enquiry and saw the birth of today’s scientific method.

How we think shapes how we look at the world. Today we see the world around us as worth study and think we can draw from it principles to help us understand ourselves and our environment. It was not always like this.

Before the Reformation in medieval Europe the way of thinking was essentially that of ancient Greece, just adapted for Christian use. The Greeks were more concerned with idealised forms and essences than ordinary material things. We still speak of ‘platonic’ love. This ideal love was considered much more important than the way in which we messy human beings usually fumble along in our relationships. In a world where ideals were more important than material reality what actually exists was less important that what ideally should be. This way of thinking did not encourage people to try to observe, investigate and experiment in nature, what actually existed. They concentrated on theory.

The general theory of creation was that it consisted of a hierarchy of beings. Beginning with the deity at the edge of the universe, they worked down through various grades of angels in ten crystal spheres encircling the earth, finally there was the cosmic centre, our earth itself.  This view of the world was
attractive psychologically, it placed humanity at the centre of the universe,
truly important in a cosmic sense. Also, an authority based picture of the world fitted in well with an authority based hierarchical feudal society. The supposed terrestrial and celestial realms were very different. The terrestrial realm was composed of four elements, fire, earth, air and water, each with a straight-line motion with beginning and end. The heavenly realm, located above the moon, was composed of a perfect fifth essence and had a circular motion.

With the Reformation and the invention of the printing press there began to be a more widespread knowledge of the Bible. Two related beliefs in particular had enormous impact in the development of science. Firstly the realisation that the ordinary, everyday creation was of value to God and humanity had a responsibility in relation to it. Secondly it became apparent that the evidence of our physical senses was valuable and trustworthy. Perhaps the supreme example of observation and experiment is that after His resurrection Jesus showed His hands to Thomas who doubted and invited him to look and touch the wound in His side.

This different way of thinking about creation and the importance of sensory experience opened up new possibilities. Instead of speculating about the way the universe worked early scientists began to emphasise the importance of observation and experiment. They began to study natural events as a means of checking on theories. Theories could no longer stand on their own, no matter how attractive, they had to be backed up by observation and experiment. Science as we know it was born.

Early scientists began to unpick the fabric of the old way of looking at the world. The first bold step was taken by Copernicus who through observing the night sky concluded that the sun was at the centre of our system, making the earth just one of many planets. Kepler would then discover, again through observation, that the orbits of the planets were not circular but elliptical.

In 1572 a new, bright star appeared in the supposedly changeless skies of Europe. The event was a supernova, one of the last stellar explosions to be seen in our galaxy. Visible to the naked eye for about 16 months this event was so spectacular that it convinced Tycho Brae, the Danish scientist who lost his nose in a duel, that he must devote the rest of his life to astronomy only.

Not everyone accepted to the new biblical way of looking at things. According to the old view the heavens were supposedly changeless. Some eminent thinkers were so determined to stick with the old ways they claimed that the star did not exist but was a mere optical illusion. Because the observable facts did not fit with their theory they rejected the facts rather than change the theory.

But the cracks in the old ways were becoming ever more evident. In 1577 a comet appeared. By observing the brightening and dimming around the comet Tycho reconstructed the comet’s path revealing that the comet was situated beyond the moon. This meant that the comet must be crashing through the supposedly crystal spheres.

Impelled by the new way of thinking scientists like Nicolaus Copernicus,
Johannes Kepler, Tycho Brae and Galileo Galilei made huge  advances in our understanding of the world. At the end of the seventeenth century Isaac Newton synthesised the views of previous scientists and demonstrated a unity of the heavens and earth all subject to the same mathematical laws. The old Greek Aristotelian domination of thought was gone and the way was open for our modern scientific exploration of the universe.

Far from Christianity and science being incompatible Christian thought inspired and made possible this new form of investigation. The philosopher C F von Weizsacker rightly concludes that modern science is a “legacy, I might even have said, a child of Christianity.”

The Dog That Barked

Mea Shearim is an ultra-Orthodox enclave in Jerusalem, the kind of place where you will find bearded men with black hats, ringlets and gabardine coats rocking on their heels as they mutter their passages from the Torah. Ripe for ridicule, especially by those who themselves don’t have enough faith to save a mouse.

Last week the Israeli newspaper Maariv reported that a Beth Din, a rabbibical court, in Mea Shearim had condemned a dog to death by stoning. The offending animal was supposedly inhabited by a reincarnated secularist lawyer who had insulted the court 20 years previously. Well what else can you do in that situation; these reincarnated secularist lawyers are the devil to get rid of, not that easy to get rid of before they qualify for reincarnation either.

Wanted: For Dog Stoning

What actually happened was that a dog wandered into the rabbinical court, attracted the attention of some children who thought it amusing and so the spoilsport rabbis called the dog catcher who removed the offending canine
without any harm befalling the animal. As soon as they realised their error Maariv quite sensibly ran a retraction and apologised.

This did not deter the international mainstream media from leaping on the story with glee and passing it off as ‘news’ even after Maariv had published their retraction. Not unexpectedly the BBC was in there quickly. On their web site it was posted under a “Must Read” heading with the headline “Jewish rabbis condemn dog to death by stoning.” The story began, “A Jewish rabbinical court condemns to death by stoning a dog it suspects to be the reincarnation of a lawyer who insulted judges 20 years …” In the USA Time magazine was also quickly into action with “Shocking sentence – Jewish court condemns dog to death by stoning.”

Not just the mainstream print media. Yahoo entered the fray with most of their readers responding with outraged vitriol, pretty much what one would expect. No need to mention the incandescent rage posted on Tweeter.

This is interesting. Not the response by the inhabitants of cyberspace. You guys really should go out and find human friends. For cyberneds the first lesson in Relationships 101 has to be “A keyboard is not a Significant Other.” Neither is it possible to be surprised any more by any response, especially from Brits, whenever possible harm to an animal occurs. Nothing is too inane, stupid or off the wall for the average Brit animal lover who will weep real tears over a bewildered hamster whilst ignoring the tens of thousands of babies aborted every year.

The interesting thing is the response of the ‘responsible’ media. Were they simply gullible? After all, here was a story which would get a sure response from their readers, why not go for it immediately without doing a proper check?

Perhaps it was something more serious. Perhaps the erroneous article was readily accepted because it poked fun at believers. Or perhaps it was accepted because it cast a section of Israeli society in a ludicrous light. Perhaps it was accpeted by those who assumed without question that Hasidic Jews would be capable of such an ludicrous act.

I’m not saying that this was conscious anti-Semitism. I merely wonder whether the mainstream media especially the BBC, which we pay for, would have instituted more stringent checks if a story of this kind had emanated from a sharia court in Bolton, or even via a leak from the archbishop’s entourage Lambeth Palace.

The Eye Of The Beholder

Human rights in the English speaking world owe their origin to a document enforced on King John of England in 1215 by the English barons, the Magna Carta Libertatum. Subsequent to the Magna Carta we have understood
human rights to be the restriction of the king’s power thus enabling the people to
expand their freedoms such as freedom of speech.

Human rights were grounded in restrictions which the people placed upon the king. Today progressive human rights in the West are grounded in restrictions the government places upon the people.

We see this when we come to the new right not to be offended. This Orwellian concept replaces human rights with group rights. We have the realisation of the Orwellian prophecy of the day when “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” If you belong to a group which is privileged the state will accord you rights it refuses to others.

A few months ago Simon Ledger was singing oldies in a bar. Amongst the numbers he sang was “Kung Fu Fighing.” Those old enough to remember disco may now blush. Bad enough one would suppose and an occasion for cotton wool in the ears, but unfortunately two passers by, not even patrons of the bar, heard him singing, they were Chinese. One was offended enough to report Ledger to the police, he was arrested for racism.

If you were to sing Kung Fu Fighting to me I would have to thole it, perhaps with an ill grace but I would just have to take your assault on taste and culture, I couldn’t report you to the police and have you arrested no matter how much I thought you deserved it. I don’t belong to a favoured minority or identity group. A joke or a song has become a possible criminal action according to whom you perform it before and whether or not they choose to find it offensive.

When individual justice is replaced by social justice we lose the concept of universal human rights and find them replaced by group rights.

The Scottish Parliament has before it the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Bill, which could make certain jokes, songs or actions illegal in certain circumstances. If Roseanna Cunningham, minister for Community Safety has her way if a Roman Catholic were to make the sign of the cross in front of a bunch of rampaging Rangers supporters he would possibly be committing an offence. If a Rangers supporter were to sing Rule Britania in front of a group of Celtic supporters that could be considered an illegal act. It all depends on how the ‘victims’ choose to react.

Frank Mulholland the Lord Advocate tried to clear up Roseanna’s bumbling explanation of the proposed legislation by saying that making the sign of the cross or singing the national anthem would not be criminal offences. Obviously, but listen to the rider, “Unless there are aggravating circumstances.”

Any song adopted by the opposing supporters could be deemed provocative if the criteria of judgement is offence perceived by the purported ‘victim,’ or even the possibility of offence as judged by a police officer. From my experience of Scottish football the fans are creative if nothing else in the songs they sing. What if Rangers fans sing new words to the tune of The Sash would that be offensive? If a Celtic fan offers up a silent prayer before a penalty at Ibrox would that be offensive?

The bill refers to “behaviour that a reasonable person would be likely to consider offensive”. But the very person who chooses to find the sign of the cross or the singing of a song offensive and requiring a violent response is not a reasonable person. He, and it is almost invariably a he, is an emotionally charged irreligious bigot ready to take offence at the mere existence of the opposition.

The Scottish Parliament is being asked to abrogate the human right of freedom of speech in the name of groups rights not to be offended. This would destroy a foundational principle of justice, equality before the law.

Our ideas of justice derive from Scripture. There we learn that we are created individually and as responsible individuals we stand before God. The rights we have as His children are individual rights.

On Mocking The Afflicted

The generous response to my previous post requesting advice was helpful, and as it pretty much agreed with what I wanted to do anyway I shall take your advice. Generally speaking, although seeing a need for some kind of forum for those concerned with the CofS situation, the great majority of respondents wanted the blog to continue as before.

I too agree for the need of some kind of mechanism whereby those who share a basic theological outlook are able to remain in communication with each other. As is well known I have the administrative abilities of a demented gerbil so that lets me out of the job. However, as leaders of Confessing Churches, Forward Together, Crieff Fellowship etc read this blog perhaps they could agree to work together, at least on this device for working together.

Back to business. Sometimes I am asked questions concerning the blog. Chief amongst them is: Why should I, an apologist, expend so much time and energy combating and highlighting the irrationality and innanities of progressives and so little time attacking atheists? After all, it is atheists who are the real enemy of the faithful.

No they are not. The real enemies of the faithful are progressives, and especially those within the Church.

Atheists are people who do not believe in God or in gods. As far as I can make out agnostics are usually just atheists without the courage of their lack of conviction. For the most part atheists couldn’t care less about Christianity, like it or not they generally ignore us and get on with their lives and for the most part are willing to let us get on with ours. As such they are a mission field. The progressive on the other hand, whether a believer or an unbeliever, is a man with a mission or a woman with a cause. They have no intention of letting us get on with our lives. As such they are a battlefield.

Progressives intend to remake society according to their ideals and principles and that work cannot be completed until they destroy the remaining vestiges of traditional social structures and values and marginalise the orthodox within mainstream Christian denominations. Thus in society the concepts of personal responsibility, the importance of the family and necessity of a moral code are undermined. In the Church clarity of faith, the authority of Scripture and the call for personal conversion are portrayed as anachronisms peddled by a tiny minority of convention-bound leftovers mired in the past.

Progressives inside and outside the Church have undermined the faith far more effectively than straightforward atheists ever have. The wolves in sheep’s clothing have carried off many more lambs than honest to goodness wolves.

Then there is the example of Jesus. For honest doubters and sceptics like my hero Thomas He had gentle words, personal contact and practical proof. For
teachers who would lead His little ones astray His response was somewhat more forthright. He warned them that by the time He had finished with them they would wish they had been thrown into the deepest part of the sea with a millstone tied round their neck. They were compared to whitewashed sepulchres, outwardly clean and presentable, inwardly full of the stench of decay and corruption. His way of saying “You get right up God’s nose.”

The Jesus of Scripture was not the sandal wearing proto hippy of the popular imagination, wandering around in long hair and robes, giving the peace sign and urging everyone to chill out, be nice to each other and reduce their carbon footprint. He could be as cool as a cucumber when debating theology with the Pharisees, but when it came to the harm they were doing to His little ones He could flay them with His tongue.

Progressives are the real danger who for the sake of Church and society must be opposed. Most of them are atheists, some are believers, all intend to sideline or destroy the Christian faith as known for 2000 years.

Besides all that, its fun.

Advice Please

First a word of warning: If you have a fragile ego do not blog.

I do not speak of the abuse concerning what I have written. If anything is in capital letters, has negligible grammar or mentions black helicopters or grassy knolls it automatically gets sent to the trash bin.

I speak of statistics. There is a plethora of statistical apps available which tell you numbers who have visited the blog, where from, at what time and probably what colour of socks they wear. Beginning a blog it is deliciously easy to get hooked on stats. My church hosts Narcotics anonymous and Alcoholics Anonymous, perhaps there is a place for Bloggers Anonymous.

A blog is posted, you wait, you click on the stats, only a handful of visits. You restrain yourself with an effort and 25 minutes later you click the stats again. There has been three more visits. Should you be glad or frustrated? You wait, you click, you wait… It goes on day by day.

Thankfully this trap caught me for the shortest of times. Basically I don’t give a docken. I simply write what occurs to me. Those who are interested, come back. Those who find it the puerile ravings of an intellectually challenged teuchter, forget the blog. In the meantime I just write whatever occurs to me. I ruminate, I ramble, every so often I rant. So what?

In the last week, however, I have blogged about the situation facing the Church of Scotland. It reached problematic status last Saturday when I wrote about Friday’s meeting about he future direction for evangelicals in the CofS. Traffic on my blog which had been steadily growing in a surprisingly satisfactory way peaked, it increased by several hundreds and nearly doubled.

My shy retiring ego could have leapt upon the stats and claimed that my pellucid prose, trenchantly logical reasoning and masterful analysis were at last gaining the recognition they so richly deserved. Unfortunately reality intruded. It’s not about me, it’s about you. What apparently concerns my readers is the future of the CofS and whether or not they have a part in it.

That leaves me with a very real problem. What do I do? As I see it I have a number of options:

1. I give over the blog entirely and turn it into an open forum which, with a volunteer moderator, allows free discussion for all parties concerned with the future of evangelicals in the CofS. There is clearly a need for a place where this can happen or else we face the very real danger of splintering into antagonistic groups giving each other the cold shoulder.

2. I carry on with the blog as it is and encourage others to open up a second blog which fulfils the functions of option 1.

3. I say “Stuff the lot of you, I’ll carry on writing whatever I feel like writing.” This means carrying on with the year’s experiment of only publishing online and continuing with the rambling, ruminations and occasional rants of Chairman Campbell.

I suppose there is a fourth option: I pack up, stop the blog and do something more useful like making raffia plant holders. If that is your answer my response is “Who wants your ill informed, undereducated, blindly prejudiced
opinions anway. Get back to your day job in the Greek Finance Ministry.”

It’s Going To Happen

I was wrong, and I’m glad that I was wrong.

The great temptation faced by ministers is cynicism, that corrosive corruption of the soul. Continually we encounter people in need and experience teaches that when people want something they will say anything. As a result we begin to automatically expect the worst.

Yesterday afternoon there was a meeting of orthodox ministers and elders in Glasgow to consider the situation facing the Church of Scotland concerning recent General Assembly decisions rejecting the Bible with regard to the ordination of practicing homosexuals. I went anticipating the worst. I had two expectations: being Scottish we would never agree, being Presbyterians we would appoint a committee. I was wrong on both counts, and I am glad that I was wrong.

Arriving at St George’s Tron I found the novel sight of a queue of people snaking up Buchanan Street as they waited in the rain to file into the church. Among the 600 or so attending there were people I had studied with during my first degree, and those I’d met during my ministry some of whom I hadn’t seen for years. Some were in neighbouring ministries and others I had never met. A few were retired, a significant number were at the beginning of their ministry.

That there was no squabbling was, it has to be admitted, due in part to the effective stage management by the organisers. Wisely there was no open discussion, 600 Scottish Presbyterians discussing church politics, the mind boggles.

After opening worship there was a succession of speakers. Some represented strong congregations already on their way to leaving or effectively rejecting Presbytery oversight with all the consequences that will inevitably bring. Others were genuinely searching for a way in which they could deal with the painful situation. All thought that a line had been crossed at the last General Assembly regarding Scripture and that there was no going back.

In fairness to the organisers it has to be acknowledged that conversations before and after the meeting indicated that the speakers were largely representative of those attending. There were few who said as one friend did, “We have differing understandings of the Church.”

Apart from times of praise the meeting was quiet, the speakers listened to with respectful silence. There were no interjections, no applause. Only once was I aware of a low murmur of agreement. Throughout the meeting there was a sense of dignity mingled with humility in face of what was happening. This was a sober and sobering gathering; no rally of dissent, rather a solemn affirmation of where we are. Although no decisions were made the direction which we shall take when we meet again in the autumn is clear.

I cannot recall being affected emotionally to such an extent by a meeting. Mainly it was the impact of the realisation that what had been a matter of discussion, or even something accepted on an intellectual level, was going to actually happen.

I left the Tron with the strong impression that disruption is now inevitable. Shakespeare was wrong, parting is not “such sweet sorrow.” In this instance it hurts, and hurts deeply. We are rarely so unfortunate as to witness an historic occasion. I fear that I was present at one yesterday.

Environmentalist Syncretism

Christian leaders habitually adopt the concerns of the prevailing culture in order to connect with society. At various times the Church has fought and then adopted scientific reasoning, at one time we consigned therapy to the province of a secular priesthood only to later enthusiastically embrace some of the more outlandish aspects of psychoanalysis.

Today the process is being reversed. We could shrug and remark that what’s sauce for the goose etc. This is about more than the decision a couple of years ago that the environmentalist view of Tim Nicholson was entitled to the same protections in law as religious convictions.

When atheist environmentalists call on Christians to play their part in the anti global warming crusade they are doing what the Church has done for centuries, downplaying one aspect of their core beliefs in order to promote another and in the process calling upon unlikely allies.

There are, however, dangers for the Church in the re-habilitation of Christianity for the purposes of the moral justification of environmentalist beliefs. When Christianity is consciously employed by cultural forces to manipulate the attitudes and behaviour of people we witness the corruption of the Church. The history of last century we should warn us of the embrace of secular philosophies.

In order to try to prevent a flood of condemnation I have to assert that I am not against concern for the environment. Environmental concern is a core facet of the Cultural Commission of Genesis 1:26-30. My concern is the distortion of the Christian faith in order to pursue the core beliefs of a differing faith.

The co-opting environmentalist has a simplistic understanding of how Christianity functions. For the environmentalist it does not matter what people actually believe as long as they can be manipulated into acting in a manner acceptable to green faith. This is what enables the often atheist Greenies to attempt to harness the Name and power of God in the pursuit of secular beliefs.

Environmentalism has some of the outward aspects of Christianity, only in a debased form. As Michael Crichton remarked “Environmentalism has become the religion of choice for the urban atheist.”

Christianity grows from two dynamics; from direct revelation from God in His Word and the moving of the Holy Spirit, and from the developing understanding of His people, the Church. The pragmatic religion of environmentalism grows from only one direction, the direct revelation of the words of the scientific priesthood whose words are to be accepted unhesitatingly.

Christianity is organically internalised in the lives of believers. It is a faith which shapes our understanding of every aspect of life, our view of creation, our relationships with others and our view of ourselves as individuals. It gives meaning to our lives. Merely to treat Christianity as a public relations device
to lend moral authority to a secular crusade distorts the faith.

Believing that science helps us to understand how the world works does not entail that science should be treated as a belief system. Science is based on scepticism, the only authority in scientific activity should be the evidence. Britain’s oldest and most respected scientific institution is the Royal Society which was founded with the motto “On the word of no one.” A motto which also refers to the devotees of Gaia.

It is more than Greens continually employing Christian language such as ‘green sins’ and the ‘evil’ of pollution. Much environmentalist activity is conducted on the same lines as the mediaeval Catholic Church. Pronouncements and fearful prophecies come down from the scientific curia on high. Heretics who deny the faith are pursued with an Inquisitorial zeal, and when run to ground they are excommunicated from the community. As Lord May President of the British Science Association  pointed out experiments using game theory show that groups of people can achieve their goals if ‘cheats’ and those who ‘fail to pull their weight’ are punished.

Like the mediaeval Church today’s activist environmentalists influence the public by making fearful threats and using moral blackmail. A typical product is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth which is an emotional appeal using both threats and blackmail rather than appealing to reason and sober judgement based upon facts. What better to promote the environmental message in emotional terms than to cloak it in the garb of divine commandment? That will scare them into going Green if nothing else will. Perhaps to be fair it was more fundamentalist tent meeting than mediaeval Catholicism.

Environmentalists have what is basically a simplistic view of God, a caricature of an Old Testament deity threatening divine retribution whom they wish to employ for their own ends. If we unthinkingly accept the stance of environmentalists and uncritically do their work for them we demean the Church and its core purpose.