God Spot: What should we take pride in?

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and, with the humble possibility, inspire. More than that, I hope that they encourage thought and discussion. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them. These notes are an extension of my desire to practice my writing, so please do feel free to add constructive criticism, but please also be kind. I don’t get to do a lot of creative or structured writing in my line of work.

A couple of days ago, from a student for whom I have invested a fair amount time in extra tuition, I received the kind of amazingly touching and heartfelt thank you note that every teacher dreams of. In it she expresses, not just a transformation in her attitude to my subject and enjoyment of my lessons, but realisation of life changing lessons. This is what makes the long hours, the overbearing and demanding parents, the students’ rudeness, stubbornness and ingratitude all fade into the background; it makes it all worthwhile.

My first instinct was to post the letter (minus the name) on Facebook, run round and show all my colleagues, frame it and put in next to my desk so that everyone could see; in effect to show off to the world what a great teacher I am (and I am aware that in writing this, I fall foul of the same dangers).

PRIDE! The great deceit! 

I have learnt, through harsh lessons, that it only brings pain.

“The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit; a broken and contrite heart, O God, you will not despise.” – Psalm 51:17

“But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ–the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.” – Philippians 3:8-11

Should I consider this letter rubbish?

A few years ago I learnt the danger and folly of making professionalism and pride in my work an idol, but we are still told to work for the Lord. 

"Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men" - Colossian 3:23 Not the praise of man, but for the glory of God. In effect, our hard work is our witness to the change God has made in our lives.

Whilst I take joy that I can help this hard working student (I am wary not to say “well deserved” for as Christians we know that we deserve nothing) to enjoy the beauty of God’s ordered universe (as we mathematicians understand that we just have a small glimpse of that which is divine), but I am saddened that it is meaningless if she cannot enjoy it in eternity.

The life lesson learnt is even worse! She has learnt that by small regular steps, by hard work and perseverance, no obstacle is too great. As Christians, the truth we know is that until we admit that we are weak and helpless, until we humble ourselves to admit that we can do nothing to earn our salvation, we cannot accept the love and salvation God has to offer. There is nothing we can do to earn salvation or God’s love. That is not an obstacle or achievement that can be gained through hard work. How does my teaching of one complement the other more godly and eternal lesson?

I have invited this student to the Christian Forum before, and no doubt she has heard some of my talk about my faith; she even showed interest in coming to a Christian Easter revision camp when I was talking to another student about it. My job prevents me from going any further, and it would be wrong to abuse my position as a teacher, so what more can I do?

My conclusion is that I can do no more. In fact, I should have known that I could do nothing in the first place. It is all God. It is always God. I have resolved to pray.

Perhaps when she leaves, I will remain in contact with her (as I have done with a few ex-students) and the opportunity to share my faith will arise then. Even then, my role as former teacher will make that line difficult to cross.

With God and prayer there is always hope, but I am left confused.

These are the questions:

What joy should I take from this note?

What life lessons should I be teaching students, if not that with hard work and perseverance, they can achieve great things?

Those who know me will know that I will not be a “Ned Flanders”, to flagellate myself over some tiny self-perceived sin. I put the questions to you and move on. Knowing God is pure joy, but any of the blessings we share with the lost must be bittersweet.

P.S. I am being extremely careful of the real possibility that she might have a little infatuation.

God Spot – (Spotlight on the Media) Religion VS Women

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and, with the humble possibility, inspire. More than that, I hope that they encourage thought and discussion. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them. These notes are an extension of my desire to practice my writing, so please do feel free to add constructive criticism, but please also be kind. I don’t get to do a lot of creative or structured writing in my line of work.

I readily confess that one of the reasons that I studied Maths was my inability to read anything like a textbook. I love fiction (most notably fantasy and sci-fi), but my disability, or more probable laziness, extends to Christian literature and Newspapers. In an attempt to cure this, I am forcing myself to spend more time doing both. I have been reading Christian books alongside some of the sixth form boys in my school with the hope that the amount and complexity that they are willing to read will be about the same as mine. I have re-installed the BBC ticker on my laptop, with the latest news headlines scrolling across the top. More recently I subscribed to “The Week”, a relatively light magazine which rounds up the week’s news conveniently. I am aware ironically how failure to improve my reading of both of these areas will hamper my progress in my own writing skills.

Two articles caught my attention last week - both on the theme of religion and the fairer sex.

The first was the surprising move proposed by the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, that might allow parishes to opt out of coming under the authority of future women bishops (there are none as yet). The surprise was not the fact that the move was voted down, but a sad sign of the times that one of the most senior figures within the Anglican church, fully supported by Rowan Williams, would propose such a move, showing more work by these leaders to try to hold together a church so obviously divided. With a bit more digging into events, I found that 216 voted for the amendment, 191 against, and 9 abstaining – failing because it apparently needs majority in the three houses: laity, clergy and bishops. 

I wonder whether those clergy that voted for the amendment imagined that women would not become bishops when women were first ordained in 1994. Did they honestly think that it would be sensible to allow parishes to pick and choose their authorities? Perhaps, my interpretation of the liberal Christian’s view of picking and choosing which parts of the bible to believe, would translate to a fluid structure within the church of England. More likely, I think that Abraham Lincoln’s oft quoted line, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”, which has unsurprisingly is almost a direct quote from Jesus (Matthew 12:25, Luke 11:17, Mark 3:24) will see that the church itself will finally split.

I realise that whilst I have talked about my obvious feelings about the proposal, I have yet to talk about my own views on women in ministry. As an evangelical, I bow to the authority of the scriptures. Not being a biblical scholar by any means, I believe the key text to be 1 Timothy 2:12-13 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve” [ESV]. The following reference to Adam and Eve makes it not just a contextual issue, but a creation one. I have to confess that this is one of the only areas of the bible that I continue to struggle with regardless of wise and respected advice. Having studied the context of the previous verse, “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness”, whilst often used to accuse Paul of being a misogynist, I understand to be a very pro-feminist statement (Jewish women at the time were not allowed to study the scriptures at all). The aforementioned passage is one that cannot be so easily argued from our current social standpoint of sexual equality, and if it is a creation issue, then what are the consequences for how Christians should react to women in authority in their secular work places? Certainly, I respect and have learnt much from many strong women (not to mention that I hope the future Mrs Cheung will be one), and have even specifically chosen to work under the authority of some. I believe there is a role of women in the structure of church work which is currently being vastly overlooked in many churches. I believe in sexual equality and not androgyny. This perhaps, is a discussion to have at another time since it moves me away from the main thrust of this piece.

“As a national church, it should strive to share the values of the people it serves”, wrote the Guardian. Here lies the crux of the problem. The church is tied to the state, and unfortunately not just by name. As a man cannot have two masters, neither can a church – the choice of serving the people or serving God should be obvious, but realistically not. With the Anglican church holding so much power and influence, it is unsurprising that the media are attacking this matter than should not be something that the secular world should be expected to comprehend. How does the world understand the authority of the bible and the centrality it has to the evangelical faith? It is unsurprising that there will be splits within the church and that the general population looks on with complete bewilderment (viewing the church at best archaic, at worst misogynistic in their view). Personally, I think that it is the church’s issue, to be deal with without influence by a world which cannot understand – but more on this later.

The second article concerned the worldwide outrage at the proposed stoning of a woman in Iran convicted of adultery. In 2005, Mrs Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani was convicted of having an “illicit relationship” with two men. All three were flogged. Her case was reopened when she was charged with the murder of her husband alongside one of her alleged lovers. She was cleared of murder, but convicted of adultery, and sentenced to death by stoning. Iran seems to have since backed down on this issue. 

Stoning was introduced after the Islamic Revolution of 1983, and hundreds are believed to have been killed in the 80s and 90s.

It obviously jars with all our sensibilities that particularly a woman might be treated this way. It seems to our western eyes that the Islamic states treat women with an almost medieval attitude. Apparently, the Koran states that adulterous wives should be “confined to their houses until death overtakes them”. I need to add that many Muslims are also at the forefront of the campaigns against violence against women. Torah law, taken from the Old Testament allows for stoning of a betrothed young woman who has lost her virginity in her father’s house. Notably, if adultery is being committed then both man and woman should die (Deuteronomy 22:13-29). Within Christianity, this is superseded by the example set by Jesus where he intervenes in such a case saying, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her” – John 8:1-11 [ESV].

So what is my point in drawing attention to these two stories? Both can be argued to have religious motivations. Both jar with secular sensibilities about sexual equality. Both are also issues that concern the state. In the first case, being a member of the Anglican church, and being a Christian, I would argue that this is a church matter, and that those who do not understand the issues have no say, and no right to intervene. The second is a matter of life and death for the women being prosecuted, and so is of concern to all of us. Surely however, I could just as easily argue that the first case is an issue of a large and widely influential organisation within the United Kingdom making policies that are illegal i.e. surely against equal opportunity laws? My own upbringing wants to rebel against what the bible might teach, but then would I not be as guilty as any liberal Christian in choosing my own faith and not submitting to the authority of the bible? The opposite position is to go against British law in what might seem a very small and trivial issue. Certainly the common evangelical position is the bible teaches us that, whilst we are to respect and obey the authorities God has put in place over us, we have a greater duty to obey God’s law where there is conflict. I find it unusual that despite having had such a strong Christian upbringing, my sensibilities would still push me to take a secular position. If I am to bow to authority of the bible, which I am so ready to teach, then for the first time, I am to ignore those sensibilities. I am forced to realise that my sensibilities have been moulded by my surrounding culture, as were those who were brought up in times where slavery or bigotry of various types were the norm.

My two conclusions are these. Firstly, I have to work harder to resolve my issues with the matter of women in authority. Secondly and more importantly, despite British culture and laws stemming from Christian roots, it is a secular culture and cannot be resolved with Christian values or a Christian lifestyle; as close as they might fit, there will be moments where we will have to work hard to stick to the latter.

Film Review – The Wolfman

Unfortunately, a case of style over substance, without too much of the style.

Synopsis

Lawrence Talbot (played by Benicio Del Toro) having been estranged from his wealthy English home, returns on the behest of his brother’s grieving fiancé (Emily Blunt) to find that something evil is afoot. His brother has been mauled by wild beast, gypsies haunt the local area, and his reclusive father (Anthony Hopkins) seems completely unsurprised and emotionally aloof of the entire affair.

Whilst I am not a close follower of Anthony Hopkins’ career, I am an avid enough admirer of the grand old   man to know that he has made some very strange choices in roles before. Perhaps, those choices might be considered eccentric, I am surprised at this one. Great actors they might be, and the strength of their talent is evident even in this film, but even Hopkins, Del Toro, and the up and coming Miss Blunt, fail to inject this film with the spark of life it needed. Individually excellent, bringing presence and gravitas to their roles, I can only think that the directors were both over-flattered that these big names wanted to star in their movie, but also had more money than sense when casting them in the roles given. Hopkins plays a cantankerous old Irishman, somehow entrenched in Talbot Manor overlook the very English Blackmoor wilds. Benicio Del Toro plays his alienated son, who having emigrated to the Americas, has returned as an established Shakespearean actor (another stretch of the imagination) to perform on the London stage. Finally, the lovely Miss Blunt plays the grieving fiancé, for some unbeknownst reason, staying virtually unaccompanied at Talbot Manor after her beloved’s death. Joined also by Hugo Weaving playing the astute Inspector Abberline, they create a powerful cast for this film. Somehow, despite their screen presence and obvious talent, completely unsupported by a terrible script, there seemed to be no chemistry between these characters at all. As difficult as it already is to believe Del Toro as Hopkin’s son, casting one as an Irishman, the other as an American, stretch even the greatest imaginations beyond limit. How also we are to believe that in such a strained situation, with only the briefest of connection, a bond is formed between Blunt and Del Toro, is also a wonder.

I digress however. Unfortunately, the film’s shortcomings hardly start with the poor judgement in casting: for those that thought the story in Avatar was too simple, they will definitely struggle with the predictability and lack of depth in the Wolfman. If the special effects were something that the film makers were relying on, I have to report that, especially post Avatar, we have seen far better, and CGI used with far greater subtlety; and alas, having a brooding, dark atmosphere throughout the film, though done well, again shows poor vision in its monotonous lack of variety.

You will be unsurprised by my conclusion that this is not a film that you should spend any of your valuable time on; my only hope is that mine was spent so that it might save you yours.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

I am not sure that having so dismissed this film, I need add anything more. The debate as to whether mysticism in film encourages or discourages a belief in the supernatural and therefore God, is one to discuss at another time. This film, undoubtedly having such little impact on the long term memory of the viewer, I would recommend any other activity that might stimulate and challenge, rather than watch this film.

God Spot - The Lanyard

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and/or inspire. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them.

This was a poem sent to me by a member of my men’s reading group.

The Lanyard - Billy Collins

The other day I was ricocheting slowly
off the blue walls of this room,
moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano,
from bookshelf to an envelope lying on the floor,
when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary
where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard.

No cookie nibbled by a French novelist
could send one into the past more suddenly—
a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp
by a deep Adirondack lake
learning how to braid long thin plastic strips
into a lanyard, a gift for my mother.

I had never seen anyone use a lanyard

or wear one, if that’s what you did with them,

but that did not keep me from crossing
strand over strand again and again

until I had made a boxy

red and white lanyard for my mother.

She gave me life and milk from her breasts,

and I gave her a lanyard.

She nursed me in many a sick room,

lifted spoons of medicine to my lips,

laid cold face-cloths on my forehead,

and then led me out into the airy light

and taught me to walk and swim,
and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard.
Here are thousands of meals, she said,
and here is clothing and a good education.
And here is your lanyard, I replied,
which I made with a little help from a counselor.


Here is a breathing body and a beating heart,
strong legs, bones and teeth,
and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered,
and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp.
And here, I wish to say to her now,
is a smaller gift—not the worn truth


that you can never repay your mother,
but the rueful admission that when she took
the two-tone lanyard from my hand,
I was as sure as a boy could be
that this useless, worthless thing I wove
 of boredom would be enough to make us even.

I won’t patronise you all by explaining what the poem is about (some of you know that I am far too ready to do that).

I used it effectively recently talking to my Year 7 form (11 and 12 year olds) to get them to think about and value the time spent with family at Christmas time.

For us Christians, it puts in perspective our relationship with our God. He is our creator, provider, protector and saviour. How can we begrudge him – as we so often do – our time, money and service? What could we possibly do to make us even with him?

There is much more to reflect upon here. My own thoughts turned to the inevitable gentle acceptance of this small token of love, the mother’s understanding and patience with the weak and feeble sentiment in which it was given. I pray that you find it equally poignant.


Link - Former US poet laureate Billy Collins reading his poem

God Spot – Cycling, the Law and Liberalism

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and/or inspire. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them.

Those who know me, know that I enjoy cycling in London, and besides doing some silly camping stuff with the students during the holidays, it is my main means of exercise. I love the speed and the danger – weaving in and out of traffic; some would say, dicing with death. Whilst I am not the quickest on the road (and considering what some of the cyclists are wearing, they had better be quicker than I am) I would like to think that I am faster than the average casual cyclist. There is one thing that really gets on my goat. Cyclists generally, and with some degree of justification, hold both some car drivers and pedestrians (not to mention taxi and bus drivers) with a certain amount of distain (if not outright antipathy), but I would like to think that, whilst there is a competitiveness, there is also a certain amount of mutual respect. This is what I quietly fume at – when stopped waiting patiently at some traffic lights, a cyclist who is obviously slower than you pulls up in front of you. Inevitably, you have to take your time, when the lights go green, for this sluggard to pull away, whilst you wait for an opportunity to pass them and hope that they realise the error of their ways. The sheer lack of respect, not to mention inconvenience, is galling.

So last night I was cycling on my way home, trying not to jump red lights – it’s so hard, the number of traffic lights down Kensington High Street is simply excessive - when a middle-age woman with a basket has the temerity to pull up in front of me at a set of traffic lights. Perhaps I am being judgemental, but I think to myself, “if I’m not faster than this woman, then there must be something wrong with me” (to clarify: judging her by the type of bicycle, the basket and her clothes, not the fact that she is a woman). Anyway, the obvious happens, and cruising a hundred metres or so in front I pull up at another set of lights. I wait to see if the same happens again. It does, but this time, this woman jumps the lights. Another hundred or so metres on, having overtaken her again, the same thing happens. Finally, she turns off to the right as I carry on cycling along the same stretch of road. Having mellowed in the past few years, only a small part of my mind is raging at the cheek of the woman. The more mature, calmer part of me gets thinking.

This story in itself is just something I thought was amusing and worth the telling. I was infuriated by her lack of respect. Not just for me, but also for the law, which as a Christian I am learning to abide by. The former is just my pride, and I am happy to live with it and just mock myself for it. Painful though it is in these kinds of petty situations, as Christians we are called to submit to our authorities (Romans Chapter 13 – the exception obviously being where it contravenes God’s law).

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.- Romans 1v1-2

As much as we would like to argue otherwise, especially in these minor infringements, by failing to submit to the law of the land, we are failing to submit to God’s Word. If we try and argue otherwise, how different are we than those who commit murder and try to justify their actions? I am sure that most think that they have a very good reason why they are above the law, or an exception to the rule. I realised that I should be more understanding in view of the fact that I had jumped some red lights myself moments before. Do I have a right to be annoyed at this woman? Put simply – no. Consequently, I have no right to judge, but should try to be a good example by obeying the law completely.

This got me thinking and challenged me further. When describing myself and my faith, I regularly say that I am an unashamed Evangelical, taking the whole bible to be the inspired and infallible Word of God (that’s a discussion for another time). I regularly have a pop at Liberals since they, in effect, pick and choose which bits of the bible to believe in. They seem blinkered to the fact that this lessens the god that they believe in (you’ll notice that I don’t consider their god to be my God). Basically, their god is incapable of making sure that his message is kept pure and conveyed clearly and without fault to people throughout all time. It also elevate them (the Liberal) to a god-like position where they can decide what is truth, justice, real and who and what their god is. No matter how close the theology and belief system of a “liberal” Christian is to my own, they are throwing their lot in with anyone who considers themselves to be a liberal Christian, from the most conservative to the lunatic fringe (and I am sure that the vast majority of liberals would cringe at the bad name these people bring to Christianity).

Does that mean that we obey God’s laws blindly? Those who know me and know most evangelicals, know that this is certainly not the case. Challenging what I believe and how I live my life in accordance is very much part of my life, but I hope twinned with a commitment to humble obedience.

I have to admit that I am talking about a general impersonal “liberal”. In reality, when dealing with individuals, I am not nearly so black and white. Like with the story above, I realise that it is not my place to judge. I am sure that many liberals are saved, but I would still assert that they are playing a very dangerous game with their view of God and hope that any reading this will be challenged by what I have said.

The comparison with my thoughts about liberalism and the law are obvious. If start to pick and choose which laws to obey, not only are we disobeying the Word of God, we are elevating ourselves, whilst not as blasphemous as to compare ourselves with God, to one that is way above our status – on par with those God has put in authority over us. We make ourselves criminals, using the same pathetic excuses and arguments that those committing what we see as more serious crimes use, and whilst we may not be murderers, we are law breakers, and so on the wrong side of the legal system.

These comparisons and my own lapses in obeying the law urge me to be gentler, more humble, loving to these liberal Christians, all the while encouraging me to strive to obey the law (including not jumping red lights) more diligently.

All this has to be said with the reminder (something I need to constantly remember and beat into my thick skull) that we obey God’s Word in response to the wonderful salvation he provides for us, not because it saves us, makes us holy, or in any way better than those around us.

***** Additional Note *****


Dear All,

I have been urged to clarify my comments above by a helpful birdie who knows what I meant to say, and not it appears I said. Please do not take my rantings and vitriol about the woman with the basket to read that I am raving loony with real anger issues. I meant to write this with a certain amount of self-deprecation, poking fun at the self-righteous, prideful and oh-so-wrong anger I feel at times. The initial issue of the lack of respect of those who cut up other cyclists at traffic lights, and my subsequent ranting about this is irrelevant to my later points, and I know unhelpful to the main thrust of my conclusions. It was just the story of what happened to get my mind thinking on obeying the law, and the parallels it has to evangelicalism, but inevitably distracting (and may present me as someone with serious rage issues).

I have also been urged to apologise to any liberals out there who might think that I view them in the lowest regard, I don't. I hope you know that I am actually a warm and cuddly person, who actually likes and respects most liberals I know, but just have the odd rant about liberalism as a concept.

Please forgive the tone of what I wrote. I am sure that if you see another additional, the helpful birdie will point out that I still haven't got this one right. I'm trying.


Yours Sincerely,


Sam

Comment on Education/ God Spot – The Teaching of Creationism

Undoubtedly this topic will have a bit of a cross-over with my Christian faith, and so I ask my secular audience to bear with me. I will not hide that this drives my thinking in life, but I hope that I can present a sound and reasoned view on this.

I apologise to those media snobs among you, but I receive most of my news through either the television, or via my BBC newsfeed. Yesterday it was reported that 60% of adults thought that evolutionary theories should be taught alongside creationism in school science lessons (Darwin teaching ‘divide opinion’).

I would like to start by saying that I consider myself to be, first and foremost an Evangelical Christian: that is, I take the bible, the Word of God, to be God inspired, infallible and the whole truth. I did not always think this, but have come to believe this over many years of study, listening and research of my own. There are now only a couple of passages that I continue to struggle with, but compared to the book as a whole, I am willing to bow to the bible’s authority rather than my own wisdom (so don’t get me started on Liberalism).

Genesis chapter 1 is written in as poetic language as you will find in the bible, and certainly we do not take the Psalms, the prophecies, or Revelation as literal truth. This being the case, many respected evangelicals fall into both the evolutionist or creationist camps without a lot of friction between them. Creationism is not a doctrine that is central to our faith – that would be the death of a real and historical Jesus, who was fully man and fully God, and died in substitutionary sacrifice for the evil that we commit (I’d love to answer any further questions about that if you have them). Over the years, my own view has not fallen strongly into either camp, but has certainly swung from one to the other. My current position is somewhat like that of an informed Agnostic, but probably sides more with those who believe that creation was initiated by God in short bursts that fit in with some of the evolutionist time-lines.

A lengthy discussion with an Atheist colleague a few years ago covered a range of topics, the creation/ evolution debate amongst them. I would like to think that we both gained a certain amount of respect for the other person’s opinion, and one thing that I did take away from the wrangling was that I had to admit that creationism was not a logic first step for any Agnostic. I will readily admit that coming from a purely scientific standpoint, to start with no theory, and jump to the conclusion of a higher power creating life is not a logical theory. That is not to say that intelligent design is not now a valid theory; and from what I understand, one which is gathering evidence and increasingly held by prominent scientists; but it is not a sensible first step for a logical reasoned human (nor ape).

Whilst I do think that it is wrong that schools at present teach “evolution fact”, rather than “evolution theory”, my bigger fear is that if the governing bodies open the door to school being allowed to teach alternative theories, creationism will either be taught with scorn and derision, but more damaging is that creation will be taught without the logic and reason that underpins the teaching of science. Regulation within teaching comes with both the good and bad, but if creation is to be taught as an alternate theory, then good education materials (fact sheets, videos, etc...) must be provided. I make the emphasis on “good” education materials, because far too much damage has been done in the past with poor materials. I have had testimonies about scary/ boring/ poor lessons on sex and drugs, in which those important issues are made into a joke amongst the students.

Unfortunately, more damaging to the Christian viewpoint has not been the attacks from without (in this case the aforementioned scorn and derision from secular science teachers), but irrational and poorly thought through steps from amongst the Christian community. There is no other reason to teach Christian values and beliefs except that it is the truth, and the truth will withstand both the slings and arrows of its critics, and the test of time.

***** Addition Note *****

In a private critique of this piece, I have been made aware that there is a factor that I haven’t taken into account (quite a big one in fact). That would be that if I trust that God is the creator god, and not only the Cartesian view of a god who created a clock-like perfection and set everything off running (I think that’s what Descartes’ view of God was – I’m sure someone helpful will correct me if I’m wrong), but a loving and interceding God, then surely I should trust that if creationism is allowed to be taught alongside evolution, then he can use even the worst of bumbling teachers to convey the beauty and majesty of what he has done. In essence, I should trust him more. That doesn’t mean however, that we shouldn’t be a wiser in the way we teach these issues, nor in our desire (and if we are in a position, campaigning or actions) to create better resources and materials for the teaching of creationism. God gave us minds and other skills that we might use them.

Film Review - Funny People

I’ve always thought even the worst of comedians have to be good actors to do what they do, and that their best work is in some of their more serious roles. This is true of Adam Sandler in this film. Supported ably by Seth Rogan and a host of other comedians, Funny People is a bit of a disjointed movie, consisting of two quite distinct parts, but both quite enjoyable if you can get past the crudeness of the peripheral comedy.

Synopsis
George Simmons (Adam Sandler) is a world renowned actor, comedian and “funny man”. He has everything that money can buy, women falling at his feet, and he’s dying of cancer. One lonely night, Simmons goes to perform some stand-up at a club he used to frequent, and after venting his emotions to the audience, watches as the unfunny Ira Wright (Seth Rogan) takes the opportunity to poke fun at him. Reaching out, Simmons decides to employ Wright as a personal assistant and an awkward friendship begins to form between the two men. With death being imminent, Simmons reaches out to estranged family, friends and to a lost love in the form of Laura (Leslie Mann), now married with two children. We see Simmons search for the meaning of life, death and what really matters, and the destructive influence of getting everything you want.

Having been schooled at a boys boarding school and over a decade of teaching, not much shocks me. I do find the base level crudeness that you can find in most stand-up comedy nights distasteful (perhaps heightened by my sensibilities as a teacher). Funny People portrays the crudeness accurately, and so whilst I give it credit for being in touch with reality, I must warn those easily offended not to go and see this film.
Adam Sandler is one of my least favourite comedy actors. He sits on the bottom rung with Will Ferrell, and there is little beneath them. I find puerile comedy cringe-worthy, and so having never read any reviews for this film, I have to wonder what drew me to it. Perhaps having enjoyed Knocked Up (but not Superbad or Year One), the pairing of Judd Apatow (director) and Seth Rogan made me curious. Like Will Ferrell in “Stranger than fiction”, Adam Sandler proves his worth as an actor in this film, and it confirms my opinion that some of the best humour is not just situation comedy, but the wave of pairing comedy moments with bittersweet, sad or ironic moments that has swept American sitcoms (creeping into the end of Friends, prevalent in Ally McBeal and Sex in the City). As aforementioned, this is a film of two halves. The first concentrating on Simmons’ battle with cancer, and the second his fight to regain his lost, but married, love - Laura.
Seth Rogan again demonstrates how well he is cast in this role, playing the bumbling comic wannaby, and Leslie Mann also performs well (although the fake lying is embarrassingly overplayed). Eric Bana plays Clarke, Laura’s regularly absent husband, and whilst I like him as an actor, has such an awful Australian accent it is hard to take him seriously.
The film as a whole, whilst will not register amongst the classics, may be one I will remember favourably, the only barrier to recommending it being the volume of crudeness within it. It raises some deep questions, and offers some answer without being preachy, and so I would recommend this film if you can stand the aforementioned crudeness.

Christian Perspective

I can forgive and excuse the sex, penis and jokes about other profanities as an accurate portrayal of what goes on in the stand-up comedy scene. Others may not. I liked that this film raised deep questions about death, and what is important in life. It did so realistically and sensitively, and there were no glib, superficial Hollywood answers. The overwhelming message that if someone gets whatever they want it does not lead to happiness, was clear, as well as a secondary note on the importance of the relationships with friends and family. These are good things. Obviously, the audience are not challenged too strongly on the pointlessness of it all, or asked to examine the meaning of life, but these are gently touched on, and if we are looking to eternity, and hoping to challenge our friends on these issues, then this can only be a good thing.

God Spot - Contemplation on Quiet Time 28/08/09

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and/or inspire. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them.

Acts 3:11-21

11 ...All the people, utterly astounded, ran together to them in the portico called Solomon's. 12 And when Peter saw it he addressed the people: “Men of Israel, why do you wonder at this, or why do you stare at us, as though by our own power or piety we have made him walk? 13 The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus, whom you delivered over and denied in the presence of Pilate, when he had decided to release him. 14 But you denied the Holy and Righteous One, and asked for a murderer to be granted to you, 15 and you killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead. To this we are witnesses. 16 And his name—by faith in his name—has made this man strong whom you see and know, and the faith that is through Jesus has given the man this perfect health in the presence of you all.
17 “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. 18 But what God foretold by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ would suffer, he thus fulfilled. 19 Repent therefore, and turn again, that your sins may be blotted out, 20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago.”

The author, Luke was very much involved in the Christian movement at this time, and we know that as a doctor and an author he was rigorous about recording things accurately as a witness for others. This passage is an impromptu sermon by Peter which follows his very first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 2). Peter encapsulates the entirety of the gospel message here (Jesus’ role as Saviour and our own need to repent), and ties it firmly to the Old Testament scriptural prophecies (which he goes on to elaborate in the rest of the passage). There is no doubt that he fully understands the weight of those prophecies and Jesus’ fulfilment of them. Those who claim that Christianity was a creation of Paul and that he somehow convinced the other apostles should take a look at this passage, the manuscript evidence, and their own convictions.
It was not just these incredible words that I found amazing about this passage, but more so a particular turn of phrase in verse 15 – “and you killed the Author of life”. In this one passage, Peter so clearly spells out what so many cults have twisted and convinced millions to believe falsely. Not only is Jesus the fulfilment of the scriptural prophecies, and the culmination of Jewish history up until this point, he is also the full embodiment of God incarnate. Not “a god” or “a major prophet” as many corruptors would claim, but fully God, made flesh and the one who died, killed as a substitutionary sacrifice, and raised to life again. In repentance and faith, we find healing and salvation. Praise God.

Film Review – The Time Traveller’s Wife

Eric Bana is Henry, a man who struggles with a disjointed life of involuntarily jumping for occasional spells in time. His jumps are attracted to the big things in his life: the death of his mother, and the intertwining of his life with Clare, his wife (played by the lovely Rachel McAdams). The film follows their love and their struggle to overcome the complications his conditions brings.

Although I tend to avoid reading reviews of films before I watch them, it was not surprising to hear that this film compared unfavourably to the novel from which it was taken. It rare that film writers understand the strengths of the cinema and how these compare to the strength of the written word, rarer that they can translate one to the other, and difficult for audiences themselves to understand the these (and I know full well what a pompous critic that makes me sound). It is even harder in the case of slow moving romantic films, and one as popular, well known and well loved as Audrey Neffenegger’s best seller. Having not read the book (and not just because I am a man), I am unfortunately in no position to compare. I am reasonably informed that the book is all about love, absence and longing, and an inability to control their relationship. On screen, the obvious emotions: desire, tenderness and frustration of Henry and Clare are well portrayed, and despite the lack initial character development, I felt myself drawn into the story. I am sure that, as is the want of Hollywood, the focus is much more on the romantic aspect, but there is a great sequence which conveys succinctly the history and emotional ties he has with his parents. I would have liked to have seen more of this, Henry’s struggles to try change the past, as well moments that would define both his and Clare personality, but I understand the time constraints of a film. It took a little while to get into the film, but as it drew to its poignant conclusion, I was surprised to find myself invested in the characters. To those who love the book, I would say not to expect too much, but I feel that this is a film that has sensitively and respectfully handled the material; to those who have not, enjoy a romance that is above the average Hollywood fare.

CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE

Amazingly for a modern day romantic film, The Time Traveller’s Wife succeeded in not making me cringe with any of my usual Christian moral triggers (although I do wonder at the rightness of seducing and sleeping with your future husband on the very first meeting, and even more so at deliberately befriending an infatuated child version of your future wife). My problem with this film is the obsession and perpetuation of the notion that finding that “one special love” somehow completes a person, and that this is what life is all about. I am sure that feminists up and down the country will also be outraged that fulfilment can only be found by either living in that relationship, or in motherhood. It is interesting to note that while much joy was found in Clare’s relationship with Henry, it was accompanied by much frustration and heartache (something I would only guess is true of any long term relationship). The film then paints a bittersweet peace found only when that relationship ends. We, who know God, should know that true joy and peace is found with him and in eternity.

God Spot - Contemplation on Quiet Time 13/08/09

Just a quick word to say that these “God Spot” notes are to be shared with Christians. My hope is that they encourage, challenge and/or inspire. I don’t expect that those who are not Christians to understand or respond to these notes, but they are most welcome to read them.

Psalm 143:1-2

Hear my prayer, O LORD;

give ear to my pleas for mercy!

In your faithfulness answer me, in your righteousness!

Enter not into judgment with your servant,

for no one living is righteous before you.

It says that Psalm 142 is written when David was in a cave escaping Saul (how I wish I had as poetic or musical talents to write my feelings into song!). Much of the rest of the two Psalms is what you would expect from someone being harassed by enemies, a simple plea for help. Here in the centre however is David crying for mercy, not from his enemies, but from judgement from God. He recognises his own lack of righteousness even when surrounded by danger. It is a passion for God’s righteousness that makes him one of the most inspiring men of faith and passion in the bible, and a challenge to me when I’m feeling sorry for myself (which, despite the comfortable life I lead, is far too often).