Monday, May 28, 2007

In Extremis (Abelard vs. Bertrand)

Went to see the play ‘In Extremis’ @ Shakespeare’s Globe with Becca on Saturday. The play set in 12thC France depicts the battle between Philosophy and Catholic Mysticism.

I found myself agreeing with statements made by both of the protagonists. Abelard in stating that reason is a gift given by God and Bertrand in his position that we need revelation from God.

Both Characters came out badly ‘ethically’ speaking, Abelard in using his position as teacher to bed Heloise (under the age of consent) and Bertrand in his political manoeuvres.

The play (I feel) left me with a mood of ambivalence toward philosophers and mockery of the “derangement of (the) self-flagellating monks” (Time Out London 23/05/07). They were both caricatures of how these positions are perceived in today’s culture.

The question I left with is “Who do I side with? The passionate philosopher or the nutter?”

When presented like that there seems to be little choice, but is that the choice we have? Only if these caricatures are the only things we ever see…

How our society needs to hear the words of the gospel that come with power, the Holy Spirit and deep conviction that tell of how we can be those who have:

“turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, 10and to wait for
his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from
the wrath to come.” (I Thessaloninas 1:9-10)

Friday, May 11, 2007

Love him or Loath him?

Dawkins, everyone has something to say about him.

I have just finished reading his interview with Ruth Gledhill (Times Religon Correspondent) entitled 'God... in other words' (10/05/2007).

As I read, it became clear to me that the interview was not between two factions but between one 'Liberal Religous type' to another.

'Liberal' in the sense of wanting individuals to have the final word on truth (not God)
'Religous' in the sense of having firm convictions...

(1)Dawkins claims "Humanity is approaching a staggeringly impressively close near-to-complete understanding ... (the tradgedy is) that people are deprived of this not by misinformation or lack of education, but by deliberate distortion, by organised misinformation"
(full of conviction but firmly individualistic...)
(2)Gledhill herself writes "words have power," and echoes Dawkins thoughts on 'transcendence' (she loves the word 'numinous' too).

Their unity stemmed from a disdain for Biblical Orthodox Evangelical Christianity. The article climaxes with Gledhill's reflection:

"I'm not superstituous, but there is something faintly transcendent about Dawkins in the flesh. But I didn't tell him that of course. He'd just accuse me of making it up."

The only word I can use to describe how I viewed their opinion on life is 'sentimental'.
It seems very sad to me that those people held in such high esteem by many seem to have
a head,
a heart,
and a tongue,
in what they are saying, but no gut at all, because ultimately they are squirming away from the Lordship of the maker of the universe in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ. And the majority of the UK are following them in their convictions and their ultimate destination.

Thursday, May 03, 2007


This is a video of me and my brothers fooling around along time ago. This is not for the light hearted!