Even more intensive

The second intensive course I was allocated, and which took place at the beginning of last week, was entitled 'Christian responses to eastern faiths'. It provided views of Buddhism, Sikhism and Hindu and was highly illuminating! The classroom element of the course was useful, but haphazard. It was frustrating that whilst the course leader was knowledgable and likeable, the organisation of the course wasn't the best, and some of the delivery was below par. The highlight of the course, though, was the trip to Leicester (unlikely as it may sound). We visited places of worship of each of the faiths mentioned above, and I found much of the day truly inspiring.

For me there were two big highlights:

The visit to the Hindu temple was great. We were allowed to sit in on an act of worship, and were given the opportunity to ask lots of questions afterwards. Maybe it was just the man who we were talking to, but he was incredibly open to us. We were told that this is a hallmark of Hinduism, and whilst I don't hold to some of the pluralist principles we were told about, I really appreciated the spirit of openness and cooperation we were shown. It gave me genuine hope in the value of interfaith dialogue, and made me very humble about the respect accorded by many to my own faith.

The second highlight was when we visited the Sikh Gudwara. What an example of how to serve the community! We were given a great welcome and an interesting tour of the centre (in a former factory building). Again, we sat in on worship, and we were also invited to share in a meal. In the Gudwara, and in many others like it, Langar is a shared meal which is free, and available to anyone every day. My reaction at the time and now is 'why aren't we doing this?' Not because we should just copy what other people are doing, but because it is a genuinely good thing to do. So much of the Gospel story is set against a backdrop of hospitality and meals. If we don't think that Jesus was a cynical marketeer engaging in a fresh expressions experiment based on dining experiences, we can probably assume that he recognised that food and hospitality were (and are) central to the human life. He didn't feed the five thousand (however he did it) in order to tempt them all to sit through an Alpha presentation; he did it because he thought they were hungry, and he was concerned for their welfare. This should be our motivation for our work in the community. There shouldn't be a cynical subplot of conversion or profile-raising when we set about this type of work. We should do it out of love for our neighbour, whoever that might be, and whatever their religion. Of course, that doesn't mean we can't do mission or evangelism, but we ought to be clear about why we do each of the things we do.

So whilst I might not be converting to any eastern faith anytime soon, I think there are things we can learn if we are prepared to talk to people from other cultures and faiths. I'm very grateful for the opportunity to learn about these other faiths, and my eyes have been opened.

Physics Genius Stephen Hawking has restated his previously stated position about the need for God in the process of creation in slightly different words, but with precisely the same conclusion

I posted last week about why I think one can defend the creation of a BBC religion editor, and the fuss about Stephen Hawking's 'u-turn' over the possible existence of God makes the point nicely.

Otherwise intelligent journalists (like John Humphreys on Radio 4 this morning) seem to turn into gibbering, incoherent numpties when they get near a religious news story*. The whole idea that Hawking has had a major turnaround in his beliefs is something with which the Church Mouse takes issue, and I'm inclined to agree with him:

Here's what Hawking said in 1989:

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary. [Stephen W. Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989]

Compare the quote from 1989 with the one which has caused the headlines today:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

If anyone can spot a difference, please let Mouse know.

It occurs to me that a good religion editor in the BBC would have been called in here to make some sort of analysis, and they would hopefully have removed the spin and hyperbole from the BBC's coverage. They may even have offered some more incisive research into Hawking's position, and given a balanced and accurate rendering to the fact that 'Physics Genius Stephen Hawking has restated his previously stated position about the need for God in the process of creation in slightly different words, but with precisely the same conclusion'. Not such a snappy headline is it?

*I accept that's not entirley true - I enjoyed Humphreys' series of interviews about his own beliefs, but we can all use a bit of hyperbole occasionally

Update - Mark Vernon has a different angle on the issue here.

13 days

Taking religion seriously

Bishop Nick Baines has an interesting post about the debate concerning the case for a 'religion editor' for the BBC. In my opnion, he (along with others) makes a strong case based on the need for interpretation and balanced consideration in the news. Through the economic meltdown, we have been treated to the wise, if irritatingly voiced, words of Robert Peston. He has helped us to understand what has been going on in a balanced way - we don't just have to believe the government or opposition hyperbole, and we don't have to wade through the broadsheets analysis. We simply tune into the Beeb and Robert will walk us through it.

The argument continues to say that, as religion is such a massive and influential phenomenon in the world, it makes no sense to ignore it. Even if we disagree with it, we cannot deny its existence or its prominance in society. Rather than taking the atheist position as the objective and scientific one, a religious editor would see this as one of many positions - not the de facto 'thinking person's' view of the world.

My only problem with any of this is that I don't think it is possible for anyone (let alone those in the media) to be completely objective. We're kidding ourselves if we think that Peston is completely without prejudice and bias - we are all prejudiced and biased.

This could be an argument against any kind of mediated news on the basis that it is all prejudiced. I don't think I can successfully defeat that one to my own satisfaction! In reality, though, we rely on mediated news and we always have. Newspapers, even the local ones, have a political slant. They filter out the things they don't consider to be newsworthy based on circulation figures and pre-existing prejudices.

And you can take it back a step further. When I go home tonight and tell DrLanky about my day at work, you can guarantee that I will present the edited highlights; I won't spend 8 hours recalling every trivial occurrance. I will edit the 'news' according to my own bias and prejudice, and according to what I think she will find interesting (sound familiar?). I'm not saying that I will lie, I will just edit the truth - we all do it; we can't avoid doing it! We just don't think about it.

In the end it comes down to trust. If you trust the person giving you the news, you trust that they will tell you the things you feel you need to know, without avoiding any interesting bits. You also trust that they will not distort the facts (though we all* exaggerate to some extent).

It's exactly the same with the news. We choose our news outlets by the way they fit with our world view. This is why I don't read the Sun and I don't watch Fox News - their versions of the truth doesn't seem to match the one that I observe in the world, so I choose to ignore them. Instead, I read the BBC news website and dip into the Indendent and Guardian for my news. They don't always match with my world view, but they get close most of the time.

Once this relationship of trust is established, the viewer can start to trust (to a certain extent) the content being presented, and as long as the editor continues to play ball, everyone is happy. Our trusted editor tells us what we need to know and filters out the uninteresting bits. They also bring to our attention the important things we may not have noticed, and as such they are an important part of the news infrastructure.

The reason I read my news in a few different places, though, is because I don't trust the BBC in the same way as I trust my wife. I feel the need to check up on them to see if they are being faithful. Many people don't do this, especially those who read the red-tops, and this is where the real power of the editor lies. Many people trust the news (from whatever source), and to have a religion editor who brings balance to religious stories would be very welcome. 

*pun intended

Obama sticks his neck out

I just saw that Barack Obama has voiced his support for the controversial new mosque close to the site of the world trade centre twin towers. (I'll add the link later)


This was a bold and brave move by the president, given the strength of feeling shown in the press. American politics seems to be incredibly populist, and he must know that he risks a massive amount of criticism from the right wing media outlets and their followers.


It's nice to see principles take precedence for a change.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

Reflecting on Rev.

A lot has already been said about Rev. and I don't feel I need to go over old ground by repeating every comment I've read recently. The Guardian have carried an interesting round-up of opinions from real clergy, which I found interesting, and the Church Mouse links to a number of reviews in his Friday round-up.

There are four things I'd like to add:

1. Please BBC can we have another series? We need more of this kind of thoughtful and relevant comedy, even if the licence fee gets slashed. This should be the 'bread and butter' of the BBC's comedy output.
2. I liked Dibley at the time it was broadcast. It was good fun and lighthearted, and the characters were appealing, though not in the slightest realistic. The arrival of Rev. has made me realise that Dibley didn't actually do much for the church (I concede that it wasn't necessarily meant to). It was so far removed from reality, that it was just comedy. In my opinion, Rev. is in a different league. It still exaggerates and caricatures the people of the church, but the characters remain believable. And it isn't just the characters; the stories are very real to those of us in the church. The reality of the characters and the stories mean that we aren't just laughing at comedy, we're laughing at ourselves. With the best will in the world, most of us would struggle to say the same about Dibley.
3. I thought the final episode was the best, though I know some found it a bit bleak and dark. For me it spoke about some of the hard realities about ministry (such that I appreciate them). I've known a number of clergy over the years who have had to resign following affairs, one of them very recently and quite close to home. As part of my preparation for selection, this was an area that I explored with my vocations advisor (not that I'm thinking about having an affair), and I came to realise that the clergy are human, and humans often err, sometimes significantly. It doesn't make it easy to come to terms with when it happens, but I think it's the only conclusion I can get to when I feel let-down and disappointed by the actions of those I respect. So Adam's attempt at flirtation with the headteacher (right under his wife's nose) was a part of the programme that made me think a bit! 
4. I thought that the way the writers concluded the episode was a reminder of the gravity and responsibility of the priestly vocation, and an affirmation of my own vocation. Despite the best efforts of the world, we seem still to need God. And most of us still need someone to help us to find the space to approach him amongst the business of our lives; especially at the times in our lives when we are facing change. I suppose Rev. has confirmed to me the potential difficulties of the path I'm following, and it's affirmed my motivation to carry on despite those risks.

It's not Dibley! (warning, this post contains a naughty word!)

Thanks to the wonderful Sky+ box in the Lanky household, we watched 'Rev.' last night due to postgrad group commitments on Monday. Having read a lot about the series already, I had a good feel for what it would be like before I watched it.

It's not Dibley, there's no laugh track (hurrah), and the humour is far from slapstick. Despite a couple of outbursts, the language is not nearly as fruity as 'the thick of it', but it's definitely not Dibley! I especially liked the bit where the vicar removed his collar as he told a bunch of abusive builders to 'fuck off!'.
I heard an interview with a cast member from 'The Wire' the other day, and she said that until well into the first season of the show, many of the actors thought it was fairly poor. It was only when the characters had developed and the rhythm of the dialogue had settled that they started to get into it and see its potential.
I'm not saying that I think Rev. is poor, but I am saying that this was a gentle start for what I expect will be a very good series. It has caricatures, but they aren't like the ones in Dibley. They are keenly observed, and therefore very amusing; especially for those of us who are part of similar church communities.
All in all, a solid start. I've already set the Sky box to record the entire series.
Other bloggers have watched too:

Church Times blog
Mark Vernon's blog
Bishop David Chillingworth's blog
David Keen's post has lots of other links too.

New BBC 2 comedy: Rev

Tonight sees the first episode of a new BBC comedy starring Tom Hollander as a new vicar in an urban setting. From what I've read, I'm expecting something more like 'The Thick of it' than 'The Vicar of Dibley'. Anyway, tune in tonight: BBC2, 22:00.

Read more about it at the Church Times website...

The day Stephen Hawking helped my prayer life

As I've blogged already this week, I'm participating in a week of accompanied prayer. As such, my attention has been slanted (to a greater extent than usual) towards my prayer life. 

Yesterday, I followed a link from a blog, and I eventually arrived at an article about an interview given to ABC in the USA about Professor Stephen Hawking's latest TV series over the pond. I have a lot of time for Hawking. His work in explaining the more complex ideas in theoretical physics to a lay audience has been inspirational.

The paragraph in the article that caught my attention was one that resonated with something that has come up in the sessions with my prayer guide. From one of Hawking's answers about religion:

"What could define God [is thinking of God] as the embodiment of the laws of nature. However, this is not what most people would think of that God," Hawking told Sawyer. "They made a human-like being with whom one can have a personal relationship. When you look at the vast size of the universe and how insignificant an accidental human life is in it, that seems most impossible."

I have a tendency to intellectualise God and faith (probably a personality-type issue). This can be very necessary, but it can sometimes reduce God to something like Hawking's caricature in the paragraph above; 'the embodiment of the laws of nature' and nothing more. I think when I intellectualise and theorise God, it becomes tempting to think of God only as a way of describing and understanding the physical reality of the world, and not as the personal God that Hawking criticises as a human-made artefact. This tendency reminds me of the 'category mistake' referred to by Rowan Williams in reference to creationism. We try to fit God into an inappropriate and inadequate system of understanding - scientific 'proof' - and we end up with an incomplete conception of the thing we were trying to understand.
I expect that one of the reasons I have this tendency is my degree in philosophy and my subsequent interest in the ongoing tussle between Dawkins and the religious world. I think I often confine my contemplation of God to philosophical thoughts about his existence, and the interaction of religious ideas with scientific ones, and I stop short of trying to know God better.
So Stephen Hawking has inadvertently encouraged me to address this matter in my private prayer time. I've resolved to try further to understand God in the personal sense that Hawking rejects. 
97 days (meant to do this each day - will try harder)

More on Brian Cox

I was just having a look at my previous post about Brian Cox's run in with the astrological types, and I realised that I didn't actually offer any kind of opinion on the affair! Not that I'm suggesting that I should always express an opinion on this blog, but it occurred to me that the original post is rather vacuous.

Therefore I thought I'd seek to remedy this by siding with the scientist. I think Cox was right to express his opinion that astrology was a load of rubbish in the context of a BBC science programme, because that seems to be the consensus view of modern science! I would find it most disturbing if a professor of Physics said anything else on a programme about the science of the solar system.

If it had been billed as a programme about astrology, I don't think Cox would have been invited to contribute unless they wanted to portray a devil's advocate view from the unbelieving scientists. As it was, it was a show about science, so the astrologers just have to deal with it. Perhaps they shouldn't have watched in the first place.

The other issue is whether I agree with Cox's opinion (rather than his right to express it), and I'm happy to say that I do. Though I'm aware of the view held by some that Christianity (and all other religions) are guilty of irrational stargazing. My own view is that astrology amounts to little more than a set of systems for guessing the future based on the movements of objects in space. I haven't seen evidence that it works, and in actual fact, I have no need for a prediction tool anyway. I'd much rather work on the basis that I can't know what's going to happen tomorrow. Simple is best!

God bless you Barack Obama

I watched this programme on BBC 2 last night. It was presented by Robert Beckford, and provided an interesting perspective on the religious side of American politics. I find it intriguing that, in a country where Church and State are constitutionally seperated, religion can have such a massive effect on electoral success.


As a major West Wing fan, I see the American electoral system as a perplexing and awe-inspiring machine. This programme gave me yet another perspective that I hadn't considered. It also gave a personal insight through interviews with many people who are close (or who were close) to the President.


If you find the time, give it a watch.

Unconvinced!

I watched the documentary on FIVE last night about the Turin (or Da Vinci) Shroud. It was a very strange experience, mostly in a televisual sense. Somehow, the one hour programme contained only 20-40 minutes of footage, and there was a strange editing fault which resulted in large parts of the programme being repeated several times over!

In terms of content, most of it was the same as I had already seen or read elsewhere, though it seemed to be dumbed-down for the FIVE audience. The new content related to the hypothesis that the image on the shroud was created using a camera obscura and photo-sensitive silver substances on a sheet of fabric. I found this to be quite persuasive and I would have liked to have seen more of the demonstration experiment they set up. Instead, they seemed to concentrate on trying to link the whole thing to Leonardo Da Vinci. I found these arguments to be much less than convincing.

Ultimately, it makes no difference to me. I'm convinced that the shround is not the genuine burial shroud of Christ already. I was just interested to see how the image had been formed, as it's claimed that the evidence is not consistent with a painted image or print.

The big news in this story, though, is that this may well be the oldest surviving photographic image! Now that's interesting.

New Turin Shroud conspiracy theory

I spotted this on the Amateur Photographer blog. There's a documentary on FIVE this evening which claims the image on the Turin Shroud was created by an early photographic process involving silver sulphate. The programme claims that none other than Leonardo Da Vinci made the image using a sculpture of his own face.

I'll have to watch it to check out the validity of their arguments, but the notion of the image as a photographic one fits with some of the other evidence I've seen. For example, the fact that the image is best seen in negative form, as in this picture. We don't really see many naturally formed negative images which haven't been 'created' by a human.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the progamme - I'm a bit of a sucker for Dan Brown style conspiracy!

Angry atheists

Thanks to Phil Cooke for leading me to this article from the LA Times by Charlotte Allen. I like this bit:

I can't stand atheists -- but it's not because they don't believe in God. It's because they're crashing bores.

Other people, most recently the British cultural critic Terry Eagleton in his new book, "Faith, Reason, and Revolution," take to task such superstar nonbelievers as Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and political journalist Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great") for indulging in a philosophically primitive opposition of faith and reason that assumes that if science can't prove something, it doesn't exist.

And this bit:

Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God. This is a favorite Dawkins theme. In a recent interview with Trina Hoaks, the atheist blogger for the Examiner.com website, Dawkins described religious believers as follows: "They feel uneducated, which they are; often rather stupid, which they are; inferior, which they are; and paranoid about pointy-headed intellectuals from the East Coast looking down on them, which, with some justification, they do." Thanks, Richard!

I think she summarises some good points, and I actually like her combative style; it somehow seems fitting in the face of the vitriol of the atheist 'lobby'. I think she's right about the anger. People like Dawkins seem to be incredibly angry at a God in whom they don't believe. The other good point she makes is that the philosophical arguments often deployed by angry atheists are simplistic and naive. I'll have to see if I can find her book.

Cambridge

Mike Peatman's news about his new post made me remember that I should post about the occurrances of the past few days. The news is that, following a visit to Westcott House, Mrs Lanky and I have decided that in the autumn of 2010, we will be heading south to Cambridge for me to go to vicar school.

Regular readers will recall that I went to a BAP (Bishops' Advisory Panel) at the end of 2008, and that I was recommended for training for priesthood in the Church of England. The next step has been to think about where I will train, and for a variety of reasons, Westcott seems to be the preferred option. Our visit to the college lasted 24 hours, and it allowed us to get a feel of the place in a more authentic way than a short visit. It also gave us the chance to socialise with some of the current students, one of whom we know from Lancaster. The visit also gave me the opportunity to explore the different courses available to me.

Finally, through a friend of a friend, we managed to go a long way towards getting a house sorted too. We could live in college, but with a housefull of furniture and cats (only 2 of these), we thought it would be better for us to 'live out'. We've found a house which is just about perfect for us; within 10 minutes from college by bike and 1/2 an hour on foot. It also has a garden and plenty of bedrooms for guests and little lankies.

All in all, a very satisfactory visit!

Good news for Durham

It looks like there is some good news for Durham. The cathedral authorities have finally stepped in to preserve the future of Christian bookselling in their fine city.

Sometimes the National Secular Society just makes me mad!

Nowhere in the NSS's claims about the costs of hospital chaplaincy to the NHS do they point out the cost of NHS chaplaincy to the church! They seem to think that it's just NHS chaplains who visit sick people with spiritual needs. In my experience, the humble parish priest (along with ministers and leaders from other faith groups and countless lay people) do a massive amount of visiting without sending a bill to the UK taxpayer.

Also, the NSS seem to assume that Christians circle like vultures above the hospital wards, waiting to pick of the weak ones! Again, in my experience, the majority of contact concerning religious and spiritual matters is requested by the patient.

The NSS seems to believe biological health is the only thing that should be addressed in hospital but I am delighted that the NHS recognises the importance of spiritual health alongside biological health.

School report

I thought I should post an update on the whole selection thing for those who are interested. The DDO came to see me the other week to go over the selectors' report from my selection panel in November last year.

The experience was a bit like getting a good school report. The selectors gave me a really good write-up, but it was a bit strange! It felt like they had met an alternate 'me' who answered all the questions correctly.

I now have to get my college application in, and it's looking like Westcott House in Cambridge is the odds-on favourite. As I'm not planning to start until 2010, I shouldn't have any problems getting a place or finding somewhere to live.

At this stage, it is becoming to feel a little more real, and a little more scary; particularly the financial side of things. Mrs Lanky and I currently bring in a fair amount of money every month, and it will be a big change for us to go down to a modest stipend for a couple of years.

Shaky start

I posted earlier in the month about new year's resolutions, and I thought I'd post an update. You might say that I have failed in both of my resolutions so far, but I do have an excuse. Mrs Lanky and I are currently house-sitting for a friend, and this includes looking after a small menagerie too. All of this means that we have a longer daily commute and extra animal feeding duties, and the upshot is that there isn't a lot of time left to read books or say offices. I have been better on the reading than the praying - I'm getting through the Trescothick autobiography at a reasonable rate (for me), but my success with the offices has been less encouraging, though I'm going to try to break back into a compline routine this evening.

How not to evangelise

Thanks to Dave Keen (and seemingly various others) for this post about how not to evangelise. I've been reading lots of things about mission lately as I approach my BAP in just over a week, and a lot of the observations in the original post echo the sentiments of what I've been reading. How can we expect anyone to take us seriously if we don't do the same for them?

Gods-on favourite

I enjoyed this story from Ruth Gledhill. The assertion that there probably isn't a God left an obvious area for a little fun. Well done Paddy Power.