Relatively sane Christians deplore CV
A letter in today’s Guardian on behalf of the Iona Community publicly dissociates the group, which has members representing over 10 Christian traditions, from the “shrill and unrepresentative Christian Voice”.
A letter in today’s Guardian on behalf of the Iona Community publicly dissociates the group, which has members representing over 10 Christian traditions, from the “shrill and unrepresentative Christian Voice”.
MediaWatchWatch was set up in January 2005 in reaction to the religious campaign against the BBC's broadcasting of Jerry Springer: the Opera.
We keep an eye on those groups and individuals who, in order to protect their beliefs from offence, seek to limit freedom of expression. And we make fun of them.
If you have any information, email The Monitor.
However ‘representative’ or ‘unrepresentative’ Christian Voice, opposition to tv swearing and abortion are mainstream Christian oppositions. These are the real issues.
Actually, no. Not all christians oppose abortion. You seem to believe that all your obsessions are shared by the vast mass of the population, when they are actually reactionary and oppressive and shared only by a small minority.
I have many friends who are Christian and they are not against abortion or swearing on TV.
Your firends’ conclusions are of no value in isolation – what would be of great value would be the way they arrived at those conclusions.
Because the way a large number of ppl arrive at conclusions is to approve whatever just so happens to be normal in their own society in their own period in history.
As Humpty Dumpty might have said in ‘Alice through the Looking Glass’, we can’t make the word ‘Christian’ mean whatever we want it to mean.
Tom – if one thinks about it, the word ‘reactionary’ is an illogical word. The underlying presupposition behind the word ‘reactionary’ is that one must always go with the latest social fashion. By that reasonibng, Germany in the 1930s-1940s must have been an improvement on Germany in the 1920s.
Unless you are implying that there are people who think absolutely everything has gone downhill. There probably are such people – but if they think that, it is a wild & undiscriminating generalisation. We can safely reject their viewpoint.
But by the law of averages alone, some things will have gone downhill and others will have improved. You cant believe that absolutely everything has improved as time has gone on. Has nothing at all got worse? Or am I misunderstanding your poihnt?
Just out of curiosity, Christopher: what exactly gives you the right to say what is and isn’t representative of ‘mainstream Christianity’? Unless I’m mistaken, you’re attached to the Kensington Temple, the Elim congregation which acted as the British home of the charismatic so-called ‘Toronto Blessing’ – who may be popular in parts of London, but really can’t be claimed as representative of the mainstream of Christianity in Britain, especially given the number of Christians who have expressed grave reservations about the nature of the ‘Blessing’ and the ministries which have promoted it.
The Toronto Blessing is an interesting one. Most of those who experienced it thought it was great. But it attracted a whole load of fruitcakes, with the result that the overall balance could often be in deficit.
I share the grave reservations, but the person I will listen to is the person who can simultaneously see both plusses and minuses (e.g. Margaret Poloma, or David Hilborn in the relatively recent Evangelical Alliance book on the topic).
Holy Trinity Brompton were more associated with it than we, and the remarkable success of the Alpha Course directly postdated the TB.
On the first question, I think people – unless they are really honest – too often tend to call ‘mainstream’ what they and their like-minded friends think. Which aint a helpful or accurate definition of ‘mainstream’.
I wouldnt be in a position to define what mainstream Christianity is – the New Testament has already done that for us.
Some Christians, who want to see these kind of restrictions imposed upon others, simply claim that other believers aren’t “true or proper Christians”, if they don’t agree with the restrictions sought. I would disagree with such an approach, and say instead that the dissenters were the true Christians, not those who want to use co-ercion and repression to impose restriction on the rest of us. Indeed I think it is these kind of people who in fact, represent the majority of religious believers. The others just make religion painful for everyone.
Every word has a definition including the word ‘Christian’.
What does ‘de-fin-ition’ means? It means: delimiting what a word can and cannot mean.
If your definition of ‘Christian’ can be substantiated from the New Testament, then I look forward to your doing so.
An assertion that ‘my definition of Christian is equally valid to yours’ is not worth anything (in fact, it is an example of unconsciously selling out to fashionable relativism) – but a demonstration of the point from the New Testament will be worth a lot.
Dr Shell,
So you’re implying that the correct definition of Christians are those people who agree with you.
Yes, of course I suppose you would imply that wouldn’t you … ?
As for the Bible, you religious types take from it what suits your argument, usually twist it around a bit, and simply ignore the rest of it, especially the bits in the Old Testament.. For example that line about being allowed to sell your daughter into slavery in the next village, (Exodus 21:7) or the obligation to impregnate your dead brother’s wife….(Genesis 38:7-10)
Of course I should get the men from the town to stone my son to death if he defies me and drinks too much (Deuteronomy 21:18-21)
It’s really no good looking in an old book for rational arguments in support of censorship, (or even for definitions of Christians) The only “proper” ones which can justify censorship, are those which can demonstrate real and secular harm in today’s world. Not the imagined psuedo moral claptrap kind of argumentes usually involving the “collapse of the fabric of society” so often quoted by religious people who write to our censors. This simply doesn’t happen. It didn’t happen in Spain where they nowadays hardly censor anything at all, and it never happened in Sweden or Denmark, and it certainly won’t happen here either.
Hi Shaun
How could anyone define a Christian (as opposed to a Jew) on the basis of the Old Testament?
By definition, Christians would be defined on the basis of the New Testament: hence my challenge.
Whether or not one defines a Christian as someone who agrees with me (which would certainly be a remarkably odd definition), you haved not faced up to the point that words have definitions: their meanings are strictly delimited. You are not seriously claiming that you can make the word ‘Christian’ mean anything you like.
Such relativism is self-refuting and circular. Because if it is being claimed that ‘all truth is priveta truth, none is public truth’ then even that saying (within inverted commas) could only be private truth, and therefore might be wrong.
My challenge was to redefine ‘Christian’ on the basis of the NT. You responded by quoting bits of the OT. But the challenge remains open.
I’d rather not spend my time reading the New Testament if you don’t mind. All I am saying is that religious people cite the Bible (as a whole) as “evidence” that certain things are wrong, in principle whilst at the same time conveniently ignoring elements of that book, because if they didn’t they’d probably be living a life of crime.
As far as I am concerned a “Christian” is anyone who says they are such a person, and this includes many members of my own family. Most self professed “Christians” I’ve ever met, don’t subscribe to your kind of repressive ideology.
Shaun –
If you dont read the New Testament, how can you tell how much of it is good, and how much bad. How can you debate with those who have read it?
The more knowledge the better – and the better the debate too.
Whatever other Christians do, I am citing the New Testament only. That is the specifically Chistian book (or library). Let’s concentrate on what the NT has to say, and whether you agree or disagree with that.
-Don’t you think people might claim to be Christians for all sorts of reasons? They might want to be on the side of the angels, without actually doing anything about it. They might reckon: better safe than sorry. They might never have really thought about what they were. Maybe their parents were Christians. Maybe they live in a ‘Christian’ country. Etc..
I believe Hitler, or at least a lot of his followers, claimed to be Christians. Would you still say that the ‘claim’ is the most important factor?
Whatever Christianity is, or isn’t, it should NOT try and impose it’s so called morality on others by trying to get censorious and repressive media laws passed, especially when secular harm isn’t in evidence. We have a Bible in our house. Indeed several. I have read parts of it. I have studied it at school, where we had Bible readings. I have little time for its largely irrelvant rantings.
All I can say (again) is that those who wish to restrict others, must prove the necessity of it, and if the necessity of it is so plain to see, it will be virtually self evident. Otherwise restriction of others, just to impose your own ideology is as immoral as anything I might do.
My view of many “Christians” (whatever that is) is that they are a bunch of control freaks who wish to dictate how one lives, and many of them would do that with legal co-ercion if they got the chance. Indeed sadly this is still happening.
But Shaun! You are trying to impose your relativism on me, and on everyone else.
Given that relativism is manifestly self-refuting and circular, this seems a bit odd!
I am not trying to impose anything on you Dr Shell. I am simply trying to defend my right to freedom of expression, where secular harm is not in evidence, and you are evidently trying to persuade others to take it away from me.
You never answer questions directly put. For example what legal penalty would you advovate for someone:
1: owning a copy of Playboy ?
2: Selling a copy of Playboy to an
adult ?
3: Owning a hard core sex film ?
4: Selling a hard core sex film to another adult ?
Since these things could never possibly do any good to anyone, there’s no conceivable reason why they should exist at all. Bring up people to have their eyes on more fulfilling things, and they wouldnt feel the need for ‘Playboy’ (or worse). The majority of ppl already dont.
The best means of prevention is not to have the option in the first place. Create the option, and it will ‘feed’ ppl’s worse nature and create an increased demand.
Re penalties, funnily enough I agree with ‘zero tolerance’. It has a good track record, and is the received wisdom in school contexts. Hopefully those mature enough to have graduated from school are mature enough not to be involved in such stuff in the first place.
The idea of ‘zero tolerance’ is that things dont get off the ground in the first place, and therefore touch fewer ppl’s lives and cause less human misery. Why do you think ZT worked so well in New York (not the easiest of places to implement it)?
A gullible who professes only to follow the jesus bit of the bible saying he believes in zero tolerance. Now there’s a contradiction for you.
You say you agree with ‘zero tolerance’, but you don’t say what the penalty would be. You can’t have zt without a penalty. What would you have done with someone who owned a pron mag? should hte offence be greater for someone who sells one? how about the publisher, photographer and photographed?
I cant pretend to be an expert in this. If zero tolerance had been applied when these things were first available – and if they had never been legalised – then the law would be easy to enforce. But now a law would be very hard to enforce, and the ramifications have escalated beyond all control. This is as Christians have always predicted – if you legalise wrong things thery will escalate out of control. We have seen this with divorce, abortion, cannabis (not actually legal), and pornography. As the old proverb goes – ‘If you give an inch they’ll take a mile’. Or ‘thin end of the wedge’.
Now, this seems ridiculously harsh. But unfortunately experience backs up the view than once one makes small concessions, the floodgates open, and the whole situation is worse than before. It is relatively painless not to make the small concessions in the first place.
As Bush said yesterday (this time I agree with him) if is always better to err on the side of life. And on the side of anything that is life-affirming. Two men looked through prison bars: One saw mud, the other saw stars. Best to fix our minds on good things, because there are so many good things out there – why bother about the bad ones?
“Best to fix our minds on good things, because there are so many good things out there – why bother about the bad ones” so why bother worrying if some people are watching swearing on telly late at night when you could be out with your telescope engaging in some amateur astronomy?
Oh, and you’d ban divorce now too, would you? Give ’em an inch… is right, you gullibles would force us all back into times when women couldn’t leave a husband who was beating them? Or a man had to stay a cuckold? Or a couple had to stay in a loveless marriage? If this goes on much longer then you’ll be advocating the banning of sex outside of marriage.
And finally, citing Bush in defence of life is one of the oddest positions I’ve ever seen. This is the man who personally sent over 100 (I’m not sure of the figures and don’t have time to check. I think it was at least double that) men to their death, including one celebrated case of a black man with a mental age of about 5, just before a gubernatorial election so he couldn’t be accused of being soft (or indeed to pander to ractists, take your pick). To believe that he means what he says in this instance is yet another example of how your trusting (gullible?) nature is exploited by powerful men (another example being your religion).
Eh? Im well known for speaking my mind straight about absolutely everything, and Ive never yet been in an organisation where I agreed with any one individual about everything.
It is absoluitely correct to cite Bush as pro-life in certain matters (e.g. abprtion, euthanasia). In other matters, as you rightly say, it is not. Nothing is gained by lumping all ‘life’ issues together as though they were the same.
That is the point of the inch/mile thing. We would gladly give an inch, and the inch would cover the extreme cases you mention. But the trouble is that it never proves practical to give an inch: people end up taking a mile.
At that point the choice is between (a) a mile and (b) nothing. Of the two, both are jolly bad, but (b) is less bad by a street.
It’s clear enough that if 80% of abortions are for ‘social’ reasons, then there are 150,000 social abortions on this small island alone per annum. As between zero and 150,000, neither is the best available solution – but if people wont take any intermediate solution, then zero is not only better than 150,000 but far, far better. But I guess that much is obvious.
Unfortunately according to current practice 150,000 is better than zero. That’s the central illogicality.
There is a problem at this stage in history speaking of any position that “all Christians” hold
to unless one defines “Christian” in some objective manner. Most Americans believe that because
they were born in America and their ancestors were “Christian” they are in some way they are
“Christian”. They know they “believe in God” and are not Jewish, Islamic, or Hindu and they
have warm feelings towards the person of Jesus Christ whenever they think of him. They pray to
God sometimes when things get bad so they must be “Christian”. You will find “Christians” holding
almost every possible belief and practicing almost every ethical behavior. Christianity like
Judaism has become associated with become a term that speaks not so much of a consistent
religious faith and philosophy but rather a type of cultural identification. Most every
Italian or Irish person would feel they are “born Christian” regardless of their beliefs.
They were baptized as babies and given Christian names so just as one can find a person is
a “Jewish athieist” one can find a “baptized athieist” who may still culturally go to
church sometimes out of family obligations. Therefore, we would have to define a more narrow
sub-catagory of “Christian” in order to hope to find any unity expecially on political
issues. One could say that “all evangelical Christians believe that Jesus is 100% God and
100% man”. But you could not say that all who consider themselves “Christian” believe that
Jesus is 100% God and 100% man.” Because Christianity has broadoned as a faith to enclude
great multitudes and yet thinned as a strongly held and well defined system of religious,
philosophical, and ethical beliefs that we find ourselves in this problem in making universal
statements about what “Christians” believe.
The real issue is that we have two issues before us that should be discussed
by all reasonable people.
1. Is the state’s permitting abortion allowing the private execution of unwanted babies or
is it simply the permission of a mother to rid herself of an unwanted and unnecessary part
of her body. If abortion is the state allowing private execution and not moving to protect
the life, liberty, and pursuit of happinesss of all of its citizens then this should be concern
of any sane person regardless of if they are Christian or not Christian. If abortion is just
the removal of a unnecessary part of a women’s body then of course it would seem to be just
to keep such a procedure unrestricted by laws except those which would insure that such
operations provided safety for the health and well being of the mother. But clearly we would want
have a careful, logical, and well researched public discussion on which of these two viewpoints
are reality before permitting abortion since an error of judgement on this issue could lead
to the slaughter of millions of innocents. Which from those who hold to the position that
the “fetus” (strangely a latin term meaning unborn child”) is a seperate citizen and should be
provided protection by the state has already occured in the legalization of abortion.
2. The other issue is in the difficult issue of the amount of “form” and “freedom” we should
allow on public television. MOst agree that allowing the viewing of XXX rated pornography
on public television especially during the Saturday Morning Cartoon hour would not be
a socially responsible action at least for the sake of the children. Some would say that
we should simply allow full freedom to the entertainment industry and that people can
choose to view or not view what is presented. The other view is that society has some
responsibility to restrict some materials from minors and even restrict the production and
distribution. For example most people do not want child pornography made legal. The
question of course of how much “form” will constrict artistic freedom, what social
taboos are so strong that society does not feel entertainments should cross those lines,
and what system of ethics should determine such “form” is what must be worked out.
The historic Christian faith, Judaism, and Islam has viewed “swearing” – the taking
of the name of God in vain or used in a blasphamous manner as such a serious
sin that one could not just place it within an artistic piece since their is no
“imitation” of the sin but an actual commiting of the sin. For instance in writing a novel
a person can speak of adultry being committed but not commit adultry. In a play
or movie it can be done in such a way that it only suggest that adultry took place without
it actually taking place. In films where actual sexual acts really take place and
real intercourse is filmed then from the Christian perspective sin is commmitted in
the production of the film and therefore the film is unethical. In the “swearing” or
cursing of God since the speaking of the words themselves is a sin then the
product becomes “unethical” from the historic position of consitent ethical thought
developed by Christians, Orthodox Jews, and Islamic thinkers. Now can such ethics be
made law? Only if the majority of the people in a culture agreed with such ethical
thoughts so strongly that they wanted their society not to allow such expressions
of artistic expression. Now some “Christians” may not minde there being “swearing” in
art at an emotional level. This says nothing about what the historic Christian world view
would say about such swearing.