The Unorthodox Catholic

A Bit of Persecution Never Hurt Anyone

2012-02-16T16:05:00.002Z

According to some, Christianity in Britain is "Under Attack", and this apparently is a bad thing. Last week two cases (see below) hit the news, which some interpreted to mean that Christianity is being marginalised by secularism, but I would like to offer an alternative view. Secularism is not my enemy.

What is Secularism?
In this excellent article Julian Baggini (an excellent philosophical writer and a committed atheist) sets out what true secularism looks like; "neutral with regards comprehensive world-views at its core, but relaxed about the expression of such views in the public square". Secularism seeks to create a neutral political environment that does not privilege one set of beliefs over another.

What's So Bad About Secularism?
Some Christians seems to think that Secularism means Atheism. I disagree. Secularism, when properly understood, is not the same as militant atheism (even though most Militant Atheists are Secularists), just as Christianity is not the same as fundamentalist creationism (even though most Fundamentalist creationists are Christians).One only has to look at the USA to see that a strong distinct separation of religion and politics can actually foster a positive environment towards faith and religion. The USA is, according to Baggini, 'the most religious country in the developed west and constitutionally the most secular'. Some of the most ardent supporters of secularism in the USA are Christians.

What does this mean for the UK?
Some would have us believe that this conflict between Britain's Christian Past and its apparently inevitable Secular Future will lead to further persecution of Christians. However, I'm not so sure all this "persecution" is a bad thing.

As Christians we shouldn't need to seek 'privileges' for our beliefs. It's as if we think that without protection from the Government our Faith will crumble. We should have more confidence in our beliefs that they will stand up to scrutiny in a pluralistic society (just as Christianity first grew in the pluralistic Greco-Roman World). In fact, if history is anything to go by, persecution normally has the opposite effect of those who are behind it. The Church has often thrived during times of persecution, just ask the Romans!

I remember being told a story about a group of Christians who were praying in secret during a time of persecution when being a Christian could mean prison and even death. At that time a Government Soldier enters the building, holds up his gun and gives a warning; "anyone who is not really a Christian had better leave now". At that moment, approximately half the group, fearing for their lives, get up and run out. The soldier closes the door behind them, put his gun down, and says to those remaining "we are probably better off without that lot" and begins to pray with them.

As followers of Christ we are called to "take up our Cross" every day. Jesus didn't promise a life of privilege or safety, but quite the opposite. As Christians living in the UK perhaps a bit of persecution might actually do us some good!

(The first case was that of the High Court Ruling against Bideford Town Council, prohibiting them (and any other council presumably) from beginning formal meetings with prayer. The second case involved Christian couple Peter and Hazelmary Bull, who lost their appeal last week against a ruling that said they had broken the law when they refused to allow a Gay Couple to stay in their Guest-house).

Why Google would prefer it if you have sex

2012-02-03T17:50:00.002Z

You've probably all come across the Google auto-correct function. If you mis-spell something Google will try to help you out by suggesting what it might be that you were looking for, by asking "did you mean ?????". A couple of years ago this automatic process got Google into trouble when it emerged that if you typed "she invented" the auto-correct politely asked "did you mean he invented?" as if the suggestion that a woman could have invented anything was laughable (as demonstrated by this amusing de-motivational poster)

However, I too discovered on odd result from the google auto-correct. A couple of years ago while preparing a lesson on Christian attitudes to sex outside marriage I was trying to find statistics on how many people save sex for marriage. I innocently typed "how many people save sex?" only to be asked "did you mean how many people have sex?"

So it seems, along with most of the mainstream media, Google too thinks the idea of saving sex for marriage is not credible. If you don't believe me, prove me wrong. I can't think of one character in a Movie or TV programme that opts to save sex for marriage, and that choice is presented as a fair and reasonable option. The only exception is the obvious 40 Year Old Virgin, but that further proves the rule as it turns a whole film into a joke about abstinence.

Now, before you protest, yes, I do understand that this is probably the result of an automatic grammar tool which was in need of further refinement to deal with the fine nuances of the English language, (which has happened as the error no longer happens if you type the question in to Google) and its not part of some Media conspiracy. However, it is an amusing insight into a Media culture that does not present examples of credible characters who believe in saving sex for marriage.

I can only think that the reason for this is that saving sex is presented as the kind of choice that only a devoutly religious couple might make, and that everyone else has liberated themselves from such old-fashioned uptight attitudes to sex. However, there are some very good non-religious reasons for saving sex for marriage based on reliable research.

Those who live together before marriage have higherdivorce rates - unions begun by cohabitation are almost twice as likely todissolve within 10 years compared to all first marriages
Those who live together before marriage have unhappier marriages - Astudy by the National Council on Family Relations found thatthose who cohabited first were less happy in marriage. A study by researchers DeMars and Leslie (1984) found that those who live together prior tomarriage scored lower on tests rating satisfaction with their marriages thancouples who did not cohabit. A study by Dr. Joyce Brothers showed thatcohabitation has a negative affect on the quality of a subsequent marriage(Scott 1994)
Those who are sexually active before marriage are more likely todivorce - A study of 2,746 women in the National Survey of Family Growthperformed by Dr. Kahn of the Universityof Maryland and Dr. London of the National Center for Health Statistics found thatnon-virgin brides increase their odds of divorce by about 60%.
Those who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramaritalaffairs - This is especially true for women; those who engaged insex before marriage are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairsas those who did not have premarital sex.
Those who have "trial" marriages do not have better marriages -Research indicates that couples who live together before marriage have significantlylower marital satisfaction than those who do not cohabit and they have weakermarriages, not stronger ones.
Those who live together do not experience the best sex - The best sexis found in the marriage relationship. It is reported that if a couple abstainsfrom sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47 percent more likely to enjoy sexafterward

This is not an attack on cohabiting couples, as obviously there are many exceptions to these trends. I know some very happily married couples who co-habited, and also some very happy cohabiting couples who do not intend on getting married. My point is that it seems strange that the media give the impression that there is no reason why any sane person would save sex for marriage when research shows that there are significant benefits to doing so, and that significant numbers of people do exactly that.

For full details of the research referred to here please visit http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html

Who Made God? (and do dragons exist?)

2012-01-23T17:14:00.002Z

As an RE teacher this question is probably in my top ten of 'most frequently asked questions', along with "Did you ever want to be a priest?", "Do pets go to heaven?" and "Do you have a facebook Sir?".

As a question "who (or what) made God?" sounds profoundly simple, and so I've always wished I had an equally profound and simple answer, yet this has always alluded me. Recently I have realised that simple answers often become cliche and so I've come to the conclusion that answering the question well, requires more than a short answer (although if you do want the short answer then just skip to the last paragraph).

The first thing we need to do to answer the question is come up with a definition for 'God'. Why does the definition matter? Well let's use an example to demonstrate the importance of having an agreed definition for what you are discussing.

If I asked you the question "do dragons exist?", you would probably answer by saying "that depends what you mean by dragon? Do you mean a flying creature that breathes fire OR do you mean something like the Komodo Dragon?". Depending on how I answer will affect whether you say Yes, they exist (Komodo Dragons), or No, they don't (the fire-breathing type). So, definition matters!

Dragons do exist!

So how shall we define God? Let's see if we can agree what God, if he did exist, would be. Would he be a physical being? No, so he must be spiritual (non-physical). Would he be part of the Universe? No, so he must be transcendent (separate from the Universe)? Would he be the cause of the Universe? Yes, so he must be powerful. Would he be bound by time? No, so he must be eternal. So far, so good. I think most people (theist and atheist) alike could agree that if there was definitely a God then he would be A Powerful, Eternal, Transcendent Spiritual being.

There is one more question that is key. If there was a God, would he be a created being? Surely not! Any God that was created is surely not worthy of the title God? By definition God is not a created being, which means he is uncreated. If we require further persuasion that God is not created we could say that since God is eternal, he has no beginning or end, and so if he never began, he requires no cause, since only things that begin to exist require a cause.

Let's return to the original question, "who made God?"

If we write the question out in full we see that it answers itself. "Who made the powerful, eternal, transcendent, UNCREATED spiritual Being we call God?", or in a shortened version "Who created the uncreated being?" It's like asking "who painted that unpainted wall?" or "who wrote that unwritten law?" or "who answered that unanswered call?". The answer is one and the same; "no-one" or "no-thing".

So when someone asks "who made God?" the answer is 'no-one' or 'no-thing'.

Why is "The God Delusion" in the Science Section?

2012-01-14T14:03:00.000Z

I took this photo recently in Waterstones Bookstore having noticed Richard Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" in the 'Popular Science' section. This puzzled me as having read both the books in the photo ('God Delusion' and 'Selfish Gene') it is impossible to conceive that they should be in the same category. One is a Biological treatise on the nature of Genetics, whilst the other is a Philosophical Critique of belief in God.

I thought I would give the benefit of the doubt Waterstones; perhaps a shop assistant had just assumed that books by the same author should go in the same section? However, when I saw the exact same thing in another branch I realised that this was clearly a stocking policy.

This mis-categorisation presents two issues for me:

It provides extra unwarranted credibility to Dawkins' philosophical position. By placing the book in the science section this suggests that his philosophical views deserved to be taken more seriously simply because he is a scientist. Dawkins is an outstanding scientific writer (I would highly recommend reading "The Selfish Gene" or "The Blind Watchmaker"), but unfortunately he is not a very good writer of philosophy. At University I studied a course on the history of atheism, but when I suggested to the lecturer that I write a pre-submitted essay on Dawkins, he politely suggested that I try studying someone who could be taken a little bit more seriously.
It suggests that Atheism and Science always go together. There is a common myth in our society that somehow science and religion are incompatible; that in order to be scientific you must be an atheist, and religious people are un-scientific. This is a myth that Dawkins is very keen to propagate. Yet one only has to look to some of Dawkins' colleagues in Aacdemia to realise that the myth is false. A 1996 survey showed that roughly 40% of scientists believe in God. Some of today's most prominent scientists believe in God. For example, Francis Collins (Director of the Human Genome Project), Bill Phillips (Physics Nobel Prize Winner), Sir Brian Heap (Former Vice-President of the Royal Society), Sir John Houghton (Former Director of the British Meteorological Society).

As if to emphasise the mistake, I noticed that books responding to Dawkins (e.g. "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alister McGrath and "Deluded by Dawkins" by Andrew Wilson) are categorised in the Religion section.

Learning from a Scientist

2012-01-10T22:14:00.001Z

Yesterday was the 84th anniversary of Alexander Fleming's"discovery" of Penicillin. If you don't know the story, Fleming cameback from his holidays to find someone had left the windows open in thelaboratory thus probably contaminating his latest bacteria samples. On one ofthe Petri dishes he saw what looked like fluff.

At that point most people wouldhave thrown it out as waste, rubbish, pointless. Yet Fleming took the time tolook closer and discovered a fungus that had killed the bacteria surrounding it.What he had found is the drug we know as penicillin which saved thousands oflives during World War 2 and thousands, if not millions, since.

What strikes me is how often do we disregard somethingbecause it appears unimportant or unattractive? How many opportunities do wemiss because we dismiss something as waste, rubbish or of no value to us, evenother people?

What we can learn from Alexander Fleming is not to rush intoquick judgements about something or someone's value, but to look for opportunitiesto see the hidden potential.

As a teacher, no-one needs to remember this more than me!

P.S. It's probably slightly ironic that I am allergic toPenicillin

Looking Ahead to 2012

2011-12-30T17:19:00.000Z

In part 1 of this series I looked back at my highlights of 2011. In this post I will look ahead to some of my goals/hopes for 2012.

More Disciplined Time in Prayer - this is probably the easiest goal to explain, but the most difficult to actually achieve. I want to see God at work in my life, I want to be able to hear from God and I know that if I want to hear from Him then I need to continue to talk to Him in prayer. The people I know who have the best relationship with God are normally the people who are the most disciplined in their prayer life. Too often I leave prayer to the last minute, which is why I know I need to be more disciplined in making time for prayer.

Less Time Wasted on Facebook - Facebook is officially the stickiest website in the world; the average time spent for each user is 30 minutes a day, which adds up to more than a whole week in a year. I should make it clear that I am not anti-facebook. I think facebook and social media in general has the ability to be an incredible force for good, both at an international level (e.g. the Arab Spring), and also at an individual level, helping us to stay connected with friends and family easily. However I also see that facebook can play to the worst aspects of human nature; encouraging us to be nosey, to be shallow and to waste time, which is why I want to waste less time on it this year.

More Writing and Blogging - I only recently started blogging again, mainly because my brain finds it difficult to shut down and I have found journalling useful as a way of structuring the chaotic thoughts in my head. Blogging (hopefully) gives this writing more focus and clarity. Furthermore I was inspired recently by reading 'The Church and New Media' (by Brandon Vogt) which had multiple contributors from Catholics at the cutting edge of social media. This feels like an important and exciting time in the development of New Media and I am excited to possibly be a part of it. Hopefully if I manage to do well with the previous goal (waste less time) then I will have more time to complete this goal.

Become More Approachable - At work and outside of work I have a reputation for being ultra organised. Anyone who has borrowed my wedding spreadsheet can attest to that. Particularly at work I have developed a tendency to focus on making sure I get things done as efficiently as possible. However I think working to create this professional persona has meant I have under-developed my human touch, my empathy, my approachability. I'd like this year to develop this area of my life, making myself more open, less threatening and more approachable. I hope this will apply not only to my professional life, but also to my private life also.

Continue Reading Through the New Testament - as I mentioned in my previous post on my highlights of 2011 my pilgrimage to Israel had changed the way I read the Bible. I recently purchased a copy of the Ignatius Study Bible (New Testament) and have begun working my way through it, trying to take in as much of the study notes as possible. I hope to continue this year and hopefully read through the entire New Testament.

My Personal Highlights of 2011

2011-12-27T15:17:00.000Z

Blogging Provides an excellent opportunity for reflection, and so today I start a 2 part series. In part 1 I will look back on my highlights of 2011. In part 2 I will look ahead to some of my hopes and aims for 2012.

Pilgrimage to Israel – In February I went with 43 people from my parish on a week-long pilgrimage to the Holy Land visiting Nazareth, Galilee, Capernaum, Tiberias, Jericho, Masada, the Dead Sea, Bethlehem and Jerusalem. I keep describing it as a “Once-in-a-lifetime” experience, but I sincerely hope that’s not true as I would love to go again. It was an amazingly faith-building which has really helped to ground my faith in the geographical reality of God’s revelation. Christian Faith makes so more sense when you've been to the places where it all happened. I don’t think I will ever read the Bible in the same way again. It’s an extraordinary experience to sit in church listening to a Gospel reading, thinking “I’ve been there”

Time with Family – I am very blessed with family and have had numerous opportunities to spend time with my relatives (both biological and legal) this year. Whether it was Christmas with the In-Laws, my little brother watching me do pantomime or playing Golf with my older Brother or parents, the older I get, the more I appreciate my family. However, the stand out event of this year was celebrating my Mum's 50^th Birthday in an amazing cottage in the Lake District. With 8 people in the house it was never going to be dull, and my particular highlights were playing games round the table, watching lambs literally frolic in the garden or walking over the hills to the local pub!

Spedning Time with Family and Frolicking Lambs

Laughing at School - I once read a study that showed that teachers laugh twice as often as any other profession! I have certainly seen that myself this year. I have felt my teaching style develop this year, and I now feel more competent, confident and comfortable than ever (what writing skills! Alliteration and the rule of three in once sentence!). One of the side effects has been an ability to be able to create an effective relationship with a group who can distinguish between when it’s time to work and when its time to talk. I've had some proper good laughs in school in the last few months, and have found this a great way to build rapport with students. Normally the laughter starts because someone (normally me!) has said something silly without realising it.

Getting back on the Golf Course – This year I finally found it possible to afford the time and money to join a golf club, something I’ve wanted to do since leaving University. It has been brilliant; whether it was playing on my own during the School Holidays, finding time to relax, think and pray. Or whether it has been having the chance to socialise with friends, old and new. I have found it a great opportunity to meet new people, as well as grow existing relationships.

Doing Pantomime - in February this year I went on stage to perform as an actor for the first time in nearly 10 years. I played the role of Robin Hood in Pantomime for a local Amateur Dramatics Group. I enjoyed it so much I decided to do it again and this time managed to invite my wife!

Learning the Rubik’s Cube – 12 months ago I could not solve a Rubik’s Cube. I was set the challenge of learning by a relative and decided this was a challenge I would have to meet! The basic principles can actually be learnt in a short space of time; a day if you really put your mind to it. The rest is just practice! Now, instead of exercising my brain with a Su-doku, I complete one of my Rubik’s cubes instead! Also, it’s a pretty cool party trick!

Stay Tuned for Part 2 - Looking ahead to 2012, which I will post in the next few days!

See John Terry Next Tuesday

2011-12-22T11:21:00.001Z

Yesterday it was announced that England Captain, John Terry, will be summoned to court in February to face charges of a 'racially aggravated public order offence' after an incident involving QPR defender Anton Ferdinand where Terry is accused of using racist language towards Ferdinand during the game. Although none of the news authorities seem to be willing to describe what Terry said, it appears he referred to Ferdinand as a 'f***ing black c**t'. This seems to raise a number of interesting issues:

1. Trial by TV - Terry was only caught because of TV footage. If you had been at the game, watched it live on TV or listened to it on the radio then it is exceptionally unlikely that you would even be aware that something untoward had taken place. In fact, if you read the BBC match report written after the game it makes no mention of the incident. It was only because some eagle-eyed lip-reader watching the game recorded the clip and put it on youtube that we became aware of it. This raises the question, 'why didn't Anton Ferdinand report the incident?' Is this because it happens so often it's 'just part of the game'? Furthermore, if he didn't feel the need to report it, is it possible for the rest of us to say "well, we were offended on your behalf" and subsequently press charges?

2. Is it ever acceptable to call someone a C**t? - Terry will face charges on the grounds that what he said was 'racially aggravated'. This implies that had he not used the word 'black' then we wouldn't be having this discussion. What this tells us is that it's perfectly normal and acceptable to call someone a 'f***ing c**t' on the football pitch, but add the word 'black' in front and it becomes unacceptable. Does this mean we have to accept foul and abusive language as just 'part of the game'? It's a confusing picture, because just a few months ago Wayne Rooney found himself suspended for two matches after swearing into a TV camera after scoring an important goal. This links back again to point 1, because had Rooney not been caught by the TV cameras he probably wouldn't have faced any punishment. It is intriguing that when you search google to find out what John Terry said it's the F word and the C word that are censored (blanked out) but not the B word. Yet it seems to be the use of the B word which has caused the most offence?

Rooney Swearing At The Camera (Vs West Ham, April 2011)

3. Football should learn from Rugby - As someone who has played and watched a lot of football and rugby, there is a lot that the Footballing world can learn from the Rugby World, most importantly in the respective attitudes to the officials.

Hearing what the officials are saying - In Rugby the referees normally have a microphone which means the viewer can hear the decisions of the referee as well as the conversations with players. It is fairly common to hear professional rugby players refer to the referee as 'Sir'. It's little wonder that referees at all levels of rugby can expect a high level of respect when it is exemplified by those at the top of the game. Compare that to football where disrespect towards referees from both fans and players is seen as part of the theatre of the game. How quickly would Wayne Rooney learn to curb his language when his sponsors wince at every curse word that went out on TV?
The Ten yard Penalty - in Rugby any sort of dissent at the giving of a penalty is punished by moving the penalty forwards by ten yards. Imagine the implications if the same rule was applied in the premier league. We would quickly see a drop in the number of players harassing the officials when they feel a decision hasn't gone their way. This could only have a positive effect on the impressionable young people watching the game.

CONCLUSION
It seems clear that football has a language problem; whether it is racist or just plain foul. With the world-wide influence of football and footballers it raises a fundamental question about what role sport should have in society. For me, there seem to be two options:

OPTION 1 - Is sport an outlet where we can channel our energy, anger and frustration in a controlled environment in which case we should allow foul language and then leave it on the pitch (the Sepp Blatter approach)?
OPTION 2 - is sport to be seen as a training ground for life where we learn the discipline and conduct that will helps us to succeed in life? in which case we should expect the same standards of behaviour we would find in a school or work-place?

Personally I think I lean more towards the option 2, whilst recognising some validity in option 1. We should use sports as a means by which we train young people in the attitude, discipline and manners which will help them develop in school, family and work. However, we must recognise also that for most of us sport is 'just a game', and not our livelihood (unlike John Terry), and therefore in the heat of competition we all say or do things that in a work or school environment would be unacceptable, but to which there is a clear and well regulated set of sanctions particular to each individual sport.

Worship and the Children of the MTV Generation

2011-12-08T17:06:00.001Z

As a form tutor in a Catholic School one of my privileges is to help co-ordinate a form Mass, which is held once a year for every form in the school. It is a small intimate act of worship, with just a Priest, a couple of teachers, some student altar servers and approximately 30 members of the form group squeezed into a cosy school chapel. The group are meant to take ownership of the act of worship, and so various tasks, readers, music, reflections, music, etc are divided up among the group.

However, there are not enough roles for everybody to have an active role, and so inevitably there are some left over with nothing particular to do, except participate. One particular student, upon realising that they would be one of those left over, remarked, "I guess the rest of us are the audience then?" I quickly suggested that perhaps they were confusing 'audience' with 'congregation'. While this may simply have been a slip of the tongue or the sign of a limited vocabulary, it struck me that perhaps this was a sign of a deeper attitude towards life, worship and the Church.

As a child of the MTV generation (although I didn't actually have MTV until I was in my twenties), I've grown up in a world where entertainment pervades our whole lives; whether it is music, television, movies or computer games. Yet the emphasis on entertainment seems to be at the expense of substance. How often do we complain about television shows that forsake talent in pursuit of entertainment? How often do we see celebrities getting attention just for being celebrities (think Katie Price, think Paris Hilton, think The Only Way is Essex) How often do we moan about TV programmes and films that just go searching for ratings by prioritising popularity over quality?

Is it not surprising that our young people view the world from the perspective that everything is to be valued on how entertaining it is? Is it not surprising that this affects their views on spirituality and religion?

By saying that they were a member of the 'audience', this student suggested that their understanding of Church was that they were there to be entertained, that somehow worship is for their benefit, not God's. The concept of participation as part of a corporate body is lost on those who have grown up in a society which emphasises individualism and consumerism, over community and responsibility. We have become religious consumers too; judging our Churches and our worship based on what it does for us, and not what it does for God.

As a Catholic Christian I take comfort in knowing that when I go to Church on a Sunday morning, I'm not worrying about things like "I hope the music is good today" or "I hope they don't go on too long" or "am I in the right mood for worship?" Instead I can go with the assurance that no matter what state of mind I'm in, that I will have an encounter with the living God; meeting Jesus through his living Word and experiencing Christ's real presence in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. A foretaste of the heavenly banquet!

Why I Won't Be Going On Strike on 30th Nov 2011

2011-11-24T00:05:00.001Z

This Wednesday (30th November) teachers and other public sector workers all over the UK will begoing on strike protesting against the changes to public-sector pensions. I’msure the Media will be ready and primed to interview the protesters as theyjustify their actions, but I’m not sure there will be as many interviewsinvolving those left behind.

I am a member of a union which is encouraging its members tostrike, but just as I did last Summer, I will instead be going in to work asnormal, and if you’re at all interested, here are some of my reasons why.

It inconveniences the wrong people: I think I understand the concept of a strike. It’s meant to inconvenience the employer to remind them that the employer-employee relationship is a mutually beneficial one when both parties fulfil their obligations to the other. A strike is when the employee decides to temporarily not fulfil their obligations (to work), in the hope that this temporary inconvenience will help the employer to recognise their duty to fulfil their obligations (to provide a fair wage and condition). However, I fail to see how a teachers strike inconveniences anyone except all of the wrong people? It’s not the government who have to take a day off work to look after their child who can’t go to school. It’s not the Government who has to work to a hastily re-arranged timetable. It’s not the Government who loses out on a day of their valuable education. It’s not the Government that potentially has to cover for other colleagues. If I go on strike I end up inconveniencing all the people who actually I have no problem with; the students, the parents and my colleagues. In addition the cost to the economy as a whole, in terms of days off work, suggests that in the end we all lose out. In fact, it may even be the case that the Government is slightly better off as it doesn’t have to pay me for the day I decide to strike, so they’ve saved a day’s wages.

Surely there are alternatives? – If some teachers really did care about the education system as well as defending public sector pensions, why do they insist on taking a day off school? Why not organise a mass protest on a Saturday where thousands of teachers converge on Downing Street, raising their voice? That way you don’t harm your students’ education, whilst still getting yourself heard? If this truly was an issue of principle, and valuing education, that seems like a better alternative?

I didn’t come into teaching for the money – I value my pension, and I draw comfort from the security of knowing that if I stay in teaching, I will have a supplementary income to my state pension when I retire. However, the idea of going on strike because of what is basically a money issue, makes me laugh as it would imply that the reason I came into teaching in the first place was financial. None of the Teachers I know came into the job to make money. Yes, we enjoy the job security (particularly in times of recession), yes we enjoy the long holidays, but ultimately we do it because there is not many more rewarding experiences than teaching young people, and helping them unlock their talents. Teaching is a vocation, not a job.

We all have to take the pain – I’m not convinced by the idea often perpetuated that the recession is all the fault of fat-cat city bankers, and therefore it is they that should cough-up, and not the rest of us. Knowing someone who worked in the Banking industry in the not-too-distant past, I have come to the conclusion that this idea is at best an over-simplification, and at worse, plainly false. The original credit-crunch in 2008 was the result of the collapse in the American Sub-prime mortgage market; basically banks lending to people who were likely to default on the loans. But why were these people applying for large loans in the first place? There is a society-wide attitude which says “I have to have it now and I’ll beg, steal or borrow to get it”, and it is this attitude that is the true culprit. Yes, the City Bankers may be the most excessive examples of this, but in reality they are just symptomatic of the wider underlying problem; a general obsession with material wealth, and a lack of the virtue of patience. Blaming the Bankers is just a way to avoid accepting any responsibility ourselves. Anyone who uses a credit card (myself included) is part of the problem, and therefore we all have to be part of the solution (i.e. cutting back, and not spending what we don’t have). I don’t want to turn this into a political discussion, as I’m not really interested in the exact pros and cons of competing economic policy. However, I think people of all political persuasion can accept that we have a huge national deficit, which ultimately will be solved by not spending more than we have.

Much Ado About A Poppy

2011-11-09T17:26:00.003Z

Apparently "everybody" in Britain is appalled at FIFA's policy which prevents the England football team from wearing a Poppy on their shirt during their International Friendly against Spain this Saturday.

Well, that's at least according to David Cameron, Prime-Minister who said "I think [the questioner] not only speaks for the whole House, but in fact the whole country, in being completely baffled and frankly angry [at] the decision made by FIFA". David Cameron isn't the only politician getting in on the act. The Minister for Sport, Hugh Robertson said "The British public feel very strongly about this issue - it is not religious or political in any way".

Strange, but I don't remember being consulted? Why do politicians feel the need to assume that they are speaking on behalf of everybody? Is it a subtle rhetorical device used to impress voters or do they actually think they genuinely have caught the mood of the entire nation?

I, for one, am not angered by FIFA's policy. It seems to me a very sensible policy to prevent any nation from putting anything on the shirt that could carry political, religious or commercial messages. The rule is obviously in place to ensure that football is a neutral endeavour that does not get embroiled in political issues. It is a testament to the power of sport that there are more member nations of FIFA than the United Nations. Football brings people and countries together in a way that politics rarely achieves.

If FIFA were to retract its policy in the weight of pressure from the FA, it would send a message to the rest of the world that if you complain enough, you will get your way. Then FIFA will find itself being the censor that decides what symbols are or are not politically sensitive.

Why don't we allow FIFA to do its job of managing global football, and not let it have to also become a political mediator? Why is it that England thinks it somehow deserves special merits and different treatment than everyone else?

PS I'm not in anyway saying I am against the Poppy. I am arguing that England shouldn't expect preferential treatment from a Neutral Sports Body.

An Education in Essex (Part 2)

2011-10-26T15:43:00.000+01:00

In part 1 of this post, I spoke about the depressing reality that the vast majority of "difficult" students in schools come from 'broken homes', as highlighted in Channel 4's documentary "Educating Essex". In part 2 I will broaden the context to show how Vinni's plight is a symptom of a society which mistrusts marriage and places individual rights over responsibility to others.

As I argued in my previous post, for a child to thrive they must have three things; 1. unconditional love 2. clear boundariesand 3. an aspirational mindset. I believe that the place where a child is most likely to receive these three things is within a secure life-long committed family,namely Marriage.

I know that other family situations exist and often producegood outcomes for children, but all the statistics show that a child is more likely to feel safestand happiest living with both their biological parents within marriage. All thenegative indicators you can think of are increased for children from divorcedfamilies. Statistically, a child of divorce is more likely to :

earn lower grades at school
report problems with other children at school
have psychological problems and need the support of mental health services
be a victim of child abuse
have asthma, headaches and speech defects
be aggressive towards others
attempt suicide
drop out of school
go to prison
get divorced themselves

In fact, one study showed thatchildren can cope better with the death of one parent, than their parentsgetting divorced! So, if you're thinking of getting divorced, and you want to make things easier on your children, then hiring a hit-man rather than a lawyer might be a better idea!

Divorce wrecks lives, yet our society almost sees it as a right. "Wellif you're not happy, get a divorce, it's for the best" is the sentiment wehear. Better to be separated than to be in an unhappy marriage! A study in the US interviewedcouples who had been for marriage counselling because they were consideringdivorce. 4 out of 5 couples who committed to the marriage and worked it throughfound that within 5 years they were happier than before and had a thrivingmarriage. How many couples get divorced because they haven't got the stayingpower to see it through, when the stats show that there's a very good chancethey would be able to work through their problems? What a sad indictment of our throw-away culture!

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states "The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life" (CCC, 1603). In essence, if want an individual to thrive, and for society as a whole to thrive, then the family must be the bed-rock of any political, ideological or religious system.

During the recent riots in Enlgand, there was much soul-searching on TV, Radio, Newspapers and the internet, asking "what's gone wrong to cause this chaos?" There were many suggestions; greed, materialism, failed economic policy, failed education systems, obsession with celebrity culture, computer games, poor policing, etc. Perhaps the solution lies much closer to home?

Does God Believe in Stephen Hawking?

2011-10-22T13:23:00.004+01:00

This week I had the privilege of going to hear William Lane Craig give a lecture in Cambridge. Professor Lane Craig is a renowned philosopher, and someone I actually refer to in my A Level Philosophy classes. In philosophy it is exceptionally rare to have the opportunity to actually hear in person from one of the scholars you teach about since most of them are dead! (something I happened to point out to Professor Lane Craig to all-round amusement!) So with that in mind I couldn't pass up the opportunity to hear from the mean himself.

The title of the lecture was "Has Stephen Hawking eliminated God?", given in response to Stephen Hawking's latest book, 'The Grand Design', in which Hawking claims to have found reason to believe that God did not create the Universe. In anticipation of the lecture I had bought a copy of Hawking's book and read it before the lecture (I didn't want to be one of those people who make judgements about a book without even reading it!)

In the opening chapter Hawking makes some bold, but rather contradictory, claims. He says "Philosophy is Dead", philosophers have failed to keep up with science, and so it is up to the scientists to become the torch-bearers in answering the profound questions of philosophy. Questions such as 'Why are we here?', 'Why is there a Universe?', 'Why is there something rather than nothing?

These are some rather bold assertions from Physics' Grand-master. But what basis does Hawking have to make these claims? Are these claims based on facts? Are they empirically observable, testable or verifiable? In essence, is what Hawking says scientific? or are these statements in fact philosophical statements? As George Ellis (President of the International Society for Science and Religion) put it, "Philosophy is not dead...Why is science worth doing? The answer is philosophical... Science can’t answer that question about itself". Hawking doesn't appear to see the irony in declaring the death of philosophy and then himself launching into a philosophical argument.

Hawking then makes a brief foray into the history of science, before returning to more familiar ground by sticking to Physics, not philosophy, in the following chapters. He describes with excellent clarity the key ideas behind Quantum Physics, String Theory and M-Theory. What he writes is not controversial at this stage, and outlines the most common ideas in modern cosmology. However, it is in the closing chapters that Hawking finds himself back where he started, in murky philosophical waters.

Hawking makes two main claims, which are clearly designed to counter-act two of the most popular philosophical arguments for the existence of God; the Cosmological Argument and the Teleological Argument.

Cosmological Argument:
Put simply, the Cosmological Argument states that the existence of the universe is best explained by the existence of a 'First Cause', or 'Unmoved mover', which many people understand to be 'God'. Hawking believes that the existence of fundamental forces, like Gravity, mean that the Universe will spontaneously create itself from nothing. He writes "Because there is a law like gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing...it is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going" (p227). John Lennox shows the problems with this view when he says "Hawking's argument appears to me even more illogical when he says the existence of gravity means the creation of the universe was inevitable. But how did gravity exist in the first place? Who put it there? And what was the creative force behind its birth? Similarly, when Hawking argues, in support of his theory of spontaneous creation, that it was only necessary for 'the blue touch paper' to be lit to 'set the universe going', the question must be: where did this blue touch paper come from? And who lit it, if not God?"

Teleological Argument:
In brief, the Teleological (or Design) argument states that certain features of the Universe are best explained by the existence of a Divine Mind, or intellect or 'designer'. Recently physicists have shown (and Hawking actually acknowledges this in the book) that the laws of physics appear to be finely-tuned in order to create suitable conditions for intelligent life to develop. The chances of these conditions arising by chance are astronomically small and so many physicists, such as Rodney Holder, argue that this is best explained by a 'designer'. What is Hawking's solution to the fine-tuning? He embraces the entirely un-testable, unverifiable and speculative concept of the 'Multiverse', the idea that there is not just one universe but many (potentially infinite) universes. These universe might exist parallel to our own, or it may be that we are part of a universe that is one of an infinite chain of universes that come in-to and out-of existence. This sounds like a desperate solution, and as William Lane Craig pointed out completely goes against the principle of Occam's Razor, a scientific and philosophical principle that says we should not multiply entities beyond necessity. In other words, we should not need to presume the existence of multiple universes to explain the existence of our own.

In conclusion, we should acknowledge that Hawking is a brilliant physicist, but even many of his scientist colleagues (Atheist and Theist) recognise that when it comes to Philosophy he is out of his depth. I finish with the words of Professor Chris Isham (philosopher and theoretical physicist at Imperial College London) who wrote ‘I groaned when I read this. Stephen’s always saying this sort of thing... but I suspect he’s never read a philosophy book in his life.’

For some more detailed responses to the book and the issues it raises take a look here

Meeting Jesus in Leicester Square

2011-10-17T17:44:00.007+01:00

Last week I went on a coach trip with a group of people to go and see 'Mamma Mia' in the West End. We arrived over an hour early at Leicester Square, but while the rest of the group decided to go and find somewhere to eat and drink, I found myself with a splitting head-ache, and a slight bout of travel sickness. I decided that a bit of fresh air would do me good and so went for a quick walk around Leicester Square.

Those of you who know London will be aware that Leicester Square is never quiet, and with the added presence of a Movie Premiere taking place it was unlikely that I was going to find any peace. Then I remembered that just 50 yards off Leicester Square is the Church of 'Notre Dame de France'. It is a Catholic Church which serves the French community of London. I immediately made my way there thinking that a few minutes of quiet contemplation might help my situation.

Unexpectedly, I arrived just as Mass was taking place, so what else could I do but join in? I'm a strong believer in God-incidences (spiritual coincidences), and I was beginning to get the sense that God wanted me to be there. As I went forward for communion, I felt a strong awareness that I was meeting with Jesus, and through the words of the prayers was reminded that Jesus is the 'Prince of Peace'; that it is in Jesus that I would find peace.

I also had an amazing (and also unexpected) conversation with one of the priests at the end of Mass, who reminded me that evangelisation always begins with love for others, that I am called to be Jesus to the people around me. But Jesus doesn't expect me to do it on my own, but that he sends his spirit to lead us. How can we talk about God's love to others, if we can't even show them what love is?

I left the Church probably less than 30 minutes after I had entered, but I felt different. I had been encouraged, inspired and nourished. And my headache had gone too! It just goes to show that you can meet Jesus in the most unlikely places.

Does Religion Have a Role to Play In Society?

2011-10-12T17:43:00.001+01:00

I'm hoping that this blog will be more than just an excuse to post links to other websites and videos, but this video is so fascinating I felt compelled to pass it on. You can get to the video by clicking here.

It's a recording of a lecture given at Princeton University, hosted by Robert P George (Director of Jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic), and given by Russell D Moore (Dean of the School of Theology, Southern Baptist Seminary and an Evangelical).

The Title of the Lecture is Faith in America: The Role of Religion in the Public Square but also deals with some of the major issues facing Christianity as a whole at the moment. Also, don't be fooled by the 'in America' part of the title, much of the lecture is applicable to us here in the UK.

It's quite a long video, but there is a particularly interesting Q&A session which starts about half-way through. Some of the issues that are covered are Evangelicalism, Roman Catholicism, Natural Law, Sola Scriptura, Divorce, Politics, Presidential Nominations, Sensationalism, Rob Bell, Pat Robertson, Ecumenism, Gay Marriage, as well as many others.

I was put on to this video from the Francis Beckwith Blog "Return to Rome".

Invited to the Banquet

2011-10-10T17:26:00.002+01:00

Last Sunday evening I found myself at 6pm Mass. I'm normally a Sunday Morning Church kind of person, but the timing of two Rugby World Cup Quarter Finals and the Japanese Grand Prix early on Sunday morning meant I was otherwise engaged. Thankfully, the benefit of the lectionary is that regardless of when (or even where for that matter) I go to Mass on any weekend, I can hear God's word spoken through the very same scripture.

This week's Gospel reading is taken from Matthew 22:1-14, and is often known as the 'Parable of the Wedding Feast'. The idea of comparing Heaven to a Banquet or feast was not something new that Jesus came up with. The first reading was taken from Isaiah (25:6-10) which talks about God preparing a 'banquet of rich food and fine wines' in a place where death is destroyed forever. In Matthew, Jesus tells a story of a King who prepares a banquet to celebrate the wedding of his son, but the invited noble guests don't bother to turn up, so instead the King offers invitations to anyone and everyone, "bad and good alike".

The parable has a clear allegorical meaning to it, demonstrating Salvation History. The King (God) invites his Chosen guests (the Israelites), but when he sends his servants (the Prophets) they are ignored, and even killed (just as happened to Isaiah), so the King rejects his original guests and opens up the invitation to everyone. The King sends other servants (Apostles) to invite the others (the Gentiles) to the party.

However, the parable also has an instructive meaning to it. The King's invitation to share in the banquet is entirely out of his generosity; none of the guests could say they were entitled to an invitation, they hadn't earned it. So too for us; no-one can say they are entitled to an invitation to God's heavenly banquet, yet completely out of grace, God invites all of us to partake in this feast.

God invites, but he does not force us. Some will respond, some will not. Those who do not respond are like the original guests, who decide that whatever they have got going on is better than the party. We can scoff and say "how foolish are they? how stupid would you have to be to turn down an invitation from the King?", but then how often do we decide that what we have got going on in our plans is better than God's plans?

Yet, interestingly, purely accepting the invitation doesn't appear enough to be able to enjoy the full fruits of the feast. One guest turns up without a wedding garment, unprepared for the party. He wasn't prepared to remove his old clothes (his old way of life) and put on the new clothes (the life of being a disciple of Christ) that would have been offered by the party host. Matthew includes this detail to act as a warning to the Christian converts he was writing for, that when we accept our invitation (to follow Christ), we must be prepared to turn away from our old life, to put on the new life of Christ.

The invitation is free, yet it comes with responsibility. God's Grace if a free gift, yet with it comes the responsibility of following Jesus, however costly.

An Education in Essex (part 1)

2011-10-08T18:44:00.003+01:00

"so many TVchannels, but there's still nothing on"

It's always a joy to find something on telly that is genuinely captivating, challenging and encouraging. Channel 4's documentary "Educating Essex" may well fit into that rare category. The programme is based in Passmores School in Harlow, Essex and follows the lives of their year 11 students as they complete their final year leading towards their GCSEs. (All the episodes are available to watch on 4od)

As a teacher I have found the show funny, thought-provoking and educational (pardon the pun). Despite the fact that the show inevitably focuses on the more out-of-the-ordinary stories that happen in schools (confrontations, accusations, pregnancies, social care), it also shows that a school can be an incredibly vibrant, humorous and rewarding place to work in.

I was particularly provoked by this week's episode which followed the exploits and tribulations of Vinni. Vinni's story is a sadly all too common one, and it goes something like this.

Vinni arrived at secondary school in year 7 (11 years old), a bright, eager, sporty student who never got into trouble. Yet bit-by-bit his behaviour deteriorated, he broke one rule, then another, then another, until 4 years later he is almost unteachable, "a law unto himself", removing himself from lessons, walking the corridors and challenging authority. The cause of this change? His Mum and Dad split up while he was in secondary school, he now lives with his Mum and younger brother, while his Dad lives with a new girlfriend and her son. It is clear to the teachers, particularly his unofficial mentor, PE teacher, Miss Conway, that Vinni's home life has contributed to his conduct.

Although I have only been teaching for about 4 years there are a few things I have learnt. The vast majority of students will behave themselves the vast majority of the time. A small minority will break the rules a small amount of the time, and a very small minority will break the rules most of the time.

I have occasionally come across students who fit into this last category, and unfortunately 9 times out of 10 those students come from what we normally call a "broken home".

It seems to me that for a child to prosper they need 3 things:

Unconditional Love - any child needs the security to know that they are loved regardless of what they do, whether they behave or misbehave, whether they are ugly or beautiful, whether they succeed or fail. Without this love, a child will go looking for approval from the next best thing. Some look for approval from teachers, some look for approval from their peers.
Clear Boundaries - young children thrive when they have routine and clear boundaries. Uncertainty can be scary, and children need to feel safe in order to thrive. Setting clear rules and enforcing those rules is essential for a secure environment for young people.
Aspiration - children need to be told that they can achieve something. Telling a young person they won't amount to anything can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Giving children aspiration, either by example, or by direction, gives children the motivation to achieve.

In my experience, as soon as a child lacks one or more of these things, then their behaviour will reflect this. In the case of Vinni, it was clear that he no longer felt loved. His Dad no longer came to watch Vinni play football, instead he was going to the games of his new step-son instead. His Mum argued with him, and even threw him out of home. It almost seemed that the school was trying to be a surrogate parent, trying to show Vinni "unconditional love" by saying to him 'no matter how bad you are, we won't exclude you', which is an admirable aim, although I'm not sure it's achievable.

Vinni's story is a sad one. Of course, his home life does not excuse his behaviour, we must always expect our young adults to take responsibility for their actions, but I can't help feeling that things could have been very different. We often talk about some children having a head-start in life, it seems Vinni has been given a 'points deduction' before things have even really got started.

Part 2 coming up...

...the awkward second blog...

2011-10-06T21:16:00.000+01:00

I have a confession to make. This isn't the first time I have blogged. Back in what seems like a previous life I spent a year blogging while I completed my teacher training course. The blog covered the academic year of 2006-07, which was an exceptionally challenging year in my life. I was completing a PGCE in Secondary Religious Education, whilst living at home and saving up for a Wedding in July 2007.

It seems that the excitement of getting married, moving house and starting a new job, all in the space of 1 month completely distracted me from the blog, and I very quickly forgot about it altogether. The blog lay dormant, gathering dust and in need of a good dose of WD40. And this would have been how it would remain if it were not for a chance conversation just a few weeks ago. Whilst a group of friends were at our house one individual mentioned in passing that they used to write a blog. A few google searches later, and we were enjoying the amazing (and amusing) insights of the mind of a teenage girl in the early part of the decade which is now officially known as the noughties! (By the way, what will this decade end up being called?)

This chance conversation reminded me that I too, had once written a blog. I quickly found it again using google, but found I was unable to access it. No longer could I remember a username or password. I couldn't even remember what email address I had used to open the blog. After a good 15 minutes trying to access my blog I realised I was probably locked out forever. Having reflected I thought it would be quite apt to leave the blog as it was, as a 'snapshot' of one year of my life.

So here I am, 4 years later, ready to get blogging again!

Some things have changed; I'm a now a little wiser and a little wider than I was. I am a married man and a qualified teacher, with a place of my own that I can call 'Home'.

Some things haven't changed; I'm still passionate about theology, I still love random facts, and I can still talk the hind-legs off a donkey (but for some reason not the front legs).

PS If you're interested in finding out what I liked to blog about 4 back in '07 check out my old blog here