This was the first blog I posted directly to Medium.com first. I might be doing this more often, especially if it’s not a theological topic:
Home » _Length(4) – medium
Category Archives: _Length(4) – medium
Medium blogs of around 650 to 1200 words. 1200 words should take 3 to 4 minutes to read.
The Chilcot Report and the separation of church and state
Here I go finding links again! What has Chilcot got to do with disestablishmentarianism, I hear you ask? You weren’t asking that specifically? Well, here goes…
Amidst all the conclusions, recriminations and finger-pointing going on right now, what stood out to me was a comment by Claire Short, who was a member of Blair’s cabinet and was opposed to the Iraq invasion. She said that Tony Blair was determined to stand with George W. Bush on the matter and was convinced that going to Iraq was the right thing to do, thus leading to a preference for the intelligence reports that favoured that decision and a dismissal of other voices.
Something I bang on about quite a bit is ‘confirmation bias’ since it affects a lot of things we say, do and believe. We have certain convictions within ourselves that we hold to firmly. These are the sort of things we hold ‘sacred’ and would need to undergo a huge change in ourselves to abandon, or even question. When these things are challenged, we immediately become defensive, and try our best to seek validation for our beliefs, to the point that we choose to ignore glaring truths that we are faced with, just because they undermine these sacred things we treasure. While I describe myself as a definite ‘questioning Thomas’ who is always posing the questions others dislike or avoid (the childlike ‘WHY?’), I too have a degree of confirmation bias. It exists in us all. Acquiescing to such unpalatable truths is never comfortable.
So I can see how Blair fell into his own bias trap by making a gut decision before all the information was in and digested. Maybe he had Thatcher’s advice still ringing in his ears: “Great leaders lead by conviction, not consent!” That’s only true if you consider dictators and tyrants to be ‘great’! True democratic leaders recognise that they are not perfect, and are capable of making fallible decisions, so submit themselves to the rigours of democratic consent, and the voices of the dissenters. Only the bad ones surround themselves with ‘yes men’ (like George W. Bush). Admission of our fallibility is the starting point of the Christian journey, is it not? Blair counts himself as a religious man, so why did he ignore that basic belief at that crucial time of decision?
I see the results of this bias almost every day. My fellow evangelicals have a set of beliefs that spring from their faith, which they count as vital core parts of their faith. They believe a, b, and c, so then it follows that d, e, f,… right up to x, y and z must be true too. They post on social media about all these various things. I reply that they’ve latched onto a hoax or an exaggeration. 9 times out of 10, they react badly, and reject my claim, no matter how factual it is. Saddens me, since we all follow Jesus, who is The Truth. I cannot comprehend how holding on to something false has any positive effect for the holder, the hearer/ reader, or our faith (or society in general!)
And so this is why I maintain my core belief in the separation of church and state, as has been maintained in many
branches of Christianity, not least the Baptist school of thought. If we allow any ‘church’ or any part of the Christian church in the world, to have political power, then certain convictions they hold will be subject to become state policy, and who is to say which convictions are right, and which are wrong? In a plural society, under the overarching belief… no! strike that… the overarching fact that not one of us is infallible (except The One), we all need to find common agreement on things.
My convictions of faith are mine, and I do seek to convince others that my faith is true, and convert them to following Jesus, but any decision I make in regards to politics or the society I share must recognise that many things I hold true are not so for others, and may even be unfounded! I know which things are certain in my heart, but even those are simply personal and not universal. Just surrounding myself with ‘yes men’ who concur with all my convictions will not change that fact.
Tony Blair failed as our PM right at the most important time we needed him to make a decision, simply because he had convinced himself of his motives. What does our scripture say about that?
Fools find no pleasure in understanding
but delight in airing their own opinions. (Prov. 18:2)
Do not get me wrong; my values will always shape what I say, do, act, vote, lobby, campaign or petition for. However, I exist as one individual in a society of voices, and we will never agree on everything, so listening to those voices, and understanding them, is vital for righteous living, in my humble opinion.
Grace be with you.
It’s an offence!
One of the most influential books I read as a young Christian trying to find the path that Jesus asked us to follow was “How to be a Christian without being Religious” by Fritz Ridenour. It was a fairly simple book that expounded Paul’s epistle to the Romans. Well, it was as simple as any exposition of that letter can be! Needless to say, the main point the author was trying to get across was that religion is not what following Jesus is about, and that, in essence, is one of the main themes Paul stresses in his epistles, which was exactly why the book had that title. So it has shaped me ever since, to be someone who wishes to express my love for Jesus and my desire to follow him without falling into the same trap that all other religion (including ‘Christian religion’) falls into. That is the trap of sameness, ritual and blind devotion to a code and to a way that others have followed without much thought.
One of the ways we see this expressed is when an offence is caused against a religion. The murders at the offices of Charlie Hebdo in Paris is an extreme example; that magazine made the offence of religions across the world its mission, and they did create a long string of articles and cartoons that enraged religious adherents of many faiths. However, they did not deserve to die for such transgressions. When I do see and hear fellow believers become almost
as ‘offended’ at such publications as those Muslim extremists, I fear that it might be possible they could descend into the same madness (some Christians have been so offended by abortions being performed that they have resorted to murder!). On a more standard level, though, short of taking someone’s life, I do wonder if we are only having the same attitude as those jihadists, and becoming ‘religious’ about it. Should we be any different in our demeanour? Can we?
When questions like this arise in my head, I turn to other things I know I can apply. Linguistically, an ‘offence’ (in English at least) can be taken, but never given! I cannot give you offence, but I can cause you offence. ‘Cause’ is one of those words that carries specific semantic properties – in layman’s terms, it means it is fairly easy to grasp what it means. Were you to hit someone with your car while driving and they died, you would have caused their death. You would not be performing the active verb ‘to kill’, unless you drove at them with the intention of killing them. So ’cause’ has a limited usage: it is indicative of an action that created a situation not intended or beyond the control of the performer. Note that you can use the active verb form: “You offended me!”, whether the person who offended you intended to or not; it can be used in both cases.
So if you have a case where someone says or does something with the intent to offend you, that is very deliberate. However, for someone to cause you offence, you have to take it. If I were to attempt to give you a gift, but you did not take it, then I did not give it, I only intended to. The transaction did not take place. Similarly, in order for an offence to occur, it has to be taken by the intended recipient. Otherwise, no offence passed from intender to intendee! Put it another way; if the offender has the intention, and wishes to offend you, they will be thwarted if you don’t take it. Yes? Their fiery dart will have missed its intended target. If, however, they had no intention of causing offence, and did so in ignorance or innocence, then why should you take the offence anyway? In both cases, choosing not to take offence is the best option! No?
So while this might all sound fine and dandy as my own philosophising, does it ‘square up with scripture’?
But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.
Matt. 5:39
If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’[Deut. 32:35] says the Lord. On the contrary:
‘If your enemy is hungry, feed him;
if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.’[Prov. 25:21,22]
Rom. 12: 18-20
In other words, the person who intends to cause offence against us as believers must be offered ‘the other cheek’ i.e. we show that they did not smite us or knock us down, but we are willing to let them continue to try to insult us. The person who intends to offend God is in God’s hands, and it is not for us to jump to his defence. As I have quoted the lyrics of Bono before: “Stop helping God across the road like a little old lady!” We are to stand up for the little guy who needs defending, but not the creator of the universe! We not only insult him in his majesty, we also disobey his direct commands!
Also, imagine having burning coals heaped on your head! Would you not be dancing in pain, howling and swiping your head to get the coals off? Pretty funny for others to watch who had that sort of sense of humour, but almost certainly you’d be looking like a fool. So in order to disarm these intentional offenders, our reaction should be not to react! If we take no offence, they will be seen as base, boorish or just plain annoying. The unintentional offenders who might do so just for the sake of comedy would not fulfil this maxim if they had no intent i.e. they are not our enemy. We might just be able to laugh along with them, if they were really being funny.
for whoever is not against us is for us.
Mark 9:40
Yeah, maybe I’ve taken that verse well out of context, but let us not make more enemies for ourselves! Just because Jesus told us “Everyone will hate you because of me” (Mark 13:13 – which could also be said to be out of context since Jesus was talking about the persecution by the first-century Jews) does not mean we must go around giving people reason to hate us! Such attitude and/or behaviour flies in the face of all the commands to love and do good to others!
Grace be with you.
The end, surely? (but NOT for the EU!)
I have blogged a few times on ‘End Times Prophecies’ and thought I might have posted my last. Recently, with the EU debate looming, old interpretations about Rome/ Babylon/ Europe/ whatever have surfaced again. Yes! Old ones, since I’d heard it all before many years ago! A very good short blog was shared on social media, from premierchristianity.com., entitled ‘I believe in prophecy. But the EU is not Babylon the Great.’ (here)
The author of the blog, Martyn Whittock, is qualified in theology and history, and specialised in the interpretation of prophecy in the 17th century. I have always wondered what previous generations (pre-dispensationalism) made of these difficult parts of scripture. He responded to a comment of mine on the blog, about how I heard about the ten-horned beast when the EU (then the EEC) became 10 members. I’ve included his reply here in full:
I remember that coin. I also remember how, in 1976, I took an assembly at school and said that the EEC was the ten-horned beast of Daniel 7. Some friends of mine thought that Henry Kissinger (US National Security Advisor and Secretary of State) might be the antichrist. I never could quite see what poor Henry had done to deserve this suspicion.
Then I went to university and studied the history of End Time prophecies over 2000 years, on my way to becoming a Medieval and Early Modern historian. It was then that I realised that we had been here before…again and again…and always got it wrong. I read ‘The Little Horn’s Doom and Downfall’ (1651) by Mary Cary, who was convinced it was Charles I, then Oliver Cromwell. That made me think. Then the EEC grew way beyond 10 nations and I knew we were the latest in the terrible track record of wrong predictions.
What is disturbing is that, in 2016, I see the same erroneous claims being recycled that I knew in 1976; only with the latest twists (eg the claim that seat 666 is left vacant in the EU Parliament). How to explain this? I think one of two explanations:
(a) People of the 1970s generation who have never admitted their mistakes. There is a track record of failed-End-Time-predictors refusing to admit their error and, instead, recycling it in a revised form: after Jan Mathias’ failure in 1534 his successor claimed that he was the returned messiah, until the revolt was crushed in 1535; the Fifth Monarchy Men, having failed in the 1650s, then seized on the year 1666 (and failed again); the Millerites (later Seventh Day Adventists) after the ‘Great Disappointment’ of 1844 claimed that a ‘change’ had occurred in heaven (others claimed Christ had returned invisibly); Jehovah’s Witnesses reverted to similar beliefs about the failed prediction of 1914, although some seized on the events of that year to reinvent it as signalling ‘the end of the time of the Gentiles’; Hal Lindsey’s implicit assumption that the Second Coming would occur within a generation (ie 40 years) of 1948 (ie 1988) being revised to ‘encoded symbols’ that would only be understood in the 21st century by Christians with correct ‘insight’; Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson’s identification of the USSR as Gog, Magog, and Rosh being revised by Robertson (after the fall of communism in 1989) to a focus on the ‘Illuminati’; the 10-nation-EEC (now it is 28) being revised to some inexplicable future political transformation that will reduce it to 10 again.
(b) People with an antagonism to the EU (and it’s a free country so that’s ok) spiritualising their prejudices (that’s not ok) so they don’t have to worry about difficult matters such as economics, politics, etc, since if it’s antichrist you don’t need to worry about these complications, as obviously it is just wrong. So, that website which said that the 28 states will get reduced to 10(!) added that it will have a political centre in Germany and a religious centre in Rome (so, anti-EU prejudice combined with two other English historic prejudices!). Clearly a desperate attempt to force reality into a preconceived framework. Worrying, to put it mildly.
Since I believe in prophecy I think it is crucial to admit when our interpretation of it is wrong.
Surely, once you have read this, you cannot simply cling to this ongoing error! For 2000 ye
ars, various individuals and groups within the church have made attempt after attempt to decipher the apocalyptic texts, and each one to no avail! I have already found out for myself that my prediction that Wormwood is a meteorite was wrong, debunked the restoration of Israel and the secret rapture as completely unbiblical, demolished the whole premise of the ‘Blood Moons’, as well as already showing the dangers of making predictions. Add to that the fact that when the last Lord Mayor of London procession was televised, they had statues of Gog and Magog… clearly ancient Roman soldiers, not Russia as I had been told was unarguably factual so many times! Having read the above comments about how this continual guessing and suggesting has happened numerous times over centuries, is it not clear that the whole ‘end times’ preaching we hear in so many churches is utter nonsense? And dangerous nonsense at that! As I have consistently pointed out, much of what we believe as evangelicals is political, not religious, and this apocalyptic preaching is clearly in that camp since it is attempting to explain world events and history; preconceptions and prejudices are bound to surface in all the postulating! All that is expressed above in that comment confirms this.
So am I saying that all the pastors who spout this tripe have been lying to us? Not at all, I think they’ve just followed along in an error from previous mentors, and become indoctrinated into the whole debacle (and just repeated and recycled what are obvious lies, like the seat no. 666 described – because it fits into their worldview). Though there are maybe some who have made good money from the books they write who should know, if they have researched properly, that their ideas are pure conjecture. I’d hazard a guess that they are simply self-deluded.
I do know how difficult it is to let go of things we have always held onto, especially as we have thought of them as biblical truths linked to our faith, but as I have said before, the release from this worldview changes so much in you, and for me it’s all for the better. Let me assure you: It has not shaken my belief in the return of our Lord Jesus Christ, not one bit! I just choose to leave the timescale in the Father’s hands, and not sweat about it. I shall see signs after they unfold, like Wormwood, but predicting is modern-day divination!!
Do not practice divination or seek omens. (Lev. 19:26)
Maybe I could make one prediction for 2016? It is the end… for ‘End Times’ predictions! Let go of it all now; it’s 2000 years overdue! And then live your life for Jesus.
Grace be with you.
Where fear belongs
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. (Psalm 23:4 KJV)
The 23rd Psalm is one of the pieces of scripture I actually like in the KJV. Maybe it’s just because it has that poetic charm of familiarity, and the archaisms add to the poetry. This verse, though, came alive to me (forgive the pun) after I faced death myself. Modern translations render it ‘the darkest valley’, which is maybe more accurate, but what darker valley could there be but ‘the shadow of death’?
I blogged on my experience, My Journey From Death, very briefly, since recalling the memories of the time was too upsetting for me. This itself is ironic considering that I faced death square on and accepted it, with peace and a resolve, yet recollections of the time still induce strong emotions, very akin to fear. I knew at the time that I felt fear, but almost immediately, the fear was calmed by the hand of God beside me, and his reassuring voice, though I only heard five words! It was then that I realised that King David penned that Psalm from the experience of facing death, and not just as a poetic exercise. It’s not a prediction, it’s a testimony!
I’ve blogged on this before, where I maintained that the opposite of faith is not doubt, but fear. For me, there are always two paths open for me when I face a decision: the path of faith or the path of fear. I do not believe they can ever reach the same destination. I have also cited it as a primary reason for my rejection of all the ‘end times’ nonsense around these days; I just do not like fellow believers living in abject terror of the world falling apart, and they really do this (despite their denials) every morning they wake up and switch on the news! Only once you step outside that mindset and leave it behind do you begin to see the prison cell that it is!
I had a film recorded to watch by myself, since it was a sci-fi thriller, and Karen would not be keen on it. It was released in 2013, but since I hadn’t heard of it until it appeared on ITV2, I realised it might not be such a great film. Nonetheless, I’ll watch practically any sci-fi! ‘After Earth’ was not among M. Night Shyamalan’s greatest works, nor was it one of Will Smith’s greatest performances, but I’ll forego a film review here. The main theme of the film was actually fear, and how Smith’s character, Cypher, had learnt to be a ‘ghost’ to evade aliens who ‘smelt fear’ (yeah it was a bit daft!). He made a great statement, though, one which I had to rewind to listen to again, to analyse if it really was that profound:
“Fear is not real. The only place that fear can exist is in our thoughts of the future. It is a product of our imagination, causing us to fear things that do not at present, and may not ever, exist. That is near insanity. Do not misunderstand me: danger is very real, but fear is a choice.”
While there is a natural fear of things as we face them, like fire or standing at the edge of a tall cliff, this is simply a defence mechanism, and we need to have it to survive and avoid injury. What we are talking about here is that fear that thinks of what might happen and worries about it. Was Cypher correct in his evaluation? For me it’s most definitely yes. To live a life of faith, I must be of a persuasion that my Father God has all things in control for me and is working for my benefit in everything. I must not allow anything to cloud that surety (I’ll not say doubts since I already explained in that previous blog how they play a vital rôle in my growing faith).
And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Rom. 8:28)
Therefore, my reality must be a world in which my interests are paramount to my heavenly Father, and any fear that this is not the case, is purely in my own mind, and the product of my own worries, not of God. This is exactly a direct command and reassurance that Jesus gave us:
Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes? (Matt. 6:25)
In giving ourselves over to fears that are borne from worry about our future, we have slipped into that easy place of disobedience to the command: ‘do not worry’.
Grace be with you.
The Shepherd’s Voice
‘Very truly I tell you Pharisees, anyone who does not enter the sheepfold by the gate, but climbs in by some other way, is a thief and a robber. The one who enters by the gate is the shepherd of the sheep. The gatekeeper opens the gate for him, and the sheep listen to his voice. He calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice. But they will never follow a stranger; in fact, they will run away from him because they do not recognise a stranger’s voice.’
– John 10:1-5
The Religious Right have not only falsified the transcript, they’ve altered the recording!
I bang on about the Religious Right a fair bit, I’ll admit. It’s all through my blogs. Chiefly because I feel I’m one of a minority within evangelicalism that recognises just how insidious and malodorous their political doctrine is, and that they are winning the cultural war for the hearts of God’s people. Jesus explained to the Pharisees in the passage above how a sheep knows it’s master’s voice – that of the shepherd, and Jesus goes on to say that he is both the gate and ‘the good shepherd’. His sheep know his voice and must listen for and follow only him; he gave us some warnings about false voices: Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. (Matt. 7:15).
Why is it, then, that sometimes we get distracted and listen to other voices, mistaking it for his? You think we don’t? It’s very easy, actually, when you think about it. Too often we vaunt someone as a great church pastor or leader and ascribe to them and their voice a divinity that we must follow, since we wish to look up to them and emulate their ‘holiness’ – we do not hear Jesus’ voice audibly (at least only very occasionally – I’ve only heard it once!) but we do hear others clearly. Being able to discern when a preacher is talking with the words of Christ and when not (since they are imperfect and cannot always do so), is vital for us to have a closeness to The Way and a relationship with The Life that equips us to do the discerning. How? fairly easily, actually; by reading the gospels. The words of Jesus are there in black and white (and in some bibles even highlighted in red), and if we read them and heed them, we get to know his voice, and thus we can stop ourselves listening when we hear another voice pretending to be holy. Such an occurrence was the basis for my very first blog!
If you haven’t really read through them, why not try the Sermon on the Mount for starters? From the 5th chapter of Matthew’s gospel to the end of the 7th, picture yourself sitting or standing on that mountainside listening to the authority that this man spoke with as he laid out his blueprint for his kingdom and how we must live in it. If you really think it through and try to apply it, it will blow your mind with its radically unnatural way of viewing things that is so against our human nature, but so divine!
So it is also with political voices! We have allowed certain pundits to make two issues the only political points that they try to tell us that Christians need to be concerned with; abortion and same-sex marriage, to the detriment of practically every other issue or manifesto pledge or ideology. And so many have arisen who pay lip service to these mantras, whether they truly believe in denouncing them or not, to get the ‘Christian vote’: They start to sound like they hold ‘Christian values’. Before you know it, you’re hanging on every word they are saying, convincing yourself that they must be Christian values too!
A Facebook Friend altered a photo I posted very easily and reposted it for me; you’d think it was an original photo but it was false. Videos can now be doctored to portray something false too; films can be made with actors long dead portrayed by CGI programming. There must be software that can alter voice recordings and make it sound like someone is saying words they never said. When I realise that some politicians are actually not even paying lip service to these great Christian political pillars that they must do to be part of the circle, yet I hear of Christians following them, thinking they are speaking as with the mind of God, that is when I know that they are not just changing the wording on a transcript but are altering Jesus’ voice to make it sound just like them!
Once you know your own bible, and read the words of Jesus over and over to yourself, then you can compare the statements of those you are asked to vote for, and know when you are hearing a reflection of his voice coming from anyone else. It’s really only a matter of ‘What would Jesus say?’
Grace be with you.
Poor Reactions
“All reactionaries are paper tigers.” – Mao Zedong
Despite my well-known political left-leanings, I am certainly not a fan of Chairman Mao, the founder and despotic leader of Communist China. However, he was capable of some philosophical insights. His ‘Little Red Book’ was a bestseller, but then again, when almost a billion people had it forced into their hands, I have to rethink my efforts to get my own book published!
The quote above was one that intrigued me from an early age; I wondered what he meant by it. What is a reactionary, and what is a paper tiger? As I matured I began to grasp it. A paper tiger is exactly what it says; a tiger constructed from paper, which may look ferocious but has no substance. The dancing creations we see at Chinese festivals (which are usually lions, but sometimes represent tigers) come from a practical application of the craft of constructing the colourful costumes. When a lion or tiger threatened the people or livestock of a village, they would make one of these large dummies to parade around (with accompanying noise from drums and cymbals) for the creature to see, to fool it into thinking that there was a much bigger and fiercer rival in that area and force it to move elsewhere.
But what exactly is a reactionary? Someone who is only reacting to something they are presented with that they inherently do not wish to agree with nor accede to. I have come to realise that this exists in all of us, and it surfaces especially when one engages in political or theological debate. We always like to decamp to opposing sides of arguments, and generalise everything into liberal v. conservative,
socialist v. capitalist, left v. right, when those of us who try to analyse arguments realise that things are seldom simply two-sided. It would seem to be human nature – it is the foundation of sport, and the most popular forms of spectator sports would appear to be head-to-head battles between two individuals or two teams. This may well be the reason we cannot deal so easily with the crisis in Syria since there are WAY more than two sides involved – here’s a good video that tries to simplify it.
Reactionaries have become far more common in the modern world with social media! Even Andy Warhol, with his famous quip that “one day everyone will be famous for fifteen minutes” could not have envisaged the 21st century where every single one of us with an account on twitter, Facebook, disqus, tumblr, instagram, etc., etc. could claim the stage, grab the mike and express to the world our sudden opinion. Gone are the grand old days of news coverage when the BBC would seek out a university professor who had been given the time to examine an event and offer his expert analysis of what had been going on in some corner of the world. No, now it has to be as instant as the coffee granules in your cup. As soon as the hot water is poured, an aroma of news must reach our nostrils, and so everyone has to weigh in with their own favourite coffee bean blend or brand name.
This week’s news from Paris has been a prime example of the circus that we all create when tragedy strikes and tempers flare. I myself might see (or perceive) a position someone is taking that I cannot sanction or silently ignore, so I add in a commentary or video that destroys their position, then somebody else offers a good argument that exposes flaws in the arguments or points in my own ‘statement’ – each one can be argued against with a smugness that ‘we’ are being smart about it and ‘they’ are unprincipled imbeciles! This is exactly what Mao meant! Extreme positions can be brought down by simple counter-arguments, when in fact, truth usually lies somewhere in the middle; in the very difficult ground (or the painful fence!) that requires information, knowledge, thought, reason, consideration, debate, speculation, theory, analysis… conclusion? Why bother with all that when a good ‘up yours’ stance will do? When we simply assent to be reactionaries by continuing such behaviour, we have no substance, except to stand at the side of a pitch and just hope our team wins the match, and of course, argue that the referee was biased if we lose. Reactionaries are just spectators with no real influence on the outcome. Let us be the game players! Be those who are able to make careful analyses of the game we all play on this globe, devise a strategy that will win, and convince others of it’s ‘winning formula’. The rhetoric of the reactionary is just a paper exercise, and anyone with a match can turn it to ashes.
Of course, Chairman Mao missed the irony in his own statement, seeing reactionaries as those who opposed his regime, but failing to recognise how his own politics were just the revolutionary reaction to the evils that went before, and he descended into his own evils, borne from his extreme stance. I always find myself calling for balance in all things. Does that mean I’m arguing for Centrist politics? No, I actually find Centrism just too wishy-washy, but I do believe that the most effective and lasting forms of government are ones where opposing points of view can fight from their own corner while being able to compromise on certain points – that leads to stronger positions for everyone. It does require a belief in something, though! A solid base from which to argue; a soap box on which one can say “this is what I believe”, not “I’m against this…” Our politicians in Northern Ireland are notorious for saying ‘no’ far more often than they say ‘yes’!
Me? I believe in Jesus!
That should affect everything else I say and do.
Grace be with you.
