Phill Sacre

Category: Writings

Stuff which I would class more as an attempt at the art of ‘writing’, as opposed to the general junk I come out with most of the time. Not that this isn’t junk, but… well, yeah.

  • Atheist Delusions: The Review

    Recently I mentioned that I was reading through “Atheist Delusions” by David Bentley Hart, and I said I would write up a review of it when I’d finished reading it. Well, I’ve finished reading it now, and really enjoyed it. Quite a lot of the book deals with the same kind of things I’ve been talking about with regards to atheism/secularism, although he takes it from a different angle. Essentially, Hart is going on a journey through Christian church history, and along the way correcting a lot of misperceptions about the past and how our society relates to that. From that perspective, I think he does brilliantly: he writes like he knows what he’s talking about – he’s done the reading and interacted with what we know historically (unlike a lot of the so-called ‘New Atheists’, who seem to basically ignore it). His basic contention is that the New Atheist reading of history is completely back-to-front, when Christianity arrived on the scene it changed the world in ways which are hard for us to imagine now.

    Speaking of the New Atheists, it’s written in a fairly robust style in that he spares no love for the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennett and Harris – although in general they (and especially Dawkins) spare no love for Christianity in their books so it’s like for like. And most of the book is spent not so much on interacting with their arguments directly but interacting with history and various views on it. My main problem with the style of the book was that it is fairly dense prose, which isn’t really good when you’re trying to read it late at night! It’s definitely a book which you really need to be fully awake for to read properly, but it’s worth it.

    What I’d like to do is pull out some of his arguments about secularism, which should both tie in with what I’ve said before as well as give you a flavour of what the book is like. This all comes from the last quarter of the book, the previous three-quarters being groundwork for it. (I apologise that it’s a bit long… skip to the end for my tl;dr!) I’m going to do this in two sections – firstly about Christian morality as opposed to the pagan morality which preceded it, and then secularism.

    (more…)

  • New Scientist: “The God Issue”

    Yesterday Mrs Phil bought me a copy of the latest New Scientist magazine,  “The God Issue”, because it looked interesting. I’ve had a chance to read through it now – or at least the relevant articles – and I thought I’d post up a quick review.

    Know Your Enemy

    The introduction, ‘Know your enemy’, starts off promisingly:

    Children are born primed to see god at work all around them and don’t need to be indoctrinated to believe in him.

    This is interesting information. But we’ll come onto that a bit later on.

    This is not an apologia for god. Religious claims still wither under rational scrutiny and deserve no special place in public life … [But] religion is deeply etched in human nature and cannot be dismissed as a product of ignorance, indoctrination or stupidity.

    Ah. Religious claims still ‘wither under rational scrutiny’? That’s a bold claim to make given that many scientists are, in fact, Christian – see, for example, Wikipedia’s list of Christian thinkers in science. Alienating some of your readership is not a smart move in any magazine, and in this particular case it seems like unnecessary sniping. Also, one logical conclusion of children naturally predisposed to believe in ‘god’ is that there is a possibility that ‘god’ might exist – a possibility which seems to escape every writer throughout the magazine.

    Still, it is good to see that atheists are coming round to the idea that religion is not a product of ignorance, indoctrination or stupidity: hopefully this will signal the beginning of the end for the Dawkins school of atheism, which seems to hold that every religious person is hopelessly deluded.

    (more…)

  • 2011: The Review

    So, 2011: what about it, eh? *makes dismissive noise and rolls eyes* It’s been a bit of a year. Well, inspired by my friend Alex’s review of the year, I’ve decided to do something similar – though not in as much depth.

    Here are a few things I’ve seen this year (films, books, TV etc… wherever the mood takes me. That’s the crazy kind of guy I am) which I think are worth watching. Note that not all of them came out this year, but this year is when I saw them:

    Films

    I will be honest: we haven’t been to the cinema since we went to see The King’s Speech ages ago. We rent DVDs from easyCinema (or LoveFilm, I think they’re basically the same) – hence not all of these are 2011 releases. Handily, you have a feature where you can rate a film after seeing it – so I’m going to post up a selection of the films I rated 4-5/5.

    • Speed Racer – saw this on Alex’s recommendation earlier this year, and immediately ordered the DVD. (Well, Blu-Ray, but for brevity I’ll stick with DVD). Great family film, made by the Wachowski brothers around the time that they made the original Matrix.
    • Beyond the Pole – interesting film, starring Stephen Mangan. Started out as a comedy but ended up slightly tragic, still with funny moments though. Worth watching.
    • The Social Network – fantastic work. Someone told me that the writer of this film writes dialogue like poetry. I’m not entirely sure that’s exactly right but I thought it was very insightful, well paced, well scripted and well acted.
    • The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo – original Swedish version. Lots of Saabs and Volvos being driven around 😉 This was really good – I don’t know what the new version is like, but this one is very thought-provoking. I like the ‘message’ as well, that the protagonist (the girl) does seem to change and find some kind of redemption.
    • The Ghost – good psychological thriller, very cleverly written.
    • Submarine – excellent film, written and directed by newcomer Richard Ayoade (‘Moss’ from The IT Crowd). Side splittingly funny in places but with some really tender moments – kind of like ‘Beyond the Pole’ in terms of being a comedy/drama, but probably funnier.
    • Things We Lost in the Fire – great story about a family shocked by the death of the father and them learning to be a family again – I’ve probably not sold it well but this one is actually quite heart-warming in the end.
    • Tangled – a film we watched on Alex’s recommendation. Great kids film (and for adults too) – it left me with a smile on my face at least!
    • Good Will Hunting – an old film I know, but if you haven’t seen it’s definitely worth watching. Ben Affleck plays his usual character, but Matt Damon is pretty good. And even Robin Williams isn’t annoying!

    Once again plagiarising taking inspiration from Alex, one or two films I thought were absolutely awful:

    • Knight and Day – I remember seeing Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz advertising this on Top Gear a while back. I thought, “Hmm, looks pretty good, I’ll check it out.” I shouldn’t have bothered … it’s awful. Couldn’t really follow the plot, it wasn’t really funny… overall, not the best film ever 😉
    • The Other Guys – this film showed some promise, I do like Will Ferrell – but just couldn’t quite deliver. I just didn’t find it funny, it seemed to follow too much in the vein of those so-called “jokeless comedies“.
    • Four Lions – in some ways I didn’t want to put this in because it was pretty good, but at the end of the day I just found it didn’t really deliver. There were a few genius comedy moments, but apart from that it was a bit sad and left me feeling … well, a bit empty. (Kind of like 500 Days of Summer last year – although Four Lions was definitely funnier.)

    Other Stuff

    I don’t really read much in terms of novels (most of my novel reading has been in the form of free books on the Kindle, mainly Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories). I don’t want to start recommending Christian books on here at the moment, I might do that in a separate post.

    We also don’t really watch that much TV, but here are a few bits of TV which come to mind:

    • Doctor Who – really enjoyed this year’s season. Matt Smith and Stephen Moffat at their best I think.
    • Frozen Planet – amazing TV. The BBC have excelled themselves once again.
    • Rev – despite my somewhat negative review, it’s well worth watching!
    • Death in Paradise – great fun, somewhat mindless but comic fun starring Ben Miller. Feel-good TV that hits the right notes for me.
    • Outnumbered – I was a tad disappointed with the most recent series, it just felt like the kids were getting a bit too old. Part of the charm of the series was their innocence, and I think that has been somewhat lost now.

    I think that’s enough from me rambling on anyway. I will now stop pretending I know anything about films or TV and move on…

  • Rev: The Rev-iew

    Rev-iew. Rev review. Did you see what I did there? Hahahaha!

    *ahem* Sorry.

    The BBC series ‘Rev’ finished its second series on Tuesday with a Christmas special (although, as the character Nigel pointed out in the show, technically it’s not Christmas until Christmas day: it’s ‘Advent’ until then…) The series as a whole was well written, witty, and very moving in places. It also had some real moments of warmth between the characters – they were believable and I felt myself rooting for them. Essentially, the show was everything I think a sitcom ought to be.

    But… but… there was something about the series which annoyed me. It irked me. It got under my skin and made me feel somewhat uncomfortable watching it. That element was there in the last series (see my review of series one on Crossring), but seems to have developed in this series. I’m not entirely sure why that is – possibly because I now am actually training to basically do Adam Smallbone’s [the vicar in Rev] job, it puts what Adam does into sharper focus. I’ve been thinking a lot about what my ministry would look like in the future, and comparing it with Adam’s it seems there are things missing from his ministry which I would like there to be in mine.

    Last week, I attended an ordinand’s evening put on by Chelmsford Diocese (an ordinand is someone who is training to be ordained but isn’t yet). I got into a discussion with the Archdeacon of Southend about Rev – I said that I thought it was clear that the show was written by someone who didn’t really believe, because I didn’t feel like God was really working. The Archdeacon very much disagreed. His view was that Adam being there at the end, still pressing on as a vicar, meant that God was working: I think the Archdeacon saw a lot of churches like those in Rev, and basically Rev was much more of a documentary than a comedy! I’ve been reflecting on this over the past week, and I think my thoughts are now a little bit more clear.

    I’m not entirely sure I can put into words exactly what I feel, but I think it boils down to the fact that neither Adam’s life or his ministry are characterised by the gospel. Let me try to explain what I mean by that.

    Firstly, Adam’s life: I think the writer took so much trouble to paint a picture of Adam as an ordinary person that he just comes across as someone who is no different at all from ‘the world’, in Biblical language. The Bible often makes a distinction between those who follow Christ and ‘the world’ – see, for example, John 17 (e.g. v14 ‘I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world.’)

    Adam, on the other hand, smokes, drinks, and has outbursts like the one he has at church in the Christmas episode. I just feel a bit uncomfortable with that – although vicars are Christians like everyone else, sinners like everyone else, I would have just liked to see his life a bit more characterised by the gospel. As Paul puts it ‘… I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received’ (Ephesians 4:1). I’m not entirely sure I saw the holiness in Adam which I would like to see in any Christian, and particularly a minister of religion.

    I do recognise, by the way, that vicars are people and have flaws, a characteristic of being human. I suppose the problem is at no point does he really seem to acknowledge that and confess that it is only by God’s grace that he can continue.

    Any kind of Christian ministry is hard, and being a vicar especially can be tough, but his life just doesn’t seem to be characterised by the joy that comes of knowing God’s grace.

    Which brings me to the second point – the fact that his ministry is not characterised by the gospel. He seems to have very little idea of what he is actually there for – what his role is all about. He says in Episode 5 “What is charity? … that’s giving alms, but I feel like I’m called upon to do more.” The thing is, I believe the ‘more’ he is called upon to do is to bring people into contact with the living God.

    He just seems to have a very vague, generalised picture of his ministry as doing things which are basically Christian – such as visiting the sick, conducting church services, helping people practically – without anything which would give those things some weight. For example, in Episode 3 his friend Joan – an elderly lady – asks him if God will forgive her for some of the bad things she’s done. All he says is, “I think God will forgive you.” Sure, but on what basis? Why does God forgive? Is there anything that Joan needs to do?! I want him to answer those questions too!

    In Episode 4 he is asked the question by one of the school children, “Do Muslims go to heaven?” And he says, “Yes, if they follow the five pillars of Islam.” Now I don’t want to get into the question of what happens to people who are from other religions, but I don’t know whether that would be an acceptable answer. If he honestly believes that people from other religions all go to their heaven, what is he doing there as a vicar? What is his role? It just seems that being a vicar in a Christian church demands we take the claims of Christ’s uniqueness seriously (e.g. John 14:6, “no one comes to the Father except through me”). If anyone goes to heaven it is because of God’s grace displayed in Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection.

    Essentially Adam’s work becomes reduced to going around trying to be a helpful person and offering a few platitudes here and there to do with God when people are feeling down. But they’re OK really – everyone will be saved in the end, except for perhaps a few really nasty people who don’t deserve it. I wouldn’t say that Adam was a universalist (i.e. believes that everyone will be saved) but practically speaking he seems to have no real motivation for evangelism.

    Now the problem with all this is that I do realise there are different ways of looking at ‘Rev’ (see, for example, Grace and Truth in Rev – thanks @simonlucas). And, of course, it is ‘only a sitcom’… but it is apparently more based on real life than I imagined – viz my conversation with the Archdeacon.

    The key thing is that when I look round the world and see people like those portrayed in Rev – ordinary people, ordinary lives – it seems to me (from my reading of Scripture) that their greatest needs are not physical but spiritual: they need to be brought into the Kingdom of God, and have their lives touched by the gospel. This is what I will strive for in any future ministry I will be involved with. And I just don’t see that happening in Rev: Adam Smallbone doesn’t have any good news.

  • QI and Quirinius’ Census

    I was watching QI XL last night, and the topic of the Bible came up (you can still see it on the iPlayer at the time of writing – at 20 minutes in). Now, it should be pointed out before we start that Stephen Fry has been known to be wrong before – he is not infallible! And on this particular occasion, I think he was wrong.

    Stephen Fry and the panel made a few points about the census described in Luke 2:1-3.

    The points were, broadly speaking:

    1. There was never a census of the entire Roman world;
    2. People didn’t have to return to their home towns in a census.

    So the Lukan account of the census was put in only to account for the Bethlehem prophecy (i.e. Luke made up the gospel in order to account for all the prophecies). He (Stephen Fry) then went on to say “We’ve been cheated of books which should have been in the Bible”, and read an account from an infancy narrative of Jesus which happened to include dragons.

    I have to say, I find this disappointing: QI prides itself on getting its facts right. It’s a shame that such a programme would broadcast what is essentially misinformation. On the two points above, there are plenty of sources (that last one looking particularly at the Greek text and the dating of the census, and – if you read on – coming up with what I believe to be an interesting resolution). In short, what QI said is simply not true.

    This untruthfulness comes across again when they say it was basically a free-for-all when it came to which books were included in the Bible and which ones weren’t. Now this is such an incredible argument to make because it is totally false: It was used in the Da Vinci Code, for goodness’ sake, and we know how accurate that was! There is an article in my ESV Study Bible on the Canon of Scripture  (it’s available online but you have to have an account) which gives an interesting overview of the history of the canon of what we call the Bible. Essentially, the early church didn’t decide what went in and what didn’t in terms of their own agenda, and it wasn’t decided many years after the fact.

    The books of the NT were “self-selecting”, as it were; the books that were ‘chosen’ was simply a ratification of the books that already were in use by the majority of churches as authoritative.

    Anyway, it’s disappointing to see ‘research’ like this make its way onto our screens, especially on a programme which is watched by millions of people. It’s just sloppy. QI, you have gone down a little in my estimation.