Christians and Climate Change

The other day I heard about some Christians who were sceptics about climate change. Not having had a chance to talk to them myself, I am not sure of the grounds for their objections, but I have come across it before and online. As I am teaching a course on ethics at the moment, it led me to wonder why the case for action on climate change isn't compelling for some people - and especially for those who describe themselves as Christians.

At the same time, I have seen plenty of negative comments on social media from the more right-wing accounts (which sometimes purport to represent the views of "Christian" England) about those protesting about climate change. It is also remarkable how often Greta Thunberg triggers white males of about my age into rage and abuse, but that's a different blog post.

If I was taking my students through this issue, we might consider some of the classic approaches to ethical questions and see how they might shed some light on all of this. Here goes.

Most green campaigners put the issue of climate change and global warming at the forefront of their campaigns, headlines and literature. If we don't act now on CO2 emissions, the result will be that the planet warms, the weather will change and it will have catastrophic effects, including sea levels rising, droughts, loss of food supply, habitable land and much more. This is, of course, based on the fact that the earth can sustain our life due to the "greenhouse effect"  - a blanket of CO2 which prevents temperature extremes both high and low. Shifting the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere through human activity will produce devastating results.

At this point we have to say that the overwhelming consensus of science is that this is a correct analysis. The exact outcomes still have some uncertainty, and the resulting weather may be counter-intuitive, such as more rain and even colder weather in some parts of the globe. However, the case has been made over and over again, and is very widely accepted.

So why do some vociferous people reject it and try to seek out the scientists who might wish to cast doubt? One reason might be vested interest, of course. Decisive and effective action will be costly financially and possibly politically too. It also has to be said that there are some Christians with very particular views about the end of the world who don't see this world as worth worrying about, as it will all end soon and not be here, so its material welfare is irrelevant.

However, I think a big factor feeding into climate scepticism is that the arguments for action on climate change are, as we have seen, usually based on predictions of what is going to happen. In ethics, this kind of argument is referred to as a consequentialist approach. This is a way of thinking that decides the right or best course of action, based on the anticipated outcomes from various choices. Put simply you look at option A and B. Option A means X will happen; option B means Y will happen. X and Y are then compared as to which is expected to produce the most happiness / harmony / love  (depending on the version of this approach you are using) and the best anticipated outcome determines the best choice. As you might already suspect, this can lead to some debatable "means to an end" justifications for certain actions or choices. Just think about the reasons for using nuclear weapons in World War 2, which stated that however awful, they were better than the alternatives.

However, in everyday life, we make choices on this basis all of the time - probably without even thinking about it very much. But when it comes to big issues, you can start to see the difficulty. How do we know that the predictions of outcomes are accurate? Life is not a simple mechanical machine, where a force in one place produces a movement or action somewhere else in a predictable and repeatable way. The complexities of human societies, weather systems, economies, etc. mean that such arguments are always open to challenge. And so, social media continues to be full of people convinced that climate change generated by human activity is a hoax or even a conspiracy, whatever the much better-informed scientists say.

However, for me as a Christian, this kind of argument is not the only - or even the most compelling - argument to be concerned for the planet and to be taking action. I believe the scientific case for action on climate change has been completely convincing for years, but that isn't they key point here. Even if the scientists were wrong, Christians should still be deeply concerned about the planet and making choices to conserve, recycle, and consume less. 

The starting point for this is the notion of stewardship. There is a repeated theme throughout the Bible that human beings are not the 'owners' of the earth, but stewards. The resources we have are entrusted into our care. I don't believe the creation accounts in Genesis literally, but they give a sense and definition to the relationship that humanity should have with the rest of the created order. As a poet put it in Psalm 24:1 "The earth is the Lord's and all that is in it". As such we should have a sense of accountability for how creation has been treated at the hands of humanity, and a sense of responsibility to tend and nurture it, irrespective of what the graphs and thermometers say. (The ethics folks might suggest this is a deontological argument - deon is Greek for duty or obligation.)

Using the same kind of argument, Christians also have an obligation to their neighbour. The parable of the Good Samaritan shows Jesus giving the notion of neighbour a much wider definition than people who are like "us" or who are simply in close proximity relationally or socially. Many of our global neighbours are already experiencing climate change in ways we haven't seen first hand in the UK. Protecting the climate will protect some of the poorest and most vulnerable people. It is a sad irony that the very people who fulminate most about migration to the UK are also often those who question climate change or scorn those who protest about it, not realising that lack of action is highly likely to prompt huge migrations of people in future decades. But I'm drifting into consequences there, so I'll move on...

A second strand to consider is the notion of being a consumer. Living in a western society, it is very difficult not to be a large consumer of goods, energy and even food. A tension I have often discussed with Christian friends has been about finding the right balance between continuing to play a constructive part in society (rather than go completely off-grid) and yet somehow challenge the prevailing culture of ever-growing consumption. What are we being shaped into by the trends and expectations of our world if all we live for is to have more stuff? Surely there has to be an aspect of the Christian life which a the very least hankers after something more enduring - what Jesus in the Gospels calls treasure in heaven? I haven't resolved that for myself, but engaging with the question is important, as can help to stop us simply being carried by the tide. (Asking questions like this starts to bring us into an area called virtue ethics - what sort of people do we want to be or become? What choices, practices and lifestyle might continue to express, reinforce and embed that different set of priorities?)

Furthermore, for people with a religious perspective, the extinction of species and the decimation of habitat by human activity should always be a concern. If the diverse beauty and wonder of the universe is a manifestation of divine creativity, then anything that degrades it has to be challenged. It is not only a breach of the responsibility entrusted to us, but it is a kind of denial of the image of that infinitely creative God planted within us. 

I do believe the science - it's actually been around for several decades. I do think that we are on the brink of inflicting irreversible damage to the climate, and I support urgent action to address it here and around the world. But even if I'm wrong on that, there are strong theological and ethical arguments for making choices personally and communally to limit consumption, care for the environment, and make choices that reduce the impact and footprint we leave on the wonderful planet that has been entrusted to us. 

Musing on orthodoxy

A long time ago in another universe (actually Dec 2006), I blogged about a letter signed by some church leaders of an evangelical persuasion relating to homosexuality and the standpoint Christians should adopt. I'd rephrase it now, but it made the point.

If you didn't click the link, I questioned the use of the term "orthodox" to describe a conservative ethical standpoint with regard to homosexual relationships. My point was that orthodoxy has historically been used to describe agreement with the historic Christian creeds - especially their definition of the Trinity and of how Jesus was human and divine - the Incarnation. In contrast, ethical issues have been matters of debate throughout the history of the church, and a key current debate centres around how we should understand same-sex relationships. Ironically, at the New Wine conference in the summer of 2006, I had noted that the speaker had talked about Jesus in terms that (at best) were perilously close to adoptionism without any comparable furore about a lack of orthodoxy.

Now there's an important note to make here. Ethics is related to theology, and theology has ethical consequences. The distinction is not as sharp as my opening gambit might suggest. However, it is indisputable that Christians have differed on a variety of pretty important ethical issues without necessarily resorting to labelling each other heretics / unorthodox.

Take, for example, the question of the use of force. Pacifists would argue from Biblical texts such as the prohibitions to kill in the ten commandments (Ex 20:13, Deut 5:17) and Jesus' injunctions to turn the other cheek and love our enemies (Matthew 5:39,44). Others would draw on other texts to assert that military service is accepted (e.g. no criticism is offered in Mt 8:9, and soldier is used as an image in 2 Tim 2:3-4) It is deduced from other principles that defending the innocent and order of the state is a common good. There is a long track record of Christians concluding that where necessary, the use of force and taking of life can be justified. This was developed into what is often called just war theory. 

My question is this: would we refer to someone on one side of the argument or the other as a heretic? Each is considering Scripture very carefully and thoughtfully, but they have drawn different conclusions.

Some would say to me that this issue is different from questions of sexuality. They would assert that the clear view of Scripture is that same-sex relationships are a no-go area, and those who say they could be are just swayed by the times. It's worth noting that early Christians were essentially pacifists until Constantine took power, but as emperors, kings (and later presidents!) claimed Christian faith, the use of force became not only accepted, but even actively encouraged. There is a case for saying that politics and power had a role in changing that ethical standpoint too.

Whether you're a pacifist or not, or whether you are socially conservative or liberal, I have a simple plea. There are people on both sides of these debates who are sincere, thoughtful, conscientious people trying to discern the will of God. All kinds of factors bear down on all of us to read our Bibles with some degree of selectivity. We set aside some texts, because we see principles from other texts as overriding them. Why else do some Christians allow divorcees to remarry, why don't we sell all our possessions, and why do we allow women to lead - let alone preach in church? The answer is that we bring other factors to bear to set those commands and prohibitions aside - the context of the passage in the wider text, the people it was written for, the issue it was addressing and so on. It's all about the delicate and complex art of interpretation or hermeneutics.

So by all means disagree over same-sex relationships, just as Christians have disagreed over other matters - including life and death for centuries. My plea is simply that we should avoid describing those with whom we disagree as unorthodox or heretical. To do so is to make a claim of authority that I, for one, am not prepared to own.

Why I oppose the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent

As there is a vote coming up about the renewal of the Trident system, I felt it was important to write to my MP, although I anticipate he, along with the majority of MPs, will back renewal. However, regardless of the side one takes, this is a bad time to make a big decision, and I still question how much impartial research has been done into whether this is a cost-effective choice, even for those who are pro-deterrent. With a sinking pound and public finances squeezed, this is an issue which could have very real knock-on effects on our doorsteps. My letter also omitted the very real question of how a deterrent so reliant on US support can be truly independent

Here is my letter with added hyperlinks to sources:

Dear Mr Morris,

I understand that there will be a vote in Parliament as to whether the United Kingdom should renew its Trident nuclear submarine fleet. Regardless of the side one takes, I feel this debate is badly timed, taking place in the turmoil of the formation of a new government and the aftermath of the referendum result. I strongly believe there would be wisdom taking more time, following our nation’s recent trauma.

However, I expect the debate and vote will happen, so I feel I must write to you. I must state up front that I have huge moral objections to nuclear weapons, so I'd be glad to see the end of a UK nuclear deterrent. However, even if one doesn’t have that over-riding moral objection, it's hard to see the justification for a new Trident system strategically, financially or militarily. Here are my reasons:

Cost

The official cost estimates in 2010 were £15-20 billion, although many believe it will be much higher. As there is US input, and the pound has devalued against the dollar by around 10% since the referendum, this is bound to rise. Ongoing operational costs and maintenance will take this total much higher.

Over my adult lifetime, there have been many examples where it was believed that our conventional forces on active duty were imperilled by shortages – of ammunition, helicopters, body armour, and using vulnerable Land Rovers due to a lack of armoured personnel carriers. The savings from abandoning Trident could ensure that does not happen again. I’m not a pacifist, so I feel that when our personnel are deployed it’s vital they actually have all the resources they need, decent houses to come home to, and proper support for those injured or traumatised, along with their families.

Military Strategy

The point is often made that Trident is for our security – to make us safe. Is this well-founded?

The British nuclear deterrent was conceived to ensure the UK had the independent means to deter the USSR during the Cold War. We couldn't hope to win a conventional war against the USSR, so it was to ensure the UK could not be intimidated, and an aggressor would pay for using nuclear weapons on the UK, if it ever came to that. As I’m sure you know, the British deterrent (whether Vulcans, Polaris or Trident) was always a 'second strike' weapon. They would be deployed once Britain was about to be devastated by an incoming attack, or after such an attack had done its worst. In the Cold War scenario, it was assumed the USSR would be the aggressor, and it was very hard to imagine circumstances where Trident would be fired in isolation from a US response, or that as a NATO ally, they would simply watch European allies attacked. This is presumably why, apart from France, no other European country has nuclear weapons. The difference 'our' deterrent makes to that overall scenario is more symbolic than significant.

So at most, Polaris and Trident would have been a kind of posthumous revenge. In his old age, Denis Healey once admitted that back in the 60s if he had been in bunker after a Soviet attack, he wouldn't have launched Polaris. What would the point have been in slaughtering millions of Russians after the damage was done?

The same surely applies now with regard to the big nuclear powers. Russia (and China) might have too much at stake to risk such a war with the West, but don't we need a deterrent to protect us from Iran, North Korea et al? The answer is the same: a nuclear strike by any 'rogue state' would certainly get a US response (possibly with support from Russia/China), so if that doesn't deter them, will a couple of Trident submarines? Furthermore, if the UK is seeking to discourage the proliferation of nuclear weapons, it reduces the credibility of that stance by renewing Trident.

Terrorism

Probably the most pressing threat to national security is terrorism. Nuclear deterrence is no use against such a threat. We don't know where they are, and the best hope of stopping them will be through good police and intelligence work. Many terrorists are happy to die in their cause; indeed some actively seek it. The Cold War peace was said to be maintained by the dangerous balance of mutually assured destruction (MAD) between the USA and USSR. However, if one side is happy to die, that balance is destroyed.

Conclusion

I don’t expect you will agree with me, as I know your party seeks Trident renewal. However, it isn’t as simple as a left/right issue. Military chiefs and even Michael Portillo (hardly a lily-livered lefty!) have questioned spending these huge sums of money to maintain a nuclear deterrent, when there are so many other pressing needs on our nation (including other military requirements).

Last night I was at a local public meeting seeking to keep Morecambe Library and 3 Childrens’ Centres open, which are threatened because of the cuts Lancashire County Council must make. Austerity is biting very hard locally, so it’s very hard to understand why such an expensive prestige project remains a priority.

Trident represents a lot of money that could be used to:

a) invest in the towns like Barrow affected by the cancellation. Employment is important, but Trident is a very expensive way to keep people employed.

b) ensure the conventional forces being deployed actually have all they need and decent houses to come home to.

c) contribute to deficit reduction, instead of closing vital local facilities.

Even the lowest estimate of £15bn is a lot of money to spend on something you hope you never use.

I hope you have time to read and weigh these arguments. At the very least, I would ask you to support deferring the decision until things settle down, I think a proper impartial strategic review of the value of a UK deterrent would be very helpful, balancing the different threats we face. Of course I must also ask you to vote against renewal for the reasons I have outlined.

Yours Sincerely

Mike Peatman

Why I didn't share a picture of Alan [Aylan] Kurdi

Today my news feed on Facebook has been filled with pictures of a little boy, Alan Kurdi*, lying dead on a beach, or being carried away by a Turkish police officer. Some of these have come from the feeds I get from newspapers, some have been associated with posts protesting about our government's attitude to Syrian refugees, and some have been posted by various angry friends on Facebook.

I fully understand why people are angry about the situation, and it appears that there has now been some movement in the British government's standpoint, although it's not yet clear what the outcome will be. There is a strong argument that an iconic image can sometimes be the only way to move things forward. For example, the photograph from Vietnam of Phan Thi Kim Phuc probably went some way to ending the US involvement in that war, and Michael Buerk's report from Ethiopia for the BBC mobilised Band / Live Aid in the mid 1980s.

Despite this, I still felt a profound unease about the pictures circulating of Alan, and I have been trying to work out why I feel that way. You may well have come to a different conclusion, and I understand, but sometimes it's good to ask ourselves searching questions. What was it that makes this different for me?

The central issue for me is the different media context we are now in. As soon as those terribly sad images became available online, they were circulating around social networks, blogs and websites everywhere. That's very different to them being embedded in a particular TV report, perhaps including warnings of the distressing nature of the material. And that's one of my uneasy feelings - publication of pictures of the dead are not commonplace, and there are usually some warnings for people about seeing them. Alan was unmissable on Facebook and Twitter today, and I'm sure many people, wanted that to be the case to get across the plight of refugees. I just don't think that was right method or the right use of images.

Let me try and explain, using a very different story. The other day I was talking to a man who, as a young soldier, volunteered to go and help at the Aberfan tragedy in south Wales, which killed 116 children and 28 adults. Understandably, the trauma of that affected him and his beliefs very profoundly, and I could still see it in his face. In fact, I can remember the grainy pictures on the TV news, and my mum explaining to me that children had died at school. I had just started school, and it happened on 21 Oct 1966 - the start of half-term.

It was a terrible tragedy, and there were a lot of difficult questions that needed answering about how the school had been put in danger. There were pictures of bodies - covered up, of course - being carried away. I vividly remember one photograph of a police officer carrying a survivor to safety. But with all that grief and sadness, if Facebook had existed, would anyone have posted a picture of a dead child, demanding answers from the National Coal Board? You can understand that anger might drive someone to do that, but it would have inflicted terrible grief on the child's family and community. Perhaps it's a mercy the technology wasn't available - I'm sure the newspapers, radio and TV were more than enough to bear for a community stricken with unimaginable sadness.

Alan's father, Abdullah, is still alive, although his mother and brother also died. It may be that Abdullah hasn't yet seen what is going on social media, and if that's true, it will be a mercy. I gather Alan's aunt lives in Canada. I wonder what it has been (and will be) like for them seeing these images coming up again and again, every time she goes on the internet. Ther's no notion of consent here. What do they think, and what are they feeling?

I've done a few children's funerals and on a couple of occasions I have been asked to hold the child, and when the request came, it was clearly important to the parents that I did so. You never forget moments like that, and I'm sure that Turkish police officer won't ever forget carrying Alan off the beach. He doesn't need constant reminders from social media, believe me.

Some posts have been even more confrontational with the image - as if using it gives the person posting an extra moral authority. Of course there need to be records of awful events - it's important lest we forget - but that doesn't mean that every detail of every awful event needs to be put out there, especially when emotions of those closest to the person are so recent and raw. And some posts seem to be portraying this as something new. Hundreds of people, including children, have been dying en route to Europe for months. That doesn't in any way diminish the terrible sadness of the death of Alan and other members of his family; they point us to a much wider community sharing similar experiences.

So I won't be sharing the pictures. That doesn't mean I don't care.


* Alan was Kurdish and according to his father, that is the correct spelling. The Turkish version of his name is Aylan.

Here are the questions; what is the answer?

A little while back I went to a lecture by Professor Linda Woodhead at Lancaster Priory about the future of the Church of England. She was at an early stage in looking at the results of a survey of views and attitudes of people and the relation of that to their belief background.

Linda has now put a Powerpoint presentation online which she shared with the Faith in Research 2013 conference. You can download it here. There is no accompanying text at this location, but here's a quick first reflection.

1) The gap between the declared positions of churches on issues and the prevailing attitudes of their members is striking. Attitudes of Anglicans and Catholics to same-sex marriage was very interesting in the present climate.

2) When asked what was negative about the C of E in society, younger people said it was bigoted; older (over 60s) said it was stuffy and out of touch. My generation tended towards saying it was hypocritical.

3) It was striking how little church (or faith group) was an influence on people's attitudes at all.

It would be interesting to see a text of her presentation, and I'm still taking in what it all means. Interesting stuff.

Is there a case for the defence (budget)?

There is apparently some confusion around the government today about whether the defence budget will rise in real terms, or whether only the equipment budget will rise, and as everything overspends, whether this will still amount to a cut. We seem no clearer this evening.

Here's my solution: axe Trident. I have huge moral objections to nuclear weapons, so I'd be glad to see them go in all circumstances. But even using the logic of the proponent, it's hard to see the justification financially and militarily.

The official cost estimates in 2010 were £15-20 billion, and many believe it will be nearer £34 billion. That's a lot of money that could be used to a) invest in the towns like Barrow affected by the cancellation, b) ensure the conventional forces being deployed actually have all the stuff they need and decent houses to come home to and c) do some deficit reduction instead of taking it off disabled people and the poor. Even £15bn is a lot of money to spend on something you hope you never use.

Think about it. The British nuclear deterrent was conceived as a way of ensuring we had the independent means to deter the Soviet Union during the Cold War. We couldn't hope to win a conventional war against the USSR, so we wanted to make sure they wouldn't mess with us, and would certainly pay for using nuclear weapons on the UK, if it ever came to that. The British deterrent was always 'second strike' - that is they would be used after Britain was a smoking radioactive ruin. And it was very hard to imagine circumstances where we would have used it in isolation from a US response.

So at most Polaris and Trident would have been a kind of posthumous revenge. In his old age, Denis Healey once admitted that back in the 60s if he had been in bunker after a Soviet attack, he wouldn't have launched Polaris. What would the point have been in slaughtering millions of Russians after the damage was done?

But hang on a minute, we were in NATO, the US was our ally, and did anyone seriously believe that a Soviet nuclear attack on any Western power wouldn't get a US response? What difference would 'our' deterrent have made to that picture? Probably none, but it made us feel we were doing our bit.

The same surely applies now with regard to the big nuclear powers. Ah, Russia and China might not be the threat, the argument might go, but don't we need nukes to protect us from Iran, North Korea et al? Logic would suggest that it's the same situation. A nuclear strike by any 'rogue state' would certainly get a US response, so if that doesn't deter them, will a couple of Trident subs?

The other major threat to national security is, of course, terrorism. But what use is a nuclear warhead against a terrorist. We don't know where they are, and the best hope of stopping them will be through police and intelligence work. And many terrorists are happy to die in their cause; some even seek it. The Cold War peace was said to be maintained by the dangerous balance of mutually assured destruction (MAD) between the USA and USSR. However, if one side is happy to die, that balance is destroyed.

So who exactly do we think our £15bn+ subs will actually deter, and under what conceivable circumstances would it be militarily advantageous to have them, even if we set aside moral qualms about the nature of the weapons, and the possibility of other peaceful strategies. Even for a 'hawk' the case for a British nuclear capability seems to make less and less economic and strategic sense. Some British defence chiefs have even come to that very conclusion.

And we haven't even started to talk about ethics...

Related articles

• Trident subs, aircraft carriers and drones on MoD's £160bn shopping list
• Lesley Riddoch: Trident doubt could help SNP
• Letters: Questions over UK's commitment to non-proliferation
• Trident: no need for like-for-like replacement, says Danny Alexander

A little bit of dissent

The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, has been making headlines over the issue of gay marriage. In opposition to proposals supported by David Cameron, he opposes the possibility of gay marriage, stating that marriage is a bedrock of society and that it would be wrong for the definition to be changed to include same-sex couples.

I've been thinking about this issue for some time - I blogged about it back in 2009, when I suggested that the 'undermine marriage' argument against civil partnerships was unsustainable. Indeed, I suggested that having a means to register legally long-term faithful same-sex relationships should have an ordering and stabilising effect on society, rather than the opposite.

But what of the symbolism of the terminology involved? The legal status and consequences might be the same, but civil partnership doesn't sound the same as marriage. For some gay people, this is seen as a positive. I once heard a lesbian student explain why she would not want a marriage, even if it became legally available, as the term 'marriage' was tainted by patriarchal oppression of women. Likewise, there was an attempt by a heterosexual couple to change the law to allow a civil partnership. However, for others the inability to call their commitment 'marriage' is a shortcoming.

And on top of all of this, the Church of England still has a prominent role in registering marriages, but a very hot and ongoing internal debate on the issue of homosexual relationships. Churches and other religious groups are also concerned that they could be legally forced to celebrate same-sex unions.

Here's a suggestion: why don't we take all the legal stuff out of the hands of churches? What if everyone had to register their relationship in a civil ceremony first, in order to satisfy all the legal issues. Then religious communities could be free to celebrate (or not) the relationships their beliefs could accommodate with complete freedom. For the C of E, that could have some interesting consequences - a step towards disestablishment some might say, not to mention the fear of losing fee income. But maybe that would be a new challenge - what do we want to celebrate with members of our community and why? And where would we draw the line, and who would we leave out?

On this occasion, I don't think the Archbishop has been very wise (if he has been correctly reported). It's perfectly possible to have a dispassionate debate about the definition of the word marriage, and whether it can be applied to anything other than a heterosexual union. Linguistically and culturally one could argue that case, even if you have no objection to same-sex relationships. But that's not what people will hear from the Archbishop, and it appears he was saying more than that. I fear it will only lead to the church as a whole being portrayed (again) as bigoted and prejudiced.

Related articles

• Don't legalise gay marriage, Archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu warns David Cameron (telegraph.co.uk)
• Archbishop of York: don't legalise gay marriage (guardian.co.uk)
• Archbishop warns against gay marriage (independent.co.uk)
• Sentamu attacks same-sex marriage (bbc.co.uk)

Is theism getting a bad press?

I'm not very sure how to phrase this post correctly. I have been musing for a while about a change I've observed over the time I have been ordained. It seems that there are now significantly more atheist voices who are more vocal and critical of belief in God, especially in the media and in public life. The question is: why?

Looking at the kinds of digs atheists make online, they're not always very sophisticated or original. Some atheists even seem to mirror religious fundamentalists in their absolutism. Even when the critique is more considered, it's usually the case that Christians have been struggling with the same issues for centuries. Suffering, theodicy, Old Testament wrath vs New testament compassion, etc are all there in theology textbooks (but not any neat answers). Maybe that's the problem: people who want neat answers find a messy God difficult.

If there is a trend, my first hunch is that the percentage of people who don't believe in God may not have changed as much as we think; it's just that their presence is felt more now. It's not as if atheism was invented when Richard Dawkins started selling books about it - people who didn't believe have been around for a long time.

I also suspect that quite a lot of the British never really believed in God in any very specific way, if at all. However, at most they described themselves as agnostic. Not a few of them probably went along to church, because it was a 'good thing' and saw it as supporting community and family. The 'supernatural' bit passed them by, and there are still churchgoers for whom that is true. The stronger  tag  of atheist probably seemed a bit definite for those 20th century sensibilities.

What's become clear in recent years is that attitudes to organised faith/religion have changed. The Church of England was once seen as basically benign, if rather odd, eccentric, ineffectual and from a different era. Church of England schools and colleges would be seen as 'nice' places to study, even by those who didn't practise the faith in any committed way. There is now a debate as to whether these institutions should receive any public support at all, or even whether churches and faith groups qualify as charities.

So why isn't theism seen as benign for wider society any more? Religious conflicts must be part of the picture. These aren't new, either, and nor is sectarian terrorism. There was plenty of that during the 'troubles' in Northern Ireland. However, more recent developments such as suicide bombing and the description of such as martyrdoms has pointed to a difficult question. If it is believed that human existence doesn't depend on this material world, but upon a relationship with the divine, then someone can acquire an attitude that says this life doesn't really matter. And in case Christians start getting superior at this point, that tradition is there in our faith too. It hasn't worked itself out in suicide bombing, but in medieval times, being killed on the Crusades was regarded as tantamount to martyrdom. How do we hold that 'this isn't everything', yet still value the material world as real and precious?

Ethics and values have changed the goalposts too. Churches are often seen as maintaining sexist and homophobic values in an era when society's norms and the laws of the land have moved on from traditional standpoints. If the perception out there is growing that theism = prejudice and discrimination, then it's hardly surprising to hear a more vocal critique from theosceptics. (Have I just invented that word? Must look it up later)

If my hunches bear any relation to reality, I'm not particularly worried about these shifts in attitude. One the one hand, Christians should expect opposition if they are being true to the teaching of Jesus - it certainly came his way. I sometimes wonder if we shouldn't be a lot more unpopular about poverty, economic exploitation and injustice.

On the other hand, we also need to listen. The Bible and the Christian tradition are complex, and it's easy to confirm our own pet prejudices with careful selection of our sources. Sometimes a radical challenge from outside our comfortable circle of like-minded can jolt us into re-examining what we think and why we think it.

Perhaps most of all we need to be more willing to live more radical lives. Maybe the reason more people openly say they don't believe any more is that they can see precious little reason for belief in the lives of those who say they do.

Evil Music?

The Israel Chamber Orchestra has caused a lot of controversy in its home country about its decision to play at the Bayreuth festival, which celebrates the music of Richard Wagner. Despite being long dead before the Nazis came to power, his anti-semitic writing led to admiration by Adolph Hitler and it is said that his music was played at the concentration camps where so many Jews died. His music has been, therefore, shunned by most Israeli musicians.

Not being a classical fan, and certainly not of opera, I don't have any particular desire to try and rehabilitate his music from an artistic point of view. However, it does beg an interesting question: does enjoying the music equate to condoning the views of the composer/artist? It all reminds me a bit of the debates in Christian youth circles in the late 70s and early 80s about so-called back-tracking.

Most notorious was an alleged expression of admiration for Satan in Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven", which, it was claimed, could be heard if you played the track backwards. Lots of vinyl albums suffered damage as a consequence, and a test on our student flat's record player was unclear! Other examples have been quoted and demonstrated with varying degrees of plausibility. The debate centred around whether the hidden message was there, and even if it was, did it matter? After all we don't know all the views of every musician, and can't you just take a song at face value.

Returning to the more serious issues around Wagner, the question is whether his music can ever shake off their associations, and be appreciated as music, rather than political or ideological statements. If something is beautiful [not that I personally think Wagner's music is!], is it just beautiful?

Everything has associations, and music can be especially evocative of memories. It may be that one day, when all living memory of the Holocaust has gone, that people can listen to Wagner just as music. In the meantime I suspect that a rehabilitation, even by an Israeli orchestra, is not possible.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Israeli orchestra first to play at Wagner festival (telegraph.co.uk)

When is a partner not a partner?

The current fuss over David Laws shows that defining relationship becomes difficult as soon as you move away from some kind of legal registration, which can give objective evidence that a connection exists - i.e. a certificate. Mr Laws' relationship wasn't a civil partnership, they didn't share bank accounts, they didn't have a public shared social life, and the information revealed thus far indicates that he didn't stand to benefit personally from any of the payments made as rental.

That leaves those investigating this case with a problem - where is the threshold if it isn't the legal registration of it as a marriage or civil partnership. It's not about the quality of the interpersonal relations - there are plenty of examples of bad marriages, and very good relationships between people who are not married/civil partnered. The issue is how can a relationship be evaluated objectively without the existence of some form of legal contract between the partners.


For example, two people could co-habit in a way that was clearly a lodger/landlord relationship. That wouldn't run into trouble. The landlord and tenant could be friends and still there needn't be a problem. People have sex with each other without wanting their relationship to become a partnership. So what defines David Laws' relationship, which may or may not be a 'partnership' in the eyes of Parliament?

In the end, it will be a matter of opinion as to whether this relationship crosses the line of the Parliamentary rules, and there will be a degree of subjectivity involved in the judgment. David Laws didn't want this relationship to become public, so he treated his rent on a business basis. The taxpayer didn't pay more for his flat than others, and his expenses overall are relatively low. He hasn't benefited personally, and he could have made a lot more money doing something else. But he did conceal with a degree of deception, and he has fallen into the grey area of when is a relationship a partnership. Some clarity is needed for everyone's sake, but I fear the media will judge him long before committees on MP's behaviour come to a mind on it.

Related articles by Zemanta

• David Laws apology: his statement in full (telegraph.co.uk)

Nuclear Weapons: a vote winner?

Image via Wikipedia

One of the surprises of the recent leadership debate was the firm line taken by Labour and the Conservatives over the replacement of Britain's ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Trident submarines. The question lurking in my mind is whether the general public in the UK really regard the maintenance of an independent nuclear deterrent capability a vote-winner.

Back in the 1950s and 60s, the USA and USSR found themselves in the midst of an arms race. Both wanted to ensure they had enough capability to knock out the other's and to avoid incurring large amounts of retaliation - so-called first-strike capability. These weapons could be used in response to an attack, or 'up front' as a final card in an escalating game of 'dare' between the two Cold War adversaries. During the Cuban crisis it all came perilously close.

This policy, appropriately, became known a MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. Once it was established that any nuclear war between the superpowers would destroy them both (and most of the world with them) then it was in neither party's interest to start such a war. In the subsequent decades, negotiations have reduced the arsenals and that continues to be the case.

Britain was never in a position where it had enough 'kit' to launch a 'first-strike' attack on the USSR; our deterrent was 'second-strike'. In other words, our deterrent would be launched after Britain had been hit with Soviet warheads, and devastating some Soviet cities was a minimum requirement. Vulcan bombers, Polaris and now Trident have all served as our minimum deterrent.

Of course, this all presupposes a few things. First it assumes that a nuclear attack on a non-nuclear Britain was likely, and that the US (or any other major power) wouldn't provide any defence. Second, it assumes that the posthumous revenge of our missiles or planes would have been enough to deter a Soviet regime hell-bent on annihilating Britain. Behind all of that is the huge moral question as to whether one should ever countenance unleashing these weapons in any circumstance. Dennis Healey admitted in an interview that had it come to the crunch, even if Britain was devastated, he could not have ordered the slaughter of millions of Russians - what would have been the point?

The world we live in now is very different. Anyone thinking of using a nuke against Britain now is likely to be either terrorists or a regime with an ideology that would not find being hit back in return such a deterrent as the USSR did. In a world a suicide bombers, MAD doesn't work. So even if you think use of nuclear weapons is morally defensible under some circumstances, against whom might a British government

Image via Wikipedia

conceivably use them?

The figure banded around is £100 billion over 25 years, with quite a considerable initial investment. Given the choice, I can't see why we would want to spend that much money on weapons, that we hope we never use, on an enemy we can't even identify. My own hunch is that neither does the majority of the British people.

I think it's correct that the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru are all committed to complete nuclear disarmament, whereas the Lib Dems want a review with a view to lower-cost options with lesser capability. Personally, I'd favour abandoning a deterrent altogether, and then use a significant slice of the money saved to invest in the communities heavily dependent economically on the Trident fleet. Another slice would be used to on ensure our conventional forces are fully supplied with the best equipment available, and that properly maintained and decent accommodation is there for their families.

Mr Brown would say I need to "get real".

Related articles by Zemanta

• General Election 2010: generals back Nick Clegg on Trident nuclear deterrent (telegraph.co.uk)
• Lib Dem call for UK Trident review (guardian.co.uk)
• General election 2010: Labour ditches Trident pledge (telegraph.co.uk)