Arthur Scargill: 1938 –

History’s kind view of the veteran miner’s leader: he achieved nothing.


By the early 1990’s Arthur Scargill, veteran union leader and enemy of Margaret Thatcher, was something of a defeated war horse. Appearing on the BBC’s weekly political discussion show, ‘Question Time’ he answered according to his left wing creed with all his usual passion, but everyone knew he was a preacher without a congregation. Britain had moved on – to happily make money without coal. At the end of the programme the panel was asked what Arthur Scargill had achieved. A flattering question for anyone. One of the replies though was not so flattering. This was from William Waldegrave, an Eton educated Tory. His answer was blunt: ‘nothing’.


And Waldegrave was right.

The Assassins - Bernard Lewis

Usually anything by Lewis on Islam is worth reading and this is no exception. It tells the story of the `Assassins', the original suicide killers, notorious in the Middle Ages for infiltrating and murdering the elite of their enemies. Based mainly in the north of Iran they were an off shoot of the Ismailis, who are themselves an off shoot from the Shias. It is solid serious history. But it has three other great things going for it as well. First there is the wonderful almost Tolkien like legends surrounding the sect's origins and reputation. They were started by `The Old Man Of The Mountain' who blocked off a valley in the north of Iran, and created a paradise of gardens and rivers of `wine, milk, honey, and water' and brought in beautiful women. His soldiers captured and drugged young men who would then wake up in his paradise and enjoy themselves. When the Old Man wanted one of these youths to murder his enemies he would have them drugged again and brought into his castle where they almost felt they were in the presence of a god. He would ask them where they have come from and they would reply, `Paradise'. He would give them a dagger, the assassination order, and then explain that once dead, angels would bring him back to the very same Paradise the youth had already tasted. Think of what today's suicide attackers have been missing out on! Such was the youth's readiness to die for the Old Man that he would even parade them on top of a wall for visiting guests and with a nod of his head they would dive to their deaths. Secondly there is the story of how this community veered from antinomianism when one of their leaders announced the end of the law - prayers were deliberately said away from Mecca; there was feasting in the middle of the fast; and lots of wine was drunk - and then back again to orthodoxy, or at least Shia orthodoxy. Whether there was law or no law, the punishment for not following the decree of the leader was the same: stoning. As Lewis says this sort of drastic re-inventing of the faith is typical of sects which are intellectual cul-de-sacs. This brings us to the third point: the fact that though this group were widely feared for a time for their spectacular successes, including a king of Crusader Jerusalem, ultimately their terrorism failed. They were completely crushed by the Mongols. Confronted by an army determined to root out any threat to their rule, they soon capitulated. Originally written in 1967, but re-issued with a new preface in 2003, Lewis no doubts wanted to pass comment for those contending with terrorism today

The Missionaries - Norman Lewis

The prose is wonderful: even, calm, almost detached, but full of all the colours and smells and characters of the author's journeys. It was some of the best travel writing I had ever come across. But the argument irritated: that missionary work in South America was at best detrimental to the natives' culture, and at worst an alliance with greedy entrepreneurs determined to get cheap labour. There is no thorough research, rather this author leaves us with impressions. So he always uses the word `sect' when referring to the missionaries, so conjuring up damaging fanaticism: but these missionaries do not belong to `sects'. The Summer Institute of Linguistics, one of the missions attacked, is a part of the Wycliffe Bible Translators, which is supported by all main line Christian denominations. Lewis is not attacking weird `sects', he is attacking all Christian mission activity, and that is an odd position to take. Before Christians came to parts of South America the Aztecs engaged in twenty four hour human sacrifice; the Hindus had `sati', widow burning; in other places there were cannibals. Another impression he gives is that missionaries are money minded people. Perhaps some are, but most people who have had any dealings with the Wycliffe Bible Translators will know they are not. And everyone can read `The Shadow of The Almighty' by Elizabeth Eliot largely made up of the diaries of her husband, Jim Eliot, who was killed by tribes people in Eucador in the 1950's. He was no lover of money. If you like travel writing, this is a must, but only enjoy the clothes, ignore the body of the argument.

The Writing On The Wall - Will Hutton

It's the Christian Enlightenment, Stupid

This is a superb book with a frustrating flaw. Its excellence is the clarity and informed analysis focused on the convincing thesis that the strength of the West, in contrast to China, lies in its public institutions. These are companies, judicial systems, parliaments, and the press which came into their own at the time of the enlightenment. The frustrating flaw is that Will Hutton refuses to acknowledge the context and people behind these enlightenment institutions: Christianity and Christians. He ably explains other factors such as trade which brought about enlightenment values, but strangely ignores the Christian faith. Yet the enlightenment happened in Christian countries, and her pioneer was not Hume or Diderot, but Luther who put individual conscience before the authority of the clergy. And those thinkers who were critical of Christianity, still operated in a Christian moral system. Enlightenment values did not descend from the sky, but grew out of soil soaked in the teachings of Jesus Christ. And it was Christians who usually made enlightenment values such as accountability and the rule of law a reality. So Victorian Britain's public institutions which fuelled so much of the West's success in the 19th C were often led by devout Christians. It is now more so in America where Christians have a massive influence on these public institutions. All of this does not exist for the author who then compounds this oversight by arguing that Evangelicals in the US are anti enlightenment. This is regrettable. The author himself says that the four pillars of enlightenment are accountability, representativeness, the rule of law, and free speech. Where do many Americans learn these values? In the church, so the Baptist pastor is only one church meeting away from losing his job. And this author is somehow implying he does not know about accountability! There is nothing anti enlightenment about evangelical Christianity especially in America. Indeed many would argue that America's success is rooted in the fusion of the enlightenment with Christianity. The author's odd refusal to seriously treat with Christianity also scars his analysis of China. Quite rightly he believes the way ahead for China and its relations with the world is for the country to develop enlightenment public institutions. But his tone is wishful pleading. If he had taken Christianity seriously he would have appreciated the fact that China now has the largest church in the world (estimates vary from 30 to 150 million) and these Christians have learned in the most painful environment of persecution the values of accountability and other `enlightenment' morals. The success of the West began to happen when thousands of Christians were freed from the intellectual claustrophobia of Roman Catholicism, the thesis of Protestantism and the rise of capitalism still has merit. The same can happen in China. Let the West campaign to free those millions of Christians from the claustrophobia of communism, let their meetings become the norm in the public sphere, and soon you would have flourishing enlightenment public institutions which would enrich both China and the West. There is much to learn from Will Hutton, but be warned that he has not taken into account the most fundamental aspect of the West's success: Christianity. He has one chapter entitled, `It's the Enlightenment, Stupid', but he is wrong: `It's the Christian Enlightenment, Stupid.'

Speaking in Tongues

Is speaking in tongues the only sign of being filled with the Holy Spirit?

With over 33 million members The Assemblies of God Churches has been the fastest growing Protestant denomination for the last hundred years and is now the fourth largest Christian group in the world. This is their doctrinal position on the filling of the Holy Spirit, which they call a baptism, and how it relates to speaking in tongues. It is very clear.

All believers are entitled to and should ardently expect and earnestly seek the promise of the Father, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and fire, according to the command of our Lord Jesus Christ….This experience is distinct from and subsequent to the experience of the new birth…….The baptism of believers in the Holy Spirit is witnessed by the initial physical sign of speaking with other tongues as the Spirit of God gives them utterance.

This is not just the official position of the Assemblies of God Churches and other Pentecostal denominations, but also

Desmond Tutu: a man to learn from

Just twenty years ago South Africa was ruled by a minority white only government who enforced the principles of the apartheid system. The country’s nearly 30 million blacks, 70% of the people, did not have the vote; could be arrested if they did not have identification; suffered strict segregation in public areas; saw their children being educated only to be labourers and suffered a policy of forced removal to wastelands the government called ‘homelands’. Not surprisingly many were living in abject poverty. All opposition was repressed: in 1960 69 blacks were killed and 190 wounded during the Sharpeville protests; in 1964 Nelson Mandela and others were sent to prison for life for campaigning against apartheid; in 1976 at least 660 young people died in the Soweto uprising; and from then on there was constant intimidation, arrests, and worse. But after years of suffering, apartheid collapsed. In 1990 Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and in 1994 became the president of South Africa, a democratic republic where all had the vote. Apartheid was utterly defeated.

And at the heart of the victory over apartheid stands the church, led by the Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu. It was he who wrote to the South African presidents, Vorster and Botha, warning them of violence if apartheid did not end; it was he who would plunge into angry street crowds to plead for calm, often saving many lives; it was he who preached at the funerals of those not saved from the violence, attended by thousands; it was he who campaigned for international companies to disinvest from South Africa and later, to the fury of the government, called for economic sanctions; it was he who in September 1989 led a march of 30,000 which convinced the country’s new leader de Klerk there had to be change; and so it was to his house that Nelson Mandela first came when released from prison; and it was Archbishop Desmond Tutu who said the final prayer at the inauguration when Mandela became president. Not only was he at the heart of the war against apartheid, he was also at the heart of the peace, presiding over the distinctly Christian Truth and Reconciliation Commission

Christianity and Politics: how political should a Christian be?

Not an academic question

This is not an academic question for some readers. Should we as Christians unreservedly support the government of the day; or should we demonstrate against their wrong doings? Should we start taking stronger action, like withholding our taxes, or even actively conspiring to overthrow our rulers?

How political should a Christian be?

Jesus’ Politics

Probably the best way to answer this question is to see how Jesus approached politics. Thankfully there is a lot of material. For Jesus lived in a veritable political zoo.

Bethlehem 2009: Le't's Move Beyond Sentimentalism

Bethlehem 2009: Christians should move beyond sentimentalism…

Sugary Sentimentalism and Harsh Reality

Sugary Sentimentalism rules supreme over Bethlehem during the Christmas season. On cards and in carols the place is depicted as a peaceful little town, with kindly inn-keepers, spotlessly clean cows, angels in the sky, and harmless shepherds on its hills. For the really gullible add some snow as well. Then and now, the reality is harshly different. Back in Jesus’ time, Bethlehem was under military occupation, the streets seethed with protest; there was violence in the air.

Today there is also violence in the air for the thirty thousand Arabs who live in Bethlehem, twenty percent of them Christians.

Benny Hinn: The Miracles, The Prophesies, The Money

BENNY HINN: THE MIRACLES, THE PROPHESIES, AND THE MONEY

Ask a group of evangelical Christians what they think of Billy Graham or Haik Hovsepian Mehr and there is universal respect. Do the same for Benny Hinn and the response is more varied. Some believe that Benny Hinn too deserves respect; others though have questions, about the miracles, the prophecies, and especially the money.

Deserves Respect: preaching and writing

Given what Benny Hinn has achieved over thirty five years of ministry there should definitely be respect for he is the world’s most famous Christian preacher and healer. In the US and Europe he attracts up to ten thousand and more to his meetings, while in Asia, in countries such as India and the Philippines, congregations have been in the millions. In 2004 the total number coming to his events was over twenty million. These meetings represent a massive amount of work undertaken by an army of volunteers – and his own organisation. It would be churlish not to rejoice over these gatherings.