Skip navigation

Various

  • I do like Mark Kermode. He does terrific film reviews on Simon Mayo’s show, he loves Mary Poppins, and he has this to say about culture:

‘I think everything is culture except football.’

I couldn’t have put it better myself.

    • Watching Britain’s Got Talent, I was once again struck by the difference between the UK and the US.  These really were amateurs in every sense of the word.  Some of them were excellent amateurs and some were dire. (Playing the theme from Star Wars on a synthesizer badly does not constitute a talent.)  All of them, almost without exception, wanted more than anything the opportunity to perform in front of Prince Charles at the Royal Variety Performance.  I don’t say they’d turn down the £100,000 prize, but it wasn’t the major motivating factor for most of the acts.  And very few, I think, saw this as their opportunity for instant fame and fortune.  One or two do have the potential to go onto successful careers (the classical quartet, for instance) but the girl with the dancing dog and the overweight male hula-hooper dressed as Wonder Woman know perfectly well this is a once in a lifetime experience, and that’s all they really want.  Hardly anyone had been to stage school, most practiced in their back garden or down at the local bus station.  Charming, eccentric, mad, talented and oh-so-very-British.
    • I love, love, love Lucinda’s wardrobe on the Apprentice.  Mad, crazy woman but fabulously dressed in amongst all the boring black.

    Against anonymity in blogging

    Recently I seem to have come across a spate of bloggers who want to engage in online discussion and debate without being willing to share their identity.  Not even a Christian name, in some cases.  I think this is a really dangerous practice.  Anonymity allows people to say things they don’t want to own.  Personal attacks are easily made undercover of a false name.  Unkind, untrue and uncharitable things can be said much more easily without any fear of reprisal or accountability.

    But also, not having a name attached to an online person encourages us to forget that even on the internet we’re dealing with real people, who have real feelings, real life circumstances, real faith.  These really are our brothers and sisters, not mere abstractions to be argued with in theory.

    Of course there are situations where anonymity is wise or even necessary - I’m not expecting the Anti-Federal Vision Study Bible blogger to suddenly give his name.  And I quite see that if you’re blogging about parish life, you don’t want to be giving away other people’s identities.  But most of us are not putting anything or anyone at risk by blogging.

    So, I won’t be adding the Undercover Theologian to my blogroll.  Theology shouldn’t be done undercover, it should be shouted from the rooftops and proclaimed in the public squares.

    A Pitiable Thing

    Friedrich Nietzsche would, it seems to me, make an excellent subject for a sitcom. The Ed Reardon of Polish existentialism was pompous, self-absorbed, sexist, racist, rude and utterly unaware of his own failings.

    At no moment of my life can I be shown to have adopted any kind of arrogant or pathetic posture.(p. 45)

    Arrogant? Certainly not when you called your book ‘Why I Am Wise’. Perhaps I am unfair. Maybe there was an irony in his writing that has been lost in translation. Here, for example, Nietzsche seems to temper his arrogance with a tongue in cheek:

    …to take a book of mine into his hands is one of the rarest distinctions anyone can confer upon himself. I even assume he removes his shoes when he does so – not to speak of boots…(pp. 47-48)

    But his willingness to dismiss others (contemptuously calling Shakespeare ‘a disorderly genius’ (p. 33), and belittling Schumann along with his entire nation: ‘The Germans are incapable of any conception of greatness: proof Schumann’(p. 33)) indicates something of Nietzsche’s supreme pride. He fully expects to be misunderstood and reviled and takes this as proof of his all-surpassing greatness.

    As a writer, Nietzsche is insufferable, inscrutable, incoherent, pompous and self-indulgent. ‘Why I Am Wise’ is written in a way that is deliberately exclusive, elitist, unclear and rambling. He ‘mistrusts all systematizers’ (p. 75) which is simply another way of saying that he will not own the consequences of his statements – so anyone who tries to make coherent sense of Nietzsche is onto a losing battle. It makes it hard to write a review that doesn’t merely consist of a list of soundbites. Born a hundred years later, he might have made a good politician.

    As a philosopher, Nietzsche seems (at least in this one short book, which is all I am prepared to read of his) to have dispensed with all such prerequisites as logical argument, theory or evidence. He merely states his conclusions as self-evident. And has the gall to announce that he demands no faith from his readers.

    I have absolutely no knowledge of atheism as an outcome of reasoning, still less as an event: with me it is obvious by instinct. I am too inquisitive, too questionable (sic. - I think he means questioning), too high spirited to rest content with a crude answer. God is a crude answer, a piece of indelicacy against us thinkers – fundamentally even a crude prohibition to us: you shall not think! (pp. 25-26)

    Hmm. Atheism is not obvious to me by instinct. Yet, I too am inquisitive, questioning and perhaps even high spirited. I would even presume to call myself, like Nietzsche, a thinker. But Nietzsche is labouring under a false apprehension: God is no prohibition, rather he is the prerequisite for thought. He is the basis for all rationality, reason, logic and justice. We should not be surprised to find that Nietzsche’s work is lacking in all of these.

    At times he shows that he almost understands the gospel:

    A god come to earth ought to do nothing whatever but wrong: to take upon oneself not only the punishment, but the guilt – only that would be godlike. (pp.17-18)

    He claims not to be angry with Christianity, though he wages war against it. But he speaks of priests in vitriolic terms, and describes Christianity as a ‘pitiable thing’ (p. 19)

    He does, however, have a particularly sharp insight into the perils of being a scholar, which struck a chord with me:

    The scholar, who really does nothing but ‘trundle’ books – the philologist at a modest assessment about 200 a day – finally loses altogether the ability to think for himself. If he does not trundle he does not think. He replies to a stimulus (- a thought he has read) when he thinks – finally he does nothing but react. The scholar expends his entire strength in affirmation and denial, in criticizing what has already been thought – he himself no longer thinks. (p. 41)

    This is Nietzsche’s own designation of himself: ‘I am, in Greek and not only in Greek, the Anti-Christ.’ (p. 51)

    I don’t quite agree. But if this short book exemplifies the rest of Nietzsche’s work and thought, then he is indeed a pitiable thing. I’m hoping that next time I sign up for the Penguin Free Book scheme, I get something a little more fun.

    Ah, England

    Today is the first day of the Staffordshire Agricultural Society County Show. The day was grey and drizzly with much better weather forecast for tomorrow, so there weren’t many people there. But it was still lots of fun (especially with the member’s ticket that gives free entry and, crucially, access to the nice loos). The free lunch wasn’t bad either.

    I love the WI (Women’s Institute) tent and the flower/craft tents. Categories include things like ‘A Painted Wellie’, ‘A Hand-crafted Gift for Less Than £5′, ‘Novice Cushion’, ‘Five Decorated Fairy Cakes’ and ‘A Look Back at the 60’s’. The judges’ comments are hilarious. One particularly cutting remark on someone’s Victoria sponge suggested that her open texture might have been due to the ‘all-in-one’ method of mixing. Butterfly cakes were disqualified from the fairy cake category, and the square fruit tart was ‘not traditional’.  

    Then I wandered down to the falconry demonstration, which was okay, though the birds didn’t really like the damp weather. I left before the ferrets, just in case Eddie Grundy was around. I watched a bit of the carriage driving and showjumping, but it was getting a bit wet by then, so I went into the real heart of the show - the livestock arena.

    Pictures!

    Still looking forward to going home

    David Field has been blogging about Tom Wright’s book, “Surprised by Hope”, here (and in a number of other recent posts). He notes (I assume with approval) Wright’s proposed change to some words in the hymn, “O Lord my God, when I in awesome wonder…”. I’m pretty sure I’ve blogged about this before, though I can’t now find the post. I think that the word “awesome” is wildly inappropriate there and should be changed to the much more accurate “awestruck”. My wonder, is on the whole, fairly feeble.

    Wright objects to a different line, though:

    A suggested change to the misleading “and take me home” line in the great “How great thou art” hymn:

    When Christ shall come, with shout of acclamation,
    And heal this world, what joy shall fill my heart.

    The wonderfully personal and intimate hope of being taken home is to be replaced with the much more general and abstract notion of healing. I understand Wright’s point, that the direction of travel is wrong, but I don’t think that this hymn should be blamed for that. Christ will bring us to our eternal home, this transformed, renewed and healed world. That it will be home seems to me to be at least as important as that it will be here. So (and this will come as no surprise to anyone) I shall continue to sing the original words.

    Temple and worship

    Idly thumbing through my mother’s copy of the Church Times while waiting for some bread to defrost, I happened to notice this week’s book reviews. Lester Grabbe’s latest book on the history of ancient Israel looks to be a fairly standard historical study with not much new to offer.

    But it was the second volume that really caught my interest. Have a look at this:

    …the baptism of Jesus, and Christian baptism, are traced back to the consecration of priests. The eucharist is interpreted against the background of the Day of Atonement, not the Passover. The bread at the eucharist is most likely the Bread of the Presence, consumed weekly by the priests of the Temple.

    No, the volume in question isn’t Leithart’s “The Priesthood of the Plebs” but something called “Temple Themes in Christian Worship” by Margaret Barker. It sounds excellent.

    The Vicar’s Wife

    Or more accurately, the curate’s wife, Amanda Robbie, is now blogging away over here. Life in an inner-city parish, recipes, interesting information. Go and check it out and leave lots of comments to encourage her to keep at it.

    Great minds, thinking alike.

    Sadly, I didn’t get to the annual Oak Hill School of Theology yesterday. It sounds like it was lots of fun with some thought-provoking lectures from Tom Schreiner. Reading through the blog posts, I notice that Neil Jeffers and Matthew Mason both had a similar response to Schreiner’s view of the new covenant and, more particularly, his use of Jeremiah 31. Read Matthew’s thoughts and Neil’s thoughts and decide for yourself what they were talking about over lunch.

    Neil Robbie has a helpful summary of the whole day (be sure to read the clarifications in the comments, too).

    Home again

    Why does anyone travel for pleasure?  There was nothing enjoyable about the journey home on Monday/Tuesday.  Herded onto the plane like sheep, squashed into uncomfortable seats next to people you don’t know and whose bare feet you’d be happy never to have seen, especially not while you’re trying to eat.  Impossible to sleep for more than about half an hour before the overexcitable teenager in the next seat starts bouncing in anticipation of seeing his boyfriend again, and you wish that you had ended up next to one of the many buddhist monks on the flight (are they still monks when they’re female?  And, also, what do they do for clothes in the seasons when maroon isn’t really fashionable?).  One of the few enjoyable moments was watching the group of aging rock stars (in their own minds, at least) pushing in front of the monks in the queue to get on the plane.  Of course, the buddhists merely smiled and didn’t get irritated.  So then everyone pushed in front of them.

    But it was worth it for this, the view from my bedroom window:

    home 003

    Oh dear

    So, okay, my knowledge of American politics is not what it could be.  But I think it’s fairly safe to say that one of the characteristics of the current administration has been the poor grammar, vocabulary and general communication issues of the president.

    Things may not be about to improve any time soon.

    From the Barack Obama campaign website: an invitation to “A Evening With Barack Obama”.

    I came across this after someone had been trying to claim that ‘a evening’ was correct.  Hmm.  246,000 Google hits.  Though the first of these was for a “Chick-Fil-A evening” which I don’t think really makes the point.  And “an evening” gets 12,600,000 hits.  So at least the internet is right on something.  Even if Obama isn’t.