What is in Kelvin's Head?

  • You can’t bomb people into being nice Westerners

    In a way, watching the debate yesterday in the House of Commons on whether the UK should join in with Air Strikes against the so called Islamic State felt different to me from the last times we’ve had similar debates.

    This time I felt I was open to persuasion. As the debate began, I hadn’t made up my mind what I thought was right. I accept the arguments that such action this time is legal. (In the past I’ve marched against UK involvement convinced that it was illegal and wrong from the outset). I’m not a pacifist and don’t automatically assume that using force is wrong. That means that each time I need to be persuaded.

    As I’ve said before, I once had aspirations to be a Member of Parliament and when crucial votes come around I find myself inevitably absorbed by them wondering how I would have voted. In this case, I’m sure that I would have entered the chamber undecided and left having firmly made up my mind.

    The more speeches that I heard in favour of military action, the more troubled I was about it. In particular, I was troubled to hear the Archbishop of Canterbury throwing his lot in with the government and advocate new bombing missions.

    It seems to me that the following points remain unanswered.

    • Likelihood of success.  This is a key point for anyone trying to assess using Christian criteria whether military action is just. How many bombs do we need to drop before we realise that air strikes alone are not sorting out the conflict in Iraq? The lessons of the past do not point to an easy or quick solution. I was particularly alarmed by the suggestion by the Prime Minister that this could take three years. I don’t believe any0ne can see what lies ahead in three years time in Iraq. These are not air strikes – this is a war. What’s more I don’t even know how we will judge success.
    • We are not fighting a conventional enemy but a set of ideas. Bombs do not destroy ideas they disperse them. The “Islamic State” people may claim to have territorial claims to a part of the world but that doesn’t mean we are fighting another state in the way that the West understands that. Controlling territory on the ground doesn’t mean that you control people’s minds. ISIS and al-Queda are as much a set of ideas as an army controlling a people. We need concrete strategies for making lives better and the underlying philosophical principles that are behind the terror attacks need to be taken to pieces and few of us know how to do that.
    • What about the innocents? In this week when we’ve remembered St Adamnan again in the church, again we are reminded that attacks which kill or harm the innocent are never justified. Collateral damage is terrorism by another name.
    • Finally, that you can’t bomb people into being nice Westerners. It seemed to me that many in the House of Commons were responding to the barbarity of recent hostage beheadings with the notion that we can somehow fly 6 RAF aircraft over Iraq, drop some bombs and stop people being beastly. It won’t do. You can’t bomb people into being nice Westerners. If there are any solutions they will be far more complex than what is currently proposed.

    For all these reasons, though I would have gone into the chamber undecided, by the end of the day I would have made my mind up.

    I would have voted against military action.

    , , , ,

27 responses to “A Response to the Prime Minister”

  1. Patsy Avatar
    Patsy

    Dear Kelv

    You make some interesting points. But do you have to be so rude? All the “Dave” stuff is a bit juvenile. If you want to have a serious debate surely you can show a bit of respect? Also maybe a little charity – was it really necessary to be quite so snide (I almost said “nasty”) about the PM’s rather hesitant comments on his own faith?

    Reply
    1. william Avatar
      william

      Well said and well put – Patsy.
      Sadly ‘revisionists’ don’t seem to recognise ‘rudeness’, lack of ‘charity’, ‘unattractiveness’ in what they say and do within the church, although they believe they recognise them and see them in others.
      It could be that blindness to all of this is because of the paucity of grace in their mindset; Pelagians don’t feel the need for grace or atonement as much as the rest of us.
      They seem to assume God is always smiling on them, and is always pleased with the worship they present to Him, whatever its content or assumptions. Even in whatever behaviour they engage in, even boast of.
      In Jeremiah’s day, in contrast, the religious were warned frequently with words like: peace, peace – when there was no peace. But most did not have ears to hear such warnings.
      Maybe your wisdom will strike a chord of caution.

      Reply
      1. kelvin Avatar
        kelvin

        >They seem to assume God is always smiling on them

        Oh yes! Oh yes!

        Reply
      2. Ryan Avatar
        Ryan

        William, you and Pasty know (or should) that ‘Dave’ is a popular phrase quite widely used to refer to Cameron’s ‘couch sofa’ style Blairist governing style and his attempts to *present himself* as a man of the people rather than a privleged OE. Dare one say that calling a David ‘Dave’ is , in terms of rudeness, not exactly up there with demonising gay people, nor implying that someone who disagrees with an opinion *on* a theological matter is somehow ignorant *of* theology?

        Can you cite a ‘non’ revisionist expression of church that offers worship that would please the God of Jeremiah, William? Personally I think the sort of glorious Eucharists that St.Mary’s feature hit closer to the mark than either (say) Shine Jesus Shine style worship songs or the glum langours of (e.g.) ‘biblical’ presbyterianism, but YMMV….

        Also, given that this is the same David Cameron who appeared in gay mag Attitude suggesting that the C of E could take lead from the now (relatively) gay-friendly tory party and giving it the sackcloth-and-ashes in regard to Section 28, I do have to laugh at self-styled fundamentalists accusing beastly Kelvin of being so mean about Cameron’s in-no-way-largely-for-political-gain theological musings.

        Reply
  2. william Avatar
    william

    Ryan – have a happy christmas – William!

    Reply
    1. Ryan Avatar
      Ryan

      Ah, robust and scrupulous engagement with comments as always William! 😉

      And also, as they say, to you.

      Reply
  3. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    “It could be that blindness to all of this is because of the paucity of grace in their mindset; Pelagians don’t feel the need for grace or atonement as much as the rest of us.
    They seem to assume God is always smiling on them, and is always pleased with the worship they present to Him, whatever its content or assumptions. ”

    This is not merely inaccurate but terrible theology.
    1-Nobody is more scrupulous about worship than Kelvin. The content of Episcopal worship is (unlike that of denominations less heavily influenced by the Catholic tradition) carefully prescribed.
    2 – Grace, in the Reformed sense is, in fact, a frequent theme of his sermons.
    3 – The real trouble with Pelagians is that they assume they have to EARN the favour of God – and that he is not very likely to be induced to smile on them. It is Athanasians who believe that God comes to them, and despite their inability to get things right, smiles on them. You have reversed the two. Allow me to suggest that Kelvin’s theology, which as one who has listened to him and read him, I think I understand, is such that he knows he is beloved by God even if he sometimes gets things wrong. Whereas you write as though you think you have to get your theology and other assorted beliefs right to be loved by God. But it is not so. Even people who make the most astonishing mistakes God are still his children, loved and carried in his heart.

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      Right on all counts, Rosemary. There is nothing I can do to make God love me more. I’m already utterly loved. Morality, ethics, grace and love are all predicated on that love being entirely unwavering. There is nothing that I can do (even less believe) that would make God love me more.

      I would add that I have been to a place which claims to be the tomb of Athanasius.

      (It was a little smelly).

      Reply
      1. william Avatar
        william

        How profound, and yet how gloriously true – “There is nothing I can do to make God love me more.”
        That’s the whole biblical meta narrative – God does everything, even recreates us in the image of His Son by His Spirit – as Paul said, we are ‘new creation’.
        And our heavenly Father has done all this for us that He might have children bearing the family likeness – not that our obedience will make Him love us more.
        But disobedience to what He has spoken will surely lead to fatherly chastisement.
        So in that regard there is always more we can do, as opposed to “There is nothing that I can do”. Good fathers do not smile on their children’s disobedience, even though they do not love them less.
        Sadly Pelagius pursued and taught the route of meritorious good works to please the Father [and the heresy is still vigorously alive today] – he was blind enough to think he might even be able to do this.
        Augustinians pursue grace – but increasingly their lives are being conformed to the likeness of Christ as Jesus said, by their fruits you will know them.
        Righteousness by faith is not a legal fiction!

        Reply
  4. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
    Rosemary Hannah

    There appears no way of liking Kelvin’s comment ‘oh yes,oh yes,’ but consider it very heavily liked.

    Somebody tell william that getting me going on Jeremiah might not be wise. Oh, I know, tell him to read http://lovebloomsbright.wordpress.com/2011/12/13/with-justice-and-with-righteousness/

    Reply
    1. william Avatar
      william

      Rosemary – I did read it and found it intensely moving.
      Probing the intensity of the Father’s yearnings over His ancient people is only matched [fulfilled is maybe a better word]by His Son’s brokenness for us at Gethsemane and beyond.
      Yet that’s the way – the only way – for us ever to have His smile upon us.
      Have you done a reading on Isaiah 5?

      Reply
      1. Rosemary Hannah Avatar
        Rosemary Hannah

        That is very sweet of you william- and actually Is 5 is an excellent suggestion for one of my pieces.
        I would say that, essentially, the yearning of the father and the brokenness of the son are contiguous aspects of one phenomena.

        Reply
  5. David Baker Avatar
    David Baker

    So we have a Prime Minister defending the Bible, and an Episcopalian provost attacking it?

    Reply
    1. kelvin Avatar
      kelvin

      No, David Baker.

      I love the Bible and delight in it.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Previous Posts

  • Alan Turing

    Just days ago, I added my name to a petition asking the Government to make some kind of apology on behalf of the mathematician Alan Turing. I’m consequently delighted to see that Gordon Brown has issued just such a statement. I remember hearing about Alan Turing when I was a young mathematics student. Brilliant, troubled,…

  • The imagined community of the Anglican Communion

    There is an astonishingly clear essay on the Anglican Communion which has just appeared on a US website. It is well worth reading in full. I think that increasingly, there are good people who are starting to question the presumed goodness of what is at the heart of the dreadful mess of international Anglicanism. About…

  • Half Marathon this weekend

    I believe that there is a half marathon being run in Glasgow tomorrow, the route of which is mostly around a place that is called “The South Side”. If you do come from that place and are planning to come to St Mary’s tomorrow, you might like to allow a little extra time to get…