Monday, August 29, 2011
Thursday, August 25, 2011
The Libyan Equation
The one adjective it is impossible to use to describe the Libyan uprising is “non-violent”.
This is a revolt led by warriors who were defended by the air forces of the most powerful military alliance in history.
The Arab Spring was never bloodless. The suicide of humiliated street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi was the linchpin for the Tunisian uprising.
But the rising in Libya was not just a confrontation with the power of a tyrannical regime; it was a fight and the rebels – defended by Nato – broke its power. This is an event which will be studied by tyrants and dissidents with acute interest.
Democratic activists who have suffered under Robert Mugabe for years will wonder whether they should have staged a fully-fledged revolution which would have given the West the choice of standing by and watching Rwandan-style massacres or rushing to their aid and toppling the dictator.
Mugabe and even milder autocrats will look at Gaddafi’s burning compound and see little incentive to grasp any olive branches extended by western diplomats. If a onetime terrorist kingpin scraps his WMD and opens up his country’s natural resources to international development, is this how he is rewarded?
They will see reason to clamp down on both pro-democracy supporters in any emerging middle-class and on street-level rebels.
Meanwhile, neoconservatives who were mocked for trying to bomb Iraq towards freedom may grasp a new model for regime change. The response to Libya fused targeted military action with traditional diplomatic tools, except that this time western countries recognised the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government before the uprising was complete.
There is less talk of velvet revolutions and soft power, these days; violence is once again recognised as a central part of the political equation – at home and abroad.
In Ireland, youths who grew up in the heyday of the peace process are being lured into paramilitarism, thousands of people are lobbying online for the return of the state executions of murderers in Britain, Jihadists continue to plot mayhem, the philosopher kings of the far left are flirting with talk of “terror” and lone gunmen in England, the United States and Norway are using killing as the most decadent form of self-expression.
Apostles and advocates for nonviolence, if there are any left, need to show that the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King were courageous and strategic engagements with political systems that resulted in sustainable and revolutionary change. If alternatives to a military-led foreign policy and iron-fisted domestic politics are to have any credibility in an era of constant crisis we need clear demonstrations that peace works.
A Thursday Column
This is a revolt led by warriors who were defended by the air forces of the most powerful military alliance in history.
The Arab Spring was never bloodless. The suicide of humiliated street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi was the linchpin for the Tunisian uprising.
But the rising in Libya was not just a confrontation with the power of a tyrannical regime; it was a fight and the rebels – defended by Nato – broke its power. This is an event which will be studied by tyrants and dissidents with acute interest.
Democratic activists who have suffered under Robert Mugabe for years will wonder whether they should have staged a fully-fledged revolution which would have given the West the choice of standing by and watching Rwandan-style massacres or rushing to their aid and toppling the dictator.
Mugabe and even milder autocrats will look at Gaddafi’s burning compound and see little incentive to grasp any olive branches extended by western diplomats. If a onetime terrorist kingpin scraps his WMD and opens up his country’s natural resources to international development, is this how he is rewarded?
They will see reason to clamp down on both pro-democracy supporters in any emerging middle-class and on street-level rebels.
Meanwhile, neoconservatives who were mocked for trying to bomb Iraq towards freedom may grasp a new model for regime change. The response to Libya fused targeted military action with traditional diplomatic tools, except that this time western countries recognised the National Transitional Council as the legitimate government before the uprising was complete.
There is less talk of velvet revolutions and soft power, these days; violence is once again recognised as a central part of the political equation – at home and abroad.
In Ireland, youths who grew up in the heyday of the peace process are being lured into paramilitarism, thousands of people are lobbying online for the return of the state executions of murderers in Britain, Jihadists continue to plot mayhem, the philosopher kings of the far left are flirting with talk of “terror” and lone gunmen in England, the United States and Norway are using killing as the most decadent form of self-expression.
Apostles and advocates for nonviolence, if there are any left, need to show that the actions of Gandhi and Martin Luther King were courageous and strategic engagements with political systems that resulted in sustainable and revolutionary change. If alternatives to a military-led foreign policy and iron-fisted domestic politics are to have any credibility in an era of constant crisis we need clear demonstrations that peace works.
A Thursday Column
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Nick Cave writes to MTV
This is apparently a real letter, sent by Nick Cave to MTV, which is another reason why the dude is a platinum marvel.
TO ALL THOSE AT MTV,
I WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME OVER RECENT YEARS AND I AM BOTH GRATEFUL AND FLATTERED BY THE NOMINATIONS THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FOR BEST MALE ARTIST. THE AIR PLAY GIVEN TO BOTH THE KYLIE MINOGUE AND P. J. HARVEY DUETS FROM MY LATEST ALBUM MURDER BALLADS HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED AND HAS BEEN GREATLY APPRECIATED. SO AGAIN MY SINCERE THANKS.
HAVING SAID THAT, I FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY FOR ME TO REQUEST THAT MY NOMINATION FOR BEST MALE ARTIST BE WITHDRAWN AND FURTHERMORE ANY AWARDS OR NOMINATIONS FOR SUCH AWARDS THAT MAY ARISE IN LATER YEARS BE PRESENTED TO THOSE WHO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THESE AWARD CEREMONIES. I MYSELF, DO NOT. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT MY MUSIC IS UNIQUE AND INDIVIDUAL AND EXISTS BEYOND THE REALMS INHABITED BY THOSE WHO WOULD REDUCE THINGS TO MERE MEASURING. I AM IN COMPETITION WITH NO-ONE.
MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MY MUSE IS A DELICATE ONE AT THE BEST OF TIMES AND I FEEL THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO PROTECT HER FROM INFLUENCES THAT MAY OFFEND HER FRAGILE NATURE.
SHE COMES TO ME WITH THE GIFT OF SONG AND IN RETURN I TREAT HER WITH THE RESPECT I FEEL SHE DESERVES - IN THIS CASE THIS MEANS NOT SUBJECTING HER TO THE INDIGNITIES OF JUDGEMENT AND COMPETITION. MY MUSE IS NOT A HORSE AND I AM IN NO HORSE RACE AND IF INDEED SHE WAS, STILL I WOULD NOT HARNESS HER TO THIS TUMBREL - THIS BLOODY CART OF SEVERED HEADS AND GLITTERING PRIZES. MY MUSE MAY SPOOK! MAY BOLT! MAY ABANDON ME COMPLETELY!
SO ONCE AGAIN, TO THE PEOPLE AT MTV, I APPRECIATE THE ZEAL AND ENERGY THAT WAS PUT BEHIND MY LAST RECORD, I TRULY DO AND SAY THANK YOU AND AGAIN I SAY THANK YOU BUT NO...NO THANK YOU.
TO ALL THOSE AT MTV,
I WOULD LIKE TO START BY THANKING YOU ALL FOR THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE GIVEN ME OVER RECENT YEARS AND I AM BOTH GRATEFUL AND FLATTERED BY THE NOMINATIONS THAT I HAVE RECEIVED FOR BEST MALE ARTIST. THE AIR PLAY GIVEN TO BOTH THE KYLIE MINOGUE AND P. J. HARVEY DUETS FROM MY LATEST ALBUM MURDER BALLADS HAS NOT GONE UNNOTICED AND HAS BEEN GREATLY APPRECIATED. SO AGAIN MY SINCERE THANKS.
HAVING SAID THAT, I FEEL THAT IT'S NECESSARY FOR ME TO REQUEST THAT MY NOMINATION FOR BEST MALE ARTIST BE WITHDRAWN AND FURTHERMORE ANY AWARDS OR NOMINATIONS FOR SUCH AWARDS THAT MAY ARISE IN LATER YEARS BE PRESENTED TO THOSE WHO FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE COMPETITIVE NATURE OF THESE AWARD CEREMONIES. I MYSELF, DO NOT. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OF THE OPINION THAT MY MUSIC IS UNIQUE AND INDIVIDUAL AND EXISTS BEYOND THE REALMS INHABITED BY THOSE WHO WOULD REDUCE THINGS TO MERE MEASURING. I AM IN COMPETITION WITH NO-ONE.
MY RELATIONSHIP WITH MY MUSE IS A DELICATE ONE AT THE BEST OF TIMES AND I FEEL THAT IT IS MY DUTY TO PROTECT HER FROM INFLUENCES THAT MAY OFFEND HER FRAGILE NATURE.
SHE COMES TO ME WITH THE GIFT OF SONG AND IN RETURN I TREAT HER WITH THE RESPECT I FEEL SHE DESERVES - IN THIS CASE THIS MEANS NOT SUBJECTING HER TO THE INDIGNITIES OF JUDGEMENT AND COMPETITION. MY MUSE IS NOT A HORSE AND I AM IN NO HORSE RACE AND IF INDEED SHE WAS, STILL I WOULD NOT HARNESS HER TO THIS TUMBREL - THIS BLOODY CART OF SEVERED HEADS AND GLITTERING PRIZES. MY MUSE MAY SPOOK! MAY BOLT! MAY ABANDON ME COMPLETELY!
SO ONCE AGAIN, TO THE PEOPLE AT MTV, I APPRECIATE THE ZEAL AND ENERGY THAT WAS PUT BEHIND MY LAST RECORD, I TRULY DO AND SAY THANK YOU AND AGAIN I SAY THANK YOU BUT NO...NO THANK YOU.
Thursday, August 18, 2011
An Iron Fist in a Lavender City
English cities are still reeling from last week’s looting spree and politicians compete to express shock at the wild disregard for private property.
But England is a country where the idea of the “perfect crime” makes hearts beat faster. This is the land of Robin Hood and even its coziest films depict scurrilous heists.
The Lavender Hill Mob, The Ladykillers and The Italian Job are as English as cucumber sandwiches and warm beer. The characters of the “gentleman thief” and the dashing highwayman who charm their victims and disappear into the night with a handkerchief full of diamonds are more romanticised than any crime-fighter.
If a winsome rascal with a David Niven moustache managed to smuggle the crown jewels out of the Tower of London in a hot air balloon and went on to enjoy happy sun-filled afternoons in Latin America he would be celebrated as a fine example of a chap who got away with it.
The vile thuggery of the rioters was the antithesis of this tradition. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which a villain played by Alec Guinness would don a hoodie and take a sledgehammer to the window of a footwear shop.
The looters were dismally unimaginative in their choice of swag and the ugliness and stupidity of the rampage would have Professor Moriarty holding his head in his hands. No criminal mastermind would plot his escapade on Facebook or post pictures of his contraband on Twitter.
But if the moronic nature of the rioters is a cause of concern, the force with which the criminal justice system has come down on some of the most hapless characters has also raised eyebrows.
It may be a despicable thing to call for a riot, but giving four-year sentences to lunatics who failed to persuade anyone to turn up to their rumpus – and who were daft enough to make their clarion call for anarchy on the internet – is quite draconian. The taxpayer will spend many thousands jailing these nefarious goons but would society be better off if they had been banned from the internet and sentenced to several hundred hours of graffiti-cleaning?
This would at least have got them outdoors, away from the glowing computer screens where their moral compasses were clearly scrambled.
It would be a great shame if the rush to impose headline-spawning sentences obscured the vexing questions of why (a) why collective madness seized so many people and (b) why thugs were allowed in full view of the police and media helicopters were allowed to start fires, ransack shops and run amok in a capital city.
A Thursday Column
But England is a country where the idea of the “perfect crime” makes hearts beat faster. This is the land of Robin Hood and even its coziest films depict scurrilous heists.
The Lavender Hill Mob, The Ladykillers and The Italian Job are as English as cucumber sandwiches and warm beer. The characters of the “gentleman thief” and the dashing highwayman who charm their victims and disappear into the night with a handkerchief full of diamonds are more romanticised than any crime-fighter.
If a winsome rascal with a David Niven moustache managed to smuggle the crown jewels out of the Tower of London in a hot air balloon and went on to enjoy happy sun-filled afternoons in Latin America he would be celebrated as a fine example of a chap who got away with it.
The vile thuggery of the rioters was the antithesis of this tradition. It is almost impossible to imagine a scenario in which a villain played by Alec Guinness would don a hoodie and take a sledgehammer to the window of a footwear shop.
The looters were dismally unimaginative in their choice of swag and the ugliness and stupidity of the rampage would have Professor Moriarty holding his head in his hands. No criminal mastermind would plot his escapade on Facebook or post pictures of his contraband on Twitter.
But if the moronic nature of the rioters is a cause of concern, the force with which the criminal justice system has come down on some of the most hapless characters has also raised eyebrows.
It may be a despicable thing to call for a riot, but giving four-year sentences to lunatics who failed to persuade anyone to turn up to their rumpus – and who were daft enough to make their clarion call for anarchy on the internet – is quite draconian. The taxpayer will spend many thousands jailing these nefarious goons but would society be better off if they had been banned from the internet and sentenced to several hundred hours of graffiti-cleaning?
This would at least have got them outdoors, away from the glowing computer screens where their moral compasses were clearly scrambled.
It would be a great shame if the rush to impose headline-spawning sentences obscured the vexing questions of why (a) why collective madness seized so many people and (b) why thugs were allowed in full view of the police and media helicopters were allowed to start fires, ransack shops and run amok in a capital city.
A Thursday Column
Monday, August 15, 2011
Two Speeches in One Morning on the Riots
As he went first, here's David Cameron's as a Worldle (click pix to see full-size):
And now Ed Miliband's!
And now Ed Miliband's!
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Postmodern Riots
Riots and confrontations between the mob and the forces of law and order run through the history of London.
In each generation there is a moment when society seems on the verge of fracturing and nights of violence force people to confront growling discontent and poisonous attitudes. This new clarity of vision is also an opportunity to embrace change which will bring healing and justice.
The Gordon Riots of 1780 revealed toxic anti-Catholicism, and in 1985 the Brixton and Broadwater Farm disturbances exposed deep tensions between the black community and the Metropolitan police. The 1990 poll tax riots and last year’s violent student protests showed that fury at Government policy can steam out onto the streets.
But the present outbreak of disorder is compelling because there is no clear motivation for the actors in this grotesque spectacle beyond the diabolical fun of setting a building on fire or the buzz of getting a new pair of trainers.
Yes, the violence followed a march on a Tottenham police station in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan – a hugely serious event which demands full investigation – but the majority of rioters are manifestly rebels without a cause.
Is this what street violence looks like in the postmodern age, when nihilism runs wild and hoodlums need nothing as archaic as a “reason” to shatter windows? When such irrationality takes hold it is easy to imagine the casual brutality envisaged by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange becoming commonplace.
The irony is that in less than a year London is due to host the Olympic Games and an opening ceremony which will celebrate the perfectability of the human body and the inherent goodness of men and women. The revival of the Olympics coincides with the bloodiest chapter in human history, featuring industrialised genocide, two world wars and the dropping of atomic bombs.
Empty-headed waffle about the superlative essence of humanity will seem especially saccharin in a city which has seen proof that our destructive instincts need to be curtailed.
The failure to get to grips with the social conditions conducive to such mayhem parallels the international community’s feeble efforts to eradicate the scandal of famine and address climate change.
But now that the riots have forced us to accept that something is wrong with Britain we have a chance to change society. And when it is clear that the global economy and ecosystem is in peril our leaders have the responsibility to act with a fresh humility and urgency; it is irrational not to, and the alternative is global chaos which will eclipse the fury of every riot we have known thus far.
A Thursday Column
In each generation there is a moment when society seems on the verge of fracturing and nights of violence force people to confront growling discontent and poisonous attitudes. This new clarity of vision is also an opportunity to embrace change which will bring healing and justice.
The Gordon Riots of 1780 revealed toxic anti-Catholicism, and in 1985 the Brixton and Broadwater Farm disturbances exposed deep tensions between the black community and the Metropolitan police. The 1990 poll tax riots and last year’s violent student protests showed that fury at Government policy can steam out onto the streets.
But the present outbreak of disorder is compelling because there is no clear motivation for the actors in this grotesque spectacle beyond the diabolical fun of setting a building on fire or the buzz of getting a new pair of trainers.
Yes, the violence followed a march on a Tottenham police station in response to the shooting of Mark Duggan – a hugely serious event which demands full investigation – but the majority of rioters are manifestly rebels without a cause.
Is this what street violence looks like in the postmodern age, when nihilism runs wild and hoodlums need nothing as archaic as a “reason” to shatter windows? When such irrationality takes hold it is easy to imagine the casual brutality envisaged by Anthony Burgess in A Clockwork Orange becoming commonplace.
The irony is that in less than a year London is due to host the Olympic Games and an opening ceremony which will celebrate the perfectability of the human body and the inherent goodness of men and women. The revival of the Olympics coincides with the bloodiest chapter in human history, featuring industrialised genocide, two world wars and the dropping of atomic bombs.
Empty-headed waffle about the superlative essence of humanity will seem especially saccharin in a city which has seen proof that our destructive instincts need to be curtailed.
The failure to get to grips with the social conditions conducive to such mayhem parallels the international community’s feeble efforts to eradicate the scandal of famine and address climate change.
But now that the riots have forced us to accept that something is wrong with Britain we have a chance to change society. And when it is clear that the global economy and ecosystem is in peril our leaders have the responsibility to act with a fresh humility and urgency; it is irrational not to, and the alternative is global chaos which will eclipse the fury of every riot we have known thus far.
A Thursday Column
Thursday, August 04, 2011
Why the Tories won't sit quietly
If David Cameron wants to enjoy his holiday under Tuscan skies he should avoiding reading the latest report from the defence committee.
It doesn’t quite say the notion that Britain can make major savings in the defence budget without weakening the military or the UK’s international influence is “hogwash” but it comes quite close.
He is too canny a politician to toss the green-bound document into the swimming pool with an exasperated “Urrgh!”.
He knows that for many of his own MPs one of the key missions of the Conservative Party is halting the UK’s post-imperial decline; Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair argued that the country could remain a global power and exercise strategic force.
Mr Cameron needs to cook up some spicy dish in time for the autumn conference which will delight his party and convince the flag-wavers that the Liberal Democrats have not captured his soul.
But if you listen to the rumbling coming from Westminster you can hear something more interesting than the grumbling of Tory MPs who have missed out on ministerial jobs. One odd consequence of coalition government is that this grand old institution, which was so badly bruised by the expenses scandal, has been re-energised.
During Labour’s 13 years in Government, sages routinely lamented the decline in the power of Parliament. But this was not primarily due to any nefarious Downing Street plan but because the electorate handed Mr Blair whopping majorities; he was the leader of the Labour Party, he had more than enough MPs to take forward manifesto policies, and the opposition could do little more than decry the rise of presidential politics in Britain.
But today there is a greater distinction between government and Parliament than we have seen for many years. Conservative and Lib Dem ministers may be in power but their parties have not merged to form a blue and yellow blancmange on the green benches.
In June Tory backbenchers forced their chiefs to allow them a free vote to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. This was a mighty warning shot; if they were prepared to rebel over circuses, think what they might do on Europe or defence. Loyalty to the party is not synonymous with being a coalition drone.
Almost weekly, a cross-party select committee report delivers a damning assessment on some aspect of government spending or policy.
Much of the fire is often directed at past Labour governments, but is clear that the new generation of MPs are independently minded and ready to hold a government – even one led by the leader of their own party – to account.
A Thursday Column
It doesn’t quite say the notion that Britain can make major savings in the defence budget without weakening the military or the UK’s international influence is “hogwash” but it comes quite close.
He is too canny a politician to toss the green-bound document into the swimming pool with an exasperated “Urrgh!”.
He knows that for many of his own MPs one of the key missions of the Conservative Party is halting the UK’s post-imperial decline; Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair argued that the country could remain a global power and exercise strategic force.
Mr Cameron needs to cook up some spicy dish in time for the autumn conference which will delight his party and convince the flag-wavers that the Liberal Democrats have not captured his soul.
But if you listen to the rumbling coming from Westminster you can hear something more interesting than the grumbling of Tory MPs who have missed out on ministerial jobs. One odd consequence of coalition government is that this grand old institution, which was so badly bruised by the expenses scandal, has been re-energised.
During Labour’s 13 years in Government, sages routinely lamented the decline in the power of Parliament. But this was not primarily due to any nefarious Downing Street plan but because the electorate handed Mr Blair whopping majorities; he was the leader of the Labour Party, he had more than enough MPs to take forward manifesto policies, and the opposition could do little more than decry the rise of presidential politics in Britain.
But today there is a greater distinction between government and Parliament than we have seen for many years. Conservative and Lib Dem ministers may be in power but their parties have not merged to form a blue and yellow blancmange on the green benches.
In June Tory backbenchers forced their chiefs to allow them a free vote to ban the use of wild animals in circuses. This was a mighty warning shot; if they were prepared to rebel over circuses, think what they might do on Europe or defence. Loyalty to the party is not synonymous with being a coalition drone.
Almost weekly, a cross-party select committee report delivers a damning assessment on some aspect of government spending or policy.
Much of the fire is often directed at past Labour governments, but is clear that the new generation of MPs are independently minded and ready to hold a government – even one led by the leader of their own party – to account.
A Thursday Column
Gratuitous Joy
Rowan Williams: "God’s act in creating the world is gratuitous, so everything comes to me as a gift. God simply wills that there shall be joy for something other than himself. That is the lifeblood of what I believe."
(Noted here)
(Noted here)
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
The Challenge of John Stott
The death of John Stott is a watershed moment in the history of modern evangelicalism. He represented a faith which was not neo-fundamentalism but a bold effort to engage and love a rapidly changing world. It was a renewal movement in Christianity and reformational in spirit, in that a major focus was sharing theology with the men and women in the pews in recognition that these people with jobs and families were the real priests on the frontline. In contrast with the pietism of past generations, this infusion of knowledge was intended to spur an outpouring of love; not only was the traditional evangelical emphasis on the "great commission" of disciple-making celebrated, so was the "greatest commandment" of loving your neighbour.
This vision of evangelicalism is not the popular image of a diverse movement. The assiduous courting of American evangelicals was a key part of Karl Rove's strategy to secure a sustainable future for the Republican party. The emergence of the religious right has undoubtedly been one of the major phenomenons in modern western politics but this has not been the driving concern of the movement itself. In fact, the apparent ease with which many evangelicals were co-opted at elections suggests evangelicals in America spent too little time thinking about politics and not too much.
The UK Guardian provided perhaps the best British obituary of Stott, which noted that his theological conservatism did not automatically translate into political conservatism:
David Turner wrote:
He continued:
John Piper, a hugely influential exponent of Calvinism, wrote:
It is ironic Stott's landmark work on the significance of Jesus's death and resurrection is celebrated as one of the key texts of modern evangelicalism by many of those at the forefront of the spectacular resurgence in neo-Calvinism but somehow there does not seem to be the same enthusiam for Stott's vision of Christians following Christ's call to act as "salt and light" in a world God loves by seeking societal transformation.
Tim Challies, a leading neo-Calvinist who loves the Bible and clearly wants to follow it faithfully, wrote last year:
But contrast this with Stott's own meditation on salt and light in a 2006 interview which today stands as a challenge to the movement he led with humility and passion throughout a splendid life:
This vision of evangelicalism is not the popular image of a diverse movement. The assiduous courting of American evangelicals was a key part of Karl Rove's strategy to secure a sustainable future for the Republican party. The emergence of the religious right has undoubtedly been one of the major phenomenons in modern western politics but this has not been the driving concern of the movement itself. In fact, the apparent ease with which many evangelicals were co-opted at elections suggests evangelicals in America spent too little time thinking about politics and not too much.
The UK Guardian provided perhaps the best British obituary of Stott, which noted that his theological conservatism did not automatically translate into political conservatism:
David Turner wrote:
Stott, radical in his conservatism, could not be pigeonholed. He was deeply committed to the need for social, economic and political justice and passionately concerned about climate change and ecological ethics. He regarded the Bible as his supreme authority and related its teaching to all areas of knowledge and experience. He insisted that Christians should engage in "double listening" – to the word of God, and to the world around them – and apply their biblical faith to all the pressing issues of contemporary culture. He himself researched, preached and wrote on a wide range of matters – from global debt to global warming, from the duties of the state to medical ethics and euthanasia. This was the kind of evangelicalism he embodied.Similarly, Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times started his tribute, saying: 'In these polarized times, few words conjure as much distaste in liberal circles as “evangelical Christian.”'
He continued:
Yet that casual dismissal is profoundly unfair of the movement as a whole. It reflects a kind of reverse intolerance, sometimes a reverse bigotry, directed at tens of millions of people who have actually become increasingly engaged in issues of global poverty and justice.Stott's hunger to engage with the greatest social issues of our day came from his engagement with the Bible. His simple belief that this book contained wonder brighter than the beauty revealed by the Hubble telescope burned at the heart of his preaching and writing, which was remarkably un-flash; he did not come across as a motivational speaker or a salesman for the faith. Rather, he was more like an archaeologist who would find a ruby in the dust and pass it to you to admire and study in the years to come.
This compassionate strain of evangelicalism was powerfully shaped by the Rev. John Stott, a gentle British scholar who had far more impact on Christianity than media stars like Mr. Robertson or Mr. Falwell. Mr. Stott, who died a few days ago at the age of 90, was named one of the globe’s 100 most influential people by Time, and in stature he was sometimes described as the equivalent of the pope among the world’s evangelicals.
Mr. Stott didn’t preach fire and brimstone on a Christian television network. He was a humble scholar whose 50-odd books counseled Christians to emulate the life of Jesus — especially his concern for the poor and oppressed — and confront social ills like racial oppression and environmental pollution.
“Good Samaritans will always be needed to succor those who are assaulted and robbed; yet it would be even better to rid the Jerusalem-Jericho road of brigands,” Mr. Stott wrote in his book “The Cross of Christ.”
John Piper, a hugely influential exponent of Calvinism, wrote:
To this day I have zero interest in watching a preacher take his stand on top of the (closed) treasure chest of Bible sentences and eloquently talk about his life or his family or the news or history or culture or movies, or even general theological principles and themes, without opening the chest and showing me the specific jewels in these Bible sentences.Evangelicalism now lacks a Stott figure. It's a huge beast of a movement encompassing millions of new Chinese converts, South Korean missionaries, Latin American Pentecostals, baseball-loving Americans and Congolese immigrants to Dublin. In the United States, and to some extent Britain, the theological focus appears to be less on Biblical discovery and engagement with the wider world and more on attempting to nail down precisely what evangelicals should believe. Many of the most prominent bloggers seem determined to equate Calvinism (with its focus on predestination) with evangelicalism. However, while the concept that God ordains evil as well as good and that Jesus did not so much die for the sins of the whole world as those of the "elect" whom He would summon to himself (and not by their own free will) may have been at the heart of New England Puritanism it will shock millions of evangelicals.
John Stott turned the words of Bible sentences into windows onto glorious reality by explaining them in clear, compelling, complete, coherent, fresh, silly-free, English sentences...
This is what I was starving for and didn’t even know it. Amazing! Someone is telling me what these sentences mean! Someone is making light shine on these words. It is shining so bright, I can’t sleep in this light! I am waking up from decades of dull dealing with God’s word. Thank you. Thank you. I could care less if you tell me any stories. I want to know what God means by these words!
It is ironic Stott's landmark work on the significance of Jesus's death and resurrection is celebrated as one of the key texts of modern evangelicalism by many of those at the forefront of the spectacular resurgence in neo-Calvinism but somehow there does not seem to be the same enthusiam for Stott's vision of Christians following Christ's call to act as "salt and light" in a world God loves by seeking societal transformation.
Tim Challies, a leading neo-Calvinist who loves the Bible and clearly wants to follow it faithfully, wrote last year:
There is a time and a place for humanitarian work, no doubt. Christians can carry out great ministries serving the poor and the oppressed and in so doing can have remarkable opportunities to share the gospel. And yet still the history of Christianity shows that when Christians do this, the gospel quickly becomes secondary and the work itself becomes the gospel. I still see the Bible primarily emphasizing charity given to other believers; when I look at Acts and the epistles, this is what I see most—Christians helping other Christians as a sign of love and fraternity. Now of course there will be some who engage in humanitarian work outside the context of the local church, but it seems to me that the closer we come to making this a necessary part of the Christian mission, the more likely we are to see the gospel diminish.No doubt Challies can think of many examples where this has taken place. And it is true that evangelical-founded relief organisations such as World Vision and Tear Fund face the challenge of operating as leading NGOs while finding a way to express an eternal Christian message. Also, at a time when evangelicalism is bereft of a unifying leader, it alarms many when people once seen as bright hopes for the future question and challenge doctrines traditionally considered core tenets of evangelical orthodoxy. In such a climate, theological and social retrenchment can appear attractive, even tempting.
But contrast this with Stott's own meditation on salt and light in a 2006 interview which today stands as a challenge to the movement he led with humility and passion throughout a splendid life:
They change the environments in which they are placed. Salt hinders bacterial decay. Light dispels darkness. This is not to resurrect the social gospel. We cannot perfect society. But we can improve it. My hope is that in the future, evangelical leaders will ensure that their social agenda includes such vital but controversial topics as halting climate change, eradicating poverty, abolishing armories of mass destruction, responding adequately to the AIDS pandemic, and asserting the human rights of women and children in all cultures. I hope our agenda does not remain too narrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
