oakleys.org.uk

By the way, I'm on Twitter. I don't tweet much - maybe once a day. So you can follow me by going here.

NB: You may think you follow me already, but you probably don't, because I deleted my account by mistake. I was Jamcary - but I'm now sitcomgeek. I was trying to delete John Fellowes, which was a promotional exercise for my unsuccessful novel 'Crossword Ends In Violence (5)'. In the process, I deleted the wrong account (jamcary) and it can't be resurrected, so that is that.

You may, of course, despise Twitter. Or at least not see the point. It's understandable. I find it fascinating and generally useful. It's a completely different animal from Facebook, which has plenty of advantages. Facebook is for friends. Twitter is for people you know or know of. Very different things. Plus the brevity is very pleasing. Anyway, follow me. Or not. I really don't mind. But I thought I'd mention it.

A short rambly thought for a monday morning - one that I had over the weekend. Our society worship the theory of evolution. I'm not a creationist and have no great problem with evolution, whilst acknowledging this throws up serious theological problems of its own.

The point stands, though, that our society - or our media at least - love to push evolution as a Wonderful thing. It isn't really all that wonderful. It's an observation. And no more wonderful than gravity or the laws of thermodynamics.

In fact, in some ways, it's a very Ugly thing. The idea that the unsuccessful creature dies out, the weak falls, and the strong survive maybe be how nature works, and can create beauty, but is not, in itself beautiful. For a start, there is no merit in it. The strong are born strong. The weak born weak. It's predetermined. There is no meritocracy. Just the chilling hand of fate, in the form of DNA, molecules and nature. The slow-moving wilderbeest, born lame, is picked off by the cheetah, born fast. We've seen it on the TV and sat in awe at the speed of the cheetah, but felt a pang of regret for the weak animal being plucked off and devoured. This makes no sense. Why feel pity? Why shed a tear for the thing which is useless?

Because we are not animals. And we never have been. We don't really believe in survival of the fittest. We do believe that the strong should be allowed prosper, the inventive should flourish, but we do not that those left in their wake should be destroyed - do we? The frail and the infirm in society should not left out for the vultures. And any society that does such a thing has finally succumbed to the worst and basest instincts - they are less than human.

Christianity offers something completely different and far more beautiful. At the heart of the Christian faith is not power or might or even anger - but sacrifice. The Son of God leaves Heaven to come to earth to become weak, and to suffer and die. He is crucified by those in power who want to keep power - or pour scorn on his weakness. "He saved others, but he can't save himself! Not so mighty now, are you, Jesus?!" Christians need not be afraid of those who worship power and might - because we have the only thing that can destroy it - Christian weakness. And it's there on the cross - ugly in its violence, beautiful in its concept.

On last thought: Bullying is very ugly. There is no doubt that the atheists' sneer at religion in general and Christianity in particular is at a fever pitch. On TV and Radio, it is open season for any joke you like about the worthlessness of Christianity, the inanity of church attendance and the unfoundedness of Christian theology (despite the fact that most Europeans have been broadly Christian for hundreds of years). But the Catholic church is a particular favourite of the atheists because they have 'public sins' and have done bad things to people in their 2000 years of which they are right to be ashamed. But the atheists have to keep bashing away at the same thing and repeating themselves, since to say keep saying that 'Christians are pathetic idiots' makes them look heartless and mean. And they know that ultimately such behaviour is Ugly, albeit consistent with their worldview. But they know that true beauty is found in compassion, sacrifice and unmerited love and mercy. Because Christianity is True.

Here you will find Series 4 of Another Case of Milton. Few things give me more professional pride than being part of this show which is splendidly silly and lots of fun. Milton Jones leads the way and I'm madly running behind him, weaving together loose ends, picking up debris and shrapnel and generally trying to keep up. And then it's deliciously edited by the producer David Tyler to produce 28 minutes or so of joy. Have a listen if you can. It really will make you feel better.

The debate has raged up and down the land over the last few years. Clearly church inertia has favoured the NIV but the ESV has some advocates. The latest thinking I've encountered on which version of the Bible is best for a congregation to use as a whole is by my friend Richard Perkins who is here. Like Richard, I love the ESV Study Bible - it's one of the great works of recent Times, I think, and very well typeset (!) but for a congregation, it has to be NIV. If you disagree, take it up with Richard...

I've just finished watching the first season of Damages - which is truly sensational and absorbing television. Larger than life characters that are scarily believable crash into each other at high speed, with sparks flying everywhere. Glenn Close plays as a lawyer who will simply do anything to win her case and get 'justice' for her client. Ted Danson is another notably superb performance, playing a billionaire who is being sued former employees for stealing their pension fund. His character is particularly real since he can't quite see why everyone's getting at him, and just wants people to like him. There are power struggles and double dealings everywhere.

What I found most unsettling and challenging is what happens when you jettison telling the truth in order to achieve some bigger - and apparently more noble - goal. It's always clear what's going on, since it the show is skillfully written, plotted and directed, but it is so often impossible to work out where the characters' loyalties lie. The feeling of paranoia and uncertainty is extraordinary and not like any other show I've seen. It's a theme often looked at and turned over by various dramas and comedies, but nothing like to the extent it is done here. And it leaves one really moved by the dreadful consequences of simply doing what's expedient or effective rather than what's right.

So I heartily recommend it - it's tough and gritty. There's some tasty language now and then and a bit of violence, but it's a fascinating gripping tale, splendidly told, artfully shot and perfectly executed. I hope to acquire Season 2 very soon. (And I believe BBC1 is already showing season 3).

There's a interesting and short article by Brett McCracken here on exercising caution when bandying around the fact that 'Jesus was a rebel'. Very helpful, I think.

Most people I encounter think my views on education are completely insane. For those of you in doubt, I believe that the state has no role in education children - and should be actively prevented from doing so. Clearly, this issue falls into the debate about what governments should and should not do, something that people seem bafflingly unwilling to discuss in this current age (perhaps because they're terrified that if we think about it too long, we'll strip almost all powers from the state and get on with our lives without the need for 650-odd MPs who baffling require £6.5 million-worth of administrators to handle their expenses claims - a job that would cost a private company about a tenth of that).

Again, most people think that taking powers and the provision of services away from the state would make our lives complex, dreadful and bad. (Obviously they ignore that Switzerland, for example, organise almost everything locally and not through their national federal government which is virtually powerless). Our lives, of course, would not be worse - but different. And we wouldn't have a monstrous state sucking billions of pounds out of the economy every year and spending, say, £12 billion on a NHS computer system that doesn't work. That would simply not ever ever happen in a private company or the charitable sector. And it's offensive it happens at all.

But here's another upside. We wouldn't have these endless dreary debates about sex education in schools - but it's nobody's business who teaches what in schools except for the parents and the teachers. If I want to send my child to a school that teaches asbtinence is best and that sex outside marriage is wrong, then that is my right. My children's education is my concern and no-one else's, certainly not the State's or the National Secular Society's. If you want to send your child to a school which promotes all forms of sexuality and explains in detail about contraception, the morning-after pill and abortion - all of which are perfectly legal - that is your right too. It's none of my business at all, even though I'm personally opposed to abortion and the morning-after pill.

But the government - which has no idea why it does what it does - loves to make our business their business - and so they set curricula and tell us all what we should be telling our children because the schools, of course, hold the key to our children's future etc. No, they don't. And if schools were organised locally according to demand and preference, and not used for social engineering by the state or as a national childminding service, then this debate would simply vanish. Then, if you didn't like what a school was teaching your child, you could take it up with them, or put your child in another school. Or teach them at home yourself. Would that really be so bad?

My latest thoughts on some boring sitcom technicalities can be found on my Sitcom Geek site here.

Can you imagine such a hopelessly misguided award? Who would be eligible? The only people who'd be prepared to be nominated wouldn't want to be nominated, and those who pushed themselves forward, well...

Secularists and atheists have no such qualms. Have a look here. The very concept is splendidly hilarious. The ladies in question seem like undoubtedly good people (even though such a concept can't exist in a universe of moral relativism) but even so...

This Saturday (13th Feb 2010), a bunch of Christians who work in the arts, media, design and music will be gathering at The Factory in Raynes Park to think about what difference our work makes in the grand scheme of things, including the following sessions:

How does our creativity affect God's coming Kingdom? – Ellis Potter

What on earth will we be doing in heaven? – Jim Paul

Habits of Highly Effective People and Other Myths – Jez & Miriam Carr examine the life of freelance work, motivation and other pitfalls of being self-employed.

In the Best Possible Taste – Ros Clarke looks at how Christian could deal with sex and sexual themes in the media and art.

Evangelism for Creative Types and Cynics – Rev Andrew Baughen looks at how evangelism is possible in a secular, creative working environment.

Foot in Mouth Syndrome – James Cary deals with the issue of offence, especially in the area of comedy.

A Sight For Sore Eyes - Alastair Gordon considers how beauty interacts with redemption.

Then there'll be a Q&A. It should be a great day. Tickets are £15 or £10 for students. More info here.

It is said that ‘the past is a foreign country. They do things differently there’. One is painfully aware of this when reading Dickens or Austen — as characters have to worry about plague or propriety in a completely different way from us. But if the past is a foreign country, what about documents from past foreign countries? They can be doubly difficult to decipher.

The Bible is clearly in this latter category...

Read the rest of this piece that I wrote for Evangelicals Now here...

There's another fascinating discussion raging on Heresy Corner. This time, a guest posting by someone who deals with disability on a day-to-day basis. Her comments are heartfelt, powerful and make a lot of sense. The comments of others are often harsh, loveless, vile and angry. Interesting, nonetheless. Go have a look here.

Lots of laughter in BBC1's QI this week which was very jolly. But the opening five minutes was really interesting. The question is about the Great Disappointment of 1844 when lots of Americans were convinced Jesus was about to return. What's fascinating is the tone of the discussion - the panellists just can't believe that anyone in their right mind could possibly believe in the return of Jesus. How is this so? Do we just never mention it? Does it seem too weird? Do we secretly not believe it ourselves? Anyway, I look at this in the next edition of Third Way magazine, but thought this clip was worth pointing people towards.

I just saw a twitter about typing words in to Google - to see what is offered in response, or automatically generated. It is alarming and revealing about what people want answers to when they are fairly sure no-one's looking. A lot of questions about contraception come out on top. But here's the amazing one. I typed in "Why do I" - and various questions came up. "Why do I sweat so much?" and "Why do I always feel tired?" are very popular with lots of offers given. But here's the big one. "Why do I have no friends?" It offers 3.36 billion results. It's clearly a very popular question. Something to think about, at least. Do Christians realise how powerful basic friendship is?

During the current excitement, speculation, disappointment and cynicism around Apple's latest iPad (of course I want one!), I'm reminded of this lovely story from the Onion a couple of years ago - "Apple Unveils New Product-Unveiling Product".

Some advice please if anyone can spare a moment. I run a film club at my church finding the right film to watch is tricky - since one wants to show quality films that don't shrink from the realities of life, but one does not want to be obtuse or insensitive to those more easily offended. (NB: It's good to be offended, so being offended per se is not the issue. It's about necessary offence).

The film Gone Baby Gone has been recommended. It's directed by Ben Affleck and is, apparently, excellent, interesting and gripping, throwing up a number of dilemmas. It's rated '15', but these days, what does that mean? The BBFC do, to their credit, produce decent notes on the issues of concern - but I'm sure they make something sound worse and more explicit that it actually is. Obviously, the easiest and best thing to do would be to watch it myself, but work commitments, a pregnant wife, a toddler and a combination of events simply don't permit that in the next 72 hours or so. Can I show this movie (with suitable warnings etc)? Has anyone seen it?

GONE BABY GONE
Feature Film
Classified 07 September, 2007 .
Run Time 113m 46s

Consumer Advice: Contains very strong language, strong violence and hard drug use

Extended Classification Information (*SPOILER ALERT* Information may include plot details)

GONE BABY GONE is a crime drama about the abduction of a young girl. It has been classified '15' on the basis of very strong language, strong violence, hard drug use and the theme of paedophilia.

The film contains frequent examples of strong language which are permitted by BBFC Guidelines at '15'. There are also two uses of very strong language and both are justified by their context, being spoken in moments of very great stress. One of them is not directed at anyone while the second is directed at a very unsympathetic character.

The strong violence takes the form of a number of shootings where heavy effusions of blood are evident as a result of the wounds inflicted. There is no dwelling upon the infliction of pain or injury so these scenes are covered by the '15' Guidelines.

The drug use comprises two scenes where cocaine is snorted and joints are smoked. These are a valid part of the narrative and the film, as a whole, does not promote or encourage drug use.

GONE BABY GONE also deals with the subject of paedophilia, showing one young victim of a paedophile ring in horrific circumstances. The scene is not gratuitous or trivialised but is a key element in the ongoing narrative. This treatment is entirely appropriate at the '15' category.

Heresy Corner has lots of interesting thinking swirling around on it. Here's the latest piece about the spirituality of Avatar - I film I've still not seen. But the issues raised are easy to get a handle on without having seen the movie, so this is well worth a look.

Last night I watched the latest adaptation of Brideshead Revisited - and was pleasantly surprised. I've never read the book, nor even seen the lengthy but much-acclaimed TV adaption. But I have read a few books by Evelyn Waugh (Decline & Fall, Vile Bodies, Handful of Dust et al). He is, in some ways, a fascinating writer, especially from a Christian perspective. His novels and characters are haunted by religion, Roman Catholicism in particular.

Brideshead Revisited is no exception - or at least, this movie version is. The atheism of Charles Ryder has ramifications throughout the plot, and one is pulled one way and then the other in one's affections for him. At first, one has sympathy because he is off to Oxford and his father is utterly uninterested. He becomes mixed up in a metrosexual set led by Sebastian, and one worries for Charles. But Charles is made of sterner stuff and, like many of Evelyn Waugh's heroes, is a cold fish par excellence. But naturally, everything crumbles to dust and every ends up slightly unhappier than they were at the beginning.

The cast are relatively unknown, which makes for much more interesting viewing since one doesn't spend half the time trying to remember what other thing you've seem them in. It's well shot and all the money is on the screen. But here is the one point I'd like to make about the film, and why it's rather refreshingly interesting, despite its gloomy austerity:

[Spoiler Alert] As the film progresses, one realises that Charles cannot have the woman he loves, Julia, because she is a Catholic, and her mother will simply not allow her daughter to marry an atheist. It seems rather bizarre and draconian, and like a poor reason to prevent a marital union - especially to the modern sensibility. But eventually, the couple do manage to find each other again, despatch their spouses with the relevant paperwork, and be on the point of marriage. But when Julia's father is on death's door, her true Catholicism bubbles to the surface. When her father manages to sign the cross before he dies - having lived most of his life as an agnostic, or unrepentant sinner - Julia is overjoyed. But Charles thinks it's all rather ghastly and sad. He simply cannot share her joy. It is obvious to them that they simply cannot be together because of their religious views.

My point is this: Can one think of another movie that says that a couple cannot be together if they are of differing religions? That love doesn't always find a way? It seems obvious to me, as a Christian, that marrying someone with radically different views on God, death and eternity, is, at best, foolish. But to see such a view powerfully, and convincingly, portrayed in a sumptious, romantic, period movie is a rare experience - and so unexpected I'm still not sure what I make of it. I would be interested to hear the views of others on this film.

I wrote a review of the Persuasionists, a new BBC2 sitcom - mainly from an industry and boringly technical point of view. You can find it at Sitcom Geek here..

I don't know how it happens, but often find myself running out of podcast to listen to on my iPod. I regularly listen to [taking deep breath] This American Life, Start the Week, In Our Time, More or Less, Danny Baker on Five Live, Mark Kermode & Simon Mayo, The Bugle, The Bottom Line, Digital Planet, The Media Show, The Moth Podcast, Wired Storyboard, Beyond Belief and various sermons (Driscoll, Piper, Wilson et al). Am I missing out on some quality podcasts to listen to when In Our Time is really really dull? Secular or sacred suggestions very welcome.