So What?

Children's Favourites 1: Teddy Bear's Picnic

Last night BBC Radio 4 broadcast a programme presented by Will Self  about the distopian science fiction writer JG Ballard .  Apparently as a guest on Desert Island Discs, Ballard chose Teddy Bears' Picnic.  He had liked it as a child, then hated it and had returned to it in later life.

Self remarked that the song is sinister and said it had frightened many children.  I can remember it as a child and it certainly exercised a fascination for me.  I don't remember being frightened although the warning to steer clear of the woods sounded like sage advice at that age.

Of course, I had a look for it and this is what I found:

I had no idea this recording was so old.  The orchestration is rather fun and Henry Hall's voice is a little sinister. 

I have a plan from time to time to dig out some Children's Favourites.  This was the name of BBC Home Service programme on Saturday mornings.  I welcome suggestions, even from a later (or earlier) era.

Improvisation and Spirituality 4: What is Improvisation?

I am not a musician.  Or any type of performing artist.  I write therefore from the perspective of someone who has listened to performing arts all my life. 

We live in a world of recorded performances.  How many times do we hear material that has been recorded directly from an improvised performance?  It is a difficult question to answer.  One way is to describe the sorts of things we might be hearing.  For musical performances, I suspect we hear the following:

1. Some performances are rehearsed performances of material that has been written down.  Most people would agree this is not improvised, even though the original composer might have improvised the music before she or he wrote it down.
2. Sometimes, there has been a long process of improvisation, particularly with groups of jazz players but the recorded result is something they can now reproduce note for note. 
3. A standard tune is improvised by a group of musicians according to strict rules, based upon some degree of rehearsal.
4. A group of people play together and record whatever comes out.

Clearly there is a range of possibilities between the attempt to reproduce written music and raw music generated on the hoof.  Sometimes it is difficult to tell where improvisation ends.  Go back to my post about Little Boots.  It is clear her finished version for her CD (the third I mention) is no longer improvised.  But how much work had already been done before the recording of the same tune in her bedroom (second version)?  It could be an early recording but just as easily produced after her album as promotional material.

Similarly, Diana Krall's version of Fly Me to the Moon  could be just as rehearsed as Nat Cole's.  My guess is not only most new music but also new interpretations of old music start with improvisation.  But at some stage a piece of music is recorded or ready for public performance and and the performance itself is not improvised.

Improvisation is the conversation the musician has with the composer, other musicians, their own instrument or even an orchestra in their imagination.  Sometimes it is necessary to play as previously arranged but always at some distance the good musician has improvised.

I have written elsewhere about the power of generative conversations  and that they do not have to be with people  to be conversations.  This is the fount of creativity, the discovery of new notes from old instruments, the wringing of new emotion from an old tune, the spontaneous emergence of a new tune from an old emotion.  To improvise is to be receptive.

Another way of looking at it is through complexity theory .  Complexity happens where chaos and order meet.  The movement from a new tune to an established, written melody and on again is a necessary dimension to creativity.  The exciting thing is we can pause anywhere and listen for something new.  Recorded music allows us to do this more than at any time in the past.

In this video Diana Krall speaks of her own creative processes.

How could the way we eat improve in the future?

How could the way we eat improve in the future?
Presented by Intel, Sponsors of Tomorrow.

By sitting around a table with people.  The thing about junk food is that it is designed not to be eaten in company.  We need to cultivate eating as a social event.  The word companion is derived from French and means to break bread together. 

Take time, switch off the TV, radio, mobile phones, Ipod, any other gadgets and focus on conversation.  The primary aim of eating should be good conversation, new insights and ideas, the sharing of problems, exploration and learning.  Good food will help this; as we relax our minds are freed to see new things.  Hard issues are best addressed in an atmosphere of friendship and the table is where friendships grow.  We should not underestimate how things would improve in the future if more of us made an effort to do this.

Atheists: Are they Angels?

I am fascinated by the debate between the new atheists, eg Dawkins and Hitchins, and whoever listens to them.  It seems to me though, much of the debate misses the point.  I remember many years ago reading Bertrand Russels' essay Why I am not a Christian.  Here Russel suggests two beliefs are essential to the Christian faith and then proceeds to knock them down.  I remember when I first read the essay, my thought was that as a Christian I found neither of Russels' beliefs essential to my faith.  (For the record they were: (1) that God exists, and (2) that Jesus was the best man who ever lived.)

The modern debate is just as full of non-sequiturs.  It does get a bit wearing when Dawkins tells me I believe something I don't believe and then calls me an idiot for believing it.  The point to grasp is this debate is not about atheism (or theism); it is about idolatry.

Dawkins' particular target is creationists, and I agree wholeheartedly with everything he says about their beliefs.  This leads me to apply my own label to the new atheists.  They are angels.  This Greek word means messenger and, by applying it to the new atheists, I mean they are messengers from God.  They have been sent by God to help us identify our idols.  They should therefore be treated in debate with utmost respect.  As God's messengers they are loved by God and Christians must never forget to give thanks for their ministry.  (The photo is of the mourning angel in the churchyard of San Miniato al Monte, Firenze, Italy).

However, (didn't you know that was coming?) there is a problem with atheism.  Atheists don't go far enough.  All of us have images of God that are idolatrous.  To be consistent atheists should empty their minds of all images of God.  These crop up in all sorts of places, for example, the invisible hand that keeps capitalism ticking over or the rather inchoate mind that guides evolution according to Dawkins.  Of course, this is the journey taken by Christian mystics, it is an emptying, known by theologians as kenosis.  It is interesting that when the mind is emptied of all preconceptions, mystics do not find nothing, or if they do it is not the sort of nothing they expected.

Atheists are profoundly mistaken if they believe rejection of God leads to the conclusion there is nothing outside the known universe.  We have as much evidence for the existence of nothing as we have for the existence of God.

Of course, according to Barth, we should all do this exercise because all of us have false images of God.  The only image we have is of God crucified on the cross, an instrument of Roman Imperialism.  And it is in that context where we see the consequences of idolatry.  False idols are never benevolent and this applies as much to atheists as it does to the rest of us.

Atheists are right to point to times in history where Christians have been driven to war with each other and people of other faiths because of our idols.  My other blog is solely concerned about healing the wounds between Christians.  But atheists cannot present themselves as blameless in this regard.  Idols work on atheists as much as they do on Christians.  Think back to the last century: the wars, the weapons of mass destruction, the landmines, the gulags, the holocaust.  Most of these horrors can be traced to atheism, the rejection of religion.  The rejection of one set of idols left human minds open to others more terrible than the first.  My worry is that whilst most Christians might have learned this lesson, have the atheists?

Christianity is, as far as I know, the only faith that places at its centre an instrument of torture and death.  Despite our history, it is not there to incite us to violence but to warn us of the dangers of leaving anything solely to the warped timber of humanity.

Sheffield's Brandenburg Gates

Sheffield's geography depends not only upon its rivers but also its prevailing winds.  The wind blows from south west to north east.  So, over the years, the wealthy moved to the south west, where the winds blow from the Pennines, leaving the poor to live in the north east where the winds picked up industrial pollution. 

Therefore, you will see from the diagram, the Lower Don Valley was the most polluted area.  Of course, much of this was remedied during the 1960s when Sheffield boasted it was the cleanest industrial city in Europe.

The main access to the Lower Don Valley is along Wicker and through the Wicker arches.  (Wicker has no definite article, but the arches do!)  These symbolically access not only the main industrial area but also the poorer areas of Sheffield.  They form a symbolic line between the richer and poorer areas of the city, just as the Brandenburg Gates, between 1961 and 1989, formed a barrier between east and west Berlin.

These arches actually comprised over 50 arches of various sizes and original functions.  Sadly some have been demolished but at the time this was a significant piece of architecture and even today once you twig its extent, it is still impressive.  The arch in the picture carried the railway line from Sheffield's Victoria Station (long gone) and Manchester's station of the same name.

If you look through the main arch, behind the bus, you will see the road forks and the left hand fork is Spital Hill.  This is the main route into Pitsmoor, so it is not unreasonable to to see this arch as the gateway to Pitsmoor.

Dog the Second

It's time for a second sentimental dog video.  One redeeming feature of this one it is that it doesn't actually include a dog. 

That's all the sentimental dog videos with redeeming features I'm aware of.  If you can suggest any other sentimental dog video, I might consider continuing this series.  The video must have some redeeming feature.  Inclusion of a dog is not in itself a redeeming feature.  Inclusion of a cute dog will reduce the chances of it featuring unless it has a spectacular redeeming feature.  The dog on a skateboard video has no redeeming features.  My decision is final and I'm hard to please.

Unbaptism Revisited

A few months ago unbaptism was in the news.  At the time it struck me as odd. 

As usual a number of atheists voiced some of my bewilderment.  Surely to demand your baptism is undone is to attribute to baptism the very efficacy atheists deny?  If it is meaningless, to have it undone implies it has a meaning.  Why not just ignore it? 

One reply was that the aim of this particular demand was to undermine the Church of England.  The Church of England would no longer be able to claim them as members.  There may well be other arguments for unbaptism and I’ll willingly have a go at them, if someone tells me what they are.

The main problem is that the Church of England does not have members.  It is organised into parishes and anyone living in a parish has a right to participate in the services of their parish church or churches.  If they wish to ignore them, they are free to do so.  It is not just atheists who ignore the services, Christians of other traditions, some of whom might have been baptised in the Church of England, will rarely take part if ever.

Those who wish to support the Church of England opt in through the electoral roll.  These people might never have been baptised (in which case they are able to ask to be baptised), they might have been baptised by the Church of England or by another tradition.

So, to be unbaptised makes no difference whatsoever to the Church of England in terms of its legitimacy as the established church in England.  If you’re an atheist the only thing you can do is to opt in.  (After this you could opt out again but it seems fairly pointless to me.)

One other point.  Is it actually possible to renounce baptism?  The question I would ask is this.  Rebaptism is forbidden in the majority of churches.  If an atheist who renounces baptism, takes their unbaptism certificate to a minister of most traditions, would they be able to rebaptise them?  I suspect not.  So, a hypothetical person baptised as a baby, grows up atheist and renounces their baptism, then changes their mind and becomes a Christian.  Do they need to be rebaptised?  I suspect not because the churches would see this as a rebaptism and not as a first baptism.  I’m sure someone will tell me if I’ve got this wrong.

Unbaptism looks to me like a campaigning tool but I'm not sure it has been thought through.

The way I see it is baptism is a covenant initiated by God.  From this perspective, even if you are an unbeliever, it is hard to see how you can renounce your baptism.  Atheism doesn’t need this type of gimmick; it is what it is.  In my view atheists are particularly loved by God, because they reject the idolatrous images of God so many religious people take for granted.  Many are therefore closer to God than Christians who separate themselves from the pain of being human, through their illusions about God.  So, there is probably a very comfortable corner of heaven set aside for atheists (unbaptised or not).  (The picture is of Homer and the Ancient Poets in Dante's first circle of Hell by William Blake.) 

Improvisation and Spirituality 3: Diana Krall

Nat King Cole inspired Diana Krall.  Her CD All For You is made up of covers of numbers by Nat Cole's trio, from his early days.  This is her version of Fly Me to the Moon, in the style of the early Nat Cole.  There is a link to the later Nat Cole version of this song, on the earlier post.

Diana Krall issued a number of CDs with her early Cole style trio.  In more recent years she too has moved on to more sophisticated orchestrations, including some that use strings!  Look of Love is an example of Krall's later style.  It is interesting how the two careers have mirrored each other in this respect.

Those who are wondering what this series of posts has to do with spirituality (or improvisation for that matter) do not have long to wait.  In the next post in this series I will reflect on what we mean when we say a piece of music has been improvised.

... during ... ?

Evolution and Creation, Fit the First

Pilgrim writes a well researched and well argued blog and I heartily recommend it even though I disagree with almost everything he writes!  Imagine how delighted I was to see his latest post Creationists akin to Holocaust deniers in Dawkins brave new world.  This post comments on an article by Dawkins in The Times, Creationists, now they’re coming for your children. 

I will try to spare you another long article and make one single point about this frustrating debate (although I'm afraid it will take some development).  Both Dawkins and creationists are making a basic error of logical typing.  In plain English, they are not comparing like with like.  Reductionism is a good example of an error in logical typing.  To assert, for example, that human behaviour can be explained solely in terms of chemical reactions in the brain, makes the erroneous assumption that chemical reactions and human social interactions are the same kind of thing.

So, the debates about evolution and creationism are not comparing like with like.  We are comparing science with theology.  Creationism is a fundamental error not because it is bad science but because it is bad theology.  This means it is impossible to disprove creationism using science, it is for theologians to demonstrate that creationists are in error.

So, the idea that creationism should be taught as science is absurd.  It is not science.  To do so would be to misinform children about the nature of science.  There are scientific controversies about evolution and these should be taught in science lessons, as they would demonstrate how truth is arrived at using scientific methodologies.

Of course, some creationists have recognised this and have developed a creation science.  Note creation science came after creationism.  What they are doing is confusing a theological statement with an objective scientific truth.  So, is there no place for creation science in school?  If there is I would place it in religious studies and indeed science as a whole can be studied as a belief system.  I am not convinced I would want to give creationism that much prominence, simply because I think there are more important issues but them I don't set the syllabus.

Karen Armstrong has written about the distinction between logos (scientific truth) and mythos (religious truth) for many years.  A good example is her recent book, The Case for God, details can be found in 'Featured Books' in the left hand column of my other blog.  For hundreds of years, this clear distinction has been recognised.  It has only been with the rise of modern science, in a mistaken search for the reassurance of objective truth, that fundamentalists have perversely claimed mythos as logos.

Here are a few examples of theological arguments against creationism:

1. It replaces faith in Jesus Christ with faith in scientific or objective truth. 
2. It is a form of idolatry, raising a particular interpretation of scripture to become an essential element of Christian faith.  Are creationists really saying belief in creationism is essential for salvation?
3. Pilgrim is wrong, if I've understood him correctly, when he says it is inconsistent to draw ethical or theological truths from a story not understood to be literally true.  The distorted interpretation of the creationists distracts from the truth of scripture.  Whether it really happened in exactly that way is irrelevant and leads to ludicrous interpretations of the text.
4. There are two accounts of creation in the opening chapters of Genesis and others scattered throughout the Bible, eg in Proverbs, Job and John.  Why does Genesis get all the attention?  Because its at the beginning?  No-one seems to have a problem with John's account, for example.  I'm sure Dawkins would find something in it to take exception to. 
5. To idolise scripture is to misinterpret and draw attention away from the figure of Jesus into attempting to prove a whole raft of unprovable things.  This is not part of the mission of the church but a distraction from it.

I'm sure there are other arguments and would welcome suggestions.  If you are interested in this topic I have written at length about evolution in my other blog.  Start here and work forwards until you can't take it any more.