Certainty, Religion and Politics

There is a friend of a friend on Facebook, whose posts I occasionally see because the friend, my friend, not their friend, occasionally comments on them.   This person (the friend once removed) appears to be a rather conservative Christian, and with strong right-wing political views.

This person also, in my opinion, comes across as rather arrogant and judgemental.  It may well be that in reality they are not, but come across badly in writing.  It is a documented problem in the internet age, and probably well before that in letters, that because we lose tones of voice and facial expressions that might lighten a sentence or phrase, we often appear far more certain, arrogant and unpleasant than we mean to or realise.

Nonetheless, taking this into account, this person comes across rather badly to me, and has a habit of mixing their politics and their religion.  They're American, and this seems to be more of a tendency on that side of the Atlantic than over here.  Now, obviously one’s religious beliefs will inevitably colours one’s political opinions; indeed I think they ought to.  Calls to leave your religion ‘in the temple’ display a ludicrous failure to understand what religion is, but that’s a rant for another day.

However, this isn’t merely a case of the former colouring and influencing the latter, but a complete intertwining of the two, to the extent that this individual has often asserted, either explicitly or implicitly, that one cannot be a genuine Christian and hold anything other than right-wing opinions.  To them, the one flows seamlessly from the other.  I am uncertain whether they think that this opposite is also true.  Presumably their political opinions colour their interpretations of scripture to some extent, either consciously or subconsciously.

The individual in question comes across as having an absolute certainty in not only their religious beliefs but their political opinions.  They are not only correct, they are Right; divinely endorsed and incontestable.  And this absolutely terrifies me.

The spiritual pride that states ‘I am a genuine Christian, and if you disagree with me, even in matters other than theology, then you are not a genuine Christian’ is staggering and extremely dangerous.  It’s a certainty that admits of no error, no argument and no opposition.  ‘If God is for me, who can be against me?’  It is even worse than the more common error of assuming that everyone who disagrees with you must be stupid or uninformed.

Now, my own politics are a sort of wishy-washy mediumish moderate left-of-centre, but I will admit that I have in the past caught myself thinking ‘How can anyone hold right-wing views and still claim to be Christian?’  However, I’ve had the self-awareness to recognise the thought for the dangerous and idiotic self-indulgence that it is.  Am I really so clever as to have figured out the Correct Beliefs, both political and religious, that elude everyone else?  Have I been given privy information, or direct access to the mind of God?  My religious beliefs colour my political and social beliefs, and in turn they must inevitably colour my reading and understanding of scripture, and my understanding of what sort of being God is.

However, I do not make the mistake of thinking that if you disagree with my politics, you must be a false Christian.  I do not even think that you must be a false Christian if you disagree with me theologically.  I may disagree with your opinion, and think you mistaken, but I hope I retain enough self-awareness to realise that I am not possessed of all the facts.  Not only do I not know all the answers, I don‘t even know all of the questions.  But then, neither does anyone else, and I shouldn’t think that my opinion necessarily counts for less than theirs either.

We are all groping for answers in a sea of uncertainty and doing the best we can with the information available to us individually, and none of us can or should be sure of the ones we arrive at, even if they seem to be backed up by all facts and logic.  We should definitely be extremely careful about claiming that our political and social opinions are the only ones with divine backing, if only because of the implications it makes about everyone else.

Your religious beliefs should affect how you treat others, and how you believe others ought to be treated, affect how you think the world ought to be, and inform your ideas of what is good, what is right, and what should be done about what is not.  We shouldn’t be overly certain about our theology, and as a result, we shouldn’t be overly certain about anything that stems from it either.  By all means do, say and believe what you think is right, but we should never forget that we might be wrong.

I’ll end with a quote from Wesley; “Though we cannot think alike, may we not love alike? May we not be of one heart, though we are not of one opinion? Without all doubt, we may. Herein all the children of God may unite, notwithstanding these smaller differences.”

Testing my Patience

Yesterday, I sat my driving theory test.  Obviously it was, like any test, somewhat nerve-wracking, however I had prepared thoroughly and knew what to expect.  From the test itself that is.  The process I had to go through prior to being permitted into the test room itself however surprised, annoyed, and to some extent offended me.

I entered the building, past a bored-looking receptionist/security guard type who gave me not a second look (actually, he might not have given me a first look).  Following the signs, I went through a door, down a long, narrow and rather ominous corridor towards a door saying ‘Candidates Only: No Other Admittance’.  Passing through this portal, I found myself in a waiting room/reception area.

Here, a friendly receptionist gave a laminated sheet of Thou Shalt Nots that I had to sit and read through.  The standard exam stuff: no talking; no mobile phones/pagers/tablets: no taking in (or making) notes; no bags; everything to be stowed in a locker etc.  All fair enough.  I also had to remove my watch, which I found odd.

The surprise/annoyance/offence started when I went to the receptionist to return the laminated sheet and collect a locker key.  She asked if I’d turned off my phone, which I had.  Bearing in mind that my phone would be in the locker, in the waiting room, this seemed like an unnecessary precaution, but since it might disturb other people while they were waiting, didn’t seem totally unreasonable.  She then asked me to show her that it was turned off.  Apparently my word wasn’t good enough.

Having done so (after fishing it back out of my bag) I was permitted to go through another doorway, where a second lady explained the format of the test (which my preparation had already made me aware of).  She then made me show her my hands and wrists, and turn out my pockets.  I still had my keys and change in my pocket, so I had to go back out and put them in the locker.  I then had to turn out my pockets (side and back) to show that they were empty.  At this point, if she had produced an elbow-length rubber glove and forced me to undergo a full cavity search, x-ray and polygraph test, I wouldn’t have been wholly surprised.

Having quelled her suspicions, I was allowed into the exam room, where several signs informed me that I was being monitored by CCTV.  I sat at my allotted screen and took my test, finished, left, was permitted to collect my effects, was given my results and allowed to leave by a different door to the one I entered by.

Now obviously they need to make sure that people don’t cheat on these tests.  I fully appreciate that.  They’re important, and they’re there for a reason.  Telling people that they can’t have phones etc. makes perfect sense, and even having the CCTV there to help spot attempted cheaters doesn’t seem unreasonable.  Stopping cheaters is completely necessary.  The part that annoyed me was when I was asked to show in advance that I wasn’t trying to cheat.

I still have these quaint and archaic ideas about a person being innocent until proven guilty; the idea that it should be assumed that I am not trying to cheat until I am caught cheating, or there is reason to assume that I am trying to.  This is the opposite of what happened.  I was treated as guilty until I proved myself innocent.  Apparently the fact that I was taking the test was sufficient reason to assume that I was trying to cheat.  It was assumed that I had not turned my phone off until I had shown that I had.  It was assumed that I was wearing my watch (beneath which, presumably, information could have been concealed) and had written on my hands, until I proved otherwise.  It was assumed that I had notes or other devices in my pockets until I turned them out.  Why I wasn’t allowed keys or change in there, I have absolutely no idea.  Perhaps I might have a James Bond-esque microradio disguised as a pound coin?

I would like to emphasise that both the ladies involved were never less than courteous, and presumably didn’t write the policies which it is their lot to enforce.  At least, I shall assume so until I see evidence to the contrary.  I might also assume that these draconian and offensive policies have been put in place because many people have tried to cheat, which would be deeply saddening, but I’m not sure whether this is the case, or just the DVSA trying to prevent any such occurrence.

It saddens and angers me that we are all being treated like the lowest common denominator, that it is assumed that we have no sense of personal honour, that, in short, we are not to be trusted.  I meant to say something to the receptionist on the way out, but forgot to.

You might say that we must prove ourselves trustworthy before we are trusted, but that is not the world I wish to live in.  This may be another case of my hopeless and naïve idealism, but I would far rather live in a world in which we must prove ourselves untrustworthy, prove ourselves unworthy of respect, prove ourselves dishonourable and dishonest, or else be assumed to be trustworthy, respectable, honourable and honest.

I can’t force the DVSA to see things my way (although I’ve half a mind to write to them, for all the good it would do), but I can determine to treat others in the way I would wish to be treated.  Everyone is born innocent, and until I see evidence to the contrary, I shall assume that that is still the way they are.

(Oh, and if you're interested, I passed my test.  Hurrah!)

Another 'Three Men' Review

I had a spare copy of 'Three Men' knocking about, so I posted on the UK Methodists group on Facebook and asked whether anyone would like a free book in exchange for writing a review.  Someone called Andrew Davidson responded, and I posted the book last Saturday.

I stand in awe of our marvellous postal service, for by Tuesday evening, it had not only arrived (and it only went 2^nd class) but Mr. Davidson had already read the book, and posted his review on the Facebook group.

Now, I know that it’s terribly bad form to quote one’s own reviews…  So here goes:

Book Review - "Three Men on a Pilgrimage - a Comical Progress" by Thomas Jones.

If you are looking for a book that tackles some of the issues within the bible this is an ideal choice. It is philosophically challenging, tackling theological conundrums in an imaginative and humorous way, but with a serious outlook. A book that is hard to put down, but once read calls to be picked up again and again. Each chapter takes a theological concern and opens a door leading to thought and discussion. Possibly an interesting one to follow in a bible study group.

It is the story of three men who, realising they possess nearly all the deadly sins, decide to go on a walking pilgrimage to Canterbury to redeem themselves. Along the way they encounter many strange incidents and people who give them food for thought. Reflects one's own life and thoughts.