Christian Music
What did I want to write about Christian music? I sadly can't remember, but clearly back in May when I first vaguely posted the title of this entry Christian music was clearly on my mind. It's now december and I'm a little foggy of mind, but rather interestingly I'm actually listening to Christian music as I type. What is that Christian music I hear you enquire? Well, read on.

Now is this a moan about the boring nature of music, or a post in praise of it? I don't know, so we'll find out together. But here are just a few thoughts of mine at the present time.

I think I overdosed on Christian music in my early university years, perhaps in the way some might say I overdosed on conservative evangelical faith - HA! despite myself remaining as a heathen amongst the seriously CE body of CU. I grew up in a Methodist church where even "Shine Jesus Shine" was considered just a bit too ultra modern and so kept for very special spiritual occasions. Instead we endured long drawn out, sometimes even excruciating hymns - I remember often turning over the page and being instantly dismayed to see another 7 verses lurking behind. When I came to uni I was board of hymns, so to be suddenly faced with a vibrant young body singing passionately and loudly with arms raised and a band leading was a revelation. To be fair at first I was just a tad intimidated and shrank away from this, but I braved it out and after the first year or so got into the swing of things and would raise my arms with the rest of them. Well not quite, but at least somtimes I'd allow a little lift when feeling moved. I gradually began to filter myself to the back of the lecture theatre where I felt a little freer to sing loudly and sometimes dance a little. But what I really found was that I liked the singing and I liked singing loud. Some might say that what I found out was that I was, deep down, still a Methodist.

After my undergrad I slipped out of CU and into SCM. I still enjoyed singing in Church on sundays, especially the Highfield evening service, but I was increasingly aware that a number of the jazzy pop-culture songs were theologically weak and occasionally desolate. "Jesus is lord, yes lord yes lord Jesus is lord." repeat x20. That sort of thing. At the same time I became aware that I really liked some of the old hymns and actually missed singing them. Not all of them of course - I've not gone all rose=tinted doo-lally, some old hymns are bloody awful, but quite a number of them are infact rather excellent (I shan't name names, but one of those Wesley's was pretty good). But try as I might, is seems that the traditional churches where the hymns exist also tend to murder them with horrific dower dull tune and distinct lack of joy. Whereas those ultra moderns have joy a plenty but seem to frequently lack any substance.

So where does that leave me? Well it currently leaves me out of church but missing singing. Over Christmas I joined a carol service and of course church on Christmas day and enjoyed the singing, though I felt out of practice. Singing isn't what I miss most about church, but it is a really important factor for me.

I also wanted to mention listening to Christian music. This was never part of my upbringing except at church. Whereas at CU I met people who seemed to only know Christian music and nothing else - perhaps were allowed to listen to nothing else. I started listening to it and liked it. It felt sort of spiritual and I enjoyed that. But again, gradually over the years that has lestened. There is something about listeing to Christian worship music on record that I find uncomfortable. I find it uncomfortable in pretty much exactly the same way I find listening to jazz on CD uncomfortable - not being there when the music was made makes it seem empty, fake even. That moment of worship has passed now and is no longer and each time you listen to the same track its the same track, the same 'spirit', as if it gets diluted each time (ignoring the fact that God is without time - but maybe no, perhaps that's it - God is without time so he's already back there enjoying it in the now, whereas here I am now not in that now so not with God in that moment).

Spiritual music still has it's place with me. Like I mentioned at the top of this, I was listening to Christian music as I wrote. I was on a train to Coventry and had on my ipod the Iona Community's "Behold the lamb of God" on repeat. It made for quite a powerful repetitive chant. Why do I find this emotive, but listening to Cathy Burton passionately extoll her emotion strangely lacking? Do I not believe their passion? Perhaps. I certainly have a discomfort with Christians being too bloody happy all the bloody time. But I think more the problem is that I get the sense that they are trying too hard to show how very close to God they are while they sing and play musics with every fibre of their being resonating with the heavenly. I just don't believe it's possible all the time - and so every time I hear the same track it's exactly the same 110% passion and I begin to doubt it. Whereas with older spiritual music - chanting, even hymns - it's not possible to 100% the emotion, so there is always room for more and, more crucially, there is room for me. If I'm listening to someone singing with at 110% then what need is there for anyone else? But when it's lower, it leaves open the opportunity for others to join, to slip in the back, and add their small 1%. They can feel part of it, a contributor rather than an observer.

And I think I might have accidentally been talking about churches as a whole. Turn up at a church which is in the throws of sexual bliss with the Beloved and there is no part for you. But turn up at a church where they don't ace it every time and you'll be welcomed to join, you can play your part. This is not always the case of course, sometimes lively vibrant churches are awesomely welcoming, and likewise smaller churches can be drab and feel nearly dead. But I've definitely experienced a complacency in lively churches that think "as long as they see how much we love Jesus everyone is bound to join". It's sometimes just not the case.
[05-2010] started
[16-12-2010] continued
[10-01-2011] completed

Science and Faith
This article originaly began life in November 2008, but I haven't really got round to it untill now, nearly two years later. I'm only getting back to it now as I was a recent Horizon entitled, controvertially, The End of God?: A Horizon Guide to Science and Religion. It was a strange sort of round up of all the Horizons over the past forty years which have covered the battle between of Science and God. Sadly, in summary, I would have to say that the episode (like so many in the Horizon series) was pants. I'm sorry Dr Thomas Dixon, but the arguments you set out in order to prove that Science has beaten God into the corner were flimsy and unfounded. Your evidence was unscientific and relied of scientific hearsay, which is ironc considering the subject matter.

The worst gaff that caught my attention was in talking about the multiple universe theory to account for the unlikely fact that the universe actually exists. After explaining the utter improbability of it all - a tiny bit more or less gravity and everything doesn't come out the same - he goes on to 'prove' that science yet again has the answer in the multiple universe theory, and what's more there is even one scientist who supports this theory. Umm, of course. One vs everyone else, occam's razor* would definitely suggest we should go with that individual.

I was ammused also that it was with great surprise he revealed that the brains of Catholic nuns in the West react similarly during prayer as budist monks brains do in the East. Almost as if the brains of religious people the world over work in the same way. My God! What a revalation! To say that human brains from different parts of the world react similarly so similar actions is quite remarkable. Quick, someone write a paper for Nature. Yes of course they will react the same as we are all human - that's the giveaway. I bet you if you slap a Mongolain heardsman over the head with a hadock his brain will say 'ouch' in a remarkably similar way to the brain of a Chilian miner - even though they're stuck underground!

But what really annoyed me, and I'll try not to go on (for one thing it's late and for another I intend to go on again at a later date anyway) is just the general assumption that all believers are the same. "Christians" all believe that going to Lourdes will heal you and that creation should be science fact, that all Christians experience regular divine communication and sensual experiences of God, and try and explain God in terms of gaps in Science. No. I don't, and most respectable Christian worth their salt won't. Sure you could interview some genuine but naive fresher from CU and they'll no doubt spurt forth the rubbish you're looking for (this is Richard Dawkins trick), but they are also the same folks who think that Methodists are of the devil - they are not really credible sources.

For me 'science' is what, 'religion' is why. They don't interfere with each other, they are in different realms answering different questions about different topics. They are not competing for supremisy as Dr Thomas insinuates. Science (which doesn't exist by the way, scientists exist, and scientists do do science, but 'Science' doesn't, please stop refering to it thus: 'Science' tells us that....) is out to tell me what the world is made of, how it was formed, what might happen in the future, how does the brain work. Whereas faith is here to give meaning beyond the phycial by which I mean stuff you can't touch - questions about why we love, why someone risks their life for another, why we bother to exist, why do good. The Bible is not a scientific textbook (stop interviewing the people who think it is), Jesus did not come to explain about how molecules work, faith is belief in a greater meaning to life, a reason for life (to live and do good in my opinion).

And my final point is a complaint to all those Christians who are out to fight science - please stop it. For one thing it's a stupid fight which has literally no point, but more importantly Jesus came to tell use to love each other and to love our enemies - if you hate scientits then please get on and love them**. Or do as I have and just be a scientist and a Christian and get over it, they are not mutually exclusive, they never have been (science developed as a search for God) and never will be. Life is both magical and good - science and faith.