Should I stay or should I go?

 I have recently finished reading Brian McLarens book, "Should I Stay Christian?" This is a really fantastic book, very unlike any other I have read in the same vein. This is a review, but also a reflection on my response to it.

There are a few reasons why this book is much better than most that attempt to address why people want to leave Christianity. Firstly, There is the deliberate order that the book is written in. He starts by saying "No", then "Yes" and finally "How" - which means that he starts by facing the real problems with the faith from the start. So many other books start by explaining how good Christianity is, before then addressing some issues.

This leaves open the very real possibility that some people will read the first part, decide that there is no point in any more, and decide to leave. Against this risk, it clears the air of the problems, because he is clearly prepared to deal with them face on.

The second reason is that he doesn't use straw men to attack - like so often. I am sure you have seen the same (Richard Dawkins has a trendancy to do this) - where they dismiss problems that they have made up, that do not actually reflect the problems that most people have. McLaren addresses real problems, fundamental to Christianity, and explains why these should be good reasons for leaving.

This leads to the third reason for his book being so good - that he is totally accepting that people may come to the conclusion that Christianity is of no value and should be abandoned. If that is where you get to, he is quite accepting of that. The reasons to stay are also very open and genuine, none of the often seen reasons like "Because it is self obviously correct" or "Because you will burn in hell if you leave".

And maybe the best part of the book is the "how" section, because this considers the reality that people who stay will probably need to adjust their relationship to the church and their faith. In many ways, this is critical, because people who stay after having seriously considered leaving will need to adjust and change their relationship. It cannot stay the same.

It was many years ago now that I abandoned the term evangelical. What is peculiar is that my beliefs and faith have nuanced and modified, but are still very much in the realm of Evangelical Christianity, but I rejected the term because most of those using it were not people I had anything in common with. The political right who are hate preachers had taken the term and I had no desire to be associated with them. This was mainly in the US, groups like Westboro Baptist Church, but many others and others in the UK that associated themselves with these ideas. So I rejected the label.

Of late in the UK, we have seen all sorts of groups using the "Christian" label and promoting ideas that I cannot associate with. Examples include Christian Concern and the Christian Legal Centre - they were roundly criticised in the Alfie Evans case. Also senior politicians like Jacob Rees-Mogg, who claims and promotes his form of Christianity, but whose actions are not ones I consider compatible with my faith.

The problem with my initial position - that they are not Christian - is not a valid position to take. This suffers from the No True Scotsman fallacy, but also I have no desire to try to define what is Christian and what isn't. It is far too much responsibility and it is not what I want to do. So I accept that the label is one I am becoming less and less comfortable with.

So here it is: it may be that those who claim the title with views that I cannot accept are right. I have no problems with them claiming that their Christianity is right. But I want nothing to do with them or that faith, so I can dismiss the title of Christian. If they are Christian, I am not.

McLaren talks about stages of faith. Simplicity;Complexity;Perplexity;Harmony. I think, especially since I joined the Quakers, I am finding myself more into the Harmony stage. The stage where there is an acceptance of things. I am not there yet, but am embracing this more and more. My understanding of faith - my faith, and what it means, and what the nature of divinity is - is changing, in flux. Maybe flux is not right - that implies that it will settle to something new, and I am not sure it will. I think it is uncertain and will remain uncertain.

But it is still what I used to consider Christian. I would still accept the creeds, even though I might not want to say them, not least because words are insufficient. But I have no wish to associate myself with those who preach and practice hate, whatever name they claim. So for now, maybe, I am a Quaker, a person of faith, a seeker of truth. The names matter less now than they did. The truth is the important thing.

Eugenics

 I have just finished reading the book Superior by Angela Saini, and heard her talk at Greenbelt, covering the same areas. It is a superb book, but also it is frightening.

What I found really interesting is that it helps to join up all sorts of related areas - starting from racism, something that we see more and more in the world.

Now I should say that that, until recently, I thought eugenics ideas had die out in the middle of last century, at or after the second world war - for reasons that are clear as I explore the meaning of eugenics. I was wrong, and that was disturbing.

Now - what is eugenics? Well, it is (simplisticly speaking) the idea that we should be breeding humans to produce the very best of humanity, in a similar way that we breed our farm animals to produce the very best. This was a result of the ideas of evolution initially produced by Darwin, and the term was created by Francis Galton, a relative of Darwin (I should point out that Darwin himself did not support the idea).

What is interesting is that, for the early part of the 20th century, these ideas were broadly acceptable and discussed openly. Selective breeding, producing humans as good as is possible, seemed like a good idea. Until, of course, Adolf Hitler adopted the idea and sought to eliminate all those who were not "good enough". Most of the movement died out after that, but no entirely.

The problem with eugenics is not actually Hitler. The problem is far deeper than that - the problem is that to pursue such a plan, you need to define what the best humans are. And this is where the problems really start.

The root of race was the division of people into what were random racial categories - all based on skin colour - I am reminded of the Sunday School song:

Jesus loves the little children
All the children of the world
Red and yellow, black and white
....

Hang on - yes that is it - the four racial groups - red (native Americans), yellow (Orientals), White (European) and black (Anyone with dark skin - African, Indian, native Australian). There are two fundamental problems with this:

Firstly, this division by skin colour is completely unscientific. In particular, the range of those who are covered under "Black" is a huge range, comprising many different skin colours and many unrelated people. There is as much difference across that range as there is between any two skin colours, speaking biologically. If you are wanting to divide people by their biological origins, skin colour is a very poor proxy - and the more we explore and discover about DNA relationships, the more we realise that there is no proxy, not way of dividing people. When it comes down to it, we are all the same, we all share the same DNA structures.

It is also the case that those in England - as an example - are almost certainly descended from people whose skin was dark. Of course, people in the UK are all immigrants from somewhere - none of us are "native" - the islands have been invaded from the North and the South, and the people here are mixtures of a range of peoples. Of many different skin colours as well - and all sorts of eye colours and hair colours and other genetic properties. We are a wild mix.

Secondly, of course, the racial groups were put into a heirarchy. Unsurpisingly, the whites were at the top - for no obvious reason, except that we were the ones making the lists. The heirarchy was mainly about "how like white Europeans are these people".

What continued to strike me was that the way we divide people is always biased. We argue about IQ tests - but these are not universal. They have to be adjusted for different cultures, and over time. an IQ score is not an eternal value (and the average for any cultural groups is, by definition, 100 - it only measures your position compared to the average). Often we talk about the scientific advances and technology that we in the west have made - ignoring the fact that these are not universal indicators of "success". Because we value these things over others - over an appreciation of nature or of community - we claim these to show that "we" are better than "them".

And so eugenics - in the various forms it crops up in neoliberal discourse - is ALWAYS a vile and disgusting concept, always a power thing, seeking to put "me" as being worthy of living and "them" as not. And the divisions that a eugenics mindset generates - races - are putely social ideas, with no actual basis in any sort of fact. We are all one race, we are all human. Those who seek to claim otherwise will have none of my time.