Mind Space

Job interview broadcast live

A guy walks into the BBC for a job interview, is ushered into a TV studio, and an interviewer asks him questions on a topic completely unrelated to his job application. And the whole thing is boadcast live!

It sounds like something from the imagination on Top Sharpe, but it happened. The video is on the BBC news website, link below.
Link: BBC NEWS | Entertainment | News 24's 'wrong Guy' is revealed.

Morgan Spurlock's 30 Days

I watched the first episode of Morgan Spurlock's short series '30 Days' last night, in which he and his girlfriend Alex lived on the minimum wage in Columbus, Ohio for 30 days. He proved that it's almost impossible to live on the wages paid for unskilled labour in America. The pair lived in a cold, ant-infested apartment, got furniture from a church charity store, ate junk food, and barely managed to cover their month's rent.

The minimum wage in America hasn't been increased for the last 9 years (I think), and Spurlock demonstrated graphically the growing inequalities between rich and poor in America, and the unwillingness of the administration to do anything other than blaming the poor for being poor in the land of opportunity.

The most significant moment for me was when Alex attacked morgan for spending $1.20 on bread. The experiment clearly put great stress on their relationship. But they could walk away after 30 days. For millions of others, the experiment never ends, and broken relationships, poor nutrition and ill health (and no healthcare) are a way of life. At times the experiment felt demeaning to those who live in these conditions, but I was grateful that Spurlock illustrated their plight so graphically, in a generally level and undogmatic manner.

The god I don’t believe in

As I threatened in a previous post, I have written an article for the Church magazine on the new series by Richard Dawkins. Here's the article;

Atheism is getting a good airing this month. Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins’ new series,
Root of all evil? has been showing on Channel 4, and on Radio 4, historian David Starkey has a series called Who killed Christianity? Both men pose some important questions for thinking Christians, and I’d like to use this letter to look at some of the things they have to say.

Starkey first. He’s an entertaining and erudite presenter, whose central theme is that Christ’s followers down the ages have altered Jesus’ message to the extent that Christianity and the church as we know them today would hardly be recognisable to our founder. The first two programmes looked at Paul, who took the gospel to the gentiles, and Emperor Constantine, who made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Amidst lively debate with Christians and academics, Starkey describes how the message was changed and damaged by these people. Now Starkey knows that good radio requires controversy, and that at times he is playing devil’s advocate for the sake of entertainment and education. Yet it seems to me that change, far from killing Christianity off, has been vital to its relevance and vitality in new situations. Jesus never gave his followers a manual for how to organise the church, nor a fully-worked out code of ethics for handling imperial roman power, let alone the world of the internet. Jesus trusted that his followers would use their creative ingenuity, guided by his own teachings, the indwelling Spirit, and the traditions of the faith, to ensure that the timeless Good News of the Kingdom would be proclaimed afresh in every age. It will be very interesting to see if Starkey recognises this in future programmes.

Richard Dawkins is a remarkable scientist and communicator of science. His writing conveys a sense of awe and beauty at the world, and at the explanative power of science. I was sad, but not surprised, that his new series is a vicious attack on faith. He visits Lourdes, and comments that the pilgrims in torchlight procession are on the slippery slope that leads to bombs in rucksacks. Interviewing a pilgrim, his style is kindly, but ridiculing as the woman explains that her pilgrimage has deepened her faith.

Though scenes such as this show Dawkins in a poor light, he says much that I agree with. He points up the poor grasp of science of an American preacher, and is treated very nastily in return. Visiting a fundamentalist convert to Islam in Jerusalem, Dawkins is told that atheists can have no morality, that 9/11 is a legitimate response to Israeli incursions against Arab territory, that Islam will one day take over the world, and that we should prepare for it by ‘fixing’ the way ‘our’ women dress. Dawkins’ interviewees present appalling views, and Dawkins wants us to be appalled. The vast majority of Moslems are moderate, prayerful, and deeply opposed to violence. Of course, Dawkins didn’t interview one of the majority, because that wouldn’t suit his argument. He fails to recognise that poverty, injustice and oppression provide the conditions in which religion becomes a vehicle for protest. His argument is akin to asking us to reject all science because some science was used in the service of Nazi eugenics, or the construction of the atom bomb.

All areas of human life can be used for evil as well as good. Dawkins rightly condemns faith that is violent, bigoted, or closed to alternative views. But babies and bathwater spring to mind. The god he rails against isn’t the God I believe in.

Whilst Starkey presents an informative, thoughtful debate, the vitriolic plausibility of Dawkins will probably sway many viewers who have never thought about the issues before. Atheists deserve the same respect and attentiveness that we afford to people of any faith. But when they engage in arguments such as these, we need to respond.

So watch the programmes if you get the chance! Talk to your friends about them, and don’t let Dawkins’ views be accepted uncritically. Instead, let’s remind ourselves, and others, that God leads us to seek peace, reject violence, and listen attentively to people of other faiths, to science, and to the Bible.