The NHS, a case of bad theology?

"The NHS is the closest thing the English have to a religion"

(Nigel Lawson) 

The other week the wife and I headed to the Land of My Fathers to watch Wales v Italy at the Principality Stadium. It seemed obvious that Wales would win that game of rugby, but Italy didn't read the script. They snatched victory with a brilliant try in the closing minutes of the match. Before the game we went for a wander around Cardiff city centre. At the Cardiff Castle end of Queen Street stands a statue of Nye Bevan, the Labour heath secretary who set up the National Health Service in 1948. If Lawson was right, the religion of the English was founded by a Welshman. 

I was reminded of the words of Mrs Thatcher's Chancellor on reading a column by Matthew Syed (@matthewsyed) in The Sunday Times, We must challenge our leaders when they lazily deify the NHS. In the article the author reflected on the Ockenden report into failings at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust. The report detailed 1,592 incidents of poor care between 2000 and 2019. At least 201 babies and nine mothers might have survived if they had been given better medical treatment. 

Syed argued, "the problem within the NHS is not institutional but theological. In short, we have deified this organisation for so long that it is no longer amenable to rational reform." Because the NHS has been accorded almost divine status. its actions are deemed almost beyond criticism. Those who do complain about poor practice are all too often shunned rather than listened to so that lessons might be learned. Syed's prescription was to target the 'theology' of NHS-worship, "its time to secularise the NHS". If the problem with the NHS is one of bad theology, however, the solution is not no theology, but good theology. 

Porcelain gods

Last Friday we went to see Paul Weller in concert at the Guildhall in Portsmouth. One of the songs he performed was Porcelain Gods from the album Stanley Road. Weller knew what it was to be a 'pop idol'. His band, The Jam often topped the charts in the late 1970s and early 80s and attracted a loyal following of young mods. Weller blindsided fans, not to mention fellow band members Bruce Foxton and Rick Buckler by splitting The Jam in 1982. He went on to form the highly successful  Style Council, but by 1989 his creative juices seemed to have run out.  His record label rejected his latest offering and the Style Council were no more. Weller was the rock god who fell to earth, not knowing whether he could resurrect his career and start again. That is the background to Porcelain Gods. Weller sang,

How disappointed I was
To turn out after all
Just a porcelain God
That shatters when it falls

The song is a recognition that the singer was all too human and breakable, a 'porcelain god'. Any worship offered to Weller the pop idol is therefore misplaced. And so it is with any human individual or institution. Those who 'clapped for carers' during the pandemic might be excused for feeling similarly disillusioned when they read the shocking findings of the Ockenden report. For all the undoubted good it does, the NHS is not a fitting object of worship and should not be treated as such. There is only one who is worthy of worship, that is God our Creator. He is perfect in his being and flawless in his ways. That is true of no one else, not even the NHS. Criticism of the health service is not sacrilege. It is the necessary prelude to much-needed reform.  

Good pessimism 

Another theological problem highlighted by Syed is a kind of Pelagian attitude that shapes how the NHS views itself. Healing the sick is a definite good, but that does not mean everyone involved in the world of medicine is morally perfect, or that every aspect of the NHS deserves to be championed as 'world class', when clearly it is not. Witness the damning Ockenden report. The fact is that NHS managers and medical practitioners are not exempt from the effects of 'original sin'. We are all morally flawed. Donning a stethoscope is no cure for that. 

Syed thinks that secularism is the answer, but one of the most distasteful things about Christianity according to 'Enlightenment' thinkers was the very idea of 'original sin'. David Hume and others rejected the Bible's pessimistic view of human nature. They believed that human beings were capable of discovering the truth by reason alone and on that basis decide for ourselves what is right and wrong. It was a kind of secularised Pelagianism. Pelagius taught that it was possible for human beings to achieve moral perfection by their own efforts. Augustine of Hippo argued strenuously against Pelagius. According to Augustine, his views constituted a denial of the seriousness of sin and the need of salvation by the grace of God. 

Augustine-style pessimism about human nature is both realistic and healthy. It protects us from thinking our own actions are always beyond criticism and that it is only others who are capable of doing wrong. As Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, "The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either – but right through every human heart." Given that is the case, robust systems of oversight and accountability need to be put in place as a safeguard against wrongdoing. The institutional Pelagianism of the NHS militates against that, which is why whistle-blowers are often ostracised and patient concerns are all too frequently ignored. According to the Ockenden report, “There was a tendency of the trust to blame mothers for their poor outcomes, in some cases even for their own deaths.” Tragic.  

Secularise the NHS?

Secularising the NHS won't necessarily help matters. But good theology may be of some service in  pointing us to the one true and living God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. He is no 'porcelain god' who cannot bear the weight of our worship. Theology also bears witness to the unique worth and value of human life, created in the image of God. That is why the sick should be cared for, rather than discarded. The 'Golden Rule' laid down by Jesus is the foundation of medical ethics. We should care for others as we would like to be cared for, “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them" (Matthew 7:12). But regarding NHS staff as 'Angels' who are incapable of getting things badly wrong is a denial of reality. Strong Augustinian antibodies are needed to destroy the virus of institutional Pelagianism.  

Letter to Robert Jenrick objecting to Westbury Waste Incinerator Plant

The Rt. Hon Robert Jenrick MP
Secretary of State
Ministry for Housing, Communities & Local Government
2 Marsham Street,
London
SW1P 4DF

 Dear The Rt. Hon Robert Jenrick MP,

We are writing to object to the granting of planning approval for the Waste Incinerator plant at Northacre Industrial Estate, Westbury by the Strategic Planning Panel of Wiltshire Council in June 2021. This was despite over 2000 objections made by local residents, as well as opposition from Westbury Town Council and seventeen other neighbouring town and parish councils.

Many people living in the Westbury already suffer with chronic health problems. Cancer and lung condition deaths are higher here than across Wiltshire. Poor air quality has been exacerbated by HGVs being diverted from Bath onto the A350 through Westbury.

The incinerator would mean an estimated additional 20,000 truck journeys a year around the town. Smoke belching from the incinerator chimney would make the situation even worse, further damaging the health of Westbury residents.

Arla Foods (Westbury) Ltd are so concerned about the impact of the plant on air quality that they have threatened to close their dairy if the waste incinerator is allowed to go ahead, resulting in the loss of at least 250 jobs.

The incinerator will increase CO2 emissions, flying in the face of the government’s Climate Emergency Commitments. The children and young people of the town deserve better than to have their lives blighted by growing up in the shadow of this environmentally disastrous development.

I understand our local MP The Rt. Hon Dr Andrew Murrison has written to you asking that you ‘call in’ the decision of the Strategic Planning Panel for review. In the light of overwhelming local objections, I would ask that you overturn planning approval for siting a waste incinerator plant in Westbury, where it is certainly not wanted.  

Yours sincerely..... 

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, by Carl R. Trueman

The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self: 

Cultural Amnesia, Expressive Individualism and the Road to Sexual Revolution,

by Carl R. Trueman, Crossway, 2020. 434pp, Kindle edition 

The other week Housing Secretary Robert Jenrick was interviewed on Times Radio. It's the job of journalists to put government Ministers on the spot by asking them tricky questions. But the nature of what constitutes a 'tricky question' changes. In this case Jenrick was quizzed on whether he agreed with his colleague, Liz Truss, the International Trade Secretary that you need to have a vagina to be a woman (see here). The Housing Secretary replied, 'I think there's a matter of biology, of course, what is a woman. I mean absolutely, I agree with Liz Truss. That's the point that she's made in the past.' Given the constraints of collective responsibility, how could Jenrick say otherwise? He knew, however, that a trap was being set and not wanting to offend the perpetually offended trans lobby, the minister qualified his words saying, 'Undoubtedly, of course we want to ensure that those people who are trans can live their life comfortably. I want everyone to be able to live their life the way they want to and be happy and to find love wherever they can do.' 

Expressive individualism 

You may be wondering how on earth we got ourselves into a position where journalists put government ministers through their paces by asking them whether women have vaginas. Since when did the basic facts of biology become a matter of political debate? Charles Taylor speaks of the 'social imaginary', a set of underlying assumptions that make beliefs plausible at any given time. In a less secular age faith in God was part of the 'social imaginary'. While a minority may have dissented, most people assumed the existence of a divine being and lived their lives accordingly. Now, not so much. These days the 'social imaginary' is limited to the immanent frame, haunted only on occasion by the sense of a transcendent realm. Similarly, the idea that a man can become a woman and just as much a woman as someone who was born female would have been regarded as nonsense until relatively recently. But now it is part of the 'social imaginary' and to dissent from that view is to attract accusations of 'transphobia', which Robert Jenrick for one was so keen to avoid. 

In this book Carl Trueman sets out how the 'social imaginary' of the Western world lent itself to the belief that a man can become a woman, or vice versa. Transgender ideology didn't emerge from nowhere. The writer traces its roots back to the 18th-century Romantic movement. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was the father of Romanticism. He held that people are born free and innocent, but are corrupted by society which imposes its oppressive values on the individual in order to force to them into conformity with accepted standards of behaviour. English Romantic poet Percy Bysshe Shelley agreed. He wanted to break free from from societal norms that were based on monogamous marriage so he could practice sexual self-expression. That was the only authentic way to live, free from outward constraints. The Romantics expected society to uphold basic moral values for the good of everyone concerned, but the emphasis was on the psychological fulfillment of the individual. 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson might call it 'cakeism', a case of  'having one's cake and eating it'. The Romantics granted the benefits of Christian ethics for society as a whole, but reserved the right to transgress the elements that hindered their self-expression. Friedrich Nietzsche saw things more clearly. If God was pronounced dead, then faith-based values ceased to have any validity. Heroic self-invention is the only way forwards. Add Karl Marx and Charles Darwin to the mix and all sense that human beings are distinct creatures with a nature bestowed upon them by God is lost. We are plastic people in a fluid world. 

Then along came Sigmund Freud to sex things up a bit. He basically thought that everything is about sex. Society enforces the suppression of the sex drive of the individual by insisting that desire is channelled through monogamous marriage. That may not necessarily be a bad thing, but if marriage is simply a social construct, people are free to deviate from its constraints if they wish. Freud had no time for belief in God, rendering marriage as a 'divine ordinance' meaningless. Taking their cue from Freud, Marxist thinkers such as Herbert Marcuse began to see patterns of oppression more in psychological than economic terms. People with sexual proclivities that deviated from the norms of society weren't so much 'depraved deviants' as victims of heteronormative oppression. 

The Romantics taught the primacy of psychological self-expression over and against the norms of society. Freud emphasised the primacy of the sexual in the realm of psychology. Marx argued that rather than being a fixed entity, human nature is shaped by the economic tides of history. Industrialisation had a profound effect on how society viewed the role of women. The rise of the machines meant that women as well as men could be employed in factories, eroding traditional gender-based distinctions. Modern medicine has made further erosion possible. Men may be given female sex hormones. They may submit to sex change surgery so that the body of a natal male is refashioned to resemble that of a woman. (DNA and internal reproductive organs aside). Expressive individualism demands that if a man feels he is really a woman, but trapped in the wrong body, his psychology trumps his biology and his gender identity must be validated by society. 'Trans women are women', get over it. 

That's what you get when the 'social imaginary' is the product of expressive individualism. Robert Jenrick's nod towards trans ideology cited earlier is a perfect case in point, 'of course we want to ensure that those people who are trans can live their life comfortably. I want everyone to be able to live their life the way they want to and be happy and to find love wherever they can do.' In this context the idea that sex is immutably rooted in biology and that biology should have something to say about sexual expression is regarded as oppressive. 

Tensions 

And so it is that in England the LGBT pressure group 'Educate & Celebrate' seeks access to schools so it can advance its mission to 'smash heteronormativity' (see here). Children are taught they can choose whether to be a boy or a girl, based on how they feel inside. Expressive individualism for kids. But there are pushbacks, especially from feminist groups whose whole outlook is based on women being oppressed by a patriarchal society on the basis of sex differences. Feminists resent the downgrading of their biological reality by men who demand to be recognised as women. They are also outraged that biologically intact males who identify as female are given access women's toilets, prisons and refuges. Parents are alarmed when it becomes apparent that their children have been exposed to the kind of trans propaganda promoted by groups such as 'Educate & Celebrate'. Even that bastion of 'muscular liberalism', Ofsted is now concerned about the influence of lobby groups on sex education in schools (see here). 

Adding the 'T' to the LGB lobby has also resulted in tensions. The gay lobby traditionally fought for rights on the basis that people don't choose to be gay or lesbian. Sexual identity, they claimed, is fixed and society should't regard same-sex attracted people as deviants who should be made to conform heterosexual norms. Trans ideology promotes the idea that sexual identity is not fixed, but fluid. If they wish, people should be able to identify as a gender that is different to their birth sex. 'Trans women are women' and woe betide anyone who says otherwise. But lesbian sexuality is based on attraction to people of the same sex, not male-bodied people who identify as women. The LGBT lobby group Stonewall is being dropped by government departments because of its attempts to silence gender critical voices and the misleading advice it gives on the Equality Act with regard to female-only spaces etc. (see here). 

True identity 

In an Unscientific Postscript Trueman looks at how things may pan out in Western culture, captured as it has been by expressive individualism. With the trans lobby labelling gender critical feminists as a bunch of no good 'TERFs' (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists), intersectionality isn't exactly providing a recipe for a more harmonious society. Free speech and with it freedom of religion is likely to come off worst when Christians voice their opposition to the LGBT agenda. After all, the 'heteronormativity' represented by traditional Christians is part of the problem and we can't have people voicing opinions that would disturb the phycological wellbeing of others. But we must stand firm and not allow the world to press us into its mould. Contra expressive individualism, people are not free to create their own identity. Human identity is a given thing, rooted in our being made in the image of God as male and female. Marriage can't simply be redefined so as to ignore that reality. The identity of the believer is not located in their sexuality, or gender identity, but in Christ. Our task is to preach him and all things in relation to him, Colossians 1:28-29. 

Herman Bavinck, a prophet of the secular age

I'm enjoying reading Bavinck: A Critical Biography by James Eglinton. It is a very fine piece of work. A far superior account of the theologian's life than Ron Gleason's effort. A key theme in the biography is Bavinck's attempt to remain faithful to his Seceder roots, while accommodating himself to the challenges of the modern world. 

In the early phase of his career Bavinck had championed Calvinism over and against other forms of Christian expression. He assumed that Calvinism would prevail, for it was an essential aspect of the Dutch national character. Things had changed by the the early 1900s. Bavinck now shifted his attention to defending Christianity more broadly against the onslaughts of outright unbelief. The age of Nietzsche in which 'God is dead' called for a different kind of apologetic. 

During Bavinck's lifetime Dutch society had become less distinctively Calvinistic and then less Christian altogether. A new God-free era beckoned. In an address to the Free University, Amsterdam, where Bavinck taught theology entitled Learnedness and Science, he foresaw the dawning of the secular age in which we live. 

If God falls, everything  falls - truth, science, art, nature and history, the state, society, and the family. if there is no God. there is also no idea, no more thought in which things can rest and by which they are knowable.... Everything that we receive from the past is old and outmoded, not only in religion and Christianity, but also morality and art, all the wisdom and civilisation of antiquity. Everything must be reformulated on the basis of modern culture: school and science, marriage and the family, state and society, religion and morality. There is no shortage of reformers [in our day]. (Bavinck, Eglinton, p. 236) 

Is not that a prescient description of our own times? When Christians in the UK campaigned against the redefinition of marriage, arguments based on the Bible or 1000's of years of tradition were swept aside as 'old hat'. Modern society was moving in only one direction and opponents of same-sex marriage were on the 'wrong side of history'. In Bavinck's day, whether women should get the vote was a matter of discussion. Now the very idea of what constitutes a woman is at the centre of the controversy raging around 'trans rights'. Mothers and Fathers are being relabelled, 'gestational parent' and 'non-birthing parent'. Bavinck was right. If God falls, even the basic facts of human biology have no secure place to rest. There is no shortage of 'reformers' in our day too. 

Email sent to our MP on lockdown and the closure of places of worship

Dear Dr. Murrison,

Thanks for taking the time to interact with Westbury church leaders the other week. You may recall that I asked for your views on the possibility of another national lockdown and whether it was the government’s intention for churches to stay open over the autumn and winter period.

You said that you supported the three tier regional approach, where restrictions were commensurate with infection rates. We agreed that as Covid cases in the South West of England and elsewhere in the country were relatively low, a complete national lockdown was not merited and would have significant negative effects. Until Saturday evening that was also the policy advocated by government ministers.

The slides shown in Saturday evening’s press conference only served to confirm the regional disparity of Covid infection rates. According to figures quoted on the BBC News website Wiltshire had 98 cases per 100,000 in 21-27 October, compared with Manchester with 483 per 100,000. An England-wide lockdown from 5 November to 2 December will have a dire effect on the UK’s faltering economy, people’s mental health and non-Covid health needs.

In my opinion government should have persevered with a proportionate regional approach to combatting coronavirus.  Additional measures could have been imposed in areas where Tier 3 restrictions had not succeeded in bringing infections down, with extra financial support being given to affected areas.

Will you therefore consider voting against a second national lockdown when measures are discussed in Parliament this week?

The vast majority of places of worship have complied with the government’s Covid secure guidance since reopening in the summer. As far as I am aware no church in the UK has been identified as the source of a coronavirus outbreak. It makes little sense that the government has ordered the closure of places of worship for all but private prayer for the duration of the second lockdown period should one be imposed. 

Gathering for worship is an important aspect of the Christian faith. Online meetings are no substitute for in person meetings. At a time when many are anxious and fearful people the church has a message of comfort and hope through the death and resurrection of Jesus. Not everyone has access to the internet, so it is vital to the church’s mission that the doors of our places of worship remain open.

Will you consider supporting any move to amend the government’s lockdown legislation that will prevent the forced closure of church gatherings and other religious meetings?

Young people are least at risk from Covid-19, yet their life prospects have been disproportionately damaged by the pandemic, with school closures, lockdowns in University halls of residence and high rates of unemployment. Will you please seek to ensure that the government makes good on its promise to keep schools and universities open, and that more is done to improve the job prospects of the up and coming generation.

Thanks for all you do on behalf of your constituents. May the Lord guide the government and MPs as these matters are debated and voted upon in Parliament this week.

 Best wishes,

 Guy Davies 

Race, Identity and Grace

England Rugby fans may be banned from singing Swing Low Sweet Chariot. It has slavery connotations, apparently. Which it does. But not in a Edward Colston kind of way. According to anti-racism campaigner, Trevor Phillips, the song was composed by a freed slave just after the American civil war. The ‘Sweet Chariot’ was the Underground Railway, a network of secret routes that helped runaway slaves escape to freedom. Swing Low was a favourite of Louis Armstrong and Martin Luther King. As well as celebrating the Underground Railway, the song was probably an allusion to a dramatic episode in the Bible, when chariots of fire appeared and the prophet Elijah was swept up to heaven in a whirlwind.  

You’d have thought the English rugby authorities would be pleased that fans had adopted an anti-slavery anthem as their song, but no. Writing in The Times (19 June), Phillips argued that an obsession with symbols has overtaken a desire to change the world. Toppling statues and banning songs won’t deal with the issue of racial equality. But such gestures may help us to feel better about ourselves.

Is it just attention deflecting 'whataboutery' to ask why aren't people taking to the streets to protest against modern slavery, rather than vandalising public iconography? The killing of George Floyd was an outrage, but in recent weeks scores of Christian villagers were slaughtered at the hands of Boko Haram in North East Nigeria. See this Open Doors report. You won't hear a lot about that in the media. Christians don't tend to rank very highly when it comes to oppressed victimhood status. 

Welcome to the increasingly febrile world of identity politics. Martin Luther King famously dreamed of a day when people would be judged not on the colour of their skin, but the content of their character. With identity politics, race itself is politicised. The effect is to further divide, rather than bring healing and reconciliation. The hip hop artist Kayne West was denounced as ‘not black’ because of his support for the Republican Party. Closer to home Labour MPs wrote to Home Secretary Priti Patel, questioning her authority to speak out on racism, here. The Black Lives Matter movement has Marxist sympathies. 

Why am I wading in on the subject of an England rugby song? You wouldn’t catch me singing it, anyway. I’m Welsh and can happily sing, Bread of Heaven, knowing that it’s author, William Williams Pantycelyn (1717-1791) wasn’t tainted by slavery in any way. Williams was caught up in the Evangelical Revival that swept across the United Kingdom in the Eighteenth Century. He was a physician turned preacher and a prolific hymn writer. Many of the leading campaigners against the slave trade were Evangelicals such as John Newton and William Wilberforce. 

Their argument against the vile trade was based on the Bible. The Bible teaches that all human beings are made in the image of God, whatever the colour of the skin. There is only one race, the human race. Scripture teaches that we should love our neighbour as ourselves. Jesus was crucified, enduring the death of a common slave to save the world from sin. In the church, a person’s primary identity is in Christ, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28)

In the light of those beliefs slavery had to go. The icon of the anti-slavery movement was a black man in chains with the caption, "Am I not a man and a brother?" In the light of those same beliefs discrimination on the basis of skin colour has to go. But virtue signalling identity politics isn't the answer. Identity politics tends to be quick to denounce and tear down, but knows little of grace or forgiveness. The Christian faith offers hope to a broken and divided world. The preacher John Newton was once a captain of a slave ship. Later in life he bitterly regretted his involvement in the trade and worked with Wilberforce to campaign against it. Today’s ‘cancel culture’ would show him no mercy, but in advanced old age Newton could say this, 'Although my memory's fading, I remember two things very clearly: I am a great sinner and Christ is a great Saviour.' 

Plague Journal: Week 1

The week began as weeks always used to. On the first day of the week Providence Baptist Church gathered to worship God. Even then, there was a sense of foreboding. After the service we discussed whether our Holiday Bible should go ahead during the Easter break, given the developing coronavirus crisis. We opted to wait and see what additional measures were announced by the government before making a final decision. It seemed our our plans were no more written in concrete, but sand. And the tide was coming in. (James 4:13-15). 

On Sunday mornings I've been preaching through the Book of Jeremiah. The chapters are quite long, so I've tended to focus on the overall theme of a chapter, or pick out a key verse. Reading Jeremiah 6 to the congregation I was struck with how applicable it was to our current panicky situation, with the prophet's talk of an enemy at the gates and 'terror on every side'. The Word Health Organisation has described coronavirus as 'an enemy against humanity'. I preached on Jeremiah 6:14. See here for recordings of the Jeremiah series. The one on Jeremiah 6 should be added soon. 

At the conclusion of the service we gathered around the Lord's Table to eat bread and drink wine in remembrance of Jesus. I didn't say anything at the time, but as we partook of the Supper together, I wondered whether this might be the last occasion we would be able to enjoy Communion together for some while. I used the doxology found in Hebrews 13:20-21 to bring the service to a close. 'Now may the God of peace...equip you with everything good to do his will'. We certainly need God's help as we seek to find new ways of maintaining fellowship when we can't meet and serving our community when our regular activities are at a standstill. 

On Sunday afternoon we had a 'Bake Through the Bible' activity meeting, which was well attended by a number of families with younger children. A clear gospel message was given on the Philippian jailer's question, 'What must I do to be saved?' Future BTTB meetings have been cancelled until further notice. 

As no school closures had yet been announced, our Bright Sparks parent and toddler group ran as usual Monday morning. I normally give a number of helpers a lift there, my wife included. But  I was otherwise engaged, giving a talk on Thomas Goodwin's A Child of Light Walking in Darkness to a Ministers' Fraternal in Honiton, Devon. All the chatter over coffee on arrival and at lunch afterwards concerned the possible impact of  coronavirus on our churches. 

Every third Sunday we take in donations for the local foodbank . On my way home from the fraternal I popped into the Chapel to pick up the stuff our people had provided and took it to Crosspoint. As usual, it was a big tub full, plus several large bags of food and  other essential things. Supplies were already running low and the centre is run mostly by over 70's, who have now been told to keep away from public places. Shops are running out of foodbank staples like pasta and tinned foods. I hope vulnerable people aren't left to go hungry as foodbank stocks are depleted. We need to keep giving if we can. I've encouraged our people to use a 'Love Your Neighbour' flyer (see here) as a way of offering practical help to self-isolating neighbours. 

Later in the afternoon the Prime Minister made his announcement on added social distancing measures to combat COVID 19. People were advised to avoid all pubs, cinemas, theaters and other public gatherings. Church meetings weren't mentioned explicitly,  but the strong implication was that they should stop. Health Secretary Matt Hancock later confirmed this in answer to a question in the House. The FIEC has produced this helpful guidance for churches. 

Church members at Providence and Ebeneezer were informed that all our meetings and activities had been suspended. What now? I thought I'd have a go at livestreaming some Bible ministry and found that could be done via the church's Facebook page. Scroll down to see an introductory video posted on Tuesday and something I did in lieu of our usual Wednesday evening Bible Study/Prayer meeting. Comments have varied from 'helpful message', 'encouraging message', to 'tidy up your study'. 

For as long as we can't meet I plan to livestream via FB at 10.30am & 6.00pm on a Sunday and at 7.30pm on a Wednesday. The videos will then be posted for people to view later. So far the two talks have attracted 363 and 216 views a piece, which is certainly reaching more people than would gather in our meetings. I'm toying with doing 3 talks for children in place of our Holiday Bible Club (was due to take place 7-9 April). I'll have to set up our digital projector in our living room and somehow film the PPT talks with my phone. We'll see. For church members who have it, Skype might also be a way of facilitating talking and praying together. 

Meanwhile, I've been updating the church contact list to help people stay in touch by phone. I'm in the process of buddying up members who can get out and about with those who can't to make sure everyone who is self-isolating gets a regular phone call to make sure they're OK. Sarah (my wife) and I will also try and ring people on a regular basis. John Benton of the Pastors' Academy has posted a very useful blog on Pastoring people you can't see in response to the coronavirus outbreak.  

Like most places, the supermarkets around here are quickly running out of essentials like toilet paper and handwash. We couldn't get any fresh meat in our local Lidl yesterday. But the High Street butcher had plenty, so we managed to get a free range chicken for our Sunday roast. Everything seems up in the air at the moment, but this is the United Kingdom and some things must go on as normal. Sunday roasts is one of them. 

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, Review Part 2

Audible edition 

In Part 1 we looked at what Murray has to say on 'Gay' and 'Women'. Now we come to Race, Trans and some concluding thoughts.

Race 

Martin Luther King looked forward to the time when people would be judged on the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin. In many ways the preacher's vision has been realised. The civil rights for which King agitated have been granted. Racial discrimination is outlawed. Racism is despised by most people in society. A person's moral charterer is the thing, not their skin colour. Perversely, woke identity politics is in danger of turning King's dictum on its head. Kayne West was denounced as 'not black' when he came out in support of Donald Trump. You see, black isn't just pigment, it's politics. Left wing politics, that is. 

Anti-racist campaigners tweet about how they hate white people and call for an end of 'white privilege'. Derogatory epithets such as 'Gammon' can be thrown at whites and they just have to suck it up. Meanwhile, should a white person inadvertently use the wrong ethnic minority label, they immediately find themselves accused of racism. In a radio interview the actor Bennedict Cumberbatch said it was a pity that 'coloured people' from Britian had to head to the States to find suitable acting roles. Cue massive outrage from the Twitter mob and a grovelling apology from Cumberbatch. 'People of colour', OK. 'Coloured people', not OK. And he was speaking in support of black and Asian actors.

Woke anti-racism has become toxic on American University campuses. Evergreen State University used to have a day when students of colour could absent themselves so their presence would be missed and valued contribution to the learning community underlined. Then the rule changed to say that white people were not welcome to attend their studies for a day. Professor of Evolutionary Biology Bret Weinstein objected to this. Students went on the rampage, outraged at the academic's 'racism'. When the President of the University tried to reason with students, they insisted that he did not raise his hands when speaking, which they took to be a 'mirco-agression', even as they mobbed him and swore at him. In the aftermath Weinstein and his wife were forced out of their jobs. 

The trouble is, as Murray points out, 'We all live on campus now'. Some insist that objectivity is a product of the white man's Enlightenment. 'We Don't need no facts', they say, 'truth is racist.' After all, identity politics lets people choose to be whatever they want, irrespective of the facts. If a person can choose to be of a different gender to their birth sex, why can't someone opt to be of a different race? Anti-racism campaigner Rachel Dolzeal identified as a black woman, despite having white parents and no African heritage. Who are we to disagree? Rapper Kayne West isn't black, but right-on Rachel is. Even race is now a matter of 'software' rather than 'hardware'. 

Black actors can play Henry V to great acclaim. Fair enough. But when a non-Latina actress was cast to play Maria in a production of West Side Story, such was the outrage she had to withdraw from the role. It seems our culture wants to be both colour blind and colour obsessed. How's that supposed to work? Wearing fancy dress can lead to death threats for the 'crime' of cultural appropriation. Jamie Oliver fell foul of the woke brigade with his Jamacan jerk rice recipe. 'Not OK.' But men 'appropriating' womanhood and insisting on using female-only spaces is perfectly fine and good. 

The great irony is that anti-racism has itself become racist. People are no longer judged on the basis of their character as in the sight of God, but on the grounds of their outward appearance in the eyes of men. White is bad, black is good. The Christian faith provides a welcome antidote to racism by insisting that all people are made in the image of God, all people are morally broken sinners, and that Christ came to redeem all peoples, Colossians 3:11, Revelation 7:9-10. 

Trans 

Finally Douglas Murray turns his attention to the most touchy and controversial subject of all, trans. The issue here does not concern people who were born 'intersex', with both male and female genitalia. Trans advocates have little time for that. They expend their energy insisting that people may be born in the wrong body and that it is possible to put that right with hormone treatment and surgery. Anyone, even a child, who thinks that they may have been born in the wrong body must be affirmed as such and set on a pathway that will ultimately lead to lifelong dependence on medication and painful surgery. It is said that to question this assumption is to run the risk that a person suffering from gender dysphoria will take their own lives. Attempts at discovering the underlying cause of a person's gender dysphoria are discouraged, as akin to gay conversion therapy.

Referrals to the UK's only Gender Identity Development Service have skyrocketed in the last decade. Trans advocates argue that children with gender dysphoria should be placed on puberty blockers as a matter of course in preparation for hormone treatment and surgery. Although it is the case that 90% of children with gender dysphoria reconcile themselves to their birth sex if they are allowed to progress through puberty. Adults with gender identity issues are only pointed in one direction, towards changing sex.

Murray thinks this may be appropriate in some cases as with the writer James Morris who, following sex change surgery become Jan Morris. But in other cases, people who have 'changed sex' go on to regret their decision and attempt to revert to their birth sex. As the writer reflects, human beings are not made of Lego and the effects of hormone treatment and radical surgery cannot easily be undone. Undone at all if a woman has had her breasts removed, or a man his penis. Murray mentions the case of a man who was given female hormone treatment and then had second thoughts. After two years the treatment could have left him infertile. He stopped before the deadline only after researching his condition online. The hormones affected the man's emotional state and even after ceasing treatment he was left with breast tissue that may require surgery to remove.

People with gender dysphoria may have deep seated psychological problems that changing sex does little to address. Suicide rates among trans people do not necessarily decrease once they have transitioned. In 2013 Nathan Verhelst was voluntarily euthanised in Belgium. She was born a girl with the name Nancy. As an adult Verhelst submitted to three operations in an attempt to change sex. Belonging to a family with three older brothers, Nancy felt rejected by her parents, who, it seems, wanted yet another son. After looking at herself in the mirror post-surgery, Verhelst felt aversion for her new body. Changing sex only worsened Verhelst's physiological state and so she applied to be put to death in a Brussels hospital. Chilling.

Yet this kind of tragic event has not given advocates of trans ideology pause for thought. School children are being taught that it is possible for girls to become boys and visa versa. Boys are informed that they can have periods too, not just girls. Bewildered children are told they can choose from up to 100 gender identity options. Tomboyish girls question whether they are 'really' boys. Boys who do not conform to boyish stereotypes ask whether they are 'really' girls.  Trans groups like Mermaids actively encourage the worst kind of gender stereotyping. Meanwhile parents stage protests at school gates over LGBT education. 

Here we encounter intersectional thinking at its most extreme. It seems that trans trumps both gay and women on the scale of oppressed victimhood. Some people with gender dysphoria issues are same sex attracted. In their case being encouraged to change sex could be seen as form of conversion therapy which aims at altering their bodies, rather than their minds. Feminists are outraged that men who identify as women are given access to female only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. 'Trans women' have begun to dominate some female sports. The gay rights group, Stonewall has split over the tans issue. Some ex-members have set up the LGB Alliance which disagrees with Stonewall's uncritical championing of trans ideology. 

As Suzanne Moore, Julie Bindell and even Germane Greer have found, suggesting men can't become women simply on their say so is to attract accusations of 'transphobia'. TERFs 'Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists' the lot of them. Even insisting on the dictionary definition of woman is to court controversy. Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull paid for an advertising billboard to be erected carrying the words, "woman, wʊmən, noun, adult human female". The message was denounced as 'dangerous' and, inevitably, 'transphobic'. After all, 'transwomen are women' too. It seems that George Orwell was right when he said, 'In an age of universal deceit to tell the truth is a revolutionary act.' 

Being either a man or a woman is a matter of unalterable biological hardware. God made his human image-bearers male and female and blessed their union with reproductive ability (Genesis 1:27). Denial of the reality of biological sex is unscientific and intellectually dishonest. Our sex is written into every cell in the body. Altering someone's outward bodily appearance so that they resemble the opposite sex does not turn them into the opposite sex. Some want to have it both ways. In a recent case a 'transman' who gave birth took legal action to be identified as the child's father on their birth certificate. Thankfully, the courts insisted that giving birth is for mothers. 

It would be far better if poor souls suffering from gender dysphoria were helped to reconcile their minds with their bodies, rather than the other way around. At the very least this issue calls for careful thought and a cautious approach, rather than rushing people in the direction of irreversible medical intervention. A growing number of distraught 'detransitioners' would agree. 

Interludes 

Murray slots three interludes between the main chapters of the book. In The Marxist Foundations he highlights the link between Marxism and identity politics. Marxists used to rate victimhood on the basis of class, the rich oppressing the poor. Marx-inspired identity politics adds sexuality, sex, race and trans to the mix. Intersectionality establishes a hierarchy of victimhood with the aim of overthrowing oppressive structures. Down with heteronormativity/the patriarchy/white privilege, etc. Once oppressive structures have been torn down, a more equal and harmonious society will follow. That's the theory anyway. In practice identity politics thrives on division and fostering grievances. Witness the white hating racism of anti-racist campaigners and gender ideologues tearing into feminists (sometimes all too literally). 

Social media doesn't help matters. In The Impact of Tech the author reflects on the ways in which social media is changing society. The space between private conversation between trusted friends and public discourse is being eroded. Our thoughts are shared directly with the world via Facebook and Twitter. Should society's rapidly changing mores shift, a person may find themselves on 'wrong side of history'. Social media has spawned 'offence archaeology'. Words hastily posted years ago can, once discovered, be used to  condemn someone without mercy. In the resulting Twitter pile on, insistent calls are made that the poster be sacked from their job, or hounded out of public life. Especially if the offending person is known to have conservative views. What happened to Toby Young is a case in point. No allowance is made for the fact that the person in question's objectionable views may have changed over time, or that they might be entitled to their opinion. The woke accuse, but never acquit. Former US President Barack Obama recently warned young people against, 'call out culture'. No one is pure, he cautioned. Virtue signalling on social media is no substitute for doing good in the world.  

The final interlude On Forgiveness points to a better way of handling the fact that we live in a fallen world in which people often get things wrong. The self-righteous victim mentality of identity politics allows for no offence to be forgiven, or forgotten. As Murray points out, with the demise of the Christian faith, 'we have created a world in which forgiveness has become almost impossible'. He continues,

The consensus for centuries was that only God could forgive the ultimate sins.  But on a day-to-day level the Christian tradition, among others, also stressed the desirability – if not the necessity – of forgiveness. Even to the point of infinite forgiveness. As one of the consequences of the death of God, Fredrich Nietzche foresaw that people could find themselves stuck in cycles of Christian theology with no way out, Specifically that people would inherit the concepts of guilt, sin and shame but would be without the means of redemption which the Christian religion offered. 

The vengeful god of woke religion shows no grace and offers no pardon. But there is a way out. The Christian faith offers a vision of humanity in which all people are created equal in the image of God. All should therefore be treated with dignity and respect. But we are broken creatures. All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Each of us needs forgiveness from God and others. Infinite forgiveness is available because Jesus died for our sins. The Apostle Paul could write, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace" (Ephesians 1:7). The forgiven must forgive, "Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you." (Ephesians 4:32). 

Douglas Murray has expertly exposed the madness of identity politics. His account is well-researched and brilliantly written. The author's approach in taking on the 'hot button ' issues of Gay, Women, Race and Trans is refreshingly courageous and compassionate. The Madness of Crowds is a timely warning to a society that is breaking loose from its Christian moorings and hurtling towards a post-truth world of competing victimhood. A world in which God is dead and forgiveness impossible. There is an alternative:

Seek the Lord while he may be found;

   call upon him while he is near;

 let the wicked forsake his way,

    and the unrighteous man his thoughts;

let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him,

    and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.

(Isaiah 55:6-7)

The Madness of Crowds: Gender, Race and Identity by Douglas Murray, Review Part 1

Audible edition

In his previous title, The StrangeDeath of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam, the author linked the immigration crisis with the decline of Christianity in Western Europe. The continent was Christian enough to be fueled by a guilt-driven sense of responsibility towards the afflicted, yet not quite Christian enough to believe in the possibility of forgiveness for past wrongs. The large scale rejection of Christianity in Western Europe led to a loss of cultural identity, which made it difficult to integrate the mass of people who flooded into the continent in the first two decades of the new millennium. In his latest work, Murray returns to the theme of the loss of faith in the West. 

...we have been living through a period of more than a quarter of a century in which all our grand narratives have collapsed. One by one the narratives we had were refuted, became unpopular to defend or impossible to sustain. The explanations for our existence that used to be provided by religion went first, falling away from the nineteenth century onwards. Then over the last century the secular hopes held out by all political ideologies began to follow in religion’s wake.

The resulting vacuum is being filled by the new religion of identity politics. If faith-based narratives aimed at unifying humanity as 'one people under God', identity politics works by entrenching fragmentation by creating hierarchies of oppressed victims. Social justice will only be achieved when the privileged majority owns up to its undeserved perks and stops kicking the downtrodden. 'Intersectionality' provides the heuristics for victim ranking. If you're a gay black woman with genderfluid tendencies, you've more or less come up trumps. If your're a straight white bloke with no intention of ever becoming a woman, forget it. 

Not one to shy away from controversy Murray bravely takes on the four most sensitive hot button issues as far as woke social justice campaigners are concerned: Gay, Women, Race, and Trans. The four main chapters are interspersed with interludes on The Marxist Foundations, The Impact of Tech, and On Forgiveness. Murray's approach is fair minded, well informed and questioning of received orthodoxies. Received all of 5 minutes ago that is, but to reject the new bien pensant creed is to find oneself on the 'wrong side of history'. And who wants to be consigned forever to the 1980s? 

I downloaded the audiobook edition as an Audibe introductory free offer. Accessing the book in that format has the advantage of listening to Douglas Murray read it to you, which he does very well. Hearing Jordan Peterson read his 12 Rules for Life in his slightly whiny American drawl wasn't anywhere near as engaging. Murray's tones are more varied, with shades of gentle irony, knowing mockery and on occasion poignant sadness. The writer doesn't use bad language himself, but cites examples people using swear words in anger, so be warned. The downside for writing up a review of an audiobook is that you can't go back to the text to check things. Plus, the notes I made while listening were a bit patchy. We (me and the Mrs) listened to the second half of the Trans chapter and the Conclusion on Saturday. At the time I was driving back from Devon trough heavy rain, which didn't exactly lend itself to note taking. Anyway, with the aid of a Kindle sample and a bit of Googling, here are some thoughts on The Madness of Crowds. 

Gay

In 2013 David Cameron's Conservative-led Government passed the Same Sex Marriage Act, enabling gay couples to get married just like their heterosexual peers. As a backbench Conservative MP Nicky Morgan voted against the legislation. A couple of years later as Education Secretary she issued a warning that opposition to 'gay marriage' could denote extremist tendencies. The quest for the respectability of marriage for same sex couples was a triumph of 'gay' over 'queer'. Gays craved acceptance, while queers wanted to subvert society with the aim of smashing heteronormativity. 

Gay adoption of heterosexual institutions was subversive enough. Marriage was traditionally defined as a lifelong, exclusive relationship between a man and a woman. A non-consummated heterosexual marriage is null and void, adultery is grounds for divorce. These strictures do not apply in the case of same sex marriage. Murray mentions without naming a well known gay couple whose marriage is of the decidedly open sort. Apparently, such an arrangement is not altogether exceptional. Criticism of same sex marriage, however, or even of gay couples having children is pretty much beyond the pale nowadays. When Tom Daley and his husband Dustin Lance Black announced they were having a baby, someone dared to ask how that was possible, given the stubborn necessities of reproduction. Was it right that the mother of their child was being written out of the story? Cue outrage and allegations of 'homophobia'. For saying it takes a man and a woman to make a baby. 

A big question when it comes to 'gay' is whether same sex attraction is a biologically-based hardware issue, or a matter of software, rooted in background factors. Possibly even a choice. If hardware, people can't help it, if software, maybe they can. Agitation for gay rights was very much based on the hardware model, although there is little evidence for a biological 'cause' of homosexuality. Indeed, as Murray points out, sexual desire is not always stable and unchanging. There are cases of happily married heterosexuals falling for someone of the same sex. That is often taken as someone discovering their previously suppressed 'true gay self'. The same does not necessarily apply when a gay person suddenly finds themselves attracted to someone of the opposite sex. Douglas Murray is a gay man. He can hardly be charged with 'homophobia' in raising such questions. 

The writer gives attention to the difference between heterosexual and homosexual approaches to sex. Murray draws on a spat over sex between the Greek gods Zeus and his wife, Hera. Zeus alleged that women enjoy sex more than men. Hera was having none of it. The argument was settled by Teiresias, who had lived both as a man and a woman. Something to do with interrupting snakes in the act of mating, apparently. Teiresias confirmed that sex was more pleasurable for women. 

Yet as men and women are sexually differentiated, but uniquely compatible, men cannot know what sex is like for women or visa versa. The same is not true when it comes to homosexual sex. Murray cites the work of Daniel Mendelsohn, The Elusive Embrace: Desire and the Riddle of Identity. According to Mendelsohn in straight sex the woman is the man's destination, while in gay encounters, the man "falls through their partner back into themselves again and again". The one flesh union of man and woman in marriage is an expression of self-giving love, rather than a means of self-gratification. Which is why heterosexual marriage is a picture of the union between Christ and his bride, the church, Ephesians 5:22-33. 

The Gay Rights movement has largely achieved its aims. Murray welcomes the fact that society is now much more tolerant of gays and lesbians. But tolerance is a two way street. Advocates for what used to be an oppressed minority have now become a force that demands unquestioning submission. Parents must accept the exposure of their children to LGBT relationships education without demur. Woe betide a business that fails to hoist the rainbow flag during Pride Week. The newly opened branch of American fast food chain Chick-Fil-A was told that its lease would not be renewed in a Reading shopping centre. Why? Because Chick-Fil-A had donated money in the US to Christian organisations opposed to gay marriage. Protesters demanded that the popular restaurant be closed and the owners of the Oracle Shopping Centre caved. (See Murray on this in The Spectator). The once persecuted have now become persecuting 'social justice warriors'. As Murray points out, however, homosexuality "is an unstable component on which to base an individual identity and a hideously unstable way to try and base any form of group identity." The splintering of Stonewall over the the trans issue, leading to the emergence of the rival LBG Alliance is testimony enough to that. More on trans later. 

Women

The whole battle of the sexes thing was given fresh impetus by the #MeToo campaign. It started with female actors alleging powerful male film directors had made unwanted sexual advances towards them. It spread from there to the whole of the Western world, affecting all areas of life, especially the workplace. It seems a bit rich that such a campaign originated in Hollywood. The film world has long made its bucks by objectifying women and female actors have often become stars by being so objectified. 

Murray exposes the contradictions inherent in the #MeToo reconfiguration of male/female relationships. It seems that women can be as sexually provocative as they like, shaking their booty and exhorting men to, 'Look at her butt' (N. Minaj). But if men respond to the come on, they are in danger of being exposed as pervy sexual predators. Women have become highly sexualised, yet untouchable. No wonder men are confused as to what the opposite sex wants. Just recently in the UK a rather gauche young man was convicted of sexual assault for touching a woman's arm (here). 

In the early 20th century first wave feminists demanded votes for women. In the 1960s second wavers agitated for equal pay and an end to discrimination against women. Both 'waves' achieved their ends. A third wave crashed against the shore in 1990s in which feminists embraced intersectionality. 'Smash the women oppressing Partiarchy' was the cry. Women were located higher up on the scale of righteous victimhood, depending on whether they also belonged to an ethnic minority, or were gay. The fourth wave is described by Murray is 'feminism with apps'. The slightest and most inadvertent semblance of sexism is guaranteed to provoke an enraged social media 'pile on'. Witness what happened to the Nobel prize winning scientist Tim Hunt when he made a lame joke about women getting all weepy in the labs. 

Just at the moment when women in the West have more or less achieved their equality goals, the rhetoric of male oppression and female victimhood is being ramped up beyond reason. Some feminists seem to think its OK to express their hatred of the male of the species, denouncing 'toxic masculinity'. 'Kill all men' and 'Men are trash', they cry. Meanwhile if the Patriarchy is conspiring to skew society in favour of men, its not doing a very good job of it. Men are more likely than women to commit suicide. They do most of the dirty and dangerous jobs in society. Homelessness among men is a far bigger problem than it is with women.

Murray highlights some of the contradictions in feminist ideology. When women in the workplace are asked to name what they find most objectionable about men they list things like confidence and the willingness to make their voices be heard in high powered meetings. When women are asked which qualities they aspire to embrace for themselves, they list the very same things. Bad in men, good in women, obviously. Feminism is driven by the idea that men and women are equal and alike, yet women are somehow better. Green Party MP Caroline Lucas recently suggested that as men were making such a hash of Brexit, that an all women cabinet should be set up to sort things out. Only to come a cropper when all the women she suggested were discovered to be white. 

Sex is the ultimate hardware issue, as men and women have obvious biological differences. Indeed first and second wave feminism was about ensuring that women weren't discriminated against on grounds of their biology.  Indeed it is not right that women should be refused jobs just because they might become pregnant and then want to devote time to caring for their children. In trans ideology, however, sex is not fixed. People can be 'genderfluid', or even identify with a gender that differs from their sex at birth. Biological hardware can be altered to enable men to become women, or the other way around. Men who identify as women 'are women' and are therefore entitled to access women only spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. 'Trans women' with all the advantages of male strength can play women's sports, even contact sports like rugby. To object when biological males begin to dominate female sports is 'transphobic'. A triumph of subjective 'software' over objective 'hardware'. And so intersectionality is in danger of undoing the achievements of earlier feminist movements. Draft guidance from the EHRC on the Equality Act and Schools advised that trans girls (i.e. boys who identify as girls) should be allowed to use girls' changing rooms. Girls who object will have to be found somewhere else to get changed. 

The Christian faith offers a different account of the relationship between men and women. The Bible teaches that God created human beings in his image as male and female, Genesis 1:27. Men and women are different by design, and yet are equal in status. The differences between men and women are rooted in biology, not culturally conditioned 'gender roles'. One of the things that made Christianity attractive to women in the ancient world was that the church held marriage in honour and denounced the sexual exploitation of women. Single women were also accorded a valued role in the life of the church. The biblical emphasis is on male/female compatibility, rather than competition. The shrill self-righteousness that insists women are better than men is chastened by the understanding that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God'. (Romans 3:23). The male tendency to dominate and control women is counteracted by the model of Christ who loved his bride, the church  and gave himself for her (Ephesians 5:25). In Christ men and women, different as they are, can become one, 'there is neither... male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus'. (Galatians 3:28). 

Anyway, that's enough for now. We'll take a look at what Murray has to say on Race & Trans, and reflect on the message of the book as a whole in Part 2. 

The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam by Douglas Murray

Bloomsbury Continuum, 2018 paperback edition, 371pp

Summer reading #1

I read this on the beaches of Costa Balanca. We holidayed in Alicante, the Spanish coastal resort. The city is dominated by Santa Bárbara Castle, a formidable hilltop fortification. It is so called because on Saint Barbara's day, 4 December 1248, the castle was captured from the Moors by Castilian forces led by Alfonso of Castile. It wasn't until 1492 that the final Moorish stronghold on the Iberian peninsula fell. Today the Muslims are back, not by conquest, but immigration. Muslims form a sizable minority of around 2 million people in modern day Spain. From what I could see relations between the Spanish population and their Muslim neighbours are peaceable. But Spain has not been altogether free from Islamic terrorism. Most recently in 2017 14 people were killed and hundreds maimed when a 22 year old Moroccan drove a van into crowds milling along La Rambas, Barcelona. 

Another victor over the Moors is buried in Saint Denis Basilica Cathedral, Paris. At the Battle of Tours in 732 Frankish leader, Charles 'The Hammer' Martel defeated the armies of the Umayyad Caliphate. Martel is credited with preventing the wholesale Islamisation of Europe. These days the Saint Denis district of Paris is a Muslim majority area. The Jewish population has halved. Armed guards are posted at the Cathedral doors to protect the clergy working inside. In Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, northwest of Paris, an 85-year-old parish priest, Father Jacques Hamel had his throat slit while leading Mass by terrorists shouting "Allahu akbar!" 

In The Strange Death of Europe Douglas Murray (@DouglasKMurray) tells the story of how we got ourselves into this position. "Bridges, not walls" was the slogan deployed by advocates of mass immigration such as Tony Blair and Angela Merkel. Europe should be open to the world. Yes, for the benefit of people fleeing the sword, famine and pestilence, but also for the good of Europe itself. Why be old, stale and pale? We need an influx of young workers whose taxes will fund caring for our ageing population. We need multicultural diversity to mix things up a bit. Think of the extra culinary choices, the 'world music', the mind-broadening conversations.

Foreigner suspicious locals might resent it, but Europe's got it coming. We once exercised colonial rule over faraway lands, enslaved people and the like. Now it's payback time. Some payback. Rather than being of economic benefit, immigrants are often low skilled and require welfare support, social housing and intensive healthcare provision. Mass immigration has irreversibly changed the character of some communities, without the original inhabitants of those communities ever being asked if they wanted change. Indigenous Londoners now find themselves in a minority in their own city. 

Radicalised Muslims have brought mayhem and murder to European streets. In the UK Asian Muslim gangs have been locked up for grooming and sexually abusing disadvantaged white girls. In Germany and Sweden the arrival of large numbers of immigrants has coincided with an uptick in the number of rapes and sexual assaults on women. But, as Murray acidly puts it, "if there is a bit more beheading and sexual assault than there used to be in Europe, then  at least we also benefit from a much wider range of cuisines." (p. 57).

Now I'm sure most people see the value of at least some immigration in terms of filling job vacancies and cultural enrichment. The UK has benefited from an influx of peoples from former colonies and beyond. Immigrants often work hard and take every advantage of living in a developed country that offers opportunity for all. The trouble with mass immigration is the difficulty in integrating large numbers of newcomers so that they embrace the culture of the host country, rather than expecting the culture to adapt to suit them. That is complicated further in Europe where society is in a state of flux, having lost its Christian moorings. It is mass immigration and its effect on European identity that Douglas Murray has in his sights in this disturbing work.

Angela Merkel was a leading architect of European mass immigration. In August 2015 she announced there would be 'no limit' on the number of migrants Germany received.  Her open door immigration policy impacted the whole of Europe and had unintended effects. More pressure was heaped on hard-up Greece and Italy as thousands boarded unsuitable boats to land on European shores and then make their way on foot to more welcoming countries such as Germany and Sweden. Douglas Murray details how the small Italian island of Lampedusa was suddenly overwhelmed by vast numbers of immigrants. The number of arrivals expected in Germany in 2015 was upped to 800,000, four times the number taken in one year earlier.

Eastern European countries hastily threw up border fences to keep the waves of immigrants out. Little was done to check exactly who was arriving in Europe, or to ensure that those who came claimed asylum in the first country in which they arrived. The boarderless Schengen Area made traversing across the continent all too easy. The November 2015 terror attacks in Paris exposed the ease with which people with ill intent could exploit the open boarders approach espoused by Merkel and other European leaders. 

Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait hardened their hearts at the plight of refugees fleeing from war zones and famine in Syria and North Africa. Muslims from poorer countries could not be expected to integrate with their more well-heeled fellow religionists. Political leaders from Eastern Europe did not want their Christian cultural traditions undermined by the arrival of large numbers of migrants. The attitude of politicians and people from Western Europe was somewhat different, warped as it was by a sense of guilt over past colonial misdeeds. As Murray somewhat sardonically puts it, "Contemporary Europeans may not be the only people in the world to feel that they have been born into original sin, but they certainly appear to suffer from the worst case of it." (p. 162). 

That is one of the reasons why Merkel and others opened the door to mass migration. They wished to atone for past imperial transgressions. Murray cites a case of a white European woman who apologised to an immigrant who brutally raped her and was therefore deported from Germany. As he points out, Europeans are not unique in having aspects of their history of which they might be rightly ashamed, "any student of history much conclude that every community, race and group of humans is not only capable of doing terrible things, but has managed to do such things" (p. 171). Only Western Europeans (and Australians) seem driven to try and expunge their guilt by means of grovelling apologies for historical crimes and masochistic acceptance of whatever pains may be thrust upon them at the hands of violent attackers. We've got it coming.

Murray identifies the decline of Christianity in Europe as a key factor in the continent's crumbling sense of identity. Liberal scholarship helped undermine confidence in the Bible, as did Darwin's theory of evolution. Nothing has been found to replace the faith that shaped Europe for thousands of years. Europeans no longer believe in Adam's origin sin and the fallenness of all humanity,  only their own collective guilt. They no longer have a Christ to atone for their sins, hence the misguided attempts at self-atonement.The author laments the emptiness of much of what passes for secular culture, which he finds either trite and superficial, or parasitic on its Christian heritage.

Guilt is a powerful, yet flawed motivator for action and has badly skewed the European response to the immigration crisis. Mercy towards "the stranger, the fatherless and the widow" needs to be balanced by a just concern for one's own family and people. Little thought was given to the effect of mass immigration on European society and values, or ensuring that our own people were not needlessly put in harm's way. The answer to what Murray calls 'the tyranny of guilt' that is crippling European society is the very thing that its people seem to have rejected, Christianity. A strong sense of guilt-inducing moral responsibility is a lingering legacy of the faith. But Christianity also tells of Jesus who died that sinners might be forgiven through faith in him; "if the Son sets you free, you shall be free indeed", John 8:36. 

The Christian faith may prove more resilient than Murray admits. He has little time for Evangelical Christianity, but Evangelical Churches in Europe are growing, albeit at a slow rate. Globally-speaking Evangelical Christianity is flourishing, especially in China, South America, Africa, and even in Muslim majority lands like Iran. The tide of the 'Sea or Faith' may yet turn, even in Europe. Witness the transforming effect of the Reformation and movements such as the Evangelical Revival of the 18th century. It was the Evangelical Revival that spawned the abolition of slavery associated with William Wilberforce and many other great social reforms of the period. In the UK today churches in areas with large immigrant communities are reporting an increasing number of people from Muslim backgrounds converting to Christianity. Murray's prescription for cultural renewal; Cathedrals and Shakespeare certainly won't cut it. A return to Europe's Christian foundations offers hope. 

Murray is not anti-immigrant, it needs to be said. He appreciates the way in which migrants have been welcomed by native Europeans. He acknowledges that the majority of incoming people are peaceable, even if their views are sometimes worryingly hardline. He is not unmoved by the plight of thousands fleeing conflict and poverty for a better life in Europe. Murray offers practical suggestions for dealing with the immigration crisis such as setting up safe refugee camps in Syria and North Africa. It is certainly more cost effective to supply tents for camps in Syria than Sweden with its frozen winters. Far easier too for refugees to return home once it is safe for them to do so when they are cared for in locally-based camps. People are less likely to risk their lives crossing the sea in rubber dinghies if they know they will be cared for nearer to home. To its credit the UK government has poured millions into creating and maintaining secure and well-provisioned refugee camps. 

None the less, Murray argues that the mass immigration policies pursued by New Labour, Angela Merkel and others were badly misguided and could prove culturally ruinous for Europe. Politicians and the media have tried to shut down public discussion of the negative aspects of large scale immigration. Reports of mass sexual assaults on women at a New Year's Eve party in Stockholm by Muslim young men were suppressed. Similarly with child grooming gangs in Rotherham and Oxford. The authorities were slow to act for fear of whipping up anti Muslim sentiment. There is a growing disconnect between the views of ordinary Europeans and their political masters on the effects of mass migration. Shutting down debate and hushing up legitimate concerns won't help matters (see Murray on The truth about hate speech). Politicians urgently need to give attention to ensuring immigrant groups are properly integrated under the rule of law.

Integration may prove difficult. One of the hopes entertained by advocates of large scale immigration was that newcomers would help innately conservative natives become a little more liberal and cosmopolitan in their attitudes. But what if a large proportion of migrants are even more socially conservative than your typical European or Brit? Witness the protests over LGBT education in schools in cities like Birmingham where there are large Muslim communities. Birmingham was also the scene of the 'Trojan Horse' scandal involving an attempted takeover of state schools by Muslim governors. Their strategy was to try and Islamise education rather than welcoming the Westernisation of their children. The government responded by renewing its drive to promote 'British Values'. But it was successive governments who encouraged people with scant regard for our values to settle here en masse in the first place. That's why 'honour killings' and FGM are now issues that need addressing in 21st century Britain. Not to mention an increase in Antisemitism. Immigrant communities tend to have a higher birth rate than the native population. Integrating people who want to maintain their distinct identity and cultural norms could therefore prove even more challenging in the years ahead. Murray worries that mass migration may end up destroying what made Europe such an attractive place to live in the first place.  

The author's Jerimiad makes for challenging reading. Some may not like the case he presents, but the facts he marshals cannot easily be gainsaid. In an Afterword Murray brings his account up to date and reflects on the 2017 London Bridge and Manchester Arena terror attacks. Europe's political elite wanted "bridges, not walls", but as I witnessed last weekend, the bridges of London now have walls to stop pedestrians being run over by terrorists. Douglas Murray explains how we got ourselves into this position. He isn't quite so good on explaining how we're going to get out of it.

Not exactly a fun holiday read, admittedly. But who said holidays should be all ice cream and sticks of rock? One August Bank Holiday Monday I took a volume of poetry by R. S. Thomas to the beach.