I've been thinking of dusting off my second channel blog to record some slightly deeper thoughts - a bit like how BBC2 used to be the more serious / highbrow / niche channel. I'm not sure where I would find the time to do it, but these are some of the deeper ideas I want to explore, based on stuff I'm reading.
John Hick's pluralist ethos rests on an argument that if Christianity is a superior religion then Christians on average should be more saintly than, say, devout Muslims, Hindus etc. And yet experience tells him this isn't true. I think Hick's ethos is wrong, but where has Christianity gone wrong that we're no better than anyone else even though we have the 'best' revelation of God.
Aneurin Bevan describes how churchmen only got involved in talks between miners and mine-owners when there was conflict. When the conflict subsided, they lost interest. "Their problem was not with the suffering, but with the struggle," says Bevan. 'Silent pain brooks no action.' Could that charge be levelled at the modern-day church when it comes to issues of social justice?
Another Bevanism is that democracy in this country is a sham where vested interests beguile the masses into voting in such a way as to preserve the power of vested interests. Politicians who are not representative of the people cannot represent them. With 17 millionaires in David Cameron's cabinet, is this government representative of the people?
Rob Bell is causing a stir as people predict his new book will challenge 'orthodox' views on hell. Notwithstanding the ridiculous notion that modern-day churchianity is anything other than heterodox, my hunch is that Bell won't be saying anything that isn't already said by countless Christians already. So, why the palava? Why can't we debate things nicely? (What vested interests are at work that want to stifle honest questions and keep the pew-bound proles theologically illiterate by telling them what they are allowed to believe?)
So, if I get round to it, I may expand upon those themes. I'll let you know.