Freely, Freely - Article 10/39

X. OF FREE-WILL

THE condition of Man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and good works, to faith, and calling upon God: Wherefore we have no power to do good works pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ preventing us, that we may have a good will, and working with us, when we have that good will.

Interesting to note the change of use of the word prevent. It used to mean going before. Now it usually means stopping. And, of course, the generic use of 'man' on which we now turn our backs.

We remind ourselves that these historic formularies bear witness to the same God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who contemporary Christians worship, as best we can.

This article is headed 'Of Free Will'. O'Donovan reminds us that the reformers meant, very specifically, the free will to turn to and please God by our own natural strength. It was not saying that we cannot make decisions for ourselves, that we are somehow stuck in a rut of predestination (more on that later, probably).

The story the Articles tell is of a creator God, far beyond the grasp of human understanding, based in a time when human understanding was half a millennium less developed than our own. And of that remote (in the 'graspable' sense) God revealing himself in Jesus Christ, uniquely. And on that, surprisingly orthodox, note, I'm going for a lie down.

Thought for the Day

Thought for the day as delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning following the announcement that in Durham breathalysing students is being considered, for their own safety:

How protected do you want to be? Freedom to do something daft which may cost you your life. Or a nanny state with kid gloves and cotton wool.

What steps should we take to stop young people hurting themselves after a night's drinking?

Ban alcohol.

Ban universities.

Two stupid extremes. But they help us place ourselves in the sensible middle, balancing over-reaction with turning a blind-eye.

The Bible begins with this. A universal story that goes back to human origins. A garden with only one rule. One dodgy tree. One forbidden fruit. Everything else - fine.

It is a story of there being certain limits on freedom. To save ourselves from hurting other people for sure. That is why we can no longer smoke where it might make the innocent unwell.

But also to save us from ourselves. You take too big a risk getting behind the wheel of a car if you are intoxicated. Too big a risk with the lives of others and your own life.

So why not go one step further and only allow the sober near dangerous rivers? Breathalyse the students before allowing them to walk home by the water.

That Bible story is the account of why, once one rule is broken, more rules need to be introduced. The first people, thrown out of Eden eventually need judges to settle disputes, kings to rule and page upon page of laws of which the ten commandments are but a summary and today we have more rules about vegetables than the Bible had about violence.

We only need one rule. Use your common sense. Trouble is, it is so uncommon that what it means to be sensible needs to be clarified from time to time.

Freedom of Speech

So, is freedom of speech an absolute right or a qualified one? Probably the latter. As many are fond of reminding us, you do not have the freedom to shout 'Fire' in a crowded theatre when there is no fire.

But, given that there is a line to be drawn, where does it go? Freedom of speech carries with it great responsibility. Firstly to speak on behalf of those who who have no voice and secondly, probably, to yourself. A Somalian comedian lies dead today because his audience couldn't take a joke. It is a sign of a mature society that it can laugh at itself. But is joking in a place where you know that joke will get you into trouble, and may bring you harm, a glorious display of unwillingness to be shackled or a stupid act of self-destruction? Possibly fearing the fatwa Jeremy Paxman is more likely, as he did recently, to risk upsetting Christians than Muslims. But sometimes speaking out, however great the risk, is the only way to draw attention to the hideousness of a regime. Pussy Riot will end up in prison; the Sex Pistols ended up in an Olympic opening ceremony. Which nation is the most mature?

I am a fan of freedom of speech. Regardless of who might read me I embrace as catharsis the tweet, blog and status update that the social media offer me. I rejoice that the Paul Chambers' tweet threatening to blow up an airport was finally, after far too long, seen as the poor joke it was meant to be. I despise utterly the tweet that told Tom Daley he had let his late father down but I hesitate to say that the writer should be prosecuted. People tweet horrible things. Guess what? They say them too. Always have and always will.

With my delight in freedom of speech comes the duty to occupy the space provided by the social media responsibly. I say a lot. Sometimes light; occasionally heavy. Often whimsical, here and there critical and all mixed up together. My tongue is not unfamiliar with my cheek. I may apologise if the offence I never mean is taken but rarely for saying what I meant.

What do you think of the Olympic Games in the UK? Feel free to say.

Olympic Thoughts

No wonder it rained a lot yesterday - that many people of Great Britain breathing in collectively for the first time since last Friday must have lowered the atmospheric pressure considerably. It was good to get a couple of gold medals.

Many people lament the loss of the amateur ethos the games used to stand for. I recall that so many soviet-block competitors had their occupation down as 'army' in the 1960s-80s that only allowing democratic professionalism restored the balance. It was funny to hear someone suggest that Heather Stanning should be supported in her rowing career by the army rather than being sent to Afghanistan. Boots - change feet.

Many people lament the drug culture that haunted the Olympics for a few seasons. The random testing of competitors and mandatory testing of winners seems to have changed things for the better there.

So I wonder if the next round of laments might be about something that is harder to counter - the voluntary nature of the competition. It is reported today that Chinese teachers are on the look out for sports aptitude in those as young as eight. Such children are taken away from their schools and friends (and sometimes families) to be rigorously trained and coached in their discipline. For China it is too disgraceful not to win and less of a disgrace to abuse (if I dare put it that strongly) children. I have no idea how we counter that except by understanding that if a nation wants to do that to win Olympic gold then so be it. They will always top the medal charts and, a bit like in Scottish football from now on, it will be a competition to see who comes second to Celtic. Meanwhile we must protest diplomatically at restrictions on individual liberty, using sanctions if necessary.

Those countries which do not allow people to live in freedom make it impossible for a team of theirs to chuckle if the wrong flag is displayed. It's protest or suffer.

Which brings us back to the quietly subversive nature of our opening ceremony last Friday. Freedom to volunteer to try and win Olympic gold is priceless.

Dinner Party Truth

You won't find much truth hiding out at middle class dinner parties but that doesn't stop them being good places to put the world to right. Had a massively long discussion last night about the relationship between individual freedom of choice and corporate responsibility.

The Alcoholics Anonymous 12 step programme isn't only, for instance, about personal responsibility but 'turning your life over to God as far as you understand him.' Then you apologise to those you have hurt. It is both/and.

A good friend of mine argues vehemently that it is not a pub's fault if someone purchases enough alcohol to kill him or herself. Neither, he would say, is it a burger joint's fault if a person who is not that hungry chooses to go large for 30p. I wanted to say a big yes to personal freedom of choice but to add to that a responsibility on those whose businesses will kill you if taken to excess, or in the case of the tobacco industry kill you whatever, to see the world through bigger lenses than the size of their profits.

Today we are not good at taking responsibilty for anything. We want someone to blame. Another irregular verb is born:

I am getting retail therapy.
You are a shopaholic.
He is a greedy spendthrift.

But the fact that there is no-one else to blame doesn't mean there is no-one else involved. If you are bad at making choices I ought to be willing to help if you want me to.

The truth is probably a balance. Yet another chance to stand on a soapbox and shout 'I am a moderate, reasonable and well-balanced.' Oops. Fell off my soapbox. Clumsy of me.