Screen time and the decay of the soul


screen.jpeg

As a general rule of thumb, I have discovered that the more time I spend on my iPhone the more unhappy I feel. It seems to underscore a number of key failings that, I suspect, many will identify with: a loss of self-control and increase of impulsiveness; a failure to pay attention to those I love; time squandered that should have been used to more productive (or simply more relaxing) ends.

Perhaps the real eye-opener has been the ability to monitor my own phone use with the new Screen Time feature. I’m reluctant to divulge the results because, unlike some people at Salt I am not an oversharer, but I can at least point to some sobering statistics. Those aged 15 to 24 spend four hours a day on their phones. That amounts to a quarter of waking hours, or 3 months a year (without any meals or toilet breaks). If you consider that a workday is typically about 8 hours, this is equivalent to spending thirty-four years of your working life on your phone. [1]

Now, I could be wrong, but I suspect that none of us choose to spend our lives in such a fruitless and compulsive way. It’s not as though anyone begins their new year with a resolution to commit more time to their screen.

I’m guessing that most of us feel very uncomfortable about all of this. We know that being on our phones this much makes us worse at relating to people in real life. We’re aware that our phones seem to be fuelling and intensifying the anxiety epidemic that has gripped society. And we also have this nagging feeling that we’re missing out on the best of real-world experiences: serendipitous encounters with strangers that never took place because we don’t make eye-contact; concerts sullied by a compulsive need to video what we’re supposed to be enjoying; meals forgotten because we took some photos of the plate and then spent far too long selecting the perfect filter whilst mindlessly spooning the stuff into our mouths.

All of these worries (and more) are valid. But I would suggest that at the root of our concern about screen time is a more important and profound issue: our mortality. Life is already too short, and this is not how we ought to spend it, especially as staring at a screen seems to have the odd effect of making time move even faster still.

There’s a line in a psalm in the Bible that says, ‘Teach us to number our days that we may get a heart of wisdom’. In other words, it is a prayer that assumes you will live a smarter, more enlightened and intentional life if you meditate on how quickly time passes, and how little there is to waste of this finite resource.

A consideration of the shortness of life does not immediately answer the question of how best to use our time. We can at least agree that nobody is going to lie on their deathbed and express a regret such as, Too little time spent tapping and scrolling. We know that screens are stealing far too much time, but what should we be doing instead?

Besides the typical suggestions (pay attention to your kids, read more books, be in-the-moment) I believe that the part of us that suffers the most from this chronic inattention and zero tolerance to boredom is our souls. Throughout history, men and women have been very deliberate in seeking out opportunities for perfect solitude in order to deepen their capacity to know God. So, while we worry about our general psychological health as we behave more and more like impulsive addicts, I believe it is the soul that suffers most in this digital age.

This is not because technology is somehow inherently opposed to spirituality – a myth I wholeheartedly refute – but simply because the soul is slow and technology has the effect of making life move fast. There are very few moments for true contemplation any more, and especially when that contemplation throws up genuine existential questions and emotions. It is simply too easy to seek out distraction that is really a form of escapism, giving brief shots of dopamine to mask the deeper issues of life.

Perhaps this is one reason many in the West have turned to a form of pseudo-spirituality in mindfulness meditation. Besides the promise of reducing anxiety, the fact that meditation has roots in Eastern spirituality may explain some of its appeal. Yet somehow we’ve ended up with a reduced and acceptable version for secular people. While I’m not an advocate of simply trying out whatever religious worldview or spirituality seems attractive to you in the moment (after all, the question of what is true must come into it at some point), I also find it dismaying that we have been duped by consumerism to such an extent that even spiritual practices are cut off at the roots, and then repackaged as products to improve your life. 

What then is the solution to this neglect of the soul? To begin, there is the obvious need to tame your phone addiction (and I highly recommend reading Jaron Lanier and Cal Newport for inspiration). But it is not sufficient to merely carve out more space and time for boredom.

Why not? Because the deepest need of the soul is to find peace through truth. The discomforting sense of existential angst that many are familiar with (the very sensation you may seek to escape by finding distraction in your screen) emerges out of uncertainty about life, its purpose, and its end. Those feelings need to be confronted, but the secular world we inhabit has proved woefully inadequate at answering these deep questions and longings.

Therefore, if I’m right in arguing that our phones are the latest iteration in our human quest to seek distraction by entertaining ourselves to death, then the real solution is to face up to the hardest questions and look for answers. That is where the Christian faith has a remedy that perfectly matches the soul sickness I’m describing, since it offers both a rational and persuasive account of reality, along with a satisfying and joy-giving way of life.


[1] If a person works from age 21 to 65, they might spend a total of 82,720 hours at the workplace. But since screen time runs over the weekend, that is 28 hours a week, or 3.5 workdays per week. That adds up to 64,064 hours between the ages of 21 and 65, which is the same as thirty-four working years (and no, I didn’t bother factoring in leap years in any of these calculations).

This article was originally published at Salt.

Are Christians cherry picking their morals?


Salt_2019_01-are-christians-cherry-picking-their-morals2.jpg

‘The Bible is homophobic, we all agree that’s wrong. So, when it comes to things like homophobia, are Christians just choosing which parts of the Bible to accept and which to reject? Are they cherry picking their morals?’

This question is a perfect example of one of the major blind spots in the secularist worldview. It was asked during the Q&A at our last Salt Live event this week on the topic, Does religion poison everything? In the heat of the moment it seemed a pretty formidable question, and I wasn’t sure how our speaker would handle it. But a couple of moments reflection reveal some gaping problems.

First, there’s a deep irony in someone adopting the secular stance and then accusing religious folk of cherry picking morality. Why? Because that is probably the most devastating critique that can be levelled against secularism itself. The truth is that without a religious foundation for morality there is no such thing as objective moral truth – all we have are personal preferences. And many atheist philosophers have long recognised this fact.

So, if we take the example in the question – homophobia – and read between the lines, this person was saying something like this: ‘These days we all agree that homophobia is wrong, that minorities should be protected, that individuals have free choice to express themselves in whichever way they wish, and that nobody has the right to judge another person based on these choices.’ The problem is that there are so many unsubstantiated moral judgments here that have no grounding in secularism. For example, what in nature tells us that minorities should be protected? What in nature teaches us that individuals have a perfectly free choice to express themselves? There are literally no moral statements (statements involving words like ‘should’, and ‘ought’, and ‘wrong’) that have an objective basis in the secular worldview.

The highly problematic implication is that all morality in secularism is cherry picking. The secularist must build a worldview based on what feels right, in which things like ‘equality’, ‘acceptance’ and ‘free self-expression’ are essential values for relatively arbitrary reasons, but they preach those values as though they are God’s Honest Truth.

Second, we need to acknowledge that everyone draws the line somewhere when it comes to sexual ethics, and it is somewhat arrogant to assume that only just now, in the 2010s, have we got it all figured out and everyone else (in history and across the world) is wrong. Yet, this is often the working assumption.

Perhaps the main reason for the liberalisation of sexual ethics in the West has been our growing commitment to freedom as our most deeply held doctrine. And freedom goes hand in hand with individualism – a very modern, very Western, way of looking at the world which largely disregards the community, or one’s ancestry. This commitment to individual freedom explains why we have come to accept certain sexual behaviours as being in keeping with free expression (like homosexuality, hookups, and polyamory), whilst rejecting anything that violates our deepest convictions about the freedom of the individual (hence the passion that was driving the #MeToo movement last year).

But there is a problem. It is interesting that it never seems to dawn on us that the rest of the world does not necessarily build their morality on the same foundation. Not all cultures regard individual freedom as the highest ethic, and many cultures believe in things like responsibility and community with equal or greater fervour.

Here’s my point. We too often arrogantly assume we have got it right. But what is this if it is not a form of cultural imperialism? Why should we accept the claim that the Modern Western Liberal view of these things is the only right one, and everyone has to come into alignment with it or suffer marginalisation as bigots? This kind of cultural imperialism is dangerous, not least because there are exceptionally good reasons to question how healthy our individualism is. Nobody seems to notice that our increasing levels of absolute personal freedom have not always made us happier in the West (and the fact that we can’t imagine an alternative moral framework only proves how thoroughly indoctrinated we have become).

Third, the assumption that all Christians agree on the rightness of homosexuality, and therefore cherry pick morality from the Bible, is wrong. This is where we have to make a very careful distinction. All of the Christians I know do not think homophobia is right, even for a second. They don’t want anyone to be judged and persecuted in society, and we in the church don’t think it’s our place to judge those outside the church.

That said, the fact remains that if someone wants to be a follower of Jesus they must not pick and choose their favourite bits from his teachings, accepting only the things they like while rejecting the things they don’t like. To do that is to make yourself an authority over Jesus, as though you know better than him, when in fact the very definition of believing in Jesus is making him the supreme authority over you. The danger in attempting to marry Christianity with progressive values is that we end up creating a god in our own image, who (surprise, surprise) seems to echo back all of the things we already believed about the world. At this point I would agree with the questioner, and affirm that it is hard to respect Christians who cherry pick from the Bible.

But as I said, that is not usually the case. For my friends who have grown up experiencing homosexual attraction, but have also come to believe that Jesus is the Son of God, they have been willing to trade their sexual fulfilment in order to pursue a deeper satisfaction in following Christ. And of course, this is not just an experience for those with homosexual desires. Literally every person who chooses to follow Jesus makes these painful and self-denying choices. And yet, for the average secular Londoner, the idea that someone would willingly say no to their sexual desires is utterly unthinkable. Why? Because we have entirely believed the message that free sexual expression is right up there with The Meaning of Life, and nothing – not even Jesus – can compete with that.

And yet he does compete with that, as so many of my friends will attest. To follow him is to kill yourself entirely, and to hand your whole life over to him. You don’t guard a part off and say, ‘This is my identity, and you can’t touch this.’ No, following Jesus has always been about something much more deep, much more radical, than that. To be a Christian is to agree with the Apostle Paul: ‘You are not your own, you were bought with a price.’ A Saviour who was willing to die for me in order to rescue me from my own miserable state of separation from God is not a Saviour I will deny, even if it means giving up my rights.


This article was originally published at Salt.

Dementia in the Trans-Physical Age


Salt_2019_01-dementia-in-the-trans-physical-age2.jpg

My dad can’t remember my name any more. It’s unspeakably sad, not least because he is only in his mid-sixties. He knows he likes me, and even trusts me, but he’s not sure why. He often affirms that I’m ‘a good man’ and I respond by telling him that I love him, but that only elicits a confused look which seems to ask, Why?

While my dad is suffering from early-onset Alzheimer’s, the sad fact is that dementia is going to affect most of us in some way. A third of people born this year will develop dementia at some point in their lives, and even if you escape this curse many of the people you love will be afflicted by it.

From my earliest memories my dad has been the hero of my life and a constant inspiration. His vast reading, his deep convictions, his grit and indefatigable approach to the challenges of life have all left their mark. I have always loved the way he loved me, my brothers, my mum. There were many shortfalls, but he has been a good dad, even a great one. Now it feels like he is slipping away.

And what is left? A face I love. Eyes that are kind and strangely understanding. Crooked teeth like tombstones. And a body that is slowly but surely failing. Yet this body is still my dad, and so we care for him and seek to offer him the dignity and honour he deserves. 

Reflecting on the destructive effects of dementia raises a huge question: Where does the real you reside? We live in the Trans-Physical Age in which we view our bodies as plastic, moldable, even disposable containers in which our true selves live. If you feel that your body is an inaccurate portrayal of the real you, you are free to change it. Perhaps the real you is younger, a different race, or a different gender. And so, like choosing a more suitable outfit for an occasion, we paint, cut and carve our bodies to better reflect the person we feel we are inside. And when the body eventually fails, one of the greatest hopes that is beginning to emerge is the idea that you could upload that true self into some more durable hardware than disease-ridden meat. Your consciousness may be transferred to a computer and so the real you can outlive this rotting biological waste. [1]

All of these movements I am describing are captured by the ‘trans’ prefix. It means across or beyond. And I have no doubt that what we have seen so far is just the beginning. There will be an ever-expanding array of alternative trans identities and options which reflect a common theme of body denial. The point is that in this word ‘trans’ we are seeking to bypass and alter our bodies, as though they do not matter to our sense of self or they must be adjusted to better reflect who we are. All of this is underpinned by a conviction that the real you is somewhere inside, rather than the imperfect container you’re in.

Face to face with my dad, I’m very aware that there are no simple answers to the questions I’m raising here. On the one hand, it does feel as though he is slipping away as one neurone after another fails to fire, and everything that was familiar or automatic to him becomes strange and out of reach. At what point is he no longer my dad? How many memories does he have to lose before the body that resembles who he was becomes an empty shell? But I can’t think that way. No matter how bad things are going to get, he’s still my dad standing right there in front of me. That body is a body I love because it is him, and so it cannot be discarded or neglected or ignored.

It was the Ancient Greeks who first taught us to despise our bodies. The philosophical underpinnings of our modern attitudes to the body seem to have stemmed from the teachings of Plato, in which the spiritual realm of the Ideals was elevated above the grime of the material. The body was seen as something to escape, a mere vessel. This goes some way to explaining why the Greeks thought of work with the mind as so much superior to work with the body. We agree with this whenever we talk of blue collars and white collars, showing just how deeply this Greek way of thinking is embedded in our world, elevating one thing above another.

But Christianity broke into the Greek world with an altogether more complex, more subtle, and more hopeful view of things. Yes, the body is broken, and you have a spirit that will live on beyond death, but the aim is not to be separated from the body and enter some ethereal version of the afterlife in which you will float around for all eternity. This notion was killed when Jesus came back to life in a body that was both like and unlike his old one. It still bore the scars of his crucifixion as he ate barbecued fish with his friends. But he also looked different and seemed less constrained by the laws of nature. His body was physical, but somehow better and improved.

This means that when I look at my dad I feel sadness and hope at the same time. Perhaps parts of him are disappearing, like a photo bleached and faded by years of exposure to the sun. But since I am certain that Jesus did in fact rise from the dead—a certainty I derive from the testimony of the eyewitnesses who were frequently put to death for this claim—so I am deeply confident that my dad will be reunited with a better body one day. That will be the reward of his faith in Jesus, the ‘firstborn from among the dead’. Dad’s future body will have all the same parts, being both familiar and strangely unfamiliar at the same time. It will also be an improved and perfected body.

A vision of the future as something embodied—with hair and sweat and feasting, and with spit flying out of your mouth as you laugh at a friend’s jokes—this is at the heart of the Christian hope of eternity. That is why we treasure and honour the body, even that of a dying person. ‘For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens’ (2 Corinthians 5.1).


[1] This growing movement is called Transhumanism.

This article was first posted at Salt.

Our strange and incoherent stance towards the unborn


ultrasound.jpg

Earlier this year my wife and I discovered we were expecting our third child. We were happy about this. We were hoping to see our family grow, and we were quick to tell the people we love. But we found out things might not be okay with the baby when we went to the first ultrasound scan. This was followed by days of uncertainty about whether our baby was healthy and whether it would survive.

A few weeks later we were sent to a special appointment with the purpose of taking a closer look at the baby’s heart using ultrasound, and moments into this we could sense that something wasn’t right. The usual rhythm of the rapid thumping and swishing that fills the ultrasound room when you hear the baby’s heart was notably absent. All we heard was silence. All we saw was stillness.

Sie Yan gave birth some days after this to a lifeless little boy the size of my palm. I was numb, and later I was overwhelmed with sadness and uncontrollable tears. It was not easy to get my head around the death of a child I didn’t know. But we decided to name him Enoch, after a man who ‘walked with God, and he was not, for God took him’. [1]

While many miscarriages take place in secrecy, we had been very open with everyone we knew, and the torrent of love and affection we experienced had a healing potency. All of our friends – regardless of religious belief, political persuasion, or personal experience – offered us deep sympathy on the loss of a child. Even a child who passed away at a mere 15 weeks gestation.

Around the same time this was all happening, news broke that the Republic of Ireland was taking a referendum, and then secured a vote, to overturn the Eighth Amendment banning abortion. It was a clear majority of 66%, and public opinion expressed through the media was clearly supportive. There were comments such as, ‘The spell of shame has been broken’, and it was described as ‘the end of shame and guilt’.

To me, this exposed the deepest fault line of incoherence and contradiction in our approach to the unborn. It made no sense to me that people could express genuine sorrow that our child had died, while at the same time there was ecstatic celebration over the potential of many Irish babies being terminated in days to come.

It made no sense to me that if a woman wants her baby, it’s a child, but if she doesn’t then it’s a foetus. If the child dies, it’s a tragic miscarriage, but if the pregnancy is brought to a medically induced end, it’s a routine termination. If a couple is longing to have a family the loss of a child is a grief too hard to bear, but if a child doesn’t fit into their current life plan then ending the child’s life is a human right.

Perhaps the contradiction is never more clear than in the case of the hospital ward. There you can find operating rooms used to perform miraculous procedures in-utero in order to save unborn lives. You can also step into those rooms at other times to observe the disposal of bodies being cut up and vacuumed out, complete with tiny hands and tiny feet. And our reaction to both of these scenarios could not be more different. We give best wishes, prayers, hopes to those fighting to save their babies. We ignore those who are quietly disposing of them; no flowers, cards, sympathies. It was a choice, after all.

But why do we get to decide? Why is it up to us whether this is really a life or not?

I know that for many, the choice over whether to abort is impossibly difficult and is often driven by the utterly terrifying prospect of becoming a parent without the means to provide the kind of life we think a child needs. But that doesn’t change the nature of the question of whether a life is a life.

It’s right to celebrate life and therefore also right to grieve the horror of sickness and death that takes a life, even one as young as our own baby Enoch. And it’s wrong to think that we can make an arbitrary choice that changes the status of that baby into something less than human.

If anything, that makes us less than human.


[1] Genesis 5.24

Why subscribe?

The myth of the freethinking atheist


n.jpg

Somehow we have come to attach the idea of ‘freedom’, and particularly freedom of thought, to atheism. Religious people are shackled to ideas that exert power of them, almost as though they are helpless victims. But the atheist is free because nobody’s gonna tell him what to believe or do.

Well, sort of. But no.

One of the greatest myths we live with in day-to-day life is the illusion of freethinking. For one thing, there’s the fact that most atheists do not arrive at that conclusion independently, but rather through a sequence of influences, books, ideas, often imbibed unconsciously; which is not all that different from how we arrive at religious conclusions. In other words, the so-called freethinking atheist would likely hold to some other belief system if raised in some other age or in some other place. You’re not as free as you think. You’re just as much a product of your time and circumstance as any religious devotee.

But freethinking is still more illusive than that. Scratch beneath the surface of ordinary life and you discover a surprising truth, which is that we’re all driven by religious impulses all of the time, especially the impulse to worship. This was never more aptly put than by the late David Foster Wallace in his famous speech, This Is Water:  

Because here’s something else that’s weird but true: in the day-to day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship… is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. [1]

Most of us won’t accept this on the basis that we have a pretty narrow view of what worship means – perhaps singing, definitely involving a higher power, and probably some elaborate rituals. But really, worship is much more basic and ordinary than that: it’s allowing something in your life to become in some way ultimate. When something becomes the underlying driver, motivation, goal, passion of your life, then that’s what you worship. That’s what Wallace meant, anyway, and that’s why most of the stuff we worship will ‘eat you alive’.

If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough… Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you… Worship power, you will end up feeling weak and afraid, and you will need ever more power over others to numb you to your own fear. Worship your intellect, being seen as smart, you will end up feeling stupid, a fraud, always on the verge of being found out. 

All of this rings true. Whatever you want so much in life that to have it would be heaven, and to not have it would be hell – that is your god, and that god exerts control over you. If worship can be directed at all these ordinary pursuits and passions – money, the body, power, intellect – then it doesn’t take much thought before you start to see a place like London through new eyes. There are temples of worship everywhere, and devout worshippers scurry through life offering their sacrifices on the altars to their particular gods. And, yes, these gods eat us up. Every one of us has tales of the damage we have caused ourselves through our uncontrollable desires and ambitions. 

The most sobering aspect of all this is that so little of it is voluntary:

But the insidious thing about these forms of worship is not that they’re evil or sinful, it’s that they’re unconscious. They are default settings.

This means you did not choose to worship, and you did not choose what to worship. Instead, worship arises from inside us as something unconscious, instinctive, irrepressible. 

So, even if we like to think of ourselves as rational creatures, led by logic and evidence, most of the time the very opposite is true: we are led by the hidden drivers of the heart. [2] We are compelled by motives we can’t fully understand, in search of goals we can’t fully articulate, in hope of dreams we can’t fully express. 

Nobody is a freethinker. Nobody is a free agent.

Our humanity does not flourish in a spiritual vacuum when worship of something is so deeply hardwired into us. Without a sense of the greatness of the God who is over us we end up worshipping the material world under us. And that experience of being consumed and ruled by those lesser idols can awaken an awareness that running from God does not lead to freedom.

When you realise this you can begin to make sense of the impulse toward faith. Those who grow sick and tired of the endless pursuit of meaningless desires – who find that they are actually enslaved by their worship of money and intellect and sex and power – may at some point yearn for a different kind of worship, and may instead turn to God. To do so is not to surrender your reason, or engage in an act of mindless obeyance to some form of empty tradition, but rather to begin to be honest with yourself in recognizing that you are not as free as you think you are.

[1] This Is Water, by David Foster Wallace, accessible all over the internet
[2] See The Righteous Mind,by Jonathan Haidt


This article originally appeared at salt.london

14 things you probably didn’t know about Christianity, but really should


Most people I talk with who are not Christians have a lot of deep misconceptions about this religion. In a way, this is odd, given our rich Christian heritage in this country. But it also provides some great talking points in this otherwise (often) awkward subject of conversation. So, here’s my list of fourteen things you probably didn’t know about the Christian faith, but really should.

1. Churches are not buildings, and the buildings are (almost) unnecessary. A church is the people; a particular group that has come together to form a family despite often having zero things in common. This means that you could knock down all those old church buildings in Britain and the actual church (the group of people) would not be wiped out; arguably, it would flourish.

2. Not all (male) Christian ministers wear dresses. This might strike you as a slightly silly point, but here’s why it matters to me. The early Christians were a rag-tag bunch of men and women, with a very flat leadership structure, and very little in the way of special outfits or elaborate rituals. Today we call this style of Christianity ‘low church’ (as opposed to ‘high church’). It’s important because it means that Christianity is designed for the ordinary guy in the street, and Christian ministers should look pretty normal too.

3. There are more Christians in China than the population of Britain. There is simply no way you can describe Christianity as a ‘Western religion’ any more (nor was there ever!). Christianity is exploding in secret in China, as well as in underground, hidden churches in places like Iran and Nepal. The Christian faith in general is growing fastest on the continent of Africa. We may be a post-Christian country here in Britain, but that says very little about the fortunes of this faith.

4. You will never encounter deeper diversity than you do in the global church. You may be able to think of some community that is more diverse than the church, but I doubt it. The reason is that Christianity advances by the power of its message, and that the message itself is one of radical unity regardless of natural divisions. The earliest Christians managed to bridge some impossible divides, with slaves and masters worshipping alongside one another, as well as Jews and Gentiles, and every other societal division that existed in the first century Roman Empire. That makes sense when you understand the core message of Christianity: it tells us that we’re all broken (so there’s no room for pride) and that we can all be forgiven and brought into God’s family (so there’s deep unity). In reality, that means that on any given Sunday I could be sat next to a Nigerian, a Malaysian, or a Ukrainian at church, and that would be pretty normal.

5. If Christians were less involved in social issues, chaos would ensue. It’s estimated that the volunteerism of Christians in Britain is worth about £315 million every year [1]. At the same time, there are a lot of people who think Christians are dangerous and don’t fit in modern society. I wish these people would understand the selfless kindness and generosity of so many Christians, and the reasons they do all this. Believing in Jesus changes you in a very basic way, and I have never encountered any form of belief as potent or effective in changing individuals and helping them to become more loving and kind.

6. Nobody gets to heaven by being good or moral. These good works are a result of being a Christian, not the means of becoming one. In fact, if you think you’re a ‘good person’ then you are totally unqualified to be a Christian. It’s counter-intuitive, and that’s why so few people understand something so fundamental. But Christians do not believe in being good, nor do they think that being good will get you any points. The only thing that matters is being forgiven.

7. Being christened as a baby is quite likely totally meaningless. Too many people think that if you’re splashed with ‘holy water’ as a baby, you’re all good. But of course, if it were that simple then we’d walk through the streets spraying the general population with specially blessed holy water from fire hoses. Far fewer would call themselves Christians if they realised how meaningless this ceremony is unless you also have some kind of genuine faith.

8. There are lots of other practices that don’t make you a Christian.Being British. Eating fish on Fridays. Going to church. Praying. None of these things make you a Christian. The only thing that makes a person a Christian is whether or not they have faith.

9. Faith is not a blind leap. While some of the New Atheists like to claim that faith is some kind of wish upon a star, the word ‘faith’ has a lot more to do with (1) being persuaded of the truth of something, and (2) placing trust in those beliefs. You exercise this kind of faith all the time in ordinary life. It’s much more like the experience of being persuaded that a 150,000 ton lump of metal can safely float on water, and exercising trust the moment you step on board. For Christians, the faith you need is faith in Jesus to save you. It’s nothing more, and nothing less, than that.

10. There’s much more evidence than you think. A lot of people assume that Christianity was debunked at some point by someone. But that has never happened. On the contrary, one of the most unique things about the Christian faith is that it is based on historical events, rather than teaching that can be separated from events. What I mean is this: you could take the teachings of just about any other religious founder and scrub out the historical story, and the teachings still stand. That isn’t the case with Jesus. If the events didn’t happen (especially his death and resurrection) then there’s no Christianity. Thankfully, there are heaps of evidence that attest to it being true.

11. The reason we’re not progressive on some issues is not because of any phobias. It’s true that we continue to draw certain lines in the sand on issues of morality, but it’s not because we’re afraid of change, nor is it coming from judgmentalism. The most basic belief all Christians share is that we’re all sinners in need of God’s kindness, and that precludes any allowance of self-righteousness or judgment. But we also believe that God has the best plan for our flourishing, and we don’t get to simply make up the rules (since that road inevitably leads to tragedy and oppression).

12. Most of your deepest moral instincts come from the Bible. The instincts we think are either common sense, or part of the very fabric of nature, such as equality, human rights, justice – all of these (and many more) have been embedded in our culture from centuries of exposure to the Bible. Now that we Westerners have largely abandoned our Christian heritage, we are like a jumbo jet suffering engine failure: we continue to glide, but it’s not long before this thing will plummet to the ground. Morality without a Moral Lawgiver is arbitrary and vulnerable. 

13. Jesus was not a good teacher. CS Lewis put it best:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to [2].

14. We really do believe you’ll live for eternity, the only question is where. Some people think that if Christianity is to survive, it must accommodate itself to modern sensibilities. That would mean no more talk of an afterlife, and definitely no hell. Besides the fact that this strategy doesn’t actually work (the more liberal a church becomes, the more empty it gets), we have some pretty formidable reasons to believe that eternity is real. The most important reason of all is the fact that Jesus came back from the dead, a fact attested to by hundreds of witnesses. That is the reason it’s worth listening to the only person in history who spoke with anything like authority on the subject.

[1]  Cinnamon Faith Action Audit 2016
[2] CS Lewis, Mere Christianity


This article originally appeared at salt.london

Sex is never NSA


k.jpg

No Strings Attached. Few expressions better capture the modern view of sex. Which means that, despite their obvious respectability as philosophers and social commentators, the Spice Girls got it exactly wrong when they sang,

Are you as good as I remember baby, get it on, get it on,
‘Cause tonight is the night when two become one

They were (knowingly or unknowingly) articulating a very, very old view of sex as something that has deep soul-level power; the very opposite of No Strings Attached. And this is why Bloodhound Gang were much more in tune with the times with their immortal lines, ‘You and me baby ain’t nothing but mammals // So, let’s do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.’

Both of these songs come from the 1990s when few could have predicted how much mammalian activity would be enabled by the onset of hookup apps, so that now, more than ever, sex is mainly about fulfilling your appetites. It doesn’t have to mean anything. It’s not much different from eating, drinking, or sleeping. Who you do it with is not of much consequence, provided they’re good.

How did our view of sex change so profoundly, and so quickly? 

For one thing, it was not so long ago that sex was inextricably bound up with making babies. If you were a man and you got someone pregnant, you’d have to take responsibility (especially in a world with no state support for single mums). Your community kept you accountable. But that has changed: it is hard to exaggerate the effects of widespread contraception available since the 1960s in separating the act of sex from its natural, biological consequence. This has had a profound effect on how we think about sex, at a deep philosophical level. It used to be the case that only the rich or powerful could bed whoever they wanted, for the simple reason that they could get away with it. But contraception democratised the seeming freedom of sex-without-responsibility, and turned sex into a momentary act rather than a life-changing decision.

Another reason can be given. The secularisation of the West has been a potent force here. If your religion says sex is a sacred act with the power to bind souls, that view might linger for a little while after you have cast off religious restraint, but eventually it dies. The new narrative is that we’re clever monkeys, and if monkeys can do it with whoever they want (bonobo chimps being a perfect example of a ‘free love’ primate society), then the social construct of sex being sacred need not hold us back any more.

And so, we have landed in a new era. It’s an era in which love is optional, and sex is easy. In fact, it’s only a few swipes away. And you don’t need any of the traditional skills of seduction, which means you can get away with being clumsy and cheap. Hit upon a match, exchange a few texts, and you’re done and dusted within the hour. And it’s free. Did I mention that? And you don’t have to speak again. And you can try someone else tomorrow. And there are no babies. And nobody else need ever find out.

All of this rests on the assumption that sex can be No Strings Attached. But can it? I’m not convinced.

First, there is the problem of ‘catching feelings’ and the consequent experience of rejection. The subject of so many sitcoms and low budget movies, we might be tempted to downplay how destructive this kind of rejection is for the soul. But consider, how many times can you get the cold shoulder from a hookup and not suffer some kind of erosion on the inside? I mean serious psychological harm. It seems we have more compassion and understanding for dogs abandoned on the street than we do for ourselves, since we are willing to subject ourselves to relentless and repeated experiences of being discarded. The simple reality is quite straightforward: if they don’t call you back, they don’t want you. They want someone new. And we might bury this truth and pretend that’s not the case since we’re both consenting adults entering into a kind of social contract for meaningless sex. But lying to ourselves doesn’t change the facts. You were yesterday’s choice, not today’s. Of course, rejection is a risk in any kind of relationship, but the nature of NSA sex is that you are deliberately exposing yourself to hurt. And if you’re the one with the bullet-proof confidence, how can you know that you are not causing immense harm to the other person?

Then consider the reality of jealousy. I know that the word is usually viewed as a negative quality, a mark of a deficient, weak, and insecure person. But jealousy is also hardwired into us as a fierce guardian of committed love. It can set a wall of fire around a relationship that does not allow casual invaders to maraud and steal what is precious. And jealousy proves that we don’t really believe in NSA sex. We get jealous in talking about our partner’s old lovers and past experiences; an irrational and inconsistent reaction if sex can be meaningless. We also insist on exclusivity as love grows. But why? If your partner can claim that sex with another person was just NSA, doesn’t that let them off the hook? Absolutely not. Every fibre in your being tells you that. Your jealousy contradicts your belief in NSA sex. (Which is why Ross’s excuse, ‘We were on a break’, doesn’t hold water for Rachel; sex is never NSA.)

Another proof of the lie of NSA sex has to do with our inconsistency when it comes to taboos around sex. These taboos are still deeply embedded in our minds and our society (though for how long, I am not sure), and reveal that we still understand the power of sex as something that cannot be as meaningless as a handshake. Think about incest. If sex could truly be NSA, then why sustain such artificial boundaries? By what logic do we say that it is wrong for siblings to sleep together, or a father with his daughter, if it is No Strings Attached? We can’t have it both ways, and our deep and intuitive revulsion towards incest tell us that sex is never NSA.

Finally, consider the painful reality of rape and sexual abuse. Why is rape so damaging? What is it about sex that it has such powers of destruction, so that a person can be changed forever by one brief, momentary act? Why can it make people feel so dirty, so defiled, so used? The answer must be that sex is inherently powerful. Of course, you might argue that the crucial missing element here is consent. But does the giving of consent render sex impotent, as it were? And if so, why do so many feel dirty and guilty after a mistaken fling, or a casual hookup? It seems to me that we are fighting against our very souls when we try to make sex a meaningless act.

Sex is a force of nature; a force in our nature. It goes down to the roots of a person. It involves the most hidden parts of our souls. Such have humans believed for thousands of years. There is accumulated wisdom in beliefs that have transcended all recorded history and most cultures, and we discard such beliefs at our peril. The modern dating scene is an anthropological test tube, an experiment we are running, and nobody knows the future ramifications of a generation raised this way. How will it affect our ability to make long-term commitments (essential for our own wellbeing and that of our children)? How will it affect our ability to simply be happy and content?

The flip side to all this is that if sex is powerful, its power can be directed and used well. Sex can actively restore ailing marriages, reinvigorate forgotten love, and repair the bonds of broken intimacy. In other words, sex attaches strings.

It is with good reason that the ancient Hebrews spoke about sex as knowing someone, because it is essentially a relational act. We all want to know and to be known, and we want that deeply. Perhaps that is the deepest need of all. They also spoke about sex as uncovering your nakedness; it was a euphemism that somehow captures the pure vulnerability, total openness, face-to-face and soul-to-soul intimacy that sex is meant to involve. To be naked with another – in both the literal and metaphorical sense – is to reveal your very soul. That is why the walls of commitment are so vital, since you are never more at risk than when you are totally opened up to another.

And all of this makes me wonder, if sex is really about intimacy, perhaps the modern view of NSA sex is a thinly veiled attempt to experience love, even transcendence, if only for a moment. If so, there is great tragedy in that. It is a misguided quest, a fool’s errand. No amount of hookups can fill this gaping void. But it also signals a deep disquiet in the soul of this generation. What are we searching for? And, what have we lost? God only knows.


This article originally appeared at salt.london