Bad Theology and Misinformed Politics

Not sure when this will go on the blog, but I had to write something—if only to note how oddly predictable this all is.

Once again, those who believe they hold power are up in arms because someone has dared to step into what they see as their territory: politics.

This time, in April 2026, it was Pope Leo XIV drawing fire for criticising “tyrants” who ravage the world and spend billions on war. And right on cue came the familiar chorus: “Stick to religion.”
Stay in your lane. Politics isn’t your job. It’s not your expertise. Keep out.

We’ve heard it before. The same outrage surfaced in the UK when the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke into political matters. The message was clear: stick to the Bible and leave governance to us.

But here’s the problem—that demand is not just bad politics. It’s bad theology.

And bad theology doesn’t stay neatly contained. It spills over. It shapes policy, priorities, and people’s lives. It leads to distorted decisions: wars funded while the poor are neglected; healthcare and education sidelined; strangers treated with suspicion rather than dignity. It asks us to accept a world where compassion is optional and power goes unquestioned.

What this kind of thinking reveals is simple: people are either not reading the Bible—or they’re reading a version that bears little resemblance to the one I recognise.

Look at the prophets of the Old Testament. They are anything but quiet. They confront power head-on. They rage against injustice. They speak for the marginalised, the dispossessed, the hungry. They call out land theft, economic exploitation, and social neglect. And how are they received? With hostility. Silence them. Discredit them. Remove them.

Sound familiar?

Or take Paul in the New Testament. He is imprisoned, beaten, dragged before authorities, and ultimately sent to Rome for trial. Why? Because what he proclaimed was not heard as harmless “religion.” It was heard as something far more dangerous: a challenge to the political order.

That’s the point we often miss. We read the Bible with 2026 eyes and hear it with 2026 ears. We categorise it as “religious.” But in its own time, it didn’t sit in a neat, private box. It collided with power. It disrupted systems.

To say “Jesus is Lord” in the first century was not a devotional whisper—it was a political statement. Caesar claimed lordship. Allegiance was contested.
To speak of the “Kingdom of God” was not abstract theology—it was an alternative vision of society.
To proclaim a “Prince of Peace” stood in direct contrast to an empire built on domination.

None of this was safely “spiritual.” It was deeply, unavoidably political.

So when people today speak about peace, about caring for the environment, about welcoming the stranger, about justice for the poor—and are told to “stay out of politics”—it echoes that same ancient resistance.

When leaders are labelled as divinely chosen while policies harm the vulnerable…
When hostile environments are created for those already suffering…
When the needy are blamed for their need…

And then, when voices grounded in faith challenge these things, they are told to keep quiet—stay in their lane—it reveals something deeper than political disagreement.

It reveals a theological failure.

Because this was never “just politics.”

It has always been theology.

And if the theology is wrong, the politics that flow from it will be too.

Adrian Hawkes

adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W.578

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

 

The Evils of U-Turns

I was happily driving along, faithfully following the instructions given by the lady in the box — my sat nav. Without warning, the rather stern voice announced:

“Make a U-turn as soon as it is safe to do so.”

What a terrible thing to suggest.

Or is it?

If I am heading in the wrong direction from my desired destination, then surely a U-turn is not evil at all. In fact, it is rather a good thing.

Back in October 1980, Margaret Thatcher famously declared, “You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” It was a powerful political statement of resolve. Over time, however, perhaps that sentiment has slipped into our national consciousness. Turning back has somehow become associated with weakness, inconsistency, even failure.

But is refusing to turn really strength? Or is it sometimes simply stubbornness?

If we discover we are going in the wrong direction — morally, practically, relationally — shouldn’t we change course? Isn’t that the wiser choice? A U-turn, when necessary, is not a collapse of conviction; it is an admission that new information has been received and understood.

Turns, after all, indicate listening.

With my sat nav, I could of course switch off the sound and continue driving confidently in the wrong direction. But why would that be a good idea? Ignoring guidance does not make me right — it just ensures I get lost more efficiently.

It is surprising how often we take useful and constructive words and twist them into something negative. Take the word compromise. The dictionary defines it as: “An agreement or settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.” That sounds like maturity and cooperation. Yet I regularly hear the phrase, “We should never compromise.”

A friend of mine, Martin Scott, once heard someone add to that sentiment, “God doesn’t compromise.” Martin’s gentle reply was, “Of course God compromises — He compromises with me.” There is humility in that thought. Relationship, by its very nature, involves patience, adjustment, and grace.

Perhaps we need a reset in the way we use words. As my daughter Carla once remarked about certain expressions, they can become “just a waste of air.”

Maybe it is time to reclaim some of these ideas. Perhaps we should not be afraid to say, “That was a good compromise,” or “This U-turn was the right decision.” Maybe people have listened. Maybe they have understood that a new direction is needed — perhaps even a better one.

Wisdom is not stubbornly pressing on when every sign says we are wrong. That is not strength — it is pride in motion.

Sometimes the bravest, strongest, and most honest thing we can do is turn around.

So perhaps we should stop mocking U-turns and start asking better questions. Are we listening? Are we learning? Are we willing to change?

Because the real danger is not turning.

It is refusing to.

Before we dismiss U-turns as weakness, perhaps we should pause, think, and stop wasting air.

—
Adrian Hawkes
www.adrianhawkes.blogspot.com

W.502

 

Don’t Rock the Boat.

 

There's a story in the New Testament part of the Bible about Jesus walking on the water, which is recorded in three different books: Matthew chapter 14, Mark 6, and John 6.

The story relates to the disciples in a boat when a storm comes. Then, they see Jesus walking towards them on top of the water. They, of course, think this must be a ghost and are even more afraid of him than they are of the storm.

The next thing that happens is that Peter, also in the boat, shouts to Jesus and says, “If it really is you, bid me come to you on the Water” Jesus responds with, “Come on, then.”  Peter then gets out of the boat and starts to walk towards Jesus – on the water.  Somewhat of a miracle, hey? But then the story continues; Peter looks down at his feet and the stormy waves and stares as they seem to sink into them.  Jesus puts out his hand and pulls him up, and then they both climb into the boat, and the storm ceases.

Now, I personally, in ‘church time’, have heard many preachers talk about Peter “not keeping his eyes on Jesus” and thus losing faith and therefore sinking into the sea.  To me, I have always thought, 'Hang on a minute, at least Peter got to walk on water. Wow!'  What about all the other eleven men who just stayed in the boat?  I think I would rather have had the experience of walking on water, even with a bit of sinking, than just to be one of the boat watchers.

So, why am I going on about this? Well, because just recently I was told that it is good not to, “rock the boat.” Nothing new; many times, I have been told that you should not, you cannot, this is not wise, keep your nose clean, and don’t rock the boat.

We used to own a double-decker bus; I was told that you need a special driving license to drive it. However, you can't do it. I toddled along to the police and asked if I could, and they said, “Is it a heavy goods vehicle?” My answer was “no.” Is it a public service vehicle where you will be charging fees? Again, my answer was “no.” Then, you can drive it; it’s a grey area. So, I asked, “What would you classify it as?” They answered, “It's a 90-seater car.” I am sure those regulations will have changed, so - check it out if you're buying one.

A friend of mine told me one day that the problem with the UK is the god they want to serve. I asked what that was, and he responded that it’s the god of safety and security.

The difficulty with that one is that there really is no confirmed safety and security. We take a risk every day; it’s a risk crossing the Road, going outside our house, and even being in the house. I am not saying we should be silly and take unnecessary risks or act out of stupidity. However, if you want to move forward, if you want to get somewhere, and if you are not satisfied with just being “a boring do-nothing”, then you will probably have to take a risk and rock the boat if you want to see change where things are wrong. You won't be able to keep your nose clean.  The easy answer is probably not the best answer.

I would rather have the experience of walking on the water than just sitting in the boat.  I would rather rock the boat than leave things as they are. I have discovered that taking risks brings many benefits.  In many areas of the world, we need change, and we will need to be bold and courageous to effect it. Let's rock those boats.

 

W 658

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

17 July 2025

 Democracy?

I recently read the Hitler playbook on how he took over Germany, all done by so-called democratic means, leaving him in office as a dictator.    Watching the end of the US Empire, I do not see any difference in the playbook being used there. When you read it all as a bit of history, it sounds just the same.  As Churchill said, “One thing that we learn from History, is that we don’t learn from History.”   

What Churchill said in 1948 was, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” It appears that this is what is being done in the USA, and if we let Farage have his say, he will likely follow the same playbook.

Of course, the big cry is, “But these people were voted in.’ It’s interesting to note that Hitler was voted in; he had great support from the “Christian” vote.  And is it not true that Putin was elected? And is it not also correct that the Donbas voted to become Russian?

Some people believe that a dictatorship may be preferable to a democracy. Interesting to note C.S. Lewis’s comment on that position, when he said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. We would be wise to be thankful for the praiseworthy aspects of democracy while working to avoid the others.”

Sure, refugees sometimes do bad things, and so do British-born people; but is that a reason to “tar them all with the same brush”?

Right now, in the UK, we are seeing people with Balaclavas over their heads, late at night, climbing ladders, scaling lamp posts, and erecting English flags, claiming that what they are doing is patriotic. Do we really believe that that is what it is all about? Patriotism? I really do not think the British public are that gullible.  It is about racism, it’s about protecting “the real English”, whatever that is.

A friend of mine, a ‘real Englishman,’ conducted one of those family history searches. To his great surprise, he discovered that his family line had Albanian ancestry.  (Great Britain was the title designated to Britain as opposed to other nearby islands.) Who are the English, Angles, Saxons, Celts, Vikings, and Norman French?  We even spoke French for a long time.

I like the comment by Greg Valerio, who looked at a line of the English St George's flags recently put up: “I am enjoying the irony that St George is not English, he never visited England, and in fact was Syrian. I think it's great that England is so multicultural that we have a Syrian as our Patron Saint. May the flag of St George always be a symbol of our multi-cultural and inclusive diversity.”

Saint George originated in the late 3rd century in Cappadocia, an area now in Turkey, as a soldier in the Roman army who refused to recant his Christian faith, leading to his martyrdom around 303 AD. He is a venerated Christian martyr.  

 

I am writing this because, yes, I am very concerned; I do not want to see the UK follow the same path as other places in our world. We need to be watchful. We need to be savvier.  We need to not listen to those who shout the loudest.  We need to think.

 

And, no! I am not part of the Z Generation, nor a baby boomer. If you want to check those phrases, I am one of those who they call from “the silent generation”. However, on these dangerous issues, I do not want to stay silent. Please do some research. Don’t listen to one source. Don’t just read the ‘popular press’. Check, and then check again.

 

Adrian Hawkes

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w. 625

 

 

 

 

,

 

 Left or RIGHT!

I am amazed that my cousins across the pond seem so ill-informed concerning right and left, particularly in the area of politics. It seems that communism, socialism and the Left is all lumped together as a communist threat. Maybe a little history on the subject would help, and so I refer you to my blog on the subject.  https://adrianhawkes.co.uk/socialism-2/

Often, I am referred to as “a lefty” or some other such phrase, often used in a derogatory tone. It made me think that often people use what I call “words without meaning” or as my youngest daughter would say, “They are wasting air.”

So, I thought, let me try and analyse some of the things that I think, and try and guess where that would put me in the terms of these “non-meaning words”. So, I think that traditional values such as family are important, so perhaps that makes me right wing?  Then I also think that health service free at the point of use is fantastic and I would certainly want my tax to go toward it even if I am not sick.  I guess that makes me a left-wing person.

Then I think that if a person claims asylum in the UK, and that claim is invalid, then perhaps they should not be allowed to stay. I guess that puts me on the Right.  I also think that all people coming to a country, no matter how they came, should be treated with the respect that we have for all human beings, and that they should be apportioned due process. I guess that makes me a lefty.

I’m disappointed with the fact that all politicians, of whatever ilk, use the word illegal when talking about people who came to this country in ways not normally prescribed.  Since when was it that claiming asylum was illegal?  Of course, maybe their asylum claim was not valid and they plan to overstay, but surely our system is supposed to presume we are innocent until proven guilty. Claiming that people are illegal before due process, is not seeing people as innocent before the process has taken place and discovered that they are illegal.  Words are very powerful, and when those with power use them wrongly it has a bad effect on all of us. Perhaps that puts me on the left?

The big talking point at the moment in the UK is all about flags and the use of. I think it’s great to wave flags at sporting events, put them on display for visiting dignitaries, wave them like mad at the Proms. So, am I being Right here? Then again, when people slap flags on buildings used by people of a different colour, and claim that they are just emphasising their community, and complain that I am “being anti my country’s flag because of my disgust at the use of the flag as a weapon and a racist statement,” if it wasn’t so disingenuous it would be funny. I suppose my complaint puts me on the left. Then to be told there are more important things than flags, sure there is, there are wars, poverty, racism, famine, and huge people displacement usually the result of power, money and bad politics. But what we forget is that these bad things start as ideas, plans, words, and “Yes!” the wrong use of symbols like flags. Words have power, and when we use them wrongly, we cannot then claim that it does not matter. It does!

Where we are is not accidental. It is the product of our history. Our history is the result of people’s thoughts, or put better by Einstein: "The world, as we have created it, is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking". 

We are in danger of “not thinking” or, being persuaded by “non-words “i.e. words without meaning, promises by certain politicians that will lead us towards a wonderful world of dictatorship (that was sarcasm by the way).We need to start thinking better and look at some of the ridiculous promises from politicians that just want power and really do not care about you, or I, or our nations.

These people really want power, and to have it.  Remember Hitler as voted in. To quote C. S. Lewis.  “A great deal of democratic enthusiasm descends from the ideas of people like Rousseau, who believed in democracy because they thought mankind so wise and good that everyone deserved a share in the government. The danger of defending democracy on those grounds is that they’re not true.  I find that they’re not true without looking further than myself. I don’t deserve a share in governing a hen-roost, much less a nation.” So, sure democracy might not be the best that there is, but it’s better than all the other ways of government. Just look around and learn to think and stop using words you don’t understand, and putting people into boxes that they don’t fit into. And check those sound bites, they are not sufficient.

w.848

adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

20^th September 2025

 

 

 Let’s go back to Babylon.

I notice that some young people refer to certain countries as Babylon. Google comments as follows:

“Modern songs sometimes use the metaphor of Babylon to comment on America. This comparison often critiques aspects of American society, such as how it is perceived in terms of materialism, moral decay, and political power. The lyrics employ symbolism, drawing parallels between contemporary America and the biblical Babylon, a city often associated with excess and corruption. This critique may address social issues and question the current situation. The analysis of this metaphor can be complex, requiring an understanding of both the historical context of Babylon and the specific societal name in view.

The interesting thing about the Biblical Babylon was the King of Babylon, and the fact that the King was a. the Lawgiver and b. the lawgiver was above the law and did not have to obey the law, though everyone else did.  What does that remind you of?  The following empire, after the fall of Babylon, that of the Medes and Persians, one notes the oft-quoted phrase, “the laws of the Medes and Persians, which don’t change, and the fact that the ruler was also subject to the law.” So, we are not going back there, but one step further back, one where rulers do not have to be subject to the law.

Babylon was rich, at least for some people, but one wonders how much the riches were created by slavery.

Interesting too is that the “Third Reich’s” main economy was a slavery-based economy.

The whole difficulty, for me, is the way in which we can undermine our humanity. So, we start to refer to groups of people in other ways, “blood poisoners”, aliens, or, if you like, humans are non-humans. We see this kind of rhetoric in war, where it’s not “dead people”, it's “collateral damage”.  In the Belfast troubles, it always troubled me that people were not killing people.  The one side were killing “Prods,” and the other side were killing “Papists”.  These are not humanoid words. It makes it possible to see people as “non-humans.”  At the very least, less than me, or at the very least, not nice people.

That is why I really object to the new Reform elected person saying, “Let’s put asylum seekers in tents.” It's a slippery slope to put one kind of person into a more deserving position than another. There is always someone at the bottom of the pile who is presented as a sort of “less than a human being.”

 

 I am reminded of that famous quote by German Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller:

“Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.”

 

So, I hope many will speak about Dame Andrea Jenkyns's nasty “tent” quote and let us hope that there are more sensible people around who will not vote to take us back to Babylon.

 

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

w. 527

07 08 25

 

 

 

An Exploration of Decision-Making Processes

Power, Exclusion, and Ethics

Recently, the world has witnessed a series of international negotiations and peace talks, such as those involving the United States and Russia. These discussions often exclude the most crucial party: Ukraine. This exclusion raises essential questions about the nature of power dynamics, insecurity, pride, and the ethical implications of such decisions. Is it power at play, the insecurity of the decision-makers, pride, or simply plain wrong?

Historical Exclusions: A Recurring Pattern

This pattern of exclusion is not new. In "The Mystery in Being a Gypsy," Gentylia Lee documents numerous instances where governmental meetings are held to decide the fate of the Gypsy community, often excluding the very people most affected by these decisions. The powerful conduct these meetings behind closed doors, leaving the Gypsies uninformed and without a voice in matters that directly impact their lives. This persistent exclusion prompts us to question whether it is power, pride, insecurity, or merely a grievous error in judgment.

Modern-Day Exclusions

Another contemporary example can be found in the fostering community, where foster carers are responsible for the care of children 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year. Despite fostering children for ten years, social work professionals often convene meetings to decide the children's futures, excluding both the children and the foster carers from the process. Again, this raises the question: is it pride, insecurity, stupidity, or just plain wrong?

Power Dynamics

One might argue that these exclusions are deeply rooted in power dynamics. Those who hold power may feel the need to assert their dominance by keeping decision-making processes exclusive. This ensures that they maintain control over the outcomes and the narrative. In the case of international negotiations, the powerful nations may exclude smaller or directly affected nations to preserve their strategic interests and geopolitical influence.

Insecurity Among Decision-Makers

Insecurity among decision-makers could also play a significant role. Decision-makers may fear that including the affected parties could challenge their authority, expose their vulnerabilities, or lead to outcomes that are less favourable to their agendas. This fear can drive them to exclude those who are most impacted, believing that their own positions are better protected in a closed setting.

The Role of Pride

Pride can be another contributing factor. Decision-makers may feel a sense of superiority and believe that they are best equipped to make decisions, even without the input of those who are directly affected. This hubris can lead to a dismissive attitude towards the voices that truly matter, resulting in decisions that are disconnected from the realities on the ground.

Ethical Implications

The ethical implications of such exclusions are profound. Excluding the most affected parties from decision-making processes can lead to decisions that are not only unjust but also detrimental to the well-being of those communities. It undermines the principles of democracy, fairness, and transparency, resulting in a loss of trust in the institutions that are supposed to protect and serve the people.

Case Studies in Exclusion

To further understand the impact of exclusion in decision-making, it is essential to examine specific case studies that highlight the consequences of such practices.

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919

The Paris Peace Conference of 1919, which aimed to establish the terms of peace after World War I, is a historical example of exclusion in decision-making. The conference was dominated by the Allied powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Italy. The defeated Central Powers, including Germany, were excluded from the negotiations. This exclusion led to the imposition of harsh terms on Germany, contributing to economic hardship and political instability, which eventually paved the way for World War II.

The Camp David Accords

The Camp David Accords of 1978, which facilitated a peace agreement between Egypt and Israel, also illustrate the consequences of exclusion. The negotiations were primarily conducted between the leaders of Egypt, Israel, and the United States, with little input from the Palestinian representatives. This exclusion has been criticized for failing to address the broader issues affecting the Palestinian people, leading to ongoing conflict and unrest in the region.

Exclusion in Environmental Decision-Making

Environmental decision-making processes often exclude indigenous communities and local populations who are directly impacted by environmental policies and projects. For example, the construction of large dams and pipelines frequently moves forward without adequate consultation with the affected communities. This exclusion not only leads to environmental degradation but also displaces communities and disrupts their way of life.

Addressing the Issue of Exclusion

To address the issue of exclusion in decision-making, several measures can be implemented:

Inclusive Dialogue

Creating platforms for inclusive dialogue ensures that all voices, especially those of the affected parties, are heard and considered. This can lead to more equitable and sustainable outcomes.

Transparent Processes

Transparency in decision-making processes is crucial. Decision-makers should provide clear and accessible information about the proceedings and invite participation from diverse stakeholders. This transparency fosters trust and accountability.

Empowering Marginalised Groups

Empowering marginalized groups through education, capacity-building, and representation in decision-making bodies can help address power imbalances. Providing them with the tools and opportunities to participate meaningfully can lead to more just and informed decisions.

Ethical Leadership

Promoting ethical leadership that values inclusivity, empathy, and fairness is essential. Leaders should prioritize the well-being of all stakeholders and make decisions that reflect the principles of justice and equity.

Conclusion

The exploration of decision-making processes reveals the complex interplay of power, insecurity, pride, and ethical considerations. The recurring pattern of exclusion in various contexts highlights the need for a more inclusive and ethical approach to decision-making. By addressing the root causes of exclusion and implementing measures to promote inclusivity, transparency, and empowerment, we can move towards a future where decisions are made with the voices and interests of all stakeholders in mind.

W, 970

Adrianhawkes.blogspot.co.uk

22.02.2025