Tonight saw the Faith Shorts 2010 Awards by the Tony Blair Faith Foundation at BAFTA in Central London. A very high-profile group of judges had shortlisted 26 short films in three categories. Young people around the world had bid for a video camera and the 50 winners had then submitted their films for judgement. The event was compered by the ubiquitous Adrian Chiles.
The judges included (among others) Tony Blair, Jonathan Caplan QC, Hugh Jackman, Anil Kapoor, Natalie Portman, Nik Powell, Queen Rania of Jordan and Deepak Verma.
The films were judged in three categories: (a) Under 18 Film Pitch, (b) 18-25 Film Pitch and (c) 18-25 Film Maker. The winners and runners-up were astonishingly good. Each film seemed to last up to five minutes, but they were totally engrossing. Awards went to:
Under 18 Film Pitch: Winner: ‘Forgiveness’ by Dolly Deeb from Jordan. Runner-up: ‘The Old Bridge’ by Rijad Guja from Bosnia Herzegovina (about the bridge at Mostar as a symbol)
18-25 Film Pitch: Winner: ‘The Guide’ by Shiv Tandan from India. Runner-up: ‘Under Cover’ by Sara Al Dayek from Lebanon.
18-25 Film Maker: Winner: ‘People I Know’ by Esteban Pedraza from the USA. Runners-up: ‘Let Us Show You How Our Faith Inspires Us’ by Tariq Chowdhury from the UK and ‘Self Realisation’ by Silvina Estevez from Argentina.
I intended to take some photos, but I found the whole thing engrossing and very evocative and only managed one. Here were young people of different faiths offering a new language for articulating faith with confidence in a complicated world. Some of the films were funny, others surprising, all powerful – especially having been made by such young people on such limited equipment.
One feature of the event was a panel discussion in which Lord David Puttnam observed that “the British media are self-referential” and Blair added his view that they are largely ”religiously illiterate”. Being asked by a journalist prior to the event, “Is your faith important to you?” exemplifies this – a seemingly interesting question that assumes faith is some sort of odd consumer accessory, an add-on to an otherwise reasonable life. This led afterwards to a discussion about the assumption of neutrality on the part of our media, regardless of the fact that there is no such thing as a neutral worldview.
One of the young award winners made the point that the word ‘tolerant’ in relation to interfaith relations is inadequate. “Tolerance,” he said, ” is about simply bearing with people you don’t like – but love goes further than mere tolerance and it is love that is needed.” I was glad to hear this – a point I make repeatedly at the global interfaith conferences I attend and a point that is rarely understood (especially in the ex-Soviet bloc where ‘tolerance’ is heard as a stronger word than it is in the West where it is a lowest common denominator concept).
One problem of contemporary ‘public speak’ by government and local authorities is the use of the language of ‘tolerance’ without recognition that ‘peace’ is not simply ‘the absence of war’, ‘community cohesion’ is not simply ‘stopping people from hitting each other’, and ‘interfaith relations’ is about more than ‘reducing tension between faith communities’ (which usually doesn’t exist). Constructive love offers a better future than fearful ‘prevention’.
The problem with ‘tolerance’ is that the people who speak of it are often the same people who are totally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their idea of ‘tolerance’. There is nothing more dangerous than an illiberal liberal – one who proclaims freedom for all who conform to his idea of freedom, but leaves no space for those whose idea is more limiting.
Funny old world.
Update 6 August 2010: Tony Blair has written about his reasons for launching the Faith Shorts initiative here.
July 23, 2010 at 6:00 am
Deeply profound comment from the young film-maker about tolerance and love. Also interesting to reflect that Blair himself once said “tolerance is the new law of the jungle”
July 23, 2010 at 8:32 am
Amen to that! Thank you.
July 23, 2010 at 10:12 am
There is nothing more dangerous than an illiberal liberal – one who proclaims freedom for all who conform to his idea of freedom, but leaves no space for those whose idea is more limiting.
That’s a sloppy and untrue cliche. Who is more dangerous – the person who wants to execute gays or the person who wants to ban homophobic speech? It’s quite easy to forget that illiberals are dangerous when you’re not likely to come under attack yourself.
And what do you mean by ‘leaving no space’? Too often when we Christians protest about being attacked it’s actually protesting that we’re being deprived of our right to treat others badly.
July 23, 2010 at 4:56 pm
magistra
It rather depends on what we’re talking about. Of course the person who wants to execute gays should not be allowed to do so, and it would take an astonishing Western conservative to believe that.
But there’s a difference between being intolerant of actual harm done, like there is in the lgbt debate, and no real harm done to anyone, like in the women bishops debate.
Not a single woman has been refused ordination because FiF or Reform don’t like it. Not a single woman priest has been refused employment because of conservative theology in some parts of the CoE. But if you read the liberal blogs you’d think that women were as oppressed and in danger as lgbt people and that everything had to be done to get rid of FiF and Reform, that no special provisions should be enshrined for them as if groups with widely different theologies hadn’t been a valid part of the church ever since its inception. They are being treated as if we were parents whose patience with our delinquent children had finally snapped. Their views are being misrepresented and caricatured to the point where they appear small minded, sexist and ridiculous, and no-one is seeing the deep trauma many of them are going through at the moment.
We’ve won. We don’t need to be so small minded, so intolerant of difference where it doesn’t cause any harm.
July 23, 2010 at 5:12 pm
Nick,
“The problem with ‘tolerance’ is that the people who speak of it are often the same people who are totally intolerant of anyone who disagrees with their idea of ‘tolerance’.”
While this is a problem, I think that all too often intolerant or narrow-minded groups seek cover under a sort of “if you’re really tolerant you won’t mind my being intolerant” stance. But my tolerating someone else’s stance on, say, abortion or homosexuality or circumcision (or genital mutilation, depending which group you want to be offended by language) does not mean I am happy for the law to reflect their opinions rather than mine!
The reality is that we do all live in the same world together and when someone else does something we find unacceptable we have to decide whether to let it go or object. I do think this is best done with care and compassion, with a genuine attempt to fully understand the context of those actions we find difficult. However, I think more often than not the choice of what to do boils down to a cost vs benefit analysis rather than a value judgement.
The issues I mentioned — abortion, circumcision, homosexuality — can all be framed in terms of what we do with our bodies and how much our bodies belong to us individually and how much they belong to the larger community. I come from a very individualistic cultural background in which, at least in theory, the concept of my body being subject to the desires or needs of my community is quite alien. In practice I am female and society has all sorts of expectations, many of them conflicting; men, too, are expected to conform to certain patterns of behaviour and people can feel quite threatened when they do not (if any reader doesn’t believe me, think about what happens if a bloke turns up for an ordinary office job wearing a skirt).
I was brought up to put others’ needs before my own (in this supposed individualist culture), and indeed if everyone did this and could truly understand one another’s needs perhaps life would be very different. What I am learning is that listening to others doesn’t always mean remaining silent myself — it is not a matter of considering my needs in direct competition with those of the community at large, but rather of considering my needs as part of the reality of living in a community, and where resource scarcity rears its head to attempt to come up with creative solutions. Yes, sometimes that will mean my going without something that I think I “need” — but not always.
Long-time readers of my comments here will realise that when I say “community” I mean “every human on this planet” (and that is a rather narrow definition; perhaps “all creation” would be better), and also that I find it impossible to follow the complexities of 6.7 billion people sufficiently well to be confident that all my choices will benefit all, or at least harm none. Even if I had that sort of intellect, there would remain the greater problem of my continual failure to do as I believe is right — through fear, or despair, or willful ignorance, or plain old ordinary physical limitations of weariness and pain. I will always miss the mark. Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!
But if the world is too complex for me, it is probably too complex for most other humans. A quick glance at the financial pages of any newspaper would seem to support this hypothesis. Further, if I fall short of what I believe is right, it seems likely that other humans also struggle. St Paul certainly had something to say about it, so I submit that this is not a new problem.
If this is true — if those parts of my experience can be extrapolated to include many or most humans — then each of us is in an impossibly vulnerable position. We are all dependent on a community of similarly-flawed human beings who are certain to hurt one another!
I think intolerance is one of the tools we sometimes use to get around that position. We tell ourselves, on some level, that other people don’t count — because they belong to this group or that group, or because they prioritise their lives differently. We make up little rules and regulations for ourselves and think that if we follow them, we are guaranteed some kind of safety, either now or after we die. This seems better than the paralysis of trying to choose well, and it seems better than the vulnerability of acknowledging that individually and collectively we not only don’t know what on earth we’re doing but don’t even manage to do it very well. But while I don’t think anyone can reasonably attempt to keep in mind the needs of the entire world, I don’t think putting people in boxes is a constructive response to the predicament.
“One of the young award winners made the point that the word ‘tolerant’ in relation to interfaith relations is inadequate. “Tolerance,” he said, ” is about simply bearing with people you don’t like – but love goes further than mere tolerance and it is love that is needed.””
Absolutely agreed.
e e cummings said:
“We do not believe in ourselves until someone reveals that deep inside us something is valuable, worth listening to, worthy of our trust, sacred to our touch.”
That has certainly been true for me.
Perhaps the most constructive thing any of us can do is to look past the labels we apply to others and to ourselves and focus on what we can see that is good — to build up rather than to tear down, if you like, and to find some common purpose or common good that we can work toward together even if we disagree on some of the details of why it is important.
As always, this is easier said than done.
July 23, 2010 at 6:39 pm
My last comment was somewhat grumpy, so can I add something that’s hopefully a bit more constructive? We’re told that we should love our neighbour and also love our enemy. But should we love our neighbour’s enemy? In other words, if somebody is harming someone else, what should our reaction be to that? If loving your enemy means forgiving them the wrongs they have done, do we have the right to forgive wrongs done to others? It’s a very difficult balance to strike between respecting someone else’s freedom to do something and curtailing (or wishing to curtail) that freedom when it impinges negatively on someone else.
July 24, 2010 at 1:28 am
congrats to all who won including a sahaja yogi…..soon sahaja yoga will help more people in becoming number one!
visit sahajayoga.org and benefit allround!
July 24, 2010 at 6:49 am
Erika,
Not a single woman has been refused ordination because FiF or Reform don’t like it. Not a single woman priest has been refused employment because of conservative theology in some parts of the CoE.
I fear that is not actually true. I know (that is, I weekly attend worship with) at least one woman refused ordination explicitly because the local FiF group would have been unhappy about it. I’ve been involved in the C of E for a relatively short time; I suspect anything widespread enough that I’ve encountered an example of it has happened more than just that once, although of course I cannot be certain.
There has been real harm done in the debate over women’s ordination, on both “sides”. I don’t think it is the same as the harm done int he LGBT debate, or even of the same magnitude at this point in history, but that does not mean it isn’t real.
that no special provisions should be enshrined for them as if groups with widely different theologies hadn’t been a valid part of the church ever since its inception.
Well, groups with widely different theologies have been a valid part of the church since its inception. My understanding (and my grasp of history is sketchy, so I could be wrong) is that they have generally managed to remain distinct without any special provision in law — especially provision which undermines the authority of other groups.
Their views are being misrepresented and caricatured to the point where they appear small minded, sexist and ridiculous, and no-one is seeing the deep trauma many of them are going through at the moment.
I am trying very hard not to caricature or misrepresent the views of those who oppose the ordination of women. I don’t find such views ridiculous so much as baffling: I genuinely do not understand the reasoning. But there are a fair number of people who genuinely do not understand why I believe in God, but who are willing to let me get on with my theism in whatever way suits me — as long as I don’t try to force or cajole them into participation.
I can only experience the world as myself so I won’t claim to understand just how traumatic this is for traditionalists who feel rejected, but I have experienced rejection myself and I have experienced uncertainty myself and I do not intend to make light of or dismiss the very real feelings of rejection and uncertainty that many are going through.
July 24, 2010 at 11:04 am
Song
I’m sorry to hear that there really have been women who were not ordained because of FiF opposition. I don’t suppose it’s any consolation to them that they would be ordained in a different parish.
So would we not need provisions that cut both ways? Allow FiF and Reform to live out their theology while we live out ours and neither has the right to block the other?
I still completely fail to see why we find it so impossible to contemplate a genuine
compromise.
In the past, FiF have been able to get by with only Flying Bishops as provisions.
Although you and I don’t share their theology, they believe that God does not enable women’s ordination. Not that it’s wrong, but that it’s actually impossible, as impossible as a man having babies. I don’t have to share that view to accept that it is very real. And as it’s shared by the whole of the Catholic church, I can’t even claim that it’s a quaint aberration.
Up to now, they have been able to pretty much avoid women priests.
But now it gets more complex.
Because if you believe that women cannot possible be priests, then you cannot serve under woman bishop, because that’s just like having no bishop at all. It has its own inherent logic. By extension, you cannot accept a male priest who was ordained by a woman bishop, because that’s no more valid than you or me ordaining a priest. Again, you do not have to share that view to understand that it all follows logically from the belief that women cannot be priests.
So if you believe all this, and if you accept that the church is moving on and developing a different theology to yours, but if you really want to stay in the church, then you only have the option to ask for special provisions that enable you to continue to worship the way you have always done. And because you can see the lack of comprehension around you, and the liberal move towards less and less willingness to accommodate you, you have genuine reason to fear that voluntary provisions will not be honoured in 20-30 years time.
I don’t have to understand FiF in order to see that they are completely genuine and, by and large, not misogynists. I can comprehend what they’re saying without agree with it, and deep down it pains me to see what agonies they’re going through because their understanding of the priesthood has them in ever tightening knots about their own place in this church or in Rome.
When it comes down to it – I just do not understand why we have to have 100% purity and why we should be so outraged at the request for accommodation.
July 24, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Erika,
I think there have been attempts at accomodation with FiF, which is why there isn’t a single clause measure just making women bishops. But the problem is how you keep people fully part of a church when they apparently don’t want to associate with the vast majority of people within that church.
Nobody wants parishes to have a priest forced on them who doesn’t suit them, and I think the proposed legislation already covers that. And nobody wants to have priests who feel they haven’t been correctly ordained, and the proposed legislation also covers that. But the difficult point is about separate dioceses. If you wish to leave your own diocese because it contains women priests and associate only with the small number of Anglicans whose ministry you accept, you’re abandoning the traditional idea of a diocese, and shutting yourself into a small box. And that box is almost inevitably going to get smaller, because at some point if we have women bishops (and that’s still not definite), we’re going to have a female archbishop. And if FiF can’t be in communion with any archbishop who’s ordained a female archbishop (and I presume they can’t) we’re back to an extra wall that has to be erected. In what sense are such people still in the Church of England?
I think there does need to be the maximum amount of generosity towards FiF, and any female bishops are going to have to make sure not to intrude on them and not to take it personally when their ministry is rejected. But if FiF don’t want generosity, but simply protective walls, I don’t see how we can build them high enough to satisfy them without destroying what it means to be a single church.
July 24, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Magistra,
You are perfectly entitled to make grumpy comments. But, I would also add that just because something is a cliche doesn’t mean it isn’t (to some degree, at least) true.
I think what this interesting discussion hasn’t grappled with directly yet is the fact that even the wildest ‘tolerant liberal’ assumes certain criteria for delimiting tolerance and liberalism. I guess I am asking for honesty. It’s a bit like Karl Barth rejecting what he saw as ‘Modernist’ epistemologies whilst assuming his own in order to make his critique.
July 24, 2010 at 7:43 pm
Nick
Honesty would say that, yes, we all have our limits beyond which we cannot go.
Tolerance means acknowledging our own limits and trying to fit someone else’s parameters into those. The more we are able to do that, the more tolerant and the more liberal we are.
I think in a church context this debate is hampered by the term “liberal”, which is equally applied to people who are willing to live and let live as much as possible, as it is applied to people who in a secular political system would be called “left wing”.
Put in those terms, it is not at all surprising that there are very illiberal lefties
True liberals would be those who, whatever view they personally hold, would do their best to accommodate as many other people as possible.
They can be found in all parts of the spectrum, although they are most likely to be found in the more “left wing” section of life.
But it is unrealistic to assume that everyone has limits except liberals.
We’re not anarchists, after all.
We just suffer from the general public illusion that everyone should be allowed to have limits but for some strange reason, we’re not meant to have any.
July 24, 2010 at 9:04 pm
I find it easier to discuss specific ethics rather than fundamental principles. But if I had to describe how I ground my own ‘liberal’ views, it would be on the grounds of a Christian belief in the equal significance of all humans and the resultant demand of justice for all. From this I derive my two basic political propositions: that people’s rights should not, in principle, depend on their status (male/female, black/white, rich/poor, gay/straight) and that rights are no use to people if they have no means of exercising them. (It’s no use being allowed to buy bread if you have no money to do so). While the majority of UK liberals are probably not Christians, a secularised version of these principles is basic to most ideas about human rights. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that human rights are an invention of ‘Christendom’.
If I believe in equality and justice, to what extent should I tolerate those carrying out or advocating acts of inequality and injustice? I want to distinguish two different meanings of ‘tolerate’ here. I can legally tolerate an act or a belief, say it should be permitted. Or I can go further and say I will not criticise it. Religious toleration has historically been about legal tolerance, not exemption from criticism. In recent times, Jews or Catholics could practice their religion in Britain and not be discriminated against, but that in no way stopped people from criticizing aspects of Judaism or Catholicism.
On legal toleration of particular acts that are directly harmful to others, there is a fine balance to be struck on how much harm is done versus how much restriction of freedom a ban would cause. I don’t know that particular ‘liberal’ decisions are always right, but I don’t think that, for example, protecting bar staff from passive smoking is necessarily ‘intolerant’ of smokers.
In some ways tolerance in the sense of restraining from criticism is a trickier area. Here the balance is between treating those who disagree with you with respect and standing up against injustices. Should you confront someone who is making racist remarks, for example, or should you just ‘agree to disagree’? I tend to avoid discussions on homosexuality with my homophobic relatives, mainly because I don’t think the stakes are high enough to justify my falling out with them on what’s mostly a theoretical issue. But if they were treating actual gay people (or the unemployed or Conservatives or whatever group) poorly, then surely I should stand up and be counted?
Refraining from criticizing illiberal behaviour can sometimes have very nasty consequences, by allowing it to become socially acceptable. In the US a few years ago, the Bush administration and its supporters began trying to justify torture (under euphemisms such as ‘waterboarding’). The media, to show that they weren’t biased, that they were tolerant, treated as equally valid views support for torture and opposition to torture. As a result, the majority of white evangelical Protestants in the US now support the use of torture. Wouldn’t any amount of ‘illiberal liberalism’, condemning such views, be better than that?
So when I read Nick saying that ‘there is nothing more dangerous than an illiberal liberal’, I want to ask him something. Am I (or Richard Dawkins or whoever) really more dangerous than the people who want to torture others, or the British people who would like to execute gays (I’m afraid they do exist, Erika), or who think that Jon Venables should be hanged? if you want to say there’s nothing more self-righteous than an illiberal liberal or nothing more hypocritical than an illiberal liberal, I could accept that, but more dangerous? On what basis do you make that statement?
July 24, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Erika,
Thank you for the explanation, which makes a lot more sense to me than many I’ve seen.
and if you accept that the church is moving on and developing a different theology to yours, but if you really want to stay in the church, then you only have the option to ask for special provisions that enable you to continue to worship the way you have always done
I’m not sure that this follows, though.
How would a FiF parish with a woman bishop that they cannot accept be different from any other parish during an interregnum between bishops? Clearly the time period might be longer, but other than that? This question might be rather naive, but what changes in people’s worship if for a period of time they are without a bishop?
Some of the traditionalist requests I’ve seen are not asking for male bishops but for male bishops who have not and will not ordain women. This is a very different argument than the one you have explained, and it worries me a lot more.
Asking for special provision does not seem to me like an attempt to continue worshiping as one always has in the context of a church that is changing theologically, but rather an attempt to stem or stop those theological changes.
July 25, 2010 at 9:02 am
Magistra
thank you for writing that, I agree with every word you’ve said.
Song
I don’t know about interregnums, Nick would be in a better position to answer that part of your question, but I suspect bishops might be seen as representatives of the Archbishop of Canterbury or whichever head an Episcopal church has, just as priests stand in place of bishops.
I absolutely agree that asking for male bishops who will not ordain women is wrong if it comes from FiF.
Reform, however, are different issue. Conservative evangelicals don’t believe that women priests are an actual impossibility, they believe they are simply “wrong” because St Paul taught that women should be silent in church and should not teach men. Male headship is a huge issue for these people (and one I personally have no time for at all).
But again, if you hold the position that it is sinful to have women priests, then it is logically consistent to ask that your bishop doesn’t contradict the bible and ordains women.
Nick
As I don’t know you as a strident right wing conservative who rides roughshod over everybody’s rights, it would be helpful to hear from you now just what kind of liberal thinking or behavious you find illiberal and intolerant and why.
July 25, 2010 at 10:10 am
Erika, Magistra, thanks for engaging in this discussion. One of the reasons I blog is in order to put stuff out there and see how my own thinking is challenged or developed by the ensuing discussion. This ‘tolerance’ matter is no exception.
My point about ‘illiberal liberals’ is simply that there is an unthinking liberalism that claims intellectual high ground and moral reasonableness, but only if accepted on its own terms. I think you are right to question my use of the words ‘dangerous’ – that was sloppy and more thought would have led me to use a word such as ‘hypocritical’ or even ‘disingenuous’. But, that said, I think there is ‘danger’: of self delusion, for example, or uncritical exclusion of those who think differently – as seen in some of the current debates around the church.
But, what the debate here has illustrated is that we use the term ‘liberal’ to mean different things and that we need to recover the word ‘liberal’ as a strong word, not a ‘boo’ word. We also need to ask why the questioning of ‘liberalism’ implies that the questioner might be right wing or conservative. And, once again, we find that the labels do not do justice to the nuances because they force us into rigid categories that are laden with assumptions and prejudices.
One final observation before I go on holiday. I remember having a chat with my mate, Giles Fraser, and saying that ‘liberals’ in the C of E need to learn their Bible. Biblical ignorance or selectivity does not help in any debate with people for whom the Bible (as they believe and sometimes uncritically assume it to be) is the ultimate authority in all things. If ‘conservatives’ need to question the assumptions behind their assumptions about the Bible, ‘liberals’ need to engage better with the Bible and not simply write off the bits they find inconvenient. The debates could be better than they often are.
If you want to keep this discussion going, I will try (while on holiday) to keep checking in and approving comments – but I can’t promise. My wife won’t see it as quite the same priority as I do…
July 25, 2010 at 7:15 pm
Nick
I think I should be very illiberally on your wife’s side if you were to ruin your holiday by posting comments!
Enjoy!
July 27, 2010 at 8:28 pm
The idea of the “illiberal liberal” is an interesting one that was identified over 40 years ago by the late Lennie Bruce who provoked his ( largely liberal) audience with the statement that “Liberals can understand everything except people who cannot understand them”. This is particularly appropriate when liberals are considering those who come from orthodox religious backgrounds across many faiths.
July 28, 2010 at 8:20 pm
Bring on the next generation!
July 28, 2010 at 8:27 pm
Will we be able to see the movies? I hope they are put on the website soon.
July 28, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Hi!
Thank you Nick for putting up this article, I feel honoured to read your assessment of the entire event, and I must thank you specially for the taking up the point I made about ‘tolerance’ vs ‘love’. It is good to hear that you’ve been talking about this idea before as well; someone, somewhere, sometime, will take notice!
As for the discussion you are having about cliches and paradoxes, I haven’t read through the entire discussion, but I have to say your last paragraph does seem slightly self defeating… In a way perhaps, that the world itself is. The liberal who does not make room for the illiberal is defeating his own stance, isn’t that your point? I disagree though; I think it is a clever way of putting it, but argumentatively skewed. Being ‘liberal’ cannot apply to the opinion of being liberal itself! Just like, you cannot use maths to check whether maths is a valid system… Or you can’t use a word in its own definition, etc.
The word you used though, ‘conform’, is brilliant. Rhetoric at its best!
Will read the rest of the argument at get back, but thank you once again.
(could you correct my name’s spelling? Just a small thing, but … haha! Cheers! )
July 29, 2010 at 2:12 pm
It is very difficult to be ‘liberal’ .
Some years ago I worked as a volunteer with Victim Support. One of my clients was an elderly Lady who, whenever she ventured outdoors, was shot at with air rifles by her neighbour’s children.
As a liberal, I try to understand how social deprivation can turn innocent children into malevolent, bullying thugs. What they need is understanding, love, forgiveness, a new leisure centre or playground.
My more basic instincts suggest that these teenagers be taken away, handed over to The Daily Mail, and given a good whipping.
I try hard to remain liberal, but it is not easy.
KK
August 5, 2010 at 10:55 am
[...] 5, 2010 · Leave a Comment As runner-up in the prominent Faith Shorts 2010 Awards, Silvina Estevez’s film expresses a universe of tangible spiritual truth in just three [...]
August 7, 2010 at 12:40 am
Shiv,
Thanks for your comment and sorry for getting your name wrong. It was a simple typo in a hurry… And congratulations!
June 24, 2011 at 3:37 pm
[...] some of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation video shorts, these go to prove that you can tell alot with a little. Maybe preachers have something to learn [...]