The darker side of Christmas carols

I've been singing a lot of carols lately. A favourite one among my friends is the Coventry carol, about Herod's slaughter of the children of Bethlehem. It's a reminder that carols don't just talk about the joys of Christmas, but also hint at the darker side. Christmas isn't all mistletoe and wine and small children singing "Away in a manger." Numerous carols about the magi (or wise men, or kings if you really must) mention the symbolism of their gifts: gold for a king, incense for a priest, myrrh to show that he would suffer and die.

Another favourite carol among my friends (well, given that the tune is by Sullivan it's not exactly surprising) is "It came upon the midnight clear." The message of the carol shows how the angels' message "Peace on the earth, goodwill to men" has been ignored by a world too busy with its' own selfishness to think about God or others:

"Yet with the woes of sin and strife the world has suffered long,
Beneath the angel strain have rolled two thousand years of wrong.
And man at war with man, hears not the love-song which they bring,
O hush the noise, ye men of strife, and hear the angels sing."

And it's true that the world is in a mess, and ignores the message of Christmas. So much of the time we're too busy giving and receiving Christmas cards and presents (or, this year, worrying about whether we can afford them) to pay much attention to the baby in the manger, or if we do we stop there and forget what that baby went on to do.

If you believed everything that you see on TV over Christmas, you might take issue with my saying that "the world's in a mess." We're bombarded with feelgood, happily-ever-after films and shows. But behind the glitz and the tinsel we all know that things don't always end happily. Many people will find Christmas hard this year after the loss of a family member, others will be lonely, or ill, or homeless. And further from home people are dying of cholera in Zimbabwe, dying of starvation or AIDS in Africa, in fear of war in Afghanistan- the list goes on.

It's hardly surprising that so many people say "If there's a God- a good, loving God, like you say- why does he let all this happen?" And it's not an easy question to answer. I'm not going to try in any depth here, partly because I don't know. I may write about it more later. I think, mostly, it has to do with humankind's free will to choose not to do what God wants, and to mess up our lives and other people's. Without free will there would be no love- love that is compelled, without the option of not loving, isn't really love. If you're interested in the suffering question, read The Problem of Pain by C.S. Lewis for some interesting ideas. Or ask me for my thoughts. But I don't pretend to have all the answers.

Whatever you think about suffering dilemma, the one thing you can't deny is that if the Christmas message is true, God himself lived and died and shared in our human sufferings.

"He came down to earth from heaven, who is God and Lord of all
And his shelter was a stable, and his cradle was a stall,
With the poor and mean and lowly lived on earth our Saviour holy."

And later in the same carol:

"He was little, weak and helpless, tears and smiles like us he knew.
And he feeleth in our sadness, and he shareth in our gladness."

More than one carol dwells on this wonderful miracle- God, the creator and ruler of all things, becomes a man- more than that, a child, submitting himself to parental authority, going through all the traumas of growing up, of not being understood by his family and friends, the grief of losing loved ones, of living in a country subject to a hated foreign power, hunger and thirst and temptation, and ultimately betrayal by his friend, abandonment and pain and a truly horrific death.

"Sorrowing, sighing, bleeding, dying,
Sealed in a stone cold tomb."*

And I think that's why I'm prepared to accept that I don't, and never will (in this life) fully understand why there's suffering. He went through what we go through. But he did that so that we could have a way out from this messed-up world- a chance to make a new start. So that we could be set free from our own selfishness, free to live our lives to fulfilment. Christmas changed the world. Carols look back to that. But they also look forward. In the run up to Christmas, Christians look forward to Jesus' return when justice will be done and suffering will end;

"When the new heaven and earth shall own the Prince of Peace their king,
And all the world give back the sound which now the angels sing!"

Happy Christmas!


*Strangely enough, that verse from We Three Kings is also a favourite among my friends. Do I sense a theme of them preferring the sadder, depressing bits?!

Bestseller or unread behemoth?

This article on the BBC news website made me think about people's perceptions of the Bible, and of the church in general. What interested me most was that the author seemed to assume that Christians would be against the Bible being presented in unusual ways. Yet again someone has failed to grasp that it's not the manner something is presented in that matters, but the message contained in that presentation. The media like reporting on Christians disagreeing with each other, or condemning what other people are doing. Sadly we give them a lot of scope for that.

The Bible is not a nice book. There are plenty of bits we'd all rather gloss over. Here's some examples:
"Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives ravished."
"They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."

The Bible and its interpretation cause Christians to disagree with each other more than almost anything else (as is demonstrated by some of the comments on the article). But as the guy from the Bible Society comments in the article, the idea of the Bible as a big book with small print has only been around for four centuries or so. Before that highly decorated manuscripts were the norm, for example the York Gospels which can be seen here. Having been lucky enough to see the manuscript in real life (a history degree is useful for something!) I can safely say it's a real work of art and a thing of beauty. Before that, the texts were written on scrolls in the same way Jewish holy texts still are.

During the Reformation, one of the main aims of the reformers was to make the Bible text accessible to everyone . So as well as translating it from Latin into commonly spoken languages such as English and German, the text was printed in as small (and therefore cheap) a format as possible, allowing ordinary people to afford one. Thousands of people were able to read it for themselves (assuming, of course, they were able to read at all) and judge for themselves the truth (or otherwise) of what they read. The examples given in the article of different ways of presenting the Bible's message (such as this, although I'm not sure that "your beliefs are silly" or "he says we are to be judged by a zombie" are the most tactful way of explaining the gospel!) at least help to counter the claim that "the Bible isn't relevant today."

But all the modern translations and presentations are no good unless people think about what they read (or see in pictures, or hear on their ipods). Which is why an organisation I'm part of, Scripture Union, launched its WordLive website last year to get people reading the Bible, thinking about it in a way that's relevant to them, and applying what they read to their own lives.

This is a book that has shaped our culture, influenced our history and had an effect on countless lives. If you're not familiar with it, I'd suggest taking a look- whether it's on the web, in bricks, in pictures or cartoons, or even- to be controvertial- in print.

Masquerade!

What makes you who you truly are?

I was reading Maskerade (as in the Discworld novel) the other day. The book draws on The Phantom of the Opera for aspects of it's plot. Both include a Ghost who wears a mask to change himself- in one case because of a disfiguring scar, in the other it gives him a totally different personality, with much more confidence and ability.

As well as concluding that I'm the character Agnes (cursed with a nice personality and an ability to keep her head, while others panic, faint gracefully and grab the limelight; however sadly I don't have the ability to sing in harmony with myself!)- shame that witching as a career is out of the question!- the book lead me to think about masks.

Some people construct themselves a mask to hide their true feelings, to protect themselves. I know some people like that. Maybe it's because they don't like who they are, or are afraid of what people will think of them. They want to be more popular, to appear more confident. They present a face to the world that is tougher, more witty, more worldly than they themselves are. They hide their true feelings, the hurts they suffer, the disappointments, the secret ambitions and desires, and present to the world what they think other people will want to see.

But the trouble with masks is that they slip. And they don't change what's going on inside. Maybe it can help, for a while or in certain circumstances. But I want to be who I am, to become even more so, to be the person God designed me to be. And hiding behind a mask I've constructed can't do that. I can't make myself someone else entirely (and I wouldn't want to anyway), and trying to become someone else means you loose something that makes you you. And that's a precious thing. Each of us is unique, reflecting (I believe) an aspect of God. So if we're continually trying to be someone else (the latest celebrity or hero from a film, book or history) we're not going to be happy. We can only do that by learning to be happy with ourselves, and with who we are in relation to God.

The word hypocrite apparently means "someone who has decided to act or speak under a false part – to wear a mask." (WordLive, 19th November 2008). To be a hypocrite is therefore to pretend to be someone or something you're not, or to believe one thing yet act in a way that contradicts that belief.

In Tom Holt's book Earth, Air, Fire and Custard Paul Carpenter is so fed up with being who he is (a total looser) that he changes his appearance and pretends to be a different person. This allows him to become the person who he wants to be- who in fact is actually him, but because he stops feeling that he's a looser he doesn't feel bad or ashamed of himself, has more confidence and actually is a much better person. In a way that's what I need. More confidence in myself to allow me to become more fully me. But where that's going to come from (other than God) I don't know.

Les Miserables and loving mercy

As some of you may know, I've just finished reading Les Miserables (the book on which the musical is based rather than the musical itself). I enjoyed it, overall, although certain parts (eg half a dozen chapters on the history of the Paris sewer network- yes, really) weren't highlights. But parts of the story seemed to illustrate perfectly a discussion I was having with a friend a week or so ago.

We were (through some means that I can't quite remember) discussing justice and fairness. I had said that even if it was fair for someone to be unhappy because of a decision I'd made, I didn't want them to. "But it's fair," came the reply. "Even if it's fair, I don't want someone to be unhappy because of me," I responded.

My point was that sometimes what we deserve doesn't happen to us, because we are shown mercy. That, of course, is the whole point of the Christian gospel- that we (humankind, every one of us) are in a mess but because of God's love and mercy, expressed through Jesus' life and death, we can be sorted out and get, in effect, a new life. But when Christians go on about 'justice' and picture God as a judge who decides what we deserve, it can seem hard to see where mercy fits into this. People usually struggle thinking of a God who judges. But can a loving God be just- if we deserve something bad, is it just that we get good things, freedom, a second chance?

Near the beginning of Les Mis, Jean Valjean, as an ex-convict, finds it impossible to get lodging for the night until he is taken in by the Bishop of Digne. Despite the kindness and hospitality shown him by the bishop, Valjean, hardened by his years as a convict, steals the bishop's silver and runs away. He is caught and brought back to the bishop, who saves Valjean by declaring that the silver wasn't stolen, that he gave it to Valjean. He then gives Valjean two silver candlesticks, and tells him that from now on he must be an honest man, because he (the bishop) has bought Valjean's soul with the silver. The musical version puts it like this:
"You must use this precious silver to become an honest man,...
Christ has raised you out of darkness, I have bought your soul for God."

Valjean goes off, and (after a hiccup or two) does become an honest man, devoting and risking his life to helping the poor and making others happy. This encounter with the bishop profoundly changes him. Despite his deserving to be punished for his theft and sent back to the galleys, he is shown incredible mercy and generosity by the bishop, and instead of being returned to his old life he is given a chance to make a fresh start, to make a new life for himself. Instead of what he deserves (punishment) he gets something that is much better (life and freedom).

But is that fair? How can it be justice to give people a reward when they deserve punishment? At first sight it seems crazy. Why should Valjean, a man who has stolen from a someone who gave him kindness, treated him with respect, gave him food and a bed, not be punished? He know that what he's doing is wrong.

Yet the bishop forgives him. Why? Because he pities Valjean for what has happened to him, yes, but also, I think, because as a man of God he knows that God loves Valjean and wants to forgive him. The bishop's forgiveness of Valjean is symbolic of God's forgiveness, both to Valjean as an individual and to all humankind who turn to him.

Later on in the book Jean Valjean is faced with another choice. In the hope of protecting the man who his adopted daughter Cosette loves he has joined a group of rebel students at the barricade they have built. A spy, Javert, has been captured, and turns out to be a policeman who has been chasing Valjean for years. Valjean, rather than taking his revenge on Javert, saves his life and lets him go, even giving him his address so Javert can return and arrest him. Once again, instead of the punishment (in this case, death) that he was expecting, the condemned man is set free and given a new chance at life. Later Javert is able to return the favour and releases Valjean. But Javert cannot cope with the idea of mercy, of people who seem deserving of punishment being forgiven and rehabilitated. He commits suicide, unable to cope with the apparent injustice of the world:
"I am reaching, but I fall,
And the stars are black and cold,
As I stare into the void
Of a world that cannot hold.
I'll escape now from the world,
From the world of Jean Valjean,
There is nowhere I can turn to,
There is no way to go on!"

What would Javert's "ideal world" be like? What would our world be like if we all got what we deserved, and no better? I'm not sure I'd like it. And besides, who would decide whether we deserve something or not?

So is it fair that we should be forgiven? Or indeed that others should forgive us? Well, no, not really. Perhaps the best way to put it is to use the example of a mother and child- the child does something he knows is wrong, but the mother forgives it because she loves him (or her). It's not fair, the child doesn't deserve to be forgiven, but they are. In the same way, because he loves us, Jesus paid the penalty for all the stuff we're done wrong. Because of God's mercy and love, we don't get we deserve, we get what we don't deserve: forgiveness. It's called grace.

This post seems to be almost as long as the book itself. And if you think I'm over-spiritualising Les Mis, read the book. Honestly, I don't think I am- it's stuffed full of Christian references.

Do you have a dream?

And now for something a bit different, and which I admit I'm not really qualified to write about, but US presidential election-fever is affecting me as much as anybody. The recent adoption of "Joe the plumber" to stand as a symbol of the typical American working man interested me. It reminded me of the American novels I studied for GCSE, particularly John Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men. The two central characters in this story dream "the American Dream" of owning their own piece of land and being independent of others, bettering themselves and owing nothing to anybody. It's a dream that links in to the US's history- the birth of the nation in resentment at having to pay taxes to a distant government; the bold independence of the settlers as they pushed out West. America, Land of the Free- except for those who were the wrong colour, or gender, or the poor.

So Joe the plumber, a man who's dream was to own his own business, was used to typify a nation where independence is seen as a virtue; a man who is concerned about the state interfering in his life and taking his money, chimes with a nation that shares the same concerns.*

The British (well, English really) version of the American smallholder would be the yeoman farmer from several centuries ago, the man (inevitably) who owned his own farm (or a very least was a secure, long-term tenant), was self-sufficient in providing for his needs, and was free from interference from the local lords or anyone else below the king. That's a very loose description, but I'm sure you get the picture. The English yeoman was regarded in popular culture and literature as the epitome of Englishness, and the backbone of the country. Yet as a historian I can't help thinking that this was all largely a myth. While there were independent farmers, from what I know they were in a minority in a countryside dominated by tenant farmers and big estates. Most agricultural workers scraped a living working for other men who rented the land from big landowners. The countryside, far from being the idyllic, unspoilt place of pristine beauty presented to us by the Romantic poets, was in truth a place where life was hard and disaster, for most of the population, not far off.

I seem to have strayed from the point. That's the trouble when I start talking about history! The point I was trying to make was that both these dreams, American and English, reflect what today we might describe as middle-class values- self reliance, independence, a desire to be beholden to no one. It's a set of values that I associate (however wrong you may consider me) with politics of the right, with (for example) Thatcherism and the 'death of society'. Personally, I don't think it's a very good set of values- it encourages you to see your needs and desires as more important than other people's and to put yourself first rather than considering the needs of other people. That leads to the massive gap in wealth we have between the very, very rich and those who just scrape by.

So is this dream of 'going it alone' really a good one to aim for? I think we need to be careful. I admire some of the ideas of independence, but as John Donne said, "No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind." We can't ignore the fact that others are poor, or disabled, or unable to look after themselves for some other reason. Perhaps it's just my Christian upbringing and values, but the idea of a community, where everyone is linked together and cares for one another, where people need not be afraid to confess their needs and failings, and where they can find help and help others is much more attractive to me than a world where everbody lives in their hermetically sealed box, freed from the responsibility to care for others but also from the joys of relationship and the comfort of knowing there is someone there to help them when things get tough. That sounds like a very lonely life. It's not one I want.

*Although later revelations suggest that Joe isn't all he seems...

Another word on creationists...

Just seen this on a friend's blog, and thought I'd share it with those of you who read my earlier post on science and Christianity. Very interesting, though not surprising, I thought.

More thoughts on the (allegedly) deadly buses

The bus campaign which I posted about the other day has drawn a fair bit of comment from my friends. One of them has drawn my attention to the original source of the campaign (thanks Chris). So here's some more thoughts (a bit higgledy-piggledy I'm afraid):

I've never before heard of the group that maintain the website the writer quotes. On the other hand, I'm all too familiar with the message they're giving out. This, I'm afraid, is where I'm likely to offend some of you, quite possibly those on both sides of the debate.

Whatever their views on the truth or otherwise of Christianity, I suspect that one thing most people would agree on is that the way the website quoted presents the Christian message is not exactly attractive (not to mention that if they can afford bus adverts I'd hope they could spend a little more on web design!). The "repent or go to hell!" style of evangelism just doesn't work in the twenty-first century (if it ever did). If anything, it's counter-productive, and contributes to the popular negative image of Christianity presented by American creationists and other extremists.

In the past, more people grew up within the church, attended sunday school and would, I think, have accepted a moral code that today we aren't so familiar with. As a result, they would have understood the concept of 'sin' and have been more able to accept being called 'sinners' and told they were in need of forgiveness in a way people today don't. Today the prevailing moral code is much freer, things which our grandparents would have condemned we accept without question. We don't like someone else telling us we've done something wrong, judging our actions. But sometimes we need to be told. But as behavioural specialists tell us, simply shouting at a child that's done something wrong isn't much good. You have to explain to them why it's wrong and why they shouldn't do it. In a way, I think evangelisation is similar. You can't just tell people they're bad, they'll laugh at you or condemn you as bigoted and stuck in the past. You have to make the case for what you're saying, convince people of its credibility with words and deeds.

The Christian message is known as the 'gospel.' That means 'good news.' But I imagine that most people reading that website, like the comment author, would struggle to see where the good is in what they're being told. Like so many people, I think the website authors have got things the wrong way round. Jesus didn't wander around the Galilean countryside shouting "You're going to hell!" If you read the gospels you find he went around helping, healing and treating the underclass of Jewish society with a radical respect and love. And the people responded to that love. They could see he lived by what he said, so when he warned them, using stories and imagery, about the dangers of not giving God priority in their lives they were more willing to listen and accept what he said.

So. The part of the website the writer obviously found most offensive is the claim that people who aren't Christians will go to hell. That is an offensive claim. But I believe in a God of love who is also a God of justice. Recently I was reading a book by C. S. Lewis and was at first surprised when he said that people who go to hell want to be there. But thinking about it, it makes sense. If you reject God's love, you're effectively asking him to leave you alone. And though it saddens him, that's what he does. When Jesus talked about lakes of fire he was using the symbolism and apocalyptic language common at the time rather than (I think) describing literal realities. I don't pretend to know what either heaven or hell is like, but one thing I'm fairly sure about is that hell involves the absence of God. If that's what you want, that's what you'll get. Whether you still want it when you realise what that means is another matter.

Offending people isn't going to make them inclined to believe what you say. There's a balance to be struck between proclaiming what you believe to be the truth and what it's appropriate to say. At least the original posters didn't directly proclaim judgement, even if the website did.

(In her follow-up post she mentions the Alpha advertising campaign I referred to before. I'd be interested to know if she has been on or investigated going on the course, since she obviously doesn't like it. Having been involved in running these courses for the last year I'd have said she's worrying needlessly- the idea is to give people the opportunity to find out about Christianity, discuss it, ask questions, and judge for themselves. No one wants to put anyone under pressure.)

Oh, and while looking for something I'd written in the past I came across this, written by a friend. It's not directly relevant, but this quote interested me:
"Secularism is a faith — it is not the absence of faith. It’s very much connected to atheism, which is not the absence of belief in a God — it’s the firm belief in the absence of any God — big difference. Devout atheists hold the creed “There is no God”. Devout secularists hold the creed “There is no God, and no Religion that thinks he does exist has any place in our society”."

Is Jesus a zombie?

According to the BBC website, an atheist group is going to be putting posters on London's buses which will read: "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

I have to say my first response to this was to giggle. On reading further and seeing that Richard Dawkins, arch-critic of Christianity (or at least of what he likes to think of as Christianity) was involved, my smile broadened. "This campaign to put alternative slogans on London buses will make people think - and thinking is anathema to religion," the BBC quotes Dawkins as saying. Really? Strangely enough, as a Christian I'd be delighted if the posters made people think. And I don't think the atheists would always get the response they're hoping for.

"Stop worrying and enjoy your life." If only it were that simple. The fact that this is happening so soon after the national Alpha advertising campaign suggests it's a direct response to their posters, based around the question, "If there was a God, what question would you ask?" Looking at the Alpha website here are some of the questions people are asking:

Why do we have diseases?
Why is there suffering?
Why did you create us to be capable of so much evil?
Is our free will worth all the suffering in the world?
Can I get out of this mess?
Are you on facebook?
Why doesn't God come back to earth from the moon?

Apart from the last two (yes, they're real questions, see for yourself) these are obviously questions written by people who have real concerns and are thinking very hard about them, whatever Dawkins may say about thinking being anathema to religion. I don't think that they would find "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life" a satisfactory answer to their problems. Enjoy your life, when so many people are starving, dying of cancer, being made redundant, suffering as a result of the financial collapse? It seems to me that it's the not the Christians (at least, not those I respect) who are discouraging thinking, but this group of atheists who seem to want people to ignore their questions about the point of life and be content with superficial happiness.

I'd also like to know what the poster designers mean by "probably." How do you gauge the probability of there being a God or not? Any ideas? Of course, God's existence is not something you can scientifically prove. That's not what science is for (see here). It's a matter for faith.

So I don't see these posters as anything to worry about. The response of 'Christian pressure group' (why does that title set warning bells ringing in my head?) "Christian Voice" (I'm not sure I'd want them speaking for me) did amuse me though: "Bendy-buses, like atheism, are a danger to the public at large."

The Methodist church had a much more sensible response. It 'thanked Professor Dawkins for encouraging a "continued interest in God".' I bet he loved that.

Oh, and in case you hadn't guessed, the title of this post is another question from the Alpha website. From a heart that's crying out to its creator for answers, don't you think?

Family? What's that?

My recent rant on the subject of family reminded me of a Scripture Union Council weekend some years ago where we spent a long time trying to define what ministry to "families" might be, and even longer trying to define what a "family" actually was. Some time later I did a course on "The Family" in history as part of my degree where we began with a similar discussion but came no closer to a definition. Even after completing the course and studying families in early modern Japan, medieval England, Renaissance Italy, the Caribbean during slavery, the Russian pesantry and North American Indians (among other contexts) we were still no closer to a definition, if anything we were further from one. There is just so much variety! Every definition has problems with it. In the end I think my conclusion is this: family are those people who we consider our selves related to. We know what we mean when we talk of "our family" but everyone's opinion is likely to be slightly different. I'm not pretending this definition is any better than anyone else's, and it certainly has plenty of problems with it.

Recently I was reading the section at the end of Colossians chapter 3/ beginning of chapter 4 that in my Bible is entitled "Rules for Christian households." It talks of three relationships within the household: husband to wife (and vice versa), parent to child (and vice versa), and slave to master (and vice versa, today this might be at least partly covered by saying employee to employer).

I wondered how these applied to modern households. Many people, of course, still live in households which contain one or two of the relationships described (I hope no one in this country has slaves in their household, although for the well off live-in nannies or other servants are still part of their employer's household). For those who do live in "traditional" households, the commands to husbands to love and respect their wives or parents not to embitter their children still sound like good advice to me. (I'm not advocating unconditional female submission to male authority here, just in case you were wondering. There's a lot more in the passage than that and I very much doubt it was what Paul meant anyhow. But that's for another time.)

But as I said yesterday, I live in a shared house where none of us (I imagine) would say we were a family or related to each other except as friends. And this style of household which was unknown in the first century AD is not uncommon in the twenty-first. So how could these rules apply to us, and households like us?

I think the key may be in something Jackie Cray said in commenting on this passage on the WordLive site. (if you don't know it, take a look. It's great!)

"Whatever role we find ourselves in, we are to live for the Lord, serving and living peacefully (in harmony) with others."

And that certainly applies to housemates- helping each other, not getting cross when the washing up starts to accumulate or someone's playing their music too loud, trying to reach amicable compromises when things really do go wrong, cutting people a bit of slack when they've had a bad day...the list goes on. It's the attitude that Paul's trying to get across here, not the specific relationship. It all goes back to Jesus' command: "Love your neighbour as yourself." Or again "Love one another as I have loved you." Do that and I don't think you can go far wrong, whether it's your mother or father, son or daughter, husband or wife, employer or employee or housemate or friend or that bloke at the office that you really can't stand that you're loving.

Life outside the family

With so much in the media about the credit crunch and financial collapse, one question keeps coming back to me, and it doesn't seem to be one the politicians are interested in. It's that you only ever hear about families being hit hard by financial difficulties.

Now, I happen to like families. In an ideal world, it would be nice if evey child could grow up with parents who loved and cared for him or her. It would be great if men and women fell in love, got married, and lived happily together ever after. And undoubtedly, if you've got children to think about it adds a whole new level of anxiety to financial pressures. But my point is that not everyone lives in a family, but everyone is being hit by higher prices and bills, and not everyone is getting help. There are some good reasons why person A should get help and person B shouldn't, but to me a lot of it seems quite arbitrary.

Unfortunatly we don't live in an ideal world, but in this world, where families break up and many people live on their own, are single parents, or live in shared houses. Not just students, but young working people share a house with one or more other people. It's cheaper, it's probably more environmentally friendly and it provides some of the support of a family while still preserving the independence of individuals. I live in a shared, rented house. Out of the four of us, two are currently employed (one part time, one full time, neither of us earning huge amounts), one is unemployed and the fourth a student.

Because we live in a good sized house, we pay the same amount of council tax as a family, but because we're young and not a family we're not eligible for the same help (eg tax credits) we would get if we were. Because two out of the four of us are working, we don't qualify for other forms of help because council tax is based on the model family of two adults living in each and every house in the country (in other words, based on something that is largely a myth). The system is too inflexible to cope with our "unusual" household- or even to issue us accurate bills, it seems. We pay the same for heating and fuel bills as we would if we owned our home, but are not able to take advantage of the schemes to help with insulation and double glazing, thus reducing fuel bills, as we would if we owned it. Maybe we could pressure our landlords to do so, but what incentive do they have? It doesn't directly affect them.

Because we're young and unmarried (and don't have kids) it's assumed that we can look after ourselves without any other help. The thing that annoys me the most is perhaps the difference in the minimum wage- why should you be allowed to pay a 21 year old less than a 22 year old, if both are doing the same work and both are living independently? Why is someone who's over 25 able to claim tax credits, but not someone under 25?


This has turned into a bit of a rant, and I don't think it'll be the last on this topic. Last night (just as I got home from work) somebody from the Office of National Statistics turned up to ask lots of questions about who lives in the house, what jobs do they do, etc etc. It took several minutes to explain that this was a shared house, where none of us were related or in a relationship with each other, but not a student house. It took even longer for his computer system to get to grips with this. And as for the fact that two of the people who'd been there last year had moved out while two more moved in and two stayed the same...it was complicated, to say the least. It even asked if I was a baby less than three months old...sometimes I wish I was. Life would be a lot simpler!

The love of wisdom about natural things

Now, it's not often this happens, but I sat through most of the sermon at my church on Sunday night grinning broadly. Anyone sitting near me must have been quite worried as to why I looked so cheerful, but really they didn't need to worry. It was just that it was one of those times when you agree with pretty much everything the speaker says, and just wish that it had been said before. The speaker was a physics professor from Leeds Uni, and he was speaking on "Is there a conflict between science and Christianity?" The answer was a resounding no, of course, but what he said made so much sense that it was just good to hear.

Afterwards, there was a question and answer session. It was easy to predict what questions were going to come up- 7-day creationism and evolution. Sure enough, they did. And it was nice, having felt in something of a minority for a while due to the media's tendancy to only report the headline-grabbing extremists, to know that there are other Christians who believe that the world was created by God, but don't believe in the literal seven-day creationism that is often used by the media as a caricature of Christian belief, especially in North America. Similarly with evolution- believing evolution happened doesn't stop me believing that God created humans "in his own image." The book of Genesis was never written as a science textbook, -the people who wrote it had no concept of ''science'' as we know it today. It wasn't intended to be a literal explanaion of how the world and humanity were created. What it says is: God created the world, humans have messed it up. In view of man-made natural disasters like the food shortages in Zimbabwe or global warming I don't think we can argue with that.

Speaking as someone who's interested in science, even if I haven't studied it academically since A level, I found what he was saying interesting and quite freeing. Sometimes I get annoyed with the general view in society that "science means we don't need God any more, because we can explain everything without the need for a creator." As the speaker said, science and religion actually try to answer two different questions (simplified, science looks at how things happen, religion at why). Few scientists, I believe, would claim that we can- or will ever be able to- explain how and why everything has happened. Even fewer would claim that science has disproved God's existence. That's not the question science is trying to answer.
I quite liked what he had to say about the origins of "science" as we know it today (the historian in me coming through!) Science (meaning knowledge) is quite a recent word, and previously the study of the physical world was known as natural philosophy, which according to the speaker, means "the love of wisdom about natural things". And that theme really chimed in with the passage from the book of Job, chapter 38, that he looked at, where God answeres Job by reminding him of the wonders and complexity of creation:

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand."
"Have you journeyed to the springs of the sea or walked in the recesses of the deep?"
"Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail?"
"Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?
Can you bring forth the constellations in their seasons or lead out the Bear with its cubs?"
"Do you know when the mountain goats give birth? Do you watch when the doe bears her fawn?"
Selections from Job 38-39

The appropriate response to the world, he suggested, is wonder and amazement that something so complex and intricate can exist. As a scientist (or a "lover of wisdom about natural things"), studying the world, whether it's the process of DNA replication, the collision of tiny particles or the composition of distant stars can lead to that sense of wonder, even if you don't believe in a God. Wonder at creation, he suggested, brings us closer to the God who made it.

I have to admit at this point to not being an expert on the subject. And as the speaker said (and I agree- I've heard too many preachers mangle philosophical ideas because they don't understand them or take historical texts at face value) one should be careful not to speak about things one doesn't understand, that are outside one's area of expertise. That includes me. So don't be offended if you think I've got something really wrong here- but do think about it.


You can listen to the talk here: (well theoretically you should be able to, it doesn't seem to be there at the moment! Hopefully it'll appear before too long...)

The Lambeth tight-rope walk- part 2

I had to split this post because it was becoming a bit of a monster!

Expecting such a varied group of people as the Anglican communion to agree on anything is major challenge, let alone complex theology and biblical interpretation. In western society, we recognise that a person's individual and cultural background influence how they interpret a text; as a former history student, I've been taught to consider how people's opinions of what is said change over time. We accept this reinterpretation as normal, and not diminishing the text in any way. (whether we think it's right or not!) But for many in other cultures, where things are still often seen as black and white rather than complicated shades of grey, it's seen as a betrayal of the ancient and traditional interpretation of the text.

In the west, we often see tradition as a bad thing, something that holds us back or reminds us of the bad old days of ingorance, but elsewhere tradition is something to be revered, a vital link to the past that gives the present meaning. I think that helps us to understand why so many "conservatives" get upset when the question of change is raised. It's not that they're bigoted, but that they see things in a different way and from a different viewpoint from our modern western society. It's all very well for us to say "This is what God wants," but our prejudices, our background, who we are cloud our judgement. We should only say that kind of thing with great humility and respect for our fellow Christians.

What's missing from the media's reporting of these debates, but I desperatly hope is not absent from the conference itself, is an acknowledgement of God's love; freely given, not earned. The ability to say "I don't agree with you, but I can still worship alongside you because the God who unites us is so much bigger than what divides us, and his plan for the world is so much more important than our petty little squabbles."

I don't mean to trivialise the debate or play down its importance to many people. Regardless of the original question, the bigger question of obedience to God & the Bible to which the conservatives have linked it is a very important one, as is the issue of how we interpret the Bible. Much of the debate might be improved if we, the churchgoing public, were more familiar with what the bible actually says rather than relying on other people to tell us!

My two pennyworth: Jesus was pretty scathing about the Pharisees, and their attitude that all that mattered to God was behaving rightly. I wonder sometimes if we (and by we I mean most Christians, at least in this country) put too much emphais on behaviour? Part of Jesus' message was that it was more important to have God's heart, God's attitude of love towards those who are in need or underpriviledged than to conform to a rigid code of conduct. He showed this when he broke Jewish law by healing on the sabbath (see Luke 6 verses 1-10, or Matthew 12 v1-14). Of course, that doesn't mean we have licence to break whatever laws we want, Jesus said "I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfil it" (Matthew 5 v17). But it does mean that we should be very careful how we treat others, even if we think they're acting in a way God disapproves of (and in circumstances like this, where there's debate over whether or not that's the case, we should be doubly careful). Jesus also was pretty strict about telling his disciples not to judge one another, because none of us (not even bishops and archbishops!) are perfect! (see Matthew 7, v 1-5.)

I do hate the way media treats debates over homosexuality and women as if they were the main issues facing the church. And so often the church accepts this, even acts as if it were true. But if it is, that worries me far more than whether or not gay priests, or even women bishops, are accepted. Surely, if we are really true to the gospel of Christ, we'd be far more concerned about the hurt and broken, the poor and lonely in our society and our world, those starving and in pain, and most of all those who don't know the astounding truth that God loves them, every one.
But that may just be my opinion. Anyone agree?

The Lambeth tight-rope walk- part 1

I woke up today to hear the end of an interview about the Lambeth conference of bishops from the Anglican communion that's taking place at the moment. Like so many similar reports over the last few weeks, it left me feeling sad that the only time the medial reports what the church is doing is because there's controversy and criticism. I'm sure many things were discussed at the General Synod at the beginning of July- but we only heard about the debate over female bishops. Many issues are under consideration at the Lambeth conference- but almost all that's being reported is the debate on homosexuality and the potential for this to split the communion.

Rowan Williams is in difficult position- whatever his own or anyone else's opinion might be, he as head of the Anglican Communion has to think in terms of what's best for whole communion- how to hold it together. With such a vast and varied organisation it's a near-impossible and pretty thankess task. One might even question the point of it (but that's another matter). According to Dr Williams, it's not even clear what the Anglican Communion is, and the range of views and beliefs within it is immense. As is the range among those attending the conference, from bishops from churches of comfortable wealth in Western countries to bishops from churches where most of the worshippers are not far away from struggling to survive.

I can sympathise, to some extent. I've been in a similar situation, although on a very much smaller scale. When I was on the executive committee of my Christian Union at university, we had to take a difficult decision which we knew would upset a proportion of the membership which ever way we decided. There was the posibility that some would leave. There was no way round the issue, a decision had to be made, and after much prayer, consideration and debate, we made it. Each person on that committee had their own opinions, but that wasn't what mattered. We had to do what was best for the unity of the whole CU, and part of that meant preserving the unity of the committee, and being able to defend our decision even if our personal opinon was against the decision taken. That was the position I was in, I disagreed with the conclusion we had reached but I knew that to stop the dispute continuing and more people being hurt, I couldn't attack those I disagreed with. I could continue to privatly disagree with it, and make that clear both to the other committee members and to members who were upset, but I would not go so far as to disobey it or publically criticise those who, I believed, had made the wrong decision.

Why? Partly because I had respect for them as individuals. Some of them I considered good friends. Partly because I understood why they had made the decision, and knew that they had been trying to put God's wishes first when they made it. Thirdly, because unity is a hugely important part of any Christian organisation. Not uniformity, as in everyone doing and saying the same thing at the same time, but unity of purpose and love for one another. Jesus knew what a mess we'd make of the church, and prayed for us to be unified. "Love one another," he told the disciples. If only we made the effort to love one another, even those we disagree with, dislike or find annoying, the church would be a better and more welcoming place.

The Moral Dilema

I told a lie at work today. It was (yet another) sales call, the ones where someone rings up trying to sell computer services/water coolers/ goodness knows what else. They ask to speak to the office manager, but if I try to put them through she just says "no thanks" and leaves me to get rid of them.
So I say that she's not available. Unfortunatly, this means they keep ringing back because they think they might get through another time. But when I know that she's not going to take the call, and doesn't want to be disturbed, I will still say that she's not available. Which isn't quite true. She is there, she just doesn't want to talk to that caller (and I don't blame her).
But I can't tell the callers to stop calling or that we're not interested (although I do try to sometimes) because I'm only a receptionist. One caller I tried to get rid of got quite angry. So the same people try calling over and over again. Some just don't get the hint, even after weeks of being told she's not available. So it's not a very good system really.
It's the same when sometimes the secretaries will say that they don't want to speak to someone because they're too busy; "can you tell them I'm not here?" I don't like lying, so the great phrase "not available" is very useful. It can mean "they're in a meeting" or "they're not here" or whatever the caller wants it to mean. Including "they're here but they're refusing to speak to you." It generally does the job, unless the caller starts asking where they are.
I don't like not telling the truth. I don't like being put in the position where I have to lie or get into trouble for not doing my job properly. And it would be much easier (if less polite) to just tell the sales callers to stop ringing up. But it won't happen. I guess it just shows what a mess the world's in!

Will anyone do anything about Zimbabwe?

The news from Zimbabwe just gets grimmer and grimmer. Robert Mugabe's government continues to desperatly cling onto power by whatever means possible; influencing elections, arresting opposition leaders, stopping opposition rallies. Even food has become a weapon, as they are now preventing aid agencies from distributing food (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7440237.stm ).

But- compared to other events recently, and given the scale of the crisis- there seems to be relatively little international condemnation of Mugabe, so little that in the same week as banning food aid he can attend an international conference trying to solve world food shortages! Surely there's something wrong here.

Is it because the West still feels guilty about the role it played in Africa in the past, in the days of colonialism? Because politicians are frightened of interfearing, in case they end up with another Iraq or Afghanistan? Because Western politicians believe that their voters are unlikely to care much about the political problems of a country so far away? Because other African leaders see it as an African problem, which can and should only be solved by Africans? Something of all these?

Or, to quote yes minister, that "once you start interfearing in the internal squabbles of another country, you're on a very slippery slope." Well yes, I think we can all see that from the disaster zone that is Iraq. But does that excuse them from any action? Not as far as I'm concerned.

Some seem to think that all the West can do is encourage African leaders like Thabo Mubecki (apologies if I've spelt that wrong) to mediate. But he's got enough problems at home, besides Zimbabwe. Understandable, Africa is nervous about white intervention. But the crisis in Zimbabwe goes far beyond issues of race.

It's surely time, and more than time, that the UN made some effort to help the people starving and suffering from violence and coercion. That was what it was created to do, and if it cannot help now, it will be more ammunition for those who say it's an irrelevance. I don't want that to happen. Eventually, something will happen- another country will feel that their stability is being threatened, or the people will finally rise up against Mugabe, and an already utterly dreadful situation will become even worse. Surely there's got to be something that can be done to stop this happening. Interfearing may lead down a slippery slope, but not interfearing isn't going to prevent trouble. One day the people of Zimbabwe may look at us and ask, "why didn't you help us?" And I don't think we've got a good enough answer.

Question: what connects cow dung, siege rations and prostitutes?

Bit of a rush of posts this week! I must be bored or something...

Last night at the theology course I'm doing we were looking at Ezekiel. We'd already looked at some of the other prophets and I was struck by their obedience to God, even when asked to do things that must have made other people think they were mad- eg Hosea was told to marry a prostitute and call his children "not loved" and "not my children" while Ezekiel had to lie on one side before a model of Jerusalem and eat only siege rations, cooked on cow dung. And God seems to have caused (or at least used) personal tradgedy in their lives and relationships as a way of getting his message across to the people of Israel, for example Ezekiel's wife dies at the time of the fall of Jerusalem and Hosea's wife leaves him. I find that hard to understand. Being obedient to God is never an easy task at the best of times, but for him to put his prophets through that...I don't understand completly. Couldn't he have created a world where it wasn't necessary? I suppose that's where our free will come into it- the people wouldn't listen, so they needed the demonstration of what would happen to them, so God had to use the people who were obedient to him as that demonstration. But it's still not easy to accept.
I wonder at the prophets' obedience, and wonder too if I'd be as willing to be obedient. No wonder some, like Elijah, had crises of confidence, and were close to giving up or that others, like Jeremiah, tried to get out of their calling. But you can't run away from God- I know that only too well. And the amazing things that the prophets did- bringing drought, bringing rain, demonstrating God's power to a reluctant people, prophesying what was going to happen, writing the wonderful if enigmatic books that make up a major part of the Old Testament were only possible because the prophets were willing to obey God, whatever the cost. There was nothing special about the men (and women) who became prophets. What made them able to do all these things was that they trusted God and were willing to obey him. "The Spirit of the Lord" was with them.
So if we today trust God and are willing to obey him, what can we expect to happen? Our life, like theirs, won't be easy; we may be called on to make fools of ourselves or to suffer, although I would say that this is more likely to be a result of trying to live God's way in a world that doesn't want to know than God bringing trouble on us. Like the prophets, our faith may slip from time to time, we may not think we are worthy or capable of doing what we have been called to do, but God will equip us, as he equipped them, with his Spirit. In the end, the prophets achieved some great things, because they were willing to be obedient. If we obey God, I believe we can to.

Just to add to the confusion...

not only do I not know how old I am, I'm also no longer sure when my birthday is! One friend texted me a happy birthday message yesterday (it's so unusual for him to be early, I wonder whether it was actually a very very late message from last year?!), then had Happy Birthday sung to me along with a card and cake at church today. Whereas it's not my actual birthday until the day after tomorrow, and my party's two days after that! So I'm obviously spreading the fun out as long as possible...I need something to cheer me up!

How old am I?

You might think that's a simple question. But it appears not. My 23rd birthday is at the end of this week, but am I really 23?

A week or so ago I was told that I was currently too young for the career I was looking at. I was fed up of being looked down on as "young" and not being given the chance to try to do new things because of my age. But then my church home group (mostly in their 40's and 50's) were trying to work out how old I was, and estimates ranged from 26 to 30! Then, in another group of friends, it was assumed that I was the oldest, despite one person there being two years older than me! The fact that I always seem to be the "mother" figure, handing out suncream, handwipes and generally organising people (even though I have no authority to do so, or even any plan beyond making it up as I go along) must be having some effect on people's minds!

So, people who know me seem to assume that I'm older than I actually am. Whereas people who don't know me particularly well judge from appearances (I can't help being small or looking young, and don't particularly want to change that!) and from my chronological age. A personality test I did when I was 16 suggested that my results were more typical of a 35 year old. But how can I get the fact that I'm (seemingly) more mature than my chronological age would suggest across to people? For example in interviews, when sounding like someone with experience rather than a naive graduate is certainly beneficial?

Any suggestions gratefully recieved!

Paul, in his first letter to Timothy tells him, "Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity." Although I can't claim to be a shining example of any of those things, I wish more people would pay more attention to Paul's words to a young and timid church leader in need of encouragement. How can anyone to gain experience without someone taking a risk and letting them have a go, make mistakes and learn from them? Without new people coming in, any organisation runs the risk of stagnating and, in a world where not to move forwards is to move backwards, that's a dangerous road. If Paul trusted the young, why can't people today?

Life in all its fullness...

I wonder if it was something of a joke on Jesus's part to say that he had come so that we might have life in all its fullness. Life can certainly be very full!

I went to visit my parents a couple of weekends ago. As well as the usual sneezing fit that I embarked on as soon as I walked through the door (I'm obviously allergic to my parents!) I had to put up with the relentless questioning from family and friends that I'm sure everyone gets on returning to the place where they grew up:
"So, what are you doing now?" (Talking to you, obviously.)
"Do you like York?" (Well, if I didn't I'd be unlikely to still be there.)
"How are you getting on at uni?" (I graduated nearly two years ago. As I told you when you asked me the same set of questions at Christmas. And the Christmas before.)

Seriously, however nice it is to see family and friends there is, for me, often an undertone of "when are you going to grow up and get a proper job?" No one asks that in so many words, but you can see that's behind their questions about what I'm doing. You can tell they think you wasted your time going to uni.

And in many ways, I'd like to be the person they think I should be. I'd quite like to be settled in my own house, with a reliable, professional job, not having to worry about whether my job paid enough to live on or whether my housemates were going to get on with each other. A safe lifestyle, where you don't have to move every year. But that doesn't seem to be likely, at least anytime soon.

Nope, instead my life's more a rollercoaster than a train ride (oh dear, my trainspotting friends have got to me). At least it's not boring. But the direction I'm heading in is more likely to result in a continuation of the rollercoaster than a switch to the train. Because if I do end up doing what I believe God wants me to do, and what I think I would be happy doing, it'll mean a lifetime of "living by faith"- not too much money, probably not settled in one place for more than a few years, doing a job that's demanding and all-engrossing.

I'm willing to do that. But it's hard to explain to friends and relatives who don't understand where you're coming from, who think you're either crazy or lazy for not getting a proper full time job and doing part time low skilled shop or office jobs to make ends meet while the real business of your life- getting experience, serving the church and testing out what I want to do in the future- is unpaid.

Sometimes the future that I've chose seems hard. Sometimes people's comments (like those described above) can make it harder. I don't want my family or friends to worry about my future, but to be excited about it. Because I am. Scared, but excited.

Anciently postmodern

Finally got round to writing something, and it's turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry...

When I studied postmodernism as part of my degree course at uni, the lecturers tried to make out that it was all clever and new. But various things that I've come across suggest that while the name might be new, the attitude (you can have your truth so long as it doesn't get in the way of mine) is very far from recent. You'd have though a history department might have been able to tell them that...

I read something today that struck me as a good summary with the problem of this kind of thinking for Christians. It's from a series of notes on the WordLive website (session date 29th April) about Paul's letter to the Galatians;
"There is a temptation in western cultures to relativise all religious truth-claims. We are quite happy to accept that particular religious beliefs are ‘true’ for those who hold them, but not ‘true’ for those who do not. ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ Postmodernity is willing to tolerate and celebrate all the various human traditions so long as they do not claim a relevance that transcends the group that affirm them. This is because, whilst postmoderns may think that the gospel, for instance, is ‘true’ for Christians, they do not believe that it is really grounded in a divine revelation from the one God. What postmoderns really think is that the gospel is a human creation. This allows them to be nice to Christians and let them affirm their ‘truth’. It also allows them not to have to worry that they do not live by this gospel."

Since part of the "truth" that I believe is that the gospel is relavent to and applies to everyone, not just those who believe it, then if someone says that the gospel can only apply to Christians they are denying that it is true in any sense. If we- Christians -are told that we can't believe what Christianity says about itself- (eg "I am the Light of the World") then we're effectively being told that we shouldn't believe it. Which isn't the same as ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ In effect, it seems to me that it's 'my truth is right, yours is wrong.' Which isn't very postmodern.

The article ends by saying, "Paul would not accept that approach to the authority of his message...If it is not public truth – true truth – then it is not true at all. This gospel might be true or it might be false, but it cannot be true for some people and not for others." I'd agree. But what do I know?

Whatever the truth (however you define it!) of all that, the same day's session goes on to talk about the power of people's personal stories or testimonies to demonstrate to people that beliefs are real. At the start of Galatians, Paul tells the story of his conversion and ministry to demonstrate his validity as a teacher and his trustworthiness to the Galatians. In a world where there are so many choices, how do we decide who or what to believe? Speaking to people who've made the choice to become Christians, you almost always find that it's because someone they knew and trusted- a Christian friend, family member, youth leader- demonstrated their faith and God's love for that person. Not by ramming Bible verses down their throat, but by just being there and being someone they knew they could trust. If we're not living out our faith, demonstrating that it's real and relavant to the world today, why should people decide to follow Christ rather than one of the myriad other philosophies? That's a challenge to think about over the bank holiday!

If you haven't already seen this...

then take a look at www.wordlive.org

It's great. Well, at least in my opinion and that of quite a lot of other people.

Hello!

Well, after much deliberation, I'm making my first adventure into the world of blogging. You might think I don't already have enough ways of wasting my time on the internet- I mean, it's not as if I'm not on Facebook...anyway. I think too much, and this blog will probably function as something as an overflow for my brain. At some point I'll fill in some info about who and what I am, but there'll probably be a random mix of thoughts on daily life, possibly some politics and my various interests.

As you may have guessed from the title of the blog, I'm a G&S (Gilbert & Sullivan to the uninitiated) fan, or indeed geek. And no longer ashamed of it! So, in the best traditions, I'd like to say that anything I say is (probably) my own opinion, and feel free to disagree because "my opinion doesn't matter matter matter matter matter..."