Thinking on similar lines to my post the other day, a friend of mine wrote a post on her blog about the gender divide in film. A Curious Girl: Male bias in movies - why?
A friend and I spent a while last night trying to evaluate musicals using the same test. Quite a few passed (Wicked, The King and I, The Sound of Music, Mary Poppins to name the ones I can remember) but many others didn't. What really struck me, however, is that we couldn't think of a single musical written or composed by a woman. Not one.
That made me think. In literature, there are many examples of female writers before the 20th century, from seventeenth-century poets and playwrites to nineteenth century novellists and social commentators. But there are far fewer female artists, and I couldn't even think of one female composer. Probably this had something to do with patronage- institutions for art and music wouldn't have allowed women members, and therefore it would have been harder for women to become known and attract patronage. But you would have thought there would be one or two.
Maybe I just don't have a good enough knowledge. Maybe there are some out there. Anyone know of any female classical composers (pre 1920's)? Or can anyone think of a musical written by a woman?
Friday 22 May 2009
So, death.
I found this on the BBC website and found it quite interesting and thought-provoking. It makes a lot of sense to me- when you look at the historical records and read all the stories and rituals that used to be be connected with death, it feels quite ghoulish compared to today. We sanitise death, get rid of anything reminding us of it as soon as possible, and try to forget it ever happened. Or if not, we go all over the top like with Princess Diana or Jade Goody. We forget that for people in the past death was part of life, something that was always going to happen, not something to be ignored and avoided as much as possible.
But it's not an easy thing to talk about. Discussing the prospect of death with older relatives can make us uneasy, making us confront the fact that one day they will be gone and we will miss them. It's not helped if they too appear to be afraid or concerned by the prospect of death.
It's a tricky subject. I'm glad that for me it's not quite so daunting as for some, because of my faith. But that doesn't mean it's not still something I find uncomfortable to think about, if not for myself, then for other people.
But it's not an easy thing to talk about. Discussing the prospect of death with older relatives can make us uneasy, making us confront the fact that one day they will be gone and we will miss them. It's not helped if they too appear to be afraid or concerned by the prospect of death.
It's a tricky subject. I'm glad that for me it's not quite so daunting as for some, because of my faith. But that doesn't mean it's not still something I find uncomfortable to think about, if not for myself, then for other people.
Wednesday 20 May 2009
Equality of the sexes? Not yet.
I've seen a few news articles and suchlike recently that have reminded me that even today women aren't treated equally. Recently I read a historical article on women's' movements that campaigned against giving women the vote. I didn't even realise that such movements existed, but they did and were quite vocal, arguing that women had no role in government- and this was being said by women. The idea that men alone were responsible for women's inferior position in society isn't quite true- one half of the population could never have been kept down for so long if at least some of them hadn't acquiesced, for whatever reason.
I know people who treat 'feminism' as if it was a dirty word, implying people who want more than is reasonably their due. The stereotypical men-hating feminist is often a figure of derision and mockery. People think that because women are (pretty much) equal to men by law now, everything's alright. But it isn't. As someone (I can't remember who) once said, so much of what men have by right women only have by law. It's not laws that need to be changed but people's attitudes.
For example, women are still earning less than men. This article says some interesting things about the different expectations and ambitions that women have at work. Some of the stories given in the comments show how far we still are from real equality. But equality doesn't mean the same as uniformity. I was interested by the idea that women look for other things in a job than purely the money, and I think there's some truth in it. Job satisfaction, having a good employer and being able to be flexible enough to fit in other activities and responsibilities are all things that I've looked at when applying for jobs. If a job has all those things but maybe pays less than a less pleasant job, is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps women (and men) who think like this are wiser than those who focus only on earning more and more.
Don't think for a moment that I'm trying to excuse inequality. I'm just suggesting that there's more to life than making money, and that perhaps earning less doesn't always make women unhappier. But that's a different point from women who are paid less than equivalent male colleagues- that is wrong.
One of the most common reasons given for women earning less, and for why there are fewer women at the top of their various fields is the biological factor. Women have babies, men don't. It's much more common for a mother to give up work, at least for a few years, to care for children than for a father to do so. I guess I have an unusual perspective on this, because my father took early retirement and stayed at home to look after me while my mother went back to work. So I wonder quite why it is usually the mother who gives up work. Is it because childcare is still viewed as women's work (And far more women than men are involved in professional childcare and teaching)? Or does it maybe have something to do with women often being in lower paid jobs to start with?
The problem, so we are told, is that women who take career breaks have less experience and so can't compete for top jobs against male colleagues. There is some logic in this but to be honest I don't think that excuses it completely. Is experience all that important? If all employers only took on people with masses of experience, how could anyone get a job for the first time? (Wait, that sounds familiar...) And it doesn't take into account what the woman may have been doing outside work. Skills gained outside the workplace might mean she is able to look at things in a way others can't, or see ways to deal with situations that others can't.
That's quite enough ranting for one post! I'd be the first to admit women's position has improved a lot over the last 150 years or so. My point is that there's still a way to go before women are equal (and that's just in the secular world. Don't get me started on women and the church...). But the issue can't just be addressed by changing laws. People's opinions and culture need to change- to get away from a situation where so often women in certain types of literature or film, especially adventure stories, are merely there as companions and accomplices to the men, rather than being protagonists in their own right. And to get to a place where a man doesn't come up to a female sales person in an outdoor equipment shop and think it's perfectly acceptable to request assistance from a male colleague because she's a woman, and wouldn't know about the type of equipment she wants- even when both man and woman had the same training!
P.S. Just seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8033480.stm kind of makes my point.
I know people who treat 'feminism' as if it was a dirty word, implying people who want more than is reasonably their due. The stereotypical men-hating feminist is often a figure of derision and mockery. People think that because women are (pretty much) equal to men by law now, everything's alright. But it isn't. As someone (I can't remember who) once said, so much of what men have by right women only have by law. It's not laws that need to be changed but people's attitudes.
For example, women are still earning less than men. This article says some interesting things about the different expectations and ambitions that women have at work. Some of the stories given in the comments show how far we still are from real equality. But equality doesn't mean the same as uniformity. I was interested by the idea that women look for other things in a job than purely the money, and I think there's some truth in it. Job satisfaction, having a good employer and being able to be flexible enough to fit in other activities and responsibilities are all things that I've looked at when applying for jobs. If a job has all those things but maybe pays less than a less pleasant job, is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps women (and men) who think like this are wiser than those who focus only on earning more and more.
Don't think for a moment that I'm trying to excuse inequality. I'm just suggesting that there's more to life than making money, and that perhaps earning less doesn't always make women unhappier. But that's a different point from women who are paid less than equivalent male colleagues- that is wrong.
One of the most common reasons given for women earning less, and for why there are fewer women at the top of their various fields is the biological factor. Women have babies, men don't. It's much more common for a mother to give up work, at least for a few years, to care for children than for a father to do so. I guess I have an unusual perspective on this, because my father took early retirement and stayed at home to look after me while my mother went back to work. So I wonder quite why it is usually the mother who gives up work. Is it because childcare is still viewed as women's work (And far more women than men are involved in professional childcare and teaching)? Or does it maybe have something to do with women often being in lower paid jobs to start with?
The problem, so we are told, is that women who take career breaks have less experience and so can't compete for top jobs against male colleagues. There is some logic in this but to be honest I don't think that excuses it completely. Is experience all that important? If all employers only took on people with masses of experience, how could anyone get a job for the first time? (Wait, that sounds familiar...) And it doesn't take into account what the woman may have been doing outside work. Skills gained outside the workplace might mean she is able to look at things in a way others can't, or see ways to deal with situations that others can't.
That's quite enough ranting for one post! I'd be the first to admit women's position has improved a lot over the last 150 years or so. My point is that there's still a way to go before women are equal (and that's just in the secular world. Don't get me started on women and the church...). But the issue can't just be addressed by changing laws. People's opinions and culture need to change- to get away from a situation where so often women in certain types of literature or film, especially adventure stories, are merely there as companions and accomplices to the men, rather than being protagonists in their own right. And to get to a place where a man doesn't come up to a female sales person in an outdoor equipment shop and think it's perfectly acceptable to request assistance from a male colleague because she's a woman, and wouldn't know about the type of equipment she wants- even when both man and woman had the same training!
P.S. Just seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8033480.stm kind of makes my point.
Wednesday 13 May 2009
"It's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!"
Posts at the moment seem to be focusing on things I don't like. Possibly because it feels like there's a lot of them just now! But anyway, here's another thing about people's attitudes which saddens me. It's the way people seem to equate Christianity- and again, many of these arguments probably apply to other faiths too- with what you might call intellectual laziness.
There's a perception that, as a friend said to me the other day "it's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!" Well excuse me, but I rather think it does. The clue here is probably what you mean by"sense"- if you accept the idea of the supernatural then things may make sense to you that someone who doesn't accept that won't see as making sense.
What they meant, I assume, is that if a religion- or religious leader- says something is right then all the people who follow that religion unthinkingly obey.
I have to agree that if this was indeed what faith is all about, I wouldn't be involved. It's a model that probably was once the case- or at least official sources, for example of the the Roman Catholic church would like us to think so, although as a historian who specialised somewhat in the reformation and church history I rather doubt their control was as complete as many liked to think! And I'm not going to deny that some denominations and congregations today still seem to have the attitude that their leader is right and that they should do what they say unthinkingly.
But this certainly isn't true of your average Christian today. One of the things I valued about the church I grew up in was the variety of different preachers we had. Many of them were not of a high standard, but the experience taught me to think for myself and to consider whether what I was hearing fitted with what I knew of God, with what I read in the Bible. And I don't think that the idea of absolute obedience to church leaders is a very Biblical model of church leadership*. Nor did Martin Luther, one of my historical heroes, who developed the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" according to which all believers are equal and have an equal right to interpret the faith as long as they can prove it is consistent with God's word in the scriptures.
God gave man a rational brain, which allows him to think and to reason. What would be the point in that if he didn't intend us to use it? What would be the point of his giving us free will, the power to choose to do the right thing or not, if he didn't want us to think and choose? So the idea that faith is just an excuse not to think for oneself is just plain wrong, as far as I can see. Following a leader is no excuse for doing or saying or thinking things which are plainly wrong. And exploiting people's belief to gain power for oneself is an abuse and misuse of authority, for which the exploiter will be answerable to God (see Ezekiel 34 for God condemning the priests to whom spiritual leadership of Israel had been entrusted and who had led the people astray). Good leaders should seek to encourage the people they lead to study the Bible and learn to decide what God is saying to them through it themselves, rather than relying solely on others to interpret it for them.
That doesn't mean leaders or authority are a bad thing. We are told to respect our leaders and pray for them, because they have a difficult job. From experience, I can say that when I'm interpreting the Bible for others it can sometimes be hard to know what's from God and what's from me. As long as what's from me is in line with what's from God, that's not much of a problem, but leaders need prayer for wisdom and discernment. And if leaders don't have the respect of those they lead- and respect isn't the same as unthinking obedience, it might simply mean discussing a matter you disagree on in private with them rather than undermining them in front of others- it becomes very hard for them to lead at all. Some of the stories of churches and their leaders in Acts and Paul's letters show what happens when churches have weak or erroneous leaderships.
So faith isn't an excuse for people to get power and make others follow them. Abuses that may have happened or still be happening are just that, abuses. Our Lord is Christ, and no other. Human leaders can help us**, but once they loose their humility or claim never to make mistakes they're stepping outside God's plan, in my opinion. Nor is faith an excuse for not thinking. In fact it can make for some very hard thinking, as I often struggle to see how something that is happening can possibly fit in with my faith. It saddens and indeed offends me when people think of Christians in this way as unable to think for ourselves because of our faith. Just because we're called sheep doesn't mean we can't think!
* See, for example, 1 John 4 v1 where we are told to "test the spirits" of those that speak in churches so that we're not lead astray by false teaching. And verse 10 is a pretty good example of what we need to be looking at to see if the things we're being taught fit with God's will: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
** The Biblical depiction of church leaders as shepherds is a good one, as it is not only mirrors Jesus' description of his leadership of the church but also reminds us of the caring, sacrificial, loving element that a shepherd showed for his flock.
See also this article and this for more on a similar subject.
There's a perception that, as a friend said to me the other day "it's religion, it doesn't have to make sense!" Well excuse me, but I rather think it does. The clue here is probably what you mean by"sense"- if you accept the idea of the supernatural then things may make sense to you that someone who doesn't accept that won't see as making sense.
What they meant, I assume, is that if a religion- or religious leader- says something is right then all the people who follow that religion unthinkingly obey.
I have to agree that if this was indeed what faith is all about, I wouldn't be involved. It's a model that probably was once the case- or at least official sources, for example of the the Roman Catholic church would like us to think so, although as a historian who specialised somewhat in the reformation and church history I rather doubt their control was as complete as many liked to think! And I'm not going to deny that some denominations and congregations today still seem to have the attitude that their leader is right and that they should do what they say unthinkingly.
But this certainly isn't true of your average Christian today. One of the things I valued about the church I grew up in was the variety of different preachers we had. Many of them were not of a high standard, but the experience taught me to think for myself and to consider whether what I was hearing fitted with what I knew of God, with what I read in the Bible. And I don't think that the idea of absolute obedience to church leaders is a very Biblical model of church leadership*. Nor did Martin Luther, one of my historical heroes, who developed the doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers" according to which all believers are equal and have an equal right to interpret the faith as long as they can prove it is consistent with God's word in the scriptures.
God gave man a rational brain, which allows him to think and to reason. What would be the point in that if he didn't intend us to use it? What would be the point of his giving us free will, the power to choose to do the right thing or not, if he didn't want us to think and choose? So the idea that faith is just an excuse not to think for oneself is just plain wrong, as far as I can see. Following a leader is no excuse for doing or saying or thinking things which are plainly wrong. And exploiting people's belief to gain power for oneself is an abuse and misuse of authority, for which the exploiter will be answerable to God (see Ezekiel 34 for God condemning the priests to whom spiritual leadership of Israel had been entrusted and who had led the people astray). Good leaders should seek to encourage the people they lead to study the Bible and learn to decide what God is saying to them through it themselves, rather than relying solely on others to interpret it for them.
That doesn't mean leaders or authority are a bad thing. We are told to respect our leaders and pray for them, because they have a difficult job. From experience, I can say that when I'm interpreting the Bible for others it can sometimes be hard to know what's from God and what's from me. As long as what's from me is in line with what's from God, that's not much of a problem, but leaders need prayer for wisdom and discernment. And if leaders don't have the respect of those they lead- and respect isn't the same as unthinking obedience, it might simply mean discussing a matter you disagree on in private with them rather than undermining them in front of others- it becomes very hard for them to lead at all. Some of the stories of churches and their leaders in Acts and Paul's letters show what happens when churches have weak or erroneous leaderships.
So faith isn't an excuse for people to get power and make others follow them. Abuses that may have happened or still be happening are just that, abuses. Our Lord is Christ, and no other. Human leaders can help us**, but once they loose their humility or claim never to make mistakes they're stepping outside God's plan, in my opinion. Nor is faith an excuse for not thinking. In fact it can make for some very hard thinking, as I often struggle to see how something that is happening can possibly fit in with my faith. It saddens and indeed offends me when people think of Christians in this way as unable to think for ourselves because of our faith. Just because we're called sheep doesn't mean we can't think!
* See, for example, 1 John 4 v1 where we are told to "test the spirits" of those that speak in churches so that we're not lead astray by false teaching. And verse 10 is a pretty good example of what we need to be looking at to see if the things we're being taught fit with God's will: "This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."
** The Biblical depiction of church leaders as shepherds is a good one, as it is not only mirrors Jesus' description of his leadership of the church but also reminds us of the caring, sacrificial, loving element that a shepherd showed for his flock.
See also this article and this for more on a similar subject.
Monday 11 May 2009
Christianity and the media
You may know that the way Christians- in fact, people with any strong faith- are often portrayed in the media can really annoy me. At worst, they're dangerous "fundamentalists;" and often different groups may not be distinguished, so that some of the weirder extremist's like those who refuse medical treatment and declare the world will end tomorrow because of gay people or abortions are lumped together with mainstream evangelicals like me. At best, they're usually Vicar of Dibley-esque well-meaning, harmless, but bumbling idiots. The first group are deplored, and declared to be a danger to society, while the second are mocked and declared irrelevant to modern life.
I worry that these stereotypes have an impact on the way people view Christians they see around them. That person preaching in the street- is he a dangerous radical, or a well meaning laughing-stock? In either case, they're unlikely to want to listen to what he has to say, or consider seriously what it might mean for them. And it can poison attitudes towards even good practice by churches- is the local church really offering to clear gardens just because they're trying to make a good impact on the community, or is there an darker motive?
It doesn't help when churches aren't completely honest about what they're doing- most people can tell that if they're being asked a questionnaire about their beliefs, it's not because the church is actually interested (mostly) but because the church wants them to join (that's how many people see it). If you're not careful, an opportunity to invite people to explore what faith is, like the Alpha course, can be seen by cynical members of the public- ie, most- to be just a recruitment and brainwashing drive. Yes, we hope people who've been on the course will want to join the church, but if they don't, or if they don't want to join in with any of the activities on the course we shouldn't force them.
Perhaps some of the fault is the church's. We've allowed this negative portrayal to go unchallenged in many cases, and failed to tell the positive stories well. For every one positive story of something a church is doing that is told, there must be ten of children abused by priests or similar negative stories that are reported. Some of that is just the news's bias towards reporting the sensationalist and the negative, but perhaps it's not entirely their fault. Yes, these things happen, as they do in all sections of the community. But there are many positive things too, and perhaps we need to get better at telling them- and less afraid of saying that they are good.
But if there's one thing I want my friends who come across the negative perceptions of Christianity to know, it's that we're not all like that. It's that the gospel, much as it's presented otherwise, is a message of unconditional love for everyone, of hope for the downtrodden freedom for those imprisoned by themselves or what they've done. It's not some cold intellectual argument or over-enthusiastic emotional response. I'm no perfect advert for Christianity, I would be the first to admit, but that's the point. No one is. The church is made up of real people, broken people, hurting people. The difference is that we know that God's love is bigger than our problems, and trust that he can deal with them.
I worry that these stereotypes have an impact on the way people view Christians they see around them. That person preaching in the street- is he a dangerous radical, or a well meaning laughing-stock? In either case, they're unlikely to want to listen to what he has to say, or consider seriously what it might mean for them. And it can poison attitudes towards even good practice by churches- is the local church really offering to clear gardens just because they're trying to make a good impact on the community, or is there an darker motive?
It doesn't help when churches aren't completely honest about what they're doing- most people can tell that if they're being asked a questionnaire about their beliefs, it's not because the church is actually interested (mostly) but because the church wants them to join (that's how many people see it). If you're not careful, an opportunity to invite people to explore what faith is, like the Alpha course, can be seen by cynical members of the public- ie, most- to be just a recruitment and brainwashing drive. Yes, we hope people who've been on the course will want to join the church, but if they don't, or if they don't want to join in with any of the activities on the course we shouldn't force them.
Perhaps some of the fault is the church's. We've allowed this negative portrayal to go unchallenged in many cases, and failed to tell the positive stories well. For every one positive story of something a church is doing that is told, there must be ten of children abused by priests or similar negative stories that are reported. Some of that is just the news's bias towards reporting the sensationalist and the negative, but perhaps it's not entirely their fault. Yes, these things happen, as they do in all sections of the community. But there are many positive things too, and perhaps we need to get better at telling them- and less afraid of saying that they are good.
But if there's one thing I want my friends who come across the negative perceptions of Christianity to know, it's that we're not all like that. It's that the gospel, much as it's presented otherwise, is a message of unconditional love for everyone, of hope for the downtrodden freedom for those imprisoned by themselves or what they've done. It's not some cold intellectual argument or over-enthusiastic emotional response. I'm no perfect advert for Christianity, I would be the first to admit, but that's the point. No one is. The church is made up of real people, broken people, hurting people. The difference is that we know that God's love is bigger than our problems, and trust that he can deal with them.
Wednesday 6 May 2009
The career dilemma strikes again
I've just had my appraisal at work. It went pretty well, which since filling in the form beforehand I was having to try hard not to say I was bored and spent over half my time at work writing blogs or wasting time on Facebook! Actually, it was quite a positive thing, and far less embarrassing than I'd worried, and it looks like there might be some positive outcomes, from actually getting a contract at last to being able to get experience in some useful skills that I can put on application forms. Perhaps the people who won't accept developing procedures to put on G&S shows or make cafes at church run smoothly as valid job experience will accept developing an inter-office client referral procedure?
One thing that did worry me a bit was when the person appraising me started asking about whether I'd decided what to do with my life, and when I said I wasn't sure started warning me about falling into the trap of being pigeon-holed as a receptionist, and not seen as capable of doing anything else by employers (since I couldn't even get a full time reception job I applied for I don't think I'm even in a good enough position to worry about that!) or, basically, of just wasting my skills not deciding to do anything. Although, he said, I'm still young enough to escape that.
The trouble is, it's not so much that I'm putting off deciding what to do with my life, it's more that I have a pretty good idea, but the plan hasn't started working yet. Perhaps, in the long term, that's not a bad thing. When I graduated nearly three years ago (eek, THAT long!) I just wanted a job- practically any job, preferably not deadly dull- that would keep me for a couple of years while I grew up a bit and tested some of the ideas I had. The getting a job- even any job- bit proved tricky, and in the current economic climate only gets trickier. Growing up hasn't happened yet (well, in some ways it has but in others I don't think it ever will!) and although I've tested ideas and have more of an idea what I'd like to do, carrying that into action proved impossible. Because, I was told, I needed to do more or less what I've just said- get a job and get older. You can see the problem.
So here I am. In some ways, things aren't too bad- I'd like the extra money from a full time job, enough to mean I wasn't continually worrying from month to month about being able to pay the bills. But I like the freedom of part time work. I'd like something more interesting too, but I have a job and think myself fortunate in that. But it doesn't seem to be good enough that I'm nearly twenty-four and have a couple of years' varied work experience. The benefits of being young don't seem to count for anything either, not does the fact that although young in age, I'm used to dealing with older people and have (not wishing to boast) a rather more mature way of thinking than many twenty-somethings. Sadly the person who thinks I'm too young probably doesn't know me well enough to realise this!
Perhaps I'm worrying about this too much. Perhaps, since it's nearly a year since I was too young, I should see if anything has changed. Perhaps a year's wait is long enough, perhaps I'll have learnt whatever they thought was missing. Perhaps people who talk to me will find out enough to see beyond the initial judgement of 'too young.' Perhaps...but enough perhapses for one post. I'm just thinking aloud!
One thing that did worry me a bit was when the person appraising me started asking about whether I'd decided what to do with my life, and when I said I wasn't sure started warning me about falling into the trap of being pigeon-holed as a receptionist, and not seen as capable of doing anything else by employers (since I couldn't even get a full time reception job I applied for I don't think I'm even in a good enough position to worry about that!) or, basically, of just wasting my skills not deciding to do anything. Although, he said, I'm still young enough to escape that.
The trouble is, it's not so much that I'm putting off deciding what to do with my life, it's more that I have a pretty good idea, but the plan hasn't started working yet. Perhaps, in the long term, that's not a bad thing. When I graduated nearly three years ago (eek, THAT long!) I just wanted a job- practically any job, preferably not deadly dull- that would keep me for a couple of years while I grew up a bit and tested some of the ideas I had. The getting a job- even any job- bit proved tricky, and in the current economic climate only gets trickier. Growing up hasn't happened yet (well, in some ways it has but in others I don't think it ever will!) and although I've tested ideas and have more of an idea what I'd like to do, carrying that into action proved impossible. Because, I was told, I needed to do more or less what I've just said- get a job and get older. You can see the problem.
So here I am. In some ways, things aren't too bad- I'd like the extra money from a full time job, enough to mean I wasn't continually worrying from month to month about being able to pay the bills. But I like the freedom of part time work. I'd like something more interesting too, but I have a job and think myself fortunate in that. But it doesn't seem to be good enough that I'm nearly twenty-four and have a couple of years' varied work experience. The benefits of being young don't seem to count for anything either, not does the fact that although young in age, I'm used to dealing with older people and have (not wishing to boast) a rather more mature way of thinking than many twenty-somethings. Sadly the person who thinks I'm too young probably doesn't know me well enough to realise this!
Perhaps I'm worrying about this too much. Perhaps, since it's nearly a year since I was too young, I should see if anything has changed. Perhaps a year's wait is long enough, perhaps I'll have learnt whatever they thought was missing. Perhaps people who talk to me will find out enough to see beyond the initial judgement of 'too young.' Perhaps...but enough perhapses for one post. I'm just thinking aloud!
Friday 1 May 2009
Don't Panic!
Things we haven't all died of yet:
vCJD
SARS
The Millennium Bug (ok, our computers haven't died, but you know what I mean)
Mobile phones
Bird Flu
Snow
Swine Flu
Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful, or take precautions where it's appropriate. To be honest, the things we're being told to do to avoid swine flu (use a tissue, wash your hands) are things that should be basic hygiene anyway. But don't panic! Panic is probably the best thing we could do to make things worse. And so far, for those of us safely in Britain, the actual spread of the virus doesn't warrant it.
It reminds me of something said recently about Matthew 6: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" Jesus isn't saying "don't think about the future or take responsibility for planning for it." He's saying that we need to trust God and not ourselves. We're not to panic, because if God is the focus of our life, and where we put our energy and values, then everything else falls into perspective from that. Get the big thing right, and the rest will follow. It's not easy to remember, especially when your instincts are telling you to panic, but in the long run it's better than living a life constantly anxious and afraid of what might happen.
It's something I haven't quite managed to get my head round yet. In some areas I think I may be getting there. Some of the time. Being unemployed and working voluntarily for the church helped there! It's somehow easier to rely on faith when there isn't anything else anyway! But in other ways I still struggle- for example, I worry a lot about other people, and I'm not sure how trust and faith work in that situation. One day it'll make sense. At least, I hope so!
vCJD
SARS
The Millennium Bug (ok, our computers haven't died, but you know what I mean)
Mobile phones
Bird Flu
Snow
Swine Flu
Obviously that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful, or take precautions where it's appropriate. To be honest, the things we're being told to do to avoid swine flu (use a tissue, wash your hands) are things that should be basic hygiene anyway. But don't panic! Panic is probably the best thing we could do to make things worse. And so far, for those of us safely in Britain, the actual spread of the virus doesn't warrant it.
It reminds me of something said recently about Matthew 6: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink; or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more important than food, and the body more important than clothes?" Jesus isn't saying "don't think about the future or take responsibility for planning for it." He's saying that we need to trust God and not ourselves. We're not to panic, because if God is the focus of our life, and where we put our energy and values, then everything else falls into perspective from that. Get the big thing right, and the rest will follow. It's not easy to remember, especially when your instincts are telling you to panic, but in the long run it's better than living a life constantly anxious and afraid of what might happen.
It's something I haven't quite managed to get my head round yet. In some areas I think I may be getting there. Some of the time. Being unemployed and working voluntarily for the church helped there! It's somehow easier to rely on faith when there isn't anything else anyway! But in other ways I still struggle- for example, I worry a lot about other people, and I'm not sure how trust and faith work in that situation. One day it'll make sense. At least, I hope so!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)