Friday 5 November 2010

Remember, remember...

I've seen several things today around the web about how it seems odd and perhaps wrong that we celebrate the torture and execution of a seventeenth century terrorist.  As someone who goes to the church where said terrorist was baptised, I can see their point.  But perhaps there's more to the story than we remember.

To start with, the celebration was about how the plot to blow up the king in parliament had been stopped.  Now, I can't say that celebrating that a great deal of death has been averted is a bad thing, can you?  If the gunpowder plotters (remember, Guy Fawkes was in fact one of the lesser members of the gang) had succeeded, not only the king, queen and heir to the throne but also the whole of Parliament, Lords and Commons alike, would have been killed.  The country, losing so many of its' leaders at a stroke, would have experienced civil unrest and probably rebellion, although whether it would have been in the plotters' favour is uncertain. 

Longer term, it's interesting to speculate what the effects of a successful plot would have been.  Even assuming a Stuart monarchy restored, would the events of the next century (Charles I's personal rule, the civil war with Parliament, the execution of the king and rule by parliament, army and Cromwell and eventual Stuart restoration, followed by more unrest and the Glorious Revolution of 1688) have been in any way the same?  If not, it could well have made a vast difference to the way our country is governed today.  Many things we take for granted today, our very parliamentary system, date back to the turbulent seventeenth century, if not further back. 

Much as we currently despise and decry our politicians, we actually are very fortunate, as people from Zimbabwe or North Korea or Myanmar will tell you.  My historical opinion may not be worth much, but I think it has a lot to do with the troubles we got through in the seventeenth century.  Several of the members who faced up to Charles I in 1639 were already sitting in 1605.  Would that have happened- would Parliament have had the strength to stand up to the monarch- if all the experienced members had been wiped out a few years before?  Would there even have been a Parliament? 

I don't know, of course, no one does.  But perhaps in the light of that we could look a bit more closely at what we're celebrating.  In this age of both terrorism and of MP's expenses scandals, it perhaps wouldn't be a bad thing to think about celebrating democracy and to remind those in power of just why it is important that they don't abuse their position.

So set off the fireworks and rejoice that we live in a country where there is free speech and we don't have to pay taxes at the whim of just one man, where we have a say, however small, in how we are governed.  Be glad that so far, no terrorists fighting have managed to destroy that, and maybe, as you're standing round the bonfire, consider how we can work to stop that happening in the future.  Preferable without explosions or executions.

Thursday 4 November 2010

Faced with a furnace, how strong would your faith be?

I've never published any of my fiction writing on this blog, but today is going to be an exception.  Today WordLive, the Bible engagement site I use posed this question, based on Daniel 3: "Faced with a furnace, how strong would your faith be?"
Along with it was a picture, and perhaps it was that which made me think and engage a bit more than usual.  I ended up writing the story- if you can call it that- below from my thinking about that.  Maybe it'll help you think too.  Or not.  But here it is, anyway.

   She stared at the gaping orange mouth of the furnace.  Even at this distance she could feel the heat, and see it glowing red between the cracks in the wall.  
   She had always loved fire.  Fire gave warmth and light, it could be used to cook.  It gave life; it spoke of companionship and comfort.  But she was terrified of pain, and burning to death had seemed almost the worst deaths she could imagine.  So really, it was no surprise that she should face it now, the ultimate temptation.    She could not take her eyes off the glowing death before her, beautiful in its’ ferocity and destructive capability.
   She thought of the pain as the fire would catch on her clothes, her hair, her very self.  A strand of hair had fallen across her face, and with her hands tied she could not move it.  Her quick imagination thought of it catching light, of the flames licking their way up it towards her face, her eyes...she flinched from the mere thought.  She wondered how long it would take for her to be consumed, how long she would have to endure before the relief of unconsciousness and death would come?  The light alone was blinding, the heat enough to make breathing difficult.  
   Her faith faltered in the face of such terror.  She couldn’t go through with it.  She was alone, and afraid, and face to face not only with that terror without, but with her inner fear.  She didn’t feel that she mattered.  Why should He, the One above, bother to save her?  It wouldn’t make any difference to the world.  Why should He even bother to help her bear what she must go through?  She was just one little person who didn’t really matter.
   But that wasn’t the point, was it?  It wasn’t about who she was, but who He was.  She had been praying in her heart for courage and strenght from the moment she was brought in, and now her prayers stepped up a level, with almost incoherent urgency, begging her God to have mercy and not make her go through with this.
   The king interrupted her.  “Your last chance,” he said.  “Now you see what will happen to you if you refuse, will you bow down and worship as I command?”  She looked up at him, desperate, terrified.
   “No,” she said.  “I won’t do it.”
   “Throw her in,” he said.  A guard lifted her up, and quickly, unwilling to stay near the fire for too long, threw her, bound, into the heart of the flames, too scared even to scream, trying still to pray but unable to think anything clearer than, “Lord, help!”
 

Monday 1 November 2010

Not the 95 Theses

It's Halloween-tide.  Or, alternatively, All Souls/ All Saints'.  It's also the anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses against the sale of Indulgences and abuses in the Roman Catholic church in 1517, something which to me is rather more important than either of the other two festivals- well, I am a historian!  While it's not entirely correct to call it the start of the Reformation, or to say that before this the Church was entirely without merit, it was a significant action if only because of what came after, and has had a profound impact both on the Christian faith (what it means to be a Christian) and on world history and politics to this day.

So I thought I'd attempt to write some theses of my own.  Not that I expect them to have the impact of Luther's 95 (although I doubt he was expecting quite what he got...).  And I'm afraid that 95 would be too long for a modern blog audience's attention span.  So here's 9 and a bit.

Luther's theses were directed against abuses he saw as exploiting the poor and giving people a false idea of what God was all about.  That's something that gets my goat too so here's some ideas.  Theses such as Luther's were intended to be were less dogmatic statements of belief as propositions for discussion and comment so please bear that in mind.  Anyway, see what you think. 


1. Christian organisations should learn to put God's kingdom first in all their plans (not profit), and to have the priorities that God would want (care for the weak, acting in love).  Actions such as American Christian TV stations threatening local youth groups because they share the same name shouldn't happen.

2. Christians should learn to listen to each other and consider the other person's reasons before dismissing beliefs they consider backslidden and wrong.

3. Christians should not engage in 'political' manouverings against each other at the expense of those outside the church (or indeed within it) who can't see what all the fuss is about.

4.  Christians should be willing and able to defend themselves, reasonably but not aggressively, against the false claims and accusations of others.

5. Christians should not try to hide the fact that they are imperfect but to be honest about their failures.

6.  Christians should heed the advice of various new testament writers to 'live good lives among the pagans' and seek to be a group of people who are part of this world- but who outsiders can see are 'different' in a positive way.

7.  Christians should be willing to recognise the skills and talents of every member of their congrergations and to train and develop them.

8.  Christians should seek to be part of a community that cares for both its' members and those outside. 

9.  Christians should remember that love and justice are God's motives, and that they should be ours too and are good clues as to what God wants us to do in tricky situations.

9.5 Same as 9 above.  "For God so loved the world he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life."  Our motivation and our mission statement.

Tuesday 5 October 2010

Can I take a moment of your time?

I really haven't posted enough lately.  I have been busy with many things, none of them fitting the both categories of a) interesting and b) suitable to blog about quickly.  So instead here's a quick reflection on something else.

It may just be my imagination, or a local or seasonal trend, but I think there have been more charity 'salespeople' about recently.  By salespeople I mean those people with clipboards who try to grab you in the street and talk at you until you give them money, or who go door-to-door doing the same thing.  The RSPCA have been particularly active in the area where I live lately.  Perhaps it's due to a downturn in donations due to the recession, or capitalising on public sympathy in the wake of the 'cat in a bin' news story. 

While I have every sympathy with charities (often very good causes) trying to encourage donations, I find these kind of activities quite annoying.  I don't want to be made to feel guilty for not giving money to sick rabbits when I'm in the middle of cooking tea or going to work.  Often the people who try to talk to you in the street adopt the technique (at least with younger people like me) of trying to mildly flirt with you to get your attention.  The (young) male canvassers aim for the women, the women for men.  I wouldn't feel comfortable with that behaviour from a stranger normally, why should it encourage me to talk about charitable giving?  But often it's hard to get them to take 'no' for an answer, and they make you feel rude for ignoring them.
 
I do give to charity.  But I like to choose for myself, not to be pressured into it by strangers on my doorstep or trying to distract me when I'm in a hurry.  I'm sure their causes are very worthy ones, but so are many others.  Which I give to is my choice, and pressure is going to make me less likely to give, not more.  There's a difficult balance to be achieved, from the charity's point of view, because while too much nagging can put people off; without sufficient publicity people won't know about the charity or it's cause, and won't give either.

It struck me that actually there's an analogy to be drawn with the way the church- or parts of it- often do evangelism.  Perhaps for some people the pushy, in-your-face style of proclaiming the gospel and forcing people to listen to it whether they like it or not works, as it must do for some charities and their donors.  I imagine, though, most people have a similar reaction to me with the charity canvassers.  That's what I've gathered over years of trying to talk to friends about faith.  Being continually badgered about something when you don't want to be makes you less inclined to think about it, creates a resentment that then needs more work to be overcome. 

That's not to say we shouldn't be talking about our faith, shouldn't be making the gospel public.  But Jesus, we're told, doesn't force his way in to people's lives.  He wants to be invited.  We can't force people to open their doors to him, we can only encourage them to invite him in.  And constant nagging doesn't do that.  It's a difficult balance.

Thursday 26 August 2010

House and home

Recently the topic of affordable housing has been discussed in the media.  With a chronic shortage of this, and with any help that is given going (rightly, I suppose) to those worst off, it's those people who are in the middle who are going to struggle most to get on the property ladder.  By in the middle I don't necessarily mean 'middle class.'  I mean those people who earn enough to live on, but not enough to save up and buy.  This will probably include people we think of as middle class today; office workers, even nurses and teachers. 

So it seems that in the future more people will have to rent, either alone or with friends.  Even buying with friends might become an option.  I found it interesting that the recent BBC series Sherlock showed two young men sharing a flat, for financial reasons, something that people often don't quite 'get.'  Of course, there was a recurring theme that half the people they met would assume that they were sharing because they were a couple. I've encountered that myself, even when I've been sharing with 2 or 3 people!  

 But is it necessarily a bad thing that fewer people will be homeowners?  Perhaps not, in many countries it's more usual to rent than to buy.  But as commentators have said, certain things would need to change if renting were to become more popular.  As I've written about before, tenants are often at a disadvantage compared to homeowners.  It's unlikely many landlords will feel the need to invest in extra energy efficiency measures like insulation or solar pannels as they will derive little personal benefit.  The same goes for decoration and non-essential repairs and upgrades.  It's understandable, especially if you have long term tenants and haven't got to attract new ones.  Perhaps landlords need to be given some incentive to do this, perhaps tenants need to be able to badger their landlords more.  Perhaps if people are living in rented property for longer, rather than seeing it as temporary, they need to have more opportunity to do work (decoration, refurbishment) themselves.  To be able to feel settled, to make a place their own.

To make living in rented property attractive, these aren't the only changes that would need to take place.  Society often seems to take it for granted that 'proper' adults own their own home, and share it only with a partner.  Why?  As a result, most official paperwork and benefits are based around each household being occupied only as a single unit.  Council tax, for example, is based on the incomes of two adults living in each house leading to some downright unfair effects (but that's a whole other rant).  Even government research surveys find it hard to cope with two or more non-related, non-partners, sharing a home, and surely that will become more normal.  Officialdom needs to recognise that the two adult (and two income) per household model does not reflect all households.

There is a danger that if property becomes concentrated in the hands of a rich minority then theose worse off will have little choice but to accept lower standards.  That's something to be careful about.  And there's the pension situation: many people living on pensions today can afford to do so (just) because they own their own homes and don't have to pay rent.  If fewer pensioners in the future own their own homes, and have to pay rent from ever-decreasing pensions, that's something that needs to be addressed- sooner rather than later.  But will it- or any of these concerns?  Or is too much like joined-up, long term thinking for governments which seem to only deal with the immediate problem?

Tuesday 24 August 2010

Balancing the personal and the corporate

The conflict (if I can call it that) between individual spirituality and organise religion has always interested me.  I know people who've struggled to find a church where they feel at home because they can't find one which fits in with their personal ideas.

Personal spirituality is much more fashionable at the moment than organised religion.  Particularly when people say that religion should be private, or restricted to the private, hidden parts of a practitioner's life; never spoken about with non-believers, never obvious or overpowering.  Although I don't agree that faith should be something we hide (that doesn't really fit with Jesus' commands to be 'witnesses,' does it?) I can understand the attraction of the personal vs organised debate.  In a way, evangelical revivals of the few hundred years even going back to the Reformations, have brought this about by concentrating on the believer's individual relationship with God rather than the church's.  Protestant doctrines playing up the role of the believer in searching out God for him or her self, through Bible reading and personal prayer, took over from Medieval ideas of finding salvation through the church and priesthood.  Spiritual movements, both Christian and from some other faiths, and cultural shifts, have only increased this tendancy to individualism over the last few decades. 

Organised religion, by contrast, is often today seen as foolish and deluded, as out of date, stuck in the past.  Sometimes, sadly, the institutions of the church or the behaviour of other branches of the church can seem more of a help than a hindrance to Christ's Great Commission.  We know this isn't how things should be, but changing this situation is fraught with difficulty and heartbreak for many.  But Paul's letters show us the importance the early followes of Jesus put on the church, the community of believers meeting to worship and to support one another, so we try to make it work, in our church, in our town, getting little recognition or encouragement. 

The paradox is that much research (and 'evangelism training') shows that it is very often the community of believers, the church, which helps bring people to a place where they find God.  Not always, of course; some people find God on their own, but many more come to church services or groups, go on Alpha or a similar course, or through friends willing to talk about and live out their faith. So although people will often say 'I'm fine with Jesus, it's the church I can't stand,' often it's the church which helps them understand what Jesus really meant. 

So how does the church respond?  How do we balance the importance of a personal relationship with Christ with our responsibilities and relationship to the body of Christ, the church?  I'm not sure I know.  As usual I suppose we just have to do our best and listen to God's guidance.  And trust he knows what he's doing.

Friday 6 August 2010

A question

Amidst all the furore over the debate on women bishops, could I ask a question, hoping that someone out there with more knowledge than I can answer it?  Does anyone have any figures showing what percentage of the Church of England is opposed to women bishops?  Not just synod, or clergy, but the feeling among actual church members?  Because I think that's something which has got lost. 

Most of the comment we've heard has come from bishops and clergy, or at most lay members of synod.  And I think as a result the proportion of people opposed has been overstated.  I'd be interested to hear more of the 'view from the pew'.  The internet and blogs are good for that, but most recently have understandably been commenting on the views expressed in synod.  What do ordinary people think?  Has anyone even asked? 

So if anyone can point me towards information, please let me know.

Monday 2 August 2010

A Modest Proposal

You know, I've had an idea.  I think it could solve a lot of the country's problems, from crime to welfare to NHS spending.  It's building on the fine traditions of this country, and should really go a long way towards 'fixing' the broken society we live in (or should that be big society? Or big broken society, or broken big society?  Something like that, anyway.).

I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up.  Possibly even sixteen to thirty.  This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group.  It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants.  If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing.  It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.

Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved.  And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation.  And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues.  A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances. 

Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making.  The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example.  They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects.  Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people.  Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.


Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment.  Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country.  Keep the women out of it for the moment.  Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent.  And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals.  The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget.  One day, we might even win the football World Cup! 



Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke.  I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire.  The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue.  I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above.  They're entirely based on prejudice.  But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them.  In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics.  Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?

And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems.  I don't think there is one.  Sorry to disappoint you.

Friday 23 July 2010

The buses are back!

Remember the fuss over atheist slogans on buses a while ago?  Well, now religious bus posters are in the news again.  The group Catholic Women's Ordination have decided to put up bus posters urging the pope to ordain women as priests, during his visit to Britain later this year. 

I don't expect Benedict will even see any, but it will raise the issue's profile.  While I don't like to see fellow Christians of whatever banner humiliated or embarrassed, I think this is a good thing.  The Roman Catholic church has made some almost schoolboy errors in dealing with this topic, notably the recent stories about classifying attempted ordination of a woman on a par with child abuse.  Unfortunately, while the Roman Catholic church's welcome attempt to show that it was taking child abuse seriously was entirely overshadowed when they  announced that ordaining women was, similarly, a serious offence against the church.

Leaving aside the question of whether ordaining women is right or wrong, I can see why they're concerned people would ignore the church's authority and that given the sensitive, controvertial nature of the issue they'd want it to be dealt with by the highest central authority.  That makes sense (more or less, if you consider women's ordination an important issue as they do).  It also makes sense to have priestly child abuse dealt with by the highest central authority.  What dosn't make sense is to appear to link them together in documents to go to the press.  That's not good PR, and surely someone should have noticed (see this for more comment). 

But the C of E's recent arguments show us that we've got nothing to be complacent about.  Personally I've been getting annoyed when 'evangelical' is almost invariably used to mean 'conservative.'  Yes, some evangelicals are.  I'm not.  Nor are quite a lot of others, at least on the issue of women bishops.  The church contains a wide variety of views.  Please don't paint us all with the same brush!

Wednesday 21 July 2010

7 links for bloggers

Another post!  Can you guess that I'm bored this week?  Anyway, here's an idea I've borrowed from one of my favourite blogs, but originating here (the list seems to vary between the two, I've left out 'most read' as I don't count readers- it would probably be too depressing!)  The idea is to post links to 7 blog posts in different categories.  It feels a bit like the Facebook crazes (the 'pick the last 10 people to write on your wall.  Would 3 and 7 make a good couple?' sort) but here goes!

1. Your first post.  An introduction, and not very interesting really!  It was a couple of weeks before I wrote anything worth reading on a topic that bugs me, which was what I set the blog up for.

2. The post you most enjoyed writing.  Probably the love of wisdom about natural things on the science vs religion debate. 

3. A post which had a great discussion.  People don't tend to discuss or comment much on my posts (probably because I don't think I have that many readers!)  So the honour goes to the only post to attract more than one reader (besides me) to comment on it.  Possibly my shortest ever post, and a blatent advert! 

4. A post on someone else’s blog that you wish you’d written.  So many to choose from!  Recently I've been finding that when I want to blog about something, the Church Mouse has already done so better than I could, such as discussing the mainstream C of E's inability to present itself positively.

5. Your most helpful post.  Well, there are several I wish some church leaders and/ or politicians would read. This, Welfare to work to washed up, is probably the one I'd most like to help people understand what it's like to be a young adult struggling to cope with some of the unfairness of life. This one also picks up some of the same themes.

6. A post with a title you are proud of.  I try (often without much success) to make post titles vaguely catchy, often using alliteration.  There were several last August that I rather like;  Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall is probably my favourite.

7. A post that you wish more people had read.  Many people seem to think that being a person of faith means you leave reason outside the door.  I've tried several times to argue that this isn't the case, including this post on why I disagreed with a friend's comment.

Hmm, that's a few more than 7 links.  Oh well!

Monday 19 July 2010

Signs and wonders- scary and weird?

When I'm talking with my friends about the church, I find I have to spend a lot of time trying to defend the church from accusations of weirdness.  Even discounting the odder forms of worship or evangelism that are around (I haven't yet forgotten an American evangelist earnestly insisting that bananas are proof of intelligent design because they're a convenient shape for our hands) it can be hard for those within the church to understand quite why those outside think they're so odd.

I'm not talking here about debates over ordaining women or gay people as bishops, which many outside the chuch don't understand, or about scandals like the current Catholic church and child abuse that are condemned by the overwhelming majority inside the church or out.  I mean the practices we within the church consider normal, or at least usual, but which are quite alien to those not in the club.

Take singing, for example.  I've grown up singing, like almost everyone within the church.  But how often does  your average person sing in public (outside church), once they've left school?  Unless they're in a choir, not very often.  So something so simple and so integral to the average churchgoer is actually likely to be quite alien to the general public. 

If we are already making people feel uncomfortable just by asking them to sing, how much odder some other aspects of church must seem!  Speaking in tongues for example.  Or praying for healing.   I've heard that there are fewer miracles in this part of the world than in (eg) Asia.  This is often put down to a lack of faith among Western churches and/ or communities, but I wonder if perhaps there's another explanation.  Such miracles, as seen in the New Testament, are 'signs' of the coming of God's kingdom- signs that God is working on earth through Jesus and his followers.  But in our society I don't know if they would have that effect on people who didn't already believe in the supernatural.  I'm suspect not.  So I wouldn't be surprised to see fewer miracles.  Perhaps we're shy of reporting those that do happen for fear of not being believed and being ridiculed. 

Perhaps we're guilty of over-dramatising our faith.  It is a life-changing experience, but God is interested in the small minutiae of our daily lives, not just the big things.  Perhaps we don't even recognise some of the small miracles and answers to prayer because we're taught to look big.  When the miraculous or supernatural are taking place it doesn't have to feel weird or even special.  Sometimes people fall over or injuries are physically healed, but often- mostly- no one except you will notice that God is present.  Present through a picture, the words of a song, a feeling, a sense, through a hug or the words of a friend- even one who doesn't believe.  God works in each of us in different ways.  He challenges us, yes, but he doesn't want to scare us.  His love touches the world in many ways to do many things.  It's right to make that known.  But let's not scare people by it if we can help it.

Wednesday 14 July 2010

Synod's choice

I'm trying to summon up enough enthusiasm to write about last weekend's Church of England synod and what their decisions about ordaining women as bishops mean.  But in a way everything seems to have been said.  The synod have probably made the best of a not terribly good job, and decided to risk offending traditionalists so much that they leave the C of E, in return for giving women bishops, when they finally appear, the same status as men.

Of course it will be very sad if this decision causes people to leave the church.  Jesus taught us to pray for unity among Christians, and it's hard to be unified- or even to pray for unity- when you are caught up in a bitter struggle the meaning of Biblical texts.  Perhaps, some say, we should compromise for the sake of unity- that both sides should compromise as far as they can, out of love for each other and for God, out of grace, to prevent a damaging split.  That, if I am correct, is what the amendment proposed by the archbishops of Canterbury and York was an attempt to do, an attempt to salve the consciences of those who feel they cannot submit to a woman's authority; so that while those in favour would accept that another, male, bishop would care for the traditionalists, the traditionalists would recognise the validity of women bishops in principal.

But there are other considerations.  It has been said, with much truth, that the church exists for the benefit of non-members (admittedly it often doesn't seem like that's the case!).  Obviously a an organisation that is constantly arguing with itself isn't showing a very good image to outsiders.  But then neither is an organisation that, from most outsiders and indeed most insiders' point of view, is still practicing sexism. 

Obviously I'm not saying that the church (any church, not just the C of E) should just give in to society's pressures and accept society's values.  That would leave us with no integrity.  But if we want the church to be an active, outward looking community, we need to show that every member is valued.  That means weighing up the choice of offending some of your membership, or looking increasingly old fashioned, irrelevant and unpalatable to those outside (and a large number within).  It's not a choice to make lightly, or without much prayer, and I think synod have been thinking and praying about this for a long time.  No one should be going into that kind of debate wanting to cause trouble or make things nasty, any sort of split should cause sorrow on both sides.  But perhaps to agree to disagree, and not to rule out the possibility of working together in the future, is a better solution than to continue to argue, which can be more divisive.

Of course, probably a better option is to accept, gracefully, the arrangements that the synod has agreed on. But given that the media much prefer a story about disagreement than about acceptance and co-operation, I doubt we'll hear so much about the parishes and people who do just that.  The church (perhaps because as a friend of mine said; "the more liberal people are, the more likely they are to feel the opposition should have a say, and less likely to make absolutist remarks.") isn't great at presenting the positive story.  But I look forward to when the first women bishops are ordained, and hope that it will be celebrated as the milestone it deserves to be.

Friday 2 July 2010

What did possibly go wrong.

I said I'd let you know.  What went wrong next was that a soloist had to drop out the day before the show due to illness.  But we coped, reallocated some solos and cut others.  The show went very well, at least from my point of view.  This Saturday we're taking it 'on tour' to Leeds with a reduced cast, so let's hope all goes well!

It still remains to be seen whether the 'Japanese Play' has escaped its' curse- although one principal did manage to hurt his knee and develop tonsillitis...let's hope that's the end of it!

Aside from that, it's not been the best week or two, with work being unpleasant and making me feel useless and no good for anything- if I can't even do a good job at my current job, what hope do I have of being any use in the sort of job I feel God might be calling me to?  But then why would he call me to something I couldn't do?  That makes no sense.

Various Bible verses tell us that we need to rely on God for our strength.  For example:
Trust in the LORD with all your heart       
and lean not on your own understanding

Proverbs 3, v5.
I guess that's something I needed to be reminded of.  And something I need to do.  God chooses to use his people to do his work, and he strengthens them as needed for his work.  So I hope he will strengthen me, and be able to use me.  Even though I don't feel that I'm worth using.




Wednesday 16 June 2010

A hideous curse!

Well, I've been in shows which have had their fair share of catastrophies and hiccups, but at the moment I am beginning to wonder if there's some sort of curse lurking in York's Gilbert and Sullivan groups.  Or worse, in me, since I'm a common factor in both.  One group may be just about back on track, although from now on I'm calling the show named afte the Emperor of Japan the 'Japanese Play' as it seems to be the operetta equivalent of Shakespeare's Scottish Play, except that in this instance the curse attacks members of the directing team and committee.  However, following three resignations, a directorial reappointment, two sets of recasting and and EGM, hopefully the music's now learnt, the theatre booked, the tickets on sale and we can get on with learning choreography- until the next problem!

But the university society seemed to be going so well, despite the university's apparent ambition to stop all performing societies from operating and generally make life difficult for students.  This time it was actually the students' union, (I've come to understand that that term must be used ironically,) YUSU, that was causing the trouble.  Stating that all societies must hire equipment from certain companies with whom YUSU has a contract sounds fine until you realise that this is a much higher cost than the sharing/ begging/ borrowing which most societies have to do to make ends meet.

But somehow we'd survived that, and even managed to get money from YUSU to pay for the cost of the problem they created.  What could stop us now?
 
Room bookings, it appears.  Last night's rehearsal room turned out to be double booked thanks to a glitch probably in the electronic system.  Yet even this we turned to our advantage by squeezing into a music room to go over some of the music, delaying the run through of Act 1 that we were supposed to be doing until the other group had finished with our room.  This meant that when we did get our proper room back, we were able to get all the way through Act 1 without stopping.

Well, that must be it.  The rehearsal's over, nothing more could go wrong that day.

Then the musical director started choking and had to be taken to A&E, unable to breathe.

Over the years I've seen a lot of directors exhibit practically every documented symptom of stress, including dreaming that each member of the cast is killed in one way or another.  But never have we come so close to any of them being actually unable to take part in the show.  Apparently he's now fine, though, or at least he says so.  So, the show(s) must go on!

What could possibly go wrong?

I'll let you know.

Friday 28 May 2010

Boldness and bubbling over

A Bible study guide I use contained this challenge yesterday: "Thank God that the electronic media have opened the floodgates for the good news of Jesus to travel ‘to the ends of the earth.'  What could you do, say or write today?"  I figured that it was about time for another post here.

Last Sunday was Pentecost, the 'birthday' of the church, the celebration of the Holy Spirit.  So that's been the topic I've been thinking about a lot lately. It's also something I think many people, inside the church as well as outside, struggle to understand.  For a long while I did, and even now I don't understand everything.  But when my cell group this week were asked to describe their experirnces of the Spirit the word which cropped up again and again was 'gentle' and that made me think.

Because people often don't understand the Spirit, and often only see the more 'showy' aspects of his work, (such as people falling over when prayed for, or speaking in tongues, or giving prophecies), those- like me- who aren't used to this kind of thing can be a bit scared or disturbed by what's going on.  But what I found most helpful was when, a couple of years ago, someone said something about God only taking you as far as he knows you can go.  It reminded me of how God knows and loves each of us utterly.  He wants to challenge us to grow with him, but he doesn't want to hurt us or scare us. 

Those things are outward signs of what the Spirit is doing inside us, moving in and helping us become the people God longs for us to be.  Not everyone has the 'showy' gifts, but every Christian has God's Spirit in them, part of their life, as guider and counsellor, as someone who comes along side to help and encourage us. 

One of the things he does is to encourage us to put our faith first and to speak out about it.  I've been reading about the healing of a lame man by the disciples Peter and John.  They got into trouble for it with the same high priest and council who had put Jesus to death a few weeks before.  Told they could go as long as they stopped talking about Jesus, they refused.  They knew the danger they were in, but they couldn't stop.  What they were talking about mattered more to them than their own lives.

I wish I had that enthusiasm, that 'bubbling over' with excitement.  Sometimes it can misdirected and lead to insensitivity, but you often find that it's newer Christians, who still have that excitement, who bring new people in to the church.  I hope I do have the same attitude as the disciples, to an extent, - I can't separate my faith from my life, if I had to stop living my faith- which includes sharing it- it would be to take away what makes me who I am.  But I know I could use more boldness.  And that's one of the things the Spirit is there for.

Tuesday 18 May 2010

A hopeless generation?

Our parents were told they could have it better than past generations.  And they did.  Technology and standards of living have increased dramatically in the last century, even the last sixty years.  The effects on society have been enormous, and some more positive than others.

But in the last thirty or so years things were moving so fast that we borrowed to get more and more, both as a country and as individuals.  Now we're left in a country that's deep in debt, but just as seriously a country with a high level of personal debt- huge mortgages, credit cards, loans, even student loans, with all problems, financial and stress related, this causes.

Even for those who've avoided debt as much as possible the dream of life continually improving seems unlikely.  I know so many people who've graduated in the last few years and struggle to get even a low skilled job, let alone one requiring a degree.  Perhaps the picture is skewed because of where I live, but youth unemployment is a rising political issue.  As is the older generation who will need-and expect- increasing levels of expensive care, which my generation will have to pay for.  Will we have it better than past generations?  I doubt it.

And yet on TV we see people endlessly having fun, doing exciting things.  Is it any wonder if we want to escape our dull, hopeless lives, to win fame, celebrity, and that we'll often go to extreme lengths such as humiliating ourselves in front of millions on X factor or Big Brother to get it?  But even that is shallow.

The future used to seem shiny and exciting, a world of robot servants and hovercars and interstellar travel.  Now we bitterly consider what a mess we've made of our own planet rather than thinking about colonising others.  The future doesn't seem to contain much hope now.  Certainly not the immediate future of cash-strapped Britain.  Perhaps that's what we were hoping our politicians will deliver in this election- a reason to hope in the future.  Perhaps it's too early to say whether that hope was entirely in vain.


So where are we to find our hope for the future?  At this point I should go all Christian and give the answer; "in Christ."  And it's true, of course.  I do believe it.  But that's not to disown responsibility for the future of planet Earth and its inhabitants.  That hope in Christ has got to affect what we do on Earth, not just what will happen to us after death.  Because of that hope, it's up to us, the people of Christ, to look at the world around us and work out how we can make it a better place, a place of hope.

Wednesday 12 May 2010

The modern day lion's den

Well, we have a new government.  Actually, unlike many people I don't think it's taken all that long since the election, I know that in some other countries it can take much longer.  And again unlike many people I think that since the election all the party leaders have acted properly, and come to a reasonable conclusion.  Whether or not the system that got them there is fair is another matter, but at the moment it's the one we've got to use.  While I would like to see a different system looked at, in this case I'm not sure it would have made a vast difference to the end result.  While there aspects of this government's policy that I really don't like, I can see that it could have been much worse.

But for now we have a government that under the current system can claim legitimacy.  Perhaps we don't like its' leaders, or its' policies.  But there is one thing that we can and should do, whether we like the government or not, and that is pray.  Pray that the politicians will have the best interests of the country at heart and will act for that motive, not for their own aggrandisement or enrichment.

Pray for Gordon Brown, stepping back from a difficult job and for his family, as they adjust to life outside number 10. 
Pray for David Cameron, taking on the responsibilities of leading the country, and  for his family, as they get used to living inside the goldfish bowl of 10 Downing Street.  Pray for the new cabinet members and government ministers as they settle in to their new roles.  Pray for Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems who probably weren't expecting as much to be taking their places round the cabinet table! 

Pray that the parties can work together for the good of the people of this country and beyond.  Pray for greater fairness of opportunity, in healthcare, in education, in employment.   Pray for those who influence the media.  Pray that the country will not get so caught up in fear of the future that they are unable to do anything in the present. 

Searching biblegateway.com for references to government, the passage that struck me was from Daniel, where Daniel's opponents tried to find anything to use to smear him, but were unable to.  Daniel 6 shows a court that's scarily reminiscent of modern politics.  "Finally these men said, "We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God." (Daniel 6 verse 5).  Wouldn't it be great if we could say the same about our leaders?  You'll call me naive, I'm sure, but let's pray that our politicians are more like Daniel, and less like the jealous satraps.

Thursday 6 May 2010

Election fever

Finally, it's polling day.  It does seem to have taken a long time to get here, especially when you consider how little we have actually learnt in the last couple of weeks.  There haven't been any really radical changes since the first debate when everyone suddenly realised that the Lib Dems had a leader and that perhaps they should pay some attention to him.  Since them nothing much seems to have changed.  We've known pretty much what all the parties were going to say for some time (apart perhaps from Cameron's 'Big society' but even that is just giving a name to things we've heard about before.  Even Bigotgate hasn't really told us anything we don't know.

But somehow today's still a bit special.  An election is An Event.  A national event.  It's rather twee to say that it brings the nation together, but in a way it does.  Pretty much everyone you speak to, in shops, in the street, at work, has something to say on the subject.  We British are experts at grumbling, so often it's to complain about this or that or all parties or politicians.  But at least it's engagement with the political process.

I went to vote about midday, and was glad to see that the polling station was busier by far at the same time of day than it was last year for the European elections or for the local elections a year or two before.  Perhaps because it's looking close, the turnout for this election will be higher than in recent years, higher than the last couple of general elections.  That perhaps is something positive to take away from this election, whoever wins; that people have been more, even if only a bit more, engaged with politics this time round.  Cynics might say this is all down to the 'X-factor'  TV debates, and I don't doubt they have had an effect.  But even if people are only voting because they think Leader A looks more friendly than Leader B, they're voting, they're taking part, taking responsibility for the givernment of their country.  Of course I'd much, much rather they listened to what the leaders were saying, looked at their policies and considered their values.  But I'd rather they took some responsibility for their future than none at all, even if I disagree with their choice.  That's democracy.  Those who can't be bothered to vote* don't have the right to complain for the next five years!

So if you haven't yet and you can, go and vote.  For whoever (although please, not the far right!) you think will be best for the country.  A century ago I wouldn't have been able to vote- I hope I'd have been chaining myself to railings outside as a protest!  Two centuries ago even a lot of men wouldn't have been able to vote due to property qualifications.  In many countries people are still denied a say in the government that runs their lives and in others the elections are no more than a sham (think of conflict in Zimbabwe and Kenya over the last few years).  However bad and corrupt you may think our politicians are, really we are very very fortunate.  Let's show that we don't take it for granted! 



*I don't include those who for a reason that's not their fault can't vote.  Failing to bother to check you're registered probably is your own fault, though, it's not as if you haven't had enough warning!

Wednesday 21 April 2010

Do I have a right to vote?

The BBC website today has an article on the effect of religious issues on people's voting.  While I thought the article itself  stated the situation pretty fairly, one of the comments by a member of the public below it struck me.

"Religion has no place in politics. If religion (of any kind) influences your vote, you should have your right to vote revoked."

Well then, my right to vote would have to be revoked.  But why should this be the case?  Other commentors cited examples of far-right American politics and the Middle East as examples of why religion and politics should be kept separate.  I can understand that.  And indeed the idea of people who vote one way or another just because they're told to, without considering for themselves, is something I intensely dislike.  Or voting for a candidate just because he or she professes faith, whether or not that's visible in their policies. 

But my beliefs do influence my vote.  Don't everybody's?  Whether you believe in a God or not, in deciding to vote for candidate A or party B in any election you decide based on your beliefs.  That might be something like believing that students shouldn't have to pay for tuition fees, that banning people from B&B's because of their sexuality is wrong, that people shouldn't be detained without trial. 

My political beliefs are influenced by my religious beliefs.  For example, there's plenty in the bible about caring for the stranger within your country, about helping the poor and families in distress.  So when I look at who to vote for I look at which candidate or party best reflects these teachings.  There's no one party in mainstream British politics at the moment who I agree with on every issue, but I prayerfully consider which I feel is closest to how I believe God would want people to live and the country to be run. 

That means Christians have to engage in politics, reading about and listening to candidates, asking questions, trying to see through the spin and publicity on all sides to what the party really believes, what their values are.  One of the saddest things I feel about politics is when parties seem to be willing to say or do anything to anything to get themselves elected, rather than standing for principals on an issue. 

Of course not all Christians agree on which party best reflects Christian values, because different Christian traditions see different parts of Christian teaching as more important than others and focus on those.  For example, one party might loose support from some Christians for focusing on helping people whatever their marital state or sexual orientation, while other Christians will support it for showing Christ's sacrificial, unconditional love to the community.  That's a matter of individual choice.

So yes, my faith does influence the way I vote.  But I don't see what's wrong with that, since I would hope that everyone votes on the basis of what they believe in (even if it's just that they believe 'the other lot' are wrong).  If you were to say that letting your belief affect your vote disqualifies you from voting, you'd be undermining the whole principal of democracy, surely?

PS I wrote on a similar subject last year, if you're interested. 

Wednesday 14 April 2010

Growing up

It appears I am actually, despite all appearances, (and some people's opinions) growing up.  Recently I was getting worried that I might be turning into my father, since I'd noticed some of his traits and temprament in myself.  Not a good thing.  I'm hoping some recent events were mostly a biproduct of being stressed and not an actual trend towards getting angry when things didn't go right. 

And yet now it seems I was wrong.  I actually appear to be turning into my mother.  Sometimes I sound like her, talk about the same things, laugh like her, even sometimes look like her or use her expressions.  For ages it's been a joke amongst some of my friends that I'm something of a parent (ever since I started counting people when we were in Edinburgh a few years ago...).  It probably has something to do with me almost invariably being the one who notices when the house is low on toilet roll, or a bill needs paying; and always having a tissue or safety pin.

For the last two or three years I've been going through what my friends and I call 'the marriage phase' where pretty much everyone I knew at uni or from church was getting married.  Nowadays I struggle to think of couples among my friends who've been together more than a couple of months and who aren't married or engaged.  Not that this is a bad thing at all, it's just one of those phases.

But it seems this phase is beginning to come to an end.  So far there's only four or so weddings of couples I know happening this year.  It's moving on.  The 'baby phase' is beginning.  Several couples, mostly two or three years older than me but including one where the wife is younger than me, are having or have had their first child this year.

It's interesting to observe.  It's even more interesting to see on Facebook that people from my year at secondary school have children  who are now several years old.  And yet at least one friend is still surprised by the youth of the brides/grooms/parents who are a year or two older than me.  Is there an 'average' age for these things?  My circle of friends is affected by the number of Christians (especially of the evangelical, no sex outside marriage, sort) and perhaps this distorts the numbers in favour of early marriage.  But the age of the couple leaving full time education seems to affect this too, as many of those I knew who left school at 16 or 18 are already parents compared to those who I know from university. 

Perceptions of the family, and therefore the ages of each stage have changed throughout history.  What 'family' can be said to mean now is an endless debate.  I was amused to realise that according to official surveys and suchlike, I would probably be considered the head of my 'household' as the main income earner.  Is that why I seem to be taking on the role of a parent?  I doubt it- I think it's just the curse of being well organised!

So do I mind that I'm turning into my mother?  Not really.  It seems I'm destined to 'mother' the people around me, to care about them and worry about them, to try to help and look after them.  But it could be worse!

Sunday 11 April 2010

Easter responses: Thomas

It's my blog's second birthday!  So to celebrate, another post in my series on responses to Easter, this time thinking about the apostle Thomas.

Thomas is known as 'the doubter,' but is this really fair?  Although on several occassions in the gospels he is recorded as being cautious and possible sceptical about whether something really can or has happened he also makes one of the braver statements that came out of the apostles: "Let us go also, that we may die with him" (John 11, v16).  Jesus, against the advice and warnings of his friends that the religious establishment were out to get him, was determined to set out for Jerusalem and Bethany, knowing what was eventually in store for him and determined to obey his father's will.  Thomas is the one who voices the disciples' intention to stay with their teacher through thick and thin.  Perhaps it shows his trust that Jesus is the one who will save them. 

Of course, it didn't happen, and the disciples were scattered, frightened and ashamed.  The first news of the resurrection must have just confused them more, adding to the uncertainty they felt.  What were they to do now?  Were they safe?  Was they journey Jesus had led them on over?  Had he failed?

Then he appeared to them, and they believed.  He had not failed, he had risen.  Their doubts and fear were swallowed up in joy- for now.  But Thomas was not there, he missed it.  He remained sceptical.  Understandably, really.  How hard do you find it to believe that someone you have seen killed has risen from the dead?  Even if your friends tell you it's true?  If you are a Christian, think how hard you would find it to believe this if you weren't, and maybe you'll be a bit closer to understanding how hard some people find it to comprehend the resurrection.

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."  We often think this reprove applies only to Thomas.  Yet the other disciples also believed because they had seen.  Surely it applies to them as much as to him. 

But Thomas and his doubt perhaps can help us see how Jesus responds today to those who have real doubts.   Perhaps those of us who already believe forget quite how hard it can be to accept the truth about Jesus for the first time.  Jesus sees that Thomas wants to believe, sees what is in the way of this belief- presumably his logical thinking that no one who was dead could be walking around alive*- and reaches out to him with a personal, even physical, response. 

Today a lot of people still struggle to accept that the gospel account of Jesus' death and resurrection can be true, struggle with thinking that it's not logical, that it doesn't make sense, that it is against reason.  And it is, except for one thing; that this is God we're dealing with, and God doesn't obey the same natural laws as the rest of us. But often- perhaps always- the only way for people to realise this, to overcome their logical reasons, is for God to step down into our world, as he did with Thomas, and meet them.  Maybe not a physical encounter like with Thomas, maybe through a sense, a feeling, an experience.  Maybe through a friend, a church service, a book, or a song.  Something that makes you realise God is there, and that he's real.  Perhaps you won't understand how it's real, but you'll know it is.



*Even though Thomas had presumable seen Lazarus raised from the dead.  The disciples seem to have had quite short memories- but then would you or I do any better in the trust stakes?  I don't think I would!

Friday 9 April 2010

Appraisal time

It's that time of year again- appraisals month at work.  Everyone gets given a sheet of questions to think about and answer, then you have an interview with someone more senior and discuss it and any concerns they have with you.  I know I shouldn't complain too much, I think it's a healthy thing to do, but at the same time it can be difficult and awkward.  I struggle to work out how to answer the questions without offending anyone, or making it sound like I'm lazy (or that I'm too keen) without actually lying.  Then they try and set targets.  Do you know how hard it is to set an identifiable target for a receptionist without getting really petty? 

To cheer me up, here are some of the pre-appraisal questions, and what I might like to answer...


Which part of the job interests you most?
Umm...payday?  The internet?

Which part interests you least?
The actual work (when there is any).
Or possibly answering these questionnaires.

How do you feel you have performed in the last year?
Well, a hundred or so blog posts, a 60,000+ word story (and some other writings), a lot of minutes and business connected with running a G&S society  isn't bad for a year's work, I guess.  Oh, you mean actual office activities.  Umm...ok I guess.

Which areas of your job are you unclear about?
Why you continually don't give me anything else to do, even when I've asked.  Surely there must be something?  Or are you really happy just to pay me to sit here and twiddle my thumbs?

Do you posess skills, knowlegdge or experience acquired elsewhere of which we do not make full use?
Yes.  Do you really want a list?  I have a degree, for starters.  I can type with more than two fingers, and know how to use email.  I know how to clean a bathroom, which is more than the current cleaner does...Could I sing to entertain clients in the waiting room?  Or give minature lectures on European History?

Does your job description properly describe your duties and responsibilities?
Well, yes.  We only revieved it six months ago.  But put together they take up less than a quarter of the time I'm at work for.

Do you feel that you could take on other responsibilities?
What's the point in asking me this?  I said yes the last two times I did this form, and you haven't given me any.  I'd like a chance to learn some new skills or develop the ones I have so I stand some chance of getting another job.  As it is, I can't even get one on the same level as this.

Where would you like to be in one year and five years' time?
Reallistically, in a job where I earn enough not to have to worry every month about whether there will be enough to pay the household bills, and where I can do something vaugely interesting or at least useful to someone.
Ideally, not having to go to an office every day but being able to do the things I like...reading, writing, church stuff... I wonder if there's any way I can get paid for doing those things...
But at the moment, I'd settle for still having a job.

Targets for the next six months:
Finish writing Misplaced.
Apply for other jobs.
Attempt not to get depressed about lack of progress with life or with the failure to be taken seriously by people; and attempt not to get upset at being continually forgotten and not considered for things I know I can do.

Now I suppose I should get on with writing my real answers to the questions...

Sunday 4 April 2010

Easter responses: Mary

I get cross when people say that women weren't important in the early church; the very first person to see the risen Christ was a woman (and one with probably something of a shady- in the eyes of the religious establishment- past).  I've heard that under Jewish law at the time the testimony of a single woman was not valid- yet it mattered to Jesus that the first people to see him were women.

The accounts given in the four gospels differ slightly in their accounts of who was there.  Matthew says it was Mary Magdalene and 'the other Mary,' probably the one Mark and Luke describe as the mother of James, (one of the twelve).  Mark adds in a woman called Salome, Luke ommitts her but includes a Joanna.  All agree, however, that a group of women who had been followers of Jesus went to the tomb early in the morning on that first day of the week, to check on Jesus' body and to annoint it with spices as was the custom of the day, but which they hadn't been able to do before because of the Sabbath.  They were grieving, probably afraid of the authorities- the male disciples are described as basically hiding- but they were devoted enough to risk danger to do this last service for their dead leader.

Matthew tells us how the women are greeted by an angel who tells them that Jesus is not there, he has risen!  "Afraid yet filled with joy" they run off to find the disciples when they are met by Jesus himself.  He comforts them, accepts their worship, and gives them a new task, to give the disciples a message.  Luke tells us that the disciples thought their words seemed like nonsense.  Well, they would to you, if someone told you that the person who you knew had been killed was now alive.  The women were excited, joyful, so different to the grief and fear of a few hours before. 

John gives an account which is slightly different from the others.  He shows us an encounter between Mary Magdalene alone and Jesus, where she does not at first recognise who he is because of her grief.  Not until he calls her by name does she recognise him and respond, "Teacher!"  Again her grief and fear give way to joy.  It's a beautiful little scene, and the detail of his calling her by name reminds me of the loving care God has for each individual. 

Mary is willing to accept the evidence of her experience, to believe that Jesus really has been raised from the dead.  She knows that this is a special person, someone who she was devoted to in life and someone who she was willing to take risks for by going to the tomb.  He had healed her in life (Mark 16 v9) and now he had done far more than that- although probably she didn't realise that yet- by dying on the cross.  She responds to the resurrection in wonder, with excitement, with joy, with love, and above all with belief. 

Do we ever feel these emotions when we think about the resurrection?  Or are we so used to the idea that it has lost its wonder?  How often do we get excited about what God has done?  And how often do we respond with joy and with love and praise?  I know I don't always.  That's something to think about this Easter.

Friday 2 April 2010

Easter responses: Peter

Peter is a disciple that many people find it easy to identify with.  Certainly that's something I feel.  Perhaps it's because he often doesn't get things right.  One moment he's being told he is the rock on which the church will be built, the next he's being told 'get behind me, Satan!'  He promises that he won't abandon Jesus, but before morning he's already denied his Lord three times.  Like I said yesterday, it's all too easy to condemn the disciples without knowing how we would react to if we were in danger because of our faith.  And Peter's story is one that can give us hope. 

Peter's impulsiveness led him to be the first to make connections and declarations of loyalty, but it also got him into trouble.  He fails Jesus on the night before his crucifixion, despite his earlier confidence in himself.  He starts off well, daring to follow Jesus to the high priest's house, but once people notice him and start asking questions that could lead to his being arrested too he falls to pieces. (John 18, v15-18 and 25-27.)  Matthew tells us that Peter "wept bitterly" when he realised what he'd done.  I know there have been times when I've said or done something that denies Jesus' lordship of my life, and sometimes I've realised afterwards and deeply regretted it. 

And yet Jesus forgives Peter and reassures him that he is still part of his plan.  In John 21 we have a description of an encounter where Jesus asks Peter three times if he loves him, mirroring the three times Peter betrayed him.  And each time Jesus gives him a commission to care for his 'flock,' for the church.  And he hints at how Peter will serve him in the future.  Peter, who had denied Jesus to save his own skin, would eventually be executed for continuing to spread the good news of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection.

This encounter follows on from yet another miracle, (as if Jesus' appearance wasn't miracle enough!) that is reminiscent of one Jesus performed when he first called Peter.  Perhaps it hints at a new beginning and a reminder of that first call to become 'fishers of men;' at how far the disciples have come and yet how far they still have to go.  Perhaps it hints that from now on they must rely on God to provide for them, and at the presence of the Holy Spirit who will soon come to them and strengthen them.  It is because they have the Spirit helping them that the disciples are able to achieve all that is done in spreading the gospel, and through the Spirit's help that many of them, including Peter, are able to stand firm in their faith and by martyred.  His self-confidence had failed him- he knew now that he needed God's help.

It's through the Holy Spirit's help that even the most timid of us (and that's me!) can dare to serve Jesus, can dare to take risks to spread his good news.  Risks in giving our money to charity or the church, risks in inviting friends to come to church or in talking to them about our faith, risks in practical service.  In some parts of the world Christians still risk their lives just by believing.  In this country we might be risking our reputation- our friends may think we're weird religious freaks, even that we're dangerous.  But after what Jesus did for us, shouldn't we try to take those risks?  But the best thing is to know that when we fail, he will, like with Peter, help us get up and start again.

Thursday 1 April 2010

Easter responses: the disciples- and us.

This is the first of a series of posts on the responses of different people to the events of Easter- to Jesus' death and resurrection.  Hopefully thinking about how the different actors in the story responded will help us think about our own response.

It's easy to condemn the disciples.  They were with Jesus continuously for about three years, heard him talk, saw his miracles, and yet when it came to the test, they failed.  Badly.  All of them.

They sat at the last supper, listening to Jesus' talk of what would happen to him without understanding.  They followed him to the garden of Gethsemane, but they fell asleep.  They talked big about their loyalty to Jesus- but ran away when the authorities turned up to arrest him.

It's easy to condemn the disciples for their stupidity, their lack of action.  But  would we be any better?  I don't think so, really.  Maybe some of us would.  I'm not sure I want to find out what I would do in a life or death situation.  But I'm no hero.

The difference now is that we know what happened next.  Jesus didn't stay dead, he rose!  Knowing that, we have less excuse than the disciples for not doing what we know we should for Jesus because we know that he won.  And we have the holy Spirit to help us.

And yet the disciples were forgiven, were accepted back into Jesus' friendship and given the task of building the church.  Even Peter (more on that tomorrow).  Despite their failure (and presumably the knowledge that they might fail again) they were still willing to take risks for Christ.  In the same way God forgives us for all the times we let him down, all the times we pass up on an opportunity to stand up for him.  Thank God for that!

Sunday 28 March 2010

This joyful Eastertide

It's nearly Easter again.  I like Easter for many reasons.  For a start, a few days off is always welcome, and it seems a long time since the Christmas break.  Also things seem less rushed that at Christmas- you feel under less obligation to visit every relative you possibly can in a week and to go back to work feeling tired and full of turkey- probably you've enjoyed the Christmas season, but part of you is glad to get back to normal routine.

There's less pressure surrounding Easter, fewer expectations, less hype.  I find it easier to celebrate the Easter season for its' own sake, for the meaning behind it, than I do at Christmas.  That's not to criticize Christmas- in many ways it's a festival I love celebrating.  But there's something to be said for the more relaxed way of celebrating that is demonstrated at Easter.  And of course the weather's usually nicer at Easter- three years ago I remembe having a barbecue and egg hunt in a friend's garden on Easter Sunday. The following year, however, it snowed!

You might not realise it from popular culture, but Easter is at least as important as Christmas in the Christian calendar.  Some reasons why I think it's not so popular I've already talked about on this blog.  While at Christmas we think in wonder of the powerful God, huge beyond our imaginations, who chose to become a vulnerable, dependent baby born to a poor woman in a strange town, at Easter the mystery is different.  And humanity doesn't come out of it so well.

On Good Friday we think in wonder about how God's son allowed himself to be tortured and killed by us, the people he created.  It's the second part of the mystery of God becoming one of us that we celebrate at Christmas.  Saturday is a day of anticipation and waiting, of thinking of how the disciples, the men and women who had followed Jesus, must have felt when he had gone and they were alone. 

And then on Easter Sunday we think about the greatest miracle- that Jesus rose from the dead.  We praise him for defeating death, for providing a way for us to get rid of the consequences of our selfishness and all the times we put ourselves before God.  It's a time for joy and celebration.  It always seems a shame to me that there are very few Easter 'carols' and that singing (in public, in services, in schools) isn't as common as at Christmas.  There are Easter hymns, but they're nowhere near as well known as their Christmas counterparts.  I expect the Victorians are to blame somehow.

So I'm looking forward to Easter.  I've been struggling a bit with my faith and things lately.  Christmas wasn't a relaxing time for me, and a few days now where I can focus on God- and in fact on my own needs, rather than trying to push myself to the side as I think and worry and pray about other people.  I find it quite hard to pray for myself.  Maybe this Easter I'll get a chance to work on that- as long as I don't get bogged down into feeling lonely as most of my friends celebrate time off with their partners or go back to their parents.  

But most important of all, Easter is a chance to focus on praising God.  Maybe this year I'll make it to the sunrise service at church, or maybe I won't.  But I will spend some time trying to focus on God, praising him for the most awesome moment in history- the time when he gave himself to rescue us and shatter the power of our selfishness.

Tuesday 16 March 2010

Don't feed the trolls?

I expect you've come across the advice: don't feed the trolls.  With the growth of web forums, discussion boards, blogs, Facebook groups, there is always an argument going on somewhere online.  Reading the comment threads on some news articles or the wall posts of some Facebook groups is possibly the most depressing experiences on the internet.  I'm not going to post any links because I don't want to give them publicity, or to depress readers!

People argue over everything from government policy on immigration or war or religion to whether Dr Who is better than Twilight (what's to argue?)  And, sooner or later, no matter how seriously and mild tempered the discussion begins, it will very often descend into argument.  Often this will be accompanied by personal insults and unpleasant language (let alone spelling and grammar inconsistencies!).   Some people just argue for the sake of it.  They don't, in the view of more sensible respondents, deserve 'feeding.'  You can't win an argument against a troll.  You might as well not start.

Sometimes I feel that politics can be like this.  The parties (and even more media coverage) often base their arguments on little evidence, or on evidence that is skewed to their own point of view.  Of course, all the parties are now trying to get to grips with online media and to use it to spread their own messages.  If that leads to discussion board commenters becoming more aware of what they're actually talking about, good.

Often we complain that people don't bother to vote in elections, that they're apathetic, that they don't care about politics.  Fewer people are involved in campaigning these days, the unions aren't as big a political force as they were in the past, many people don't seem to be interested in- or know much about- political discussions.  So perhaps all those people who comment on newspaper and BBC articles aren't a bad thing after all.  Perhaps that's where this country's political discussion is happening in this new online world.

Wow, that's quite a scary thought.

Unfortunately, most comments seem to come from the extreme points of view on any issue.  Extremists are always more active than moderates, it seems, whatever method they're using.  Moderates are more likely to retreat, and not feed the trolls.  There is little point engaging in an argument when the other person isn't actually interested in hearing your views.  It's hard to be moderate in such circumstances.

Perhaps, though, it's not quite as scary as the idea that there is no political discussion going on at all, outside the parliamentary elite.  People do care about things- things which, if they thought about it, are political issues- they just don't seem to connect this with voting.

How can we connect these people to the political process- and how can the political process change to connect with these people?   I don't know- but I suspect the internet has something to do with it.

Wednesday 3 March 2010

Work and the church

"Work is not a necessary chore but a divine calling."

I came across that today in a WordLive reading.  For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed.  My job doesn't feel like a divine calling.  The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong.  Is that the job itself?  Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job.  So is it my attitude that's wrong?  Probably.

The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot.  A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry. 

The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job.  I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant.  The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar.  Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear.  But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.  

In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job.  Was that my fault, as I was made to feel?  It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse.  And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness?  What about parents who stay at home to care for their children?  Is that wrong?  Or people who have retired after many years of hard work? 


One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church.  It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work.  It certainly feels like that's true.  Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it.  I know I'm in the second group.  But as this video shows, neither is really right.  People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out.  But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.


Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about.  Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle.  In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...)  When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work.   I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer.  Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back.  Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts.  They need to be encouraged to do so.  Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest.  But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage.  Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it.  And I know I do that.  So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.


If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...

Monday 22 February 2010

Looking outward

It's my opinion that as Christians we should be looking out more than we look in.  We have to connect with the world around us- the world of people outside the Church, who don't share our beliefs.  So I've always tried to make sure I don't get so caught up in church stuff that I loose all meaningful contact with those outside the church.  At the moment I'm fortunate enough to have some great friends, most of whom don't share my beliefs.  But sometimes I struggle because the assurances I have about my Christian friends just aren't there for my friends who aren't Christians.

This is something that's struck me over the last few days through WordLive readings.  Today's was about grieving.  For a Christian who believes that death is not the end, illness and death, though still unpleasant because of the pain and sense of loss, aren't quite as fearful as they could be.  There is hope beyond death.  And so, the notes say, we should grieve differently, because we are comforted by this hope.

All that is true.  But what if the person we're grieving for- a friend or family member- doesn't know God?  In a way that makes it even harder for a Christian to grieve, makes it something to be feared all the more.  Christianity is certainly not a soft option in that circumstance.

This is a problem I keep coming across when I'm praying for my friends.  Praying for myself, I know about all the promises that God will care for his people, will answer their prayers, that we shouldn't worry because he will provide what we need.  And I know- although sometimes I forget- that this is true, that whenever I have really been struggling either through lack of money, worries about housing, or not having a job, or when I've been feeling really down and hopeless, lonely and worthless- God has provided for me.  Maybe he's not given me what I want- the perfect job/ sufficient money not to have to be careful/ complete freedom from feeling rubbish, but he has given me what I need- enough money, somewhere to live, friends to sympathise and cheer me up.

But when I see my friends in need- through illness, or unemployment, or stress- I don't have those assurances.  When I pray for myself, I know that however much I struggle, in the end things will have worked out according to God's plan.  The journey may be hard, but I know I will reach the destination in the end.  There will be a good ending.  But with my friends I don't know that this will happen- that everything will be all right in the end.  I know God loves them- but since they don't care about him, do promises like Matthew 6 vs 25-34 -"But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well" -apply to them?  They are promises given to God's children.  And will they allow God to help them, or reject what he might want to do to help them out of a desire for independence?  

That doesn't stop me praying for them, though.  Because there's also the promise that God answers prayer, not in the way I always want or expect, but in his much better way, seen from his perspective outside space and time.  Perhaps I should be sure that God will answer my prayers to help my friends.  I know that he has their- as well as my- best interests at heart.  Perhaps what I want isn't the best or right thing for them- perhaps what God does or doesn't do to help them would be better.  I don't know.  But I trust that God does.  

And yet I often spend more time worrying about my friends' well being than about my own.  Perhaps that's taking looking outward to the extreme.  And yet perhaps that's better than not caring.