My opinion doesn't matter, matter, matter...

And another one...

2012-01-29T11:53:00.002Z

Two broadly positive posts in a week? Never! What, never? Well, hardly ever...but see!

One point I'd like to add to hers is that it's not just the, to quote, 'sharey-sharey' nature of the new testament, but the care for the individual. Jesus doesn't treat everyone the same. People are treated according to their needs, to who they are. For example, the man cured of leprosy (Mark 1, 40-45), a man who has been shunned and not been touched for years, is cured with a touch, and told to go and show himself to the priest so he can be accepted back into society. The servant of a Roman centurion, a man used to commands being obeyed, is healed without Jesus needing to go near him to show that Jesus has authority, just like the centurion (Matthew 8 5-13). The government welfare plans, like so much government policy, are designed to reduce individuals and families' complex needs down to a siple, easy to administer formula. Unfortunately a lot of people are likely to fall through the gaps because they have unusual or extreme needs that don't meet the formula, and low ranking officials won't have the time or the training to deal with them.

It's the bishops job to tell people- and in this case the government- how to behave better, both in terms of welfare policy and perhaps in their dealings with banks. While they have a voice in the Lords- and elsewhere, through the media- I hope they keep doing that.

Shock, horror!

2012-01-25T13:21:00.002Z

Sorry for the long absence. However, I've been shocked on returning after reading this article. Positive coverage of something religious communities are doing in national mainstream media? Is that allowed?

On a more serious note, yay. I wish I read as many of these sort of articles as the ones where someone who doesn't understand a religion or set of beliefs criticises those who believe, usually on grounds that something they believe isn't, from their point of view, rational. A good, thoughtful piece is worth reading whether you agree with their conclusions or not (perhaps especially not, it's good to be challenged to think about why you believe things). But too often it boils down to one person bashing another's beliefs because they don't like their beliefs. And one of the first things I learnt as a history student was to detect and be wary of writers who base their arguments on their prejudices. In history it often leads to conclusions that are later shown to be wrong. I suspect a few journalists could do with learning that.

Dulce et decorum est?

2011-11-11T16:07:00.001Z

Is it just me, or has there been more than usual of the "why bother with rememberance day" conversation around this year? People asking why it matters, when they and indeed their parents weren't born until long after 1918 and 1945, and when no one they know has been killed in war. Perhaps it's because we're a country that's been at war for a decade or so against an invisible enemy, where the conflict takes place in a distant country, and the only effects most of us see are stories about arms traders enriching themselves at public expense and the occassional repatriation parade at Wootton Bassett.

In our world of globalisation and international economies old fashioned values like patriorism seem out of date, smacking of racism. For those of us who deplore BNP/ EDL style demonstrations of hate and fear of difference, it can be hard to reconcile a desire to welcome people of different races and faiths, and yet to appreciate the sacrifiice of so many young men and women who died because they thought they were fighting for the right side.

But I do think there's still a place for remembrance. Perhaps it's because I'm a historian by nature; perhaps it's because I've been to Ypres and Thiepval and heard the Last Post at the Menin Gate. I've seen the remains of the trenches, seen the cemeteries, the gravestones stretching out all around you, seen the memorials to the missing and even found the name of a relative on one. I've read the poetry, seen the photos and the films. I've studied the history of the first and second world wars, as well as many others before that, and I've seen news coverage of quite a few in the last couple of decades. I wouldn't regard myself as an expert on any, but I hope I know what I'm talking about. Once you've seen the cemetaries, the memorials, you don't forget easily.

When I visited Flanders and northern France I was about fourteen. It was a school trip. We weren't naturally the best behaved bunch of teenagers, this was an ordinary small town comprehensive with no selection, and the people on the trip were of varied academic abilities. But no one played up when we were visiting the memorials. There was something about those hundreds and thousands of names engraved on the stone that impressed us all. Of course, not everyone was so impressed- a coachful of French teenagers was visiting at the same time as us, and we were shocked to see their attitudes- climbing all over the memorials and shouting without seeming to care where they were.

But I can understand that the wars of nearly a century ago, of even seventy, can seem distant if you have no personal connection. Perhaps that's why we need a day like Remembrance day to remember. Because there was nothing new about people dying in war, but what the first and second world wars brought- and to a lesser extent the Boer war- brought the industrialisation of war, brought the business of killing into a modern era where it was possible to kill hundreds of men without ever seeing them. Ever since that disconnect has only increased with the development of guided missiles and drones that can kill from hundreds of miles away. Perhaps, in an era where for us in the west war is something that takes place a long way from where we live, and are for causes less straightforward than opposing the Nazi tyrrany, we- or at least our leaders and policy makers- need a day where the true cost of war in human life is brought home.

PS: if you don't understand the title, I suggest you see Wilfred Owen's poem of the same name, available here: http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

Patronising? Don't worry your ugly little head about it.

2011-08-26T16:03:00.000+01:00

Having lived in York for almost eight years now, I consider myself as a northerner by adoption. My pronunciations of 'grass' and 'class' are faultless, I like chips and gravy, I talk disparagingly about soft southerners who panic at the merest sprinkling of snow. But there's one supposedly northern trait I can't quite accept.

As my job involves answering phone calls, I come across this quite a lot. And that is probably part of the problem, since on the phone it's difficult to judge if someone is being patronising or just friendly. Especially when they have a heavy accent (Yorkshire is fine, and I'm getting the hang of the varieties of the Newcastle/ Durham area, but sometimes it's just too much.). Can you tell what it is yet?

It's the northern tendency to describe the person they're talking to as 'luv' or similar.

I've heard this tendency described (by both southerners and northerners) as 'endearing' and 'friendly' and I'm sure that much of the time that's how it is intended. The trouble is, most of the people describing it in that way are male. If you're a young female and are being described as 'darling' by someone who is older and acts as if he's incredibly superior to you, it's not quite the same as when a middle aged lady is helpful in a shop. I don't mind the latter kind. What I object to is when the speaker is being partonising. I got called 'darling' about seven times in the course of a minute long phone call yesterday. If that's friendlyness, it's excessive to the point of creepy when it's from a man I don't know.

It's worse if it's at work. I have to be polite, which is seen as encouraging. I can't challenge patronising behaviour. I can't even report it to senior staff- what can I report? A client was overly friendly? I felt uncomfortable? I'd just get told to grow up/ calm down, unless it was serious enough to claim sexual harrassment- and it's not, really. Sometimes it's genuine friendliness which I may have just misinterpreted, sometimes the person patronising might not be aware of how they're coming across.

But sometimes it is genuinely patronising. Perhaps it's less of a northern thing, and more of a class thing. Because I am a receptionist, typically a low skilled and low paid job. A lot of our clients are people who are pretty well off- business owners, professionals. And although by no means universally, some people do seem to regard me and people like me as unworthy of equal treatment. Class may not be determined by birth, but it is often, on an every day level, determined by money.

What the Dickens!

2011-07-18T16:57:00.000+01:00

Laptop problems a couple of weekends ago led to me actually settling down to read a book- Charles Dickens' Nicholas Nickleby, to be precise. Dickens has a wonderful way of describing what life was like for the Victorian poor, of describing what it was like to scrape a living in any way you could. Even those with what we would think of as decent office jobs were often still despearately poor and at the mercy of their masters- Bob Cratchit, for example. Being able to save up for the future was as much of an impossible dream as it is for many today, with every penny needed to pay the rent and keep the household fed, clothed and warm. A single incident outside a person's control- illness, a rise in prices, loosing your job- could drop an entire family from 'getting on all right' into poverty at a moment's notice, and there was no safety net of the welfare state.

Any of that sound familiar? It did to me. As I was reading I kept thinking how little some things have changed. Low paid employees (the retail and service sector today as much as office and manufacturing) are still at the mercy of their employees, particularly temporary or part time workers. Often rules supposedly imposed for the good of employees aren't enforced- even the minimum wage- as employers today complain about employee rights stifling business growth. Well, call me a radical, but I can't help but think that if you can't afford to pay decent wages to your employees and treat them as human beings rather than robots, your business probably has other problems. With plans afoot to refuse legal aid for employment matters the situation isn't likely to get much better. Perhaps we need reminding why some of these laws were brought in.

While reading I kept wondering what Dickens would have written about had he been writing today. Would Fagin's gang have been drug dealers in inner city estates? What would he have had to say about Coketown's post-industrial decline? Would Paris be replaced in A Tale of Two cities by Tripoli, or Kabul, or Cairo?

One thing he wouldn't have had to change is the unpleasant portrayal of bankers and money-lenders. Nicholas Nickleby even has a cameo by a corrupt MP! Unfortunately some things do not change. But sometimes I think we find it hard to accept how little change has been made in some areas. We can accept poverty in past, or far away in Africa. But the statistics that show how many children in this country, in 2011 are living in poverty are too hard to handle. We categorise all those without jobs, for whatever reason, as 'lazy dole scum' and think that all those who are homeless are to blame for their plight.

But today, like in the nineteenth century, it can take very little for a seemingly comfortable family- or individual*- to find themselves in real difficulty- for food, for heating (a BBC report last week said that a fifth of households in Britain are affected by fuel poverty, and costs are still rising) and for accommodation. Selling off council houses was great for the families that could buy them, but no so great for their children who now have little access to affordable housing.

This wasn't intended as rant, merely a reflection on what a modern Dickens would be writing about today. I wonder if there is anyone writing with the same knowledge and ability to evoke the world of the poor as completely as he did? Given our cynicism today it would be quite a challenge to make critics understand what that world is really like, and to stop them in their calls to tear apart the safety net of the welfare state.

Unfortunately, whereas Dickens' characters all seem to end up at least comfortably off- due to mysterious benefactors, jovial philanthropists, rich relations' wills or just hard work and good luck; many people today are still hoping, like Mr Micawber in David Copperfield, for something to turn up.

Personally, I would love bump into some benevolent benefactor in the street, who would decide to give me a good job and ensure the people around me got the help and security they need. Unfortunately that's still in the realm of fiction.

* Individuals are actually often worse off. Without legal dependents, and still classed as 'young,' if I were to loose my job and accommodation I'd be a very low priority for help from the overstretched local authority. And to anyone who says that's what housing benefit is for, that really only covers rent (for a single room) if you're lucky. Deposits, bills etc are another matter. Not to mention getting a landlord who's willing to take you.

Emotional immigration

2011-04-15T14:15:00.000+01:00

I have very little right to speak (or write) about immigration. I grew up in a part of the country where non-British born people and non-white people were practically non-existent. Perhaps my own views are coloured by that, although they are in fact different to those prevailing in my home county. Then I moved to York, again predominantly white, although with a sizable Asian population (mostly Chinese). But my friends over the years have included people from Finland to Japan, the Netherlands to the USA, and friends and acquaintances of mine have themselves gone to live and work in Japan, Bangladesh and Denmark.

David Cameron has once more waded in to the debate to say he is in favour of 'good' immigration (although exactly what that is is still unclear to me, but perhaps that's just me missing the point). It disappointed me that he was still lumping together economic migrants, asylum seekers and other forms of migration together in one speech, without seeming to acknowledge the differences between coming here in search of money or education; and being forced to flee your homeland because of violence or persecution. I'm sure he's aware of those differences personally- at least I hope so- but to lump them together as 'immigrants' (which to many people in Britain is a negative term) in his speech helps confuse the debate.

But another question has been interesting me recently, ever since a debate I saw about Europe with UKIP's Nigel Farage, when he refused to acknowledge that for some people questions of nationalism have emotional elements. I don't think that feeling emotionally attached to your country, or your currency, or your history and traditions, is wrong. It can be wrong if you let things that are unjust (eg not giving women the vote can be defended on grounds of 'tradition') continue on that basis alone, but the sentiment itself isn't necessarily bad.

I think there is a similar emotional element to immigration. And this has been influenced by the media and by our fears. If someone says the word 'immigrant' you probably think of someone from Pakistan or India, or perhaps the stereotypical Polish Plumber. Most of the criticism seems to be aimed at them. And so Cameron's speech made me wonder. What would our reaction have been if all (or most) of the thousands of people coming to Britain each year were French? Or Italian? Or from Canada, or Australia?

They would equally be immigrants, equally 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and our healthcare'. But I'm not sure we'd see such vitriolic attacks in the media. I can't quite picture youths in balaclavas painting 'Frogs go home' on the wall of a French restaurant. And that leaves me wondering why. Is it because these are countries we see as our equals, in terms of wealth and international influence? Is it because they are predominantly white? (although so, of course, is Eastern Europe). Is it because we think we understand their culture, that it's not so different to ours, even if the language is?

I don't know. But I think it's an interesting question. This debate isn't just about numbers and facts, it's about people's perceptions and emotions. As I started by hinting, even in my white, rural English childhood home local people dislike immigrants. Probably because they don't know any. If they did, they might realise that there are people, individual stories, behind the numbers, and the question is not as simple as it sounds.

Reflections on 'the outsider'

2011-02-18T12:00:00.002Z

I love my local library. (Yes, we still have a library, although before long it won't have any staff.) There was an exhibition there recently about York's refugee committe in the early to mid 20th century. It was fascinating reading about the help given to refugees fleeing from Nazi Germany in the 1930's, about factory workers who couldn't have been paid all that much themselves contributing a few pence a week to pay for a child evacuated from Germany to be cared for and educated.

It made me wonder whether society's reaction today would be towards a similar crisis. So often refugees, asylum seekers, illegal immigrants and legal migrant workers are all lumped together by the tabloid press as a seething mass of people 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and using our services.' It can be hard to separate the different groups and the different issues.

Today, those who come here seeking safety from persecution or violence in their homelands face many difficulties once they manage to get here, from official forms and interviews to surviving on meagre resources in a land where they may not speak the language or know anyone, and where often the public are unwelcoming. Despite the coalition government's pledge to end child detention for asylum seekers, too little has been done so far. I wonder what the factory workers who helped pay for German children's keep would make of Yarl's Wood detention centre?

But one thing that encourages me when I read stories about refugees and asylum seekers is how often a church is involved, how often it is church members leading the fight against deportation for families and individuals who have been failed by the system.

All through the Old Testament God encourages his people to care for the 'outsiders' living amongst them. Although it's easy to loose sight of this amongst the passages commanding his people not to intermarry with the surrounding tribes (in an attempt to stop them drifting into worshipping the false gods of those tribes) there were always non-Israelites living amongst God's people. Some, like the Moabite woman Ruth, even became ancestors of King David and ultimately of Jesus Christ. Jesus himself showed his concern for those who were considered 'outsiders' in his society. So it seems to me only right that the church should be active on behalf of those 'outsiders' to our society.

After all, if you had to leave Britain and ended up in a strange country, with no friends, little money and without knowing the language, wouldn't you hope someone would help you?

The Big Society and the church

2011-02-16T12:00:00.035Z

The church- and I suspect faith groups in general- have been trying to work out what they make of teh 'Big Society' ever since it was announced. As I said before, there has mostly been a cautious welcome along with some concern about what it could be used for.

For many churches or organisations, initial reaction has been positive- a chance to work with the community and reach a greater number of people, to raise the profile of work the already do by linking it under the 'Big Society' label, maybe even the hope of more money for what they do- although that's looking less and less likely. None of these are bad things. Churches do some great work with their local and national communities, and are sometimes underrecognised or treated with suspicion.

What will be hard for the church is not to get pushed into filling all the gaps left by the government's programme of cuts. While the government are mostly saying that the cuts are driven by a need to reduce the deficit rather than by ideology (whether you believe that or not), it does seem that people will be more dependant on voluntary organisations for help previously given by the government. I'm wary of the church (or any faith organisation) being seen to take on work formerly done by the government- it's laying ourselves open to charges of favouritism and exploiting those we seek to help.

The people who are worst off are also the people who the church has a duty not to forget. I suspect that if the government, local or national, is doing less churches and other groups will step in to try to help. But without the resources, the connections, the people with training, expertise and experience there will be much they cannot do and many gaps they cannot fill. What is supposed to happen then, with the state safety net if not removed then so relaxed and unrepaired that it is unable to help? I don't like to think.

Lurking somewhere in the Conservative- and indeed in the British- psyche is the suspicion that if people are in trouble it is their own fault- that their own actions, directly or indirectly, have got them there and so they 'deserve' the trouble they are in. Perhaps they're sometimes right (liberal friends gasp) although it's pretty hard to see how, for example, someone who's unable to work because of a disability becomes less entitled to state help because they still have the disability a certain length of time. But I don't think that's either an answer or a reason to leave people starving and freezing to death on the streets, or to clog up hospitals with those who haven't got a home and family to go to. That seems to me unworthy of the country we like to think we are.

The Big Society- as I see it

2011-02-15T14:23:00.001Z

Hello there. Long time no post. Hopefully this won't continue. Anyway, for now, here's something.

The 'Big Society' is much in the news again of late. Reaction to it still ranges from 'what?' to 'isn't that what I do anyway?' to 'cutting services by stealth.' Possibly the failure to come up with an easily understandable soundbite is one of the biggest problems facing the 'Big Society.'

But the welcome from churches- identified as major players in the 'Big Society' vision- has often been cautious, and perhaps should be more cautious still. While the aim (getting people to engage more with their community and to take responsibility for what goes on there) seems to fit well with much of what churches already do and should be doing more of, as time as passed since Cameron started talking about the 'Big Society' suspicions of what might be lurking behind it have grown. While I do think that the prime minister is sincere in what he says about fostering community and volunteer-run local services being better for people than big central government; there is no doubt that this is also very convenient for his government in the midst of its' programme of cuts.

Perhaps it's ironic that this government that says it dislikes the idea of big government telling people what's good for them is in fact doing just that. The problem I have- and that I think the church is facing- is that we already do voluntary work. We know what the pitfalls are- struggles to find volunteers, unreliability, people moving away and difficulties finding people with the right skills to fill the posts, struggles to fit in enough family and leisure time as well as volunteering and actual work, struggles to find appropriate venues and, of course, finding enough money. Volunteer run services are great, I don't dispute that. But can you really rely on them to be there 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year? I'm not sure you can- or that you should.

I think my biggest problem with the 'Big Society' is not just that it's easy to use it to cover up damaging cuts in areas that the vast majority of people agree (when they bother to think about it) should actually be the business of central or local government- care for the elderly and disabled, for the homeless, for those escaping abusive relationships or with nowhere to go coming out of care, prison or hospital. I think it bothers me most that while in the nice, peaceful and fairly well-off (and mainly Tory) shires where people have enough money to contribute and families aren't working all hours of the day to make ends meet, it might just work, with some help. (Obviously these are the places that Cameron etc know-and possibly care- most about).

But in places far from London, or in council estates where those that work often work unsocial or irregular hours, and where those that don't are too depressed and discouraged to bother with abstract nouns like 'community', I think it will be a whole lot harder to get off the ground. Unfortunately, those are exactly the places that need it most.

Remember, remember...

2010-11-05T16:32:00.000Z

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.

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

2010-11-04T16:30:00.000Z

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!”

Not the 95 Theses

2010-11-01T16:50:00.001Z

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.

Can I take a moment of your time?

2010-10-05T14:04:00.000+01:00

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.

House and home

2010-08-26T12:00:00.000+01:00

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?

Balancing the personal and the corporate

2010-08-24T16:59:00.000+01:00

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.

A question

2010-08-06T14:40:00.000+01:00

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.

A Modest Proposal

2010-08-02T16:01:00.001+01:00

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.

The buses are back!

2010-07-23T10:52:00.000+01:00

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!

7 links for bloggers

2010-07-21T14:34:00.001+01:00

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!

Signs and wonders- scary and weird?

2010-07-19T12:21:00.000+01:00

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.

Synod's choice

2010-07-14T14:24:00.000+01:00

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.

What did possibly go wrong.

2010-07-02T00:36:00.004+01:00

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.

A hideous curse!

2010-06-16T12:52:00.006+01:00

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.

Boldness and bubbling over

2010-05-28T10:45:00.001+01:00

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.

A hopeless generation?

2010-05-18T16:40:00.001+01:00

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.

The modern day lion's den

2010-05-12T14:11:00.002+01:00

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.

Election fever

2010-05-06T14:19:00.000+01:00

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!

Do I have a right to vote?

2010-04-21T16:36:00.000+01:00

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.

Growing up

2010-04-14T12:00:00.002+01:00

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!

Easter responses: Thomas

2010-04-11T12:00:00.027+01:00

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!

Appraisal time

2010-04-09T15:45:00.004+01:00

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...

Easter responses: Mary

2010-04-04T12:00:00.002+01:00

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.

Easter responses: Peter

2010-04-02T12:00:00.076+01:00

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.

Easter responses: the disciples- and us.

2010-04-01T12:00:00.025+01:00

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!

This joyful Eastertide

2010-03-28T12:00:00.013+01:00

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.

Don't feed the trolls?

2010-03-16T14:30:00.000Z

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.

Work and the church

2010-03-03T15:10:00.001Z

"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...

Looking outward

2010-02-22T12:00:00.000Z

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.

Green feminists

2010-02-17T15:34:00.000Z

I was listening to the radio earlier and heard an interesting discussion on a statement that seemed to me at first to be ridiculous. The statement was the idea that environmentalism* was anti-feminist.

The speakers talked about how much** of the advice given to the public on green issues seems to focus on the home and on tasks that, traditionally, have been women's work. For example, shopping and cooking using local produce and fewer packaged ready meals. Or using washable nappies rather than disposable ones. The point was made that this might be all very well for middle class families where the mother doesn't work- spending time every day shopping and washing etc- but for lower income families who can't afford all that, or where both parents work (or single parent families) where they can't afford the time, it's a sometimes unaffordable struggle.

I have to say that part of me was thinking that perhaps we take our modern time-saving appliances too much for granted. Perhaps sometimes it's a case of not being bothered rather than not actually having the time. But I'm also sympathetic, especially to the cost argument. And I was intrigued by the thought that women are affected more than men. Women have, over the past century, benefited most from the rise in appliances to shorten the time and effort going into housekeeping. It has given them freedom from domestic slavery.

The fear some of the interviewees had was that by increasing the amount of time spent on housework you would increase the burden on women, many of whom already struggle to cope with juggling jobs and families. You (or I, at least) can very easily be made to feel guilty because sometimes we don't do things exactly as we would like; we get takeaway instead of cooking, or drive instead of walking, because we don't have time or just can't be bothered.

So what do I think? Well, thinking over the arguments I think the fears have been exaggerated. It's not a reason not to make some changes in our lifestyle to be more environmentally friendly. And yet there is a point to be made. The care of the household and family is still often seen as women's responsibility- you could use almost the same arguments about health advice as for green issues. The real problem seems to be that in the eyes of society and the media, women are still seen as the primary homemaker- they may well have a job too, but a woman doing most of the housework is seen as normal, while a man doing most of the housework would get some odd looks. But (in the case of this argument) shouldn't a man be equally responsible for the environmental impact of the house where he lives? For the food he (and his children, if he has any) eats, the time and energy involved in running the house?

So it's back to the old question of how to change people's attitudes and unconscious prejudices- I sometimes find myself making judgements about people because they are male or female, and then realising that I have no basis whatsoever for thinking that other than unconsciously assigning roles to people based on their gender. But I think there is some cause for hope even in that- I realise that the judgements I'm making are flawed. Society is changing its' opinion- slowly and with a long way to go yet, but it is happening.

*by which I mean trying to live in an environmentally friendly, 'green' way.
**I'm not mentioning green transport because I don't feel it's relevant to this discussion- if men have (traditionally) more influence in the personal car market, women probably are more frequent users of public transport.

I really should write a new post...

2010-02-10T16:58:00.001Z

But I don't have time at the moment. So instead, an advert. Come and see The Sorcerer, University of York Central Hall, 25th-27th February. More info here. Go on. You'll like it. Even if I am playing a main character. Go on. Please.

What if Starbucks was like a church?

2010-02-03T15:17:00.000Z

I saw a reference to this video on Twitter. It's quite funny but the further you get into the video the more you realise there's actually quite a point there. What if Starbucks was marketed like a church, using the methods shown in the video? I can't imagine anyone coming back to the coffee shop in the video for a second visit! They'd probably have a coffee phobia for life!

It struck me that the coffee shop in the video had got things round the wrong way. Instead of being greeted as they came in the door the customers were ignored, or got funny looks from other coffee drinkers. Once they were inside, instead of being allowed to just enjoy what they'd come for (coffee in this case, a service if it's a church) they were pressured into giving contact information and into things they're not comfortable with. Unfortunately that can be all too common in churches- where people can be so determined to make sure people come back that in fact their efforts backfire, they can seem 'intense' without actually being interested. Making people feel comfortable and welcomed with interest (but not pressure) is surely the best way to make people feel they can return. Unfortunately some Christians don't seem to be able to judge when people are feeling uncomfortable.

And the way the coffee hosts talked about 'conversion' and money was probably enough in itself to scare away any potential customers! Language is another minefield for visitors to church- jargon can sometimes seem like another language (and sometimes it is...when you get into the more charismatic churches no wonder some people feel like they're with a bunch of very weird people!).

How to get long-term church goers to understand that what seems perfectly normal to them can seem odd and pushy to non-church goers is something I've long wondered about. If you've always been to church it's hard to see that other people could very easily be put off by some of the language used, or might just not know what to do at certain points in the service.

I think this video could help a few people get their heads round this problem. Whether it can help them do anything to make visiting a church less 'odd' for people who don't regularly go, I don't know. I hope so!

Thinly-veiled fear of 'difference'?

2010-01-28T12:00:00.000Z

The French government are debating whether to ban veils that cover the face, worn by some Muslim women, in public buildings. As someone who's both a woman and person of faith (and a faith that isn't innocent when it comes to oppressing women) this is something I feel uncomfortable with. I know that covering the face (head covering is a different issue, albeit one the French have already dabbled in, and something I suspect they'll go eventually further with if they carry the day on face covering) has roots in culture as much as in religion. But I don't think that matters.

Women who wear the niquab (veil covering the face but not the eyes) and burka (which covers the whole face and body) in the West tend to do so out of choice. Perhaps that choice is the result of the culture they grew up in, perhaps it is a genuine religious belief. I don't feel I've got a right to tell them what to wear. Especially I don't feel I have a right to tell them they can't wear something they believe they should. I'm more inclined to defend their right to wear what they like. Why should covering their face offend someone?

I understand the argument that wearing the veil limits and oppresses women. But many, or most, women choose to wear it, not forced. And even if some women are forced, how does banning them from facilities where they can get help help them? Is it fair that these people are to be unable to claim benefits or get healthcare- doesn't that make them oppressed by the state? If they feel they can't go outside because they can't cover up, I imagine some women will feel trapped in their homes. How does that help them?

I don't like the idea that anyone can be deprived of services because of their beliefs (cultural or religious). Majority may think it's ok, but for those who believe it's not, that's unfair. I can't think offhand of a specific item of clothing or behaviour that is analogous with the veil or headscarf for Christians. But if there was something I believed I should wear and the government were going to bring in a law forcing me not to wear it...I think I'd consider breaking the law. I imagine that will happen with some French women too.

The French recommendations seem to fail to recognise that wearing the veil is for some women (I don't say all) a genuine religious choice, something which they feel they should do. Perhaps it's partly fear of something different, something the older French generation don't understand. Another commentator suggests they are lashing out against Muslims- and more generally, immigrants- in fear of terrorism. If so, they're probably going to find it only makes things worse.

Why, God? Trust.

2010-01-25T12:00:00.007Z

I wrote earlier about some of my thoughts on suffering and why it happens. It's such a big topic that even two posts doesn't do it justice. But here's some more thoughts.

How do you explain natural disasters, things that just 'happen?' Are they the result of choices too? How? Earthquakes and volcanoes, floods and hurricanes are all the result of living on a dynamic world- plate tectonics and weather are essential for life to exist. But if God is all powerful, why did he design a world like this, with what you might consider a built-in flaw? Couldn't he have done it some other way?

Then there's the idea that the world has to include bad things and suffering for us to know what is good, to know right and wrong - that there has to be bad for there to be good. I suppose there is some merit in that, but it doesn't really answer the question. Why would anyone design a world like that, if they cared about the people in it?

So the biggest question is still why, if God cares about the world, he allows suffering to happen? I think possibly the only answer is what we can learn from what God does about suffering. He, as Jesus, came to Earth as a baby born to a poor family. He went into the desert to suffer hunger and thirst. He was criticised by the authorities, betrayed by his friend, beaten and mocked and finally killed in an incredibly cruel manner. No one can say that God hasn't shared our sufferings.

I don't agree with the view of a God who just makes the world, winds the 'clockwork,'sets it running and sits back to watch. The God I believe in didn't. He stepped in to deal with the problem of suffering. Couldn't he have done it another way, that didn't involve suffering himself? I don't know. But he chose to do it that way, to suffer with us, as one of us.

So the real answer to the question is that I don't know exactly why there has to be suffering. But I trust that if there is suffering in the world, it must be there for a reason, even if it's not one I can understand. And I don't believe that God is cruel and enjoys watching our suffering. Otherwise why would he give the life of his own son, who he says he loves, to try to sort the problem out?

The answer I give is that I trust God. Not blind, unthinking trust, I think about it a lot. Why do I trust God? Because I believe he is trustworthy, from my own experience and that of others, and from the Bible.* So my response to suffering is similar to that of the clergyman mentioned in the BBC article: to pray. To tell God that I don't understand, and to ask for his reassurance. And to ask for him to intervene in the world to alleviate the suffering.

As a footnote to this, see this WordLive session on the last plague on the Egyptians.

*To go into further detail on this would be opening up a whole other can of worms. Later!

Why, God? Choices.

2010-01-21T16:40:00.002Z

The terrible, disastrous earthquake in Haiti is much on people's minds at the moment. And inevitably, when confronted with a situation like this the question of suffering arises again. Why, people ask Christians, why does this God who you say is all powerful and loving, allow that to happen? If he's all powerful he could stop it, if he was loving he'd want to stop it, so why doesn't he?

The short and most honest answer is, we don't know. We can come up with answers, but they all seem to leave me feeling not completely satisfied. The BBC published an article where a philosopher addresses the arguments. I think it's actually a decent summary of the arguments. While I don't agree with his views on some of them, I think it's a good statement of how many people feel, and useful for the rest of us to understand that.

I do believe in an all loving, all powerful, all knowing God. But I do sometimes find that hard to reconcile with the world around us. As well as the Haitian earthquake, several people I know are having to cope with the illness or death of family members at the moment. I can understand that idea that suffering is often the result of people's choices- that someone who chooses to smoke might suffer ill health as a result, for example- but what about the people around them who suffer because of their choice, having to deal with their illness and perhaps being ill themselves as a result of passive smoke? And then how do you explain natural disasters, things that just 'happen?'

First there's the question of people's choices causing suffering. It's a very simplistic view, echoed in Old Testament ideas (for example Job's friends assume he's having a bad time because he's sinned) but it's clear that it's not always the reason for suffering (Job hasn't sinned). Those people who say whole nations are to blame for a natural disaster because of a supposed event in their past are on very dangerous ground and should probably keep their mouths firmly shut.

That's not to say it's always wrong, though. As in the example of the smoker above, our choices do have an effect on our lives. Some actions bring their own consequence- like, for example, choosing to mess around on an icy path in shoes with no grip. If you fall over and hurt yourself, that's probably your own fault. If you make someone else fall over, that's your fault too, caused by your choice, even if they don't deserve it.

But, people ask, couldn't God have made people who didn't choose to do the wrong thing sometimes? Well no, I don't think he could. God made people to love him. You can't force someone to love you, you can only invite it. So they had to have a choice- to love God, to know him, to obey his will, or not. If not, then they often end up hurting themselves and others, because the world is designed to work God's way. And the road isn't smooth for those people who do love God and try to obey him- we make mistakes, other people trip us up because they are not going God's way. Humanity's choice on a daily basis not to follow God means we all suffer.

People are not good or bad. They're just people, who sometimes do bad things and sometimes do good things, for many reasons. I don't think you need to be godly to be a good, moral person. As a wise old woman* said: "It's which way you face that matters." It's our ability to choose that makes us human. Without that we wouldn't be what we were made to be- people who choose to love God.

That's some of my thinking. More later.

*Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett's Witches Abroad.

What class am I?

2010-01-18T12:00:00.002Z

Class seems to be reasserting itself as a topic of political debate after a decade of being told the class system is dead. But what is class, these days? What divides people? Is it all about money? If so, presumably the 'upper class' consists of high-earning, high profile figures like footballers, pop stars and TV celebrities, as well as top bankers and businessmen (and women, although probably fewer of them). That's quite a variety, and suggests that there are many ways of rising to the top of society.

But further down perhaps it's not so clear. Is class purely about money, or does the type of work you do, the education you have, how you choose to spend your money, play a part too? When we say 'middle class' we often mean consumer choices more than mere household income. Middle class brings up the image of someone who has a mortgage and a savings account, is part of a 'traditional' family, works in an office or is part of a 'profession' as opposed to a 'trade'- doctors, lawyers, bank managers, teachers- sends their children to uni, reads 'literature,' drinks wine and goes to the theatre. Working class brings up the image of grim concrete council estates, baseball caps and hoodies, listening to rap and dropping out of school at 16 to work in a shop- if you can get a job- or to have a child. Yet these are both stereotypes, and while I guess there's some truth in them, it's not the whole truth.

I've always been slightly confused in terms of class. My mother is a teacher, her father was a printer with some connection to the civil service- middle class, but probably at the lower end. My father and his father were office workers, again lower middle class. Before that the family were skilled craftsmen- blacksmiths, shoemakers, wheelwrights- and were at the upper end of village society, but could still count as working class. My father left school at or even before 16 to work on a farm, before moving into office work. I doubt he ever considered that any of his children would go to university. My mother had a scholarship to a private school before going to teacher training college. Even though I have been to a good uni and am culturally 'middle class' (I like Gilbert and Sullivan for goodness sake! How middle class is that?) I'm still doing the same kind of work as my father did, and earning less money than many 'working class' people.

There's one clip I seen several times now where John Prescott asks a girl what class she thinks she is, and she says "middle class." He says that he (and probably most people) would have described her as working class, but her reply is that: "I don't work." Perhaps in a recession that's led to the loss of jobs across all classes of society, from bankers to office workers to retail and manufacturing we can realise that the kind of job you have and the amount of money you earn isn't something that should pigeon hole you. I'd like to think that. I suspect we won't. The difference is that if you've been struggling to make ends meet even when you're working, you've got nothing to fall back on when your job goes.

Snow problem? It could be worse.

2010-01-13T14:41:00.000Z

A few weeks of cold weather and we complain that the country is grinding to a halt, that we're a mere nine meals away from anarchy. To be honest I'm getting rather fed up with all the moaning now. Of course the snow's been a problem. Some people have, sadly, died, and others have found live very difficult. Travel has been difficult for many, businesses have lost money, pensioners and those on low incomes will be struggling with higher heating bills. But as this BBC website article shows, for those without homes, those who are already at the bottom of society and struggling to survive the snow has had a far more serious effect.

Charities are trying to cope, to provide temporary shelter, food and warmth. This is hugely important, and saves lives, but in itself it doesn't solve the problem. It's a bit like giving first aid at an accident site; there might have been ways that what happened could have been prevented, if help had been available and accessible at the right time; and further care will be needed for a recovery to be made. Spending public money on schemes to get people off the streets and into homes and work isn't glamorous, but is important.

I'm no expert, but I imagine that the recession will have meant there are higher than average numbers of people sleeping rough as a result of job losses and family stress (often exacerbated by financial difficulties). The inadequacies of the benefit system will probably not have helped. At the same time let's be thankful that in this country we do have a welfare system, or the situation could be so much worse!

I think there's also a problem that we as a society value independence very highly. We don't like the idea of having to be dependent on other people, so perhaps we're less sympathetic to those who are in need of help. Since a large proportion of the population have had to 'tighten their belts' (most only metaphorically) recently I think there's been a lot of people saying 'we don't want to pay more in taxes, or for the government to spend more, even to help other people.' While that's understandable it's also a bit selfish. I imagine it's generally said by those people fortunate enough never to have been jobless for long periods of time, or who've never been made homeless because family tensions mean they have to leave home, but can't afford to get their own place. We're quick to blame someone in this situation.

Perhaps this problem of valuing independence is evidence that the old divisions in British politics between Left and Right are not quite dead after all. The socialist idea of a welfare community sounds nice, but costs money. Ahead of this year's election the Conservatives are starting to sound more like the Tory party of old, stating for example that children's success has nothing to do with wealth or poverty, but only parenting skills. Given recent news stories complaining that opportunities to get into the top careers are mostly only available to the children of wealthy parents (the ability to undertake unpaid internships, for example) that sounds a bit hollow to me. A lack of stability, bad parenting and material poverty are usually, or at least often, linked, surely.

Not that other parties, or anyone, has all the answers. But like I think sometimes we can all forget the poverty on our own doorstep in favour of causes that are somehow 'cooler' like aid for famine struck African countries, or the victims of earthquakes and cyclones. There is so much suffering in the world, so much that needs to be done. Compared to all that perhaps needing to wear an extra jumper or the airport being closed isn't such a big deal.

2009

2010-01-10T16:10:00.001Z

2009 hasn't been a bad year. That's not to say there haven't been times when I've felt very down, times when I've been saddened, upset, angry, frustrated. In fact, in many ways my life doesn't seem to have changed from where I was this time last year. Much of what I wrote then is still true. If anything, I think perhaps I feel a little further away from God just at the moment than I did then- and I'm not happy with that. As every month, every year passes without any of the things I want- and feel God wants me to be like or do- coming closer it seems to get harder to trust, but I know I have to keep trying.

But 2009 was also a year with many 'ups.' Time spent with friends, my first opportunities at principal parts in G&S (although that has caused a fair bit of stress, too- sorry directors!) holidays, passing my driving test, little things that make life worthwhile. Knowing that some people care about me- even if I often forget and feel lonely. And not least being grateful that even if my job isn't great, at least I have one.

In some ways the above is also a fair summary of the last ten years. There were some times, some years when I felt really dreadful, as if everything was crashing around me, and I've frequently felt a failure. And there were times when I began to discover true friendship and joy and freedom as I'd never know them before. Times when I was scared even of things I knew how to do, and times when I was thrilled to try new experiences. But although I've often felt lonely I've always known I'm not alone. And that won't change.

And to round it off, here's some of my favourite posts from last year. I got quite excited when I realised that I'd written exactly 100 posts in 2009!

Journeys
Equality of the sexes? Not yet.
Rental Rant
Would women have caused the credit crunch?
Bannanas, Bibleman, and banging my head on a brick wall
The Dream of the Rood

Things Lois Likes

2010-01-06T21:17:00.001Z

I was going to do one of those 'review of the year' type posts, but I haven't got round to it yet- and then the server crashed at work! So in the meantime here's a light-hearted list of Things Lois Likes.

Waterproof walking boots. Now I know I said a while back that I like snow, but it's now been on the ground for three weeks solid. Snow, slush, frozen slush, snow that's melted and frozen again, plain and black ice. There are many days I'd have struggled to get to work without sliding all the way and getting feet wetter than the North Sea if I didn't have my nice cosy, dry walking boots with good tread.

Laptop, wireless internet and iPlayer. I might have gone mad over Christmas at my parents' if it wasn't for my laptop. I downloaded stuff to take with me and watch, I could write stuff, read stuff, play games, listen to music. And when now I'm back in York, wireless internet access means I can sit in my nice warm bed and watch videos, or on the comfy sofa downstairs and check emails without having to be tied to a wire and computer desk. Lovely!

Hot chocolate. Just the thing for this time of year. Or indeed any kind of chocolate. Oh, and I must make some soup.

YouTube. BBC Worldwide made my New Year weekend when I discovered some classic Dr Who serials had been put online.

Our Christmas tree. Although sadly we've just taken it down. It's even better because it has a knitted Dalek on top.

Snowmen. Especially the one on the fountain in York city centre that is wearing a high-vis jacket, safety helmet and black wig. But despite all this snow I haven't made one yet, or thrown a snowball at anyone. I want my mischievous housemate back!

Which is the bigger crime?

2009-12-26T12:00:00.000Z

You may remember hearing this story just before Christmas- the vicar who advised people to shoplift if they didn't have any money. It was a story that caught my attention, and indeed that of both local and national media. But the controversial advice to people in dire need to shoplift was not the only thing that caught my eye.

I don't like it when a statement such as "My advice is to shoplift" is taken out of context. So often it's done to make a small point seem like a big one. So I was glad when someone later pointed me in the direction of the text of his sermon. And sure enough, the advice to shoplift isn't the main point he was trying to make. Most shoplifters probably don't fall into the category of the very poorest, but are real criminals who wouldn't pay even if they could. That's not what the vicar is talking about here.

This is the words of a vicar who knows what life is actually like for people on the edge. The various agencies he quotes as being involved in people getting to the stage of having nothing (probation, social services, benefit handlers) have all denied that there is a problem, but anyone who's had to deal with them knows there is. A friend of mine has had her benefits cut by the job centre because of a small mistake, other people I know have been threatened that they have to pay back money they've never received. And delays in processing claims are not unusual- another friend had big problems with their landlord because of a delay and complications in processing a claim. Life is just not as well ordered or predictable as the people who designed the benefit system seem to think. Like most systems, I imagine it was designed by people who never had to use it.

So I think it's good that this vicar is being realistic, and that he understands the problems people face, and is trying to get his congregation to understand and to do something about them too. I think what he's doing in saying people should shoplift from supermarkets is using controversy and extremes to shock people into paying attention. And it's worked- probably more than he intended. Sadly I think the controversy has taken away from what he is trying to say- that there are people whom our society has failed, and that we should be doing something about- that it is our duty, as Christians, to carry on the work of the God who came to Earth to live and work among the poor and sick, to promise them healing and life.

Of course I don't think shoplifting is right. Neither, I'm sure, does he. But when you consider how much supermarkets and such places throw away, isn't that as bit a crime? And isn't our- and I do mean our, I'm not well off by any means but neither am I right at the bottom- attitude that is quite content to let these things happen an even worse crime? And, well, he's right. There are worse things people could be doing if they're that badly off than lifting a few tins of beans from Asda. He's not encouraging shoplifting- if you read the whole sermon that's quite clear. I don't think I would have said things the same way, but I agree on this- the fact that there are people are in this situation is a bigger problem than that they are shoplifting to make ends meet.

Advent 09- Jesus

2009-12-24T12:00:00.045Z

I guess this was the obvious one that was going to come up at some point. I want to thank God for the ultimate Christmas present, Jesus, his son.

A few weeks ago there was an event at my church where church members were asked to share what Christmas meant to them with visitors to the church. I wasn't asked to be one of them, but if I had been I would probably have said something like this.

One of the names given to Jesus is Emmanuel, which means God with us. That is perhaps what I find both wonderful and awe-inspiring about Christmas. God's own son chose to come to earth and live a life like us, full of problems and issues. No wonder the apostle Paul, wanting an example of how we should serve others and not take our status as God's children for granted, points us to Jesus Christ;

Who, being in very nature God,

did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,

but made himself nothing,

taking the very nature of a servant,

being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,

he humbled himself,

and became obedient to death-

even death on a cross!*

Crucifixion was about the most horrifying, agonizing, humiliating death that humanity has ever misused its intelligence to devise. The idea of God himself- for that's what the idea of the trinity tells us, that the fully human and fully divine Jesus suffered- going through this is something amazing, something which those who accuse God of 'child abuse' or of being unable to understand human suffering would do well to think about. God knows what it is like to suffer.

And why did he go through all this? Why suffer? It wasn't just so he could empathise with our sufferings- though of course he does- but to save us. And why?

Love.

Happy Christmas!

*Philippians 2, vs 6-8. Probably one of the earliest recorded Christian hymns.

Advent 09- Christmas!

2009-12-23T12:00:00.043Z

Of course, Christmas itself is something to be glad about! There's something about this time of year- of dreams of snow, of carols, trees and decorations, of memories of childhood joys, of celebratory meals, of presents and parties.

And its also a time when those who are better off remember those in worse situations and try to do something to help them. From the newly-repentant Scrooge sending a goose (I think?) to the Cratchits' to the unavoidable strains of 'Feed the world' to carol singing to raise money for charity.

Even if the message of Christmas means nothing to you, there is plenty else to attract you to this time of year. It is the one time of year when almost the whole country has a break and relaxes. I don't think it's a bad thing, whatever the reason, to have a few days when almost everyone can have a break. I know some people- caring professionals mostly- have to work at Christmas, but I hope that doesn't stop them having time for a break at some point.

For Christians, of course, Christmas is about much more than tinsel and trees. It's a time to celebrate possibly the most amazing miracle ever- the birth of God's son, the coming to earth of Emmanuel, God with us. Without Christmas, we could never have had Easter, and God's astounding defeat of sin would never have happened. More on that tomorrow.

And yet- Christmas is also a time tinged with sadness. There's always the thought that it could be better. Not only through remembering those who are worse off than us. It makes me sad sometimes to think about my friends singing carols and thoroughly enjoying it, but not considering or caring what the words they are singing mean- singing praises to God without meaning them. I wish they did.

Advent 09- Holidays

2009-12-22T12:00:00.000Z

I don't think anyone's going to argue with me when I say that holidays are a Good Thing. By holidays, I mean not just going away but any time off work. It's only relatively recently (nineteenth century) that the idea of paid holidays and even weekends became part of working culture, and it's one development I'm certainly glad of!

Before industrialisation, most people worked on the land, and times of busyness and rest would follow the agricultural year- busy times in spring ploughing and planting and late summer harvesting, and slacker times in winter as it was too cold to work as much outside. Once the busiest time of year- harvest- was over, there would be time to celebrate and relax for a while. Midwinter (around the time we now celebrate Christmas) was also a festival in many early European- and probably other- cultures.

The other reasons people took time off work were for religious festivals. The word 'holiday' comes, I believe, from 'holy day.' In the middle ages in Europe there were many saints' days which people were required to keep either as full or part holidays, as well as Sundays, when of course people were not allowed to work.

I've never fully understood why certain Puritan groups in the seventeenth century were determined to ban Christmas. They saw it as too close to the saints' days which they were determined to abolish as a relic of 'popery.' But Sundays were to be kept with the strictest laws governing what you could and couldn't do, and harsh punishments if you disobeyed.

But it was in the nineteenth century when we first got the rhythm of weekdays and weekends which we know today. Growing industrialism brought many people to towns and cities from the country, and people began to be appalled at the state, both physical and mental, in which the poor were forced to live, herded together, working from a very young age in noisy, factories or dirty mines. Legislation began to be passed forcing employers to improve working conditions and give their employees days off- Bank holidays, and later paid holidays. Modern transport, like the railways, and cheap holiday camps like Butlins were there to cater for the thousands of people who now had time and money for a holiday. And thus the leisure industry was born.

Compared to our nineteenth-century ancestors we're very lucky today in our working conditions and holidays. I'm glad I live now, not then, for all the problems in my life and the world. Holidays are certainly a Good Thing.

Advent 09- Quiet

2009-12-21T15:45:00.001Z

At the moment I'm feeling rather miserable- full of cold and a sore throat for the umpteenth time in a couple of months. So it's tricky to be positive. But here goes anyway.

Last night I was at church for our 'Contemporary carols' service. Owing to some anxiety about the state of the paths under all the frozen slush and snow* I left early so didn't stay for the whole thing. But it reminded me about something which I have been missing in services lately, and the service I generally go to gets louder and more action-filled.**

Sometimes it's good to have time and space to just be quiet and focus on God. In my first year at uni I went to a thing called Night Prayer where there would be large spaces for silent personal reflection on what was going on in your life, or on the readings and music which were interspersed in the service. I found it restful and a nice change from the constant buzz of student life. Sadly once I moved off campus I stopped going. I've been to similar events since, notably Transcendence, which includes something of the same space for personal quiet reflection.

The difference between space for personal quiet in an event like this and just trying to do the same thing by yourself at home is that it's easier to be quiet and 'in the mood' for prayer and reflection if you're not distracted by everything that's going on around you at home, and if other people around you are doing the same. That said, I rather dislike most typical prayer meetings, where I have to worry about what I'm saying, unplanned, out loud. I end up thinking more about what words I'm using than about what I'm praying, focusing on myself or others more than God. But I'm not great at extended times of praying alone either- my thoughts and attention tend to wander. So I most often pray in short burst, as the need or desire strikes me. But I know it's healthy to have longer, more focused times of prayer too.

Which is why I like it when there's time to do this in a service. Not too long, or people start to fidget and wonder what's happening, but perhaps we're too afraid of leaving blank space, of people getting bored, and in a desire to fill everything with music and words we can be in danger of drowning out the 'still small voice' in which God speaks- we can be so busy talking we forget to listen.

Be still, for the power of the Lord is moving in this place,

He comes to cleanse and heal, to minister his grace,

No work too hard for him, in faith recieve from him,

Be still for the power of the Lord is moving in this place.

*When I said I liked snow, I didn't include frozen slush, which is unpleasant to walk on and not a Good Thing. Neither is slippery ice. But I still love the wonder and specialness of snow- even when it's causing me issues getting to my parents' for Christmas.
**Not that this is necessarily a bad thing.

Advent 09- G&S

2009-12-20T12:00:00.002Z

You've probably realised by now that I'm a fan of G&S- Gilbert and Sullivan, nineteenth century musicals or 'light opera'. Why do I like it? I can't say exactly, probably a mixture of catchy, singable tunes, some wonderful comic lyrics and dialogue, the colour and costume. Partly because most of the time it's performed by amateurs, and it's obvious that the performers are enjoying themselves too, to the extent that amateur performances are often better, more innovative and energetic than professionals.

I've been involved with amateur G&S for several years now, and one of the things I've liked most in both the groups I'm involved with is the accessibility. No one has to audition to be in the chorus. Although most people tend to have at least some experience of singing in a choir, or of acting, there are others who join with practically none- like me. There have been some people who are fantastic actors but not as good at singing. And yet the overall sound still sounds and looks great. And you do learn, even if you can't read music, you pick it up as you go along.

Being in the chorus is great fun, and it certainly helped me improve my singing over several years. But the main thing that improved was my confidence. When I first joined, I hadn't done any acting since primary school, and more or less my only singing was at church. I expected I was going to be thrown out (well, politely asked to leave) within my first term! Everyone else seemed to be so much better than me. And when we got to acting, the first thing we did I was put at the front (being short) and told to lead everyone else on. I was terrified!

And yet, when we got to show week, I was hardly nervous at all, and everything went well. Suddenly I realised that I could do this, that I was as good as anyone else (and maybe better than some people). It was perhaps the biggest confidence boost I'd ever had.

Since then my G&S career has gone up and down. I did my first solo in a concert at the end of my first year, and was very nervous about it. Strangely, I still get more nervous in concerts than in full shows. This year I had my first principal role in a new company's first show, and although I wasn't at all worried on the night, during rehearsals I was tremendously anxious about whether I was good enough, and afraid that because I was really struggling with some bits I had to sing I was going to disappoint the people who gave me the part- and that I'd never get another chance. I've been feeling exactly the same the last few weeks about a part I've got in another show with the first company I joined, worried I'm not good enough, and will make a mess of things by not being as good as the other principals. Sometimes it really gets me down and upset, especially if I can't tell if it's right or not.

But when it goes well, it's great. G&S has helped me develop sides of me I never knew I had- singing, speaking, performing. It's helped me find confidence, which for someone like me who has incredibly low self-confidence and self-belief is a wonderful thing. Even if, ironically, lack of confidence then becomes a problem that stops me singing as well as I could, I'd still rather give it a go than not. Definitely a Good Thing as far as I'm concerned.

Advent 09- The Bible

2009-12-19T12:00:00.001Z

A book that's sold more copies than even Harry Potter, yet vast numbers of those copies remain mostly unread. A book that's been argued over more than any other, which people have been banned from reading in many countries and at many times- even countries that profess to be Christian. Probably the most translated book in the world- some language groups have even had to have alphabets invented so that it could be translated. What book am I talking about? The Bible.

Sadly it's also a book that probably more than any other has had bits of it misused and taken out of context. The problems of translation also don't help. But misuse of a text doesn't have to mean the text itself is to blame, or looses all validity. Even if you don't believe the claims of Christians that the Bible is God's message to us, you can still respect it as a book that has had a tremendous impact on Western culture- both from its' content, and from the post-Reformation focus on the printed word.

But I do believe those claims. I do believe that the Bible is a collection of books* given to us by God through the inspired writing of human individuals across several centuries to act as a guide and help book. It tells us what our priorities should be:
"Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind and with all your strength,"
"Love your neighbour as yourself," Mark 12 v29-31
"And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God." Micah 6 v8
It gives us advice on how to do this, through practical teaching in Paul's letters and stories of how the early Israelite leaders did- or didn't- do the right thing. It gives us reasons why and examples how we should praise God.

And perhaps most importantly it tells us about God's big plan for his creation. His plan that would bring back to him all people who believe in him, that would destroy the power of sin and death, our selfishness and disobedience. It tells us how humans- all humans, represented by Adam and Eve**- turn away from God because we think we know better, but that he does not give up on us and works through first chosen individuals (Abraham, Moses) and later a whole nation (Israel) and its leaders (judges, kings) and prophets to bring this about, culminating in Jesus the Messiah, both God and human, who was born, lived, suffered and died and rose again in the compelling blow that freed us from our mistakes; and going on to tell us about how this good news was spread out through Jerusalem and Judea, and all the nations. I think that's a Good Thing. Do you?

*Talking about a book is actually misleading. There are many books in the Bible, and several different styles, from poetry to history to prophecy to letters. There are, however, no science textbooks!
**I think the Adam and Eve story is probably metaphorical. If you think differently, fine. It still works.

Advent 09- Snow!

2009-12-18T09:54:00.002Z

It's cold outside, and very snowy! I just walked to work through an inch or so of snow in some places. As well as the brightness as light is reflected by the whiteness, the main thing I noticed was how quiet it was. The snow seemed to deaden the sound from traffic on Bishopthorpe Road as I was walking up a backstreet nearby.

The effect of snow on this country is very interesting. As demonstrated last year, as soon as there's a tiny bit of the white stuff large parts of the country (mainly the south!) shuts down. Of course snow is a problem for businesses, and for people who have to travel, but you wonder why Britain is unable to cope with a few inches of snow when some countries take feet in their stride.

I remember some comments last year that it also has a positive effect on people- people relaxing, reliving their childhood, families spending time together. There's definitely a widely acknowledged sense that snow is somehow special. As I walked to work there were children playing on sledges and throwing snow at each other. I've not seen any snowmen yet, but I suppose it's quite early. And the snow is very powdery, and not sticking together very well. (I tried snowballing my housemate last night and failed!) The child in me is hoping it hasn't all melted by tomorrow- last year I missed all the snow fun by being at work.

It makes me wonder how something so simple as frozen water- hydrogen and oxygen atoms- can have such an effect on the country. And indeed how it could be so beautiful. I have the same feeling when I see a rainbow. I know it's just light refracted by water droplets, but how? Why in that shape? It's pretty amazing, you've got to admit. The story of Noah talks about the rainbow being a reminder of God's promises to humans- in that case that he wouldn't again wipe out the entire population of earth, but I like to think of it rather as a sign of his love for humans and promise to redeem us.

Snow is another natural miracle to me, and although like the rainbow it has natural causes, I still think it is part of God's hand in creation, working through what he himself made; parts of creation designed to surprise us, to make us stop and wonder at what a wonderful planet we live on. Snow's not always a Good Thing, but the reaction of wonder and respect for the world it can produce certainly is.

"Who has told every lightening-bolt where it should go?

Or seen heavenly storehouses laden with snow?

Who imagined the sun and gives source to its light,

Yet conceals it to bring us the coolness of night?"*

It's snowing again now.

*'Indescribable' by Laura Story.

Advent 09- Housemates

2009-12-17T12:00:00.001Z

I was at a very good concert last night performed by this choir. Over the last few years many of my friends have been part of this choir, so I've been to hear them many times.

The previous few evenings had been rather different, encompassing juggling, cushion violence and random conversations. Very, very random! One thing they all had in common was late nights.

But what do these different ways of spending an evening had in common?

They all involve my housemates. And they are certainly a Good Thing.

One thing you quickly learn when you move away from home is the importance of the people you live with. It's often been said that 'friends are the family you choose for yourself' and this is certainly true with housemates. Whether it's making sure there's enough milk in the fridge or fetching medicines for someone when they're ill, housemates can make your life a misery or a joy. If you get on well with your housemates they can start taking the place of family, providing emotional and practical support for each other. You often find that that someone (or more than one) will start to take on almost parental roles. I'm a mum. I know I am.

I've been pretty fortunate with my housemates over the years. There have certainly been one or two oddities, but on the whole we've got on pretty well. Some have become very close friends- I lived with one person for five years, if you include first year halls. Some years I've worried about whether I'd be able to find anyone to live with, or whether people would be able to commit to deciding where they would live in time, but every year so far it's worked out, and I'm sure it will in the future. I believe that's an answer to prayer, especially when I see some of the stresses other people have had.

And my current housemates are lovely people, and we get on very well, and I'm very thankful to them. They might be surprised to hear it, but they are both answers to prayer. I was more worried about housing this year than any previous one, but it turned out all right in the end. I should probably learn to be more trusting!

Advent 09- The Internet and World Wide Web

2009-12-16T13:08:00.000Z

I love the internet. We so often take it for granted today that it's easy to forget that twenty years ago it wasn't there- at least, not as we know it. No email, no Facebook, no iPlayer, no YouTube, no blogs! What I am doing now would have been impossible before the 1990's. Even BBC iPlayer, something that's been around only two years or so, has now become something many of us take completely for granted.

Through Facebook I've been able to keep in touch with what my friends are up to once they left university and spread out across the country. I've been able to reconnect with people I haven't seen since I was sixteen. I've been able to hear from family members I rarely see because they live far away- and sometimes realise we have friends in common! I've been able to share photos and even videos, without having to nag friends for copies. And I've been able to use blogging to stop myself going mad in an under-demanding job. A friend even met her boyfriend via an online game.

The internet isn't all sweetness and light, of course. There is a darker side, just as there is with any form of technology or indeed pretty much any aspect of life. But no one's suggested we shut down Royal Mail because a letter might contain poison chemicals or a parcel might be a bomb. We just have to recognise the possible dangers of the medium we're using to communicate- and remember not to make anything public if we don't want it to be public!

So I think the internet/ web is a Good Thing. As well as the above social uses, there are of course many uses for academic research and co-operation, (which is of course its' original purpose), and communication for businesses, for shopping and finding those random bits of information you suddenly need, like the words to a song or where the nearest Chinese takeaway is. And what will we be using it for in twenty years time? I look forward to finding out (if I can still understand how to use it by then...!

Advent 09- Harriers

2009-12-15T15:29:00.004Z

I wrote a few days ago about Scripture Union, and how I'm thankful for what I've learnt from different parts of the organisation. Probably the SU-related activity that had the biggest impact on me was Harriers. Harriers is one of many activity holidays run by volunteers under the supervision of SU throughout the year, which mix activities with Bible teaching and discussion groups.

Harriers is a sailing holiday for 14's-18's,* run on the Norfolk Broads in cabin yachts, some of which are over 70 years old and don't have engines, let alone fridges or electric light. I was 15 when I first went, and although like any week when you're a teenager there are ups and downs, I had a fantastic time and really enjoyed it. I'd never done any sailing but growing up reading about the adventures of the Swallows and Amazons and similar books I'd always wanted to learn, so it was almost the perfect holiday (now, if it could have included G&S as well...!).

For a young Christian who wasn't used to having people of my own age who I could talk to about my faith, it was wonderful to be in an environment where I could do that, could share experiences and listen to other people's, where I could make friends who shared my faith and understood the problems Christian young people faced at school, at home, or elsewhere. And I could learn about and discuss the things that that were never talked about in my church, because the people there weren't interested or because they simply weren't relevant for the elderly congregation. It helped me see that Christianity isn't something old and dying and hopeless, but young and vibrant and full of life and love and the Holy Spirit. It transformed my understanding of my faith, and helped me grow and learn far more than I would have without it.

Unsurprisingly, I went back the next year. And the next, and the next. After that, I went as a mate, a junior leader, for three years. I enjoyed it too much to want to leave, and I wanted to help other young people get as much out of it as I had done. It's several years now since I stopped going (not because I'd stopped enjoying it, but because there were other people who wanted to do what I'd done, and I wasn't an experienced enough sailor to move into senior leadership, not to mention having less holiday once I moved into the world of work beyond uni) but I still try to pray for those who are involved, and am grateful for those who gave up their time to make it possible for me. I hope that when I was a leader I helped other young people enjoy the week as much as I did. Definitely a Good Thing.

*Harriers A is for 14's-16's, Harriers B 16's-18's. Ish. There's also Kestrels A and B, which are much the same, but run at Easter when it's colder. I only did Kestrels once.

Advent 09- History

2009-12-14T14:58:00.000Z

This might seem a strange topic to say is a Good Thing. Many terrible things have been done in the past- though I'd say probably no more than in the present or future. But I do think history, the study of the past, is a Good Thing and not just because it was the subject I did my degree in!

There's a saying that all history students know, that those who do not know their past are doomed to repeat it. Having watched Andrew Marr's recent series on The Making of Modern Britain I can see just how far this is true. Previous political clashes, economic crises, and diplomatic conflicts from previous times in history all bear a striking resemblance to recent ones. Marr even made some cutting comments about how politicians should stay home and read more history, and you can see why.

So we can learn from history, although of course we cannot just blindly do what worked last time (or the opposite of what didn't work). Circumstances will vary, people will react in different ways. But history tells us far more than how to win an election or avoid a strike. We can look at history and see the roots of modern conflicts, in Ireland, India, the Middle East. Perhaps that can help us solve them.

History tells us about people, about what they have believed to be important and why. We can find people to admire, to inspire us, give us courage to stand up for what we believe to be right. For example, leaders like Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, or Nelson Mandela. It can warn us, move us to compassion and remorse and a desire to amend what is wrong, or ensure disasters never happen again. Like African slavery, the First World War, the Irish and Indian famines of the nineteenth century, or the Nazis' Final Solution.

And the history of the church can tell us about how Christianity has adapted to fit the needs of people in the different cultures it has found itself in and the challenges it has faced, while still retaining the core beliefs of Jesus' saving birth and death and what that means for us. That, perhaps, can help us see how to meet the needs of our own culture. And that is most definitely a Good Thing.

Advent 09- Friends

2009-12-13T12:00:00.000Z

Today my Good Thing is something- or some people- that I am really very thankful for. My friends.

I was quite a lonely kid at school. Through most of primary and secondary school I didn't really fit in- I didn't like the same music, wasn't interested in talking only about boys, didn't hang around the swings after school drinking and smoking. In a way, I was too intellectual to fit in with half my year group, and too shy to push my way into the other half- the clever and cool half.

It wasn't really until sixth form, when people from several other schools joined ours and everyone was mixed around a bit, that I found any proper friends, people who had interests beyond pop stars and who fancies who, people who would notice when you were upset and try to help. Before that, I'd either been alone or hung around the edges of gangs of people who couldn't care less about me- who would join in with the laughing and name calling when the bullies turned up- to make sure they didn't become the next victim.

But it was once I got to uni that I really found friends I could relax with and trust, friends from the CU and church and from G&S. People who actually liked me as a person, and who are there, willing to listen, when something goes wrong. That's the kind of friends I'm very grateful for. Friends who, when I first met them, I never imagined that a few years later I would be helping them prepare for their weddings, or going on holiday with them, or living with them for five years. And yet- those things have happened.

My friends are wonderful people, and an answer to many prayers, even if they don't realise it. I've already thanked them once in this series. But they're worth more than that. So thank you again, all my friends, and I hope I can be as good a friend to you as you are to me.

Advent 09- Science and Technology

2009-12-12T12:00:00.001Z

When Christians think about giving thanks to God or about his greatness, so often the images that come to mind are from nature- mountains, sunrise, oceans, autumn leaves, summer warmth. And of course this isn't wrong, there's much biblical precedent especially in the psalms.

But now I want to give thanks for something different, for scientific and technological advancement. And I don't think that's as incompatible as it first sounds.

It's all too easy to use technology as an example of humanity's own unaided achievement. Popular culture and the media today are fond of using science and religion as two opposing systems of belief, or world views. But that's a very different view from many of those who we see now as founders of modern science. Early scientists who helped define the genre, such as Isaac Newton, were interested in discovering more about the world and how it worked and saw this as part of their worship of God- praising God for the intricacies of his creation. I think that's still a very valid response to science- to consider the wonders of the world, and to let that lead us to praise of God (although I wouldn't say that it forces you to believe in a God).

And science and technology have, of course, made life better for humanity, with medical advances saving lives and improving many people's quality of life, while technology has made the world a much smaller place by helping us communicate and travel faster than our ancestors would have thought possible. How have we done this? By using that piece of tissue that scientists still struggle to understand: the human brain, another part of God's creation.

So it's not really down to us. Not that I want to take away from the men and women who have made amazing discoveries or leaps forward. But neither do I think we should scorn (as some Christians do) modern technology or medicine, because it is the product of humanity, not God. It is through the intelligence that God has given that these advances have been made, and the products of them are (mostly) to be thankful for. This does not, of course, absolve us from the responsibility to be good stewards of this planet that is our home. We have to ensure that skills and technologies are used for good, not for bad. But overall, I'm grateful for their existence.

Advent 09- Job

2009-12-11T12:00:00.002Z

At the moment I'm feeling really fed up with my job (not a new thing, as I'm sure you know!). Everything I do seems to be the wrong thing, few people seem grateful, clients often patronise or are downright rude to me, and when something goes wrong I don't ever get a chance to explain my side of the problem. I can't book holidays when I want next year because another colleague has already taken the dates. Being in a room downstairs on my own I'm rather outside the office culture, and don't know my colleagues that well, to the extent that I'm half-dreading the Christmas party. And I seem to be achieving nothing but to demonstrate to my colleagues how incompetent I am.

So you wouldn't think it's the best time to be giving thanks for my job. Well, it's not easy, but I'm going to try. I am very grateful I have a job at all. Since graduating three and a half years ago I have had three jobs and also spent over a year unemployed (although I was doing voluntary work part of the time). The first two jobs were in shops, and while the first one was all right, as I got on very well with the other staff, the second was a disaster. I was taken advantage of, underpaid, and agreements about working hours were not kept. After a month, I left, and was unemployed for a some time before getting my current (part time) job through someone I knew at church.

Unemployment can get you down, make you feel utterly depressed, make it seem to you as if you are no good for anything, that you are an incompetent, incapable, unemployable, talentless, unwanted, time-wasting, burdensome idiot. The job hunting and benefits processes don't help- you are treated as if you are a problem to be solved, not an individual with needs and feelings; a statistic in a system where the sole concern is saving money, not helping people.

Part of my frustration is that I know I have skills and talents I want to use, but can't in this job. I know I could be doing so much more, and that the longer I stay in this dead end job the less likely I am to ever get anything better. But I am glad to have any paid work at all. Many of my friends have struggled to find any work, going months and even years without a job. York is a hard place to find work, and in the current financial circumstances it's even worse.

So much as I moan about my job, I am thankful for it. I don't dislike the people I work with, and at least I have regular hours and can sit down.* Having a reliable income means I can plan, be sure of paying my rent and bills, and even help others in a small way when things are desperate. Having a job, even if a boring, thankless and (owing to its part time nature) not well paid one, has been a real answer to many anxious prayers. I'd like to get a better one, of course, but for now I'm just thankful to have one at all.

*This may not sound like much, but when you've worked for 6 months in a shop where you have to stand up all day, it really is!

Advent 09- Family

2009-12-10T12:00:00.001Z

We are, of course, getting close to Christmas. Traditionally this is the time when families get together to celebrate. This can make it a difficult time, when tempers fray and patience is stretched. But families, however hard we may find them to deal with sometimes, can be great things. They can support and help us, emotionally, financially, spiritually.

I'm using family in a loose sense here. If you look at some of my previous posts you'll see why I think family is something which is nearly impossible to define. My family is by no means a simple example of the nuclear family- half siblings abound, and whenever I try explaining to someone that I was a great aunt from the age of four the room tends to go silent while everyone works out how that's possible. I have four half-siblings, but grew up as an only child because they were so much older. I have (currently) six nieces and three nephews, four great nephews and one great niece, yet only one of all these has ever called me aunt, and that was on facebook!

Now I live away from my parents, housemates and friends tend to take on some of the roles of family members. I know I sometimes find myself taking on the motherly role in my house. I enjoy the freedom of not having to consider the needs and wishes of my parents whenever I want to do something (not that I ignore those of my housemates, I hope!) but sometimes it's nice to know that there is someone around who is connected to you by more than friendship, someone who won't loose touch with you when you move away.

I'm aware that I owe a lot to my family for all they have done for me. My life would have been very different, I wouldn't have learnt the things I have or had the experiences that have made me who I am. I am especially glad that through them I was able to find out about Jesus. Relationships with parents aren't always easy, and this is certainly true for me. But I am incredibly grateful for them, even if I don't always show it. So I want to give thanks for parents and for family, for they are a Good Thing.

Advent 09- Music

2009-12-09T12:00:00.002Z

Yesterday I wrote about how much I like carols. But they're not the only type of music I think is a Good Thing. Music is a great thing. It can influence our emotions, and help release things we've trapped inside us. It can give us an outlet for things we can't say, help us express feelings we can't verbalise. It can move us to laughter or tears.

I've experienced that, sometimes from unexpected pieces of music. In church, certain songs can just hit you with something that you need reminding of. Theatre uses music to help the audience engage with the way characters are feeling, with what they are experiencing. A song from Les Miserables, heard completely at random and relating to nothing, once made me break down in tears thinking of someone I knew who was having a hard time.

Music's also great for entertainment, probably the most common use. The music industry is big business, and the new opportunities (and problems, for some) opened up by internet downloading have been frequently in the news. Often we don't perhaps realise how much music we're hearing- film and TV soundtracks can be quite unobtrusive, but they help to create the right atmosphere, to enhance the experience of the viewer.

Of course you have to be careful. Music can be seen as a way to manipulate an atmosphere, to make people feel and do things they don't want to. There is a danger there that people will be nervous or annoyed by this.

But the ways music is sometimes misused doesn't take away from the music itself. It can uplift us or downcast us, help us express ourselves, or just provide something to keep us awake in the car. It's something that is important to me, and I'm very grateful for those who have written music I enjoy.

Advent 09- Carols

2009-12-08T12:00:00.003Z

I spent most of Saturday afternoon singing carols to raise money for charity at York station. I love singing, and there really is something special about carols. I've written about them here before. It's hard to make carols sound bad. Most people who've grown up in Britain know at least a few. But having a choir singing in four-part harmony in the open air is something that we only expect to happen around Christmas.

A large group of us turned up on Saturday afternoon. Most of us only knew a few of the others, most of us had never sung together before, let alone rehearsed the carols we were going to be singing. Music was handed out, the organised who was conducting gave us our starting notes, and away we went. And raised over £350. The only downside is that the organiser wouldn't let us sopranos sing the descant harmonies in the last verses! :(

Most carols are in the category of songs which were written to tell a story, in this case the Christmas story, the story of how God sent his Son to earth as a human baby and why. There's the familiar Once in royal David's city and Away in a manger which tell of his birth, to We three kings with its prophecies of who this child is and will grow up to be, or the less familiar Coventry Carol that tells of the sorrow of the mothers whose children were killed in King Herod's attempt to kill Jesus. Others focus on what Jesus achieved: Hark! The herald-angels sing, for example, or all those songs which are some variation on a theme of holly and ivy, trying to spiritualise traditional decorations.

Perhaps that's part of what's special about carols. The words and music help remind us of what actually happened at Christmas, and what an amazing story it is. That God, usually worshipped with frankincense, should come to earth as a vulnerable human baby and go through all the ups and downs of life that we do; that he, a king deserving gifts of gold should be born to a poor family in a small rural settlement where his first visitors were outcast shepherds; that this child should grow up and give his life for us and be buried with myrrh only to rise again having defeated death- that's something to celebrate. That's a Good Thing.

"Glorious now behold him arise

King, and God, and sacrifice,

Heaven sings Alleluia,

Alleluia the earth replies."*

The last verse of We three kings says it all.

Advent 09- Passion

2009-12-07T12:00:00.002Z

I have several friends who are very passionate about things- climate change, children's work, music, political campaigning. There are some things I'm passionate about too, but my passion doesn't seem to achieve much so I won't bring that into it.

Their passion, even anger sometimes, can lead them into insensitivity for the points of view of those they perceive to be wrong, can cause hurt and damage. Perhaps they don't even realise that while being annoyed with people who can't understand them, they can themselves fall into the same fault.

But without passion, how would things change? Perhaps we picture a group of (probably) grey haired (probably) men sitting round a polished table in a smart office in Whitehall, calmly discussing how to make the world a better place. But so often it takes people with real passion and, yes, anger to make injustice visible, to make people take notice instead of avoiding it.

Without the passion of campaigners like William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson slavery wouldn't have been abolished when it was. Without the passion of Martin Luther King the civil rights movement in America would have been so much the poorer. Without the passion of people prepared to be martyrs if they had to from the time of the Romans to the present day the Christian Church would not have spread across the world.

Passion can lead us into insensitivity and despair, but it can also inspire us and make us persevere. It can drive us to action or to prayer. It can change the world, or a town, or a family. It is certainly, when used right, a Good Thing.

Advent 09- St Mike's

2009-12-06T12:00:00.002Z

Appropriately for Sunday, my Advent list of Good Things reaches my church, St Michael le Belfrey.

Once again I'm not going to deny that St Mike's isn't a church that has problems, and sometimes gets things wrong (in my opinion). But it's also a church that gets a lot right. There is a real concern there for the message of God to be spread, and for people to be built up in their faith- as the church's strapline says, for people to be brought in, built up, and sent out.

As I said earlier I arrived in York as a student with a firm faith but big gaps in my knowledge of God, the biggest of which was probably regarding the Holy Spirit- what he does and how he works. Over the years St Mike's has helped me fill this in- to recognise the times when God through the Holy Spirit has been working in my life, even before I knew that this was the case, and to recognise and learn how to use the gifts that I have been given through the Spirit. Not that I'm going into charismatic gifts here, I'm still not as 'happy clappy' as many people at church, just because that's not my way of worshipping, not because I think it's right or wrong. Different styles suit different people.

St Mike's helped me worship in a way I had rarely worshipped before, with songs that engaged the emotions as well as the intellect. It also gave me Christian friends my own age, something I had longed for but never really experienced- people I could discuss things with know that the other person understood where I was coming from much more closely than anyone else. It gave me an opportunity to get involved with serving the church and city community, to take part in events with hundreds of people rather than tens and be encouraged. It gave me space to decide what kind of Christian I wanted to be, rather than simply going to the church of my parents. It has had a big impact on me, and I am grateful I went there and to the leadership and congregation.

Advent 09- SU

2009-12-05T12:00:00.007Z

Another organisation that's had quite an impact on my life is this one: Scripture Union. As a small child I used their group resources in Junior Church and my parents did Bible studies with me based on their notes. As an older child I read children's books published by them and went to holiday clubs that used their materials. As a teenager I went on holidays that were run through them, and got involved with the organisation nationally as a member of the Youth Council. As an adult I helped lead those holidays . Now I use their WordLive site to help me focus on God daily and I'm a member of the General Council which helps guide the movement's direction in England & Wales.

WordLive is a good example of this. For years when I was on the Youth Council we tried to encourage the organisation to do more with the internet. Then, a few years ago, they began to develop this idea for daily Bible reading and study on the web, through words, pictures, audio, music and video, on the web and via email. I remember hearing about it for the first time and looking at the designs and being very excited!

It's almost two years since WordLive launched and it's even better now. I've followed it through (I was one of the original beta-testers) and used it ever since it launched. I think it helps move forward SU's ministry of encouraging people to get to know God through the Bible into a way they can understand. It's definitely something I'm thankful for, something which is a Good Thing.

Advent 09- Cell

2009-12-04T12:00:00.001Z

Next on my list of Good Things is one that's related to yesterday, the small groups and cells that I have been in. This might need a bit of explanation- cells what many churches call small groups of people who meet together, usually each week, to worship God together, to study the Bible together and to pray for each other and encourage each other in living as a witness for Christ. Small groups are the same, more or less. When a group works well, it can be a great example of what the church should be like- a supportive, encouraging, open community.

Of course, this isn't always the way it works (see here for some of the problems I've had with cell in the past) but it's still good to have that support of a group of people you can turn to when you need. My first leadership role in the Christian Union was as a small group leader, planning and leading Bible studies for a group of students in Langwith College that grew over the year from four or five on average to twelve or more. When I left uni I joined a group from my church where most of the people were older and enjoyed getting a different point of view on things. That group 'multiplied' to form two smaller groups after about six months, and now ours is having to stop meeting because several people have left, for one reason or another. I hope to find another cell soon, hopefully with some people closer to my own age and experience.

Although each cell has a leader and assistant, the preparation and leading of each part of the meeting is split between the cell members, so everyone who wants to has a chance to develop their gifts, whether that's in leading an act of worship or a Bible study, or coordinating sharing prayers or planning a social. That's one thing I like about these small groups- unlike so often in a big church setting, everyone has a chance to do something and to develop their skills. That, as well as the support from other people and what you can learn from each other studying the Bible, makes small groups and cells a Good Thing, and I'm glad I've been involved in several.

Advent 09- CU

2009-12-03T12:00:00.000Z

For the next few days my advent posts on Good Things are going to be on events or organisations that have had a big effect on me at different times in my life. The first of these is probably going to prove to be a bit controversial: the Christian Union (CU) at York Uni.

Now I'm far from saying that the CU is a perfect organisation. It certainly isn't, like all groups of people on earth it has faults! Also, I'm talking here about the UYCU of the time I was at uni (2003-2006). It had already started to change- as it should, as the membership changes- before I left and I believe it had continued to change even more since then.

But for all its' problems, I learnt a lot while I was in the CU. I came to uni at 18 with huge gaps in my knowledge of God that CU helped to fill in- both from good speakers at main meetings* and from small group Bible studies. These were perhaps the best bits of CU as far as I was concerned (see tomorrow's post for more). Perhaps the biggest thing I learnt from CU was some indication of how I could use the gifts I had been given in the service of God. I was utterly shocked to be selected as the General Secretary, and very much doubted that I could do the job. But thanks to God's support I did, and learnt a lot from it, even though at times it was very, VERY frustrating. There were committee decisions I didn't quite agree with, I felt that I was inadequate and inferior to the others on the committee, I felt that the CU- or at least some of its' members- had their priorities wrong.

But behind all of that was a lot of people who loved God and wanted to do what they felt he was calling them to. They may have been held back by issues they didn't understand, or by prejudice, or by fear or by genuine different interpretations. But there was a lot of good, as well as the bad. That was why I stayed part of the CU, and tried to do what I could to make it better. Others have succeeded where I failed. But I think God recognises the good even in mistakes and failures, and can bring good out of them. Even from the mistakes, I learnt a lot about God's people, and I learnt to trust God and rely on him to get me through things I didn't think I could do. That's why I still call the CU one of my Good Things.

*Note: not all main meeting speakers were good. I mean that the ones that were helped me.

PS I believe that this is also my 100th post on this blog. Yay! If there was a way of sharing cake with you via the internet, I would.

Advent 09- Thank God!

2009-12-02T12:00:00.002Z

Following on from yesterday's advent post, here's the second in the series of Good Things. I want to thank God that however much I moan and grumble (and I do a lot, believe me) he still loves me.

1 Corinthians 13 is one of the most well-known passages in the Bible. It describes love- the "most excellent way" we should treat each other. But since "God is love" it's also a description of the way God treats us.

"Love is patient,* love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs...It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love never fails."

You can't call that a soft or easy option- to be always forgiving those who let you down or do you wrong, to not be easily angered, to always give a second chance, and a third, and a fourth. To keep hoping for people to change even if there's nothing to give you hope. Nor does it mean simply letting people walk all over you (a mistake I make sometimes) but willingly serving others and seeking their good before your own.

It may be the way we're supposed to treat each other, but I certainly fail a lot of the time. So I'm very glad that God doesn't.

*'suffers long' in some versions, 'isn't selfish' in others.

Advent 09- Thank you!

2009-12-01T14:08:00.000Z

A friend of mine is doing a blog advent calendar. I liked the idea, and thought I'd nick it- trying to do a post (a short one) around a single theme every day from now till Christmas. It probably won't work out quite like that, but here goes.

I'm going to try and blog about something good every day. Thinking about some of my previous posts I realise they come over a bit negative and depressed or frustrated (usually reflecting how I'm feeling at the time) so I think having to come up with something good every day will be good for me. Maybe it'll be something I like about my church, or a friend, or a book or reading that's helped me. Maybe something to give thanks for, something God has done for me or someone else (past or present), an answer to prayer, something that's encouraged me. I don't know whether I'll manage it, but I'm going to have a go!

So, where do I start? Well, having started by saying that my posts and my attitude can get quite negative at times, I think I should start by being thankful that both God and my friends are long-suffering and put up with me! Really, guys, if you've ever had to listen to me moaning about something, then thank you. It means a lot. Thanks for your patience and for caring.

And thank you all for reading and putting up with me :) Happy Advent!

Caught in the middle

2009-11-27T12:00:00.007Z

As I'm sure you know, I work as a receptionist at a solicitors' firm in York city centre. In many ways it's not a bad job, even if I do moan a lot, but there are many things I'd rather be doing. However, this isn't a(nother) rant about frustrated ambitions and dead ends, but an attempt to relate certain features of the job to a wider life perspective (sounds grand doesn't it!)

The receptionist is always caught in the middle. I got quite annoyed about this this week. On the one hand, as someone with a care for how clients are treated, you feel slightly embarrassed when solicitors treat them in a way that isn't what you would consider good customer service- when a client's left waiting twenty minutes for an appointment, or two weeks before having a phone call returned (I hasten to point out that this isn't the kind of treatment our clients usually get!). On the other, clients can sometimes treat you as if you are a mere piece of dirt beneath their feet, not on the same level as professionals like them and the solicitors. Or they can get abusive, or be intimidating. Or they can start trying to chat you up, which is just disturbing.

If something goes wrong, you're the first person the client complains to, perhaps for a good reason, but people can get incredibly annoyed that their solicitor is on his lunch break- as if having lunch breaks is entirely unreasonable and they can't wait half an hour! Equally, if someone gives you the wrong number you will be the person that takes the blame when the solicitor tries to call them and can't get through, or be the person the solicitor gets grumpy with when they get a call from someone they'd rather not speak to. Or, occasionally, get blamed for something that's not your fault.

But being caught in the middle is what we are are whole lives, in a way. We are often caught between what we want to do (stay in bed all morning, watch TV, read,) and what we know we should do- go to work, do the washing up, go to bed early. Christians are caught between their own plan for how they want to live and living God's way. It can be difficult to see the right thing to do. Like at work, the easiest thing in the short term may not be the best thing to do in the long run. Life can seem something of a balancing act- balancing work with play, sadness with joys, the needs of ourselves, family, friends, colleagues, church and everything else.

The difference is that if we are trying to follow Jesus then we have to take sides- we have to accept that we will be ruled by God's will not our own, or rather that we will seek to make God's will our will. Of course it's not as simple as that. Jesus taught his followers to be in the world but not part of it- we're not removed from life in all its business and cares. We still face a giant balancing act. What's changed is our priority- God instead of me (or family, or money or anything else).

So for me at work that means treating everyone- client or solicitor, however grumpy or annoying- as I would want to be treated, if it was me. "Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus" Paul writes to the church at Colossae. We should treat everyone, all the time, as we would if God, the ultimate boss, was watching (which he is, of course). Of course I don't manage that all the time! I sometimes do things my way instead of God's. I make mistakes, don't leave enough time for myself or for others, get stressed about silly small things that seem big to me. But I try to get the balance right. One day I will.

The British Empire: a Utopia limited?

2009-11-24T13:57:00.015Z

In 1893 the last but one of the collaborations between W.S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan was premièred at the Savoy theatre in London. Utopia, Ltd is probably the least well known of their works- and even a hardcore G&S fan like myself has to say that it's not their best work. The show is not at all cohesive and doesn't hang together well, good plot points are underdeveloped or left unresolved due to cuts (and the weakness of the lead soprano). There are some highlights. I wish one of the groups I'm in would find the time to learn "Eagle high," I love the plot trio "With wily brain," and coming from a group where some tenors have a well-developed sense of their own importance the humour of "A tenor all singers above" where the tenor is moaning that he can't reach the top notes strikes home with me. Nevertheless, it's still probably my least favourite of the G&S canon, and given how rarely it's performed compared to the more popular Pirates of Penzance or Mikado (or even middle of the range Ruddigore or Patience) I'm not alone. Although initial audiences were favourable to Utopia, it didn't last as well as G&S's earlier shows.

But I wonder if perhaps another reason for its relative unpopularity* is subject matter Gilbert is poking fun at. In 1893 the British Empire was at its height, with vast amounts of the world under the rule of Queen-Empress Victoria. And yet not everything was well- there were rumblings in India that would one day lead to independence, and Irish Home Rule was the hot political topic of the day. In the very year that Utopia Ltd premièred the United States government intervened in Hawaii to overthrow the government that, they feared, would damage their business interests. The Hawaiian crown princess had come to England to go to school- just as Gilbert's Princess Zara had- and found herself trying to stop her country being absorbed into the United States- and failing. No doubt the US government argued that American Western government would be better for the islands than the Hawaiian monarchy.

So it is easy to see where Gilbert got the ideas for Utopia Ltd from. Tropical island princess goes to England and brings back officials or "Flowers of Progress" to help transform the island into everything that she believes England to be- militarily and navally strong, virtuous, clean, healthy morally upright. Unfortunately, some of the locals don't like it because it's working too well and they are being excluded from power, but their rebellion is foiled by the introduction of Government by Party which, it is said, will solve these problems by introducing imperfections.

Gilbert was no stranger to satire and controversy, but even at the time it would have been unfashionable to criticise the empire, or to call into question, as the finale does whether Britain is quite as perfect as she claims:

"Such, at least, is the tale
Which is born on the gale,
From the island which dwells in the sea
Let us hope, for her sake
That she makes no mistake-

That she's all the professes to be!"

An earlier song, where the islanders praise Britain for many qualities which the audience would have known to be false underlines this:

"Society has quite forsaken all her wicked courses.

Which empties our police courts, and abolishes divorces"

"We haven't any slummeries in England!"

"Our peerage we've remodelled on an intellectual basis...

And literary merit meets with proper recognition!"

Perhaps sour grapes on Gilbert's part there?

In 1983, it probably was unfashionable to criticise the empire; but since the dismantling of the empire since the 1950's the opposite has been true. It is almost unthinkable for historians or politicians today to say anything favourable about the Empire or to admit that anything good came of it. It's not even taught about much in school, we're so uncertain of how to address the issues raised. Of course, much badness happened because of European Imperialism. But the way that the British put themselves and their past down annoys me sometimes. Yes, there are many things about the empire and imperial culture we can't be proud of. But that goes for most if not all countries. And there is some evidence to show that many of the countries that used to be in the Empire have benefited from the legacy. Some, not all. I'm not arguing it was a good thing.

This isn't a period of history I've ever specialised in, but I can make a guess that amongst the type of audience G&S usually attracts- generally speaking reasonably well educated middle classes, predominantly over 50- the memory of the empire has made them wary of a show which, at first sight, accepts imperialism and determines British ways of doing things as the right way, better than native ways. In a way, you could say Utopia suffers simultaneously from being too much in favour and too much against the Empire. But Gilbert used it to expose the flaws in his own society. Perhaps there could be ways to produce it today that make it relevant to our own time- to expose the flaws in our globalised culture? Unfortunately, I don't think anyone in the performing groups I'm in is going to rush to stage it!

*I'm pretty sure Utopia is still performed more than many pieces that were more popular at the time, although that's mainly due to it being part of the Gilbert and Sullivan canon.

Some climatical thoughts

2009-11-20T10:54:00.001Z

I usually leave the environmental arguments to those who know rather more about it (like my friend at Graham's Grumbles) but a few things lately have caught my eye. This article on the BBC news site caught my eye with its controversial title (although the conclusions reached are rather less controversial).

It was interesting to see the question of half-empty buses, trains and planes addressed. Everyone knows that full buses and trains are more carbon-friendly than cars with only one person in, but the question of how partially filled public transport compares, or cars with several people, doesn't make such good headlines. Since I've been learning to drive this year (a process that in itself has probably doubled my carbon footprint!) it's been something I've thought about occasionally, even though I don't yet have my own car, and if I did would try to use it as little and as efficiently as possible.

I also came across this yesterday. In the run up to the climate summit in Copenhagen it's been good to see some focus on not merely the impact of climate change on the environment but on people, on countries that will be drowned, on people suffering the effects of drought or flooding. Here in the west we are to an extent insulated from the worst effects, but some people who have little enough already are finding their lives made worse thanks to what others are doing.

Perhaps some of the increased publicity of this side of climate change will help persuade westerners- and their politicians- to be a bit less selfish, more willing to compromise on their standard of living. But I'm not greatly hopeful. Yesterday I also heard an item on the radio about tumble dryers and the massive amount of electricity they use. We have one in my current house, and I have used it a few times, mainly because since we don't have the heating on much washing wasn't drying properly otherwise, and turning up for work in musty-smelling clothes is not a good career move. Or very pleasant. But as much as possible I do hang things out to dry rather than use the dryer and was surprised to learn that this apparently makes me rather unusual. In some places, apparently, you're not actually allowed to hang washing outside, while others see it as old fashioned or indicative of lower status.

Perhaps that's the kind of thing we should get used to using less- it's not going to kill us if our neighbours see our sheets hanging out to dry, or if we have to keep an eye on if it's going to rain. Compared to the suffering of people in other parts of the world from climate change, it doesn't rate at all. And other measures, like better insulation and more efficient heating actually work for our benefit as they save money on fuel bills- if you can persuade your landlord to install them. The transport issue is a bit trickier, but even if it just makes us think before deciding to use the car that's the beginnings of something achieved.

Chalcedon, China and the church.

2009-11-06T14:54:00.001Z

Last night I saw a programme on the early history of Christianity. As this was something I don't know all that much about, I watched it and found in interesting, despite the fact that the presenter looks like a Victorian gentleman-explorer. For once it was nice to see a non-negative item about Christianity in the media. The presenter wasn't sceptical, or looking to find faults, but was telling a story that is not well known, and throwing up a few surprises along the way.

The first programme engaged with the debates over doctrine within the early church, discussions at the Council of Chalcedon over how Jesus could be both fully God and fully human. This was something I'd only vaguely heard about before, and to be honest the differences can seem a little confusing and hard to understand why it actually matters. While the Western, European churches (Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants) decided in favour of Jesus's two natures, human and divine, coming together into one person who remained both human and divine (rather than the divine swallowing up the humanity and taking it over, or the human and the divine remaining separate), not everyone was satisfied. Two separate Eastern churches split with the West's compromise, one on each side of the debate.

We don't hear much about the Oriental Orthodox Church or the Church of the East today, but part of the programme focused on the spread of the early church in the east, into areas we don't normally associate with Christianity- Syria, Egypt, Iraq and- most surprisingly- China. China was the one that really grabbed my attention. It surprised me to know that at about the same time as the Anglo-Saxons were being converted to Christianity in the 7th century, the church was making an impact in China. The programme visited the site of an ancient Christian monastery- although a gang of angry locals stopped them from going inside, fed up with these Westerners tramping over their heritage.

It was interesting to hear that this early Chinese Church apparently took on board local culture and was able to adapt to different circumstances. The presenter contrasted this with the nineteenth century missionaries, who were usually determined impose a Western, imperialist version of Christianity upon the 'natives.' I found myself wondering how the modern expansion of the church in China fits into this? Or indeed the spread of evangelical faith throughout the developing world? Is westernised Christianity prepared to take on board 'culturally-relevant' ways of doing things to adapt to the specific needs of people in China, or India, or Central Africa, while still retaining theological integrity, or do we impose our songs, our liturgy, our hierarchy on them? Come to think of it, are we willing to conduct services in Britain in a culturally relevant way, or do we impose an out of date structure on them?

Although it is sad that the Eastern churches fell out with the Western ones, the programme gave me some hope and optimism. Out of that split came a great spread of the gospel all across Asia. It was great to see the variety of ways of worshipping. It was great to find that there were Christians worshipping, in different ways, in places I hadn't imagined there was a Christian community before the last couple of centuries.

My churches part 2

2009-10-29T12:00:00.007Z

My worshipping life changed a lot when I moved to York to go to university. After trying out one or two places I settles into the 7pm congregation at St Michael le Belfry, and have been there ever since. What I think I liked about St Mike's was how different it was to my previous experience of church. There were many people my age, teaching that was relevant to me, the worship was different- not just in style but in how it felt. Sermons were longer, around 30 minutes, and the worship was much more modern- and the worship band were louder! Oddly perhaps, there was also slightly more liturgy. There was something different at work in St Mike's that I hadn't felt- or only very occasionally- at Downham Methodist. People there were welcoming to the Holy Spirit, something I'd barely heard about before.

I love St Mike's. I've learnt a lot through being part of it and it has certainly changed the way I worship and helped me in many ways. But that doesn't mean I can't see flaws, or don't sometimes get frustrated with it. For a start, the church is so big that nobody can know everyone who is part of it. Even after I've been there six years, people frequently ask if I'm new. Not that that in itself is a problem. But it can be hard to get to know people- since my uni friends have all left I sometimes feel a bit lonely as I don't quite fit in with the students or the 'proper' adults. It's hard to meet the needs of everyone in such a big group. Also, with so many people it can be hard to get a chance to develop the skills and gifts I feel I should be- there's little room for beginners to make mistakes when there are so many people.

That's partly why I've recently found myself enjoying something I didn't think I would. Transcendence is a service that started two years ago as a joint project between York Minster and the Visions community (which is attached to St Mike's). Transcendence draws on both high church traditions and modern multimedia worship, mixing plainchant and 'ambient beats,' incense and liturgy with creative prayer. It's a service that engages all the senses in worship, sight, sound, smell, touch and taste.

I don't normally like High Church ceremony. It can seem cold and designed to create distance between God or the clergy and the people. But Transcendence is different, somehow. The atmosphere created by sound, smell and the beautiful surroundings of the Minster is somehow both awe inspiring and intimate. Which I think is a good reflection of our relationship with God. I don't know all that many people at Transcendence yet, and perhaps because it's still part of Visions there isn't as much of a distinct community- or at least, that's my experience as an outsider coming in. It may just be that I've only been a few times and haven't had the chance to chat to people much. But I like Transcendence because it challenges me. The 7pm service in some ways has become too comfortable in its style and content- I like being encouraged to pray and worship in a way I'm less comfortable with.

So each church I've been part of has helped me grow in different ways. There have been good and less good things about all of them, but they are what has helped me develop my understanding of my faith. The variety of experience has also helped me think about what the church should be like and what is good or bad in a church. None of them is perfect. Everyone worships in different ways and a variety is good. The main thing is to keep sight of what the church- globally and locally- is supposed to be, and for each church to do its' best in its' own way to fulfil that purpose.

My churches part 1

2009-10-26T12:00:00.002Z

As you can probably tell, I write about the church a lot. It's something I feel I do know a bit about and am qualified to write about. I am, or have been part of three 'churches' or congregations, all of which are quite different. So I thought I'd do a post saying what I like and don't about each.

The church I grew up in was Downham Market Methodist Church (or, as the vandalised sign on the building used to say, Metodi Chch). The congregation or about 100 were mostly well advanced in years (for a long time I was more or less the only person between the ages of 8 and 50) and the worship was pretty traditional, using hymns by the likes of John and Charles Wesley played on the organ, with the occasional venture into something 'modern' (ie written after 1950!). There would be a sermon, which on your average Sunday would last around 15-20 minutes.

Very often as a teenager I felt incredible frustration with this church. I was lonely without anyone else my age or anyone to relate to my problems as a young Christian growing up. But more than that, I was frustrated because so many of the people who had attended that church for many years seemed to have forgotten some of what it meant to be a Christian. While they personally may have felt that their faith was very much part of their lives, they seemed to have no interest whatever in sharing this faith with others in their community. The church could feel very insular. When occasionally new families would join the church, they would often leave after a few months because the older members had no understanding of or interest in the need to adapt themselves to accommodate new people and their needs, or new ways of doing things.

Having said all that, one thing that was really noticeable about this church was the sense of community. Everyone knew almost everyone and was able to help and support those in need. It was easy to spot new people and generally people would go to them and welcome them- they just didn't understand that they might have different needs. Since I left some things have begun to change- slowly and with much resistance and sad argument- for the better, I believe, and I can see some hope for the future. The other things I do like about the Methodist church is the unfussiness of worship and the commitment to lay leadership. In most of the services the leader/ preacher is a local preacher, a lay person who has had some training but is one of the community, knowing the needs and interests of the congregation. It also means you get to hear different preachers and different points of view. Although ordained ministers are an important part of the church, the congregation is far less dependent on them than in many denominations.

So that was my childhood church. Part two continues the story...

Do we go abroad because it's depressing at home?

2009-10-22T15:45:00.000+01:00

Do we sometimes go abroad because it's depressing at home?

Over the last few days I've had several conversations on the subject of overseas missions. Churches like mine often send out teams of members to different parts of the world (over the last couple of years people from my church have gone to Uganda, Mongolia, Cambodia, Nigeria and several other places, some more than once). These teams have taken part in different activities from helping build a school to leading conferences to encourage and train local church leaders.

I started to wonder why this was. Obviously I don't think it's a bad thing that people can travel to other countries and share their skills and knowledge with Christians around the world. Often both sides learn from the other and people come back with a deepened faith and better understanding of what it is like to follow Jesus in difficult circumstances. But is this the only reason it is, for want of a better word, so popular?

Going abroad on mission can seem so much more glamorous than trying to do similar work at home. In Africa and Asia the church is growing while in Europe the picture is much more gloomy. Do we in the church in Britain (apart from maybe a few places) feel some kind of despair and almost give up on ever seeing anything happen in our own communities? Is it much easier for us to imagine people coming to Jesus amid the poverty and persecution of the developing world than among our own mostly middle-class neighbours? Do we look at our own churches and wonder why anyone would want to come there? Do we go abroad in the hope of seeing faith at work that will encourage us while the situation in our own country only depresses us?*

I think perhaps we do. And it's not wrong to be encouraged and inspired by what is happening in other parts of the world. What would be wrong is if we neglect our own communities and our own country in favour of going on high-profile trips abroad. It might not be so exciting or produce immediate visible results, but that doesn't mean we're excused from doing it. The church should be at the heart of the community. Mission isn't just something that happens in Africa, or at certain times of the year. I think it should invoke the idea of the church serving the community.

Someone pointed out in one discussion I had that while these teams and individuals are often prayed for in church services and prayer meetings, much less time is given to praying for those who have a mission role in our own community. Which, if you think about it, is more or less all of us. For example, there are several people at my church who are involved in social work, or who are teachers. These people have a big impact on the lives of those they work with. Perhaps we should learn to value what are traditionally seen as 'secular' jobs more. And to value and support those who do mission 'at home,' a daily slog of meetings and initiatives that maybe don't seem exciting or don't see much result.

Jesus said his disciples would be his witnesses in Jerusalem and Judea (ie, locally and nationally) as well as throughout the world (internationally). All are important, and all are valid. Some people are called to one and some to another, some see great results and others don't but we shouldn't forget that we are all his witnesses, wherever we are.

*I say we although I've never personally been on such a trip. Judge for yourselves if you think that has prejudiced my point of view.

A short history of Bible translation

2009-10-16T12:00:00.000+01:00

Recently I've come across several things about certain groups of American conservative Christians who believe that the King James Version is the only trustworthy and reliable translation of the Bible, and that all other translations or versions have a 'liberal' bias. Ignoring that much of what they describe as 'liberal' most people would describe as 'sane,' does this claim make any sense?

Time for a history lesson. The King James version was a translation made in the early seventeenth century (under the sponsorship of James I- or VI, if you're Scottish). It followed on from a conference he'd called to try and sort out the English church, which was splitting between those who put more emphasis on style and ceremony, and the Puritan element which focused on preaching. The Puritans hoped that James, coming from Scotland where the church was more to their liking, would reform the church along their lines, but the king didn't want to abolish bishops or relinquish his own control over the church. He agreed to sponsor a new translation of the Bible as compensation to keep the Puritans within the church 'onside.'

The KJV was not (as some conservatives seem to believe) the 'original' English version. English translations of the Bible had begun circulating in manuscript in the later middle ages due to clergyman John Wycliffe and the Lollard movement. William Tyndale's translation was printed abroad and smuggled into early Tudor England. And in 1539 Henry VIII authorised the King's Great Bible, the first legal translation.

Before that, the version of the Bible commonly used throughout the Catholic church was the Vulgate, St Jerome's 5th century Latin translation. Around the end of the middle ages, more of Europe's learned classes had begun to study Greek and Hebrew, and had discovered many inaccuracies in the Vulgate. This, along with the desire to make the Bible available to ordinary people in their own 'vernacular' language helped bring about the Reformation. Martin Luther's German Bible, for example, was translated from Greek and Hebrew texts, but Luther 'Germanised' it by using words and similes that his congregation would be familiar with- translating by the 'sense' of the passage rather than the exact words. This, presumably, is something the conservative Christians would not approve of, but provided it is well done it can often be a lot more helpful than a text which is word-for-word accurate, but where the sense of the words is lost (for example because it includes on Hebrew euphemisms that we no longer understand).

The conservative American Christians seem to believe that the older the text they are using is, the more reliable it is. But as any historian will tell you that's not always the case. Older texts often have more mistakes because they have been copied (or reprinted) more times, while newer translations have the advantage of advances in scholarship. For example, since the KJV was made new manuscripts of some of the Biblical texts have come to light which have influenced scholars' opinions of what certain sections mean. So in fact more recent translations, incorporating these finds, are probably more accurate to the original sense of the writers.

What about the supposed liberal bias? Well, sometimes it just seems to boil down to verses they don't like or find awkward, which conservatives say can't possibly be authentic.* Or to using a different meaning (where a word may be translated with more than one meaning) which suggests policies the conservatives dislike (eg socialism, feminism). Perhaps I'm looking at this too much as a historian, but much of this perception of 'liberal bias' seems to me to be a result of some conservatives trying to fit the text to their beliefs, rather than their beliefs to the text. That's a trap historians have often fallen into.

On the other hand, what these Christians have got right is the need to try to understand the Bible. But we need to look at it in the light of what it meant to its original audience as well as to us, and as far as possible without bias, liberal or conservative. Every translation of the Bible has a different 'slant:' some may be more faithful to the early texts than others, some use different words to make the text more easily understood.

*I am in no way intending to suggest that only conservatives do this kind of manipulation of the text, much of it is true just as much of all shades of Christian opinion.

Modern day Josephs?

2009-10-15T12:00:00.032+01:00

I've been looking at the story of Joseph in Genesis lately. It's a well-known story, so well-known it's tempting sometimes to mentally tune out, thinking that we already know all it has to teach us. But today, looking at Joseph interpreting Pharoah's dreams, something struck me in a different way. The WordLive notes talked about how Joseph, having learnt through his experiences to trust God and give all credit to him, is then set up as second in command of all Egypt.

Not only is this a rapid rise for someone who had begun the day a prisoner, and who had come to Egypt as a slave, but it is interesting that Joseph was an outsider in Egyptian culture and politics. His trust in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob marked him out. It marked him out as the only person who had any idea what Pharoah's dream was about, but also marked him out as the one who wanted to follow and act on what God had to say.

What I like is that Joseph, for all we think of him as a dreamer, a person focused on the spiritual, is also actually very practical, immediately coming up with a plan to store a fifth of Egypt's produce in the good years to distribute in the famine. I wonder if perhaps he was hoping that Pharaoh might pick him when he talked about finding a "discerning and wise man?" Probably he realised that this could be his only chance to get out of jail.

Whether he had himself in mind or not, Pharaoh is wise to pick him. Not merely because it seems that Joseph is good at his job (his experience as Potiphar's administrator and in jail must have helped there) but because he is able to listen in to this mysterious God who helped him interpret the dream. Joseph, a stranger and outsider, sheep farming nomad by birth, is put in charge of running the ancient world's superpower! A person who worships some foreign God is to be second in command in a country where the king was seen as a god!

All a bit surprising, isn't it? Of course, we don't know what Joseph did, besides the rationing system. But he certainly didn't hide himself away with whatever people also worshipped his God, and avoid any contact with government or those who worshipped the Egyptian deities or Pharaoh himself. As the WordLive writer says, "Joseph was able to implement righteous systems within an unrighteous society."

Perhaps modern Christians should seek to do the same. I don't mean trying to impose a theocracy or using the sort of language some American politicians are fond of to suggest our country is God's chosen land. I mean that Christians should be willing to get involved in government at whatever level, and to seek to stand up for God's values of justice, righteousness, peace and love in a society that struggles with these things. I know many people mock political leaders who display their faith, and I find it sad. Because those values are the ones that most people would want in leaders, rather than corruption and hunger for power at any price. We are in the world, and we can't be wholly removed from it. We can't make it perfect, but we can make it better.

Oh, and you might find this interesting. Thanks to Greg for drawing it to my attention.

Yokes part 2- personal thoughts

2009-10-12T12:00:00.000+01:00

This is a follow on to this post. It isn't something I've written about before as it's a tricky subject and I don't want to offend any friends- Christian or not. So please, don't either condemn me as a liberal or attack me as a religious weirdo without reading my reasoning and thinking about it. Remember, I don't pretend to tell you that you should do what I do. This is just my own thoughts on a subject I've thought about a fair bit, and I think I've seen enough from my experiences with friends to know what I'm talking about.

Possibly I'm protesting so strongly about the whole 'do not be yoked to unbelievers' thing for selfish reasons- because some of my closest friends aren't Christians. Perhaps I just want to avoid having to change something I'm happy with, or because of a hint of guilt. But this is something I've thought and prayed about a lot, and these are the conclusions I've come to.

I don't think Christians should avoid having friends who aren't Christians. It's well known that most people who come to faith are introduced to it by a friend. Hiving the church off from the world into some parallel universe of its' own making isn't being salt and light. That's not what being distinctive means.
I think it's a question of balance. It isn't necessarily the relationship that's wrong, but the negative effect it can have on that person's faith.

I do have close friends who are not Christians. I know that in some things they different priorities and values from my own. That doesn't stop me being their friend. I respect where we differ on things, and rejoice where we agree, and if I can sensitively challenge someone to rethink where I believe they have got their priorities wrong, I try (and usually fail). Because as a friend they respect me too, they accept that, and perhaps reciprocate. My faith's strong enough to deal with that.

But I know that there is a big part of my life that a friend who's not a Christian can never share. They can't fully understand why I do everything I do, or what it means for me to be who I am, a child of God. They don't have the same priority in life- to praise God and serve him. I have to remember that, and to watch and consider my actions to make sure they reflect that priority rather than those of the world around me. That's how I can avoid becoming 'yoked' to anything that would distract me from my purpose- to follow Jesus.

So what about the usual interpretation of "do not be yoked to unbelievers," the context of romantic relationships and marriage. I suppose the key thing is whether or not forming such a relationship with a non-Christian is going to become something which prevents you getting closer to God. I've seen couples where this kind of relationship has worked, and I'm happy for them. But I've also seen couples where it hasn't worked, and has caused tension and a weakening of faith. And my faith is such a massive part of who I am that I don't think I would feel right not being able to share it with my partner, or that it would be fair to them to make them conform to my priorities and principals when they don't share them.

That's my personal decision, based on what I've observed and experienced. I don't say it's right or that it's what everyone should do. Each person has to find their own limits and their own balance, to judge when something begins to get in the way of their faith. It's not always easy. Sometimes it seems like I'm taking risks that will cause me pain. Sometimes the fact that the people I'm close to don't understand or don't believe really hurts me. Sometimes I expect I get things wrong. For everyone, finding that balance is different, and maybe takes experimentation and mistakes. But that's ok. God sees our hearts, when we try to put him first in our lives, and forgives us.

Grr!

2009-10-07T14:05:00.000+01:00

I'm rather angry at the moment. I'm not saying this is a good thing, although sometimes anger can be productive, but the reason I'm angry has drawn together several things that have come to my attention recently.

I don't have a car. I often have to attend meetings in the evenings, where I'm usually the only person from my house travelling to the meeting. Usually I'm quite happy to walk for half an hour or more to get to such a meeting, but when it's going to take me longer than that or the route would take me, in the dark, through areas I'd rather not go (ok, I know this is York and nowhere's that bad, but that's no reason to take risks) or if I don't know where I'm going I'd rather not. Does that seem unreasonable?

Buses are awkward, especially if you're not sure exactly where you're going, aren't that cheap round here, and often take longer than walking if you're waiting for connections. Taxis are expensive. But I find that a lot of people who drive and have been doing so for ten or twenty years or more, forget that it might not be easy for you to get to the outer reaches of the city if you don't drive- and even more difficult to get back.

I think this is a mentality that needs to change if we're going to encourage less car use. For example, I just asked someone for a lift to a meeting. To pick me up they would have to come slightly out of their way, a detour of perhaps five minutes in a car, not more than ten. They've picked me up several times before. But this time, after I'd initially thought they'd agreed, I got a message back saying could I find someone else to pick me up if possible as it was out of their way. However, my house is equally if not more out of everyone else's way. So I'm left with the choice of begging someone else to come for me, or an hour's walk in the dark.

At this point I know someone is going to say 'cycle' but I don't feel that I am a safe or confident cyclist. The same people would then no doubt give me lots of good advice and tell me to get on with it, but that's not my point. My point is that people who are used to the convenience of a car too often forget that a) it is possible to not have a car, and to exist quite well for most purposes without it, and b) the difficulties that can sometimes arise from not having a car, for example disposing of rubbish the council won't collect like broken TV's. It's similar to a point a friend of mine makes here; if you have something, it's hard for you to see what it's like not to have it, and you tend to assume people must be exaggerating or have something to fall back on.

Perhaps the solution lies in a better development of community with our friends and willingness to use what we have to help others. In contrast to the above, I also have friends who will go out of their way (physically and metaphorically) to help those who need it- giving lifts and helping move things. And I'm very grateful to them. It's just a shame that not everyone thinks like that.

And while I was writing that, someone else (for whom it's just as much of a detour) has just offered me a lift. Yay!

Yokes part 1- general thoughts

2009-10-05T12:00:00.001+01:00

"Do not be yoked together with unbelievers." A verse that strikes fear and dread into the heart of many Christians, and probably many youth leaders and church leaders who have to speak on it or deal with it pastorally too. But what does it actually mean to be 'yoked together with unbelievers'? I'm used to the common interpretation which uses it to justify Christians only marrying or going out with other Christians, but something I read recently seemed to extend it to all close friendships too. That was something I hesitated to accept, and which got me thinking.

I've never been entirely comfortable with a blanket ban on all Christian- non-Christian relationships anyway. What if you become a Christian after marrying someone, or going so far with them (emotionally or physically) that it seems wrong to pull back? What if your partner appears to loose their faith- your dumping them is hardly going to help get them back on track, is it? It may help you, but isn't that rather selfish?

And if this is to be extended to a ban on all close relationships with non-Christians, what does that mean, for instance, for relationships with family members who you may have grown up with, but who don't share your faith? Surely the same God who decreed 'honour your father and mother' wouldn't want us to become estranged from them by following him? God the Father wouldn't want us to abandon our children if they decide they don't want anything to do with church. Of course, we are to put God first (Mark 10 vs 29-30) but that doesn't absolve us of earthly responsibility.

Perhaps there are some clues in the verses surrounding this passage that can help us understand what I think Paul meant by writing it. Paul, in the passages surrounding it, is talking about witnessing to those outside the church. It's clear that you can't witness effectively to people unless you know something about them, unless you meet them where they are. But it's also clear that if you are indistinguishable from them then you can't be an effective witness either. We are called to be salt and light, to stand out from the crowd, not to go along with what they think is important but to praise God and put him first always.

Oxen are yoked together. Where one goes, the other has to go too. If we are 'yoked' to unbelievers it means that we are forced to conform to their movements, to take their priorities as our own, to do as they do. That means we can no longer stand out from the crowd, we can't put God first. Very often we end up putting the person (or people, or values) we're yoked to first instead. I don't think it's just about relationships, more a call to keep God first in our hearts and our priorities. Friendships and relationships are one of the many things that can distract us from this, just as keeping to over-restrictive rules can, if we're not careful. I think that holds true for relationships between Christians as well as between Christians and those who don't believe.

P.S. It's also been suggested that this passage says Christians shouldn't work with or for non-Christians. Now I don't know about you but that seems rather impractical- especially in an urban society- and rather isolationist, designed to create a closed community of the 'clean' and 'holy'. It's not exactly the sort of thing one would expect to come from the same Jesus who directly went to the outcasts and unclean of his society. I may be wrong, but I don't really think that's what the passage says. If you want more info on what it might be about, see here before going off on a "Christians/ the Bible are away with the fairies" rant.

Digital Gospel

2009-10-01T14:38:00.003+01:00

Those who read my last post will know that last weekend I was away at a conference of Scripture Union, an organisation which resources and works with the church to help them reach out to the community, particularly among children and young people. Over the last couple of years SU has felt a particular calling to investigate ways of using 'technology' (ie the internet) to do this, and a lot of money and effort has gone into digital projects like WordLive, designed to help individuals engage with the Bible; and LightLive, which provides resources for youth and children's leaders.

During one of the meetings one of the members of the council expressed a concern that these days technology moves on so fast that we could end up investing in something only to find that by the time it was complete it would already be obsolete. For example, are books going to be made obsolete by ebooks? Could something like GoogleWave render ways of communicating by email, skype and social networking sites useless?

I thought about this, and wondered if actually we should be concerned about something slightly different. In the past, there was generally only one method of doing things- if you wanted to speak to someone you telephoned their landline, if you wanted to send them documents you used the postal system. Today, there are many ways to communicate- you can speak to someone by landline or mobile, via skype, or send them a text message, IM or email, or send a message via a social networking site like Twitter. If you want to share a document you can use the post, fax, email, or upload it to Google Docs where you can collaborate on it instantly.

Perhaps we can look at the entertainment market for an example of what communication might look like in the future. When TV began to become widespread there were fears that it might kill off radio and cinema. It didn't. Radio and cinema changed the way they did things, but they survived. VCR recorders and tapes have survived long past the introduction of DVD's because they possessed something DVD's didn't- the ability to record and wipe- and are only now being supplanted by DVD recorders and hard drive recorders. DVD's are in turn under threat from BluRay, but are likely to be around for some time yet.

So rather than one thing directly replacing another, it seems to me that what we're looking at for the future is a multiplicity of methods of communication. That presents a different kind of challenge, as we have to work out how to communicate in many ways without increasing the costs or risking decreasing quality by spreading ourselves too thinly. The alternative is to risk loosing touch with many users by only focusing on one or two methods, and potentially being trapped into servicing a diminishing market share.

So perhaps there is a need for caution. But it's also an opportunity to potentially reach new users and to develop new ways of getting the message across. Being too cautious is risky too.

P.S. If you have any thoughts on this subject, I really would be interested to hear them.

Getting things in perspective.

2009-09-28T13:56:00.001+01:00

There is a danger that this post might turn into just another rant about church. I'll try to avoid that, but I have had something of a challenging weekend.

Friday night and Saturday I was away at a meeting of the national council of an organisation I'm part of. As with any charity, we have to be careful with the money God had given us and make sure we are using it as effectively as possible, especially in these troubled financial times.
So we'd been discussing reshaping the movement to give more control of what happens locally to regional teams and to reduce the control and costs of head office. It's important policy for the movement, and will have a significant impact on the lives and jobs of those who work for and with SU. I don't think any of us who were there found it easy to discuss.

So it was something of a shock to come back to my church on Sunday evening and to find that what some people were most concerned about was that their free coffee was warm, rather than hot. Ok, perhaps that's not the ideal coffee temperature, but compared to what I'd been discussing the day before it rather puts things into perspective. Something that puts both into even more perspective is a campaign by the sister of one of my friends for clean water in the developing world.

Sometimes it seems to me that the church- or at least the local church- seems to think that all the poor and needy that they are called to minister to are outside the church, or at least far away. They don't seem to realise that sometimes there can be need within the church too. My church is a big supporter of the Besom project in York- an organisation which helps those in poorer areas of the city in practical ways with gifts of furniture or time to decorate a house or clear a garden. There is work going on too with the street people.

But when it comes to subjects of giving or helping others there often seems to be a failure to recognise that not all those who are in need are outside the church. Perhaps this is just the effect of my being in a church that's broadly middle class. For the majority of people there, what is being said is probably appropriate. But for those who are already struggling, and don't feel they can sensibly give any more than they already do, inducing guilt in them is hardly likely to help their spiritual lives. Plenty of people, even 'middle class' people, are struggling too, through loosing jobs for example. And then there are those who are vulnerable in other ways. For those like me, who have just enough , it doesn't take much to push you over the edge into worry and fear. Then to come to church and be expected to sing about God's wonderful gifts can just make you want to crawl into a corner and cry about where you got things wrong.

But although worship in this situation can be hard (and is not helped by the wording of some songs) it can also help us come to terms with what's going on and reaffirm our commitment to God. One song I've several times found helpful is "Blessed be your name" by Matt Redman. It reminds me that the Christian life is never going to be nice and easy. But it helps me express the fact that I still trust in God, even when it's tough and I feel like a fraud singing songs about how great everything is. It helps me get perspective on the situation, to remember that there are many people who are struggling too. But most of all it reminds me that I haven't been abandoned, even if it feels like I am alone. God is still there with me, and he still loves me. And that is the ultimate perspective.

The pain that becomes a pleasure

2009-09-21T15:20:00.001+01:00

I read somthing today which is a great encouragement to me. It was this comment on 2 Corinthians 6 vs 3-13: "Paul...would have us value, and find the validation of our ministry in, pain and suffering. Purity, patience and kindness stand alongside beatings, riots and sleepless nights." (WordLive 18th Sept 09).

From what I've seen of Christian ministry, pain is often more in evidence than the joy of success. Yes, some Christians, some church leaders, seem to have stories of church growth, of amazing conversions, of unexpected gifts. But many more have stories of where the people they've been trying to help have hurt them, evangelistic events where no one has turned up, of being let down, shortage of money, of seeming to put in vast efforts for very little returns.

That's certainly true for me too, as sometimes it seems as if I have done nothing to serve God, and have just been wasting my time. But God sees our efforts. Without his help, I can do nothing to serve him (what a paradox!) but with his help I can do all he asks of me, even if it doesn't seem to me as if I am achieving anything. He can see the whole picture, we only see a tiny part from here.

I imagine that Paul, despite the great success of his missionary journeys would find much that's familiar in the modern church. But many of us would struggle even to imagine what Paul went through- beatings, death threats, prison- even though for many Christians around the world they are still everyday realities and dangers.

Perhaps this can encourage us that rather than thinking we've got it wrong, because we don't see the phenomenal growth and sometimes find it hard to go on trusting, let alone praising God, we've actually got something right. If it's true that "effective ministry will always be conducted from a position of poverty and weakness" then perhaps we should learn not to be jealous of certain churches that seem to be successful from a worldly point of view. No doubt they, and their leaders, have their own problems. Perhaps we should learn to be glad that, like Paul, our sufferings are helping to build up the kingdom of God by suffering with the world and getting alongside those in need. After all, that's what Jesus did. He warned his followers it wouldn't be easy. No one promised Christians an easy life.

That may seem a depressing place to end, but I hope this post's encouraged you. Next time I'm moaning about this, please remind me!

Categories- do they really matter that much?

2009-09-14T15:42:00.001+01:00

A friend wrote a post recently on the controversy surrounding Caster Semenya, particularly the question of how you decide whether she (and similar cases) can compete in women's sport or men's sport. It's an interesting question. Since, biologically, she and many others don't easily fit into either category, how do you decide how to treat them?

Whilest I don't want to go into the ensuing debate over definitions of gender, it made me wonder about something slightly different. Do we sometimes put too much emphasis on placing people in categories? Do we seek to define 'what' people are rather than who they are? These categories might include not just sex or gender, but age, job, nationality, colour- even faith.

Much of the argument in the Semenya case revolves around sport: men and women, because of physical differences, compete in different categories of sport. This often leads to discrimination, where women's sport gets less media coverage and less funding than men's, even though the atheletes train just as hard. So rather than defining categories by ability we define them purely by gender. Sometimes that may be the same thing. In some sports I'm sure it's not, or that disadvantages in some respects are compensated for by advantages in other respects.

I'll point out here that I know very little about sport and mostly care rather less, so perhaps it's silly for me to base an argument on it. One area that I do know more about is singing. This is another area where men and women are segregated for physical reasons both between and within genders (different sizes of vocal chords determine the pitch of your voice). I have complained long and loud that the best songs and the best characters are written for men, while the women are often merely stereotypes and their songs mostly variants on "I love him, he loves me" or "I love him, but he doesn't love me." But this is an area where the groupings are more fluid, and often arbitrary. Children, especially choirboys, sing in the same range as adult women. Some men have higher voices than some women and can sing alto parts- I know men who would like to think they can sing as high as the sopranos!- while some women can reach tenor parts. Sometimes you'll find a role written for a man being sung by a woman. A lot of the above goes for acting too. I've heard of actresses playing Hamlet in serious productions.

Perhaps what's wrong here isn't that we have somebody who doesn't easily fit into the categories we use to define people, but that we put too much emphasis on those categories in any case. I don't mean to argue that all people are the same and should be treated the same in every respect; I mean that everyone should be treated as an individual, not a category. I am, biologically, genetically (as far as I know!), culturally and psychologically, a woman. And I'm comfortable with that. I don't expect to be able to be treated as if I could do certain things that only men can do, what I do expect is not to be treated as inferior because I can't do them. I don't expect my opinion or attempts to be dismissed because I am 'just a woman.' I am a person, and my needs and abilities should be judged on their own account, not according to the label attached to the category they are in.

P.S. Before you- I'm sure you know who you are- start attacking my 'liberalism' or 'postmodernity' bear in mind that in my accepting what other people think about themselves I don't necessarily mean that I personally agree or think it's right, but that I can accept them in an attitude of love, not patronisingly, but while disagreeing accepting that I can't force them to conform to my beliefs, as I wouldn't expect them to force me to conform to theirs.

The Dream of the Rood

2009-09-10T09:22:00.006+01:00

The historian in me is getting the better of me again. While looking randomly for something else, I came across this , a poem I had long wanted to read. The poem itself is interesting as one of the earliest examples of written poetry in English (sometimes I wish I could read Old English!) but what I found most interesting was what it revealed of Old English theology.

In the poem itself the cross on which Jesus was crucified is heard to speak to someone (addressed as 'beloved warrior') in a dream, and to inspire him to preach the gospel (itself an Old English word for good news). But what does the poet understand by the gospel?

Well, it seems quite familiar really. He talks about how on the cross "Almighty God suffered for mankind’s many sins" and that "He tasted death there. However, the Lord arose again." Although the fact that words are being put into the mouth of the cross ('rood' is Old English for 'rod,' ie the cross) suggests that the poet was trying to encourage the veneration of relics, and there are other hints that this is the case, his idea of what was going on at that pivotal moment in history isn't very different to what you might hear preached today.

What I found different from the way that the crucifixion of Jesus is spoken of today was that so much of the language and imagery used to describe Jesus is of a Saxon warrior. Today we are reviled by the idea of God as a fighter in the style of the Anglo-Saxon hero, and prefer to think of Jesus as gentle, pacifist, submitting to the will of the authorities who tried and crucified him. And of course, Jesus was gentle, obedient to his father, and saddened by the pain around him. He rode into Jerusalem on a donkey's colt to avoid people turning him into a military hero. But as C.S. Lewis puts it "He's not a tame lion." Jesus got angry, turning the money-changers out of the temple courts. He was not afraid to confront wrongdoing or to do things which created opposition. Although we may not be comfortable with the idea of Jesus as a warrior, we describe Jesus' death in terms of a battle, as a victory over sin and death, so although describing Jesus as a warrior isn't something we're used to, it makes sense (see Ephesians 6).

This makes me wonder who the narrator is meant to be. Is he a monk, a preacher? The English church sent many evangelists to Germany- is this what he is describing when he talks about his mind being impelled on his way? Are his battles merely spiritual, or is the narrator really a warrior? Was the poem written as part of the church's attempt to get the warrior aristocracy to be more civilised, and to support the church more? I don't know, and we probably never will. But what the poet is doing here is to make the message of God's salvation and the need to go and preach it understandable for the people of his time, by using character types that were already familiar and that his audience could identify with. That's something we should still be doing today.

Libya and decision making

2009-09-08T12:00:00.005+01:00

Huzzah! Someone is at last making a case which is long overdue, as far as I'm concerned, that perhaps there are better things to base political decisions on than whether it's cost effective. So much has been said recently about how we need to cut spending on this and cut spending on that but no one seems to have thought very much about what that actually means to people who will be loosing jobs or seeing services disappear.

I know that we can't just spend money indefinately, that a government running up debts is no better than an individual running up debts, but sometimes it's too easy to get caught up in what is good financial policy and what is good for people. Sometimes we have to do things which aren't financially sensible if we're to help the worst off.

At least, that's my point of view. Perhaps it has to be different when you're thinking about the finances of a nation rather than just your own personal ones. The real question is one of what we base our decisions on. Do we want our politicians to be making decisions for purely financial reasons, or do we want them to take other factors into account?

The current debate over Libya illustrates this. It is alleged that the convicted Lockerbie bomber was released to allow for better business relations with the Libyan government. Yet the relatives of the victims are now saying that their distress should have been considered. But the Scottish government says it made the decision on compassionate grounds, because of his state of health. Despite the suffering many of the relatives feel, I am not sorry that the Scottish minister made the decision he did. But it shows that something other than business or money is seen to be important here. When it comes to the story of how relatives of the victims of IRA bombings are trying to claim compensation from the country where the explosives originated, however, it's easy to suspect that motives are becoming mixed.

I don't know what the answer is, or what is the right thing to do. Our motives are almost always mixed up, our wish to do the right thing can at the same time have a selfish edge. But I think we need to remind ourselves, and our political leaders, that money isn't the most important thing in the world.

That's all very well, but what does it mean?

2009-09-04T14:25:00.004+01:00

Different types of people need things explained to them in different ways. In common with many people, I'm one of those who like things to be made clear in practical language, not just talked about in vague or spiritual terms. And that's why many sermons and devotional guides annoy me, or just fail to help me. Because much of the time they don't go into practical information.

I suspect it's because many of the people writing them don't think in the same way as me. A workshop I did a year or two ago on Myers-Briggs personality typing, and a book I've read looking at spirituality in the light of this, helped me realise that many of the Christians I know, and almost all of those I find frustrating to work with, are of widely different personality types to me. They process information in a very different way, and use different language in their spiritual lives- generalised or metaphorical language I sometimes find hard to understand or apply.

It's not a vagueness we can accuse the Bible of. As well as nice spiritual flowery language, it goes into detail in ways which at times can be uncomfortable. But although many books or teachers claim to apply to our lives the Bible as well as interpreting it, what some of them consider 'application' I consider vague, unhelpful or incomplete.

Take, as an example, John 15 verse 1-17. Jesus is talking about how the disciples are to relate to one another and to him. Many preachers would use 'remain in my love' as an application, without explaining what this actually means. Perhaps for some people (especially those who have grown up in the church) that is enough, they know what it means and how that should affect their lives. But although by now I have a fair idea of what that means, I don't think that is sufficient explanation, especially for someone who is a new Christian. What does it mean to remain in Christ's love? As a phrase it doesn't make a lot of sense. Christ's love isn't a place, so we can't remain inside it, which would be the literal interpretation of the phrase. If your mind works in a literal way it doesn't make much sense. It's much easier to understand if we can talk about it in terms of following Jesus' example of loving God and other people, which I think is what he's talking about.

The problem is we can't talk about spiritual realities without using spiritual language and metaphor. Jesus used this kind of language to help us understand what he meant, because there aren't words to describe exactly what he was talking about. What we have to do, though, is to try to translate them, where we can, into practical terms. Telling someone to live their life as a branch of the True Vine doesn't mean very much by itself, and we can't assume that everyone in our churches knows the context. We need to realise this and adapt the language we use in sermons and devotional material to be understood by all the people who are going to hear them, not just some of them.

What I did on my holidays.

2009-09-03T10:55:00.007+01:00

I had a very nice bank holiday weekend. And in the spirit of what my friend is talking about hereI'm going to tell you about it.

A friend from university was getting married on the Saturday. Naturally, as he and his fiance live in Cambridge, they were marrying in St Andrews, Scotland.
So (unlike some friends of mine who decided to drive up and back in a day!) I saw this as an opportunity for a weekend away.

So early Saturday morning I was up and on the train to Scotland. St Andrews doesn't have its' own railway station, oddly, so I had to get the bus from the nearest one in Leuchars, which wasn't difficult as it was one of those stations that seem to be in the middle of nowhere, with a bus stop right next to it.

It didn't take long to get to St Andrews itself. My main impression of the city was that it was a bit like Cambridge or even York would be if it were on the coast, and if you replaced York racecourse with a golf course. Much as I love York, I think it could be improved by some sea, and a beach or two! Turn a corner in St Andrews, and there's a bit of university or an old church in front of you. The wedding was held in St Salvator's college chapel, and the reception in a building behind it which we were told was where the bride had taken her undergraduate exams (although the bar which pulled out of the wall probably wasn't open then!) Again, beautiful, apart from one or two of the portraits (I assume of former university bigwigs) on the walls.

Much of the following day I spent wandering around the place. I visited the castle, perched on a cliff looking out to sea. I was ashamed of how much I'd forgotten of the history of the Scottish Reformation, which I covered in my degree. The Archbishop of St Andrews was the head of the Scottish church, and the city and university were at the centre of the Protestant storm. After the Archbishop, Cardinal David Beaton had reformer George Wishart burnt at the stake there in 1546 his supporters snuck into the castle and murdered the archbishop, hanging him out of a window. The protestant reformers were then besieged in the castle by royal forces. You can still see the remains of the tunnel the besiegers dug through solid rock to try to mine the walls, and how they were stopped when the besieged dug another tunnel which connected with it.

Eventually, though, the Protestants were defeated, and those inside- including leading reformer John Knox- were imprisoned or sent to be galley slaves in France. Yet in the end it was the Protestants who would triumph over Scotland, and the nearby ruins of the once great Cathedral show just how much attitudes changed. The cathedral had been built to hold the relics of St Andrew, supposedly brought there by a fourth century Greek monk to escape Emperor Constantine. Once such a shrine lost its importance in the Reformation the Cathedral was abandoned, and the sad ruins are all that remain of what must once have been a huge, proud building.

After a wander along the beach and clambering over rocks (although I didn't really have the right shoes for this!) and a walk round the town it was time to get the train back to York. The view from the East Coast main line is absolutally beautiful between Newcastle and Edinburgh, especially around Berwick. But the line along the north side of the Firth of Forth was lovely too. The only damper on things (as it were) was leaving a sunny if windy St Andrews and arriving back into York to find it raining. But since that was the only rain that weekend, I can't complain too much!

So, having indulged my historical tendencies- coming home to find the battle of Marston Moor being fought on the racecourse next to my house was an added bonus!- seen old friends, laughed up my sleeve at American tourists' lack of knowledge of history, remembered how much I love Scotland and established that the north sea is as warm there as it is anywhere else, I got home, having had a relaxing (mostly) and enjoyable break- and wondering why the taxi driver who took me back to Leuchars had said that tourist numbers had been down this year. If you get a chance, go and visit!

Welfare to work to washed up.

2009-08-27T14:40:00.003+01:00

Many thanks to the friend who recently drew my attention to this article in the Guardian. It's an excellent description of the problems facing those on JSA and similar benefits who are trying to move into work, but finding that the only jobs available are unstable or temporary, pay less per week than they would get on benefits.
I know that when I've been unemployed I've been put off temping (and therefore acquiring greater skills and experience which would help me have a better chance of getting a full time job) by the knowledge that the system can't cope with someone who may be employed for two weeks, and then be left jobless again, and have to reapply for benefits all over again with delays of weeks before the money comes through- by which time they might have had another couple of weeks work come through.

I imagine that anyone who's been on JSA, housing benefit etc would tell you that, although the welfare system is a great deal better than nothing, it is seriously in need of reform. I've written before on this blog about the inconsistencies that state you somehow need less help if you're 24 than if you're 26, or if you're living with others rather than alone or with your family. It's nice to know that someone is trying to draw the attention of the media to the need for reform- since politicians are nowadays too scared of the media to attempt to do anything it opposes, it suggests the possibility of something happening, although sadly in the current economic state that's unlikely, as it would probably involve spending money, the very thing that other parts of the media are determined to criticise the government for doing.

At present, with the recent increases in unemployed people, the system is I suspect too busy trying to cope to be able to spare any time or money to plan reform. Since in the opinions of some people, spending money is a Bad Thing the mechanics of the welfare system are probably trying to cope with as few people and as little money as possible. There seems to be a reluctance to admit that if you want a system to run smoothly you need to have enough workers to cope easily with a regular flow, and to pick up the strain when there's a sudden rush.

The problem of delays and complications is not helped by the fact that there are just so many different benefits. Jobseekers allowance, housing benefit, council tax benefit, working tax credits, disability living allowance, carers allowance to name just the ones I can think of. Most have to be applied for separately, and are handled separately with no reference to each other, although since some can be claimed at the same time as others you would think it might save some time and errors if the details could be compared across the board, rather than two or three different forms having to be filled in and processed separately despite containing more or less the same information.

You can't help but think that a simpler system would be easier for both those needing to claim benefits and those who have to administer them. I work at a solicitor's where we often deal with cases of benefit fraud. Sometimes it appears that someone, who's being prosecuted for claiming for benefit A, which they are not entitled to, is in fact entitled to benefit B, which would have given them the same amount that they are being prosecuted for claiming under benefit A. Given how complicated I found the system and forms as a graduate, I shouldn't be surprised if some people find themselves committing benefit fraud by accident! I don't deny that many people are deliberately claiming money they aren't entitled too, but surely a simpler system would make it easier to spot those who are doing that.

Of course no system's going to be perfect, and while ours is a long way from being perfect I am very, very glad it exists at all. But reform is going to be necessary to help people who are currently faced with taking a big risk in leaving the safety of benefits for the uncertainty of the job market. The current system just isn't designed for the modern job culture. Reform is urgently needed to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are cared for, and that hopes and aspirations of young people are not destroyed by risk and disappointment.

Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall.

2009-08-24T12:00:00.004+01:00

Why are Christians (or some Christians) so bad at communicating their message? I mean, it's not as if it can't be communicated simply. Take John 3.16 for example: "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life." That's at once simple and incredibly deep, but even small children can understand it (on one level).

So why do some Christians make such a mess of trying to communicate the message? Ok, I admit that it's not always easy to explain what we believe, and I'll admit to having made a mess of it myself on occasion. But some attempts, rather than just failing to get the message across, can do actual harm to people's understanding of Christianity.

Channel 4's "You have been watching" last week looked at religious broadcasting as part of the programme. British broadcasting got off pretty lightly- a quick giggle at Songs of Praise in a semi-affectionate way, then moved on to what's on US TV. Oh dear.

I'm sure not all Christian TV programmes are as bad as the ones featured. But really, you have to wonder who they think is watching them.

A couple of weeks ago they showed a puppet show, with some hideous puppets that would be guaranteed to frighten off any children that could have withstood the shows' moral tone without feeling slightly sick. This week it was the turn of "Bibleman." A bloke, encased in plastic armour and a superhero suit that would look more at home at a kids party rather than on TV, running around helping kids with spiritual or moral problems and destroying comic-book bad guys by quoting the Bible at them.

Now, the idea itself isn't necessarily a particularly bad one. Children's workers and publications use similar things all the time. But it was so badly done all I could do was cringe. Even more than I usually do at kids work. Apart from that, giving kids the idea that all they have to do is memorise bits of the Bible and spout them at bad things and it'll all be ok is rather deceptively simple. You have to learn how to apply that particular bit of scripture and what it is actually telling you to do. You can't just quote it and sit back. The devil is quite capable of using the Bible for his own purposes (see Matthew 4 v6).

Then the programme looked at a kind of chat show presented by two cheerful guys of the type who do their best to perpetuate myths such as that religion the enemy of reason, and that it is impossible to be a Christian and believe in evolution.

For example, did you know that the ergonomic design of the banana proves the existence of God beyond doubt? No, I didn't either. Apparently the fact it fits in your hand so well proves that God designed it to be of use to humans. I was actually pleased when someone pointed out that it fits just as well in an ape's hand. You know, the apes the same people say we didn't evolve from.

They also claim (on their website) to be able to prove intelligent design over evolution in 3 minutes, and to show you a "biblical" way to convert your friends by bypassing their sense of reason. I must say, I haven't watched the videos that teach you this. It would just get me too frustrated, angry and sad.

I hate it when my brothers and sisters in faith are mocked for their beliefs. It makes me very, very sad to see what they consider essential to their faith. But really, you can't help but cringe and laugh at some of the things they say. It makes me want to bang my head against a brick wall when I see that somehow, the church has managed to be its own worst enemy when it comes to communicating the gospel message. Satan must be very happy.

Holiday season

2009-08-21T14:38:00.004+01:00

A friend of mine has just written a post about the idea of 'staycations,' ie holidays in your home country. Since pretty much every holiday I've ever had (unless you count a couple of school trips) is a 'staycation' by this definition I have to admit to being slightly puzzled by all the fuss. Is the difference between holidays abroad and holidays in the UK really so big? Why isn't the UK a good enough tourist destination for some people- why doesn't it count as a 'proper' holiday, which is an implication of the term 'staycation'?

I went on holiday with some friends last week. It was only 3 nights and I wish it had been a bit longer, but I enjoyed it. It didn't rain at all during the day (unlike last year!) which is an important factor when you're camping. We went by trains, which (most surprisingly!) all ran on time. We carried all our tents and camping gear with us, which isn't the easiest thing to do by train and by foot, although I admit we cheated and got a taxi from the station to the campsite and back because we couldn't face carrying it, and were a bit concerned about time.

We were camping in the Peak District- Buxton, to be precise. We were there, not just because it is a lovely area (although I can remember some good holidays in the Peaks as a child) but mostly because it's where the International Gilbert and Sullivan Festival is held every year. This is the third year we've been. The first time, like this, was perfect camping weather during the day- not too hot, but pleasantly warm, with very little rain although it rather cold at night this year. Last year sadly was something of a washout, and a leaking tent didn't help! But we were close enough to civilisation and a warm, dry theatre to sit in in the evenings (not to mention local pubs!) so we survived!

So this year we were happy to divide our days between wandering the countryside looking for an elusive waterfall, patronising the local shops, (particularly the second hand bookshop!) and 'fringe' events at the festival. In the evenings there were G&S performances, we saw excellent productions of The Grand Duke, The Gondoliers and Princess Ida. Not to mention disturbing the local wildlife (and probably the local population) with our singing. And drinking tea.

The point I'm trying to make is that we had a good time. Obviously this kind of trip wouldn't be to everyone's tastes! But would I rather do that or have what many people consider a 'proper' holiday lounging on a Spanish beach? Well, I think that might get a bit boring after a day or two. Of course, I wouldn't mind a bit of sunshine, and a swim in the sea. But do you know, I think I'd choose Buxton with my friends. And the G&S.

The Church and the world

2009-08-06T12:00:00.002+01:00

As I try to work out how my faith relates to the world, one question constantly reoccurs to me. That is how far faith is a personal matter, and how far it is a public one. I don't mean whether I should keep it to myself or go around shouting it from the rooftops- the answer to that is simple. I can't keep it to myself, and I don't want to, and I don't think I should. Although I don't think shouting from the rooftops is going to do much good- especially if it's me doing it- my faith affects other people from the way I talk, and live, and act, so I cannot keep it purely to myself.

What I often ask is how far I (and/ or the church) am justified in imposing my view of right and wrong on the whole of society, whose views of what is or isn't wrong may be significantly different. Just because I believe that x is wrong, does that give me the right to try to force people who do not share my beliefs not to do it? In a democracy, the majority decide (at least in theory) what is or is not illegal. Why, if the church is a minority in society, as it sadly is, should we expect the rest of society to do what we say?

That's not to say that the church should conform to society's norms and standards of what is acceptable. Far from it. The church, in its early days, was not connected to the state in any way. They did not expect governments to do as they requested. Quite the opposite- they were the ones who were often outside the law, and prepared to defy society's behavioural norms to obey God. For example, Paul in his letters has plenty to say warning the Christians in Corinth not to get dragged into the demeaning sexual practices which were associated with pagan idols.

Reformer and theologian Martin Luther recognised that even in a 'Christian country' not everyone could be ruled in the same way, and developed his 'Doctrine of the two kingdoms' to explain what the relationship between church and state should be, in his opinion. Without going into too much detail (much of which I can't remember offhand) he recognised that some people would obey God's laws through choice, while others, who do not, cannot be coerced into doing so against their free choice. While I would probably disagree with Luther in some points, I think there's a lot of truth in that. Of course, if everyone agreed to follow God's laws (always supposing they could agree on what that meant!) the world would be a better place. But being realistic, that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Another point, and one which the church- often with some justice- is accused of, is of presenting what is merely culture or tradition as an article of faith. For example, the debate around women's leadership in the church has a lot to do with this, and debates over how the biblical passages referring to it are to be interpreted in the light of the culture they were originally written in and to are sadly not likely to go away any time soon.

That's not to say I don't think that leaders of the faith community, such as the archbishops of Canterbury and York shouldn't speak out, (see here) or that the church shouldn't express it's views of what's going on in the country. That's part of our duty to be salt and light to and in the world. We can state what is right and wrong. But can we expect those who don't believe to follow the same standards of behaviour as we do if they don't believe they are right? I'm not sure we can.