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.
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, 29 January 2012
Wednesday, 25 January 2012
Shock, horror!
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.
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.
Monday, 2 August 2010
A Modest Proposal
You know, I've had an idea. I think it could solve a lot of the country's problems, from crime to welfare to NHS spending. It's building on the fine traditions of this country, and should really go a long way towards 'fixing' the broken society we live in (or should that be big society? Or big broken society, or broken big society? Something like that, anyway.).
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
I suggest that every young person between the ages of eighteen and twenty five is locked up. Possibly even sixteen to thirty. This is the age group that is responsible for so many of the country's problems- most crime: violence, drunkenness and disorderliness, damage to property, drug misuse, muggings, theft, is committed by this age group. It's also the age group who are now finding it almost impossible to get jobs, as they don't have the experience to compete with adults with five or ten years work experience in the the current market, when many jobs have dozens of applicants. If every person in this age group were to be imprisoned, not only would crime figures fall dramatically (and along with them the cost of funding the criminal justice system) but also cut spending on the dole (Jobseekers' Allowance) and on other welfare benefits, such as housing. It would reduce the pressure on the job market, and help the country out of depression by providing full employment for everyone else.
Speaking of housing, with the young out of the housing market, the country's housing shortage would be solved. And by keeping young men and women separate except under close supervision pregnancies outside a stable family environment could be entirely eliminated, which would help again with welfare payments and also with overpopulation. And without students, student debt would also be abolished, and universities could be used for their proper purpose- researched focused on industry profits, and as conference venues. A whole generation could be freed from growing up with the burden of debt, teaching them a valuable lesson about managing finances.
Some will argue that the whole scheme would be probibitively expensive, but I believe it could even be profit making. The young can be made to contribute to the society which has cared for them by doing good old-fashioned work, growing food which could then be sold, for example. They could serve (without pay, obviously) in a variety of armed forces roles, and work in the community to aid local projects. Housing and feed costs need be minimal, as only basic buildings will be needed for such young, robust people. Frugal living and exercise will help improve their overall health- saving future NHS spending.
Some may say this is a bit too radical for the country to take at the moment. Very well, start by just locking up the men, and see the vast difference it makes to the country. Keep the women out of it for the moment. Perhaps exceptions could be made for the children of the well-off, or the highly intelligent. And one last benefit to the country- it would allow for strict training of decent sports teams, away from all distractions or scandals. The young could help build the Olympic venues, keeping down labour costs so the games might actually be under budget. One day, we might even win the football World Cup!
Ok, I hope you noticed that was something of a joke. I'm not sure I can go so far as to claim it's satire. The title of this post comes from Jonathan Swift's 1729 essay advocating solving Irish famine problems by eating babies, which should give you a clue. I'm not actually advocating this- far from it- and I have no proof for any of the 'facts' stated above. They're entirely based on prejudice. But really, from the things some politicians and media outlets say, you can't help but think that young people can't do anything right, that they are to blame for all of society's problems, and society would be better off without them. It wouldn't take many alterations (replace imprisonment with 'National Service' or 'national volunteer squad/ training scheme') before someone will say that the arguments above have something in them. In fact, the first hints have already been dropped by Cameron et al for a national volunteer scheme, which while having certain benefits in giving young people skills and experiences, is still probably at heart a way of keeping them off the dole and out of the unemployment statistics. Instead of treating them as lazy ingnorants or mere statistics, why can't we value the young, and perhaps trust them a bit more?
And no, I don't have a cure-all idea for solving that or any of the country's problems. I don't think there is one. Sorry to disappoint you.
Friday, 6 November 2009
Chalcedon, China and the church.
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.
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.
Tuesday, 8 September 2009
Libya and decision making
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.
Thursday, 30 July 2009
Would women have caused the credit crunch?
I found this article by the BBC's Robert Peston interesting in the way it touches on some of the differences between men and women. Noting that nearly all those who are, at least in the eyes of the media, to blame for the credit crunch were men, he asks whether it's just the absence of women from top jobs that has enabled them to escape blame, or whether there is a way in which perhaps women are more cautious
The difference he picks up is one of motivation: "I know very few women who measure their success in life by the size of their respective bank balances, whereas I know an astonishing number of men for whom the only thing that matters is "the score"." Although I don't think you can attribute this purely to the difference in sex, I think there is a real difference, at least in the way men and women are portrayed in media and literature, and perhaps less noticeably in real life. Men are still viewed- by themselves as much as anyone, although perhaps subconsciously- as providers, going out and winning the bread. Women are often the ones who work part time, or flexibly, adding to the household income but also combining this, often, with housework, childcare, or just the general organisation of the household.
I'm not sure that I agree that all of this is down to sex, whether genetic or cultural expectations. It's too close to the stereotypical notions of 'men's work' and 'women's work.' But I do think there is some truth in it. Cultural or not, it's generally the mother, not the father, who takes time off work to look after the kids when they are young or ill, it's generally the mother who society blames if things go wrong, before they blame the father.
Because women's motivations are different, and because, it is alleged, they think more about the consequences of decisions on people and are reluctant to take risks if people are going to get hurt, it's suggested that more influential women could change the culture at the top of banking. As Peston puts it, "men are more prone than women to simply run like a train at the goal, and never mind who's flattened along the way." Rather than some of the male traders who had detatched the 'products' they were trading from any connection with reality, and seemed to have forgotten that somewhere this would impact on people, it's suggested that women, looking at this in a different light,would have brought these traders down to earth. Whether or not that could have happened, or could happen in the future, I don't know.
I also found the point raised by some people commenting on the post interesting, when they pointed out that women were equally or even more to blame than men for the soaring levels of personal and credit card debt. Perhaps this fits in with the stereotypical idea of women as addicted to shopping and shoes. But in my experience men may buy different things (computers, TV's, gadgets, football season tickets) but I don't think their spending is that much less than womens'. It's interesting too that much debt is linked with homelife- furniture, for example- which is traditionally seen as a women's area.
I'd suggest that the difference between men and women as discussed here and in Peston's article, is about priorities. The priority of the men who 'caused' the credit crunch was to make money for themselves. Women, it is supposed, are less focused on this and more on ensuring that the people around them are happy. While I hate stereotypes like this- and I'm sure there are plenty of men out there who care more for their family and friends' well-being than for wealth, just as there are women who care more about wealth than well-being- I have to admit that there is some truth to it.
And I don't think it's a bad thing. Maybe it's just because I'm a woman, maybe it's got something to do with my faith, but I think public and business life would be none the worse if those in high positions put the good of their employees/ customers/ family before their own bonuses and wage increases rather more than seems to be the case at present. And if that means getting more women into high positions, I'm certainly not going to complain.
Monday, 20 July 2009
How not to be cynical
It's struck me several times over the last few days what a cynical world we live in at the moment. The media delight in finding scandal and bringing down any institution that once commanded respect: the church, parliament, the police, banks. Now the media tell us that we can't even trust the media! This article by the most cynical of cynics, Charlie Brooker, just about sums it up (yes I know- or at least hope- that he's exaggerating for comic effect, but it still paints a pretty bleak picture of the world.)
What really gets me when I read this kind of thing is the comments people make in the discussion below. I hope they're exaggerating too. But they convey the idea of a world in which we can't trust anything or anyone, where everything is bad and we can't expect better, where there is no hope that we or anyone or anything else can make a difference. It's a very fatalistic viewpoint, and very depressing too. It diminishes the role of the individual in the world and effectively absolves individuals of responsibility of their actions- what else could they do, in such a messed up world?
Well if that's the best people think of the world, if there's no hope of anything better, I don't know why they don't just stop panicking about swine flu or [insert current disease scare here] and wait for it to reach them, or fill their pockets with cash and go for a walk through a drug-infested, gang-ridden inner city and wait for someone to stab or shoot them.
The world is a mess. We know that. But that doesn't mean that we should give up on it. Besides the stories of war and deceit, abuse and pain there are stories of hope and joy. The young man who was recently found alive after two weeks in the Australian wilds, after most people had given up hope, for example. We can't ignore all the terrible things that go on- and we shouldn't- but neither can we say "oh well, the world's a mess, but there's nothing I can do about it except make sure I live as comfortable a life as possible." People can make a difference.
Last Wednesday my cell group were looking at the passage in Philippians 4 where Christians are told to "rejoice in the Lord always." Someone pointed out that some Christians take this to ridiculous extremes, thinking that they should cry "Hallelujah!" when they bang their head! But without falling into this trap, we thought about how we can 'rejoice' when the world is in such a mess.
The point is, I suppose, that there is still someone we can trust in this downfallen world, and that's God. Human institutions, even the church can mess up, but God doesn't. We can rejoice in that. When Paul wrote that we should rejoice, he was under house arrest, chained to a Roman soldier, awaiting probable execution. Elsewhere he writes about all he has suffered: beatings, constant travel, hunger, thirst, midnight escapes. And yet he has learnt to be 'content in any and every situation." He knew what he was talking about. And he hasn't lost his faith in people either- his letters are full of commendations and expressions of love and thanks to his friends.
Perhaps we can take a hint from that. We can't ignore the fact that many things in the world are not as they should be. But it doesn't mean we should give up hope, or turn into cynical, fatalistic people who don't think we can make things any better so don't try. We can't restore the world to how it was supposed to be. Only God can do that. But he calls us to help in his plan for restoring the world, and humanity, and to rejoice in how great that plan is.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
Equality of the sexes? Not yet.
I've seen a few news articles and suchlike recently that have reminded me that even today women aren't treated equally. Recently I read a historical article on women's' movements that campaigned against giving women the vote. I didn't even realise that such movements existed, but they did and were quite vocal, arguing that women had no role in government- and this was being said by women. The idea that men alone were responsible for women's inferior position in society isn't quite true- one half of the population could never have been kept down for so long if at least some of them hadn't acquiesced, for whatever reason.
I know people who treat 'feminism' as if it was a dirty word, implying people who want more than is reasonably their due. The stereotypical men-hating feminist is often a figure of derision and mockery. People think that because women are (pretty much) equal to men by law now, everything's alright. But it isn't. As someone (I can't remember who) once said, so much of what men have by right women only have by law. It's not laws that need to be changed but people's attitudes.
For example, women are still earning less than men. This article says some interesting things about the different expectations and ambitions that women have at work. Some of the stories given in the comments show how far we still are from real equality. But equality doesn't mean the same as uniformity. I was interested by the idea that women look for other things in a job than purely the money, and I think there's some truth in it. Job satisfaction, having a good employer and being able to be flexible enough to fit in other activities and responsibilities are all things that I've looked at when applying for jobs. If a job has all those things but maybe pays less than a less pleasant job, is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps women (and men) who think like this are wiser than those who focus only on earning more and more.
Don't think for a moment that I'm trying to excuse inequality. I'm just suggesting that there's more to life than making money, and that perhaps earning less doesn't always make women unhappier. But that's a different point from women who are paid less than equivalent male colleagues- that is wrong.
One of the most common reasons given for women earning less, and for why there are fewer women at the top of their various fields is the biological factor. Women have babies, men don't. It's much more common for a mother to give up work, at least for a few years, to care for children than for a father to do so. I guess I have an unusual perspective on this, because my father took early retirement and stayed at home to look after me while my mother went back to work. So I wonder quite why it is usually the mother who gives up work. Is it because childcare is still viewed as women's work (And far more women than men are involved in professional childcare and teaching)? Or does it maybe have something to do with women often being in lower paid jobs to start with?
The problem, so we are told, is that women who take career breaks have less experience and so can't compete for top jobs against male colleagues. There is some logic in this but to be honest I don't think that excuses it completely. Is experience all that important? If all employers only took on people with masses of experience, how could anyone get a job for the first time? (Wait, that sounds familiar...) And it doesn't take into account what the woman may have been doing outside work. Skills gained outside the workplace might mean she is able to look at things in a way others can't, or see ways to deal with situations that others can't.
That's quite enough ranting for one post! I'd be the first to admit women's position has improved a lot over the last 150 years or so. My point is that there's still a way to go before women are equal (and that's just in the secular world. Don't get me started on women and the church...). But the issue can't just be addressed by changing laws. People's opinions and culture need to change- to get away from a situation where so often women in certain types of literature or film, especially adventure stories, are merely there as companions and accomplices to the men, rather than being protagonists in their own right. And to get to a place where a man doesn't come up to a female sales person in an outdoor equipment shop and think it's perfectly acceptable to request assistance from a male colleague because she's a woman, and wouldn't know about the type of equipment she wants- even when both man and woman had the same training!
P.S. Just seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8033480.stm kind of makes my point.
I know people who treat 'feminism' as if it was a dirty word, implying people who want more than is reasonably their due. The stereotypical men-hating feminist is often a figure of derision and mockery. People think that because women are (pretty much) equal to men by law now, everything's alright. But it isn't. As someone (I can't remember who) once said, so much of what men have by right women only have by law. It's not laws that need to be changed but people's attitudes.
For example, women are still earning less than men. This article says some interesting things about the different expectations and ambitions that women have at work. Some of the stories given in the comments show how far we still are from real equality. But equality doesn't mean the same as uniformity. I was interested by the idea that women look for other things in a job than purely the money, and I think there's some truth in it. Job satisfaction, having a good employer and being able to be flexible enough to fit in other activities and responsibilities are all things that I've looked at when applying for jobs. If a job has all those things but maybe pays less than a less pleasant job, is that necessarily a bad thing? Perhaps women (and men) who think like this are wiser than those who focus only on earning more and more.
Don't think for a moment that I'm trying to excuse inequality. I'm just suggesting that there's more to life than making money, and that perhaps earning less doesn't always make women unhappier. But that's a different point from women who are paid less than equivalent male colleagues- that is wrong.
One of the most common reasons given for women earning less, and for why there are fewer women at the top of their various fields is the biological factor. Women have babies, men don't. It's much more common for a mother to give up work, at least for a few years, to care for children than for a father to do so. I guess I have an unusual perspective on this, because my father took early retirement and stayed at home to look after me while my mother went back to work. So I wonder quite why it is usually the mother who gives up work. Is it because childcare is still viewed as women's work (And far more women than men are involved in professional childcare and teaching)? Or does it maybe have something to do with women often being in lower paid jobs to start with?
The problem, so we are told, is that women who take career breaks have less experience and so can't compete for top jobs against male colleagues. There is some logic in this but to be honest I don't think that excuses it completely. Is experience all that important? If all employers only took on people with masses of experience, how could anyone get a job for the first time? (Wait, that sounds familiar...) And it doesn't take into account what the woman may have been doing outside work. Skills gained outside the workplace might mean she is able to look at things in a way others can't, or see ways to deal with situations that others can't.
That's quite enough ranting for one post! I'd be the first to admit women's position has improved a lot over the last 150 years or so. My point is that there's still a way to go before women are equal (and that's just in the secular world. Don't get me started on women and the church...). But the issue can't just be addressed by changing laws. People's opinions and culture need to change- to get away from a situation where so often women in certain types of literature or film, especially adventure stories, are merely there as companions and accomplices to the men, rather than being protagonists in their own right. And to get to a place where a man doesn't come up to a female sales person in an outdoor equipment shop and think it's perfectly acceptable to request assistance from a male colleague because she's a woman, and wouldn't know about the type of equipment she wants- even when both man and woman had the same training!
P.S. Just seen this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8033480.stm kind of makes my point.
Monday, 11 May 2009
Christianity and the media
You may know that the way Christians- in fact, people with any strong faith- are often portrayed in the media can really annoy me. At worst, they're dangerous "fundamentalists;" and often different groups may not be distinguished, so that some of the weirder extremist's like those who refuse medical treatment and declare the world will end tomorrow because of gay people or abortions are lumped together with mainstream evangelicals like me. At best, they're usually Vicar of Dibley-esque well-meaning, harmless, but bumbling idiots. The first group are deplored, and declared to be a danger to society, while the second are mocked and declared irrelevant to modern life.
I worry that these stereotypes have an impact on the way people view Christians they see around them. That person preaching in the street- is he a dangerous radical, or a well meaning laughing-stock? In either case, they're unlikely to want to listen to what he has to say, or consider seriously what it might mean for them. And it can poison attitudes towards even good practice by churches- is the local church really offering to clear gardens just because they're trying to make a good impact on the community, or is there an darker motive?
It doesn't help when churches aren't completely honest about what they're doing- most people can tell that if they're being asked a questionnaire about their beliefs, it's not because the church is actually interested (mostly) but because the church wants them to join (that's how many people see it). If you're not careful, an opportunity to invite people to explore what faith is, like the Alpha course, can be seen by cynical members of the public- ie, most- to be just a recruitment and brainwashing drive. Yes, we hope people who've been on the course will want to join the church, but if they don't, or if they don't want to join in with any of the activities on the course we shouldn't force them.
Perhaps some of the fault is the church's. We've allowed this negative portrayal to go unchallenged in many cases, and failed to tell the positive stories well. For every one positive story of something a church is doing that is told, there must be ten of children abused by priests or similar negative stories that are reported. Some of that is just the news's bias towards reporting the sensationalist and the negative, but perhaps it's not entirely their fault. Yes, these things happen, as they do in all sections of the community. But there are many positive things too, and perhaps we need to get better at telling them- and less afraid of saying that they are good.
But if there's one thing I want my friends who come across the negative perceptions of Christianity to know, it's that we're not all like that. It's that the gospel, much as it's presented otherwise, is a message of unconditional love for everyone, of hope for the downtrodden freedom for those imprisoned by themselves or what they've done. It's not some cold intellectual argument or over-enthusiastic emotional response. I'm no perfect advert for Christianity, I would be the first to admit, but that's the point. No one is. The church is made up of real people, broken people, hurting people. The difference is that we know that God's love is bigger than our problems, and trust that he can deal with them.
I worry that these stereotypes have an impact on the way people view Christians they see around them. That person preaching in the street- is he a dangerous radical, or a well meaning laughing-stock? In either case, they're unlikely to want to listen to what he has to say, or consider seriously what it might mean for them. And it can poison attitudes towards even good practice by churches- is the local church really offering to clear gardens just because they're trying to make a good impact on the community, or is there an darker motive?
It doesn't help when churches aren't completely honest about what they're doing- most people can tell that if they're being asked a questionnaire about their beliefs, it's not because the church is actually interested (mostly) but because the church wants them to join (that's how many people see it). If you're not careful, an opportunity to invite people to explore what faith is, like the Alpha course, can be seen by cynical members of the public- ie, most- to be just a recruitment and brainwashing drive. Yes, we hope people who've been on the course will want to join the church, but if they don't, or if they don't want to join in with any of the activities on the course we shouldn't force them.
Perhaps some of the fault is the church's. We've allowed this negative portrayal to go unchallenged in many cases, and failed to tell the positive stories well. For every one positive story of something a church is doing that is told, there must be ten of children abused by priests or similar negative stories that are reported. Some of that is just the news's bias towards reporting the sensationalist and the negative, but perhaps it's not entirely their fault. Yes, these things happen, as they do in all sections of the community. But there are many positive things too, and perhaps we need to get better at telling them- and less afraid of saying that they are good.
But if there's one thing I want my friends who come across the negative perceptions of Christianity to know, it's that we're not all like that. It's that the gospel, much as it's presented otherwise, is a message of unconditional love for everyone, of hope for the downtrodden freedom for those imprisoned by themselves or what they've done. It's not some cold intellectual argument or over-enthusiastic emotional response. I'm no perfect advert for Christianity, I would be the first to admit, but that's the point. No one is. The church is made up of real people, broken people, hurting people. The difference is that we know that God's love is bigger than our problems, and trust that he can deal with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)