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.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
The British Empire: a Utopia limited?
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:
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-
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!
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.
Friday, 20 November 2009
Some climatical thoughts
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)