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.
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rant. Show all posts
Friday, 26 August 2011
Monday, 18 July 2011
What the Dickens!
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.
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.
Tuesday, 5 October 2010
Can I take a moment of your time?
I really haven't posted enough lately. I have been busy with many things, none of them fitting the both categories of a) interesting and b) suitable to blog about quickly. So instead here's a quick reflection on something else.
It may just be my imagination, or a local or seasonal trend, but I think there have been more charity 'salespeople' about recently. By salespeople I mean those people with clipboards who try to grab you in the street and talk at you until you give them money, or who go door-to-door doing the same thing. The RSPCA have been particularly active in the area where I live lately. Perhaps it's due to a downturn in donations due to the recession, or capitalising on public sympathy in the wake of the 'cat in a bin' news story.
While I have every sympathy with charities (often very good causes) trying to encourage donations, I find these kind of activities quite annoying. I don't want to be made to feel guilty for not giving money to sick rabbits when I'm in the middle of cooking tea or going to work. Often the people who try to talk to you in the street adopt the technique (at least with younger people like me) of trying to mildly flirt with you to get your attention. The (young) male canvassers aim for the women, the women for men. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that behaviour from a stranger normally, why should it encourage me to talk about charitable giving? But often it's hard to get them to take 'no' for an answer, and they make you feel rude for ignoring them.
I do give to charity. But I like to choose for myself, not to be pressured into it by strangers on my doorstep or trying to distract me when I'm in a hurry. I'm sure their causes are very worthy ones, but so are many others. Which I give to is my choice, and pressure is going to make me less likely to give, not more. There's a difficult balance to be achieved, from the charity's point of view, because while too much nagging can put people off; without sufficient publicity people won't know about the charity or it's cause, and won't give either.
It struck me that actually there's an analogy to be drawn with the way the church- or parts of it- often do evangelism. Perhaps for some people the pushy, in-your-face style of proclaiming the gospel and forcing people to listen to it whether they like it or not works, as it must do for some charities and their donors. I imagine, though, most people have a similar reaction to me with the charity canvassers. That's what I've gathered over years of trying to talk to friends about faith. Being continually badgered about something when you don't want to be makes you less inclined to think about it, creates a resentment that then needs more work to be overcome.
That's not to say we shouldn't be talking about our faith, shouldn't be making the gospel public. But Jesus, we're told, doesn't force his way in to people's lives. He wants to be invited. We can't force people to open their doors to him, we can only encourage them to invite him in. And constant nagging doesn't do that. It's a difficult balance.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
Work and the church
"Work is not a necessary chore but a divine calling."
I came across that today in a WordLive reading. For people like me who have jobs that aren't particularly satisfying, those words are enough to make me feel ashamed. My job doesn't feel like a divine calling. The part of my job that appears to be the most useful to God is the uses I put my interet access too when there is no work to do, and that's not exactly part of my job! It makes me feel that I have failed, that I have got something wrong. Is that the job itself? Well, I believe God was clearly involved in the circumstances that got me the job. So is it my attitude that's wrong? Probably.
The passage itself is one I've thought about a lot. A few years ago, about the time when I was a few months out of university and utterly depressed because I couldn't even get a job in a shop, I heard a sermon on this passage (I think it was this one, or at least a very similar one) that really made me angry.
The speaker was very insensitive in the way he approached the passage, and what he said (I can't remember exactly how it was phrased) blamed people who- for whatever reason- didn't have a job. I thought this was quite insulting, and certainly not what Paul meant. The problem, I suspect, was that this was a middle-class church with a middle-class vicar. Unemployment was not something (in those days before the recession) was not something most of the congregation had to fear. But even so, I felt that it was wrong to condemn everyone who didn't have a paid job.
In my case- and that of many others- I wanted to work, but couldn't find a job. Was that my fault, as I was made to feel? It's hard enough that the benefits system makes you feel that you are a worthless person who is to blame for your own problems, without the church joining in- I would have thought that the church should be helping and supporting people in this situation, not making them feel worse. And what about the other situations that prevent people from having a job? Is someone to blame if they can't work through illness? What about parents who stay at home to care for their children? Is that wrong? Or people who have retired after many years of hard work?
One of the areas that the WordLive reading looked at was that of how work is shared out within the church. It's a well known saying that 10% of the people do 90% of the work. It certainly feels like that's true. Some people just seem to relax and let others do their share, while others just can't sit back and watch- if something needs to be done, they feel they have to do it. I know I'm in the second group. But as this video shows, neither is really right. People like me shouldn't do everything, otherwise we 'burnout' and miss out. But if not everyone is doing their fair share, it's inevitable that some people (often the clergy) will be doing too much.
Perhaps this is more what Paul is talking about. Because there's a difference between having a job and not being idle. In fact sometimes I think I'd be less idle if I didn't have a job (or at least this particular one...) When I was unemployed I spent a lot of time volunteering for my church, and doing other voluntary work. I may not have been contributing financially to the community, but I was giving a lot in other ways- time, effort, prayer. Paul condemns in this passage people who don't contribute to the community but simply take from others and sit back. Many people don't contribute to the church community as much as they could, either financially or with their time and gifts. They need to be encouraged to do so. Others do more than their fair share, and should perhaps be encouraged to rest. But to class all those who don't have paid jobs as 'idle' and say they are sinning is, I believe to misinterpret the passage. Cheerfully doing unpaid work and coping with the pressures of unemployment seems to me to be perhaps more honouring to God than having the security of a job- even a boring one- and continually grumbling about it. And I know I do that. So now I've had time to think about this, if I ever hear a sermon like that again I will challenge it.
If, of course, I have time, in between all the service rotas and mission planning...
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...
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Snow problem? It could be worse.
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.
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.
Wednesday, 7 October 2009
Grr!
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!
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!
Thursday, 27 August 2009
Welfare to work to washed up.
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.
Monday, 24 August 2009
Bananas, Bibleman and banging my head against a brick wall.
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.
Tuesday, 28 July 2009
Isn't moving fun?
You probably remember me ranting about how many people can't cope with people sharing a house. Having just moved house- well, I'm still in the process of trying to sort everything out- I can report that the curse has struck again. Somehow it seems to be designed to be a hassle and that the hoops various companies make you jump through are there to make you reconsider whether you actually want to move or whether you should just stay where you are- or perhaps that you should live nowhere, but somehow keep paying them?
It might help if companies looked or listened more carefully at what you have written or said in the first place, rather than trying to fit you into their own expectations and rigid plans for what they think you should want. The idea that you might want more than one name on a bill, or that more than one person might be ringing up about the same account as it's convenient to you just seems a bit beyond most companies' imagination, but surely it's not that difficult to comprehend? The idea that you're only on a 12 month contract and therefore can't commit to an 18 month broadband (for example) deal often means that you have less choice and probably end up paying more. The quite bizarre council tax payments system means that once they've eventually got your details correct (ie three months or so after you moved) you have to pay the entire year's worth in about half the time everyone else got.
Perhaps I'm being a bit stressed and pessimistic here. Perhaps it's just the fact that I'm fed up with having to sort this all out from the start EVERY YEAR. Partly because I can't just change my address in the same way that, say, a family moving house could, while keeping the same supplier because I'm living with different people, and different numbers of people. And because certain companies seem to go out of their way not to make it easy for young people in my situation.
Friday, 17 July 2009
Rental rant
We are a nation where home ownership, rather than renting, is seen as normal. Perhaps that's why, from what I've seen, the media tends to take the side of landlords where there is a dispute between tenants and landlords. For example this article I saw today about landlords not being paid rent because local government can now pay housing benefit to tenants rather than landlords. (I'm slightly confused when they say this only began to happen last year- it happened to me nearly three years ago, although it was a slightly different system).
I'm not saying this doesn't happen- I'm sure it does. But the article says nothing about what percentage of tenants don't run off without paying their rent, or anything about the struggles tenants go through to have enough to live on. It says nothing about what happens when the amount of benefit and the amount of rent don't add up. If it comes to a choice between paying the fuel bill and buying food, or rent, what do you do?
And given that we have actively encouraged a debt culture of 'buy now, pay later' over the last couple of decades is it surprising if people perhaps don't take falling into arrears as seriously as they once did? There seems to be a presumption in the media- or am I reading too much into it?- that the tenants are to blame, that they aren't paying because they don't want to. Rather than recognising that mostly these are people who are struggling to get by, and need help.
The article also says nothing about the standards of the rented properties, or whether the rents charged by private landlords are fair. Having lived in and visited a variety of rented properties, I know there are widely different standards and rents, and that the two don't always correlate. Do those landlords keep the house in a state where they would be happy to live in it themselves? Or is the paint peeling, is the heating broken, are there rats in the kitchen? A year or two ago many landlords objected to the new deposit guarantee scheme the government brought in to protect tenants who often find it hard to get landlords to return the deposit they pay on taking up the tenancy. Again the landlords were the ones who got media coverage for their complaints at government 'interference' in their business arrangements. But most landlords aren't businessmen, but people wanting extra money on top of their day job, with little time to devote to looking after their properties and even less willingness to spend money on them. So is it any wonder that the properties are often in bad shape, and landlords seize the opportunity to make tenants pay for things that in reality, are just the consequences of not enough attention being given to the property. For example, piece of furniture or equipment broke through improper use, it would be fair enough to charge that to the tenants, taking it out of their deposit. But if it broke while being used correctly, just because it was old or improperly maintained, that's not the tenants fault but the landlords', and the tenant shouldn't have to pay. So should we sympathise with landlords because they can no longer get away with this kind of thing? Or with tenants who are now slightly more protected from it? Of course, not all landlords are like this, some are brilliant, but there will always be some who try to make as much profit from as little input as possible.
If we can't provide adequate accommodation for those in difficulties, because of homelessness, joblessness or family breakdown, what do we expect people to do? I know someone who, through no fault of his own, suffering from severe mental illness would be on the streets or in a homeless shelter if it wasn't for the help and support of friends and church.
Perhaps we should be providing more support and encouragement to landlords to take on these higher risk tenants. There has been a lot of fuss lately about government trying to help people at risk of loosing their homes through defaulting on mortgage payments- perhaps some kind of similar scheme could be extended to rental tenants, who are usually on lower incomes and the more vulnerable. Plus better training of council staff (at least in York, where in my experience you can find out more from the council website than council staff) so that they can actually help and advise people who are in danger of falling behind what help is available, rather than in one or two cases I know giving them wrong information which leads to more struggle and difficulty.
Surely it's better to try to deal with the problem here, to stop people becoming homeless in the first place, than to have to try and pick up the pieces of shattered lives once people have lost everything and are living on the streets?
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
Luxury or necessity?
I heard an item on the radio last night which annoyed me. It was one of those stories where they talk to people who are supposed to be suffering as a result of the recession. The lady they were talking to this time had lost her above averagely paid job a few months ago and hadn't been able to find another. Now, apparently she is struggling financially- to the extent that she can't afford foreign holidays or to replace a sofa.
Well, of course I'm sorry for her. Being made redundant isn't pleasant, nor is having to reduce your standard of living. But really, these kind of stories show how little some people know about who is really suffering- about who is really at the bottom of the ladder. Not being able to afford foreign holidays or new furniture isn't pleasant. But compared to struggling to pay your rent, or utility bills, it's a whole different territory. She bemoaned the fact that she was having to draw on her savings for her old age. While I can see her concern that she might be worse off in some years time as a result, at least she's had the kind of job where she has been able to build up savings. Some of us aren't that fortunate.
Sometimes I think we can forget that the things we consider a usual part of life are in fact luxuries. For many people across the world, even being able to have a solid roof over their head and enough food to not be hungry are more than they can hope for. Even in this country, there are people who struggle for basic necessities- who get to the end of the month not sure if they'll have enough for rent, or food. Compared to that, not being able to replace a sofa somehow doesn't seem to me to be important. It's like another radio item I heard some time ago where they gave an example of a 'low' salary of around £20,000 a year. While that may well be low compared to the likes of the BA boss's £61,000 a month, but compared to a full time minimum wage salary of around £11,000 a year it's still quite good money.
And talking of BA, and their asking their employees to work unpaid for up to a month or take unpaid leave- well, I can see why they've done it, and why many workers will probably take them up on the scheme. Better to earn a bit less money and still have a job than to quite possibly loose your job if the company struggles. And the chief executive is leading by example.
Except that the chief executive probably earns more in one month than many of his employees do in 5 years. So I don't really think it's really going to be much of a struggle for him. Whereas for some of them it could mean tightened belts- and fewer foreign holidays.
Perhaps rather than forgoing his salary for a month he should offer to take the salary of a baggage handler or check-in staff for a year- that might teach him a thing or two about managing!
Well, of course I'm sorry for her. Being made redundant isn't pleasant, nor is having to reduce your standard of living. But really, these kind of stories show how little some people know about who is really suffering- about who is really at the bottom of the ladder. Not being able to afford foreign holidays or new furniture isn't pleasant. But compared to struggling to pay your rent, or utility bills, it's a whole different territory. She bemoaned the fact that she was having to draw on her savings for her old age. While I can see her concern that she might be worse off in some years time as a result, at least she's had the kind of job where she has been able to build up savings. Some of us aren't that fortunate.
Sometimes I think we can forget that the things we consider a usual part of life are in fact luxuries. For many people across the world, even being able to have a solid roof over their head and enough food to not be hungry are more than they can hope for. Even in this country, there are people who struggle for basic necessities- who get to the end of the month not sure if they'll have enough for rent, or food. Compared to that, not being able to replace a sofa somehow doesn't seem to me to be important. It's like another radio item I heard some time ago where they gave an example of a 'low' salary of around £20,000 a year. While that may well be low compared to the likes of the BA boss's £61,000 a month, but compared to a full time minimum wage salary of around £11,000 a year it's still quite good money.
And talking of BA, and their asking their employees to work unpaid for up to a month or take unpaid leave- well, I can see why they've done it, and why many workers will probably take them up on the scheme. Better to earn a bit less money and still have a job than to quite possibly loose your job if the company struggles. And the chief executive is leading by example.
Except that the chief executive probably earns more in one month than many of his employees do in 5 years. So I don't really think it's really going to be much of a struggle for him. Whereas for some of them it could mean tightened belts- and fewer foreign holidays.
Perhaps rather than forgoing his salary for a month he should offer to take the salary of a baggage handler or check-in staff for a year- that might teach him a thing or two about managing!
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.
Friday, 13 February 2009
Darwin, women, the church...and an unintentional rant!
So it seems Darwin may actually have been right after all, the Catholic church says. Science and religion aren't necessarily at odds. Some influential theologians saw evidence for evolution long before the Origin of Species was written. Christian doesn't mean creationist*.
Well about time too.
I hope people actually listen to statements like this and get the message. Christians aren't weirdos who deny all modern science and insist on believing fairy tales in the face of logical evidence. Yes, some Christian beliefs may sound odd, (people being raised from the dead? A God who's simultaneously three and one? What's all that about?) but we're not hopelessly outdated people trying to maintain medieval beliefs and values in the face of all the odds. The church has much to say that's relevant to people here and now, in today's postmodern world.
The sooner the world realises this, and starts taking us seriously rather than laughing us out the door, the better. The sooner some sections of the church realise it the better too.
If only this was the only story about the church that's in the news at present. What the rest of the world must make of some Anglicans' views on women bishops I dread to think. If some C of E members think women shouldn't be in authority, or allowed to teach, how do they reconcile their consciences with female doctors, teachers (especially in Sunday schools!), judges or even a female Prime Minister?
We're looking at a world that's reeling from the shock of global economic recession. I think God wants to use this to speak to the world- to show what a mess we've got ourselves into with (let's be honest) no idea how to get ourselves out. How the human race has wasted its resources and made life hell for some people at the same time as others have had millions to waste. To call us back to his love that will restore the world. The church should be there, ready to listen to God, to do his work by helping people, and setting an example of what human life should be like. Are we up to it? Not as we are. But with God's help, we can be.
Ooh, unintentional rant. Sorry! I didn't mean to write that last paragraph when I started, it just sort of slipped out. Make of that what you will.
And before you start worrying, I don't actually read the Telegraph. I found the story here.
*In the sense of denying scientific evidence for evolution in favour of a too-literal reading of Genesis.
Well about time too.
I hope people actually listen to statements like this and get the message. Christians aren't weirdos who deny all modern science and insist on believing fairy tales in the face of logical evidence. Yes, some Christian beliefs may sound odd, (people being raised from the dead? A God who's simultaneously three and one? What's all that about?) but we're not hopelessly outdated people trying to maintain medieval beliefs and values in the face of all the odds. The church has much to say that's relevant to people here and now, in today's postmodern world.
The sooner the world realises this, and starts taking us seriously rather than laughing us out the door, the better. The sooner some sections of the church realise it the better too.
If only this was the only story about the church that's in the news at present. What the rest of the world must make of some Anglicans' views on women bishops I dread to think. If some C of E members think women shouldn't be in authority, or allowed to teach, how do they reconcile their consciences with female doctors, teachers (especially in Sunday schools!), judges or even a female Prime Minister?
We're looking at a world that's reeling from the shock of global economic recession. I think God wants to use this to speak to the world- to show what a mess we've got ourselves into with (let's be honest) no idea how to get ourselves out. How the human race has wasted its resources and made life hell for some people at the same time as others have had millions to waste. To call us back to his love that will restore the world. The church should be there, ready to listen to God, to do his work by helping people, and setting an example of what human life should be like. Are we up to it? Not as we are. But with God's help, we can be.
Ooh, unintentional rant. Sorry! I didn't mean to write that last paragraph when I started, it just sort of slipped out. Make of that what you will.
And before you start worrying, I don't actually read the Telegraph. I found the story here.
*In the sense of denying scientific evidence for evolution in favour of a too-literal reading of Genesis.
Friday, 6 February 2009
I'm a celebrity...get me out of here!
In a couple of weeks my church will be celebrating the life and legacy of David Watson, who was vicar there from 1965-1982. He was responsible for building the church up and many of the church's current members joined during his time here. Although I don't know as much about his work and influence on the church in the UK as I probably should, I'm sure that it was good for the church and for York, and I don't object in the least to celebrating the achievements of his time here. However, there is always a danger that we get too caught up in the person to remember that it's God working through them, and that they, like the rest of us, are only human. There's a danger too (and I sometimes wonder if we fall into it) that we try to replicate their ministry indefinitely, and aren't so responsive to what God may want us to be doing now.
Something I've thought about occasionally for some time now is the way some Christian leaders seem to have a certain 'celebrity' status. Those who run big churches or successful missions, like Billy Graham or Nicky Gumbel, to name but two, or who write popular songs or run large events seem to gain the kind of following within some parts of the church that we associate with TV personalities or other celebrities.
While I think it's good that there are inspirational leaders and role models out there, I think we have to be very wary when we start looking up to our leaders and putting them on a pedestal. As some American churches (and one in the town where I grew up) have found to their cost, even the most exciting leaders are human. At some point there's always the danger that someone will fail to live up to the standards we set our leaders- as we all fail sometimes- and then people can get hurt and disillusioned with the church.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this problem. The young Corinthian church had developed splits between different leaders who all, presumably, had a slightly different focus to their ministry. Paul calls their attention back to the heart of the gospel: Jesus and the message of the cross. He goes on to talk about how he came to them in humility, not seeking his own glory but God's, suffering many hardships as an apostle so that he might get his message across to those who needed to hear it.
Maybe some modern Christian leaders would do well to remember this model of suffering and humility. So often preachers can make events (conversions, success) sound dramatic and sudden when so often it's a long, hard slog of dedicated work, often over many years and involving many people. Not only does this encourage us to think how wonderful they are by contrasting it with our own poor record and remembered failures, it can discourage us from trying and make us feel worthless; or even that we don't need to bother because our leaders will do the work for us.
'Leaders don’t need hero-worship or they may start believing their own press releases!' (WordLive 6th Feb 2009) What they do need is our prayer, understanding, and encouragement.
Something I've thought about occasionally for some time now is the way some Christian leaders seem to have a certain 'celebrity' status. Those who run big churches or successful missions, like Billy Graham or Nicky Gumbel, to name but two, or who write popular songs or run large events seem to gain the kind of following within some parts of the church that we associate with TV personalities or other celebrities.
While I think it's good that there are inspirational leaders and role models out there, I think we have to be very wary when we start looking up to our leaders and putting them on a pedestal. As some American churches (and one in the town where I grew up) have found to their cost, even the most exciting leaders are human. At some point there's always the danger that someone will fail to live up to the standards we set our leaders- as we all fail sometimes- and then people can get hurt and disillusioned with the church.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul addresses this problem. The young Corinthian church had developed splits between different leaders who all, presumably, had a slightly different focus to their ministry. Paul calls their attention back to the heart of the gospel: Jesus and the message of the cross. He goes on to talk about how he came to them in humility, not seeking his own glory but God's, suffering many hardships as an apostle so that he might get his message across to those who needed to hear it.
Maybe some modern Christian leaders would do well to remember this model of suffering and humility. So often preachers can make events (conversions, success) sound dramatic and sudden when so often it's a long, hard slog of dedicated work, often over many years and involving many people. Not only does this encourage us to think how wonderful they are by contrasting it with our own poor record and remembered failures, it can discourage us from trying and make us feel worthless; or even that we don't need to bother because our leaders will do the work for us.
'Leaders don’t need hero-worship or they may start believing their own press releases!' (WordLive 6th Feb 2009) What they do need is our prayer, understanding, and encouragement.
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Life outside the family
With so much in the media about the credit crunch and financial collapse, one question keeps coming back to me, and it doesn't seem to be one the politicians are interested in. It's that you only ever hear about families being hit hard by financial difficulties.
Now, I happen to like families. In an ideal world, it would be nice if evey child could grow up with parents who loved and cared for him or her. It would be great if men and women fell in love, got married, and lived happily together ever after. And undoubtedly, if you've got children to think about it adds a whole new level of anxiety to financial pressures. But my point is that not everyone lives in a family, but everyone is being hit by higher prices and bills, and not everyone is getting help. There are some good reasons why person A should get help and person B shouldn't, but to me a lot of it seems quite arbitrary.
Unfortunatly we don't live in an ideal world, but in this world, where families break up and many people live on their own, are single parents, or live in shared houses. Not just students, but young working people share a house with one or more other people. It's cheaper, it's probably more environmentally friendly and it provides some of the support of a family while still preserving the independence of individuals. I live in a shared, rented house. Out of the four of us, two are currently employed (one part time, one full time, neither of us earning huge amounts), one is unemployed and the fourth a student.
Because we live in a good sized house, we pay the same amount of council tax as a family, but because we're young and not a family we're not eligible for the same help (eg tax credits) we would get if we were. Because two out of the four of us are working, we don't qualify for other forms of help because council tax is based on the model family of two adults living in each and every house in the country (in other words, based on something that is largely a myth). The system is too inflexible to cope with our "unusual" household- or even to issue us accurate bills, it seems. We pay the same for heating and fuel bills as we would if we owned our home, but are not able to take advantage of the schemes to help with insulation and double glazing, thus reducing fuel bills, as we would if we owned it. Maybe we could pressure our landlords to do so, but what incentive do they have? It doesn't directly affect them.
Because we're young and unmarried (and don't have kids) it's assumed that we can look after ourselves without any other help. The thing that annoys me the most is perhaps the difference in the minimum wage- why should you be allowed to pay a 21 year old less than a 22 year old, if both are doing the same work and both are living independently? Why is someone who's over 25 able to claim tax credits, but not someone under 25?
This has turned into a bit of a rant, and I don't think it'll be the last on this topic. Last night (just as I got home from work) somebody from the Office of National Statistics turned up to ask lots of questions about who lives in the house, what jobs do they do, etc etc. It took several minutes to explain that this was a shared house, where none of us were related or in a relationship with each other, but not a student house. It took even longer for his computer system to get to grips with this. And as for the fact that two of the people who'd been there last year had moved out while two more moved in and two stayed the same...it was complicated, to say the least. It even asked if I was a baby less than three months old...sometimes I wish I was. Life would be a lot simpler!
Now, I happen to like families. In an ideal world, it would be nice if evey child could grow up with parents who loved and cared for him or her. It would be great if men and women fell in love, got married, and lived happily together ever after. And undoubtedly, if you've got children to think about it adds a whole new level of anxiety to financial pressures. But my point is that not everyone lives in a family, but everyone is being hit by higher prices and bills, and not everyone is getting help. There are some good reasons why person A should get help and person B shouldn't, but to me a lot of it seems quite arbitrary.
Unfortunatly we don't live in an ideal world, but in this world, where families break up and many people live on their own, are single parents, or live in shared houses. Not just students, but young working people share a house with one or more other people. It's cheaper, it's probably more environmentally friendly and it provides some of the support of a family while still preserving the independence of individuals. I live in a shared, rented house. Out of the four of us, two are currently employed (one part time, one full time, neither of us earning huge amounts), one is unemployed and the fourth a student.
Because we live in a good sized house, we pay the same amount of council tax as a family, but because we're young and not a family we're not eligible for the same help (eg tax credits) we would get if we were. Because two out of the four of us are working, we don't qualify for other forms of help because council tax is based on the model family of two adults living in each and every house in the country (in other words, based on something that is largely a myth). The system is too inflexible to cope with our "unusual" household- or even to issue us accurate bills, it seems. We pay the same for heating and fuel bills as we would if we owned our home, but are not able to take advantage of the schemes to help with insulation and double glazing, thus reducing fuel bills, as we would if we owned it. Maybe we could pressure our landlords to do so, but what incentive do they have? It doesn't directly affect them.
Because we're young and unmarried (and don't have kids) it's assumed that we can look after ourselves without any other help. The thing that annoys me the most is perhaps the difference in the minimum wage- why should you be allowed to pay a 21 year old less than a 22 year old, if both are doing the same work and both are living independently? Why is someone who's over 25 able to claim tax credits, but not someone under 25?
This has turned into a bit of a rant, and I don't think it'll be the last on this topic. Last night (just as I got home from work) somebody from the Office of National Statistics turned up to ask lots of questions about who lives in the house, what jobs do they do, etc etc. It took several minutes to explain that this was a shared house, where none of us were related or in a relationship with each other, but not a student house. It took even longer for his computer system to get to grips with this. And as for the fact that two of the people who'd been there last year had moved out while two more moved in and two stayed the same...it was complicated, to say the least. It even asked if I was a baby less than three months old...sometimes I wish I was. Life would be a lot simpler!
Friday, 6 June 2008
Will anyone do anything about Zimbabwe?
The news from Zimbabwe just gets grimmer and grimmer. Robert Mugabe's government continues to desperatly cling onto power by whatever means possible; influencing elections, arresting opposition leaders, stopping opposition rallies. Even food has become a weapon, as they are now preventing aid agencies from distributing food (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7440237.stm ).
But- compared to other events recently, and given the scale of the crisis- there seems to be relatively little international condemnation of Mugabe, so little that in the same week as banning food aid he can attend an international conference trying to solve world food shortages! Surely there's something wrong here.
Is it because the West still feels guilty about the role it played in Africa in the past, in the days of colonialism? Because politicians are frightened of interfearing, in case they end up with another Iraq or Afghanistan? Because Western politicians believe that their voters are unlikely to care much about the political problems of a country so far away? Because other African leaders see it as an African problem, which can and should only be solved by Africans? Something of all these?
Or, to quote yes minister, that "once you start interfearing in the internal squabbles of another country, you're on a very slippery slope." Well yes, I think we can all see that from the disaster zone that is Iraq. But does that excuse them from any action? Not as far as I'm concerned.
Some seem to think that all the West can do is encourage African leaders like Thabo Mubecki (apologies if I've spelt that wrong) to mediate. But he's got enough problems at home, besides Zimbabwe. Understandable, Africa is nervous about white intervention. But the crisis in Zimbabwe goes far beyond issues of race.
It's surely time, and more than time, that the UN made some effort to help the people starving and suffering from violence and coercion. That was what it was created to do, and if it cannot help now, it will be more ammunition for those who say it's an irrelevance. I don't want that to happen. Eventually, something will happen- another country will feel that their stability is being threatened, or the people will finally rise up against Mugabe, and an already utterly dreadful situation will become even worse. Surely there's got to be something that can be done to stop this happening. Interfearing may lead down a slippery slope, but not interfearing isn't going to prevent trouble. One day the people of Zimbabwe may look at us and ask, "why didn't you help us?" And I don't think we've got a good enough answer.
Some seem to think that all the West can do is encourage African leaders like Thabo Mubecki (apologies if I've spelt that wrong) to mediate. But he's got enough problems at home, besides Zimbabwe. Understandable, Africa is nervous about white intervention. But the crisis in Zimbabwe goes far beyond issues of race.
It's surely time, and more than time, that the UN made some effort to help the people starving and suffering from violence and coercion. That was what it was created to do, and if it cannot help now, it will be more ammunition for those who say it's an irrelevance. I don't want that to happen. Eventually, something will happen- another country will feel that their stability is being threatened, or the people will finally rise up against Mugabe, and an already utterly dreadful situation will become even worse. Surely there's got to be something that can be done to stop this happening. Interfearing may lead down a slippery slope, but not interfearing isn't going to prevent trouble. One day the people of Zimbabwe may look at us and ask, "why didn't you help us?" And I don't think we've got a good enough answer.
Friday, 2 May 2008
Anciently postmodern
Finally got round to writing something, and it's turned into a bit of a rant. Sorry...
When I studied postmodernism as part of my degree course at uni, the lecturers tried to make out that it was all clever and new. But various things that I've come across suggest that while the name might be new, the attitude (you can have your truth so long as it doesn't get in the way of mine) is very far from recent. You'd have though a history department might have been able to tell them that...
I read something today that struck me as a good summary with the problem of this kind of thinking for Christians. It's from a series of notes on the WordLive website (session date 29th April) about Paul's letter to the Galatians;
"There is a temptation in western cultures to relativise all religious truth-claims. We are quite happy to accept that particular religious beliefs are ‘true’ for those who hold them, but not ‘true’ for those who do not. ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ Postmodernity is willing to tolerate and celebrate all the various human traditions so long as they do not claim a relevance that transcends the group that affirm them. This is because, whilst postmoderns may think that the gospel, for instance, is ‘true’ for Christians, they do not believe that it is really grounded in a divine revelation from the one God. What postmoderns really think is that the gospel is a human creation. This allows them to be nice to Christians and let them affirm their ‘truth’. It also allows them not to have to worry that they do not live by this gospel."
Since part of the "truth" that I believe is that the gospel is relavent to and applies to everyone, not just those who believe it, then if someone says that the gospel can only apply to Christians they are denying that it is true in any sense. If we- Christians -are told that we can't believe what Christianity says about itself- (eg "I am the Light of the World") then we're effectively being told that we shouldn't believe it. Which isn't the same as ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ In effect, it seems to me that it's 'my truth is right, yours is wrong.' Which isn't very postmodern.
The article ends by saying, "Paul would not accept that approach to the authority of his message...If it is not public truth – true truth – then it is not true at all. This gospel might be true or it might be false, but it cannot be true for some people and not for others." I'd agree. But what do I know?
Whatever the truth (however you define it!) of all that, the same day's session goes on to talk about the power of people's personal stories or testimonies to demonstrate to people that beliefs are real. At the start of Galatians, Paul tells the story of his conversion and ministry to demonstrate his validity as a teacher and his trustworthiness to the Galatians. In a world where there are so many choices, how do we decide who or what to believe? Speaking to people who've made the choice to become Christians, you almost always find that it's because someone they knew and trusted- a Christian friend, family member, youth leader- demonstrated their faith and God's love for that person. Not by ramming Bible verses down their throat, but by just being there and being someone they knew they could trust. If we're not living out our faith, demonstrating that it's real and relavant to the world today, why should people decide to follow Christ rather than one of the myriad other philosophies? That's a challenge to think about over the bank holiday!
When I studied postmodernism as part of my degree course at uni, the lecturers tried to make out that it was all clever and new. But various things that I've come across suggest that while the name might be new, the attitude (you can have your truth so long as it doesn't get in the way of mine) is very far from recent. You'd have though a history department might have been able to tell them that...
I read something today that struck me as a good summary with the problem of this kind of thinking for Christians. It's from a series of notes on the WordLive website (session date 29th April) about Paul's letter to the Galatians;
"There is a temptation in western cultures to relativise all religious truth-claims. We are quite happy to accept that particular religious beliefs are ‘true’ for those who hold them, but not ‘true’ for those who do not. ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ Postmodernity is willing to tolerate and celebrate all the various human traditions so long as they do not claim a relevance that transcends the group that affirm them. This is because, whilst postmoderns may think that the gospel, for instance, is ‘true’ for Christians, they do not believe that it is really grounded in a divine revelation from the one God. What postmoderns really think is that the gospel is a human creation. This allows them to be nice to Christians and let them affirm their ‘truth’. It also allows them not to have to worry that they do not live by this gospel."
Since part of the "truth" that I believe is that the gospel is relavent to and applies to everyone, not just those who believe it, then if someone says that the gospel can only apply to Christians they are denying that it is true in any sense. If we- Christians -are told that we can't believe what Christianity says about itself- (eg "I am the Light of the World") then we're effectively being told that we shouldn't believe it. Which isn't the same as ‘This is my truth, show me yours.’ In effect, it seems to me that it's 'my truth is right, yours is wrong.' Which isn't very postmodern.
The article ends by saying, "Paul would not accept that approach to the authority of his message...If it is not public truth – true truth – then it is not true at all. This gospel might be true or it might be false, but it cannot be true for some people and not for others." I'd agree. But what do I know?
Whatever the truth (however you define it!) of all that, the same day's session goes on to talk about the power of people's personal stories or testimonies to demonstrate to people that beliefs are real. At the start of Galatians, Paul tells the story of his conversion and ministry to demonstrate his validity as a teacher and his trustworthiness to the Galatians. In a world where there are so many choices, how do we decide who or what to believe? Speaking to people who've made the choice to become Christians, you almost always find that it's because someone they knew and trusted- a Christian friend, family member, youth leader- demonstrated their faith and God's love for that person. Not by ramming Bible verses down their throat, but by just being there and being someone they knew they could trust. If we're not living out our faith, demonstrating that it's real and relavant to the world today, why should people decide to follow Christ rather than one of the myriad other philosophies? That's a challenge to think about over the bank holiday!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)