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.

Emotional immigration

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

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

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

I think there is a similar emotional element to immigration.  And this has been influenced by the media and by our fears.  If someone says the word 'immigrant' you probably think of someone from Pakistan or India, or perhaps the stereotypical Polish Plumber.  Most of the criticism seems to be aimed at them.  And so Cameron's speech made me wonder.  What would our reaction have been if all (or most) of the thousands of people coming to Britain each year were French?  Or Italian?  Or from Canada, or Australia?
  
They would equally be immigrants, equally 'coming over here taking our jobs and our houses and our healthcare'.  But I'm not sure we'd see such vitriolic attacks in the media.  I can't quite picture youths in balaclavas painting 'Frogs go home' on the wall of a French restaurant.  And that leaves me wondering why.  Is it because these are countries we see as our equals, in terms of wealth and international influence?  Is it because they are predominantly white?  (although so, of course, is Eastern Europe).  Is it because we think we understand their culture, that it's not so different to ours, even if the language is? 

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

Reflections on 'the outsider'

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

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

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

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

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

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

The modern day lion's den

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

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

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

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

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

Thinly-veiled fear of 'difference'?

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

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

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

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

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

Why, God? Trust.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why, God? Choices.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's some of my thinking.  More later.

*Granny Weatherwax in Terry Pratchett's Witches Abroad.  

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.

Which is the bigger crime?

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

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

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

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

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

Advent 09- Snow!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or seen heavenly storehouses laden with snow?

Who imagined the sun and gives source to its light,

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

It's snowing again now.

*'Indescribable' by Laura Story.

Advent 09- Science and Technology

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

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

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

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

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

Caught in the middle

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

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

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

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

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


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

Some climatical thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

The Church and the world

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

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

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

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

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

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

How not to be cynical

It's struck me several times over the last few days what a cynical world we live in at the moment. The media delight in finding scandal and bringing down any institution that once commanded respect: the church, parliament, the police, banks. Now the media tell us that we can't even trust the media! This article by the most cynical of cynics, Charlie Brooker, just about sums it up (yes I know- or at least hope- that he's exaggerating for comic effect, but it still paints a pretty bleak picture of the world.)

What really gets me when I read this kind of thing is the comments people make in the discussion below. I hope they're exaggerating too. But they convey the idea of a world in which we can't trust anything or anyone, where everything is bad and we can't expect better, where there is no hope that we or anyone or anything else can make a difference. It's a very fatalistic viewpoint, and very depressing too. It diminishes the role of the individual in the world and effectively absolves individuals of responsibility of their actions- what else could they do, in such a messed up world?

Well if that's the best people think of the world, if there's no hope of anything better, I don't know why they don't just stop panicking about swine flu or [insert current disease scare here] and wait for it to reach them, or fill their pockets with cash and go for a walk through a drug-infested, gang-ridden inner city and wait for someone to stab or shoot them.

The world is a mess. We know that. But that doesn't mean that we should give up on it. Besides the stories of war and deceit, abuse and pain there are stories of hope and joy. The young man who was recently found alive after two weeks in the Australian wilds, after most people had given up hope, for example. We can't ignore all the terrible things that go on- and we shouldn't- but neither can we say "oh well, the world's a mess, but there's nothing I can do about it except make sure I live as comfortable a life as possible." People can make a difference.

Last Wednesday my cell group were looking at the passage in Philippians 4 where Christians are told to "rejoice in the Lord always." Someone pointed out that some Christians take this to ridiculous extremes, thinking that they should cry "Hallelujah!" when they bang their head! But without falling into this trap, we thought about how we can 'rejoice' when the world is in such a mess.

The point is, I suppose, that there is still someone we can trust in this downfallen world, and that's God. Human institutions, even the church can mess up, but God doesn't. We can rejoice in that. When Paul wrote that we should rejoice, he was under house arrest, chained to a Roman soldier, awaiting probable execution. Elsewhere he writes about all he has suffered: beatings, constant travel, hunger, thirst, midnight escapes. And yet he has learnt to be 'content in any and every situation." He knew what he was talking about. And he hasn't lost his faith in people either- his letters are full of commendations and expressions of love and thanks to his friends.

Perhaps we can take a hint from that. We can't ignore the fact that many things in the world are not as they should be. But it doesn't mean we should give up hope, or turn into cynical, fatalistic people who don't think we can make things any better so don't try. We can't restore the world to how it was supposed to be. Only God can do that. But he calls us to help in his plan for restoring the world, and humanity, and to rejoice in how great that plan is.