It's Halloween-tide. Or, alternatively, All Souls/ All Saints'. It's also the anniversary of Martin Luther's posting of the 95 Theses against the sale of Indulgences and abuses in the Roman Catholic church in 1517, something which to me is rather more important than either of the other two festivals- well, I am a historian! While it's not entirely correct to call it the start of the Reformation, or to say that before this the Church was entirely without merit, it was a significant action if only because of what came after, and has had a profound impact both on the Christian faith (what it means to be a Christian) and on world history and politics to this day.
So I thought I'd attempt to write some theses of my own. Not that I expect them to have the impact of Luther's 95 (although I doubt he was expecting quite what he got...). And I'm afraid that 95 would be too long for a modern blog audience's attention span. So here's 9 and a bit.
Luther's theses were directed against abuses he saw as exploiting the poor and giving people a false idea of what God was all about. That's something that gets my goat too so here's some ideas. Theses such as Luther's were intended to be were less dogmatic statements of belief as propositions for discussion and comment so please bear that in mind. Anyway, see what you think.
1. Christian organisations should learn to put God's kingdom first in all their plans (not profit), and to have the priorities that God would want (care for the weak, acting in love). Actions such as American Christian TV stations threatening local youth groups because they share the same name shouldn't happen.
2. Christians should learn to listen to each other and consider the other person's reasons before dismissing beliefs they consider backslidden and wrong.
3. Christians should not engage in 'political' manouverings against each other at the expense of those outside the church (or indeed within it) who can't see what all the fuss is about.
4. Christians should be willing and able to defend themselves, reasonably but not aggressively, against the false claims and accusations of others.
5. Christians should not try to hide the fact that they are imperfect but to be honest about their failures.
6. Christians should heed the advice of various new testament writers to 'live good lives among the pagans' and seek to be a group of people who are part of this world- but who outsiders can see are 'different' in a positive way.
7. Christians should be willing to recognise the skills and talents of every member of their congrergations and to train and develop them.
8. Christians should seek to be part of a community that cares for both its' members and those outside.
9. Christians should remember that love and justice are God's motives, and that they should be ours too and are good clues as to what God wants us to do in tricky situations.
9.5 Same as 9 above. "For God so loved the world he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him shall not die but have eternal life." Our motivation and our mission statement.
Monday, 1 November 2010
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.
Thursday, 26 August 2010
House and home
Recently the topic of affordable housing has been discussed in the media. With a chronic shortage of this, and with any help that is given going (rightly, I suppose) to those worst off, it's those people who are in the middle who are going to struggle most to get on the property ladder. By in the middle I don't necessarily mean 'middle class.' I mean those people who earn enough to live on, but not enough to save up and buy. This will probably include people we think of as middle class today; office workers, even nurses and teachers.
So it seems that in the future more people will have to rent, either alone or with friends. Even buying with friends might become an option. I found it interesting that the recent BBC series Sherlock showed two young men sharing a flat, for financial reasons, something that people often don't quite 'get.' Of course, there was a recurring theme that half the people they met would assume that they were sharing because they were a couple. I've encountered that myself, even when I've been sharing with 2 or 3 people!
But is it necessarily a bad thing that fewer people will be homeowners? Perhaps not, in many countries it's more usual to rent than to buy. But as commentators have said, certain things would need to change if renting were to become more popular. As I've written about before, tenants are often at a disadvantage compared to homeowners. It's unlikely many landlords will feel the need to invest in extra energy efficiency measures like insulation or solar pannels as they will derive little personal benefit. The same goes for decoration and non-essential repairs and upgrades. It's understandable, especially if you have long term tenants and haven't got to attract new ones. Perhaps landlords need to be given some incentive to do this, perhaps tenants need to be able to badger their landlords more. Perhaps if people are living in rented property for longer, rather than seeing it as temporary, they need to have more opportunity to do work (decoration, refurbishment) themselves. To be able to feel settled, to make a place their own.
To make living in rented property attractive, these aren't the only changes that would need to take place. Society often seems to take it for granted that 'proper' adults own their own home, and share it only with a partner. Why? As a result, most official paperwork and benefits are based around each household being occupied only as a single unit. Council tax, for example, is based on the incomes of two adults living in each house leading to some downright unfair effects (but that's a whole other rant). Even government research surveys find it hard to cope with two or more non-related, non-partners, sharing a home, and surely that will become more normal. Officialdom needs to recognise that the two adult (and two income) per household model does not reflect all households.
So it seems that in the future more people will have to rent, either alone or with friends. Even buying with friends might become an option. I found it interesting that the recent BBC series Sherlock showed two young men sharing a flat, for financial reasons, something that people often don't quite 'get.' Of course, there was a recurring theme that half the people they met would assume that they were sharing because they were a couple. I've encountered that myself, even when I've been sharing with 2 or 3 people!
But is it necessarily a bad thing that fewer people will be homeowners? Perhaps not, in many countries it's more usual to rent than to buy. But as commentators have said, certain things would need to change if renting were to become more popular. As I've written about before, tenants are often at a disadvantage compared to homeowners. It's unlikely many landlords will feel the need to invest in extra energy efficiency measures like insulation or solar pannels as they will derive little personal benefit. The same goes for decoration and non-essential repairs and upgrades. It's understandable, especially if you have long term tenants and haven't got to attract new ones. Perhaps landlords need to be given some incentive to do this, perhaps tenants need to be able to badger their landlords more. Perhaps if people are living in rented property for longer, rather than seeing it as temporary, they need to have more opportunity to do work (decoration, refurbishment) themselves. To be able to feel settled, to make a place their own.
To make living in rented property attractive, these aren't the only changes that would need to take place. Society often seems to take it for granted that 'proper' adults own their own home, and share it only with a partner. Why? As a result, most official paperwork and benefits are based around each household being occupied only as a single unit. Council tax, for example, is based on the incomes of two adults living in each house leading to some downright unfair effects (but that's a whole other rant). Even government research surveys find it hard to cope with two or more non-related, non-partners, sharing a home, and surely that will become more normal. Officialdom needs to recognise that the two adult (and two income) per household model does not reflect all households.
There is a danger that if property becomes concentrated in the hands of a rich minority then theose worse off will have little choice but to accept lower standards. That's something to be careful about. And there's the pension situation: many people living on pensions today can afford to do so (just) because they own their own homes and don't have to pay rent. If fewer pensioners in the future own their own homes, and have to pay rent from ever-decreasing pensions, that's something that needs to be addressed- sooner rather than later. But will it- or any of these concerns? Or is too much like joined-up, long term thinking for governments which seem to only deal with the immediate problem?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)