Tonight is my cell group, my church's version of home or small groups where about 6-12 people worship and pray and look at the Bible together. (Not 'cell' as in 'terrorist cell' or 'prison cell'! Cell as in the biological sense, small bits that make up a larger body, the church.) I love being part of a cell, but it can be hard work. Especially at the moment. So many of the people in my cell are struggling with different issues, from health in the broadest sense, to job searching, to considering what God wants them to do in the future. And in many cases, since most of my cell are a generation or so older than I am, they're concerned for the same issues in their children and grandchildren, or care for their parents.
But it's cell tonight, and I'm feeling apprehensive. Because I so often seem to come away having taken on so much, but not been able to tell them about what's concerning me. There are people with so much sadness in their lives, I empathise with them and share their troubles. And there are people there who have problems that are far worse than I've ever had to experience, and hope I never shall.
So it can be quite tough, listening to everybody's troubles and committing to praying for them. Not that I resent it in the slightest, that's the point of cell, to be a community where we can all support one another. Those who are going through better times comfort those going through harder times.
But I feel that often they don't realise that I have things which trouble me as much as theirs do them. What to me seems highly important they often see as relatively trivial. For example, much of their concern is for their family. But I don't have children and grandchildren like they do. What I do have is friends who to me can be as important as family members. If I tell them about a trouble a friend is having, they may not rank it as something that's important as if it were a family member, but to me it matters as much, because my friends are the people around me as their family are around them. So it can feel as if my worries and fears are being trivialised.
One cell member even said to me a few weeks ago, when I'd tried to explain that I was struggling with loneliness: "in a few years you'll meet someone and things will be different." Well, perhaps (although it doesn't seem particularly likely just now) but that's hardly helpful now. Because you think something will be different in the future doesn't mean it's not important to me now, that it doesn't still make me feel terrible. In fact, what you've just said has made me feel worse, because what if that doesn't happen? And why should I have to wait? What I want is someone to listen when I'm upset, and not to trivialise what I'm feeling and tell me (in essence) that it'll be better when I grow up properly!
Because of this, I find it hard to share my sadnesses and worries, so don't always say when something's troubling me. I think that the others will think it is a trivial matter, and won't bother to remember (often if we're rushed for time, people only remember to pray for the things they thought were important. And yes, other people's needs are often more important than mine).
So I feel I'm just taking on other people's troubles and no one is taking from me. Which isn't how it's supposed to work. But I don't know how to say that without sounding attention-seeking, as if I'm trying to make a big deal of something that isn't. And I don't like drawing attention to myself. So I put up with it, and often come away feeling alone (most of the others are married couples) and oppressed with other people's and my own sadness. And not sure how to deal with it. If you're a praying person, please pray for me.
Wednesday, 29 April 2009
Friday, 24 April 2009
My 50th post
I believe this will be the 50th post on this blog. So, congratulations me! (ha ha)
To celebrate, here's some thought on a meeting I attended last night. My church's APCM (Annual parocial church meeting, or "Amazing party for church members" as a curate tried to rename it!)
Since this was my fourth AGM or EGM of this year (ie, since January) I'm beginning to feel quite a connisseur of these type of meetings. This one was particularly interesting because it was the first of this type that I had attended.
I found out some interesting things in the course of the meeting. Of the 700+ people who attend the church, there are 462 on the electoral roll (ie, people who are eligible to vote at the APCM). I suppose that's not too bad a proportion when you consider the nature of our church. What did amuse me is that apparently of those 462, only three live within the parish. I suppose with a city centre parish with few residential properties that's inevitable, but it does make me think. What difference would it make if all those people went to their local parish churches? What difference to the parish churches? What difference to local communities? Of course, I understand why people don't. I'm one of them.
Of those 462, around 80-90 appeared to be present at the meeting. Some of the same questions arise as they do in national politics, when a decision is taken at a meeting by a majority of 50-odd which will affect how the church is run.
The main decision to be made was to reduce the size of the church council to a more workable number. I can easily imagine how difficult it is to make decisions with a group of nearly 4o- I've been on committees of 12 that have struggled to do that! I also understand some of the objections being raised that ordinary members might struggle to make their voices heard under the new scheme. Although whether it's any different now is another matter.
However, the problem seemed to be epitomised for me by one section of the evening. 7 people needed to be elected to the council for the next year, until the new arrangement comes into place, to replace members who were retiring. Only one person stood for election. If so few people, even within those who are interested in the way the church is run (and people who weren't didn't need to come to the meeting) are willing to stand for election and do something about it, surely there's a problem. How can people complain about getting their voice heard if they're not willing to do something themselves?
I think one of the problems is that people like me, who haven't been in the church for thirty years (and didn't even grow up in the Anglican tradition) don't necessarily understand what the role of the PCC is, or what it does, or what being on it means committing oneself to. Also, the younger people may often think that it's a job for older people, although I think a balance of some younger people, of the type who haven't been here for a couple of decades, would be good. Sometimes it seems to me that there are a group of people who do these jobs, and other people don't even think about doing them, because there's a perception (created I don't know how) that you have to be asked to join that group.
People may also see other areas as more exciting and more important to be involved in. Administrate or financial procedures and oversight may not sound the most exciting, but being right at the centre of church decision making should be exciting and interesting. These are our leaders, there to support the clergy and help them understand God's will for the church. We should value and pray for them. Or so I see it.
To celebrate, here's some thought on a meeting I attended last night. My church's APCM (Annual parocial church meeting, or "Amazing party for church members" as a curate tried to rename it!)
Since this was my fourth AGM or EGM of this year (ie, since January) I'm beginning to feel quite a connisseur of these type of meetings. This one was particularly interesting because it was the first of this type that I had attended.
I found out some interesting things in the course of the meeting. Of the 700+ people who attend the church, there are 462 on the electoral roll (ie, people who are eligible to vote at the APCM). I suppose that's not too bad a proportion when you consider the nature of our church. What did amuse me is that apparently of those 462, only three live within the parish. I suppose with a city centre parish with few residential properties that's inevitable, but it does make me think. What difference would it make if all those people went to their local parish churches? What difference to the parish churches? What difference to local communities? Of course, I understand why people don't. I'm one of them.
Of those 462, around 80-90 appeared to be present at the meeting. Some of the same questions arise as they do in national politics, when a decision is taken at a meeting by a majority of 50-odd which will affect how the church is run.
The main decision to be made was to reduce the size of the church council to a more workable number. I can easily imagine how difficult it is to make decisions with a group of nearly 4o- I've been on committees of 12 that have struggled to do that! I also understand some of the objections being raised that ordinary members might struggle to make their voices heard under the new scheme. Although whether it's any different now is another matter.
However, the problem seemed to be epitomised for me by one section of the evening. 7 people needed to be elected to the council for the next year, until the new arrangement comes into place, to replace members who were retiring. Only one person stood for election. If so few people, even within those who are interested in the way the church is run (and people who weren't didn't need to come to the meeting) are willing to stand for election and do something about it, surely there's a problem. How can people complain about getting their voice heard if they're not willing to do something themselves?
I think one of the problems is that people like me, who haven't been in the church for thirty years (and didn't even grow up in the Anglican tradition) don't necessarily understand what the role of the PCC is, or what it does, or what being on it means committing oneself to. Also, the younger people may often think that it's a job for older people, although I think a balance of some younger people, of the type who haven't been here for a couple of decades, would be good. Sometimes it seems to me that there are a group of people who do these jobs, and other people don't even think about doing them, because there's a perception (created I don't know how) that you have to be asked to join that group.
People may also see other areas as more exciting and more important to be involved in. Administrate or financial procedures and oversight may not sound the most exciting, but being right at the centre of church decision making should be exciting and interesting. These are our leaders, there to support the clergy and help them understand God's will for the church. We should value and pray for them. Or so I see it.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
A few financial thoughts
I hesitate to write this post, knowing that I have absolutely no qualifications to do so. I've never studied economics or even politics, and my maths is legendarily bad. So financial matters are hardly a subject I can speak about with authority! On the other hand, while reading and listening to analysis of yesterday's budget, I found myself getting annoyed with some of the comments people were posting. So here's a few thoughts. If you disagree, remember that everyone is entitled to their own opinions and that "my opinion doesn't matter matter matter..."
The people who say that government is too 'big' and should be 'slimmed down' seem to be forgetting something, or perhaps they don't realise quite what that means. It means job losses. Not just the well-off Whitehall bureaucrats they see as villains, (I somehow think that they'll be the last to go) but the average people who work for the council, doing everyday vital jobs like administering housing benefit or social work. And while unemployment is increasing rapidly, do we really want to add to this by laying off more people? Enough problems and delays are caused by poor investment and undermanning as it is; do we really want this to increase? Perhaps there is scope for cutting wasted money, but perhaps keeping people in work should be more of a priority at present.
On the topic of unemployment, I was pleased to see that someone has noticed the problem young people have finding jobs. I imagine their plan to give everyone under 25 who's been unemployed for more than a year a job or training is aimed more at school leavers than graduates, but the problem is much the same: when there's so much competition for so few jobs, employers are less willing to take a risk so go for the more experienced candidates. I have to confess to being dubious at how much difference this new plan will make, but at least to have acknowledged the problem is a step forward.
Other parts of the budget don't really affect me. There's no way I'll be buying a house any time soon, I'm not eligible for any benefits, I don't smoke, I certainly don't earn enough to pay the extra income tax! In fact, the increased personal allowance could make a fair bit of difference to what I earn. Tax increases on alcohol won't affect me much, and although that on fuel probably will at some point in the next few months, I have some sympathy with the environmental arguments behind it.
So I suspect the changes outlined yesterday won't make a vast difference to my life, one way or the other. I find that the more people complain, the more sympathetic I become to what they're complaining about. I often wonder, when people are complaining about having to pay more in tax (or in this case for the government to borrow more) what they would rather happened? Would they prefer to have privatised (for example) health or schools, which would probably mean those that could afford it payed more than they currently do, while those who couldn't afford it suffered?
The one tax issue I do get annoyed about is one that's not been mentioned much lately: Council Tax. Because there are two of us in our household who are employed (even though I'm only part time and we're both on low incomes), the household gets no reduction from the full amount due on a fairly large (well with 4 adults living there it would be) house, even though one of the other two occupants is unemployed and the other is a student. It's...daft. Surely there's a better way? But that might mean some people paying more so that others can pay less...
The people who say that government is too 'big' and should be 'slimmed down' seem to be forgetting something, or perhaps they don't realise quite what that means. It means job losses. Not just the well-off Whitehall bureaucrats they see as villains, (I somehow think that they'll be the last to go) but the average people who work for the council, doing everyday vital jobs like administering housing benefit or social work. And while unemployment is increasing rapidly, do we really want to add to this by laying off more people? Enough problems and delays are caused by poor investment and undermanning as it is; do we really want this to increase? Perhaps there is scope for cutting wasted money, but perhaps keeping people in work should be more of a priority at present.
On the topic of unemployment, I was pleased to see that someone has noticed the problem young people have finding jobs. I imagine their plan to give everyone under 25 who's been unemployed for more than a year a job or training is aimed more at school leavers than graduates, but the problem is much the same: when there's so much competition for so few jobs, employers are less willing to take a risk so go for the more experienced candidates. I have to confess to being dubious at how much difference this new plan will make, but at least to have acknowledged the problem is a step forward.
Other parts of the budget don't really affect me. There's no way I'll be buying a house any time soon, I'm not eligible for any benefits, I don't smoke, I certainly don't earn enough to pay the extra income tax! In fact, the increased personal allowance could make a fair bit of difference to what I earn. Tax increases on alcohol won't affect me much, and although that on fuel probably will at some point in the next few months, I have some sympathy with the environmental arguments behind it.
So I suspect the changes outlined yesterday won't make a vast difference to my life, one way or the other. I find that the more people complain, the more sympathetic I become to what they're complaining about. I often wonder, when people are complaining about having to pay more in tax (or in this case for the government to borrow more) what they would rather happened? Would they prefer to have privatised (for example) health or schools, which would probably mean those that could afford it payed more than they currently do, while those who couldn't afford it suffered?
The one tax issue I do get annoyed about is one that's not been mentioned much lately: Council Tax. Because there are two of us in our household who are employed (even though I'm only part time and we're both on low incomes), the household gets no reduction from the full amount due on a fairly large (well with 4 adults living there it would be) house, even though one of the other two occupants is unemployed and the other is a student. It's...daft. Surely there's a better way? But that might mean some people paying more so that others can pay less...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)