Have spent the last few days up at the uni, with Dave and Maddie, on the Cartoon Church stall in the Lamberth market place. Over the three days I learnt a few things I didn't know.
1. Bishops really have to go for the layered look when they go for the official garb - they start with what looks like a night gown and build up from there. Dressing in full uniform takes alot of time (and isn't particularly cheap either).
2. After a few bishops have been at a stall full of purple shirts it looks just like Saturday afternoon in Topshop. (Information gained through sitting watching the bishops shopping in Wippell's ).
3. The Joanna Trollope type representation of bishops wives is largley outdated. They are lovely people (as were the blokes) and not at all stuck up and very few were wearing floral dresses.
4. If you were to wander into a bunch of bishops at Lamberth and not know what was going on you would be more likely to think the uni had been taken over by Saga holiday makers than by a bunch of bishops. There's alot of the slacks with trainers look going on.
5. "Celebs" can still make you act in ways you know are sooooo not appropriate if they happen to be personal favourites and you meet them when you are off guard and off duty.*
*Ok, bit of an explanation needed. This afternoon I took a few minutes off the stall to wander around the market place (hence the off duty part). I headed off to the Wesley Owen stall for a final check there were no "urgent" buys I needed to get for my research when this middle aged guy with a grey tag, (signifying not bishop, but guest), says hi as I am looking at a bunch of books he's standing casually beside. Suddenly my eye drifts over from the books I'm looking at to the sign next to them referring to a signing session which didn't appear to actually be happening & it clicks who I am talking to. At this point instinct rather than common sense and etiquette kicked in and I did that slight jump in the air as you put your hands to the face thing, saying, in a slightly higher pitch than usual, "Oh my God, it's you isn't it". I then managed to recover myself and have a proper conversation with Brian McLaren (and apologised for my initial reaction). Note to anybody wondering who the heck Brian McLaren is - in the progressive evangelical world he is one of the key players and was the key speaker at the bishops plenary session on Monday & so quite an important bloke in certain "religious" circles. He is also one of my favourite authors.
Have realised with his we take the bible seriously as the word of God, but final authority rests with Jesus approach and view that all people are equal before God and so we need to ensure the civil rights of all that Gene Robinson would have, in a different age, probably made quite a good Baptist.
Also facinated by his approach to the role of the Spirit which, to me, is something new. It seems to have so much more to offer than many of the charasmatic "experience based" views of the role of the Spirit.
Gene Robinson Lecture - A view from the Lecture Theatre
(tractorgirl, 22.07.08)
This evening I have been to the Gene Robinson lecture organised by the Centre LGS at the uni. The title of "The Lamberth Conference: A View for the Fringe" was quite vague for an academic lecture. Yet I think this helped as this was in part academic lecture, but it went beyond this in terms of how the Bishop talked about his faith.
Obviously it would take me far too long to cover everything, but this will be quite along post as I want to give his lecture the attention it deserves. Before I launch in I will explain that prior to the lecture I was somewhat sceptical about the bishop. I had been touched by the message he had sent to Pride via Sir Ian, but...well there was too much showbiz about this bishop for my liking. Tonights lecture changed my mind though. I have, in my time, heard a range of world class speakers in various settings and I have to say there was something different about what Robinson said and how he spoke. He had a touch of humility I think I have only truly come across in public speaking before from RT Kendall and Jimmy Carter. Yet there was something more about his lecture I can't quite put my finger on.
Anyway on with what he actually said. Firstly he made clear that he was one person, whose words and faith are shaped by a mixture of his own experience, his social characteristics and the time and place in which he live. He acknowledged that he could speak on behalf on nobody other than himself, despite what others would like.
The first thread of his lecture related to the fact we live in changing times. Over the last ten to fifteen years things have changed primarily because more people are now "out". Whilst in the past, when discussing the issue, people were able to talk in abstract terms without knowingly being in relationship with anybody who was LGBT that has changed. When we discuss these things now it is more personal, because faces come to mind during our discussions. This has impacted what is seen as acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. The concrete worldviews we previously held therefore become confused as we struggle to combine our experience with our theory. This in turn causes anxiety. Additionally the world we now live in encourages anxiety aswell. However, in the end, the likely result of these situations is the anxiety subsides as a new view of the world becomes stabalised.
The next aspect he addressed was language. Firstly we are regularly adding more letters LGBTQ being the most frequently used. However, as more letters are being added they are becoming more meaningless. We are moving towards a situation where we will simply have to accept that people have a wide range of sexualities and who you are is who you are. The other aspect of language discussed was how homophobia is not a useful term. Whilst a small number of people may have a fear a more useful word to use, he argued, is heterosexualism. What we are struggling against is prejudice plus the power to enforce that prejudice on others.
He then moved on to look at the relationship between the religious issues involved and the civil rights issues involved. It is, he argued, important to look at the civil rights and religious rites seperately. Religious people should support civil rights because everybody should have these, even if they can't accept religious rites for LGBT people. The legal aspect, therefore, needs seperating from the religious. In the UK we have a strange situation where the state church has been allowed an excemption from state law.
Where religious arguments and oppressions, from all three monotheistic religions, have become secularised this has seen led to wider scale oppression. As the roots lie within the religions it is the role of the religious to deal with changing the oppression through changing perceptions This change of perception comes from preaching what God actually thinks rather than what people think he thinks and in order to do this we have to look at the bible.
His starting point was to say that our construct of "homosexuality" is a modern thing. Therefore, when modern translations talk of homosexuality they are talking about different thingst to those we understand. Similarly the understanding of abomination and what is an abomination to God becomes an issue. We have to look at the whole text. At all levels there are decisions being made about what to accept within the modern situation and what not to. Some verses are bought into the modern context whilst others are not.
Robinson stated, in relation to the bible, he regarded it as "the word of God" but not the "literal words of God". For Robinson Jesus is the perfect revelation of God and the bible cannot be placed above Jesus. The night before death Jesus said that he things to reveal that had not yet been revealed. This is why we have the Spirit, who has the role to lead people towards a better understanding of God. This is why the God we worship is a living God and didn't stop working at the end of the 1st century when the bible was completed. Things the Spirit has revealed over the centuries include the way slavery is not acceptable and the way women are to be treated. This doesn't mean that Gods truth is changing but it does mean that we're getting it more. However, this doesn't mean all progress is good, sometimes we are moving backwards away from understanding Gods truth aswell as moving towards it at other times. Language has again been the key because when people say we can't change the bible what we have constantly changed is our understanding of words. We need to acknowledge that this is one way in which the Spirit works.
Political points he made related to the way the view of family differs according to if we are talking about homosexuals or heterosexuals. This he argues is key because it isn't right to have one structure available for heterosexuals but not for non-heterosexuals. He, somewhat weakly in my opinion, linked this to patriarchy and said that misogony and heterosexualism were clearly linked. Once the church fully sorts out its views towards women it will sort out the sexuality issue.
The most moving part for me was when he spoke about his own faith. He believes the bible and Jesus life shows God has a heart for the marginalised whoever they are. He said mission is finding God where is He is on earth and joining him there. Robinson loves the church and could not leave it because it is the church he came to know of Gods love in and it was where he heard God tell him that he was loved for who he was. However, the fullness of God's love is not knowable he says. All the boxes we build for God are too small for God. He also explained how he has a spiritual director to help him discerne God's voice and how community is vital.
In relation to those who oppose him he said he knew they would be in heaven with him and they were also faithfully on their way home to God, hearing the Spirit aswell, although in different ways. They are important, we have much to learn from the South, particularly. He acknowleged that some movement forward may lead to some people moving into defensive positions but believed in the end equality would prevail. We need to choose carefully what battles to fight and what to leave. Sometimes we will make mistakes, and we won't see all the results. We all build upon the people before and what matters is that we all play our individual part.
There were a few other odd bits he said but this was the main substance, although I am sure I have not been able to give it full justice. This is Gene Robinsons own blog, which he is posting at the moment. As for me, I think that this evening is one of those evenings which will take time to sink in and fully learn from, it has given me alot of positive stuff to think about though. I have been given a slightly new way to look at the bible and a positive explanation of why leaving the church never quite becomes possible, to think about amongst other things.
At the moment I have 3 books on the go - this is not good, but each of the books is. Whilst I'll review it later, I really want to recommend people get hold of Exchanging the truth of God for a lie by Jeremy Marks who runs Courage .
It is the story of an evangelical who has had to answer the difficult questions and go through a painful journey in order to recieve freedom. It is the story of somebody who has had to face the reaction of his sub-culture when a change in the organisations stance, based on a full examination of the bible and the experience of harsh realities, meant he went from running an ex-gay organisation to a fully affirming organisation.
It's a book I would encourage evangelicals to read and engage with, even if they find they end up coming to different conclusions.
Just over a year ago I posted this post which explained my reasons for resigning my church membership but intentions to remain an active part of the church.
When I made the decision referred to within it I thought I knew how hard it could be, but I am realising that I had no idea at all really. The trade off I effectively made was keeping my integrity through giving up my "right" to have a say. That's not to say I haven't voiced my opinions on stuff (and unfortunatly not always appropriately), but it has meant I haven't had the automatic right to. Throughout it all though whilst I haven't been a member I have been able to remain a real part of the church.
The church has gone out of its way, at times, to ensure I have known how much they love me as a person. They have also, in their own way, sought to engage with me fully as I am yet remained honest to the interpretation of the gospel they hold. The latest way they have done that is apparently, at the last church meeting, voting through a "love gift" for me, of a quite significant amount.
The way the gift has been termed is quite significant. They are supporting me as a person whom they love and regard as part of the church family rather than giving me anything to support my research or what I regard as my "calling". In doing this they have found their way around all the reasons they were the one group of people I wasn't approaching for funding and around all the reasons it may not have been appropriate to help me out. Infact in doing this they have knowingly ignored everything I had quite vocally said about not wanting support from the church because of x, y and z and just got on with loving me.
The effect of the gift has actually been quite significant in terms of how it means my tuition fees for the first year and a bit are now fully covered from what I have pledged from various sources, if I do the course full time, and so I can now definately take the uni accomodation. (Note that doesn't mean I'm fully there yet, but I'm getting there). The effect on me, as a person, is more significant though. On one hand I have had to face up to doing "being loved" which I actually find quite hard. On the other I have, yet again, experienced the effect of when creative solutions are found to allow everybody to believe what they do but remain part of the one body.
I am going to miss HBBC so much when I go because they are an incredible bunch of people. Yet I am looking to the future. Part of what I want to do with my research is share with the world how these ickle models of church work. I want people to see there are places where conservatives and liberals can and do sit and worship together in love rather than fear. I want people to see that there are places where the household can be diverse, and have their personality clashes and the rest of it but where in the end love will win. Don't get me wrong I'm not talking about wearing rose tinted glasses; everything isn't perfect in these churches, and sometimes people are really hurt by what is said or what is done. Neither is it to say it is an easy process where solutions can always be found, sometimes it seems that whoever holds the power will always win the day, simply because...... However, it does generally work because at the end of the day we are all dysfunctional messed up people in one way or another but we are dysfunctional messed up people who are being bought to fulness, together, through the love and power of the gospel.
N.b. I suppose part of the way creative solutions are found is through having a church full of creative people. Fred is one of our creative, rather liberal, types and has started to blog the wonderful story of Alice .
For reasons I'm not going into I forgot to post about the interesting visitation we had in church today. Our minister was in mid flow of his sermon and a group of three women burst in. From there accents I suspect they were German, certainly European of some kind.
Anyway they started going on about the way the leaders of the English church would soon face persecution and something about Lamberth and unsaved bishops. They thrust some literature into our ministers hand and then tried to give some out to the congregation before being ushered out by a couple of people and onto which ever place of worship they were going to invade next.
Somehow I felt uncomfortable not only with their invasion but also with the churches reaction to it. They were a disruption to the service and so the chosen course of action after they wouldn't quietly sit down was to usher them out as quickly as possible. Now, I'm not saying they should have been allowed to get in the way of the sermon but....well something of the whole episode, (which I initally thought was a staged drama), didn't sit right. I still can't get my head around what should have happened, but I don't think that it was what did.
Also I felt my own reaction to it was ....well wrong. It was clear quite quickly that these were very conservative evangelicals, possibly fundamentalists who had come to the area as a result of Lamberth. These strangers who had invaded our space in an "inappropriate way" felt like a threat. I wanted them to either sit down and fade away or simply disappear as quickly as possible. I wanted a copy of the booklet but felt that taking what I was being offered would be seen as encouraging them, and not supporting those who were trying to resume normal service as quickly as possible. As an individual I didn't know how to react.
The sea was a tad choppy this afternoon and the wind was also up a bit, but that didn't stop two of our congregation having their baptism in the sea this afternoon. It was cool, (in every sense of the word).
Then we all wandered up the beach and sat outside one of the church members beach huts, warming ourselves up with tea and coffee whilst Third Party and some of her friends went swimming in the sea - (nutters).
Up to London today to meet up with a friend who is down south for the summer. Started off with a wander through Hyde Park where we were entertained by vehicles about to head off on the Mongol Rally . Then into Kensington Palace where we saw The Last Debutantes exhibition. It gave a facinating insight to the life of the debs and the thoughts of those who were part of the last season to be presented, in 1958. There was a talking heads type DVD presentation which was facinating as part of the exhibition. Then we went around the rest of the part of the palace which is open to the public. The combination of beautiful frocks ,(including some of Diana's), and ornate beds combined to turn it into a wonderful experience where it is more than possible to escape into a fairytale fantasy world for a while - something the gift shop was more than equipped to cash in on.
Logging on this morning I was greeted with the news that the Tate has unvieled its plans for a revamped building . I have to say that my immeadiate reaction was arrrgggghhhh they can't do that.
However, having read the plans, (sorry vision), I'm thinking this might just make sense. I think the bit that really got me was when they were talking about building in was is effectively an education centre. I was also impressed by the idea of introducing more public spaces into the community.
It is another example of a project that is intended to be ready for the Olympics in 2012, and so another example of how in the next five years the face of the city is likely to change.
What I hope for, though, is that whatever happens the character of the Tate Modern is not lost in the revamp. The reason I love the building is because you can wander about and just get lost. It is a space you can escape into and a gallery where it is ok to laugh. It's a space where pretension can be mocked or taken seriously depending upon your mood and artistic tastes. Having seen what they have done to the back roof terrace of the members area, (I pay my membership for the opportunity to sunbathe in that space on garden style furniture with a book and a drink, not picnic on cramped Ikea style nightmares), I am worried that they are moving into the realm of increased functionality.
This is the first day of my "holiday" and so I'm taking a break from the heavy stuff.
Over the last few days one of my themes has been about Christians and churches encouraging the use of public space. Here are some examples of things going on in East Kent over the next fortnight which you may or may not be interested in if you are about.
This Sunday: The "unofficial Lamberth pink fringe" is organising an open air service in Canterbury, to pray for the bishops at the Lamberth conference, at 2:30 (see the Integrity site for details). Personally I won't be there because down on Herne Bay sea front HBBC is holding a baptismal service at 3pm where two of my friends will be making a public witness about their faith. It's great when you're told 3rd breakwater from the pier as the directions for a service and you're left thinking wtf - I'll just wander along until I find them; a baptismal service should be quite easy to find.
Then next Tuesday the university are holding the Gene Robinson lecture (another part of the "unofficial pink fringe"). This is apparently looking like it will be a "popular" event and so they have changed the venue and are asking people to contact the LGS Centre to book a seat.
Moving onto the week after and young people will be taking over various bits of Kent for family fundays run by the Re:act team . The Herne Bay one is taking place on Wednesday 30th July, in Memorial Park. This is also the first of two consecutive nights Peterson Toscano is doing his 70% Show up at the university, as part of "the official Lamberth fringe".
Adding in the odd festival and visits to friends I might just fit in getting everything I need to for the move ;)
Whether you're reading a book like Disconnected, listening to David Cameron or simply chatting to a kid about the world they live in you can't fail to notice that current life is pretty grim in some ways and young people are looking for ways to escape it. However, I'd argue that it's not just young people, there are vast sections of adult society also balancing the day job with evenings and weekends of escapism (through alcohol, anti-depressents, video games, soap operas or illicet sex).
This escapism is not biblical and is I would argue one of the key problems in modern society and one of the areas where Christianity has a real alternative to offer (if the church would wake up, smell the coffee, and start being offended by the stuff that really matters rather than stuff that doesn't).
People are escaping and so abdicating their responsibilities because they are living in bleak, treadmill lives on one hand but live in a world of absolute choice on the other. They feel powerless, as Barham (in Disconnected)and many others have pointed out we live in a world where the politicians showed they were prepared to ignore the majority when they went to war in Iraq in 2003. They feel trapped in bleak worlds where they have to compete and claw their way up career ladders, not by having a job for life but knowing when to jump and how to juggle multiple roles. They are ruled by the demands of our consumer lifestyles. They have so much choice they feel they have no choice and so they use whatever makes them, just for a while feel better.
The results of this escapism vary. For many their recreational drug use, casual sex, or use of the media will have no long lasting negative result that they can see, but for some the results on emotional and physical levels are scary. But let us look at the results on society.
A disposable society, where sex becomes another escape route - used to make people feel better leads to relationships becoming undervalued as sex becomes seperated from commitment. It leads to a society where families fragment and parents of whatever ethnicity and gender struggle to keep it together. (Note Mr. Cameron - it's not just a black thing). It leads to a world where our teenagers (and adults) are increasingly getting preventable diseases.
A society where prescribed drugs or recreational drugs are increasingly the crutch used to get through life leads to a situation where it becomes accepted that everybody is on something the only question is who you are getting it from, how much is costs and how well does it work. It leads to a society where our minds are fogged. (Note here I am not knocking all prescribed drugs or saying that some people don't need anti-depressants but my five years on Seroxat gives me some experience of the negative aswell as positive effects). It also leads to a society where people increasingly think rather than having to face up to reality they can get happy pills to escape what infact will remain.
So what alternative does Christianity offer?
Christianity offers a value system which says sex is good, but is ideally within stable life long relationships. Note marriage and civil partnerships are good things. It is also a value system which acknowledges things can go wrong, but that doesn't mean the end of things. The bible is full of people making positive decisions after messing up and rebuilding their lives. It is a book which also acknowledges that people suffer because of the bad decisions of others and shows in those situations you don't need to escape reality totally but rather you need to turn to God who will help you through facing the reality whilst you are getting your head around what's happened. (Note here: I am not saying people should stay in bad relationships, I would be the first to advocate that somebody get out of any relationship which is abusive or is having a negative effect on them. What I am saying is in that situation rather than dealing with the pain artificially Christianity should be offering an environment and ways of dealing with situations which are healthy and work through what's happened. Also I'm not advocating we abandon the professionals, rather that we work with them and offer people opportunities and spaces).
The bible is full of stories about people who positively changed the world around them by not running away or escaping but rather by facing up to the hard stuff, engaging the minds and imaginations God had given them. It is full of stories of people with low self-esteem who found meaning not through getting wasted or moving from one bloke to another but rather through learning to respect themselves and letting God take them on amazing adventures.
So as Christians what we have is a gospel which is about creativity, using public space, chilling out in groups and then using that stuff to change the reality of the world around us, valuing ourselves and relying on God not chemicals or sex. Through this families (of whatever shape) are built and become stronger, single people are valued and consumption should theoretically fall.
In the beginning, before man managed to start making the wrong choices, was an awsome creative God. This awesome creative God created humans in His image and so made them creative aswell. During the whole creation thing he set some important groundrules, not through getting heavy handed but by example.
First thing He did was establish the idea you might work your butt off six days a week but on the seventh you rest and have some fun. Oh and you don't work 24/7 rather you finish at a reasonable time and go walking in the garden or whatever, catching up with your friends in the evening and enjoying what you've created. (For those unfamiliar with the bible that's a brief summary of Genesis).
This God, the God, whom we Christians worship also likes music. It was one of the reasons he made us creative. The bibles most famous musician (the Psalmist) says we are to praise him on all kinds of instruments and using all kind of styles and in all sorts of situations. God is as interested in us using music and poetry when we're p***ed with life as when we're well up for it.
When Jesus (God on earth) came he used storytelling, another creative art, to communicate with people and did it in vast public spaces. On one occassion he had an audience of 5000+ and no PA system, somehow he managed to get them all fed though. Oh and on another occassion he turned water into wine, but reckoned it wasn't a good idea to get too messy.
So creativity, the use of public space and having fun are all biblical. They are biblical concepts we seem to have forgotten.
Fast forward to our current age and the situtation the young and not so young find themselves in today.
Creativity is ok, aslong as it fits in with the dominant culture and is sanctioned. We have laws, dating back to the early 90's which have not been repealed which make listening to certain types of music, in public spaces, in large groups illegal. Now I'm not going to get into the drugs issue today, (that can wait for another time - and I'm not going to try and say they're alright because they're not), but it has to be recognised that one of the major reasons that the free party / rave scene in this country was criminalised was because not so many people were getting messy on alcohol and the brewing industry lobbied hard. Certain types of music which appeal to certain sectors of society are demonised and condemed by politicians. They don't acknowledge that in the US in the late 70's it was the sound systems and early Hip Hop movement which actually reduced gang violence by having sound clashes instead.
Public art is now celebrated in the Tate Modern and places, but the graffiti and early attempts of street artists are criminalised and walls / trains are covered in graffiti proof paint. In todays society cave paintings would be seen as vandalism. (Note at this point I do know there is a difference between graffiti and street art and I am not condeming the destruction of private property, but..... there is a place for graffiti and people do have to learn their craft somewhere).
Young people are dispersed if they hang about in too large groups in public spaces and those public spaces which can be controlled are locked in the evenings. Playing fields and parks have been concreted over and sold to developers. Health and safety laws and a culture of litergation are breeding a culture where fear not hope is prevelent and public gatherings are increasingly restricted.
So where does this leave us?
Well, here are some ideas which I know are utopian on one hand and would present a whole range of practical problems, (but I think God encourages us to bibically dream outside the box.)
Churches can be at the forefront of valuing creativity. Rather than moaning about what sort of music we do or don't like what about accepting that it's going to be a mix and that mix is going to go beyond worship group vs. organ. What about letting young people developing new styles of music show case them in the public spaces around our buildings? What about rather than covering our walls in graffiti proof paint covering them in blank canvas (or even sheets) and letting people come and tag on that, changing it when it's full and displaying the completed sheets in exhibitions of local work.
Let's face it seeing young people getting creative is wonderful. How many of us have been watching Last Choir Standing, knowing that Hereford Police Choir and Bath City Choir are in a league of their own as choirs, but have been rooting for Dreemz because well.... they're young working class kids being valued and enjoying it.
As Christians in our localities we should be looking at the plans our councils are drawing up and lobbying against the destruction of public, green spaces and for the reinstatement of free public spaces where possible.
As parents we need to get back to biblical values in terms of how we spend our time (and this is one I really struggle with). As a society we need to learn to just chill and relax, having fun with each other. It's a biblical value but one we're kak at. This can be a positive Christian value we can put forward. Now note, it doesn't have to be a Sunday set aside and everybody doesn't need the same day, but we do need to say that the 24/7 culture we now have is not biblical.
Now all of the above would mean that we would have to start putting people above profit and we might have to make adjustments in our standing of living. So like we might have to think about whether we need the "nice car", "whether we need to drive to church", "whether we need the latest pay per view package on the Sky", etc, etc. We would also need to stop being scared of young people and thinking we can tell them how to be creative. There may be large groups hanging around our buildings and what they produce may not be to our taste and it might contain some content we find worrying, because it is expressing how they feel....but hey, in my experience young people self-regulate to some extent.
So let's get back to biblical basics....creativity, using public space, chilling in small and larger groups and having fun. These are the very values many of the actions of our young people show they want / have; what we need to do is to get back to the bible and work out how, as Christians, to put these into action in our society.
(Note: This is series is a re-mix of ideas I have got reading Disconnected, Pirate's Dilemma, work by Kathy Galloway and by Geroge McKay and too many years at Greenbelt and the odd sermon I've listened to with a bit of my own stuff thrown in).
I've been reading Disconnected by Nick Barham , it's a couple of years old now but still one of the most accurate accounts of youth culture I've read. It's a book which interviews young people in order to try and explore what's going on in their world and what their values are. As such it comes to few conclusions and even fewer reccomendations but it does represent an accurate picture of elements of youth culture in Britain.
Looking for a link to the book I found this review on UCCF, which was interesting. It goes through the book and then knocks the secular author for not finding Christianity as the answer. To some extent I think it has a point, but I also think this review also misses the point completely aswell. Here is my take on it.
The book interviews a selection of young people about violence, leisure (sex, drugs, music) and politics (protest) amongst other things. What it finds is that it is a complicated picture full of contradictions like people say they aren't influenced by the media yet it seeps through. Like people want to do something with their lives but they also feel the need to escape. Like people want to be learn meaningful stuff which they can put into practice but they don't value educational establishments because they don't think don't want to be told how to learn it. They want a say over what happens in their lives but they don't see the point of engaging in the democratic process. They want to fit in but they don't want to be "normal".
As a teacher, a mum, a festival goer and a protester I have to say I found the book both disturbing but reassuring. It was accurate. What it highlighted for me was the fact that the majority of young people aren't bad but there are major issues they need to face as individuals and we need to face as a society and areas where we need to realise the picture is far more grey than black and white. They are the issues that mean that Christianity is as relevent as it's ever been and as Christians / churches we have something really important to offer to our communities. They are also issues that mean that quick fix solutions to the current moral panic about knives and youth violence aren't going to make much difference and that much deeper changes in our societies are needed.
I could go on, but I'd be here all day. Yet I want to constructively engage with some of the issues in the book and try to explain why I think that turning to God is the answer and why we need to get back to the bible, but we need to read the bible through the lense of the people in the book, aswell as reading it ourselves as people in todays society, not people trying to hark back to a different society, (which may never have existed anyway). I want to engage in why I think it needs adults and governments to get back to God and change their behaviours aswell. Basically I want to cry for the kids in the book, in our schools and in our homes but I also want to thank God for them and celebrate them and some of their activities which at times seem counter cultural aswell; I want to ask for forgiveness for my own and societies messed up norms and values which ain't so civillised often and I want to scream out to God to help the young people who aren't just cutting each other on our streets but are increasingly cutting themselves or engaging in other self destructive behaviour and I want to acknowledge the hypocricy going on where we try and make out that all these problems only belong to young people.
So I guess that the next few posts are going to be another mini-collection of posts on one topic.
Once upon a time you could tell a fundie by their suit and somber expression. They would normally be found outside venues trying to stop people getting in to x, y, or z which was the work of the devil. Alternatively you could hear them going for the doomsday fire and brimstone approach, trying to scare people into heaven.
These days it appears it's all an ickle different. From observing Todd Bentley , the guy who heckled Gene Robinson in the middle of his sermon yesterday (see BBC article here ), and the stereotype of the fundie in Greek it appears they are more likely to resemble a metalhead 6th former (you know the Iron Maiden old skool type, rather than a death metal speedfreak which Todd Bentley sort of gets closest to).
Note re this post: I am using "fundie" in it's loosest sense, rather than looking for it's proper technical meaning and yes I know this is a simplistic over generalisation, but hey I'm a Christian; that's what we do ;)
Last night I mangaged to stay awake late enough to watch Fantabulosa which was a really moving drama about the life of Kenneth Williams (the Carry On star / Voice of Willow the Wisp). One of the themes which was portrayed in part of the performance was the way that Williams handled celibacy and sexuality. A point quite strongly made in the drama was the way that celibate people engage in sexual behaviour mainly in their heads, (although masturbation also often pays a role).
This is something as somebody who has been celibate for the last decade I am obviously aware of, but it got me thinking. Dealing with the realities of being celibate yet also a sexual being is something the church is dismal at addressing. Casting my mind back to when I was a young person, and to various "singles talks" I have been unfortunate to end up in since the focus has always tended to be "sex outside marriage is wrong full stop." or "if you do get in a realationship where do should you stop?" and so a list of do nots. I don't think I can remember anything that has acknowledged you may currently be and may actually end up remaining single, but you will still be a sexual being and have to work out a way to express that in a godly way, but one which enables you to keep your sanity.
This is an important issue for both single heterosexual and LGBT people if they are seeking to live out the position which says all sex outside marriage is wrong. It becomes particularly relevent for those of us with a non-heterosexual sexuality if we take the side B position (i.e. God has created us with our sexuality, but we are called to be celibate). At the moment the position being taken appears to be that the church and its teaching thinks those of us who choose to adhere to its teaching become robots, rather than still being fully human.
I think that this lack of teaching on how to handle singleness and celibacy whilst still fully acknowledging our sexuality may be one of the reason that so many Chrisitans in their twenties and thirties may be so messed up emotionally or decide to enter into marriages they should never be in at all. This is complicated even more if people come from traditions which say masturbation is wrong.
What has to be acknowledged particularly by those, (who are often married), promoting the no sex outside heterosexual marriage message is their current teaching encourages us to shut off an important, God given, part of ourselves. We are effectively told to become robots until such time we enter an appropriate, married, relationship. This means we become humans who struggle to deal with all the contridictory feelings we have (including those of feeling horny and guilty at the same time). This is total contridiction to what should be happening where we should be encouraged to value the whole of who God has made us but also use our sexuality responsibility in the bounds God has laid down in order to show full respect to such a wonderful gift.
It is, surely, an area which, if we expect people to adhere to traditional teaching, we must develop some clear teaching on - sooner rather than later.
Back in the 80's I remember there being this clock they referred to each year which represented how close we were to nuclear war. For much of the decade it was set at about 5 minutes to midnight, I think, as the two superpowers had nuclear weapons facing each other. That perception of knowing how close we were to complete meltdown was something which encouraged many people to engage in things like CND. People got involved because they were getting angry.
Well in my own life hitting that few minutes to midnight last week and realising how close I was getting to meltdown has done me loads of good. I have started to put my to do list in to action and have moved from the "poor me" attitude to the "f*** this" attitude.
I have gotten back to basics and thinking about what the research is about, why it needs doing and why I am the right sort of person to be doing it and why I am facing some of the problems I am, particularly regarding funding.
The main problems with funding have come from the following (i) I don't have the right academic profile, (i.e. I never got a first), (ii) I am too old (i.e. over 30) and (iii) I am not a professional (i.e. ordained or employed by a church). To a certain extent though the fact I can't fit into those boxes is exactly why I was able to come up with the research proposal and why I have such a passion for it. These types of difficulties are exactly why there is a lack of grounded feminist research coming from academia and are the reason for part of the silence on the subjects I want to talk about. To a certain extent what I am coming up against, for the first time in my life, are class barriers. It's like the lower middle classes are being told they can get to a certain level but beyond that it still comes down to money. It's also seeming that "the system" is designed for people who fit into the right life paths and have fitted into the right boxes. As somebody who never seems to, quite, fit into the right box I am ready to say f**k you, I don't care what barriers you put in the way if academically I am up to this, (which being offered the place and my educational qualifications would suggest I am), I am going to do it.
Now, don't get me wrong - I still think this is a God inspired thing particularly as my friend reminded me exactly what I told her God had laid on my heart when I came back from Iona. However, making sure I succeed at this is a political thing aswell.
I don't fit into the right academic profile partly because I have been a late developer but also because my path through education has not been one enclosed in the academic bubble. Dropping out of 6th form, doing A Levels at evening class, having a baby in the summer holidays before your final year, having to work full time in a demanding job whilst completing the second year of MA. These don't help you tick the boxes but they do help you know exactly what the majority of "ordinary" women in this country are experiencing. The achievement comes not through being exceptional but through being ordinary.
This living in the ordinary means I have had to claw my way up the qualification ladder bit by bit inbetween being mum, doing a job to pay the childminder, falling apart and negotiating my way through benefit and medical appointments, building a new career by working every hour I could stay awake, etc. Again this is the stuff which means I understand "the average" person and am part of the ordinary. It also does not allow you to reach the current level of academic achievement by the age of 30. Life experience is not a fundable box, but it is what I believe grounded theology has to come out of.
As for the not being a "professional" well it's an interesting one. For a start as a Baptist I'm quite heavily into the priesthood of all believers ;) The whole thing with this research project is that it has grown out of me looking at the experience of myself and my friends and at the lack of theory which explains our experience and the "silence" which exists regarding alot of positive inclusive practice in the evangelical sub-culture. The thesis has grown from experience as "an average bum on a pew" but also through a culture and theological background which tells the lay person that God uses them as missionaries and "agents of God" in the world, just as much as any professional. The whole thing has again grown out of the priviledge I have had of being part of the "ordinary". I have to laugh at the fact Christianity and the biblical tradition we follow is based upon the way God uses "the ordinary" but the boxes do their best to ensure that the "ordinary" are excluded.
I want to succeed in this research not because I'm exceptional or professional but rather because I am ordinary. If the system is set up to try and exclude "the ordinary", well tough. The gospel I follow is full of stories of Jesus working with and within the system but in such a way which at the same time was saying "f**k the system; God does not exclude" and gives a model for just getting on and doing it.
**Note the clock referred to at the beginning was The Doomsday clock . Thanks to Snailsnail for comment letting me know where to find it.
Mix and Match Technology - Looking for Compatability
(tractorgirl, 11.07.08)
Over the last few days I've became v. aware of how our modern world with it's range of technology isn't making communication as smooth as it could be. There is an assumption we tend to have that (i) everybody has access to the same range of communications we do and (ii) they are choosing to use all of the methods they have access to for communication purposes.
Yet it's not that easy. For example: Person A, B, C and D are all signed up to Facebook.
Person A starts a thread to find out the four members are going to be meeting up together at a given time.
Person B responds and says she's up for it. However, she is not sure how often others check their Facebook. Perhaps they could be texted.
Person A doesn't have the relevent mobile numbers and so says she will phone person C's landline instead.
Person A gets hold of person C who then texts person B to see if they need a lift. When there is no response to the text person B leaves a voice mail message there is still no response.
When they get home person B does phone person C, but on the landline because, although they had recieved persons C's messages at the points in the day when they had checked their phone, they were out of credit.
When discussing the original Facebook thread with person C later it emerges that she is currently not checking home e-mail or Facebook because she has an urgent task going on till mid month and doesn't want to get caught up with other stuff. She is using the logic if it's urgent they'll use another form of communication to get hold of her.
As for person D they had disappeared for a break without the technology and so you couldn't get hold of them anyway.
As for where the technology is combined and one machine does it all, I heard a great quote yesterday. "I have this machine which is does it all but I only use it for the games."
This BBC article highlights research which is talking about "soft" and "hard" A Levels and differences in grading. As somebody who has lived in the AS / A Level bubble for the last 8 years and primarily taught one of the "easier" subjects it's the sort of report which I think has an element of truth in it, but misses the point completely.
The first thing to say is no AS or A Level subject is easy. All require hard work and good attendance for you to achieve at the best grade you are able. (You get the feeling I could be putting up a recorded message for the amount of time I say it to people).
What the difference is is that different subjects test different skills and some have more of a variety of right answers than others. Additionally some subjects positively mark (i.e. mark upwards by adding marks for relevent information) whilst others negatively mark (i.e. deduct marks for wrong information). Those subjects which are considered "hard" subjects and "proper academic subjects" are predominantly Maths and Science subjects with questions where students get it right or wrong.
However in the more creative and humanities based subjects there is much more room for manouvre with some questions. Students have to show that they have a wide knowledge and understanding of the subjects and can interpret, identify, analyse and evaluate material appropriately but there is normally a larger base to work from. Additionally if one compares Psychology with Sociology for example the Sociology mark schemes are far less prescriptive about how the answer should be presented, and are more concerned that it the material just answers the question correctly.
So can we stop devaluing the achievements of students who have studied "soft subjects". When this years students get their results in August let us celebrate their achievements and how hard they have worked to get there rather than knocking them by trying to explain what they have gained is through them choosing "soft subjects" or "standards slipping".
Oh and as for the suggestion in the paper that the UCAS weighting be meddled with to try and stop people with the "soft subjects" going to good unis I am distinctly unimpressed; at best it would further eliteism, at worst it would kill subjects like Sociology at AS / A Level. This is a further example of how the powers that be want to try and railroad people onto courses that have an obvious career goal and discourage people from taking the ones they may simply enjoy.
The Guardian blog has this article which explores the possible relationship between the rise of the far right in this country and the demise of New Labour. The article makes some interesting points, including the way that it is left to clergymen to stand up against the fear which the far right spread, including within election literature.
I must say this encouraged me. The Guardian is not the most "Christian friendly" paper in the world, often promoting secularism at the expense of good reporting. However, on a day when most of the world was reporting division in the church and highlighting the uglier aspects of religion this article highlighted the power for the church to promote positive values by standing up for the things that really matter and against the real threats to the church and society.
In an increasingly divided society where fear of "the other", whoever or whatever that is, becomes more pronounced the church has an alternative to offer. The gospel we follow is one which gives us values based upon hope, upon love, and upon caring for "the other". It is a gospel which encourages involvement in our communities rather than retreating in fear. It is a gospel which offers hope rather than hopelessness and alternative ways of reacting in a turbulent world. It is not an easy gospel, but it is a gospel which in the mist of the credit crunch may facilitate us with the information to help us find an alternative economic system. It was these values that the article was, in it's own way commenting upon and praising.
Perhaps one day it will be this type of positive news, rather than arguments over women bishops and gay priests, which the church aswell as individual Christians will be known by.
Been reading The Pirate's Dilemma by Matt Mason at the moment. It's a really interesting book which takes cultural theory, social history and economics and remixes the details into a cocktail of easy read thought food.
Mason looks at the way modern technological change has developed and it's relationship to hacking, shareware, social networking and the DIY Punk ethos, aswell as capitalism. The term he uses which sums this up best is punk capitalism.
It's one of the most interesting books I have read for a while and I highly recommend it.
Journey through the field of life 
1
Permalink