Who are you?

Mirrors -
Many people have mirrors in their homes– infact only particularly odd people don’t. But how often do we ever bother to look at ourselves?

I am reminded of [pretty much every lame pop song in the last 20 years] that has a lyric along the lines of “I don’t recognise my own reflection” – but when do we? How many of us know exactly what we look like – this in turn reminds me of the dilbert comic sketch when the man test was to ask someone what they are wearing, and a man would have to check. But then again what we look like doesn’t matter that much – because what other people look like doesn’t matter either.

[[aside: Ok so for some people there is a range of attractiveness that above means you’ll want to ask them out and below means you might offer them a shower, so yes it does matter – to some extent, but really your closest friend is not your closest friend because of how they look – and to be honest with most relationships, while initial attraction played its part – if there was nothing else it doesn’t last. ]]

So how would you describe yourself when you look in a mirror? After the initial physical description is over you may use words like ‘funny’ or ‘smart’ – maybe you’ve been watching the apprentice and you’ll start using hyperbole like “a go getter” “I don’t fit the mould” etc.

However – take a few moments to ask yourself:

• Who are you? -keep asking this after each answer you give, keep asking until you don’t know what else to say

• What do you want?

• Where are you going?

• Do you have anything worth dying for? – most people who love can think of something but.. then the next question:

• Do you have anything worth living for? – can you justify why?

From a Christian perspective it seems at first glance like those questions are wrong – we know that no one has greater love than to lay down their life for another, however do not forget that Jesus came back – alive – and gave the apostles work to be done – alive – not just time filling until they can get martyred. So what do you have/do that is worth living for?

[yes I did just steal those questions from Babylon 5, but that doesn’t make them less striking]


I was recently forced to face the veritas of who I am, and the answer did not surprise me and did surprise me all at once. I will change with time no doubt, but then that just emphasises the importance of the question: ‘Where are you going?’
The whole world around us is changing everyday, and we change with it, - as the fictional Rev Dexter said “I'll tell you something my friends. The world is changing every day, the only question is who's doing it." – and hence I’d say “you are changing every day, the only question is who’s changing you.”
make sure you are choosing how you’ll change.

Occupy London

After a little rant against the Cathedrals handling of the situation, I thought it was time to give a view on the actual issues raised (or trying to be raised) by the group who are camped outside of St Paul's

They have an initial statement here http://occupylsx.org/?p=221
And due to a lack of any more up-to-date manifesto, I will be mainly looking at these aims:

1 The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.

The current system of (for example) giving the top echelons in financial companies 40% pay rises when the company has not increased in value (or at least not by anything like that much) while giving most employees a 2% pay rise - that is unsustainable.
Partly because one day the company won't have enough money to keep giving pay rises of that amount, but mainly because people are fed up with the injustice.

We need alternative: - ok like what?
Oh so you claim to be hammering this out while in the camp site? ok.

2 We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.

Ok so you're not just one group who think they're being picked on. Ok... and what do you want?


3 We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.

Too late. And what do you propose as the alternative? Thanks to the fiat system of currency we have, to let all the banks collapse would not be good news for the rest of us (or our pensions).
Also I think this shows a common mis-understanding (that will likely stay for a long time) - the current UK government money problems are not the result of the bailouts. It is due to the excessive government spending that caused a deficit to be formed.

In brief- imagine that the UK had £100 and then gained another £100 every year due to tax etc. They decided to spend £200 every year so that they could do more - the result was that the debt level grew and grew.
One day the UK gave an extra £200 to the banks - and hence had a larger debt.
But the real problem was that they were spending £200 every year but only got £100. After a few years those who lend money to the UK start to say 'hold on, it doesn't look like you'll ever be able to pay as back - maybe we should stop lending you money'.
The UK can't just stop spending this money easily - as it is tied up with peoples salaries, and hence jobs will eventually be lost in trying to rebalance this.

The figures (obviously) and proportions are not like that in reality, but the point is we are spending more than we have - all the time. Choosing to not spending money on bailing out banks wouldn't have made much of a difference to our current financial situation.

4 We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.

I think I already said my piece on cuts - until you can generate more income to the government the cuts are inevitable.
An end to global tax injustice? What injustice? They need to be clearer.
They especially need to be clear about what it is with democracy that they think is an example of representing corporations not people.

5 We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.

That is something I definitely support. It makes so much common sense.

6 We support the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9thNovember, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.

Ok. I think they need to be clear as to what causes they support not what actions. No one is openly against the health services, or education or employment. Some people are against welfare in its current state.

7 We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.

Ok - what sort of proportions are we talking about? If you spend less on the military that will mean job cuts.

I will say that I agree in principle - world governments spend far too little on caring for the planet.
Take http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=38326&Cr=Ivoire&Cr1 for example.
Why does the UN need to ask for $160 million?( = £100 million in real money ;)
Obama has more lost down the back of his metaphorical sofa.

That's not a large amount of money these days (for countries). There are more examples I could give- however it does appear that the UK is slightly ahead of the curve in terms of giving aid.

8 We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.

Who's oppressed? It sounds like a nice soundbite, but one person’s minimum wage is another mans oppressed etc.

9 This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!

Democracy looks like a large number of vague points that could be interpreted very differently by different people? Oh dear.
In fairness the 'Come and join us' line does seem to have born fruit. They have managed to continually debate the issues and welcome others who want to join in. Ofcourse that does mean finding out what they now believe is very difficult - they have no central leadership (as far as I can tell), and according to newspapers alot of people now distance themselves from the initial statement.



So - do I support this?
Well some parts I do and some parts I don't. Many have said it's better to be doing something than nothing - and this is a mantra I have often used. However when I use it, it's part of a justification for escalating an action into a mini-coup d'état or something else serious. When used in this situation I feel that the apapthy it is tyring to combat is being replaced by a new type of apathy - people are sitting in tents, talking, and doing various "things" like wearing a funny mask and somehow hoping that will be enough to topple a world system.

I think I am against it - it would be better for people to blog to each other, or talk on the book of faces, or similar.
It would actually be better to organise a series of forums to discuss what is wrong with society and to then make a series of demands to the government for a new law that says X and then another that says Y. If you really want you can then start encampments.

Now with such an unclear message, it is easy for people to ignore- and ignore it they will.


Because to be honest, the much more interesting issues are what on earth St Paul's can do next to make the situation worse? And why is it that there are a few people who actually believe the rubbish they've been saying?

St Paul's and the Campsite

And so, after a long period of not blogging I feel the need to come to this.

St Paul’s Cathedral and its reaction to the protestors against capitalism.

To me this seems to be a case of a well-meaning cathedral getting in over its heads. In many ways it shows just how ill-equipped our clergy are at dealing with media.

So what has happened (from my perspective – sitting in my flat in Coventry miles away from the actual scene)?

Well a number of protestors decided that they wanted to send a message to bankers that they weren’t happy with capitalism. – a separate post about their message etc will appear (one day). And these people tried to set up camp outside the financial centre, however police moved them on – due to geography http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/56206000/jpg/_56206135_1c0e5f4b-1135-4542-856c-8d3549873a4f.jpg the cathedral is just next to the stock exchange and so was a natural area for protestors to start congregating. The police at this time prepared to move the protestors on again, however a Canon (note A not THE) of the Cathedral told the police to move on and supported the right of the protestors to a peaceful demonstration.

A week on and the Cathedral had decided that they wanted the protestors to move on – I’m not certain as to why – this call was echoed by the Bishop of London, and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The cathedral then decided they wanted to close because of health and safety reasons – and called on the protestors to leave so that they could re-open. Now they have re-opened because suddenly they realise that HS isn’t a problem.
On top of this the Canon who welcomed them had decided to resign because “he didn’t want a scene like Dale farm on the steps of St Paul’s”. Essentially saying that the church will try to evict them eventually and he wasn’t happy with that.


So - what do I think should have happened?
Well for a start, when 200 odd people with tents appear outside your building you should ask questions before saying “yes you’re welcome to stay”.

Secondly it should surely have been the Deans decision, not a Canon, whether or not they are invited to stay.

Thirdly, if they want the protestors to go, be clear about that but don’t make up rubbish to do with HS rules.

Now onto the first two areas of concern.
A Canon, should not be casually making statements like “we welcome these protestors” without thinking it through. He should have thought “What will happen in a weeks’ time, or in two weeks?” But he didn’t, he wanted to appear inclusive and now the church is paying the price.

Clergy need to think about the consequences of their actions. And especially what did the Dean think? This isn’t the largest problem in the world, but to me it highlights a lack of foresight that in the “real world” would result in disciplinary proceedings.

As to the third point – this is actually two points.
What do they want, and Health and Safety (or HS for short).
I’m going to deal with Health and Safety first. If there’s one thing I learned from working in various churches it’s that health and safety concerns are very rarely connected with health and safety. A certain church “does not have a ladder” because it hasn’t been risk assessed, however if the warden feels it’s time to sweep the leaves of the flat roof extension suddenly a ladder appears quite miraculously from a cupboard. When another church wants to remove old fixtures they are ‘temporarily stored’ in a shed with the express hope that enough fungus will grow on them so that they can be disposed of due to HS. They don’t just bin them because other rules would prevent that.
Health and safety is often brandished by Vicars when they need to slow something down or stop it, but can’t find a suitable reason. It is equally brandished by other Vicars when they need to go above other rules that would stop them doing what needs to be done. But when it comes to the mundane they are often ignored because that roof won’t clean itself.

So when I hear that a church is worried about Health and Safety I have grown sufficiently sceptical to not believe it has anything to do with either the safety or the health of people.
That bias is further fed in this instance when I observe the complete lack of co-operation by St Paul’s http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/david-allen-green/2011/10/health-safety-cathedral-camp
From the article it appears that the protestors take HS very seriously, in fact so seriously I’m half confused/wonder if they knew people would complain about it. St Paul’s on the other hand appears to have taken advice from random people they dare not name, and doesn’t seem to want to help the camp in becoming more safe (they kept saying they had numerous concerns of liability or fire risk etc, but when asked by the protestors how they could reorganise to help silence was the answer).

Another classic problem was the clerk of works after being consulted on where new porta-loos should go, then decides to go home early on the day of delivery with no clear person from the cathedral designated to oversee what was going on, then a Receptionist being the one to say “we’re not going to help you, put the loo somewhere else” at the last minute. Was and Receptionist making it up – has she been disciplined – or was it that the clergy were too cowardly to send someone of importance to break the news.
This seems to be a classic example of HS being used by priests for non-HS reasons.

But – why did they close? Well firstly the loss of 120k isn’t going to hurt them (you can find financial reports online, and they had very healthy surpluses in 2010 and 2009), so don’t say they wouldn’t dare do it unless it was important.
Some people suggest that they are influenced by bankers – although to be honest I don’t imagine bankers care much about the protest to worry about it being removed.
Some suggest that it is to do with the Cathedral wanting to look nice and pretty – possible, but are they that vain? I don’t think so (or rather I hope not).

I suggest that they realised they didn’t want to become a home to someone else’s protest – and where simply wondering how to remove the protestors and went on the experience of “oh lets use HS as a reason because that’s always worked before”. They may well have been influenced by bankers or by ‘wanting to be pretty’, but tbh we just don’t know.


The trouble is, while one or two troublesome people can be duped by HS reasons face to face(or even the DAC sometimes when you want to remove old furniture), mass media with people reading and then thinking allows people to say “hang on a moment”.
I hope that this may be the beginning of the end for HS being liberally (mis)used in churches, and that then people will actually try and sort out the DAC(s). Sadly I don’t think that’ll happen just yet.

What certainly will happen is that people will see the church as hypocritical and quite childish. Not a good week for Christian witness.

I know I say all this being far removed from the physical reality, but the church needs to remember it is being judged by people around the world right now. The irony of the church dedicated to a tent maker who was often beaten and improsened by authorities having trouble with people in tents protesting against the authorities is plain for all to see.

The Cathedral needs to practice the old art of Christian Repentance (something I see very rarely in Christian organisations) – they should apologise for confusion about how long they thought the protestors would stay, and for the confusion over HS. And be HONEST about wanting them to leave OR be HONEST about being ambivalent about them leaving or not.
Honesty and saying sorry. Something the people have asked the government and the bankers to do for years, but so far they have not managed to do. Can the Christians manage to live out such a great Christian witness or will they succumb to pride?

I know where my (metaphorical) money is, and where my hope is. Sadly the two don’t seem to be aligned.

If 'it' was up to you....

Imagine, if you will, that you were sat in a nice comfy chair.

Now stretching the imagination further, imagine that the rest of the universe doesn't exist. Infact you are God before the beginning of the beginning of creation, and in front of you is big button marked "press to create the world".

Do you press it?

Now as you're God you have the capacity to think things through, and so you think to yourself "I wonder what would happen if I press this button?"

And you imagine the world as it could be, and as you're God you can foresee what is most likely to happen - war, famine and pestilence. Human rebellion against themselves, countless horrors and unspeakable evils. You also consider the good things (you're not a pessimistic God), you think of Art, mathematics, beauty, joy, love and many other things.

You now have to make a choice, if you don't press the button then the world will never exist, or indeed have existed so no one has lost. If you press the button then you are going to bring people into good, and into suffering.

You think of [insert some of the best things you can think of] and you think of [some of the worst things you can think of, e.g. the holocaust, rape, children dying from hunger]. Is it worth it? Would you be doing a good bringing this world into existence or an evil? (or a neutral?)

To quote D. Adams "In the beginning, God created the world... this has widely been regarded as a bad move".

Let's suppose you decide not to press the button.

Now what? You have the following options:

-do nothing

-consider the button again

-consider creating a different world

If it was up to you, what would you do?

Truth?

I was reminded recently of a story;

A professor was ill, very ill, (cancer in fact). To cut a long story short, after several treatments he managed to recover.
Whilst he was still less than 100% (but on the road to recovery) he took part in a prestigious conference where he could present some of his latest work.

During the course of the presentation, in the middle suddenly someone stood up and said "no that's wrong"
"no it's right" retorted the Professor,
"no that's wrong" (etc)... .then the man began to explain why he believed a certain theorem was actually false.
[as it happens this stranger was correct]
What does that sounds like?

In many walks of life, one would say that the person who stood up was being rude, how could he have been sure he was right?
Even then surely that was not the right time to talk? He was being insensitive to interrupt in the middle of the talk for starters, and moreover he was being insensitive to a person recovering from cancer.
If you can, put yourself in the place of the professor. I suspect you (or I) would feel it as a personal attack, an embarrassment perhaps; definitely they are trying to score points at 'my' expense.

Put yourself in the shoes of the stranger, what do you feel? What was your motivation after you have noticed a mistake? Perhaps this is a chance to prove your worth? Maybe now you can demonstrate people need to take you seriously?


However the thing is- all of these 'deep' questions that we might use to analyse motives are missing the point.
The 'truth' is what is being discussed (the truth of a mathematical concept). That is what should be at the centre of decision making.
But in the name of the truth people will make point-scoring attacks. Or dismiss a stranger telling them this is the wrong time to talk (to divert any attention from your own failing).

I think that what has really got into the centre of the discussion is "whose truth".
Is the professor upset that the truth is different to what he thought, or is he actually upset that someone else's truth is now believed?
Is the man who stood up acting to try and reveal the truth, or to reveal that he is the one who knows the truth?

[And before you claim that this story isn't realistic, or that I am making up emotions in the characters to prove a point - think back over the past year to any confrontations that took place between two other people, I'd wager you could find one that fits the basic pattern above.]
We only consider the above story an attack, because we allow ourselves to have concepts of 'owning the truth', and to personalise it as 'my theory', 'my idea'.

When you tried to imagine how this might pan out in reality, did you recall the stranger shouting "no you're wrong" rather than as I wrote "no that's wrong"?


[As it happens, it's a true story.
Indeed the Professor involved is Miles Reid, who is one of the best, Algebraic-Geometers alive today. He is a Professor at Warwick.
Some people at the time observing followed the train of thought above, however I am told Miles did not take it as an attack. The stranger was a former student of his, and so he knew that the young boy was more concerned with what is right rather than who is right.



As soon as you loose sight of the 'quest to truth' being more important than 'who gets to the truth', I feel you have slipped down a dangerous road attaching emotion to truth.
And as you become more aware of others attaching emotion to truth, you begin to let that affect your presentation of the truth.
Fair enough, but then when you are aware of others like this, and no longer prioritise finding the truth over all else... then you have gone down the same path as the politician who decides to choose based on what will cause the better emotional reaction amongst people
i.e. 'what do they want to believe is true' is more important to you than 'what is actually true'?
You have gone down the path that says 'I will condemn one man rather than another man, because the public want to vilify this man over the other' and pays little attention to who should be condemned.
This is (if you haven't already noticed) the same path as saying 'I Pilate, will send the innocent Jesus to die, because it is what the Jews want'.




So what are we to do?
If we take the attitude of the former-student above then sooner or later we will meet someone who doesn't like the way you abruptly point out 'truth' without concern for feelings.
We have to worry about how people will hear, no one likes to hear they are wrong, and I don't this is a character weakness. But there are ways of presenting it without seeming rude.

The balance we must strike is somewhere between:
-admitting we can be wrong
-regarding others feelings
-but when all is said and done, making sure that we done more 'making feel comfortable with our presentation of the truth' then 'making the truth more comfortable to peoples feelings'.

i.e. if someone is innocent, then they should not be made a scapegoat.


Jesus died because it is easier sometimes to give the people what they want, than what is good.

He died because when push came to shove Pilate had given up on an absolute definition of truth and had gone for a more post-modern 'everyone can have an interpretation that is equally valid' definition of truth.
It's a lot easier to live with other people when you do what Pilate did.
And let's face it, we're lazy.
That is why we sent him to die.

Back to the Bible...

After what seems an age, I am once again in the position of having to study the bible, digest it, and then produce something useful for others...

This time it's harder (or in my head it is), as it's not a sermon but a group discussion.

A sermon you can just talk for 15-20min present your arguments well, and then relate whatever points you are making to the real world. Well ok so it's not that easy/like I described, but in comparison...

With a group discussion you are not 'the expert' and whilst you may wish to guide people down certain avenues, ultimately you need to be able to providing questions that fulfil a number of criteria:

1-people feel able to contribute - don't ask them something 'too technical'

2-they don't feel belittled by contributing - i.e. don't ask something you would only do in a kids-bible-study i.e. in the passage: I fear for you, that perhaps I have labored over you in vain. [Gal 4:11] don't ask "what did Paul fear?" (annoyingly most internet resources seem to be pitched at this level meaning I can't just copy stuff)

3-something that is relevant to them, there lives/life experience - it helps build community, and will also help people ground this into something that affects their lives.

4-helps move the discussion along to central points you wish to make - well normally you have a point you'd like to leave people with

5-isn't too restrictive and allows people to move onto other areas they would like to talk about if its more relevant to them - well it is a discussion after all, maybe it will lead elsewhere, if it's productive that's still good

6-doesn't allow it to move to unproductive tangents too easily - you'll obviously have some that you need to manage as it happens, but you don't want to make your job any more difficult than it has to be.

7-that with all of this structure you remember it's actually God via the Holy Spirit who's meant to be teaching, so stop trying to impress people with your knowledge of some obscure monk in southern Russia who had something interesting to say about the passage.. stop it [yes I'm talking to myself] just leave it alone.

Instead make sure God has as much room as possible during the prep stage, and at the actual event to mess everything up

hmm

perhaps I should goto sleep rather than try to achieve all this at 1 in the morning..

I probably am over-thinking it, but I haven't had to write one of these things in over 6 months!

And that I got away with by saying "I'm not going to stick to a passage, I'm going to use the question "am I my brothers keeper" asked by Cain. Then I'm just going to keep asking questions about the implications of this question and where that might lead and through in bible verses every so often for people to reflect on along with a little church history and see what happens"

(I might try and put the notes for that online sometime) - That worked surprisingly well, but was a topic I had already been putting much thought into and easily linked with that terms theme of 'community'. This time I have no simple question to hang everything on, and have instead resorted to the 'bible passage' approach (because I know what the theme is for the next month and a bit) and so I need some kind of introduction to it (which also satisfies a number of other requirements for our cell) leaving me with wanting to study being sons/daughters of God.

You know I really have over thought all of this, it won't surprise me at all if by lunch tomorrow I decide actually there is a much simpler way round this...

Never mind,

Night All

I'm awake

and so I felt I should probably use this time to blog...


today I have much to be thankful for,
firstly the bins have finally been emptied.
This may not sound like a cause for celebration, but as we've been having quite a lot of snow recently our rubbish has not been collected in well over a month (to be fair the first two weeks it wasn't collected because after we said to each other "oh we should put the bin out tonight as it needs to be collected" we all managed to forget).

Anyway now this calamity is over I am happy.

Secondly I have a rug.
A friend was trying to get rid of a rug (and as it happens a stereo and a lamp also), I have successfully relieved them of these items and made the lounge more livable.

However sadly I have a few more reasons to be less thankful.
I still don't have a proper job :(
and I think I may have managed to move from too patient with people, to being too easily annoyed.

but then again, on the real upside - I shall soon be in bed