World Values Survey

I'm a sucker for pictorial mapping presentations, and given my like of cultural analysis, this was bound to get my attention.
A bit of orientation...

The World Values Surveys were designed to provide a comprehensive measurement of all major areas of human concern, from religion to politics to economic and social life and two dimensions dominate the picture: (1) Traditional/ Secular-rational and (2) Survival/Self-expression values. These two dimensions explain more than 70 percent of the cross-national variance in a factor analysis of ten indicators-and each of these dimensions is strongly correlated with scores of other important orientations.

World Values Survey

My stroke of insight

This is fascinating, frightening and should be seen by anyone interested in matters of religious experience, neurotheology etc. This summary hardly does it justice. "Jill Bolte Taylor got a research opportunity few brain scientists would wish for: She had a massive stroke, and watched as her brain functions -- motion, speech, self-awareness –- shut down one by one. An astonishing story." She is a good narrator and is able both to relate the medical and biological stuff on the one hand and the subjective and 'spiritual'. It does of course raise enormous questions, but that's no bad thing.

TED | Talks | Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight (video):

Our Data, Ourselves

Our Data, Ourselves: "We need a comprehensive data privacy law. This law should protect all information about us, and not be limited merely to financial or health information. It should limit others' ability to buy and sell our information without our knowledge and consent. It should allow us to see information about us held by others, and correct any inaccuracies we find. It should prevent the government from going after our information without judicial oversight. It should enforce data deletion, and limit data collection, where necessary. And we need more than token penalties for deliberate violations."

An Evangelical Manifesto

There seems to be a bit of a stir growing about this: An Evangelical Manifesto: It's a USA thing but it will possibly have an important effect on the evangelical world globally. Here's what it's about: "an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together."

The shame is it's a pdf -I guess to make more sure that it isn't mischievously altered; with that danger in mind I've taken the liberty of repro-ing the exec summary here. I hope that's alright.

The Executive Summary i of

AN EVANGELICAL MANIFESTO

A Declaration of

Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment

Keenly aware of this hour of history, we as a representative group of Evangelicals in America address our fellow-believers and our fellow-citizens. ii We have two purposes: to clarify the confusions that surround the term Evangelical in the United States, and to explain where we stand on issues that cause consternation over Evangelicals in public life.

The global era challenges us to learn how to live with our deepest differences— especially religious differences that are ultimate and irreducible. These are not just differences between personal worldviews but between entire ways of life co-existing in the same society.

1. Our Identity

First, we reaffirm our identity. Evangelicals are Christians who define themselves, their faith, and their lives according to the Good News of Jesus of Nazareth. (The Greek word for good news was euangelion, which translated into English as evangel.) This
Evangelical principle is the heart of who we are as followers of Jesus. It is not unique to us. We assert it not to attack or to exclude, but to remind and to reaffirm, and so to rally and to reform.

Evangelicals are one of the great traditions in the Christian Church. We stand alongside Christians of other traditions in both the creedal core of faith and over many issues of public concern. Yet we also hold to Evangelical beliefs that are distinct— distinctions we affirm as matters of biblical truth, recovered by the Protestant Reformation and vital for a sure knowledge of God. We Evangelicals are defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.

As followers of Jesus Christ, Evangelicals stress a particular set of beliefs that we believe are true to the life and teachings of Jesus himself. Taken together, they make us who we are. We place our emphasis on ...

1. Jesus, fully divine and fully human, as the only full and complete revelation of God and therefore the only Savior.

2. The death of Jesus on the cross, in which he took the penalty for our sins and reconciled us to God.

3. Salvation as God’s gift grasped through faith. We contribute nothing to our salvation.

4. New life in the Holy Spirit, who brings us spiritual rebirth and power to live as Jesus did, reaching out to the poor, sick, and oppressed.

5. The Bible as God’s Word written, fully trustworthy as our final guide to faith and practice.

6. The future personal return of Jesus to establish the reign of God.

7. The importance of sharing these beliefs so that others may experience God’s salvation and may walk in Jesus’ way.

Sadly, we repeatedly fail to live up to our high calling, and all too often illustrate our own doctrine of sin. The full list of our failures is no secret to God or to many who watch us. If we would share the good news of Jesus with others, we must first be shaped by that good news ourselves. iii

2. Our Place in Public Life

Second, we wish to reposition ourselves in public life. To be Evangelical is to be faithful to the freedom, justice, peace, and well-being that are at the heart of the good news of Jesus. Fundamentalism was world-denying and politically disengaged at its
outset, but Evangelicals have made a distinguished contribution to politics—attested by causes such the abolition of slavery and woman’s suffrage, and by names such as John Jay, John Witherspoon, Frances Willard, and Sojourner Truth in America and William Wilberforce and Lord Shaftesbury in England.

Today, however, enormous confusion surrounds Evangelicals in public life and

we wish to clarify our stand through the following assertions:

First, we repudiate two equal and opposite errors into which many Christians have fallen. One error is to privatize faith, applying it to the personal and spiritual realm only. Such dualism falsely divorces the spiritual from the secular and causes faith to lose its integrity.

The other error, made by both the religious left and the religious right, is to politicize faith, using faith to express essentially political points that have lost touch with biblical truth. That way faith loses its independence, Christians become the “useful idiots” for one political party or another, and the Christian faith becomes an ideology.

Christian beliefs become the weapons of political factions.

Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, economic system, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, or nationality. The
politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness.

Second, we repudiate the two extremes that define the present culture wars in the United States. On one side, we repudiate the partisans of a sacred public square, those who would continue to give one religion a preferred place in public life.

In a diverse society, it will always be unjust and unworkable to privilege one religion. We are committed to religious liberty for people of all faiths. We are firmly opposed to theocracy. And we have no desire to coerce anyone or to impose beliefs and behavior on anyone. We believe in persuasion.

On the other side, we repudiate the partisans of a naked public square, those who would make all religious expression inviolably private and keep the public square inviolably secular. This position is even less just and workable because it excludes the overwhelming majority of citizens, who are still profoundly religious. Nothing is more illiberal than to invite people into the public square but insist that they be stripped of the faith that makes them who they are.

We are committed to a civil public square – a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths as well. Every right we assert for ourselves as Christians is a right we defend for all others.

Third, we are concerned that a generation of culture warring, reinforced by understandable reactions to religious extremism around the world, has created a powerful backlash against all religion in public life among many educated people. If this hardens into something like the European animosity toward religion in public life, the result would be disastrous for the American republic and would severely constrict liberty for people of all faiths. The striking intolerance shown by the new atheists is a warning sign.

We call on all citizens of goodwill and believers of all faiths and none to join us in working for a civil public square and the restoration of a tough-minded civility that is in the interests of all.

Fourth, we are concerned that globalization and the emerging global public square have no matching vision of how to live with our deepest differences on the global stage. In the Internet era, everyone can listen to what we say even when we are not
speaking to everyone. Global communication magnifies the challenges of living with our deepest differences.

As the global public square emerges, we warn of two equal and opposite errors: coercive secularism and religious extremism.

We also repudiate the two other positions. First, those who believe their way is the only way and the way for everyone, and are therefore prepared to coerce them. This position leads inevitably to conflict.

Second, those who believe that different values are relative to different cultures, and who therefore refuse to allow anyone to judge anyone else or any other culture. This position sounds tolerant at first, but it leads directly to the ills of complacency. In a world of such evils as genocide, slavery, female oppression, and assaults on the unborn, there are rights that must be defended, evils that must be resisted, and interventions into the affairs of others that are morally justified.

Fifth, we warn of the danger of a two-tier global public square. This is a model of public life which reserves the top tier for cosmopolitan secular liberals, and the lower tier for local religious believers. Such an arrangement would be patronizing as well as severely restricting religious liberty and justice.

We promote a civil public square, and we respect for the rights of all, even those with whom we disagree. Contrary to those who believe that “error has no rights,” we respect the right to be wrong. But we also insist that “the right to believe anything” does not mean that “anything anyone believes is right.” Rather, respect for conscientious differences also requires respectful debate.

We do not speak for all Evangelicals. We speak only for ourselves, yet not to ourselves. We invite all our fellow-Christians, our fellow-citizens, and people of different faiths to take note of these declarations and to respond where appropriate.

We pledge that in a world of lies, hype, and spin, we publish this declaration in words that, under God, we make our bond. People of the Good News, we desire not just to speak the Good News but to embody and be good news to our world and to our
generation.

THE END

The full pdf is here.
Scot McKnight's take -though not all about this, nevertheless has a useful observation to make;

Evangelicalism has always been ecumenical for the sake of the gospel.
Evangelicalism has always dropped theological distinctives (confessional level statements of faith) for the sake of the gospel.
Evangelicalism’s approach has always been more like George Whitefield than Jonathan Edwards.
Evangelicalism is essentially “gospel ecumenism” instead of “theological conformity.” Evangelicals unite around the gospel but tolerate all kinds of diversity theologically. Thus, from the time I’ve been around this theological issue — and I began reading this stuff in the 70s and have not stopped — evangelicalism has agreed to agree on the basics — the gospel — but has been willing to let theological confessions be what they are: church confessions for local congregations. Instead of haggling over theological confessions, evangelicals have agreed to agree on the gospel.

However, it is sobering to read the comments on Scot's post; it shows that perhaps the last word is nowhere near said. There's a very interesting response from a moderate Muslim point of view (Ali Etaraz), his final paragraph goes thus:

Perhaps precisely because Evangelicals have had the experience of acquiring massive political power and squandering it, they are singularly qualified to provide a lesson to American Muslims, who have virtually no power as a religious community. When religion becomes inextricably tied to partisan politics, it can be bought and sold like stocks, simultaneously cheapening the faith and corrupting the secular principles of liberal government. Addressed to every faith community in the US, the Evangelical Manifesto is a warning American Muslims should heed. To be accepted as full members of a liberal polity, they have to be prepared to accept that their profession of faith is just one feature of their identities among many, and not the one that should dictate their engagement with politics.

Sister Act: Siblings to become the first in Britain to both be ordained as vicars

I'm a bit proud -though I've no reason to be except that I'm the tutor of the second named of the sisters; here's how the Mail reports it. Sister Act: Siblings to become the first in Britain to both be ordained as vicars | Mail Online: "Rachel Rosborough and Ellie Clack are nearing the end of their training to be ministers and will become the first sisters to be ordained as vicars. The Leicester-born sisters will be ordained into the Church of England in June. Sisters Rachel Rosborough and Ellie Clack will both be ordained as vicars on same day They have both been training at St John's College in Nottingham."
As always it's an interesting reflection on how the media don't quite go in for accuracy. Strictly speaking Ellie and Rachel are being ordained deacons and will serve as curates. Next year they will be ordained priests (that it admitted to presbyteral orders) and only after serving 3-4 years as "assistant curates" would they be considered eligible to be vicars. However, it is clear that in popular speech, an ordained Anglican (and sometimes other kinds of denominational background is included) is a 'vicar'. So 'vicar' is the new 'priest', and priest was the new 'presbyter' .....
Anyway, do join me in praying for two people who have a great deal to offer the Church of England as ministers, and also their cohort of ordinands to be ordained this coming June and July.

Even the dogs under the table

Reflections theological and dog-matic on being a canine carer.

We got a dog a few months ago and ended up with another more recently. These aren't our first dogs but it has been a number of years since our first dog died. We did have another rescued dog and then another but in each case we passed the dog onto other owners because we weren't sure that we were living a lifestyle at that point that really favoured dog ownership, and, frankly I was getting fed up with being the only person in the family who regularly walked them. Not to mention that coming from a particularly fastidious background, I wasn't comfortable with the occasional dirt and general unhygiene of dogs. So We didn't get another for some time and we did so recently because a couple of members of our family both wanted one and seemed to be willing to do what was necessary to make sure it was cared for.

So, Alfie entered our life, and despite my skepticism, has become a valued member of the household. And So also began a watching of the television series 'The Dog Whisperer' where Cesar Millan offers his help to American families with dog problems. We watch not because Alfie is a problem, but because Cesar's approach to dog keeping is to "train owners" to understand their dogs and their responsibilities as pack leaders. It's a humane (that seems a curiously anthropocentric word, but 'canine' won't do either) approach, and not really like the Barbara Woodhouse no-nonsense behaviourism from the 1980's which seems to simply condition certain responses with little accommodation to the animal save that it can't be reasoned with. We like that fact that it's an approach that tries to work with the grain of dog psychology and to understand it to do so.

So why am I telling you all this in something purporting to be theological reflection?
In short, it's because I'm learning things as I take my part in the care of our dogs with insights from Cesar Millan. I even got to the point where, having previously scoffed at Matthew Fox claiming his dog was his spiritual director, I suspected that I know something of what he meant.

I'd like to start with one of the most important insights in the keeping of dogs, already alluded to above: dogs don't understand us. Actually, that's not quite true: dogs don't understand people like people understand people. Dogs tend to understand us from the standpoint of canine pack mentality. I guess we are viewed (should I say smelled?) as honorary dogs. The most important corollary of this, and several times Cesar Millan has had to point this out to owners whose dogs seem to be problematic: when we talk to dogs, on the whole they don't understand us. Even more importantly human social psychology doesn't apply to dogs. A frequent mistake with dogs is to think that they are sulking or punishing us or pleased with things we do for them when, in fact, that's all our projection. On the whole they don't remember incidents for long, they don't attribute blame in the same way as we do, they don't even forgive; they just forget. They live much more in the moment informed more by long-term emotional associations and habits than specific incidents for their dispositions towards us.

There are two things I find myself reflecting on dogmatically in response to this insight. One is to do with church and culture, the other to do with God and us. When dog carers adopt a dog into their family, it is easy and natural to anthropomorphise the dog: to treat it as a variety of human: to speak to it (usually as a child) as if it is language-capable (it isn't, incidentally: associating certain human verbal behaviours with certain responses or activities is operant conditioning and a long way from language-use, trust me; I'm a linguist). We even treat them as if they are able to appreciate human social structures and concepts like 'niceness' or politeness based on reading dog behaviours through our social and emotional world. And that anthropomorphising is what, time and again leads Cesar Millan's clients astray so that the only way back is through understanding some fundamental things about dog psychology and reworking human behaviours to suit.

Dogs can only really read our behaviour through the grid of their own genetic dispositions to pack psychology. So it is up to us to empty ourselves of human assumptions and to try to understand the world from a canine perspective so that we can understand what our own behaviours communicate to dogs and act accordingly.

Similarly, with Christians and the church in human culture. People who do not share church with us and who have not been busily re-forming their lives around the gospel read our behaviour and language through the grid of their own frame of reference. Our choice is either to get them up to speed or to seek to communicate in ways that they can begin to grasp. The first option only seems to work where there is a particular set of incentives to motivate others to learn to speak and act 'Christian', such as under post-Constantinian Roman governance and under Christendom. The second is generally to be preferred, not least because it relates to the second of our 'dogmatic reflections'; it reflects how God relates to us. Because, of course, God is even more different in some very significant and important ways to us than we are to dogs. Now that's not to say that some analogies can't be made (just as there are contact points between us and dogs), merely that we will need to be aware that one of the analogies between God's relating to us and our relating to dogs is that in each case one party has more responsibility and ability to adapt to the limitations of the other. God adapts somewhat to us in revelation and ultimately in sharing our lot incarnationally. God adapts to us so that we may begin to find our joy and peace in God in turn. We adapt to our dogs' abilities and typical perceptions of the world in order to help them live happily and productively among us and we with them.

Our dog reminds me, constantly, as I take him for walks and seek to help him to behave appropriately in our house and with our friends and family, that we have to understand and learn to work with the grain of human cultures in order to communicate the gospel and to help people be formed by it.

The Dragon in the Belly:

A lovely gallery of images drawn from the Hebrew Bible by Christian artist He Qi. The Dragon in the Belly: Patriarchs, Judges, and Kings - 10 of 11 | Christianity Today

History lessons in early Islam

Having just taught a course in which a look at early Islam was necessary, being led to this book review seemed very intriguing.History lessons | Comment is free: it's a real potential humdinger as the reading of the history undermines the Jihadist/Islamist line on Khalifah: here's a quote from the review to give you the flavour. "Fatah believes, there is only one conclusion to be drawn: the historical Islamic states were not organised around Islam, but ethnicity (Arab over non-Arab), power, and expansion (both through conflict and conversion). In other words, non-theocratic, non-theological, rather secular concerns: hardly what Islamists have us believe. Thus, Fatah concludes, the Islamist idea of an Islamic state is just a mirage. It is neither corroborated in the original sources of Islam - the Qur'an and the prophet's practice - nor in the actual practice of the first generations of Islam."
I'm considering buying the book. That said, the comments on the article quickly reveal the difficulties the thesis might face, and some suggest that it still may not make a great difference if accepted.
Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State

Back To Church Sunday

I don't think I owned up to it but I do confess I was a little skeptical about Back to Church Sunday. But I eat my thoughts following my reading of this article: Start The Week: Back To Church Sunday: The salient figure is here: "Research by the Diocese of Lichfield after last year’s Back to Church Sunday suggested that 6,000 people came back to church on that day and that, six months later, between 700 and 900 (12-15 per cent) had become regular members. About a further 3,000 are still in touch with their inviting churches and may have come at Christmas or to a social event."
I think I was skeptical because I underestimated in my own knee-jerk response how many people were church-leavers but not hostile leavers.

Gin, Television, and Social Surplus

Now this is one of those articles that actually seems to have put its finger on something quite important. It starts with the observation about the industrial revolution and gin consumption thus: "The transformation from rural to urban life was so sudden, and so wrenching, that the only thing society could do to manage was to drink itself into a stupor for a generation. The stories from that era are amazing-- there were gin pushcarts working their way through the streets of London. And it wasn't until society woke up from that collective bender that we actually started to get the institutional structures that we associate with the industrial revolution today. Things like public libraries and museums, increasingly broad education for children, elected leaders--a lot of things we like--didn't happen until having all of those people together stopped seeming like a crisis and started seeming like an asset."
Then it moves to a really intriguing speculation about the 20th century equivalent.

Starting with the Second World War a whole series of things happened--rising GDP per capita, rising educational attainment, rising life expectancy and, critically, a rising number of people who were working five-day work weeks. For the first time, society forced onto an enormous number of its citizens the requirement to manage something they had never had to manage before--free time. And what did we do with that free time? Well, mostly we spent it watching TV.

So what?

And it's only now, as we're waking up from that collective bender, that we're starting to see the cognitive surplus as an asset rather than as a crisis. We're seeing things being designed to take advantage of that surplus, to deploy it in ways more engaging than just having a TV in everybody's basement.

And where that takes us ...

Here's something four-year-olds know: A screen that ships without a mouse ships broken. Here's something four-year-olds know: Media that's targeted at you but doesn't include you may not be worth sitting still for. Those are things that make me believe that this is a one-way change. Because four year olds, the people who are soaking most deeply in the current environment, who won't have to go through the trauma that I have to go through of trying to unlearn a childhood spent watching Gilligan's Island, they just assume that media includes consuming, producing and sharing.

Yes! That's the point, interactivity mediated electronically. That's the thing we need to pay attention to in terms of the mentality that is formed by it.
And for the Christian faith? The end (we knew it already, really) of monological discourse -was it ever really there in scripture or are we waking from a book-induced trance? We return to dialogue, interaction and personal contact but with the enhancement of multi-media...

WorldChanging: Gin, Television, and Social Surplus:

Airships

Over the years I have occasionally wondered whether anyone has been looking at airships for transport in stead of jets and the like. So I was happy to see this article by George Monbiot touting the same idea and adding a few helpful details like these:

a large commercial airliner cruises at about 900 kilometres per hour, the maximum speed of an airship is roughly 150kph. At an average speed of 130kph, the journey from London to New York would take 43 hours. Airships are more sensitive to wind than aeroplanes, which means that flights are more likely to be delayed. But they have one major advantage: the environmental cost could be reduced almost to zero.

Even when burning fossil fuels, the total climate-changing impact of an airship, according to researchers at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is 80-90% smaller than that of ordinary aircraft(4). But the airship is also the only form of transport which can easily store hydrogen: you could inflate a hydrogen bladder inside the helium balloon. There might be a neat synergy here: one of the problems with airships is that they become lighter - and therefore harder to control - as the fuel is consumed. In this case they become heavier.

Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers

My first reaction was to doubt that this would be possible, but my second was concern that it should be attempted at all.Air Force Aims for 'Full Control' of 'Any and All' Computers | Danger Room from Wired.com:
"The government is growing increasingly interested in waging war online. The Air Force recently put together a 'Cyberspace Command,' with a charter to rule networks the way its fighter jets rule the skies. The Department of Homeland Security, Darpa, and other agencies are teaming up for a five-year, $30 billion 'national cybersecurity iniative.' That includes an electronic test range, where federally-funded hackers can test out the latest electronic attacks. 'You used to need an army to wage a war,' a recent Air Force commercial notes. 'Now, all you need is an Internet connection.'"
It might appear at first sight that cyber war would be more merciful, but let's recall that the point of trying this kind of thing is to be able to shut down things like power, water, transport: thus it is a definite turn away from respecting non-combatants and embedding total warfare in strategy.

What should our response be as Christians? Well for non-pacifists the erosion of just war principles is surely a matter for concern. For pacifists and perhaps for just-war-proponents, the issue may be how resistance looks in such circumstances ... still thinking about that; any thoughts or leads gratefully received.

A Story for Ascension

Thanks to Maggi Dawn a story about the Ascension where the symbolic meaning is really important. It has the feel of a Rabbinical tale, which I like.

As Abba Sayah tells it, after forty days of resurrection appearances, Jesus knew it was time to leave his disciples – his mother, his brothers and sisters, his companions in the Way. It was hard to say goodbye, but he knew that the time had come. After all, he was the truth and we humans can only take so much of that.

So Jesus called them all together on the mountain top, and made his farewells. It was a tearful moment. Mary was crying. John was crying. Jesus was crying. Even Peter, the immovable rock, was reaching for his handkerchief.

They knew that Jesus had said he would always be with them. But they also knew it wasn't going to be the same. There would be no more breakfasts by the seashore, no more late night discussions around the campfire.

Jesus was sad too, but he was glad to be returning to his Father, and he knew it was all part of the plan. And so he began to ascend.

As Abba Sayah told the story, just as Jesus began to rise, slowly and gracefully into the air, John just couldn't bear it. He grabbed hold of Jesus' right leg, and refused to let go.

"John?" said Jesus “What are you doing?” And John shouted back, "If you won't stay with us, then I'm coming too."

Jesus calmly continued to rise, hoping that John would let go. But John didn't let go. And then to make matters more complicated, Mary suddenly jumped up and grabbed hold of Jesus' other leg. "I'm coming too," she shouted.

By now, Jesus’ big exit had obviously been ruined, but he looked up into heaven, and called out: "Okay, Father... what do I do now?" And a voice came out of the clouds, deep and loud like the rumbling of thunder in the distance.

"Ascend!" the voice said.

"Ascend?" Jesus asked?

"Ascend!" the voice replied.

So Jesus continued to rise through the air, with John and Mary holding on until they too were lifted off the ground.

Well, then, ALL the other apostles, not wanting to be left behind, jumped on too. Imagine if you can – a pyramid of people hanging in the middle of the sky. Jesus at the top. John and Mary next. The apostles hanging on below.

And then - what was this? Suddenly all kinds of people were appearing out of nowhere.

friends and neighbours that had followed them up the mountain.

The crowds he used to preach to.

Old people.

Young people.

Jews and Gentiles.

Men and women.

All of them grabbing the last pair of ankles and holding on.

And above it all the voice of God calling out, “Ascend!"

But all of a sudden, from the bottom of the pyramid, there came the voice of a small child.

"Wait!” he yelled, “I've lost my dog! Wait for me”

"I can't wait," Jesus called back, "I don't know how this thing works." But the little boy wasn't going to be left behind, and he was determined his dog was coming with him. So, still holding on with one hand, he grabbed hold of a tree with the other, and held on with all his might.

For a moment, the whole pyramid stopped dead in the air - Jesus pulling upwards, and the little boy holding on to the tree, scanning the horizon for his lost dog.

But Jesus couldn't stop. The ascension had begun, and God was pulling him back up to heaven.

At first it looked as if the tree would uproot itself. But then the tree held on, and it started to pull the ground up with it. Sort of like when you pull a rug up in the middle, the

soil itself started moving up into the sky. And hundreds of miles away, where the soil met the oceans, the oceans held on. And where the oceans met the shores, the shores held on. All of it held on, like there was no tomorrow.

To make a short story long: Jesus DID ascend to heaven, He went back to his natural habitat, living permanently in the presence of God’s endless love and care and wholeness and laughter.

But, as Abba Sayah tells it, he pulled all of creation – the whole kit and caboodle – everything that ever was or is or ever will be – he pulled it all up into heaven with him.

Spiritualission

I can so relate to this:

Recently, a young couple came to arrange for their banns to be called, and the conversation took an unexpected direction. They had been attending the church where they were to be married, and the groom was struggling with this experience. He told me that he could not have the kind of faith that Christians have. He could not be a Christian because he could not accept these set descriptions of God and the world, when his experience was telling him something else. In this sort of dialogue, I need another word. I need to describe Christianity in a way that is not about rules or binding, but about a journey of faith and the experience of God. “Spirituality” and “spiritual path” are not adequate to the task, but they are a starting place. They offer me the possibility to describe faith in terms of relationship with God and others; to answer the need inside each of us that presents itself more readily in questions than answers. We live in a time that some call post-Christian. People have given up on legalistic, controlling religion. They have also begun to give up on the materialism and licence with which they replaced it, as they see that it does not meet their needs. They flock to the “Body, Mind and Spirit” section of bookshops, and to talks on alternative practices because they are trying to find a way to feed their spiritual side. They are not flocking to the Church, because they do not see that we have anything to offer them. So when I say to people: “I’m not really religious,” they are nonplussed. “Hang on,” said one young man, “but you’re a vicar.” It is then that I use that word spirituality to begin a dialogue about experiencing God rather than joining a club and following rules.

The article by Eva McIntyre is brief but raises the issue nicely and helpfully. Doubly so since someone close to me has been articulating their faith in terms of finding the cultural baggage of traditional church and faith expressions very unhelpful but still finding a vibrant meaning in God-centredness in Christ...

Don't let the Language Crazies win

Another helpful piece at Language Log : it discusses the difficulty that while it is true that split infinitives are actually standard English, the opinionated but misinformed ("the crazies") are sometimes in positions of power and could take against the split infinitive on your job application or mark your dissertation down. The problem is that altering our linguistic behaviour to accommodate their unfounded prejudice only encourages them. So Arnold Zwicky's advice, at the end of it all is this: "The objective fact is that split infinitives are standard English. So my advice is: split an infinitive if it suits you (or don't, if that suits you). Good writers do it. And you don't even have to have a defense for it; do it because it sounds right for you. Don't let the crazies win."
And yet, do we want to risk it? Well one of my tactics has been to have a standard footnote to (a) recognise that 'yes: I have split an infinitive' and (b) it's deliberate because (c) it is standard English and here's a reference or two to demonstrate it (and perhaps mention Shakespeare and Jane Austin, inter alia, used them).

15 Strangely Shaped Trees

Some of these look a bit 'rude' but some are really just amazing.

I find these a light relief at the moment from an outstandingly busy time in my life: I have my heaviest teaching load in the academic year just at the time when reports have to be done and there's a load of marking of reports following the deadline at the start of this term. Added to which I wasn't able to get a march on designing the learning for this term's teaching because last term (when I'd normally have started on it) my daughter's accident threw everything into a turmoil. So if you are a praying sort, please pray for wisdom on my part and helpful synergies and synchronicities to help me. If you aren't a praying sort, I still appreciate it if you think kindly on me!
Any way, regular-ish visitors may now know why I've not been posting much lately: I've been digesting mission history and trying to help others learn from it.
15 Strangely Shaped Trees

World Leaders: stop the food crisis

World Leaders: stop the food crisis
Also check out:
BBC: "How to stop the global food crisis"

"The New Economics of Hunger", Washington Post, 27 April 2008

Chinese news citing World Bank figures

Reuters: "Rising food prices to top UN agenda"
Rising Food Prices" by Alex Evans (Chatham House report PDF)

UN scientific report on fixing the world food system:

Shift Happens

YouTube - Shift Happens - UK Version

Real English grammar

A couple of good items on my two English usage hobby-horses: first on singular 'they' from Language Log: Everyone knows each other.

"“Everyone knows each other”, ... The -s suffix on the present-tense verb knows tells us that the subject ... counts as singular for purposes of subject-verb agreement. But each other, famously, requires a semantically plural subject. That is why They know each other is grammatical and *He knows each other is not. From this and nothing else it follows that semantic plurality and morphosyntactic singularity are compatible in English."

The rest of the article points out that singular they has a long history.

The second article, Irrational terror over adjunct placement at Harvard, also at Language Log, bears on so-called split infinitives, also making the point of their long history of good English usage. In this case, it's by way of noting bad usage arising from trying to avoid a split infinitive. Picking up a section from a Harvard publication, the issue becomes clear:

David Rockefeller,... has pledged $100 million to increase dramatically learning opportunities for Harvard undergraduates through international experiences

What's the issue? Well, read it again and if that doesn't work here's the thing: ""What are “dramatically learning opportunities”, you might ask? We’d normally expect an adjectival rather than adverbial modifier on “learning opportunities”; is it a typo for “dramatic learning opportunities”?
Now here's the analysis:

Standard English in both its American and British varieties permits a manner adjunct (like the adverb dramatically) to occur in various places in a clause, one of them being between to and the plain form verb in an infinitival clause, but it does not normally permit any adjunct to occur between a transitive verb and its direct object. Thus [1] and [3] are grammatical, but [2] is not:
[1] This gift has dramatically improved things. (before verb)
[2] *This gift has improved dramatically things. (before object)
[3] This gift has improved things dramatically. (after object)

A further piece of evidence to show the legitimacy of the split infinitive. Students: use 'em and be happy.

Celts weren't ethnically cleansed

For those interested in the Celts and the Saxons there's a new piece of information to take into account but the way to interpret the genetic research is the moot point:

The argument is, that from AD 430 to 730, the Germanic conquerors of Britain formed an elite, with a servant underclass of native Britons. Inter-marriage was restricted, and the invaders and their genes flourished. "But it is just not necessary to assume an apartheid-like system," argues John Pattison of the University of South Australia in Adelaide. "The evidence is compatible with the idea of a much more integrated society."
...
He concludes that people with Germanic origins came to Britain well before and after the early Anglo-Saxon period, and this long period of immigration can explain a relatively strong Germanic genetic signal today. He adds that about 60% of the current British population still has some native Briton DNA, arguing against the idea, put forward by Mark Thomas at University College London and colleagues that Saxon invaders ethnically purged the country.

Expect to see both interpretations of this research appearing in comments and reflections on Celtic Christianity.