26 February 2009
Cap And Trade Works!
FYI : "Europe's cap and trade system is having the intended effect: by putting a price on carbon emissions, it's made a meaningful dent in climate-disrupting pollution." More at Worldchanging: Bright Green: Cap And Trade Works!
Support a green recovery for Europe
"This Sunday, Europe’s leaders will meet to agree on further steps to tackle the economic crisis. They face a crucial choice: pour money into an unsustainable economic system which clearly has holes; or embrace a Green Recovery Plan that invests in low carbon technologies, energy efficiency, green jobs and public transport.
The European Union has a historic opportunity to shift away from short-term, protectionist measures and take bold action to create jobs and save the planet. We need all European governments on board. So let’s send our top political leaders a flood of messages, urging them to embrace a green New Deal that lays the foundation of a sustainable economic recovery." Support a green recovery for Europe:
The European Union has a historic opportunity to shift away from short-term, protectionist measures and take bold action to create jobs and save the planet. We need all European governments on board. So let’s send our top political leaders a flood of messages, urging them to embrace a green New Deal that lays the foundation of a sustainable economic recovery." Support a green recovery for Europe:
Archbishop's Reflections on Lent
This is a rather nice little intro to Lent. YouTube - Archbishop's Reflections on Lent
25 February 2009
Flex-E-books soon ...
Now this looks like what I've been waiting for. I recall seeing this firm's previous discoveries reported a short few years back and it finally looks like they are about to produce the goodies. New Scientist records it here: Flexible electronic books to hit market soon - tech - 23 February 2009 - New Scientist and the nub seems to be this: "Plastic Logic says it has now perfected a way of printing polymer transistors onto a layer of bendy plastic - allowing the screens to flex and bounce. 'Screen breakage is the number one complaint with today's e-reader technology. Our display can take a lot of rough and tumble,'"
A bit later on we're told: "The company says it is now ramping up to commercial production of the screens, which will be just under A4 in size. "It'll be a much better e-reading experience at this magazine size - keeping layouts and graphics intact without converting them to small and unattractive formats," Eschbach claims.The device will have wireless internet connection and a touch screen, allowing use of a virtual keyboard for annotating text. In contrast"
That sounds more like it. I have no idea of cost, and I guess the first generation is going to be beyond my wallet, but it would seem to be what I've been waiting for: glad I haven't bought a Kindle ...
Now combine that technology with this one and you could have something very, very powerful: I can see classroom uses which might make smart board technology as we currently know it obsolete: "a device that lets you do something similar. Called sixth sense, it offers a way of displaying information on any surface - a newspaper or wall, for example - and manipulating it with hand gestures. "We wanted to find out if we could merge information into a sense that is always with us," says Maes's student Pranav Mistry.
The device, which is worn around the neck as a pendant, contains a small projector and webcam. The pendant communicates either with a laptop in a backpack or a smartphone connected to a remote server. The webcam monitors the user's hand gestures and conveys them to control software running on the laptop or server."
And for musos ...
A bit later on we're told: "The company says it is now ramping up to commercial production of the screens, which will be just under A4 in size. "It'll be a much better e-reading experience at this magazine size - keeping layouts and graphics intact without converting them to small and unattractive formats," Eschbach claims.The device will have wireless internet connection and a touch screen, allowing use of a virtual keyboard for annotating text. In contrast"
That sounds more like it. I have no idea of cost, and I guess the first generation is going to be beyond my wallet, but it would seem to be what I've been waiting for: glad I haven't bought a Kindle ...
Now combine that technology with this one and you could have something very, very powerful: I can see classroom uses which might make smart board technology as we currently know it obsolete: "a device that lets you do something similar. Called sixth sense, it offers a way of displaying information on any surface - a newspaper or wall, for example - and manipulating it with hand gestures. "We wanted to find out if we could merge information into a sense that is always with us," says Maes's student Pranav Mistry.
The device, which is worn around the neck as a pendant, contains a small projector and webcam. The pendant communicates either with a laptop in a backpack or a smartphone connected to a remote server. The webcam monitors the user's hand gestures and conveys them to control software running on the laptop or server."
And for musos ...
A Lent idea? Lectio Divina resource available.
Thanks to the Bible Society, downloadable resources; maybe worth trying as a Lenten discipline. DOWNLOAD LECTIO DIVINA: "Download your FREE lectio divina resource. It follows the Sunday Gospel readings for Year B: Year of Mark, from Advent 2008 to Christ the King 2009."
22 February 2009
If It's Hard To Say, It Must Be Risky
I can quite believe this: though it should also be said that it may seem really shallow, however it's intriguing. Write-up is here: If It's Hard To Say, It Must Be Risky Basic outcome of research is this: "...results show that people consistently classify difficult to pronounce items as risky, and this is the case for both undesirable risks (such as getting sick on a roller coaster or hazardous food additive) as well as desirable risks (such as an adventurous amusement park ride). These findings also suggest that risk perception may be influenced by the way the items are presented - if they are difficult to process (such as hard to pronounce names), they will be viewed as being inherently riskier"
I'm guessing that this is why the cleaning product formerly known as 'Jif' has for the last handful of years been promoted as 'Cif'. I'm guessing that either 'Jif' is hard to pronounce in a number of languages (and it certainly is for a number of phonological systems in the sense that the sound is not present) or the 'licit' pronunciation of the graphemes according to the local language rules results in dysphonious or downright rude results.
But I'm also thinking: does this have an angle that relates to naming the animals in Genesis 2? Is there, after all, an element of 'control' in naming; somehow naming something can have the effect of reducing the perceived risk in it? That may be a bit of a stretch in terms of the evidence here, but it would link with another piece of recent research about naming and feelings which I flagged up here a few days back.
I'm guessing that this is why the cleaning product formerly known as 'Jif' has for the last handful of years been promoted as 'Cif'. I'm guessing that either 'Jif' is hard to pronounce in a number of languages (and it certainly is for a number of phonological systems in the sense that the sound is not present) or the 'licit' pronunciation of the graphemes according to the local language rules results in dysphonious or downright rude results.
But I'm also thinking: does this have an angle that relates to naming the animals in Genesis 2? Is there, after all, an element of 'control' in naming; somehow naming something can have the effect of reducing the perceived risk in it? That may be a bit of a stretch in terms of the evidence here, but it would link with another piece of recent research about naming and feelings which I flagged up here a few days back.
20 February 2009
Erosion of thought by the winds of culture
This is something that thinking Christians should have a look at. Not because it hints at intellectual problems in neo-paganism as felt by its own practitioners, but rather because the kinds of issues are similar to Christians in the West. An indicator in my opinion that there is a cultural dimension to it. So have a look at this article: The North West Passage - The passing of Deo's Shadow. To give you a flavour of why I think it's worth reading is this rather fine paragraph: "Philosophical knowledge is the knowledge of how to separate the real from the unreal, the right from the wrong, the true from the false, the beautiful from the trite. This kind of knowledge is philosophical when it is a product of sustained systematic reason. This kind of knowledge, however, is often specifically rejected by pagans. This happens when, for instance, pagans claim that reliable knowledge can be obtained primarily (or only) through non-rational means such as magical sight, through 'gut intuition', etc. This also happens when someone says that 'head knowledge' or 'book knowledge' is worthless, and that intellectual reasoning about our problems is 'too hard', 'too scary', or 'missing the point', or even 'an obstacle to true spiritual experience'."
I recognise those reactions from some Christian circles.
It's very informative to read Deo's parting comment and also the comments on what he says. For my money he misses the 'obvious' point that his own schooling in certain perspectives in Western society probably informs his sense thet atheism is the natural non-religious 'home' point: that, in effect, he has merely recognised a long-standing conversion to that secular-humianist perspective. He talks of evidence as if it is unproblematic, like Dawkins. Time to brush off Kuhn and Popper, I think (by interesting co-incidence I was reading an article earlier that puts some of this nicely). So it's important for us to note the trajectory's tale in terms of the forces of spirituality, religion and culture more generally: back to plausibility structures. And while we're at it, we should perhaps also recall the attraction Buddhism seems to have for many in the West, and this article could be a good way in. However, it's interesting to note that the post-pagan traffic need not all be towards Prince Siddharta, in this one CS Lewis might feel vindicated.
I recognise those reactions from some Christian circles.
It's very informative to read Deo's parting comment and also the comments on what he says. For my money he misses the 'obvious' point that his own schooling in certain perspectives in Western society probably informs his sense thet atheism is the natural non-religious 'home' point: that, in effect, he has merely recognised a long-standing conversion to that secular-humianist perspective. He talks of evidence as if it is unproblematic, like Dawkins. Time to brush off Kuhn and Popper, I think (by interesting co-incidence I was reading an article earlier that puts some of this nicely). So it's important for us to note the trajectory's tale in terms of the forces of spirituality, religion and culture more generally: back to plausibility structures. And while we're at it, we should perhaps also recall the attraction Buddhism seems to have for many in the West, and this article could be a good way in. However, it's interesting to note that the post-pagan traffic need not all be towards Prince Siddharta, in this one CS Lewis might feel vindicated.
It's Time for Cities to Favor People, Not Cars
Good to see this being written in the USA: "'You have to have a place to park at home, a place to park at work, and a place to park at retail establishments.' In an absurd 'market distortion,' cities have become places where 'cars have a right to housing and people don't.'"
Hmmm; it Britain too.
It's Time for Cities to Favor People, Not Cars | Autopia from Wired.com:
Hmmm; it Britain too.
It's Time for Cities to Favor People, Not Cars | Autopia from Wired.com:
Church Army -or whatever: C of E's SJ?
There has been much soul searching in the Church Army over the last decade or so. I think that this could actually prove to be the definitely right thing for the kairos. I've thought for a while that the CofE needs its own version of the Jesuits: I think that maybe this could be it. The CT reports it here: Church Times - Tidying up the Church Army And the new head of the CA says: "The Church Army needs a new identity for the 21st century, although that’s easier said than done. I don’t think the militaristic image is always helpful. In some respects it is, because it talks about a bunch of people with an objective to defeat something, and, without question, I want to see us defeat poverty, injustice, and homelessness. But we’re not a church, and we’re not an army; we’re not a church in an army, and we’re not an army in a church.". Interestingly, the parallel with the SJ's is perhaps more apt than might appear at first sight: read Inaki of Loyola and you'll find his army background informs his choice of metaphor for the Christian life quite extensively ... I speak as a believer in nonviolence.
Violent Media Numb Viewers to others' pain
More evidence that gigo applies to the human mind: violence and uncaringness viewed creates a numbness to others' suffering. The overview is here: Violent Media Numb Viewers To The Pain Of Others and a quote to give you the flavour: "'These studies clearly show that violent media exposure can reduce helping behavior,' said Bushman, professor of psychology and communications and a research professor at the U-M Institute for Social Research.
'People exposed to media violence are less helpful to others in need because they are 'comfortably numb' to the pain and suffering of others, to borrow the title of a Pink Floyd song,' he said."
Now the question really is whether the methodology allows the claims; the results look pretty conclusive.
'People exposed to media violence are less helpful to others in need because they are 'comfortably numb' to the pain and suffering of others, to borrow the title of a Pink Floyd song,' he said."
Now the question really is whether the methodology allows the claims; the results look pretty conclusive.
Collective Religious Rituals
The summary is that regular participation tends to correlate with increased likelihood of being part of some kind of extremist action. Perhaps no surprise there. However there is scant support for the neo-atheist condemnation of all religious activity: "researchers note, the greater sense of community, developed via religious services, may have many positive consequences. They observe, 'Only in particular geopolitical contexts is the parochial altruism associated with such commitments translated into something like suicide attacks.'"
Of course it serves to indicate the teaching of total depravity may have something to it; that is that there is no area of human experience which is off-limits to the effects of the fall -even, perhaps especially, religion.
The article is summarise here: Collective Religious Rituals, Not Religious Devotion, Spur Support For Suicide Attacks
Of course it serves to indicate the teaching of total depravity may have something to it; that is that there is no area of human experience which is off-limits to the effects of the fall -even, perhaps especially, religion.
The article is summarise here: Collective Religious Rituals, Not Religious Devotion, Spur Support For Suicide Attacks
Are Christians facing discrimination?
I'm part of a community many of whose members have roots in the kind of constituency most prone to wanting to play the 'more a victim than thou' card. So this was a useful bit of comment: Are Christians facing discrimination? | Ekklesia and the most telling point: "On the one hand they advance their arguments by citing the 70% of the country which identified with Christianity at the last census. This majority position, they argue, means that Christianity should still be given pride of place. However in the next breath, they plead Christians as a vulnerable and persecuted minority in need of special protections - which entirely undermines their case."
Of course we should really look at the issue of loving neighbour as ourselves which tends to undermine the arguments that are really rooted in a nostalgia for Christendom. Given that it is strongly arguable that power-holding distorts the gospel, sometimes fatally, we really should not be seeking special privileges for Christians. All that does is tends to make things more comfortable for the insensitively (I'm sorry but that does seem to be the case) vocal and to bring the gospel into disrepute among those who really ought to be hearing it as good news. Perhaps I've expressed that over-forcefully, but I'm not at all convinced that loud-mouthed Christians finding ways to be exempted from due consideration of their neighbours is a good thing in any scenario. The allegedly postmodern trend of winning arguments by demonstrating victimhood credentials seems, ironically, to have been adopted by those sections of Christian opinion which spend the most energy decrying postmodernity. I'm quite happy to cry 'foul' in case of genuine discrimination, but sometimes I think there is a little bit too much special pleading.
Of course we should really look at the issue of loving neighbour as ourselves which tends to undermine the arguments that are really rooted in a nostalgia for Christendom. Given that it is strongly arguable that power-holding distorts the gospel, sometimes fatally, we really should not be seeking special privileges for Christians. All that does is tends to make things more comfortable for the insensitively (I'm sorry but that does seem to be the case) vocal and to bring the gospel into disrepute among those who really ought to be hearing it as good news. Perhaps I've expressed that over-forcefully, but I'm not at all convinced that loud-mouthed Christians finding ways to be exempted from due consideration of their neighbours is a good thing in any scenario. The allegedly postmodern trend of winning arguments by demonstrating victimhood credentials seems, ironically, to have been adopted by those sections of Christian opinion which spend the most energy decrying postmodernity. I'm quite happy to cry 'foul' in case of genuine discrimination, but sometimes I think there is a little bit too much special pleading.
Ecumenical Water Network suggests ideas for prayer and action during Lent
Another Lenten idea:
Ecumenical Water Network suggests ideas for prayer and action during Lent: "As the season of Lent draws near, the Ecumenical Water Network (EWN) invites Christians to mark the occasion with reflection and action on water justice.
During the Seven Weeks for Water initiative, theologians and church activists from Africa, Europe, North and South America will share short biblical meditations for each week along with some campaigning ideas and resources."
There's a link on the page to follow up.
Ecumenical Water Network suggests ideas for prayer and action during Lent: "As the season of Lent draws near, the Ecumenical Water Network (EWN) invites Christians to mark the occasion with reflection and action on water justice.
During the Seven Weeks for Water initiative, theologians and church activists from Africa, Europe, North and South America will share short biblical meditations for each week along with some campaigning ideas and resources."
There's a link on the page to follow up.
One Flag Design Competition
Check this out and vote for a new 'one world' flag design. I think the aim is that it starts to be used as a statement on places where a flag might be put, but this one carrying a message of supporting a one world mentality. Selected Entries - One Flag Design Competition | Adbusters Culturejammer Headquarters: "Selected Entries - One Flag Design Competition"
Support for the talking cure
Reasearch seems to be confirming what we kind of know from reflection on our own and others' experience: that talking about our feelings that can help us to bring them into a better relationship with the rest of our life. It's written about briefly here: Cross Words: Talking About Bad Feelings Helps Control Them | Wired Science from Wired.com and the headline summary: "Naming feelings takes some of the emotional impact out of them by engaging a brain region that aids self-control, according to new research.". The downside is that it also downsizes happy feelings too. I wonder whether that could relate to using tongues as a praise language; It would seem that perhaps glossolalia doesn't engage the relevant bit of the brain identified in this research and so the heightened feelings associated are not down-played (and this bit of research seems to indicate it doesn't engage those parts of the brain). On the other hand what about expressing praise corporately? I would say, from observation (and I have in mind both religious and secular gatherings) that the corporate dimension actually increases the sense of euphoria.
19 February 2009
Ideas for Lent: Carbon Fast
I'm hoping to share various ideas for Lent as and when I find them. Feel free to add a comment with futher ideas. Here's another to be going on with. Carbon Fast: "'As we pray daily for God's will to be done on earth, as it is done in heaven, the Carbon Fast is a practical step towards a fairer world, a sustainable planet and the earthing of heaven. Join us as the Carbon Fast goes global in 2009!'"
18 February 2009
Love and social context
I guess we knew from reading history that conceptions of love vary from society to society. And this article Spaniards Prefer Love To Be Passionate, Study Shows tells of some recent research in Europe giving a bit of a cross-cultural study: "Spaniards of all ages, in the main, have a 'romantic' conception of love. They see it as an irresistible passion, which involves great intimacy and a strong physical attraction, which is classified as 'Eros' love. Far fewer of them view the sentiment as a lasting commitment based on closeness, friendship, companionship and affection (amiable or 'storge' love), a model which is more common in the north of Europe."
So when we teach about love and talk about love we should be aware of this: it's not just a case of taking on board the idea of four loves (and there is not such a clear-cut differentiation of vocabulary as CS Lewis might be read to say), but the habitual ways we might think about it. I'm just wondering how far the result quoted might go back in history (certainly seems to relate to Cervantes' Don Quijote); for example, does this impinge on the mystical poetry St John of the Cross? There's a first-sight case to think it might.
So when we teach about love and talk about love we should be aware of this: it's not just a case of taking on board the idea of four loves (and there is not such a clear-cut differentiation of vocabulary as CS Lewis might be read to say), but the habitual ways we might think about it. I'm just wondering how far the result quoted might go back in history (certainly seems to relate to Cervantes' Don Quijote); for example, does this impinge on the mystical poetry St John of the Cross? There's a first-sight case to think it might.
17 February 2009
Support the pilots' union
I hope this action can remain solid and succeed. This is the first real skirmish in the battle againsnt ID cards. A win for the pilots on this one is a win for us all.Flights at risk as pilots refuse to accept 'demeaning' ID cards -Times Online: "The British Airline Pilots Association (Balpa) said that its members – 84 per cent of the commercial pilots in Britain – would not co-operate with Home Office plans to make airside workers “guinea pigs” for the cards."
One of the comments on this piece was interesting; particularly as it pits human rights legislation against ID cards:
One of the comments on this piece was interesting; particularly as it pits human rights legislation against ID cards:
And when these pilots are dismissed the government will face constructive dismissal, loss of earnings and pension rights compensation and a violation of their human rights under article 2 of the convention. Go for broke and add in punitive damages and the government will be looking at a hefty sum.Stephen, St. Ives, England
An Anglican among Quakers
Last weekend I was attending a course at the Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Selly Oak, Birmingham. The course was called “Practicing Discernment”. It was aimed, it seemed to me, at helping those who are in the process of taking more leadership responsibilities in Quaker meetings to be able to co-operate with and 'manage' where necessary processes of corporate discernment in meetings.
There are many things a simple 44-hour conference gave me to reflect on as an Anglican. I came having met Quakers as individuals and having attending one meeting for worship many years ago. I had also read a few books on early Quaker history, again many years ago and picked up some bits and bobs of terminology from reading Richard Foster. The headings which follow are an attempt to capture some of the most apparently immediate areas that seemed to clamour for reflection.
Weight
'Weight' was the word one of the participants used in the first hour and in personal conversation over the evening meal to characterise their perception of my Anglican background: I was asked how I felt at carrying all the weight of (I took it) tradition and history. The contrast offered was with the lightness or freedom of the Quaker tradition. Part of my reaction, after a pause for thought, was to say that I thought that 'weight' was a loaded term and that it didn't feel to me like a burden, necessarily, but I offered the metaphor, instead, of mental geography: it is a place to live and provides landmarks to orientate myself. On further reflection, I wonder whether this is quite a fruitful metaphor that could head towards being a model: it could frame some of the Quaker tradition as being East Anglia or the Moors: less features but with big skies? Be interesting to know how Quakers might react to that.
A handful of times in the course of the weekend I was to rub up against perceptions of my traditions which both surprised and didn't surprise me. Surprise came from my own assumption that Quakers at such events would be less cumbered with preconceptions of such as myself, but I was unsurprised because, of course, everyone has such preconceptions and their own histories which often include reaction against the kinds of things my own tradition is taken to stand for or embody (and, ironically, is often seeking to distance itself from!) And of course I have them too: viewpoints which have emerged from a time of struggle and rethinking and which carry the weight of my own sense of relief or new-found freedom or even healing.
The dark side of that sense of resolution can often be a degree of hostility or a disrespectful desire to convert the other. That is not to say all desires to change others' minds is disrespectful, merely that it can be be carried out is more or less respectful ways. Naturally, therefore, things at the weekend were hardest for me was when there was that unresolved personal animus which came out is slightly combative terms. It was not always 'against' Anglicanism, sometimes it was degrees of anger and frustrations with Evangelicals and sometimes an assurance that Quakers were right about some things in a way that would have been problematic for them had things been the other way round. Again, nothing new in that: we all do it. It was interesting to find it here too.
Liturgy and Habitus
Some of the 'weight' of tradition that others might perceive, I think, would be about liturgy. The perception would be that Anglicans have it while Quakers don't; they just wait for inspiration (or inSpiration). This is of course a first-thought kind of view but in a context where there is little to force reflection, it is perhaps not surprising that a narrow, common, definition for 'liturgy' is held by many and the usual neglect thereby of the actual fact of liturgy in meetings is in evidence. Coming in as an outsider with a definition of liturgy as something like 'the means by which a group of people structure their common relationship with God and with each other in space and in time', I found liturgy. Sometimes I noticed it because I didn't know what others took for granted, sometimes I noticed it because I was looking for it knowing that human social behaviour has to be rule-governed or to evolve rules to govern it in order that we can operate corporately without everything grinding to a halt while we decide how to do the little and frequent things together each time.
So, elements of Quaker liturgy I noticed were: markers of starting the meeting, phrases used in sharing (“Friends”) even for some the tone of voice used for talking in a meeting was different. Body posture seemed to be related to the kind of chairs (probably a chicken or egg thing), there seemed to be normal expectations of what kind of contributions might be made, and there is a definite way that a meeting ends.
Sometimes the meeting would begin with a sentence or two simply announcing that we were beginning “worship”, sometimes informal actions would signal the start (the closing of a door). Often there would have been silence already but at this point it had a sense of deepening, somehow. People are seated, not standing or lying down or even moving about; that is part of the liturgy and it is driven largely be the tacit understanding of what is happening and how it should happen. It is understood that still sitting is the posture of waiting. If someone shares in a large meeting, they stand up. A smaller meeting doesn't seem to require this and it is probably a practical arrangement to do with audibility. It does seem that 'ministry' is expected to be verbal (though a variant on this is song) but not through other media or communicative strategies. This is fair enough, but it is worth noting that there are normal expectations which do become a liturgically significant habits. I had the impression that 'ministry' would normally be expected to offer comment rather than be a prayer addressing God directly.
To end someone reaches out to those around them to hold hands briefly and this spreads all around the group. I have been in a meeting where people shook hands all round to end. I assume that a recognised senior figure is normally expected to initiate this closing ceremony.
These things are part of a wider habitus, it seemed to me. One where people tended to listen more fully in conversations with less interrupting. In course sessions it also seemed that people were not at all phased ('fazed'?) by periods of silent reflection; they were comfortable with periods of quiet reflection.
con/sensus
I had previously picked up the common perception is that Quakers make decisions by aiming for a consensus. In fact, most that touched on this were clear that this was not what they we doing. The reason for my inserting a / into the word above is to lay barer something of what is actually being striven for in decision-making. I'm taking 'sensus' to be the 'sense' of a meeting while 'con' is 'with' or 'together'. This is more subtle than everyone agreeing which is the common understanding of consensus.
The business meeting, if I've understood correctly, aims to produce a set of minutes which reflect the sense of the meeting on a matter or the mind of those present. In other words, a minute clerk is aiming to express what people can unify around. This may be a consensus, but in some cases it may be that some people 'stand-aside' from the mind that the others are coming to. In this case, it seems, that they are prepared to recognise that their reservations or objections are not sufficiently weighty to delay the others. On the other hand, it is understood that they are seeking unity and so efforts are made both to understand objections and to move forward with them or from them. Part of the inner or personal discipline that is presupposed is that people are willing and able to learn to be open and to recognise and put aside personal hobby-horses or prejudices. So the aim is not adversarial persuasion but rather finding common ground, understanding contraries, seeking creative or third way options, seeking the good and discerning what needs to be challenged or put aside. It seems to me that it would work best if there is a fundamental attitude not of 'win-lose' but of learning together and of fundamental respect within a framework of basic trust in the good faith and intentions of the other party.
'Worship'
I found it amusing to me to note how an invitation to worship results in a very different reaction to many of those I work among. Many in college when someone suggests we worship, will reach for the song-sheet or the musical instruments and expect to be involved in mainly vocal praise of God. Quakers seem to mean by 'worship' a time of corporate silence into which one might 'minister'. I think that the silence is meant to involve self-offering to God or the Spirit (however those terms may be understood) which may result in a leading to minister. 'Ministering' seems to be about feeling moved to give a word (or potentially some other offering) into the meeting which the participant judges may be from God.
Now I'm not saying one or the other of these understandings of 'worship' is right and the other wrong. I think that both are inadequate if taken to be the whole or main meaning of 'worship'. I would suggest that both could do with the other at least from time to time, at least for those who are Christian Quakers (for I discovered that Quakers may not identify as Christian but still be Quaker): it would be good to see Charismatics taking more time to wait on God and to think about how to do that together. On the other hand it would be good to encourage Friends to consider the value of corporate praise and indeed the possibility that the Spirit may indeed be involved in the loving relating that is God and catch us up into that so that we may become 'lost in wonder, love and praise' and that perhaps corporate, vocal God-centred activity may be an important part of co-operating with the Spirit in drawing us into a deeper experience God's love. On the other hand the practical assumption in much Charismatic worship that being caught up in the emotion of corporate sung (usually) worship somehow substitutes for waiting on God and making sure that we enter into a personal experience of God (rather than merely the spirit of the gathering).
I suppose that Quakers were the Charismatics/Pentecostals of their day. I'm guessing that at some point in their history the ideal that 'ministry' into a meeting is led by God, raised the bar with regard to participation in such a way that it strongly discouraged participation. I think that the corrective to this would be a recognition that worship is not only about God speaking (or communicating) with us but also us expressing ourselves to God. This latter seems to be the main thing missing from Quaker worship -or perhaps it is that it is done only or mainly in silence, but as such loses the positive encouragements and help that synchronised corporate behaviour can offer. Again I'd be interested to know further Quaker perspectives on this -and not just Quaker.
Connections
During the weekend's learning about corporate discernment I made a number of connections with my prior learning and experience. It turned out that much of Quaker practice is not so different from things found elsewhere as I had perhaps naively suspected at the outset. I guess because we are human we do all end up having to learn and re-learn how to balance the various potential and habitual 'channels' of God's revelation with our own, or perhaps sometimes against our own, voices, desires, formation and drives. We have to discern when God is speaking immanently or when transcendently. For this reason I think I noticed how the processes suggested during the course of the weekend were about noting our own filters and yardsticks and becoming aware of them so that they could be tools to be weighed according to their fittingness to aid discernment in that moment and for that 'leading' or situation. This meant that I was aware, from time to time of strong connections with things that are often part of spiritual direction, life coaching, even counselling. Also the 'standard' evangelical things about guidance were in evidence: testing by scripture and reason, listening by scripture (though there is an expanded concept and canon of scripture for some Quakers).
For me an important connection was made as I realised that in many ways the pastoral cycle was a form of discernment. Admittedly it is framed as learning from experience and so the discernment has a retrospective dimension of making sense of something that has happened, though it is explicitly also doing so in a process that aims at planning for further engagement. That focus laid aside, it seemed to me that the stages of exploration and (theological) reflection were particularly pertinent to what we might term 'prospective' discernment; in fact form the heart of it. We need to be able, in many cases, to understand well what is going on; to be able to attend to the salient facts or dimensions of what has been and is taking place and then to be able to connect that with what we know of God in scripture, reflection, accumulated wisdom and systematic thought.
I'm currently writing out further thoughts about discernment and the pastoral cycle. I'll see where I get to with that, maybe a further post, maybe not.
There are many things a simple 44-hour conference gave me to reflect on as an Anglican. I came having met Quakers as individuals and having attending one meeting for worship many years ago. I had also read a few books on early Quaker history, again many years ago and picked up some bits and bobs of terminology from reading Richard Foster. The headings which follow are an attempt to capture some of the most apparently immediate areas that seemed to clamour for reflection.
Weight
'Weight' was the word one of the participants used in the first hour and in personal conversation over the evening meal to characterise their perception of my Anglican background: I was asked how I felt at carrying all the weight of (I took it) tradition and history. The contrast offered was with the lightness or freedom of the Quaker tradition. Part of my reaction, after a pause for thought, was to say that I thought that 'weight' was a loaded term and that it didn't feel to me like a burden, necessarily, but I offered the metaphor, instead, of mental geography: it is a place to live and provides landmarks to orientate myself. On further reflection, I wonder whether this is quite a fruitful metaphor that could head towards being a model: it could frame some of the Quaker tradition as being East Anglia or the Moors: less features but with big skies? Be interesting to know how Quakers might react to that.
A handful of times in the course of the weekend I was to rub up against perceptions of my traditions which both surprised and didn't surprise me. Surprise came from my own assumption that Quakers at such events would be less cumbered with preconceptions of such as myself, but I was unsurprised because, of course, everyone has such preconceptions and their own histories which often include reaction against the kinds of things my own tradition is taken to stand for or embody (and, ironically, is often seeking to distance itself from!) And of course I have them too: viewpoints which have emerged from a time of struggle and rethinking and which carry the weight of my own sense of relief or new-found freedom or even healing.
The dark side of that sense of resolution can often be a degree of hostility or a disrespectful desire to convert the other. That is not to say all desires to change others' minds is disrespectful, merely that it can be be carried out is more or less respectful ways. Naturally, therefore, things at the weekend were hardest for me was when there was that unresolved personal animus which came out is slightly combative terms. It was not always 'against' Anglicanism, sometimes it was degrees of anger and frustrations with Evangelicals and sometimes an assurance that Quakers were right about some things in a way that would have been problematic for them had things been the other way round. Again, nothing new in that: we all do it. It was interesting to find it here too.
Liturgy and Habitus
Some of the 'weight' of tradition that others might perceive, I think, would be about liturgy. The perception would be that Anglicans have it while Quakers don't; they just wait for inspiration (or inSpiration). This is of course a first-thought kind of view but in a context where there is little to force reflection, it is perhaps not surprising that a narrow, common, definition for 'liturgy' is held by many and the usual neglect thereby of the actual fact of liturgy in meetings is in evidence. Coming in as an outsider with a definition of liturgy as something like 'the means by which a group of people structure their common relationship with God and with each other in space and in time', I found liturgy. Sometimes I noticed it because I didn't know what others took for granted, sometimes I noticed it because I was looking for it knowing that human social behaviour has to be rule-governed or to evolve rules to govern it in order that we can operate corporately without everything grinding to a halt while we decide how to do the little and frequent things together each time.
So, elements of Quaker liturgy I noticed were: markers of starting the meeting, phrases used in sharing (“Friends”) even for some the tone of voice used for talking in a meeting was different. Body posture seemed to be related to the kind of chairs (probably a chicken or egg thing), there seemed to be normal expectations of what kind of contributions might be made, and there is a definite way that a meeting ends.
Sometimes the meeting would begin with a sentence or two simply announcing that we were beginning “worship”, sometimes informal actions would signal the start (the closing of a door). Often there would have been silence already but at this point it had a sense of deepening, somehow. People are seated, not standing or lying down or even moving about; that is part of the liturgy and it is driven largely be the tacit understanding of what is happening and how it should happen. It is understood that still sitting is the posture of waiting. If someone shares in a large meeting, they stand up. A smaller meeting doesn't seem to require this and it is probably a practical arrangement to do with audibility. It does seem that 'ministry' is expected to be verbal (though a variant on this is song) but not through other media or communicative strategies. This is fair enough, but it is worth noting that there are normal expectations which do become a liturgically significant habits. I had the impression that 'ministry' would normally be expected to offer comment rather than be a prayer addressing God directly.
To end someone reaches out to those around them to hold hands briefly and this spreads all around the group. I have been in a meeting where people shook hands all round to end. I assume that a recognised senior figure is normally expected to initiate this closing ceremony.
These things are part of a wider habitus, it seemed to me. One where people tended to listen more fully in conversations with less interrupting. In course sessions it also seemed that people were not at all phased ('fazed'?) by periods of silent reflection; they were comfortable with periods of quiet reflection.
con/sensus
I had previously picked up the common perception is that Quakers make decisions by aiming for a consensus. In fact, most that touched on this were clear that this was not what they we doing. The reason for my inserting a / into the word above is to lay barer something of what is actually being striven for in decision-making. I'm taking 'sensus' to be the 'sense' of a meeting while 'con' is 'with' or 'together'. This is more subtle than everyone agreeing which is the common understanding of consensus.
The business meeting, if I've understood correctly, aims to produce a set of minutes which reflect the sense of the meeting on a matter or the mind of those present. In other words, a minute clerk is aiming to express what people can unify around. This may be a consensus, but in some cases it may be that some people 'stand-aside' from the mind that the others are coming to. In this case, it seems, that they are prepared to recognise that their reservations or objections are not sufficiently weighty to delay the others. On the other hand, it is understood that they are seeking unity and so efforts are made both to understand objections and to move forward with them or from them. Part of the inner or personal discipline that is presupposed is that people are willing and able to learn to be open and to recognise and put aside personal hobby-horses or prejudices. So the aim is not adversarial persuasion but rather finding common ground, understanding contraries, seeking creative or third way options, seeking the good and discerning what needs to be challenged or put aside. It seems to me that it would work best if there is a fundamental attitude not of 'win-lose' but of learning together and of fundamental respect within a framework of basic trust in the good faith and intentions of the other party.
'Worship'
I found it amusing to me to note how an invitation to worship results in a very different reaction to many of those I work among. Many in college when someone suggests we worship, will reach for the song-sheet or the musical instruments and expect to be involved in mainly vocal praise of God. Quakers seem to mean by 'worship' a time of corporate silence into which one might 'minister'. I think that the silence is meant to involve self-offering to God or the Spirit (however those terms may be understood) which may result in a leading to minister. 'Ministering' seems to be about feeling moved to give a word (or potentially some other offering) into the meeting which the participant judges may be from God.
Now I'm not saying one or the other of these understandings of 'worship' is right and the other wrong. I think that both are inadequate if taken to be the whole or main meaning of 'worship'. I would suggest that both could do with the other at least from time to time, at least for those who are Christian Quakers (for I discovered that Quakers may not identify as Christian but still be Quaker): it would be good to see Charismatics taking more time to wait on God and to think about how to do that together. On the other hand it would be good to encourage Friends to consider the value of corporate praise and indeed the possibility that the Spirit may indeed be involved in the loving relating that is God and catch us up into that so that we may become 'lost in wonder, love and praise' and that perhaps corporate, vocal God-centred activity may be an important part of co-operating with the Spirit in drawing us into a deeper experience God's love. On the other hand the practical assumption in much Charismatic worship that being caught up in the emotion of corporate sung (usually) worship somehow substitutes for waiting on God and making sure that we enter into a personal experience of God (rather than merely the spirit of the gathering).
I suppose that Quakers were the Charismatics/Pentecostals of their day. I'm guessing that at some point in their history the ideal that 'ministry' into a meeting is led by God, raised the bar with regard to participation in such a way that it strongly discouraged participation. I think that the corrective to this would be a recognition that worship is not only about God speaking (or communicating) with us but also us expressing ourselves to God. This latter seems to be the main thing missing from Quaker worship -or perhaps it is that it is done only or mainly in silence, but as such loses the positive encouragements and help that synchronised corporate behaviour can offer. Again I'd be interested to know further Quaker perspectives on this -and not just Quaker.
Connections
During the weekend's learning about corporate discernment I made a number of connections with my prior learning and experience. It turned out that much of Quaker practice is not so different from things found elsewhere as I had perhaps naively suspected at the outset. I guess because we are human we do all end up having to learn and re-learn how to balance the various potential and habitual 'channels' of God's revelation with our own, or perhaps sometimes against our own, voices, desires, formation and drives. We have to discern when God is speaking immanently or when transcendently. For this reason I think I noticed how the processes suggested during the course of the weekend were about noting our own filters and yardsticks and becoming aware of them so that they could be tools to be weighed according to their fittingness to aid discernment in that moment and for that 'leading' or situation. This meant that I was aware, from time to time of strong connections with things that are often part of spiritual direction, life coaching, even counselling. Also the 'standard' evangelical things about guidance were in evidence: testing by scripture and reason, listening by scripture (though there is an expanded concept and canon of scripture for some Quakers).
For me an important connection was made as I realised that in many ways the pastoral cycle was a form of discernment. Admittedly it is framed as learning from experience and so the discernment has a retrospective dimension of making sense of something that has happened, though it is explicitly also doing so in a process that aims at planning for further engagement. That focus laid aside, it seemed to me that the stages of exploration and (theological) reflection were particularly pertinent to what we might term 'prospective' discernment; in fact form the heart of it. We need to be able, in many cases, to understand well what is going on; to be able to attend to the salient facts or dimensions of what has been and is taking place and then to be able to connect that with what we know of God in scripture, reflection, accumulated wisdom and systematic thought.
I'm currently writing out further thoughts about discernment and the pastoral cycle. I'll see where I get to with that, maybe a further post, maybe not.
15 February 2009
Can a revolutionary new strategy deliver exam success?
Interesting: wondering whether and how to incorporate this into my learning facilitation .... Patrick Barkham: Can a revolutionary new strategy deliver exam success? | Education | The Guardian: "90-minute GCSE science lesson plan that involved 20-minute bursts of intense learning followed by 10-minute breaks of focused physical activity"
The whole article indicates that there may be a lot more to be researched. And the big question might be about higher order thinking versus 'mere' factoid retention ... nevertheless, worth keeping an eye on.
The whole article indicates that there may be a lot more to be researched. And the big question might be about higher order thinking versus 'mere' factoid retention ... nevertheless, worth keeping an eye on.
11 February 2009
Less meat = less climate costs
I keep pointing it out, but the evidence seems to be surfacing thick and fast. Come on people, get on board. Eating less meat could cut climate costs - environment - 10 February 2009 - New Scientist: "reducing our intake of beef and pork would lead to the creation of a huge new carbon sink, as vegetation would thrive on unused farmland. The model takes into account farmland that is used to grow extra food to make up for the lost meat, but that requires less area, so some will be abandoned. Millions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, would also be saved every year due to reduced emissions from farms."
The Invisible Web
This has seriously got me thinking about information retrieval: Beyond Google: The Invisible Web: "# Even the best search engines can access only about 16% of the available information on the World Wide Web. Therefore 84% of the information is excluded. That 84% has become known as the Invisible Web.
...
# The Invisible Web is the largest growing category of new information on the Web.
# 95% of the Invisible Web is publicly accessible information.
# More than half of the Invisible Web resides in topic specific databases."
Which means, if we are to find info, particularly more specialist stuff, we're goining to have to 'work smarter'.
One of the pages on this site tells of why so much of the internet is search-engine invisible. This is good for giving us an idea of limitations and so of what to do about them. And then it tells us what we can do to access a wider fund of information -probably worth bookmarking.
10 February 2009
Born believers: How your brain creates God
Interesting and occasionally irritating: despite the attempts at various points to remain neutral or agnostic about religious claims and their counterparts, this article keeps (as the title does) leaning to atheism-lite. That said, I think that we need to think about this stuff. As a God-botherer (though actually I don't think God is 'bothered' by me, though probably about me), I am one of those who is comfortable in principle in recognising that the processes of this world are part of God's activity, in a sense. This means that the mechanisms by which we come to be are part of that creative activity poetically presented in different ways in Hebrew and Christian scriptures, variously as fiat, dust of the earth being breathed into, chaos being defeated, building blocks being assembled and held together and so forth. This means that the questions being asked in this article and the attempts to answer them in terms of normal cause and effect are not really at issue for me (unlike for those who feel that scripture compels them to 6x24hours of special creation). So do have a look at it: Born believers: How your brain creates God - science-in-society - 04 February 2009 - New Scientist.
One quote may get us into the matter (pun not intended but allowed to stand): "So if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it."
I guess I think that this is a good illustration of how apparently objective study vears into smuggling conclusions in premises. The latter bit is the sop to the 'religious'. However the 'damage' is done by the way the first-quoted sentence is framed; by summing up the findings in terms of "religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work" the dice are already loaded. Let's not be detained by defining religion (which is one problem with the article, which does pop up implicitly in the comments -which are not on the whole edifying reading). I rather think that the sentence in question is a bit like saying, "since seeing other people is a natural consequence of how our eyes and brains work, where does that leave society?", or possibly, "since speaking is a natural consequence of how our larynx and brain works, where does that leave language?". The latter may be appropriate since it may well be that language is a side-consequence of the body doing other things, so to speak and so may provide a rough parallel at that point. I guess the obverse of that point is that if the kind of theistic claims I think that I am making are about right, then we would expect to see the processes of development of life (which produce emergent properties at an oblique to the main 'purpose' of some developments, for example) produce effects which might obliquely enable relating to God. And if you're puzzled by why I seem so darn keen on 'oblique' read more here or here.
We should hold that together with what (atheist) scientist Scott Atran is quoted as saying a bit further on: ".. [religion] arises as an artefact of the ability to build fictive worlds. I don't think there's an adaptation for religion any more than there's an adaptation to make airplanes." If I could tweak that a bit to give my own spin: "scientific theory arises as an artefact of the ability to build fictive worlds ..." In other words metaphor and imagination are the main tools of religious ideas and of invention and theory. I think that perhaps what is actually being said in this theorising is that the things that enable religion are present in human beings and like every other higher order thinking ability (including those driving scientific discovery and theory), derive from basic somatic and psychological facts of human being. That does not rule out facticity: it merely allows us to appreciate how we might be able to perceive something...
One quote may get us into the matter (pun not intended but allowed to stand): "So if religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work, where does that leave god? All the researchers involved stress that none of this says anything about the existence or otherwise of gods: as Barratt points out, whether or not a belief is true is independent of why people believe it."
I guess I think that this is a good illustration of how apparently objective study vears into smuggling conclusions in premises. The latter bit is the sop to the 'religious'. However the 'damage' is done by the way the first-quoted sentence is framed; by summing up the findings in terms of "religion is a natural consequence of how our brains work" the dice are already loaded. Let's not be detained by defining religion (which is one problem with the article, which does pop up implicitly in the comments -which are not on the whole edifying reading). I rather think that the sentence in question is a bit like saying, "since seeing other people is a natural consequence of how our eyes and brains work, where does that leave society?", or possibly, "since speaking is a natural consequence of how our larynx and brain works, where does that leave language?". The latter may be appropriate since it may well be that language is a side-consequence of the body doing other things, so to speak and so may provide a rough parallel at that point. I guess the obverse of that point is that if the kind of theistic claims I think that I am making are about right, then we would expect to see the processes of development of life (which produce emergent properties at an oblique to the main 'purpose' of some developments, for example) produce effects which might obliquely enable relating to God. And if you're puzzled by why I seem so darn keen on 'oblique' read more here or here.
We should hold that together with what (atheist) scientist Scott Atran is quoted as saying a bit further on: ".. [religion] arises as an artefact of the ability to build fictive worlds. I don't think there's an adaptation for religion any more than there's an adaptation to make airplanes." If I could tweak that a bit to give my own spin: "scientific theory arises as an artefact of the ability to build fictive worlds ..." In other words metaphor and imagination are the main tools of religious ideas and of invention and theory. I think that perhaps what is actually being said in this theorising is that the things that enable religion are present in human beings and like every other higher order thinking ability (including those driving scientific discovery and theory), derive from basic somatic and psychological facts of human being. That does not rule out facticity: it merely allows us to appreciate how we might be able to perceive something...
Lent for Justice, Peace and the Integrity of Creation
Lent will begin for those of us following the Western Kalendar in just about a fortnight. It is worth beginning to think now about how to keep Lent. Let's start with the tradition:
So what about keeping Lent today? Of course we should start by remembering that it isn't for show [See Mt.6:16ff], and that it won't make God love us any more to be very strict with ourselves not make God love us less if we don't do anything. The main point is to do what will help us to draw closer to God and to express more fully God's agenda and values in our lives. In this sense it may mean it is more useful to ask ourselves what we should take up as well as give up -keeping the common good and welfare of humanity firmly in mind.
Isaiah 58.6-14 encourages a fast that leads to greater justice. Human beings are making some decisions that are making things worse for everyone and particularly our children and grandchildren and we in the planetary north are living at unsustainably high levels of consumption. One way to help us understand this is to get an idea of our ecological footprint. The responses we could make to learning what our ecological footprint is could vary from recycling things that we don't normally, cutting down our consumption especially of meat, power, fossil fuels etc. So giving up the car for at least some kinds of journey might be appropriate.
Since a lot of our ecological footprint is made larger by consuming more goods than we need perhaps, fasting from 'retail therapy' might be a good discipline: only shopping for food and absolute necessities during Lent.
Remembering it was the normal practice of the church (still is in the east), become vegetarian or even vegan for Lent. Or if that's too great a step cut down to once or twice a week. There are lots of good reasons for doing this. Meat is in world terms a luxury and giving it up is an act of soldarity with the world's poor. The resources given to raising meat for the high consumption in the planetary north would be better used in raising crops for human food, and may help slow deforestation in the planetary south.
Fasting from things that may have gained an undue prominence in our life: shopping (perhaps we should learn to take our sense of worth from God rather than retail therapy?), watching television, alcohol, caffeine, certain activities may be reviewed perhaps. Giving the time saved to activities that help us to grow closer to God -whether that's taking a walk. praying, reading scripture, meditating, spending time with a spiritual mentor or whatever.
Do a stock take of your food throwaways and use that to replan your shopping strategies. If you are throwing away certain foodstuffs, ask yourself what the practical psychologies of obtaining and usage actually are. Are you buying stuff like some of us tend to buy books -meaning to get round to reading it someday? Are you actually finding that you feel too tired to prepare it and so end up in the junk-food end of your fridge and freezer, or reaching for the takeaway number? In a world where many of our brothers and sisters find it hard to discern the positive answer to the prayer they pray for daily bread, those of us who throw 'daily bread' away, should consider how the world's systems of food distribution have become distorted and take more responsibility for restoring God's purposes. Our 'your kingdom come' might then be their 'daily bread'.
It may seem odd, but think about it .... if you long for a simpler, more human Christmas, now is the time to start planning it. You’ve got a blank slate for 2008, and if you wait until the pressure hits in October or November, it’s too late. If you want to talk to your family about it, and have a bit of a discussion, now might be a good time to make some suggestions. You can talk again in the summer and decide for sure whether you want to go for it, but get the ball rolling early
(see)
As we take actions that tend towards a more just and fair world, as we begin to act in ways that preserve and enhance the God-given living systems of our planet, we are creating the conditions that are likely to make for a more peaceful world. This is because so many conflicts begin with injustices and concerns for resources. Jesus said 'blessed are the peacemakers', as we take such actions we begin to deserve the label.
The ideas on this leaflet are not exhaustive and are intended to push us beyond the usual and all too easy 'giving up chocolate' for Lent sort of response; to encourage us to make Lent a testing ground for embedding more of God's agenda into our lifestyles.
There is a helpful aid to Lent-keeping here.
"… St. Gregory writing to St. Augustine of England laid down the rule, 'We abstain from flesh meat, and from all things that come from flesh, as milk, cheese, and eggs.' This decision was afterwards enshrined in the 'Corpus Juris', and must be regarded as the common law of the Church."(see here for fuller account of the history)
So what about keeping Lent today? Of course we should start by remembering that it isn't for show [See Mt.6:16ff], and that it won't make God love us any more to be very strict with ourselves not make God love us less if we don't do anything. The main point is to do what will help us to draw closer to God and to express more fully God's agenda and values in our lives. In this sense it may mean it is more useful to ask ourselves what we should take up as well as give up -keeping the common good and welfare of humanity firmly in mind.
Isaiah 58.6-14 encourages a fast that leads to greater justice. Human beings are making some decisions that are making things worse for everyone and particularly our children and grandchildren and we in the planetary north are living at unsustainably high levels of consumption. One way to help us understand this is to get an idea of our ecological footprint. The responses we could make to learning what our ecological footprint is could vary from recycling things that we don't normally, cutting down our consumption especially of meat, power, fossil fuels etc. So giving up the car for at least some kinds of journey might be appropriate.
Since a lot of our ecological footprint is made larger by consuming more goods than we need perhaps, fasting from 'retail therapy' might be a good discipline: only shopping for food and absolute necessities during Lent.
British researchers found that in order to reach sustainable prosperity, Londoners would have to shrink their ecological impacts 80% in the next four decades.... And the more we learn about the extent of the damage we're causing the planet, the shorter our timeframes for change become. I suspect that we need to be thinking more along the lines of cutting our impact in half in the next ten years.(See)
Remembering it was the normal practice of the church (still is in the east), become vegetarian or even vegan for Lent. Or if that's too great a step cut down to once or twice a week. There are lots of good reasons for doing this. Meat is in world terms a luxury and giving it up is an act of soldarity with the world's poor. The resources given to raising meat for the high consumption in the planetary north would be better used in raising crops for human food, and may help slow deforestation in the planetary south.
Fasting from things that may have gained an undue prominence in our life: shopping (perhaps we should learn to take our sense of worth from God rather than retail therapy?), watching television, alcohol, caffeine, certain activities may be reviewed perhaps. Giving the time saved to activities that help us to grow closer to God -whether that's taking a walk. praying, reading scripture, meditating, spending time with a spiritual mentor or whatever.
Do a stock take of your food throwaways and use that to replan your shopping strategies. If you are throwing away certain foodstuffs, ask yourself what the practical psychologies of obtaining and usage actually are. Are you buying stuff like some of us tend to buy books -meaning to get round to reading it someday? Are you actually finding that you feel too tired to prepare it and so end up in the junk-food end of your fridge and freezer, or reaching for the takeaway number? In a world where many of our brothers and sisters find it hard to discern the positive answer to the prayer they pray for daily bread, those of us who throw 'daily bread' away, should consider how the world's systems of food distribution have become distorted and take more responsibility for restoring God's purposes. Our 'your kingdom come' might then be their 'daily bread'.
It may seem odd, but think about it .... if you long for a simpler, more human Christmas, now is the time to start planning it. You’ve got a blank slate for 2008, and if you wait until the pressure hits in October or November, it’s too late. If you want to talk to your family about it, and have a bit of a discussion, now might be a good time to make some suggestions. You can talk again in the summer and decide for sure whether you want to go for it, but get the ball rolling early
(see)
As we take actions that tend towards a more just and fair world, as we begin to act in ways that preserve and enhance the God-given living systems of our planet, we are creating the conditions that are likely to make for a more peaceful world. This is because so many conflicts begin with injustices and concerns for resources. Jesus said 'blessed are the peacemakers', as we take such actions we begin to deserve the label.
The ideas on this leaflet are not exhaustive and are intended to push us beyond the usual and all too easy 'giving up chocolate' for Lent sort of response; to encourage us to make Lent a testing ground for embedding more of God's agenda into our lifestyles.
There is a helpful aid to Lent-keeping here.
09 February 2009
Thinkature
This looks like a helpful web2.0 collaboration tool. Anyone else come across it? I like the mind-mappy approach the test site shows us. Thinkature - About Thinkature: "With Thinkature, you can create a collaborative workspace and invite coworkers, friends, and colleagues to join you in just seconds. Once inside your workspace, you can communicate by chatting, drawing, creating cards, and adding content from around the Internet. It's all synchronous, too - no need to hit reload or get an editing lock."
Church attendance up
I was a little hesitant as I started to read this: there is a tendency for people to over-report and sometimes like-with-like comparisons are not there. However, this looks fairly robust: Baptist Times - Numbers increase: "The data reveals that 7.3m are now attending church once a month, an increase of two per cent from 2007." It's likely to be robust because it's a regular survey which is designed to provide year-on-year tracking using quite a large sample. The like-with-like factor is important in the sense that even if people do over-report, other things being equal, it should be similar from year to year (unless what we really need to be investigating is why people's over-reporting rate has increased!). And we should note that the figures are derived from pre-credit crunch surveying; so the effect that has sometimes been noticed of economic downturns on church attendance is not really a factor.
As with any data of this kind, the real trick is explaining it: coming up with a theory that explains the figures well. The article doesn't really give us that. I await seeing the report itself for indications of why this is so. Is it that many churches and initiatives are doing a http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbetter job of attracting people and helping them to stay with it? Or is there some interesting socio-spiritual something occuring? What sort of churches are involved? What sort of people? ... ?
There's a bit more detail here (along with a link to further details at TEAR fund's site).
From the latter we might note this: "The broader trend over three years since the start of the tracking, shows that churchgoing is holding up well:
* at least annually: Sep 08 recovery from low point of 21% in Feb 07 but still below Feb 05 level of 29%
* at least monthly: Sep 08 and Feb 05 are equivalent, at 15%
* at least weekly: Sep 08 and Feb 05 are equivalent, at 10% "
So the picture is of bottoming out in these figure (again crying out for a set of hypotheses to explain the data).
I'm particularly interested in these figures too.
So I'm wondering whether this may be something about doing occasional offices well: christenings and funerals plus surrounding pastoral contacts. ...? That would seem to stack up with the church I'm currently most acquainted with ...
As with any data of this kind, the real trick is explaining it: coming up with a theory that explains the figures well. The article doesn't really give us that. I await seeing the report itself for indications of why this is so. Is it that many churches and initiatives are doing a http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifbetter job of attracting people and helping them to stay with it? Or is there some interesting socio-spiritual something occuring? What sort of churches are involved? What sort of people? ... ?
There's a bit more detail here (along with a link to further details at TEAR fund's site).
From the latter we might note this: "The broader trend over three years since the start of the tracking, shows that churchgoing is holding up well:
* at least annually: Sep 08 recovery from low point of 21% in Feb 07 but still below Feb 05 level of 29%
* at least monthly: Sep 08 and Feb 05 are equivalent, at 15%
* at least weekly: Sep 08 and Feb 05 are equivalent, at 10% "
So the picture is of bottoming out in these figure (again crying out for a set of hypotheses to explain the data).
I'm particularly interested in these figures too.
The increase in annual churchgoing (attending at least once a year) between Sep 07 and Sep 08 has occurred in most demographic segments i.e across the board rather than only among certain sub-groups. However the largest significant increases from September 2007 to September 2008 are:
By age:
* 25-34 year olds: +7% 15% to 22%
* 65-74 year olds +6% 27% to 33%
* Over 75 year olds + 10% 29% to 39%
...
By denomination, in the ‘established’ church rather than smaller denominations:
* Church of England +6% 28% to 34%
* Church of Scotland +6% 39% to 45%
So I'm wondering whether this may be something about doing occasional offices well: christenings and funerals plus surrounding pastoral contacts. ...? That would seem to stack up with the church I'm currently most acquainted with ...
05 February 2009
Scant comfort for atheist advertising
While I did think about mentioning how unimaginative the ripostes were from some of the Christian community (and you'll find them here: Let there be adverts: Christians hit back at the atheist bus | Media | The Guardian) I was most struck by this: "Last month the Advertising Standards Authority received almost 150 complaints that the atheist bus campaign was offensive to Christians, and that the 'no God' claim could not be substantiated.
However the ASA ruled that the campaign did not break the advertising code, concluding that the ads were an 'expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation'. As such, it said that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause widespread offence."
Did you get that? the atheists were told that their claims are not capable of objective substantiation. Oh yes: the ASA reckon atheists hold a faith position too.
Just thought you'd like to know.
However the ASA ruled that the campaign did not break the advertising code, concluding that the ads were an 'expression of the advertiser's opinion and that the claims in it were not capable of objective substantiation'. As such, it said that it was unlikely to mislead or to cause widespread offence."
Did you get that? the atheists were told that their claims are not capable of objective substantiation. Oh yes: the ASA reckon atheists hold a faith position too.
Just thought you'd like to know.
01 February 2009
The self in a wired world
I was attracted to this because it seemed to be dealing with the interaction between culture, technology and the self.
A little later we are told that technology takes away our solitude. I'm definitely not convinced. I think that it's always been the case that solitude for most people has to be sought and cultivated. Technology just means that we need a different set of techniques to gain it. But in societies where families were typically bigger and shared space smaller, solitude was not something people found readily. To find it then meant a trip to a park or the country or a church or the toilet (working class men took the newspaper), to find it now means turning off the phone.
There is a good point made here:
This is what the contemporary self wants. It wants to be recognized, wants to be connected: It wants to be visible. If not to the millions, on Survivor or Oprah, then to the hundreds, on Twitter or Facebook. This is the quality that validates us, this is how we become real to ourselves — by being seen by others. The great contemporary terror is anonymity. If Lionel Trilling was right, if the property that grounded the self, in Romanticism, was sincerity, and in modernism it was authenticity, then in postmodernism it is visibility.What I'm cautious, if not skeptical, about is making claims that the consciousness raised is fundamentally different to previous eras. Now, I'm conscious that recent brain research seems to indicate that people do tend to gravitate towards different perspectives in different languages which suggests that different cultures would produce somewhat different habiti, ceteris paribus. However, we should be wary of overstating the differences, and at times I think that this article does get close to that. I think that by staying on the side of saying that it is how loneliness is experienced in relation to other culturally-related phenomena it holds together; but at times it seems to strain against that as if wanting to say that those acculturated by modern communications technologies are somehow fundamentally different as if loneliness didn't exist before. What is fair enough is to say that loneliness as a fundamental human experience means differently in different societies. I'm definitely wary of the "ain't modern life awful" tendency in cultural comment: it tends to forget the problems and downsides of the previous eras in a rose-tinted romance of earlier times.
A little later we are told that technology takes away our solitude. I'm definitely not convinced. I think that it's always been the case that solitude for most people has to be sought and cultivated. Technology just means that we need a different set of techniques to gain it. But in societies where families were typically bigger and shared space smaller, solitude was not something people found readily. To find it then meant a trip to a park or the country or a church or the toilet (working class men took the newspaper), to find it now means turning off the phone.
There is a good point made here:
The goal now, it seems, is simply to become known, to turn oneself into a sort of miniature celebrity. How many friends do I have on Facebook? How many people are reading my blog? How many Google hits does my name generate? Visibility secures our self-esteemThis does offer a useful observation which has a great deal of truth to it. But wait. Is this really so different to how things have been for people before the internet; did people really not try for fame, notoriety, 'respect'? Of course not: the internet has merely offered more opportunities and a potentially bigger audience.
But we no longer believe in the solitary mind.And a good job too: it was a myth of modernist individualism; the illusion created and nurtured by the technology called the book. It discouraged collective and corporate consciousness but didn't displace it entirely because we have to be social: we use language, we live through culture. We are in constant dialogue between individuation and socialisation; different cultures hold different ideals as to the proper kind of balance between the two; but we cannot escape that dialogue. Our sins are usually either to fail to take responsibility and to be individual or to be over-self-assertive. The trick is to learn which is which and when which is appropriate. I'm not sure that this article, in the end does much more than remind us that there are particular challenges to solitude in our culture. And this is true, it gives us a few insights to why they might be difficulties for our generations. However, I'm disturbed that it gives the impression every so often that this is unique and that our generation is in a worse state than any previous. I question those impressions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
I've been watching the TV series 'Foundation'. I read the books about 50 years ago (I know!) but scarcely now remember anything...
-
I've just had an article published on emergingchurch.info. It's an adaptation of some of my book, but I thought I'd share it and...
-
from: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/online/2012/5/22/1337672561216/Annular-solar-eclipse--008.jpg