Why You're an A*****le (and Why That's Just Fine)

We have to get that other people think -normally- that they are doing things roughly right and for good motives. If we don't we're setting up conflict or perpetuating it.
"when our brains are working properly they take measures to assure that, in the end, we believe we're making the best choices, doing the right things, and—in our specific life—nobody else could do it better. ... We can take our faults and find a silver lining. Sometimes we delude ourselves a little along the way, but our properly-functioning brains are exceptional at making the best out of bad situations and our own bad behavior. ... Chances are that when you're in the car, you do stupid things that you hate as a pedestrian and the same goes for the reverse. Ultimately, you're wired to be a hypocrite and fully able to criticize others for shortcomings that are just as much a part of you. ... Although negative emotions weigh far more heavily on us than positive ones, this is only temporary. "

The conclusion of this piece is "the best thing we can do is accept our limitations—and the same limitations in others—to make living together a much more pleasant experience." and in remembering that we have a hypocritical tendency to cut others slack (in this article called 'forgiveness' but I think the meaning here is a pale shadow of the full thing).

Funny, I seem to recall a Galilean preacher saying things that chime with this though perhaps with a bit more robustness and urgency.

Why You're an Asshole (and Why That's Just Fine):

I'm sorry for any inconvenience

That's what the lady said over the station loudspeaker. Or perhaps I would better say 'voice' rather than lady. It seems odd because it was clearly a computer piecing together an announcement from segments of recorded speech for the occasion. The seg for the train time, the seg for the destination, the seg for the train operator and the seg with words of apology.

Except, is it really an apology? Quite clearly the person who originally actually enunciated the words was, at that time, presumably, following a scripture and had no real fault to view, merely possible future faults of train operators or infrastructure management. So the 'I' seems problematic. It isn't the person ostensibly saying the words: they are separated in time and space and technology from the occasion: they have no real ongoing connection with it; it is only the acoustic pattern originally taken from their performance in a recording studio and linked to an algorithm for generating composites of announcement material from segments.

Of course, the voice actor probably understood that they were lending their voice to allow the 'station' to speak. But that still leaves us wondering who is the 'I'? The company? Who is offering regret or even accepting responsibility?

What is intriguing me is the possibility that it is indeed the company. The corporation may be becoming an 'I' out of 'we' or even from 'it' or 'they'.

So, can I forgive 'it'? What would that mean?

Well, the person who commissioned the system clearly intended that the announcements should function in customer relations to mediate the station/company's service to passengers and they were doing so as representatives of the company/ies. Perhaps this bears some relationship to the neuronal and muscular systems that our bodies use to convey our intentions through our communicative strategies?

So I guess I could forgive 'them'; but the 'I' is not a human person if I do so but rather a 'corporisation'. 'Forgive' would mean forbearance, refusal to propagate further the wrong; just as with another human being ...

A shorter working week for health and environment?

When I was a kid (like: about 10 -so back in the late 60's and early 70's) teachers were telling us that htey were thinking that htey needed to educate us to know whwt to do with all the leisure we were going to have in the future. I realy wish they'd been right: I've got about 3 books that I'd like to be able to finish not to mention a couple of art projects...

So, you can imagine I'm both keen on this idea and also sadly skeptical. It's form those nice people NEF.

Twenty-one hours is close to the average that people of working age in Britain spend in paid work and just a little more than the average spent in unpaid work. Experiments with shorter working hours suggest that they can be popular where conditions are stable and pay is favourable, and that a new standard of 21 hours could be consistent with the dynamics of a decarbonised economy.

I'm wondering if this would affect vicaring ...
The report (pdf) here.
It's interesting to see the summary of experiments in reducing working hours in developed nations as is the brief history of the invention of the working week -it's worth remembering that it was invented; it's not entirely natural or inevitable. Pay too does not necessarily reflect profitability or other measures of value but rather power (think bank exec bonuses) and power is potentially a democratic vector and in that connection we should recall the messageof the researc indicating that more equal societies have better outcomes in welfare and happiness. Some of this may chime with the ideas that Tom Sine and others have been propounding. In many ways, too, this is pointing towards a way of life much closer to what the Green Party manifesto desires to produce.

Interesting facts mentioned: In the UK the value of housework and childcare carried out without pay would be 21% of GDP if it had all been paid at minimum wage in 2005; informal carers are said to be saving the UK economt £87bn pa.

Recognize the Road to Burnout -spiritually

It's important to catch it sooner rather than later: for your own good and the good of your nearest and dearest -they're the ones who suffer the most from it in the early stages; believe me. So do check this article out and file it away for future use if necessary.
Running on Empty? How to Recognize When You're on the Road to Burnout | Psychology Today
Among the things that it points up as potential signs are these:

"Psychological signs, such as loss of enjoyment for activities once enjoyed; sadness; excessive anxiety or worry; panic attacks; feeling trapped without options for relief or escape; loss of motivation; loss of concentration; emotional hypersensitivity at seemingly inconsequential things; feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, or pessimism; and/or increasing feelings of irritability, frustration, or anger"

For Christian (and from experience) I would say that some of these impact your prayer life especially loss of enjoyment of activities once enjoyed, loss of motivation. Some of the other things are the kinds of things that show up in self-examination and the danger is to misdiagnose them by simply telling yourself (and God) that you've done and thought wrong. Thing is it may not be the wrong you think. The real sin may be lack of self care so that you don't have the energy to give properly to others and to other-care. That's not ot say that you have an excuse to be irritable (or whatever); just that the response should be to take appropriate care of yourself (and keep the spirit of the law on Sabbath) rather than simply confessing and moving on ... to repeat again because you're still tired and worn down. The sin then is to continue in the burnout patterns rather than seeking to sabbath.

test yourself. Leave work on a Friday and commit to treating yourself to a relaxing, stress-free weekend. Don't bring any work home, sleep in on Saturday and Sunday morning, eat right, and occupy your time with activities that you rarely allow yourself to enjoy (yes, I know you're busy, but trust me--make the time).

If you wake up on Monday morning feeling exactly the same as you did before your time off, you're probably going to have to make some pretty significant changes in your lifestyle to turn things around.

Shakespeare being Irish -mythbusting

Before it goes too viral, let's put an alert to the real story out there. The myth is: "William Shakespeare spoke with an Irish accent"
My former prof David Crystal gives the real and fuller story here: DCblog: On Shakespeare being Irish. It's all about linguistic change, silly.

Muslim Human Shields proctec Coptic Christians

Here's a genuine piece of good news. Such a shame it doesn't get the publicity that the original terrorist attack got in the West. Perhaps you could do your bit to change that? (Tweet or re-blog this).
Egypt's Muslims attend Coptic Christmas mass, serving as "human shields" - Ahram Online: "thousands of Muslims showed up at Coptic Christmas eve mass services in churches around the country and at candle light vigils held outside. From the well-known to the unknown, Muslims had offered their bodies as “human shields” for last night’s mass, making a pledge to collectively fight the threat of Islamic militants and towards an Egypt free from sectarian strife."

I think I hear Jesus' words whispering somewhere in the background: "...in as much as you did this to one of these my little ones, you did it to me." ....?

Christian Theology and Other Faiths

I came across one of the key insights in this lecture a few years back when I was in Bradford. It's a really helpful perspective from +Rowan (ABofC) on how to think theologically about 'other' faiths. Actually it's more comprehensive than that and provides a fulcrum to help with ministry in multi-faith situations (and I include secular viewpoints in 'faith'). I've recently been directed to on online source for the whole lecture: The Archbishop of Canterbury - Christian Theology and Other Faiths
I'd like to pick out a few bits for further comment and for highlighting. First off, a reason why it is important to look at this more fully: without a good leverage point, we risk public debate and policy that rests on ...
"... significant misunderstanding, a misunderstanding that affects both popular thinking and public policy in our own country; and I think we need a bit of theology to help us to a more sensible position."

Part of what I tried to do in Bradford University as it began to recognise and try to take constructive hold of religious diversity, was to try to make sure that we didn't fall into the trap of assuming that there was some kind of neutral standpoint in all of this -which happened to coincide with a secular stance. This mistake would mean that secular beliefs (and they are such) would be exempted from consideration. The problem with that would be that part of the problem for some 'religious' viewpoints is precisely the assumptions that made for a secular public space; especially where those viewpoints didn't share a history with western European traditions.

The dangerous assumption ... the world as we see it is pretty clear; we can agree about it – whereas the powers that religion tries to connect with are invisible, so that we can't expect to agree about them.

This essentialises religions as basically the same and secular viewpoints as different. The European legislation sees it, wisely, differently: it mentions religious and other philosophical viewpoints. The playing field really should be level! Using the parable Rowan comments on; no-one can assume they are the seeing person in the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

The point is, "What we have instead is rather a variety of styles of living, each of which has a very different account of the world as a whole, life as a whole. " In other words, even a secularist standpoint is a 'style of living' with a different account of the world as a whole. And it is because we are dealing with 'accounts of the world as a whole' that we cannot assume a neutral standpoint: we can only create together 'spaces' where we can debate, argue, agree, compromise, agree to differ and otherwise find modi vivendi.

I find the way Rowan characterises religious discourse helpful and it is capable of embracing 'non (or anti-) religious' viewpoints too.

The passion in religious disagreement comes not simply from abstract differences as to how the holy is to be talked about, but from differences as to how human life is to be lived so as to be in fullest accord with 'the grain of the universe'.

This is helpful, because a non-religious take on life is also concerned with living in accord with the grain of the universe.

The helpful insight I mentioned earlier was that +Rowan talks about religions as answering fundamentally different questions. There is a degree of incommensurability about religious and non-religious life-stances which means that dealing with everything in simple 'right or wrong' terms is not helpful and even oppressive. The other implication is that it unmasks plaralism:

there is no perspective from which someone can say, 'These are all different ways of looking at the same material'. If I am a person of faith, a person whose life is lived in a comprehensive relationship with what I understand to be the source and context of all life, I cannot appeal to someone out there in the neutral public world to provide me with credentials. So I don't think that religious relativism or pluralism will do, as this seems always to presuppose the detached observer (the one who sees the whole elephant); but neither can we expect to find a tribunal to assess right and wrong answers.

Many of the points I make above are, in principle, covered by this really useful paragraph:

The point I am moving to, however, is that the 'contest' over religious truth happens most effectively and authentically when a real sharing of worlds is possible. And that in turn happens only when we do not live in a social order that totally controls the possibilities of experiencing the Other. To this extent, the modern revolt against theocracy, against the religious control of social options, is justified. But I think that the implication is actually the opposite of what is usually thought. ... in fact a non-theocratic society allows real contention about religious truth by the mere fact of giving space for different experiences and constructions of the universe to engage with each other, to be themselves

This is a perspective deeply difficult to a Christendom-style Christianity (and cognates in other religious and philosophical life-stances), but I think that it is actually part of the genius of a Christian faith free of Christendom leanings. It is part of neigbour-love, I believe. In fact ...

... If we start retreating to theocracy, we are by implication admitting that our religious tradition can't sustain itself in a complex environment; states (Christian, Muslim or Hindu) that enact anti-conversion laws or penalise minority faith groups may have an understandable wish to resist unfair pressure or manipulation in proselytising, but they confess a profound and very disturbing lack of confidence in their own religious resourcefulness.

Now, I recognise that for some Christians this is disturbing and may even seem to risk 'selling the family silver'. It may be reassuring to read how +Rowan describes a Christian understanding of Christian faith (and I find I resonate with it very much) which can emerg from the approach he is outlining:

Christian theology says that the world exists because of the utterly free decision of a holy power that is more like personal life than anything else; that we can truthfully speak of as if it had mind and will. It says that the purpose of this creation is that what is brought into being from nothing should come to share as fully as possible in the abundant and joyful life of the maker. For intelligent beings, this involves exercising freedom – so that the possibility is there of frustrating one's own nature by wrong and destructive choices. The purpose of God to share the divine life is so strong, however, that God acts to limit the effects of this destructiveness and to introduce into creation the possibility of an intensified relation with the divine through the events of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, above all in his sacrificial death. This new relation, realised by the Spirit of God released in Jesus's rising from the grave, is available in the life of the community that gathers to open itself to God's gift by recalling Jesus and listening to the God-directed texts which witness to this history.

And, of course, there are still disagreements; this is not a perspective that says in anyway that we are all saying the same thing really, just using different languages and cultural expressions:

It must argue against other traditions that the world comes from and as deliberate gift (Buddhists would disagree), that our self-deception is so radical and deep-seated that we cannot be healed by the revelation of divine wisdom and law alone (Jews and Muslims would disagree), that our healing is a 'remaking' effected through a once and for all set of events (Muslims and Hindus would disagree). The Christian must argue that because this picture of the universe makes the fullest allowance possible for human failure and self-deceit and gives the most drastic account possible of divine presence in addressing this failure (God coming to inhabit creation in Jesus), it has a good claim to comprehensiveness as a view of how things are. But it is assailed by those who say that its doctrines of original sin are self-indulgent excuses for the weakness of the will, that its concentration on history limits it to parochial perspectives or ties it to a remote and disputed past, that its view of the common life is weak and fails to make the necessary bid for social transformation in a comprehensive way (a particularly strong Muslim point).

Now, I take a broadly inclusivist view of the atonement and salvation. I find that this approach is consonant with that theological stance, indeed deepens it and enable it to think through the practical ramifications of an open yet committed stance. And I am hopeful that the kind of inter-faith/philosophy encounters being forced upon us by globalisation will prove productive in the fulness of time (sometimes we have to 'play the long game' -as I say in lectures on intefaith encounters and mission). This is because

Our doctrine is still in formation; and the question of how holy lives can exist outside our own tradition has throughout Christian history led to some of the most searching and far-reaching extensions of our language about the significance of Jesus. I trust that this will go on being the fruit of such questioning.

This article is the sort of thing that should be on reading lists dealing with intercommunal faith relations.