What the *%$k!? Vicar resigns

It is almost enigmatic: Church Times - Brynmawr’s Vicar resigns. Surely there must be more to it than this: "An unnamed cleric told the Western Mail that he had formally complained about Mr Grey. “I was very concerned at the language he used in a conversation he had with me. It is entirely inappropriate for a clergyman to use four-letter words.”"
Can it be that a clergybeing has really been 'encouraged' to resign for swearing; or is that 'cussing'; or even 'profanity'? And there you have it. We can't even agree what to call it because the issue differs according to who is judging and where it's happening. 'Swearing' puts it in the territory of not taking the LORD's name in vain in particular by making some kind of oath or truncated oath (thereby also trespassing onto Jesus' 'Do not swear' from the Sermon on the Mount). 'Cussing' seems to have distinctly dialectal overtones -perhaps even of the wild west and may well be a variant of 'cursing' (certainly would be in Black Country dialect) -which probably means saying nasty things to or about others but possibly God. 'Profanity' seems to be taking the idea that the profane is something that shouldn't be uttered in God's hearing; it's beyond the bounds of decency.

Of course there are all sorts of difficulties here. Taking the LORD's name in vain would, strictly speaking, be nigh on impossible. The Jews of yore did such a good job of protecting the name so that it couldn't be taken in vain, that no-one now knows how to pronounce it. That's why many English Bibles put the word in capitals: to signal that it's "that" name -God's special name -which we don't know how to say.

Quibbles aside, though, we know what is meant here in actual fact. Using 'holy' titles and names to express anger, disgust, surprise and so forth. But this doesn't seem to be the what was being referred to. "Four-letter words" are not generally characteristic of 'swearing' in the sense of using 'holy' words in profane ways: most of those words are not four-letter words. "Four-letter words" geneally refers to a set of allegedly 'Anglo-Saxon' words referring to copulation, excretion or genitalia (mainly female). It is one or more of these which I think we're are supposed to understand to be 'inappropriate for a clergyman to use', or at least to do so as freely as it appears this gentleman is accused of doing. I know clergy who, in moments of extreme frustration (for example) and where they feel safe enough to do so, will use the occasional such word.

What I'm curious about is why such language should be considered 'inappropriate' for clergy. And this may require us to think past our first reactions and our cultural reflexes into places we so take for granted that the mere questioning of them seems almost ridiculous and /or offensive. But there we must go, dear reader.

You see there is a problem with all of this 'swearing' stuff. The stuff to do with invoking God or Christ 'in vain' is one thing: many believers find it jarring to hear words that, for us, have affectionate and devotional connotations being bandied about with aggressive or casual intent. However, the words to do with sexual acts, bodily wastes or genitals are another matter. There isn't a God- or devotion agenda involved with them. It might be understandable that a vicar could be leaned on to reconsider his position if he was in the habit of misusing God-words. But what would be going on with these other words?

Well, I think we need, first, to ask what is offensive, to whom and when? The first is partly answered above, Ttough some more things should be said: we should note that what constitutes offensive language differes from language to language and culture to culture. Broadly speaking it seemss that sex, excreta and the sacred normally provide the referents but which of these is considered most offensive varies. In Quebec French, for example certain catholic symbols are the most offensive, similarly in Spanish (where 'milk' is an offensive thing to say, because it's short for 'milk of the Virgin'). And of course it isn't the word itself; there's nothing mystical about the sounds. Indeed there is amusement to be had in finding innocent words in one language which sound like 'rude' or offensive words in another\ (even if on a visual pun like Thailand's Phuket). We should also note that it isn't the referent either, or at least not on it's own: most of the referents of 'four-letter words' can be expressed with more polite or acceptable words or phrases: "sex" or "poo", for example.So I'm not entirely convinced by Stephen Pinker's neurological explanation regarding the disgust factor. It's not the concepts that are taboo (though I will admit that in some company and circumstances the subject matter may be considered 'indelicate', but that's not really the same though it may be linked to the extent that the Stephen Pinker view works).

The second (offensive to whom) is something of a sociolinguistic issue as is the third (when) which also takes in pragmatics. Asking 'who is offended?' can yield some interesting observations: class differences are often involved: working class swearing hooking middle class offence, for example. This can then act as a group marker expressing solidarity and enacting differentiation: 'we' are the ones who dare to say what 'they' can't bring themselves to say (and the concomitant possibilities for image-building as, say, 'tough'). So was the vicar actually committing social class 'sins' by swearing. I'd guess there is likely to be a big chunk of this aspect in the matter: (I'm guessing on the basis of precedent) a middle class congregation for whom these words are taboo find a vicar using what they associate as 'common' and even 'offensive' terms which are certainly not acceptable in their normal speech. His choice of such language marks him as someone who is not 'one of us' and so suspect of moral deficiency or of allying himself with the 'wrong' sort of people.

And then there's the 'when?' question. There are social circumstances in which it might be considered relatively 'okay' to swear/cuss: sports occasions (see picture above !?) are often such. And some occasions where a word might be shocking (a royal banquet, perhaps). Sometimes the pragmatics of cussing is about enacting a solidary relationship: by greeting someone with an insult, one can be saying, in effect "We're the same, we are (potentially) friends ...". That's why the N-bomb can be used among black people but not in a mixed race conversation, for example. And of course, the words can be used as distancing even repudiative: when we want to express our disgust with or violent  objection to someone or something, the 'profane' words can be very helpful (hence the apostle Paul's use of a word supposed to be such, in one of the epistles).

This latter usage, though also shows up the problem over time. The power of such words tends to lead to their overuse which lessens their impact over time. In my lifetime and experience words like 'bloody' and 'shit' have become so common that their impact is now like 'damn' was when I was a kid (ie no-one thought it heavy duty except for a few older people). This leads to a search for new sufficiently 'offensive' terms to use for the more extreme ranges of emotion and circumstance, hence "motherf****r" seems to be coming into range.


See my previous posts on 'profanity'

Buddhism in the west -let's be mindful of what we learn from it

It was interesting to see here Beyond me - Philosophy and Life Mark Vernon's own comments on why he wrote a recent article in Third Way. Buddhism, he says:

... addresses modern everyday concerns – the desire for happiness, the anxieties of stress. Indeed, policy makers are growing increasingly interested in the ability of mindfulness meditation to achieve everything from reducing aggression to warding off aging.

It is a genius piece of spiritual positioning in a secular culture, like ours, that associates belief with half-forgotten myths, at best. Psychology, not theology, is trusted as a source of truth. The individual, not the divine, is what really draws our attention. And I have to admit, as someone who entirely understands what it is to be metaphysically agnostic, Buddhism drew me too, for a while.

But I’ve changed my mind. I’m inclined to think that Buddhism’s easy ride into western consciousness should be challenged. A moment for critique has arrived – a moment that, I suspect, serious Buddhists will, in fact, welcome. Conversely, Buddhism’s undoubted appeal raises questions that Christians would do well to reflect on too

On this very blog I have at various points mentioned that we can probably learn a lot about how contemporary Western people are linking spirituality and culture at the level of plausibility structures by paying attention to the popularity of Buddhism in some circles. So this article is welcome.

The real challenges of chaplaincy ...

I discovered I'd drafted this a few months back and then forgotten to post it. So....

The bishop of Newcastle, at my interview for the post of co-ordinating chaplain to the University of Northumbria, said, “I reckon this is the hardest job in the diocese, why on earth do you want to do it?”* A good question; why did he think it was hard? I supposed that he meant something like: being a university chaplain in a large and secular university means that you don't have a settled congregation to pastor and your role is widely misunderstood and you are in a very pioneering situation with regard to discerning the mission of God and playing your part. So it's hard because you need to have a good degree of resilience, imagination, ability to cope without the normal encouragements of working in ordained ministry.
The lack of a settled congregation may be a surprise to some -remembering chaplaincies from student days as vibrant nexuses of Christian gathering and growth. Not so now: the demographic concern for falling numbers of young people participating in church life is showing up acutely in university chaplaincies; they rarely attract enough people for a critical mass of consistent and regular activity. young people who do identify as church-actively Christian tend either to go to the RC chaplaincy (by dint of a strong 'brand loyalty' on the part of the catholics and even here the numbers can struggle) or they are attracted by the vibrancy of the Christian Union -and whichever churches are most fashionable among the CU's members.
The role is misunderstood quite often because of this: the assumption is that a university chaplain is concerned mostly with students. And while some of it is, often in a quite expanded role working within teams concerned for student welfare, international students and religious equality and diversity, much is also concerned with staff and with broader institutional matters. I sometimes in the past described my role as being “an industrial chaplain to a knowledge-based industry” to try to get over the idea that it was a more institutional~ and staff-related ministry than many might have realised.
It is a pioneering role in that, with the traditional student role being less to the fore, more scope is given to encouraging wider and different forms of participation and offering different forms of ministry. In Bradford, I organised faith-related art-exhibitions, text-prayers, spiritual direction, meditation training as part of a de-stressing programme, vigils for peace at the time of the Iraq conflict, group facilitation services, life coaching, and fair trade advocacy among other things.
I am aware that this kind of institutional and staff-related ministry is much more like chaplaincy work in other sectors. In common with them I would also say that part of the role is to affirm and to facilitate ministry in Christ's name by 'ordinary' Christians in the workplace. The chaplain by their presence says, I hope, “your workplace is somewhere that God is active, a big part of the wider church's mission takes place there”.

*Interestingly, in the diocesan newspaper version of this, I toned down the actual quote; I was worried that some clergy in the diocese might take it amiss that the implication could be construed that he didn't think their job was. But of course, that would be an unfair implication; I'm sure that he was indulging in conversational hyperbole.

How your friends' friends can affect your mood

One of the aspects of our being inherently social is that, well, look at this: How your friends' friends can affect your mood - life - 30 December 2008 - New Scientist: "Recent research shows that our moods are far more strongly influenced by those around us than we tend to think. Not only that, we are also beholden to the moods of friends of friends, and of friends of friends of friends - people three degrees of separation away from us who we have never met, but whose disposition can pass through our social network like a virus."

Now, cutting a long story short, but something I keep banging on about, the reason is probably empathic mimicry.
"Some researchers think one of the most likely mechanisms is empathetic mimicry. Psychologists have shown that people unconsciously copy the facial expressions, manner of speech, posture, body language and other behaviours of those around them, often with remarkable speed and accuracy. This then causes them, through a kind of neural feedback, to actually experience the emotions associated with the particular behaviour they are mimicking."
My interest spiritually is recognising the corporateness of faith living both in terms of 'not giving up meeting together' but also in terms of the effects of living in faith-hostile environments. Also we should note the likelihood of certain kinds of behaviour, notably and most extremely those associated with certain kinds of revivalism, are more about empathic mimicry than about the spirit of God. That's not to say God may not be involved, but we should be wary of making it all-or-nothing. God can indeed be touching people's lives and this may show through psycho-somatic means. These may then be picked up by others. In some cases doing so may enable them to 'tune in' to some degree to the presence of God. In some cases, however, it may only transmit 'odd' mannerisms. Our bodies are sacramental, in a sense, but not ex opere operato: the behaviour does not 'produce' or necessarily connote the presence or move of God; though it may.

Of course, it is possible to go to the extreme of saying that such scientific research disproves the God stuff: it's all just a somatic-psycho-spiritual 'infection'. This is, of course, as much nonsense as saying that such things 'prove' God. We need to recall that as embodied beings, if we are to have spiritual experiences they will have to be mediated through our bodily (=neural) experience. Conversely we should note that in evolutionary terms our vocal apparatus is not 'designed' for speech, however, that does not mean that language does not really exist. Similarly, just because certain of our somatic systems can be co-opted for spiritual experience does not mean that something genuinely spiritual does not underlie that co-option.

49% - How much? How can that be justified

This is likely to produce a rant in me ... oh dear, it begins .....

"directors in FTSE 100 companies have received an average pay increase of 49% this year" Why? Because they can, not to put to fine a point on it. Our legislative framework hasn't evolved to produce a more ... what? ... rational? fair? system.

Why would I say 'rational'? Well, several reasons: how can the value of these people's work really be worth so much more than, say, a nurse or a refuse collector? I rather doubt that the talent these people have is any significantly greater than dozens if not hundreds or thousands of others, the difference is that these particular people had the 'right' combination of birth, schooling, networking and chances of openings at the 'right' time to find themselves in a position commanding great wealth. So I say rational because happenstance is massively at work here and that isn't really rational. Rational would be taking a view about the relative values of the work and the costs to society .... see where that would be going? And then if we add to that the consideration from The Spirit Level about the deleterious effects (read therefore 'costs') to society of greater inequalities of income.

So, I contend, it is not fair, rational or acceptable for civilised societies not to address that kind of idiocy in so-called 'rewards'. Too often 'we' are rewarding chance and good-fortune not effort, creativity, intelligence or any of the virtuous things that most of us would say is deserving of reward.

Rant over ... thank you for bearing with me. I feel better now. And who knows, I might even be wrong?

49% - the astounding average pay rise for FTSE 100 bosses | The Equality Trust:

Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition fee rise

I don't think they'll succeed, but it'll be interesting if the case enables the facts to be heard. See here: Teenagers begin high court challenge against tuition fee rise | Education | guardian.co.uk:

Two teenagers have begun a case in the high court against the government's decision to let universities almost treble tuition fees next year

It will all hinge on two main challenges:

(1)... the rise in fees is in breach of the right to education protected in the Human Rights Act 1998. That right does not guarantee free higher education, but it does place curbs on steps that limit access to higher education ... and

(2) ... the government failed to give "due regard" to promoting equality of opportunity as required under the Race Relations, Sex Discrimination and Disability Discrimination Acts.

I don't think either will succeed because I suspect that the conditions under which the finances are actually granted are likely not to be considered a bad deal. In the case of the first objection, the fact that the student finance arrangements are arguably better than the previous arrangements (and I would say, in effect, closer to grants and a graduate tax) and in relation to the second objection; it's not debt as we normally understand it: it is written off if unpaid by a certain point, it is only payable on a PAYE basis once ones income reaches a (higher than present) certain point. It's in effect, a hypothecated graduate tax. The odd thing is that a Conservative administration has swallowed the idea -it's occured because it has been dressed up to look like a safely capitalist loan. But in effect, if the investment doesn't produce a graduate with the kind of lifetime increase in earnings usually predicted, well, the government picks up the bill. That's the real worry: sometime in the future, the books may not balance ...

But perhaps I've misunderstood something.

Of course, that is not to say anything about the rights and wrongs of various approaches to financing HE.

While we're on the topic, however, I think it may be worth considering an article about the future of HE. In this case in the USA, but I think some of the issues are transferable.

http://faithoncampus.com/four-disruptions-that-could-shake-up-college-ministry/ I'm particularly interested in the demographic issue combined with the issue of whether HE will continue to be considered a good investment. And on that issue, it's also worth having a read of this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/oct/31/university-open-days-soar; the consumer approach is finally coming home to roost; the faint beginnings have been with us a little while, but it seems to me that here it arrives in fulness.

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London

This is a somewhat scary expose:

The medieval, unaccountable Corporation of London is ripe for protest | George Monbiot | Comment is free | The Guardian

In it we learn that democracy is a non-starter in the Square Mile:

"among local authorities the City of London is unique". You bet it is. There are 25 electoral wards in the Square Mile. In four of them, the 9,000 people who live within its boundaries are permitted to vote. In the remaining 21, the votes are controlled by corporations, mostly banks and other financial companies. The bigger the business, the bigger the vote: a company with 10 workers gets two votes, the biggest employers, 79. It's not the workers who decide how the votes are cast, but the bosses, who "appoint" the voters. Plutocracy, pure and simple.

Indeed:

The City of London is the only part of Britain over which parliament has no authority. In one respect at least the Corporation acts as the superior body: it imposes on the House of Commons a figure called the remembrancer: an official lobbyist who sits behind the Speaker's chair and ensures that, whatever our elected representatives might think, the City's rights and privileges are protected. The mayor of London's mandate stops at the boundaries of the Square Mile.

We also learn:

The City has exploited this remarkable position to establish itself as a kind of offshore state, a secrecy jurisdiction which controls the network of tax havens housed in the UK's crown dependencies and overseas territories. This autonomous state within our borders is in a position to launder the ill-gotten cash of oligarchs, kleptocrats, gangsters and drug barons. As the French investigating magistrate Eva Joly remarked, it "has never transmitted even the smallest piece of usable evidence to a foreign magistrate". It deprives the United Kingdom and other nations of their rightful tax receipts.

It has also made the effective regulation of global finance almost impossible. Shaxson shows how the absence of proper regulation in London allowed American banks to evade the rules set by their own government.

Monbiot suggests that one interesting effect of trying to draw up a written British constitution would be to expose some of this jiggery-pokery; after all, how would one possibly defend this in order to put its preservation on a 'proper' footing. It certainly makes one wonder if the Occupy LSX protest should be attempting to bring some of this into the light of day. Indeed, is the stuff with St Paul's cathedral some clever diversion?