Should we implement the Easter Act 1928?

I'd thought that the Easter Act 1928 was contingent on the agreement of the the Christian Churches in this country -like that would ever happen! But maybe not -see this article from a couple of weeks or so ago. Unthinkable? Implement the Easter Act 1928 | Editorial | Comment is free | The Guardian:
The occasion of writing, is, of course, the very late Easter this year. And I have to admit that I had mused in odd moments about whether it'd be a good thing to implement it, but I thought that there was very little chance of the churches agreeing to it.
So what would it do? Why might it commend itself?

"the Easter Act 1928, a prescient piece of legislation which is already on the statute book, ready and waiting for a government brave enough to issue the implementation order. The act sets down that Easter Sunday must fall on a fixed day – the Sunday following the second Saturday in April. The effect would be that Easter Sunday, instead of falling on any date between 22 March and 25 April as now, would fall in the narrower window of 9 to 15 April."

Well, perhaps not quite 'fixed' as Christmas (which, incidently, I think perhaps should be tethered, probably, to a Sunday) but certainly de-coupled from the lunar-Gregorian calendar mash-up currently employed and held into a much tighter window.

And it doesn't need for the churches to agree: "the act merely requires that "regard shall be had" to their opinion"
Which is not quite the same as giving us/them the veto. There's no way that the RC would go with it, and I can just imagine the "Disgusted, Tunbridge Wells" reactions from the likes of the professionally-outraged at the Daily Mail and its ilk. But consider, a de-coupling of a Christian high day from public holiday has already taken place (and there are still rumblings) in the case of Pentecost -rather 'Whitsun'.
"Churches would rightly still be free to celebrate Easter on the day of their choice rather than over the public holiday – as the Orthodox church already does. The secular majority, however, would at last have an annual spring break that makes a bit more sense."
I'd want to say that we should consider this seriously. Let there be an early April bank Holiday weekend, but let the churches celebrate Easter our own way and at times that our traditions and collective bargaining determine. The advantages would be that we may be less likely to 'lose' attenders to extended weekends away and more likely to find others to invite to the feast alongside us -you know: who might like to consider responding positively to what we're celebrating... not to mention perhaps it might erode the post Easter 'flop' when instead of continuing to celebrate we all retreat and don't celebrate together further for a fortnight (I exaggerate, but not by much). Shame to lose the Easter Octave of celebration linked to Church life.

Though of course, it'll happen that quite often Pascha will fall at the same time as the public holiday too so the advantages I see would be some years but not others. But I'm not sure that linking Christian festivals with public holidays actually serves us well in post-Christendom.

empathy, evil and justice

No doubt I'll have to read the book of the article: Simon Baron-Cohen talks empathy, evil and justice at the Royal Institution | Carole Jahme | Science | guardian.co.uk: "Empathy is a primal ability that evolved long before our ancestors developed spoken language. By focusing on empathy as the foundation of virtuous behaviour and acknowledging its absence or erosion as a fuel for human vices, Baron-Cohen has unified the whole of human psychological behaviour"
As the article presents it there is a lot to commend the principle of taking note of empathy and I intuit a good set of connections to my puttering thinking about forgiveness and the Cross (bascially trying to take a practical theology approach before the systematics kicks in too early). There are big claims: healing of global society, definitive insight into the nature of evil ... but I'm concerned that it may be missing a thing or two. I'm wondering, for example, what about the evils that are brought about not by too little empathy but too much? Isn't this heading towards a reductionistic approach: lack of empathy is evil; what about the moral status, then of those who are on the autistic spectrum? I hope that the book has some nuance in the face of those kinds of issues... particularly as Baron-Cohen has published on Autism and Asperger's.

infostripe

This looks like a pontentially useful little service. the basis for a e-business card. It even automatically generates a QR code. It can also be pressed into service for events. So, as you can see, I've been playing with it in terms of the job I move to on June 1st.
Andii Bowsher (andii) on infostripe

Better typing on touch-screen phones

I've only been using it about 5 days but already I'm moved to recommend this. and this is why:
"MessagEase has fewer, larger keys. With it you enter most frequent characters with a tap on relatively large key. Less frequent characters are entered with a drag or slide. The position and relative location of each letter and character is calculated based on letter frequency and letter-pair frequency, so that your finger\s movement is minimize, and therefore your text entry speed is maximized."
It really doesn't take long to learn, and there is a handy wee app that helps 'train' you in a bit of a gamey way. I reckon I've probably spent no more than an hour playing the learning game and already my input rate is up compared to the keyboard that came with the Android OS. It's basically because it's ergonomically designed. All you need to do really is get the most frequent characters into your motor memory.

I do have a bit of history with keyboards to confess. I few years ago, when I had a bit of time on my hands I taught myself to touch-type using a computer programme (well, actually, an internet site). However, because I also had moments of concern about typing-related RSI, I learnt to use the Dvorak layout because that is ergonomically designed (unlike the qwerty set-up which was, reputedly, designed to slow typists down to avoid key-arm snarl ups). Most OSs now have Dvorak key maps in the settings and if you've learnt to touch type, it doesn't matter that the letters on the keys don't match with the letter that goes on the screen. Oh, and my RSI is a lot better :)
MessagEase - A killer app keyboard for iPhones, gPhones, PDAs, Tablet PCs, and other touch screen devices:

Apocalypse FAIL -or: imposing our agenda on scripture

Matt Stone, istm, has got it right and does us a favour by finding this visual 'statement' that so badly misses the point of the apocalyptic imagery and actually subverts the Bible's message.
Apocalypse FAIL - Glocal Christianity: "Where we expect to see a sword coming from the mouth of the Messiah, symbolizing the power of the word of God, we now find a sword in his hand, symbolizing power of a more earthly kind. Where we expect to see a white robe dipped in blood, symbolizing his sacrificial love and servant kingship, we now see a smart and sanitized red robe. Where we expect to see many crowns, relativising the Imperial claims of Caesar, we now see a more conventional, single crown. Where we expect to see writing on his robe and thigh, encapsulating the symbolic significance of these visions, there is none. Where we expect to see eyes blazing with fire, we see something far less amazing. Where we expect to see heaven cracking open, emphasizing the visionary flavour of such images, we instead see clouds and clouds alone, minimizing the mystery.
What we have here is a domesticated Jesus, who mimics the entrapments of empire rather than radically subverting them"

Email - Are greetings and salutations redundant?

In human culture there is always an ongoing 'conversation' between technologies and the way that we incorporate them into our lives socially. Thus things that are important to us in the social arena will be marked in various ways in the way that we view and employ our technologis: power, status, solidarity, etc will inevitably be inscribed into our appropriation of tech. I'm interested to see how this evolves in regard to email, for example and have been thinking in odd moments about it for a couple of years or more now. So it is interesting to me to see that there is an online conversation about it.

My musing was piqued by noting the way that late-comers to the email game tended to stand out like sore thumbs to those of us who had been using email since it's earlier days: they treat(ed) email like letters: formal beginnings and endings, for example. The difficulty that presents, of course, is the second-guessing game: do we reply in kind and re-instate the hierarchical paraphernalia that a lot of the early internet was getting away from or do we risk being misunderstood by sticking with the informality-conventions of the Peoples' Republic of the Internet. I'd have to say that I've come to the view that those who are sticklers for formality have a right to be heard and to some respect, so I usually try to offer some kind of respectful opening and closing to people I don't know whom I judge may possibly be 'old school' (but as far as possible I try to avoid the 'Dear N' thing because I'm keen to signal that email isn't the same as letter writing). So I'd more or less go along with this advice:
email - Are greetings and salutations redundant in an e-mail? - English Language and Usage - Stack Exchange: "When writing to older persons, persons in authority, superiors, et al, I recommend a salutation and a complimentary close. These are not 'wastes of time' by any means - they serve very specific functions if you are skilled in their use. Both the opening and the close allow you to frame your relationship with the recipient"

The other interesting thing though is the way, I notice, that exchanges quickly seem to cease to use a greeting phrase at all; I think that threaded conversations are probably seen as just that: conversations, so restating the addressee's name or re-greeting them would seem to be somewhat gauche. However, I suspect that this may 'feel' quite brusque to 'old school' writers.

Remember; this is an ongoing conversation, the way that we do it influences the direction that the emerging consensus goes. It's like speaking: the register we use communicates our attitudes of respect or not, a sense of solidarity or not, a framing of where we think each other are in respect of power relationships, a sense of our estimate of fashionableness, gender, nationality and other shared (or not) characteristics. The difficult cases come where we don't really know the other person: that's where the politeness formulae come into their own: they buy us time to suss out the various dimensions of the relationship that could have a bearing on how we continue to address one another and relate.

And is there a specifically Christian take on this? Well, I think in general there is but it's not earth-shattering: give respect to all, do as you would be done by, inasfar as it lies with you live at peace with all. However, I would say further though, that I think that the internet in terms of its history probably has a bit more 'sympathy' with the Quaker simplicity ethic which led them to avoid over-formal speech and address-forms because people are equal before God. I think that this might indicate that it would be fair to try to pull the use of greetings and sigs in the direction of friendly informality as far as possible.

Reading, empathy and virtual community

I've given that title because it seems to me that it describes what the research seems to show. I'm pleased to find some confirmation of something I'd suspected for a long-time. In my case that although I'm a MBTI 'E', in fact my love of reading has been a form of meeting the need to engage my thinking 'out there' -at least in the sense it gives me even if not always in reality.
Becoming a vampire without being bitten: Reading expands our self-concepts, study shows: "When we read, we psychologically become part of the community described in the narrative -- be they wizards or vampires. That mechanism satisfies the deeply human, evolutionarily crucial, need for belonging."
Of course this report brings together the stuff we are discovering about the importance of narrative and also the inbuilt empathy/mimetic thing we have. My suspicion is that a similar, or perhaps the same, psychological mechanisms are at work with online and more fully virtual relationships.

The report of the same research in Psychology Today seems to equate the love of reading with introversion, but I'm not convinced by that: I think there is an extrovert way of reading which is about enjoyment of the engagement with other minds and, in the case of fiction, an ersatz engagement with others imaginitevily. Let's remember that no encounter with a live other is free of 'fantasy' and imagination, so there is is a link.

What it makes me revisit though, is the question of the use of fiction in some academic pursuits where the development and reflection on the human condition are at a premium. Things like pastoral care or spirituality to take two that I tend to deal with. I suspect those who deal with literature studies will probably be thinking "told you so", but so be it. The challenge would be how to properly use fiction in such case -both for stimulating thought, reflection and insight and also in assessment.

I'm not stuck in a crowd -I am the crowd!

It's a while since I posted under my new 'hell is other people' tag, but this article set me in mind of it. I'd mentioned that my frustrations are often in crowds, and this article seems to identify some significant observations (related to chaos and complexity research).

a pedestrian seeks simply to minimize congestion in his visual field by walking towards the empty spaces he can see, while at the same time adjusting his speed in order to maintain a safe distance from the nearest obstacle. Digital simulations using this model have demonstrated that these two simple rules are sufficient to reproduce a broad range of the collective behaviors observed in crowds, such as the spontaneous formation of unidirectional lanes in opposite directions. Furthermore, as the density of pedestrians increases, the model can predict the emergence of new phenomena, such as the accordion effect characterized by successive forward waves of movement, interspersed with periods during which the pedestrians stand still (stop-and-go). Above a critical density threshold, a combination of these rules with the effect of physical contacts between pedestrians can spontaneously provoke gigantic, collective crushes. This phenomenon, referred to as turbulence, was observed during the accidents that occurred in Mecca in 2006 and characterizes the dynamics of a crowd in a dangerous situation, where pedestrians are overwhelmed by chaotic movement.

Now I can identify very easily with the basic strategy outlined above: I have realised that it's what I do. I think though, that where it goes wrong for me is that I tend to walk a darn sight faster than most people and so the flow and response manoeuvres of others So, in effect, as I suspected, I'm causing turbulence -reminds me of the 'not stuck in traffic you are traffic' issue. So, once again, 'hell is other people' becomes reflexive: we can't just objectivise it we have to view ourselves as part of the system and attend to our own part in it. Nothing surprising for a Christian perspective there: '... first take the log out of your own eye ...'.

What's the French for burqa?

Written the day before the French law regarding facial covering in public (the actual title en Anglais is The Bill Prohibiting Facial Dissimulation in a Public Place) came into force. I'd meant to write about it then but "life got in the way" it'll be interesting to see how it works out.. The article is here: Libert�, �galit�, fraternit� – unless, of course, you would like to wear a burqa | Viv Groskop | Comment is free | The Observer:
Now the way it works is interesting, perhaps even quite clever:
"if they wear a veil over their face in a public place, anyone can ask them to uncover their face – or leave. ... If a woman refuses to co-operate, citizens are advised to call the police. The fine is €150."
I say possibly it is clever because it relies on activist citizens to enforce it. So if people aren't really bothered it come to be a dead letter: though, of course it would remain a bully's charter in those circumstances.
I must confess I'm also wondering whether we will see political opponents monkeying around with this. Now the article seems good at putting the arguments in favour though comes out unhappy at the illiberality of it -a perspective I tend to share. I'd rather they didn't but I'm sure I don't want to criminalise those who do -I can think of some styles of dress I'd far rather criminalise if we were to go down that road and most of them involve more cloth not less!

Anyway one comment would offer a potential test case and, having just been reading up about EHR equality legislation this is very opposite:

Presumably, it's now against the law in France to attend a fancy dress party dressed as Zorro or Catwoman. Because if there's one rule for one set of people who cover their face, that same rule should surely apply to anyone whose face is not immediately visible

.
So political opponents prepared to go into non-violennt resistance mode could do precisely those things and see what the reaction is. I'll leave you to work out the ramifications depending on whether people do or don't react to Zorro, catwoman or Spiderman in the boulevards and rues. Anyway let's see if that happens particularly in the ski season ...

And then there are the reductio ad absurdam cases:

Le Figaro has already expressed distress that it is technically against the law to wear a ski mask in a public place. Bad news for the black run at Val d'Isère. Aren't there some rampant beards that might sprout dangerously in the direction of facial dissimulation? What happens if you make your living as Papa Noel at Nouvelles Galeries' answer to Santa's grotto?

Presumably there will be case law approaches develop; but how they can do so without falling foul of EHRC is an interesting point and one to watch.

What says 'city'?

C Beebies' Me Too makes Newcastle the archetypal cityscape: river, bridges, a building suspiciously like The Sage on the Gateshead side. The only bit of London I can see in their CGI cityscape is 'the gherkin. And the presenter keeps going past the Life Centre. Just been watching with Tilly.

Right or left values: more literal than you think

The evidence seems to be piling in nowadays, here's some more: Are your values right or left? The answer is more literal than you think: "'We use mental metaphors to structure our thinking about abstract things,' says psychologist Daniel Casasanto, 'One of those metaphors is space.'"
This is related to what I quote often from Philosophy in the Flesh which for its faults, nevertheless seems to be proving right in its prediction that further brain research would uncover the fundamentally metaphoric basis of much of our 'higher order' thinking. The basic idea is that the neurological schemas (for want of a better term, I'm not a neuro-psychologist) we use for handling space (among other things) in terms of processing informations and decisions about our placement and movement in space are co-opted by the brain to think about other things. Hence 'Up is good'. This bit of research seems to indicate another spatial metaphor such that (I think) 'right hand man' seems to have more than co-incidental basis: it's a motivated sign. But don't go determinist with this:

"People generally believe that their judgments are rational and their concepts are stable," says Casasanto. "But if a few minutes of gentle training can flip our judgments about what's good or bad, then perhaps the mind is more malleable than people think."

Research says: eat less meat; grow healthier

The research indicates that a more vegetable based diet is healthier for us. The so-called 'Jesus diet' which is basically 1st century palestinian peasant fare would have only had meat once a week maybe a bit more if the there were leftovers and maybe we should take a leaf out of that garden (geddit?).  The research says:

vegetarians had lower triglycerides, glucose levels, blood pressure, waist circumference, and body mass index (BMI). Semi-vegetarians also had a significantly lower BMI and waist circumference compared to those who ate meat more regularly.

I suspect, but the report doesn't say, that the issue is animal fats: if I'm right that means not substituting full-fat cheese for meat, for example ... so something more vegan as well.

So, not only is eating less meat better for the planet (less cattle etc, less resource use) and the food reserves of the world (feed less domestic animals, feed more humans) but it's actually healthier for us.
You know it makes sense; come on people; how can eating less meat NOT be the Christian thing to do?

The power of the pack

Earlier today our dog Alfi was out with me on a walk in a large open-ish space of common land near where we live. Part of the way into the walk, along a path, I saw a small pack of small spaniels, two on a lead and one free-roaming accompanied by a young lady. I had seen these dogs before: when they were younger there were about 6 of them and Alfi had encountered them before: they had used their numbers to intimidate Alfi on that occasion and this time, poor thing, he sat down, trembling, facing away from these spaniels. Clearly his previous encounter had been etched into his memory. In actual fact these dogs, this time, seemed quite friendly and willing to be friendly, unfortunately Alfi didn't read it that way. These little dogs scared him out of his wits. The dog walker arranged to take her dogs on a little way so that I could call Alfi to go past them without getting too clase, which he did.

But it got me thinking about the power of the pack: where an individual is a different proposition to a mob or group working to some degree together. It puts me in mind of a passage early in The Eternal Child where the author imagines early humans terrorising the neighbourhood simply because they were able to work together: as single creatures we would have been leapard meat, as a pack something to strike terror into other critters.
Pack (canine) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unchurched Lord's prayer

The Worship Well: Word: "Sarah Dylan Breuer of SarahLaughed.net has written this loose paraphrase of the Lord's Prayer, designed for use in services including many unchurched people but suitable for use in a variety of settings."
[This was written for services including many unchurched people for whom the language
of the Lord's Prayer was not immediately meaningful, but who found this very loose
paraphrase resonant in the moment and a means to think about the meaning of Jesus'
words and pattern of prayer.]

Loving Creator
we honor you,
and we honor all that you have made.
Renew the whole world
in the image of your love.
Give us what we need for today,
and a hunger to see the whole world fed.
Strengthen us for what lies ahead;
heal us from the hurts of the past;
give us courage to follow your call in this moment.
For your love is the only power,
the only home, the only honor we need,
in this world and in the world to come.
Amen.

Pink for boys

Well it could have been and at one point in western culture it was. This article is worth looking at not only if you're interested in the way that gender is marked culturally and want to get a sense of the evolution of some markers, but also to get a bit of an insight into how culture really is an ongoing 'big society' conversation involving artefacts, ideas, social dynamics (power, solidarity etc) and so on (as per my first lecture in Engaging Culture). So check it out: When Did Girls Start Wearing Pink? | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian Magazine

A nice example of the way that the flow of history 'randomly' reconfigures cultural meanings:
"Prenatal testing was a big reason for the change (to "pink for a girl"). Expectant parents learned the sex of their unborn baby and then went shopping for “girl” or “boy” merchandise. (“The more you individualize clothing, the more you can sell,” Paoletti says.) The pink fad spread from sleepers and crib sheets to big-ticket items such as strollers, car seats and riding toys. Affluent parents could conceivably decorate for baby No. 1, a girl, and start all over when the next child was a boy." See? Artefacts, biology, connatation, economics ...

Out of this world benefits at a discount in long-life world

Recently publish research from St Andrew's University seems to indicate that participation in organised religion in our society for significant numbers of people, rests on their assessment of the perceived cost/benefit ratio. And what used to be a deal-maker has fallen in the ranks of highly motivating factors: the afterlife question appears to be much less significant in religious participation than may once have been the case. Though this may become more important as people get older. The solution suggested by the researchers is to emphasise more the present-worldly benefits of participation such as friendship networks, better life-expectancy and other things that other research has shown up as the side-benefits of religious participation.

religious organisations need to do more to highlight the social and spiritual benefits of participation in religion in present day life if they are to increase congregation sizes and attract people of all ages, particularly young people.

At first I was a little unsure how I responded to this: the idea that we might 'sell' religion by reference to the fringe benefits. But then I thought that this is nothing new: it seems to me that the offer of finding forgiveness, salvation, satisfaction, fulfilment, joy, peace, heaven and probably a dozen other things have long been part of the 'offer' being made. So is it a problem that the offer being commended is more "material" or this worldly"? Well, perhaps: this comes to feeling a bit more like proselytism: the offer of extrinsic benefits (that is extrinsic to the nature of the main thing). However, I don't think that is quite what would necessarily be going on. These benefits are to a greater or lesser degree intrinsic to the offer being made: they are all part of or direct effects of 'salvation' (scare-quoted to alert us to the presence of a metaphor which may not be a 'master' metaphor). In fact, it might be argued that they are the way that salvation and the need for salvation show up in various lives. I think that companionship, etc are similar though they are not the exclusive property of an offer of salvation in Christian terms.

However, where I do think that there is a problem may be in the practicalities relating to the matter of obliquity. In this case it would mean that if one joined a church in order to find companionship that may not happen because companionship is something that comes 'obliquely' to us, as the result of other things being pursued.

The problem I could foresee is that (as I have seen in a few cases before) a person can be so caught up in trying to find friendship that the way they comport themselves actually gets in the way of it; their desperation becomes inimical (excuse the pun)to finding companionship; it puts people off. The apparent neediness is something that spooks others and makes them wary; they worry that they will not be in a friendship but in a vampiric relationship where their good-will may be sucked dry; a far cry from the mutuality of real companionship and friendship but rather an exploitation masquerading as friendship. In seeking to 'save their life' they lose it. Ironically then, the people most prone to this are the ones who most need to lose their fixation and focus instead of the main thing, relating to God, in order to be free enough to avail themselves of the fringe benefits, lest grasping at companionship (or longer life or whatever elso) fails and worse cuts them off from the true source of freedom to accept the very thing they seek.

Good games aren't zero-sum, beggar-your-neighbour

It would seem that my gaming disposition shares much with the Germans. Since I was little I have hated Monopoly: it takes ages which isn't a problem in some games but in monopoly it is ages of either grinding your opponents into penury or (more often) being ground down by the inevitable. No-one enjoys contemplating such certainty for so long (do they?). In addition it rewards the least likeable traits of human beings and so tends not to build community but rather greed, heart-heartedness, lack of empathy, envy and schadenfreud. The German way of gaming is different, and much more likely to help people like me who find the all-or-nothing, winner takes all nature of some games a bit much to handle and hard to justify in terms of ethical formation.

Instead of direct conflict, German-style games tend to let players win without having to undercut or destroy their friends. This keeps the game fun, even for those who eventually fall behind. Designed with busy parents in mind, German games also tend to be fast, requiring anywhere from 15 minutes to a little more than an hour to complete. They are balanced, preventing one person from running away with the game while the others painfully play out their eventual defeat. And the best ones stay fresh and interesting game after game.

Which is best for community formation and neighbourly charity, do you think?

Lighten up on 'proper' English, already!

Those who know me well enough know that I tend to get exasperated with pedants prognosticating about English grammar and going on wail-fests about declining standards of English. The article-post referenced under the title of this post will give you a good insight into my overall approach to such matters. That's why I'm noting it here. A paragraph towards the end puts it well. This tells you why I think it important that we are careful about the way, and whether, we 'correct' what we may regard as mistakes in English. We should ask ourselves what the motivation is and what advantage and/or disadvantages we may be conveying to our victim/interlocutor and indeed what the power dimensions are and whether we are acting with love and respect.

In theory, there is real utility in imposing standards through education - these standards are meant to get everyone 'on the same page' and provide a form of cultural unity through language. On the other hand, they (seemingly) legitimize discrimination against those populations whose English is non-standard (certain African American communities being a prime example). By being taught black-and-white rules for "what is right and what is WRONG," we learn to see language in value-laden terms; as adults, we think we can size up a person by their accent, the kinds and variety of words they employ, their conjugations, their idiomatic use, their slang, their spelling and so on [5]. In some sense these judgments aren't wrong: our peculiar backgrounds (class, race, region, gender) and predilections are reflected in our language. On the other hand, prescriptivism implies that there is a moral dimension to language use, and that we should stigmatize variation. It's hard to see the good in that.

Quite so.
This is why it is a Christian question but we should be wary: there is a morality in 'correcting' language errors and we should be aware of our own stake in the forms -dialects- of English we use because they are all freighted with social judgements and temptations to disrespect or disadvantage others.

If we encourage (and I say it no more strongly than that) others to speak or write according to certain standards we should be mindful of doing so in such a way as to enable them to increase their ability to 'perform' more resourcefully in society and to improve their life-chances. They are not 'wrong'; they are simply using a dialect different to our own. The fact is that in these transactions, of course, the dialect being 'corrected' is usually one associated with social and economic disadvantage or opprobrium. It is all too frequent that in 'correcting' dialectal forms that are not "standard English" (and let's be clear; that is a form that was simply the variety -and its contemporary variants- that the socio-economic elite of England happened to be speaking when they came into dominance) the 'correcting' is done in such a way as to reinforce judgements of superiority and inferiority and so reinforce the cultural meanings associated with accent and dialect usage ('posh', 'earthy', smarmy, trustworthy, poncey, one-of-us, etc etc).

If one of the outcomes of Christian discipleship is that we treat all people as worthy and worthwhile, we should be wary of how we -if we- offer or encourage other usages.

It is worth recalling too, that so many of the things that some put over as 'stupid' language usages are regarded as the proper ways of doing things in the socially-prestigious forms of other languages. Double negatives are a sign of educated speech in French and absolutely normal in Spanish and Italian, for example; it's no good talking to them about the mathematics of two negatives, that's a gross confusion of categories and usually an unworthy put-down.Writing contractions is often considered insufficiently 'formal' in English, but for goodness sake it's normal in good French writing (though I suspect that some contractions would be frowned on - "J'sais c'qu'ils dise', par exampl'"). And let's also recall that so-called split infinitive were used by Shakespeare, Austen and the Brontes and such writers didn't necessarily use apostrophe 's for genitives German does fine without that and so did English writers before the Victorian period.

PS (Friday 8 April): I've just read this article on education and the linguistic situation above seems to me to be the linguistic reflex of the more general issue that the quote at the start of the article highlights:

in reality, of course, high school is a machine for social sorting. The purpose of high school is to give young people a sense of where they fit into the social structure.

And, of course, labelling their language use and rewarding or deriding them for it is a very good way to give a sense of where they fit in the social structure.
Of course, it then becomes clear that what the system often rewards in reality is the ability to blend in with the prestigious crowd or to pick up enough to do so later on. So those with good linguistic ability and motive to pick up the register and accents are in a better position. Those who don't have that ability or whose current social, ideological or other solidary commitments will often then define themselves in contradistinction to the 'elites' and it will become harder for them to transition because their self-image /pride won't easily acquiesce.

Art, spirituality and communication

The church has a convoluted relatinship with the arts. Caught between instrumentalist propaganda on the one side and a fear of unsoundness or disturbing the faithful on the other, Christian artists are easily misunderstood. And yet many of us are aware of the power of artworks to express important and transformative perspectives and insights through which God may speak and people may be edified.
Here's what one artist says:

I am at the bottom of the artistic food chain. I work alongside those who have proven their mettle – both with skill and with the merit of their idea. They leave me speechless at their fluency in those areas where I am merely learning my vocabulary.

I'm interested in that insight because it links with one of the things that I'm wrestling with in my homo loquens project: that art is one of the (admittedly more elaborate) ways that humans have of naming the animals of our experience. We don't only give words; single words are only the simplest way we have to pick out things that interest us and try to make them available to the mental gaze of others. But when we consider the way that words -singly or in conglomerations- draw attention, offer perspective, indicate evaluation and connote status, power or other relationship, then we are in a position to realise that a painting, sculpture, song or performance are involved in the same sort of thing only in more sophisticated or elaborate ways.

That noted, I was interested to read how this artist's spirituality is formed in dialogue with art and artists.

these artists, are such a crucial piece of my own spiritual formation and my own efforts to be consistent in my soul-identity. Not because we speak the same language – in fact I sometimes feel like a babbling toddler in the presence of some – but because they are not afraid to tear open the curtain on mystery and paradox.

This is, of course, just why some Christians and churches are suspicious or even hostile to the arts. The threat of awkward (but real) questions and the questioning of authority is enough to encourage Christians with interests in the status quo to stay well-clear of this potentially disturbing area of human endeavour. Perhaps the story of Vincent Van Gogh should give us pause for thought. The shame of this response on the part of Christians to the arts is the way that it witnesses to or generates or exacerbates a gap between the institutions of Church and seeking after truth and integrity. It is saddening to find that for many people who are earnestly seeking integrity and truthful expression, the church is seen to be an obstacle.

The article referenced by the hyperlink under the title asks how we can close that gap. I think that one way is to encourage two cardinal virtues in our communities of faith: one is humility and the other is valuing questions. Humility because part of the problem we have is a sense that we 'have' the truth, our attitude should rather be that the truth has us and we are in the process permanently of apprehending and integrating 'it' into our lives; we are people in process and in dialogue with The Truth. Valuing questions is related to humility: growth comes through questioning. Our questions are a sign that we are aware that we are 'on the way' (or on the Way). Our questions are also part of making sure that we are truly contextually related: in the world (even if not 'of' it). The artists' questions often pick away at cognitive dissonance, and in hearing and respecting those questions we come to know implicit questions we ourselves have but may deny. And in hearing and respecting them we can form a community of empathy with others in which we can learn together how to handle them. That is a proper 'posture' for spiritual growth and even evangelism: side by side, in community, in respect in commitment to understanding together.
This is what, I think, Paul means by language about holding onto the bonds of peace: a commitment to staying with people no matter how awkward their questions.

Responding with Christian love to our homosexual neighbours

This gives a constructive approach to dealing with homosexuality. Interestingly it emerges from a case-study scenario which asks the reader to imagine they are confronted pastorally with a young person who is just realising the predominant direction of their sexual affectviity is homophile. I've added emphasis to a phrase I think is particularly important.

What welcome should you receive? I pray it might be something like this ...
“God loves you - just as you are. He made us all for a purpose - there are no "reject goods". In Christ, gay and straight are equally welcome!
We want to affirm you as a person! Gay orientation is not in itself sinful. Some in the church believe that all homosexual activity is wrong. Others believe that the Bible supports all loving faithful relationships. But though we disagree among ourselves, we will not make you a victim of our theological conflict.
We give you the whole Bible, focussing on what is really important, like John 3 v 16, Matthew 28 vv 16-20 and Romans 5 v 8, but engaging with you on the challenging bits.
Above all we will accompany you on your Christian journey and learn from you as you learn from us. As we travel together, we pray that the Holy Spirit will break forth yet more light and truth from God’s word.”
Martin Stears-Handscomb

Victims of metaphor: serious crimes and stepping into creativity

the eight Buffalo schoolgirls “were victims, though no one realized it at the time, not only of a rapist, but of a metaphor.”

You might reasonably ask how that could be.Well it is to do with how the police investigating framed their task and how that framing was summed up in metaphor (or is that vice versa?) In this case the police didn't put certain information into the public domain that could have pceweted further rapes because they saw their task as catching the bad guy rather than saving girls from violation.

And this article on dehumanisation in generating violence seems to show a similar process at work: reframing using metaphors* to categorise and 'prime' responses.

The articles referenced here report some research into how metaphoric framing affects reasoning ability in relation to crime.The article links this to the way that science is reported (because in actual fact, popularising science relies on metaphor and simile) but the same could be said of practical theology.

This insight tells us how important it can be that we reflect on the way that we are perceiving and thinking about things. We can be trapped in our own approaches and limited perceptions. By questioning them and consciously seeking to look at them differently or to supplement them using other images, models or metaphors we can create new possibilities, new futures, more resilient solutions more creative responses. In theological reflection the exploration/analysis should be a point of recognition of the metaphors, models or images that we currently use and to become aware that they may be limited and pull in new-to-us ways to view whatever it is. In the reflection stage we consciously try to bring to bear the riches of biblical imagery or incidents which can in turn open up not only different ways to think about whatever it is but also give us the possibility of perceiving and connecting with the ways of God in it.


*Though David Livingstone Smith claims that 'untermenschen' is not a metaphor but literal. I'm not so sure that works not when the term is linked as it was to terms like "vermin" or "disease" applied to people. It seems to me that untermenschen in that case is merely a catch-all term for a cluster of metaphors aimed at reframing a certain group in terms that made an implicit case for their enslavement and eventual elimination.

Cleanliness is next to modliness

There's something about this article that resonates with me. Now I like things to be clean, but we have to be aware that our guts are full of bacteria and that we live in a mutually beneficial relationship with them most of the time. We provide them with food and shelter, they help us digest stuff we'd have no chance of getting into our metabolism otherwise.

If your home is full of invisible bacteria that will kill your children at any second, you may need all these chemicals to stop this dreadful contamination. Yet there are those who now think that hyper-clean environments may reduce immune system capability. Where we do seriously need to worry about hygiene is in hospitals, not most homes. Still, there is a huge amount of money to be made from scaremongering.

It is possible for sterile to be just that: sterile -inimical to life. We need a certain amount of 'dirt': and this article gets us to think about the culturally conditioned concepts 'dirt', 'clean' and how they serve to mark insider and outsider. Perhaps what we need to consider is symbolically how the dirt we despise is so often what gives us life. Literally: soil is dirt. If it's sterile it's bad news for food...

Paradoxes of the good life

When I write 'good life' I mean something like a life lived in wisdom and virtue showing something of 'shalom'. In the article the following quote comes from the issue is 'happiness' but the philosophy is almost epicurean in the true sense of finding a middle way (sounds almost Buddhist too) that leads to contentment. I think that there is much in that vision that a Christian can affirm. And in fact the quote I'm about to reproduce seems to sum up things I keep rubbing up against in spiritual direction: mine and others'.

1. Accept myself, but expect more of myself. ...
2. Take myself less seriously—and take myself more seriously.
3. Push myself to use my time efficiently, yet also make time to play, to wander, to read at whim, to fail.

There are some others worth considering too.