5 Top Tips to Upgrading Your Beliefs
A personal mission statemnt can be a really helpful exercise for uncovering what we really do value and for getting us to be serious about our sense of vocation. It could actually take quite a while and is the kind of exercise that could very usefully be undertaken with the 'supervision' of a spiritual coach or mentor. Or it could be doen in the way suggested here, perhaps this is how to start: simply give yourself two minutes to write down the first things that come to you.
It is also quite interesting then to do what the referenced page goes on to suggest: whether your beliefs support what you have written, or even what beliefs are actually suggested by what you have written. This may give plenty of grounds for reflection and discussion. There may need ot be some kind of dialogue between the two things and between your 'official' beliefs and what may turn out to be your actual if not 'owned' beliefs.
Some of those beliefs may be negative in the sense that they cut you off from Life, and so the third 'tip' comes into play. How are you going to deal with those beliefs. Indeed, how will you make sure that there are people and means of personal support if and where such things become matters of some anxiety, grieving or anger.
In place of smiling [though it's no bad exercise as set, actually] I would encourage looking to give thanks for at least 50 things each day [see the last blog entry on this blog].
12 November 2004
You heard it here first
Fast Company | Fast Forward 2005: 28-32:
"Time Sovereignty. ... balance is bunk. So chattering about 'work-life' is, too. 'Time sovereignty' replaces the work-life buzzwords. The idea: It's not so much balance that employees are trying to achieve as it is the freedom to do either -- work or have a life -- when needed"
Fits in well with the ideology of hte self-actuating autonomous individual too. It's a myth, in Barthesian terms, but it's a central one to our culture at the moment. Let's see if it catches on.
"Time Sovereignty. ... balance is bunk. So chattering about 'work-life' is, too. 'Time sovereignty' replaces the work-life buzzwords. The idea: It's not so much balance that employees are trying to achieve as it is the freedom to do either -- work or have a life -- when needed"
Fits in well with the ideology of hte self-actuating autonomous individual too. It's a myth, in Barthesian terms, but it's a central one to our culture at the moment. Let's see if it catches on.
Corporate chaplains
Fast Company | Fast Forward 2005: 25-27: In a series of 'predictions' for 2005 I found this one: "26. Corporate chaplains. As spirituality in the workplace grows, more companies will offer some kind of spiritual adviser for employees. "
It's about time the CofE really grasped this real change in the way things are going. In some ways bit so it have but I don't sense any real visionary motivation...
It's about time the CofE really grasped this real change in the way things are going. In some ways bit so it have but I don't sense any real visionary motivation...
Bishop Tom's home is his castle
Telegraph | News | Bishop defends his castle against invaders
It's a funny article this; maybe it's the way the Torygraph writes it? Anyway I started reading it and was thinking something like: "it's all very well for him to defend spending large sums of money to keep him in comfort and prestigiousness when there's clergy being made redundant [who could I mean?] ..."
But then the article, rather late on really, says this:
The Bishop points out that he lives in a relatively modest six-bedroom apartment within the building, which also houses the diocesan offices and sits in a park open to the public. He believes most of the money raised from its sale - probably in excess of £2 million - would have to be spent on relocating him and the other offices. Plans are being drawn up to improve the profitability of the castle, which hires out rooms for conferences, events and weddings, to meet much of the building's annual £100,000 maintenance costs.
So why not say so? The actual riposte is that it scarcely costs the church commissioners anything to keep becuase the Bishop only uses a small part of it, the diocesan offices use the rest and the hire of the building pays for the the rest. Only one thing; is that really the case? A few paragraphs later we are being told that it is costly. I have to say that if it comes to a contest between keeping a castle for a bishop to live in and paying for mission ... keep the castle, no - sorry, do the mission.
In the last paragraph Bish Tom says:
"The question is whether this house actually enhances the ministry of the bishop or impedes the ministry of the bishop. In my view, it enormously enhances the ministry of the bishop."
Okay, I think that we need to agree what counts as enhancing here. It has to be said that Bishop Auckland is not the most accessible place in the world which is a disadvantage for a diocesan office centre, and take that away and does it really make sense? It's hard not to think that all the wrong signals about power, prestige, out-of-touchness, misaligned priorities etc compared with gospel values of humility, service, focus on the glory of God etc. I have a lot of time for Bishop Tom, I just wonder whether in this case, understandably, he's just a little bit unhappy at the prospect of having to move.
It's a funny article this; maybe it's the way the Torygraph writes it? Anyway I started reading it and was thinking something like: "it's all very well for him to defend spending large sums of money to keep him in comfort and prestigiousness when there's clergy being made redundant [who could I mean?] ..."
But then the article, rather late on really, says this:
The Bishop points out that he lives in a relatively modest six-bedroom apartment within the building, which also houses the diocesan offices and sits in a park open to the public. He believes most of the money raised from its sale - probably in excess of £2 million - would have to be spent on relocating him and the other offices. Plans are being drawn up to improve the profitability of the castle, which hires out rooms for conferences, events and weddings, to meet much of the building's annual £100,000 maintenance costs.
So why not say so? The actual riposte is that it scarcely costs the church commissioners anything to keep becuase the Bishop only uses a small part of it, the diocesan offices use the rest and the hire of the building pays for the the rest. Only one thing; is that really the case? A few paragraphs later we are being told that it is costly. I have to say that if it comes to a contest between keeping a castle for a bishop to live in and paying for mission ... keep the castle, no - sorry, do the mission.
In the last paragraph Bish Tom says:
"The question is whether this house actually enhances the ministry of the bishop or impedes the ministry of the bishop. In my view, it enormously enhances the ministry of the bishop."
Okay, I think that we need to agree what counts as enhancing here. It has to be said that Bishop Auckland is not the most accessible place in the world which is a disadvantage for a diocesan office centre, and take that away and does it really make sense? It's hard not to think that all the wrong signals about power, prestige, out-of-touchness, misaligned priorities etc compared with gospel values of humility, service, focus on the glory of God etc. I have a lot of time for Bishop Tom, I just wonder whether in this case, understandably, he's just a little bit unhappy at the prospect of having to move.
Six Brilliant Megawatt Ideas
NRDC: OnEarth Magazine, Spring 2004 - various ideas for saving electricity: a system for improving air con efficiency; a home voltage regulator that save on power entering the home; better designed compact flourescent ligtbulbs [we're already benefitting from this]; a new way of getting DC leccy from AC; smarter standby devices; and a clever idea for cooler roofs in warmer climates.
looped hybrid housing
STEVEN HOLL ARCHITECTS|COMMERCIAL An interesting design for Beijing which would allow for energy re-use ....
Fair pay is fair play
Guardian Unlimited | Economic dispatch |: "The same directors who have been awarding each other huge double digit increases for years are not prepared to see their own workers earn more than a splutter above �4.85p an hour. That is not a lot of money."
Got a point. I've no quibble with people being able to enjoy the rewards of their labour or of their ideas or of their investments, but I do have a quibble with the gall of using unequal power to exploit some and over-compensate oneself. Such pay differentials offend natural justice; the only justification is that some people have the power to extract that money [because they are directors] and some people don't. It would be a fair question to ask who is puttting in the most effort.
Got a point. I've no quibble with people being able to enjoy the rewards of their labour or of their ideas or of their investments, but I do have a quibble with the gall of using unequal power to exploit some and over-compensate oneself. Such pay differentials offend natural justice; the only justification is that some people have the power to extract that money [because they are directors] and some people don't. It would be a fair question to ask who is puttting in the most effort.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)