all the news that's fit to print

The Telegraph has done it again. In a world reeling from major ecological disasters and economic woes, my new favourite daily news organ yet again finds major stories no-one else is reporting on.

Seriously, click here.

I kind of want to talk about something else, just in case before you click onto the story & come back, you realise that the Telegraph's headline really is "Transvestite had sex with a dog at English Heritage castle". The story itself reads like an episode of Allo Allo. Or Are You Being Served on holiday in Cornwall...

I mean, why do the two ladies with the dog see the man in the dress, and then chase after him "later"? And why bother - the place was "heaving" with visitors. Though he is described as a "lone" transvestite. Not so lone, then. And I love that "other agencies were liaised wth". Indeed.

Perhaps the killer line in this sory, the most English, the most bizarre, is the final line. Just enjoy the understatement in this again:
A spokesman for English Heritage said: "This was a very rare incident".

No - really? Very rare? It happens, what, two or three times a year, no more? RARE!!! I hope it's bloomin' unique! Men in dresses assaulting dogs in the moats of mediaeval castles - "Oh yes, we do come across this, but less often than you'd think," said a spokesman for English Heritage; "mind you, the man in the gorilla suit taking his snake for a walk - now that was a one-off."

song for a psychic

Telling us the future was your goal
Making shattered Cup dreams whole:
Nine prophetical brains alarmed us
But with octuple legs, you disarmed us.
Who’d have believed a cephalopod made plain
That Germany could lose to Spain?
And even then the miracle never ends
For Spain will go and trounce the Netherlands.
So though you foresaw our Lampard’s phantom
And thought our English fighters bantam,
We mourn your retiring from centre stage
As one who goes before his age:
We wish you well, and cry we all –
Let’s all have Risotto a la Paul!

rant alert factor 7

So: in a re-run of 2003's debacle, the press has been carrying stories of how Jeffrey John, the infamously celibate gay Dean of St Albans, will soon be a bishop. Or not.

Today, both the Telegraph and the Guardian say it's all over, after posting breathless articles to the contrary for days. And of course, Rowan Williams is the bad guy in all this for not standing by his friend.

Jeffrey John, for those who don't know, is in a civil partnership (the closest thing in British law to gay marriage) with another cleric, but always declares their relationship to be celibate. And yes, that's part of the problem. If he were single, that word "celibate" would be so much clearer!

But actually, it seems to me there are two issues in play that need to be remembered.

First: who cares if he's celibate or not? Where does that distinction come from? It comes from the Anglican Church's rules on clergy behaviour which say lay gay people can be in sexual relationships, but not clerics. It comes from a strange understanding of Scripture that says it's OK to be gay, but not to act on it, because the Bible doesn't condemn being gay, only explicit homosexual acts.

I feel a need to ask some questions here. Because somehow the church is in danger of handing out overalls with pink stars on them and guiding folk into ghettos, and doing it with a smile on its face because we are being kind. I need to ask - are there second class people? Is there a sub-set of humanity that exists beneath the majority with fewer rights, or are we all equal? We may not like everyone the same, we may disagree with people (quite a lot) but are we all human?

If it is OK to be gay, then it is a tortuous route that takes away the right to act in a way commensurate with that nature. If it is OK to be, it is OK to do. Relationships are part of our human condition; to deny some people access to relationships on the basis of who they are is to make some people less human than others. To then go on and say - "this gay person is OK because they are celibate" is to say "this gay person is OK because they accept their overall and pink star; they know they are second best; here is their address in the ghetto". It is a shocking theology. Shocking.

Aren't we the people who believe there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for we are all one in Christ Jesus? (Galatians 3.28)? One humanity. And in St Paul's day, that thought was anathema to many in the church, who saw Jews & Greeks as quite different, slaves and free and simply different races, male and female as completely distinct in their life roles. St Paul argues that in Christ all these barriers were broken - smashed - because before Jesus we stand equal, and equally loved. Jews may not like the smell of Greeks, but they are human. Straights may not like everything gays do (and sometimes with good cause) but they are human.

The possibility of preferment for Jeffrey John on the basis of his celibacy is abhorrent. Abhorrent. It enshrines in stone that gay people are second class and may have certain rights only at the behest of their straight masters. Either gay people are people or they are not. Period. Let's honestly deal with that.

Now. That debate is not over in the church. It's hardly happening. What is happening is people shouting at each other from roof tops. Yes, I believe that the Scriptures don't address the issues we shoe-horn them into; it seems to me they write of straight people getting into idolatrous orgies and then indulging in sexual excesses, one of which is homosexual acts that are quite unnatural for them. These are condemned (rightly) as perverse. But these texts don't begin to talk about what happens when two men (or women) who are naturally attracted to each other fall in love and want to commit to each other for life, and the forcing of that situation into the other is unfair and simply bad scriptural exegisis. In the wider sphere, we see Jesus often working with people that society (religious society) places on the margins and he enlarges their lives, accepting them, making them more, rather than belittling them - which is the result of the attitudes and rules of the keenly religious. We have to look fully at that process and work through it. What does it mean to "make life more"?

But the church is painfully working its way through these things, and this is my second point. In his Pentecost Letter Rowan Williams talked of the need for churches not to act individually or precipitately beyond the agreed limits of the whole. That's why he was harsh on The Episcopal Church (in the US) - not because he is anti-gay, but because they agreed to work with everyone else, and then stuck two fingers up at the Anglican Communion and said, "we don't care about you, we're going to do our own thing anyway". So how could he allow the promotion of a gay bishop in England under these circumstances? It would make him guilty of exactly the individualism and lack of care for the whole body of Anglicanism which has been his gripe against TEC. That JJ is celibate is smoke and wind, the kind of thing that the press thinks matters, and which liberal churchmen with more enthusiasm than theology or sense grasp hold of, but it is ultimately meaningless.

Until the debate has been properly conducted, and the mind of the church has moved on, then it is inappropriate for any one part of that church to enforce a change unilaterally by just appointing someone to a bishopric that everyone else would find problematic. That has been Rowan's position, and clearly remains so, regardless of attempts to use words that make no sensible difference, but rather make everything ultimately much, much worse.

A person is a person. There are no second class people. No "pet gays" in order to keep the rest happy.

Rowan is right to put this one to bed. And to take the stick for it. It's not bad leadership - it's consistent and ethical and I only hope we do have proper debates and get past the impasse of where we are. Sooner rather than later. So that papers can stop running these stories. And people can be free to be loved by God and love him in return.

this & that

In order: Rigoletto at WNO; further walks in the countryside; mowing the lawn; and the Doctor Who finale...

Rigoletto is my second favourite Verdi opera. The stand-out performance I always remember was at Verona. At the end of the second act, as Gilda and Rigoletto get into their finale duet (he demanding vengeance, she desperate for forgiveness) the performance was absolutely excellent- but nothing prepared you for the penultimate note. One of those unwritten, optional high notes that sopranos who have it add before swooping down to finish. The Gilda that night was some world-famous Mozartian soprano, someone who you'd expect to do the Queen of the Night, so you knew she had more high notes than were ever going to be needed. And as we got to the end of the act, she hit that extra note, with the whole orchestra doing a massive sforzando before swelling through as she held this unbelievable high something-or-other, and then she swooped down to finish. It was genuinely amazing. Amazing. And then everyone stamped & cheered, and suddenly the orchestra struck up again...

I was convinced the act had finished, and then realised - we were getting an encore. For those of you who don't know - this actually doesn't happen in real life. But it did. They did the whole duet again. And she did that high note thing all over.

Incredible.

Well, last night WNO didn't do that! But the orchestra under some 32 year old Spaniard I've never heard of was on fantastic form - shaping all the beautiful, gentle Verdian phrases in a way I haven't heard for ages. So often I hear stodgy strings and wish for someone who would be a little more musical at the helm. Last night I really got it. And in Simon Keenlyside, singing his first Rigoletto, we had a world-class performance. World class.

Gwyn Hughes Jones didn't sing - a chest infection. To be fair - Simon coughed a couple of times, and the American soprano singing Gilda missied a couple of notes, so I guess it was going around. GHJ's stand in was OK, no more. The sop was (at times) glorious - her big Act One aria was genuinely love sick, and I enjoyed the way she played it (shame her top note didn't come out). But I will remember SK's Rigoletto for many, many years.

You know, haven't we been enjoying the best summer? Say it softly, don't chase the sun away - but isn't it glorious? So Matty & I have been walking through the hills and forests around Pontypridd through these days, letting the sun beat down upon us, being grateful for the light and the heat.

I have no control over my moods or the depths (or heights) of my emotions. But I do regularly reflect that a bad summer and day after day of relentless grey would be a whole different ball game. God is good. As bad as this gets, the freedom to walk through the paths around this town and feel the sun on my skin is a gift that helps every time.

This afternoon, after walking, and as I was preparing for tomorrow, I took time to mow the lawn, and then pour a bottle of Sancerre into a very large glass, and sit on the grass and enjoy the garden with Matty. Tennis on the radio, birdsong in the air, the bells chiming the quarter hour - quite idyllic.

Goodness - speaking of the tennis - I hope you saw Isner/Mahut the other day? And the day after... and the day after... The longest tennis match ever. Unbelievable. Those guys are now linked for ever. This will haunt them. They will never be able to let go of the cord that ties them together. Over 100 aces each in a game that took over eleven hours - when they are seventy, they will still have this. If one dies, the other will be bereft and lesser because of it. They will never play each other again. They will never dare. Their future has just been re-written, and I hope for good, but certainly in a way that neither of them currently understands.

And speaking of not understanding - before this evening, I didn't understand how the current season of Doctor Who could top the penultimate episode. But it did. With image after image, word after word of telling emotional power. Last week we had adventure and filmic power; this week we had fairy tale and emotion. The girl who waited all night was beaten by the man who waited for 2,000 years. The Doctor was brought back from oblivion by the memory of something old, something new, something borrowed, something blue - a description of the TARDIS - at Amy's wedding. The dreams of childhood were revealed as powerful driving forces of adult reality and something never to lose. I simply loved it. Loved it. I watched it twice tonight, and knowing all the reveals and surprises, still loved it. Wonderful. A varied season, but with genuine love and real depth.

Now, there's just a drop of that Sancerre left, so excuse me...

Getting to Know You

A couple of weeks ago, the latest Doctor Who series started to catch fire with a great episode about dreams. Then we have a two parter with monsters from forty years ago - Silurians, real Doctor Who monsters, creatures from way back.

And this has been excellent. Well-paced, creepy, menacing, and with genuinely unexpected twists. Sure, a little celebrity casting (both in Meera Syal and Stephen Moore as the ancient Silurian leader) goes a long way, but this was glorious. Great DW (as the new moniker wants us to call it - ugh).

Yep. Here's a give away. If you haven't seen it, look away now. Perhaps all will be well. Sometimes it is. But in an echo of Donna-esque proportions, the rather lovely relationship of Amy & Rory has been forgotten, thanks to the first meaningful incursion of the crack in space that first appeared at the start of the series and which seemed to have disappeared. Now we are getting it. Now it is starting to pay off.

And Matt Smith's Doctor is finding himself. Chirpy but with essential melancholia, in charge and deeply insecure, bright, optimistic and filled with questions - often about himself. Yes, I am liking this more & more. This was an excellent two-parter. Full marks.

Oops, I typed it again...

When choosing a web address, it's always good to double check what it looks like without spaces and punctuation. Today's Telegraph website carries some great examples of sites that might have been more careful:

Experts Exchange – a site where programmers can trade advice – is found at www.expertsexchange.com
La Drape – a British company selling high-end quilted bedspreads – is listed at www.ladrape.co.uk
American Scrap Metal – a scrap metal recycling firm – has its website at www.angelfire.com/alt/americanscrapmetal
Speed of Art – a collective or art designers – are online at www.speedofart.com
Therapist Finder – a directory for therapy services – can be located at www.therapistfinder.com

I was so careful with the title of this site. Just one typo could have changed everything. And tempting as SalvationsSnogs was...

Oops, I said it again...

It seems our new MP, Owen Smith, has wasted no time in truly becoming Kim Howells' successor and saying something he shouldn't have.

The BBC website carries the story here. In short, Owen apparently described the coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats as "a Gretna-style tryst" which he said many of his Labour colleagues could not imagine lasting very long.

He added: "The Lib Dem dowry of a maybe-referendum on AV will seem neither adequate reward nor sufficient defence when the Tories confess their taste for domestic violence on our schools, hospitals and welfare provision. Surely, the Liberals will file for divorce as soon as the bruises start to show through the make-up?"

It's that last phrase that has caused the fuss. The BBC report a mixture of women's groups, Welsh Conservatives and Plaid Cymru members finding his comments objectionable.

OK. First - I disagree with Owen's politics. I rather hope the Coalition lasts and proves that politicians of different hues can be grown up.

But second - here in Pontypridd we like our MP to be be outspoken and literate. A metaphor is a metaphor. I am quite sure that Plaid Cymru members have been saying far more colourful things about the Coalition without half the wit. Or without being able to be fully quoted on the vicar's blog.

To suggest that Owen is belittling the question of domestic abuse with such words is self-serving and sanctimonious drivel of the first order. I'm not a fan of all of Owen's politics, but he is a good man who cares about people, especially those in trouble, and if we are never allowed the occasional colourful metaphor in this life we have allowed the self-appointed censors and secularist moral guardians of the age to take away more freedoms than anyone has a right to steal from us.

I wouldn't edit the piece, Owen. I'd apologise for offense given unintentionally, visit a centre that helps people with abuse to highlight their plight, and if you feel that your words were right in the first place - say them again. An MPs job is to point out when people are in danger of being hurt, not to cow-tow to the politically correct. If you believe it, say it. Say it louder. Find a new metaphor and do it again.

Though if it was just a cheap shot, well, we look forwards to your face on the news - but we need you there on the key days, please. With that great turn of phrase. And passion.

mascots

I rather like our new Olympic 2012 mascots. But they remind me of something else, don't they?

401

O yes - here we are in the five hundreds now. That last piece was the four hundredth on this site. Goodness, I just don't know when to stop do I? So this is post number 401...

And to mark the occasion, let's be frivolous. TV review time.

I hope you all caught Doctor Who last night. Best episode of the new Doctor to date. I have felt throughout this series that we have been watching 55 minute episodes badly cut into 45 minute time slots. There have been clunks in plots, references to things we just haven't seen, and clearly bits missing. But last night we had a wonderful little fairy tale - the kind of sci-fi musing that only Doctor Who tells. Beautiful. Humorous, deep, touching. And only one moment that jarred (an alien, who was of course an old woman, called the Doctor "Doctor" though she had never met him, and no-one stopped to ask - "how did you know his name?") but we'll forgive it as the rest was so glorious.

Though Sam and the wonderfully pregnant Steph had their own take on the episode, and Sam had to be very careful as a result...

Incidentally, the other week apparently the BBC ran a trail over the end of an episode for the following programme. This garnered 5,000 complaints. Watch here for Graham Norton's rather excellent response & apology!

One other thing I saw this week which I'd like to share: I have a fondness for Strictly, and do enjoy its US counterpart, Dancing With The Stars. There was a foxtrot with Nicole Scherzinger (she's the celebrity - Pussycat Dolls) and Derek Hough (the best pro on the show, who turns in outstanding choreography season after season) which simply made me smile. Watch and enjoy!

leadership

On Sunday I asked if anyone was surprised how the election was playing out. Few were.

"Really?" I countered. "You all thought the Liberals would end up with fewer seats?" People laughed and accepted they didn't think that. "And that the Liberals and Tories would end up in a coalition?" Again laughter, and acknowledgement that this was indeed an unlikely outcome.

And, for now, again it seems an unlikely outcome.

The thing about political coalitions in our nation is that they just don't work terribly well. Everyone has to be committed to them - and the only way that works is if there really is some outside force making people work together. Like Hitler - that did the trick. But little else does. And a junior coalition partner has to enter into things wholeheartedly or look like an opportunist wrecker pretty darned fast, whilst also taking the risk of being merely the majority's whipping boys. It is hardly a win-win situation.

Saint Nick is beginning to lose a little of his lustre as he plays the Tories and the Labour party off each other (can you imagine the next Prime Ministerial debates - Cameron saying that whatever the result of the election, it will be the people who choose the prime minister, not Nick Clegg's demands that force his party to have a quick leadership election...) and meanwhile we have an economy clearly run by the City with very little reference to whoever is or isn't "in power".

I repeatedly say I don't have a political allegiance. But I do think we will see another General Election, and the way things are panning out, I think we'll see it sooner rather than later. And I wouldn't think it would make too much difference if the Coalition of the Defeated assume office, the Rainbow Alliance (every colour except Brown), or a Tory minority government now.

Those who behave best will be treated best. Those who behave badly will be treated badly. If there's any justice. Those who hunger and thirst for power - well, I'd stick Gordon Brown's Sky News mike on all of them. Never switch it off. And then see who was fit to lead...

Goodness. We might all be in for a surprise!

(Later)

Surprise, surprise...
So a Con-Lib coalition after all. You know, I think this may well all end in tears, but I pray they are tears of joy - that people learn to work together for the common good, and in doing so realise that it is good to do so. I have my doubts - and seriously hope to be proved completely wrong. This is no time for cynicism, but for all of us to pray for blessing and guidance and for more surprises - in a world where economies can destroy people, we need to see that governments can also turn the world around and make life better. Whether or not the government we find we have is the one we would have chosen.

congratulations

What an election. With the exact nature of our new government not yet revealed to us, I still had the chance to congratulate Pontypridd's new MP this afternoon.

I said I had two friends standing at this election. Mike Powell, for the Liberal Democrats, achieved what must be a record high vote for his party in this constituency, and must be congratulated for it. He worked hard, and though he must feel diappointed, I am amazed that in an area with the political complexion of Pontypridd he did so well. It is a testimony to him.

Owen Smith won, and he and Liz dropped in today. I am delighted for them. They are wonderful, wonderful people, and in Owen we will have a super MP. I refuse to have any party allegiance, but I will ally myself with good people of any colour, and Owen is such a man.

One of the things about being in a community for any period of time, and it's drawing close to ten years I've been here, is that you see the best and the worst of people, and you get to give and to receive. Mike & Owen both have been people from whom I have received much friendship, and I hope have received something from me too.

Owen & Liz used to be my neighbours here. And in my early days at St Catherine's, when I was new and knew no-one, and the church was quite different and much of what we have and do now was simply an intention and a prayer, I'd roll up to Owen & Liz's late in the evening and drink a glass of red or cadge food off their kitchen table (always excellent) and their hospitality helped me through more than they know. And I learned then that Owen always wanted this job, serving our community as MP. Not many of us get our dream jobs. I suspect it's quite the responsibility when things work out and we find ourselves standing with reality and our dreams colliding. So I pray that Owen will always be able to be as good as his intentions and his word, and help many, many folk here through the good, the bad & the indifferent that life throws at them, all the things which an MP has a chance to speak to and to influence, and that after a strongly fought campaign his natural joy would remain and become a real energy for all the people of this place that is our home.

And we pray too for the national result: I am still amazed by snippy party political comments from clergy on facebook! We have a choice: call people names, or pray that good is done. Negative or positive. Death or life. You choose.

how to vote

I am amazed by the stupidity and pastoral short-sightedness of some of my fellow clergy. Facebook is full of vicars telling people to Vote Labour, to remember how awful the Tories are, to realise that Clegg offers the only way forwards, to understand that Cameron has the only answers to Broken Britain.

Guys - if you want to be politicians, get a new job. If you want to have the right to tell everyone about Jesus, then don't alienate the majority of your flock with your party allegiance during an election.

Yes, it's amazing, but Jesus doesn't belong to one party. There is good across the board. Even in some of the extreme groups, I daresay, though I haven't looked long and hard. And when clergy get all hot and bothered and too closely alligned to one party (especially in the rather heated moments of the final stretch of an election) all it does is show everyone that they are about as much to be believed generally as the politicians they suddenly champion (and about as much to be trusted as the other politicians they are so roundly denouncing - after all, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a line that works well any time).

In congregations, people think differently to each other. The vicar telling them all to "vote Labour" (or any other way) is offensive. Anti-democratic. It is spiritual bullying, because it is a pretence of God telling them to do it - "I'm the spiritual authority here, and I say this!"

If I ever tell anyone how to vote it is like this:
1. Vote every time. People have died that we can do this - we should cherish the chance.
2. Vote after thinking about what matters to you, and how you think the candidates have addressed these issues.
3. Or do what I do - if at all possible, vote for a friend standing in your constituency...
4. Vote secretly. It's your vote. Let no-one pressure you into voting like they did.
(Secrecy is especially important when you have TWO friends standing at the same election, as I do this time!)

So - if you are one of my clergy friends and have transgressed, beg your congregation's forgiveness and don't do it again. You have just lost the right to tell many of them about Jesus. You have just lost the trust of many of them. But asking forgiveness is a start in gaining back what you ought to have.

Sure - we should be passionate about issues and justice and compassion and the needy: but people are never our enemy. People are people. God so loved the world he gave his only Son that whoever believes in him might have eternal life. Elections are no excuse to forget this and indulge in name calling and faction. Unless of course - it's not a case of forgetting, more a case of revealing what's going on the whole time.

Then that's a whole different thing that needs sorting...

the joy of facebook

So I'm doing my nightly round up of the facebook homepage, and I find this evening to be a particularly great example of just how wonderful a world is revealed by this excellent internet tool. Here follows some of what's on my homepage (I have shortened or changed names in order to avoid libel suits):

David S likes Desmond Tutu and Physiotherapy.
Together? I didn't know the Archbishop offered this service.

James H on the other hand writes quite fully of his activities: Busy evening! Changed the toilet syphon, been to the gym, made some particle effects. How very productive...
You can never make enough particle effects, can you? But at least he'd changed the toilet syphon first.

The varied lives of clergy are put under the spotlight.
My: PRAISE GOD for Llandaff Diocese putting a jacuzzi in the vicarage. The very definition of good clean fun... Now: chicken tikka massala here I come!
sits right next to Mark T's:
Mark T is praying for the 21 engineer regiment and all their families
I guess he wins on holiness points.

Prizes for astute observations of the day are shared between Neil P and Martin T. Neil comments (and this is the only vaguely political one I'll let through - the rest of you, behave!)
If a new Tory government imposes its cap on immigrants, we'll struggle to field an England cricket team - which made me laugh. I'm not sure they include the Irish in the cap, so we might still get away with it...
And Martin's: Your hair has superhero powers over oil spills! Seriously! sounds amazing, really has me wondering, and I'm clicking onto Google right now in order to contact BP...

For sheer wonder at the mysteries of life, Aled is always good value:
Near Manchester airport watching lots of gadgets that fly - brilliant!
Those of you who know Aled can just hear his voice...
Though Ed W is obviously drinking the same water:
When did Oxo cubes become X-shaped? That's made my day
It's the little things, as St David would say.

Not that today was St David's Day, obviously. Oh no. The guardian of all things liturgical, Ricky C, kept us on track with this - and with his greeting I also finish and bid you adieu:
Ricky C would like to wish all his Facebook status readers a happy Star Wars Day! May the Fourth be with you...

ten past eight: rant time

Oh yes. Time for a rant all right.

So I got an invitation to "like" the 2010 Westminster Declaration on Facebook. What is this? You can read it here.

The authors of this Declaration start their piece, written for this election period with these words:

Protecting human life, protecting marriage, and protecting freedom of conscience are foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society. Our Christian faith compels us to speak and act in defence of all these.

It's an attempt to bring American style right wing politics into British evangelical Christianity. Which is slightly bizarre, as British evangelicalism has always been strangely split - a fair section of it has always belonged in the country side of the Tory party, and a fair section has always been avowedly socialist. Straightforwardly political issues have therefore never sat well with this constituency.

What has changed? Not a lot, really, although there is a secular air about which makes those who like to feel threatened feel threatened. They should have been around in St Paul's day. Of course, a liberal secular agenda and a sprinkling of Pullman & Dawkins will bring the loudmouths out of the woodwork...

And hey presto.

Let's get this straight. We love life here at St Catherine's: God is the author of life, and we love God; valuing his gifts is a part of following him. So statement number one is a given. Protecting marriage? We love marriage - we try to marry as many couples as we can, and fight hard to preserve marriages that struggle. For life should mean for life. We believe in faithfulness - because we worship a God who is all about faithfulness. It is one of his most profound and richest gifts to us. Protecting freedom of conscience? That's a deep one. I got into trouble on Remembrance Sunday on this one - because of my insistance that this is foundational. For everyone. Including those whose conscience I disagree with. Otherwise, it isn't freedom - it's the tyranny of me. Censorship by another name. I have to allow freedom to those who hate me, in order to have it allowed for me - that's freedom, and respect is living together and understanding so that hatred becomes dislike with understanding.

Are these things "foundational for creating and maintaining strong families, caring communities and a just society"? We are all about strong families, caring communities and a just society here. Sounds like this is just the kind of thing we should support.

But then suddenly it goes into crassness hyperdrive.

Under "Our Beliefs and Values" it has a kind of diluted creed, a washed out version of Trinitarianism that places the Father's actions in the past, Jesus' role mostly in the past - with a reference to his return sneaking in there, and the Holy Spirit as the only currently active member of the Godhead, and whose role is defined in terms of serving us. Oops.

It goes on to say that as UK citizens (err, subjects, anyone? In my head somewhere I have this idea that it's US citizens and UK subjects, technically) we agree "to be subject to all governing authorities and obey them except when they require us to act unjustly". Fair enough.

Fair enough? Anyone read St Paul recently? The man is spinning on his cloud, uttering great chunks of Welsh as we sit here glued to our screens. Romans 13.1. That would be a start. Except when they require us to act unjustly? Sorry, the Bible offers no easy cop outs on obedience to authorities. We would love it to, but it is one of those hard issues. And what is meant by "act unjustly"?

"God told me that to pay my taxes was wrong, so you can't throw me in jail. It's unjust." Nope. Really no. Romans 13.6-7. This is silly and dangerous language because it can mean anything...

In the paragraph Human Life, we begin to be clearer where this is taking us. Again, we value all human life. Agreed. And we would fight for human life. But isn't it interesting that in a time of active military intervention, there is no reference to a pacifist agenda here? They argue that it is a duty to protect a foetus against experimentation, but not an Afghan against "friendly fire". There is a choice made about which lives matter. There is an agenda. I'm just saying.

The paragraph Marriage is awful. Badly written. The definition of crass. Let me quote:

We pledge to support marriage – the lifelong covenantal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife. We believe it is divinely ordained, the only context for sexual intercourse

What's wrong with that? Well, let's start with the fact that they have just made all re-married divorcees who have sex to be adulterers. Some people may believe this. I think it's probably a minority opinion, even in quite conservative circles. If lifelong marriage is the only place for sex, and you are in a second marriage, according to this, you have to be celibate. NOW - of course this isn't their target, but it is what they are actually saying. And that's why it's crass. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

What they are really saying is - we don't want any of that nasty gay stuff here, and we won't accept it as being equal to us nice straight people. Fair enough - freedom of conscience is freedom for all, even if you don't like what's being said. But I do feel they might have been a bit more honest. "We refuse to submit to any edict" has a nice ring to it; just not a lot of humility, or very much St Paul.

The Conscience paragraph is glorious. Almost Puritanical, I love it. Well it made me smile. And recoil.
Get this:

We will seek to ensure that religious liberty and freedom of conscience are unequivocally protected against interference by the state and other threats

The state and other threats! In a society where there is actually a State church and the monarch is the head of that church! No religious liberty here - just a threat to being a Christian from the state. This may have been true in Communist Romania, but it is a little over-egging the biscuit even in Gordon Brown's Britain.

Alas, it goes on in similar form, having found its theme:

We will not be intimidated by any cultural or political power into silence or acquiescence and we will reject measures that seek to over-rule our Christian consciences or to restrict our freedoms to express Christian beliefs, or to worship and obey God.

But what Christian beliefs is it referring to? Those key beliefs of being against abortion, stem cell research, homosexuality, civil partnerships and the like.

I don't want to belittle ethical debates. I don't want to say there can't be disagreement on these debates - I think there can and should be such disagreement - we have the freedom to disagree, I've made that plain - but I do think these are not central areas of Christian faith, and are areas on which Christians take differing attitudes and emphases.

Seriously. With prayer, and Scripture, and seeking to follow God. We differ. So saying that we are under threat from the state when someone disagrees with us - well, that won't do. And using inflammatory language and threatening back, which this declaration seems to me to be doing, well, that won't do either. Romans 12 - bless those who persecute you, bless and curse not.

Somewhere along the way we have to see that the people we disagree with are people. That means God loves them. Amazing but true. Jesus died for them. Wonderful. If he thinks so much of them, it's a bit low of the church to get so angry and mean with them when they give us a rough ride. They gave him worse - and he stayed silent. It's all very well to say we love them but they know the truth.

A Declaration like this says we don't. We just want our own way or we'll throw our toys out of the pram.
But Marcus, we're throwing our toys out BECAUSE we love them - it's for their good!
Yep. OK. Listen - they don't feel loved. I think we need to do a bit better than this.

Rant over.

Travelling

There we go. Bags packed. Pool covered. At least the sun is back out after a night of thunderstorms.

The house is empty - Ben has gone to school, and Gill to work. Chuck will drive me to the airport soon. What is left of a holiday? A hat. Some photos. The emptiness of an ending, and the anticipation of a return.

I think I should sit out in the sun for a while. I love the sun. The blue sky. The simplicity and purity and wonder of a pure blue sky. No clouds. I do enjoy it when there are no clouds - life seems so much better without the clouds. It's not the heat (I like the heat) it's the blue sky I love the most. Unfettered sight of the sun.

What's left of a holiday? Just a little more of that...

I read the Bible today

I read the Bible today. All of it.

Well, I finished reading the Bible today, actually. A year ago I bought the NIV One Year Bible, and have followed it every day since. It does require some discipline - some days you are reading a huge chunk of almost totally unreadable Numbers or some such, but it mixes things up (a chunk of Old Testament, a bit of New testament, a Psalm, a verse or two of Proverbs) and it keeps them to dates so that you have to stay on course (none of this "day 127" stuff which allows you to miss and decide the next day or the day after that is really day 127) and hey presto - 365 days later, I've done it.

It's not the first time I've done cover to cover. But it is the first time I have been so organised about it for a very long time. In the end I got 3 versions of the One Year Bible: the original one I bought was a small print thing, perfect for travel, but very hard to read late at night, especially if it was late at night after a trip to the pub. I was bought a larger print version as a gift, and that became my standard one, though the small one stayed with me on trips away - until I was given a Kindle, when I bought it for that so that I had it in far easier format for travelling, though in a less appealling translation.

Absolutely, reading a ton of Scripture every day means that lots feels like it is just going in through your eyes and not sticking much. I think that's OK. Read it, read it, read it. More sticks than you know. And makes you think, or feel, or hope, or be angry - it's all good. And there are days when you see something somewhere you never knew existed, and it joins to something else and sets you working away with stuff, joining the dots, thinking Biblically.

I commend it to you. It is an undertaking, a spiritual discipline. Through these difficult months I have had, it has been one of the things that has upheld me. What you sow, you reap. If you've never done it, give it a go.

worship

So I'm sitting in the sun listening to the Delirious Farewell CD on my walkman. Downloaded it this morning from iTunes.

I remember these guys when they were Cutting Edge; I went down to Littlehampton to see them in some gym. It was fantastic - we're talking '94 I think.

And listening to this recording, I am reminded of the power of beautiful words. Words of heartfelt, full-blooded commitment to Jesus. The music is wonderful, matching the words, but it's the words that grab me. From "Deeper" to "Obsession" to "Paint the Town" to "Bliss" to "Solid Rock" time and again they peel back the superficial with simple phrases of great profundity.

Idolatry is not worshipping an obvious idol; it is breaking the relationship of right love for God by taking our first eyes off Him and letting that love rest elsewhere. We are made to love, and we fill our hearts with love - but unless we place that first love firmly upon Jesus we will always be only partially human. It is he who makes us all we can be, allowing us in his love to love everything else that surrounds us, envelopes us, properly. Fully. Gloriously. Because we live in right love with him, first, with our first eyes on him, free to look everywhere else rightly, wonderfully, as a result. This is the opposite of idolatry, this is salvation, this is redemption, this is the cross, this is true worship.

And as I listen to the songs on this recording, my heart is lifted, my eyes are taken from the myriad things and concerns and worries and people that fill them, and I worship with joy. Clearly. The fog clearing.

Idolatry is not a condemnation, it is a sadness, a warning, a reality for a fallen humanity in a cracked world. Praise God for the gift of worship leaders who pursue truth and carry us there, on the coat tails of Jesus, fixing our world as they fix our gaze with theirs on our Saviour and his wonderful love.

cloud of unknowing

I had an IM on facebook today: how long did I think I would be stuck in the States? As I'm not due to leave for another week, I don't think that technically I am "stuck", yet... though there is a little sheen taken off a holiday when you don't know if you can get home because of the great cloud of unknowing that has taken us all by such surprise.

Reading web reports ("airspace to open tomorrow" "new cloud threatens opening of airspace" and a personal favourite - "navy to bring stranded tourists home") suddenly the world has become such a big place again, hasn't it? The day trip to paradise has become exile from Eden. Or at least from Europe. Or in Europe, if that's your problem.

The Cloud of Unknowing, by which I refer to the medieval book and not the current ash cloud, contains this advice to travellers: "A short prayer pierces heaven". Probably the government is right to want a bit more safety sorted than a wing and a prayer, but for us as God's people it does make us stop and look at where we place our security.

In a job? A pay packet? A house? A car? A family?

If we are to be Jesus' disciples, we are to be prepared to give all these things up - not because they are bad, but because they are temporary, ephemeral, earthly and finite. To be a disciple of Jesus is to know that when the clouds of unknowing hit, the sudden and catastrophic things that change our worlds, they are not the end of our worlds because our hands are held by the one on whom our eyes are steadily fixed. This is what worship achieves. We will struggle, we will feel the stress, we will be buffetted by the waves and the wind - and yet we will hear the voice of Jesus from within the boat calm the storm, heal the sick, comfort the lonely and raise the dead.

A short prayer pierces heaven? A life of worship helps us see through the clouds of unknowing to the home that lies beyond the skies, and makes us fit both to live here well and to live there eternally

Disney

So Chris, my very good friend from Orlando, took Gill, Ben & I to Disneyworld yesterday - and we had a terrific time.

Disney is great - if you are with the right people. And we had a super time, cos we had a lot of fun together, with just the right mix of Mickey taking (oh yes) at each other's expense and simple enjoyment of the moment. The "Tower of Terror" has you cringeing as you wait... but then when you get thrown into the air & it drops down, it is just better to scream alomg with everyone else...

The sun shone most of the day, with a little cloud cover later in the day giving us a bit of a break. And though Gill tried to clog our arteries with a huge breakfast buffet, we walked most of it off.

I still enjoy the Star Wars ride - which I first rode 20 years ago, and which back then was pretty amazing - but the Tower is much better now. And I also enjoyed the simple pleasure of walking around the Epcot lake and wandering past the different national attractions there - I confess the Grey Goose Slushy (lemon, vodka, ice) was a highlight.

Gill & Chris had pleasure is spotting the odd fashion victim. Which I was not - we declared my stetson a total success. Plus - the others never lost sight of me.
Ben - well, there were the occasional moments when he flagged. But I agreed with him: as Gill & Chris dashed off excitedly to shop for Christmas ornaments. In April. For example.

Apologies to Chris for this picture - but his reaction to eating the sour powder that came in 12", 24" or 30" tubes was priceless. And Thanks to Chris for being official photographer for the day - and for putting up with my regular suggestions for photo moments... Chris: you have the patience of a saint!

A lovely family day. Lots of smiles, laughs, vodka slushy and walking endlessly around cheery Disney sites. By the way - what's with the Spanish announcements? They sound so angry! Someone should tell them to chill. Though enjoying a holiday is slightly marred when you don't know if you can get home. And yes, I posted a "funny" on my facebook about the ash cloud, but seriously, I am as worried as everyone else. Enjoying a break away is in part conditional on knowing there is a home at the end of it...

the same thing?

The Times is going to start charging for use of its website shortly; so I took the decision to go elsewhere for my web news. The Telegraph site (I'm sorry, I know it's desperately pro-Tory) is pretty good - lots of comment stuff, very artsy, reasonably good sports, surprising amount of faith news. And today there is an article, and a link to a letter, that at first seems totally reasonable - and then just wrong to me.

It's here. have a read & come back to me. The letter, if you click that link, is a way down that page & headed "jobs bar for Christians".

The idea is this: various people have either gone or been taken to court to uphold their right to their beliefs in the workplace. One was sacked for wearing a crucifix. One for offering to pray for a sick student. There is a couple in trouble for not wanting gays in their home - which is a B&B. A registrar wouldn't conduct civil partnership ceremonies. A relationship counsellor has his day before the appeals today because he won't give counselling to a homosexual couple.

OK. Here's my opinion for all its non-legal value.

No-one should get into trouble anywhere for wearing a cross. Or a crescent. Or any religious symbol - unless they are doing so simply and obviously to antagonise somebody else. But things of value are to be valued in an open society, even if we have different values. Likewise, offering to pray is not a threat but a kindness; at most, if someone has been offended, the teacher's job was not compromised or halted, and a quite word about making sure appropriate things were offered in appropriate places should have been all the repremand required.

The B&B. Is it a home or a business? And in the hospitality trade, should a Christian go into business with an attitude that some people are worth welcoming into your home and others should be judged and left at the door? Jesus welcomed approaches from prostitutes - not cos he wanted their trade coming his way, but cos he valued them as people. I feel something of this is missing in this tale.

I'm afraid I have no sympathy with the registrar at all. I'm a wedding registrar, and if people satisfy all the rules, I have to marry them. I do get folk coming my way that I think are probably unsuitable - and it really doesn't matter. It's not "Marcus Green" marrying them, it's the Vicar of St Catherine's. It's me in my professional role. The registrar who won't conduct civil ceremonies is confusing themselves with their job and ought to do their job or get a different one - and it's nothing to do with their faith.

Besides which, not liking gay partnerships and wearing a cross or praying for people are different issues. A cross is essential in Christian belief, if inessential in apparel. Prayer for others is commanded of us. Discrimmination against people because of their sexual practice is a modern fad which I hope the church gets over, the quicker the better. People are people. Allowing this kind of stuff to go past as distinctive Christian behaviour without stopping and going, "hang on a minute - " is about as ungodly as we get.

And I feel pretty similar about the relationship counsellor. If there are people in need and you are paid to help them, you do your best for the person in front of you no matter what your personal feelings are. They need help. It's your job. If you can help, help. If not - well, if you don't know what to do, suggest someone else. But don't say "God hates you so I'm not going to help". That's untrue, ungodly and the worst kind of lazy ethical thinking which we are suddenly not only allowing but it seems sanctifying in the church.

These things are not the same. It's time we weren't caught up in the moment but rather stopped it. Now.

Any opinions?