In an effort to separate myself from work I have been taking some time off during the day each week to watch a film at the local cinema. It takes me out of communication with the world and hides me away in a dark place for a couple of hours. I even get to have a brew and take it in with me - how good is that?
So I might not be getting around to a day off (I've promised to 'tell all' truth next week at quarter's end) but I'm having some time off: and it's been a most annoying and madness inducing experience.
The films I have seen thus far are:
Viceroy's House: About the partition of India and the stitch-up the British government engaged in with Mountbattens. Showed something extremely uncomfortable about this nation of ours in terms of arrogance, deceit and distastefulness.
I, Daniel Blake: A most uncomfortable watch indeed. It took me back to my time working in the wonderful world of the Employment Agency with those looking for work and the poor Employment Advisors who worked in the Jobcentres. An American contracting company providing a less than able provision with the goal of minimising payments and providing less than adequate services to the jobless population - and all in MY name! I was ready to learn the 'red flag' and head for Westminster by the time this fly on the wall offering was done. GRrrrr!
United Kingdom: My father used to say that Winston Churchill was a dictator who was needed to fight another dictator and that I should be in no doubt that he was never anyone's 'real' hero. Stiff words coming from a bloke who thought Margaret Thatcher was a bit of a lefty politician!
This film added another notch to my slowly emerging dislike of the man as he promised one thing if elected and delivered something very different once he was. But that's politics, isn't it?
But the arrogance of the British government and the colonial machinery takes your breath away and makes one disgusted at the heritage that being English lays upon us.
"Oxford teaches - film educates". Those were the words I was handed in a tutorial many years ago. "We can offer you books and anecdotes and the stillness to assimilate them but the silver screen makes them flesh; but not always truthfully!" my tutor continued. Books may be written with poor scholarship and equally poor language and you will see through this, but a well crafted film will send barbs into your flesh and make you aware just as Eve became aware as she ate the apple.
Sin lies in the action, not the object. Did the apple posses any power other than attract? Surely the act of taking from the tree brought an awareness of what sin was because it caused the separation between man and God. The focus of our desires is always present and before us, but it is the action that is sin.
This is true regardless of what is placed under the glass cover and beheld with desire: Things sexual, monetary, physical and intellectual - all of them qualify. It isn't what the object is, but the way we deal with us wanting it and the lines we are willing to cross to make it ours, or should I say 'possess us'?
Lord, help me to see the lines and never cross them such that I become sinful and damage self or others. Help me to see the best in people and to love wholeheartedly, and yet never lose sight of the ability of each of us to place on a pedestal that thing which causes us to lose our soul (as did the ring bring both physical and spiritual death in Gollum's tale of woe).
Lord have mercy upon us for our past - and as Brexit is made real today - in our future as we consign ourselves into a very different reality.
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Thursday, 29 December 2016
Death - it's not a celebrity issue!
What do the numbers 53, 60, 96, 95 and 84 mean to you I wonder? Do they mean anything at all?
For those who appear to be obsessed with celebrity deaths, these are the ages of George Michael, Carrie Fisher, Ricard Adams, Liz Smith and Debbie Reynolds who have all died recently (Reynolds being the latest).
A number of people have engaged in in the 'tragic' news - tragic on the grounds that they were stars; they were famous and did stuff that put them in the public eye. They tell me how. "There's something going one with all these stars dying!" And you know what - they are right.
Now consider the ages 94, 88, 95, 88, 70, 98, 88, 67, 80, 91 (my last ten funerals) and have a think about the fact that in some of those there were a handful of people left to mourn the loss of a life and yet in the stories that represented their lives there were heroic acts, selfless love, tragic lives and lives lived to the full.
A heroine taken and heroin taking another - that would be the heading for a couple of the celebrity deaths; a mother's broken heart accounts for another and 'just being old' a couple more of the celebrities.
But there's no conspiracy - as (a much quoted and more often unattributed) comment puts it - the high number of celebrity deaths corresponds with the rise to fame of film and music stars and the birth of the 'celebrity' whom so many now worship makes a large number of the deaths nothing more than a statistical reality and a reflection of candles burnt. Now I know one of the recent deaths was extremely sad in that the loss of one celeb' played a part in the second death but look at the 'December' deaths and tell me which of them cause a real surprise:
Liz Smith: 95 Richard Adams: 96 Debbie Reynolds:84 Carrie Fisher: 60
George Michael: 53 Rick Parfitt: 68 Zsa Zsa Gabor: 99 A A Gill: 62
Greg Lake: 69 Peter Vaughan: 93 Andrew Sachs: 86
Now look at the list again and having removed those who have clocked up a fair number have a stop and think about lifestyle choices of the 'surprise' deaths that remain - could it be that the 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' lifestyles and the like have played a part here?
So we now reach a place where it becomes pretty obvious that despite the newspaper hype and the fairtydust folklore attitudes of many around me (and I am assuming that the people here are little different to the people elsewhere) and you will see that God, most definitely, is not building a rock and roll band. Neither did he read Watershed Down and cry out, "Author, author!" only top find him standing before Him in an eyeballing later.
Regardless of who a person is or what they do - a life is a life and yet some seem to count the life of the star as something more than the life of a woman who cleaned toilets or worked at a lathe and walked to work because the money didn't allow for a bus or the man who was working four jobs during the time when short-time working, layoffs and the like (aah, remember the 60's and a time when the UK had a manufacturing industry?) - and all that to put love in the home, food on the table; clothes on their children's backs.
We need some perspective - all life is valuable and the loss of life is always a tragedy for someone.
It is sad that many who had so much in life get more again in death whilst the 'have not's' are buried quietly with barely a nod or, sadly at time, a person to note their passing.
One of the saddest funerals I have ever done was for a person who devoted their life to the service of others and yet when the died at 104 there was just me, the organist and their carer from the Old Folk's Home to mark her passing. The stories were few because none who knew them were alive and those who might have been family, albeit distant, had no relationship with them because they were separated by the generations!
So - here's a plea. We are called to comfort those who mourn and the greatest role I have as a Priest is that of helping the well, and the dying, to die well - regardless of whether that event is imminent of perhaps(but who knows) years off. We have all buried people in their teens, a time when death isn't even the glimmer of a fear and the assumption is that there to be tens of years before them.
So we can but live each day as if it were our last and act as if someone is watching (and of course they are - and I don't mean Santa either!) and an account of our actions will asked of.
Yesterday the Church remembered the 'Holy Innocents' - those children under two who were put to death by Herod as he sought to remove Jesus from this world. Today we ignore the children, those innocents, who die around the world in refugee camps, warzones, places where famine, poor sanitation and the lack of effective (or cost-available) drugs all conspire.
I have met people who have spent inordinately large sums of money to mark the passing of a celebrity and yet these same people were resolute in their lack of support for the Christian Aid envelope stuck through their letterbox. How happy we are to pay out for what is unimportant whilst the important - and isn't life always important? - is ignored.
So a message to those around me: 'Wake up before you go go" because you only get one chance to do good things on this earth whilst you're here - and after that there's some clarification to be sought. A no, a Band Aid Tee Shirt doesn't count as having acted charitably, it means you were more likely than not just indulging the celebrity cult with a bit of salve (after all, the local who told me they spent almost £500 to be at the concert: "But it was for a good cause," and, "They really loved nn and, at last, got to see them!! Yeah, that sounds like charity doesn't it?
Psalm 146:3-9 has a pointer in all this:
"Don’t put your life in the direction of those who know nothing of salvation life for they are as flawed and fallible as you. They live their lives of illusion on the screen, the stage and in their own existence and yet, they so often fail to have what it takes to live life to the full - and yet people seek the empty reality wrapped in the misplaced glamour that the masses crowd in to give them
But when they die, their fantasies, the appearance and the applause die with them so why not, instead, put your hope in God and know what real blessing and turn peace; what things make for a whole person and a fulfilled and blessed life are all about?
God has never decided to no longer reply to His fans, neither has he erected high fences to keep us away because He wants His privacy. God always stands up for the wronged and feeds the hungry (without selling you a Tee Shirt) and acts to release captives of all kinds.God loves all people, protects the strangers, takes the side of orphans and widows, but (and this probably is a warning - so take it as such) makes short work of the wicked."
Let's admire and applaud talent and ability - but never let us lose our balance such that we make them the small gods of our age who can lead us nowhere and do little of substance for us and be a dissipation rather than blessing.
Just saying.
And now praying:
Gracious God,
surround us and all who mourn this day with your continuing compassion.
Do not let grief overwhelm your children, or turn them against you.
When grief seems never-ending,
Take them one step at a time along your road of death and resurrection
In Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
For those who appear to be obsessed with celebrity deaths, these are the ages of George Michael, Carrie Fisher, Ricard Adams, Liz Smith and Debbie Reynolds who have all died recently (Reynolds being the latest).
A number of people have engaged in in the 'tragic' news - tragic on the grounds that they were stars; they were famous and did stuff that put them in the public eye. They tell me how. "There's something going one with all these stars dying!" And you know what - they are right.
Now consider the ages 94, 88, 95, 88, 70, 98, 88, 67, 80, 91 (my last ten funerals) and have a think about the fact that in some of those there were a handful of people left to mourn the loss of a life and yet in the stories that represented their lives there were heroic acts, selfless love, tragic lives and lives lived to the full.
A heroine taken and heroin taking another - that would be the heading for a couple of the celebrity deaths; a mother's broken heart accounts for another and 'just being old' a couple more of the celebrities.
But there's no conspiracy - as (a much quoted and more often unattributed) comment puts it - the high number of celebrity deaths corresponds with the rise to fame of film and music stars and the birth of the 'celebrity' whom so many now worship makes a large number of the deaths nothing more than a statistical reality and a reflection of candles burnt. Now I know one of the recent deaths was extremely sad in that the loss of one celeb' played a part in the second death but look at the 'December' deaths and tell me which of them cause a real surprise:
Liz Smith: 95 Richard Adams: 96 Debbie Reynolds:84 Carrie Fisher: 60
George Michael: 53 Rick Parfitt: 68 Zsa Zsa Gabor: 99 A A Gill: 62
Greg Lake: 69 Peter Vaughan: 93 Andrew Sachs: 86
Now look at the list again and having removed those who have clocked up a fair number have a stop and think about lifestyle choices of the 'surprise' deaths that remain - could it be that the 'sex, drugs and rock and roll' lifestyles and the like have played a part here?
So we now reach a place where it becomes pretty obvious that despite the newspaper hype and the fairtydust folklore attitudes of many around me (and I am assuming that the people here are little different to the people elsewhere) and you will see that God, most definitely, is not building a rock and roll band. Neither did he read Watershed Down and cry out, "Author, author!" only top find him standing before Him in an eyeballing later.
Regardless of who a person is or what they do - a life is a life and yet some seem to count the life of the star as something more than the life of a woman who cleaned toilets or worked at a lathe and walked to work because the money didn't allow for a bus or the man who was working four jobs during the time when short-time working, layoffs and the like (aah, remember the 60's and a time when the UK had a manufacturing industry?) - and all that to put love in the home, food on the table; clothes on their children's backs.
We need some perspective - all life is valuable and the loss of life is always a tragedy for someone.
It is sad that many who had so much in life get more again in death whilst the 'have not's' are buried quietly with barely a nod or, sadly at time, a person to note their passing.
One of the saddest funerals I have ever done was for a person who devoted their life to the service of others and yet when the died at 104 there was just me, the organist and their carer from the Old Folk's Home to mark her passing. The stories were few because none who knew them were alive and those who might have been family, albeit distant, had no relationship with them because they were separated by the generations!
So - here's a plea. We are called to comfort those who mourn and the greatest role I have as a Priest is that of helping the well, and the dying, to die well - regardless of whether that event is imminent of perhaps(but who knows) years off. We have all buried people in their teens, a time when death isn't even the glimmer of a fear and the assumption is that there to be tens of years before them.
So we can but live each day as if it were our last and act as if someone is watching (and of course they are - and I don't mean Santa either!) and an account of our actions will asked of.
Yesterday the Church remembered the 'Holy Innocents' - those children under two who were put to death by Herod as he sought to remove Jesus from this world. Today we ignore the children, those innocents, who die around the world in refugee camps, warzones, places where famine, poor sanitation and the lack of effective (or cost-available) drugs all conspire.
I have met people who have spent inordinately large sums of money to mark the passing of a celebrity and yet these same people were resolute in their lack of support for the Christian Aid envelope stuck through their letterbox. How happy we are to pay out for what is unimportant whilst the important - and isn't life always important? - is ignored.
So a message to those around me: 'Wake up before you go go" because you only get one chance to do good things on this earth whilst you're here - and after that there's some clarification to be sought. A no, a Band Aid Tee Shirt doesn't count as having acted charitably, it means you were more likely than not just indulging the celebrity cult with a bit of salve (after all, the local who told me they spent almost £500 to be at the concert: "But it was for a good cause," and, "They really loved nn and, at last, got to see them!! Yeah, that sounds like charity doesn't it?
Psalm 146:3-9 has a pointer in all this:
"Don’t put your life in the direction of those who know nothing of salvation life for they are as flawed and fallible as you. They live their lives of illusion on the screen, the stage and in their own existence and yet, they so often fail to have what it takes to live life to the full - and yet people seek the empty reality wrapped in the misplaced glamour that the masses crowd in to give them
But when they die, their fantasies, the appearance and the applause die with them so why not, instead, put your hope in God and know what real blessing and turn peace; what things make for a whole person and a fulfilled and blessed life are all about?
God has never decided to no longer reply to His fans, neither has he erected high fences to keep us away because He wants His privacy. God always stands up for the wronged and feeds the hungry (without selling you a Tee Shirt) and acts to release captives of all kinds.God loves all people, protects the strangers, takes the side of orphans and widows, but (and this probably is a warning - so take it as such) makes short work of the wicked."
Let's admire and applaud talent and ability - but never let us lose our balance such that we make them the small gods of our age who can lead us nowhere and do little of substance for us and be a dissipation rather than blessing.
Just saying.
And now praying:
Gracious God,
surround us and all who mourn this day with your continuing compassion.
Do not let grief overwhelm your children, or turn them against you.
When grief seems never-ending,
Take them one step at a time along your road of death and resurrection
In Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen
Tuesday, 31 March 2015
One of those SOAPBOX moments - Defying Expectations
Engaged in a conversation with someone regarding the whole nurture/nature/environment issue I found myself listening to many reasons explaining why those around us have such low expectations.
Look at the place they live
I found myself pulled up rather short because as it was explained to me how many of the issues regarding low attainment and even lower ambition levels where I am were due to the place in which 'those' people found themselves.
'Just look at the town and you'll see that they have no roles models,' said the other person, 'Is it any wonder that there's such low levels of attainment? Their families are low-attainment and that's what they fail to aspire from - destined to continue be working class!'
Goodness me, thought I, because I look at the place I came from and no one had been to university from the streets around me. There were no role models with regard to learning or 'bettering yourself' (anyone else remember that oft spoken parental mantra?) and in fact I grew up sounded by a lathe operator, a road digger, a bin man, a window cleaner, a postman and an insurance salesman (door-to-door) all of whom had left school as soon as they could and entered the world of world.
But then I discovered that 'working class' was a state of mind rather than a condition set by the numbers of digits on a bank statement.
I grew up on the edge of the city of London in a place where few had a 'proper' education and where the term 'public school' applied to most of us because everyone could go there! The old joke that my school was so good it was 'approved' (it's a bit like borstal or Young Offender Institutions for those who are too young, or posh, to get the joke).
Look at the number of people who have come out of poorer areas and made good - and I don't just mean because they were wheeler dealers or nicked stuff either. Class and ability will always come through in the end and yet this truism is being turned into a lie by the idiots who peddle the myth that school is all about earning potential and getting a good job.
Education is about maximising the potential of a person - It doesn't automatically translate into higher earning capacity or ability. That said, I'm not telling the truth because I have been in the company of many with good quality school ties who have made it because of the real factors relating to 'getting ahead', namely it doesn't matter if you're thick as long as you are privileged and have friends in the right places. But even then - ability will, eventually, shine through.
I was listening to a female comedian (Josie Long) who managed to get herself to Oxford only to find herself sneered at because of her roots (one of those sneering being a minor royal apparently) but she got on and got through - and this where Jesus comes to the fore because He made time for a poor, ill (and therefore unclean) bloke and keep a rich geezer waiting!
Jesus didn't look at the clothes or listen to the accent or notice the pong (and pong I'm sure some did) but He saw the person and dealt with the needs as they presented themselves regardless of ethnicity, sex, creed, accent or cash!
Look at their families
Goodness me, this lit the touch paper because as we all know what the 'facts tell us:
And
And
The problem is that parents can hold their kids back and the role models they present can be poor and yet given half the chance the reality is that they won't be alcoholic or engage in domestic violence and the like. Statistics and the results of poor science (if psychology and sociology are to be considered sciences that is) conspire to pull attitudes and behaviours out of hats and by assigning them to people condemn those people to 'more of the same' because of their home environment and geographical location.
Many years back a few of new clergy were visiting a hospice and whilst there bumped into a bishop who was about to retire. Being joy sort of chap he took some of us to one side and told us how, "Even though many people think we're an open organisation when it comes to who we ordain, the reality is that at the very top we're still one of the most exclusive gentleman's clubs in the world!"
Of course the fact that the people he was telling this too were the plebs that he was speaking of in the lower echelons spoke volumes about the bloke and his discernment - and I write this as one who joined as a foot soldier and know that ordination was the pinnacle of recognition ;-)
Can anything good come from ??????
You can insert your own place name here but the reality is that where you come from doesn't determine who you are because all have choices and regardless of what your family did, the caste system does not (well it should not) apply here!
There is nothing that separates us from God's love and there is nothing that stops us from reaching, and exceeding, our potential except us being will to let others be condemned to failure and constrained to 'know their place'.
So here's a plea to Christians of all shapes and sizes of denomination:
Don't ever stand by and let others be condemned or consigned to failure but take up their cause and stand with them and for them because that's what Jesus would have done too, but since He's busy elsewhere He's left this job to us.
So get on and do it!
Oh yeah, happy Holy week!
[/soapbox]
*Alright, I understand about role models but there are many to be found outside of the family - this one amounts to a curse rather than an observation in my book!
Look at the place they live
I found myself pulled up rather short because as it was explained to me how many of the issues regarding low attainment and even lower ambition levels where I am were due to the place in which 'those' people found themselves.
'Just look at the town and you'll see that they have no roles models,' said the other person, 'Is it any wonder that there's such low levels of attainment? Their families are low-attainment and that's what they fail to aspire from - destined to continue be working class!'
Goodness me, thought I, because I look at the place I came from and no one had been to university from the streets around me. There were no role models with regard to learning or 'bettering yourself' (anyone else remember that oft spoken parental mantra?) and in fact I grew up sounded by a lathe operator, a road digger, a bin man, a window cleaner, a postman and an insurance salesman (door-to-door) all of whom had left school as soon as they could and entered the world of world.
But then I discovered that 'working class' was a state of mind rather than a condition set by the numbers of digits on a bank statement.
I grew up on the edge of the city of London in a place where few had a 'proper' education and where the term 'public school' applied to most of us because everyone could go there! The old joke that my school was so good it was 'approved' (it's a bit like borstal or Young Offender Institutions for those who are too young, or posh, to get the joke).
Look at the number of people who have come out of poorer areas and made good - and I don't just mean because they were wheeler dealers or nicked stuff either. Class and ability will always come through in the end and yet this truism is being turned into a lie by the idiots who peddle the myth that school is all about earning potential and getting a good job.
Education is about maximising the potential of a person - It doesn't automatically translate into higher earning capacity or ability. That said, I'm not telling the truth because I have been in the company of many with good quality school ties who have made it because of the real factors relating to 'getting ahead', namely it doesn't matter if you're thick as long as you are privileged and have friends in the right places. But even then - ability will, eventually, shine through.
I was listening to a female comedian (Josie Long) who managed to get herself to Oxford only to find herself sneered at because of her roots (one of those sneering being a minor royal apparently) but she got on and got through - and this where Jesus comes to the fore because He made time for a poor, ill (and therefore unclean) bloke and keep a rich geezer waiting!
Jesus didn't look at the clothes or listen to the accent or notice the pong (and pong I'm sure some did) but He saw the person and dealt with the needs as they presented themselves regardless of ethnicity, sex, creed, accent or cash!
Look at their families
Goodness me, this lit the touch paper because as we all know what the 'facts tell us:
If you have an alcoholic parent then you'll be an alcoholic
And
If you are from a home with domestic violence then that's what you'll do too
And
If you grew up in a single-parent family you'll struggle to be a parent too*
The problem is that parents can hold their kids back and the role models they present can be poor and yet given half the chance the reality is that they won't be alcoholic or engage in domestic violence and the like. Statistics and the results of poor science (if psychology and sociology are to be considered sciences that is) conspire to pull attitudes and behaviours out of hats and by assigning them to people condemn those people to 'more of the same' because of their home environment and geographical location.
Many years back a few of new clergy were visiting a hospice and whilst there bumped into a bishop who was about to retire. Being joy sort of chap he took some of us to one side and told us how, "Even though many people think we're an open organisation when it comes to who we ordain, the reality is that at the very top we're still one of the most exclusive gentleman's clubs in the world!"
Of course the fact that the people he was telling this too were the plebs that he was speaking of in the lower echelons spoke volumes about the bloke and his discernment - and I write this as one who joined as a foot soldier and know that ordination was the pinnacle of recognition ;-)
Can anything good come from ??????
You can insert your own place name here but the reality is that where you come from doesn't determine who you are because all have choices and regardless of what your family did, the caste system does not (well it should not) apply here!
There is nothing that separates us from God's love and there is nothing that stops us from reaching, and exceeding, our potential except us being will to let others be condemned to failure and constrained to 'know their place'.
So here's a plea to Christians of all shapes and sizes of denomination:
Don't ever stand by and let others be condemned or consigned to failure but take up their cause and stand with them and for them because that's what Jesus would have done too, but since He's busy elsewhere He's left this job to us.
So get on and do it!
Oh yeah, happy Holy week!
[/soapbox]
*Alright, I understand about role models but there are many to be found outside of the family - this one amounts to a curse rather than an observation in my book!
Tuesday, 19 August 2014
The 'the rising tide'
I have a most interesting conversation with another cleric at a funeral this morning. Interesting, surprising and just a little shocking and sad-making in fact!
Interesting because what I heard was something I'd suspected but not the way they'd put it.
Surprising because they were female and yet saw the recent synod decisions as negative.
Shocking because, well you don't expect that sort of thing on a Monday (do you?).
Sad-making because it seems we are looking at people with an agenda here - and it doesn't seem to have the Bible included (well, not the majority of it anyway)!
Then, to make it more interesting still I return and now (almost 16:00 and time for a brew) find myself challenged by the image below:
This image is something produced by Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) as he seeks to answer the question, "What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?" (click here) So let's put all this in the mix and see whether the unfolding conspiracy theory holds water or is just the ramblings of a mad woman and a sociologist and a gullible (below-average) Vicar who is perhaps more than a little convinced by it all!
My colleague (whose name I never did get) told me that she'd realised that the tide was rising, something that had been confirmed by a friend who'd told her that, "Having accepted women bishops the only remaining barrier to see toppled was same-sex!"
One of the problems for those who consider themselves to hold with an orthodox (or some would say 'traditional') faith has been the situation whereby when the issue of homosexuality and the Church first came up it seems (to me anyway) that just as a line was about to be drawn in the sand some clever type realised that this would potentially cost the CofE money. And so the first fudge was born and we had the situation whereby homosexuality was definitely 'out' on the altar side of the rail and sort of, well you know, but not totally wrong so keep on coming to church and giving!
All that was needed was a straight (no pun intended) 'Yes' or 'No' and the matter would have been sorted one way or the other but it wasn't! Then women get ordained and this marks a step towards a lessening of opinion regarding the dread subject of homosexuality because women are apparently less inclined to be against it! Empirically I did have a female friend who told me that being part of a marginalised group (women) she could never vote against another (homosexuals) and so if this is consistent I guess the view holds some water.
Now I'm told by some that women in the house of bishops will add weight towards accepting homosexuality (struggle with 'same sex sex/marriage 'sss/ssm' as it all seems a little - off!) and that this now sets the signals to green for a move to remove the final obstacle for being a 'totally accepting and inclusive' Church. Seems to me that some regard the words 'permissive' and 'inclusive' to be as interchangeable as 'sex' and 'gender' - which makes them wrong on a couple of counts!
The scores on the doors from Prof Regnerus all indicate that those who support same-sex marriage are much more likely to be in favour of a lot of stuff that those Christians who aren't that keen on. Don't think that's a shock. Then again neither is it any surprise that non-Christian homosexuals are supportive of lots of stuff that Christians (of all complexions) aren't - even if they support same-sex marriage or are homosexual themselves. What I like about the man is that he's not screaming about slippery slopes or increasing trends - changing attitudes so same-sex marriage are not necessarily the cause of changes elsewhere. But each is discrete and also influenced, and influential, in the processing and adoption of attitudes.
So we should not demonise either - because that's merely a slippery slope in the other direction, innit?
Neither should we use our straightness, gayness or confusedness as a weapon because to do this reduces us to being nothing more than a pawn rather than the focus of God's amazing love - dunnit?
Seems to me that there's few surprises for me today - just confirmation that that which the Bible appears to consider right behaviour sure ain't popular among those who like to please themselves. No shock there either I guess because the whole point of sin is that it's a popular pastime.
The key is surely to find a via media and to be collaborative rather than combative and yet still maintain that which honours God, keeps the Christian living on the right track and is truly open and inclusive without compromising or becoming permissive - especially not in the mistaken belief that permissive means converts (unless we're looking to make them twice as fit for hell as we are ourselves that is).
What a very funny day indeed!
Interesting because what I heard was something I'd suspected but not the way they'd put it.
Surprising because they were female and yet saw the recent synod decisions as negative.
Shocking because, well you don't expect that sort of thing on a Monday (do you?).
Sad-making because it seems we are looking at people with an agenda here - and it doesn't seem to have the Bible included (well, not the majority of it anyway)!
Then, to make it more interesting still I return and now (almost 16:00 and time for a brew) find myself challenged by the image below:
This image is something produced by Mark Regnerus (University of Texas, Austin) as he seeks to answer the question, "What exactly do pro-same-sex-marriage Christians think about sex and relationships in general?" (click here) So let's put all this in the mix and see whether the unfolding conspiracy theory holds water or is just the ramblings of a mad woman and a sociologist and a gullible (below-average) Vicar who is perhaps more than a little convinced by it all!
My colleague (whose name I never did get) told me that she'd realised that the tide was rising, something that had been confirmed by a friend who'd told her that, "Having accepted women bishops the only remaining barrier to see toppled was same-sex!"
One of the problems for those who consider themselves to hold with an orthodox (or some would say 'traditional') faith has been the situation whereby when the issue of homosexuality and the Church first came up it seems (to me anyway) that just as a line was about to be drawn in the sand some clever type realised that this would potentially cost the CofE money. And so the first fudge was born and we had the situation whereby homosexuality was definitely 'out' on the altar side of the rail and sort of, well you know, but not totally wrong so keep on coming to church and giving!
All that was needed was a straight (no pun intended) 'Yes' or 'No' and the matter would have been sorted one way or the other but it wasn't! Then women get ordained and this marks a step towards a lessening of opinion regarding the dread subject of homosexuality because women are apparently less inclined to be against it! Empirically I did have a female friend who told me that being part of a marginalised group (women) she could never vote against another (homosexuals) and so if this is consistent I guess the view holds some water.
Now I'm told by some that women in the house of bishops will add weight towards accepting homosexuality (struggle with 'same sex sex/marriage 'sss/ssm' as it all seems a little - off!) and that this now sets the signals to green for a move to remove the final obstacle for being a 'totally accepting and inclusive' Church. Seems to me that some regard the words 'permissive' and 'inclusive' to be as interchangeable as 'sex' and 'gender' - which makes them wrong on a couple of counts!
The scores on the doors from Prof Regnerus all indicate that those who support same-sex marriage are much more likely to be in favour of a lot of stuff that those Christians who aren't that keen on. Don't think that's a shock. Then again neither is it any surprise that non-Christian homosexuals are supportive of lots of stuff that Christians (of all complexions) aren't - even if they support same-sex marriage or are homosexual themselves. What I like about the man is that he's not screaming about slippery slopes or increasing trends - changing attitudes so same-sex marriage are not necessarily the cause of changes elsewhere. But each is discrete and also influenced, and influential, in the processing and adoption of attitudes.
So we should not demonise either - because that's merely a slippery slope in the other direction, innit?
Neither should we use our straightness, gayness or confusedness as a weapon because to do this reduces us to being nothing more than a pawn rather than the focus of God's amazing love - dunnit?
Seems to me that there's few surprises for me today - just confirmation that that which the Bible appears to consider right behaviour sure ain't popular among those who like to please themselves. No shock there either I guess because the whole point of sin is that it's a popular pastime.
The key is surely to find a via media and to be collaborative rather than combative and yet still maintain that which honours God, keeps the Christian living on the right track and is truly open and inclusive without compromising or becoming permissive - especially not in the mistaken belief that permissive means converts (unless we're looking to make them twice as fit for hell as we are ourselves that is).
What a very funny day indeed!
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Sex and Gender - different things
Being an increasingly grumpy old wotsit I find myself increasingly wound up by words and the way people use them.
One of these is the transportability of the words 'sex' and 'gender' as if they were one and the same.
As I understand it sex (when not referring to coitus) relates to the biological categories of 'male' and 'female' and this is determined by a number of factors at birth, namely:
Anatomy - As a doctor friend engaged in the delivery of babies and their care once put it, "If it hasn't got a todger - it's a girl!"
Chromosones - Of the twenty-three pairs of chromosones, only one pair determine the sex of the human animal (X and Y) and XX is female and XY is male.
Reproduction - The sex of the person determines the potential they have in terms of reproduction. (note use of the word 'potential' here - not having produced progeny neither negates the sex of a person or the validity of a marriage!)
Gender, as I understand it, is more of a sociological term which although it may as a starting point have drawn upon 'sex' actually refers to gender identity (which in the case of transgendered differs from the biological reality)and equality issues. Again, my understanding is that it was in the feminist/sexual equality context the word 'gender' really became the sociological beast that we have today.
I understand that the Americans (who can be relied upon to generally abuse and misuse the English language with style and aplomb) are the root cause of the confusion between sex and gender and the thinking that they mean one and the same.
It was explained to me by a Psychologist who was working in the area of GID (Gender Identity Disorder) that rendering the words 'sex' and 'gender' as one and the same removed many complications and made transitions from one gender (where gender means the self-perceived or societally-acknowledged male or female identity) to the other less fraught with complications and trauma (for all concerned). "You can be whichever you wish," was his battle cry and for some he thought there might be a crossing over and return as the mood, situation or circumstance dictated. (I asked about those who had undergone reassignment surgery and was told that some do return to their birth sex whilst others merely become engaged in 'same-sex' relationships - and retain their new gender identity).
The interesting situation whereby one is both male and female (hermaphroditic) poses many problems in that they choice made by doctors on which was to be the sex they were labelled as being wasn't always correct. I have only (in a counselling context) encountered one person who had this problem and so assume it must be rare - but for the purpose of considering all corners of the 'sex' triangle (M/F/Herm') I have included this here too!
I hope this explains my position on the use of the two words and what I understand them to mean and hopefully the person I had a discussion with might now understand the what and why regarding my position.
Sex is fixed - gender can be a choice.
Pax
ps. I was also taught that transgender and transexual were two distinct things and whilst one might lead to the other, this was not always the case. The number of people I have counselled who were indeed transexuals but would never have countenanced becoming transgender and who were heterosexual have led me to believe that the coalescence of these two words is unhelpful for many reasons (especially the trivialisation of those who are trans).
It is especially important to get the words and the understanding fixed - ask those who have cause to remember that today is 'International Transgender Remembrance Day' - a day when those who have lost their lives because of misunderstanding and intolerance towards this issue.
Tea drunk - time to rush back out into the big wide world and meet more people, share the Gospel and seek the image of the invisible God in them :-)
One of these is the transportability of the words 'sex' and 'gender' as if they were one and the same.
As I understand it sex (when not referring to coitus) relates to the biological categories of 'male' and 'female' and this is determined by a number of factors at birth, namely:
Anatomy - As a doctor friend engaged in the delivery of babies and their care once put it, "If it hasn't got a todger - it's a girl!"
Chromosones - Of the twenty-three pairs of chromosones, only one pair determine the sex of the human animal (X and Y) and XX is female and XY is male.
Reproduction - The sex of the person determines the potential they have in terms of reproduction. (note use of the word 'potential' here - not having produced progeny neither negates the sex of a person or the validity of a marriage!)
Gender, as I understand it, is more of a sociological term which although it may as a starting point have drawn upon 'sex' actually refers to gender identity (which in the case of transgendered differs from the biological reality)and equality issues. Again, my understanding is that it was in the feminist/sexual equality context the word 'gender' really became the sociological beast that we have today.
I understand that the Americans (who can be relied upon to generally abuse and misuse the English language with style and aplomb) are the root cause of the confusion between sex and gender and the thinking that they mean one and the same.
It was explained to me by a Psychologist who was working in the area of GID (Gender Identity Disorder) that rendering the words 'sex' and 'gender' as one and the same removed many complications and made transitions from one gender (where gender means the self-perceived or societally-acknowledged male or female identity) to the other less fraught with complications and trauma (for all concerned). "You can be whichever you wish," was his battle cry and for some he thought there might be a crossing over and return as the mood, situation or circumstance dictated. (I asked about those who had undergone reassignment surgery and was told that some do return to their birth sex whilst others merely become engaged in 'same-sex' relationships - and retain their new gender identity).
The interesting situation whereby one is both male and female (hermaphroditic) poses many problems in that they choice made by doctors on which was to be the sex they were labelled as being wasn't always correct. I have only (in a counselling context) encountered one person who had this problem and so assume it must be rare - but for the purpose of considering all corners of the 'sex' triangle (M/F/Herm') I have included this here too!
I hope this explains my position on the use of the two words and what I understand them to mean and hopefully the person I had a discussion with might now understand the what and why regarding my position.
Sex is fixed - gender can be a choice.
Pax
ps. I was also taught that transgender and transexual were two distinct things and whilst one might lead to the other, this was not always the case. The number of people I have counselled who were indeed transexuals but would never have countenanced becoming transgender and who were heterosexual have led me to believe that the coalescence of these two words is unhelpful for many reasons (especially the trivialisation of those who are trans).
It is especially important to get the words and the understanding fixed - ask those who have cause to remember that today is 'International Transgender Remembrance Day' - a day when those who have lost their lives because of misunderstanding and intolerance towards this issue.
Tea drunk - time to rush back out into the big wide world and meet more people, share the Gospel and seek the image of the invisible God in them :-)
Church - Reasons to be fearful (Part one)
It seems to me that 'the Church' is an entity that swings from media frenzy to
In case you have missed it, the Church of England's 'General Synod' will apparently be voting on women bishops today.
There are three voting groups: bishops, clergy and laity and, apparently it is a done deal in the first two! Only the house of the laity (the 'ordinary' members) are uncertain when it comes to the vote and it is them who will carry the day for one of the two camps.
A quick sound bite very early this morning (or was it extremely late last night?) from a woman who will be voting today went like this:
"It is all about equality and the church has been poorer because it has not embraced the same degree of equality that has seen this nation governed by a woman. "
Another voice put forward the idea that,
"The church is bending over backwards to try and please everyone and the cry (from those who want women bishops) is for the church to draw a line and make the 'right' decision regardless of the response of those who oppose it!"
Interestingly, this is the same cry from those who wish to change the church's attitude to sexual issues too and this (for me) is the source of more concern than the actual issue/s themselves. Make the changes that give me what I want and those who oppose are mysogynists, homophobes (and any other ad hominem I can think of ) and by virtue of that should be forced out!
Since when has the message of the Gospel been: Capitulate or Clear Off?
Now I have to be honest and say that having read quite widely and discussed the issue with those for, against and confused I don't really see what the problem is and am neither convinced by many of the arguments for nor drawn in by those who oppose.
I struggle with those who would deny the right for people to believe, as the church has for many centuries, and relate to certain theological understanding of ministry and therefore, by this denial, remove any potential for a coexistence by offering 'alternative oversight'.
I struggle with those who seem to forget that Church is about Bible, not current social conventions or practice.
I struggle with those who would seek to restrict, or deny, anyone the right to practice and engage in any 'calling' from God on personal preference and wrong attitude.
I am sorry but anyone who wants us to 'do' women bishops because it is 'good PR' is stupid in the extreme. Those who want us to be 'popular' should realise that this isn't really what is on offer. There are two real potential outcomes:
1. Some in the world, seeing a decision they dislike will vilify the Church, just as they did before, and will continue to do by means of the next issue, and the many more behind - because they will only oppose it until it no longer exists as a force to oppose their own selfish aims and lifestyles!
2. A response that parallels the views and standards of the world in terms of 'equality' will not advance the reputation, ministry or evangelistic opportunities. In fact it will result in there being one less issue to engage over and oppose. In the end what will be left is a passive ignoring of a passive and impotent body.
So how do I want the vote to go today?
With an eye to Biblical authority and and ear to the voice of God and in step with His heartbeat; lovingly seeking to find a way by which all can coexist with justice, humility and love at the fore.
With a view to maintaining the Church of England as a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, orthodox Christian church and with regard to the attitudes, traditions and needs of the worldwide communion too.
This is not a 'being right' issue - it is a being righteous issue.
Pax
In case you have missed it, the Church of England's 'General Synod' will apparently be voting on women bishops today.
There are three voting groups: bishops, clergy and laity and, apparently it is a done deal in the first two! Only the house of the laity (the 'ordinary' members) are uncertain when it comes to the vote and it is them who will carry the day for one of the two camps.
A quick sound bite very early this morning (or was it extremely late last night?) from a woman who will be voting today went like this:
"It is all about equality and the church has been poorer because it has not embraced the same degree of equality that has seen this nation governed by a woman. "
Another voice put forward the idea that,
"The church is bending over backwards to try and please everyone and the cry (from those who want women bishops) is for the church to draw a line and make the 'right' decision regardless of the response of those who oppose it!"
Interestingly, this is the same cry from those who wish to change the church's attitude to sexual issues too and this (for me) is the source of more concern than the actual issue/s themselves. Make the changes that give me what I want and those who oppose are mysogynists, homophobes (and any other ad hominem I can think of ) and by virtue of that should be forced out!
Since when has the message of the Gospel been: Capitulate or Clear Off?
Now I have to be honest and say that having read quite widely and discussed the issue with those for, against and confused I don't really see what the problem is and am neither convinced by many of the arguments for nor drawn in by those who oppose.
I struggle with those who would deny the right for people to believe, as the church has for many centuries, and relate to certain theological understanding of ministry and therefore, by this denial, remove any potential for a coexistence by offering 'alternative oversight'.
I struggle with those who seem to forget that Church is about Bible, not current social conventions or practice.
I struggle with those who would seek to restrict, or deny, anyone the right to practice and engage in any 'calling' from God on personal preference and wrong attitude.
I am sorry but anyone who wants us to 'do' women bishops because it is 'good PR' is stupid in the extreme. Those who want us to be 'popular' should realise that this isn't really what is on offer. There are two real potential outcomes:
1. Some in the world, seeing a decision they dislike will vilify the Church, just as they did before, and will continue to do by means of the next issue, and the many more behind - because they will only oppose it until it no longer exists as a force to oppose their own selfish aims and lifestyles!
2. A response that parallels the views and standards of the world in terms of 'equality' will not advance the reputation, ministry or evangelistic opportunities. In fact it will result in there being one less issue to engage over and oppose. In the end what will be left is a passive ignoring of a passive and impotent body.
So how do I want the vote to go today?
With an eye to Biblical authority and and ear to the voice of God and in step with His heartbeat; lovingly seeking to find a way by which all can coexist with justice, humility and love at the fore.
With a view to maintaining the Church of England as a Bible-believing, Spirit-filled, orthodox Christian church and with regard to the attitudes, traditions and needs of the worldwide communion too.
This is not a 'being right' issue - it is a being righteous issue.
Pax
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)