Saint's Days: Fake News

Once upon a time, in a land of volcanoes and dragons, lived a Viking Chief by the name of Trump the Newsslayer. Trump was named after the Viking tradition of noting the first response of the Father upon seeing the new addition to the family. Oxblood the Great's father slew an ox in his son's honour. Rollo was named after his Father passed around a tune of chocolate toffees in celebration. Erik the Red - well his dad just painted the town red and partied for days. But sadly, for Newsslayer, his Father having partied hard during the labour merely stood and emitted noxious fumes at the news.

And so it was done!

Trump was a man who instilled fear in many of the people around him and eschewing the words found in the book of Ecclesiastes in one of the Bibles his forebears had removed from an Island on the East coast during one of their conquests, he treasured the songs of fools and the approbation of the weak-minded rather than the company of the wise.

But his name was made, not by slaying dragons nor by his good words or actions, but by engagement with 'fake news' wheresoever it might be found - even creating it where none was to be found so that the challenges could be laid down. From Bowling Greens and their tragedies through to awful non-happenings on the shores of the Viking lands - Trump's voice was heard!

And although rape, loot and pillaging had gone out of fashion across the globe, the poor were still fair game (especially when so many of them perhaps foolhardily followed him) and the rich and wealthy (of whom ironically, he was one) were a good target against whom to mobilise the rabble and appear valiant.

Suffice to say - 'Fake News' was never eradicated - in fact so much of the contemporaneous writings of the Newsslayer's time describe something rotten not in the state of Denmark but in the town of Washing (aptly named because over the years that it existed there had been  much whitewashing and washing of dirty linen to be found there).

So today - as we remember that martyr to the truth - the irrepressible saint of fake news and the opponent of so many - let us offer up a prayer in his honour:

Trump the Newsslayer

Loving Lord, Living Word, 

Today as we remember Trump.

Fill our words with wisdom, 

May our keystrokes be struck with honesty and integrity. 

May we pursue those who misrepresent the truth,

And hear the voices that need be heard over the noise of deceit,

Keep us faithful to the the goals of justice, mercy, and humility,

And strengthen us to overcome obstacles, 

And withstand the chattering and posturing noise of fools,

In the Name of the Living God. Amen.

ps. Apologies to real Vikings and their descendants everywhere ;-)

pps. Watch out for the many great stories in the 'Annals of Trump' (Coming soon)

It is better to hear the rebuke of the wise than to hear the song of fools. For like the crackling of thorns under a pot, so is the laughter of fools; this also is vanity.

What was that!

One of those days which promised so much on the diary and delivered something completely different when the doorbell rang!

Expected travel and ended up staying at home - a day of encounter nonetheless but it was varied and yet somehow frustrating. Feeling myself to be totally at the hands of other people's folly, forgetfulness and general shortcomings and yet in the dock; the missed targets of others lying at my feet!

There are often two tensions in life. The first is caused by the words of Jesus which call us to treat others as we would have them treat us. The second come from the lips of St Thumper of Bambi in that, "If you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all!" I try to express myself honestly and to .make my yes be yes and my no be no' - Not always a popular move. Try the other tack and say nothing and this is taken as assent, which I don't want to give. I'm happy, at times, to say that I'm not sure but will let it go it life cannot be lived by abstentions; it requires courage, honesty and decision!

So I stand by and see things split so people get to do their own thing - it's not mine and has little to do with me and the proletariat cheer in the streets because they're doing stuff. The rulers of the kingdoms are happy because stuff is getting done. But shouldn't we all be doing it in one name and as one people?

Discipleship calls us to make our way through this world making Jesus, the Christ, known and we do it as family (that is Church). All I have ever sought in Church is unity and dialogue and working for each other to do the stuff and yet my experience has been isolated endeavour with division always a hand's breadth away. I love it when I can celebrate the triumph of others and relish the opportunity to engage with and support what others are doing. But I experience that so rarely - is this my misfortune or am I just getting what so many others are getting?

Church is about people, and I love people. It's about Jesus, and I love Jesus. But it seems we are too busy; wound up in our plans and structures and outcomes and demands to get more in the plate and more bums on the pews.
Is this strangling the Church?

Shouldn't we be a party rather than that which we are making Church?

Where are the people who are passionate and on fire?

Are they missing because we, the clergy, are not setting them alight with a zeal for the Lord?

Have we made Jesus everything He isn't and find ourselves looking for commitment where joy and zeal should be?

Have we stopped looking to see new creations in Christ and born again being something exciting and life-giving?

All these questions to be answered and the fear that the problem might be me - am I doing too much, or too little, or doing it in the the wrong place, or doing the wrong thing? Colleagues tell me to do less, thinking I work hard (am driven) because of some desire to prove myself, and yet the reality is that the tide is rising and the time to get people to the safety of the high ground is short. I think of the words that speak of those in Noah's time partying and getting married and having a good time just a few ticks away from the flood and see us not about to be in the same boat. I look at the cross and the salvation that is at hand and, seeing my life changed, want that for others.

That's the role I've taken. That's the role I was given. All I have is Jesus, in and out of season. I'm a bond slave, chosen to have my ear pierced and to be the property of my master even though I am a free man, and in this become the freest man of all.

I write this journal here so others may dialogue with me should they wish. I do it to,be as privately honest and I am publicly assumed to be. This is not about posturing or looking good, for I fear for many I rarely do - and yet isn't this the 'fool for Christ' bit?

I visit people in their homes, and in the care homes, and communicate them and communicate with them. I cry at their losses (where no one sees lest I usurp their grief) and I celebrate their joys. The richness of this wonderful ministerial life I live.

My over-zealousness, my oft misunderstood attempts at honesty and the hope for dialogue which is so often dashed to the ground, expectations unexpectedly dismissed yet again. Where I find like minds and passionate defence in unapologetic ways I rejoice for we are not out to build our piddling kingdoms but one triumphant Kingdom with the Christ on the throne.

Lord, may I have done that in some small way today. May the things in me that distract become less and the things in me that look and smell like Jesus to the world be made greater.

I am left with the words of Wynne Lewis, amazingly used and confusingly gifted - I'm sure he should shave sold used cars: "Victor, you often look like the world to the righteous people in Church and yet you look and smell like Jesus to the world outside our doors. Never let that gift slip from your hands!"

If that is mine and Christ is with (and within) me,  who or what can stand against me and the Gospel of Christ? I love my life; my Lord, my family, my friends and those who I call brothers and sisters. Help me to serve them as Christ came to serve us.

Church Growth strategies: 'That 'Back to Church' thingy!'

As always we start with a reminder of Hauerwas' comment:

Church growth strategies are the death rattle of a church that has lost its way. 

The problem with many strategies is to be found in the fact that they involve making a conscious decision to do, or use, something to bring about a desired outcome. One of the things my management and Industrial Engineering training taught me was that whilst it is possible to learn how to cluck and purchase a chicken suit: Unless you can learn to lay eggs, you'll never really be a chicken!

And that, people, is the problem with so many of our churches (and other institution and clubs): Looking and sounding like that which you wish to be is useless if it isn't what you really are! Being 'authentic' is the only way because people see through the posing and the masks we all wear.

Yesterday I found myself engaged with by a cleric who was making grumpy noises about the 20th September and the planning required for this year's 'Back to Church Sunday' (B2CS) - although they referred to it as, That 'back to church thingy!' 

I listened as they moaned about having to organise special stuff for the day and how the 'members'* are so keen to have it but struggle to think of new and excitingly attractive things to put on as they seek to 'bring people back' to Church.

Because this is perhaps some people's only church growth strategy I thought I'd interrupt websites for an hour or so (but part the third will be here soon) and reiterate a few points regarding 'bringing people back'. So here we go again (hold tight):

How can you bring people back to a place they have never been to before?

What we are really talking about in the effectively post-Christian age (second generation post-christian where I am!) is bring them in for the first time. The problem is that the 'BACK' bit is a something of a red herring and perhaps it's should be called 'Bring them to church for the first time' Sunday!

The second problem is that whilst it is brilliant to lay on barbecues and bands and other great attractions., this is a bit like: 

(Sorry Martin)

In case you're wondering, I am a big supporter of B2CS and think it is one of the better things that we can do as a means of reconnecting with those who might have left and a really positive way of attracting those with no previous history too.

BUT

We need to make sure that the situation above never becomes reality! 

We need to have some integrity in the way that we present ourselves and in the way that we 'do' our church services. Yet when I made this point to the colleague who was moaning they just moaned louder about the people that they called Church and the unattractive services that they put on.

The answer is simple:

a. Remedy the naff services - gas the choir, shoot the music team - exile the organist - learn to preach - right the wrongs - cure the ills - rejoice in the changes!

b. Get rid of 'welcomers' (because all too often they ain't at all welcoming) and build a congregation who are not just welcoming but the sort of people who will bring people in as well. This is what brings people back on the second week!

Not bands

Not barbecues

Not the false stuff 

Jesus calls us to be authentic and real people: That's what those outside would like to find when they come in to our buildings.

And if they do - the tend to stay.

__________________________________

I'd like to recommend a 'Season of Invitation' as something that those who would wish to see their church engaged in bringing people might consider. This offering from B2CS tells us that it takes a few throws before the new people begin to stick and so it works on a series of engagements that build relationship and help people to be comfortable (just make sure that you're bringing them in from your own patch rather than those of of others ;-) ).

Pax

* Anglicans don't have members, we leave that to the other churches. We have 'parishioners (they live in our patch what we call a parish). and we have communicants (those what take communion) - simple innit? So why do we so often talk about our members then?

Child Soldiers - A simple guide?

According to one source (and they all vary quite markedly) around 300,000 child soldiers exist in the world (a third of them in the continent of Africa). These generally are children who have been enticed, coerced or forced into becoming soldiers (some, usually orphans join because they have nowhere else to go). The lower limit seems to be somewhere around eight years and these children are used to kill and witness killings and atrocities - and no one (i would hope) can ever endorse this.

I personally support groups who seek to make people aware of the situation and plight of the child soldiers and would hope that others might too (Red Hand Day 12th Feb - have I mentioned that before).

Talking to people yesterday there were many who were saddened that, as ever certain groups time their open letters and edicts to coincide with Remembrance Sunday and Armistice Day. Their opinions, and the rarely ever presented offer to dialogue, would have been just as valid next week as it would in the last working day before our nation remembers. But then they wouldn't have been talked about (nor perhaps as universally rejected by those who spoke to me) if they'd have waited, would they?

Now I understand that many are confused by the whole 'Child' soldier issue and thought that, as a picture is worth a thousand words, I'd give you a little graphical assistance based on what people told me yesterday:

Now it's easy to understand it really - a sixteen year old who is education was generally regarded by ALL I asked to be A CHILD.

A child who is eight, ten, twelve, fourteen, sixteen even - and is given a weapon and told to kill or maim was also declared by ALL to be A CHILD SOLDIER.

A sixteen year old* who marries was also regarded by ALL as a MAN (and I was mazed how many told me of marriages in their families of sixteen and seventeen year olds).

Then came the million-pound (I don't do dollars!) question:
What about a sixteen year old who joins the Army?

Simple they all said - He's a SOLDIER and MAN and then many added ('And I'd be proud if he was my son, grandson, nephew, etc.')

So I think yesterday was a bit sad:

Sad in the timing which, intentional or not (and you can make up your own mind on that) distracted from Remembrance as the proper focus at this time.

Sad because I had so many people have a go at me because of the 'bleeding heart, meddling Christians who should stick to [so many different ideas fit here] and !*!*! *** sticking their oar in where they had no business to be' - Because this is everyone's business - Child Soldiers are, or should be, an affront to every decent person and something that is indeed the Church's business (of course those who signed were members of a church - but were not 'The Church'.

Sad because we need people to take up the cause of the third of a million abused and damaged children who find themselves dragged into conflict as combatant and worse (and believe me, there is worse).

So please - don't lose focus regarding child soldiers and don't blame 'The Church' - it's just some of 'The Church' just like it's not all of 'The World' that does these wicked things - there are balanced, rational and sane people in both.

Pax






Nigel and Sharon Davis - source Daily Mirror

Selection, Rejection and proper responses

When I said that whilst some who had not been selected felt that they, 'Weren't wanted' and made the remark that, 'This is not what selection does, says or is,' I should have added, 'Or at least shouldn't be!'

One of those who has experienced the dark side of the Church of England's selection process writes:

'I'm sure the church believes this is true. But the system that is in place makes it very difficult to experience being turned down after a BAP as anything other than a rejection, and a violent one at that. If you spend up to two years carefully and often painfully working through a discernment process with your DDO, get recommended to the Bishop, go and see the Bishop and get recommended to a panel, and then are turned down (in my case) primarily on the basis of a single interview with a vocational advisor who you have never met before, it's difficult not to take it very hard. They say it's not rejection, but it sure feels like it.'

One of the things that has impressed me greatly is the support that our DDO has put in place for those who have received a 'No' (or perhaps 'Not Yet").

The other thing that we have is a process whereby potential candidates are met with by Vocations Advisors who help with the discernment and, being one I know this to be true, will say 'No' openly and honestly and work with that person to help them find the niche that exists for their particular form of ministry.

That said there are some whom, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed, send people up the chain because they don't want to be the person who says 'No'; an act which is duplicitous and damaging to the person and the well-being of the church and its ministry. After all, as Matthew 5. 37 tells us, 'All you need to say is simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. I'd add to that the  'Not Yet' and tell them what they need to do to gain experience, prove abilities yet unseen and the like - anything outside these is fudge or side-stepping the reality and this will lead to more pain and lost ministries in the long run.

Rightly or wrongly, I do have a great deal of confidence in the selection process and whilst when I went through it I found myself in the company of some who knew everything that was coming (even the questions which they'd learnt answers to beforehand!) I have to say that I knew enough to know what to expect in terms of format but everything was pretty much a surprise, a real benefit, as the selectors saw me and not someone else's answers. There is much to discuss concerning preparation, and we will be looking at this (and the fact that no one gets selected, or not, alone - it is a journey and an outcome that affects more than the one who goes off for the conference).

Pax

Church - Arrivals and Departures

This week I was blessed by some people who were keen to see their church grow and one of the issues that caused some pain was the comings and goings, and oddly despite the pain of caused by loss, it was the gain that brought forth challenges and questions.

'How do we get new people in? . . . How do we get them to stay?' . . . How do we get them to become disciples? . . . How we make it so they don't feel uncomfortable when we stand, sit, kneel or do other stuff? . . . what does this mean for those who want to maintain a traditional church rather than all these 'seeker friendly' things?''

And on the questions went on, and the pain, frustration, fear and feelings of pressure was obvious and, to be honest, rather challenging (for me too!). Here are a few thoughts on the question which may (or perhaps not) be helpful:

Bringing them in
One of the problems is that so many churches, congregations and fellowships have this amazing idea that people will just come in because they are there. If only this was true; but at least some of those asking the questions were under the impression that they needed 'bringing in'.

Roll up, roll us, come and see the show
Another problem is that some put on 'Seeker Services' which have the very best in preaching, welcome, music, refreshments and the like; then having hooked them (or so they think) abysmal service is restored. Do this and you'll not only lose them the next week but you will have an almost impossible task to bring them back again (once bitten - twice shy). And regardless of the 'God will bring them in' words, God might but we can chase them away too!

Keep it honest
If your services are pants then change them! If you make them attractive, efficient, enjoyable, then the current members will be happier (well I know I would have been in some churches I have been in had they done this) and what's on offer will be winsome and appealing too (just don't ditch liturgy, theology or practice to do it ;-)  ).

Getting them to stay
Simple really, make them feel at home and engaged with. If you are someone who wants choir, organ and the like then you're probably not going to stay in a heavy metal church and vv. But, if you can endure the music and the preaching and service and people are not off-putting then you're 40% of the way in! (10% knowing of the church, 10% being invited to a service, 10% for finding you liked the people and what went on another 10% and the final 10% for not feeling:
i. pressured
ii. ignored
iii. conned

How do they becomes disciples
Here's a tough one (for many) because the answer is that we become disciples and model it for the new people. The real sadness is that so many want newcomers to become what the existing members aren't (and if by some chance they do, they often get jealous of the 'zealots') without being committed themselves. Well they often are committed, but to their roles, positions, opportunities and the like - and guard them fiercely. Bring them in - work with them - encourage them - show them what being part of the body is by being it!

But we're traditional
And that's not a problem, after all, that's what the church was for years. In fact some have a problem with the worship band, happy clappy, exuberant styles and feel more comfortable with 'proper church'. That said, King James Version and too much of the Thees, Thous and God knowest stuff and you'll queer the pitch somewhat!

And we're Rad man!
Great, you can bleed the air our of our radiators (you do have a rad' key don't you?).

Seriously - bleeding edge church can be great but dumbing down, amplifying up and the like doesn't make it  relevant, and that's the key. Meeting people where they are not where you want them to be. Contemporary worship and an end to liturgy isn't the answer, because at the end of the day there's still the sacred and sacramental to be dealt with (isn't there?)

Stand, Sit, Kneel (fetch?)
Not a problem - you say, 'We stand to . . .' or, 'We sit (or kneel) to  . . .'
If you tell people what you're doing then, generally, they do it.

This is something that clergy encounter all the time when they arrive at the crematorium or church for funerals, weddings and baptisms. Even if the rest of Christendom thinks it's weird, as long as the people in service are happy and know what they are doing (why helps as well!) - crack on and enjoy relaxed and informed people.

The key to it all is for us to put ourselves in the newcomer's place and engage in some critical questioning narrative  - here's a few for starters:

How would I feel about what's happening if I were a newcomer?
Why should I come in?
Why should I come back?
How do I fit in to the place, people and stuff?
What does it all mean?
Where do I sit?
When do I do stuff (and why)?
Who's here to help me?

(Make up your own)

Honesty, Integrity and truth!

One of the problems I have with the 'Integrity test' is the ease with which interchangeability of the words 'Integrity' and 'Honesty' occurs, for they are not one and the same. This is followed closely by the issue of context, an especially prickly issue in the wonderful world that is Christianity, and how sometimes doing what is wrong might well be considered to be right!

As I understand it, Integrity is about being a 'whole person' (cf. Integer - a 'whole' or complete number) and honesty is about being truthful. Two sides of the same coin, sisters who act as one but are not one and the same.

I recall a lecture on the topic of honesty, integrity and truth in which the question, "If a murderer comes to your door, and asks where your friend is, are you morally obliged to tell the truth? was raised with regard to Emmanuel Kant's attitude to truth and honesty. Kant's answer to this was a resounding 'Yes' even if it resulted in the death of the friend by foul means. In a nutshell Kant put forward the view that a lie (i.e. dishonesty) was always wrong regardless of the situation or outcome. There is no such thing as a 'good' lie (how many of us parent's have told their children that?) and eventually all lies will result in harm and wrong regardless of the reason for it. Truth is the only way. Contrast this with the struggles of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the issue of doing wrong to serve a greater good and his decision to support those who sought to murder a man (Hitler) to prevent the murder of millions.

Of course Kant could merely have answered that although he knew the whereabouts, integrity demanded that he remained silent on the matter! Integrity also meant that Bonhoeffer broke the rules in working to support the murder of a man even though it broke the rules - but he was still honest (and so maintained his integrity?).

Finding ten pence on the floor and pocketing it is not an entirely dishonest act but raise the figure to a tenner, fifty, a hundred and above and suddenly magnitude changes the situation! If one says, "Hey, I've found a fiver - that's handy," then where is the dishonesty? They haven't lied to anyone, not even themselves, and haven't acted to take someone's property so there's no theft from the person (I know someone will tell me it's stealing by finding) and so they are in fact 'honest' and probably would also consider themselves 'lucky' too! (But are they?)

Here's something to chew on:

Honesty deals with what is truthful - Integrity deals with what is right. I know honest people whose integrity is weak and I know people with little integrity and yet they are predominantly honest. Integrity demands that one is honest to the views, standards and opinions that make us who we are but honesty is, at a base level, recognition of that which is true and thereby may not always possess integrity.

My other problem is that of context. Consider question C: Driving faster than the speed limit. The obvious answer, as I understand it, has to be the three-pointer in that this act is 'sometimes' justified. My reason for this is the reality that the 'blue light' services (Ambulance, Fire and Police) often break the law in this area as they seek to discharge their duty (and if they have a collision whilst doing so are subject to prosecution too!). If we were to say 'never' then we would be lying (for who out there thinks a fire appliance should drive at thirty and keep in the stream of traffic when a house with people trapped in it is burning?). we could opt for a 'rarely' but the incidence of blue lights and the like says this isn't 'rare'. We could say always, but then everyone would be doing it!

Now the legalistic among us would undoubtedly say that that there is a line and should it be crossed then the person is wrong - but like Kant, if avoiding this wrong causes a death where can it be seen to be right? And yet if by crossing the line another life is lost (RTA as an example) then of course it can't be seen as right either.

The question of integrity and honesty also has to draw upon moral absolutes and as we become less of a Christian nation and as we reside less confidently upon our judeo-Christian heritage it is this that causes our attitudes, and behaviour, to weaken. This can be seen in the area of underage sex, extramarital relations and others.

Our society increasing works on a 'means justify the end' shifting morality and so it should come as no surprise that 'Lying in your own interests' is gaining favour. This too manifests in the attitude that the act isn't wrong but getting caught is and this, coupled with a desire for scapegoats and a bit of self-righteousness manes that attitudes harden towards those who 'take from us' i.e. Welfare 'scroungers'.

I'll leave you to do the thinking on the other questions (have fun):
A. Avoiding paying the fare on public transport.
B. Cheating on taxes if you have a chance.
F. Not reporting accidental damage you have done to a parked car.
G. Throwing away litter in a public place.
H. Driving under the influence of alcohol.
I. Making up a job application.
J. Buying something you know is stolen.

Some of these are obvious but others, taken contextually are perhaps as cut and dried as the words might make us think at first glance!

Pax

Declining integrity?

Or is it honesty that is in decline (or perhaps, more accurately, both)? This is an interesting question as radio news coverage of this report glibly mixed integrity and honesty (much as they do with 'sex' and 'gender') as if they were one and the same. But of course they're not for, to some extent, each influences and begets the other.

A study carried out by the Essex Centre for the Study of Integrity (ECSI) found that we are apparently less honest than we used to be at the turn of the century. Societal standards have altered such that extra-marital relations, drink driving, lying and underage sex are now, apparently, much more acceptable.

It will probably come as no shock to find that the tolerance diminishes with age and that the younger the person questioned, the more liberal (in a permissive, not Biblical sense so put those pens down - at least for a moment or two!) they became and with age came less acceptance of these, hitherto perceived breaches.

Regarding infidelity, attitudes had gone down from the 2000 figues of 70% saying it was never justified to 50% now.

Those who considered picking up and keeping money found in the street as not being justified diminished to 20% from the previous figure of 40%.

The only issue where opinion had hardened against it was that of benefit fraud which had risen to 85% from the previous 78%.

The numbers of those who thought lying was wrong also fell and this study raises a few interesting (well they are for me) twists and considerations. One of the prevailing responses has been the question:

"Why are young people are becoming more dishonest?"

Professor Paul Whiteley, the study's author and ECSI's director's take on this was:

"We think it is because their role models are not very good - footballers who cheat on their wives, journalists who hack people's phones. Gradually people are tending to become more dishonest, they are more willing to tell lies, more willing to tolerate adultery. It's slow over time and going on in the background but pretty evidentially there."

Some interesting food for thought indeed.

And more thought there will be, but for now tea drunk and off to do another funeral.

Pax