Right To Love

The Law exists to protect the many, not to enable the few

Oh how I wish I could attribute that quote to our Prime Minister! Instead these wise words come from a man who, despite suffering from a terminal illness, is campaigning against the bill being voted on in the House of Commons today.* The bill, if passed, would give doctors the freedom to assist people to commit suicide, if the sufferers were diagnosed to have 6 or less months to live, at the patients request.

The very complexity of this issue is one good reason why I too think the bill should not be passed. Until we can be sure that the passing of the law will not lead to pressure being put on the vulnerable, we should resist the call of the minority to be allowed to take their own lives.

Law is a serious societal business. As Archbishop Welby says, passing the bill would be ‘crossing a fundamental legal and ethical Rubicon.’ Yet, in the U.K, only 35 people felt the need to leave the country and attend the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, according to the campaign group Dignity in Dying.

I have no statistics available – please shout if you find some! – but surely this number, compared to the number of people in the U.K. who are suffering from some form of terminal disease, is very small. I come back to the beginning – “The law exists to protect the many, not to enable the few.”

But what do we need protecting from? Ourselves. Although the issue is complex I think in many ways we show ourselves to be simple beings in many respects.

If something is not allowed in society, some will always seek to find a way to carry on doing it, but most will adhere to the rules. Once something is allowed however, it becomes an option. And once it becomes an option it becomes more visible. Once visible, it all too easily becomes something we can feel pressured into.

Two quick examples: Smoking and pornography.

Smoking is legal. Despite all the medical evidence, and the increasing societal distaste for the effects of secondary-smoke, just look how hard it is to get that little genie back in the bottle! Because it is legal, it is an option. Because you are exposed to it, it can be a pressure point.

If that were not so, why pass legislation which limit the advertising and even display of cigarette packets? Because availability leads to visibility and that leads to pressure.

Pornography demonstrates the need for effective legislation, albeit from the opposite end of the spectrum. When I was a boy growing up in the 1970’s, pornography was unavailable until you were 18 – the really nasty stuff until you were 21. (Any schoolboy will tell you that you could, through many a revolving door, get some access to it, if you were determined enough!)

For the most part – and, importantly, for most of us – it was kept away.

However, in the 21st Century, it seems the only restriction on pornography is whether or not you have access to a screen or even a mobile ‘phone. Many studies and life stories are showing the excruciatingly detrimental effect this ‘open source’ pornography is having on our lives and especially that of our young.

Again, the availability -through a lack of legislation and the promotion of a relative few – has meant that pornography has become ubiquitous, despite the views of many of us who didn’t ask for it, or want it to be, part of our lives.

“While it is not a crime in the UK for someone to take his or her own life, we recognise that it is a tragedy and we, rightly, do all that we can to prevent suicide. The assisted dying bill requires us to turn this stance on its head, not merely legitimising suicide, but actively supporting it…never mind the much more insidious pressure that could come from a very small minority of unsupportive relatives who wish not to be burdened.”

So says Archbishop Welby. Behind his words is an understanding of the sanctity of a human life. (It is no surprise to find that faith leaders joining the Archbishop against the bill include Muslim, Jewish and Sikh leaders in the U.K.)

For Christians the crucifixion of Jesus Christ viscerally displayed two crucial truths:

God is not immune to our suffering – he has submitted himself to it and is therefore with us all in our own times of need

God valued our relationship with him so highly, that he was prepared to come and die for our transgressions, rather than end that relationship

Lee Elliott ‘Crucified Tree Form’ Methodist Art Collection

Even if the danger of the vulnerable being put under pressure to commit suicide, due to the potential availability of the necessary denouement from doctors is not deemed sufficient grounds to refute the bill, I believe our common humanity is.

We are called love one another – love one another in suffering and difficulty. And, as God was in Christ, called to love each other right through to the end.**

Deciding to ‘give up’ on a life – even one life – should never, ever, be a legalised, socially acceptable option.

 

*Interviewed on BBC radio 4, Today program, 11th September 2015

** (On the night of his arrest) “After washing their feet, he put on his robe again, sat down and asked, “Do you understand what I was dong? You call me ‘Teacher’ and ‘Lord’, and you are right, because that’s what I am. And since I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you ought to wash each other’s feet. I have given you an  example to follow. Do as I have done to you.”

John’s Gospel, chapter 13, verses 12-15 

Beggar My Neighbour

A Fairy Tale from Western Europe the United Kingdom

A few weeks ago it seems that I had run out of sugar. Remembering all the relevant Folk/Fairy tales about asking for sugar from neighbours I made my way out and turned to the house next door.

As I walk up the path I can see my neighbour peeping suspiciously from behind his curtains. It may be a trick of the light but I think I detect a scowl on his face.

I am a positive person so I try and ignore this and walk up the path. I knock on the door. Nothing.

I knock again…and again. I know he is there, since I have seen him. Eventually the door opens slightly and he peers through the crack.

“Hello there, neighbour,” I say, cheerily and hopefully, “I am having a bit of a crisis in the sugar department – I wonder if you would be able to help me?”

Even before the words are out of my mouth he replies with a sharp “No!” And closes the door on me.

~Fortunately, unbeknown by my neighbour, as well as being positive, another facet of my character is that I am persistent. I knock again. The door opens – even a little less wide if that were possible.

“Hello there neighbour,” I say, deliberately stressing our hitherto close relationship. “I am still suffering from a distinct lack of sugar at the moment. Would you be good enough to help me out? Please?”

He pauses for the moment and I am beginning to think he may just say ‘yes’ when he shuts the door again. “Wait there!” Comes his call from behind the door.

So I wait. And wait. Eventually the door opens and, to my surprise, my neighbour is now all smiles. “There you go!” He says, cheerily. I take in his still empty hands and his smiling face. Am I missing something?

“Um…pardon?….”.

“There you go!” He repeats. “I’ve taken some of my sugar and given it to the houses over the road for you.” He must see the plain incomprehension writ large across my face. “So you don’t have to worry, you see? I’ve given my sugar to them, so they won’t be knocking on your door later!”

To give him his due, he’s very patient about my lack of understanding. I attempt to clarify. “Sorry neighbour, let me make sure I understand this: I ask you for help. You agree to help me, by helping someone else, just in case they might come and ask me for help later.”

He’s still smiling, though that grin is looking increasingly smug.

“Yup, that’s right. We neighbours must help each other, don’t you agree?”

“Well, that’s what I thought..” I reply, too stunned by his lack of sensitivity to conjure anything more eloquent. Now conscious that I will have to get on with my search for sugar instead of wasting my time with my incomprehensible neighbour I move to go. “Well, thanks for…nothing.” I mutter as I turn on my heels.

“Hey neighbour!” He shouts after me. “Don’t forget our coffee date tomorrow! Can’t wait to catch up with you – there are so many things I need your help with. I’m so glad we are such good neighbours! Bye!”

 

Amazing! Incredible! But, sadly, a true tale – though a political, rather than a Fairy-tale.

It seems to me that in Fairy-tale-land the moral and ethical issues – and the bad -neighbours manipulation (or contravention) of them – stands out loud and clear. How ridiculous he is to think that he is really helping!

And yet, sadly, David Cameron’s announcement that the U.K. government is going to intervene in the problems facing Western Europe, by acting more directly in Syria is also ridiculous.

Don’t get me wrong. To offer more places to refugees in Syria cannot be a bad thing. The act, in itself is good and I welcome it. But to pretend that this is a response, helpful or otherwise, to the huge numbers of refugees already in Europe is…ridiculous. I am left embarrassed that we have a Prime Minister who thinks that these actions, on the world stage, could be viewed as anything else.

But to add insult to injury, this is the very same Prime Minister who will shortly be engaging in another round of talks with his European counterparts, with a view to sweetening the deal of the U.K’s involvement with the European Union.

I’m sure that you and I can see that the European leaders, in need of help immediately may well – quite rightly – be reluctant to listen sensitively to Mr. Cameron’s discussion if he has been equally reluctant to offer the help they are asking for in a time of crisis.

And quite what European leaders will make of his assertion that helping refugees directly in Syria is a way of coming to their assistance I really don’t know.

If the evidence wasn’t to the contrary, I’d say it was Mr. Cameron who is living in Fairy-tale land.

 

Someone once asked Jesus about a problem that has very similar overtones. “And who is my neighbour?” asked a Pharisee after Jesus had confirmed that God expects us to love our neighbours as we love ourselves. The story Jesus told (the Good Samaritan) can be found in Luke’s gospel, chapter 10.  After recounting the deprivations of a poor traveller, and how the traveller was ignored by the great and the good , until finally a ‘less than popular’ Samaritan saw to his needs, Jesus posed the rhetorical question:

“Now which (of these three) would you say was a neighbour to the man who was attacked? ” Jesus asked.

The man replied, “The one who showed him mercy.”

Then Jesus replied, “Yes, now go and do the same.”

A Crisis of Conscience

Western Europe is facing a crisis. The media will tell us that it is a crisis of numbers – the huge numbers of ‘migrants’ who are trying to make their way into Europe. ‘What is to be done?’ ‘Should we take them all?’ ‘Why are they coming here?’

The answer to the last is obvious. These poor people (I am increasingly worried about the collective noun ‘migrants’ as having a de-personalising effect), are leaving because of persecution and poverty. It really isn’t hard to put oneself in their position.

I am a father. If my daughters were in danger of being raped, or my sons ‘disappeared’ on a daily basis; or my wife lives in fear of being shot or stoned – or even myself for that matter – on what are the most unreasonable and apparently cruel and unpredictable terms, then I know what I would do:

Leave. Vacate. Take my precious family somewhere safe. Somewhere that I can hope people will be more accepting and more affirming. Somewhere that will deal with my plight with compassion and understanding. Perhaps somewhere that I may even make my home for a while, somewhere I can raise my children with freedom from fear and maybe even the hope of a better life.

It’s the original no-brainer.

But I don’t think that is the crux of the crisis in Western Europe. The crisis has to do with our conscience. We are the victims of our own successes, if we but had eyes to see it. And now we are being put to the test.

Unfortunately, so far, most of us can only see that ‘the migrants’ are interfering with our precious travel plans, our holidays, our much needed ‘getaway.’ Or we are worried about our jobs, or what we may need to give-up.

Let’s think again about why these poor folk have literally risked their lives to arrive in Europe:

We have built a strong democratic system – oh I know some of us question democracy’s validity from time to time, but let’s compare our version with what’s going on in the rest of the world! So a strong democratic system. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression and, comparatively, a high standard of living.

The West has even shown itself keen to promote these values across the world, in one form or another. We send aid, engage in diplomatic negotiations across a whole range of political and national divisions and even, reluctantly one hopes, engage in military action to support the cause of Democracy and what we now take to be the basics of Human Rights.

Our problem now is, just how much do we actually mean all those things? Just how much are those Human rights worth to us? I mean, when the people without them are actually physically right in front of us. When they want to genuinely become our neighbour.

Personally I really don’t see that we have a choice – I would even question the notion that we have a moral choice to make in the first place. These people need us. They have fled from fear and oppression and are looking to the home of Freedom and Liberty to take them in.

Or did I miss something? Is our belief in equality only for those who, by birth, reside in the West? Are we only really interested in democracy for all – as long as everyone promises to  stay where they are? And are those Human Rights really universal, or, again, are only those physically present in France, Germany, the U.K, etc actually able to call on them?

Even if we do entertain the notion that we can somehow avoid our moral obligation to help as many of the dispossessed from Eastern countries as possible, let’s look at the possible outcomes.

If we say ‘No’, turn them away; continue to erect fences and walls and all the other separatist paraphernalia that is already appearing – what then?

Let’s look a few years down the line. How will any government in the world take us seriously if we do not show that we can live by our own published ethical standards? How can we ever try and tell another dictator or regime or whatever that they should treat their population with justice if we do not give justice to those on our doorstep?

Our international relations would be in tatters along with our reputation.

On the other hand, if we are welcoming, show compassion, generosity even, think what might change in the middle East should those we help now, return home. How much more likely are they to take back with them what they have found here? How much firmer are the relations with the rest of the world going to be if we show that we really do mean what we say, and that our politicians have genuine integrity.

But I really don’t think we have a choice.

Let’s face up to the fact that we actually have so much already. More than enough to share. If we want to. That, for me, is the real crunch point. Or do we want our nice comfortable lives left intact, despite the genuine suffering of those currently begging for help at our borders?

So now I too am faced with a dilemma. If certain groups are listened to and Western Europe – and the U.K. included – decide not to do all they can for these families who have already lost so much, I could find myself a migrant too.

I actually don’t want to live in a country that could say ‘No’ to those fleeing persecution. If our rhetoric around personal freedoms and Justice and ‘One World’ is just that – rhetoric to appease our consciences – then I can see myself wanting out.

The only problem is, if even the richest Nations, blessed with the light of democracy, free speech and a desire for world peace can’t help the poor, the dispossessed, the persecuted, where is there left to go?

 

In our society where we have so much, surely there is enough for those in need too?

“‘When you reap the harvest of your land, do not reap to the very edges of your field or gather the gleanings of your harvest. Leave them for the poor and for the foreigner residing among you. I am the Lord your God.’”

Leviticus 23:22

 

Our Poor, Rich Children

What Really Makes Our Children Happy?

The 2015 ‘Good Childhood’ report, published this month by the Children’s Society (read it online here) has made the headlines in the U.K. press this week. Most of the press are focussing on the sad disclosure that bullying – both physical and emotional – appears to be prevalent in British schools. Children in the U.K are, compared to 14 other countries, less likely to be ‘happy’ at school than children in 11 of the other countries, such as Ethiopia.

I’d like to draw attention to another aspect of the report however. There are two, seemingly contradictory findings, not all directly linked to Education:

1. Children have relatively high satisfaction with four aspects of life – relationships with people in their family who they don’t live with, money and possessions, friendships, and local police.

2. Children in England have relatively low levels of satisfaction with four aspects of life – their relationships with teachers, their body, the way that they look, and their self-confidence.

So, many young people in the U.K are very happy with their wider family – as long as they don’t have to live with them; have plenty of money ,’ stuff’ and friends but don’t feel very happy with who they are, either physically or emotionally.

I think I’m pretty safe in suggesting that being content (‘Happy’ is a bit too transient a term for me), consists of both outward stability and inner peace. I might even go further and posit that for many, even in the face of difficult outward facing events, inner peace and satisfaction would lessen the possibility of things outside us ‘getting us down.’

At the very least I think most people would agree that:

Inner peace + Prosperity = Happiness /Contentment

The findings of the report seem to confirm that if you only have the outward things, you don’t have the total.

Or, if I dare stretch my Mathematical credentials:

Outward prosperity + 0 = Unhappiness / Discontent

Despite this, our ‘enlightened’ secular society imposes a subtle veto on people deliberately sharing their beliefs with others.

I think the lack of discussion and guidance around issues of belief, certainty, affirmation and existence – the ‘Big Questions’ of life – are fundamental to our well-being . But it seems that, in fencing off responses to these questions as excruciatingly subjective and private, we have denied – and are denying – the next generation their chance of true happiness.

Put more simply, if we take away healthy, open-minded discussion about the meaning of life what do we leave our young people with?

appearance / popularity / money / sex / possessions

(All key targets for bullying, surprise, surprise.)

Back to the report.

The Children’s Society found that children who talked often about ‘things that matter’ tended to have a higher level of subjective well-being.

Conversely, there was no link between well-being and the amount of time spent chatting to friends. Likewise, there was no connection with time spent using ‘modern technology’ and well-being either.

The elephant in the room here – or the ‘unspoken equation’ is that although we have encouraged and facilitated the next generations to be the most public on the planet – connected via the world-wide-web in a dizzying array of apps and platforms – we have somehow made taboo the subjects that matter most.

If they cannot engage with each other on the subjects that matter (or, that can lead to inner ‘well-being’), what is left? A constant anxiety about one’s public appearance, profile and possessions.

And yet, I have forgotten how many times I have been told, as a Christian, that my religious beliefs are ‘private’ and not to be shared in public. “That’s good for you but it has nothing to do with me.” People can seem quite unwilling to discuss anything that might be put to them as a solution to inner unhappiness, on the grounds that belief is intensely personal and individual.

(We suffer from a very subtle form of misdirection here – if belief is so personal and subjective, it would mean every believer essentially invents their own religion. My faith is that of the Christian church. I have accepted the basic message that has defined and sustained the Christian church since it’s inception with the life of Jesus Christ. I retain my individuality, but it is not ‘my religion’ in that sense.)

The danger is that we have raised a generation with the technological and material benefits of a modern society but failed to learn from the wisdom of the ages. Or worst of all,  we have not allowed them opportunities to find that wisdom for themselves.

Let’s encourage our young people to talk openly about the Big Questions. And let’s not be afraid to give them our answers.

Joyful are those who have the God of Jacob as their helper, whose hope is in the Lord their God.

Psalm 146:5 NLT

 

Twenty-Four-Seven-Money?

 

It feels to me like the U.K. is quietly sliding into consumerist hell. Chancellor Osborne is to propose in the Budget on Wednesday that the laws governing Sunday trading will be relaxed so that all retailers can be open on Sundays too.

So we could have, in a few years, a Twenty-Four hour, seven days a week consumer experience. ‘What’s wrong with that?’ I hear you ask. More on that in a moment.

While it may be popular with big-business, it’s not all buy-one-get-one-free in the popularity dept.

So let’s consider a few things. First of all, even Mr Osborne is clear that this has less to do with consumers being given good service or choice and much more to do with profit. In fact, the treasury (you can almost hear them wringing their hands in glee) predict that allowing the likes of the large Sainsbury and Tesco stores stay open longer will mean over £200m a year in additional sales in London alone.

In his statement Mr Osborne also made it clear that the concerns of big business over not being able to compete with 24hr online shopping were also a factor.

(Anyone spotted a member of the public mentioned yet?)

Oh don’t worry, I’m sure when it comes to it we’ll be given the old spin about ‘greater choice’ and personal freedoms’ and all that. But is twenty-four-seven commercialisation of our lives what we all want – or, more importantly, is it good for us?

At this point, regular readers will expect me to trot out something from the bible – probably in this case from the 10 commandments – and make some statement about Sunday being ‘the Sabbath’ and ‘a special day’, and ‘why can’t everyone go to church on Sunday’ kind of thing.

All of which, for most of us, are totally irrelevant concerns. So I won’t…quite…But I will mention the Ten Commandments.

I think most societies – the ones that value personal freedom and integrity at least – would agree that the 10 commandments are a pretty succinct way of summing up the best rules for living.

I mean, faith or no faith, a ban on murder looks like a sensible move, right? So it’s no surprise that Western culture, growing out of the rule of the Church, has based its judicial system on the basic concerns contained therein. Because that is what they are – concerns.

The 10 commandments, when you dig a little deeper, were given less to boss people around and more out of care and concern for our well-being. As Nicky Gumble puts it – “If my children were playing with a carving knife I would tell them to stop, not because I want to ruin their fun but because I did not want them to get hurt.”

The command for a day of rest has obvious connections to faith, but a closer read reveals that the day was for all to enjoy – the Israelites and the strangers in their midst too. Why? Because, without being simplistic, we all need a break.

It is the way we are made. I believe the Bible is clear that we are created in God’s image. Yet we too, still need a rest; because even the Almighty took a rest after he had finished the wonder of Creation.

When we don’t find or make time to relax and do something that re-charges our minds and bodies, giving us a chance to re-evaluate and see things in a different perspective, stress rears its ugly head.

The effects of stress on the health of our nation are already well documented, which is why I think Mr Osborne’s proposal is dangerous, greed-driven and ultimately, bad for our society.

As I hinted at the beginning, I suspect initially it will seem like a good idea. You can shop when you like. You can get what you need anytime. You will be free to organise your weekly routine to suit yourself. Or will you?

Footdee (“Fittie”) – an old fishing village in Aberdeen, Scotland. Photo : © Paul Tomkins

Surely by removing the one day when certain things are different, we make it harder to do just that – establish a routine? That is, one that affects us a society, as communities. There is a real threat of losing one of the few things that binds us together as communities. I may have the day off, but if my friends and family are busy at work, I’m actually less likely to see them.

And like it or not, rhythm is a necessary part of our life together.

Secondly, I thought the whole point of doing your shopping online was so that we didn’t need to have the shops open all the time. We can still shop to suit ourselves and have things delivered, rather than have to go out and get them, if we are short on time.

But finally, the really huge point that Mr Osborne seems to be missing is the Government’s responsibility of care for us. True, keeping certain shops closed on Sundays may not instantly result in a healthier lifestyle for every individual. But, just as cigarettes are increasingly made that little bit harder to get at, (which is having an impact on smoking levels), so the Government should take steps to make a full-on, non-stop, twenty-four-seven-over-commercialised-consumer lifestyle more difficult to maintain.

The Jesus Manifesto

 

The Jesus Manifesto

I wonder just how much money I could make if I could predict – with absolute certainty – the result of the U.K. election?

Judging by the hours of air-time and discussion with political pundits of every variety the answer must certainly be in the tens of millions of pounds for the definitive answer.

The commentators are to be found in all kinds of huddles and panels trying to be the one who has the answer – sorry, the most likely result. Poll upon poll is shared, analysed, dissected and finally discarded as being inadequate or faulty.

Now we are a mere nine days away from finding out which party – or, more likely, parties – will be responsible for running the country for the next five years, so I understand the media interest. Yet as the clock ticks away, the focus of the questions being asked of the politicians by the public – and increasingly taken on by media interviewers and hosts seems to have taken  

a subtle twist.

At the beginning of the election trail there was a lot of time given to the discussion of policies – who will promise what, to whom, and for how much. But in these last days a different question appears more and more frequently:

“How can I be sure you will do what you say you will do?”

“How do we know we can trust you?”

And in some cases “You let us down last time, how do we know we can trust you not to let us down again?”

So it seems that whatever party you might favour in terms of policy, the real decider for who gets our cross on election day is “Who can I trust to deliver?”

Isn’t it interesting that a personal quality means more to us than a political policy? That despite our intellectual aspirations and understanding (or lack of it!) of the shades of political policy, what really matters to us is the quality of the character of the person.

This isn’t really a surprise. Our whole society – indeed civilization – is built upon this strange abstract quality of trust. Of loyalty. From the smallest family unit to the largest conglomerate or government, none function properly without trust.

But what really strikes me about the change in tone of the election questions is that it shows how much our trust – and who we put our trust in – affects our hopes and aspirations for the future. In considering who we want to vote for our hope is less that a certain party will get ‘in’ but that they will actually deliver what they say they will.

But my hope for the future will not be upon my MP. It won’t be upon the leading parties. Or, in fact, on a political ideology at all. There is only one person I know whose character can actually bear the weight and scrutiny of my trust. Only one person I know who has, over my 50 or so years, proved to be totally faithful, loving, gentle and deserving of my loyalty and respect.

When I became a Christian back in the 1980’s I don’t suppose I really knew what to expect from a relationship with Jesus Christ. I’m pretty certain that some of my expectations were coloured by an already negative take on life.

But he has, at every turn and twist of my life, proved himself to be the voters dream ticket – 100% trustworthy and reliable. And his manifesto? Well, refreshingly honest:

“I have told you all this so that you may have peace in me. Here on earth you will have many trials and sorrows. But take heart, I have overcome the world.”

And I have proved his words to be true. True peace is found in a trusting relationship with Jesus. Not in a way of life, not in a set of policies, not even in knowledge of the future, or in the having, consuming, producing or acquiring of things – political power included.

With my best political debating hat on I may well ask “How can Jesus make that claim? How can I know that I can trust him?”

The Jesus Manifesto is based on his authority as the Son of God and on the work of his death on the cross. The resurrection is the final proof that Jesus is who he said he was, and that he has indeed overcome the world – that is, the very worst it could do!*

And was he correct? I can share openly that I have indeed had many trials and sorrows. I have been in most of the groups that the politicians seek to appeal to – I’ve been unemployed, self-employed, married, raised a family, divorced, suffered from depression, been ostracised and alone. I have known both plenty and having very little. Some of these trials have come from those around me, a few from political policies but most, I must confess came from within me and the choices I made.

Yet in all these, one thing I have proved – Jesus has never left me or let me down. Even when I was the one plainly in the wrong. He has stood by me. More importantly I have experienced his constant desire for my wholeness, comfort and restoration through the mercy and kindness of God.

Now don’t get me wrong. Politics is important. Very important. It is the way that we shape our societies and therefore the world that we live in.

Political policies affect all of our lives in major and minor scales. So make no mistake, I shall be voting on May 7^th and, indeed, engaging with and lobbying whoever my elected MP is on a whole range of issues through the next five-years.

But when it comes to my life – my heart, my very soul – that I shall continue to trust to Jesus alone. And if you are feeling that politicians have let you down and you need to find some certainty for the future, I know just the person.

Take some time to consider the ‘Jesus manifesto.’

 

*I remember the more poetic words of Charles Dickens when describing ‘the ways of the World’ –  “A conventional phrase which, being interpreted, signifies all the rascals in it.” (From Nicholas Nickleby)

Selfie’s, Lies and A Rich Young Man

Selfies. The name says it all. And, a bit like Marmite, you either love them or hate them.

Perhaps I should modify that. You either love them, and take them – and post them, share them, Facebook and Instagram them etc etc – or you loathe them, and are all too easily drawn into ‘tutting behaviour’ when you see others taking them.

But is there a darker side to our obsession with ‘being seen to be’?

I will come clean now as one of those who, at best, smiles indulgently and at worst, tuts judgementally when I see someone taking a selfie.

Perhaps it’s a generational thing – I don’t know – or even a passing fad. (Will there be a whole generation in a few decades time, pulling out a telescopic attachment from that box in the loft, smiling and shaking their heads saying ‘Oh, yeah! I remember this!’?)

What seems to be a fundamental point of departure is what our photo’s – and by that I mean our online photo-footprint – are for. For some of us it remains a way to record places where we have been. Or to share occasions, sights or the faces of others that we want to remember.

But for some of us there may be less wholesome forces at work.

In Private Eye magazine* this week there is a seemingly innocuous but bizarre report about a man called Keisuke Jinushi, who has been posting selfies of himself online. Nothing unusual there. Most of these selfies include a female hand playfully feeding him doughnuts etc, while he wears a romantic expression.

Still nothing out of the ordinary.

The bizarre – and worrying – aspect of this story is that the hand is, in fact, Keisuke’s own. “My girlfriend is imaginary.” He confesses.

Using nail polish and make up to make his hand look feminine, he has even posted pictures of his ‘wedding’. The article, quoting from the Japan Times, has Keisuke saying “For me a successful life is about having a girlfriend, and a family, and a successful job, and I’ll continue taking pictures that make it seem like I’ve achieved those things.”

I’ll continue taking pictures that make it seem like I’ve achieved those things.

Now, I am not in any way suggesting that all of us who post pictures online are being as deliberately deceptive as Kiesuke clearly is (although you do wonder who is fooling whom, in his case.) But isn’t there a dangerous element of ‘editing’ that goes on – in the photo’s we choose and the ones we discard?

Are we trying to present to the world a picture of – for want of a better catch-all – ‘Me living the perfect life’, much the same as Mr. Jinushi? And who for?

The selfie aspect just seems to compound this question. It is no longer enough to have a picture of a place we have been. The focal point of the picture is no longer even the scene, but my face in it. We are re-educating ourselves from the onlookers point of view.

How many of us have posted – ‘Me looking cool’, ‘Me looking happy’, ‘Me looking thoughtful’?

Or try, ‘Me in a lovely / exotic / expensive / fun / unusual / romantic / place’?

By contrast, how many of us have deliberately posted pics or selfies of ‘Me first thing in the morning,’ ‘Me just doing my job,’ ‘Me being bored,’ or even ‘Me being unkind’, ‘Me ignoring someone’, ‘Me __________ (insert anything you wouldn’t want to be seen doing by anyone else.)?

The art of the selfie is “This is how you see me in this place”, as if how we are seen is more important than the fact of who we actually are.

How we are seen is more important than the fact of who we actually are..

In trying to make sense of this I’m drawn to the story in the New Testament when Jesus is approached by ‘a rich young man.’

‘Teacher, what good deed must I do to have eternal life?’ he asked. To which Jesus gives what may appear to be a rather prickly answer –

‘Why ask me about what is good? There is only One who is good…”

I’m drawn to this young man because, in his society, he was seen to have it all. Although selfies were a long way off, we would have found him in all the ‘right’ places, doing all the ‘right’ things. He was rich enough to wear all the ‘right’ clothes and be in with the ‘right’ people. He also mentions later that he has done all the ‘right’ things.

Yet he has a gnawing worry that he’s missing something. He knows that the life he is living isn’t eternal life. It isn’t lasting. It doesn’t fulfil him. No matter how perfect his life appears to others he knows it isn’t.

So he comes to Jesus and asks what he must do. (I note that he asks what ‘thing’ he must do to find this life.  That suggests to me that he is looking for another act – another selfie – another ‘right’ thing that will enable him to find this life he is searching for.)

I’m afraid that this encounter doesn’t end well for him. (It is unique, I believe, in being the only occasion an ordinary person comes to Jesus and goes away unchanged in the Gospels!)

After a discussion, Jesus invites him to give up this search for self-fulfilment and to find fulfilment in a life with Jesus at its’ centre:

“Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go and sell all your possessions and give the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

But when the young man heard this, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.”

Put another way,

“Your obsessions with yourself, with all that you have, and with how you are seen to be, is not where you will find true life. But this eternal life is not an app; it’s not an ‘add-on’ to what you already have. You can’t just put yourself in the frame and click. It’s a whole new adventure. One that starts with me and me alone.”

The life of the selfie is no match for the life with Jesus.

But even if we are, like the rich man in the story, not yet at the point of following Jesus, isn’t it time to stop and ask:

• “Who is the real me?” How would you describe yourself to a stranger?
• “Is Facebook (etc) the real me?” Make a list of times and places you wouldn’t want to be caught on camera!
• “What is good?” What are the things about myself that, if I could change them, would really improve my life?

 

*Private Eye No.1389, p18

Bible Quotes from The New Living Translation

The Mystery of the Ages

Easter Sunday 2015

In many ways I find it hard to believe that I am writing this. Here I sit, a reasonably well-educated, rational and, hopefully, open-minded (probably politically Liberal) man of 50 years, writing on the world-wide web in the 21st Century…

…and what – or who – am I going to be writing about? Jesus Christ. (No, that’s not an exclamation.) Really? You have to wonder why.

What I mean is, in this Modern age “Why does Christianity persist?”

Surely this outdated, inflexible, (sometimes intolerant?), un-reasonable, eclectic, un-fashionable movement should have have died out by now? Haven’t we progressed past the need for these simplistic ideals about Love, Service and Sacrifice?

History is littered with the ways in which this supernatural belief system has failed. We’ve had the extremes of persecution and over simplification. There was the acceptance of Papal authority over government – indeed the whole ‘rule’ of Christianity – for better or worse – across the Middle ages. Then came the reformations – and revolutions – the splits from and against the ‘church of the establishment.’

So far so good. Perhaps we can look back with a little arrogance and pity, and bemoan the poor folk of the distant past who didn’t know any better. Yet it persists today. It persists in me. And tens of thousands of others. Why? Shouldn’t we, here in 2015, do better?

You see when we reach the 1700’s the mystery really deepens. Here comes the age of change – the emergence of enlightenment – the rule of human Reason. I don’t need to chart it for you – if you are reading this you are it’s child. You are here because of it.

And at every stage of human progress for the last 300 years the Herald’s have announced – “God is dead!” or “This marks the end of Christianity!”

Think about it – the staggering changes – Empires have risen and fallen. Ideologies have come into fashion and gone out again. Terrors and wars. Even theologies and concepts about what it is to be human – what it is to be a civilization – or just a society – have all been through tremendous change. All in the name of progress. Of moving forward.

Marx

• Rationalism
• Enlightenment
• Capitalism
• Communism
• Humanism
• Socialism
• Fascism
• Imperialism
• Atheism
• ..next?

  

  Nietzsche

(And let’s not forget Scientific enquiry and technology. As if we could. Here in the West we have literally staked our lives on the provable, testable, quantifiable nature of the universe (or universes?) and our ability to manipulate it.)

We control it. We define it. We are masters of our own destiny. Given time we can achieve anything….can’t we? 

And yet we Christians persist in our ‘Fairy-tale- naïve-beliefs’. Why?

Here I sit. I am like you. I am as much a product of the 21st Century as anyone. You and I, born in the 1960’s probably share a whole host of experiences and touchstones.

So why am I celebrating Easter? Why am I dedicating my future to being a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth – a wandering Jewish preacher from 1st Century Palestine?

My initial response is to ask you to look back a different way – rather than asking why Christianity persists, perhaps we should ask:

“Why have so many of the other movements failed to persist?“

“Have any brought change beyond circumstances? Have they brought change to people’s hearts and souls – actually solving our problems of guilt, anxiety, fear or pride?”

Now that is not to say that, on balance, the general lot of humanity hasn’t marched forward. Nor can I deny that, for some, the Church itself has been cited as propagating the terrible four – guilt, anxiety, fear and pride.

So, why am I writing, in plain sight of all my modern-enlightened-living-in-the-‘real’-world contemporaries, that I have a personal relationship with this same Jesus?

That I believe he was raised from the dead and is alive today?

In short, why does Christianity persist in people like myself?

Perhaps because it works.

For all the progress much misery, loneliness, guilt and pain remain – seemingly untouched by the ‘Civilization’ of our societies. I, like so many, have found that there is nothing in the World that will ease the burdens of being in the World.

If Easter is indeed a myth I am sure that Christianity would have faded by now – just another crazy idea or fad.

It survives because Christ is alive and well – He still calls, still seeks and still comforts and restores…where all else fails. If He was another crazy religious fanatic His time would have surely come and gone by now. But if He is the Son of God?

It may well be a mystery – but that doesn’t mean it isn’t also true.

Easter blessings.

The Condemned Man

A reflection for Maundy Thursday

So here it is: the day of your death.

Although you are surrounded by those that you know as friends, they do not speak words to comfort you, because they do not see the end coming. They talk of loyalty and service. Your companions feel safe and confident.

Who can touch you? Your enemies are afraid of the crowds that gather wherever you are! The authorities are scared to touch you, reluctant to confront you because you always turn their arguments over – and often against your accusers.

And, there is your power. The power you have shown, day after day, in the villages and in the capital. The astonishing and the miraculous have followed you everywhere, since you began calling people to follow you.

So all is calm.

But you know differently for yourself. If there is one thing that you have always shown in your stories and teachings it is that you know what people are really like. Inside. In their very souls.

You called these men to intimacy, knowing that one of them would ultimately betray you; turn you over for a few coins.

You know that the authorities wouldn’t let that fickle body – ‘the people’ – be your protector. Perhaps in that, at least, you and they would find agreement. You know too, that the people who crowded around you yesterday, shouting for joy, can be just as easily moved to bay for your blood.

So the way of Men comes to the fore. In the darkness; in secrecy; armed with deceit; swept along by the powers of fear, insecurity and pride; they will come.

And they will kill you. They are not interested in censure or compromise. They are not interested in debate or points of view. They want you gone. Dead. The trial will be a sham, the sentence is already decided.

A tragedy some will say. A shame. A miscarriage of justice. Inevitable, say others.

Surrounded by your loved ones then, you are the most alone. The most alone in all the world.

For this night, it is only you who knows why this is all happening. It is only you who can see where the events of your death will lead. It is only you who must find the strength to complete the task ahead of you. No-one on this earth can help you any longer.

Only you can do this. It is what you were born for. It is why you came.

Yet, you persist. You persist even now, as the last minutes pass away, in sharing with them your innermost thoughts. You continue for them in sharing your urgent message. They do not understand why you are talking this way, acting this way – talking of bread and blood, washing their feet and talking of sorrow, comfort, vines and joy.

For now, today, you are the stranger in their midst. The un-known one. The un-recognised. The condemned man at the party.

The saviour that no-one knows they need.

But they will. One day they will.

Hello world!

This is your very first post. Click the Edit link to modify or delete it, or start a new post. If you like, use this post to tell readers why you started this blog and what you plan to do with it.

Happy blogging!