The church campaign about VAT on listed buildings, which was opposed by a strong campaign, made me wonder about the church's relationship buildings.
In fact, the two major campaigns from the church of late have been to endorse "traditional" marriage, and to oppose paying VAT on building alterations. I think that probably explains why I no longer feel that I can be a part of a church.
There seems to be a few reasons why church groups want a building - I may have missed a few, but I hope I have the majority of them.
1. It is cheaper in the long run than renting somewhere. Yes it is. But then there is a significant cost to running and maintaining a building. In the early years, the cost of running it is less, but there are also long-term costs involved in having a building. There is a real danger that the church group buys a building when it is growing and expanding, and then the group start to focus on the building - how to use it, what to do with it, things that need doing and how it could be improved.
As the group focuses more on the building, within years or generations or however long, the focus on the building so often takes over. If numbers dwindle, as they often do with time, the burden of the building becomes even more significant, and the death spiral starts.
I don't remember Jesus telling people to buy buildings. I don't remember Jesus telling people to settle down and spend money on buildings. In fact, he said something about tearing a building down..... Yes it may seem to be cheaper to have your own building, but is that what Jesus' people should be doing? Rent somewhere, because a) it means you are not focusing one other people and b) it means that you meet somewhere that is public, somewhere that people are used to meeting. Meeting in the public places is surely what the early church did, and what Jesus did too.
2. It is easier to organise all sorts of activities when you have a building as a centre to do things from. Yes it is, if what you want to do is set up another organisation running their own activities. But why would you want to do that? Surely the best thing is to run events and meetings and whatever you want to do in the places that people meet anyway. Why not organise your young peoples events in the schools? Or your business meetings in the pub? Why do you actually have to have your own building to work from?
3. It represents a place of spiritual importance. This might be somewhere that people have worshiped for centuries, or a place with a particular spiritual significance. I think places are very important, having a interest in Celtic spirituality, but that doesn't mean that we should build churches on them, or revere them for ever. The proper Celtic understanding of places is about finding a thin place wherever you are, and remembering it, but not setting it in stone.
Jesus found places that were important, mainly because they were quiet, away from the crowds, but he didn't revere them. The places Jesus died and were buried were not revered for a long time, which is why there are so many different possibilities. Jesus didn't come to tell us to set up shrines to places of spiritual history - he told us to make disciples, to make the faith a modern, living faith. Places are important, but they are important NOW, not as historical monuments. When we have buildings marking places of spiritual importance, we are in danger of missing the spiritual places - the thin places - all around us now.
4. It is a place that inspires worship, and we can keep it as such a place. In some cases this is true. Having said that, there are some churches that do not inspire worship at all. I am not suggesting that places that inspire worship should be torn down, just that it is too easy to need somewhere like that to worship, and miss the reality that we should be able to meet with God anywhere. Yes it is good to meet with God in places that are inspirational, but we can forget how to meet with God in all sorts of other situations.
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate that buildings can be useful or helpful, but the real question is whether the ownership and maintenance of buildings - something which occupies a lot of time, money and energy for congregations - is important as part of the mission that Jesus sent us on. Is spending time and energy on trying to get tax breaks for supporting buildings? Is that the most important challenge the church needs to make to the current governments policies? Really?
Monday, 21 May 2012
Friday, 4 May 2012
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
The title is a simple expression of Marxist ideology - not all of it by a very long way. It is also a concept challenged in Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged", which I have just finished reading, and which provides some interesting challenges. It is worth a read, if you are interested, but at 1200 pages long, this blog post may be all you need.
Rands approach is "objectivism", which, in the terms of economics, is "from each as he will give, to each as he earns" - that if you invent stuff, or create stuff, you deserve to make lots of money from it. She is also very opposed to regulation and restriction of practice, on the grounds that a free and fair competition gives the best opportunity for creative and imaginative minds to make a difference, and make something of themselves.
Before you think that these are trivial pieces of economic theory, the Marxist approach has been tried and failed in communist states - most especially China. And Rands approach is an important underpinning of Western capitalism, especially American. And that is in the process of failing as well.
The problem, I think, is that both of these approaches are flawed. I would like to explore why.
"From each according to his ability" - actually, properly understood, this is a very good principle. Each person should be enabled to perform to his - or her - ability. But this does not mean, as Rand suggests, that the most able just have to work harder. It does mean that those with greater ability should work in more challenging environments, because they will flourish there. It is about fitting people into the right places.
Rand is correct that, if you just make more able people work harder, then you are punishing ability. That is not what this should mean. Ability should not be punished, but rewarded. That is the key. And - to an extent - that reward needs to be financial.
"To each according to their need" - this is also a good principle, sort of. I would alter this, that to each is partly according to what they give, to their ability, to what they are able to achieve. This means that people should receive according to what they contribute, as a starting point, meaning that nurses and teachers would be paid reasonably, but people who simply juggle money would be paid less. And I would probably be paid less than I am, which is life.
But additionally, people should be able to have their basic needs met, which is what this is really about. It is not, as Rand suggested, about providing for peoples wants, or for what they can argue that they "need". It is about providing some basic needs - somewhere to live, something to eat and drink. We would probably include health care too. The important thing is that this is NEEDS, not WANTS. So much of our system is about providing something more than basic needs, which is not a bad thing in itself, but that is something over and above basic requirements.
This basic should be somewhere to live, not necessarily in the places they want or as large as they may desire, enough food for their family to live on properly, and a little spare money. And, of course, it must be worth while to get a job, and work needs to be taken into account. We far too often confuse needs and wants - it is not unreasonable to provide for peoples wants too, but we shouldn't confuse needs and wants.
The principle "from each ... to each ..." is actually not a bad one, as long as it is properly understood. The danger of Rands approach is that it fails to do what it claims, because people are not altruistic by their nature, and it depends on them being so. If they are not, but are greedy, then it will fail. As we are seeing.
If you don't believe that it fails, then watch the Leverson enquiry. That should convince you if nothing else does.
Rands approach is "objectivism", which, in the terms of economics, is "from each as he will give, to each as he earns" - that if you invent stuff, or create stuff, you deserve to make lots of money from it. She is also very opposed to regulation and restriction of practice, on the grounds that a free and fair competition gives the best opportunity for creative and imaginative minds to make a difference, and make something of themselves.
Before you think that these are trivial pieces of economic theory, the Marxist approach has been tried and failed in communist states - most especially China. And Rands approach is an important underpinning of Western capitalism, especially American. And that is in the process of failing as well.
The problem, I think, is that both of these approaches are flawed. I would like to explore why.
"From each according to his ability" - actually, properly understood, this is a very good principle. Each person should be enabled to perform to his - or her - ability. But this does not mean, as Rand suggests, that the most able just have to work harder. It does mean that those with greater ability should work in more challenging environments, because they will flourish there. It is about fitting people into the right places.
Rand is correct that, if you just make more able people work harder, then you are punishing ability. That is not what this should mean. Ability should not be punished, but rewarded. That is the key. And - to an extent - that reward needs to be financial.
"To each according to their need" - this is also a good principle, sort of. I would alter this, that to each is partly according to what they give, to their ability, to what they are able to achieve. This means that people should receive according to what they contribute, as a starting point, meaning that nurses and teachers would be paid reasonably, but people who simply juggle money would be paid less. And I would probably be paid less than I am, which is life.
But additionally, people should be able to have their basic needs met, which is what this is really about. It is not, as Rand suggested, about providing for peoples wants, or for what they can argue that they "need". It is about providing some basic needs - somewhere to live, something to eat and drink. We would probably include health care too. The important thing is that this is NEEDS, not WANTS. So much of our system is about providing something more than basic needs, which is not a bad thing in itself, but that is something over and above basic requirements.
This basic should be somewhere to live, not necessarily in the places they want or as large as they may desire, enough food for their family to live on properly, and a little spare money. And, of course, it must be worth while to get a job, and work needs to be taken into account. We far too often confuse needs and wants - it is not unreasonable to provide for peoples wants too, but we shouldn't confuse needs and wants.
The principle "from each ... to each ..." is actually not a bad one, as long as it is properly understood. The danger of Rands approach is that it fails to do what it claims, because people are not altruistic by their nature, and it depends on them being so. If they are not, but are greedy, then it will fail. As we are seeing.
If you don't believe that it fails, then watch the Leverson enquiry. That should convince you if nothing else does.
Saturday, 28 April 2012
Malcolm Bowden
Some of you may have heard Malcolm Bowdens 4thought.tv slot this last week, where he claims that depression, and other mental illnesses, are the choice of the individual who suffers from them.
He says that a "true" Christian can never be depressed, because it is incompatible with their faith.
He says, on his website, that he has been involved in counseling many people, with what he calls "True Biblical Counseling".
There is so much I could say about him, but I would pick up a few for now. Firstly, he seems to have a real thing about "True" Christians, as opposed, I guess, to "False" ones. This always sounds alarms for me, because, in the end, what he means is Christians who agree with him. It means that people who don't agree, or - more significantly - people who are not helped by his "counseling" are not "True" Christians.
That will really help someone if they are already suffering from depression or self-esteem problems, to be then told that they are not really a Christian either.
The other problem I have though is far wider than this. My problem is that he given Christianity a bad name. Now most people I know will happily acknowledge that his opinions are not representative, but people I don't know may assume that this is a representation of evangelical Christianity.
And what bugs me most is this quick-fix approach to mental illness. Actually, I see it in other places, although this is a particularly bad form of it, where the assumption is that some short term counseling, or a few prayers sessions, can cure everything. The real challenge for the church communities, for evangelical Christians as a whole, is can they live with, work with, and support people who have mental illness over years. Can we provide the long-term care and concern that people need? Can we get away from the quick-fix mentality that is so common in society, and pray with people, spend time with people, support people over the years they may need it?
I hope so. And I hope that Malcolm Bowden and his like are seen as a dangerous and minority extreme, and not the genuine, real, caring side of Christianity.
He says that a "true" Christian can never be depressed, because it is incompatible with their faith.
He says, on his website, that he has been involved in counseling many people, with what he calls "True Biblical Counseling".
There is so much I could say about him, but I would pick up a few for now. Firstly, he seems to have a real thing about "True" Christians, as opposed, I guess, to "False" ones. This always sounds alarms for me, because, in the end, what he means is Christians who agree with him. It means that people who don't agree, or - more significantly - people who are not helped by his "counseling" are not "True" Christians.
That will really help someone if they are already suffering from depression or self-esteem problems, to be then told that they are not really a Christian either.
The other problem I have though is far wider than this. My problem is that he given Christianity a bad name. Now most people I know will happily acknowledge that his opinions are not representative, but people I don't know may assume that this is a representation of evangelical Christianity.
And what bugs me most is this quick-fix approach to mental illness. Actually, I see it in other places, although this is a particularly bad form of it, where the assumption is that some short term counseling, or a few prayers sessions, can cure everything. The real challenge for the church communities, for evangelical Christians as a whole, is can they live with, work with, and support people who have mental illness over years. Can we provide the long-term care and concern that people need? Can we get away from the quick-fix mentality that is so common in society, and pray with people, spend time with people, support people over the years they may need it?
I hope so. And I hope that Malcolm Bowden and his like are seen as a dangerous and minority extreme, and not the genuine, real, caring side of Christianity.
Monday, 16 April 2012
The Hunger Games
This book and film are very hot at the moment, so I decided to read the books, and see what the fuss was about. I recommend it, because the first book at least is a good read.
However, I was also intrigued to see that the story, while being set in the future, is just as true today. Today, we are living in the era of the hunger games.
In the story, the less privileged have to fight harder for food than the more privileged. Which is completely true in the world - and even in the UK - today. The less you have today, the more difficult it is to provide for yourself and your family. The poorer you are, the harder it is to eat well, to therefore be healthy. And even where there is supposed to be a level playing field - as in the number of entries into the pot - the more common it is that the poor are the ones who suffer.
Even across the districts, the poor ones suffered more than the richer ones. Poverty - and the problems that it produces - goes from generation to generation, in a spiral. Those districts who do not win cannot provide the support for their winners in the following years. So their chances are reduced. And so it goes on.
The parading of the young people before the media is so reminiscent of freak shows like Britain's Got Talent and X-Factor - they get dressed up, they pretend, but this is a show, not them.
And the core message that the Hunger Games gives - that to win you need to kill your opponents - is one we far too often give out. Katriss shows the alternative, that sacrifice is another way. If we sacrifice, if we deal with others as human beings, then we beat the system. Just like Jesus did.
However, I was also intrigued to see that the story, while being set in the future, is just as true today. Today, we are living in the era of the hunger games.
In the story, the less privileged have to fight harder for food than the more privileged. Which is completely true in the world - and even in the UK - today. The less you have today, the more difficult it is to provide for yourself and your family. The poorer you are, the harder it is to eat well, to therefore be healthy. And even where there is supposed to be a level playing field - as in the number of entries into the pot - the more common it is that the poor are the ones who suffer.
Even across the districts, the poor ones suffered more than the richer ones. Poverty - and the problems that it produces - goes from generation to generation, in a spiral. Those districts who do not win cannot provide the support for their winners in the following years. So their chances are reduced. And so it goes on.
The parading of the young people before the media is so reminiscent of freak shows like Britain's Got Talent and X-Factor - they get dressed up, they pretend, but this is a show, not them.
And the core message that the Hunger Games gives - that to win you need to kill your opponents - is one we far too often give out. Katriss shows the alternative, that sacrifice is another way. If we sacrifice, if we deal with others as human beings, then we beat the system. Just like Jesus did.
Saturday, 7 April 2012
Who gives you your meaning?
Of course the answer is always God. We know that. But is it the truth? I am reading a book at the moment, "So you don't want to go to church anymore", and it has made me think a little bit. Very substantially, I agree with what I have read, but this question is a significant one.
For some people, they find their value, purpose, meaning in their work. And when work rejects them - as it does to everyone eventually - people lose their meaning. Others find their meaning in family, and when their family reject them or disappoint them, they struggle to find their meaning . I could go on.
But what really worries me is that some people get their meaning and purpose in life from the church. Those who are ministers, or childrens workers or members of the congregation, it is easy to define yourself by what your role or position is in church. What is worse, there is a danger that this is seen as finding your meaning or purpose in God. And for so many people, it avoids the real challenges that finding ones meaning in God implies.
The truth is, finding ones meaning and value in God means that these other things will be important, but not driving you. And when they let you down, as they all do very regularly, that will be unfortunate and difficult, but not challenging your personal value. Let me be clear, just because the church tells you to piss off, does not mean that God does. Just because your work and your family tell you that they no longer need you, that doesn't make it the truth or diminish your value.
When you find your meaning and purpose in God, other things may be useful, helpful, productive and help you find more of God. But maybe they won't. And if they don't, then move on. Because your value in God is the most important thing ever. And you need to find those things that help and support that, not diminish it.
TLDR? Find your meaning in God, not some second-rate substitutes.
For some people, they find their value, purpose, meaning in their work. And when work rejects them - as it does to everyone eventually - people lose their meaning. Others find their meaning in family, and when their family reject them or disappoint them, they struggle to find their meaning . I could go on.
But what really worries me is that some people get their meaning and purpose in life from the church. Those who are ministers, or childrens workers or members of the congregation, it is easy to define yourself by what your role or position is in church. What is worse, there is a danger that this is seen as finding your meaning or purpose in God. And for so many people, it avoids the real challenges that finding ones meaning in God implies.
The truth is, finding ones meaning and value in God means that these other things will be important, but not driving you. And when they let you down, as they all do very regularly, that will be unfortunate and difficult, but not challenging your personal value. Let me be clear, just because the church tells you to piss off, does not mean that God does. Just because your work and your family tell you that they no longer need you, that doesn't make it the truth or diminish your value.
When you find your meaning and purpose in God, other things may be useful, helpful, productive and help you find more of God. But maybe they won't. And if they don't, then move on. Because your value in God is the most important thing ever. And you need to find those things that help and support that, not diminish it.
TLDR? Find your meaning in God, not some second-rate substitutes.
Tuesday, 27 March 2012
Fabrice Muamba
Last week, Fabrice Muamba collapsed during a football game, with a cardiac arrest. He was dead for 78 minutes, but was rushed to hospital, and is now recovering well, sitting up and talking. All of which is very good for him, and clearly shown the importance of getting treatment urgently.
However, there has been, since that point, calls to Pray for Muamba, by the family initially, and others since. It shows something else, I think. There has also been criticism of this too, at the very least because there are more important things for God and prayer to do.
Surveys in this country indicate declining belief in God, declining church attendance, a general declining level of defined spirituality. But the Pray for Muamba campaign seems to have taken off and been seen on football players shirts and on the front page of the Sun.
I think this is cool. Because I think that, whatever else we believe or don't believe in this country, we still think that prayer has an effect. His incredible recovery might seem to indicate that it actually works.
Actually, prayer works, and it works in all sorts of ways. It does, I believe, encourage God to intervene. But it also encourages us to do something, to change, to act to fulfill our prayers. And real prayer is about listening to God, and hearing what he has to say too - that will change us.
We are a nation who will pray, and prayer works. But prayer works as much to change us as anything. To listen to Gods desires and priorities. To drive us to make a difference. It may be illegal to advertise that God can heal, but God answers prayers. Just not always in the way we want.
Sorry I have been slow in blogging, BTW. I have been working on getting my book ( see side menu ) published. It is called Bubbles, and is written by Schroedinger. It is currently available in e-book format, on kindle, and in good old-fashioned paper.
However, there has been, since that point, calls to Pray for Muamba, by the family initially, and others since. It shows something else, I think. There has also been criticism of this too, at the very least because there are more important things for God and prayer to do.
Surveys in this country indicate declining belief in God, declining church attendance, a general declining level of defined spirituality. But the Pray for Muamba campaign seems to have taken off and been seen on football players shirts and on the front page of the Sun.
I think this is cool. Because I think that, whatever else we believe or don't believe in this country, we still think that prayer has an effect. His incredible recovery might seem to indicate that it actually works.
Actually, prayer works, and it works in all sorts of ways. It does, I believe, encourage God to intervene. But it also encourages us to do something, to change, to act to fulfill our prayers. And real prayer is about listening to God, and hearing what he has to say too - that will change us.
We are a nation who will pray, and prayer works. But prayer works as much to change us as anything. To listen to Gods desires and priorities. To drive us to make a difference. It may be illegal to advertise that God can heal, but God answers prayers. Just not always in the way we want.
Sorry I have been slow in blogging, BTW. I have been working on getting my book ( see side menu ) published. It is called Bubbles, and is written by Schroedinger. It is currently available in e-book format, on kindle, and in good old-fashioned paper.
Saturday, 17 March 2012
Responses and the ABC
I have had some interesting feedback about my posts, and my site www.boredwithchurch.info, so I think there are some responses to make. This is not intended to criticise anyone who has commented, or go back on anything I have said elsewhere or to people specifically. It is a chance to accept and understand these, and look a little bit closer at them.
Some people have expressed that I am opinionated or aggressive. Well, part of that is the nature of a blog, that I am trying to express strong views and opinions, to address one part of the argument, not presenting a completely balanced argument. That is the nature of blogging, of expressing opinions. It doesn't mean that I don't accept the existence of other views, just that I am trying to outline my views, and give perspective to those.
Others have told me that their church does not exhibit these features, their church is not like that. Excellent! But most of what I post is perceptions of the entire church, expressed in some local expressions. It does not mean that all churches are like that, but I try to take a wider view, looking at the wider church. A wider perspective is not focused on what a particular church is doing, but what is happening across the country. And individual churches will not survive the collapse of the church nationally.
Which brings me on to the announcement by Rowan Williams that he is retiring. I know that a lot of people think that Rowan has been a good Archbishop. I don't quite know how to judge him, because the church is still in turmoil, and the real challenges of women bishops, gay clergy and gay marriage are all still in the air. He has kept the church together through the last decade, but is the church actually in a better state now than it was? I have no idea. It will take some time, I think, to see whether his Archepiscopacy has been successful or not.
The real question is who will succeed him. There are all sorts of names being thrown around, but would any of them want the job? The problem is that the job is impossible. It is somewhat like the England football managers job, or even the Chelsea manager recently - very high profile, but the likelihood of being liked or considered to be doing a good job is minimal. The chances of having a disaster is extremely high.
The next Archbishop will have to tackle a shrinking - maybe even dying - church, riven by serious and important divisions. What is more,they will have to deal with the fall out of whatever the women bishops agreement is. What is more, however well the next archbishop deals with these and any other issues that come up in the next decade, there will be those who will criticse him. And maybe, his successor will be a female - that would cause even more problems.
Some people have expressed that I am opinionated or aggressive. Well, part of that is the nature of a blog, that I am trying to express strong views and opinions, to address one part of the argument, not presenting a completely balanced argument. That is the nature of blogging, of expressing opinions. It doesn't mean that I don't accept the existence of other views, just that I am trying to outline my views, and give perspective to those.
Others have told me that their church does not exhibit these features, their church is not like that. Excellent! But most of what I post is perceptions of the entire church, expressed in some local expressions. It does not mean that all churches are like that, but I try to take a wider view, looking at the wider church. A wider perspective is not focused on what a particular church is doing, but what is happening across the country. And individual churches will not survive the collapse of the church nationally.
Which brings me on to the announcement by Rowan Williams that he is retiring. I know that a lot of people think that Rowan has been a good Archbishop. I don't quite know how to judge him, because the church is still in turmoil, and the real challenges of women bishops, gay clergy and gay marriage are all still in the air. He has kept the church together through the last decade, but is the church actually in a better state now than it was? I have no idea. It will take some time, I think, to see whether his Archepiscopacy has been successful or not.
The real question is who will succeed him. There are all sorts of names being thrown around, but would any of them want the job? The problem is that the job is impossible. It is somewhat like the England football managers job, or even the Chelsea manager recently - very high profile, but the likelihood of being liked or considered to be doing a good job is minimal. The chances of having a disaster is extremely high.
The next Archbishop will have to tackle a shrinking - maybe even dying - church, riven by serious and important divisions. What is more,they will have to deal with the fall out of whatever the women bishops agreement is. What is more, however well the next archbishop deals with these and any other issues that come up in the next decade, there will be those who will criticse him. And maybe, his successor will be a female - that would cause even more problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)