Why Greenbelt is important.

As many of you know, I have been going to Greenbelt for the last few years, and I am passionate about the festival. I want to explore here why that is - something that has been brought to focus in the last year with the major financial problems the organisation has had.

The first reason for my support of it is that it is unique. There are, of course, other events around the country like Spring Harvest and New Wine, as well as Soul Survivor. I do not have a problem with any of these, and did go to Spring Harvest for many many years, which is where my experience of these events comes from. There is a reason that these events are quite different from Greenbelt.

Spring Harvest is not a festival, but a conference. The difference - at least when I was attending - was that a conference is very structured, with sessions that are clearly timed, meaning that there are clear breaks for mealtimes. In the professional world, these are crucial times for talking to others, chatting, sharing ideas across sub-groups. A conference is very structured, both time-wise and (often) content-wise. When I went, the mornings were a structured set of talks, each group supposedly coving a similar set of ideas, in different ways or from different perspectives.

More significantly, the evenings were big, all-together events - it was only the later years that an alternative evening celebration developed. Even then, the celebrations had the same themes. I should clarify that the big celebration were fantastic - I loved them, because they were proper celebrations on a large scale. They were times when I felt a member of a big group, a part of something larger than me and mine.


But Greenbelt is different. The form and structure is different, but - more crucially - the purpose is different. It is not a conference, it is a festival. It is not as regimented - there is all sorts of things going on at different times. It is quite possible for two people to attend and experience completely different festivals. It is quite possible to attend different talks and get opposing or irreconcilable arguments. It is possible to go only for the music, or only for the talks, or only for the Tiny Tea Tent. The only "communal" aspect is the Sunday Morning Communion, and that is, like everything else, optional.

But it is the purpose that is so crucially different. The purpose of the conferences - Christian or work-style - is to impart information, teach the latest idea. The big draws are often well-known writers and speakers, this is a chance for them to tell people about their latest ideas (and sell more books).

Greenbelt is different. Well, not entirely - for many of those performing, they are there to sell their merchandise. They are doing the rounds, although the rounds are more likely to be the festivals than the conferences. Greenbelt is there to give people a chance to explore, engage, discuss. Greenbelt is a place where someone can say anything they want. But more importantly, anyone can answer, challenge, debate and argue. You can claim that black is white, and you will find someone to agree with you and someone to disagree. But there is a good chance that you will find these people are prepared to listen as well as argue.

I think most importantly, the theological position of Greenbelt is different. The conference circuit is on the Conservative Evangelical part of the theological spectrum, whereas Greenbelt is much wider. In its early days, most of the music came from the Evangelical Christian music culture (and the attendees too). While this has changed, this early focus on the arts has remained. It is the only place where the Christian faith and the arts collide in this way, where Christians can have their ideas and understanding challenged by the insights from the arts. It is also a place where those who do not sign up to the Christian faith can explore spiritually with no pressure. Or, of course, just get to experience some great performances.

This is why Greenbelt is important. The target audience - in terms of what it does, not necessarily the organisation's definition - are those people who are spiritually on the edge. Those who are on the edge of church and churches, for whom the standard route and approach is not one that works. It is for people who want to explore spiritual truth, not be told what they should believe if they want to join in. It is for people who want to understand what faith means when people disagree.

It is also for those who would explore faith and spirituality that is not book- or word-centred. Given that Jesus never wrote a book (he may well have been illiterate), and that so much of the biblical teaching is done visually (although it is reported to us in words, because smartphones hadn't been invented then), this is a vital aspect of Christian faith.

It is for those of us for whom living faith is about constant exploration, not formulaic expressions. It is for people who like discussions where their view is changed, and they come away with new insights - not necessarily agreement with others, but a greater understanding of their position. It is for people who can say "I'm sorry" and "I am wrong. Thank you."

For me, and I know for many others, church does not provide what I need any more. For me, Greenbelt gives me a message that I can still be a Christian, despite all of my doubts, anger, illness and failure. It tells me that I don't have to conform to any particular system or hierarchy to be a Christian. It tells me that I don't have it right, but that I don't have it all wrong either.

So if you have never been, can I encourage you to consider it, and give it a try. And support it, even if it doesn't work for you, because it is a crucial part of the spiritual life of this country.

Greenbelt

OK, so what did Greenbelt hold for me this year? Well it was different to recent festivals, mainly because the financial problems from last year changed the nature of the festival. Not necessarily for the worse, but there did feel like it was less exuberant than it has been. Maybe that is a good thing, in truth.

Well, Friday evening was enjoyable - the Worry Dolls and Rosalind Peters were pleasant and enjoyable, and a good start - I don't normally do the comedy gigs, so it was a nice change to start with some.

The main stage for me properly started with The Polyphonic Spree - interesting performance. The music was - to my mind - nothing special. The performance was fabulous, which is (again, in my view) the real point of music at a festival. So enjoyable, crazy, weird and fun. Which could also be used to describe one of my festival highlights, Acrojou. Their performance of Frantic was pleasurable, brilliantly performed, a real positive performance, and one I was really glad to go to.

Sunday had the communion, which was, unusually for me, a really positive event. It is always nice to share communion with friends at this festival, and this was not as interrupted as sometimes. The end of the day was highlighted by The Unthanks, a beautiful folk-influenced group, marred slightly by the fact that I experienced a very odd deja-vu (genuine deja-vu, not that I have seen them before). If you want a treat, do check out their "Magpie".

Speakers - I did hear some talks as well. Marika Rose talking on "Angels and Cyborgs" - she is always good, focussed and clear. Also the always excellent Katherine Welby-Roberts, struggling to do her talk, because doing such things is very difficult for her. The reality of what her illnesses mean was shown clearly. And, as always, she spoke from the heart and with honestly and openness.

There was a literary aspect to my festival too - I heard A L Kennedy after a recommendation, and she was very useful discussing aspects of "how to write stuff". Later the same day I heard Stephen Oram discussing "opting out". It was interesting, drawing on his latest book, and I will blog some of my reservations and thoughts on this later.

There was a theme to some of my other picks - Grace Petrie was brilliant as always; Gaz Brookfield was a new name for me, but one whose angry passion about real music, people, life was fantastic. Like Grace, but angrier and more aggressive. I remember him being very passionate about "real" music, not the manufactured drivel from Simon Cowell and the like.

And the last act I saw in the weekend was Jonny and the Baptists. This is a duo, whose comedy act was described as "post-watershed" material - that was accurate, as their first piece was about having sex in libraries to make them more interesting. It continued in a similarly adult vein, but was excellent, hilarious, and a great way to finish my festival. The theme between them all was a distinctly left-wing approach, a criticism of the current administration and the damage it is doing to people.

In the end, this is the ongoing theme of the festival for me - people who have problems with the government, not because of political differences, but because people are suffering from the decisions made, the pain and suffering imposed on people. As I write the refugee crisis is in the news, because the denial of these peoples human rights has meant that people have died, children included. One picture has made a difference, but if we had responded earlier, maybe this child could have lived.

Greenbelt reminds me that there are Christians - many of them, and an important section of them - who believe that abuse and damage to people is wrong, who believe that the biblical injunctions to help others, the poor and the needy, are the prime commandments of the Bible. That always gives me some hope.

 There was one other encounter that struck me. I was taking a look at the Quaker stand - just seeing what there was, what they were about. I have always thought that the Quaker approach may be the closest to mine, albeit with a different style (I am probably a bit noisy for them, but the principles and ideas I find a lot in common with). As I was about to leave, one of the people on the stand, said nothing but handed me a booklet. There was something about the quiet, unassuming way that he did this, trying to help, without words, that struck me. There was something of what I understand of the Quaker way about it. Given how most other stalls were tempting with chocolate, or desperate to attract visitors, this was - for me - a much better approach. So I would like to say thank you.

Budget changes

In the budget (several months ago now) there was one that has not apparently attracted much attention. It is the proposal to remove tax relief from Buy-to-Let (BTL) mortgages. I am sure that some people consider that these greedy rich, landlord should have tax reliefs stripped from them and serve them right.

Except, that is not what will happen. I speak as a landlord with a BTL mortgage (but I hope not a particularly Dickensian landlord).

Let me be clear, I have one property, currently let out. I operate it on a business, balancing income and expenditure, actually charging rent at a level based on what I need to cover my expenses (and so, for your information, less than I could be charging).

So what will the impact of these changes actually be? Well, for most landlords in this situation, they will have to balance their books still, and so will increase their rents. The first effect of this change will be to increase rents (slowly, as the change is being phased in, so it will probably not be noticed as a direct result). Of course, that hits tenants, not landlords. So many are already priced out of certain areas, and this will just get worse.

I should point out that this is not what I am planning to do.

The other impact is that people like me will not find it financially viable to be landlords. It means that I could consider getting out of the market, selling my property and removing one more place available for rental. The people who will be able to stay in the landlord market are those who do not need so much of a mortgage on the properties - that is, those who have some ready cash. It will play into the hands of the wealthy, who are not necessarily interested in being landlords for the benefit of the tenants, but for the money.

That is also not what I am intending to do.

I am intending to reorganise my finances to pay off my mortgages early. I am attempting to take myself out of this particular market (something that I was expecting to do eventually, but I might try to do this early). I am getting out of the BTL market but without selling the property. I am fortunate to be able to do this, but 10 years ago, and I would not have entered the market at all. That is the problem.

So yes, this proposal will hit some greedy landlords. But mostly, it will hit smaller landlords, and tenants. To those who need rental properties, this is bad news. As usual, the wealthy will just handle it, and the less well off will suffer and pay

So maybe you shouldn't be celebrating.

The House of Lords

I went on a visit to the House of Lords recently, as a guest of the Bishop of St Albans. It was an interesting visit, and provided some interesting insight into the place and the workings of that house.

The place itself is quite something - very elegant and ornate, quite a spectacular and beautiful building. You can walk along corridors with the most ornate carvings and paintings. It is a place that should inspire awe and a sense of responsibility. To an extent, I think it does. To a large extent, those who occupy the privileged seats in the house do realise what a responsibility they have. Certain recent news stories excepted.

I think that many of the Lords work hard - being involved in the processes, discussing and questioning. There were a number of members there who were doing their job well, asking and getting the answers, being present for the discussion of items that they have skills in. In particular, the bishops who work there combine their other work with attendance and involvement in the work there. Others combine other work with attendance and involvement there.


The problem I have is deeper rooted than that. The fact that some of those involved are good, honest and hard-working, while others may not be does not change the fact that the process seems to be wrong and broken. The part we saw - questions to the government - was a chance to raise questions, but they were answered by rote, and there is a limit to the questions and the time to discuss.

The problem I see is that it is a slow and compromise-driven approach to making laws does not seem to produce good and timely laws. There is a whole lot of debate and discussion over each word and phrase of the law to make sure it is clear and represents the views of the house. This is to ensure that lawyers cannot then untangle it, find loopholes through the legal phrasing. But this does not necessarily make for good laws, because the focus in on the minutiae, not the big picture. It seems to me that these people - the people we have chosen as the best in our society - should be focussing on the big picture. It seems that lawyers should be able to draft the phrasing, based on what the intention of the lords is. It seems that these lawyers should also be able to clarify the meaning of the legal position where needed.

Well, maybe not - this is not completely thought out. But is this the best use of their time? Is it right that (for example) our bishops, selected for their spiritual leadership, their insight and discernment. Their time in the lords is spent trying to identify potential loopholes in legal documents. The time we watched proceedings was worthwhile, but this was half an hour - the rest of the session (potentially late into the evening) would be picking apart a bill.


So yes, the visit was very interesting, and thanks to Bishop Alan for the opportunity. It is always fascinating to see how these institutions function, to observe the practicalities of the business. But in seeing these institutions at work, their archaic nature is sometimes shown up. I think Mhairi Black is absolutely right that the institution is, in some ways, outdated, not least the need to vote in person, not electronically. There is a definite need to update, to make the chambers work in a more modern way. There is a need to The problem is, we often see this way as being the definition of "democracy". The truth is that this is one was of running a legislative house - there are others, and others might be better. The wonderful, historical building should not mean that the functions within it should be as archaic. We can have a modern legislature in a wonderful old building.

Depression

OK, I thought there is a place to put my thoughts together on what this actually means. Some of these have been written elsewhere, but it is a personal perspective.

1. Don't ask "why are you depressed?" It is a meaningless question. Why do you have a cold? Why do you have poor taste in clothing? For me, there is probably a genetic disposition, and there have been events that have knocked my brain into a different state. None of which answers "why?" to me or to anyone else. I wish I knew, because I could then sort it out. But it is not a rational decision or choice. It is an illness, an aspect of my broken body.

2. "A depressive" vs "have depression". My son has diabetes, and I was once told off for saying that he was "a diabetic", because that shouldn't define him. Rather, I should say that he has diabetes. While it is true that his illness doesn't entirely define him, something that should involve testing and injecting 4-5 times a day, avoiding sugary food and drink, and meaning he cannot walk as well as he could does pretty well define his life and activity. It is an all-encompassing aspect of him, 24/7, and something he cannot get away from.

In the same way, for example, that I am a Christian. It is not something that just impacts me some of the time - it is not just about what I do on Sundays. My faith is an integral part of me every day, in all I do. I cannot escape it for a while, and I do not expect to ever grow out of it: even if I do, its reality over so much of my life is permanent. And the same is true of my depression, in a more negative way. It is permanent, it is always an aspect of my life, and I do not expect to leave it behind permanently. So I am a depressive. I am a Christian. I am a parent. None of these totally defines me, but they are quite fundamentally part of who I am. Rewording it does not help.

3. You cannot recognise a depressive. It is easy to assume that the grumpy, miserable person at work is most likely to be depressed. You may well be wrong - they might just be a grumpy, miserable person with poor social skills (in my business, that is quite likely). If you want to find the depressed person at work, look for the lively one, the chatty one, the one who is always joking. They are as likely to be suffering from depression at any particular time. Many people manage their illness well, and are not obviously "depressed", but that does not mean that they are not suffering. Very many depressives cannot talk about their feelings, their illness, how they are at any particular time. Just because someone appears fine, or says they are fine, doesn't mean diddly squat.

4. Sometimes, depression means that I feel miserable. Sometimes, it means that I have to struggle to get out of bed in the morning. Other times, it means that I am out of bed easily in the morning, because I haven't slept well, and am awake early. Always, it means that the basics of life are a struggle. Always, every day. Much of the time, I have coping mechanisms and the medication help to enable me to get through the day. But "getting through the day" does not mean that I am not struggling through it all. The fact that I am high functioning" means that I can achieve some things that others cannot - working and studying for a PhD at the same time. But that does not mean that getting up and going out for a walk is not a huge burden at times.

5. Suicidal thoughts and feelings are a constant companion. Now before you call the doctor, this does not mean that I am suicidal all of the time. It means that the nagging thoughts and ideas are always there. Sometimes, in all honesty, they are welcome thoughts, because life seems to be too much. But mostly, they are annoying distractions making me struggle even more with life. I live with thoughts in my mind that many others would find extremely upsetting. I am numb to them, but it doesn't mean they are not still distracting, tempting. It is just another thing that some of us have to deal with constantly.

6. Yes, it is a real illness. Just because you cannot see anything wrong, doesn't mean it is "all in my mind". Well it is, but not in the sense of being made up. I realise that there is nothing physical that you can see, but that does not mean that it is not real. It is real, and it is disabling, because it breaks my ability to think straight and clearly. This impacts my ability to do anything. People who assume it is not a "real" illness tend to be people who don't suffer from mental illness. Just because it is not visible, just because it is not clearly and fully understood does not mean it is not real.

7. I am sorry if you don't like this, but there is no cure for many mental illnesses. There are treatments, and these are effective and important. Treatments help us to cope with life with a mental illness, and sometimes they enable us to live and cope while the brain cures itself. There are forms of treatment like CBT can change our way of thinking, but these are also life-long treatments - the fact that they are not pills does not really make a difference.

I have said it before, but God does not heal most mental illnesses most of the time. This is not to either deny that He might on occasions, but that the answers to mental illness are not to be prayed about and that is it. Prayer does help, mainly because events do cause problems, and prayer for help through these times helps and is important. I would LOVE God to cure me of my depression. However, I don't expect it, because it is far more complex, it is intimately engaged with who I am. God made me like this, and to take it away would change who I am - the good as well as the bad.

8. "You would feel better if you lost some weight". Or whatever. Yes, I know. Of course, the reason I have a weight problem is that I eat when I am depressed. So going on a diet might make me feel better in the longer term, but in the shorter term, I will struggle to cope. For others, it is the same story, but sometimes with other problems. We do have a tendency to do things that are not good for us, and we know about it. The think is, if I ate less, and my depression was better, I would be better.

9. I am not dangerous. Well, I could be if I hear too much rubbish about mental health problems and the people who suffer from them. There are some important statistics to understand: some one in three people suffer from mental health problems. This means that one could expect one in three people involved in violent crime would have mental health problems. In fact, there are all sorts of reasons why this figures is higher, but connection does not imply causality - or not necessarily in the direction indicated.

In truth, people with mental health problems are often involved in crimes and violent crimes especially, mainly because the support services for those with mental health issues often end up failing the suffering. But the idea that people with mental health problems are inherently dangerous is wrong. We are not, as a whole. Of course, there is a strong argument that some of the most psychotic, violent crimes are indications of mental health problems. But that is not an indication that people with mental health are inherently dangerous.


 So this is what I live with every day. This and more, and I fight through it, and live a reasonably normal life. So, of course, when I can do no more, I am just lazy, using my illness as an excuse. Sigh.

Should I be a good writer, or a successfull writer?

When I look at those writers who have made a lot of money from their writing, I do tend to despair. The likes of Dan Brown are not good writers, but they write popularist books, they get some clever publicity, and they sell bucket-loads. The same applies to E L James, author of the Fifty Shades series. I will admit that I haven't read them, nor do I wish to, but I have it on good authority that they are not carefully crafted pieces of work.

This is just a rant about books I don't like. The Harry Potter books by J K Rowling I enjoyed immensely, but they were not all great writing. There are some very clever ideas in them, but there is also some less well crafted parts. But it doesn't really matter, because people bought them anyway.

I was reminded recently of Erich von Daniken, another author from many years ago, who made a lot of money with claims of proof that we had been visited by extra terrestrials, and that this explained a range of mysteries across the world. The fact that his ideas have all been shown to be false and misguided, not to mention that they don't prove what he claims anyway, has not stopped him from making a whole lot of money.

And then there are people like myself, working hard to craft my books and stories, struggling to produce well written, well thought out writing, and I can't get an agent. Of course, it is not just me who can't get an agent - it is the fact that good, high-quality writing seems not to be as appreciated as we would like to think it should be. It makes me wonder why I should try to write something good and high quality, when the stuff that sells is the opposite.

I am not an elitist who thinks that everyone should read quality literature, not just popularist stuff. I understand why people like to read the popular works (and I have also read some of them), but I do think there should be more opportunities for more serious writers. I struggle that I should have to choose between these - that writers cannot, as a whole, make a living by writing high-quality fiction.

So I have to ask myself the question, again and again, whether I should seek to write high quality, in depth, complex works, which explore the important existential questions, but will not get me published, or just write something shocking, cheap or easy to sell, with no meaning, depth or real challenge. But my real call is to people who read material, not to give up just because it is not an easy, quick read. Make the effort to read deeper works, more complicated material. Not because that will make me money, but because that will challenge you, make you think. Because, in the end, if people only read sensationalist writing, that is all that will be available, and we will be diminished as a species.

Jeremiah 23

I read this passage recently - particularly verses 33-39 - and is struck me as a very odd passage. It is talking all about "The Oracle of the Lord" (in the version I was reading), and it reads very oddly.

The translation of the core word "Oracle" is massa, which can also translate as "Burden", which can help to understand the meaning - it is talking about not burdening people with messages supposedly from God. But it can be read quite differently.

One way of reading it would be to say "stop telling me that you have heard this word or message from God, because you are making it up". It is an interesting critique, I think, of some of the churches I have known that their use of something as being "from the Lord" puts it beyond reproach, and yet here is Jeremiah saying "I don't care if you credit it to God, shut up!"

Another way of interpreting the passage is to take the phrase as referring to burdens purely. It can be read as saying "stop burdening other people with the burdens you have taken on. Deal with them yourself, whether they are from God or not". How often have we heard that someone has a "burden from the Lord" for this or that, and so we should all feel similarly burdened and support. But this passage is saying "stop calling it a burden from the Lord - it is all yours. Deal with it, and shut up." I think that has something vital to say to us all, that those things that we have a heart for, that we feel are important to pray for or do for, are ours. They are not things that we should encourage others to be similarly burdened. Just because you feel that God had given you something to do - a burden in the positive sense - doesn't give you the right to burden - in the negative sense - others with it.

However, I do think there is something of both in the passage. The Old Testament (and occasionally New Testament) writers are never shy of puns or double meanings in their writings. I suspect Jeremiah meant both of the above interpretations, as well as the one that I suspect he intended most especially - the message that you should not burden other people with messages that you claim are from God. Which is rather a peculiar word from a prophet (especially one like Jeremiah, who most definitely did burden others with words he claimed were from God).

Of course, we do not know the precise situation and events that prompted this particular passage. It might have been that, as throughout Jeremiahs time, people were using what they claimed to be "Oracles from God" to pressure people into their own point of view - something we still see today. It might have been that people were taking the phrase "An Oracle from God" lightly, mocking his own messages by using it to justify anything they wanted. Whatever, there is a warning here, that attributing something to God does not give us free reign to impose on other people.

We should all remember that.