Thoughts, and Stories

Emerging church

2008-09-17T09:54:00.000-07:00

I'm currently doing some study on the emerging church. This is something I wrote in my journal today:

I wonder if the problem with all of this thinking and all of these church movements is that we’re asking ‘what does church look like?’ and not ‘what does a Christian look like?’ We have made faith a consumer choice, like any other, and are trying to make church an attractive choice.
How about if, instead of starting with non-believers and seeing what kind of church would apply to them, we had a clearer idea of what Christians look like, and completely focussed our churches around who and what what we want Christians to be. We might find that:
- We do accept diversity
- There are some areas where we don’t accept diversity
- The church necessarily becomes missional at a ‘grassroots’ level – one of the attributes of a Christian will necessarily be that they are missional.
- We won’t feel the need to ‘convert’ everybody (the early church didn’t), but we will have a desire that everyone who encounters the church lives differently.
- There’s far less chance of having a ‘bad’ church – you should have a church filled with good people! (in theoryland)
So, a ‘good’ Christian will be:
- Someone who really loves God.
- Someone who really loves others.
And as a leader, I need to model this. I need to love God and to love others. A challenge.

Vicky Gene and the Interruption of the Biker Dude

2008-07-15T14:00:00.000-07:00

This is footage of a sermon, given on Sunday, by openly gay Angican Bishop Gene Robinson - first name Vicky. It's interesting, because of the unexpected heckling by an audience member - resulting in the service abruptly jumping from 'sermon' to 'hymn' with all the elegance of a Virgin Pendolino trying to jump from the Birmingham to the Edinburgh line at 120 mph.

What are your reactions to the clip?

Gene: Freedom fighter, or moral terrorist?

Interrupter: Defender of the faith, or homophobic bigot?

And how does God see it? Obviously he loves both actors in this drama - but of which one has read the script properly?

We must remember the context. The Anglican church is slowly coming apart, like two enormous icebergs - Icebergs that are being irresistibly pulled on by the undercurrents of very different social contexts. In many western countries, discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a criminal act. Is it any wonder society sees the church as ridiculous for denying people office because of what they get up to in private? In many parts of Africa homosexual activity is an offence punishable by imprisonment. Is it any wonder Africans are reluctant to appoint Bishops who could go to jail?

Maybe God is big enough to be happy with both protagonists of Sundays performance, confronting each other from opposite icebergs: One unswervingly stands up for inclusion and an end to prejudice against huge opposition. The other publicly defends truths that been the majority view in the Christian tradition for 2000 years. Neither of them, and none of us of us sees things from God's perspective.

A man who I believe tries to is Rowan Williams. He has a foot on each iceberg, and is trying to hold the two together. (There's a great and quite fair article I read today on him here. I have a lot of sympathy for him - let's pray for him).

At risk of irresponsible passivity, I'd say that what most Christians will be doing in this debate will be an exercise in waiting for one or other iceberg to melt. Let's remember to be humble and loving as we do it, and pray that the Anglican church would remain one - after all, the larger the block of ice, the less likely it is to thaw.

2008-07-08T00:47:00.000-07:00

Prayer.

I'm fairly good at praying about me. I'm not traditionally very good at praying for other things.

Like many Christians, the problem of unanswered prayer bothers me. If God can allow awful things to happen to Christians (and he does), then what's the point in praying for anything? Or at least, that's what I tell myself. Sometimes I suspect that really I just feel guilty that I don't pray for others more, and the above thought is just a way of rationalising my way out of feeling guilty: a way to make it God's fault that I don't pray for others, and not my fault.

Well, a number of things have built up, like water behind the straining dam in a disaster movie, to challenge this long held 'grievance' I've been holding [against the creator of the universe. Ha!]. These things are:

- Hearing Pete Greig, the founder of the 24/7 prayer movement, saying that we do need to be really honest about unanswered prayer (he's written a book about that), but that we don't need to get cynical - miracles happen when we pray

- Reading a section from Dallas Willard on fully abandoning one's heart to God's purposes, no matter what the circumstances. I was really annoyed with its simplistic, modernistic approach. And then I realised I was really annoyed with the way it was challenging me.

- Reading Jeremiah 40: he had had a really rough deal, but he experienced God's grace in a really practical way it. Then I remembered Moses, Elijah, David, Job and the whole Israelite nation, who all experienced the same - God showing his grace in horrible situations.

- Hearing the same day from a friend of mine for whom I'd been praying. She'd just been at the funeral of a close friend, who was diagnosed with cancer 2 months ago. She saw the hand of God in the funeral, and in his life leading up to it.

I've made enough excuses. Now I'm committing myself to actually PRAYING.

It's fairly simple - I just want to pray for one thing, that's not directly about me, every day.

Hold me to account on it, and if I there's anything can pray for you, let me know!

The Emerging church

2008-07-02T15:09:00.000-07:00

I've just started doing a module on the Emerging Church for my theology course.

This is a BRILLIANT description and critique of the emerging church movement, (although the sound quality isn't perfect). It's by Jason Clark, who's a friend of the pastor of our church, and is an all round good egg. I'm subscribed to his blog.

All sin is equal -?

2008-06-24T05:00:00.000-07:00

I have a problem with the way we think about sin.

I heard a podcast by the Evangelical Alliance the other day, commenting on The Apprentice. The writer was dismayed that Lee won, despite lying on his CV. Now, I don't think lying, even in a small way is a good idea. However, there is a sense in which, as one of the interviewing panel on the apprentice commented, lying on your CV is just 'not that big a deal.' Would we accept that?

This is not the problem I have though. The problem comes, not with how we classify sin, but with the way that we judge others.

See, if I believe God is perfect, and I should try to be perfect, then I'll try to root out sin in my life, and only do 'good' things. This is a GOOD thing. However, then, as a human being, I won't live in a state of constant guilt about my actions. SOME christians live in a state of constant unworthiness and guilt, but most don't - it's just too tiring.

This means that, although I may theoretically give assent to the fact that I am never worthy of God's grace, I will measure my actions with a yardstick that just about puts me above the bar in terms of my ethics, and so I will tend to walk around with a sense that I'm basically alright most of the time (unless I've just heard a sermon on sexual sin, the plight of people the third world, or the need to share the gospel with others, in which case I'll feel guilty for a few hours/minutes or until dinner, depending on how long it takes me to forget about it).

THIS means that if anyone doesn't cross the bar that I set for myself, they become a SINNER. And with a view of sin that says 'all sin is just as wrong in the eyes of God,' then I will be liable to treat them with either a sense of discomfort, or mild patronisation, or the cold shoulder.

I think that this is part of the reason why non-Christian communities are more accepting (about SOME things) than Christian ones. When I hang out with my musical theatre friends, I know that, were I a tattoo'd lesbian smoker, I would be completely accepted as 'normal.' I wouldn't be given sympathy; I wouldn't be seen as someone needing rescuing - I'd just be seen as a normal person, and expected to get on with playing my role in the show (probably Nancy in Oliver I should expect).

So are we surprised when gay people feel more comfortable in the gay community than in the church?! People have crossed the line from 'alright' to 'sinner' and are then given an identity as someone to be helped, avoided or vilified. Would you want to be part of a community that treated you like this? Can't we just see people - all people - as sinners who God wants to use to achieve his purposes?

I do of course accept that in a very real sense all sin IS equal in the eyes of God. But, what I do want to draw out is that we can very easily reject PEOPLE when really we should be helping them become righteous. Any hints on how to do that?!

A bit like me

2008-06-22T13:45:00.000-07:00

Too much of a good thing

2008-06-17T04:59:00.001-07:00

So, I get frustrated with Evangelical certainty as much as the next person (see post below. No, not the old person, the other one). BUT, I think there's a danger in uncertainty: when it comes to making moral choices, uncertainty about right and wrong can be the siamese twin of consumer choice.

To illustrate, here's a hot tip: next time you want to do something you think is wrong, don't bother trying to argue that it's right, just be uncertain that it's wrong! You'll soon be committing adultery / watching a whole series of lost back to back / making balloon animals and baptising them in tomato soup, with the best of them.

Or, if you can't wait to try it out, just use your imagination: How would asking these questions affect your judgement? (you can guess the scenarios)

- Does one more chocolate really make any difference?

- Is it all that bad to pull a sikkie?

- Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'? ("No Eve - don't do it!)

None of these questions provide a cogent argument for the 'wrong' behaviours being right - but as humans so often all we need is the question to give ourselves permission to act.

Being uncertain can be a smokescreen to let us do things we really think are wrong without feeling guilty. Where do you draw the line between too certain and not certain enough? I'll let you know when I'm less uncertain about it.

The power of old people

2008-06-13T13:37:00.001-07:00

How to avoid doubt

2008-06-12T05:01:00.000-07:00

I was surprised to read recently that internationally-renowned speaker and author Richard Foster - someone whose profound and thoughtful books are praised by people as diverse as Dallas Willard and Delia Smith (and many others in between) - is apparently an anti-christian false prophet, bringing evil into the body of Christ ( "The cult of guru Richard Foster" ).

It made me think - If you want to avoid the uncomfortable state known as 'doubt,' then here's a great tip for y'all: Discount anyone who thinks differently to you, and deny that there's integrity in their thought process. Of course doing this is easy - just make sure you don't listen to them, or, if you do, don't do it kindly. If you can label them with terms like 'apostate' 'heretic' or 'cult leader' then even better.

The trouble is, I think it's very difficult to do this to someone and love them at the same time. You can certainly love someone and disagree with them - but to disagree with someone lovingly involves understanding them, seeing where they are wrong, and challenging them incisively. It doesn't involve waving the heretic stick at them and bundling them off to 'you're talking nonsense' land.

So, if loving people means listening to them, and understanding them, and acknowledging that their point of view could be as coherent as yours... it means loving people also means being open to challenge... which means - being loving necessarily means doubting sometimes?

Questions, questions.

2008-05-09T14:10:00.000-07:00

"It's not about getting better answers - it's about getting to better questions."

This is the kind of stupid thing that theology lecturers tell you, to make you feel better about the fact that the more you learn, the more flipping confused you get about pretty much everything, until your brain feels like roll gum and starts falling out of your ears. Or so I thought, until it struck me:

1) Human desires can always be voiced consciously as unanswered (or 'open') questions.

2a) Human beings have a desire to 'close' their unanswered questions

An example: I want to go running. Why? One reason is that subconsciously, the question: "will I be able to live an active life when I'm older?" tickles my inner being.

If I knew the answer was certainly either 'yes' or 'no' then I'd have no reason to run - I'd either be in a permenantly super-fit state, or completely resigned to the fact that I'm a slob. But, I have a human need to close that question one way or another.

Or, take being attractive. The more sure you are that you either are or aren't attractive, the less time and energy you put into thinking about your appearance. It's the people who are uncertain about the answer who try very hard.

So, here's the last jenga brick in my little pop-psychology theory:

2 b) Open questions motivate activity

What do you think? Any truth in this? (I'd love to see if your desires are unanswered questions)

So, to view Christian discipleship through this magnifying glass: Imaginary Jimmy used to try very hard to do what God wanted in every situation. He lived his life like it was a series of stepping stones - and he had to carefully choose the right one to step on next - or it could collapse, and he'd fall through the floor. In nearly EVERY decision, there was God's way, and a wrong way, and it was a big mental effort for Jimmy to work out which one was which, and follow it (or not - and feel guilty).

The unanswered question Jimmy was trying to close was something like: 'Is God pleased with how I live, on a moment-by-moment basis?'

Now, Imaginary Jimmy has done some study. The former question hasn't been answered, but he's found different questions which swallow the first one up. The new questions go something like: 'Is my restored relationship with God being lived out in the way I act?' and 'Does my life have integrity?' He doesn't worry about what God wants moment-by-moment any more, and he's found a new, and better, question. He's also a bit more relaxed.

So, perhaps, finding better questions isn't just a meaningless cliche - it actually does change the way we act - and has the power to touch any area of our lives (that we're prepared to question!)

I consider this all pure speculation, and I'd love people to share their thoughts.

D

Selective violence

2008-04-21T03:11:00.000-07:00

Jesus was pretty violent.

When was the last time your pastor drove people out of church with a whip (John 2)? Or said anything along the lines of: "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?" (Matthew 23:33)? Yep, in terms of non-violent communication, Jesus really missed the mark sometimes.

Please notice two attributes of Jesus' violence.

His anger was centred around the hypocrisy of the Pharisees ("Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites!" is repeated six times in Matthew 23).

It is contact anger - Jesus is engaging with the people he's angry with - not withdrawing (as mentioned by Jim McNeish at a recent daybreak day). Jesus says 'you hypocrites,' rather than 'those hypocrites.' He wasn't telling people about the Pharisees and how bad they were, he addressing them directly - (whether they were listening or not!).

Can we learn some thing from this, as postmodern, self-aware, emotionally intelligent, maybe even 'emergent,' Christians? Many of us have fervent mental anvils of change, on which we regularly hammer out our visions of church, and what it SHOULD be, verbally straightening out on it those ways of doing church that don't tie in with our vision. But, are we selective enough in our violence? And are we seeking to engage the systems of Church that we deride?

See, when I read Brian McClaren, I often think "he's got a point." I also sometimes think "did these people run over his dog?" At various points in his books I just think he sounds a bit... well... grumpy.

Similarly, I was surprised when, at a recent event, a prominent emerging church leader described certain leaders in the Anglican church as 'spineless' for not effecting change more quickly. There was certainly some vitriol in the way he said it.

See, where there is hypocrisy (politicking, prejudice, unforgiveness, one-upmanship, power struggles, wanting to own Ferrari's ), let's challenge it, maybe even with Christ-like violence. However, where people are tied into models of doing church that we find, well, wrong; let's be gracious, and love them, ugly hairy moles and all - remembering that we are not hairy-mole exempt (I know I'm not!), and that "in the same way you judge others, you will be judged," (Matthew 7:2)

And, wherever possible and practical, let's engage people. Talking about a person is reactive, easy, and turns people against each other. Talking to a person is proactive, and useful, and takes courage (because - I don't know about you; but it scares the chorizo out of me!). I know this might be impractical when we're talking about global Christian figures or movements, but maybe 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all,' can be a useful tool.

I hope his doesn't come across too critically (or superior): I never want to fight people who, like me, really hunger for change, and relevance, and life and integrity in church, and are too often disappointed by what we see. But, as we break the brittle, sun-calloused soil of religion that's useless and, in some cases, malevolent, let's carefully select what we plough; avoid thoughtless trampling, and pray none of us turn into grumpy, pessimistic old codgers.

D

Going Local

2008-04-15T09:02:00.000-07:00

One of the most rewarding things I’ve done recently involved being stripped to my boxers and sponged down, before dancing enthusiastically before an audience who were paying for the privilege of watching. No, I’m not describing some sordid moonlighting to supplement my meagre income – this is actually a scene from Godspell, a musical based on the gospel of Matthew.

I did this as part of a local amateur dramatics company. As amateurs we did it for fun, and loved it, as did the people who saw it (so they told me)! I remember seeing a friend of mine in the (very profound) ‘Frankenstein, the Panto,’ last Christmas, and it was genuinely one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen. Local productions may not yield the most polished performances, but when you know someone, it brings a level of engagement and entertainment you don’t get on the West End.

What’s true of faintly exhibitionistic musicals is true of many local activities – you get the fun of being involved! Whether it’s sports, music, gala-days, barbecues or even political debate, being a part of something local is great! You may be more impressed by the ball skills of the Arsenal defense, but a Saturday-league Dynamo Botley match can be just as exciting, – especially if you’re friends with the team, and certainly if you’re playing. Local activities = involvement = excitement!

So, it’s time for local activities to shed their stigma. A ‘community project’ is more than ‘a diversionary tactic for youths nearing an ASBO’ (although if it achieves this, it’s doing something worthy). Local community activity for its own sake is great – you don’t have to change the world (just your estate/village/gated community!) Local people in local communities – let’s get involved in local things; get to know our neighbours; and possible enjoy ourselves more than we ever expected. Unite! We have nothing to lose but our trousers!

Grace

2006-06-29T14:34:00.000-07:00

Grace really is amazing. It's worth reminding ourselves sometimes.

K, here's what I learned this week: That being gracious towards others opens the door to being gracious with yourself (goodness, doesn't that sound like a self help book). It's true though! Near the beginning of the week I was feeling frustrated with some of the imperfections that I perceived in the people around me. Then I heard the morning devotional podcast from http://www.pray-as-you-go.org/, which was all about grace, and I just realised what valuable people they really are, in spite of their flaws. And if that's the way God sees them, and wants me to see them, that's the way he sees me, and wants me to see myself as well! Hooray

So maybe not so new an idea today, but certainly an important one, eh?

D.

Study in Humour

2006-06-24T06:47:00.000-07:00

While I was searching on the internet, I found this page: http://www.erenkrantz.com/ArtsCore/. It's not in my nature to be mean or discouraging, in fact quite the opposite, but I can't help thinking that none of the pictures are very funny. As a study in humour, can anyone come up with any suggestions as to why?

I was watching Eddie Izzard the other day, he IS quite funny, and I think that part of the reason is that he expects to get a laugh - he delivers his lines in such a way that he's like "c'mon, laugh!" and people do. I was also listening to "I'm sorry I haven't a clue" on radio 4 'listen again', and how come the words 'Mornington Crescent' can be funny, as can the line 'Tina, come get some haaam', but other things aren't? What's that all about?

If you want more examples of the type of thing I'm talking about, try http://www.tes.co.uk/Caption_competition/. It's amazing the variety of answers there, some of which are funny, and some of which aren't. While I think about it, why not try entering, let's see if one of us can win it.

D.

Is it Christian to own a Ferrari?

2006-05-27T01:30:00.000-07:00

When I look back at my journal from 6 months or so ago. I can tell that because I look at what I wrote and think ‘That seems immature’. I don’t know in exactly what way though!

My bro writes some really impressive stuff on his blog. A recent post contained the line 'Living without purpose is dying without a cause'. 17- Amazing!

At the moment I'm on a journey of trying to distinguish how much we as Christians should go on principle, or self discipline, and how much we should just live life, based on our desires. It was brought up for me while I was on holiday with a friend who is far more a 'heart' person (while I am far more of a 'head' person).

Sometimes Christians (especially in this country) can be so sensible. I recently read in a children's holiday club manual on the theme of pirates: 'you should be dressed as pirates, but without any references to disability (eye patches, wooden legs etc.)'. Some might see this as a sensible precaution (agaist what?!), but it's just sooo RATIONAL, or REASONABLE, or LOGICAL or SAFE. - Who cares?!

Do you know, I don't think that there's a word for it. If anyone can find a good one, let me know. All of our words meaning 'based on thought' have positive connotations. What I really need is a word which means: 'based-on-reason-in-such-a-way-that-it-takes-away-from-fun-or-any-sense-of-enjoyment' or something like that. In some cases it can seem like our job as Christians is to be the sensibleness of the world. We can't be creative or wild or passionate or crazy - the main job of the Christian is sensibleness. Doh!

Another example is the idea that Christians should always go for the 'middle way' when making purchases (e.g. buying cars). They shouldn't get the cheapest option, because that's generally bad stewardship (it'll break down sooner, and in some cases it can mean oppression of the poor producers). They shouldn't go for the most expensive option, because that will again be poor stewardship, and will probably be based more on show than anything else. To quote John Wesley (quoted by Richard Foster) 'As... for apparel, I buy the most lasting and, in general, the plainest I can. I buy no furniture but what is neccessary and cheap'.

See, I actually agree with that. I run a scooter, rather than a car, because it's cheaper and I don't need a car; I only have two pairs of jeans that I wear (this is in the hope of inspiring, not to boast in myself) - but the thing is, if followed in every case it just leads to boring-ness! Where's the place for a person who loves guitars, and has like, 12 of 'em? Or does it suggests that a Christian should never own a ferrari? AND that ferarri as a company is a bad or a sinful thing? PLEASE, let's be real, let's escape materialism, but let's NOT be boring. I would rather be totally poor, giving everything away, or totally rich (and generous), but to be mediocre? AARGH!

love

D

... while I think of it

2006-05-20T01:54:00.000-07:00

It took me about 5 minutes to buy risk last night, from ebay, all without leaving my sofa. That's pretty crazy, eh?

D.

Risk

2006-05-19T17:02:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I came back here. Typepad doesn't work with Safari.

Some of my happiest memories come from playing Risk together at Steve's house, listening to the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, or Blues Traveller, or Ryan Adams. The pieces were plastic, and star shaped, like this:

The other evening I was playing cards with my housemates here in Worthing, and just before we all went to bed, 'Goodnight Hollywood Boulevard' came on the stereo. Although they didn't realise it, I felt quite emotional.

Today I bought a risk board; things are definitely looking up. The pieces look just like this.

New Blog

2006-04-26T06:06:00.000-07:00

Hi there! I know that I've not been blogging here for very long, but I've just opened up my new Blog at www.thoughtsandstories.typepad.com. Please go there for my latest posts!

All the best,

D.

Thoughts: Japan

2006-04-12T21:42:00.000-07:00

Hihi, in Japan. The plane didn't crash or anything.

My observations on Japanese life:
- People are very polite here, for example:
It's very rude to blow your nose loudly in public
People just don't talk loudly on the train, or use mobile phones
People bow a lot to each other

- People are very law abiding, street crime is virtually non-existent. People don't even cross the road when the red man is showing.

- The roads are very people-friendly.

- It feels like a very Asian city to my mind, similar to India, in that:
The streets are very busy
There isn't a high priority on neatness, or symmetry, or balance - it's more a riot of colours and sounds (and smells!)

- People spend a lot of money here on fashion, and on consumer electronics. People's appearance matters a lot to them. Part of the reason I think that they spend so much on these things is that they HAVE a lot of money, and they can't invest it into their houses - people don't buy houses over here, because it costs so much - and they don't drive, in Tokyo at least, so they've got a limited amount of other things to spend it on.

- There are a LOT of gadgets. The house I'm staying in has an a toilet with a built in bidet and an automatic flush, all controlled by a little panel on the wall.

Those are my thoughts so far!

D

Bye!

2006-04-08T13:53:00.000-07:00

Well, tomorrow I leave for Japan.
All the best,

D.

Happiness

2006-04-07T02:05:00.000-07:00

Ready Brek makes me happy! :-)

(well, actually it's Tesco instant hot oat cereal, but they taste the same!)

comment: Scary stories

2006-04-05T15:39:00.000-07:00

Inspired by watching Dead Poets Society again, I want to invite us to inspire each other, and to challenge each other to get a bit closer to the edge. Don't be afraid of this, I know that we're English, but it doesn't mean that we HAVE to keep silent about our achievements. The idea is that we comment, telling about a risk that we took recently - something that really scared us. Somebody MUST have done something more risky than walk across 7/3 meter pole over a gushing torrent/trickling brook (depending on who you believe - I was there, I should know!!) You can post anonymously if you want. If you haven't done anything that scared you in the past month, then maybe you should, right now, if for no other reason than to write it here.

All the best,

D.

Story: The third one

2006-04-04T15:40:00.000-07:00

A quick storyline that I don't have time to write into a proper story: At the moment a person is quite angry with me. Without wishing to justify myself, it's over an area of her life that I challenged her on. I believe that it was right in the context to bring the challenge (and that she brought about the circumstances leading to the challenge). I believe that I communicated the challenge clearly, in context, and with an understanding that I supported and cared (care) about her. However, she also didn't want to talk very much. She stopped the conversation, and has been angry with me since.

She's not actually angry with me because of what I said; I'm not sure that she's even really angry with ME, but rather with people and circumstances in her past. However that expresses itself in anger towards me. It's a shame, but I can accept this. The other thing, however, is that part of her expressing her anger is that she is communicating her frustrations with other people. This means that other people have a bad impression of me, without knowing the full story.

I thought that this second thing would be the final straw, but you know what? It isn't! I don't mean that there's more that she's done, but rather that it hasn't broken anything - I still can't feel angry with her. I just can't think of anything except blessing towards her. I really honestly hope and pray that she is very happy and contented.

I'm glad that I feel that way.

Things that have been confirmed to me are:

- That talking about things is the only way to resolve any issue, otherwise they never get dealt with

- That you shouldn't talk to others about a negative situation, until you've talked directly to the person invovled.

(I'm aware that that second point may seem hypocritical as I'm blogging this - please comment on whether it is, in your opinion! I feel that one important distinction is that you don't know the identity of the person).

Best wishes,

D.

story: The man who liked to be scared

2006-04-04T15:36:00.000-07:00

As he drove past along the high road, the thought entered his mind. "No," he instantly dismissed it. There's no point. It's not rational. Why would I want to? It doesn't make sense.

15 minutes later he found himself standing at the spinney, facing the 'Bridge'. The Bridge was a railway sleeper, 2 meters above the river, 7 meters long, and 10cm wide. Walking across it was the scariest thing he'd ever done.

He wasn't really unnerved at all by the fact that he was alone, in a secluded spot, in the dark, but the walking over the 'bridge' made his mouth dry, his heart pound, and his breathing shallow. Which is why he had to do it.

- Now, let's pause for a moment here. Because of my aforementioned intensity, I have a propensity for making things seem more melodramatic than they actually are. Please hear me here, I KNOW that it's not actually all that scary or dangerous, and that if I fell in, I'd only just get wet, but you're missing the point of what I'm trying to share with you if you focus on that! -

He inched forward along the beam. Half way across he glanced down at the surface of the water. Having no reference point on which to judge his balance, every sway seemed to be a major lurch towards falling in. And, because he was nervous, when he felt himself leaning one way, he overcompensated in leaning the other, which brought him even closer to falling in. Half way accross, looking at the surface of the water, he nearly fell. He tensed up like Road Runner finishing a run. He carried on, edging slowly, slowly.
Near the end was a tricky bit, where the bridge went under a tree. You had to push the clawing, scratching branches out of the way to get past, but you could get stuck if you tried to balance against them. They were no more than twigs - wouldn't hold your weight, - false friends. If you leant on them they'd give way, and you'd be in the water. He reached up his hand, to clear the way for himself. All he was aware of were his feet, the river, and the feel of the tree, digging lightly into his hand.

And then he turned around.

He stopped what he was doing, within a breath of the end, and turned around, and walked, very slowly and carefully back the way he had come. Then when he got there, he turned around, and went back again, a bit more confidently.

He kept wandering up and down that plank, not until it didn't scare him at all, but at least until he could say he was mostly over his fear of it - he had conquered it!

And this has been his experience time and and time again. He can't get away from things that scare him. He can avoid them, for a while, but then they creep up on him, and he has to do them. He even feels kinda flabby, or out of shape, when he hasn't done anything scary in a while. He is a man who can't resist being scared. If something scares him, he will end up doing it. He can't say why., it's just something he does. And long may it continue.

much love

D

Thought: The book of Daniel

2006-03-31T03:32:00.000-08:00

Pheee-ew: difficulties of interpretation in the book of Daniel. Do you know how many incredibly intelligent and learned people have devoted YEARS of study to the question: "Was Daniel written in the second or the sixth century BC?" ? One book I'm reading lists 28 commentaries and over 300 other works in its bibliography - i.e. that's how many books the author had to read to write his book - and it's only a fairly 'light' commentary on Dan!

And do you know what kills me - they haven't found an answer yet! Isn't that crazy!?

This actually peels off the corner of the sticking plaster and takes a furtive, inquisitive look at one of the potential wounds in approaching theology that I can see ahead of me - if the experts disagree so much on so many things, then how can we be sure about anything we believe?! However, it might well be the case that when the time comes to operate, I find that it's actually been healed by a greater understanding of what my faith is based on.

Yours with mild confusion.

D.

thought: Being intense

2006-03-27T14:54:00.000-08:00

I can be a fairly intense person, I came to realise recently. This has some down sides. However, Andy says that he reckons King David, and Paul were both intense people too, so at least I'm in good company.

Let's hear it for being wildly, unnervingly passionate! (and hope that we can learn when not to be, too).

D.

story: The Fox and the Cat

2006-03-25T14:08:00.000-08:00

The cat and the fox got on well when they first met. Very well – they really ‘hit it off’.’ After a short time, the fox said he liked the cat the cat said she liked the fox.

Happily ever after?

No. From that point on, things started to go downhill. The cat started to act like the fox didn't exist. She turned her back on him, wouldn’t talk with him, and made him feel awkward. Pretty soon after, she told him that actually, she’d changed her mind, and she didn’t like him in that way after all.

The fox was a very well-meaning animal. He always wanted to get on well with people - he thought he'd done something wrong. However, the cat never wanted to talk about it. She avoided talking about anything at all, and the Fox didn’t know why. She continued ignoring and not talking.

Three months down the line, the fox has just spoken to the cat about it. After three months of feeling awkward, it transpires that (and remember, the cat still doesn't want to talk very much about it, so the fox didn't get much out of her), that she was keeping him at arm’s length so that she wouldn’t his hopes up. That because he had felt attracted to her, she rejected any possibility of friendship with him, in case he continued ‘liking’ her.

From the Fox’s perspective, he feels that: This has been belittling to him and immature on her part. She assumed that the fox was incapable of platonic friendship and needed to be forced back ‘with a stick’ as it were. Is that really the case?! He also feels that her way of dealing with the situation has been imprudent: talking about this matter openly would have brought a much more positive resolution, and he imagines that they could be good friends now if they had spoken. Conversely, avoiding it has just brought awkwardness and hurt. He would like to talk to her about these things, but she doesn’t want to talk about it.

(The Fox recognises that this is just his side of the story)

The fox thinks forgiveness is essential, and bitching is never acceptable. His bible reading for this morning was ‘Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another’ (Colossians 3:13, NIV, Biblegateway.com) and that’s what he’s trying to do. He sees a lot of good things about the cat, and hopes that they can one day be friends. He no longer cares about her opinion of him though, especially with regards to his maturity.

And the Fox has learned from this situation:

That talking about things is nearly always better than not talking about things.

That you should never just ignore or be cold to someone if you suspect they like you – it’s a really bad idea.
(On a side note – the Fox today spent some time with one of his best friends, who at one point said she was attracted to him. They talked openly about it, and now they get on really well!)

The fox also looks forward to the day in heaven when he and the cat will look back on this and laugh with each other.

D.

story - Once upon a time...

2006-03-22T12:33:00.000-08:00

There was a boy who liked to say "why?" Not in a malicious way, just an inquisitive one, because that's the type of boy he was. He would say 'Why does the universe work like this?' or 'Why can't everything be much better?' or, when he was stressed: 'Why is this person being unpleasant?' (the age-old question of the universe)

A long time ago, the boy stepped onto a train. Since then, the train has carried him a very long way, and he has learned to lean on the train with all of his weight. The train has taken him places he would never have gone, meeting people he would never have met, and, he envisages that it will be correct way to progress into life after death.

Recently though, he started particularly asking questions on the train. He started picking at the surface - seeing what lay beneath. He stuck his head down to see where the pistons worked, and where the steam went, and how the cogs meshed together. And the more he found out, the more he discovered that there was to know, and more he knows, the less he understands.

HOWEVER > the train carries on going. He doesn't understand how it works, but it keeps going, and carries him along. He doesn't need to know how it works, just as long as it does. He'll carry on relying on it, leaning with his full weight upon it, having faith in it. Whatever he learns about the train will never convince him that the train doesn't work; 'science tells us that the bumble bee shouldn't be able to fly' ! He knows that the train is working because he's on it.

And therefore, every thought and every story must be read in the light of this one - that no matter how confused he may get, the boy continues to travel by train. He will let you know if he ever decides that he was deceived, and wasn't travelling by train at all, but until that day, the boy carries on leaning with his full weight, going places he would never have gone, meeting people he never would have met, and increasingly doing things you really shouldn't do.

all the best,

D.

Thought: Violence on TV

2006-03-18T16:19:00.000-08:00

This is by no means an original thought, but I would like to see media role models setting a good example, especially in the area of conflict resolution.

Violence is the key method of resolving differences in almost any media piece. It's a staple plot line in a TV show or movie to have a protaganist (hero) overcoming an enemy using violence. For example, see shrek 2, where Shrek storms the palace to kiss Fiona, while riding on the back of a giant muffin man. And this a kid's movie!

I'm less worried that people will go and shoot one another after watching a violent film - I'm also talking about programs like Eastenders and the OC, where people get violent and shout at one another to resolve differences. The (primary school aged) children that I work with see violence - shouting, aggression, expressions of anger, as the first alternative in times of disagreement. They learn this from their parents, and from the TV. Part of my work is to teach them other ways to deal with these things, but it would be much easier if they had at least some examples to work from.

I don't know whether I am a 100% pacifist. There certainly seems to be something inside of us that loves seeing good triumph over evil in a pitched battle. I can imagine that Die Hard would be pretty weak if Bruce Willis had been like 'Yippie Ki Ay Cowboy, Let's sit down and dialogue about our differences in a dispassionate and empathetic manner" I think it really relates to the question of whether we can agree with the principle of a just war or not, about which I'm not sure. However, there seems to be so many examples of violence, of win/lose situations, of people imposing their wills onto others, that we never actually get to see any GOOD examples, of people dealing with conflict in such a way that it brings mutual benefit to both parties.

I think we should have something to re-dress the balance. Now, script writers? Authors? Anyone willing to take up the challenge?

Aha. My new blog.

2006-03-18T16:13:00.000-08:00

Here it is.

D.