Much of what is displayed is for sale, so it's a brilliant chance to do some early Christmas shopping.
All sorts of unusual hand-made crafts.
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Craft Fair at St James' Church, Welland
There are lots of Arts and Crafts on display at St James' Church, Welland this weekend.
Sunday, 14 June 2009
A few more flower pictures
The theme is "Celebration" - this is a 4oth Wedding Anniversary
I get to take this lovely one home tonight - I won it in yesterday evening's raffle!
This is tiny! It's a detail in the arrangement celebrating Baptism.
An interesting character sitting in the church porch.
It's another beautiful day, and there's still time to come and join us! Both church and gardens are open until 5.00pm!
Saturday, 13 June 2009
Pictures from the Flower Festival
Here is just a taste of the many lovely arrangements that are at St Gabriel's Church, Hanley Swan this weekend (13th and 14th June).
As well as flower arrangements in church, a number of village gardens are open - and we have some very keen gardeners here! Lunches and teas are available, there's a jazz concert on Saturday evening and "Songs of Praise" service on Sunday. Full details are available on http://www.hanleyandwelland.org.uk/
The sun's shining here, 
so come and join us if you're
within reach of Worcestershire!
Thursday, 11 June 2009
Flower and Garden Festival
At the moment I am praying fervently for good weather, as we have a major event at Hanley Swan this weekend. There is a Flower Festival at St Gabriel's Church, which also includes the opportunity to look round a number of local gardens. A very kind parishioner is serving lunches and teas in her garden on both Saturday and Sunday, as well as hosting a jazz event on Saturday evening. The weekend will be rounded off with a "Songs of Praise" service on Sunday evening. This event is in aid of the development fund, as we are hoping to be able to install a kitchen and loo in St Gabriel's Church, so that we can do things like running coffee mornings for older people.
If you live in the Malvern area, or you fancy a day out to beautiful South Worcestershire, all details of the event are on the our Benefice web-site www.hanleyandwelland.org.uk
If you live in the Malvern area, or you fancy a day out to beautiful South Worcestershire, all details of the event are on the our Benefice web-site www.hanleyandwelland.org.uk
Friday, 5 June 2009
Tissue donation for research into brain disease
Listening to an item on the Radio 4 Today Programme about research into Altzheimer's Disease and other illnesses that affect the brain, and the shortage of brain tissue available for research, I was reminded of what happened when my mother died in 2003.
Sadly, by the time she died, she was suffering from dementia, but some years before she had decided that she would like to leave her body for medical research. Neither of my parents had enjoyed good health in their lives, and I think that she saw it as a way of giving something back to the medical world that had treated them, and indeed probably saved my life as a baby too. My mother wrote to the Bristol University Medical School who agreed that, subject to all the usual caveats, they would like to have her body when she died. The letter was carefully placed with her will so that I would be able to arrange matters when the time came.
In the event, the medical school was unable to receive her bequest; they were not accepting the remains of anyone who had suffered from dementia because of fears about CJD. While I understand that this could potentially present dangers to those handling bodies, the thing that I find hard to understand was why they did not make any alternative suggestion. Surely a medical school must be aware of research being carried out in other places? If it had not been for a wonderfully helpful funeral director, I would just have accepted what they said and my mother's body would have been cremated.
Fortunately, the funeral director did not just take "no" for an answer. She remembered that some time previously she had been involved in facilitating the donation of a brain to King's College, London for reasearch specifically into dementia - a member of this research project was one of the people interviewed on the radio this morning. Time was of the essence, as my mother had died over a weekend so everything had to be completed on the Monday if the tissue was to be in a useable condition. In the space of a few hours, the funeral director got in touch with King's College, arranged for the necessary post mortem work to be done locally, had the consent forms faxed to her for my signature and faxed them back, and taken my mother to Worcester Royal Hospital. By mid-afternoon, my mother was brought back to the funeral parlour and we arranged for her funeral in the normal way.
What struck me then, and again listening to the radio this morning, was how lucky we were that we were able to fulfil my mother's wishes. It was sheer chance that the funeral director was aware of the research at King's College, and was generous enough to go to considerable trouble to follow the matter through. OK, if I had searched the internet I may have found that or another project, but at a time of bereavement one's first instinct is not usually to start typing things into a search engine - well mine isn't, anyway. And in any event, with literally only hours available to us, the chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome would have been remote.
As someone who conducts numerous funerals in the course of a year, I am as aware as anyone of the vast spectrum of attitudes that people have to the mortal remains of their loved ones. At one end of this spectrum people see a body as still very much part of the person they love, and cannot bear the thought of them being violated in any way. At the other end people feel that all that is important about their loved one is now somewhere else, or perhaps has ceased to exist, and that the body is merely the discarded container. Attitudes range between these two extremes, and have little to do with religious belief. I am always impressed by the sensitivity of funeral directors who have to do their job in a matter-of-fact way, yet show enormous care to the feelings of relatives and friends. I hope that I have not upset anyone's sensibilities in writing about this subject, and have tried to address it as delicately as possible - if not delicately enough, I apologise.
We have all heard stories about people who have been upset by members of the medical profession who do not respect the feelings of bereaved families, although hopefully these are the exceptions rather than the rule. However, I do find it really surprising that when one medical group is offered a tissue-donation which for any reason it cannot accept, there is not a readily available list of others who may be glad to receive it. Both my mother and my mother-in-law ended their days in a state of dementia, which everyone agrees is a tragic culmination of a long and productive life. I am pleased that I was able to fulfil my mother's wishes, perhaps in a way that was more useful even than she envisaged. But in the light of my experience, I was saddened to hear the researchers this morning talking about the desperate need for the material for their work to find the causes of dementia and other debilitating brain diseases.
Sadly, by the time she died, she was suffering from dementia, but some years before she had decided that she would like to leave her body for medical research. Neither of my parents had enjoyed good health in their lives, and I think that she saw it as a way of giving something back to the medical world that had treated them, and indeed probably saved my life as a baby too. My mother wrote to the Bristol University Medical School who agreed that, subject to all the usual caveats, they would like to have her body when she died. The letter was carefully placed with her will so that I would be able to arrange matters when the time came.
In the event, the medical school was unable to receive her bequest; they were not accepting the remains of anyone who had suffered from dementia because of fears about CJD. While I understand that this could potentially present dangers to those handling bodies, the thing that I find hard to understand was why they did not make any alternative suggestion. Surely a medical school must be aware of research being carried out in other places? If it had not been for a wonderfully helpful funeral director, I would just have accepted what they said and my mother's body would have been cremated.
Fortunately, the funeral director did not just take "no" for an answer. She remembered that some time previously she had been involved in facilitating the donation of a brain to King's College, London for reasearch specifically into dementia - a member of this research project was one of the people interviewed on the radio this morning. Time was of the essence, as my mother had died over a weekend so everything had to be completed on the Monday if the tissue was to be in a useable condition. In the space of a few hours, the funeral director got in touch with King's College, arranged for the necessary post mortem work to be done locally, had the consent forms faxed to her for my signature and faxed them back, and taken my mother to Worcester Royal Hospital. By mid-afternoon, my mother was brought back to the funeral parlour and we arranged for her funeral in the normal way.
What struck me then, and again listening to the radio this morning, was how lucky we were that we were able to fulfil my mother's wishes. It was sheer chance that the funeral director was aware of the research at King's College, and was generous enough to go to considerable trouble to follow the matter through. OK, if I had searched the internet I may have found that or another project, but at a time of bereavement one's first instinct is not usually to start typing things into a search engine - well mine isn't, anyway. And in any event, with literally only hours available to us, the chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome would have been remote.
As someone who conducts numerous funerals in the course of a year, I am as aware as anyone of the vast spectrum of attitudes that people have to the mortal remains of their loved ones. At one end of this spectrum people see a body as still very much part of the person they love, and cannot bear the thought of them being violated in any way. At the other end people feel that all that is important about their loved one is now somewhere else, or perhaps has ceased to exist, and that the body is merely the discarded container. Attitudes range between these two extremes, and have little to do with religious belief. I am always impressed by the sensitivity of funeral directors who have to do their job in a matter-of-fact way, yet show enormous care to the feelings of relatives and friends. I hope that I have not upset anyone's sensibilities in writing about this subject, and have tried to address it as delicately as possible - if not delicately enough, I apologise.
We have all heard stories about people who have been upset by members of the medical profession who do not respect the feelings of bereaved families, although hopefully these are the exceptions rather than the rule. However, I do find it really surprising that when one medical group is offered a tissue-donation which for any reason it cannot accept, there is not a readily available list of others who may be glad to receive it. Both my mother and my mother-in-law ended their days in a state of dementia, which everyone agrees is a tragic culmination of a long and productive life. I am pleased that I was able to fulfil my mother's wishes, perhaps in a way that was more useful even than she envisaged. But in the light of my experience, I was saddened to hear the researchers this morning talking about the desperate need for the material for their work to find the causes of dementia and other debilitating brain diseases.
Friday, 22 May 2009
Standing up for Twittering
At Lunchtime on Wednesday (20 May), I received a completely unexpected telephone call from the Radio 4 "PM" programme. The Roman Catholic Bishop of Paisley, the Rt Rev Philip Tartaglia, had issued a warning to Catholics in Scotland that Twitter could damage real human relationships, and PM were looking for a clergy-person to disagree with him. Somehow, through the wonders of Internet searching, they had found me, and they wanted to know whether I could take part in an on-air discussion on the subject.
Since I'm never one to turn down the chance of a good discussion I agreed, subject to clearing it with my Diocesan Communications Officer and, if she deemed necessary, my Bishop. In the event, the discussion was not with Bishop Tartaglia but with the well-known Roman Catholic journalist, Joanna Bogle. I found myself sitting in a little room at Radio Hereford & Worcester recording a conversation with Ms Bogle in London - somewhat ironically, since we both agreed on the value of face-to-face contact and body language, we could only hear and not see each other.
The main difficulty for me was that, in many ways, I agreed with Ms Bogle's emphasis on the need for personal contact, and I expect that most other "twitterers" would have done too. Of course there is no substitute for face-to-face contact, for sharing a cup of tea with someone, shaking their hand or giving them a hug - no-one knows that better than a parish priest, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic. Of course old friends are important and should not be displaced by new ones made over the Internet. But why can these two aspects of friendship not run side-by-side? A very dear friend of 15 years' standing introduced me to Twitter; he lives some distance away and we now have more frequent contact than we've had since the days when we attended the same church. It is still great to see him and his family, but distance means this cannot happen more than a few times a year at most. My friendship with him is not diminished by the fact that we now both have online friends who join in with our conversations. Of course it is important for children and young people to be careful about the people they are in touch with, and for parents to exercise proper control. But isn't this just as true in the "real" world?
Many of my online friends are people that I would like to meet face-to-face some time, but who knows whether it will ever possible, living all over the UK and beyond as they do? Some too are people who do not find it easy to get out, and to whom it is a boon to be able make contact with people via their computers. Strangely, the Bishop is quoted in the Telegraph as referring to making friendships with "real people", as if those of us who twitter are actually not real; my online friends are real people, but I would have been unlikely to meet them in any other way. It is amazing how much you can get to know about people by exchanging views in 140 character snatches - to be honest I wouldn't have believed it either until I tried it! It's certainly good discipline for thinking about how to say something concisely - perhaps my congregation will see the benefit in my sermons?!
Not surprisingly, the weirdest part of the whole experience was listening to the broadcast interview. I am used to the fact that our voices never sound quite the same played back to us as they sound when we speak - even if I play back a message I've left on our answering machine, I think "Is that really me?" However, I've had quite a bit of public speaking and media training through the years, and know that the main dangers are speaking too high or too fast, and if doing anything in public always make a very conscious effort not too. I was therefore more than surprised that I appeared to be gabbling in a rather high pitched voice. My husband who - poor man - has to listen to me all the time said that he thought I sounded as if I'd had a close encounter with a helium balloon! I wondered whether the tape might have been run slightly fast, but my co-interviewee seemed, if anything, to be talking in a slightly slower, deeper voice than I remembered. No doubt all part of the "unreality" of technology, whether the new phenomenon of Twitter or much older one of radio!
When my parents were children, radio technology was in its infancy, and the levels of communication that we have today were beyond imagining. When I was a child, there were two black and white TV channels that closed down with the National Anthem at 10.00pm. Whatever the future holds, I hope that I will always be able to use whatever technology is available to meet new people and broaden my outlook on life. I'm glad that there are others who feel the same! Happy twittering!
Since I'm never one to turn down the chance of a good discussion I agreed, subject to clearing it with my Diocesan Communications Officer and, if she deemed necessary, my Bishop. In the event, the discussion was not with Bishop Tartaglia but with the well-known Roman Catholic journalist, Joanna Bogle. I found myself sitting in a little room at Radio Hereford & Worcester recording a conversation with Ms Bogle in London - somewhat ironically, since we both agreed on the value of face-to-face contact and body language, we could only hear and not see each other.
The main difficulty for me was that, in many ways, I agreed with Ms Bogle's emphasis on the need for personal contact, and I expect that most other "twitterers" would have done too. Of course there is no substitute for face-to-face contact, for sharing a cup of tea with someone, shaking their hand or giving them a hug - no-one knows that better than a parish priest, whether Anglican or Roman Catholic. Of course old friends are important and should not be displaced by new ones made over the Internet. But why can these two aspects of friendship not run side-by-side? A very dear friend of 15 years' standing introduced me to Twitter; he lives some distance away and we now have more frequent contact than we've had since the days when we attended the same church. It is still great to see him and his family, but distance means this cannot happen more than a few times a year at most. My friendship with him is not diminished by the fact that we now both have online friends who join in with our conversations. Of course it is important for children and young people to be careful about the people they are in touch with, and for parents to exercise proper control. But isn't this just as true in the "real" world?
Many of my online friends are people that I would like to meet face-to-face some time, but who knows whether it will ever possible, living all over the UK and beyond as they do? Some too are people who do not find it easy to get out, and to whom it is a boon to be able make contact with people via their computers. Strangely, the Bishop is quoted in the Telegraph as referring to making friendships with "real people", as if those of us who twitter are actually not real; my online friends are real people, but I would have been unlikely to meet them in any other way. It is amazing how much you can get to know about people by exchanging views in 140 character snatches - to be honest I wouldn't have believed it either until I tried it! It's certainly good discipline for thinking about how to say something concisely - perhaps my congregation will see the benefit in my sermons?!
Not surprisingly, the weirdest part of the whole experience was listening to the broadcast interview. I am used to the fact that our voices never sound quite the same played back to us as they sound when we speak - even if I play back a message I've left on our answering machine, I think "Is that really me?" However, I've had quite a bit of public speaking and media training through the years, and know that the main dangers are speaking too high or too fast, and if doing anything in public always make a very conscious effort not too. I was therefore more than surprised that I appeared to be gabbling in a rather high pitched voice. My husband who - poor man - has to listen to me all the time said that he thought I sounded as if I'd had a close encounter with a helium balloon! I wondered whether the tape might have been run slightly fast, but my co-interviewee seemed, if anything, to be talking in a slightly slower, deeper voice than I remembered. No doubt all part of the "unreality" of technology, whether the new phenomenon of Twitter or much older one of radio!
When my parents were children, radio technology was in its infancy, and the levels of communication that we have today were beyond imagining. When I was a child, there were two black and white TV channels that closed down with the National Anthem at 10.00pm. Whatever the future holds, I hope that I will always be able to use whatever technology is available to meet new people and broaden my outlook on life. I'm glad that there are others who feel the same! Happy twittering!
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
MPs' Expenses
I'm probably committing some kind of heresy when I say that I am more fascinated by the different reactions to this issue than I am by the issue itself. Even the normally refined group of people that I follow on Twitter are coming close to fisticuffs, and some are being very unpleasant about Stephen Fry. I've just watched a short film clip of Stephen being rather rude about journalists and their expenses - he doesn't say "people in glass houses" but that's his drift - and, more importantly, saying that we should be more worried about some of the other things that politicians get wrong.
In this he is voicing what I have been feeling for days. OK, so some MPs have been paid from the public purse for some things that are highly questionable, but the total cost to the taxpayer can only be tiny fraction of any one of the expensive and ill-conceived blunders that are so frequently in the news when we aren't worrying about MPs' expense claims. Some of those blunders cost livelihoods and even lives too, not just money.
Today, a fellow-cleric on Twitter suggested that it was offensive to someone on the minimum wage that an MP should be able to claim the cost of having his garden tidied. It seems to me that this is one of the more legitimate claims that could be made in connection with a second home. I would like my MP to be contributing to running the country, not trying to keep on top of two lots of gardening! I am also not sure whether it is people on the minimum wage who are making the most noise about this particular matter. This seems to me to be a very middle class furore.
In a couple of weeks' time, our Deanery will be having the usual meeting with Diocesan representatives to talk about the Diocesan budget, and how much parishes will be expected to pay next year towards it. Since the majority consists of the costs of supporting parish clergy, inevitably our terms of service always come under scrutiny. People who do, or have retired from, very well-paid professional jobs sometimes speak about clergy on stipends of C£22,000pa as if we are only in it for the money. If it happens to be mentioned that the Diocese pays our Council Tax and Water Rates, someone always says "I wish they paid mine!" Any attempt to point out that people earning £22,000 don't normally choose to live in houses the size of the average vicarage, just brings the inevitable question as to why we need such big houses anyway, and so on. Some clergy get so upset that they will not even go to the meetings. The obvious resentment towards MPs claiming even the quite legitimate expenses of having to have a home in London and one in the constituency seems to me to be of the same order as the attitude to clergy costs.
While some MPs' expenses obviously are a matter for legitimate concern, I feel that it is a great pity that they are all being treated in the same way. I feel that the media feeding frenzy is out of all proportion to the problem, and I am hoping that, very shortly, I will be able to turn on my TV or radio, or pick up a newspaper, and hear about the things that really make a difference to people living on the minimum wage.
In this he is voicing what I have been feeling for days. OK, so some MPs have been paid from the public purse for some things that are highly questionable, but the total cost to the taxpayer can only be tiny fraction of any one of the expensive and ill-conceived blunders that are so frequently in the news when we aren't worrying about MPs' expense claims. Some of those blunders cost livelihoods and even lives too, not just money.
Today, a fellow-cleric on Twitter suggested that it was offensive to someone on the minimum wage that an MP should be able to claim the cost of having his garden tidied. It seems to me that this is one of the more legitimate claims that could be made in connection with a second home. I would like my MP to be contributing to running the country, not trying to keep on top of two lots of gardening! I am also not sure whether it is people on the minimum wage who are making the most noise about this particular matter. This seems to me to be a very middle class furore.
In a couple of weeks' time, our Deanery will be having the usual meeting with Diocesan representatives to talk about the Diocesan budget, and how much parishes will be expected to pay next year towards it. Since the majority consists of the costs of supporting parish clergy, inevitably our terms of service always come under scrutiny. People who do, or have retired from, very well-paid professional jobs sometimes speak about clergy on stipends of C£22,000pa as if we are only in it for the money. If it happens to be mentioned that the Diocese pays our Council Tax and Water Rates, someone always says "I wish they paid mine!" Any attempt to point out that people earning £22,000 don't normally choose to live in houses the size of the average vicarage, just brings the inevitable question as to why we need such big houses anyway, and so on. Some clergy get so upset that they will not even go to the meetings. The obvious resentment towards MPs claiming even the quite legitimate expenses of having to have a home in London and one in the constituency seems to me to be of the same order as the attitude to clergy costs.
While some MPs' expenses obviously are a matter for legitimate concern, I feel that it is a great pity that they are all being treated in the same way. I feel that the media feeding frenzy is out of all proportion to the problem, and I am hoping that, very shortly, I will be able to turn on my TV or radio, or pick up a newspaper, and hear about the things that really make a difference to people living on the minimum wage.
Monday, 4 May 2009
A Picture!
When I was travelling to exotic places, nearly all my posts were accompanied by photographs. Now I am having my thoughts while looking out at my garden, and the Malvern Hills beyond - a lovely view, but it may get a bit tedious if I posted the same picture every time I had something to say! However, here is a picture of a view even more stunning than the glorious Malverns; it was taken from the holiday cottage we rented in Cornwall last week, and looks out across the bay to Mevagissey. We had a lovely relaxing few days, and could not have asked for a nicer spot in which to spend them!
Sunday, 3 May 2009
Love one another
In a recent post on the Church Times blog , http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=74344 the Rev Canon Giles Fraser expresses concern about Christian bloggers who write vicious things about Christians with different views from their own. I must be very naive, because I thought that the reason for writing a Christian blog was to be - how can I put? Oh yes! - "Christian". That doesn't mean that we should always be bland and uncontroversial, but I don't see why we can't disagree in a civilised way.
Surely the whole point of writing a blog from a Christian perspective (or any other perspective come to that) is to give people reading it an impression of what we are about. I often think of things that would make entertaining blog posts, but which would be a kind of "Grumpy Old Women" style rant. This would normally be against a large and faceless "them" rather than an individual, so no-one would be hurt, but even that does not seem to give an edifying picture of Christianity and the people who profess it. All my friends and parishioners know that I like a good moan occasionally (who doesn't!) but, hopefully, that is not all they see. The people who write vitriolic things on their blogs may be very kind, caring people, but that is not the impression that someone who stumbles across their blog will get of them. Much more importantly, readers will get a very strange impression of what Christianity is about.
Jesus told his disciples to love one another, and the letters from St Paul and others to the emerging churches make it clear that this was seen as one of the most important ways of spreading the Gospel message. People would see loving, caring communities and want to know more about the faith that brought them together. If Christian bloggers cannot even be civil to one another, how can they possibly hope to spread the Good News of God's love for all people.
Giles Fraser suggests that part of the problem is that people will say in print what they would not say to someone face-to-face. This is undoubtedly true in general terms, but I really would have thought that anyone of any intelligence, going to the trouble of posting their thoughts on the Internet, would consider the impact of what they are writing - not just on the people they are insulting but on their readers, and on the Christian message. But then, as I said, I'm obviously very naive.
Surely the whole point of writing a blog from a Christian perspective (or any other perspective come to that) is to give people reading it an impression of what we are about. I often think of things that would make entertaining blog posts, but which would be a kind of "Grumpy Old Women" style rant. This would normally be against a large and faceless "them" rather than an individual, so no-one would be hurt, but even that does not seem to give an edifying picture of Christianity and the people who profess it. All my friends and parishioners know that I like a good moan occasionally (who doesn't!) but, hopefully, that is not all they see. The people who write vitriolic things on their blogs may be very kind, caring people, but that is not the impression that someone who stumbles across their blog will get of them. Much more importantly, readers will get a very strange impression of what Christianity is about.
Jesus told his disciples to love one another, and the letters from St Paul and others to the emerging churches make it clear that this was seen as one of the most important ways of spreading the Gospel message. People would see loving, caring communities and want to know more about the faith that brought them together. If Christian bloggers cannot even be civil to one another, how can they possibly hope to spread the Good News of God's love for all people.
Giles Fraser suggests that part of the problem is that people will say in print what they would not say to someone face-to-face. This is undoubtedly true in general terms, but I really would have thought that anyone of any intelligence, going to the trouble of posting their thoughts on the Internet, would consider the impact of what they are writing - not just on the people they are insulting but on their readers, and on the Christian message. But then, as I said, I'm obviously very naive.
Thursday, 23 April 2009
The Perils of Twittering
Readers may have noticed a new panel on the right hand side of this blog, which gives a list of the things that I've recently posted on "Twitter". For those who have not yet come across this new phenomenon, Twitter is the latest thing for social networking on the Internet.
I was persuaded to sign up by a friend, and at first could not see the point - apart from anything else, you can't post anything more than 140 character (not words, characters!) in length. However, by some process that it is not altogether possible to explain, I have met some very interesting people, and discovered that quite profound thoughts can be exchanged in 140 characters. It is actually very good discipline for brevity, realising how many words we use that are not ACTUALLY necessary to convey meaning. And if I want to say more, like this, I can put it on the blog and post a link on Twitter, so that anyone who is interested can read it.
One drawback is the potential for time-wasting, reading what others have posted (or tweeted to use the correct jargon) and thinking up suitably witty tweets in reply. Another is concern about what one puts on there - especially if it turns up in other places. As already mentioned, my "Twitter-stream" is shown on this blog, and my latest tweet also comes up on my benefice web-site. In addition, The Church Mouse blog has a Twitter-stream for all twittering clergy. I'm wondering quite what anyone made of it who happened to spot that "countryvicar", my Twitter user-name, tweeted to a well-known author about naked bin-men the other day. All an innocent matter of someone misreading what someone else had written, but open to misconstruction nonetheless! My latest tweet is hardly more appropriate - being a wish for a ground-to-air missile to deal with low-flying aircraft disturbing an otherwise lovely evening. As I type, I'm probably being monitored by GCHQ as a potential terrorist!
I wondered whether I was lowering the tone of the Churchmouse Twitter-stream, after all, people perhaps look at it expecting to find uplifting words of wisdom, not a clergy-person exercising her questionable sense of humour. But I was reassured when I discovered that other vicars, and even bishops, were tweeting in just as daft a way as I do. Clearly the point (if there is one) of reading ecclesiastical tweets is to realise that clergy are just like everyone else - and that has to be a good thing!
I was persuaded to sign up by a friend, and at first could not see the point - apart from anything else, you can't post anything more than 140 character (not words, characters!) in length. However, by some process that it is not altogether possible to explain, I have met some very interesting people, and discovered that quite profound thoughts can be exchanged in 140 characters. It is actually very good discipline for brevity, realising how many words we use that are not ACTUALLY necessary to convey meaning. And if I want to say more, like this, I can put it on the blog and post a link on Twitter, so that anyone who is interested can read it.
One drawback is the potential for time-wasting, reading what others have posted (or tweeted to use the correct jargon) and thinking up suitably witty tweets in reply. Another is concern about what one puts on there - especially if it turns up in other places. As already mentioned, my "Twitter-stream" is shown on this blog, and my latest tweet also comes up on my benefice web-site. In addition, The Church Mouse blog has a Twitter-stream for all twittering clergy. I'm wondering quite what anyone made of it who happened to spot that "countryvicar", my Twitter user-name, tweeted to a well-known author about naked bin-men the other day. All an innocent matter of someone misreading what someone else had written, but open to misconstruction nonetheless! My latest tweet is hardly more appropriate - being a wish for a ground-to-air missile to deal with low-flying aircraft disturbing an otherwise lovely evening. As I type, I'm probably being monitored by GCHQ as a potential terrorist!
I wondered whether I was lowering the tone of the Churchmouse Twitter-stream, after all, people perhaps look at it expecting to find uplifting words of wisdom, not a clergy-person exercising her questionable sense of humour. But I was reassured when I discovered that other vicars, and even bishops, were tweeting in just as daft a way as I do. Clearly the point (if there is one) of reading ecclesiastical tweets is to realise that clergy are just like everyone else - and that has to be a good thing!
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness!
I was reading a comment on a Christian blog called The Church Mouse, which asked why the author had not discovered any comments by blogging vicars about the affair that has been at the top of the news for the last few days - ie the attempts to smear Conservative MPs by one of Gordon Brown's special advisers. I thought about this, and wondered why I had not felt moved to comment on this story.
I think that the main reason is, appalled as I am by the fact that anyone should go out of their way to spread unpleasant lies about others, it does concern me that this story has driven so much else off the front pages. There are so many people suffering around the world, whom we forget about if they are not in our news, that I feel that this issue is getting more than its fair share of air time. Yes, it is of public interest and should not be "hushed up", but I do feel that I have heard more than I could ever have wished to about this subject over last few days.
I know that it is unfashionable to quote the Ten Commandments, but they do sum up the whole debate in six words. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and, as I once saw on a T-shirt, God said "What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' do you not understand?" This commandment is sometimes explained as "You should not lie"; but it is not about fibbing, it is about deliberately and maliciously saying something that is untrue about another person. I believe I am right in saying that, under the ancient Jewish law, a person who made an accusation which was proved to be false would incur the penalty intended for their victim - up to and including stoning to death. This recognised how important it was not to bear false witness, and the damage that unfounded allegations could cause to society as well as the individual.
In planning to put scurrilous reports about individuals on a web-site, the perpetrator's aim was to damage those people, and by extension their political party, and there is justice in the fact that it is his job, reputation and party that have suffered what he intended for others. I doubt that it occurred to him that what he was doing would also damage society itself, yet that is what it has done. Not only by keeping more important issues out of the news, but by undermining our political system. For all its faults, we do have one of the few regimes in the world that I would wish live under, and I suspect that if most people are honest they will say the same. We damage that at all our peril!
I think that the main reason is, appalled as I am by the fact that anyone should go out of their way to spread unpleasant lies about others, it does concern me that this story has driven so much else off the front pages. There are so many people suffering around the world, whom we forget about if they are not in our news, that I feel that this issue is getting more than its fair share of air time. Yes, it is of public interest and should not be "hushed up", but I do feel that I have heard more than I could ever have wished to about this subject over last few days.
I know that it is unfashionable to quote the Ten Commandments, but they do sum up the whole debate in six words. "Thou shalt not bear false witness" and, as I once saw on a T-shirt, God said "What part of 'THOU SHALT NOT' do you not understand?" This commandment is sometimes explained as "You should not lie"; but it is not about fibbing, it is about deliberately and maliciously saying something that is untrue about another person. I believe I am right in saying that, under the ancient Jewish law, a person who made an accusation which was proved to be false would incur the penalty intended for their victim - up to and including stoning to death. This recognised how important it was not to bear false witness, and the damage that unfounded allegations could cause to society as well as the individual.
In planning to put scurrilous reports about individuals on a web-site, the perpetrator's aim was to damage those people, and by extension their political party, and there is justice in the fact that it is his job, reputation and party that have suffered what he intended for others. I doubt that it occurred to him that what he was doing would also damage society itself, yet that is what it has done. Not only by keeping more important issues out of the news, but by undermining our political system. For all its faults, we do have one of the few regimes in the world that I would wish live under, and I suspect that if most people are honest they will say the same. We damage that at all our peril!
Monday, 13 April 2009
Alleluia! Christ is Risen!
It was really lovely to see so many people in church yesterday to celebrate our Lord's Resurrection. Sometimes, it seems that people place far more significance on Christmas than Easter, and that is of course a very important Christian festival too. But if Jesus had only been born, then lived out his life and died like any other human being, nothing would have changed. It was the fact that he was able to overcome death that makes the difference to us today.
I have had some interesting discussions recently with people who do not believe in God, or in an afterlife. I agree that I cannot empirically prove that there is anything after death, any more than those who believe there is nothing can prove that. But if Jesus' disciples did not encounter their risen Lord, what changed them from a group terrified that they would suffer the same fate as their Master into people prepared to risk their lives to tell others about him? We know, not just from the Bible but from other sources, that many of Jesus's first followers met dreadful deaths; surely it is one thing to risk that for something in which you passionately believe, but who would do so for something they knew was not true?
I have had some interesting discussions recently with people who do not believe in God, or in an afterlife. I agree that I cannot empirically prove that there is anything after death, any more than those who believe there is nothing can prove that. But if Jesus' disciples did not encounter their risen Lord, what changed them from a group terrified that they would suffer the same fate as their Master into people prepared to risk their lives to tell others about him? We know, not just from the Bible but from other sources, that many of Jesus's first followers met dreadful deaths; surely it is one thing to risk that for something in which you passionately believe, but who would do so for something they knew was not true?
Monday, 6 April 2009
Jesus
One of the top subjects on Twitter last night was "Jesus". Thinking that this sounded like an interesting strand, I had a look at what was being posted. About half the posts were by people who were referring to Jesus Christ in some way, but the other half were people using the name as an expletive. As a Christian, I do find this use of our Lord's name in this way somewhat offensive, yet there is also something positive there too.
Most frequently used swear words refer to something that is essential to life, or at least of major significance - I won't list the ones that come to my mind, but think about it! The people who use "Jesus" as a swear word may well say that he is not essential to or significant in their lives, yet how then does the use of his name add anything to what they are saying? Any other word would do just as well. Perhaps the way that we will know when Jesus really becomes insignificant is when the use of his name to vent anger is replaced by "Mobile Phone!!!"
Most frequently used swear words refer to something that is essential to life, or at least of major significance - I won't list the ones that come to my mind, but think about it! The people who use "Jesus" as a swear word may well say that he is not essential to or significant in their lives, yet how then does the use of his name add anything to what they are saying? Any other word would do just as well. Perhaps the way that we will know when Jesus really becomes insignificant is when the use of his name to vent anger is replaced by "Mobile Phone!!!"
Saturday, 4 April 2009
A beautiful evening
I'm watching the sun sink slowly behind the Malvern Hills, after a good day when I've actually got quite a bit of work done. If I could just get rid of whatever has been ailing my throat and chest for nearly a fortnight, life would be even better!
Tomorrow is Palm Sunday when we celebrate Jesus riding into Jerusalem to be hailed as King by an ecstatic crowd. Yet within less than a week that crowd was shouting "Crucify him, crucify him". Isn't it interesting how some things never change? How many people can we all think of who have been feted in the media one week, only to be vilified the next?
It is often because they do not deliver totally unrealistic expectations, and this was what happened to Jesus. The crowd thought that he would drive the Romans out of the land of Israel, not realising that his Kingdom was one of peace rather than war. When he seemed more interested in putting things right in the Jewish Temple, the Jewish religious leaders and the people turned against him.
Christians should always stand up for what is right rather than what is popular, but sometimes we find good excuses for the easy option - and sometimes, in a comlex world, it's not always easy to agree on what is "right".
Tomorrow is Palm Sunday when we celebrate Jesus riding into Jerusalem to be hailed as King by an ecstatic crowd. Yet within less than a week that crowd was shouting "Crucify him, crucify him". Isn't it interesting how some things never change? How many people can we all think of who have been feted in the media one week, only to be vilified the next?
It is often because they do not deliver totally unrealistic expectations, and this was what happened to Jesus. The crowd thought that he would drive the Romans out of the land of Israel, not realising that his Kingdom was one of peace rather than war. When he seemed more interested in putting things right in the Jewish Temple, the Jewish religious leaders and the people turned against him.
Christians should always stand up for what is right rather than what is popular, but sometimes we find good excuses for the easy option - and sometimes, in a comlex world, it's not always easy to agree on what is "right".
Thursday, 2 April 2009
G20 - what else?!
Yesterday, Dave Walker, Church Times Blogger and Cartoonist, asked on his blog what question we would like to put to G20 leaders. Mine was "If stimulating the world economy means people buying things they don't need with money they haven't got, what's the point?" I wrote an article along these lines in a Parish Magazine when everything went wrong with the economy in the early 1990s, but clearly no-one in power read it, so here we are again, only things are even worse this time.
I have enormous sympathy for anyone who has lost their job, or is on short time, or in negative equity as result of the economic downturn, and I can fully understand the feeling that we need to get the banks lending so that things can be produced and sold, and the good times can return. Yet at the same time, we know that all this consumption damages the environment, and does nothing to help the poorest people in the world.
We are regularly given statistics on how much we waste - food we throw away, clothes we don't wear - and then there are all the perfectly serviceable electrical goods that we replace just because we want the latest model. I have heard a number of interviews in the media recently in which people who have been hit by the credit crunch have been talking about the fact that it has made them ask themselves if they really need something - before they buy it.
While I don't want to sound like a sanctimonious (or parsimonious!) dinosaur, I find it hard to imagine ever doing anything else! This does not mean that I live without mod-cons, I just don't replace them until they stop working. I doubt that a brand new washing machine would get my clothes any cleaner than my 12-year old one; arguably a new one could be slightly more energy efficient, but a life-time's use would not compensate for the pollution caused in making it. I wear my clothes until they fall apart - "we've noticed" I hear you cry! - and am still driving the 8-year old car that I've hated since the day I bought it. I do not only do this because I believe it is the way that we should live in a finite world, or because I believe that we should all give a proportion of our income to the church and/or charity. It also, totally selfishly, means that I can afford outings with friends and family, holidays, books, theatre trips, and other things that I enjoy. You can have a lot of nice meals out for the cost of a flat-screen TV!
When Gordon Brown and others talk about stimulating the economy, they mean going back to a time when people bought without first asking the question "do I actually need this?" We have the opportunity to change the world and achieve something that all the recent prosperity in the developed world has failed to do - give people who cannot even buy the things that they do need the chance to do so. And we could reduce the world's carbon emissions, land fill, toxic waste, etc, by not manufacturing and disposing of so much. But this would need a complete re-think of how we do things, otherwise the millions of people world-wide, who have relied on all this excess consumption for a living, will be plunged into unending poverty. I don't doubt that the world leaders meeting in London have the combined intellect to achieve such a re-think, but sadly I do doubt that they have the will.
I have enormous sympathy for anyone who has lost their job, or is on short time, or in negative equity as result of the economic downturn, and I can fully understand the feeling that we need to get the banks lending so that things can be produced and sold, and the good times can return. Yet at the same time, we know that all this consumption damages the environment, and does nothing to help the poorest people in the world.
We are regularly given statistics on how much we waste - food we throw away, clothes we don't wear - and then there are all the perfectly serviceable electrical goods that we replace just because we want the latest model. I have heard a number of interviews in the media recently in which people who have been hit by the credit crunch have been talking about the fact that it has made them ask themselves if they really need something - before they buy it.
While I don't want to sound like a sanctimonious (or parsimonious!) dinosaur, I find it hard to imagine ever doing anything else! This does not mean that I live without mod-cons, I just don't replace them until they stop working. I doubt that a brand new washing machine would get my clothes any cleaner than my 12-year old one; arguably a new one could be slightly more energy efficient, but a life-time's use would not compensate for the pollution caused in making it. I wear my clothes until they fall apart - "we've noticed" I hear you cry! - and am still driving the 8-year old car that I've hated since the day I bought it. I do not only do this because I believe it is the way that we should live in a finite world, or because I believe that we should all give a proportion of our income to the church and/or charity. It also, totally selfishly, means that I can afford outings with friends and family, holidays, books, theatre trips, and other things that I enjoy. You can have a lot of nice meals out for the cost of a flat-screen TV!
When Gordon Brown and others talk about stimulating the economy, they mean going back to a time when people bought without first asking the question "do I actually need this?" We have the opportunity to change the world and achieve something that all the recent prosperity in the developed world has failed to do - give people who cannot even buy the things that they do need the chance to do so. And we could reduce the world's carbon emissions, land fill, toxic waste, etc, by not manufacturing and disposing of so much. But this would need a complete re-think of how we do things, otherwise the millions of people world-wide, who have relied on all this excess consumption for a living, will be plunged into unending poverty. I don't doubt that the world leaders meeting in London have the combined intellect to achieve such a re-think, but sadly I do doubt that they have the will.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
Return of the Blogger!
It's an amazingly long time since I got back from my travels. I always intended to continue the blog on my return, but various things intervened. It's too late even to make it a New Year resolution, so now it's a Lenten one instead. I'm not sure at the moment what I'll write about, just random reflections on life, I expect! I don't feel that I need to change the name - just because I'm not wandering around Europe any longer, doesn't mean that I'm not still a pilgrim!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
