Found in The English Churchman: Pop Singer Raps Against Televangelists

Posted by Danny Webster in Faith and Failure and tagged with , ,

Every other Friday at work I get a treat. I get to sit back for a few minutes and browse through the latest issue of The English Churchman. Their website is rather minimalist, but you might find a little bit about them.

Anyway, today produced this gem which I thought was too good not to share. I post it below without any comment, oh no, not even implicitly. (But make sure you get to the end of the 4th paragraph.)

Pop Singer Raps Against Televangelists

20130517-134342.jpg An American pop singer has criticised several well known preachers who appear on American television and at large events because they promise health and wealth to those who part with money to finance their ministries. In general they finance extravagant lifestyles and get nothing in return.

American “Rapper” Shai Linne has criticized the “prosperity gospel”. What is even more surprising is that he has identified popular televangelists like Joel Osteen, T.D. Jakes, Paula White and Benny Hinn as its preachers in his new song “Fal$e Teacher$”.

Linne professes to be a Christian himself and quotes from the Bible against false teachers such as those who preach prosperity.

Rap is a somewhat aggressive sounding type of youth music that has been taken up by some modern churches as a form of evangelism and even perhaps as worship. One imagines that this is encouraged by churches who seek to be contemporary. Presumably they claim that such forms are merely contextual and so are not sinful in themselves. For Christians with a sense of the holiness and majesty of God one would think that such forms would never be accepted.

While we cannot condone rap music, even outside church, one can only hope that the condemnation of false teachers by one such as this will serve as something of a wake up call to those who have been led astray and had their wallets emptied by the televangelists. The next thing is to wake up to the inappropriateness of rap music. 

Taken from The English Churchman, No. 7871, Page 6

About these ads

Do nice guys finish last? Is pleasant unpalatable?

Posted by Danny Webster in Relationships and tagged with , , ,

Sometimes I wish I was someone else.

Sometimes I wish I had a little more bravado. Sometimes I wish I laughed at things other people found funny. I wish I was more spontaneous. I wish I was unpredictable. Surprising. I wish I had that edge. Whatever that edge maybe.

That edge that makes guys attractive to girls. And makes dates more than pleasant.

Because sometimes I think I am dull. Just dull. Barely making the mark of mediocrity known as pleasant.

Sometimes I wish I was someone else.

Someone better, scrap that, not better necessarily. Better is a bit too much like nice which is a bit too much like pleasant which sounds rather like code for dull. Different, I want to be different.

nice-guy-emotionsYesterday Threads’ anonymous Girl About Town wrote about her date with pleasant Christian guy. And it provoked quite a reaction. Guys split down the middle between trying to demonstrate their ‘fun’ credentials, and those like myself who sneered at the somewhat faux virility and opted instead for self-deprecation. An elaborate double bluff showcasing introversion and nerd like pursuits as a masquerade to shield insecurities.

It’s a cliché that good guys finish last, but sometimes that is what it feels like. It feels as though to achieve success in one part of life I have to screw up a little more. I could swear here to make my point with added weight but I don’t want to. I prefer not to swear.

We turn finding someone to build a relationship with into a game, where there is success and failure, and we are tempted to try and stack our hand. We weigh percentages and hunches and work out what would give us an advantage. Wondering whether if we were someone else the road might be easier. Wondering if a new identity might help. Thinking the grass is always greener through our rose tinted glasses.

We want everything to be okay, we want to be without blemish so we erect structures and façades to shelter our fragile self. We are told there are ways to behave, things to do and not to do, and knowing that we don’t always live up to that we sometimes try to present an image that we do.

I think that if I wear the costume enough it might become a second skin. It is never quite home, but close enough that I lose sight of the ways it betrays me.

Sara Kewly Hyde commented: “I think sometimes rather than discovering the fabulous and unique individual God’s made them to be, some men (people) are trying to be what impresses others and that in turn can lead to… Well a whole host of insecurities, the fruit of which is sometimes blandness… I think as Christians we also struggle to assimilate our dark or shadow side so at times repress it rather than asking God to glorify himself through it. Repression can also = pleasant but nowt else. If we allowed our imperfections to be as visible as our good bits then it’s unlikely ‘pleasant’ would be the adjective de jour here. Pleasant is great if accompanied by other adjectives.”

Another friend simply said: “pleasant might also mean stifled”.

When guys hear they are too pleasant, the immediate reaction can be to add another layer of characteristics they think might help. So as well as being the good Christian guy they also need to be the Alpha male chopping down trees, skinning rabbits and rescuing the damsel in distress. I mock to make a point.

Christian guys are told to pursue, protect, provide and pastor, and that becomes another list of things they ought to do to make the mark. If they are being rejected as dull, dismissed as pleasant, then they are not doing enough to woo the women. Emily Maynard commented on cultural norms that so heavily circumscribe Christian dating, which create a culture imbued with such deep, existential morals and genderised stereotypes. And the fear of slipping into sin or causing someone else to sin.

We are afraid of doing it wrong. Asking the wrong girl out, acting improperly, not being sufficiently chivalrous, not picking up on signals, showing too much affection, or more likely not enough. And under the weight of it, all that emerges is a bland pleasantness that might not be offensive but betrays its insincerity. It can also freeze us into inactivity.

The layers of personhood expected to be worn to fulfil the role of the right Christian guy become so deep personhood is lost. In trying to be something we stop being ourselves.

Here’s the challenge, I get the thrill of the different, the exciting, the edgy, but telling Christian guys they are too pleasant puts them on the defensive. It knocks their security and only encourages more layers covering over who they are.

Truly pleasant

Being nice is not bad. Being pleasant is not just about being polite. And good guys do not need to finish last. But if the pleasantries are a charade or a forced manicure they leave an emptiness where you or I should be.

Dave Shearn put it like this: “I think lots of us are non-committal and non-confrontational in the name of being ‘loving’ and that is lame. Passive aggression and people not agreeing with God that he made them awesome also doesn’t help.”

I also wonder if there’s a false dichotomy that’s being set up between atheist-guy and pleasant-guy, is the very fact atheist-guy is such what gives him that edge? Pseudo-rebellious was the way someone put it. It’s not that Christians are necessarily more dull than anyone else, but they are known and to some degree safe, and sometimes an element of danger is alluring.

The unknown can be attractive but it is also dangerous. Because I hope one day to be fully known and to know someone fully. I want safety to be a good thing. In the long run maybe pleasantness is a valuable attribute.

That don’t impress me much

I want to marry someone who loves me, and not love who I might pretend to be. Someone who knows me with my frailties and my failings, who sees my longings and my hopes and dreams. But I also want to be a better man. And I think it is a noble thing to want to be with someone who prompts you to be your better self. Not some act to be more edgy or less pleasant. But to find the ways I can glorify God more fully. To see the ways I can live a more holy life. To bear witness to the image of God that gives me dignity and humanity. To echo in a quiet whisper the love that has been given me.

And be all of it. No one is just one thing. No one is just pleasant. No one is just dull. No one is just boring. And no one is just exciting, edgy or different. We are whole people with a breadth of characteristics and being pleasant is a good one to own. But if that’s all you see yourself as no wonder that don’t impress her.

And I think trying to impress a girl who takes your fancy is a good thing. As long as the impression you’re making is yours to give.

PS while writing this a friend tweeted a link to an interesting sermon on ‘new rules for love, sex and dating’ so I thought I’d share it.

Thoughts on Bangladesh – bought at too heavy a price

Posted by Danny Webster in Faith and Failure, Politics and tagged with , , ,

130425062811-01-bangladesh-building-collapse-0425-horizontal-galleryIt’s thought that over 1000 people died after a garment factory in Bangladesh collapsed. They say that guns don’t kill people: bullets do. Maybe in this case t-shirts don’t kill people but garment buyers do.

This is nearly a third the number of people who died in the terrorist attacks of 9/11. But the cause was not terrorism, it was not global jihad. Perhaps if it was it might be easier to explain, it might be easier to put the tragedy at a distance with a clearly defined other responsible for the senseless loss of life. Perhaps then we might have an enemy to label and target if we were wont to avenge their deaths.

But apportioning blame in this case is harder. I can wring my hands and reach out for someone somewhere who could have done something different, who could have acted to prevent this tragedy.

I blame the building owner for the unsafe structure.

I blame the manager for making people work there.

I blame the authorities for failing to enforce safety standards.

I blame middle-men for complicated supply chains that obscure responsibility.

I blame shops that sell clothes produced at such a cost.

I blame consumers and the cheap clothes they buy because of cheap labour they ignore.

I blame myself for not noticing the abhorrent and the abusive. I blame myself for using complexity as the crutch of the complicit.

And it doesn’t help.

I can also read articles that tell me wages in urban Bangladesh are double what they were six years ago, and offer more than a subsistent rural lifestyle would provide. I can nod in agreement at the thought that if everyone stopped buying clothes produced in such conditions at such a cost the 4 million garment workers in Bangladesh would be even worse off.

But 1000 people died when a building collapsed. 2500 more were injured, rescued from the rubble as cries reached through crushed concrete. Today the rescuers moved out and the bulldozers start to clear the rubble.

And today a woman was pulled from the wreckage after 17 days entombed in the fallen structure. The redemption of one life is a symbol of hope. Almost a motif of resilience against the greed of corporations; against the ignorance of consumers; against the treatment by employers of workers trapped in a choiceless world.

Is knowing that things could be even worse than their current dire state enough to excuse the status quo? Clothes marketed for our convenience and sold at great cost. Is it enough to realise that stopping buying clothes the price of a cappuccino might actually make things worse?

Of course it isn’t. The complexity of supply chains, and the undesirable consequences of good intentions, cannot be allowed to shunt us into acquiescence. It cannot stop us from taking notice that of the £6 we pay for a t-shirt only two pence goes to the garment worker. Complexity cannot be an excuse for indifference.

We’re not indifferent when a single hoarse cry echoes through layers of mangled building. Hundreds of soldiers and fire-fighters rushed to drag her clear of the rubble. Not indifferent when the chance of saving a life means amputating a hand. Life seems precious in the moments its precarious state is presented to us.

We’re not indifferent when it’s someone we know. We’re not indifferent if they’ve been missing two days or twelve years. Hope isn’t extinguished with the passage of time or tonnes of wrought concrete.

Immediacy conquers indifference.

When we know our actions have an immediate impact for better or worse we weigh them more carefully. We rush into act, or we suddenly halt. We drop everything.

Why then do we let detachment and distance dull our relationship to those who stitch our clothes?

The Sea Change by Joanna Rossiter: A Review

Posted by Danny Webster in Books and tagged with , , ,

20130509-113349.jpgIt is a weird feeling buying a book off a shelf and knowing the person behind the book. There was the surge of excitement that a journey has reached this milestone (accompanied with the obligatory tweet). But there was also the apprehension of having to read words that someone has poured every ounce of effort and energy into.

I hesitated as I sat on the park bench and turned the cover and found my way through the opening epigram. Within a few pages I realised I was reading this differently. I was more deliberate, and I was more critical. I wondered why ‘underneath’ was used instead of ‘beneath’, convinced the latter carried better cadence.

I soared through the first half of the book that first evening in a frantic, and slightly pointless, attempt to read the book before its official launch last night. And I wondered, when such vast amounts of time have been spent crafting and working, and editing and refining, the words that make up a book does reading it in three days do it justice? That was all a bit academic because while the first hundred pages were enjoyable and delightful to read, an experience I wanted to cherish, the pace at which I read the rest of the book was not optional. It had grabbed hold of my collar and pulled me beneath the surging wave only to then thrust me headlong across the contours of the page and to the end. I was reading on the escalator, reading walking, reading while the kettle boiled. I would have read it in the shower if that was vaguely feasible.

20130509-113514.jpgI finished it last night after joining Joanna Rossiter and many others for the official launch at Daunt Books in Marylebone. Several of the early reviews cited yesterday commented that it was an extraordinary first novel, written with a maturity that one would think only comes from years of experience. And I agree, my pathetic thoughts of replacing words soon vanished as I realised just how good this book was, and how astonished I was anyone I know could write like this. I’m thrilled for Joanna that the book’s been picked for the Richard and Judy book club and hope this helps it get the many readers it deserves.

The Sea Change is set across two generations, in 1971 and in the years leading to and during the Second World War. It tells the story of two women in two different places, it speaks of home, and of loving and losing. One part of the story is based in the village of Imber in Wiltshire requisitioned during the war, while the other in south India in the wake of a tsunami. It speaks of drifting and driftwood, it uses distance and proximity as the currency of relationships. It builds layers of characters on vibrant portraits of landscapes. The characters barely distinguishable from the places they inhabit. Place is not impersonal in the world Joanna Rossiter creates.

By the end I was enraptured by the characters and their stories. I wondered if some, one in fact, was too loosely painted, lacking in depth, but I now wonder if that was to tell its very own story. The incredible depth and detail with which one character is portrayed, and still not all of the story is told. And for another where although the details slip through the cracks, more is perhaps told. At first I found the slightly chaotic and haphazard introduction of characters difficult to manage, names are used scarcely; relationships are at time unclear. Yet as the book develops the relationships begin to arc across the plot lines and across villages and oceans. And the rootedness that is at the heart of so much of the story is at one point suddenly and swiftly suspended.

The book isn’t perfect, there was one particular aspect that annoyed me, and I found myself wanting to know more about all of the characters – the brevity and detachment which I’m sure was intentional was also frustrating. There was so much which was unspoken and remains unknown. Jennie Pollock commented in her review that she struggled with the weight of similes in the book and with that in mind as I began reading I was very aware of each one in the early pages, but actually, once I was engrossed in the stories, the layers of words only helped to drag me deeper into their clutches. And as with perhaps the very best books the ending left me nearly hurling it across the room, but I wouldn’t have had it any other way.

I highly recommend this book and suggest you buy it right away!

UKIP if you want to: How to assess UKIP following the local elections?

Posted by Danny Webster in Politics and tagged with , , ,

FarageFirstly, did they really do that well?

There’s been some comment casting doubt on this, pointing out that their presence on local councils across the UK is similar to the Green Party, and unlike the Greens they don’t have control of any councils, or an MP in parliament. I reject this response, it’s indisputable that until this week the Green Party’s electoral achievements were more significant than those of UKIP, and with council control and Caroline Lucas in parliament they have a better embedded depth of political support. But this week’s events were remarkable, from some back of a napkin calculations I reckon the Greens have 127 councillors across the UK, and UKIP have 163. What is notable about Thursday’s election is that UKIP gained 137 of those councillors in one day, from virtually a standing start it is a noteworthy achievement, and one that deserve the attention being paid to it.

Local elections are also notoriously difficult landmarks between general elections. Not only do the councillors elected have different responsibilities, the parties often have a different flavour on a local level, local issues are in play, and because they are sometimes seen as less important they can be used as the repository for a vote against the parties in government. The way that people vote in mid term local or European elections isn’t necessarily an indicator of what will happen the next time parliament is elected. Further, trying to work out who does well and who does badly is complicated because not all parts of the country elect at the same time, or the same cycle. It is therefore difficult to turn the votes cast in local elections in a national percentage for each party, you can read more about that here.

The seats contested this week were last fought in 2009, a year where Labour sunk to the 22 per cent, and lost 291 councillors, the exact number they won back this year. So Labour did fairly well, but against a background of a deeply unpopular coalition government with the normal recipient of protest votes co-opted in to culpability for the nation’s woes, this wasn’t a result to get the pulses racing for them. The problem, for Labour, was that voters turned off by the policies, actions and personalities in the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, had an alternative vehicle to use to register their dissent.

UKIP did very well in seats they had not previously contested and okay in those they held. There was not a continuation of a dramatic swing in places they had already won council seats. This suggests their support is broad but shallow. If they are to have more, and more substantial, electoral success in the future they will need to marshal their forces to target gaining control of councils or specific parliamentary seats. To some extent this goes against the nature of their support which has an element of Farage against the machine. Professionalism and strategy don’t always go well with raw passion and dissenchantment.

Is UKIP full of loonies and fruitcakes?

Maybe, a party that expands is candidate list as fast as UKIP has will have had a fairly low level of competition and scrutiny for selection. Following this week’s results, the attention paid to candidates by the press will increase, and the party is likely to up its game and vet candidates if it doesn’t want to shoot itself in the foot. A caveat here is that the very unvetted nature of the candidates appeals to the non-PR-polished image the party seeks to portray, too much professionalism may also damage the party’s prospects.

Is UKIP just a protest party?

A lot of the support that UKIP received comes because of dissatisfaction with parties that voters would traditionally support, that they are not doing what the voters would like them to do. So to some extent the UKIP surge is a beneficiary of protest voting. But it is more than that, the votes for UKIP are not only votes against the policies of the traditional three parties, but against the politics they are seen to represent. Their support is less protest and more anti-politics.

Is UKIP a single issue party?

Their origin and their initial support was single issue, it is still their raison d’etre. But they are supported for multiple reasons not just because of their views on Europe. They are seen as a more straight-talking right wing party, they pledge to do something about the things other politicians make excuses for. They are prepared to talk about immigration and tackle it. But their policies also don’t add up because they haven’t come under the scrutiny other parties do, and this is likely to change in the near future. Their spending is uncosted and set against aspirational, plucked from thin air, cuts in taxation.

But Europe does matter, and it is a form of xenophobia.

Europe matters less in terms of a policy position, which they are clear and unequivocal about, and has garnered them a certain amount of support in recent years, but more of a symbol of what politics has become and what it shouldn’t be. There is a core of support for UKIP which is passionately Eurosceptic and sufficiently so for that to be the main reason choosing this party over the others, but I don’t think their expansion this year is due to an increase in support for that perspective. Those voters aren’t going to be won back to the other parties by a more Eurosceptic position, because they’ll always be outflanked.

But Europe is a bogeyman. It is the exemplary case of a political institution disconnected from the real world, it is overseas, it is far away, it is overpaid, it makes unnecessary laws, it makes laws that cut across our way of life. It is something else, it is distinctly other, it is easy to reject and easy to use as a basket-catch-all for political disgruntlement.

And the opposition to this aloof political institution provides a platform to set the party as different to the conventional political class. We are different, they say, we’re not like them. UKIP thrive, as do all populist parties, by emphasising a faux familial relationship with voters and casting that in contrast to the disconnect other parties represent.

The problem with populism

It’s easy to be liked when you don’t have to do anything. As soon as difficult decisions have to be taken greater conflict will emerge and the rosy, simplistic picture presented collapses. Populist parties present politics as easy and straightforward, and sometimes a bit of clear passion and direction is vital to good leadership, but decisions are difficult.

When President Bartlett was running for re-election his opponent came out with a brilliant sound bite answer during a debate: “We need to cut taxes for one reason – the American people know how to spend their money better than the federal government does.” This is what populist politics does, it cuts complex issues down to fortune cookie wisdom. It suggests complex situations and simple solutions. But Bartlett catches it and replies:

“That’s the ten word answer my staff’s been looking for two weeks. There it is. Ten-word answers can kill you in political campaigns. They’re the tip of the sword. Here’s my question: What are the next ten words of your answer? Your taxes are too high? So are mine. Give me the next ten words. How are we going to do it? Give me ten after that, and I’ll drop out of the race right now.”

The test for UKIP will be whether they can follow up this week’s success in future years, can they translate second places into victories, can they work as the opposition to the ruling group in local authorities, can they turn opposition into council control? Can they focus their resources in a way that translate broad but shallow support into sufficient backing to win a foothold in parliament. And will they be as popular when they have to make decisions that are difficult? I don’t think so.

Did marriage matter?

I don’t think the government’s plans to introduce same sex marriage were hugely influential in the tide of support that swept toward Nigel Farage’s party. I’m sure for some it was a crucial issue, and I’m sure the presence of a minor party opposing the government on this provided a useful way of signalling disagreement at a local election. I’m sure for many Christians frustrated at the actions and positions of the three main parties it was appealing to see a party taking a position they could support. But I think in a similar manner to Europe as a symbolic policy area representing disillusionment with politics, same sex marriage could be symbolic of disenchantment with policy positions. The political efficacy of voting for UKIP on the basis of their opposition to same-sex marriage is also open to debate, personally I don’t think it is particularly affective.

I would also question Christians supporting, or not supporting, any party on the basis of one issue. Political parties are there as vehicles to govern and when considering which to support we should take a broader perspective than just a signal issue, even though for many this is a vitally important one. If it is the issue that tips the balance then fair enough, but I don’t think it should provoke a switch in support in ignorance of other policies.

What does this mean for Cameron, the Conservatives and the Coalition?

Cameron has a problem because the voters do not see him as sincere, they consider him opportunistic and pragmatic, and will do what it takes to win votes. This is problematic for him because if he now pitches explicitly for those voters disenchanted with him and his party for that very reason he will look like he is being opportunistic and interested in winning votes more than standing for principles. It’s a bit of a catch-22.

With the emergence and success of a party such as UKIP it is possibly a little too easy to rely on a generic anti-politics response as the reason for their success, and this to some extent places the blame on the voters for not being sensible in their voting. This ignores the very real deficiencies in our political system and the political class. There are political parties led by people not trusted by the public and not wanted by large sections of their parties.

Saying a party succeeds because of anti-politics sentiment ignores that it is politics which is allowing this sentiment to be expressed. It can be a way of letting unpopular politicians off the hook by blaming the voting public.

Politics, perhaps to the chagrin of UKIP, is not other, it is not detached from the people. It is not a disconnected alternative reality far away from the lives of people casting votes in schools, community halls and leisure centres. Politics is of the people, and that is what we have seen this week.

It may be a short term development, it may be all flash and no lasting significance. But my hunch is that it is a decisive marker in collective disillusionment with politics as business as usual, and politics as process over policy. We want our politicians to be without fault, but moreover, we don’t want them to pretend they are without fault. It’s why Boris wins after swearing at Ken in the lift.

UKIP have a gift with the European Parliament elections next year, they are not voted on based on European policies or the performance of the European representatives. They will likely do well. The challenge for other parties is taking them seriously as a party that has received a significant number of votes, but also not jumping to the tune of a party that sets itself against the notion of politics and the manner in which it is performed. If they do try and ape UKIP too much politics could become a cross between blind man’s buff and Russian roulette.

Living on porridge and making pea soup: I’m living below the line

Posted by Danny Webster in Politics and tagged with , , ,

20130429-151914.jpg50 grammes of porridge isn’t very much. And it’s fairly tasteless on its own, but I’d ran out of money so couldn’t afford even the cheapest jam, honey or golden syrup.

For £1 I’ve got a pot of broth on the hob that will be my lunch for the entire week. A bag of split green peas, a carrot, an onion and part of a swede. And to do this this with the greatest level of integrity I have to account for the shake of salt, pepper and parsley from my shelf.

And yes, the pot is still on the hob and won’t be ready until gone 3pm. And this is my lunch. Good job I’ve got a day off work as I start living below the line for a week. Time in the morning to go shopping, time to prepare cheap but labour and time intensive food. A luxury I won’t have time for the rest of the week, so today’s goods will be divided up, put into boxes along with 3 slices of value bread.

I had to put food back on the shelf at the supermarket. I couldn’t afford as many eggs as I would have liked. If I want to drink tea, which I do, I’ll have to forego an apple one day.

If you haven’t came across Live Below the Line before, let me explain. Across the world 1.4billion people live in extreme poverty while we are too busy buying happy meals. This is twenty times the number of people in the UK living on the equivalent of less than £1 a day. This isn’t one of our pounds taken over to different countries, it is calculated through purchasing power parity – adjusting prices for different countries. More details are available about the calculations on the Live Below the Line site.

So for five days I am joining with many others and living on £1 per day. That’s why my caffeine intact will be down, why I’ll have a small breakfast, the same lunch each day, and an unexciting rice and beans dinner, on a couple of days I get to have eggs.

This is not just a stunt. It’s not just an exercise in embodied empathy, but hopefully it will do that. It’s about learning what many, far too many, go through each and every day. They cannot look forward to Saturday like me, when I can have a fry up.

Live Below the Line is also a fantastic way of raising money for charities who are doing vital work in many of the countries those 1.4 billion people live in. I’m joining up with Tearfund as I live below the line this week, and I would love if you could sponsor me – all the money goes direct to them.

SPONSOR ME NOW!!! (Forgive the poor etiquette, this is important.)

Is finding a wife like shopping for shoes?

Posted by Danny Webster in Relationships and tagged with , , , , ,

20130427-165905.jpg
Are you looking for a wife? Or, are you happy being single?

That wasn’t quite the question put to me but it sums up the sentiment. That it is a choice. And that either I am happy being single or I should start shopping.

Because that seems to be the mentality. Looking for a spouse attracting the same approach as I might take to hunting down a new pair of shoes, or maybe to give it a little more seriousness, similar to buying a flat.

Maybe I should confess that I’m not very good at buying shoes. I don’t find the process difficult, it is not a particularly complex task to complete. I just don’t do it. I have a smart pair and a casual pair and wear them until their resemblance to footwear is solely a historic recollection. I also have sandals for the summer, slippers for the winter and climbing shoes for, well, climbing.

But last year I bought a flat and that was a big decision, it was a task I gave myself to. There were things to do, some time consuming but mundane, others swift but significant. Putting in an offer, signing for a mortgage, collecting keys. There were words spoken and written, the handover of a set of metallic objects. Yet it was much more than that, the simple acts were imbued with significance, they meant something because of what linked them together, where they came from and what that signalled.

So I wonder, is finding someone to spend the rest of your life with like buying a house, and stripping the complexities away to push the point, is it like shopping for any other item?

When I go shoe shopping it’s not for a luxury, but for something I urgently need. Therefore I refuse to let myself come home empty handed. And when I bought my flat I had decided I was going to do so, I took some time but eventually made a decision. It was a big decision but it was not an irrevocable one. I can sell, I can let. It is a material possession.

When we buy something we choose to get something over nothing. We decide that while there are better or worse options, having something is better than having nothing at all.

I don’t believe that getting married is more important than getting married to the right person.

I don’t think getting married is like buying shoes, or a flat. Finding someone to spend your life with is not a consumer experience. It is a dance of emotions and expectations and hopes and dreams. It is prospect that absence may take the place of something.

Maybe it is like Schrödinger’s cat. Until you open the box you don’t know if the cat is dead or alive, so by some ridiculous chain of logic which I cannot begin to fathom, the cat is both dead and alive. Maybe you can be both living life to the full as a single person and want to get married. And until something happens you are both.

If I’m in a relationship it’s not much good living life to the full in my singleness, I don’t think that relationship would last very long. But until that point I am living in a contested reality, there are alternative routes that my life can take and I need to be open to pursuing either while acknowledge one would close off the other.

And that can sometimes stop you from opening the box. Not wanting to close down options can prevent you from making a choice. Sometimes I can be paralysed by indecision, and the multitude of options, and potential future options can cast me in formaldehyde and root me to the spot. Sometimes I wish it wasn’t a choice.

But the choice is what gives it meaning. The choice to take a risk and do something you don’t essentially have to do. Doing something you could live without, doing something that will limit your further choices, doing something that will stop you from always thinking that something better could come along.

Because getting married isn’t a step in life improvement, it isn’t a way of becoming more complete. It isn’t an accessory to make you more glamorous, or an investment to make you more secure.

And it is neither mail order nor magic. It is not a formulaic process or the result of an abracadabra. Relationships do not just happen and we cannot script them.

But we live them and we love them, and in them we find life and we find love. And if that’s how you think about your shoes I recommend some therapy.

What do single Christians want their church leaders to do?

Posted by Danny Webster in Relationships and tagged with , , , ,

SinglenessTonight I went along to a Christian Connection event reporting back on a survey of 3000 people, mostly users of their dating site, about singleness and the church. David Pullinger analysed the data and presented results focusing on what single Christians appreciated about church, and what they found difficult.

The results are still being finalised, and more formalised reporting will come in due course, and some of the results have already been reported. But a couple of comments immediately stood out.

  • Only 1/3 of single men aged 30-44 socialise with their friends at least once a week. This is a significant drop from those younger than this and is not matched by a similar decline among women.
  • Single women often find married couples reticent to offer hospitality, and this seems to be related to a perceived threat to their marriage. Single women often work, don’t care for children and as a result often find they have more in common with the husband than the wife. I’m fascinated to look into this more and eagerly await seeing the data.
  • And there was a list of twelve things single Christians would like their church leaders to do, in order of importance…
  1. Give talks about singleness
  2. Organise or enable social and fun activities
  3. Hospitality
  4. Provide models of singleness
  5. Pray personally or in the church
  6. Be inclusive in all church activities
  7. Organise or enable single groups
  8. Be in contact, through phone, email or text
  9. Provide or facilitate practical help
  10. Provide practical help in finding a partner
  11. Knowing and recommending singles events
  12. Seeking the single person’s viewpoint

It’s an interesting list, and some I certainly agree with. But in all of this I had a recurring question, is there a danger of entrenching an identity of singleness, and possibly as a result seeing identity defined by the absence of a partner, rather than the many other things which make up the individual’s character.

Is singleness something which should be seen as an identity? If you’re single is it a label you use or appreciate? Or do you think it can do more damage than good?

We need to talk about singleness

Posted by Danny Webster in Relationships and tagged with ,

singleFirst up, a confession: I was once a junior chess champion. I even got a medal for it. So there’s nothing wrong with joining a chess club to find a date.

I don’t think we talk too much about relationships. But I do think we’re not very good at talking about relationships.

The conversation might vary depending on who it is with, it is different with married friend to those who are also single. But there are some people who I know I will pretty much have the same conversation with whenever I see them, especially if I don’t see them very often. Miriam Skinner’s comments about ‘Martin in the blue jumper’ hit a little close to home. I’ll mention someone in a slightly off-the-cuff but almost obligatory response who I have taken a fancy to, who will then be brought up when I next see someone even if it’s a year later.

Miriam’s article is amusing and clever and filled with plenty of wisdom. But I think I disagree with its core message – that we talk about relationships too much. I don’t think we do, I think we easily slip into stale formulaic conversations that you could record in advance and hit play when the questions arise, and that needs to change. I also think we need to match our words with action, so that frustration is not left to fester.

We waste a lot of breathe and emotional agony on shooting the breeze, feigning sincerity when we speak barely masked gossip. Discussing the relative merits of courting over dating, contemplating whether to use an internet dating site, analysing the minutia of the actions of the opposite sex. Looking for clues about where romance lies and where it leads. Asking each other for advice which more often simply serves as affirmation for our intransigence.

I have a rule that I’ve developed over the past few years: most people who are single would rather not be. Rocket science, I know. Some people are happy – or content, to use the phrase de jour – in their present singleness, and a few think that is how things will always be. But for most people I know, even if they don’t see a relationship as important at the moment envisage themselves at some point with someone, or might like that to happen. I can say I am content being single and would yet might not want that to be the end of the story.

And I do not think that is a problem.

The Church should value and affirm singleness. And not just as a stage of life to exercise patience in. The Church should be aware of the ways its structures, processes and events can sometimes become hard to access for those without families or a husband or wife. I’ve heard of dinner parties that suddenly open up when the first ring goes on the finger: ‘my fiancé and I’ is the password to a new social circle.

Being in a relationship does not remove our need for God, it does not lessen out dependence on him, but I don’t think it needs to be a trade off. I think you can want a lot from romance and get even more from God. In some way the closeness of our human relationships with someone else reflect the way God makes himself known to us, and wants to know us more. We get to have both.

Here’s a hunch I have no way of verifying: if you get married the conversations don’t go away. The same sort of inquisition the Spanish would be proud of probes into new areas, and probably the banality of formulaic conversations won’t go away either. It might be a children, or buying a house. It might be about your sex life, or lack thereof. It might be about lust. Because that doesn’t go away either.

How do we talk about relationships in a way that is not formulaic and does not suggest that the shift from single to married is somehow answering a problem? I don’t know. It is hard.

But not talking about it won’t make the longing many people have go away. But it might, and I absolutely do not consider this to be what Miriam was saying, make people less willing to say words that are hard to say. To admit frailty in knowing who they like and whether they do. To say the person who caught their fancy last week is not in the picture any more. To speak of fears and hopes. To verbalise feelings and emotions that might get lost in a vacuum of solitude.

We probably need to cut out a lot of the crap from our conversations. The flip side is that we do just need to get on with stuff. Relationships, and I don’t just mean the romantic sort, are best built when we do something. As much as I like a relaxing evening in the pub there is something productive about activity, even if it’s playing games or cooking food. Much more if it is some sort of quest, some daring adventure, overcoming foes and reaching for the prize. Sorry, got carried away there.

I don’t mean just guys man-ing up and asking girls out, I mean helping each other, being the go between like we did at school discos when we were twelve. We could even set up our own dating service, I’m thinking ‘Church’ would be a great name for a place to meet and introduce people.

And when talking about relationships…

  • Accept that Sarah, the short brunette mentioned last week might not be someone’s eternal destiny
  • Talk about specifics, don’t let conversations become generic and repetitive, ‘oh there’s someone I like but I’m not sure whether they like me, or if I like them enough’.
  • Talk about beauty and attraction more than lust. Attraction is a good thing.
  • Talk about faith and where our identity and security is coming from (see I agree with Miriam there too).

Christian Connection has carried out research into the views of single Christians in the UK and are presenting the findings at an event in London next Tuesday (23rd April). I’ll be there and having seen a sneak peek of a few of the findings I can assure you it will be fascinating.

Death and all his friends

Posted by Danny Webster in Faith and Failure and tagged with , , , , , ,

The last mile of the Boston Marathon was dedicated to the memory of the victims of the Newtown shootings. The 26th mile for the 26 who died.

Reports suggest family members lined the final mile. Tragedy upon tragedy. Tears weighed down with grief. Reports also suggest no one from Newtown was among those killed or injured in the bomb blast.

And I want to say that amid the trauma and the tragedy that is the faintest glimmer of good news.

And I suppose it is. But pain is not dealt out in equal measure. Suffering is not even handed. Suffering is the plaything of a crooked dealer wielding death and destruction, rending families apart. Taking from a father who was running the marathon an eight year old son who was cheering him along.

Fairness does not have a say when death is at hand. Death is indiscriminate in who it takes, who it hurts and who it leaves behind.

God and Politics got there before me and wrote this morning: “Yesterday’s bombings in Iraq have killed at least 31 people and wounded more than 200, yet we hardly react to it at all.”

That is not the worst of it, bombs ahead of the upcoming elections killed scores more over the weekend. When it is almost a daily occasion news slips out of the news. It stops being of interest, it is simply one more tragedy piled upon a nation torn to shreds, and we look the other way.

Whether it is the Boston bombings, or in Iraq, or the acts of Kermit Gonsell carrying out late term abortions in torrid conditions, death seems closer than usual.

Tomorrow the streets of London will be lined with fans, adherents and hecklers as Margaret Thatcher’s funeral takes place. She was never anything but a historical figure to me, out of Downing Street before I could tie my shoelaces. But in death emotions are stirred and we are reminded that what we do in life matters.

I was far more affected by the death of Brennan Manning. Philip Yancey wrote in the forward to his final book: ‘As you read this memoir you may be tempted, as I am, to think “Oh, what might have been…if Brennan hadn’t given into drink.” I urge you to reframe the thought to, “Oh, what might have been…if Brennan hadn’t discovered grace.”’

In death we look back because we cannot see any further forward.

And in the end we lie awake and dream of making our escape.

Or at least so say Coldplay.

But I think that they are wrong.

Escape is not the goal.

We are not in heaven’s waiting room.

We live amid the rubble and the destruction and the tears and the grief and in it all we search for the glimmer of hope that points to something which says one day all of that will go away. One day cheeks will not be stained by the soft hint of swiftly mopped up tears.

One day the church militant, those of us living each day fighting for strength, battling evil, will have struggled for its last time.

But that day isn’t when we step onto an intergalactic elevator to move us through the stars.

God came to us. He invited us into his arms as he hung on the cross. The suffering servant that gave hope in His dying breath.

This God hasn’t given up on us. And he hasn’t given up on the world he created.