Monthly Archives: July 2010

Framing the Good Samaritan

Posted on by

(from this morning’s sermon)

Consider the framing of this story. A lawyer comes to Jesus and asks him ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ What must I do…? Jesus does not answer the question by saying ‘Do? Do? It’s not about doing, you can’t earn your way to heaven by doing good works you silly boy! It’s all about faith!! Accept me as your personal Lord and Saviour here and now and you will be saved!’ Which is simply a way of saying that Jesus lived two thousand years ago, not five hundred years ago, and his approach was different to what is commonly our approach.

For Jesus, as he taught very clearly in several different places, not least when he talks about separating the sheep from the goats, it is actions that count. Not in the sense of earning our way into heaven, but in the sense that this is the form that the grace of God takes in the life of a believer. We can prattle on about holy things for as long as we like, but if the words never take shape as deeds then they are hollow words, fit only to be forgotten. The biblical notion of faith is not abstract and cerebral – it is not simply a matter of knowledge but of the orientation of the heart, and if the heart believes rightly, then it becomes faith, and faith is inevitably expressed in life, in action. In other words, your actions display what you truly believe. If you truly believe that Jesus is Lord of heaven and earth then your actions will reveal that truth…

The future is not what it was

Posted on by

A Courier article – published here 2 weeks after publication in the paper itself.

I write this on the day that Mr Osborne has raised the rate of VAT to 20%. This is necessary, we are to understand, because without that extra income, the budget will not balance and the country will go bankrupt. Sadly, barring a miracle, I don’t see any way in which some form of bankruptcy can be avoided. Now, before I go further, I should say: this is going to be a very depressing article, so don’t read it until you’re in a robustly positive frame of mind (that, or quite convinced, with me, that the Rector’s reckoning can be wrong).

OK.

The future that we face over the next, say, eighteen months to five years, is one of financial depression, specifically deflation. Why do I say this? Well, let us begin by pondering some figures – these are in TRILLIONS of US dollars:

World gross product per year: 55
Total value of global issued currency: 65
Total value of world stock markets: 100
Total value of world real estate: 125
(So far so good, now for the kicker)
Total value of financial derivatives: 1600

Financial derivatives are all those complicated things we’ve heard about on the news over the last few years, like ‘sub-prime mortgages’ and ‘credit default swaps’. The simple conclusion from the above figures is that the financial world has long-since lost touch with the real world of tangible wealth. There simply isn’t enough real wealth corresponding to all the financial obligations that have now been entered into. To put this in simpler, more graphic terms – imagine the amount of wealth in the world as a cake. What the comparatively recent explosion in nominal financial wealth has done is to give a great many different people legal claims to the same bit of cake. On paper, the financial world says that we have a great many cakes – unfortunately there is only the one.

What this means is that the financial system is irretrievably bankrupt. Over the next few years we are going to see something called ‘deleveraging’ – in essence, all the debts are going to be called in. In Warren Buffett’s famous image, ‘we’re going to watch the tide go out and find out who has been swimming without their trunks on’. We are in what I think of as a ‘Wile E Coyote moment’ – remember the great Looney Tunes character, who sprints after the road runner over the edge of the cliff, and manages to keep running on thin air until the moment that he looks down?

Our political leadership has been committed to keeping the show on the road for as long as possible – or at least for long enough to ensure that the movers and shakers are able to get some measure of safety for themselves, eg with the bonuses still being given to Goldman Sachs and other bankers – but they are rapidly running out of options. What we are going to end up living through is a severe contraction of the money supply, what the economists call deflation. Most people are familiar with inflation – the price of everthing goes up – but we’re less familiar with deflation. It sounds at first like a good thing – the price of everything goes down – but the problem is that in a deflation our ability to pay goes down faster. It won’t matter if the average shopping bill comes down to £50 a week rather than £80 if the impact of unemployment and bankruptcies now means that families can only afford to pay £30 rather than £75.

We have been here before – in the 1930s most spectacularly – and the consequences are frightening. One way to get a handle on what it means is to consider real interest rates. If a bank charges a 5% interest rate, and inflation is running at 2%, then the real interest rate is 3% (bank charge minus inflation). However, in a time of deflation, the cost of money could become very high (with consequent damage to the economy) even when the nominal rate of interest is low, or zero (eg bank rate of 1%, deflation of -3% gives a real rate of 4% – the two negatives become a positive). Governments who try to stimulate activity in this context are ‘pushing on a string’, with just as much effect (look at Japan’s recent history). In this context, the very worst place to be is in debt, because the real value of the debt will increase rapidly. That applies especially to mortgages, as the nominal price of housing is likely to plummet leaving a great many people with massive negative equity.

Thomas Hardy once wrote, ‘If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst’ (but see here). I’ve only skimmed over the nature of our financial crisis in this article – those who want to explore the background for this post might like to visit a blog site called ‘The Automatic Earth‘ which is where I got the figures from. There is a very great deal that people can do to prepare for these and the other crises that are accumulating around us, linked to the Transition process – but I’ll have to give the positive side in another article.

Inland Empire

Posted on by


Wow. I was trying to keep track of the different levels of reality and gave up after six – and then realised that I was missing the point, and went instead with the flow of ax(x)on hopping through the Inland Empire. A remarkable performance from Laura Dern which was the only thing that kept it at all coherent, and a surprisingly positive and integrative ending which I loved.

Of course, it’s only really for Lynch fans, and if you haven’t already watched Mulholland Drive – preferably several times – then much of the texture of this film would be missed or misunderstood, as in many ways it is an extension of his quite savage critique of Hollywood explored there. For me a 5/5, for other, perhaps more normal people(!) no more than a 3 🙂

Dealing with conflict in the church (Mennonite guidelines)

Posted on by

Found this in Shane Hipps’ ‘Flickering Pixels’ – great book, review coming prob over the weekend.

Agreeing and disagreeing in love –
Commitments for Mennonites in Times of Disagreement

“making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace” (Eph 4.3), as both individual members and the body of Christ we pledge that we shall:

In thought
– Accept conflict – acknowledge together that conflict is a normal part of our life in the church (Rom 14.1-8, 10-12, 17-19; 15.1-7)
– Affirm hope – affirm that as God walks with us in conflict, we can work through to growth (Eph 4.15-16)
– Commit to prayer – admit our needs and commit ourselves to pray for a mutually satisfactory solution (no prayers for my success or for the other to change but to find a joint way) (James 5.16)

In action
– Go to the other… – go directly to those with whom we disagree; avoid behind-the-back criticism (Matt 5.23-24; 18.15-20)
–…in the spirit of humility – go in gentleness, patience and humility. Place the problem between us at neither doorstep and own our part in the conflict instead of pointing out others’ faults (gal 6.1-5)
– Be quick to listen – listen carefully, summarize, and check out what is heard before responding. Seek as much to understand as to be understood (James 1.19, Prov 18.13)
– Be slow to judge – suspend judgements, avoid labeling, end name-calling, discard threats, and act in a non-defensive, non-reactive way (Rom 2.1-4, Gal 5.22-26)
– Be willing to negotiate – work through the disagreements constructively, celebrate small agreements along the way, cooperate with the emerging agreement (Acts 15, Phil 2.1-11)

In Life
– Be steadfast in love – be firm in our commitment to seek a mutual solution; be stubborn in holding to our common foundation in Christ; be steadfast in love (Col 3.12-15)
– Be open to mediation – be open to accept skilled help. If we cannot reach agreement among ourselves, we will use those with gifts and training in mediation in the larger church (Phil 4.1-3)
– Trust the community – we trust the community, and if we cannot reach agreement or experience reconciliation, we will turn the decision over to others in the congregation or from the broader church (Acts 15)
– Be the body of Christ – believe in and rely on the solidarity of the body of Christ and its commitment to peace and justice, rather than resort to the courts of law (1 Cor 6.1-6)

~~~

Amazing stuff.

My ideal educational system

Posted on by

A slightly more considered post than yesterday’s, in response to some comments.

Two guiding assumptions:
a) any and every child naturally wishes to learn, and will do so autonomously and in a self-directed fashion unless other forces prevent that learning from happening;
b) an education system’s sole purpose is to encourage and enable that learning, ie to act against the forces which prevent the learning from happening.

So what would I do, if I were given dictatorial powers over our education system?

1. I would abolish all qualitative grading.
2. I would abolish all age groupings.
3. I would abolish the time-structure of schools – in practice, I’d abolish all “schools” as presently constituted.
4. I would (so long as central funding continued to make sense) shift funding entirely onto a voucher scheme.

Expanding these:

Qualitative grading – by this I mean giving marks from A to F. To my mind, all qualifications should simply be of the ‘pass/fail’ variety, in the same way as a driving test. Students can take the relevant test whenever they want, and when they can display the competency concerned, they get the little piece of paper saying so. No mess, no fuss, no grade inflation for political purposes (and grading should be completely independent of the government).

Age groupings – children (and adults) mature at different rates and in different ways – such is not news. Shoehorning people together according to their date of birth is arbitrary and has pernicious and destructive consequences, which only tend to be alleviated when a low teacher:pupil ratio allows a good teacher to provide the personal care which overcomes those consequences. Let the student, of whatever age, pursue their own interests and run with them. It works at the beginning of the educational process, and it works at the end – why do we think it essential to turn children into industrial feedstock in the middle?

Time-structure – we have an historical legacy leading to a raving mad pattern of organisation for educating. Long holidays for religious festivals and harvest; Fordism during the day. I would abandon these things completely. Students would seek a teacher able to give them tuition at the level and in the subject they desire. Similarly, teachers would seek students to whom they had something to give. Instead of schools there would be ‘academies’ (I wanted to think of a different word that didn’t have present-day connotations but couldn’t find one, and it is the correct word!) – something much more akin to a large library with lots of different services, open pretty much all year round, and most hours of the day, within which people can come and learn at the time and speed suitable for them. If it suits a teacher to gather some students together who are at the same level, and teach them as a group – fine (and either side can instigate that). Similarly, the teachers have total authority over how many students to take, and how they are to teach them. They could even band together if they so chose. The system I envision would, in short, have a lot more teachers (and give them a lot more power) and much less ‘schooling’ (see, Shlottie, I do actually rate teachers, on the whole ;-).

Vouchers – the money follows the student, and can be administered by the parents to begin with, but increasingly by the child as time goes on. The funding lasts for a lifetime, up to a certain level of attainment (first degree?). The funding is fine-grained, that is, it is meted out per “course module” or equivalent, not as a single grant per year. There are very few restrictions on what can be pursued, save that funding for some things are dependent on prior attainment, eg you can’t be funded to read English Lit until you’ve attained the necessary language skill.

Of course, all of this is the academic side of education – hence they would indeed be academies – and education involves a great deal more than this. Yet I wouldn’t see the responsibility for the wider education as resting with the teacher – it would return to where it belonged, to the parents and the wider community as a whole. If the time structure is abandoned then children would once more be a full and daily presence in people’s lives, and that could only be a good thing.

Dumbing Us Down (John Taylor Gatto)

Posted on by

Modern education is rubbish. There, I’ve said it – but JT Gatto said it first. Modern education was set up on the factory model, to make people fit for working in the factories – a production line, producing producers (and consumers), willing to work until the bell goes. We spend so much time and effort and wealth on tweaking the system, prodding bits here and removing bits there, and yet it simply doesn’t get any better. How can we persist with such a destructive system? Gatto explains why… and it is fascinating. A highly readable and recommendable book.

Thing is, now that we have crossed the threshold into the Long Emergency, and budgets will continue to be cut for the foreseeable future, the old model is not just dead, it is deadening. Those kids that can just about fit in to the present structure can get by, those who stick out for any one of a myriad number of reasons will get squashed and discarded.

These are not new insights. The future is local, and small-scale, and probably home-ed.

For the next England squad….

Posted on by

There needs to be a step change from the past, but not a clean slate. We need to keep the best technical players, and those with a bit of wisdom. My twenty three suggestions:

GKs: Hart, Green, Robinson
No point keeping James, and I would explicitly make Hart the number one and give him an extended run in the side (even if he dropped clangers). Green (to rebuild confidence) and Robinson (experience) as cover.

Fullbacks:
Ashley Cole – best player in the world in his position.
Glen Johnson – yes, he needs to work on his defending, but the potential is there and he won’t become accustomed to performing at international level without the exposure

Centrebacks:
This is tough. I’d be very tempted to leave Terry out, along with Ferdinand, King and Carragher – time to clear the decks a bit. Sadly, I can’t see anyone else able to replace him.
Terry, Dawson, Micah Richards (also covers RB), Ryan Shawcross.

Defensive midfielders:
Owen Hargreaves, Lee Cattermole, Jack Rodwell, Barry.

Attacking midfielders:
Joe Cole (best technical player in the squad), Adam Johnson, Frank Lampard (I’d make him captain – a highly intelligent player willing to work for the team as a whole), Aaron Lennon, Ashley Young, Milner (also covers LB).

Strikers:
Rooney, Crouch, Gerrard, Defoe.

Jeffrey John for Southwark?

Posted on by

Thought I’d say something about this story; put simply, I think it would be wonderful if John were to be appointed to Southwark.

Jeffrey John has, at (presumably) some personal cost, demonstrated what it means to obey a teaching that you do not agree with. I think we could do with more of that witness to the virtue of obedience, especially at the highest levels of the church.

It would put right a past injustice. The objections to John being made Bishop of Reading did not seem to be made with Christian charity or notions of ‘bearing each other’s burdens’ – rather there was an attempt to force the hand of the hierarchy, which succeeded, and, in my view, gravely damaged Rowan’s ministry.

Following on from that, an appointment of John would represent an affirmation of traditional Anglican inclusivity, and a rejection of homophobia. I think the charge of homophobia is easier to make with regard to John because of his celibacy – the real motivations become clearer.

Unless the motivation is with regard to his teaching re homosexuality – but then the totalitarian ideology is exposed. The spirit blows where it will, and Jesus has many more things to teach us that we can’t cope with yet.

Personally speaking, I had been getting quite gloomy about the way that developments in the church had seemed to be moving, and I had started to believe that a really quite profound split was likely to take place – mainly because what I generally perceive to be the ‘middle ground’ in the church was seeming to be on the path to being excluded. Appointing John would, in my view, make that tremendously less likely, and, at the same time, a different split more likely. This is a selfish point really – if John were to be appointed I’d personally feel ‘safer’ in the CofE than hitherto.

My one suspicion – my cynical side emerging – is whether the appointment of John is designed to ‘buy off’ opposition to the Archepiscopal fiddle with regard to women bishops. I hope that isn’t the case.

I shall follow the story with great interest, and if John is appointed, I shall cheer.
UPDATE: I thought it was too good to be true. How very depressing.

On feeling like Cassandra (whilst thinking about Jeremiah)

Posted on by

“Considerabam ad dexteram, et videbam; et non erat qui cognosceret me… Non est qui requirat animan meam.” – Ps. cxli
[“I looked on my right hand, and beheld, but there was no man that would know me;…no man cared for my soul.” – Psalm 142:4.]

WHEN the clouds’ swoln bosoms echo back the shouts of the many and strong
That things are all as they best may be, save a few to be right ere long,
And my eyes have not the vision in them to discern what to these is so clear,
The blot seems straightway in me alone; one better he were not here.

The stout upstanders say, All’s well with us; ruers have nought to rue!
And what the potent say so oft, can it fail to be somewhat true?
Breezily go they, breezily come; their dust smokes around their career,
Till I think I am one born out of due time, who has no calling here.

Their dawns bring lusty joys, it seems; their evenings all that is sweet;
Our times are blessed times, they cry: Life shapes it as is most meet,
And nothing is much the matter; there are many smiles to a tear;
Then what is the matter is I, I say. Why should such a one be here?…

Let him in whose ears the low-voiced Best is killed by the clash of the First,
Who holds that if way to the Better there be, it exacts a full look at the Worst,
Who feels that delight is a delicate growth cramped by crookedness, custom and fear,
Get him up and be gone as one shaped awry; he disturbs the order here.

Thomas Hardy, ‘In Tenebris II’

I have referenced the last verse many times, but on tracking it down (for work on the book! first time in six months!) I realise that the quotation I have been using is inexact…