Empathy/Compassion

Hey, what do you know? No sooner had I begun work on this essay than it became all zeitgeisty. Writing in The Guardian on 8/7/23 George Monbiot said that empathy was a meta-skill, one of '...the overarching aptitudes - such as self-development, social intelligence, openness, resilience and creativity - that help us acquire the new competencies that sudden change demands.' And he pointed out that it could be taught.

But isn't it odd that it needs to be? Robin Dunbar (How many Friends Does One Person Need) defined what makes us human as '...the ability to understand the mind of another individual.' Maybe we're becoming less and less human.

In Dave Eggers' book The Every, about a giant tech corporation that takes over everything (thus its name), a character Meena says 'Every new generation purports to be more empathetic, and yet every new generation is less forgiving. And of course, with every coming year, technology ensures that no errors go unrecorded.' A moment's silence for me to give thanks that the stupidity of my developing years was pre-social media. I've been blogging for twenty years this year.

Rutger Bregman, in the exceptional 'Humankind' was less comfortable with empathy. Of its shortcomings he said, 'Empathy is a hopelessly limited skill... (it) 'misleads us by zooming in on the specific.'

I worked with a guy once who seemed to have no opinions or views of his own. I mean, he may have had but whenever you spoke to him you could usually work out who he had been speaking to immediately before. The best way to influence him was either to get the last appointment of the day or catch him in the car park but I don't know anyone devious enough to have done that. If it is possible, that guy had too much empathy. Great pastor. People felt listened to but nothing happened as a result most of the time.

Politicians on the campaign trail are usually manoeuvred away from people to whom they will have to show empathy. Being lectured by an ordinary member of the public will give a great TV news segment, particularly if you can't escape (Tony Blair outside a hospital), forget to take your mic off in the car (Gordon Brown and the bigoted woman) or will promise anything to get away (Boris Johnson), hide in a fridge (Boris Johnson) or lie about even the presence of cameras (Boris Johnson). Jeremy Corbyn is remarkable at being empathetic. People feel listened to. Say what you like about his politics he listens, with attention, and responds in a considered way. The presence of a TV crew doesn't much change who he is.

The massive numbers of people in the country mean that Blair could be given a tough time by an individual who had a bad experience even though more money had been invested in the NHS than at any time in the previous twenty years and that became the news. As one of my favourite proverbs goes, 'Mugging victims never believe the crime figures are down.'

This essay has been brooding for a while but was prompted by a piece written on Facebook by a former colleague Martin Little. I quote him at length:

'...neither populism or bureaucracy will ever really change anything. Populism is by definition facile because it denies the multifaceted nature of problems and reduces everything to a slogan to be sold. Bureaucracy doesn't ultimately work either, because procedures and policy documents only attack the problem from one level: information. And it's not enough.

'The only way to face problems is through relationships of trust between people. This is because relationships of trust are the only things that are in themselves multifaceted enough to stand up to the problems - and overcome them. Relationships are messy, contradictory, mysterious and impossible to contain by systems of control. But they are the only true power in the world.'

He wrote in the context of a current discussion about the leadership of the Church of England investing more in systems than people; managers than priests. It is not the job of this piece to take a view on that. But I responded that there may be some connection between the relationships/information axis and the empathy/compassion one.

Take a moment to think about the two words of my title. Have a go at defining them. What is the difference?

Before I went to the dictionary I did a bit of deconstruction. It looks as if we have the same part word at the heart of each - pa. Suggests a link.

I know pathos is Greek for the world of the emotions and em is to put in or into. Thus embark is to put people into a boat and employ is to put people into work. So empathy is to put someone else's emotions into you.

Com is Latin for with, suggesting we probably have a Latin word in compassion. Passion with. Sharing feelings. Something like that. That's my logic. We'll see. To the dictionary. I like Merriam-Webster online but often refer back to my 1964 Chambers Etymological English Dictionary to see what has changed.

On compassion, Merriam Webster says it is 'sympathetic consciousness of others' distress together with a desire to alleviate it ... it’s been part of the language since the 14th century, and comes ultimately from Latin com- and pati, meaning 'to bear, suffer'.'

It lists empathy as 'the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another.'

It adds a short paragraph, so it must be a much-asked question, on 'What is the difference between empathy and compassion?' It says:

'Compassion and empathy both refer to a caring response to someone else’s distress. While empathy refers to an active sharing in the emotional experience of the other person, compassion adds to that emotional experience a desire to alleviate the person’s distress.'

Compassion according to 1964 Chambers is 'fellow-feeling or sorrow for the suffering of another—usually a warmer feeling than pity ... ' It agrees with the Latin root.

Empathy is not listed. Very interesting and ties in with my secondary school experience.

Compassion is often used as a translation for a particular Greek word - splagchnixomai n the New Testament. When Jesus saw the size of the crowd who had followed him into the wilderness he had compassion on them so he began to teach them (Mark 6:34). When the Samaritan saw the man who had fallen amongst thieves he had compassion on him. So he showed him mercy and looked after him at personal cost (Luke 10:33). See also Ephesians 4:32 and 1 Peter 3:8 for the instruction that Christians should be so.

So compassion can be considered empathy tuned into action. 'Islam, Christianity, humanistic liberalism all have an imperative towards mercy; if we could separate the value from the vehicle that carries it, we could have a new ecumenism of human compassion.' (Richard Holloway)

Or, as Karen Armstrong wrote '...There is something wrong with any spirituality that does not inspire selfless concern for others.' (Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life)

I think life is much more complicated than utilitarianism (the greatest happiness for the greatest number). Sometimes we might all give a bit to alleviate the misfortune of the few. Come to think of it that is the principle of insurance: the premiums of the many compensate the misfortunes of the few. I'd like to suggest that numbers, systems and general information about things will enable that which is triggered by empathy to be targeted most appropriately. At that point, too much empathy in the room will stop the team taking the best decision using comments such as 'But what will <name> say?'

To generalise and controversialise; empathy would never have bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima; compassion did.

Robin Ince says in 'The Importance of Being Interested' 'Sometimes, when talking to people who have suffered greatly, you need to accept their feelings, but also accept that the true cause of their suffering and anger was not you.' That will keep you sane, but it doesn't mean you can't do something to help. If you meet someone suffering and it moves you, try to help. If you can't, tell someone with more power and influence than you.

Politicians can put themselves above and beyond empathy, having heard its speeches, and do something on a far greater scale than the individual.

So Martin was right. It is about relationships. And the most important relationship is the one between the feelings and the thoughts. Empathy sees the specific problem from which might flow a compassionate plan and programme to solve it.

Delivery Slots

Forgive me accessing my inner Tim Dowling but this happened.

We bought a sofa bed. Quick tip. If you want a sofa bed demonstration in a furniture department and there are no partners (oops, what a giveaway) around to help, try doing it yourself, badly, and pretty soon you will be surrounded by advice.

We managed to purchase a product that was in stock, so delivery was agreed for next Wednesday which meant today.

'They'll text you the day before to give you a two hour window.'

Yesterday that text arrived and the two hour window was 7.00 a.m. - 9.00 a.m. The text also said they would message again when half an hour away.

'What shall we do?' asked Mrs Dowling (see how it works).

Now I know what the answer to this question is. If it had happened that I had been home alone to receive the delivery I would have set an alarm for 6.45 a.m., popped on some clothes, made a coffee and had a look at my phone to see if they had been in touch yet.

However anticipating that, as ever, there are two ways to answer a question such as this, my wife's way and the wrong way, I provided this answer aloud:

'You set your alarm and then bring me a coffee in bed.'

She looked a little sad for no reason but no more was said.

This morning I heard Mrs D get out of bed (but not her alarm) and a short time later a cup of coffee was indeed placed at my bedside. I popped to the loo (noting that the heating had not yet come on), came back to bed, had a sip of coffee and checked the time. 6.16 a.m. This, we note, is 14 minutes earlier than the earliest possible half hour notice text. I went back to snoozing.

At (I calculate) 6.31 a.m. a voice on the landing disturbs my slumber to say the delivery will be at 7.00 a.m. I go back to snoozing.

At 6.45 a.m. I find myself fully awake so turn on the light and grab something to read while finishing my lukewarm coffee.

I am collecting outrageous quotes from HTSI (The Financial Times' weekly guide to spending lots of money) and find this, 'If you want to achieve your dreams you have to hustle.' Suppose your dream is to be nice to as many people as possible?

At 6.59 a.m. I hear a van arrive in our quiet cul-de-sac. I get out of bed and put on some joggers and a t-shirt, insert my teeth and smooth my hair over.

At 7.00 a.m. there is a knock on the door. I wander downstairs and answer it (there is no sign of Mrs D). A man with a large box asks where I want it?

'Would upstairs be OK?' I ask.

'Sure', he says, far too cheerily for 7.01 a.m.

Mrs D joins us during the second box (of three). She whispers that she was in the loo (at precisely, precisely mind, the time they said they would be here).

I am now writing an amusing anecdote having wished five friends a happy birthday, prepared and eaten my breakfast, sorted out the washing, and read HTSI, Feast and the Church Times. I've even had an internal dialogue about Oxford commas. Not happy with the result.

I have never heard the sound of a sofa bed being assembled upstairs but I'm taking a wild guess. I am pressing P for publish whilst still within the two hour delivery slot.

Updating my CV - Week 2

How's the mood in the house?

Welcome to Week Two of the lighter side of Destruction, Death, Pestilence and Famine although I suspect we have so far only seen the four understudies - Irritation, Anxiety, Allergy and Foodbank. The lead roles are waiting for the West End Run. Coincidentally West End Run is the name of a new and popular local jogging route.

So how has it been for you? A few years ago a charity CEO I know of had forgotten his documentation to get into a particular country to talk about offering humanitarian aid. He was miffed and angry that his journey had been a waste of time but his junior colleague told him he should  simply fly home and get it. On hearing the complaint that this would take two five hour flights the junior delivered the knock down line, 'You'd let these people starve because you couldn't be bothered to watch six movies.' Great line. It worked.

I thought of this again as I realised that my sacrifice for helping with the current outbreak of coronavirus was to have a quieter Sunday, do a few jigsaws and spend more evenings with TCMT. Tough gig.

That said it is likely that some relationships will be under more strain than ours at the moment and I sympathise. Although quick tip - men, be less selfish. No charge; it's OK.

TCMT is a fine woman and sitting next to her in bed this morning drinking another coffee and reading the papers from yesterday (told you life was tough) I noticed her things to do list for today, a quiet day with no volunteering, had  nineteen points. I think she'd crossed, like, the first five off because she writes things down she's done already for the psychological lift. Men, imagine what it would be like to finish today's things to do list. I know, some of you can't get as far as that. Bear with me. Now imagine the level of enthusiasm required to start on tomorrow's. I have a great imagination and can't leap that chasm.

During this love-in (kids, not that, don't panic, you may read on) she was quoting to me the while from the Saturday Times Magazine. She bought it, that's who. She claims it was in the Guardian pile but I'm not allowing her to cross 'Buy paper' off Saturday's things to do list, ever. She reached this sentence. Pay attention men because allowing your female partners to do improving reading should be discouraged and you may get questions such as this:

'In a relationship, this article says, men want '...the four B's ... beauty, brains, body and balance.' Is this (wait for it) WHAT YOU WANTED?'

Now in a relationship women want far more than a mnemonic. They need you to be on duty all the time, like a slip-fielder who takes a match-winning catch off the last ball of the day.

A few years ago I found a model answer when a friend's wife, noticing I'd done all the work for a dinner-party, asked 'Why didn't you marry me, Steve Tilley?' I replied, leaping to the left to pluck the speeding red bullet out of the sky, that 'I didn't fancy you (beat) then'. Forget for a moment that I didn't know her then and dwell on the fact that she walked away enjoying the word 'then' and the positivity it generated.

Remember also that if your nearest and dearest ask such loaded questions as 'Do you like this dress?' you must be truthful if you care what she looks like. I commend 'You can do better than that' which blames the clothes and is slightly better than any answer suggesting it is the body's fault.

'Does my bum look big in this?'

Go straight for, 'Your bum looks big in everything - I love your bum.'

You'll have to go clothes shopping for the rest of your life so disinterest may help you in the long term. I like clothes shopping. What a catch I am.

So, and it's taken a while but we're there now, my answer to the question about the four B's:

No (beat) they were a fringe benefit.

Time for breakfast. I wonder if that was on her list. It wasn't on mine.

Further marital guidance may be offered if I live.

(Not written entirely as catharsis - that's a fringe benefit.)

Song of Songs Goes to a Bar

In honour of the Morning Prayer readings from Song of Songs here is a sketch I wrote for Scripture Union's Word Live a few years back.

Bad Chat Up Lines

The scene is a bar. The mood can be set by quiet 'lounge' music and the occasional clinking of glasses or noise of cutlery and crockery.

Barkeeper Yes what can I get you?

Female customer Can I have a Diet Coke please?

Barkeeper Sure. Are you alone? Waiting for someone?

Female customer No. Yes I am. My friend will be along in a minute. Is there a (pause) problem with that?

Barkeeper Oh no, no. But Derek's in the bar over there and he comes over and chats up any new attractive female customers. I just try and keep him away, that's all. His lines are all terrible clichés.

Female customer You mean 'Your father was a thief...'

Barkeeper '...he stole the stars and put them in your eyes.' Yeah that's about the measure of Derek.

Female customer Do you believe in love at first sight?

Barkeeper Or should I walk past again? Is there an airport round here?

Female customer My heart is taking off. I think I've heard them, all.

Barkeeper Watch out for 'You see that Porsche in the car park...'

Female customer Ooh sorry, not familiar.

Barkeeper When you say 'Yes' he says, 'Well mine's the Transit van parked behind it.'

Female customer Oh dear (pause), but listen. Can I have a go? I think I'm quite good at repelling boarders.

Barkeeper Of course. Be my guest. I don't want to interfere. I'll be over here if you need me. Ey up. Here he comes.

Derek Well (cheeky laugh), what's a nice girl like you doing in a place like this?

Female customer Girl? Girl? If I were a girl I would be under age and should be thrown out.

Derek I'm sorry. I was confused by your beauty.

Female customer Easily confused are you?

Derek Only in the presence of such grace and elegance. Can I buy you a drink?

Female customer Can you do the sweet smell of mandrake and the fresh fruit of the vineyard?

Derek You what? I was thinking of another Coke.

Female customer Moving on. My round thighs? Perhaps you consider they are like jewels, the work of an artist's hands?

Derek Eh?

Female customer Surely my neck is an ivory tower and my nose a mountain?

Barkeeper There's nothing wrong with your nose; it's lovely.

Female customer Do you not find my eyes like pools of infinite depth?

Derek (A little embarrassed) Well they are, er very nice but er, that is...

Female customer Isn't my hair like finest purple cloth?

Derek It looks blond in this light.

Female customer Does not my breath smell of sweetest apples; my mouth of finest wine?

Derek I know they don't clean the pipes that often but that Coke must be off.

Barkeeper I heard that.

Derek Sorry Trev.

Female customer I haven't yet heard you praise my navel like a drinking cup, my stomach a pile of wheat surrounded by lilies. My breasts are like fawns. I am a tall palm tree and my breasts like its bunches of ...

Derek (Running away) Hey lads. Leave this one. She's a nutter.

Barkeeper Wow. Have one on the house. Where did all that stuff come from? That was an epic performance.

Female customer Oh, it was more than epic. It was (pause) biblical. Here's my date now. Isn't he just a gazelle? Pomegranate wine darling (air kissing) - mhwa mhwa.

Barkeeper (Aside) Oy Derek. I think you could be right for once. Weird this one. What sort of Bible can she have been reading?

Wives Submit to Your Husbands

I have been asked to make the text of my sermon from last Sunday on Ephesians 5:22-33 more widely available for discussion. Here is the text, slightly adapted for the wider audience and with some of the more stupid stuff edited. You can listen to the delivered version online if you want warts and all. Be gentle with me brothers and sisters:

It's been good to sit at home and wonder what people have been preaching on Ephesians while I was on sabbatical leave last year.

I think my summary of what I have heard from those of you who have listened to sermons in the series so far is that they have been challenging - challenging about belonging to the church and challenging about relationships.

So, not because you haven't been listening, but to show you that I have. And because we've had Christmas and New Year since the last in the series, let me summarise:

In Ephesians 1 we read of God's will for humanity. It is God's will to save us and he has acted in history to do this. The prayer for the Ephesian church is that, having been saved, they may grow to maturity.

Chapter 2 explains that there is nothing we can do to earn our own salvation. God's grace and Jesus' death on the cross bridges the gap between humans and God. There are no longer barriers. The church is for everyone. It goes on to say, in Chapter 3, that no-one is excluded from the church and we need to understand the extent of God's love.

In Chapter 4 we learn that this diverse group of people, the church, have different gifts and using them is how the church reaches maturity.

So when we reach chapter 5 and today's passage the letter has been outlining the standards which God expects of his new society, the church; now it gets on to the implications of those standards for relationships.

And the relationships we look at are relationships in the home; relationships that were probably represented in every congregation that first heard this letter read. Husband and wife; parent and child, master and slave.

The church in Ephesus was formed in the fire of Paul being publicly maligned, extraordinary miracles, false prophets, riots and beatings. Paul's farewell speech is a classic example (Acts 20) of Christian example. He says: 'You know how I lived all the time I was amongst you.'

There is some dispute as to whether this letter came from Paul's own hand or his school of thought, but we know about Ephesus and its difficult start as a worshipping community.

The key question for today's student of the Bible is this; which of the Bible's teachings are timeless as written and which are culturally bound?

If a teaching is culturally bound then we need to look at the principles involved and not the specifics. This will be more obvious when we look at the relationship between slaves and masters later. In Bible times slavery's existence was an assumption. The Bible's texts do not challenge it. But since the early nineteenth century all civilised societies have opposed it and worked for its abolition in its many forms.

And so to our passage. At the time of writing there was a hierarchy which was undisputed. So our three sections that follow v21 and its idea of mutual submission emphasise the submission, in those days, required of wives to husbands, children to parents and slaves to masters.

Tom Wright, in his commentary, points out that St Paul lived in a world where women were considered not only inferior to men but also they were people who had bodily functions that might make a man unclean.

In John Stott's 1979 commentary he says:

Now the very notion of submission to authority is out of fashion today. It is totally at variance with contemporary attitudes and permissiveness and freedom. Almost nothing is calculated to arouse more angry protest than talk of 'subjection'. Ours is an age of liberation (not least for women, children and workers), and anything savouring of oppression is deeply resented and strongly resisted. How are Christians to react to this modern mood

Stott then goes on to argue that although slavery is, rightly, now outlawed, obedience to parents by children is not. He equates the authority a husband has in the household as more like the latter than the former.

1979 was a long time ago. I'm not sure I agree. But let's start with three statements we should all be able to agree with:

1. In a Christian household all should be under the authority of Christ. Nobody should forbid that which Christ encourages nor allow that which Christ condemns. So whatever authority is up for grabs it has to be limited authority.

2. Secondly Galatians 3:28. Paul is clear that there is equality in Christ.

3. There is nothing wrong with a woman choosing to exercise submission to male authority in a household. We have moved on from the ages when this was the done thing. It is no longer compulsory; but it is not disallowed.

I don't think we want to argue with those three.

Stott sees a complementarity of roles but in the context of equality. Tom Wright argues that society has made a mess of marriage and that male authority, exercised under Christ's authority, would be the answer.

What do we say?

Whatever we say, we say in a country with a Queen and a female Prime Minister.

Whatever we say, we say in a church with female bishops.

I think we say that leadership is always necessary. Where there is no leadership the people perish. So a couple need to work out, and if they have children model to those children, how decisions are taken.

I think we say that for Christians submission to Christ is always necessary. This is the mutual submission of both parties in a couple submitting to a higher authority. This is the background (v21) of all the relationships discussed.

And I think that we say that this passage suggests that the individuals in a relationship need to love each other, submit to each other, love themselves and be willing to make the sort of sacrifices for each other that Christ made for his church.

Marriage vows are a covenant, not a contract. It is not 'I will do this for you if you do this for me.' It is 'I will do this for you, whatever.' It should not be entered into lightly or selfishly but reverently and responsibly in the sight of almighty God.

It is appalling that in 2018 there are still abusive relationships.

It is appalling that in 2018 women still earn less than men in many situations where they do the same work.

It is appalling that in 2018 marriage relationships break down too easily and are discarded not repaired. As society becomes increasingly throw away with its domestic appliances it should avoid being like that with its domestic arrangements.

But these things do occur. The terrible way women generally have been treated by men, particularly in politics and the arts as we have discovered recently post-Weinstein, is national news. It is good that women have spoken out loudly #metoo

There is, I think, a responsibility on Christian men to speak out for the rights of women.

Our passage's big theme is this - we should allow each other to thrive. Marriage should be liberating not stifling. Freedom in a framework. Trust. Mutual flourishing.

If you are considering whether someone is Mr or Mrs Right and making a commitment of marriage with them? Well it is not a matter of wondering if they might be the right one. It is a matter, as soon as you are married, of treating them as if they are.

But if you are a Christian and they are not it will be hard for this passage to be authoritative for your relationship.

It is clear to me that this sermon could be a series on relationships, and may need to be.

Advent Thought 14 and Number 2

If...

Then...

I know nothing about computer programming but if I were a betting man I would take a punt on some version of if... then... being important.

If I press the x key then a letter x appears on screen. Bongo, which is like bingo only typed wrong.

A lot of people conduct their relationship with God this way. I'll do this for you 2 3 if you do this for me 2 3. The gospel of the business deal. We end up not understanding why our surgery had complications 'because we prayed about it'. Whereas believing God, somehow, in all the mess, has a bigger picture and will be faithful, liberates us from only trusting him when things are good.

Which brings us, rather niftily, to covenant.

The Christian gospel is not if... then... It's, 'I'll do this for you, whatever.'

What difference would it make to your relationships today if you covenanted not to make your behaviour towards the other person be if... then... but 'I will'?

... words will never show
The you I've come to know

Advent Thought 1 and Number 3

The first took place in 1975. The woman I've been married to for the last forty years told me that I needed to sort out my faith if I wanted to sort out my life with her. It was a brave thing for her to say. She didn't want to lose me but risked it. Amazed that for her there was something more important than me (I was an arrogant kid) I did the necessary thinking and sorting.

Three years later came the second. Challenged to wok out what I was going to do with my life I accepted the suggestion to offer for ordination. This has now been my path for thirty three years and, furthermore, has helped me psychologically to accept that I didn't make the decision caused by the first conversation just to get the girl. This one took place in a gym store cupboard.

The third was when a wise rector asked me, about three years into a second curacy, if there was anything else I wanted to do that I hadn't done yet. I said I fancied trying my hand at writing and he arranged for me to have a short project and the inside of a week to complete it. About 1990 that would be. I have considered myself a writer of sorts ever since and have had several years of employed ministry where that was the lead task.

Your words have immense power to change lives. So. Advent thought and spiritual (or non-spiritual if you don't share my perspective) exercise 1. What three conversations have been most influential in your life?

'The formula for heaven's very simple.'

Thought for the Day

As delivered at BBC Radio Bristol this morning:

I was chatting to a group of young adults about what they call 'the old days' and I call my past.

They couldn't grasp how I used to meet up with friends without a mobile phone. 'Well' I said in a patronising, fatherlike voice I save for such occasions, 'Each time we meet, before we leave, we fix the time and place of the next gathering and then go there at that time.'

They all looked gobsmacked. How awkward. What if you are late? They could agree to meet in Dundee on Saturday, tweak the arrangements right up to the last moment and agree a precise meeting place once there. It's a luxury.

I showed them a picture of the first office I ever worked in. A busy insurance company. On each desk just a phone and a load of files. No computers, yet.

If I was to have a word now with my twenty year old self the array of communication devices in this studio would be utterly baffling as Twitter feeds, autocues, Facebook updates, texts, calls and live material are seamlessly linked. Well, usually.

The young me understood bullying, had even suffered a bit of it, but would not have a clue what I was talking about if I mentioned cyber-bullying.

We can end up thinking that this is a very 21st century problem needing a very 21st century solution. It isn't and doesn't. All it needs is the age-old rule to treat others the way you would like to be treated yourself. So old, it's in the Bible.

Online is just another place where people hang out. The good and the evil. There, as anywhere else, people should be respected not bullied.

Quote of the Day

863. Everyone seems to have a clear idea of how other people should live their lives but none about his or her own.
(Paulo Coelho - The Alchemist)

Quote Book Index 481-490

And then I discovered the joy of Trollope:

486. Few men do understand the nature of a woman's heart, till years have robbed such understanding of its value. And it is well that it should be so, or men would triumph too easily.
(Barchester Towers)

Quote Book Index 51-60

I have in mind some people who this might educate. Long shot.

56. Those who claim to be Christians should have got beyond the instinctive reaction to cap whatever they are told, and arrive at the glorious freedom of being able to listen. It is true liberation to let someone else have the last word. (Chris Idle)

Redefining Marriage - a discussion

An enjoyable discussion last night at Holy Trinity, Nailsea about redefining marriage.

Here is the script I worked from but you might need to check it against my precise words. The whole discussion was recorded and will appear on this list later in the week.

I began with a few unrehearsed comments and I apologised that there was some duplication (but actually not much) between what I said and what the first speaker said:

Script begins
How should Christians, both individually and collectively as church, respond to the government's proposal to change the definition of marriage?

There are two parts to this question as posed. How should Christians respond to something individually, and then collectively.

But first:

1. Error in question premise. There is as yet no proposal. The government gave notice earlier in the year of its intention to consult. On March 15th a 12 week consultation period began. No proposal has been made. Yet.

The response of some Christians to this suggestion of consultation was a petition. I think petitions are often signed by lazy people who have allowed someone else to do their thinking for them.

The petition said:

'This petition asks the government to fix the legal definition of marriage as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

Most legal definitions in this country are established by case law. The current legal definition of marriage was established in the case of Hyde v Hyde and Woodmansee in the middle of Queen Victoria's reign. Sir James Wilde, later Lord Penzance said that he conceived of marriage, as understood in Christendom, as '...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.'

So the petition asks for no change from that except that it be fixed by legislation not judiciary.

2. How should Christians respond collectively? Christians are not a group of people who have any mechanism whatsoever for responding to anything, anywhere collectively at any time. In effect this part of the question asks me, 'What should all Christians think?'

And most people in the world probably think the world would be a better place if everyone thought like them. A moment's thought tells us that this would give us a less interesting world. If the whole world were West Bromwich Albion supporters with whom on earth could I argue football?

Christians love the idea of strong leadership setting out what everyone should think until the point that they disagree.

Should we indicate that our church is in favour of signing the petition by a majority of 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 or whatever it turns out to be. I really have no idea but imagine if it comes to a vote I will lose.

So that takes me to the only part of the question I think is worth bothering with and that is part one.

3. How should Christians respond individually?

I wrote about this in a blog post on 27th February 2012 and asserted that Christians should not sign the petition. I believed they would be seen as homophobic, a word which has subtly changed its meaning recently and most people take to mean 'anti-homosexuals' rather than 'afraid of homosexuals' its literal meaning.

Writing in The Guardian last week Lucy Mangan told the story of how she was drawing closer to the Christian world by her involvement in a church run play group but was utterly put off by the way the petition we are talking about was peddled in the group. In her words:

It was a reminder that even if you love the language of the church and much else about it, you've got to stay alert to its threats.

So, thank you, playgroup lady. I was drawing closer. I shall keep a safer distance from now on.

My own view is this. I believe sin should be condemned. I know of lovely Christian people who think that a lifelong, to the exclusion of all others, same-sex, sexual relationship is not sin. I know of others who think it is and that all same-sex sexual expression is sinful. One group argue from the scriptures' clear prohibitions; the other argue that the Bible's teaching on this is culturally bound and needs reinterpreting.

I cannot give my opinion on who is right, even if I knew for certain, without upsetting a load of my friends. So I will not. I will at all times spell out the dispute without taking sides. This has led me to welcome gays to my congregations without criticism, implied or otherwise. This has led to me responding to a request to speak at the blessing of a civil partnership.

I do not think that marriage is threatened by being re-defined. I think that Christians are still free to make the rules in their own meeting places. I think that as soon as we have sorted out the complete hash many have made of heterosexual relationships we might be freer to chuck the first stone.

How should a Christian respond to the governments' consultation and the petition? Read it and think for yourself.
Script ends

There were three 'opinions' given (this was the second of the three) and then there followed some discussion and questions. The recording caught most, but not all, of the questions delivered by roving microphone.

Two other links. If you missed the email discussion between me and Anthony Bush a few weeks ago you can catch up with it here.

A few years ago I contributed a chapter to Sex and the Cynics (Damaris) edited by Tony Watkins. It remains the best attempt I have made personally to set out my position on biblical love and intimacy. Click on the link to buy it from Amazon. There are other chapters about how the search for love is portrayed in the movies.

Human Rights

An advert caught my eye in theipaper last Friday. Surrounding a picture of a pair of hands holding a tablet device bearing the picture of a besuited man holding a baby and a briefcase, was this text:

iDad

Every child deserves one

It's brilliant. In every sense of the word.

iDad is the world's most advanced parenting device and comes with a lifetime guarantee.

Having a a father is a human right  www.idad.org.uk www.fathers-4-justice.org

You can see the ad here.

Now I have a soft spot for fathers-for-justice as an organisation. I understand their point. In divorces dads often get a poor deal and I support the aims of those dads who wish simply to have more and better access to their children. I also think their campaigns have been amusing and awareness-raising. This latter one is no exception so full marks so far.

But, and there is a but, I stopped in my tracks at the sentence 'Having a father is a human right.' Doesn't that smell wrong to you? If it was a human right we would make sure everyone had one and in the case of bereavement would insist that a replacement be brought in. How can we go about legislating for that right?

I think everyone deserves the possibility of a good relationship with their father, as long as both parties are willing. I don't think you can call something a right if it takes two people to agree before it can happen.

Redefining Marriage

Many of you will know Anthony Bush of Noah's Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall. He wrote to our church leadership team about the consultation on redefining marriage. After an exchange of emails he and I have agreed to publish our correspondence in the hope that it may inform the debate. It is quite lengthy but I hope helpful.






Dear HT Leadership Team,






Conscious that Noah would have been in the heroic book of failures had he taken same-sex couples on the Ark (especially his family) and that he was a preacher of righteousness I am trying to follow his lead.






Hoping that HT might discuss the subject I am enclosing a letter I have sent to some in the press and most of it to the Prime Minister.






With best wishes,






Anthony









'So Cardinal O’Brien is reported as saying Britain would be shamed in the eyes of the world by the grotesque madness of redefining marriage to include same sex couples. Not the Anglican moderation we are used to, but understandable. Many of us are searching for God’s mind in this, aware that, for the Israelites entering the profligate Canaan and Christians struggling to please God in promiscuous Rome, Corinth and Ephesus, the Old and New Testament texts were given. These texts unambiguously prohibited both homosexual acts and heterosexual adultery with equal clarity and force (Lev 18:22-4, 20:10,13, Rom 1:26-7, 1 Cor 6:9-10, 1 Tim 1:8-10). The argument that marriage is about love not gender parts company with Genesis 2:24, where it is all about gender. Love was and is a luxury extra, and remains all too transitory.






'All of us are trying to help ourselves and others reach heaven and please God. Some of us might want to put a more pastoral angle to these texts in the light of young adolescents with ambiguous sexuality until they are perhaps 25, in an age where experiencing sexual activity of some sort seems to be an increasing media imperative. Temptations or tendencies should be absolutely free of condemnation, but lots of young people are confused and easy prey to media writers, commentators and others grooming them for promiscuity of any sort. Chastity is ridiculed and any sexual temptation used as a means of fixing a person’s sexuality far too young. It has always seemed to me that God was fierce in His apparent prohibition of homosexual acts not only because He wants procreation, but also because they were easier to fall for than the harder work of forming heterosexual friendships and marriage. And casual sex of any form is easier to fall for than patiently working at a prospective exclusive, loving, life-long marriage.






'I could myself so easily have become a homosexual, but for the prohibitions of the day and the intervention and help by some caring people and some sensitive spousing. Our 4 children, 14 grandchildren and Golden Wedding last month are a consequence. I hope Christians will discourage the State from rushing into redefining marriage just because a vociferous few covet the same name for a different union. They cannot use “husband” or “wife”, so why are homosexual couples not content with the legal rights of marriage they already have in a civil partnership?'












Anthony,






As many of my colleagues know I disagree most strongly and have written why here. Even more though is that, whatever our intention, we will be seen as homophobic if we object to the change of definition. This is a time to keep our heads down.






You may not know that many gay and lesbian couples do choose to identify their partner as their husband or wife.






You know that you and I disagree in many ways in our interpretation of a scripture. I join with you in condemning promiscuity and sex without commitment. I part company with you in your willingness to condemn loving, permanent, same sex, to-the-exclusion-of-all-others relationships. I will not.






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your reply. Robust as I would expect from you, but in my opinion you are not right, as you would expect from me!






First, you apparently ignore the Biblical evidence advocating heterosexual marriage over homosexual acts. Yet Scripture is given for our good and for everyone’s long term health and wellbeing. You use the emotive word “homophobic” to imply a persecution of downtrodden people. I am opposed to the wrong use of explosives/fire, of soil/mud, of laser/light not to persecute the users, but would want these used correctly.






Wikipedia suggests that in 2008, 6% of the country described themselves as homosexual or bi-sexual. I am sad for them and in the next generation would hope that number was reduced. You are saying that we, or is it I, will appear homophobic (defined on the Web as ‘with contempt, aversion, or irrational fear of homosexuality?’) if I want the definition of marriage to remain. As is so often the case with an angry minority, the opposite is the case. Why should a tiny number insist on a change of definition to suit themselves? And then call us homophobic if they don’t get their way?






I am not contemptuous of homosexuals, I talk to some often without aversion, I have no fear whatever of them, I want them to know Jesus loves them, but God does not approve of homosexual acts. God is also against adulterous acts, but he is not against all those with heterosexual inclinations or homosexual inclinations, He has better plans. I think homosexuals are too often heterophobic, in the sense of having irrational fear of a close relationship with the opposite sex; and I would like them helped and delivered.






As Dr Christopher Shell, writing to the CEN this week suggested, heterosexual and homosexual intercourse should not be equated for “six massive differences. The latter bears no fruit, making its biological purpose questionable. It’s high risk even without promiscuity. It involves penetrating a sphincter. It involves no lubrication. It involves a wall-lining only one cell thick (so that contraception dangerously increases pressure on surrounding skin). It involves micro-fold cells which actively attract microbes. How are we either loving or intelligent if we normalise this?” Dr Shell asks.






I know pastors like you Steve do not want to appear judgmental. I wholly understand that and the motive is probably good. But the prophetic can be lost and thousands will suffer if we fail to teach what Jesus taught. My reading this morning was Matthew 5, and there is some very tough stuff in there, including v 17-20 and lots more which will probably never be covered at HT if we are only concerned about not appearing judgmental. More important is winning people for heaven and God being pleased with us. I think people will know whether we love them by how we do this.






I expect we agree on this bit anyway.






Your brother in Christ






Anthony










Well Anthony,






Here we are again. I do enjoy our little chats online although you are an infuriating debating opponent. One moment we are talking about a legal definition and suddenly the discussion has broadened out into all sorts of other areas. It is this particular tendency of the anti-homosexual-practice lobby that so inflames matters.




Still. To take your points in order (and not raise any new ones):






Just because I didn't recite all the biblical evidence dos not mean I ignore it. I take my Bible seriously and it is my more or less constant companion. I do not believe the culture of the Bible world (spread over its two millennia) says anything about the one group of relationships we are talking about - the long-term, committed, same-sex, exclusive ones. It seems to me to be anti homosexual offenders and to have ritual, cultic and casual prostitution in mind in its criticism. The world of the Bible starts (if you take it all as history, which as you know I don't) with the confusing question of who Adam and Eve's children were fruitful with, goes through a period where a king has 1000 wives and concubines but is only criticised when they lead him to foreign gods, and ends with an instruction that a leader should be the husband of but one wife (so presumably a follower can have more). In other words there is a developing understanding of relationships and our job is to apply the principles not get stuck with the precise examples.






I used the word homophobic not to accuse you but to anticipate what you will be accused of if you say what you believe in public and loudly. You are wrong when you talk of an angry minority. I think the majority of society are now becoming comfortable with the presence and aspirations of gay people. Many people will not object to the change of definition being debated.






No-one, as far as I know, has accused you of being contemptuous towards homosexuals. If they do I will defend you. I have seen you in action. You are not.






Dr Shell accidentally betrays his disgust. Whilst I didn't intend this to be part of our discussion it gives the game away. Like it or not people have been having sex without the prospect of procreation for a long time now. I am up to 27 years and counting. There is no limit on where you can put lubrication. Anal sex is not only a homosexual phenomenon. Imaginative sex can take place in many different ways and, maybe, a hint of danger makes it better. Who knows what turns people on?






I have no problem with being judgmental. I judge, and pronounce, that our church is insufficiently geared towards the alien and the stranger and the poor and I said so on Sunday. I have great problems with being judgmental about something that needs attract no judgement.






I am sure that one day we will find out, when the dead rise again to be in the place where there is no marriage, what it was we were striving after in all these messy and complex human relationships. Meantime let's tread gently. I am not even going so far as to say that same-sex, exclusive and permanent relationships are undoubtedly all OK. All I am saying is that I will not condemn them and do not think other Christians should.






I would be happy to make our correspondence more public. Would you?






Have a good day my friend,






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your thoughtful reply and yes I would be delighted to publicise our correspondence further, though if my opponents are like the last ones my staff may not thank me for the next two years of demonstrations!






I am glad to hear you take your Bible seriously. However you have a liberal tendency to write off lots of it as being culturally out of date. When I was on the General Synod’s Marriage Service Revision Committee in 1982 we had difficulty finding a Biblical example of a monogamous marriage. Isaac is the only certain one in the whole Bible. That does not alter Genesis 2:24 for those of us who believe Genesis is God’s word about marriage, confirmed, word for word by Jesus and Paul. Most Biblical teaching about marriage implies its purpose is physical union more than for breeding babies and you are unfair on Dr Shell by saying his comments about anal intercourse betray his disgust. He is reminding us which orifice was made for what purpose and which defences they have naturally and which they don’t.






When I was in Nigeria the reason for “husband of one wife” became highly relevant as lots of Muslims were becoming Christians having up to 4 wives. European missionaries made them divorce all but one, so the CAC started as an indigenous denomination (to whom I was preaching) with more compassion for the wives, but the pastors only had one wife.






You seem to be selective about which homosexual acts you think the Bible indicates are wrong, quoting the NIV (UK) translation of 1 Cor 6:9, arsenokoitai, (literally man-coitus) as “homosexual offenders” to mean homosexuality with ritual, cultic or casual-only meaning. The original NIV and other translations have “men who have sex with men”, or men who practice homosexuality, or homosexuals. The OT law points to all homosexual activity being wrong, because the Israelites were told (Lev 18;22) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable”. That sounds clear. Before you suggest its context makes it a text for its time only, then follows an anti-bestiality command, with the reason “that is perversion”. These are preceded by hygiene laws with no moral comment, and by the laws of incest (for the first time, probably, as Abraham’s marriage with his half-sister was the blessed one). These incest laws were evidently needed now, despite the Pharaoh’s being compulsorily incestuous for god to marry god. They also remind us where Adam’s descendants came from - marriage between his children, likewise probably with Noah, for those of us happy with the historicity of the whole text. The gene-pools would have been strong and unlikely to produce harmful mutations through close breeding, for thousands of years. Indeed lots of animals breed that closely now with no harmful effect.






So I cannot see that you have any grounds for saying God’s view of same-sex activity depends on how serious or permanent they appear to be. “Detestable”, sounds very different from His view of creation after He had made both male and female as being “very good” (Gen 1:31). In Jesus day homosexuality was probably unknown in Israel but widespread in the Roman Empire (especially its emperors) so Paul mentions it to warn the Romans, Corinthians and Ephesians, as I quoted last time.






I am all for treading gently. No one wants to be condemning, but we have young people looking for guidance, struggling with their sexuality and making friends and decisions which could mean they marry and have children or not. There is also a Gay Pride lobby who are keen to get into schools and “help” the children. I personally feel sure lots of youngsters who end up homosexual could have become heterosexuals with the right encouragements. I am one who narrowly escaped, so am biased. My book in April will tell more.






In many ways this is a similar debate to the remarriage after divorce one, which I was also deeply involved in on G Synod. That one was partly about how marriages begin, the choice of spouse and purity or otherwise before marriage; the effort each side puts into keeping the marriage hot and free from predators. Obviously those who are on their second marriage will not like first timers being told those words of Jesus that suggest remarriage equates to adultery. So the church is silenced for fear of sounding condemning. Perhaps many of the voices that shouted “crucify him” were of those whom He upset.






In case we all need to know how many people the redefining of marriage is for, the ONS states there were 6281 civil partnerships formed in 2009, which were 2.7% of the number of marriages that year. It is difficult to compare break-ups at 5.5% for CP’s as they have only been going since 2005. I would expect them to be far less, as children are a huge extra strain on marriages, so marriage is so much more difficult than CP that for this alone it deserves its own exclusive name. I would be happy to leave Civil Partnerships as they are, with that name, or invent a new name for them.






A la prochaine fois – meilleurs voeux






Anthony










Morning Anthony,






We might have gone as far as we can because we have isolated the one thing we disagree about - our use of Scripture.






Trouble is I love watching the twists and manoeuvres extremely conservative evangelicals have to make to preserve their insistence upon historicity in the Bible. I would find it great sport if it wasn't so sad to the outside world that there are still people out there who hold such views.






I will not publicise this if you don't want me to but I had in mind putting it on my blog and telling my Facebook friends and Twitter followers where it was. Of course you can do likewise and we might be able to step back and watch the debate in the comments box. The blog traffic is not particularly heavy - 100 or so people a day at the moment tops.






I will not accept '...you have a liberal tendency' as anything other than praise. I know what you mean by it but it seems to me that we are all liberals when it comes to the Bible - we simply draw the line in different places. For me a liberal wants to give fellow humans as much freedom as the Bible describes God giving all of us. And a liberal approach to the Bible sees it as divinely inspired but as an agreed starting point rather than a fixed end (Rowan Williams' expression). 2,000 years of history gives us many things that the Bible knew nothing of and we have to apply its principles rather than look for proof texts (often out of context). For Jewish scholars the whole business of Midrash - discussing the scriptures - was as much doing scripture as reading it. I am tentatively trying to work out what it means to be liberal and evangelical.






Genesis 2:24 says 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother...' It is not obvious which of the previous clauses is the reason:






Because he needed a helper


Because the woman was made from his rib






It seems to me to be a story to answer a child's question about why people leave home. It can't, by itself, be used to support monogamy. We must beware of asking one text to bear more weight than it can.






And I am unconvinced by your specific quotations from Leviticus. It seems to me that the past is another country and they do things differently there. We can admire the desire of the fledgling community of Israel to keep themselves pure and holy listening, as they thought they were, to the voice of God the while, but we have to beware of cherry-picking our favourite prohibitions from the Law whilst ignoring the clear, apparently divinely condoned acceptance of destroying whole ethnic groups, stoning people to death for what we would now call relatively minor matters and a whole bunch of stuff about fabrics and spots.






I look forward to your treatise on orifices and their specific purposes. Do you mind if I pick my nose while I write? No-one is looking.






I'm not sure people will find it easy to listen to examples from Nigeria these days as a place of reason and tolerance but I accept that our Victorian missionaries did harm as well as good.






Your church would obviously be quite a hard place to be a divorcee, a homosexual and a liberal. I hope mine isn't. What have I achieved if I tell someone who is on their second marriage that they are committing adultery?






And finally I fear that your closing paragraphs anticipate a disaster that will simply not happen, a floodgate that will remain resolutely closed. If people, who are gay, opt to live an openly gay lifestyle it is not the thin end of any wedge. If some Christians, who are gay, choose to read the scriptures carefully and come to the conclusion that God is interested in mutual encouragement and support one for the other just as much as he is about procreation, I will not condemn them. If some of those want to enter into life long commitments I will not condemn them. If some of those wish to call their relationship 'married' I will not condemn them. If they wish to find some way to raise children as a couple I will not condemn them.






I'll look forward to reading your book.






I'll let you have the last word. Once you have replied I will put this on the blog unless you tell me not to.






Given that we seem to have changed our greetings into a foreign tongue (for added gravitas?) then I sign off as all Brummies do,






Tarrarabit.






St










Hi Steve






Thanks for your amusing caricature of my position. I smiled quite a lot and you deserve readers of your blog as you are an entertaining writer.






However as you know you are the same age as my children so I would expect you to have a different set of understandings of Biblical text. The beginning of WW2 saw this country extremely serious about calling on God and expecting His help. He appeared to give us astonishing deliverances. My book expands this. Subsequently the secular world and much of the church moved from this dependence on God and sincere search for His will in the Bible, to a more man-centred theology, with God brought in often, but not as final arbiter. Post rationalism has become the norm; if it feels good it is probably OK as long as no one gets hurt. The trouble is people do get hurt, often quietly. What God thinks about it is assumed to be fine; He is a nice forgiving guy. He doesn’t want anyone to perish, it says, so do what you like, He will have you in the end. Going to church is not one of those things, so those churches’ attendances are declining.






As you know there is also a conservative wing of the Church that thinks largely as I do. You cannot be ignorant of this position, so you must choose to parody it and ridicule it for other reasons; perhaps entertainment on the blog? If I am to take your reply seriously it will probably not make entertaining reading, though a few might get through it.






When Christina and I were married divorces stood at about 30,000 per year. Quite worrying, because in 1858 (or so) there were 2, when divorce first became permitted, and there were about 2,000pa until WW2. Divorce law was sought by liberals, promising that a tiny number of people were hurting badly from bad marriages, but after a few years of bulge the figures would settle down again. They were warned it was Casanova’s Charter and divorces would double, we needed to put in place marriage preparation, marriage counselling or the social fabric of the country was in danger. We would become the divorce capital of Europe, hurting single mothers and disfunctional children. They denied it vehemently or course and it went ahead. 8 years later divorces were 110,000, and another 6 years later they were 168,000. We have become all that was prophesied.






My book will show you our response. I am skeptical about younger people who were never taught their history. The law on abortion was changed with similar promises, sex education and contraception were introduced into schools without any moral background. We warned that we would become the abortion capital of Europe, the unmarried mother capital, etc. Sadly all this has happened. Where were most theologians? Living blameless lives answering questions no one was asking.






So I am skeptical about your plan to keep your head down over homosexual marriage and let this all pass; because you think no one will really be badly affected. I foresee much more inflationary consequences, as I suspect do the advocates of change. You have been warned.






My own take on all of this is that the church has lost conviction about God. There is lots of talk about loving neighbours, doing stuff in the community, living good lives if possible. But most people do not really think God is there, and if He is, then He is not particularly interested. “Do you believe in God?” I often ask. No nature all came from the big bang and evolution.






So I am not going to deal with any of your parodies of Old and New Testament verses. I am just going to say that God in His mercy can forgive all the messes we have made and do make every day. Repentance and seeking Him are key to His revival. No one is turned away, no matter how many abortions they have had or how many marriages. Jesus still says “neither do I condemn you, go and do not sin again”. We desperately need to be forgiven and filled with the Holy Spirit daily and have the courage to reach people where they are, in all the ways He can inspire us. This will need considerably more courage than is usually displayed by God’s people, but it is not too late.






I hope we are concluding on common ground, Steve. I will be delighted to discuss any of this again when we next meet.






With my love in Christ






Anthony










Thanks Anthony,






Profoundly tempting as you have made it for me to want to write again I will, as promised, not and will now publish and let people make up their own minds.






St

Marriage Words

When the Pilgrim Fathers popped off on their little adventure they took with them a number of words in common usage at the time. When a language changes location the process of evolution begins upon it. Some words they took with them died out but continued here in the UK; others died out in the UK but survived in the Americas. Fall for autumn would be a good example - we used to use it here all the time. It is wrong to call it an Americanism.

And look at the history of our English language in England. Our words come from all over the world.

Trying to stop the evolution of language is a bit Canutey. And by the way I think his name was C'nut or K'nut. It evolved. In particular at the teenage level words are reclaimed and relocated all the time. Is that a good thing? No, it's wicked. It's mint. It's top drawer pants.

So a petition dropped in to my in-box this week asking me to support the Coalition for Marriage petition.

This petition asks the government to fix the legal definition of marriage as:

...the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

Trouble is that the law defines current behaviour almost as often as it restricts it. Lots of same-sex partners, now civil-partnered officially, refer to their other-half as their wife or husband and their status as married. We can't stop them doing it, despite whatever the law says.

Furthermore the definition means we need to find some new word for the status of those who have married for a second or third time after a failed 'to the exclusion of all others' relationship.

There are things to get excited about in this life. Maybe us heterosexuals should get more concerned about setting a better example of how to sustain a wonderful, long-term, to-the-exclusion-of-all-others relationship. Then we would define marriage rather than asking the courts to. I'm not signing.

Show em yer warts

Lovely time round the lunch table yesterday with some nice people:

My Curate colleague, her husband and little boy
A couple from Trendlewood church we have got to know
A couple we met at the pub (he) and then when I married them
A couple we met through Alpha then a baptism contact and their little girl

But I think this may be odd behaviour for round here, with some notable exceptions.

A few year's ago a Christian course was published called 'Friendship Evangelism.' I recall remarking at the time that if the only bunch of people who had a specific brief to build relationships with outsiders had to have a course on how to make friends wasn't that a bit of an indictment about how well we were doing after 2,000 years? Maybe it was because I had lived in the Midlands or the north all my life, a dining room table constantly surrounded by people and a kitchen permanently inhabited by someone who had dropped by for tea and a chat.

A fellow church employee, who I supervised, asked me a few years ago, 'Steve, are we friends?' I found it a difficult question. Firstly, if he had to ask, clearly there was some doubt in his mind. Secondly because I operate without a category 'friend' in my head most of the time. I meet people, I behave in a friendly way towards them, I build a relationship. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but until they screw me over I continue to trust them and want to get the relationship better.

I have three or four really close friends and a nice family. Thereafter I don't use the friend word very much.

Regardless of what you mean by 'friend' it has been much harder than I ever thought here in the south-west to gently encourage this attitude of building relationships with outsiders. It simply doesn't come naturally to most people. No-one is unfriendly, but few are lowering the drawbridge.

Is it fear? A couple once told me they would invite me round for a meal when the ensuite bathroom was finished. What a terrible, all-consuming fear it is that people might see us in a state of less than perfection, even in a room there was no chance of my ever going in.

If you want to make friends you have to show everyone your blemishes, make your mistakes in public. When people come round for a meal here sometimes they get asked to peel stuff, stir pans or serve the drinks. They certainly see the last minute cooking panic since the kitchen and dining room are open plan. Clearing up is often a communal event. No-one minds.

I have heard someone describe having guests for a meal as 'outside my comfort zone.' I have been in lounges I think no one else has ever been in. It doesn't even have to be a meal you cooked. 'Let's share a take-away.'

People of Nailsea. Next time you meet the neighbour in the drive why not say 'Would you and Mr(s) neighbour like to come round for a drink and a chat next (name)day?'

For goodness sake, what's the worst that could happen? And I have seen those Dr Pepper ads.

New Media

'I can't see the point of new social media. How do you have time to do Facebook?'

A number of people have said that to me and I guess there is only one answer. If you want to do something badly enough you always find the time for it.

Last Wednesday an old friend noticed my Facebook status of 'going to London' and offered to meet me for a drink if I got there an hour early, which I did. We then spent a very happy 75 minutes in a conversation which began, 'So, how have the last 20 years been?' Brilliant.

A second thought. For those of us who love the content of inter-action, as compared to the emotion of it, a conversation through social media is perfect. A relationship is reduced to content alone and as far as I am concerned that is fine. In fact I can build up a content-based relationship to the point where I fancy I might like to meet the other person but to have to do emotional engagement at too early a stage is not my preference.

Doorstep

I find that the worst comes out in me when someone on the doorstep, who I don't know, says, 'Good morning, (pause) how are you today?' As you answer they begin, 'My name's Dan, I'm calling round on behalf of Scottish Gas and we're just checking you're not paying more than 10p for your gas.'

I think I am already decided that I will not switch to them even if they convince me I should switch.

Dan: Who are you with?

Me: N Power.

Dan: Wow (unspoken - how stupid are you?) Did you know they've just been fined £1.8 million for inappropriate conduct?

(I researched. Just = last December and the guys who acted inappropriately did it on the doorstep and had already been dismissed by the time of the fine.)

Dan, nothing personal, but after the opening 'How are you today?' nothing would have persuaded me to do anything you suggested however advantageous.

Space

The final frontier, as Kirk's Star Trek opening narration used to say. Well it isn't. The war over space going on at the moment is a battle for hearts and minds over cyber-space. And it's fascinating.

On the last Thursday of every month (yesterday) I have a quiet day in the company of a few, usually older, people. Average age yesterday was about 65 I'd guess. In the evening I have the town's Christian 18-25s round for a meal.

The day-time group got talking about their suspicion about the internet, reluctance to own music that wasn't somehow holdable in a box or sleeve, inability to conceive owning a book without owning paper and basically all the hang-ups you would expect from a generation who grew up before the information technology explosion. The language they were using was about exploration, 'I couldn't go there.' They made the world I'm blogging in now sound like a jungle full of scary creatures (hmm, good point).

The evening group have grown up with access to computers as a right not a privilege, use texts and mobiles to communicate all the time, get suspicious if someone hasn't updated their Facebook status for a while and find out if everything is OK, and so on. They have found a new space and gone in there fearlessly. Poisonous snakes? We'll see.

Hasn't it always been the case? It is the young and fit (with some exceptions) who explore, climb mountains, navigate river sources and go to the Moon. Part of being young is having less knowledge of risk and therefore being more interested in the exploration than the possible consequences. Some find out how fast you can drive round a corner safely by killing themselves, which is sad but will probably always be true for a few.

In the new digital world some may have their identities stolen or drop their e-readers in the swimming pool. By that process (of error and trial) devices will be made waterproof, shockproof and DNA protected (or something better).

Anyone can go on safari now. It's safe. We get the jabs. We have a guide. We can photograph lions. Only because some people were sick, lost and eaten. The unlucky got all three.

Cyberspace. It's just space. You can keep things there, own things there, explore things there. It's getting safer and safer. Come on in. Meanwhile the savvy are thinking, acting and working digitally and only making hard copy available if absolutely necessary.

(This essay will be available in paper form if I hear about demand.)

Interview Technique

A few months ago I was involved in an interview process. I met a number of interesting people for a post, all fine in their own ways, and was trying to listen to them in order, with other interviewers, to get a best fit. I had some one-to-one time with each candidate and decided to let them, as far as possible, set the agenda for our conversation. It seemed to me that what they chose to talk about would be illuminating.

In one case we agreed that, knowing little about each other, we would tell our stories. Now, in a 45 minute conversation, there need to be some limits to this. It was therefore interesting, allowing the other person to go first, to see what judgement they would make as to length of story. Ourselves. Once given the opportunity that is probably the topic about which we can speak at greatest length.

I felt this person went on a bit too long but not excessively. It came to my turn and after two or three sentences I was stopped with a, 'Can I just interrupt?' And, having noticed a connection between what I had just said and something not yet stated, I was given a further five minutes. Whilst there were other things that people had spotted to make this person inappropriate for the job, this incident alone was the reason I wasn't enthusiastic.

On another occasion, over a year ago now, one person ruled themselves out of the running for a job with their response to the opening question, 'Did you have a good journey?' I became bored after a minute or so. The reply went on so long I delivered the candidate late to the interview room from which I had come to get them.

If you have an interview soon be in the habit of timing your answers to questions. Know when one sentence is enough and then perhaps say, 'Would you like me to say more?' And try not to interrupt. It will infuriate far more often than it informs. And at an interview, 'How are you today' requires a one sentence answer and preferably one phrase or word.