In 150 words (1)

Basically, the thinking behind this post is that a lot has been going on and I'd quite like to talk about some of it but have found myself rather without the hours to spare at the moment, so as an interesting writing exercise, I'm seeing if I can condense my key thoughts into 150 words or less- quality not quantity, right? All Titles link to the main article.

So without further ado I present you the deep and brief thoughts of yours truly on:

Miliband's reforms raise more questions than answers (New Statesman)

Behold, the bright future of Labour has arrived! And if we thought Blair’s New Labour washed Red flags whiter than white, here’s Milliband, seemingly trying to expunge the Union influence from the party- suggesting a weakening of their electoral power and capping their financial clout. I can’t really see how introducing another electoral college, of non-members, is a good idea so await robust explanation.

The funding matter is more difficult- Labour and the Unions are historically inseparable- but an opportunity to choke contributions from rich individuals and in a small way diminish the clout of business in government is tempting. If State funding plays a major part too, then it does give more even footing to smaller parties- look what happened when Nick Clegg got just that in the televised debates- the election was far more interesting. Democracy could gain from this, even if it’s not great for the unions.

Only half of Britons say UK is a Christian country (Telegraph)

So George Carey is on the warpath again, using these poll results to decry the ebbing influence of Christianity over national life. It’s unfortunate that the very next thing he says cites an instance where ‘exercising Christianity’ appears to be promoting intolerance- and whatever the reasoning behind it that appearance leaves an impression.

What benefit could there be from a Christian Society? The historical precedents aren't brilliant for models of what it could be, and Carey’s plight illuminates the weaknesses of liberal society when it dissolves into different groups jealously guarding their interests- and surely one where ‘Christianity’ merely gets what it wants isn't Carey’s vision of a Christian society either. Better models would be Pilsdon and Iona- Community is bounded by faith, yet it also allows them to be open and generous, celebrating individuality (though not individualism)- they’re not sour-faced moralists. I wonder if Carey wants that either though?

Online Petition plan for Parliament to go ahead (BBC)

Public Opinion is great and with this new plan, apparently whatever hack cause or populist whim must soon, providing if it gains enough signatures, be debated in the Commons. Unaided by comparisons to the X Factor, the idea seems particularly crass and already screams ‘smokescreen!’

Cranmer posts well on the real difficulties- looking for a different angle I will complain that it will do nothing for obesity figures- once upon a time you’d go on marches, collect signatures in the street, knock on doors- fresh air and exercise! Now activism can be done from the sofa! Well no, actually.

‘Liking’ things on facebook doesn’t make you an activist and neither does this. Virtual debate is too easily removed from real life concerns, and already these petitions must have ‘eligibility’. I hope people reject this sham voice- push for more local autonomy, and when passions run high; to the streets!

----------

So there you go, I hope you enjoyed it. Now I wished a happy New Year a couple of days ago and have since failed to stop posting, however I really believe this will be the last one until January, likely early January- I couldn't squeeze the 114 Labour MPs against AV into 150 words. That though is by the by.

So to all (or should that be a forlorn any?) readers regarding this, I wish you a Happy and Prosperous New Year!

Reading- the last 24 hours

Andrew Brown has once commented that he feels that Rowan Williams' thought often seems to be dictated by the dialogue he seems to have with whatever book he's reading at a given moment.

I think there may rather be something in this- after all, as I read his foreward to his new book 'Crisis and Recovery' he talks of reclaiming economics for the humanities and notes:

'We have learned to tolerate forms of thinking that, because they are essentially reductive, tempt us to imagine that the "real world" is the one of conflict and profit- and that the social imagination, the cultivation of relationship, the transformation of an environment into intelligible and beautiful form is so much decorative blather.'

I'm always happy to see 'blather' used in public discourse, but more importantly, Rowan presumably thinks (and I strongly agree) that this should not at all be the case, Our knowledge in the realms of what is often called 'the subjective' (often dismissively) remains meaningful, as does our imaginative sense of self- and can be used to guide our thinking in how this relates to others. This seems to have a strong resonance with the book 'Absence of mind' by Marilynne Robinson- , which of course Rowan Williams has written a review of.

I of course am little different- I too am reading Marilynne Robinson (and have to admit to needing a dictionary next to me as I do). So far I've only got past the introduction but I think I understand the thrust of that passage- nevertheless I've felt it necessary to reimagine it in terms of a musical analogy- no doubt brought on by the fact I've just finished 'Coffee with Mozart':

So, I was sat the other day with a group of friends and we were, yes, all having coffee, and being such clever people our conversation turned to the deep topics of life, of meaning, of being, of love.* Then in a moment of inspiration, I take up a pen and some Manuscript paper and quickly sketch out a brief melody and ask my friends what it was.

"Why!" exclaimed the first, a talented Musician "This is the start of Bellini's Casta Diva- I can hear it in my head! Such beauty!" And began to cry.

The second was deeply perturbed by this 'This is silly' he said 'it is just a few markings on a page, ink and paper- nothing more'

The third said, after a moment of reflection, 'What it is is a genius, in my minds eye, first standing in awe as the inspiration hits him, then frantically scribbling away at that piano to try and release this tension and share this beauty he has found with the world. Here lies his testimony."

"I like music" said the fourth.

Now- which one of these people provided the correct answer?

That, at any rate, is how I try to provide a way to myself of exploring the weaknesses of the particular kind of thinking that Robinson wished to disparage. I look forward immensely to watch her rip apart the pseudo-scientific theories that govern much of our common discourse on mind.

Armed with the suggestion that we are not simply and always powerless pawns in the face of social forces allows ourselves to equip the weapon of imagination to rework our social relationships and thus recast the economic models we no longer believe ourselves subject to. This is nothing new for the Church, of course as the successive essays in "Wealth and Poverty in Early Church and Society" (Ed. Susan R. Holman) demonstrate. Particularly pertinent to this topic is the Essay Rudolf Brändle who shows that in John Chrysostom's imagining of Christ as in the least of all people in Matthew 25.31-46, he was given a way to fuse faith and grace with works, which enabled him to constantly hammer his rich parishioners in homily after brilliant homily for the lack of compassion and almsgiving- far more important things he felt, than asceticism and piety. This tradition perhaps continues down today with, as coincidence would have it, Rowan Williams using the festive period to suggest the rich need to shoulder more of the burden the UK is facing, amongst other things.

What other essays in Wealth and Poverty show though is that often the Church often lacks a comprehensive critique of the structural and cultural causes of poverty- so perhaps 'Crisis and Recovery' marks a step in the right direction for really challenging the fundamental ills that disfigure our society that perhaps can also avoid the kind of 'scientific determinism' (Marxism being a very notable example, also brought up by Robinson) which seek to rob us of any sense of being able to make a real difference to the status Quo.

I like books; but what was this blog post about?

*Not unlike, I notice, the men in Machado De Assis' short story "The Mirror: A Sketch for a New theory of the Human Soul"

Christmas TV, Justice and the Shape of the World

Boxing Day. The day after THE DAY. I must say I do enjoy it. Though no early rise for me to go out and fight my way through the sales, rather it's the most idle day of my calender (and whatever my roommate at College says, I try not to have that many). I have spent the day in pajamas and you know, I don't regret it.

So what has my epic and productive day been spent doing? I do have a pile of books to negotiate, including (finally) The Spirit Level, and yes, I know I'm late to that particular party but I don't think that's going to undermine the key findings, however I've not quite managed to get round to them, instead I've been catching up on Christmas Day TV. Specifically Doctor Who and Murder on the Orient Express.

Admittedly I saw Doctor Who on Christmas day, but I think amidst the festivities and the interruption of food and drink I rather missed some of the finer points. Murder on the Orient Express I did actually miss, we'd moved on to carols in our house and frankly I think I got a lot more out of it watching it alone today as opposed to dozing in the corner surrounded by conversation so light it felt like I was taking a warm bath in chatter.

Anyway, whatever day I happen to be watching it on it's all still very, very exciting. very Exciting because I happen to be a big fanatic of both and watch both avidly (to the extent that I still really enjoyed re-watching the Doctor, and quite possibly will watch the whole thing again in the coming days) they are both characters that inspire me to some extent- I say it wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to be like either of them. Though it would have to be either really- they are two very, very different characters. (Warning, spoilers do follow on from here)

One of the things that surprised me with this latest Poirot offering was the prevalence of Religion. In all the episodes of Poirot I've seen (and my family did subscribe to that magazine that hands out a DVD of every Poirot, so I've seen a few) something quite so personal has never been open to the viewer before- but it's not just him, another prays, God and Jesus are constantly referenced- but to focus on this is to mask the real use of all this talk. For what is very apparent in this Poirot is the dichotomy of 'real' justice vs. the processes of the law. For the the first time (I think) something other than the ingenious solution of a crime is being teased out by the programme. God becomes useful as a locus of 'objective good' that can legitimately counter Poirot's insistence of 'obeying the rules' as a way of keeping good order in society- even to the extent of horrifying consequences (we see him even defend the stoning of an adulteress because it's the penalty for breaking the rules). The problem is that one individual's understanding of what constitutes justice may also result in horrifying consequences. After all, somebody is subject to a pre-meditated murder in revenge for what they did. That's not an insignificant point.

Poirot on the whole is shown constantly equating the right thing with the lawful thing- with his strong preference for total order (even the eggs must be of exactly the same size s'il-vous-plait!) this is not at all surprising, and he would probably find breaking the law to be an unthinkable act, and this contrasts strikingly with the Doctor, who in this Christmas special feels free to totally rewrite a life and invade an individual's memories in order to save 4,003 individuals. On the face simply of ends, one could easily argue that this was the 'right' thing to do but what of the precedents? More importantly of course, we see that the Doctor considers himself the highest authority he knows, he'll even interfere with the whole time stream to achieve his ends- I don't honestly think one could be any more of a 'free spirit' than one who subverts the very laws of the physical universe and risks temporal paradox just to get what he wants!

The flipside of course is that the Doctor is not an selfish character, he is motivations are always outward looking and well-intentioned, this is what gives him his consistency, this is as close as to the 'objective good' as we get with the Doctor, and even this is shaky. What we see throughout series after series is the Doctor's morality being rather subjectively applied and often situationally-dependent and Poirot sees the flaw in this- if there exist no structural bonds and we become 'laws unto ourselves'...even if we have the noblest of intentions how do we stop those who would abuse others for their own gain? The System is imperfect he says, but it stops the worst abuses. The Doctor's actions have led to war and genocide, having no more authority than himself has left him unable to control the secondary effects of his actions.

What links them of course is their brilliance, their intelligence- they make thinking cool, and I really like that, but from that point they seem to radically diverge. I said at the top of this post I wouldn't mind being either of them, but I could only be either of them it seems. In a world that has seen such systems as apartheid, the fascist and communist regimes for example it is not hard to see that obeying the authorities does not always equate with what is morally right- Acts 5.29 'We must obey God, rather than men' echoes strongly in my mind. The question is though is it better to work within and try and change that system for the better or do as much as you can as you are if necessary in opposition to the authorities- although your scope will be narrower?

For me it would try to be a matter of which results in the most good- and working within the systems involve making compromises on many other issues to score any big wins for the better- is that a moral burden that should be shouldered? Though as my friend noted when I brought this up, without authority, organization and direction one can find themselves merely treating symptoms their whole life and not solving the root structural causes of problems. It may be more praiseworthy on an individual level when a family that has little food shares it with a starving beggar and risk their own welfare compared to the man who simply directs the requisitioning of others food for wider distribution with little personal loss to himself. But the latter has done more to stop the hunger of the community in the long run than the family has.

I suppose which one is a better route depends on how one answers the question of whether it really matters if people don't want to hand over their food to this requisitioning force, and perhaps it's a sign of weakness on my part, but for me it most definitely matters- I cannot countenance the idea of using force to achieve an end- I believe that no matter what it has done for the community materially, socially, it has made a net loss that can have dire consequences in the future. Thus in my pacifistic principles I have found something that constitutes a consistent good for myself.

However that is just me, and in this era of apparent 'betrayal' by the lib dems, and a disconnected conservative frontbench of millionaires who are prescribing a highly regressive cuts regime I suppose the question beckons more than ever; is it time to start trying to take matters more into our own hands and make our voices heard rather than letting those in power just get on with it? In a democracy, we are supposedly the masters, but are our 'servants' acting according to our general will? Should we support, start looking beyond the practioners of conventional politics? Have they been finally revealed redundant, active obstacles in the making of a better world? Are they to be reformed, replaced or destroyed utterly?

Perhaps the last word should rest with Poirot, who seems in this instance to ignore his personal philsophy and take the law into his own hands, letting the murderers go free. This probably isn't surprising; the victim was truly diabolic, the court system corrupt and unjust and the crowd consensus was that these were good people. Whether they were of not is for the viewer to judge, but I suspect the scriptwriters really want to nudge the audience in one particular direction. Nevertheless the scene shows that no 'principal for consistency' is in fact ever 100% consistently applied by humans, nor should we expect it to be. To do so would be to diminish our humanity which feels as well as thinks- it's illuminating that after this momentous act, this act of 'making the right choice' we see Poirot cry (Also something never before seen and entirely unlike him). He also made the choice of the heart.

I also notice that before and after this act he fingers his Rosary.

We must obey God rather than Men.

Once more unto the Barricades!

We Need "to show solidarity with the large numbers of people who are suffering as a result of government cutbacks".

We also must raise protest "on behalf of those losing their jobs, seeing their public services undermined, their hopes for higher education jeopardised, or their fears realised through the creation of what increasingly seems like a less caring, more brutalised society, and where vast bonuses form the contemptuous retort to any mention of restraint, and the black economy of the super-tax dodger is seen as a legitimate moral code"

Who could the speaker of these words possibly be? Is it an irate Len McCluskey sounding another call to arms? Is it Ed Miliband changing his mind and finally deciding to reveal his true colours as 'Red Ed'; the monster from the wild and desolate hinterlands of the left that the Tory press always knew him to be?

Well no, not exactly- it is in fact the Bishop of Blackburn, the Rt Rev Nicholas Reade.

Look at him! Look at Nicholas Reade! He clearly has 'dangerous Radical' and 'Turbulent Priest' written all over him. The clerical collar gives him away. The Full article can be found here.

I am really of course, supportive of stories that show the Church concerned with the poor rather than gays or women for a change, though I am though intrigued by what is meant by 'christian protest', as if it is somehow objectively different from other protests.

Perhaps he does, after all people are already quite used to Christians standing in the street shouting random slogans at them or else handing out battered-looking leaflets- This being the case, maybe we do need to sharpen our approach when it comes to protest. After a quick brainstorm I've come up with some suggestions which I humbly submit for the Bishop:

1) Possibly something like this- though with a change of words? Perhaps we should chant James 5:1-6 antiphonally? Or for the more modern worshipper of course perhaps turn it into a new four chord song involving hand-raising and a frustratingly catchy chorus?

2) Why stick to forming a mere human chain when one can form a human Rosary?

3) In the spirit of the liturgical season, when challenged by police or store-owners, insist that you were led to this point by a star and can't really move on until 'something miraculous has happened'.

Of course, the best examples of biblical, and whilst there is of course the option of writing scathing letters or overturning money tables, I think they'll be expecting that sort of thing the crafty dodgers, so instead I offer 2 of my personal favourites-

4) Marry a prostitute- give birth to children and name them things like 'Fatally Compromised' or 'Forsaken by God' (Hosea 1)

5) Lie on your left side for 390 days without turning over and on your right for 40 days, eat only bread baked using cow manure as fuel, when this period is up take a sword and cut off your hair and beard- proceed then to burn 1/3 of it, scatter 1/3 of it to the wind and with the remaining third, walk around attacking it with the sword. (Ezekiel 4, 5)

Now if that doesn't show the authorities we mean business, I don't think we will ever get the message through to the authorities. I look forward to seeing the Bishop on the warpath in the new year.

Finally I would just like to wish anyone reading this a very Merry Christmas, I hope the day itself is particularly good and happy. I would offer best wishes for the New Year, but I'm not sure if I'll find something to say before then, so maybe, maybe a Happy New Year to you as well!

A day at the races

I'm very pleased to say that despite the lack of action in my own home town of Swindon, I was able to make it to the UK Uncut Pay Day protest in Oxford instead. Though why Swindon doesn't have one when the Vodafone and Topshop shops are actually within feet of each other is a mystery. I digress however, and there seems to have been some good coverage of the day, particularly from the Daily Mail (My thanks to UK Uncut for highlighting this on Twitter)- I suppose that ultimately paying one's fair share of tax is something most people find an unobjectionable position to hold.

Alas there are no pictures to share, but there were a good handful of us down, particularly those who have been involved in the Occupied Oxford campaign. Taking rather a different tack from those who have been occupying the shops or gluing themselves to windows, we held the 'Monaco tax dodgers' grand prix' armed with cardboard racers, each sponsored by a various companies associated with tax avoidance, including Vodaphone, BHS, Barclays (my own noble steed), Boots and a few others. We then spent the next hour and a half and more perhaps racing around the high streets outside the different shops (and very occasionally into the shops s well!) chanting, handing out leaflets, and having a rather good time whilst we were at it.

It was a good day out, and was I think, only enhanced by the fact that we had to run through the snow, and contra Toby Young the onlookers (thankfully!) seemed mostly amused by our antics and interested in what we were saying- we got our message out and hopefully some people took it on board. Whilst I'm looking at that article in fact, I have to ask if some trashy consumer item is really going to advantage the poorest in our society over public services that are being cut. ("Even if this method of protest was successful and Vodafone and Top Shop ended up paying more tax, it wouldn’t be ordinary people that would benefit. On the contrary, the higher taxes would immediately be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices. How, precisely, is that going to help “the poorest and most vulnerable”?) Cut, I hasten to add, because we're told the money must come from somewhere, but for some reason not from those most able to afford it.

The fundamental discrepancy of this of course, along with the accompanying hypocrisy of the 'we're all in this together' rhetoric of a certain coalition governemnt, is what UK Uncut is trying to highlight, and even if it does cause minor inconvenience (as any protest inevitable must) I think it is a worthwhile hue and cry to raise, and I certainly hope to join in yet more and perhaps, perhaps the message will catch on and then who knows? Maybe some of that avoided tax may find its way back to the government and channeled back to where it could really benefit the UK public most.

The Politics of Jesus, no fast answers

It is strange with so much going on- the loss of up to 100,000 public sector jobs, the possibility of a rise in absolute Child poverty for the first time in 15 years according to the IFS or the deeply discomforting treatment of Jody McIntyre by the politicians and the press or the Beeb, that I would decide to pick a blog post about Mehdi Hasan's recent article over the politics of Jesus in conjunction with Mike Ion's article to the same end focusing though on the nativity.

The other things of course deserve comment, they should not be allowed to pass by without mention lest they be ignored by a wider public, though in the last case it has already been done with such blistering brilliance by Laurie Penny that there is truly nothing further to say on my part.

Fact of the matter is though that coming from a religious perspective as I do, the so-called politics of Christ and the Gospels surely comes at the heart of whatever response I should wish to make. In trying to align myself towards the divine goodness, the words and deeds of the Incarnate Deity should act as an anchor, a polar object which other ideas revolve around. For a theological response to have any worth in its contribution to a debate it must find agreement with its sources.

And I wish I could say that I felt the matter was as open and shut as Mike and Mehdi wish to make out, but I can't quite see the evidence for the assertion either that Jesus would likely have been throwing stones at Fred Goodwin's house, or that the implications for the Roman Empire were the 'single most important fact' of the Nativity. My principal objection to this is that both these sorts of views actually represent and narrowing, and a limiting of the Gospel proclamation.

There is always a certian amount of twisting involved when we apply 19th century social and economic theories to what has preceded it- and we shouldn't automatically assume that a particular action is always prompted by the same motivations. Ultimately, I do not believe that Jesus should be seen as a left-wing activist bent on improving society. This isn't the whole story. We should be careful about portraying Jesus as a political figure at all- if we look at the gospels in their wholeness, rather than commit the factionalist/fundamentalist error of quoting scripture shorn of wider context and then assume the fragment speaks for the whole, then it becomes quite clear that there is a distinct...otherworldly quialty to Jesus.

Jesus came to preach the Kingdom of God, not tear down the Kingdoms of Men. His activity, his mission, his very being is directed towards the will of God, and his ministry is not presented as simply a shaking up of the earthly order (quite the opposite in fact) but rather a cosmic 'game-changer' in the relationship between God and Man, that also opens itself to a reshuffling of human relationships towards each other.

I don't wish to claim that Jesus is right wing, left wing whatever wing really. The Jesus of the gospel accounts always seems to evade sloppy categorization and anyone who takes the accounts seriously would have a hard time trying to make him the poster boy for any social movement. This is not the first time of course that individuals have tried to make a political figure out of the Messiah when Mike Ion asserts the most important thing about Jesus is that he represents 'a drastic political challenge to the imperial power of Rome.' He makes common cause with many first century Jews who hoped, nay, expected the same thing. The Messiah was meant to be a political liberator who would restore Israel to its former glory. Yet the Messiah when he came did no such thing.

If Jesus overthrew Roman Rule, he picked the most impractical way of doing it; wandering around and engaging in religious teaching and dispute before getting executed as a criminal, leaving behind a seminal faith that would later go on and eventually ally themselves with the Empire- the effects of which can still be felt today, notably with the Bishops in the Lords for example.

I am not saying of course that one cannot be Christian and stand up for the things outlined in Mehdi's article, I truly believe that one can hold both without tension; Jesus is a countercultural character- he associates with the marginalised of society and dishes out a strong critique of the religious authorities and teaches that he who is last shall be first, but we shouldn't try to impose a political, ideological system onto this. There must be room for the religious, spiritual dimension to the message of Christ if we are to understand him at all. Healing the sick isn't signalling support for a tax-funded system of healthcare its a revelation of what the future holds and what a life of faith entails. It seems more likely to me that the workers at the vineyard is more likely first and foremost about salvation in the fullest sense being available whenever one takes it rather than being literally about workers wages.

My fear is that by hammering Jesus into a particular ideological straitjacket we risk alienating those of religious sentiment but with different political opinions. Jesus is not a partisan, for the faithful at least, he is meant to act as a force for unity and holding together the contradictions that arise between people. He is a bridge, not a barricade. the idea that any side would want to score cheap points by claiming him for their own is a little disgraceful. It's difficult to know who the other 'side' is meant to be- simplistic media reporting would suggest 'Evangelicals = Right Wing' yet Lausanne shows us that a commitment to social (and increasingly environmental) justice is not just a preserve of the liberals or mainliners. Yet by exploring the spiritual/religious side there is common ground, which can open up fruitful discussion as to how the Kingdom of God would be organized, what discipleship entails and so on.

Jesus may appear left wing, but when he sat down on the mountain, he did not outline his view of society and the reasons for its injustices and then plan how to topple the lot, no he rather gave commands that every disciple was meant to follow- and how to work them out as part of an active citizenship, he seems to have allowed space for personal consideration and growth, and I hope that we will be able to do it united in faith rather than divided by politics.