I've foolishly agreed to be interviewed on BBC local radio this Saturday, with Emma Britton from Radio Somerset. I see last week she had a couple of local MPs, one of which I was at university with - small world.
So, if you've nothing better to do, or want to hear me make an idiot of myself..... Alternatively, please pray for me! Feeling increasingly nervous the closer it gets....
Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label radio. Show all posts
Friday, April 06, 2012
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Chris Moyles gets excited about church
This is really worth a listen/watch, some very choice quotes in the whole discussion
'baptised, that's the same as being christened isn't it?'
'I just thought it was amazing'
"it was the most fascinating thing I've seen in a long time"
"It makes church more interesting, I'm all for it"
"the downside of church is that it's boring"
Ht Richard Peat (who has a very good discussion on whether you have to be an evangelical church to be growing), Church Mouse. The church in question is Kingsgate Community Church, who were live on the BBC on 31st May. On behalf of the rest of us, thankyou Kingsgate. Even if you leave off the Chris Moyles narration, the clip above is so inspiring.
They should invite Moyles along to give his testimony.....
Various other links and comments via Wikio.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
'Most Godless Town in Britain' (or not) Radio 4 today
11am today on Radio 4, there's a 30m programme following the work of a pioneer missioner to Telford, allegedly 'the most godless town in Britain'. Mark Berry, has taken issue with the title of the programme, as has the local bishop. Very good article about it on the BBC website, which covers wider fresh expressions/church planting work, and sets the programme in context.
Mr Berry said he had taken issue with the title of the documentary because he believed church attendance did not accurately reflect the number of Christians in Telford
“It’s absolute nonsense,” he said.
“The number of people attending church does not make a place more or less Godless. God doesn’t live in churches.
“Hopefully the documentary will reflect the work we are doing. My role is not to get more people into church, but to engage with people in the 20s and 30s and serve the community.”
The programme is the 'choice of the day' for Radio 4, so you'll be able to listen again to it via the link above for the rest of the week, or catch up with it on IPlayer.
after hearing it: hmm, not very encouraging!! All sorts of questions in my head as a result, probably for blogging another time as various deadlines to hit today. Sympathetically presented, but raises the serious issue of how missional fresh expressions really are, or whether those which are more 'alternative worship' based are more like safe houses for folk who are already Christian but just a bit bored with what they currently do.
Update: Mark Berry, who was featured in the programme, blogs at Way Out West, and has an interesting take on the way the BBC handled his work in Telford.
Mr Berry said he had taken issue with the title of the documentary because he believed church attendance did not accurately reflect the number of Christians in Telford
“It’s absolute nonsense,” he said.
“The number of people attending church does not make a place more or less Godless. God doesn’t live in churches.
“Hopefully the documentary will reflect the work we are doing. My role is not to get more people into church, but to engage with people in the 20s and 30s and serve the community.”
The programme is the 'choice of the day' for Radio 4, so you'll be able to listen again to it via the link above for the rest of the week, or catch up with it on IPlayer.
after hearing it: hmm, not very encouraging!! All sorts of questions in my head as a result, probably for blogging another time as various deadlines to hit today. Sympathetically presented, but raises the serious issue of how missional fresh expressions really are, or whether those which are more 'alternative worship' based are more like safe houses for folk who are already Christian but just a bit bored with what they currently do.
Update: Mark Berry, who was featured in the programme, blogs at Way Out West, and has an interesting take on the way the BBC handled his work in Telford.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
'You Can't Say **** On the Radio'*: Manuel, Manners and the Media.
Far be it from me to moralise about the BBC’s week of turmoil.
Or then again....
The Beeb are probably hoping the suspension of Jonathan Ross and resignation of Russell Brand will draw a line under this whole business. I think the BBC’s actions are right, but I hope it’s the start of something, not the end of it.
Who’s Answering?
There have been nudging 35,000 complaints about those phone calls. Just to put this into context, the broadcast of ‘Jerry Springer, the Opera’ on BBC2 attracted 63,000 complaints, but was okayed by the Governors Programmes Complaints Committee. No Trustees meetings, no resignations. And the now notorious Russell Brand show apparently went on to make some fairly off-colour remarks about Jesus (so I’m told by someone who heard the show - all the podcasts have been removed so there’s no way of checking), but without protest from anyone.
Folk of my age grew up with the Young Ones, at the time a groundbreaking comedy sitcom, which was right at the edge of 1980’s boundaries of taste and decency. Scanning the scripts now, what’s notable is the relative absence of swearing and crude sexual references - though it didn’t seem like it at the time. Set alongside the main post-watershed comedy fare now (Little Britain, Armstrong and Miller, Harry & Paul, Mitchell & Webb), it looks very tame indeed.
‘He’s Cleared the Boundary By a Mile!’
There’s no question that the boundaries have shifted. The public has become more tolerant of swearing, sex and violence, in fact some programmes seem to play up to this (e.g a gratuitious beheading in the recent Bonekickers. This attracted 100+ complaints, but was defended by the BBC. Again, it was a Christian group portrayed in a bad light. Do you see a trend emerging?)
How far is too far? Brandon Ross’s sin seems to have been to get personal - their material has no shortage of gross/sexual/tastless content, but what made it unpalatable was that there was an individual target, without the right of reply, who seems to have been thoughtlessly picked on and made fun of.
This is what comedy does all the time, from Les Dawsons mother-in-law to Steve Coogans desperate DJ’s and former roadies - but they pick on a stereotype, a human characteristic, an abstraction, rather than a real person. Satire like HIGNFY picks on people who are already in the public eye, but often to expose hypocrisy, mixed motives and political spin. That’s very different to what happened on 18th October.
Have I Got **** For You
But even the language markers on Have I Got News for You have shifted. Yesterdays show was unusual in it’s use of the bleeper (does anyone know why f*** is offensive when Tom Baker says it but not when it’s Alexander Armstrong?) - normally there is no censorship of bad language, and it wasn’t always like that. There has been a relentless erosion of the forbidden territory here, and in some ways the answerphone messages are the logical extension of this. If broadcasters can now use whatever words they like, the only way to shock or push the boundaries is in how you use them, or who you use them to.
Instead, the shock has been that there actually was a boundary. From Jools Holland (using the f-word live on Channel 4 in the Tube, a massive scandal in its day) to Chris Evans, Graham Norton, and Russell Brand the BBC has stuffed its schedules with known boundary-pushers. The only suprise is that they’ve not invited Chris Morris to present the news. (For what it’s worth, I like Hollands show, and last year he performed a new Mass setting in a couple of Cathedrals, so he’s virtually an Establishment figure now.)
There are some boundaries of taste which have tightened considerably. Racist, and to a lesser extent sexist humour are now mostly taboo (though Life on Mars got away with both by setting the jokes in 1973). But these are the exception rather than the rule.
Can You Laugh at Jesus?
However religion hasn’t gone the same way. For me as a Christian, to hear Jesus ridiculed and made a figure of fun is deeply offensive. To some degree I’m so used to it that it’s less offensive than it should be. I’m not talking about things like Life of Brian, which (the crucifixion scene apart, which I find quite uncomfortable) was a brilliant religious satire. But the Jerry Springer broadcast demonstrated that there was, effectively, nothing that would be deemed too offensive to show when it came to Christianity, and no level of protest which would cause broadcasters to think again.
There is a difference between how Christianity is treated and how other faiths are dealt with. In part it’s ignorance - there is still some general public awareness of the Christian story and Christian stereotypes, which comedians can make use of. Just imagine this Eddie Izzard routine applied to, say Hinduism. It’s the Christian reference points which make it work. We just don’t know enough about other religions to make them the stuff of comedy.
It’s also partly fear, especially when it comes to Islam, because whilst we’ve established what people will put up with (or at least, what everyone except thousands of dismayed Christians will put up with) when Christianity is ridiculed, those lines are nothing like as clear with Mohammed and the Koran. And we’re so used to Christians protesting politely that the vehemence of Islamic outrage is a shock.
A third reason is the fact that the relationship between Western satire and secularism and Muslim culture is much less developed than it’s relationship with Christianity. For the latter, you can go back to Chaucer, with Islam we just have Omid Djalili. Except that he’s Bahai.
The Brand Bounce?
Last year was the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, achieved against mountainous opposition by William Wilberforce and other campaigners. Wilberforce’s other main achievement was the ‘reformation of manners’:
Wilberforce’s second life goal was “the reformation of manners.” What he envisioned was a restoration to Britain of the Christian virtues of charity and civility in a culture that had markedly decayed in both
and he succeeded in transforming a society which tolerated slavery, child prostitution, and poverty alongside the dissolute lives of the rich. It is possible for boundaries of taste and decency to shift upwards, as well as downwards. We can be just a bit more restrained than we are now, without invoking the Victorian Values bogeyman (that convenient killer of debate). I’d love to see it in my lifetime. I’d love to see it start this week.
* this song, which seems very relevant now!
This is a cross-post from the Touching Base column hosted by the Wardman Wire
PS if you've not had enough of all this by now, then try this article by Howard Jacobsen in the Independent.
Or then again....
The Beeb are probably hoping the suspension of Jonathan Ross and resignation of Russell Brand will draw a line under this whole business. I think the BBC’s actions are right, but I hope it’s the start of something, not the end of it.
Who’s Answering?
There have been nudging 35,000 complaints about those phone calls. Just to put this into context, the broadcast of ‘Jerry Springer, the Opera’ on BBC2 attracted 63,000 complaints, but was okayed by the Governors Programmes Complaints Committee. No Trustees meetings, no resignations. And the now notorious Russell Brand show apparently went on to make some fairly off-colour remarks about Jesus (so I’m told by someone who heard the show - all the podcasts have been removed so there’s no way of checking), but without protest from anyone.
Folk of my age grew up with the Young Ones, at the time a groundbreaking comedy sitcom, which was right at the edge of 1980’s boundaries of taste and decency. Scanning the scripts now, what’s notable is the relative absence of swearing and crude sexual references - though it didn’t seem like it at the time. Set alongside the main post-watershed comedy fare now (Little Britain, Armstrong and Miller, Harry & Paul, Mitchell & Webb), it looks very tame indeed.
‘He’s Cleared the Boundary By a Mile!’
There’s no question that the boundaries have shifted. The public has become more tolerant of swearing, sex and violence, in fact some programmes seem to play up to this (e.g a gratuitious beheading in the recent Bonekickers. This attracted 100+ complaints, but was defended by the BBC. Again, it was a Christian group portrayed in a bad light. Do you see a trend emerging?)
How far is too far? Brandon Ross’s sin seems to have been to get personal - their material has no shortage of gross/sexual/tastless content, but what made it unpalatable was that there was an individual target, without the right of reply, who seems to have been thoughtlessly picked on and made fun of.
This is what comedy does all the time, from Les Dawsons mother-in-law to Steve Coogans desperate DJ’s and former roadies - but they pick on a stereotype, a human characteristic, an abstraction, rather than a real person. Satire like HIGNFY picks on people who are already in the public eye, but often to expose hypocrisy, mixed motives and political spin. That’s very different to what happened on 18th October.
Have I Got **** For You
But even the language markers on Have I Got News for You have shifted. Yesterdays show was unusual in it’s use of the bleeper (does anyone know why f*** is offensive when Tom Baker says it but not when it’s Alexander Armstrong?) - normally there is no censorship of bad language, and it wasn’t always like that. There has been a relentless erosion of the forbidden territory here, and in some ways the answerphone messages are the logical extension of this. If broadcasters can now use whatever words they like, the only way to shock or push the boundaries is in how you use them, or who you use them to.
Instead, the shock has been that there actually was a boundary. From Jools Holland (using the f-word live on Channel 4 in the Tube, a massive scandal in its day) to Chris Evans, Graham Norton, and Russell Brand the BBC has stuffed its schedules with known boundary-pushers. The only suprise is that they’ve not invited Chris Morris to present the news. (For what it’s worth, I like Hollands show, and last year he performed a new Mass setting in a couple of Cathedrals, so he’s virtually an Establishment figure now.)
There are some boundaries of taste which have tightened considerably. Racist, and to a lesser extent sexist humour are now mostly taboo (though Life on Mars got away with both by setting the jokes in 1973). But these are the exception rather than the rule.
Can You Laugh at Jesus?
However religion hasn’t gone the same way. For me as a Christian, to hear Jesus ridiculed and made a figure of fun is deeply offensive. To some degree I’m so used to it that it’s less offensive than it should be. I’m not talking about things like Life of Brian, which (the crucifixion scene apart, which I find quite uncomfortable) was a brilliant religious satire. But the Jerry Springer broadcast demonstrated that there was, effectively, nothing that would be deemed too offensive to show when it came to Christianity, and no level of protest which would cause broadcasters to think again.
There is a difference between how Christianity is treated and how other faiths are dealt with. In part it’s ignorance - there is still some general public awareness of the Christian story and Christian stereotypes, which comedians can make use of. Just imagine this Eddie Izzard routine applied to, say Hinduism. It’s the Christian reference points which make it work. We just don’t know enough about other religions to make them the stuff of comedy.
It’s also partly fear, especially when it comes to Islam, because whilst we’ve established what people will put up with (or at least, what everyone except thousands of dismayed Christians will put up with) when Christianity is ridiculed, those lines are nothing like as clear with Mohammed and the Koran. And we’re so used to Christians protesting politely that the vehemence of Islamic outrage is a shock.
A third reason is the fact that the relationship between Western satire and secularism and Muslim culture is much less developed than it’s relationship with Christianity. For the latter, you can go back to Chaucer, with Islam we just have Omid Djalili. Except that he’s Bahai.
The Brand Bounce?
Last year was the bicentenary of the abolition of slavery, achieved against mountainous opposition by William Wilberforce and other campaigners. Wilberforce’s other main achievement was the ‘reformation of manners’:
Wilberforce’s second life goal was “the reformation of manners.” What he envisioned was a restoration to Britain of the Christian virtues of charity and civility in a culture that had markedly decayed in both
and he succeeded in transforming a society which tolerated slavery, child prostitution, and poverty alongside the dissolute lives of the rich. It is possible for boundaries of taste and decency to shift upwards, as well as downwards. We can be just a bit more restrained than we are now, without invoking the Victorian Values bogeyman (that convenient killer of debate). I’d love to see it in my lifetime. I’d love to see it start this week.
* this song, which seems very relevant now!
This is a cross-post from the Touching Base column hosted by the Wardman Wire
PS if you've not had enough of all this by now, then try this article by Howard Jacobsen in the Independent.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Follow the Fun
Alongside listening to the new Coldplay CD, I've tried to listen to a couple of interviews with Chris Martin (lead singer) and other band members. There's an incredible contrast between a Radio 4 interview, which Martin walks out of, and the 90 minutes of banter and laughter recorded by Radio 1.
He comes across as 2 completely different people - in the first, stumbling, uncomfortable, vague, shy. In the second, fun, sharp, witty, someone full of ideas and enjoyment of life.
The difference is the interviewer. In the Radio 4 case, it's clearly someone looking too hard for deep insights and killer questions. Meanwhile Zane Lowe on Radio 1 plays silly sound effects and shares Coldplays love of music and sense of playfulness, and succeeds in getting answers to some of the Radio 4 questions (e.g. musical influences) without ever having to ask them.
If people are having fun, they're much more likely to be themselves, relax, open up, and enjoy your company. Many people have found church uncomfortable because it's too much like a Radio 4 interview: it's based around someone else agenda, a stress on the 'right answers', formal, serious, and wordy/cerebral, and a clear distinction between insiders and outsiders. In the Radio 1 encounter, it was sometimes hard to tell who was in charge, and what role people were playing.
We tend to like clear roles of worship leader, preacher, congregation etc., and to know which one we are. But that's institutionalised. In a church where relationships aren't institutionalised, everyone can bring something, all you need is a decent host. Teaching, singing etc. are done by everyone, to everyone.
We're off on our parish weekend tomorrow, and leaving all my dog collars at home. It would be lovely if we could break down those barriers between them and us, up front and in the pew, and be more like Radio 1 than Radio 4. Far better to have a conversation people want to join in with, than one which makes them want to get up and leave.
He comes across as 2 completely different people - in the first, stumbling, uncomfortable, vague, shy. In the second, fun, sharp, witty, someone full of ideas and enjoyment of life.
The difference is the interviewer. In the Radio 4 case, it's clearly someone looking too hard for deep insights and killer questions. Meanwhile Zane Lowe on Radio 1 plays silly sound effects and shares Coldplays love of music and sense of playfulness, and succeeds in getting answers to some of the Radio 4 questions (e.g. musical influences) without ever having to ask them.
If people are having fun, they're much more likely to be themselves, relax, open up, and enjoy your company. Many people have found church uncomfortable because it's too much like a Radio 4 interview: it's based around someone else agenda, a stress on the 'right answers', formal, serious, and wordy/cerebral, and a clear distinction between insiders and outsiders. In the Radio 1 encounter, it was sometimes hard to tell who was in charge, and what role people were playing.
We tend to like clear roles of worship leader, preacher, congregation etc., and to know which one we are. But that's institutionalised. In a church where relationships aren't institutionalised, everyone can bring something, all you need is a decent host. Teaching, singing etc. are done by everyone, to everyone.
We're off on our parish weekend tomorrow, and leaving all my dog collars at home. It would be lovely if we could break down those barriers between them and us, up front and in the pew, and be more like Radio 1 than Radio 4. Far better to have a conversation people want to join in with, than one which makes them want to get up and leave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)