this from Start the Week:
Wedding shows - resources and advice
As part of the Weddings Project Suzanne Gray in the national Comms office is leading on resourcing wedding shows at every level - national, regional, local. Please pass on news to local church leaders where you are, and also consider getting involved at diocesan or deanery level.
Suzanne writes:
Resources and advice for wedding shows
Wedding shows are a great opportunity for the church to demonstrate that we would love to welcome couples for their wedding, right in the middle of the weddings marketplace. More and more dioceses, deaneries and local churches are taking stands at wedding shows, and when they do they have such fun that they struggle to drag themselves away.
If you are thinking of having a stand at a wedding show, then the Weddings Project team can offer resources and advice to make sure your stand is a success. This includes professionally produced displays to help your stand look good, paper resources gift wrapped in ribbon to give away, and hints about the practicalities of running a stand.
Contact Suzanne Gray: suzanne.gray@c-of-e.org.uk for more information
Having been to the last 4 or so, I passed up the chance to go to the Westlands Wedding Fair in Yeovil last weekend. It's a reasonably well attended show, and there have been a few good conversations. The main business is in giveaways - copies of Nicky & Sila Lee's 'Ready for Marriage', and Celebrations choccies, which go down well with families with twitchy kids and stallholders with blood sugar level issues.
The stall we've run is mainly for information, as well as advertising the benefits of marriage preparation, but I must admit I question whether it's worth the investment of time, energy, and the stallholders fee. Perhaps we've been missing a trick or two, so I'll be interested to see what resources are available.
Has anyone else done a church stall at a wedding fair? What was it like?
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Durham Cathedral SPCK/SSG: the Last Post
The final curtain has fallen in Durham on Phil and Mark Brewers bruising foray into UK bookselling. The good news that Durham Cathedral is sticking to its promise to re-open the shop under Cathedral management. Earlier this week the shop was suddenly closed (probably by email - that seems to be the Brewers preferred way of laying people off), following some rapid reshuffling of stock the week before as snow and frost damage started affecting the Great Kitchen, main site of the bookshop.
Reports:
Bookseller
Church Times (subscriber only till Friday 5th Feb)
SPCK/SSG News Notes and Info (comments too)
According to the Northern Echo, the Cathedral has said that it will re-employ the 6 current staff, though it has longer term plans to do a feasibility study on the best site for a bookshop. I just hope that what was once a flagship theological bookshop doesn't get lost: it must be tempting for Cathedrals to follow the dollar and stock teatowels, fudge and union jack merchandise to pay for the biblically proportioned heating and maintenance bills. Durham used to be an excellent theological bookshop, and with a university and two training colleges on the doorstep, there must still be a market there if it can recover its reputation. The comments of the chapter clerk in the Echo report suggest that the bookshop and gift shop might be separate entities.
The Echo also notes: Neither the Brewers nor the Saint Stephen the Great Trust could be contacted for comment. Now there's a surprise.
Someone who I think is one of the bookshop staff has commented on the Durham Cathedral Facebook page: "We are devasted but I'm sure that the new shop will be a fantastic one. Thanks to our customers and friends for their support."
There is still some unfinished business:
- Unpaid staff, and issues over pension payments
- Brewer creditors, and whether they'll see their money again. However, unless creditors are prepared to pursue the Brewers through the courts (oh for a workable extradition treaty with the USA!), it's unlikely that the bills will be paid.
- The nature of the settlement with former staff who settled out of court with the Charity Commissioners in 2009.
Last I heard Phil Brewer owned a private plane (sorry, originally called this a 'jet', which isn't accurate - see comments. Got a bit carried away...) and Mark Brewer ran a law firm with 7 attorneys plus support staff, and regularly dealt with million dollar cases. They are named as the trustees of the Society of St. Stephen the Great (which originally took on the bookshops from SPCK), and the Directors of ENC Management (which took over from SSG, leaving all SSG bills unpaid and zeroing the Brewer debts at a stroke). I still can't work out how they get to walk away from all this. I also can't work out how Mark Brewer gets full marks for ethics.
As the title suggest, this is probably my last post on the SPCK/SSG campaign. Well done to Phil Groom, Dave Walker and Matt Wardman for being the backbone of it, lets hope and pray the Christian book trade can learn some lessons - they've certainly come at a price.
Reports:
Bookseller
Church Times (subscriber only till Friday 5th Feb)
SPCK/SSG News Notes and Info (comments too)
According to the Northern Echo, the Cathedral has said that it will re-employ the 6 current staff, though it has longer term plans to do a feasibility study on the best site for a bookshop. I just hope that what was once a flagship theological bookshop doesn't get lost: it must be tempting for Cathedrals to follow the dollar and stock teatowels, fudge and union jack merchandise to pay for the biblically proportioned heating and maintenance bills. Durham used to be an excellent theological bookshop, and with a university and two training colleges on the doorstep, there must still be a market there if it can recover its reputation. The comments of the chapter clerk in the Echo report suggest that the bookshop and gift shop might be separate entities.
The Echo also notes: Neither the Brewers nor the Saint Stephen the Great Trust could be contacted for comment. Now there's a surprise.
Someone who I think is one of the bookshop staff has commented on the Durham Cathedral Facebook page: "We are devasted but I'm sure that the new shop will be a fantastic one. Thanks to our customers and friends for their support."
There is still some unfinished business:
- Unpaid staff, and issues over pension payments
- Brewer creditors, and whether they'll see their money again. However, unless creditors are prepared to pursue the Brewers through the courts (oh for a workable extradition treaty with the USA!), it's unlikely that the bills will be paid.
- The nature of the settlement with former staff who settled out of court with the Charity Commissioners in 2009.
Last I heard Phil Brewer owned a private plane (sorry, originally called this a 'jet', which isn't accurate - see comments. Got a bit carried away...) and Mark Brewer ran a law firm with 7 attorneys plus support staff, and regularly dealt with million dollar cases. They are named as the trustees of the Society of St. Stephen the Great (which originally took on the bookshops from SPCK), and the Directors of ENC Management (which took over from SSG, leaving all SSG bills unpaid and zeroing the Brewer debts at a stroke). I still can't work out how they get to walk away from all this. I also can't work out how Mark Brewer gets full marks for ethics.
As the title suggest, this is probably my last post on the SPCK/SSG campaign. Well done to Phil Groom, Dave Walker and Matt Wardman for being the backbone of it, lets hope and pray the Christian book trade can learn some lessons - they've certainly come at a price.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Social Attitudes: the God Question (s)
The recent 26th British Social Attitudes Survey has a full chapter devoted to 'Religion in Britain and the United States'. It opens "Religion is a cause of perplexity to the British. On the one hand it is associated with Christian virtue, traditional values, the Dalai Lama and all things bright and beautiful. On the other hand it brings to mind violent fanaticism, reactionary morality, Osama bin Laden, abuse and oppression. After a long history of religious turmoil and mistrust we no longer much mind (what religion our leaders are), but strong commitment makes us worried."
It's a fascinating essay, and pulls in data from the UK and USA to compare and contrast. Here are some of the questions, with a few thoughts:
1. "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?"
(1983 figures in brackets)
No religion 43% (31)
Christian 50% (66)
Non-Christian 7 (2)
Of the 'Christian'
Anglican 23 (40)
Roman Catholic 9 (10)
No denomination 10 (3)
and other mainline denominations mostly showing a drop.
There seem to be two main stories: the falling away in identification with the historic churches, towards 'no religion' (which reflects the changing of the generations) or 'no denomination', and the impact of immigration, which has bolstered RC numbers, and seen a rise in non-Christian faiths.
2. Belief in God
I don't believe in God 18%
I don't know whether there is a God and don't believe there is any way to find out 18%
I don't believe in a personal God but I do believe in a higher power of some kind 14%
I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others 13%
While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God 18%
I know God really exists and that I have no doubts about it 17%
So about 1/3 have a definite faith, 1/3 have a fuzzier faith - either fuzzy about whether God is there, or what kind of spiritual entity God might be, and just over 1/3 are atheist or agnostic
It's useful to have this level of detail: there are surveys which report a majority as believing in God, but 'believing' and 'God' aren't straightforward categories.
3. How religious are you?
extremely/very 7%
somewhat 30%
neither religious nor non-religious 22%
somewhat non-religious 11%
very/extremely non-religious 26%
Which might in part reflect the British aversion to extremes. It's also a sign that if Christians want to communicate their faith, anything percieved as 'religious' packaging (e.g. the institutional church) is off to a losing start. 'Back to Church' Sunday will cut no mustard with people who describe themselves as non-religious.
4. How often do you attend religious services (apart from special occasions)
Never 62%
less than annually 5%
At least annually 15%
At least monthly 8%
At least weekly 10%
Less than 20% of those brought up as Anglicans, or calling themselves CofE attend monthly or more often.
This also shows that any attempt by churches to connect with non-Christians based on 'religious services' is probably a non-starter too. Weird stuff done by weird people in a weird building. This bears out some of the TEAR Fund research , which found that 26% of adults go to church once a year, and 15% go once a month or more. Jesus didn't start with religion, he started with relationships, perhaps there's something in that.
4. Does it do you any good?
there's a question on the 'personal benefits of religion'
65% agree that religion helps people to find inner peace/happiness
67% agree that it helps people to make friends
79% that it helps people to gain comfort.
Even among the 'unreligious', 49% agree with the first statement, and 58 and 68% respectively with the other two. More curious is the 10%+ of 'religious' people who don't agree with these statements!!!
5. Influence of religion
24% said religion is increasing its influence, 3/4 of these said that was a bad thing. This is the National Secular Society argument - that religion is both in decline, but becoming more politically influential.
57% said religion is decreasing its influence, and about 4 in 5 of these thought that a bad thing.
Overall, about 31% thought that more religious influence was a bad thing, and 50% that it was a good thing.
That's a big challenge: I know this lumps all religion together (it would be interesting to ask the question about particular faiths), but if Christians are seen as bad news by a significant section of our society, then a long hard look in the mirror is in order. It also begs the question of what's seen as 'religion' - is the creche provided by the Mothers Union for prison visitors, or the church-run food bank seen as an expression of religion? Or is it dusty bishops talking about sex and Islamic extremists?
6. Religion and Politics
75% said religious leaders shouldn't try to influence voting behaviour, and 67% think religious leaders should stay out of government decision making. Lords reform here we come... There's also a tendency to think that, if elected officials were more deeply religious, then laws and policy decisions would probably be worse. There's a Bush/Blair legacy to that which the report picks out.
What does this mean for the way the church engages with the General Election? I know of several churches who organise local hustings events, and encourage people to vote and engage with the issues, though it sounds like a more directive engagement (see recent RC interventions) might not go down so well. Perhaps it depends on the issue?
7. Moral Standards
89% say you should follow your conscience rather than what the leaders and teachings of your religion say. That pretty much reflects the number of people who are deeply religious.
60% agreed that there can never be absolutely clear statements of what is good and evil, or an absolute morality. That reflects where we are as a society - and a church identified with laws and rules isn't going to make much headway against that. I remember an Ethics seminar 15 years ago where we watched an hour of Eastenders and noted the dozens of moral issues raised in just a short time - processing morality through story and consensus, rather than principle and absolutes, is the flavour of things. I wonder also if this question is swayed by being part of the 'religion' section - things like racism, violence, etc. do seem to be seen in terms of moral absolutes, and nobody objects at public campaigns which try to enforce them (e.g. Kick Racism out of Football). Don't we still have some absolutes, but no longer on the turf which was colonised by Christendom?
8. Conversion
Only 17% thought it was acceptable for religious people to try to convert others, 81% took the opposite view. That raises lots of questions for mission!
About 3/4 of people think that being very religious means you're often intolerant.
9. Faith Schools
42% - no religious group should have its own schools
13% - some should have them, but not others
43% - any religious group should be able to have its own schools.
So this debate is truly alive and kicking. It's not going to go away any time soon.
There's a whole section on religious diversity and tolerance, which shows that we've still some way to go as a society. It also shows that Muslims have a serious image problem - about 1/3 felt 'cool' towards Muslims, (as opposed to neutral or warm) - far and away the least favourable result, apart from that for 'deeply religious' (29%) - most other religious groups were in the 5-15% range. A majority would be bothered by a large mosque being built locally, but relatively few by a large church. There's unease about the level to which Muslims are integrated into British society. The writers note: Muslims deserves to be the focus of policy on social cohesion, because no other group elicits so much disquiet.
Lots of food for thought here, both about perceptions and practices. Those of us percieved as being 'religious' are possibly trying to run a marathon with both legs tied together. Two responses are to abandon traditional religion, and its forms, for something more acceptable (but every movement becomes an institution in the end) or to try to make the case for religion (not a word I particularly like) being good news. That's not easy when there are plenty of examples of the opposite.
Plenty of chewing over to be done....
It's a fascinating essay, and pulls in data from the UK and USA to compare and contrast. Here are some of the questions, with a few thoughts:
1. "Do you regard yourself as belonging to any particular religion?"
(1983 figures in brackets)
No religion 43% (31)
Christian 50% (66)
Non-Christian 7 (2)
Of the 'Christian'
Anglican 23 (40)
Roman Catholic 9 (10)
No denomination 10 (3)
and other mainline denominations mostly showing a drop.
There seem to be two main stories: the falling away in identification with the historic churches, towards 'no religion' (which reflects the changing of the generations) or 'no denomination', and the impact of immigration, which has bolstered RC numbers, and seen a rise in non-Christian faiths.
2. Belief in God
I don't believe in God 18%
I don't know whether there is a God and don't believe there is any way to find out 18%
I don't believe in a personal God but I do believe in a higher power of some kind 14%
I find myself believing in God some of the time, but not at others 13%
While I have doubts, I feel that I do believe in God 18%
I know God really exists and that I have no doubts about it 17%
So about 1/3 have a definite faith, 1/3 have a fuzzier faith - either fuzzy about whether God is there, or what kind of spiritual entity God might be, and just over 1/3 are atheist or agnostic
It's useful to have this level of detail: there are surveys which report a majority as believing in God, but 'believing' and 'God' aren't straightforward categories.
3. How religious are you?
extremely/very 7%
somewhat 30%
neither religious nor non-religious 22%
somewhat non-religious 11%
very/extremely non-religious 26%
Which might in part reflect the British aversion to extremes. It's also a sign that if Christians want to communicate their faith, anything percieved as 'religious' packaging (e.g. the institutional church) is off to a losing start. 'Back to Church' Sunday will cut no mustard with people who describe themselves as non-religious.
4. How often do you attend religious services (apart from special occasions)
Never 62%
less than annually 5%
At least annually 15%
At least monthly 8%
At least weekly 10%
Less than 20% of those brought up as Anglicans, or calling themselves CofE attend monthly or more often.
This also shows that any attempt by churches to connect with non-Christians based on 'religious services' is probably a non-starter too. Weird stuff done by weird people in a weird building. This bears out some of the TEAR Fund research , which found that 26% of adults go to church once a year, and 15% go once a month or more. Jesus didn't start with religion, he started with relationships, perhaps there's something in that.
4. Does it do you any good?
there's a question on the 'personal benefits of religion'
65% agree that religion helps people to find inner peace/happiness
67% agree that it helps people to make friends
79% that it helps people to gain comfort.
Even among the 'unreligious', 49% agree with the first statement, and 58 and 68% respectively with the other two. More curious is the 10%+ of 'religious' people who don't agree with these statements!!!
5. Influence of religion
24% said religion is increasing its influence, 3/4 of these said that was a bad thing. This is the National Secular Society argument - that religion is both in decline, but becoming more politically influential.
57% said religion is decreasing its influence, and about 4 in 5 of these thought that a bad thing.
Overall, about 31% thought that more religious influence was a bad thing, and 50% that it was a good thing.
That's a big challenge: I know this lumps all religion together (it would be interesting to ask the question about particular faiths), but if Christians are seen as bad news by a significant section of our society, then a long hard look in the mirror is in order. It also begs the question of what's seen as 'religion' - is the creche provided by the Mothers Union for prison visitors, or the church-run food bank seen as an expression of religion? Or is it dusty bishops talking about sex and Islamic extremists?
6. Religion and Politics
75% said religious leaders shouldn't try to influence voting behaviour, and 67% think religious leaders should stay out of government decision making. Lords reform here we come... There's also a tendency to think that, if elected officials were more deeply religious, then laws and policy decisions would probably be worse. There's a Bush/Blair legacy to that which the report picks out.
What does this mean for the way the church engages with the General Election? I know of several churches who organise local hustings events, and encourage people to vote and engage with the issues, though it sounds like a more directive engagement (see recent RC interventions) might not go down so well. Perhaps it depends on the issue?
7. Moral Standards
89% say you should follow your conscience rather than what the leaders and teachings of your religion say. That pretty much reflects the number of people who are deeply religious.
60% agreed that there can never be absolutely clear statements of what is good and evil, or an absolute morality. That reflects where we are as a society - and a church identified with laws and rules isn't going to make much headway against that. I remember an Ethics seminar 15 years ago where we watched an hour of Eastenders and noted the dozens of moral issues raised in just a short time - processing morality through story and consensus, rather than principle and absolutes, is the flavour of things. I wonder also if this question is swayed by being part of the 'religion' section - things like racism, violence, etc. do seem to be seen in terms of moral absolutes, and nobody objects at public campaigns which try to enforce them (e.g. Kick Racism out of Football). Don't we still have some absolutes, but no longer on the turf which was colonised by Christendom?
8. Conversion
Only 17% thought it was acceptable for religious people to try to convert others, 81% took the opposite view. That raises lots of questions for mission!
About 3/4 of people think that being very religious means you're often intolerant.
9. Faith Schools
42% - no religious group should have its own schools
13% - some should have them, but not others
43% - any religious group should be able to have its own schools.
So this debate is truly alive and kicking. It's not going to go away any time soon.
There's a whole section on religious diversity and tolerance, which shows that we've still some way to go as a society. It also shows that Muslims have a serious image problem - about 1/3 felt 'cool' towards Muslims, (as opposed to neutral or warm) - far and away the least favourable result, apart from that for 'deeply religious' (29%) - most other religious groups were in the 5-15% range. A majority would be bothered by a large mosque being built locally, but relatively few by a large church. There's unease about the level to which Muslims are integrated into British society. The writers note: Muslims deserves to be the focus of policy on social cohesion, because no other group elicits so much disquiet.
Lots of food for thought here, both about perceptions and practices. Those of us percieved as being 'religious' are possibly trying to run a marathon with both legs tied together. Two responses are to abandon traditional religion, and its forms, for something more acceptable (but every movement becomes an institution in the end) or to try to make the case for religion (not a word I particularly like) being good news. That's not easy when there are plenty of examples of the opposite.
Plenty of chewing over to be done....
Friday, January 29, 2010
Here We Are Now, Entertain Us....
Pete at Postmodern Bible has blogged some more on the CODEC survey on sermons, and what people expected, and got, through the preaching in their church:
Respondents were asked what they wanted a sermon to do and also what they thought preachers actually did. The top results across all denominations for what congregations want were:
Challenge 77.4%
Encourage 74.2%
Motivate 66.8%
Educate 44.7%
Entertain 12.1%
When we asked them what preachers actually did the numbers shifted a little:
Challenge 67.9%
Encourage 76.1%
Motivate 52.2%
Educate 53.8%
Entertain 25.5%
What's going on here? Apparently, three quarters of respondents felt that preachers manage to encourage their congregations, with a similar number challenging them. However, despite 2/3rd of respondents expecting sermons to motivate them, only about half think that this is achieved.
So the message is: fewer jokes and Greek verbs, more challenge and motivation. Which all begs the question of what the sermon is actually for in the first place, and whether people's views of what to expect have been formed by being in a certain context, or by thinking through issues of communication, discipleship, and Christian teaching.
more at Pete's blog. He summarises: What is absolutely clear is that people across the denominations want challenging, provocative preaching that encourages them and moves them on. If they can be entertained as they receive this, then all the best.
I've been meaning for a while to devise a brief response form for sermons at our church. It's probably a question of courage, more than anything else....
Respondents were asked what they wanted a sermon to do and also what they thought preachers actually did. The top results across all denominations for what congregations want were:
Challenge 77.4%
Encourage 74.2%
Motivate 66.8%
Educate 44.7%
Entertain 12.1%
When we asked them what preachers actually did the numbers shifted a little:
Challenge 67.9%
Encourage 76.1%
Motivate 52.2%
Educate 53.8%
Entertain 25.5%
What's going on here? Apparently, three quarters of respondents felt that preachers manage to encourage their congregations, with a similar number challenging them. However, despite 2/3rd of respondents expecting sermons to motivate them, only about half think that this is achieved.
So the message is: fewer jokes and Greek verbs, more challenge and motivation. Which all begs the question of what the sermon is actually for in the first place, and whether people's views of what to expect have been formed by being in a certain context, or by thinking through issues of communication, discipleship, and Christian teaching.
more at Pete's blog. He summarises: What is absolutely clear is that people across the denominations want challenging, provocative preaching that encourages them and moves them on. If they can be entertained as they receive this, then all the best.
I've been meaning for a while to devise a brief response form for sermons at our church. It's probably a question of courage, more than anything else....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
New Schools in Yeovil & Somerset Council Cuts
Yeovil Express is reporting today that, among a slew of proposed cuts to the Somerset County education budget, is money to support the building of 3 new schools in the planned Key Sites around Yeovil (Lufton, Brimsmore, & Lyde Road). The slightly over-dramatised prose notes that the cuts involve:
• Axing budgets allocated to support the development of new schools in Yeovil – at Thorne Lane, Lufton and Brimsmore.
Locals will be aware that these 3 sites have all been on the back burner for a while, though goverment money for affordable housing has kick-started the Lyde Road site, but only for the first 220-odd houses. Locals will also notice that Thorne Lane and Brimsmore are actually the same site (!), and the Express has forgotten about Lyde Road. Sadly, that's been the case with that development from early days, but that's another story.
Somerset is looking to cut £40m from its annual budget, a cut of 10%, connected to a freeze in council tax. The schools cuts are part of a wider programme, with roughly half the cuts coming from capital and half from spending budgets. There's plenty of background papers for the council meeting making this decision next week, and I'm not entirely sure which one to look at (!). If this is simply putting the schools funding back a few years, that's eminently sensible: the housing isn't going to be built within the original forecast, so the money for the school won't be needed for several more years. Alternatively if the budget includes a certain amount set aside into the capital fund each year for new schools, and that's being cut back, then there won't be enough money there to build the schools when they're required.
This may be a bit of a spanner in some local work we're hoping to do in building a sense of community and belonging on the new estates. The loss (or delay) of a key focal building and gathering place will make this a bit tougher.
The wider financial picture doesn't look good - the council is looking at redundancies, attempting to balance its budget, and unsure what level of government support will be there for councils after the election. It's a fair guess that it'll be lower. One of the fruits of the debt crunch is that we may have to get used to our councils doing less for us than before, or charging more to do the same things. The latter isn't really an option in the current climate. It's going to be tough.
(Ps I note with interest that the Labour candidate for Yeovil has set up a website Somerset Conservative Watch. Not much there as yet, but it'll probably increase as May approaches.)
• Axing budgets allocated to support the development of new schools in Yeovil – at Thorne Lane, Lufton and Brimsmore.
Locals will be aware that these 3 sites have all been on the back burner for a while, though goverment money for affordable housing has kick-started the Lyde Road site, but only for the first 220-odd houses. Locals will also notice that Thorne Lane and Brimsmore are actually the same site (!), and the Express has forgotten about Lyde Road. Sadly, that's been the case with that development from early days, but that's another story.
Somerset is looking to cut £40m from its annual budget, a cut of 10%, connected to a freeze in council tax. The schools cuts are part of a wider programme, with roughly half the cuts coming from capital and half from spending budgets. There's plenty of background papers for the council meeting making this decision next week, and I'm not entirely sure which one to look at (!). If this is simply putting the schools funding back a few years, that's eminently sensible: the housing isn't going to be built within the original forecast, so the money for the school won't be needed for several more years. Alternatively if the budget includes a certain amount set aside into the capital fund each year for new schools, and that's being cut back, then there won't be enough money there to build the schools when they're required.
This may be a bit of a spanner in some local work we're hoping to do in building a sense of community and belonging on the new estates. The loss (or delay) of a key focal building and gathering place will make this a bit tougher.
The wider financial picture doesn't look good - the council is looking at redundancies, attempting to balance its budget, and unsure what level of government support will be there for councils after the election. It's a fair guess that it'll be lower. One of the fruits of the debt crunch is that we may have to get used to our councils doing less for us than before, or charging more to do the same things. The latter isn't really an option in the current climate. It's going to be tough.
(Ps I note with interest that the Labour candidate for Yeovil has set up a website Somerset Conservative Watch. Not much there as yet, but it'll probably increase as May approaches.)
An Apple a Day Keeps the Mattress Dry
I'm not entirely sure why lots of people are walking around holding incontinence pads to disguise their identity, something to do with Apples.
Cartoon by Dave Walker
Cartoon by Dave Walker
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
A Square Pigeon in a Round Hole
Stumbled across an alternative to the standard blogroll at this South African blog:
A blogroll is really just a “blogger’s list of hyperlinks to other blogs”. More often than not it quickly degenerates into a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours rewards mechanism. I decided to drop it from my sidebar because I was concerned that by linking without prudence I’d give unfettered consent to views disparate from my own and I had a deep sense of discomfort with that thought.
The result is a Watchlist (probably not as sinister as it sounds), a table of blogs categorised by theological positions. It's probably a mark of my innate aversion to theological disputes that, even if I fit into some of those categories, I couldn't tell you what they meant.
There are some blogs I enjoy reading but whom I wouldn't link from the sidebar, because, as the quote above notes, links imply consent. I guess the easiest way round that is to change the sidebar heading to 'I don't agree with all of these but you might find them interesting'. There also seems to be a desire to protect his readership from false teaching and mistaken points of view.
Comments
1. If I wanted to protect my readership from false teaching, I should stop blogging. As one of my tutors used to say, "10% of what I say is wrong, the trouble is I don't know which 10%". 10% is probably way short of the mark.
2. Do readers need 'protecting', or is that just not treating them as adults? This is all linked to the debate on censorship, and having joined the campaign to get the adultery ads removed earlier this week, I would want to argue that, all other things being equal, we should be commending good things rather than bad things. I mentioned the site concerned, but deliberately didn't link to it. Being a church leader adds its own set of dynamics - I blog as myself, but I'm also conscious that there are standards and expectations attached to being a vicar. Part of what I've promised, and what I'm committed to, is encouraging and building up Christians in their faith. So I guess that's one of the filters which comes into play when deciding what to link/sidebar and what not to.
3. Does categorising blogs by theological position really help? I've probably got more to learn from people I disagree with than people I agree with, and interacting with bloggers of no faith, or different faith to my own not only helps me think through my own ideas more thoroughly, it exposes me to points of view and insights I'd not come across otherwise.
4. A sidebar link isn't unfettered consent: I'll often follow a link from here and go over and disagree with it. Unless its a Bishop, of course.... But I suppose it's a fair assumption that anyone listed in a blog sidebar is, effectively, recommended by the blog owner.
5. There may be safety in silos, but I really can't see what good it does if Christians retreat into bounded sets of like-minded people. The Biblical writers/speakers were out there in the market place, talking about politics, economics, relationships, war, agriculture, work, family, poverty, justice, you name it. It may feel more comfortable if we only have those conversations with ourselves, but it doesn't actually do any good. If Christians actually believe that their faith has something to say about these issues, and that the Bible is relevant to 21st century life, then we need to have the courage of our convictions and be ready to debate these things in the public square.
6. My baseline is, normally, not to link to something I wouldn't want to find my kids reading.
Having said all that, I'm aware that my sidebar consists primarily of sites which I enjoy reading, or which I agree with, and most of them are Christian bloggers. A bit more diversity might be the result of me putting my hyperlinks where my mouth is.
Last question: does anyone out there deliberately link to sites they aren't fans of? Most of my linking to other points of view happens within posts on specific topics, and the sidebar functions a bit like an Amazon page: 'if you like this then you might like...... '
Ht Khanya who points out that categorising people can prevent us from hearing what they're actually saying.
A blogroll is really just a “blogger’s list of hyperlinks to other blogs”. More often than not it quickly degenerates into a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours rewards mechanism. I decided to drop it from my sidebar because I was concerned that by linking without prudence I’d give unfettered consent to views disparate from my own and I had a deep sense of discomfort with that thought.
The result is a Watchlist (probably not as sinister as it sounds), a table of blogs categorised by theological positions. It's probably a mark of my innate aversion to theological disputes that, even if I fit into some of those categories, I couldn't tell you what they meant.
There are some blogs I enjoy reading but whom I wouldn't link from the sidebar, because, as the quote above notes, links imply consent. I guess the easiest way round that is to change the sidebar heading to 'I don't agree with all of these but you might find them interesting'. There also seems to be a desire to protect his readership from false teaching and mistaken points of view.
Comments
1. If I wanted to protect my readership from false teaching, I should stop blogging. As one of my tutors used to say, "10% of what I say is wrong, the trouble is I don't know which 10%". 10% is probably way short of the mark.
2. Do readers need 'protecting', or is that just not treating them as adults? This is all linked to the debate on censorship, and having joined the campaign to get the adultery ads removed earlier this week, I would want to argue that, all other things being equal, we should be commending good things rather than bad things. I mentioned the site concerned, but deliberately didn't link to it. Being a church leader adds its own set of dynamics - I blog as myself, but I'm also conscious that there are standards and expectations attached to being a vicar. Part of what I've promised, and what I'm committed to, is encouraging and building up Christians in their faith. So I guess that's one of the filters which comes into play when deciding what to link/sidebar and what not to.
3. Does categorising blogs by theological position really help? I've probably got more to learn from people I disagree with than people I agree with, and interacting with bloggers of no faith, or different faith to my own not only helps me think through my own ideas more thoroughly, it exposes me to points of view and insights I'd not come across otherwise.
4. A sidebar link isn't unfettered consent: I'll often follow a link from here and go over and disagree with it. Unless its a Bishop, of course.... But I suppose it's a fair assumption that anyone listed in a blog sidebar is, effectively, recommended by the blog owner.
5. There may be safety in silos, but I really can't see what good it does if Christians retreat into bounded sets of like-minded people. The Biblical writers/speakers were out there in the market place, talking about politics, economics, relationships, war, agriculture, work, family, poverty, justice, you name it. It may feel more comfortable if we only have those conversations with ourselves, but it doesn't actually do any good. If Christians actually believe that their faith has something to say about these issues, and that the Bible is relevant to 21st century life, then we need to have the courage of our convictions and be ready to debate these things in the public square.
6. My baseline is, normally, not to link to something I wouldn't want to find my kids reading.
Having said all that, I'm aware that my sidebar consists primarily of sites which I enjoy reading, or which I agree with, and most of them are Christian bloggers. A bit more diversity might be the result of me putting my hyperlinks where my mouth is.
Last question: does anyone out there deliberately link to sites they aren't fans of? Most of my linking to other points of view happens within posts on specific topics, and the sidebar functions a bit like an Amazon page: 'if you like this then you might like...... '
Ht Khanya who points out that categorising people can prevent us from hearing what they're actually saying.
All or Nothing?
Can I be a Christian by picking & choosing among the ideas that circulate within the various Christ-based religions, assembling something that feels believable 100%, or must I take the totality of the dogma of one sect believing many parts to be untrue? I'm looking for a way in. Any suggestions?
Good question. The full version, including an attempt to answer it, at the prolific Holy Heteroclite.
Good question. The full version, including an attempt to answer it, at the prolific Holy Heteroclite.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)