Today is my lovely wife’s birthday. She is 41 years young.
And I love her.
This is one of the few photos of the two of us together- taken in France last year.
Today we took a trip out for lunch in Strachur, then out to Inveraray, where we decided to be tourists for the day, and look around the Duke of Argyll’s Castle.
It was one of those horizontal rain kind of days, but in order to complete the tourist thing, Michaela decided to have an ice cream.
I am sure the hypothermia will pass…
I have this thing about boundaries and borders.
They are such artificial things. They are constructs of history, of politics, of tribalism- both ancient and modern.
They seem to represent to worst of us- the attacking and defending, the in-outing, the asylum seeking and the last refuges of scoundrels.
They seem to me to be the visible manifestation of our o-so human characteristic of constructing walls to hide behind and throw stones from. We do it in the playground, and in our theology. We do it in our politics and over our suburban garden fences.
Safe behind these walls we construct, it is possible to make generalisations about the dwellers on the other side. It is likely that we will be skewed towards constructing a reality that is only partially based on fact, and serves to somehow strengthen the boundaries about us. If your failings are evident, mine submerge. If your history and culture can be caricatured and undermined, then ours will be all the stronger. If you are worth less, then what you have, I can take.
There is a lot of discussion around at the moment about Britishness. Our (Scottish) prime minister has made it a central part of his message- perhaps (he says cynically) as a reaction to the rise of the Scottish National Party in his native land. Check out this programme on Radio 4, complete with interview with the Prime minister.
In this programme, there is a discussion about Scottish Nationalism. As an English/Irishman, living in Scotland, and trying to understand what it means to follow Jesus in this time and place, some of this debate troubles me.
If you have an English accent, you can’t say this stuff- you have no right.
You are from the other side of the fence you see- the oppressive, domineering, 1966-boasting, Redcoat-wearing, clearance making, absentee landlord side…
Except, I am the son of an Irish man, the result of his brief marriage to the daughter of a miner. I grew up in a northern England ravaged by the end of industry- in the middle of a miners strike and about as far removed from the City of London as it was possible to get and still be rained on.
All my life, I have been outside fences- perhaps this is the legacy of a particular kind of childhood, or a particular kind of personality. There are a lot of us though.
Anyway- back to Scottish nationalism. A couple of years ago, I listened to Doug Gay’s talk at Greenbelt entitled
‘Breaking up Britain- how to be a Christian Nationalist’. I really struggled with it at the time, but it was provocative and well presented, and gave me much food for thought.
Doug spoke about the Tower of Babel story- as evidence that God chose to bless us with nationhood and cultures…
And how God chose to engage with one holy nation called Israel…
But I rather thought the point of the Babel story was about mankind getting too big for it’s boots- and the whole Israel thing- well it did not end well did it?
I have a number of difficulties too about nationalism-
- I am really struggling to think of anything positive about a strong nation state- even one positive example from history
- Nationalists rarely make good neighbours
- Nationalism always tends to need to define itself AGAINST the other
- Nationalists tend towards simplified versions of history
- They tend to demonise the other in order to unite masses behind a flag
- If celebration of our shared and separate cultures demands that we denigrate others, then I am not interested
- Jesus seemed to have other priorities
- He seemed to be more interested in transcending boundaries, and working for peace and reconciliation and healing of wounds
So, for those of us who agree with Tom Stoppard’s suggestion that nationhood is perhaps just a ‘conspiracy of cartographers’- perhaps we can hope that there may yet be a new way to celebrate our nationhood…
I love my adopted country of Scotland. But let us seek to tear down borders, not find new ways to erect them.
If you love words, like I do- you will love this.
Check out this anagram making site...
I threw in ‘This fragile tent’ to see what it would give me, and oh what pithy delight!
Here is a delicious selection. You can be the judge as to which ones are most fitting!
Flatteries thing
Heartfelt siting
Integrates filth
Fattest hierling
Latte infighters
Faith resettling
And- perhaps my favourite… Faltering theist
I was contacted by Faye Saville, a student at my former place of education, University of Central Lancashire, asking if I would give a plug to a piece of research she is conducting into the use of the internet to communicate in crisis situations- particularly the way that the whole Baby P thing unfolded.
If you are a blogger, or accessed information about the Baby P situation, and can spare a few minutes to fill in her questionnaire, then your help would be appreciated.
Here are the details…
My name is Faye Saville and I am in my final year studying for a BA (Hons) Public Relations Sandwich Degree at the University of Central Lancashire. I am currently conducting a piece of academic research for my dissertation. My research is focused around the area of crisis communication and online public relations.
This study aims to discover how and why various Internet methods (e.g. blogs and social networking sites etc) are used by individuals to communicate with online during a crisis. My research specifically focuses on the crisis and case of Baby P. Therefore, this study requests to hear from individuals who have an interest (professional or otherwise) in the social work/social services and welfare sector and the case of Baby P.
If you have accessed the Baby P case online and have followed the case I would very much appreciate if you could fill in this questionnaire and return it to myself. The questionnaire also aims to discover how and why individuals who have an interest in the social work/social services and welfare sector have found using the Internet in the Baby P crisis useful.
The questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete and your responses will be a very valuable contribution to my research.
All questionnaires filled in and returned to my email: QuestionnaireResults@live.com will remain completely confidential and anonymous. If you wish to share your comments with other bloggers, please send your responses to: http://fayesaville.wordpress.com/contact/
If you have any questions please do contact me.
Kind regards,
Faye Saville.
See also previous posts on this subject here and here.
In the wake of the tradgic death of the small boy known as ‘baby P’ in Haringey, director of Childrens Services Sharon Shoesmith found herself in the middle of a media storm. This well respected former teacher (who had an impressive track record in turning around education in the local authority) did not resign, but was eventually sacked from her post by the council leadership. Given the pressure, they perhaps had little choice- someone must be responsible for this dreadful thing- and as Shoesmith was the boss, the buck stopped with her.
This despite an unprecedented letter of support from many of the head teachers within Haringey for Shoesmith.
Yesterday, as the dust begins to settle, and those in the media looking for scapegoats have moved on to the next media feeding frenzy, we begin to have a chance to consider what really happened in this case, and what actions may be necessary to try to avoid it happening again.
Things have already changed in relation to the protection of children across the UK. Quite simply, the threshold for removing children from home and placing them in care has shifted. We now remove one third more that we were doing a year ago. Society (and no doubt the media) has a decision to make as to whether this is acceptable.
Sharon Shoesmith herself was interviewed on BBC radio 4 womens hour. It was a fascinating interview- she was put under considerable pressure by Jenny Murray the interviewed, but made some telling points.
You can listen again to the interview for a while on this link.
Here’s a summary of some of the detail;
April 2007, concerns raised about parenting. Investigations started, child placed on at risk register
June- SWer raised concerns about injuries. Suspicion that these were non-accidental, but no evidence. Specialist medical assessments not conclusive. ‘Fell on stairs.’
Hv’s Swer visits- not enough to meet threshold for care proceedings- three multi-agency child protection conferences. Robust discussion (police later said ‘we told them to take action’) but course of action agreed by all.
CPS- not enough evidence for charge for neglect- this decision made the week the child died. Baby P seen Monday be SW, Wed(medics), Thurs, SWer again, Friday, dead.
At some point over last 48 hours, there was a brutal attack on the child. No-one has been charged with murder. Swers had no knowledge of the two men living in the home- partner and lodger. Boyfriend hid when professionals visited- in a wardrobe and also in a trench in the back garden! Went to great lengths to hoodwink professionals.
The mother gave the impression that she was willing to work with staff- leading to optimism.
Then the media stuff exploded. The story became about Shoesmith- she was the visible presence. No other photos released of family, or child at first.
Ofsted and government departments knew what had happened days after- they were informed. Serious case reviews happened, made recommendations. Months later (as the press and political response gathers like a storm) ofsted chose to make another inspection, which can be read here. They gave no prior warning of the contents of the report or opportunity to discuss the accuracy of the findings to Shoesmith prior to publishing- very unusual. The report was in stark constrast to earler finding by the same agency.
There was then an interesting discussion as to whether Shoesmith, as the leader of a service that failed to protect Baby P was responsible in some way for the death of the child. Shoesmith answered the question very well, asking searching questions about the role of leadership in public life. She described sleepless nights, long days from 6AM to 10PM dodging the media. How she had even considered suicide. But she did not kill this child. She was responsible for a service who tried to protect, but failed.
She also made a point about the low status that our society awards to staff trying to protect kids- and Social workers in particular- asking which other profession would have been at the brunt of this treatment from the press?
Finally, she made this point, which we all should bear in mind-
Each week, at least one child is killed by a member of family in the UK.
Many many more are saved following interventions. In many of these cases, we can never be sure whether actions to protect were proportionate and necessary- we rely on multi diciplinary discussion and decisions. We will NEVER be able to save all the people we work with.
Should Shoesmith (or other staff) have been subjected to the trial-by-media (a notoriously inaccurate judicial process?) I think not.
Should they have lost their jobs? Perhaps this is a response commensurate with the awful loss of a child’s life. But if this applies to Shoesmith- then should it apply to many other directors of social services across the country?
Or is this issue more to do with how we as a society manage the care of our children and allow media generated hysteria to fuel our decision making?
I live in a small town. One of the first things that you learn when you move into town is that everyone has history, and the history is known to others. In fact it might even be what passes for entertainment in such places- the stratification of fellow residents according to all sorts of criteria-
These things are true in any community- but they are accentuated in small towns. The thing is, that this concentration of examination can mean that conflict in particular is corrosive and damaging, and potentially long lasting. There is little to divert or dilute, and it is likely that contact will still continue at some level within the communal spaces of the town.
Some conflicts are legendary- played out in the local courts, and the local paper. Once the solicitors get involved things rarely go well.
There seems to be a particular personality type that is associated with such things- someone who sees complex issues as black and white, and is motivated to seek first vindication and then perhaps, revenge.
There is always more to an issue than meets the eye;
By way of a case study- about three or four years ago, I was involved in a disciplinary hearing of a member of staff who worked for a local voluntary organisation. To cut a long story short, he was later dismissed in relation to another matter (in which I had some involvement in as well.) This process was long and protracted, and the man concerned showed no willingness or ability to understand or engage with any perspective but his own. It was clear that he saw himself as a victim of a malicious campaign led by myself.
At one point of this process, a window was smashed on a car on our drive, and then on two occasions, wheels mysteriously worked loose on the car- at considerable risk to myself and my family. There is of course, no evidence whatsoever to suggest who was responsible.
The man later appealed to an industrial tribunal, and defended himself successfully, in the sense that the organisation was found to have failed in it’s handling of the matter- mainly because a former chairperson admitted to the tribunal that he lied- having claimed not to have been in possession of information which it later transpired that he had, but had not acted upon.
It was a messy, difficult business, with the future of a vital local resource, employing a number of staff at stake. Hopefully over and done with…
Except it is not.
The man concerned has now engaged a solicitor to pursue his vindication. They have made formal complaints to the director of social work about me, and suggested that my lack of integrity means that I should be disciplined. This has been rejected, so I await his next moves…
What should be my response? He is unlikely after all this time to change his perspective. Too much depends on this view of himself persisting.
I could get lawyered up myself and prepare to do battle- it might yet come to this.
I could simply punch him on the nose. But although I am twice his size, I simply would not know how to start.
He has thrown my faith at me on several occasions- you know the way of it- ‘Bible basher!’, ‘Call yourself a Christian?…’
Well yes- I do. I follow Jesus, who had much worse accusations leveled at him. So I am going to do nothing at present. I hope that the man will find his way out of the destructive cycle that he is caught within. I will try my hardest to relax in grace, knowing that difficult people are usually people in difficulties.
And when we meet in supermarkets, I will look him in the eyes and offer what reconcilliation I can, lest we become another story of embattled and embittered small town life.
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.
Groucho Marx.
A funny guy, was Groucho.
But it seems to me that for thousands of years men and women have tried to find a platform for living that promised something solid and good and true.
In this way, perhaps we can guarantee a life of prosperity for ourselves and our children.
Perhaps too the sum of our days might then come to mean something. And the Gods above us might cease their indifference, and cause the sun to shine on our ripening corn.
And then perhaps we might live out long lives, and see the flowering of our children’s children…
So the story of wandering nomadic middle eastern people recorded in the Bible, seeking a code for life- this is not just ancient mythology- but it is the story of who we are too.
We follow their journey into the desert, where the wind blows and the wild animals are. We camp with them at the foot of the mountain, and pray for laws for life to be given to us on tablets of stone, and mediated by men of wisdom and strength.
If we can only learn what is required of us, and follow the code of the road that we travel together with our friends, through bandit country…
But then comes the twistings and turnings in the long road. The failings of our leaders, the fickle following of the flock, the empty promises of a distant God who appears to have forgotten his people.
The impossibility of these laws- which always place goodness beyond the reach of mortal man, and condemn us for what we can never be.
But then into the story steps the man called Jesus.
He walks with us for a while, and stands in the gap between being and becoming that we humans always seem to stumble in.
And though he is not a law-breaker, neither is he enslaved by it.
Everything about him calls us to a deeper level of being- back to core of who we are…
We once again find ourselves to be Children of the Living God.
Which brings me back to the point of my post.
If I am right, and there seems to be a universal desire to find spiritual truth and meaning in our existence, then what parts of our understanding do we bring to this search?
Cognitive behavioural psychologists suggest that there are three main levels to our mindfulness. I wonder if there may be clues within this that might help us to consider how we form our thoughts towards God?
The first level concerns out feeling and our acting– those immediate reactions and responses that seem to pop into our consciousness in an almost automatic way. We react out of understandings and experiences that are driven by core beliefs which will be to a large part hidden from us.
These feelings and actions are fickle and changeable. We can modify them sometimes, but often it seems as if they happen to us and around us, and we have little control.
I know people who approach God (or I should say I have approached God) in this way.
The image we have of God arises from a set of inherited assumptions and half understood yearnings. We reach for him in times of immediate need, and try to shape our actions in line with the behaviour of these others who seem to know him better.
There is something of the child in this. It is good. But it is also incomplete. We are more than just the sum of how we act and feel.
The second level concerns the structure of obligations and rules we tend to apply to ourselves. Once formed, we cling to them tenaciously, and though we can act against them, they still govern our acting and feeling in subtle ways.
Some of these rules are well organised into structured hierarchies- and serve us well. However, these exist alongside other assumptions about ourselves and how we relate to the world which may be less helpful. Assumptions formed out of pain or dysfunction, or through incomplete information.
Such rules and assumptions on which we base actions and feelings are not easily accessible or necessarily understood. The reasons we then give for actions may well relate to hidden experiences and understandings that still become the engine for whole ways of being.
Much of my faith experience seems to have been lived in the shadow of guilt induced by me breaking rules. We Christians are very good at rules, even when they are not written down.
Rules of how to dress, how to speak, how to spend time, how to sing, how to love one another, how to shop, how to speak to God. Many of these rules are good- they have evolved out of the history of our faith community and those who went before us. We pore over scripture and refine or understanding of these laws. Some seem more important than others to different groups and at different times. They may then give priority to those laws, and subordinate the others, and the people who follow them.
And mixed in with this structured law keeping are all the other assumptions- that shape the way we act and feel in less predictable ways. Partial and incomplete understandings that still we concrete into a shape that we call truth…
The third level concerns the core principles which become the building blocks for who we are. It is on these principles that the rules are formed from- and in turn govern our acting and our feeling.
These building block principles are formed early, and then take some shifting. Again, we are unlikely ever to have a full understanding of what these are- we only get clues to them as they arise into our conscious interaction with the world around us.
They concern cherished ideas on which we can stand tall, but also other core beliefs that may be less positive- perhaps based on ideas of our lack of worth and value, taken on as children, and still shaping us as adults.
If faith does not live within us at this level- then what value has it? If our theology does not start with the beautiful principles we see lived out in the stories of Jesus, then what value have the rules we employ and apply, or the acting out and feeling that result from our experience?
These things seem to be the flowers that later the Spirit of God would turn into fruit in our lives.
It is not that the laws or the acting out are wrong necessarily. They may be wonderful. But they may also be missing something of the heart of the matter.
Love. Joy. Peace. Patience. Kindness, Gentleness. Self control. Against such there is no law.
Over the weekend we had a meeting of our embryonic ‘Emerging Scotland’ group. This began on Facebook, and has slowly gathered momentum towards real connections as well as on-line ones. If you are interested in such things tartan, there is an account of our last meeting here.
One of the issues at hand has been what on earth we should call ourselves? The name ‘Emerging Scotland’ was coined prior to the time when many of the earlier users of the word emerging began to distance themselves from it. Do we start to use this new word ‘Missional’?
Here is a selection of answers to a questionnaire;
4. What’s in a name? We set out using this word ‘emerging’- although it seems to be a word that is being abandoned by many of its early users. What does the word mean to you?
“A useful word to catch lots of different ideas and activities.”
“New ways of doing things.”
“Living life with people where they are and in the course of life, and living/sharing the gospel.”
“A label that speaks about what we are not, but not what we are. It evokes an emotional response.”
“The birth of something new from an old foundation.”
“Exploring/questioning/seeking.”
If this network is to call itself anything, is it time to find a new name- ideas?
“Emerging- necessary as an interim description- we can’t denote ourselves until we can define ourselves.”
“ Possibly need new name- but most names that convey significant meaning will become outdated as things move beyond them.”
“It’s fine for now.”
“Emerging implies something is HAPPENING.”
“ It speaks to me of hope, whereas ‘missional’ speaks to me of obligation, and organisation.”
So we will stick with ‘Emerging’ for now- even if what we encourage is activity that might also be described as ‘missional’.
How about you- are there others out there who are also wanting to stick with the E word? Is it still meaningful as a descriptor of something?
What is going on?
The good old BBC has refused to broadcast an appeal on behalf of people injured and hungry in Gaza- quoting ‘impartiality’ as a reason.
Heres what that old stager Tony Benn had to say about it all.
There’s facebook group here if you want to add your voice to the protest (thanks Gayle.)
I watched Obama’s inauguration yesterday with interest, but considerable detachment. American politics always seem so different from our own- the hype, the necessity of huge financial resources and all sorts of power-brokeridge that we can only just guess at. Americans seem to have a reverence and deference for (and towards) whoever hold the office of President that British people never feel for their rulers.
I am also scarred by 1997, when the incoming Labour government promised so much in the UK, after so many damaging years of Tory government. I remember the hope for something new and genuinely different. And the creeping realisation that Blair’s government seemed unable to ever elevate principle over popularism and the manipulation of image.
But Obama made a good start. I enjoyed the moment when his jaw set a little firmer and he began to talk about how his government would have a totally different human rights agenda. The Camera cut to a close up of out-going president Bush.
Then today, I heard that one of the Obama’s first acts as President- on his first day in Office, was to suspend all the ‘trials’ of inmates currently contained in the infamous Guantanamo bay (Here is what the Guardian had to say.)
He had promised as much- so it should not have been a surprise
I have posted some thought previously on Guantanamo bay- here.
In particular, some thoughts about Omar Khadir, the 15 year old boy abducted and held in Guantanamo bay ‘interrogation centre’ . It is his trial that has been suspended today following the Presidents intervention. Here is footage from his interrogation, released by his defence team-
A good start Mr President.
this fragile tent 