Watching Paint Dry? God & Church.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. I’ve always been ahead of my time. Whereas you lot got bored of Church in your teens and stopped going, I left Sunday school when I was 7. I still had to go to Church though, but preferred to sit in the service with my Mum then go to Sunday school. After I finished my training and was made a local preacher my old Sunday School teacher came and congratulated me with tears of pride in her eyes, which quickly turned to tears of long-felt pain as she related the tale of the 7 year old who told her that he was bored of what she was doing and stormed out the room never to return. She retired from Sunday school teaching shortly after that.

And yet here I am just a few years later (OK more than just a few) a fully paid up member of the People-Who-Not-Only-Go-To-Church-But-Contribute-To-Whatever-Happens-On-A-Sunday Club. So what’s happened to make a difference? Do I still get bored of what happens on a Sunday? If so, how and why do I cope?

The first thing to say is, yes I do still find that Church can be dull. There are times when, instead of feeling uplifted, I feel frustrated, sometimes even angry. But the way that I’ve come to view Church has changed, so I can cope with Sunday mornings being bland because of what else Church has become to me.

Over the years Church has done a lot for me, maybe that’s a reason I’ve stuck with it. After I’d decided I wasn’t interested in playing the rubbish they make you learn for school concerts it was Church that offered me the opportunities to play music in public, and it was Church that gave me the first chances I had to mess around with PA gear and recording. I met many great people through Church, and my friends from ‘back home’ are all church friends some of whom I’ve known for over 20 years. At Church I felt listened to and I fitted in more than I ever did at school.
That’s an experience that continued as I moved around. Churches I’ve attended have been welcoming and when I’ve sat in a Church as a visitor and participated in traditional Methodist Worship it’s been like putting on an old familiar jumper – perhaps a bit shabby round the edges and something you wouldn’t want to be judged for wearing but it’s warm and comforting and holds a lot of good memories.

But Church is more than just a nostalgic trip - Church is for the here and now. Church still offers me opportunities to be heard – through this blog and through my being a local preacher, and although I don’t play much music in Church anymore I’m still frequently found at the back of the room sitting behind a mixing desk trying to look important. And there’s still more that Church offers – I seem to lead a charmed existence free from the difficulties which dog some people, but I know from experience that I can count on the Church for support when such events occur. I’ve seen many people supported and uplifted through difficult times by their Church. Knowing that there are people who do care for you and are willing to help you is of itself a source of strength, and this is what a Church can provide.

But Church is even more than that! What I’ve described above is a social club, there has to be something that makes Church unique. I discovered what it was when I was in my teens. I discovered that this God thing that people talked about was of interest to me and I started to explore what that meant. I soon realised that the people who frequented Church also had an interest in God and an experience of Him and so as people shared and talked about what they knew of God it strengthened my own ideas and they turned into a faith. Church became a means to an end. The point of Church wasn’t Church. The point of Church was as a vehicle to reach God, and as such a vehicle - for all it’s faults and weaknesses - it’s objective and ideals keeps me coming back to further my own journey.


Not everyone’s experience is like mine. A lot of people have very bad experiences in Churches. Church is often called a ‘family’ and a lot of the good experiences I’ve described can be paralleled in a family, and just like there are good families and bad families so there are good Churches and bad Churches. Even when we find a good Church there will be bad points to it – just as there’s always a family member you don’t get on with you’ll find a Church member who you find annoying, difficult, hostile, un-accepting or any other negative human reaction you care to name. Like a family the bad experiences we have in Church hurt more because of what Church is meant to be. Sometimes our families can do us great damage – as can Church. But with Church we can find a new place to undo the damage and learn to belong.

Just like in a family, we need to be an active participant in Church to get the most out of it. It doesn’t do any good simply sitting and moaning about how there is nothing of interest to us at Church. We have to actively effect the change we want to see in Church to make it interesting and relevant. We have to be the Church we want to belong to

This is what Café Sundae tries to do – we try to demonstrate the Church in action as we see it should be, and help others find their place in Church and in Gods family.

Yobs & Codgers? God & Ageism

.

This month's blog is in the form of the above video. Just a quick word of explanation, Cafe Sundae is a monthly event where the videos I make to accompany my blogs are shown: so when I refer to putting your hand up and looking around you in this blog I'm talking directly to those attending the event.

Under the Influence? God & Intoxication

It’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion about drugs in this country as their mere mention causes hysteria and panic. A politician being able to say that they smoked marijuana at university but didn’t inhale is the stupidest thing I’ve heard and demonstrates perfectly the cul-de-sac we’ve got ourselves into when debating drugs. I don’t see the point of writing a blog in such a climate where I’m unable to write honestly about my experience, So for the next 5 minutes take your fingers away from the hysteria button and lets discuss drugs like adults rather than like a schoolgirl with a mouse in her satchel.

My drug of choice is alcohol. I enjoy drinking a wide range of wines, beers and spirits. In particular I love drinking real ale – I am a member of CAMRA (the campaign for real ale). My habit is socially acceptable but I have no qualms about categorising alcohol alongside the illegal drugs, as I know the effects they can have and the only real difference is that alcoholic drinks are legal.

Since the mid 90’s I’ve moved around on the edges of the music scene and as such I’ve witnessed the effects of drugs first hand. I’ve seen people take every drug with the possible exception of crack. If you get chance to observe it and they’re not trying to hide the fact they’ve taken something there’s a very obvious before and after. On the whole it doesn’t bother me, if you want to take something it’s your choice to take the risks, but the only drug I’m scared of is heroin.

In 1996 a film was released which caused a media storm. ‘Trainspotting’ was accused, by the popular press, of glamourizing heroin and the resulting publicity made it one of the biggest British films of all time. There’s a quote fairly early on in the film – “People think it's all about misery and desperation and death and all that… which is not to be ignored, but what they forget is the pleasure of it. Otherwise we wouldn't do it. After all, we're not stupid.” And here lies – in my opinion - one of our biggest mistakes when it comes to drugs. We are so scared of drugs that we can’t contemplate that there is anything positive to be said about them. In schools we drill home the message ‘drugs are bad’ and believe we are having a positive effect. But I doubt we are. I think our fear of drugs is transparent and results in the education we give lacking credibility. Surely it would be better to take a more honest approach and treat people like they’re not stupid.

The drugs debate can be split into 2 distinct camps, those against and those for. There are very few people who sit in the middle. Each camp has it’s own myths as the taboo nature of drugs has meant that very little money has been put into actual research on effects and addictions. The above argument that all drugs are evil is countered by a belief that they are harmless (often just a user in denial). This is particularly true of cannabis users. They will argue that cannabis is non-addictive and less harmful than alcohol. This much is probably true, but they will go on to say that there are no proven deaths from cannabis. This claim I cannot believe. Whereas it is possible to give yourself alcohol poisoning and drink yourself to death through excessive alcohol consumption I don’t think it’s possible to smoke yourself to death: but to claim that that there are no cannabis fatalities is a rose-tinted view. Cannabis alters your state of mind, dulls your perceptions and slows your reactions. Surely someone will have had an accident whilst high and died from their injuries. Prolonged excessive use of cannabis has also been linked with schizophrenia, an illness which has caused a number of deaths. Most people smoke cannabis with tobacco. Many cannabis smokers will hold the smoke in the lungs to give the THC the maximum amount of time to be absorbed into the lungs. This also lets the over 200 harmful chemicals in tobacco smoke chance to be absorbed as well, so maybe you can say that cannabis hasn’t directly caused deaths, but to claim that it’s harmless and no-one has died as a result of taking cannabis is naïve at best. The anti-drug lobby also point at cannabis and claim that it leads onto harder drugs. Again this is a half-truth. I know many people – myself included – who have smoked cannabis and have no interest in anything harder than that. Taking cannabis doesn’t have to be a slippery slope to hard drug addiction. More often than not it isn’t. I would actually say that if you asked hard-drug addicts what the first drug they tried was, most would say cannabis, but revise their choice to alcohol if it were made clear that it was included in the list, and yet alcohol doesn’t get that kind of reputation because it’s legal and socially acceptable. Some of the pro-cannabis lobby uses that half-truth to argue for the legalization of cannabis arguing that when you go and buy your eighth, if the opportunity to buy something harder were removed fewer people would make the jump.

My biggest problem with drug taking is the illegality. Not really because it’s against the law, but because it’s in the hands of criminal elements. The money you spend on your chemical hobby is going to end up making money for people you wouldn’t invite into your home. There is no kite mark for drugs, no quality assurance. When you’re about to inhale your white powder what you’re ingesting will have been handled at some point by people with no moral scruples. It’s fairly well documented that harder drugs are cut with many different chemicals which bear a resemblance to the drug in question, and these are going to take their toll on the body as much as the drug is. At least with my alcohol habit being state endorsed I know that what I’m buying is what it’s supposed to be.

There will be those reading this who will want me to say to young people ‘Don’t do drugs,’ but I don’t believe that would make the blindest bit of difference if I did. But I will say this. The fact is that there are risks to drug taking, regardless of the drug in question. Whatever you choose to use – be it legal or illegal – be aware of the risks, and be aware of what it does to you. Use intoxicants responsibly - the same drug has different effects of different people. We’ve all seen news footage of fights in town centres on a Saturday night caused by people drinking too much. Alcohol doesn’t make me aggressive, but if it did I hope I’d have the sense not to drink it. Look after yourself and those around you make sure you don’t develop a problem. Don’t kid yourself that what you’re doing has no consequences.

There is a problem in this country with drug use. It stems from people not realizing that recreational intoxication is a serious business.

Big Bob's Happyland?: God & Zimbabwe

 There is an obvious problem to sitting down and writing a blog about Zimbabwe; and that is that the situation is likely to change and so what I write becomes obsolete. Maybe I flatter myself, but I like to think that in 6 months, a year, 5 years however long someone may want to read my meagre scribblings and I’d like them still to be valid. So to write about current affairs presents a problem – they don’t stay current.

 

As I sit and write this the BBC news website is reporting that Robert Mugabe and Morgan Tsvangirai have agreed a power sharing deal the details of which will be formally announced next week so things are hopefully going to improve drastically for the Zimbabwean people. But it doesn’t help me write my blog!

 

During his time in office Mugabe has dragged Zimbabwe into the gutter; he’s ruined what was a thriving agricultural sector and driven the Zimbabwean economy to ruin. He’s controlled the media in Zimbabwe and restricted and banned foreign journalists and foreign aid workers. The people of Zimbabwe have borne the brunt of his policies and they’ve suffered greatly. Meanwhile the international community has sat back and let it happen. Many people and organisations have called for action against Mugabe but their cries have fallen on deaf ears and governments have taken very little action to try to implement change in Zimbabwe.

 

But can we actually take the moral high ground? It goes without saying that wherever in the world we in the West call for change – be it Zimbabwe, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, China Darfur or any of the many troublespots in the world – the leaders in that country will reject what we say. But how can they justify it to their people (presuming they report it)? The obvious way is to decry our moral record and say, “…And they think they can tell us what to do!”  For cultures which are more tightly regulated than ours this is an easy thing to do. For example those countries that forbid alcohol they can just point to our numbers of alcoholics and binge drinking statistics. Cultural differences such as that have been used since time immemorial as propaganda and we do it as much as anyone else. But it doesn’t actually take very long to find things in our recent history which do more serious damage to our credibility as arbiters of justice. During the 1980s Britain poured money and armaments into Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as it was seen as the best form of opposition to the Ayatollah’s Iran which we thought was the biggest threat to the West. Then from the early 90s onwards Saddam became public enemy number 1. Our support or opposition of foreign regimes has been based entirely on how useful they are to us, and has paid no attention at all social justice or their Human rights record. More recently Britain and the US have engaged in a war in Iraq which is widely regarded as illegal. So when we, or our Government, protest to Mugabe (or the leader of another country) about how their countries are run, it’s very easy for them to dismiss what we say because our own moral record can be viewed as very shaky.

 

So why haven’t we done more to intervene in Zimbabwe? Why has Robert Mugabe been able to continue his abuse of power for so long? Firstly to answer this we need to acknowledge the place Britain has in Zimbabwean History. Very briefly Zimbabwe is a former British colony only gaining it’s independence from Britain in 1980. Throughout the 70s a war of independence was fought and the Zanu party of Robert Mugabe was a major part of the struggle. When independence was gained Mugabe became a hero to the Zimbabwean People and was courted as such on the international stage. Fast forward to today and Britain is still seen as the former colonial occupier, so we cannot become too involved in direct confrontational action against Mugabe as we are still viewed as a hostile nation by many of the Zimbabwean people – our help would be viewed with some suspicion.

 

But the international community has also failed to act - other than to ban Mugabe, his government and his wife from travelling to the EU and the US. We have all sat back and watched the suffering of the Zimbabwean people and said, “That’s not very nice is it.”  No-one has suggested going into Zimbabwe on humanitarian grounds – as we supposedly went into Iraq – this may be because our action in Iraq was deeply unpopular with the international community, or it may because Zimbabwe has nothing the world wants. It has no oil and its economy and infrastructure are so damaged it has become an unattractive and expensive prospect for any foreign power.

 

 The UN would perhaps be the obvious vehicle for an international attempt to change Zimbabwe, but the UN charter states that it can only intervene when countries are threatening other countries, not their own people so the UN can’t – or won’t – get involved.

 

It would seem that we have tied our own hands in dealing with situations such as this: maybe we need to take stock of the situation and see if the rule book needs re-making.

 

 

 

So what can we do? To be honest I don’t know! The situation is changing and until we see what shape it takes it’s difficult to suggest anything. All we can do is keep an eye on the situation whilst continuing to lobby our MPs and support organisations working in Zimbabwe (hopefully the doors will be opened to more aid organisations soon). We must continue to support the Zimbabwean people, hold them in our thoughts and prayers and keep their stories circulating in order to keep the eyes of the world focussed in their direction.

My Precious: God & Bling

 

 

I’ve been procrastinating. I’ve been putting off writing this blog because I don’t really know what to write. Even this evening I’ve done every other job I can conceivably do to avoid starting writing without it looking too obvious (but goodness only knows who I’m trying to kid) and even now I’ve written 5 ½ lines without even coming close to mentioning the topic of this months blog.

 

I guess the problem is that I don’t really understand jewellery. I wear a modest amount, and don’t demonstrate any interest in expanding my collection – or Helen’s. I think I’ve made a decision at some point; I don’t have – and I’m unlikely to have - the money to indulge myself in lots of jewels, and to do so would be pointless, jewellery is a luxury item, and the definition of a luxury is an item we can do without, so it’s an aspect of life I’ve ignored. So all I can really do in this blog is give you a couple of observations I’ve made about bling and see what you think about them.

 

The first thing to note is why people wear jewellery. Since civilisation began people have decorated their bodies, and jewellery has formed a major part of this along with tattoos and a variety of different styles of clothes for different occasions. Jewellery and accessories can bring an outfit to life, putting the finishing touches to how a person looks. But it is used for more than just that. The type of jewellery worn by your average hip-hopper is different to that worn by your average goth, jewellery provides a badge of identity and a sign of belonging. It also indicates social status; the type of jewellery worn by the upper classes is very different to that worn by the working classes. Jewellery is used to demonstrate wealth. So far that’s all fairly obvious.

 

The biggest blingers are hip-hop artists. The way they use their jewellery is in massively ostentatious shows of wealth. Way back in the 80s when hip-hop came to the attention of the world it was the music of the streets. It was music that the population of the ghettoes of New York could make as it involved very little financial outlay. Beat boxing was a way of creating beats without having to buy any percussion instruments, Dj-ing and scratching similarly were ways of creating sounds and textures using items most people would already have in their possession. It disposed of ‘elitist’ musical practices and gave music back to the man on the street. But as it’s success has grown and it has become a multi-million dollar musical genre it’s proponents have chosen to separate themselves from that origin by very sporting very gaudy and obvious shows of wealth.  Sociologically they’re not alone in doing this; most people who escape poverty will seek to demonstrate publicly how far away from their roots they are, but it makes me wonder whether hip-hop is still ‘the music of the streets’ and whether those who are still in the ghettoes feel ownership or betrayal because or in spite of it.

 

There is only one thing I can think of that’s a bigger blinger than hip-hop and that’s religion. Over history many monuments, cathedrals and mausoleums have been built that have been dripping in gold and jewels. It’s supposed to reflect the glory of God, but it just makes me do a little bit of sick in my mouth. That the Christian Church is rich is something that would be debated by treasurers up and down the country. That the Church historically has been wealthy is a fact. Whether the Church has used its wealth for the good of the people – as God would require - is a highly debatable point, and one that I leave you with. If we are happy seeing images of slums surrounding great cathedrals that are caked in gold leaf and marble then all is ok. If we are not happy with such images and demand that the Church should be helping people escape poverty then we need to effect change, and that change will start with your own attitude to your own wealth.