The next few days promise some frenzied activity on the 4th floor and above as I try to meet the deadline on next Friday when the removal firm arrives to collect all my worldly possessions and transport them to Walmer.
I marvel at quite how, as a single person with modest means, I have managed to accumulate so much stuff. Clearly my passion for new clothes needs to be curbed if any future move is to be achieved with less stress than the present one.
Hopefully the present encouragement we all face to move to a paperless environment might help too. Why on earth have I kept so many boxes of papers - bank statements, letters, governors minutes, deacons agendas, half used notebooks?
I suspect moving should afford an opportunity to have a radical review and a major throw out of some of this accumulation but each item has some memory attached to it and it is proving very difficult to consign any of it to my biodegradable black sacks.
Returning 'home', as I will be doing soon, is starting to rekindle memories too. Friends - I think that's what I still call them - have kindly produced a complilation of movie clips from the 1980's showing a much slimmer and youthful Seyan engaged in church activities in Walmer. Watching these has reminded me of the friends, fun and a thriving fellowship of which we were all part two or more decades ago.
Times have changed and people have moved on. The memories are good to treasure but new challenges lie ahead and although shaped by past experience they need to find their own direction and purpose.
As life here at Bloomsbury will continue without me and folk will from time to time doubtless recall memories of our activity together, so, in Walmer, life will go on too - differently from before - but now with me as Pastor creating memories for the future.
The Gospel we share and proclaim must surely be the same, unmistakably formed and shaped by events of the past but relavent and responsive to the needs and diversity of society of the present. Discerning our Godly response is often tricky and the easy option may often be to do so 'as we've always done' or 'as x or y did last time'.
As I'm packing my boxes now, I shall need to be careful what I choose to unpack later, and how best to us it. God is wanting to do something new and I (we) should allow this without the baggage of the past getting in the way.
Friday 21 August 2009
Tuesday 18 August 2009
on being an audeince to nothing
There was great excitement here at Bloomsbury last Tuesday lunch; the TV cameras were here! A programme that is based on, but assures us it is not, X-Factor, needed to do some filming for an audience. And they thought we would be the ideal place and people to supply what was needed. So, last week, various people were filmed reacting as an audience, both in delight and in despair - or at least disapproval. There was much cheering, and some booing, a lot of waving and a fair amount of thumbs-downing. It was all great fun, and if we ever hear when it is to be broadcast, we will let you know.
But there was something rather bizarre about it all. Because all this audience reaction, all this emotion and response was being recorded without anything actually being there to react to. The various bits of film will be dubbed onto the programme appropriately later.
At least, we hope it is appropriate. But it does raise the question about what is appropriate. If the editors decide that a particular act is the one they want to win, presumably, they will dub on the cheering response - and the disapproving one for the act that is to lose.
Which poses all sorts of issues, not least the point of honesty. If we are watching something, it is very evident that the response that is broadcast with it will guide our reaction. Canned laughter is based on this - and I guess this is just one step up from that. But if this is for a competition, then what does it do to the people who, presumably, are competing with the hope of winning, and being judged fairly (whatever that means)
There is also something about dis-integration here too; the separation from ourselves. When our reactions are entirely manufactured, and completely separate from what others then see them in relation too (if that sentence makes sense), what damage does this do to the wholeness of human beings, to the integrity of who we are and they way we respond to the world.
One of the callings to wholeness that Jesus gives is surely to do with an honest response to the situations in which we are; to respond with who we truly are, not in ways that are designed to make us look good, or to win favour or to create a particular impression. It can be hard to do. There are all sorts of things that get in the way of our authentic and whole response; our fear of others' judgements, a need to look good or be acceptable, the power of peer pressure or, even more fundamentally, our lack of connection with our own deepest responses to the world. To record a series of responses without anything to respond to seems a brillian illustration of just how easy it is to become alienated, and treat it as fun or normal.
All of which is rather heavy over something that was fun. I'm glad we did it. It made us laugh, and it was an interesting series of human interactions, as what was needed was explained, demonstrated and offered.
But it makes you (well, me!) think......
But there was something rather bizarre about it all. Because all this audience reaction, all this emotion and response was being recorded without anything actually being there to react to. The various bits of film will be dubbed onto the programme appropriately later.
At least, we hope it is appropriate. But it does raise the question about what is appropriate. If the editors decide that a particular act is the one they want to win, presumably, they will dub on the cheering response - and the disapproving one for the act that is to lose.
Which poses all sorts of issues, not least the point of honesty. If we are watching something, it is very evident that the response that is broadcast with it will guide our reaction. Canned laughter is based on this - and I guess this is just one step up from that. But if this is for a competition, then what does it do to the people who, presumably, are competing with the hope of winning, and being judged fairly (whatever that means)
There is also something about dis-integration here too; the separation from ourselves. When our reactions are entirely manufactured, and completely separate from what others then see them in relation too (if that sentence makes sense), what damage does this do to the wholeness of human beings, to the integrity of who we are and they way we respond to the world.
One of the callings to wholeness that Jesus gives is surely to do with an honest response to the situations in which we are; to respond with who we truly are, not in ways that are designed to make us look good, or to win favour or to create a particular impression. It can be hard to do. There are all sorts of things that get in the way of our authentic and whole response; our fear of others' judgements, a need to look good or be acceptable, the power of peer pressure or, even more fundamentally, our lack of connection with our own deepest responses to the world. To record a series of responses without anything to respond to seems a brillian illustration of just how easy it is to become alienated, and treat it as fun or normal.
All of which is rather heavy over something that was fun. I'm glad we did it. It made us laugh, and it was an interesting series of human interactions, as what was needed was explained, demonstrated and offered.
But it makes you (well, me!) think......
Tuesday 11 August 2009
We have a sporadic tradition here of inviting people to use their most comfortable language when we share the Lord's Prayer. We do this because there are quite a few languages represented among the regular congregation. Indeed, on a Sunday morning, we almost always - certainly at this time of year - have people in worship who speak very little English. There are even one or two people who come regularly to worship who speak no English at all. With a printed order of service, careful announcement of the readings so that people can follow them in their own language, and lots of smiling and handshaking, we manage to build relationships and make something happen. Sharing the Lord's Prayer in our own languages emphasises our links and still gives us all the chance to participate.
I have wondered often about why people come to worship when they don't share the dominant language. On occasions, I have attended worship in other countries, and it is a strange feeling not to be sure what is going on, or at best, making a guess.
But it is also true that actually all of us are attempting to speak and hear in a language not our own when we come to worship. All language of God is so huge, so partial, so striving to speak the unspeakable. We can never fully speak the mystery.
And the words we say of ourselves, the promises we make in the hymns we sing, the offerings we make in our praying, these too are more than normal language - and certainly not our normal language, our everyday speech.
The stories, the promises, the commands and calls we hear when we read Scripture, share bread and wine, open the baptismal pool - such language is foreign to us all, speaking to us in the dialect of the Kingdom, a country we are not fully at home in, but which we look towards.
Having those among us who do not speak the language that the majority speak is a a salutory reminder to all that our worship speech is always a language we are learning, and in which we will always be beginners. But thanks be to God, he still chooses to speak to us.
I have wondered often about why people come to worship when they don't share the dominant language. On occasions, I have attended worship in other countries, and it is a strange feeling not to be sure what is going on, or at best, making a guess.
But it is also true that actually all of us are attempting to speak and hear in a language not our own when we come to worship. All language of God is so huge, so partial, so striving to speak the unspeakable. We can never fully speak the mystery.
And the words we say of ourselves, the promises we make in the hymns we sing, the offerings we make in our praying, these too are more than normal language - and certainly not our normal language, our everyday speech.
The stories, the promises, the commands and calls we hear when we read Scripture, share bread and wine, open the baptismal pool - such language is foreign to us all, speaking to us in the dialect of the Kingdom, a country we are not fully at home in, but which we look towards.
Having those among us who do not speak the language that the majority speak is a a salutory reminder to all that our worship speech is always a language we are learning, and in which we will always be beginners. But thanks be to God, he still chooses to speak to us.
Thursday 6 August 2009
Power and giving it up - or not?
Power! I know what I think. Or at least I did – until last night. Power is bad – as we know – power corrupts… At Xchange we talked about whether Christians, whose mission is to the world, need power in order to fulfil that mission. Should we celebrate Christians sitting in the House of Lords? Should we be grateful for Christian millionaires who are generous with their monetary power? And for that matter- should we recruit celebrities to promote the Christian message? The trouble with power – it seemed to me – is not that it is hard to use it wisely. The trouble with power is that it is impossible to use it wisely. Wasn’t that the point of Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings? The Ring of Power! Surely, in the right hands – in Gondor, in Lothlorien, it could be used by good people to defeat evil forces. Power corrupts before you have even grasped it!
But then we look at Jesus. At some levels, he relinquished all power. And yet even the wind and waves obey him. He has authority: to forgive sins, to perform ‘mighty acts’, to command obedience from the forces of nature. What was the source of this authority? Is it any different to power?
At Xchange last night – I felt that one of our conclusions is that in relinquishing all power, he thereby embodied the authority that rightfully belongs to a human. Without relinquishing all attempts to power, would the wind and waves obey him? Would he have been able to perform such mighty acts? Maybe it is in giving up power and the lust for power (however we try to legitimize that lust with soundbites and bible verses), we discover what authority means. Maybe, in abandoning our quest for power, we discover the authority that is genuinely God-given, and ultimately most powerful of all.
(Posted by Ruth on behalf of)Simon Perry
But then we look at Jesus. At some levels, he relinquished all power. And yet even the wind and waves obey him. He has authority: to forgive sins, to perform ‘mighty acts’, to command obedience from the forces of nature. What was the source of this authority? Is it any different to power?
At Xchange last night – I felt that one of our conclusions is that in relinquishing all power, he thereby embodied the authority that rightfully belongs to a human. Without relinquishing all attempts to power, would the wind and waves obey him? Would he have been able to perform such mighty acts? Maybe it is in giving up power and the lust for power (however we try to legitimize that lust with soundbites and bible verses), we discover what authority means. Maybe, in abandoning our quest for power, we discover the authority that is genuinely God-given, and ultimately most powerful of all.
(Posted by Ruth on behalf of)Simon Perry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)