Thought for lent

At the start of lent here is something interesting I picked up last year from a friend who blogs.

The First Thought of Christmas - Is tolerance a good thing?

Putting to one side the title of this blog, and any thoughts you have about what you should say or do, read this statement and ask yourself whether you think this practice is something that should be celebrated and encouraged:

To allow something that one dislikes or disagrees with to exist or occur without interference.

Apply this statement to a variety of scenarios. The child being bullied in the playground, the X-Factor winner claiming Christmas number one yet again, the tyranny of a country by an oppressive regime, a friend who always interrupts you as you chat with others at the pub, the ever-increasing belly that pertrudes from your torso as age takes its toll on your body's metabolism.

Each of these situations will, for many people, involve things that the individual strongly dislikes or disagrees with, things that really gripes them or drives them to despair. Obviously the extent to which they do will differ, and so too the reasons why. But in each of them, how many of us would turn, look at someone shrugging their shoulders and saying "oh well, not my business", and think to themself "wow; what a guy". And yet to me it seems that to hold up as a beacon of dignity, class and humanity this value of 'tolerance' is to do exactly that.

Some would say these signs each depict somewhat contradictory messages.

Now, we only have a limited amount of time and energy from which to act and, as such, for some things we might have to say maybe it really doesn't matter. In some cases our dislike may be down to a trifling matter of taste, and perhaps on these occasions diversity of taste is something to be embraced (although arguably whilst we might be inclined to think "yes, let the masses have their way and in droves buy the latest manufactured pop mush" perhaps instead we could make an effort to introduce them to the delights of the more acquired tastes of the latest offering of our favourite Philharmonic, or our idolised punk-thrash-metal band).

The main issue, I feel, is that people mix up arguments of tolerance versus intolerance with deciding how to express that intolerance. The desires that drove a million people to protest against the war in Iraq stem as much from intolerance as those that drove the armed forces of nations to depose Saddam Hussein and conduct the aforementioned war in the first place. Of course the action that resulted from those two incidences of intolerance differed dramatically, but, nevertheless, intolerance it was. Similarly, when faced with a playground bully you wouldn't think to tolerate it, but this intolerance could, on the one hand, mean giving the boy a thump, on the other letting a teacher put him in detention to write some lines and tell him not to do it again, or alternaitvely to seek to understand why he wants to do such a thing (has he been bullied previously, does he feel isolated, are there family troubles at home?) and help him to change and improve his life and those of them around him.

Interestingly, not many of the other Times articles mentioning tolerance (see below) have such a positive view.

As you can probably tell, my inkling in response to the question I pose in the title is that tolerance isn't all it's cracked up to be, something I was reminded of when reading the leading article in yesterday's Times ('A Time for Tolerance'). The writer brings up in his article the role of tolerance within the dynamics of the established Church - something I'll return to later in the week - but it is his closing statement that really puzzles me. He says that to fight the falsehood of other people's views is not the message of Christ, but rather that it is that "we are all, as children, equally blessed and must tolerate and respect what is good in each of us". This is the same Christ that said "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me". Not really the language of someone saying "so basically do yer best and try not to annoy anyone". No, Jesus wasn't a tolerant chap, as witnessed in his turning of the tables in the temple, in the countless occasions he confronted the religious leaders of the day and, outrageously, stood up for the marginalised and down-trodden, and most importantly in how he allowed himself to be arrested, tried and executed, that he might die for the sins of the world.

Jesus could have looked at the wrong doings of people everywhere and said "that's OK", he could have let people go on their merry way, walking to their death oblivious to the consequences of their choices and actions, but instead he chose not to tolerate it, taking the one action that could actually do anything to change things and reconcile us to God. Even the nativity stories we may have read in the last few days make this clear.

So I wonder; is tolerance just the easy way out? Are we called to be intolerant of the things we see to be wrong and unjust and to make a difference? I have a feeling the answer is yes, but that still leaves the uncomfortable and much, much harder question - what are we then going to do about it?

Twelve Thoughts of Christmas - 2009's lessons

My blogging has been sparse the last few months, but every now and again I've jotted down some thoughts. Perhaps I should have done an advent countdown but I was too late, and, besides, this way I only need half as many thoughts! But anyway, here are some of the things that have struck me over the last twelve months.

Oh, and Happy Christmas to you all!

The 'gaul' of a man who only had to put his hand up (or not get his hand involved in the first place...)

It's the story everyone is talking about at the moment (no, not the Queen's speech, although maybe we can lead the way by introducing a bill encouraging people playing football to not use their hands...). Yes, it's 'Le Hand of God', which completed France's precarious path to qualifying for the 2010 Fifa World Cup, leaving the Irish pushed to one side, sitting on their backsides, with nothing but the knowledge that deserved to win on the night to be their comfort. In all likelihood they'd probably had rather have lost 1-0 than going out in such excruciating circumstances.

Some may say that my title doesn't do Monsieur Henry justice - he did indeed own up, even to the players whilst he was still on the pitch, but, to be honest, he might have well have kept quiet - what help is it admitting it then? At least if you're going to admit it express some kind of remorse. At the very least admit what you did was wrong and against the law and the spirit of the game, let alone good human nature. I can't believe Richard Dunne bought the cop out of it being down to the referee - the referee couldn't see, Thierry could see (not to mention feel) it. The job of the referee is to help enforce the laws of the game. He doesn't go around whispering in the ears of players to tell them not to foul people, not to use your hands or not punch someone in the face. There's some level of co-operation that needs to go on, where that natural inclination is for every player to stick to the rules and admit when they've slipped up if it's needed.

I think the whole episode says a lot about society. One, those backing Henry seem to have this mentality of 'you get as much as you can with as little as possible input', and these people seem to assume that everyone else wishes to behave in this way too. Fortunately, this isn't true. Being a proper man (or woman), is about having integrity, rooted in a sense of right and wrong, and striving to see a better world for all. Take away integrity and you become a liar who swings one way or the other at the drop of a hat, lose a sense of right and wrong and your decisions are of no merit, and without the perspective of a better world you become content with seeing unrealised potential present in the outworking of life. However, and this leads to point two, people do actually seem to see this lack of 'manliness' and get really riled. For something that is essentially just a game, this is remarkable. Whilst this is in no small part due to the overblown nature of football in the modern world, I think it's also due to the high value we intrinsically see in opposing injustice. Irrelevant of whether the Irish 'deserved' to win on the run of play, in that one decision an injustice that saw the most basic of football rules broken and not rectified left the watching public seething. Perhaps this suggests that all is not lost as far as society is concerned - if only we could harness that anger at injustice and direct it towards reducing poverty, climate change and the other more pressing matters of the day - think of the possibilities!

As an aside, someone on the BBC forum suggested this news should have alerted us sooner...!

(Some Biblical advice for Thierry Henry: Micah 6:8)

Animals never fail to amuse...

Bit of an odd story, but those kind of stories are normally the most popular on the BBC website. Never mind the baldness, why are the bears wearing spectacles?

Also, does anyone remember the good old days of Sesame Street? Here are some interesting about them - lots of reminiscing! (here and here)

When you get digging you sometimes hit a nerve

Someone recently told me about a group from the 1600s known as the Diggers/True Levellers. They were a group of Christians who sort to live out the principals of the early Church in Acts. At their heart they wanted small, agrarian communities, where humans and nature had an ecological interrelationship and, essentially, ownership and property was levelled out. They were seen as anarchistic, probably would still be seen that way today to some extent, and the establishment certainly weren't too happy. They made sure the Diggers were disrupted and squashed, and after around two years were disbanded.

The reaction doesn't really surprise me. I always have a little chuckle on the inside when people say we used to be a Christian country. My experience growing up at the tail end of Christendom, and confirmed in stories I hear such as these, is that when true Christianity is witness, when the Kingdom of God breaks through, the establishment (which by the definition of Christendom includes the Church) generally feels a bit threatened and gets pretty annoyed, lashing out.

Last night in my Transform teaching we talked about the Kingdom of God, and how it is inextricably linked to economy (look at Jesus' parables). When the Kingdom comes in, the poor are preached good news, and people are set free, and that needs to be witnessed in our economy too. As the financial crisis sees the old ways of doing things crumble, I feel we really need to ask ourselves whether the focus is on looking after people until the old model is patched up and ready to go again, or alternatively do we reimagine how things are done and start to bring about new ways of living (Jubilee anyone?). Ways that protect the poor, the widow and the orphan, rather than just are own self interest.

It may be hard for us to see how that can be done on a big scale, but then Jesus often did things more relationally and intimately, starting small and demonstrating the kingdom there, and then seeing it grow. Maybe we need to start small, helping transform our relationships and our communities, and demonstrating to people there is a better way, preaching the good news and announcing that a new king (instead of financial wealth and security) has arrived?

(Biblical 'true levellers': Acts 2:42-47)

Is war a game?

I saw this just round the corner from my house and couldn't help but wonder what message people might take from it...