En-abling, not dis-abling

Being wished by the Bish into a small group reviewing how the diocese is doing ministering with people with disabilities has certainly made me more aware of the whole area. I guess that I fall into the general category as one ear isn't as good as it should be and my sight is somewhat impaired, and has been since I was a child, but most people end up needing some sort of sight correction so it's no big deal. And I neither consider myself to have a disability nor think about it much. I guess that's where people with more major disabilities would like to be too - just able to get on with living life as they want to. If I can't hear/see too well in a meeting I move to where I can hear/see or - occasionally - give up, on the grounds that if it's that difficult to hear/see then the information isn't considered by the organisers to be that important. And something the Bish said last week was quite thought provoking too - that we disable people by the way we treat them and expect them to be, rather than accepting them as they are. On the evidence so far, the diocese has a way to go...

As you reap...

The news has been full of ‘The Scandal of the MPs’ Expenses’. Although they are on a system of allowances rather than the refunded expenses that many of us are more familiar with, it seems that at least some MPs have questions to answer. What’s struck me is the contrast in expenditure between individual MPs. Some have spent a few hundreds of pounds, and others many thousands. You would think that, roughly, they all have much the same needs – yes, the amount might vary according to how far a constituency is from London – but the difference between the greatest and the smallest seems remarkably large. For my own expenses as a ‘minister of religion’, the Inland Revenue is very clear about what is a legitimate need, and what is not – something that is nice or useful to have but not essential to carry out my job. A cassock is essential but a shirt with a dog-collar is not. For some MPs it seems that things like a swimming pool or a trouser press are essential. And when many people are struggling to find enough money to cover the real essentials, such as food, electricity and somewhere to live, the use of public money for what most of us would put in the ‘luxury’ category seems to be very unreasonable and just wrong, whether the system allows it or not.

As usual, Jesus was here first in the question of what it’s essential to have. He feeds the hungry crowds that follow him into the countryside with bread and fish, a little that goes a long way. And when the rich young man asks him how he can have eternal life Jesus tells him that his wealth is in the ‘nice to have but not essential’ category. He tells him to give it away so that he can focus on what is essential. To another man with the same question Jesus tells the story of the Good Samaritan to remind him that it isn’t money, or swimming pools or trouser presses, that’s important. What is important – what is essential – is where our focus is. Is it on those around us, and on God, or on ourselves? Do we treat family, friends and neighbours, as well as strangers, with love, kindness and compassion? Or are we so focussed, like some MPs may seem to be, on ourselves and what we want – whether we need it or not – that we forget everyone else?

No doubt there will be a new system for MPs’ expenses. We can hope that there will also be a new understanding of what is essential for a good life.

(My 'vicar's letter' for the parish magazine)

Hello again and sorry...

Well, yes, I am even more sorry that it has again been many months since I last posted...

I will try to make amends but meanwhile here is something to chew on. 'Vicars who have been churchwardens before they become vicars always remain churchwardens in that they are more concerned about the building and bums on seats rather than spreading the gospel...'

Discuss, using one side of the paper (as the instructions for O, A, S Level and Oxbridge entrance exams used to say).

And here is a pretty photo of the Wash near Snettisham in Norfolk to make it look as if I have really thought about the post.

Madam Bishop...?

Well, yes, I'm sorry that I haven't posted for months. Part of the reason is that I have been seduced by Facebook, like many others. And the rest is that lots of what I would like to air is subject to confidentiality, or at least sensitivity. One of my first posts was about women bishops. So it is a pleasure to me (if no one else) that the General Synod tackled the issue as head on as it ever will do. But throughout all the various quotes and pronouncings from CofE pro-women bishops people that I have read or heard there has been little in the way of triumph and much in the way of concern and almost sorrow for those who find themselves wondering if they have a place in their church.

Personally, I think that the statutory guidelines can provide good provision for those who in conscience cannot accept the ministry of women. It will be up to the drafting group and the Manchester committee to find that way forward. But my patience and tolerance has been reduced somewhat recently by experiencing (from the pew) an ordination by a flying bishop. I came out almost spitting blood, as my mother would said when severely provoked. 'A curse on all their house - let such dinosaurs leave and let's stop pussy footing around their sensitivities', I was thinking as I walked away from the church. I have calmed down some since then but I think that my anger was the result of feeling at the receiving end of what at best was rudeness and at worse was superiority of those who, of course, know best.

I am not intending to be even-handed in this post - I understand the arguments on both sides of the debate. But the experience was an insight for me into how reasonable, tolerant people (just like me) can lose those qualities and end up in the Us and Them situation. That is what I fear might happen when the women bishops measure draft makes it back onto the agenda of a future synod.

And just to cheer us all up again here is an appropriate image (or perhaps not) from the ever expanding collection chez moi...

Oh, what a morning...

Sorry for not posting anything for some time. It's not that I haven't anything I'd like to write about but they aren't things that are appropriate to post. This Easter is turning out to be very quiet for me - much more so than for several years. Just as well, having spent most of February being the only functioning dog collar here, and trying to complete and submit the dissertation at the same time. It's so quiet that I almost don't know what to do with all the spare time...

The Easter edition of the Church Times arrived this morning and I found that one of my images has been included in the special feature. At last - made it as a published artist!

My wishes to you for a happy and peaceful Easter.

The Imagined Village

I was watching last week's 'Later...with Jools Holland' on BBC 2 and watched/listened to the performance in this video clip with some amazement. The Imagined Village seems to be a collection of people from the folk, rock and world music scenes. Its members include Martin and Eliza Carthy, Paul Weller and Billy Bragg. My friend Ollie, who posted this clip on YouTube (where I got it from), says that they are the best thing to happen to folk for years. He also says that the album is fantastic. I might just check it out. If you get fed up with the buffering speed of this clip then go to YouTube http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=3QC2av7-_Ik#GU5U2spHI_4 I haven't quite sorted out how to embed YouTube in the blog. Enjoy...!

Scattering more roses...

My ear was bent the other day about the current fashion for music at a crematorium funeral as the coffin descends from the catafalque. Apparently it has become noticeably more common over the past 6 months or so. My friend got quite angry about it - 'It's sentiment, not grief', and 'People want it because that's what they see on the TV in the soaps.' I couldn't possibly comment on the last as I don't watch soaps and don't have a TV most of the time anyway. (Although I can watch again via the internet, I suppose.) Technically it adds to the complexity of choreographing a funeral, both for the crematorium staff and also for the officiant, who has the job of making sure that eveything that is needed happens without rush and with dignity within the timeslot allocated, which can be as little as 20 mins at some crems.
I have some sympathy for the first point my friend made - I suspect that we have become unused to death and funerals in real life compared with our forebears. But we see a lot of them on the TV and in films and then we can only respond with sentiment, not grief as it isn't 'our' funeral. In fact, it's no one's funeral but a depiction of a funeral. So it wouldn't be surprising if sentiment gets mixed up in our real funerals more than perhaps it should. And these fictional funerals become our model for real funerals.
Picking up from a previous post, our local freebie paper recently carried a comment column by David Self this week about funerals. Quoting from it:
'Some of the saddest sights in Fenland are the wayside shrines at the scenes of road accidents. What [they] prove is that we no longer know how to mark a death. We've forgotten the old customs and resorted to ordering teddy bear or wreaths of yellow chrysanthemums and suffer uncomfortable half-hours in crematoria. Less than 100 years ago the death of a girl was marked by a procession through the village, her white-painted coffin carried by her school friends dressed also in white. Lads were buried in black-painted ones, carried by their mates dressed in their darkest clothes and black sashes. It was what you did. It gave you something to do.'
And David finishes with 'And if we revived the custom of having the coffin in the front room until the funeral and making the children visit it, they would grow up understanding the reality of death...'

I must be geting old because I think that he might be on to something here.