Johnny's blog

Girl missing from Chingford.

2012-01-03T01:22:00.001Z

http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Appeal-re-missing-teenager/1400005660012/1257246745782?scope_id=1257246764369

Police appeal for information on Emily Ellasingham who went missing from Chingford on Boxing Day

http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/resources/images/1868451/?type=display

POLICE are asking for help in tracing a 13-year-old girl who went missing from the Chingford area on Boxing Day.

Emily Ellasingham is slim, approximately 5'2'' tall with black collar length hair.

She was last seen wearing a pink T-shirt, black jeans and black Ugg boots.

Police and her family would like to know that she is safe and well.

Anyone who has seen Emily or knows of her whereabouts should call the Missing Person Unit at Waltham Forest on 020 3276 0965 or Missing People on 0500 700 700.

-- That is the article.

But I do not understand why this has not been on the news or television and radio. this girl has been missing ONE WEEK. A long time for a young person to be missing. Di she run away from home, or was she abducted? Please pray for her too. She may not be a sweet 3 year old stolen from her room while she slept, but she is still a child, and for her to be missing with virtually no media coverage is surprising and disappointing.

2011-12-02T10:39:00.002Z

Can't stop God from loving you

2011-11-23T20:29:00.001Z

You can't stop rain from falling down,
Prevent the sun from shining,
You can't stop spring from coming in,
Or winter from resigning,
Or still the waves or stay the winds,
Or keep the day from dawning;
You can't stop God from loving you,
His love is new each morning.

You can't stop ice from being cold,
You can't stop fire from burning,
Or hold the tide that's going out,
Delay its sure returning,
Or halt the progress of the years,
The flight of fame and fashion;
You can't stop God from loving you,
His nature is compassion.

You can't stop God from loving you,
Though you may disobey Him,
You can't stop God from loving you,
However you can betray Him;
From love like this no pow'r on earth
The human heart can sever,
You can't stop God from loving you,
Not God, not now, nor ever.

by John Gowan - © Copyright belongs to SP&S Ltd. - reproduced here
with permission.

There will always be rocks

2011-11-23T12:40:00.001Z

a poem by my mum,

There will always be rocks.

************

The years go by so quickly,
With sun and wind and rain;
Flowers bloom and die away;
The rocks remain.
Trees grow tall and stately,
Their roots resist the strain;
Gales wreak tearing havoc;
The rocks remain.

In time trees fall and rot away;
Children are born, grown, schooled and fed,
The cycle turns, day by short day,
It seems no time until they're wed.
Their offspring grow and learn and play
Who knows where all the years have fled?
So while there's sunshine let's make hay
It won't be long before we're dead !

Generations come and go,
Mistakes recur, time and again.
We change our course and stumble on,
Some prosper from another's pain.
It's all a massive cosmic game,
Winner takes all, the lesson's plain.
Flowers, tribes, regimes will change;
The rocks remain.

It seems the weak are doomed to fail,
The strong will always win the day.
At first the winners may prevail,
Yet, spite all, with wily play
And clever moves, the slowest snail
Can creep, insinuate his way
Through all the traps in hill and dale,
Past all the rocks that say him nay.

So time rolls on and on and on.
Each year we either lose or gain.
We do our best when strength has gone
To fight, fight on,through wind and rain
To try repairing wrongs we've done,
To help our brothers in their pain,
And know, spite all that we have won,
The rocks remain.

The rocks remain, staunch and secure.
Though winds erode and floods may roar,
The heart-stone always will endure.
The challenger comes back for more!
He has the backing of his friends
And trusts his God, obeys the Law,
And presses on till striving ends
The meek inherit Earth's good store.

If we can find the moral strength
To keep emotions well in rein,
We'll use the rocks we meet each day
To help achieve our greatest gain,
They'll change from barriers in our way
To ladders making each path plain,
And we'll rejoice in victory,
Thankful that the rocks remain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does it mean?

What is the message behind this poem? "The rocks remain" is the
recurring theme. Apart from the physiological reality, what do the
rocks represent?
Stability, reliability, constancy - certainly, but what else? Rocks
can become huge obstacles, irritating, immutable, unmoving,
unchanging.

As time passes, each generation encounters "rocks." On one hand there
is security, comfort and refuge. On the other, problems arise.
Cultures clash. Opinions differ.

Aspirations cause clashes, as do differing cultures. Fortunes
fluctuate. Greed, frustration, anger, all play a part.

Good strives against evil, rich oppresses poor, but weak becomes wily,
persistence brings results and fortune favors the brave.

As the earth rolls, the weak succumb, the stronger prevail. However
the weak can overcome the strong by evolving and persisting, as
flowers, apparently fleeting, survive by making seeds that regenerate,
season by season, each year adapting to the local conditions. Trees
trust their roots to hold them firm, but in the end they give in to
the elements and collapse. However, once rooted, a tree can shoot
again and re-establish itself, if it learns by experience to cope with
the stresses it is subjected to.

Survival is forever, but there will always be problems. We learn as we
go, and discover that initial set-backs do not necessarily mean defeat
and failure. There is always hope, and problems are not necessarily
bad. The greater the rock, the larger the challenge; the bigger the
victory, the stronger the victor.

Those who depend on themselves may find they are isolated and
vulnerable. With the backing of friends they are stronger, but those
who believe and trust in God can become more than conquerers.

We have reason to be thankful that "The rocks remain."

Family told to pay £225 after boy breaks teacher’s necklace

2011-10-20T23:49:00.001+01:00

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23999844-family-told-to-pay-pound-225-after-boy-breaks-teachers-tiffany-necklace.do

To say i am simply fuming over this story is no exaggeration. This is injustice in the extreme. The first question that crossed my mind when reading this was why was the teacher wearing this expensive necklace in the first place. She took the risk of it being broken and deserves no compensation.

Secondly, the head teacher's comment that it was the teacher's "human right" to wear "whatever they chose to school". Firstly, teacher's like any professional, while not having to wear a uniform, have to adhere to a dress code of appropriate attire that takes into account both the respectability of the role as well as health and safety. Also, children in schools are expected to abide by dress codes, and i was recently reading of a child being secluded because they had a "banned hairstyle" This was a different school to the one being discussed here. But the principle stands. If a teacher reported to work wearing old jeans and a torn t-shirt, they would be rightfully asked to leave and would face disciplinary action. I would argue that the necklace in this instance represented a health and safety risk.

The school in question is NOT a mainstream school, but a special school where the likelihood of a child striking out is high. Granted, it may not have occurred to the teacher that the necklace might be broken, but when it happened, while the teacher may well have justifiably been upset by the accidental damage to the necklace I do not believe she was justified in demanding £225 and I am surprised that the head teacher supported her in this.

I found it interesting that this expensive pendant was a birthday gift from the very same head teacher (and another member of staff) and wondered if the head teacher had allowed her personal friendship with the teacher to cloud her judgement in this regard. (Shades of the erstwhile Secretary of Defence.)

This can (from the child's point of view) be regarded as a accident – the child struck out in a way that is typical of children with behavioural difficulties – and inadvertently broke the necklace. He was immediately apologetic and the mother took the broken necklace to be repaired. This was not deemed sufficient and the demanded to be paid compensation. However given the economic situation that the family finds itself, it is unrealistic to expect them to pay compensation of that level.

I usually don't defend insurance companies, but I think their refusal to pay for this is warranted and the family should have followed suit. They should have told the teacher if she is that hard up, she should sue them. I would hope that a judge hearing the case would chuck it out for the same reason that the insurance company would not pay out, that the necklace was not an essential item in the classroom, and that if the teacher valued it so much she should not have worn it in the classroom. What is more, even if, as the head teacher suggests, the teacher has a "human right" to wear "whatever she likes, however impractical" – she does so at her own risk. I cannot imagine a head teacher supporting an agency staff member to this extent. The financial burden that this demand has placed on the family is simply criminal. As the mother of this child points out, the child and his family have human rights too.

Personally I would not be able sleep at night, if I knew I had deprived a family of the ability to buy a carpet and Christmas presents for three children that they had been saving up for (rather than using a credit card like so many others will do.) In terms of necessities and luxuries, the carpet and the presents for young children are necessities, the necklace is a luxury.

Parenting a child with special needs faces parents with many demands, not least on their finances. From what i could gather from the article, only the father is working, and he does not draw a huge wage, and the mother makes a meagre £50 per week as a carer's allowance.

I do hope the council acts very swiftly to bring this matter to a conclusion, and that they demand the £202 (£190 already paid as well as the £12 paid for the repair.) is immediately repaid to the family, I would also like to suggest that in order to avoid possible victimisation of the child be granted a transfer to another school.

2011-10-08T14:23:00.001+01:00

I love this stained glass window in the Oasis Church , Lambeth North, London.

Just Kidding

2011-08-30T02:24:00.001+01:00

In the USA, there was a strong earthquake that shook even Washing DC, and while I write this blog people on the East Coast of USA, including the Big Apple have been very adversely affected by Hurricane Irene (ironic name since Irene means peace). Really quite frightening stuff. In two weeks time, NYC and Washington DC and the nation as a whole will be commemorating the terrorist attacks that destroyed the World Trade Centre and damaged the Pentagon ten years ago and took in excess of 3000 lives on the day, to say nothing about the thousands of lives lost since in fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most people, most decent people realise that cracking jokes about these things is not appropriate. However, you have some individuals, who steam right ahead and they make what they refer to as jokes that are in such bad taste. British Comedian Frankie Boyle is one such person. He somehow thinks that ridiculing people with Down Syndrome, AIDS, etc.

Frankie Boyle is not the one to have got my blood boiling this but one of the Republican "Tea-party" would-be Presidential candidates, Michelle Bachmann. I do not actually believe that when she made her offensive comments she was of the mind that it was some kind of joke, and certainly at the time, she did not let on that she saw a funny side to earthquake and hurricane - she seemed very much in earnest, about her belief that God was sending a message, but when she realised just how unpopular her comments were - or maybe when her advisers told her that she was suffering from verbal diarrhoea that she issued a statement that she was only kidding.

She obviously has no clue how implausible that is, and even if that were the case, how in appropriate to be cracking jokes about things like this when people have lost lives and people's homes and businesses have been utterly destroyed. Is this something that we can all laugh about. Hardly! So why was she kidding? No, i watched the clip where whe was saying these things that she said she was just kidding about, and she clearly believes that these geological and meteorological events were God's megaphone telling the President that he is getting it all wrong.

Being a student of theology, I am aware that when a person claims to speak for God they are taking on the role of a prophet. Now in the Bible and today their are two kinds of prophets spoken about. There are the true prophets, like Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, John the Baptist, and many others, but they were and sadly are vastly outnumbered by FALSE PROPHETS, who claim to speak the words of God, but are not.

If you, in speaking try to represent what you are saying, as coming from the throne of God, and it turns out you are wrong whether you deliberately lied, or simply "got your wires crossed" you still fall into the category of False prophet. The Old Testament prescription for those found to be false prophets was severe - death by stoning. Now I would not advocate that Ms Bachmann get stoned (though with some of the far-fetched things she is said have uttered, it would not be to hard to believe that she is stoned (in the modern sense of the word.)

If, as I suspect, she genuinely believed what she was saying about these events being God's message to America, why was she so quick to retract this when she realised that it was not well received by her audience. The prophets of Old often had to speak out against corruption in high places, and in society in general, and it never was popularly received. Back then, as they do now, people only want to hear happy platitudes about everything being okay, and your behaviour no matter how vile and beneath contempt, being completely acceptable. Often speaking the Word of God into a situation will make you very unpopular as a prophets and can be very costly, and I mean it can even cost you your life. Just ask Jeremiah and John, the Baptist. Being a prophet is diametrically opposite to being a politician. In order to be a politician, you HAVE to seek popularity. That is the only way to get into office (unless of course you have a way of corrupting the voting system. The prophet on the other hand will speak out what he/dhe believes t be Go'd word in a situation, and will stand by what he was saying even when the highest authorities, including religious leaders, and society at large threaten dire consequences if one doe not retract the comment. Martin Luther, spoke vehemently against the abuses of the Church and it came down to the Pope at that time demanding that he disavow his statements on threat of being excommunicated (th most serious sanction a church could impose, his response was "here i stand, I can do no other" and he was summarily dismissed from his high office in the Catholic Church.

I would not suggest that her words were malicious lies spoken to generate hate and resentment towards Mr. Obama, but a genuine conviction that the storms were God's messenger think that she genuinely believed what she was saying. However, I do not believe that that these sorts of catastrophic events are used by God in this way. They are just part of nature. I do believe, as the Bible says, the judgement day will come and every individual will face judgment. We are told in the Bible that ALL HAVE SINNED AND FALLEN SHORT OF THE GLORY OF GOD and the wage for sin is death. However we are talk that God so loved the World, that he GAVE his only begotten Son that WHOSOEVER believes on him with not perish but will have eternal life,and that the GIFT of God is eternal life. We are told in Scripture that we are to go into all world and preach the GOOD NEWS. So, ultimately, every individual must give account and then repent of wrong doing. Thus even though she believed it to be true, Michelle Bachmann has been a false prophet by representing our God and bring His name into disrepute.

The "I was just kidding" bit was an effort to withdraw her comments but it is still making God to be a liar. If she lacks the courage of her conviction, albeit weird convictions, how can she lead a country?

I'm sure there's more that could be said on this topic of misappropriated humour, and false prphesy, I shall end now and invite comments from my friends, whether you agree or vehemently oppose what I have said. I publish comments that are on topic, and deviod of unseemly language or personal attacks.

2011-07-25T16:51:00.107+01:00

What is a fundamentalist?

With the disaster of events in Norway, I have heard this question being asked in two different ways, and thought that it is an important question to address. When you think of a fundamentalist, who is it that you see in your minds eye? Do you regard yourself as a fundamentalist? Why? I believe like many words in the English language, this word has metamorphosed over recent years.

As young Christian, being a fundamentalist was not necessarily a bad thing, but since September 11th 2001, being a fundamentalist was definitely not a good thing and people who would have happily admitted to being a fundamentalist, would deny it vociferously now.

From the perspective of Christians, after the 9/11 attacks in the USA and the 7/7 attacks in London, and the attacks in Spain and in Mumbai, it was easy to differentiate our enthusiasm for Christianity from the "extremism" of Islam or any other religion for that matter. We even allow ourselves to think that people who perpetrate these evil acts claim to act in the name of their religion, that they truly represent the religion and the god they claim to follow.

However, the moment someone who claims to be a Christian, carries out an atrocity like the one in Norway, we immediately want to disown the individual and claim that this person could not possibly be a true Christian. We conveniently forget that there were many Muslim people with more moderate beliefs who protested that the suicide bombers were not true Muslims and that Islam is a religion of peace, and the very word Islam means peace. At the time we poo-pooed the notion. However, we would be rightly offended if someone suggested Bleivik was representative of what you as a Christian.

It is easy, when a bad thing is done to jump to the conclusion that the person or people who perpetrated the acts are "others" - i.e. different in one or many ways. It is a natural Human urge to want to disown people who do bad things. We do this in many ways. He is not of our religion. he is not of our country - he's a FOREIGNER. He's not of our racial or cultural group. When enquiries into the 7/7 bombings, it came as something of a shock in the UK that many of the bombers were born in the UK and attended UK schools. How was it that these young British-born Muslims would go to the extent of murdering other British people iin the name of their religion.

However, with the terrorist acts in Norway the people had to accept that the accused is as Norwegian as they are.

However what we are discussing is "What is a FUNDAMENTALIST?"

The original connotation of fundamentalism was the notion of getting back to the "fundamentals" of our faith. (I am speaking specifically about Christians here) and so, a fundamentalist Christian subscribes to what they believe are the "definitive beliefs" of Christianity. They would say, that unless you subscribe to all off these specific beliefs, without exception, you are not a genuine Christian. Here are some of the "definitive beliefs" :

Belief in the Trinity - belief that there is One god existing in Three Persons - The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The full and literal belief in the virgin birth of Jesus, the Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus, and the eventual return of Jesus Christ.
The belief that Salvation is obtained ONLY by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
The inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures in the form of the Bible - consisting of 66 'books' - 39 in the Old Testament, 27 in the New Testament. With this is the belief in the literal reality of the miracles described therein - e.g. Creation, Parting of the Red Sea at the time of the Exodus, Universality of the flood (Noah), Jesus' miracles, etc.

I probably have missed things out, but you get the idea. I personally subscribe to points 1, 2 and 3. Point 4 would be a matter of discussion for me, but by and large I believe that the Bible is true. However, if a person subscribes to all of these and more (which they regard are "deal breakers" as far as Christianity is concerned), is not a problem. However, holding to a set of beliefs and values and living accordingly is not a problem. It is when the individual feels that it is not enough - but that EVERYONE should subscribe to these beliefs, when we have a problem.

If we get down to what the root of the meaning is - now reverting to generalities in terms of religion - the notion is that a fundamentalist is getting back to the "fundamentals". What are fundamentals? They are those basic principles of the religion that define its adherents. I've listed some of those fundamentals of the Christian belief.

The problem is, like most things in life religion adapts and changes over time, but people do not change at the same rate. There are those who believe we need to adapt and change with the times and will embrace these changes enthusiastically. These people say that those who don't want to change are wrong and conversely, those who see these changes as compromises and are naturally resistant to any such change (fundamentalists), and will label the modernist (or those keen to embrace change) as liberals - with the implication that the person is NOT a true adherent of their religion.

Many of the internal conflicts and discrepancies within a religion comes down to this "old versus new" argument. Sometimes though, I think that people who THINK they are fundamentalists would more accurately be described as a TRADITIONALIST. Growing up in the 70's when "Christian choruses" were all the rage, and gainin g in popularity, there were those, who insisted that nothing but HYMNS shoulod be sung in Church and that these "happy clappy" choruses were bringing down the tone. The solution in many churches was to have services dedicated to traditional service - in which it would be quite acceptable to sing:

Now thank we all our God, with heart and soul and voices...

but not

Clap your hand, all ye people, shout unto God with a voice of triumph...

What is the difference - the first was written a long time ago, and is sung to organ music, while the latter (the chorus of it - as it is directly out of Scripture) was written more recently, and people actually raise their hands, clap their hands and SHOUT. Sadly these differences have caused Christians to leave fellowship, and fight.

Again, there is nothing wrong with being a traditionalist, but when it comes to a point where people decide that everybody has to ascribe to the same traditions, and to want to do things differently is somehow a rejection or a walking away from one's faith.

Tradition is a good thing, We can learn so much from old ways, but there are traditions that are not good and are better assigned to history where it belongs. Let us look at the tradition of a man owning his wife as chattel. There are many traditions which are linked to this - like in the marriage vows where a bride would vow to obey her husband. There will be those among you who read this blog who feel that that should still be the case. Some of you will be ready to quote verses of Scripture to defend this mentality. However, by and large society has moved on, and the notion of equality of the sexes is widely accepted and considered the NORM.

However, on reflection, as I've listened to discussions on radio to radio we should perhaps avoid describing the terrorists as "fundamentalist". They are not defending the fundamentals of faith, but they are defending their tradition. They may fight under the banner of "Islam" or under the banner of "Christianity" but what they are "defending" is not the fundamentals of their religion, but their own lifestyles. The 9/11 bombers, the 7/7 bombers, Bali, Spain, claimed to be Muslim. But They do not represent true Islam. Breivik claims to be a fundamentalist Christian, but his violent act is exactly the opposite of what we stand for a Christians.

I think that the Church must be willing to either stop referring to people as Muslim terrorists as if their terrorism is truly represented the Islamic faith, or be willing to refer to Breivik as a Christian terrorist. It should be cut both ways. I've heard people phoning up the radio station and assert that the Quran taught that such violence was right. However these people are not Islamic Scholars interpreting their own Scripture, but non-Islamic people who have heard these ideas talked about and taken them without question. It's easy to believe that what other people do is evil.

Well, I think in conclusion, I would say that it is not FUNDAMENTALISM that is the issue, but being an EXTREMIST.

2011-07-11T15:25:00.000+01:00

Your Wish is My Command

Have you ever written something, not being one hundred percent sure or even one percent sure where it will lead you – well this is such a piece. I have just been reading the Bible and I came across an account that puzzles me. It is the story of when three of David’s mighty men, take enormous risks to get David a cup of water from the well outside Bethlehem, and when they return, he pours it out on the ground. Well that is the story in brief. I will quote the story as it appears in the Bible but first, I need to put it in the context that it appears in Scripture. It First Chronicles 11 – and list of David’s mighty men (of which the THREE were the mightiest) and their brave actions in fighting for David.

1 Chron 11:15-19

¹⁵ Three of the thirty chiefs came down to David to the rock at the cave of Adullam, while a band of Philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim. ¹⁶ At that time David was in the stronghold, and the Philistine garrison was at Bethlehem. ¹⁷David longed for water and said, “Oh, that someone would get me a drink of water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem!”¹⁸ So the Three broke through the Philistine lines, drew water from the well near the gate of Bethlehem and carried it back to David. But he refused to drink it; instead, he poured it out to the LORD. ¹⁹ “God forbid that I should do this!” he said. “Should I drink the blood of these men who went at the risk of their lives?” Because they risked their lives to bring it back, David would not drink it. (NIV)

So now – I think you can see why I called this piece “Your wish is my (or in the case of the story, our) command. There are a few puzzling aspects from this story – and we shall explore them. I cannot guarantee that I can shed light on any of it – but I will try. At the nub, what it is that I want to understand, is what can I learn from this story – why did God move that this story was included in the account of the “exploits of David’s mighty men”.

First off, why did these three men go in the first place? Was it really a case of “Your wish is our command?” What is without doubt, these men were very devoted to their leader David. Remember that at the time this took place, David was NOT King, and as far as natural lineage, not even an heir to the throne. Saul was the king and ruler in Israel, and at this point he was a tyrant, prone to fits of rage and jealousy. David was, in his eyes, the arch enemy. But he was God’s choice. These men were drawn to David, not through compulsion of duty, but because they believed in his cause. These men, were ready to join the “struggle for liberation” if you like, and David was their leader. These three, who were described as the mightiest of the mighty men were attentive to their leader and no task, it would seem was beneath them. David wanted water, they didn’t choose a junior warrior to get him water, they went themselves. But did they need to go at all? I don’t know. David had not given a command – it wasn’t some test of strength or bravery on David’s part – he merely said that it would be nice to have some water from the well outside of Bethlehem. David was born in Bethlehem and when he looked after the sheep on the hills around the town, no doubt he would sate his thirst with water from that well. It had sentimental connections to his childhood. He might have been thinking how ironic it was that they were so close to the place where he used to draw out that water from the well, and yet unable to go to it because of the presence of the enemy. Did he intend that three of his mighty men – men he relied on in the fight against Saul’s men – would go, endangering themselves, to get him some water from the well? I think – based on his reaction – it was clearly NO. So why did they go? Was it bravery or stupidity? Was it not both? In order to get that precious cup of water, they would have had to go against the Philistines and fight them off – literally go into battle.

We are advised to “choose our battles wisely” – I wonder if these three mighty men chose a wise battle in this case? I have no doubt that what they were doing was well meaning – David would have realised that too, but was it what they should have been doing – was it the most productive use of their time?

Was David perhaps foolish in actually saying out loud what he yearned for? Should he have just kept his thoughts to himself? I remember as a child we used to visit the home of Chinese friends of ours. They were such loving people. The wife used to work as a pattern maker in the factory my father ran. When we visited our home we had to be careful about what we would admire as she seemed to think that whatever we said “that is nice” that we wanted to take it home. – We were merely admiring it. She would try and give us those things. It might have been a cultural thing, I don’t know, but we soon learnt that we would admire things in such a way that she would know that we did not expect or want her to give it to us. However, I don’t think that David did anything wrong by saying that he would love to have a cup of water from the well. Perhaps the men interpreted his statement as a command. What puzzles me is why they didn’t clarify with David as to why he would make such a command in light of the clear danger that they faced. Was it a fool’s errand?

Here is my best shot at trying to understand what God may be saying through this:

We need to distinguish in life between the essential and the additional. Some people have a “The Sky’s the limit” mentality – where they are not satisfied to just get by, they want it all. That is all very well, and in some cases, they are blessed to achieve this. They are the type of people who will say “never say never” and “you can do anything you want to in life” – go-getters. However, while we admire people who rise over what seem insurmountable odds to achieve amazing things, it is because of the unusualness of their achievements that we admire them. If everybody could achieve what they achieved, nobody would be impressed. I wonder if God is not saying to us stop trying too hard. Those three guys didn’t have to go for that cup of water – David would not have thought any less of them because they went for the cup of water. God doesn’t think less of you or me because we do not achieve whatever we set our sights on to achieve. We hear a lot of talk these days of people “lacking faith” because they do not become a millionaire by the time they are forty, or because they are not the captain of a national sports team, or even in the team. Young people, year on year, commit suicide because they did not achieve the results they hoped for or expected, in their school exams. We have a mentality that says that unless you have achieved the best, it was not worth the effort.

I am reminded of a time when I was in high school. Frankly – I am not sporty – I lack hand-eye co-ordination so bat and ball games such as cricket and tennis, I was hopeless at, and I am not extremely strong. However, at the school a LOT of emphasis was placed on sporting prowess. It really bothered me that I was not good at sport and was consequently looked down upon (or that is how I perceived it) because I couldn’t prove myself in that sphere. Every year, like all schools in Zimbabwe, they had their Interhouse Athlitics Competition. All the usual track and field events were included. In the run up to the big day, each “head of house” would call all the students who were in that house team and we were put through our paces and heats were run to see, who was the best in each specific discipline, and they were selected to represent the house in the main competition. However, because they believed that it was important that EVERYONE should be participating in some event, those who failed to shine in any event, were made to run in what was called the “Rabble’s mile” or some such disparaging term (I’m sure that wasn’t the official title, but basically that is how it was perceived by the participants – the “wasters” who aren’t good at anything – the rubbish). Far from being motivating, we were made to run 1500 m. round the track at the hottest time of the day, during the hottest days of the year. We were an act for the entertainment of the elite. Laughed at and jeered. Every participant got a point provided you finished – so if you slugged your guts out and collapsed just before the finish line – that was it – no point at all. (I don’t know if they were that brutal!) Well I was a runner in this race year after year, and each year – I would say to myself – next year I won’t be in this race. There were those who couldn’t care less, but I hated that race and everything it stood for. So when the next year swung round I would participate with gusto in all the heats and throwing and jumping events. But each year there were those who could run faster, jump higher or further or throw further. And each year I would be back in the rabble mile. That was until one year, I think one of the last I would be participating in this circus they called a sports day. I had been making a particular effort in PE, and when we had cross-country. I was not great at cross-country – I wanted to do Cross country because my big brother was a cross country runner, but I lacked the stamina to run the distances they set. Well this particular year, during class physical education lessons I really did my best. There were shirkers in my class who liked to lark about when sent off on a run, and they realised that it was not a good thing for the teacher to see me coming in before them (a bit of a tortoise and hare situation.) Well, they tried to hold me back. However thanks to the vigilance of my PE teachers, that nonsense was stopped. When the sport’s day was coming up, I determined, like every year that I would try and get into some event. As it happened, this year, I managed to come second in the 800 m. Heats, and I was selected to run for the House. At long last I was out of the “Rabble Mile” – I was so happy. I think there those on my team who were not sharing my elation – for them it was DISASTER! We may miss out on 7 vital points. To their credit – the teachers selected me – despite probably realising that I was not their best hope – and that my achievement in the heat was probably more a fluke than anything else, but they had set a rule for selection and I had met the criteria on the day, and so I was selected. Also – to their credit – none of the students tried to persuade me to give up my place in the race. Some might have thought so on the day – I don’t know perhaps some students might have gone to the sports master asking him to replace me with them, if they did he had the good grace not to and not to tell me either. If they had, I would have refused (and probably been accused of not being team spirited). I lined up on the starting line, and listened for the starter’s gun. Bang – I ran as fast as I could, probably too fast for a middle distance track event, and the inevitable happened – I ran out of energy, but by sheer determination I kept running (well it was probably a slow trot by this stage). I came last. I was exhausted but also elated and I so enjoyed the Mile that year – from the benches. You know what I still got the team 1 point for participation that year but that 1 point was worth far more to me than the 1-points I got in the previous years that I was one of the rabble. Was it a waste of time that I ran in it? NO – it wasn’t for me. I didn’t win THE race, but I won my own race. Should there have been a “Rabble Mile” (or whatever they called it)? If you asked me before I might have said “No, stupidest idea ever”, but thinking about it, perhaps if it were not that dastardly race, I might not have aspired to participating in the 800 m. So what that I cannot run as fast as others, jump as high or as far as others, throw a javelin or whatever, I have areas of strength, which over the years I have discovered. So – wow – I told you I didn’t know what direction this Bible would take me. I think, I can summarise, if we do our best in the circumstances, that is all that God asks us to do.

David was shocked when these men appeared before him with this cup of water for him which they risked life and limb to obtain. His reaction was odd – why did he not drink it, or even offer to share it with the three young men who had gone to get it. Why pour it out on the ground – the Bible says he poured it out as an offering to the Lord. But That was not what the three men who went to fetch it had in their minds. I wonder if they thought he was a tad ungrateful? Did David react fairly? Are we allowed to ask that question? Was his reaction considered or a knee-jerk reaction? Was he perhaps actually angry with the three men for taking unnecessary risks? Perhaps he wanted to teach them a lesson? Have you ever had a surprising and disappointing reaction to something you have done for someone, that you thought would please them, but that they were not impressed with, or actually rather put out by it? We don’t know how the three men would have reacted to it, as we are not told? They may have been annoyed, angry, disappointed, demotivated – well not demotivated because they remained his mighty men. How do you react when mistreated by someone in authority or to whom you look up to? I’m not saying that David mistreated his men – I am just thinking that they may have felt mistreated, unappreciated, but they got over it. It’s easy to get into a “woe is me” mentality – but we need to realise that, we cannot stay there.

If circumstances in your life are rough right now and you are feeling overwhelmed maybe we can learn a few things from this – here are my ideas – feel free to add in yours:

Choose your battles – sometimes something simply is NOT worth the effort.
Do your best in the circumstances and don’t be downhearted if you cannot be THE BEST. Don’t let failure caused you to become demotivated. Pick yourself up and keep pushing.
Don’t try to do it alone – Three mighty men went to get a cup of water. One of them might have thought he could go alone, but he didn’t. When circumstances are difficult – it is not a shame to ask for help.
You may not get the reaction you expected or were hoping for. You may be disappointed when you set out to do something nice for someone that they don’t appreciate it. Don’t allow that disappointment to develop into bitterness – forgive them – even if they don’t think that they have done anything wrong, and move on.

Any other ideas? Do you agree with me? Please comment.

Baldness & Bulimia; Botox & Boobs

2011-06-18T20:33:00.001+01:00

I am thinning on top - I have known this for some time and frankly - it is no big deal to me - From photographs I see that both my grandfathers were bald. I was reading an article in the Daily Mail today about Hair Transplants and clearly for the author of the article, Jason Gardiner, the thought of losing his crowning glory, was more than he could cope with - he however is in the privileged position of being able to afford a hair transplant. I am pleased for him that it worked not only in terms of its success as a procedure, but the resultant psychological effect.

However, I am not merely commenting on a rather humdrum boring article about a hair-transplant operation - but on the attitudes of some of the people choosing to comment on it. I have submitted a comment, and I share it with you below.

The hair-raising truth about my £21,000 cure for baldness, by Dancing On Ice judge Jason Gardiner

Stuart said:

Baldness looks awful and is a look best suited to thugs! (comment edited) - Stuart, Caerphilly, 18/6/2011 09:50

I responded:

Stuart - that is a very inflammatory and unfair comment. Like there is no thug who has a full head of hair. Jason has the good fortune of having the money to get the problem fixed. The majority of us have to accept that that is nature taking its course. For some, men, women and children, baldness is the sad side-effect of cancer treatment and no laughing matter. Imagine having to be the parent who has to see his or her child's beautiful hair shorn off, rather than have them go through the agony of seeing it fall out on their pillow. I have not been through that agony- but I know of a brave man, who knowing his little four year old had to undergo the indignity of chemo therapy - when the parents decided to shave his hair off - had his own head head shaved at the same time, to distract the little boy and reassure him that it was going to be ok. Some thug, hey Stuart?

It's not only baldness that attracts people's nastiness. people who have astigmatisms (such as a squint) or are albino, or have a large and noticeable birth mark. People who are unusually tall or short, people who have "buck teeth" etc. It's a crying shame that people are so unfeeling that they do not hesitate to label and discard people who they do not think fits the "norm". I know and could tag (but won't) a great number of my friends, who, for one reason or another, can say that they have been affected by these prejudices.

This week on the radio, I heard that they have found that BOYS as young as 10 and 11 suffering from Bulimia because of bullying at school. Bulimia mainly affects girls, who have a media image that brainwashes them into believing that they are too fat. This same phenomenon is affecting boys too now (1 in 10 approx are boys). One brave young man phoned into LBC and told his story that at 15 or 16, his mother told him that he would "never find a wife" if he was that fat. That was the trigger to his bulimia. Although he had overcome the issue - one could hear in his voice that he was still hurting. Read this link

Not long ago, I was horrified to read the account of a mother who was giving her "beauty pageant" daughter of 8 years old Botox injections.(It turned out to be a hoax) I heard of another mother who had given her presumably flat-chested little seven year old, a voucher for when she turns 16 to have "breast enhancement" operation. My head spun with the wrongness of both of these mothers and the dire psychological damage (and physical harm in the case of the Botox) being done to these girls. The stupidity of the mothers concerned. I'm only "picking on" the mothers in these cases because medias focus was on the mother and I am presuming that there was no father figure in the little girls' lives. Also, sexist though it may sound, since they were girls you would have though that the mothers would show the necessary sensitivity and stability and know what is suitable for them and what isn't.

In all the situations mentioned above, the bottom line is WHAT WE LOOK LIKE AND HOW WE ARE PERCEIVED BY OTHERS. It's easy to say - ignore what others say and think about you - it doesn't matter - but rightly or wrongly - what others think of us and the way we look is important. Where an opinion is shared with love and a view to help, that a person may present themselves in the possible light - then it is a good thing. We all get a boost when someone compliments our looks - but if people make scathing remarks about things we cannot do anything about - it hurts and causes damage.

I not only would welcome comments on this article - I would request comments. I also invite you to repost this article on your pages and invite your friends to post their comments to my blog. Do not restrict your comments to Baldness, Boobs, botox or Bulimia, but any issue that affects one's body image.

Joking about children with disabilities.

2011-05-09T20:35:00.001+01:00

Twice in ONE DAY. This morning I turned my radio on and Nick Ferrari (of LBC) was talking about the situation where so-called comedian Frankie Boyle made what he thought was a joke about the 8 year old disabled son of Katie Price aka Jordan.I will not repeat what Frankie said as it is too vile. Suffice it to say that I did not find it funny. Channel 4 - on which the offending joke was aired refuses to take any action whatsoever.

Then I go online and look at the Daily Mail website and I came across the following story.

Disabled children applying for bus passes 'labelled mongs and mingers on council's wall of shame'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1385151/Council-staff-wall-shame-mock-pictures-disabled-children.html#ixzz1LsmljIB8

I am flabbergasted - first of all, WHY would people choose to pick on innocent people. This kind of teasing is pitiful - even when done by children who don't know any better - but adults? Especially people in the public eye.

Children with the kinds of disabilities like those Harvey are by nature usually the complete opposite of wolves like Frankie Boyle. I have worked quite a lot with children on the Autistic Spectrum. I realise that they are different and can at times be difficult - embarrassing even, but they do not mean it personally and if you take time to get to know them, they can be fantastic friends. I just wanted to post this thought because it is getting my goat.

John C. Fairlamb

Bally Springboks

2011-01-20T17:43:00.001Z

I went to watch a show at the Royal Opera House Yesterday. It's called Giselle. I have to admit that I didn't know much about this story, and so I figured I would just go along and find out what it is all about! Those of you who thought I was going to talk about Rugby, Gotcha - No, this is a ballet, that is a style of dance. Ballet is a bit like watching an old Chinese Kung-Fu movie - without subtitles in English - you have to suss it out from what the people do on stage.

Now I don't know the story of Giselle, but this is what I worked out from what I saw yesterday. It gets a bit confusing so you need to read carefully.

There is this chick called Giselle - I think that's French for Gazelle - you know, like a springbok - geez - she could jump like a Springbok - I reckon she could make a pretty hot hurdler! Maybe even clear the fences in the Grand Nation. Any way there are these two guys, Albrecht & Hilarion, who both like this chick, if you get my drift. Giselle, or "Springy" as I like to call her, has the hots for Albrecht. Who can take an oke called Hilarion seriously, now I ask you? Problem is that while Springy is a peasant, Albrecht is a toffee nose. (Shame it's not his fault - don't laugh at him - he didn't choose his parents). Hilarion is a forester - which is like saying he's the garden boy - only it is not a garden it's a forest. Poor Albie has to marry this chick who is well-loaded, but looks like the back end of a bus. Anyways - he decides that there is nothing stopping him and Springy having a fling, and is hanging around Springy's house to "catch her eye." Hilarion rocks up just as they are having a kiss and a cuddle, and is lank jealous. He knows how to fix Toffee-Nose for stealing "his chick" - it never crossed his mind that Springy might not be interested in him - and he blows the whistle on them - well not a whistle but a hunter's horn - and who should rock up but Albie's boss, and Bathilde - Albie's boss's daughter and the one who looks like the back end of a bus. Yep big trouble now. OOh yikes - big indaba here! Tempers fly and the okes start fighting each other. Springy makes it clear she wants to be with Albie, but her ma doesn't like that idea and tells her to go inside right away. She refuses and in all the snot & trane (a South African expression meaning highly emotional) she kills herself - and so ends the first half. Now as you can imagine I am left scratching my head. How the heck to they sort this one out - to be honest I don't know if they do "sort it out" - but its end of the first half and the main character is pushing up daisies - or almost.

The second half starts and Albie is by a grave. His beloved is now dead and he has to marry "Back-end-of-a-bus" Bathilde - talk about a double whammy! There he is crying his eyes out like he had just sliced a pocket of onions - and he sees - he thinks this white thing. What the hell was that, he wonders. He runs around - trying to see what it is that he saw. Well, I bet you are ahead of me here - It's a graveyard - so what do you see in graveyards (if see is the right word?) - but spooks! These spooks according to the programme were called Wilis - I think they meant willies, but I couldn't work that out as they were all wearing dresses, and so I figured they didn't have willies. There was a Queen - now I don't think it was a female impersonator - like Widow Twanky in Aladin, so not a queen in that sense, but a kind of queen that wears a crown and takes command. Anyway, Hilarion, came to mourn his beloved Giselle and he met up with the Willies and it must have given him the Willies - sheez, these spooks are seriously scary. They float around the stage but this guy was trying to get away from them. But they just ambush him on the other path. They were like a ghost commando. Well Hilarion is despatched and doesn't reappear - I didn't know what happened to them. But back to Albie, He sees this ghost, and knock me down with a feather, it's Springy - and she's in front of Albie, and they kind of pick up where they left off before hand - even though this time she is dead - now that's a bit weird if you ask me. He lifts her up - not that hard, given that she doesn't weigh anything, and everything is very happy for a while until the Willies arrive - they have come to recruit Springy - but she is not keen. Albie tries to talk to the queen, but she is like "Talk to the Hand" - Eventually the sun rises and as you know, spooks don't dig the sunlight - and so they all gap it, and Springy - well - she goes back to her grave and can rest.

I hope you enjoyed my retelling of the story of GISELLE - and if you REALLY want to know what happened! Look at this link.

http://www.giselle-ballet.com/about/story.shtml

"I'm no sugar plum fatty"

2010-12-20T14:17:00.001Z

As you can see, I love ballet, and so when something relating to this art form gets into the news, it grabs my attention. I was taken aback though to read the headline: "I'm no sugar plum fatty" . The article by Miranda Bryant of the Evening Standard prompted me to wonder: "What qualifies a person to be a ballet/theatre/art critic? More specifically in regard to this article: what are Mr. Macauley's qualifications?

Do editors require the critics to have formal qualification before they consider their critiques for publication? Is so, what are those qualifications? Are they limited to journalistic qualifications, or do they need specific training in the field they pretend to know so much about? Take Mr. Macaulay, for instance. Has he ever attended dance class? Was he an accomplished dancer himself, or like so many of us, an armchair expert? Try as I might, I could not establish whether or not Mr. Macaulay has had dance training or not. Perhaps someone could enlighten me.

Coming to the nub of the issue though, we need to ask was the critic justified in criticising the dancer's figure - leaving aside for the moment whether or not his evaluation of her figure was realistic, should he as a professional journalist be commenting on her weight at all, or should he restrict his comments to her skill (or lack of it) as a dancer?

If you look at the attached photo of Jenifer, I'm sure most of us would be hard pressed to say that she is carrying any excess weight, and so his jibe, though it might have seemed quite ironic, and a little bit funny when he wrote it, was, in the opinion of this writer and ballet fan, downright unfair.

We all like to boo Craig Revell-Horwood with his "Awful" and a "Disaster" and his quibbling over small technical aspects of the dances by the celebrities on Strictly Come Dancing. But, at the end of the day, we know that Craig is himself a dancer and he knows what he is talking about, but what gives Mr. McCaulay the platform to rubbish another's performance? I might sit at home and criticise a rugby player or soccer player and express my opinion loudly. However I would not have the gall to write an article for the local newspaper, and expect to be paid for something I could not do half as well.

Perhaps I have wronged the man and he has been ballet trained. If that is the case, he should restrict his comments to actually critiquing the ballet and not feel it gives him the right to make personal comments about a persons physical appearance.

I personally consider myself a balletomane, that is a person with an interest in ballet and one of the things at the top of my list of favourite things to do is to watch a ballet. How nice it would be to go down to the West End and watch all the performances and then actually make money, rather than spend it, by writing about it for a newspaper. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to be a critic.

Mr Macaulay has refused to apologise for his words saying that a dancer's body is an integral part of his/her art. I did not see the performance, but if Jenifer could fly through the air as she is depicted in the photograph, I would say her dancing ability was not hampered at all. As she said, had she been thinner she would not be able to do the things she does. She must know, having experienced the agony of an eating disorder.

I find myself agreeing with the writer on an article for the Calgary Herald who said:

Macaulay should be ashamed of himself. He cannot possibly be unaware of the prevalence of eating disorders, and not just among dancers. Studies have found that girls as young as eight are focused on dieting.

Let's not allow Macaulay to do such a disservice to the cause. His comments should be pegged for what they represent -- an anachronistic attitude toward women's bodies that has no place in the cultivation of healthy self-image among women.

Visiting Stats

2010-12-19T23:18:00.001Z

	Mon	Tues	Wed	Thur	Fri	Sat	Sun	Total	Avg
Pageloads	1	0	1	0	0	0	27	29	4
Unique Visitors	1	0	1	0	0	0	11	13	2
First Time Visitors	1	0	1	0	0	0	9	11	2
Returning Visitors	0	0	0	0	0	0	2	2	0

Since I posted my last blog on Saturday I can see lots of people visited. Thank you, one and all who stopped by - would love to have some comments on what you thought.

Did you agree, disagree? I'm curious.

Please feel free to comment on anything that I have written. All thoughts are welcome

Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

2010-12-19T00:12:00.001Z

I am not a US citizen, but here is my opinion on the DADT Act that has been repealed (but still needs to be signed into law. This was actually, except for a few embellishments at the end a response to something a friend on Facebook wrote.

I'm happy for the repeal of this silly law in the USA. As far as I know there is no conscription in the USA. People join the army for a variety of reasons, and when they join up, they found themselves serving alongside men and woman from very many different backgrounds. Different races, different religions, different political persuasions. all things that can without tolerance e reason for internal conflict and division. The recruits are expected to leave their prejudices behind them and get on with the task in hand (which is defending your country). Now, with the repeal of DADT, recruits will be tThe notion that

a homosexual man is totally preoccupied with sexual activity, and that they continually seeking out the "talent" amongst their supposed heterosexual colleagues when they are in the shower, in other words that they are LUSTING after every man they see.
Heterosexual soldiers never lust after their female counterparts, and that no sexual contact takes place between members of the opposite sex.
Homosexual people have not, along with their heterosexual colleaugues, left lovers and partners at home, for whom they have deep affection.

Are simply not realistic.

I think it is common cause among the many young men and women who choose to join the military, and especially among those serving abroad and away from their partners. is that they are, for the sake of the nation, SACRIFICING, their sexual relations for a time, to get on with an important task of defending the nation. Sexual relations in certain contexts are totally inappropriate, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual.

Actually, if as a straight man, you were showering in a public gym locker room where you know some of the other men are gay. Would it not be your instinct to be discrete? If a woman officer working on the front-line was flaunting her assets amongst male colleagues, would she not be reprimanded - as her behaviour would be inappropriate and unfair. Similarly, it should be noted that men could be more discrete when they are amongst other men.

With regard to public displays of affection: Since when is that appropriate in the context of war. It is not appropriate whether the two people involved are men, women, or a man and a woman. I cannot see how the repeal of this act will make it possible for "public displays of affection (holding hands, kissing) to be the order of the day. In civilian life, people often have these public displays, and nobody bats an eyelid when such public displays take place between men and women. However, if a man kisses another man or wants to hold his hand, it is frowned upon. Sorry but that is a double standard.

No doubt, there will be some "fall-out" as a result of this repeal as certain people feel they cannot serve with openly gay colleagues. This will however open the door to other young men and women who would like to serve in the military, but have till now not felt able to, as it would entail them "living a lie". When the USA opened the door for people of colour to serve alongside their white compatriots in the military, there were naysayers and opponents. No doubt some intolerant bigots decided that their "principles" were more important to them than the nations security and they left.

Whether you regard homosexuality as a sin or not, in this instance,, is completely irrelevant as the Military is an arm of the state, and as such has nothing to do with the Church and doctrine. This is the principle of the constitution.

Sadly, given that men and women die in wars, when a married or engaged man/woman, their spouse or betrothed is invited to play a role in thee ceremony or may be invited to receive a medal military honour on their behalf, but gay men who were in long term relations with a partner in the military who has been killed in the line of duty are ignored. Likewise, married partners get the financial support in the form of pensions etc. but gay partner has no financial support, even though they made the same sacrifice.

2010-11-22T18:47:00.002Z

I'm NOT generally a fan of Melanie Phillips, columnist for the Daily Mail in the UK, and usually find that my opinions and hers do not coincide. However, I will admit that I may be have to set aside my "knee-jerk" reaction in regard to this week's offering.

In her column this week, headed: He's ignorant, cruel and un-Christian. But don't expect the spineless Church to banish Bishop Pete Melanie takes a swipe at the Bishop of Willesden, Pete Broadbent, for rather caustically predicting that the upcoming marriage of Prince William to Catherine Middleton would only last seven years. He justified this astounding prediction on the "fact" that they are "shallow celebrities" and that the Royal Family is "full of philanderers"

Allow me first to emphasise the point that this is a BISHOP of the Church of England. As Ms. Phillips pointed out, the prelate must have taken a vow swearing "true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, her heirs and successors, according to the law," Leaving aside, for the time being, whether or not a church leader should be swearing allegiance to ANY earthly person, the fact remains, that he did, and these comments are not in anyway showing loyalty to the Queen, or the royal family.

Secondly, irresponsible comments such as those uttered by the bishop are cruel and undeserved. They show a prejudice that is out of place when coming from the lips or finger tips of a Christian. How are William and Catherine "shallow celebrities?" William is the grandson of the Queen. He did nothing to make this happen - he was born into the role. He is famous simply because of his relationship to the Queen. Catherine likewise is only famous because of her relationship with Prince William.

TRUE - we live in a society where everybody feels perfectly justified in expressing their opinions on everything from politics and sport to the latest developments on the latest "reality" TV show and everything in between. And here I am doing just that. True too, not only do people express their opinions, but their opinions can go global and viral, by means of Internet Social Networking sites, such as Twitter, Facebook and blogger.com. Freedom of expression, is also a human right, and so Pete Broadbent is indeed entitled to his opinion and his political beliefs. That being said, just because one has an opinion, does not mean it is politic to express it.

When one holds a high office, either in the church, or in government, or any other organisation, one has to on occasions hold his own counsel, and remain aloof.

Déanann ceann ciallmhar béal iata

I came across this Irish Gaelic proverb by chance - but it appears to be apt. It means: A wise man keeps his own counsel.

When we make a statement, we need to bear in mind our role in society, and how our words will be taken bearing in mind that office.

Here is a categorical statement which is sure to provoke some rigorous discussion, not to say arguments:

POLITICS and RELIGION do not and should NEVER MIX.

Sounds okay on the face of it, and I can sense many readers are nodding. But would Archbishop Emeritus Desmond Tutu agree? I seriously doubt it - it was as Bishop of Johannesburg and later the Archbishop of Cape Town, that he took a very political stance on the racist policy of Apartheid. I could point out other church leaders who rightly or wrongly took a political stance on a variety of matters.

I am not suggesting that a church leader should NEVER state a political opinion. But I do feel that church leaders should "hold their counsel" on particular political personalities or parties. In this case, I feel that the bishop was way out of line with these comments. It would have been unwise, had he expressed his opinion at a private party among friends, but the controversial clergyman really went too far when he made his thoughts known on the Internet, with the inevitable outcome that his comments would be widely broadcast and discussed. Making negative comments about others behind their backs is spreading gossip - an activity clearly condemned in the Bible. But to suggest this is gossip is to lend some credibility to his remarks, but since his comments are, as far as I can tell, merely an opinion, they are merely speculation. At best, they are erroneous, at worst, they are outright lies.

Christians should tell the truth. There is a straight forward maxim - not easily argued against - but its counterpart is also true: A Christian should not speak lies. Between the truth and lies there is a no-man's-land of the "unknown" . Into the chasm of the unknown falls such things as speculation and opinion. We are required to tell the truth, but we are not required to say what we are not sure of.

I would suggest that in this regard, the bishop was speculating about William and Catherine, and his comments were simply not helpful.

They were cruel in that they were downright nasty about the Royal family being "philanderers".

Only Bishop Peter knows what motivated him to say the things he did, but it would seem that he allowed his political bias to cloud his judgement.

Whether his comments were wide of the mark or not is frankly irrelevant - they were unjust.

What God has put together, let no man put asunder - that is what it says in the Bible, and I believe that in as much as William and Catherine are betrothed (promised to one another) they have been put together. Only God knows if it is He who put them together or not, and pronouncing on the success or otherwise of a marriage that is yet to start is, possibly almost as bad as tearing at the very cords that bind them.

So, perhaps, for once, Ms Phillips and I agree on something. Do you?

UPDATE: In today's paper, an update on this story. The Bishop has been suspended from his duties.

2010-10-17T00:53:00.002+01:00

Jobsworth

I love the Daily Mail – not that I agree necessarily with what they say or how they report a story, but it is, let me say, entertaining to read the story and the underlying prejudices of the reporter that are carried along in the style of the writing. Even more entertaining are the comments of readers that are posted on the internet. Take for instance the story of the man who objected to being woken (prodded – he claimed) on the train by the ticket conductor and refused to show his ticket. I will include the article as it appeared on the Daily Mail website, so that you can read it for yourself.

This is because papers tend to withdraw stories after a while.

'Don't prod me you silly little girl': Train-rage pensioner screamed at woman ticket collector who woke him up

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1320430/Pensioners-train-rage-woman-ticket-collector-woke-up.html

A pensioner who flew into a rage after a woman train worker woke him up to check his ticket has been fined £965. Peter Dodd, 66, left Nicola Loynes in tears after he screamed at her not to 'prod' him and called her a 'silly little girl'. He angrily refused to show his ticket on the Southeastern train because there were barriers at Ebbsfleet and Kings Cross.

Dodd, who was unrepresented, was yesterday found guilty of disorderly conduct and failing to produce a ticket following a trial at City of Westminster Magistrates' Court.

Dodd looked like he was about to attack Ms Loynes as 'everything they said was enraging him into a volcano of fury', a fellow passenger said. 'He was so bloody-minded,' he added.

The retired researcher then refused to speak to ticket conductor Leslie Conway when she intervened on the 8.05 service from Ebbsfleet last October, saying: 'I'm sleeping.'

After his arrest, he made a counter-allegation of assault against Ms Loynes for nudging him awake. Dodd said he had been awake all the previous night and was intending to spend a full day at the National Archives in Kew. He said: 'I'm a gentleman of a certain age, used to certain consideration and certain manners - these I did not receive.

'I was manhandled by Ms Loynes while trying to sleep.I was woken rudely and inconsiderately and I'm a client - they can wait.'

He added: 'To use the playground refrain: she started it.' Passing sentence, Deputy District Judge Stott said: 'Train staff have a right to ask for your ticket and you must show it.

'It isn't you for you to lay down conditions. 'On this particular date, clearly you chose not to produce your ticket. 'There was fear in the evidence I have heard today of your reaction under a trivial circumstance. 'I regard it as undoubtedly being disorderly - you lost control of yourself for reasons best known to you.'

Dodd, of South Kensington, west London, was fined £300 and ordered to pay £500 costs, £100 compensation to Ms Loynes, £50 compensation to Mr Conway and a £15 victim surcharge.

Mr Dodd, in my opinion totally overreacted and deserved the consequence of the fine and is lucky to have got away without a ban from the railways. However – I titled this article "Jobsworth" because in the comments that followed there were a number of people accusing Ms Loynes, the train worker, for being a "jobsworth" - a new expression to me – but I have come to discover that it is not that new in terms of usage.

"he did not need to be woken up by a petty jobsworth" - wrote one commenter.

"Difficult to say.....it depends on how this panned out. Perhaps the ticket collector on a 'jobsworth' poked him aggresively and startled him...in which case I would also be annoyed. On the other hand if she just tapped him politely,then he shouldn't have been so grumpy....it's all to do with attitude...." wrote another.

"Another example of the ordinary British person being fed up with over-authoratitive jobsworths. If we weren't constantly harassed from morning to night by people with more power than sense, this sad little girl might have had a nicer day!"... observed another.

Not being familiar with this quintessentially British expression, I looked it up, and here is the definition – for those of you equally befuddled.

A jobsworth is a person who uses his or her job description in a deliberately un-cooperative way, or who seemingly delights in acting in an obstructive or unhelpful manner.

A minor clerical worker who refuses to be flexible in the application of rules to help a client or customer.

Jobsworth is slang for a person who is very pedantic at work; named after the oft heard, "I can't let you do that, it's more than my jobs worth."

To my surprise there has even been a song written about this strange breed, aptly named "Jobsworth" - written by Jeremy Taylor, who also wrote "Ag pleez, Daddy!" and The Lift Girl's Lament".

Well, I hope you had a smile, I enjoyed it and I know exactly the kind of person he is singing about. I don't however think that the hapless Ms Loynes can be described as a "jobsworth" at all. She was simply doing her job, and given the number of people on benefits at the moment and the moans and groans of those who are burdened with a "tax-bill" - should we not be grateful that this lady is earning her wage? I was happy to see today that she had written a comment in her own defence:

I would just like to say in my defence that Mr Dodds was lightly tapped on his arm to wake him as he did not respond to me twice asking for his ticket. I have a duty to care for the passengers travelling on my train so after receiving no response Mr Dodd's welfare became my first priority. I was at no time rude to Mr Dodds, I am a firm believer of treating those how I would like to be treated myself. I was never bought up to be rude to anyone and have often been commended on my high levels of customer service. We all have a job to do at the end of the day and will do it to the best of our ability, I am and never will be a jobs worth but believe in treating all customers fairly and with a level of consistency no matter what the age. I would also like to add that I didn't let anybody apart from my colleagues see me upset. I have never been reduced to tears by a customer but this time these where bought on when the shock of how I had just been spoken to set in.

This comment puts a different slant on the whole story. The impression created by the grumpy pensioner was that he was suddenly set upon by the conductor, Ms Loynes and that she demanded to see his tickets. It turns out, she spoke to him and he did not respond. As she says herself, Mr Dodd's welfare became her priority. She was not aware however that she was about to disturb Mt. Versuvias and it would erupt.

I heard this week that the people who would judge us the most are those who know us the least – or words to that effect – and I think that this is the case with this story. I must admit I have not had a high opinion of Mr Dodds, and there may be reasons which he has not shared with the court or with us, which would explain, if not justify his bullying behaviour towards Ms Loynes. I think it unnecessary and unfair to brand Mr Dodds as terrible, etc. His behaviour on that occasion may have been totally uncalled for and unjustified, but this does not mean that he is always like this. Likewise, if one has a difficult exchange with an official, it certainly doesn't mean that the person is in general a difficult character, or that they are necessarily being a "jobsworth".

Young people in London are becoming fed up with being cast in a negative light simply because of the actions of a few delinquent young people. They have set up a website for their cause – it is: http://www.99percent.org.uk/

However the same can be said of most groups of people who are lumped together and demonised.

Bankers – characterised as over-paid, greedy, swindlers, people who caused the credit-crunch.
Evangelicals – right wing, fundamentalist, Bible-bashing, judgmental, uncompromising (in a negative sense of lacking any compassion).
Homosexuals – characterised by promiscuity, wishing to corrupt young people, HIV positive, etc. I chose the term 'homosexual' rather than 'gay' because many who would speak badly of this group use the "H" word.
Politicians – lying, self-serving, unhelpful, etc.,
Unemployed/people on benefits – undeserving, lazy, thieving, scroungers, etc.
Young people (or 'hoodies') – characterised by rudeness, inconsiderateness, violent behaviour.

All negative stereotypes of groups – just because some bankers have made an awful lot of money at the expense of the economy, does not make every banker responsible for the crisis. Just because some big names in the Evangelical world have had hardline and intolerant attitudes, or that some have acted corruptly does not make every evangelical Christian a hypocrite. There are gay men who have multiple partners, and there are those who, illegally, seek sexual relations with teens and younger boys. However, these people are not the majority of gay men. It is also true to say that it is not only gay men who engage in pedophilia. The actions of politicians are very frustrating at times and we are right to criticise them for their actions, but there are politicians who are not simply power-hungry but genuinely seek to serve society. In the UK it has become a national sport to ridicule the jobless and characterise them as lazy and scrounging. This may be the case with some, but many simply cannot find work and need the "Job seekers allowance" just to get by.

I hope that after reading this, you will come away with a pause for thought – I think we all need to realise that we can sometimes fall into the TRAP of over-generalizing. When we do this, whether or not we express these prejudices out loud or just think them, we are contributing to the problem rather than being part of the solution. Jesus came into the World and unlike the revered rabbis of his day, he would go and talk to the eople who were marginalised – the "drunkards and 'sinners' – polite talk for prostitutes. There was never any suggestion of inappropriate behaviour on his part, but this did not stop the Pharisees and Saducees from being very condemnatory. However Jesus brushed off their criticisms with contempt.

When I reflect on this newspaper article, I think we can learn that we need to show understanding and respect to those who live and work amongst us. Mr Dodd did not show respect and paid a hefty financial penalty as a result. Instead of being grumpy and cursing the ticket checkers, it would be far more beneficial to smile and thank them for their service.

2010-09-09T19:40:00.000+01:00

Commemorating 9/11/01

Nine years ago, the world changed and became intensely less safe because of the religious zeal of a few people. It is, I am sure I can assert, without much argument, one of the saddest days in history when four passenger planes were hijacked and two flew into the World Trade Centre towers in New York City, One crashed into the Pentagon building in Washington D.C. and one did not reach its intended target, but crashed into a field. It ranks easily Pearl Harbour, the starts of World War I and II, The Blitz (The 70th anniversary has just passed), The Holocaust, The massacre at Beslan, and the 7/7 bombings on London Tube trains and buses to name just a few.

Each of these occasions has been commemorated in some symbolic way, usually by a religious ceremony or by some monument being built to honour those that had died as result. If I were to ask older folk, who were alive at that time, I am sure they can recall vividly the declaration of war with Germany made in 1939 by the Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain that was broadcast. However, with the news coverage of the events on September 11th 2001, many more people can recall note only listening to, but watching live as it happened, the place crashing in the WTC, and the towers collapse, one after the other, and the resulting chaos, and the tremendous rescue effort that followed. Because we not only heard about it, but watched it happening, the event impacted itself into our memories.

How does one commemorate an event like 9/11? Lay a wreath at a memorial? Hold a moment's (traditionally a minute) silence at the moment it happened. Sad events such as those listed above usually evoke intense feelings of sadness but often, associated with that sadness are feelings of anger directed at those who we believe are responsible for causing the event. Anger in itself, is not wrong, especially when it is directed against injustices such as those perpetrated against the victims on 9/11. However we are told that in our anger, we should not sin. (Eph 4:26) Sadly, when people get angry, the 'red mist' descends and they (we) lose perspective. Justice, in ancient times was often administered by a king or a head of state. Often, when this king was personally affected by the alleged crime, his ability to make fair judgement was impaired. In principle then, in our modern times there is a distinction drawn between the three 'arms' of government, executive (head of state), legislative (parliament, Congress) and judicial (law courts). Further, it is expected that in jury trials, a judge or a juror who personally knows any of the people involved in a case, or who has somehow been affected by the case under review should not have anything to do with that case.

However it is not only in the context of court and trials that judgements are made. Every day, people form their own opinions about what is happening in the news - we all cant help it - we hear something on the news and we, without necessarily knowing all the facts, draw our own conclusions about the rightness or wrongness of an action, and who is responsible. It is as it were a mental reflex action! We hear of a road accident, and we immediately are interested in who is responsible. I am as responsible for being judgmental as much as the next person. I have no doubt that everyone has an opinion about who is responsible for 9/11. Although it is common knowledge now that Al Quaeda led by Osama bin Laden were responsible for devising, and sponsoring the attacks, some people feel the need to cast the net of suspicion wider or come up with some convoluted conspiracy theory that implicates the GW Bush administration in the attacks themselves. Then there are those who feel that ALL Muslims are or THE RELIGION ITSELF is responsible for the attacks...

Such is the case of one Reverend Dr. Terry Jones who has written a book "Islam is of the Devil" and who has declared September 11th World Burn a Koran day. He is the pastor of a church called Dove World Outreach Center in Gainesville, FL. As might be expected, he has received death threats and now goes about armed with a pistol. The idea of burning Qurans has been condemned by people from every quarter and the inadvisability of going ahead with the idea has been spelt out by everyone. I still can't quite get over how the church is called "Dove" - when doves are supposed to be symbols of peace. He is trying to make out that this is only about the Quran but then wonders why he has deliberately decided to do this dastardly despicable deed on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks - clearly drawing a link to those events. Also, if the Quran, in his opinion, is of the devil, why not also burn the holy books of other religions too - hinduism, buddhism, etc. Clearly, this act is not primarily about destroying a "corrupting text" but specifically aimed at hurting and inflaming those he blames for the 9 11 attacks - Muslims.

What is to be done about this state of affairs? We only need to cast our minds back to Salman Rushdie and the infamous book "Satanic Verses" and the reaction to this formerly Muslim writer to the publication of his book, and then there were the cartoons of Mohammed that caused an uproar and demonstrations all over the world. In his wisdom, the crazy clergyman has provided advance warning and has made his intentions very clear. Since he really refuses to see sense, what needs to happen now? Should he be allowed to proceed with the crazy idea?

I don't think so - I think that images of Qurans being thrown into a fire would have such a backlash, and has already been indicated, it could endanger the lives of American (and possibly other troops). Based on that fact, I think that the Federal Government of the USA would be justified in taking whatever steps necessary to prevent the quran burning - including sending in the National Guard.

The Merry Wives of Windsor and some thoughts on getting married.

2010-08-29T02:37:00.001+01:00

You do amaze her: hear the truth of it.

You would have married her most shamefully,

Where there was no proportion held in love.

The truth is, she and I, long since contracted,

Are now so sure that nothing can dissolve us.

The offence is holy that she hath committed;

And this deceit loses the name of craft,

Of disobedience, or unduteous title,

Since therein she doth evitate and shun

A thousand irreligious cursed hours,

Which forced marriage would have brought upon her.

The Merry Wives of Windsor, Act V

It was such a wonderful experience going to the Globe Theatre on the South Bank of the Thames and seeing this play performed. It is hugely funny - I have not laughed so much in a long time. If anyone asks, methinks The bard invented situation comedy! As with many of Shakespeare's plays, The Merry Wives of Windsor (hereafter referred to as the play) is about disguise, and marriage. With plot and sub plots, the play is far too complicated to explain fully here, but the bit that I want to focus on is the daughter of one of the 'wives', Anne Page, has three suitors, who are:

Master Abraham Slender: Shallow's cousin. He is shy and self-effacing, and always defers to his uncle, who wants him to marry Anne Page. Slender's servant Simple describes him as having "a little whey-face, with a little yellow beard" (whey means pallid.) Slender is not particularly interested in marrying Anne Page, but he is willing to go along with what his uncle has arranged for him. However, Anne Page thinks he is an idiot, and has no intention of marrying him.

Dr. Caius: Dr. Caius is a French physician who seeks to marry Anne Page. He speaks bad English with a French accent. He is also hot-tempered and challenges Evans to a duel. Mistress Quickly, his housekeeper, devises a scheme whereby he will be able to marry Anne, but the plan fails.

Fenton: in love with Anne Page and seeks to marry her. At first he sought her hand only because of the money she is inheriting, but he soon fell in love with her for her admirable qualities. Anne's father opposes Fenton, however. He believes Fenton is unsuitable because he comes from a higher social level and is too sophisticated and worldly for Anne. He also thinks that Fenton is motivated by a desire for monetary gain.

The notes above are taken from this website: NovelGuide.com

Master Page, Anne's father wanted Anne to marry Abraham Slender.
Mistress Page, Anne's mother wanted Anne to marry the French doctor.

The quotation I started this blog off with are the words of Fenton. In a hugely funny scene at the end, the other two suitors find they have been duped and almost married off to boys, pretending to be the lovely Anne.

So much for the story: Why am I blogging on this subject? Well, I believe that down through the years, this matter of marriage and suitable marriages has been a major issue and although we are now in the twenty-first century, we cannot take for granted that people are getting married for the right reason to the right people. Different cultures have different perception of arranged marriages - that is where people other than the two people concerned make the decision to marry.

My father always jokes that he married for money: He was thirsty at the time and my mother had two shillings and sixpence: The price of a beer in those days!

Jokes aside, for many people marriage is all about money. People decide to marry or NOT to marry based on whether or not they will be better off financially. Some tax systems are set up such that the married couple gets certain benefits that single people are not entitled to, whereas other systems are "individual" based and as such tax both parties in the marriage separately without taking into account the marriage at all. I am no tax expert, but suffice to say, that taxation has played a significant role in decisions on whether to marry or not to marry.

In this era of "free love" the concept of keeping sexual intercourse to the confines of a marriage is regarded by many as quaint. People cheat on their spouses, and sleep with other people, and when challenged their defense can be summed up in the words: "It's just sex" - I don't love him/her, I love you. In the words of that famous Tina Turner song - "What's love gotta do, gotta do with it?" Love is nothing but a second hand emotion - or so she thinks.

Marriage for cultural and religious reasons. Recently, the UK had to introduce laws that prevent people being taken out the country and forced to marry someone (usually a total stranger to them). This is because many Pakistani parents have pledged their daughters' (mostly) hands in marriage to a stranger (in Pakistan). I mention Pakistan simply because it is within this community that the issue is most prevalent. We have read of serious crimes being committed against people who have attempted to avoid this - or where the daughter has become involved with a man who is not the one her parents intended for her to marry. The expression "honour killings" springs to mind. I understand that there are some marriages that had been so arranged that have worked - and that the couple do love each other, or at least grow to love each other, but personally I am most sceptical about such unions.

Marriage to gain residential and citizenship status in a country. Citizenship is something that is granted to people who are born in a country or people who have entered a country in terms of the laws of that country with the stated intention of remaining there. However, as with marriage, the decision to go and live in a country is often driven by economics. Immigration laws are thus set up to prevent an influx of people from all over the world who would represent a drag on the economy - who would use resources that are needed for the citizenry. However, no country can simply pull up the draw bridge and let nobody in or out. There are clearly defined grounds under which a person can become a permanent citizen. One of those grounds is marriage. If a person marries a citizen of certain country they gain the right become a citizen of their spouses country. Sadly however, there are people who will stop at nothing to gain citizenship to which they would normally not qualify, and there are others who see the chance of financial gain, who facilitate such marriages. In the UK, there are thousands of such fake "passport" marriages.

On the other end of the spectrum is the PREVENTION of marriages for religious or cultural reasons. Apartheid laws in South Africa made it a criminal offence for people to marry people of a different race - that is so-called "mixed marriages". I think the same was true under the Third Reich, and also in certain Southern States of the USA. Church leaders preached against "mixed marriages" and quoted passages from the Bible to support their prejudice against these unions. Fortunately, most places in the world have dispensed of these antiquated ideas, and in so far as race is concerned, people are free to marry whom they will.

Some people object to "inter-faith" marriages where the people of different religious backgrounds marry. Christian/Jewish, Muslim/Christian, Muslim/Jewish, Catholic/Protestant, etc. In the Bible, Paul writes that we should not be yoked together with unbelievers. (2 Cor 6:14) Does this mean that a Christian can never ever marry someone who is not a Christian? The thing is how can a person be sure that the person they are wanting to marry truly is a Christian and is not just saying they are a Christian because they want to be married? I suppose one can use the old Evangelism Explosion 3 question: If you die now would you be going to heaven? And if yes, why? However, we know there are a lot of people out there who can "talk the talk" but they don't "walk the walk." Thing is, at the end of the day, one cannot be sure, and one has to take a person's word for it. Not only that, but was that meant to be injunction against Christians marrying non-Christians - there is a verse in the 1 Peter where Christian women married to non-Christian man was urged to live a life that would be a testimony to her husband and thus win him over to Christ. There is another verse where it says that a non-Christian can leave a Christian, but that a Christian should not divorce a non-Christian purely on that basis. Some religions will tolerate a non-adherent being married to one of their faithful, provided the non-adherent converts to the religion. Personally, I question the genuineness of the conversion if it is purely to make oneself marriageable to a person. I, for one would not convert to any other religion for ANY reason, because I believe what I believe. Equally, I would not want to put the person I marry under that kind of pressure. Of course I would want my spouse to share my faith in Jesus, but it should be because of who Jesus is, and not because of me.

I am not saying that conversions before marriages are not genuine conversions - that would be highly judgemental and improper, and, in many cases I am sure that the conversions are very heartfelt and true. The questions remains that in matters of faith, do both parties have to see eye to eye? Let us push the envelope out a bit further - assuming that both parties are Christian (or Jewish or Muslim) do they have to believe the same things about their religion or is there room for differences of opinion on questions of doctrine? Can a tongue-speaking Pentecostal marry a Roman Catholic who prays to the saints? Can a Calvinistic Presbyterian wed an Arminian Methodist? Can a baptised-by
-full-immersion Baptist be wedded to a baby-sprinkled-with-water Anglican? I'm sure you get my drift. I believe the answer is of course, YES! Not only can it happen, it does, over and over. I am not going to be a Pollyanna and pretend everything will naturally work out - I believe that inter-faith marriages have stressors that strain at the bonds that would bring a couple together - but the fact is, that if a couple can see past the religion - and love the individual, then the differences in faith can be worked out in the long run. Marriage is, after all for this life, and NOT for eternity - as Jesus clearly stated that marriages do not continue into the hereafter. For further discussion of this aspect, look at the following website: Religious Tolerance

The story of Romeo and Juliet, was also about "forbidden love" between two families - who had some on-going feud. That was one of Shakespeare's tragedies. Another barrier that rears its ugly head is that of class or social status. On the one hand there is always that sneaking suspicion of the motives of the person set gain the most from the marriage that they are merely marrying for money/fame. It is very unusual for royalty to marry commoners. Even in the play, Master Page was suspicious of the motives of Fenton for wanting his daughter's hand in marriage. However, just as in Romeo and Juliet, where the couple can see past the differences and still love each other, it is often those that surround the couple that want to see the marriage breakdown and may make it their purpose to firstly prevent the marriage, and secondly, if that fails, meddle to such a degree, that they cause rifts in the marriage. This is where "in-law" problems often come to the fore. You often hear at wedding receptions, statements to the effect that it is not just about the bride and groom, but that two families are being united in the marriage. With the greatest of respect, I beg to differ - a marriage between two people is about the two people getting married, and choosing to share their lives thereafter.

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. Gen 2:24

There comes a time when other members of a person's family must withdraw themselves and allow the couple to make their lives together - and accept the decisions they make even if those decisions aren't those which they would make themselves. This is not to say that circumstances cannot arise where one's family must for a while take priority over one's partner, but such circumstances should, in my opinion, not be open ended - and even in such circumstances, the partner's needs should be considered, and communication should be open and honest between the partners.

There is one area in which I have no cut and dried answers as to what I think should occur, and that is in the case of people with special needs (learning difficulties) needing and wanting to get married. There are two sides to this discussion and they go around the question of the ability of an individual to give informed consent. In the UK, the law states that

People with learning disabilities have the same rights in law as anyone else to marry, have a civil partnership, or live together. Providing the person is over 16 years and has a general understanding of what it means to get married, he or she has the legal capacity to consent to marriage. No one else's consent is ever required. (NHS) - emphasis mine.

That may be the case, but for practical purposes, families and loved ones of people with learning difficulties, will be concerned that he/she is entering a relationship he/she will not be able to cope with or that he/she will be taken advantage of by the spouse. There are cases, where people with learning difficulties have been duped into entering marriages of convenience - so that the other party can obtain a visa or even citizenship.

Licensed to abuse: a question of dishonour

While every effort should be made for an individual with difficulties to get married, either to a person who is not got learning difficulties or a person who has, they must at the same time, as vulnerable adults, be protected against unscrupulous people who make take advantage of their limited ability to understand, to trick them into marriages that they neither want nor are in the person's best interests. Personally I don't quite know what to think about this issue. I would welcome people's comments.

Finally, I come with much hesitation and great trepidation to the topic of great controversy - that of same-sex marriage. I am going to address this topic, though I realise that even as I state my opinion, I will upset and probably disappoint a great number of my readers. In stating my opinion, I will try and set forth my reasoning as clearly as I can. I trust that for the most part, if you disagree with me, you will, at the very least agree to disagree, and not allow our diverging opinions to cause a dissolution of our friendship. I have no problem with you adding a comment to my blog or indeed my facebook page. I have set up my bog such that all comments need to be approved by me before posting - but you have my word that I will post every comment I receive unless it is abusing or uses inappropriate words - regardless of what opinion is being made.

I believe that homosexual men and women should have the same right to marry each other as heterosexual men and women. Notwithstanding that some Christians believe homosexuality is a sin, and that homosexuals cannot be Christians, this does not give the Christian church a right to limit the rights of individuals (whether they regard themselves as Christians or not) to choose the partner with whom they wish to spend the rest of their lives. I would go further to suggest that surely it is preferable for people who regard themselves to be in a committed relationship with one another (as signified by marriage) rather than living separately. Marriage laws are set up to protect the rights of both parties in that marriage, should it fail. Gay people should have access to such protections as well as straight people. In California, Proposition 8: which was voted for by the public and effectively banned same sex marriages in the state has been revoked and overturned on constitutional grounds. While I would be concerned if the right of Churches to refuse to perform marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, that is the limitation of that right. A pastor with a marriage licence should, if he/she is willing, be able to perform a marriage right with same-sex couples if he/she has no objections to it. On the other hand, agents of the state such as marriage officers and magistrates should perform same-sex marriage ceremonies if they are called upon to do so. Some may feel that my feeling on this matter is at odds with my faith. I will simply state that I don't believe so. Firstly there exists a sizable number of Christians who don't believe that homosexuality is a violation of God's law. Secondly, regardless on my stand on the above issue, my morality has nothing to do with other's right to live according to their own conscience.

Men and women who are homosexual but are failing to acknowledge this publicly or even to themselves in some cases, may marry a person of the opposite gender in the futile attempt to change their sexual preference, or at the very least hide their same sex attraction (SSA) and may even have children. However many such marriages fail. The fallout is even more acute than in cases where a straight couple separate or divorce. The other partner may feel used and abused by the gay partner, and gutted that the love portrayed by the gay person to their spouse, may appear to have been a pretense, thus making it harder to bear. The aggrieved party may feel cheated even if the gay person had not actually cheated (had a relationship with someone else). Far more preferable is that a person finds the partner with whom they can connect emotionally, psychologically and sexually and that they can build a relationship based on honesty and trust.

2010-08-19T00:08:00.002+01:00

My work is to help children with a specific type of Autism - known as Asperger Syndrome. There are a lot of sceptics in regard to conditions such as these, but believe me it is very real. I am by no means an expert - but learning more and more about it every day. The real experts are the parents of these children.

Asperger Syndrome is only one part of what is known as a spectrum disorder that is - there are different manifestations of the condition and it may affect people differently. There is no "cure" for Autism - the best we can do is control and minimise certain behaviours associated with the condition.

I include the following clip which can give you glimpse into the lives of parents whose children are autistic. Next time you are in a shop or some public place and a child kicks off and behaves "inappropriately" please don't be to quick to judge the parent - or the child for that matter - he or she might be autistic.

The children depicted in this clip are (as far as I can tell) not Asperger Syndrome Children but more what is known as "classic autism" .

If you would like to comment, or ask a question please feel free to add it. I or my many friends who are experts (see above) will do our best to answer.

2010-04-17T11:04:00.006+01:00

I love clowns, don't you? They make us laugh with their slapstick silliness. I think there is a bit of clown in me - I just don't wear the make-up or the funny clothes. Isn't the whole point of a clown to evoke laughter and giggles from little ones. Well here is a story to make your hair stand on end!

Evil Clown Dominic Deville hired for stalking, threats and a pie in the face

| Metro.co.uk

My first question is: What kind of sick individual would hire this social misfit to wash their car, let alone interact with their children?

On first reading, I thought that his man was operating in the UK and my immediate reaction, as one employed in the education sector, is that this is surely illegal? Has this guy been CRB checked? Then, to my relief, I read he operates in Switzerland. Well It's still not good for the children in Switzerland.

He sends chilling texts.
Makes prank phone calls
Sets traps in letter boxes
He posts notes warning children that they are being watched; that they are going to be ATTACKED.
The 'clown's one and only aim is to SMASH a cake into the face of his victim, when they least expect it, during the course of SEVEN DAYS.

Hands up everyone who enjoys being stalked? Thought so! Not only is being stalked NOT FUNNY, it is VERY DANGEROUS - ESPECIALLY WHEN TARGETED AT CHILDREN.

Some may accuse me of lacking a sense of humour. A joke that is at someone else's expense is not funny - it is dehumanising.

If PARENTS allow their children to be frightened to this extent, not only will that child feel very unsafe, but if a real threat were to take place, would the child feel that they could tell their mum or dad about it?

Let's take each one of those points above and analyse it:

He sends chilling texts - kids are bullied through texts these days - it is not funny. Often the bullying goes on undetected, because the child is too frightened or ashamed to talk to them about it.

Prank Phone calls: I don't know what this amounts too - but if done in combination with the other things it could put the child on edge.

Notes saying the child is being watched and is going to be attacked.

SMASHING a cake in the face when this is least expected. That sounds violent - maybe more violent than it is.

TRAPS in Letterboxes. - Well again - it could be very frightening for a young child.

There is a way to give a child a fright and not cross the line. You can bend over slightly make your hands like claws and say in a funny voice "I'm coming to get you!" The child will know - since THEY know who YOU are and that you love them, that they will be tickled but will not be hurt when you catch them. You will also know exactly how long to persist and if the child shows any distress you stop immediately. Also, it is wise, no essential, only to engage in this kind of play with a child if there are other adults present.

This man's service should fall into the category of ADULT ENTERTAINMENT, and thus be only permitted to target people OVER THE AGE OF 16.

Well I have sounded off about this - now send in the real clown to make us laugh and TRULY entertain us.

2010-03-20T12:28:00.003Z

Streaks

White streaks in a blue sky
Phenomena of the modern age:
Jet planes travel far and wide
Piercing the ozone with noxious fumes -
An outrage!

White lines on a blue canvas
Modernity in landscape
Inaudible cacophony reflecting
Invisible damage to the atmosphere -
Ecological rape!

Black steaks on a green ground
Stretching across a nation.
Cobbled streets replaced by motorways,
Flattening and destroying all that lies in their paths -
Devastation!

Black lines on a green canvas
Modernity in landscape
Ceaseless roar of engines reflecting
the unremitting destruction of the planet -
No escape?

2010-02-08T22:10:00.006Z

UNQUALIFIED

A few day's ago I put up as a status on my Facebook Wall the following:

Think of all the ordinary people He has used to turn the world upside down. But also consider how utterly unqualified so many of them were.

Noah got DRUNK.

Abraham was too OLD.

Jacob was a LIAR.

Gideon was AFRAID.

Rahab was A PROSTITUTE.

Jeremiah and Timothy were considered TOO YOUNG.

David had an AFFAIR.

Moses was a MURDERER.

Elijah was SUICIDAL at one point.

Jonah RAN FROM GOD.

Peter DENIED CHRIST.

The Disciples FELL ASLEEP while PRAYING.

The Samaritan Woman WAS DIVORCED five times.

Timothy had AN ULCER.

John the Baptist ATE BUGS.

And Lazarus WAS DEAD!

So what's your excuse?

I should like to credit the author of this which was not me, but Pastor Greg Laurie of Harvest Ministries.

However, what follows are my thoughts as a result.

The list of biblical people used above is impressive – there is only one other example that springs to mind and this particular person tried to use this “weakness” as an excuse, a cop out from service with of the King, but whose application for exemption refused. DO you know who I am speaking about? If you said Moses, you are spot on. He is listed above but not for the thing I am about to mention. Let us look at the Word of God together:

“One day Moses was tending the flock of his father-in-law, Jethro, the priest of Midian. He led the flock far into the wilderness and came to Sinai, the mountain of God. There the angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the middle of a bush. Moses stared in amazement. Though the bush was engulfed in flames, it didn't burn up. “This is amazing,” Moses said to himself. “Why isn't that bush burning up? I must go and see.”
When the LORD saw Moses coming to take a closer look, God called to him from the middle of the bush, “Moses, Moses!”
gHere I am!” Moses replied.
“Do not come any closer, the LORD warned. “Take off your sandals, for you are stading on holy ground. I am the God of your father – the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” When Moses heard this, he covered his face because he was afraid to look at God. Exodus 3:1-6

What follows is God's call of Moses to “active service. In the discourse I read three times, “but Moses Protested” (Ex 3: 11, 13, 4:1) and then – in Exodus 4:10

But Moses pleaded with the Lord, 'O Lord, I'm not very good with words. I never have been, and I'm not now, even though you have spoken to me. I get tongue tied, and my words get tangled.'
Then the Lord asked Moses, 'Who makes a person's mouth? Who decides whether people speak or do not speak, hear or do not hear, see or do not see? Is it not I the Lord? Now go! I will be with you as you speak and I will instruct you in what to say.'
But Moses again pleaded, “Lord, please! Send anyone else.”

So, it would seem that in God's eyes – Disability does not mean Inability. Last night, on Dancing on Ice, Heather Mills was voted off after many weeks of successful participation in this challenging figure skating competition. It was all the more challenging for Heather, for as you may know, she has one prosthetic leg.

I quote from the website:

In 1993, Heather lost the lower part of her left leg after being hit by a motorbike while crossing a road.
One of the main reasons Heather is doing the show is to give children with the same disability as her the inspiration to do things they might not think they're capable of.

I could point to other examples of people who overcome amazing odds to achieve something that others might believe was not possible. Sir Douglas Bader was British WWII hero who despite having lost both his legs in an accident in 1931, continued in 1939 in the Royal Air Force and he was shot down and taken as a prisoner of war by the Germans. I remember as a child watching a film about him and being very inspired.

Now I am going to share about a person I have only just found out about – as a result of a search on the Internet for the phrase: Disability does not mean Inability. His name is Emmanuel Osofu Yeboah. This is a young man who overcame terrible odds as disabled person in Ghana and proved that Disability does not mean inability. Please look at the following trailer of a film called Emmanuel's Gift.

Coming from Africa myself, I am aware that by and large there is a huge misconception about people with disabilities. Rather like Emmanuel's father, who seeing that his son was disabled at birth – ran away, many people have no understanding of disability. Young people with learning disabilities tied to trees or kept hidden away. I have no doubt that there are other parts of the world that have similar backward ideas. However this is not a rant against bad treatment of people with disabilities, but it IS about people rising above the odds and achieving when everyone (sometimes including the people themselves) says they can't. More importantly, it is a very Christian message about how God, is no respecter of persons – God does not discriminate against the disabled – why should we? It is also, how God can and does use people that some may think are 'unusable'.

Don't let anyone think less of you because you are young. Be an example to all believers in what you say, in the way you live, in your love, your faith and your purity. (1 Tim 4:12)

Paul's encouragement to Timothy was to not let anyone look down on him. That's the key. Part of that means believing in ourselves. God accepts no excuses, so it is onward and upward my friends.

During my training as a teacher, in studying about Inclusive Education, we learnt the phrase “Children with barriers to learning” (BtL) – but as I came to discover through the course material and through experience, Barriers (not only to learning), can and are overcome.

It is interesting that in a hurdles race, that it is the finish line that is important and not the hurdles on the track. While an athlete should try and clear the hurdles it is not the clearing of the hurdles that wins the race but crossing over the finish line first. It may be that we may have to find another way achieving what we set out to do, or what God has called us to do, but achievable it most certainly is.

If we read on in the story of Moses, God had was by no means surprised by Moses supposed inability to speak, and he provided him Aaron, his brother as a spokesman. Moses, despite his 'inability to speak' lead the people of Israel out of the bondage slavery in Egypt to the promised land.

I called this blog UNQUALIFIED - We live in a Qualifications-obsessed world. Although only a small minority of people actually go to university and earn degrees, it seems that every job one does needs some qualification. It doesn't stop there - now, a basic degree does not suffice - one needs to have a Master's or a Doctorate. Teacher's used to be trained in teacher training colleges and get "an education diploma" - but that no longer cuts the mustard - now there is talk of needing a master's degree.

Sorry for the little rebellion here, but given the high rate of employment, especial Youth Unemployment, (Remember 1 Tim 4:12) it is hard for young people who put in the offort over 3 or 4 years to attain their degree - while building up a debt of a student loan, to also realise that they may actually have no job at the end of the day. Okay - that's my politics out of the way

Qualifications Driven World we live in often disdains the "uneducated" - while paying lip-service to the notion of equality. This Qualification Driven World is very quick to tell people "You Can't" - they may couch it in more flowery speech and may try and distract you from your goal and tell you that you don't need to do whatever it is you have set your heart on doing or you feel called to do. They may want to keep that person with learning difficulties in sheltered employment - being kept busy with nothing of importance when that person has a vital role to play in society in ways we cannot begin to imagine.

What hurdles face you in your quest to achieve that which you set out to achieve - they are there to be overcome and you can overcome them - it may be that you face barriers in life - things that get in the way. They may be, as I have talked about here, physical or learning disabilities, they may be economic circumstances you find yourself in, they may be any number of challenges, but all of them are able to be overcome. You may be like Heather Mills, or Emanuel Osofu Yeboah or Douglas Bader (all of whom were/are amputees - this was not deliberate - it is something I have just noticed) or have have other challenges - and it means you have do things a bit differently, but no less gracefully or beautifully. I think the biggest barrier we need to overcome is ourselves and our own defeatist mentalities. We need to believe in ourselves.

When I was 11 or 12 I remember, reading a bumper sticker on my headmistress' car - Disability is not Inability. I had certain challenges and BtL to overcome - with the help of dedicated teachers I did, and it is now my dream to see many more young people achieve theirs.

2010-01-24T12:13:00.006Z

Friends,

please watch this video.

Now - as you can imagine - those who know me - this has got me quite worked up. How is that person even a principal if they are getting so carried away as to call the police. Also, if the principal in this situation has lost all sense of proportion why are not the police taking a stand and refusing to pursue this case - they must get thousands of complaints every day that are non-starters and they simply refuse to pursue them. They are a waste of valuable police time that could be better employed pursuing real menaces to society. Also - they are supposed to prevent child abuse - not perpetrate it.

I really implore all readers of my blog - please stand up and make a noise on behalf of Zakh Price.

The man in this video has been diagnosed with Asperger's and yet he is a psychologist.

People with Asperger's Syndrome are not or need not be intellectually disabled. With the right support, like Dr. Dubin, they can be valuable members of our society contributing to the economy and making a valuable input in the areas of their speciality.

One feature of Asperger's Syndrome or Asperger Syndrome (AS) is the tendency to obsess or get intensely interested in one thing - at the total disregard of everything else. This can lead to misunderstanding amongst other people in society and the tendency to brand AS people as excentric, wierd, mad, etc. However, the ability to specialise should be seen as a strength as well.

As a Christian man, I would like to assure Zakh and Carole his grandmother, of my prayers. I pray that this fiasco is resolved quickly and that all the money that will be raised for legal expenses won't be needed but can instead be put towards Zakh's educational needs.

There is a facebook campaign that has been started for Zakh's situation.

Please read and respond.

The only thing that I disagree with the video I posted above is that I don't think Zakh's IQ should have been made public - it is not, in my opinion, a factor in the reaction that lead to these charges and that even if Zakh's IQ were were in the normal to high range his reaction would still be justified.

Please comment on this and Please circulate this to as many people as you possibly can.

2010-01-10T20:24:00.001Z

It's been a long time since I last posted anything to my blog and since we are in a new year – I felt that it is as good an excuse as any to post another and make it a bit more current.

Firstly, to all my readers, Happy New Year! I hope you and yours will have a good one. I came home for Christmas – that is, I visited my family in Africa, and when I said say family, I mean ALL of them, and that is a lot. My neice got married and family and friends flocked from near and far to celebrate the marriage. The venue was simply awesome. I was able to join the festivities because my brother and his wife very kindly bought my air-tickets.

After the wedding we went back to my parents home and celebrated Christmas. Having been away from family for as long as I have, it is such a good feeling to be amongst them again. As I write, I sit on the deck of a beautiful beach home on the South Coast of KwaZulu-Natal. Yesterday we went to see a sight that I had not expected – a place called Oribi Gorge (which is near Port Shepstone). It is a most beautiful place. It is hard to capture in words the breathtaking views that we saw. However, as beautiful as it is, it is also incredibly nerve-wrecking. I am not sure of the depth of the gorge, but it is easily in excess of 100 m. I have been told that it is in fact nearer 300 m. and there is a sheer drop to the bottom. Introduce three little children who have a tendency to wander away from their parents and others who tempt fate by walking right up to the edge and you can get the picture. I am not that courageous – a 'cautious George' – only approached the edge on all fours and I lay flat on my stomach to peer over the edge. I never knew this place existed until yesterday.

Spending time at the coast we have of course been down to the beach. A couple of days before I got to the beach, my brother and his family went down. They were on the beach and were exploring in rock-pools – all of a sudden my brother heard a scream from his youngest (2 ½ years) and the rock-pool in which he was paddling had turned blood red. He had cut is foot on a piece of broken glass in the rock-pool. There was a very long laceration extending from just below his little toe and it required 13 stitches. How sad that someone else's thoughtlessness had to spoil my nephew's and his family's holiday.

Not to finish off on a sour note – my holday draws to a close and I gear up to go home, I will be sad to say goodbye, but I am comforted by the thought that back in England, I have friends who are looking forward to seeing me again.and I know that we will be doing many fun things together.

2009-11-07T23:49:00.003Z

John and Edward Grimes

Probably the most cotrovertial of all the finalists in the UK X-Factor. Simon Cowell took an instant dislike to this duo – twin brothers from Lucan, Dublin. However, there is something about them that get the public voting for them.

While I'm enjoying the X-Factor when I get to see it, and I have my favourites (not telling) I was shocked and dismayed at the revelation concerning the two lads from Ireland that was revealed in an 'exclusive' scoop of a british newspaper – in a headline that practically filled the front page – “Twins seX Factor secret” - what is this dark secret – you may be wondering – well – here it is – they are virgins. How unheard of. How shameful. (I hope you hear my very sarcastic tone as you read this. )

The paper reveals that John had a girlfriend for about 3 days when he was 15 but that's it, and they are 'definitely virgins'. I think it is noteworthy to point out that the journalist had not derived this information directly from twins themselves but from kids (their contemparies) from the neighbourhood where they grew up. This weasel that calls himself a journalist did not have the courage to interview the twins themselves, but instead went snooping around the neighbourhood.

There was another article in the same newspaper, written by a different journalist who interviewed the twins' parents/father. This was a far better article. It was interesting to read that they were bullied and given a hard time at school, because they are different/not conventional.

Now I ask you – what relevance has this got to do with their singing ability. Why do we need to know about the sex-lives (or lack of them) in people who choose to entertain by singing. The newspaper article was practically mocking them for wanting to concentrate on their careers in pop-music and their sport.

Bearing in mind that they are only 18, is it necessary for them to have had girlfriends?

This country is reeling under the burden of teenage girls becoming pregnant and being single mums. God forbid that we should have some teen pop stars who are also virgins and role models.

As for their singing – well they are not my favourites, but I have to admit that I find their performances amusing and enjoyable – they are certainly full of life, and seem to be having a lot of fun. Why does EVERYTHING have to be about sex?

----

Post script: Watched the boys sing this evening on X-Factor - They sang the Ghost Busters Song - I thought they were great.

2009-10-20T20:54:00.004+01:00

Community Service for Preacher who hit boys

I was flabbergasted today when I read this in the newspaper. A Muslim cleric allegedly assaulted the three boys, aged nine, 12 and 13 because they were giggling during his lesson. He hit them quite hard causing two of them to experience temporary hearing loss.

He was given a 250 hour community service sentence, but was not as far as I can tell banned from working with children. It was interesting that the article did not name the magistrate who was presiding in this case.

I feel that this sentence was effectively the magistrate winking at the man as he handed down something that cannot be called a sentence. I cannot help thinking that had this been a Christian pastor or Sunday School teacher, the sentence would have been a lot sterner.

I want to stress that I am not anti-Muslim, and have no problem with Muslims schooling their children in their religion. I also have no problem with them requiring a certain amount of discipline of the children. However, corporal punishment is illegal throughout the European Union and Muslims like every other citizen or resident should respect this law, and if they fail to obey the law they must face the prescribed sanctions. A judge or a magistrate should not be a "respecter of persons" when it comes to sentencing.

As always, I invite comments from my readers.

Make a Joyful Noise or just irritating the neighbours

2009-10-10T19:48:00.001+01:00

In the London Lite of Thursday 8 October I came across an article entitled "Churchgoers are ordered to stop singing loudly" . The article stated that Immanuel International Church in Walthamstow has been ordered by the council to quieten down after complaints had been lodged by a local neighbour.

Was the neighbour just being cranky, or was his complaint religiously motivated since he is a Muslim? Pastor Dunni Odetoyinbo lodged an appeal through the court but this was rejected with costs and it has been restricted to a twenty minute interval on a Sunday during which they can play their music.

The pastor claims that the complaints are religiously based, " so as not to offend the Muslims" but the council denies that there was any religious aspect to this. There was one sentence that grabbed my attention in this article and it was as follows:

The church also claimed the council had "taken away its ability to praise God", and that its congregation had dwindled from 100 to 30 because of the restrictions.

This is completely ludicrous and so over the top. Christians for generations have faced far greater opposition than is the case here, and have managed to keep going and keep worshipping God. Is it truly their view that the only one can praise God is to shout to the heavens? Is God hard of hearing that He has to be shouted at? Did not the Prophet Elijah mock the prophets of Baal for their shouting and screaming, and sarcastically suggest they may need to shout a little louder so as to rouse their God? If we look at that account in the Bible we can clearly compare the conduct of the many prophets of Baal with that of the Prophet Elijah. They made a loud raucous noise, whereas Elijah said a quiet prayer, that I think perhaps only Elijah and the Almighty could hear. And yet the effective prayer of the righteous man achieved the result, for despite the Prophet Elijah's sacrifice being drenched with water, it was the sacrifice that was totally burnt up with "fire from heaven."

While I do agree that it is wonderful to be able to join in loud, joyful praise singing, with a congregation who love the Lord, it is not the ONLY way to express my love for Jesus. It is true that some churches can have an hour or more of this loud music booming out of their buildings. It is not acceptable. In addition to this, the preaching, which is invariably done using amplification (whether there is call for using such amplification or not) can also be heard a great distance from the church. Surely, a Christian leader should take into account the context in which that worship takes place. Any sound technician worth his or her salt should be able set output levels suitable to the venue.

Excessive noise can damage the hearing of those at the event, to say nothing of the negative impact it has on those on which is imposed, who have to endure the noise because of their proximity to the venue.

Lack of consideration for one's neighbours displays a lack of love. Jesus commanded us to love our neighbour and though he didn't mean it to be quite so literal, I'm sure that his advice to this sister in the Lord would be to quieten down.

Many people associate loudness with anger. When one speaks loudly, it is often referred to as shouting. Not only does this place great strain on the speaker's vocal chords, but gives the impression to a listener that he or she angry. It is also an ineffective communication technique, as after a short period of time, the listener stops concentrating and may lose interest. Yes, the occasional shouted word may be effective in grabbing a person's attention, but sustained shouting over a long period of time, is hard to listen to just as if I were to type this whole blog in capitals, which, ironically is referred to as SHOUTING, WOULD MAKE IT HARD TO READ.

While anger when properly motivated is not sinful, the ongoing anger suggested by continual shouting, is indicative of wrath, a definite sin according to scripture. Yes, it may be that the pastor is not angry, but the loud volume of the preaching, if the report is to be believed would certainly beunsettling on the spirit. It is equally true to say that volume does not necessarily correlate with anger – but by and large the more angry one is, the louder one speaks.

I know of the Scriptures that say:

Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye nations

Shout unto God with a voice of Triumph.

But the Word of God also speaks of times of quiet:

Be still and know that I am God.

"Go out and stand before me on the mountain," the Lord told him. And as Elijah stood there, the Lord passed, and a mighty windstorm hit the mountain. It was such a terrible blast that the rocks were torn loose, but the Lord was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake but the Lord was not in the earthquake. After the earthquake there was a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire. And after the fire there was a sound of a gentle whisper. When Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his cloak and stood at the entrance of the cave. (1 Kings 19:11-13)

I am not suggesting for a moment that we need to take a vow of silence, or that it is unscriptural to worship with loud music, but as with everything in life we need to avoid the extreme of only having that way of worshipping the Lord.

I was saddened to read that the the congregation has dwindled from 100 to 30. That is a very radical loss, and if its only due to the noise abatement law, then that speaks volumes about the level of faith of those who were fellowshipping there or to their reasons for attending church. The thought that people feel that they cannot praise God unless they are doing it at the tops of their voices is sad indeed. Please don't blame the council. They are the local authority who have to enforce the law and if the law states for very good reasons that one may not disturb neighbours through excessive noise, it is up to the local authority to investigate, determine that it is excessive, take whatever initial steps

to remedy the matter, but if the nuisance persists, to take whatever legal action may be required. Nowhere in the bible does it state that Christians are not subject to the the laws of the land. We are told that except where such laws would cause us to contravene God's higher law, we ought to submit to the authorities.

We are coming up to the month of November, when, in America, Thanksgiving is celebrated. Thanksgiving has its roots in the Pilgrim fathers and their families emigrating from England to America, so that they could practice their religion as they believed God would have them do. These pious men did not deem it appropriate to engage or argue with the authority, which at that time was the king, but rather fought with their feet and went to a new country. What I am about to type may be perceived by some to be racist. It is not and I trust that you will see what I am trying to say here. The affected church, Immanuel International Church, is probably largely attended by Nigerian and West African people. Loud music, as was described in the article seems to be a feature of worship in such churches. Clearly in the home countries of these people, this style of worship is not uncommon and is regarded as normal. I can therefore well imagine that it came as something of a shock to them when the English authorities asked them to desist with the load music and preaching, and I can well imagine that their initial reaction may have been one of defiance – they can't tell us to be quiet. However, when living in a community that is not your own, you sometimes are limited as to the extent that you can practice your own cultural traditions. If the people of Immanuel International Church feel so strongly about their need to worship loudly for extended periods, perhaps they have to return to their own countries so that they are no longer subject to English laws. Alternatively, they may choose to remain, and realise that though the exuberance of their worship may be curtailed, the genuineness of it and the depth cannot and need not be

reduced.

The sacrifice of the Pilgrim Fathers – also known as the Puritans – was such that they had to give up on the land of their birth, and go to an undeveloped and unchartered land and start from scratch. It's a hard thing to be exiled from your country for whatever reason, and I speak as one who knows that feeling. I'm sure that there were those men who when faced with that choice, flee to practice the Puritan religion or remain and be a "Conformist" decided that they would sooner remain – and re-enter the established church. The persecution that the non-conformists endured because they did not believe as the established church insisted they should believe would have been terrible. Even to this day,

Christians in some countries have to worship in secret. I wonder if they ever sing hymns or songs, if they do, they do so with quietened voices, so as not to draw attention to themselves. John the Baptist said, when speaking about Jesus – He must increase, and I must decrease.

We are not to draw attention to ourselves as Christians, but our actions should draw attention to Jesus. There is freedom of religion in this country, but this does not mean that religious groups and institutions are exempt from every law. As far as I know churches are exempt from paying of taxes, however, some church leaders are using this exemtion to the extreme in order to avoid paying tax themselves. This selfish attitude is short-term gain for long tem pain. If it is found that too many church leaders use this exemption dishonestly, the long term effect will be that they all will have to pay taxes. In a similar way, failure to respect laws in regard to noise abatement, may result in churches being closed down by authorities or being refused permission to congregate in certain areas. The Bible says we must not give the devil a foothold, and I realise that this is referring to

compromise in terms of our personal lives. However, I think that situations like the one described in the article also give the devil a foothold as people will use such things as an excuse to denigrate the church in general, and thereby denigrate Christ.

2009-09-12T14:47:00.005+01:00

A response to the note The falseness of today's "Sinner's Prayer" by Dan Lirette.

As I will be posting this on my blog as well as a note on my Facebook page, and not everyone has access to the original post, I shall first summarise what this note said:

The basic idea is that the concept of a “Sinner's Prayer” is not found in Scripture – nowhere, according to Danny, are people told to pray a prayer. He goes on to say the reason many people are falling away is because of this prayer. He says that instead of trusting the sinner's Saviour, Jesus, they trust the Sinner's prayer. He says that people have mouthed words that they do not understand. Evangelism is not a three-step prayer into the kingdom. Evangelism requires to primary ingredients, according to Luke 24:46-47 that repentance and remission of sin must be preached in Jesus name.
Danny concludes the article by saying that we have 'sold the gospel' for 3 pieces of silver, and produced a new kind of Judas.

Danny, I have summarised your response, and while no summary can ever be totally satisfactory, if you feel that I have somehow misrepresented what you were saying, please feel free to clarify below. Perhaps I missed out something you thought was important, then by all means draw our attention to that. Please also, note, ALL READERS, that Danny and I are not enemies, or even opponents. We are brother's in Christ, serving the kingdom, to the best of our abilities, and trying to remain faithful to what we believe Scripture is teaching, and, at times, having to change our minds about things we have firmly believed in the past, but we have come to realise, in light of Scripture, are not the case. I am not disagreeing for disagreement sake. There are elements of what he has to say that resonate with me and I will highlight those, but I do have a few questions that every believer, and potential believer, needs to think about, when it comes to this very import. I hope and pray that, through reading this, you the reader will have been able to more clearly understand the issue at hand and not that we (I) have simply muddied the waters.

SALVATION – That's what it is all about. This has to be the most Vital issue of all vital issues in the Bible - “How can a person be saved?” We will need, in the process of discussing this question, we will need to look at some Greek words, that are used in Scripture, and to truly understand what they mean. At this stage there are three words that I want us to look at:

Salvation – Soteria – soterion – these terms are used 45 times in Scripture. It is derived fron the word Soter which means Saviour – and that is significant – I believe.
Repentance – metanoia – to change one's mind.
Gospel - euangelion – from where we get the English word Evangelist. Means good news – eu – good; angelion – message.

And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. (Romans 13:11)

Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. (Eph 6:17)

Therefore, my dear friends, as you have always obeyed--not only in my presence, but now much more in my absence--continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, (Phil 2:12)

But since we belong to the day, let us be self-controlled, putting on faith and love as a breastplate, and the hope of salvation as a helmet. (1 Thes 5:8)

Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory. (2 Tim 2:10)

Oh I wish I had the space to treat this matter more fully, but these verses – give us different aspects that we need to think about when we talk about salvation. Salvation is nearer than we believed – is this not talking about the Day when Jesus comes back? It would seem so. In that sense is Salvation only available then, and not now. Everything I have ever be taught, and what I believe Scripture teaches is that we cannot, we dare not wait until that day, but that we need to be ready. Jesus parables about the five wise and five foolish virgins illustrates this point most clearly. But we are reminded that Salvation does have a future element. There will be the day when, excuse the clichés, all bets are off, the hour has come. All the cards will then be on the table – we will know who has won, and who has lost. The world is NOT ad infinitum – to infinity. Everyone, and I believe Danny would strongly agree, has to think about where they will spend eternity. It is not a question on which you can sit on the fence. One's indecision will not postpone the certain moment – you have to come to a decision.

We are instructed to put on the HELMET OF SALVATION. It is part of the armour Paul wrote to us about in Ephesians 6. Two interesting things – it is not the first thing we are told to put on, in fact it is second last., and it is a helmet which protects out heads. Salvation is NOT righteousness – Paul tells us to put on the breatplate of righteousness – a separate part of the armour. How do we interpret this. Is Salvation is part of the armour of God, one would assume we would need 'daily' or more frequently, to consciously put on Salvation. What does this mean in practice? Do we keep on being born again? If we miss a day (we are human, and we all miss it from time to time) does this mean that if we were to die that day – we would be turned away at the pearly gate. Sorry – you are not properly attired – get out of here. This could lead me down a whole other avenue, but the point, I think of this verse is not that salvation is inextricably linked to righteousness, but that we need both! I think there are other scriptures that support the idea that if you are going to follow Christ, you need to live righteously. Also, we should constantly put on that helmet – we should (I think we ALL fall short here) treat each day, as if it were our first as a Christian – keen but very hungry for more understanding. Excited and yet – still a lot of room for improvement. The Philippians 2:12 speaks about working out our salvation with fear and trembling. That is interesting – do we have to work it out for ourselves – didn't Jesus do it all? Where do we come into that? How do you work it out? These are questions – the answers to which are not easy!

I think I would agree with Dan to the extent that the “Sinner's Prayer” is an effort of rendering the thing down to 'simplest terms.' I am a primary school teacher and I teach fractions. Part of that teaching is to show children how to express a fraction in its simplest terms. A half, instead of five tenths, etc. However, in rendering down this complicated matter, to a simple, prayer have we either added to or taken away from what was originally there. I started this blog with a summary of what Danny wrote. I pointed out however that, as it was a summary, it is impossible to include everything and I had to make a decision as to what was the most important aspect and what could be left out while still containing the main thrust of the discussion. I think that the Sinner's prayer is an effort to distil to 'the essential elements' the basic truths of Salvation, so that the seeker can respond appropriatey. My point is, in rendering down, have we still got the basic essential. There is good precedent for this – if we look at the story in Acts 2 where the Holy Spirit was poured out on the Church and Peter preached his first sermon in he streets of Jerusalem and many were 'cut to the heart' and asked “How then may we be saved?” - Peter did not launch into a long dissertation but said: “Repent and be baptised, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38) Dan stressed this point in his own article that what is required for salvation is Repentance. But what is repentance?

Looking at the Greek word – metanoia – it means to change your mind. You think one way about something – you change your mind – you think differently about it. You think “I'm okay , I actually quite a good person.” and then you change your mind, and say to yourself. I am a sinner – I deserve the punishment for sin, and I need salvation. You might have been a smoker, and you come to a point in your life, that you decide, I'm not going to smoke anymore – it is bad for me, and it's not socially acceptable to those around me. Now – the thing is how does one know that that decision has taken place in the mind of another person. That person may have woken up in the morning, and had their 'early morning' cigarette. Then, for some reason, he/she decides to stop smoking. Maybe they tell their family – is that “true repentance” (from smoking.) What happens if, this person, all well intentioned decides to give up smoking, is suddenly faced with very stressful circumstances, and the first thing they do is light up a cigarette and take a drag. Has the person become an ex-ex-smoker? For some people, due length of time they have been smoking, giving up is a harder battle, and they need help and encouragement. Maybe they join a group. Maybe they use patches, or use some other devices.

I use the smoking as an analogy. How do we pinpoint that moment when the change of mind takes place. Also, the decision to 'stop sinning' is well intentioned – even genuine, but, this is with few exceptions, if any, we all struggle to live up to that resolution. So when we give up smoking when is it that we can regard ourselves as an ex-smoker? When we repent and decide to follow Jesus, when is it that we can say that that conversion took place. When we decided to do it, or is it when show fruit of repentance? I don't believe there is an easy answer to this question – I don't believe one can make a universal and definitive statement regarding this. I am not saying that repentance is not needed, I am just saying that one person can't say what that repentance should 'look like' in another individual.

I visited the London Museum a few weeks back and as I came out I came across a 'statue' of a page of a diary – it was a page of John Wesley's diary and it was recount of his heart being 'strangely warmed' – his conversion experience – apparently that spot where I was standing was the place (close enough) to where this actually took place. Does this mean that everyone has a strange warming in their heart? Of course not. It is interesting to note that John Wesley was already a preacher of the word when that took place. Just because a person is a preacher, does not necessarily mean they are a Christian.

Repentence has been likened to turning around and facing in the opposite direction. So coming my question, at what point, does one regard oneself having repented = when you decide to turn around when you have turned that 1 degree – or do you have to go at least 90 degrees, or should it be the full 180 degrees. I fear that if it is the last, very few of us can count ourselves as true Christian.

Evangelists are those who spread the good news of salvation. We are urged in scripture to do the work of evangelists (though there are those who have specific calling to this ministry). If we are work to do the work of evangelists – we need to tell people what it means to be saved or hw you can be saved. You need to know how to tell somebody how to be saved. Think about – you say Repent – they say how? The 'sinner's prayer formulation is one attampt, and I believe it is a valid one, to help people come into a relationship with Jesus Christ – it is a way of pointing to a moment in our lives when we move out of darkness into light. I would however, suggest that people don't put words in people's mouths – as in pray these words, as if only one formulation will do it. Rather, having talked with somebody about the need to be converted, and they want to do so, say to the person that it would be 'a good idea' if they prayed and then let them express their prayer in their own words. I don't even think it is necessary to pressure the person to do that there and then. Maybe they want to go home and think about it. Maybe that person really needs to talk to God about the death of a loved one to Cancer, or some other stumbling block, that a formulised prayer would completely miss. I think the key here is that every evangelist and person who would lead another to Christ, is to not actually do it in their own strength, but TRULY be lead by the Spirit – seeking His guidance as we speak to and LISTEN to the person who is at that very important place in their lives. We must not develop a 'box ticking mentality'. Every individual is different and they should be dealt with differently. No one knows that person, like the Holy Spirit, and so we should rely on Him for guidance as to what to say, or if t speak at all. One last point, most people are not converted by the words of a preacher speaking to a crowd, but most people are brought around by personal interaction with another believer – one on one. Yes, the mass conversion take place and are wonderful when they happen, but the Bible says there is MORE REJOICING in heaven over the one sinner that repents, than the 99 who do not need to repent. God get excited about each and every conversion. At the end of time, when we all stand before the Throne of God, worshipping Him, it will not matter whether we converted at a 'evangelical rally', or alone in our rooms at home. God is God, He draws His children to himself, and we as Christians should not be judging people according to their conversion experience.

I leave you with some questions: (Please leave comments with your answers – provided you keep it clean and respectful, I will approve the comment – even if I don't agree with it.)

Is Salvation a reversible process – in other words, if you have been truly converted, is it possible for you to be unconverted? This is not calling for a simple yes or no answer. If it is yes, in what way – what particular factors will result in your falling away? If no, what happens with backsliders?

Similarly, can a person have assurance of their savation, or is that in itself presumption?

If a person has a particular weakness, say they are alcoholic, and they come to Christ, but some reason start drinking again, have they had an unfortunate lapse, or have they, by retuning to the bottle, in effect turned their back on Christ? Realising that alcoholism and most addictions have a physiological component, do we regard a lapse as medical problem, or a spiritual problem or both?

2009-08-05T15:59:00.005+01:00

Police no longer required to be able to swim?

Can you believe this headline? Neither could I but it's for real. I read in the papers about it. Here is an article by TimesOnline

I would be willing to bet that most of you would take it for granted that a member of the police force would be able to swim and would have the necessary life-saving skills to rescue a person from water, just to mention this scenario. The fact that swimming is not a basic requirement to enter a police force or police service is amazing enough, but the fact that they no longer train officers in life saving techniques or require them to learn to swim within a sensible time frame is plain infuriating.

Long time ago, as a little boy, I discovered that firemen (I grew up in a place and time when fire fighters were always men) did not ONLY put out fires, but performed other essential rescue tasks such as helping children who had climbed a tree but were "stuck" or using special cutting apparatus to free people from car wrecks. Well, it is understandable to think that fire fighters only fight fires, but I have always believed that police were there not only to make arrests and chase robbers, but to do many things to make society safe and peaceful.

I'm wondering, do police in your country have to be able to swim? Are you, or have you ever served as a police officer? If yes, were you required to be able to swim when you joined up, and if a trainee was unable to swim, were they required to learn? Beyond learning to swim, were you required to be able to perform certain minimums in regard to water?

I have no idea what the standards are for being able to save lives but I would suggest as a basic minimum, a police official should be required to be able to:
1. Swim upstream in a local river for up to 50 m. and to where the current is strongest, or out to sea for a similar distance
2. Be able to tread water while keeping another person a loft, for 10 minutes so that rescue services can have time to reach and rescue the person.
3. Be able to assess within a very short time (say 10 seconds), a situation, and
how to respond appropriately.

It has been suggested, and I have no idea how factual this assertion is, that the reason the standard of being able to swim has been dropped is that members of certain minority groups (in the UK) are by and large poor swimmers and would not meet the swimming ability targets. Now, while I entirely agree that the police force/service should reflect the diversity of the community it serves and not discriminate on the basis of race or religion, they should not also be required to remove entry requirements that are part and parcel of an officer being able to carry out his or her responsibility for the community.

QUESTION: Can people with physical impairments become policemen or policewomen? According to the Metropolitan Police website

The Disability Discrimination Act applies to all appointments in the Metropolitan Police Service and we welcome applications from individuals with disabilities. Adjustments will be made to selection processes and / or the working environment provided it is reasonable in all circumstances to do so.

So presumably a person who has some degree of physical impairment, but is intellectually equal to the task, could be recruited in a special capacity. For instance, I am hard of hearing in the one ear - I wear a hearing aid - would this preclude me from being an officer on the beat (I have no desire to actually join the police - this is merely hypothetical )

While I will concede that a few exceptions to this swimming requirement can be made, by and large, a person seeking employment with a police force should have certain competencies and should be physically fit and heathy. While I agree that they should NOT put height requirements as a person physical height has nothing to do with their competency as an individual, however, perhaps setting certain BMI (Body Mass Index

) parameters would be advisable, as someone overweight or underweight may not be able to cope with the rigours of the job. The force's insistence that these minimum standards be maintained is not and never should be regarded as dicriminatory. They are for the good of the individual themselves and the safety of the other officers or members of the public.

If you want to get a job, you work hard to achieve the academic and other requirements of that job. If you want to be a police officer but you cannot swim, you should go and find a person who teaches people to swim and ask them to teach you. The working world is not a kindergarten where you lower the standard so that "everyone can win" but it is a competitive market where you work to improve your standard so that you are more productive, more effective, and harder working so that you remain employed. Society should stop pandering to the lazy and ungrateful individual who does the minimum of work but wants the biggest salary. In nature, it is, according to even the casual observer survival of the fittest however it seems that today's society, with its political correctness and its selfishness has the maxim of survival of the weakest.

.
COMMENTS

2009-07-19T21:01:00.003+01:00

ON PRAYER

My mum tells me that when I was little I was very much like 'Christopher Robin" in the way I prayed.

She overheard me one night, asking God to 'come back' because I had forgotten to mention

something during my prayers.

Read the poem I have included below and listen to the clip from Youtube.

I was listening earlier to BBC Radio Essex and the played a version of this.

It made me quite nostalgic. However this is is not entitled "on Prayer" for nothing.

I will make some comments and observations, a bit further down this blog.

VESPERS

Little Boy kneels at the foot of the bed,
Droops on the little hands little gold head.
Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!
Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

God bless Mummy. I know that's right.

Wasn't it fun in the bath to-night?

The cold's so cold and the hot's so hot.

Oh! God bless Daddy--I quite forgot.

If I open my fingers a little bit more,

I can see Nanny's dressing -gown on the door.

It's a beautiful blue, but it hasn't a hood.

Oh! God bless Nanny and make her good.

Mine has a hood, and I lie in bed,

And pull the hood right over my head,

And I shut my eyes, and curl up small,

And nobody knows that I'm there at all.

Oh! Thank-you, God for a lovely day.

And what was the other I had to say?

I said "Bless Daddy," so what can it be?

Oh! Now I remember it. God bless Me.

Little Boy kneels, at the foot of the bed,
Droops on the littel hands little gold head.
Hush! Hush! Whisper who dares!

Christopher Robin is saying his prayers.

What is prayer? Can we learn ANYTHING from this little poem? I believe there is something that we can learn. Children pray with such sincerity and belief. We as adults can learn to view as children do. Yes - his mind does wonder a bit - and I think that was the point of A.A. Milne's poem, but at the same time, we have a loving God, who knows that we have wondering minds as well. I believe he forgives that human weakness, and his happy that we want to spend time talking to Him.

We can talk to God about ANYTHING, and we can talk to him at ANY TIME. We don't need to wait for the end of the day, and certainly shouldn't wait until Sunday when we're 'in Church'. Little Children stayu close to their parents - they don't (or shouldn't wonder off without their parent's knowledge. - If We stay close to Jesus, that we can at any moment, turn to him and ask him for help or just praise him for being such a wonderful friend, then prayer will never be far from our lips.

I was blessed to be able to watch The Diary of Anne Frank, by Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett on Friday Night. It was an excellent production put on by the Woodhouse Players. In one particularly scary moment, (There was a burglar in the building below their hiding place), Mrs Frank prayed by using, if my memory serves me right Psalm 46, and Psalm 121.

God is our refuge and strength, an ever-present help in trouble.
Therefore we will not fear, though the earth give way
and the mountains fall into the heart of the sea,

I lift up my eyes to the hills— where does my help come from?
My help comes from the LORD, the Maker of heaven and earth.

One touching part of the play, was where they were celebrating Channukkah, and Anne went out of her way to find a gift of some sort for each of the people in their hiding place - even for the rather difficult Mr. Dussel, the elderly dentist whom the Frank family had taken in. Can you imagine being cooped up in a small loft for three years in fear fr your lives. Not allowed to make a sound or move during the day because you might be discovered by the workers in the building below.

I am not 100% sure about Ps 46 being in the play, but I know Psalm 121 was read but what word appears in both places? HELP - Our Help comes from the Lord. He is a very present help - He is there the moment we need him. He is watching over us - in fact in Psalm 121 - in verses 3 & 4 it says:

He will not let your foot slip—

he who watches over you will not slumber;

4indeed, he who watches over Israel

will neither slumber nor sleep.

We can be assured, just as little children can have confidence that their mum or dad is not far away, that our Father, is watching over us and loves us and makes sure we are safe. We can talk to him at any time. A little child, who wakes up in the night, knows that no matter the hour, they can go to their Mum or dad and they will wake up and attend the child. In the play, because of the awful situation the family found itself in, Anne experienced some terrifying nightmares - her mother and father ran to comfort her and calm her down and reassure her.

Well, just as it says in Psalm, the moon will not harm us by night. Actually, as we are comemorating the 40th anniversary of the 'moon landing' this is quite apt. We now know that the moon could not harm us at all, but sometimes we get very worked up over imaginary dangers and enemies. Little children often fear the 'bogey man' or 'monsters' or 'ghosts'. Adults may laugh at that - and sometimes exascerbate the problem by playing on those fears. (This is something I would not encourage.) However adults have their own imaginary fears - we work up in our minds whole disastrous scenarios, and yet we forget to trust our heavenly father.

Recently an Englishman went missing in the Australian outback, and was not found for about two weeks - people thought he was dead, but he was found alive. We haven't heard the full story yet, but I understand he fed himself from what he could forage. At one point he saw the search helicopter fly over and he waved madly, but they did not see him, and he almost gave up hope of ever being found. However he was found. I wonder if he prayed at all during that time?

You may be in a good place, having everything you need - being very content - no reason to ignore the Lord. Praise and rejoice and thank God for keeping you in that good place.

Put simply, the Word of God, says Pray without ceasing. That means don't give up. Give thanks in all things. And remember to be like a little child in your prayers and your relationship with God.

2009-06-21T23:15:00.002+01:00

Fathers' Day: To the Unknown Dad

It's Father's Day today and I thought I would let you know

that although you do not know me, my name is Joe.

Our teacher asked us to make a Father's Day card

But some of us found that really, really hard.

Gary said that his dad is very very ill. He won't be able to be with him 'cause he's in a ward.

Nancy was looking very sad, she said she really missed her dad, but he's gone to Baghdad.

Will said his Dad had left him and that there was no point in writing cards and saying 'I love you.'

when he knows it isn't true.

Sally's mum and dad are getting a divorce and she will be living with her mum, of course.

Andy went all quiet as he looked at his page and drew –

I couldn't make out what he was drawing but it all was done in blue.

Ann told the teacher that her dad had gone away, but where he's gone she told us, her mummy would not say.

Well, I'm Joe, and I don't know, who this daddy is...You see, he was gone before I was born.

He couldn't stick around. I've tried to understand it, but I'm feeling very torn.

It's hard at school when children say, that their daddy did this or that. I want to say Don't boast,

but why should they not talk about that which means to them, the most.

Who are you, my daddy, what are you doing now?

Do you ever wonder about your little child?

What kind of person are you, what do you do for fun?

Have you got any other children, or am I the only one?

Daddy I want you to know that I have uncles (and aunties) who're kind.

Who take me out and play with me and listen to my stories. Hope you do not mind.

I'd like to mail this card to you, but don't know where to send it –

maybe I'll just post it on the Internet!

John Blog (Father's Day 2009)

These words came to me this morning when I was listening this morning to the radio, and heard them talking about Father's Day. I must apologise for the heaviness of this poem. It is not bright and breezy - and it doesn't have a happy ending. I want you to know that I am NOT anti-fatherhood, and I myself am VERY GRATEFUL FOR MY OWN FATHER. I would also like to acknowledge that just because a couple divorce, it does not necessarily mean that the children lose touch with their dads and now with the advent of joint custody, divorced fathers are not necessarily absent fathers. Also - it must be NOTED that not all absent dads are absent by choice.

I sent a version of this poem out to some people and one friend wrote back to me saying that it made him cry as he remembered that his dad had left him when he was about 8 years old. (I did not know that.) Anyway he made the point that our Father God had fathered him through the years, and it is true that as Christians we refer to God, Our Father - and Jesus taught us to pray to "Our Father."

You will notice that this poem does not have a determinable pattern. This is partly because of the way the poem evolved, but also because it reflects something of Joe's life - disrupted and disorganised.

As usual, I invite comments - and will gladly add anything that is not spam or insulting.

2009-05-31T12:12:00.007+01:00

A Parable of "XII Angry Men"

Many years ago, I was visiting South Africa for the first time, and for the first time met an uncle. As a young lad (about 13 or 14 at the time), Uncle Ian made an impression on me. He was a born again Christian, as I was, and this was notable because I didn't know many born-again adult male Christians in my family. Uncle Ian said to me words to this effect: “God speaks to us in many different ways.” Not an earth-shattering announcement, I know, but actually it is greater than we realise.

Growing up into Christ, I became part of a conservative Christian tradition called Protestantism. The watchword in Protestantism is “Sola Scriptura” - Only the Scriptures. Now let me state before I go any further that I do believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God and nothing else trumps it or supersedes it in this regard. However, having acknowledged this fact, the Bible is not the ONLY WAY God communicates with us. If God is God – in other words, if He truly exists, then He is free and able to communicate with us through many different means. Not only that, but God has to speak to us through different means, because of our uniqueness – God uses different 'media' to get through to us.

I think God has shown me something through the play I went to watch. It is called “XII angry men” and it was written by Sergal Sherman. For those not familiar with this play, as I was not, I shall include here the synopsis provided in the programme.

The defence and the prosecution have rested and the jury is filing into the the jury room to decide if a young Spanish-American is guilty or innocent of murdering his father. What begins as an open and shut case of murder soon becomes a mini-drama of each of the jurors' prejudices and preconceptions about the trial, the accused and each other.
“12 angry men focuses” on the jury's deliberations in a capital murder case. A 12-person jury is sent to begin deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of an 18-year-old Latino accused in the stabbing death of his father, where a guilty verdict means an automatic death sentence. The case appears to be open and shut: the defendant has a weak alibi; a knife he claimed to have lost is found at the murder scene; and several witnesses either heard screaming, saw the killing or the boy fleeing the scene. Eleven of the jurors immediately vote guilty; only Juror No. 8 casts a not guilty vote. At first Juror No. 8 bases her vote (the play I saw featured both men and women, and Juror was a lady) more so for the sake of discussion, after all the jurors must believe beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. As the deliberations unfold, the story quickly becomes a study of the jurors' complex personalities (which range from wise, bright and empathetic to arrogant, prejudiced and merciless), preconceptions, backgrounds and interactions. That provides the backdrop to Juror 8's attempts in convincing the other jurors that a not guilty verdict might be appropriate.

So, as the synopsis says, it seemed like an open and shut case until they began to look at the evidence that was presented, I mean, really look at it. Eleven of the twelve had made made up their minds before their bums left their seats in the courtroom that the accused was 'guilty as charged'. To eleven of the jurors, this business of going into the jury room was a mere formality. It was plain as the noses on their faces that the boy was guilty, but Juror No. 8. wasn't about to just let it go like that. One of the jurors said to Juror No. 8, “What we need to do is convince you that we are right and you're wrong.” Gradually, as the deliberations went on, Jurors who were once convinced that the boy was definitely guilty begin to see that it is not so open and shut as they had originally thought, and start to change their vote. Then it is ten guilty – 2 not guilt, 8 – 4, 6 – 6.

Some of the jurors want to give up at this point and simply declare a hung jury – let there be another trial – make it someone else's problem. Some jurors think they've been in that room too long already. Of course, to begin with, all the abuse is hurled at Juror No. 8. There's the name calling, the accusations of a political agenda, then there is the accusation that she was behaving like a kid. It's hard thing to stand your ground, when everyone else seems to be singing from the same (but different to yours) hymn sheet. (Sorry about the mixed metaphor!!!!). Then the vote goes to 10 not guilty – 2 obstinate guilty votes. During the deliberations – it becomes clear that for some of the Jurors, the accused was not the only person in the dock. For one juror, the whole Latino community seemed to be on trial, for another, it was a son who defied his father and while he did not physically kill the father, his behaviour was such that it emotionally did.

Well, that was the story, it is fiction, a good yarn, but is it a parable? Am I not going a bit OTT here? Let me try and do a Juror No. 8 on you. When many of us come to the Bible, we have made up our minds about what it says before we even open the book or find the verses. We, especially coming from a Christian background, have heard it all before. It is, in that sense, 'an open and shut case' – open the Bible read the words, and shut the Bible. There are some who can quote lengthy portions verbatim and remember amazing details, that pass under the radar as far as rest of us are concerned. However, what came to me, as a result of seeing this play, was the understanding that when people read and understand things from the Bible, or whatever sacred text one may use, you usually read into it that which you expect to get out. It is a bit like when you proofread something that you've written, you tend to overlook some errors because you are reading what you think you wrote.

At the beginning of the play, eleven jurors were convinced and no doubt sincerely believed that it was proven, that the accused was guilty. As the story unfurled, they become less and less convinced. We may be sincerely reading the Bible but what we need to understand, is that we will read it with our own theological background guiding our reading. This is why an Anglican and a Baptist can read the same texts regarding baptism in the Bible and yet arrive at very different opinions. This is why a Presbyterian and a Pentecostal will read the same texts about the gifts of the Holy Spirit and come to diametrically opposed conclusions in regard to the matter of speaking in tongues. In both cases, the people who take up the particular stance are amazed that the other group can come up with such a 'wrong' answer. We may even go so far as to say that they are heretics, not-Christian, there to sow discord. We may, if we have that kind of authority – put the person under 'Church discipline' – or even excommunicate them.

I think it is important to ask the question, as if I were a Juror Number 8: When you read the Bible, do you take it all literally, or figuratively? Is the creation account, for instance, in Genesis 1-2, a literal account of how it happened or an analogy to explain a spiritual reality? I know most of you have answered this question in your head. What I don't know is how you answered it. I will leave my answer out for the time being. The point is, that on both sides of the discussion, you will be completely confident that you are right about this – even if you cannot explain why – you just know. For some of you – 'reason' is worldly and should be cast out if it is in 'contradiction' to what the Bible says. To others – this is such a fanciful story – the world coming into existence complete with all vegetation, and animal species and humanity in the space of six days that the WHOLE BOOK is a waste of time.

Forgive me for pointing out the obvious here but the Bible consists of 66 books – of varying length and from various earthly authors. And there are very many verses to read. Also, what we have in our hands today as “The Holy Bible” is not the original text – written by the hand of the author – there is not a single example of any of those original texts in any collection or museum anywhere. What we have are versions of the Bible. Versions in our own languages – thanks to wonderful people like Martin Luther and William Tyndale, but even within the English language Translation there are very many versions of the Bible. While rendering in most cases is pretty similar with inconsequential differences – sometimes the difference is very significant. Surely they were using the same texts to translate from the original language? Well, apparently not always.

Originally, before there were printing presses, manuscripts were copied by hand by dedicated people who wanted to reproduce the document, the Word of God, so more and more Christians who were spread all over the then known world, and so the original was 'copied' a few times – but because different people did the copying, small differences would appear in the copies that were not in the original, and were not in the any of the others, well copies were made of the original, and then copies of the copies and so on. Even the compilation of the Bible has disputed as to what books and documents are part of it, and what are not. Catholics recognise what is called the 'Apocrypha' while protestants don't – rather like in a case where one juror will accept a witnesses testimony as accurate while another will doubt it.

Some of the original manuscripts omit whole sections that other manuscripts include. For example Mark 16:9-20, and John 7:73 – 8:11. If you look those texts up, you will find that it says that 'some early manuscripts' do not contain these verses. As you can imagine a great deal of discussion and debate – heated debate – has arisen as to whether or not these texts are originally from the author, or some forgery – later inserted. Again, depending on your theological background, you will either decide that of course it should be there – why would exist if it didn't, or, obvious it should not be there – can't you see that it obviously doesn't 'fit with the rest of the Bible? Again, I'm just doing a Juror No. 8 and drawing your attention to some things that might have escaped your notice.

So, I'm sure by now some of you are wondering, - am I doubting the veracity of the Word of God? No. A categorical no – but I am doubting my own ability to really understand it – and things that were plainly obvious before – are not as obvious any more. I am realising that previously I looked at certain parts of the Bible – in regard to certain matters and I allowed myself to think that that was ALL the Bible had to stay in that regard, but now, I am starting to realise that the WHOLE Bible might be saying something different to what I originally thought.

Does this mean that the Bible contradicts itself? No – but sometimes we read into what is said, a lot that is not being said, and then, we may find ourselves in a quandary.

Jesus shook people's cages on regular occasions:

He did not hesitate to rebuke the religious elite and their pomposity and hypocrisy.
He would fellowship with “drunkards and sinners”
He would heal a man on the Sabbath.
He spoke to the Samaritan women, and did not show the same disdain for Samaritans as did the Jewish men of his time.
He healed lepers by laying hands on them. Lepers were regarded as unclean and had to live 'outside the camp'.
He washed the disciples' feet. Peter said: no, you won't wash my feet. Jesus said, if I don't wash your feet, then you have no part of me.” Peter's ingrained ideas about Master-Servant Rabbi-Disciple relationships gets thoroughly challenged.

Peter firmly believed that it was anathema for him to step into the home of a Gentile, but God sent him a vision, and very 'controversial' vision at that, where God commanded him to eat all sorts of non-Kosher food. Oh no! Peter Protested: Lord forbid that I should do such a thing. God answered him, “Don't call anything impure that God has made clean” And so Peter responded by following God's commands and actually going to the house of Cornelius, the Roman Soldier and he and his household were saved.

Paul was livid with the Christians – he really had it in for them. He was ready to kill the lot of them, but Jesus met him on the road to Damascus – his ingrained ideas set aside in one fell swoop.

Martin Luther – he was a monk – a learned man – on his way up through the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, and then he gets it - “ The just shall live by faith” - He suddenly understands that indulgences and and a whole lot of Catholic traditions of that time were of no effect – that it was one's faith in Jesus Christ that saved you, nothing else – no bells or whistles – no incense or masses – only faith in Christ would save you. And he took his stand – at the Diet at Worms where he famously said “Here I stand, I can do no other.” And boy did they call him names.

Slavery was defended as being completely acceptable by ministers preaching from their pulpits, but gradually, more and more people began to understand that actually, Slavery is wrong. It took a few people to start to look at things differently move beyond the proof texts that they usually quoted by heart, and see that perhaps God was not saying what they had thought He was saying all along. If you haven't seen it, get out the DVD “Amazing Grace”.

Under the Third Reich – in Germany, most of the preachers supported the political moves of Adolph Hitler, but Dietrich Bonhoeffer took a stand and saw the wrong of what Hitler was doing. He said that the church must not simply "bandage the victims under the wheel, but jam the spoke in the wheel itself." (The idea of opposing a government was considered revolutionary at the time, and still is in many cases. When governments perceive that the Church, or individual people in line with their religious beliefs oppose what the government is doing, they can be very hostile and very nasty.) Read Dietrich's story on the Internet. It's very interesting. You can read of his shift from “phraseology to reality”. And other such things. For his pains, he was executed by the Germans just weeks before their defeat in the Second World War.

Apartheid was, according to the Dutch Reformed Church of South Africa, firmly based on biblical teaching. Every Afrikaner knew that they were superior to the black man. It was obvious to them that God wanted people not to integrate, but to develop separately, and so it would seem that the whole Constitution was built around this one premise in this “Christian Nation”. But there were Jurors No. 8 by the dozen, whose voices gradually got heard, saying, “Is that really so – is that what God is saying?”

So, here is the conclusion of the matter, just like in XII Angry Men – it took one person to say something different – to stand against the tide of traditional thinking – resist the pressure, and to ask the questions that no-one else was asking. When we come to the Word of God, we can often read into it what we want to read, and overlook the less palatable truths, regarding them as “irrelevant.” We may treat it as an “open and shut case” - not bothering to explore its meaning because the 'truth is plain to see' or we can linger a bit and ask the difficult questions, and see what comes out of it. You may take longer and ask all the questions and still come up with the same answers, but at least you have opened your mind to the possibility that there are other answers. In fact, if you have come back to the same answers, after asking those awkward questions, you should find that you are firmer in your faith than you were before.

2009-05-21T23:04:00.002+01:00

Humility 3

In the previous blog, we looked at the 'parable' of the sheep and the goats. Jesus said, among other things, "I was in prison and you visited me". We tend to forget this aspect of the story. You see it is easier to identify with those who were sick, or who were poor, or were homeless but when it comes to people in prison we tend to become uncomfortable. I think that for many Christian men and woman, the thought of people in prison being regarded in any positive light is practically an anathema.

Didn't they deserve to be in prison, hadn't they committed some crime that meant that they should be there and not in society at large?
Aren't they despicable creatures who deserve our contempt?

I would simply ask would Jesus have that attitude.

Firstly, NOT everyone who is in prison is truly guilty of what they have been accused of. Even in our modern, scientifically advanced world, miscarriages of justice happen all the time. Occasionally, but very seldom, do the rich members of society, actually fall prey to the system, and serve time behind bars. They use their ill-gotten gain – to employ the services of slick lawyers – who manage to get their clients off scot free. On the other side of the coin, a poor person, who may be genuinely innocent, can find themselves in a mess, and the defence lawyer assigned to them, to plead their case may or may not believe them, but who will make a half-hearted attempt but not be too bothered if they lose the case and the person is sent down. (I realise that I am generalising and that there are probably many very dedicated defence counsels who work tirelessly to see justice done for their client even if that client cannot afford to pay the legal fees. ) However the big picture is that people are not all equal before the law – except in the constitutions – and that justice is dispensed differently depending on one's status in life.

Secondly, many are kept in prison, who have not had their day in court, or their opportunity to 'face justice'. According to the Human Rights Charter, ap erson is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately for many who are imprisoned, the presumption of innocence is easily forgotten by those who read the newspapers.

SO, who are we to judge those people in prison? Jesus is calling us to show compassion. Can we look the other way, when reports come out of over-crowded prison cells, people living in inhumane conditions.

Some would say, Prison is supposed to be hard – its supposed to send a message that “If you do the crime – you must do the time.” and all other such harsh statements. We forget that amongst those who are thrown into prison are those who are prisoners of conscience – that is, they are there because of their faith.

In many communist countries, people are jailed because of their faith. That may not be the case, at the moment in the UK, or the USA, but the time is coming when to mention the name of Jesus will be a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment or death. Already we see signs of this in that people can lose their jobs because they offer to pray for a patient whom they are treating, or they wearing a cross on a chain around their neck. I was listening to the radio one night and the presenter was going off the deep-end because somebody dared to preach the Gospel on the tube, in his hearing. He was so offended.

It is easy to stand in judgement over people without slightest understanding of what brought them to that place. I am not advocating that we stop putting people in prison, and that because justice is unequal it should not be exercised. On the contrary, a vast number of cases that are brought to court are dealt with justly and the perpetrators of crime dealt with appropriately. But just because someone is in prison, does not mean that we ought to despise them or view ourselves as superior. Jesus, the one who committed no crime, was unjustly accused, and found guilty in an illegal court. When he was taken to the 'legitimate' court of Pontius Pilate – Pilate admitted that he found no fault in Jesus, and yet he buckled under public pressure and granted the wish of the 'people' to have Him crucified. There was no justice in the case of Jesus trial and sentencing – but there was justice because Jesus took our place on that cross that day.

On that same night that Jesus washed the disciples feet he said to them: “A new commandment I give – that you LOVE one another as I have loved you. People will know that you are my disciples because of your love for one another.”

I look on Facebook and I see lots of big “I am a CHRISTIAN kind of banners and groups, etc. People have bumper stickers for their cars, and the one of course is the famous fish. But Jesus said, “They shall know you are my disciples by your love." I am not saying that we have to go to the other extreme and be all secretive about it. I am not even condemning the group, the banners, or the stickers, I'm just saying that if it is all about an external show – then perhaps we have missed the point of this command. How does that kind of love show itself in our communities? Jesus said to the sheep you saw me as a stranger, and you welcomed me in.

I was talking to a man the other day, and he told me of a church that dealt very uncharitably with a friend of his – he said she had special needs and that someone in the Church told her not to come back because she 'stank to high heaven.' The attitude of that person stank to high heavens, and no doubt caused a stench in the nose of our Lord. The poor person came out of the church devastated.

I don't become a police officer by merely putting on the uniform – I have to actually do the work of a police officer. Not all police wear uniforms – and definitely police do not wear the uniform all the time. However, even when a police officer is off duty – they never cease to be police – and in an emergency – they are ready to pick up their role at a moment's notice. They may be out and, happen to notice or become aware a crime being committed. They may not show their true colours but will act to bring the situation under control.

In a similar way, a Christian does not cease being a Christian when they are at work, or just at home relaxing. They may not be 'in Church' or some religious rally. They may not be doing religious stuff, but Jesus didn't say “they shall know you are my disciples by your religious activity. “ No a Christian is a Christian all the time and even when he/she 'is not on duty' he keeps an eye open for opportunities to SERVE his fellow human and show love to them, for it is by that that the world may know we are Jesus disciples.
Sadly, how often do you hear a person say words to the effect of “I won't become a Christian, Christians are hypocrites.” Instead of being drawn in by our love for one another, people are repelled by the hypocrisy that they see in the Church.

Pride is at root of hypocrisy.

Humility on the other hand is the essence of reality.

I am sure that ther si a lot more that can be said on this subject, but for now - I leave it there. I hope however, that you don't. I hope that you take this word, and apply it to your life in whatever way is necessary.

2009-05-16T23:51:00.004+01:00

Humility 2

Continuation from the last blog...

In contrast Jesus said, “I have not come to be served, but to serve and to give my life as a ransom for many.” (Mark 10:45) Jesus said many things about humble service and he did not only speak – he showed – he gave us an example. One particular example was when Jesus washed the feet of the disciples. Just as in today's society, you would not see a CEO, or Company President sweeping the floor or serving in the canteen (unless it was for some photo-op – then only for a few moments), it was unheard of in Jesus time for anyone above the rank of slave to wash another's feet. It was so revolutionary, that Peter was startled. I don't know for sure, but I think Jesus first went to Peter and the conversation that ensued was one that could have been initiated by any of the disciples.

Peter: Lord, you washing MY feet?
Jesus: You don't understand what I am doing right now, but soon you will understand.
Peter: No, no, you don't wash my feet Lord!
Jesus: Peter, unless I wash your feet, you have no part with me
Peter: Well, then wash me – not only my feet Lord, my hands, and my face too!
Jesus: I'm sure you had a bath before you came. There is no need for all that, only that I wash your feet, then your whole body will be clean. You are clean – well there's one who isn't. (He said this because He knew that Judas Iscariot was about to betray Him.)
He finished washing all the disciples feet and then sat down again in his place.
Jesus: Do you understand what I have just done?
Jesus: You call me Teacher and Lord, and that's correct I am. If I, your Lord and have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. I have set you an example that you do as I have done. I tell you the truth no servant is greater than his master. Nor is a messenger
greater than the one sending him. Now that you know these things, you will be
blessed if you do them.

The act of of washing a person's feet, was a sign of respect to a guest visiting one's home. It was usually carried out by one of the slaves, if the family hosting was in a position to own a slave. I suppose, though I cannot support this, that in those families that were not in position to have either slave or servant, the daughter or son, would fulfil this role. Jesus however was not asking us to find someone to wash another's feet, but, regardless of our 'status' in the community, to wash the feet of others. Jesus instruction to wash one another's feet should not be taken literally, but what he was saying was that everyone of us must be ready to serve others, regardless of our relative stations in life, and we should be willing to do ANYTHING, that needs doing, regardless of how lowly that task may seem.

Jesus also put this message across in the following way, at the same meal where he washed His disciples feet. He said, “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, He will sit on His thrown in the heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the Sheep on His right and the goats on His left. The the King will say to those on His right, “Come you are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink; I was a stranger and you invited me in; I needed clothes and you clothed me; I was sick and you looked after me; I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty, give you something to drink? When did we see you, a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison and go to visit you? And the King will reply, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.” And likewise, the 'goats' were those who could not be bothered to help those whom they probably thought were beneath them.
Does this mean that all that theology of accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour goes out the window and that at the end of the day, what really matters is how we reach the needs (felt-needs) of poverty stricken world. I think not. We still believe that Salvation is attained by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, but what I think this tells us, is that our faith, if it is in anyway genuine will exhibit itself, not through religious and pious exclamations, but in how we serve our fellow human being. I think I fall so short, I wonder how many times have I seen the Lord, lying in the doorway of some building, because the streets are cold. How many times have I rolled my car window up when the Lord has come to ask for a few coins. How many times have I closed my eyes when I've seen my Lord, dying of AIDS? I could not tell you? I do not know. I know though that in Christ there is no condemnation, and I am in His love. But I'm reminded by this passage that the Lord is in everyone, in the sense that in as much as we serve them, we serve Him. The people we interact with on a day to day basis, be they clients, or colleagues, employers, or employees, these are the people we need to see as Jesus, and serve them as if we were serving Him. How would our attitude change if we grasped the reality of this. As our attitude changes so will our actions. I'm not suggesting for a minute that you should help every beggar you see, but it would be good if you simply stop despising them.

There is still more that I discovered as I sat down to write this blog and so, stay tuned for the next instalment of this blog that deals in particular with being judgmental - which just another way of showing our pride - we regard ourselves as superior 'better Christians' because we are not like that 'dirty sinner'...

2009-05-15T00:17:00.003+01:00

Humility

In writing on the subject of humility, I need to at the very outset acknowledge my indebtedness to many who are far wiser, and more eloquent than I am, and also those who through their example in life have shown what true humility is.

I have found that I have learnt so much about this quality in life. Following on from ambition, I am looking at another quality that is examined by Jewish during this time of counting the Omer. Again, I am looking at it as a Christian, however what I say, I hope will resonate with you, regardless of whether you are a Christian or not.

Isn't it interesting that humility follows hot on the heals of Ambition – for while ambition is reaching up and touching the heavens, humility is the awareness that no matter how hard we try, we can't reach the heavens without help. In my previous blog on ambition – I said that one of our ambitions is to spend eternity with God. I also said that because of the chasm of sin that separates us, we could not achieve ambition, except that we know that God himself provided a way through Jesus Christ, and that it is because of His death and resurrection, that anyone can enter into a relationship with God and have any hope of spending eternity with him. Sadly, there are many people who are still convinced that there must be some other way, that they refuse to cross over by the one and only way and are trying by their own efforts to reach God through. It is as futile as a little child reaching up to 'touch the clouds'.

There are many misconceptions about what humility is. Humility is not denying one's own abilities, but regarding them as tools and getting on with the tasks that we are set, and not boasting either to ourselves or to our neighbour about that which we have or can do.

Humility is the understanding that we each are part of a community and that we need to put the needs of those around us above our own needs, or at least on the same level. It is also the understanding that, despite my learning, I may not have the right answer for any given situation and that others in the community may provide that answer, and instead of sulking because I am not the 'man of the hour', rejoice along with the community that the answer has been found.

While ambition drives us to want to be that man or woman, humility makes us acknowledge that there are others too who can fulfil that role. As Prime Minister Gordon Brown has learnt, he may have wanted to 'save the world' from the impending economic disaster, in fact, his solution was no solution. In leadership, whether it is on an international and political level or on a local level, the quality of humility is a most important ingredient to success. No-one can have all the right answers and know everything. The most competent of leaders will surround themselves with qualified advisors to help them when it comes to setting out policy. So we have established that firstly leaders need to humility to realise that their rank in society is not due only to their own efforts but with the others who help them along the way, and as such they should acknowledge this, but also, leaders need humility to understand that they are there to serve and not only to be waited on hand and foot.

The United Kingdom Parliament has a received a wake-up call in this regard as the reports of how a number of members of parliament from all sides of the house have abused the “expense allowances” scheme to such a great extent and the populace are justifiably annoyed, that in a time of economic straits, these people are living it up, it would seem, at tax payers expense. They seemed to think they could get away with it as it was supposed to be secret and kept out of the public eye. Their hypocrisy has been exposed.

I have written much more on this topic, but decided that it will have to wait and be posted as a separate blog. in a few days time. I have written about how Jesus both exemplified humility as He washed the feet of His disciples and how he has taught us that we need to show our allegiance to him not with grand proclamations , but in our actions and in the way we interact with others.

Humble Yourself in the Sight of the Lord – HPYG

2009-05-04T10:50:00.012+01:00

What is Ambition?

Stepping away from the more contentious subjects of Disability Rights and Bullying, I would like to look at something that this week, observant Jews would have given consideration to as they count the omer to Shavuot:Ambition

So, what is ambition?

Is it right for a person to have ambition?

And if it is, what sort of ambition can/should we have?

Simply put, Ambition is the 'Strong desire to achieve something' It is used in phrases like “What is your ambition in life?” and “the person has no ambition.” A few years ago, everyone was talking about their 'personal vision statement' or 'corporate vision statement' (for companies), and you would walk into a business and they would have framed on the wall a 'VISION STATEMENT' and people were urged to have their VISION STATEMENT written up and displayed prominently, if not for general viewing, at least for your own viewing, to keep, as it were, that vision at the forefront of your mind, and to allow that Vision Statement to shape your daily activity, as to whether or not you do something. It didn't matter if you moved in Christian or secular circles – this 'Vision Statement' philosophy was everywhere you looked. What it boils down to, is, “What are you ambitions?”

Often, this is associated with what career we hope to take up in life, and having undergone the training and taken up a career, our ambition becomes more fine tuned, to address what status we have in regard to that career. You may want to join the army, and then when you have joined up, and undergone your training and induction, you may aspire to become an officer, and of course, not every private becomes an officer, but a few rise up through the ranks and gain the status of officer. Having achieved that goal in life, you may find that you actually want to become a high-ranking officer, maybe even to take up the rank of 'commander in chief' or whatever it is called – I am aware that the 'Commander-in-chief' in the USA Army is the President, but he has generals who report directly to him.

For others, ambition lies beyond the career itself, and is more focussed on the 'fruits of our labour' i.e. the money, status in society, and lifestyle that results from our earnings. How the money comes in is not the focus in this case, but the amount that one can earn. For some people there are 'no holds barred' – that is they are willing to engage in any activity which will maximise that bottom line, even to the extent of breaking the law. Of course that is extreme and most people, will while seeking to maximise their income, remain within the constraints of of the law. These sort of people are entrepreneurs, can turn their hand to any kind of business and make a success of it – they have a knack to see gaps in the market, and to exploit them so as make more money. These sort of people will often have more than one iron in the fire.

On the other side of the coin, there are people who seem to lack any ambition, when it comes to work, and seem to live by the philosophy 'why work when I can get it without working.'

Famously, the cartoon character Andy Capp, who does his best to avoid working at all. Such people are quite happy to live off 'unemployment benefits.' Unless, due to physical reasons a person cannot work, every adult should be seeking to 'earn their crust' and not be a burden to society. If for some reason you are disabled, I would hope that you too have enough ambition to do whatever you can to be part of the working community. I have seen people with disabilities working in places like supermarkets, and though their job may not be very high powered, they do their best and take home a pay packet once a week, or month. I was encouraged to see a young lady with Down Syndrome, working at a fast food restaurant near to where I live. She is a cleaner, but such a pleasant young lady who while she goes about her cleaning job, will smile and chat with the customers. I thought to myself at the time that there are a lot of people who could learn from this young lady. Ambition for one's career is one aspect of ambition – but I think there is more to this than just what career we take up in life.

Going back to our definition of having a strong desire for success: we can have such success in many realms and as such we can ambition for all sorts of different things.

People may have more personally orientated ambitions – to lose a certain amount of weight (or to gain weight – if they are too thin), to give up smoking, to be a better communicator, listener, writer; to learn a language, to improve their marks at school, and the list may continue.
All of these things are good things to aim for in life – whether you call them ambitions, aspirations, goals, or visions, they come down to the same thing – they all destinations that help us plot our path in life. It is not enough to have an ambition, we must DO SOMETHING in order to realise it. If I want to achieve something in life, I need to not only look in that direction, I need to start moving towards it. The longest journey, still starts with one step. Having set our goals in life, whether for the day, the week, the month, the year or our lives, we need to then start working towards achieving that goal. All the the things I have mentioned can fall under the category: self-improvement, but they do not seem to have any spiritual component. I'd like to suggest that we can have ambition in terms of our spirituality also. Indeed, I would even go as far as saying that it should be the spiritual ambitions that we set before looking to the more temporal issues of career and self improvement.

I try to make these commentaries appeal to both believer and non-believer, and realise that many of my readers will have different religious and philosophical views to those that I express here. Obviously what are about to state here are my views and I do understand that within your own religious context there may be different aspiriations. Even if you don't agree with me I urge you to read on.

In my view, true success is only found if one is in a right relationship with God.

Jesus Christ told his followers: “Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all these
other things will come naturally as a result.” (Matthew 6:33, my paraphrase).
Jesus set the priority. SEEK FIRST.
Jesus said: “What does it profit a man, if gain the whole world and yet forfeit his own soul?”
(Matthew 16:26)

Our ambitions are often shaped by our perspective. If we we have a worldly perspective, whereby we measure success in terms of what one possesses, and what status one has in the eyes of others, then our ambition will be worldly too. What would really matter to us is the size of our bank balance, and how important we are in society. However, if we gain an eternal perspective – if we realise that life is more than what we see before us – that beyond this natural world – bound in time and space, as it is, lies a world that is SUPERNATURAL, that cannot be defined either in terms of space, for what dimensions can we use to measure God, or time, because our Creator is timeless with NO beginning, and NO end – i.e. ETERNAL. If we realise that that which we see before our eyes today will be gone and have no value in the world to come, then it brings these huge ambitions into perspective. Many people, and maybe some of you reading this today, will regard yourselves as atheists and believe that there is no here-after – there is no 'eternity' – that the only thing that matters is what happens between our birth and our death. That it is all about how we fill those days, months or years. Such people can become consumed by ambition to be more famous, more wealthy, than anybody else. However, when that day comes, when we 'breathe our last, all the effort, all the striving, all the money and possessions will be of no value. As they say, “You can't take it with you."

Paul the Apostle put it like this: “We brought nothing into this world, and clearly we can take nothing out of it.” (1 Tim 6:7) More poetically, Job said, “Naked I came from my mother's womb, and naked shall I return there, for the Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, blessed be the name of the Lord. (Job 1:21) In Ecclesiates, the Preacher said, “As he had come naked from his mother's womb, so will he return as he came. He will take nothing from the fruit of his labour that he can carry in his hand.”(Ecclesiates 5:15,16)

So I have to ask you, what is the point? If nothing lies beyond this existence, what is the point in living? As Christians, we do acknowledge a Creator, and we do have a purpose in life. It is more than just about what we can acquire, and what reputation we can build for ourselves. We have an eternal creator, and our greatest ambition, is to be with Him for all eternity. Just as I pointed out above, it is all very well to have an ambition in life, but the ambition remains unattained as long as we do nothing to achieve it. So, naturally, the question will be asked and has been asked countless times, “What can I do to gain eternal life?” On one level, there is nothing WE can do – it is beyond our capacity to attain eternal life. The Bible says, “All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23) and it also says that “That the wages of sin is death” - clearly we were doomed before we started – rather heavy isn't it, except that we are dealing with a merciful God who is not only righteous and just, but is merciful and kind, and where we could not reach Him, because of the chasm of sin that divides us, He built a bridge, over which we may cross. That bridge is Jesus Christ, in whom we put our trust. I live in London, and over the River Thames that snakes through the city are many bridges, that people cross over, in their thousands, and they do so confidently, knowing that the bridge can hold them. If we have that ambition, to spend Eternity with Christ, we need to pass over that bridge – i.e. we need to put our trust in Jesus Christ, and accept the free gift of God. I started to quote a verse above – "the wages of sin is death," but I didn't quote the whole verse – so here it is: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God, is eternal life.” (Rom 6:23) If your ambition is to spend eternity with God, you need to do something today, something as simple, and yet profound as crossing over – acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to eternal life and confessing your sins. But having crossed over, we keep moving forward, we have entered into a daily relationship with Jesus Christ, and that does not mean we sit back and wait for that day, we are called to be with Him. We are workers, in vineyard, having crossed over the bridge, taken up residency on the other side, we are employed, and like any employer, the Lord, wants to see us working hard at the task that he has set us.

An ambition, once realised, is no longer an ambition. So, having crossed over, and thereby have gained assurance of eternity with God, but does that spell the end of our ambition. I would say a very loud and very clear NO! We should further aim to deepen our walk with God and become more like Him, our master. Jesus said, “Come to me, all you who labour, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” The picture there is of a labourer carrying heavy burden – laying down, and taking a rest. What is interesting, is that while Jesus does take those heaven burdens off us, and gives us time to recuperate and regain our strength, he doesn't leave us burden-less. He says “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” Jesus gives us a new burden, it is light in comparison to the one we bore before and what is more, he shares the load.

A yoke was used to harness two cows together to pull a plough. He shows us how – if we are willing to learn from Him. Even the most ambitious person must allow himself or herself some 'down time' – time to relax and not be striving every minute of the day, every day of the week. Yes, we come to the Father, and we have our 'down time' and He lets us have it, because he knows we need it – but He does not expect us to be having a permanent down time – there comes a time when we must pick up our tools and return to the work. “Take my yoke upon you" Is working for the Lord easy work? I think not! The Greek word that is translated “easy” in this verse is CHRESTOS and occurs three other places in the New Testament – in none of those places is it translated EASY.

Luke 5:39 – No one who has been drinking old wine wants new wine. He says, 'The old wine is better!'"
Luke 6:35 - Rather, love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because He is kind even to ungrateful and evil people
1 Peter 2:3 - Certainly you have tasted that the Lord is good.

The definition of this word according to Studylight is -

1.fit, fit for use, useful. (virtuous, good)
2.manageable (mild, pleasant – as opposed to hard, harsh, sharp or bitter)

The yoke that we bear is one that has been custom designed for our own necks – i.e. the task that Jesus sets for us to do is one that is within our grasp – He will never ask us to do something which we cannot do. Now, the truth, as many a labourer in God's vineyard will tell you, that sometimes, the burden we carry is tough, and its a difficult path we walk along, but as with every yoke, it is not made for one animal, but two, and so, even as we take Jesus yoke on ourselves, we are not bearing that burden or going through that tough time alone, but He is there yoked right next to us, and all we need to do is follow his lead.

Not only is the yoke easy – because it suits us, but His burden – is light. The Greek work elaphron is used in one other place in the Bible – 2 Cor 4:17 – For our LIGHT afflictions. Did I read that right – yes – light afflictions. Afflictions are the tough things that happen to us as we journey in this thing called life. Hardly things we would regard as 'light and trivial' – but when we bear the burdens that he gives us, they are light in that we bear them with a purpose in mind – and we see the end of it. We know it will come to an end – and that makes our bearing up much easier. When Jesus says “His burden is light," He is not belittling the turmoil and difficulties that we as believers must endure for the sake of the Gospel. People have endured many terrible things for the Christ's sake. There is a Christian missionary couple serving a year's imprisonment in an African country, because they dared to denounce the president for corruption – their charge – Sedition. Christians in China, North Korea, and other godless nations who are imprisoned or even killed because they dare to exalt the name of Jesus – hardly light afflictions – but you see the one who wrote about those light afflictions was the Apostle Paul, who was not living in some ivory tower – but had endured much for the sake of the Gospel. He writes:

But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the surpassing greatness of the power will be of God and not from ourselves; we are afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken; struck down, but not destroyed; always carrying about in the body the dying of Jesus, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our body. For we who live are constantly being delivered over to death for Jesus’ sake, so that the life of Jesus also may be manifested in our mortal flesh. So death works in us, but life in you. (2 Cor. 4:7-12)

Paul considers these afflictions light – and Jesus told us that his burden is light – the same word is used. Yes, times, may become tough. If we have to live thrugh the tribulation – it will become very much worse. As you read this, you may affected in some way, but world events these days. You may have lost your job or your home because of the Credit Crunch, you may have contracted pig flu, or AIDS, or you may be suffering from the effects of pollution of our industrial age. Whatever it is, it is not an easy time for you. You may be wondering what is the relevance of having career ambitions when the likelihood is that you won't be able to find work, and if you do, it probably won't be the type of work you were hoping to do. It's hard to keep motivated when you are in the wrong job. When you feel that your efforts are not noticed, or that you are not appreciated. It's easy to become angry when a customer unreasonably shouts at you or makes some accusation, and the boss refuses to hear your side of the story. It is when we are in situations like that, that life does not make sense. It is in times like that, that we have to sit at the feet of Jesus and listen to him as he says “Come to me all you, who are weighed down, come to me and I will give you rest. Take my yoke on yourselves and carry the burden I give you, because my yoke will fit you well, and you will find the burden I give you much easier to bear. I will be helping you with that load. Before reading on, listen to this song, and listen carefully to the words.

So, as a believer, we don't only have the ambition of spending eternity with Christ, but we have the ambition of getting to know Christ better and serving Him more faithfully.

Typing this made me think of a song from the musical Godspell – Day by day.

Day by day, day by day
Oh dear Lord three things I pray.
To see thee more clearly
To love thee more dearly
To follow thee more nearly
Day by day.

If we truly aspire to see the Lord more clearly, to love Him more dearly, follow Him more nearly, yes we pray, because without His empowering we are defeated before we even start, but we also need the daily discipline of reading the Word, spending time in prayer, for ourselves (to be better people), for others, and for the world, and making sacrifices – giving up something we would like to do, for the sake of something that needs to be done.

* A bit late on the posting when I was writing this it was still May the 3rd. It is still the 25th day to the Omer because the Jewish day starts at Sunset.

2009-04-27T12:51:00.006+01:00

Bullied at School

It doesn't matter whether you are Tom Daley, or anyone else - the truth is Bullying hurts and it HAS TO STOP.

I stayed up late this evening especially to listen to a radio show that was highlighting this issue that is a perennial issue in schools throughout the world – Bullying.

This is as a result of a high profile child, Tom Daley, who because of his high profile as an Olympic Diver for the UK, has become a target of terrible abuse, yes abuse, by other scholars at the school. (If scholars is the right term for them – probably scoundrels would be better). What he has had to endure is terrible.

My heart goes out to young Tom, who beyond his diving ability, sounds like a decent young lad, just trying to get on with his life. The constant jibes of 'speedo boy' and 'diver boy' and the physical attacks – being rugby tackled, and 'kneed' where they come up behind him and knock him in the back of the knee so he loses his balance and people threatening to break his hands and his legs. If I were Tom, I would be more than fed up – I'd be petrified – and that is exactly the effect that the bullies are trying to achieve.

Listening this evening, I was less than impressed with the statement issued by the Local Education Authority. They are simply issuing platitudes and have no interest or inclination to actually pursue the matter and hold the head to account for her lack of action in this regard. Are we to conclude therefore that they will only act when Tom is actually seriously injured – maybe when the boy carries his threat to break Tom's legs and one of UK's prospective Olympic medal hopefuls is unable or unwilling to compete?

I also want to commend both Tom and his parents for resisting the temptation of taking the law into their own hands. Tom's parents have, I believe, done their best to go through the right channels and only after finding that they have been ignored by the school and higher up, they decided rightfully to go public. What is happening to Tom is terrible – not because Tom is an Olympic Star but simply because he is a child and like EVERY child deserves to be protected.

In my previous two blogs, I addressed the issue of name calling and discrimination when it targets people with disabilities, and I objected to terms like spastic, cretin and retard. But this story has made me realise that being on the other end of the scale – being a bright, intelligent, gifted person, often also opens them up to unnecessary and uncalled for abuse. NERD, GEEK, WIERDO, BOFFIN, and the list could go on. Very articulate and artistic children often fall foul of the bully too. Tom targeted because he is a top class diver. Another father spoke about the abuse that his daughter was experiencing at school – I reiterate – I use the word ABUSE, because that's what bullying is and whereas people do not seem to be to perturbed by 'bullying', the moment the 'A-word' is used – it gets people's blood boiling – and I think people's blood should be boiling.

It's no good for schools and government authorities to wring their hands and express regret when one pupil kills another pupil by stabbing them. These actions NEVER happen out of the blue. It does not help, if the school sends a contingent of young school friends to the funeral of a pupil who killed himself after having not been able to handle the ongoing abuse of other students. The time to act is when the problem emerges – when the first signs of a child experiencing abuse are reported.

As was said in the programme this evening – there is no school ether Primary or Secondary where NO bullying takes place and any staff that are living under the illusion that there is no bullying at their school ought to extract their heads from the sand and open their eyes – because it is going on. This DUTY to protect goes beyond merely having policy and sticking a few posters up around the place. School staff should be very vigilant.

Reality ONE: Just because bullying is not being reported does not mean it is not taking place. Children are afraid to report it for fear that it will bring on worse bullying. Merely saying that they need to report it, and mentioning it in assembly is not going to convince the very frightened child to speak up. This is another reason why I believe the word ABUSE should be applied to this issue. Just as children are scared to tell if an adult is abusing them, and it is a teacher's task to take note of certain 'red flags' that may indicate that a child is being abused, so, teachers and parents should be looking out for 'red flags' that a child is being bullied. One such red flag is a child who was previously thriving and enjoying school suddenly either bunking, or trying to avoid going to school, or saying that they hate school.
Reality TWO: Even the 'little angels' in the class can turn out to be bullies in the playground – oh and girl bullies are just as vindictive and nasty as boy bullies, though their tactics are usually less physical, but no less dangerous. We should avoid stereotyping a bully into a'bigger boy' and just deal with each child whether the bully or the victim of bullying as individuals and handle each case as it presents itself.
Reality THREE: If a child comes to you (as a teacher or a parent or some other significant adult in their lives) with tears in her eyes, asking for help – she's not wanting you to load on her a lot of advice on how to deal with the bully. Can I say, if it has this stage, it is like telling a rape victim she shouldn't wear such short skirts. When the child comes to you, don't try and find out why your child being picked on – act to get it stopped. I refer back to the Tom Daley situation – given the nature of the threat made to him, his father is within his rights, especially since the school has failed to act, to report the matter to the police. It is against the law to threaten another person with violence. If the child had stolen something from the shop, most store managers would call the police, not the school. If someone threatens to do violence to your child, you are well within your rights to take the matter to the police.
Reality FOUR: The rhyme that goes 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me' is the BIGGEST LOAD OF BALONEY. Whoever first came up with that nonsense, may be able to make a rhyme or two, but they have no foot in reality. The truth is words can ban be a very strong weapon. It has been said "The pen is mightier than the sword" – meaning that words – written down in this case – can do a lot more damage than beating up a few people. This whole recent government scandal that was exposed where the 'special adviser to the PM was going to use a website to make serious, but spurious accusations against key people in the opposition party, so as to damage their reputations – which fortunately was exposed before it could do any damage – nonetheless had potential to destroy people political careers. Name calling and any other form of verbal attack should not be dismissed as banter. Just because hurtful words come out of another child does not make the matter less serious. ACT on it, and ACT on it sooner rather than later. Asking the victim to modify his or her behaviour in order to avoid the bully or the bullying is, to my mind, to, to some degree, actually blaming him or her for that abuse.
Reality FIVE: In the age of technology and the Internet, bullying is no longer confined to school grounds and outside the school gate, but is taking place online, in chat rooms, through social networking sites, and via the mobile phone. This online bullying is no less frightening than the child in the school grounds – indeed it can be MORE frightening as oftentimes the perpetrator is not easily identifiable – and so they issue threats – and the child does not know who to trust. If your child has a mobile phone, tell him that he may not divulge the number to anyone, even among his friends, unless he has first passed it with you as his parent/guardian. Friends do fall out, and sometimes when they have fallen out they can become very vindictive and may use the number to get at your child. Likewise email addresses should remain private. If they have social network profile (ensure that your child is legally old enough to have that profile.) – make sure you have access to it, and that you can monitor it regularly. The child may complain and say that his friends are being allowed to do whatever it is. Remind him or her that you will do what you believe is wise and best for them.
Reality SIX: A child does not come out of a normal home background and bully another child just for the heck of it – there is usually something that triggers the bullying behaviour. THIS IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS EXCUSING THE TERRIBLE BEHAVIOUR, but it is necessary to try and understand what it is that makes a child behave like this to another child and by addressing the cause, and helping the bully understand (because they sometimes don't understand it themselves) why they are hurting other children, they can be shown better ways to handle that problem and not resort to bullying behaviour. It is not sufficient to simply tell the child to stop bullying, taunting or teasing. The child will not stop, they will just become more sly and underhand about he or she goes about it. To stop the behaviour, the cause must be identified (and the cause lies within the bully and not the victim) and however long it takes, the child must be made to face the issue and deal with it, or if it is something like the child is being abused, as is sometimes the case – then that child needs to be protected – in whatever way is necessary and from whoever is meting out that abuse.
Reality SEVEN: Below in the videoclip you will see an interview with lady called Barbara Coloroso who wrote a book entitled The bully, the bullied and the bystander. Many, not all, bulies do the bullying in an attempt to boost themselves in the eyes of their peers. They have this stange idea that if they victimise somebody, it will prove that they are big and tough and in-charge. Unfortunately the effect of this is to intimidate the majority of other kids into going along with the victimisation of the bullied kid, sometimes out of the fear that if they refuse to call names or join in they will become the next victim. Children must become aware that if they see someone else being bullied or become aware that someone is being being bullied, they MUST tell an adult. It may be that their friend tells them 'a secret' about somebody who is bullying them. Children as young as four or five these days are told there is a difference between a good secret (What Mummy will get for her birthday present) and a bad secret - and the secret that a friend is being bullied is a bad secret and it is RIGHT to tell an adult about it. The friend might be angry with you - but in the end, they will understand that you HAD to tell.

Let's not trivialise Bullying as has been done for far too long – we really need to understand the real effect it has on the victims – and as individuals, as school communities, as government, act vociferously to tackle bullying head on and let us have statistics relating to bullying regularly published in the papers an on the media. Just as we watch the unemployment and the inflation figures avidly, and parents look to school league table to try and find the best schools for their children we should be publishing official figures relating to bullying in schools and these figures should be on the decrease year-on-year or the minister of education should be called to account for the fact that there is no improvement. If the figures either continue to rise, or simply remain static, for two years in a row, the minister responsible should be asked to resign. That's how strongly I feel about the matter.

I am no fan of permanent suspension as they call it these days. (We used to say 'expelled') I do believe that that should be very much a last resort for only the recalcitrant offender who despite several attempts to reform his/her behaviour, still persists in the victimisation of other children. However, if the last resort needs to be resorted to, the suspension must mean something. It is not a licence for the child to go to another school and continue the with the abuse.

My suggestion would be that it would be far more useful to reassign the child to another school - but that for a predetermined period (based on the child's age and the nature of the abuse that resulted in the suspension) the child will not be integrated into a class but will have to attend school but learn in a secluded environment under the supervision of a teaching assistant, with academic work supplied by the class teacher and sessions where tutoring can must be organised so as not to disrupt other students learning program. The period of seclusion should also be used to counsel the child concerned and to prepare him or her for reintegration into regular learning. The goal should be reintegration. After reintegration, the new school must monitor the situation closely for the safety of all concerned. It should be kept in mind that a previous bully may become a target for bullying by children at a new school and that would not be a good outcome.

I attach some links for you to look at and listen to in relation to Tom Daley's story as well as other relevant articles.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/article6157191.ece
http://timesonline.typepad.com/schoolgate/2009/04/tom-daley-bullying-and-one-mothers-awful-story.html

Some more general sites that can be of help to young people who are being bullied and their parents.
If you are a young person who has come online – searching the words Bullying and come on my page – welcome – thanks for stopping by. I urge you to look at these sites – they will reassure you that you really are not alone. Most importantly you need to tell someone – the same advice goes out to any child whether he or she is 5 or 17. Do not suffer in silence.
http://kidshealth.org/kid/feeling/emotion/bullies.html
http://www.beatbullying.org/?gclid=CKyGz5r6kJoCFRKLxwodog_V-g (watch the video clip) "Bullying is not just an education issue – it is a community issue."

For the parent whose child is being bullied:
http://www.parentlineplus.org.uk/index.php?id=9 Lots of resources here for a desperate parent – haven't looked through them all but my guess is that they will have sound advice – if you feel I am mistaken feel free to draw my attention to it.

I do not speak as some academic expert o this subject. I'm just another Joe Bloggs (excuse the pun) sharing my thoughts – I however did experience it myself to a certain degree when I was at school because I was perceived as being weaker than they were. I'm also a teacher and care very much for my students well being – physical and mental.

I came across this teacher's blog - quite by chance and thought he had an interesting approach. http://harakabaraka.wordpress.com/2008/11/12/teasing-and-bullying/ .

"Bullying is not normal, natural or necessary" Watch this video clip that highlights the issue.

In this video there is an interview with Barbara Coloroso, auther of the book"The Bully, the bullied and the bystander." Details of the book, are below.

The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander: From Preschool to High School--How Parents and Teachers Can Help Break the Cycle of Violence
By Barbara Coloroso
Edition: reprint
Published by HarperCollins, 2004
ISBN 006001430X, 9780060014308
240 pages

Please comment on my blog – I really appreciate the feedback.

Hate speech – Part II

2009-04-22T03:09:00.001+01:00

First of all, thanks to those who have responded either here on the blog, or on my Facebook Note – your comments are much appreciated. It is heartening to think I have played a roll in informing some people who, it would seem did not realise the impact that these kinds of words have. If you have not already read Part I – it is here. Johnny's blog: cretin, spastic, retard, ... is this hate speech?

Right – now I'm assuming everyone knows what this is about.

All I was hoping to do, in my own little way by putting that into my status, was say that these words which I mentioned are not acceptable and that I objected.

Teacher TV has nominated this week as "anti-racism" week –

I do not know if they ever have a week where they deal with the issue I am trying to highlight here – the negative stereotype and abuse (directly or indirectly) of people who have disabilities. However, it is useful to look at racism as a parallel, and to understand that just as someone does not choose to belong to a certain racial group, one cannot choose not to be disabled, and discrimination based on disability is as wrong as racial discrimination or any other type of discrimination.

I am aware that most countries have laws against discrimination against disabled people, just as they have laws against racial discrimination, but just as racial discrimination still persists in society, although people are not as blatant as they used to be, so also, disability discrimination still takes place, and there too, people become adept at disguising it, so as to get away with it. One of the ways people discriminate is in the language that people use and especially how they label people.

People who refer to other races by negative or pejorative terms (usually whenever they think they can get away with it) carry in their heart a bad attitude towards others. Now, I know, that most people either out of fear of legal reprisal or simply awareness that it is in bad taste would not ridicule a person with learning disabilities to their face, but the fact that they are willing to talk like that behind their backs means that they still carry within them the prejudice and lack of understanding for people with needs.

I am making these comments - not because I was insulted, but because I think that the use of those terms is an affront to people with disabilities in general.

Apparently, racism is the belief that one's own racial group is superior to another's. Well, many people hold the belief that they are superior to people with disabilities. In our modern world, discrimination starts before birth. A pregnant woman has a scan done – or an amniocentesis – and discovers that the 'foetus' (its easier to speak of it in those non personal terms) is going to have Down's Syndrome, and decides or pressurised to have an abortion. People will say to the woman – you did the right thing – after all you spared 'it' a miserable 'existence'. I'm sorry – this is not a cat or a dog that can be euthanized. Who is to say that the existence will be miserable. Most people with Down Syndrome, while like most people have their down days, by and large are very cheerful and happy. The thing is, and I think this is where the real rub is, children with disabilities need a lot more input and investment, birth in terms of time, and money, and people are not willing to put that in. People also decide that they will put in a lot of hard work for very little 'reward'. I don't know what they perceive as reward – but to my mind – if you are blessed to have a child who calls you Mummy or Daddy (even if that is with sign language or by gesture) – you already have a most marvellous reward.

I had to learn to rise above the actions and comments of small minded people who look down on others because I was different. At school, other kids would tease me about something that was related to my disability (which was much more obvious then than it is now. Part of my coping mechanism, was to 'ignore the comments and keep on keeping on, and sometimes, when dealing with school bully that is the best approach. But, when one hears the same sniping comments over and over, it is hard NOT to let it get to you. There comes a time when you must say 'enough is enough'.

Martin Luther King Junior, a hero in my eyes - took a stand. He lead the Civil Rights Movement in the US during the 50's that got racial segregation and racialism outlawed in the USA. Now as a minister of religion, if he had just minded his own business - kept going to Church on Sunday and being subservient and submissive to the white folk - he would have had a comfortable life, probably retired to a nice little home somewhere - and who knows he might have been alive today - he would have only just turned 70. But he could not sit idly by and accept the abuse being inflicted on his people a day longer - and so he stood up, and he decided to join the Civil Rights movement.

If it weren't for the Rev Martin, there probably would be no Barack Obama today.

While I know and am grateful that disabled people are not discriminated against to the extent that black people were back in the 50's, and that in terms of Civil Rights, Disabled people are recognised as having rights. That is good, but is it good enough? I for one don't think so. And I will use my little soapbox - called my Facebook Status to shout about it and to stand up for the right of people with disabilities to be respected.

I may not be the Martin Luther King for the disabled cause - but it was not only MLK who marched on Washington. Many people marched alongside him. One of the most poignant speeches that Martin Luther King ever made was his "I have a dream" speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4AItMg70kg

MLK envisaged a time when children would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character –

I would like to say let a time come when people are not judged by their physical appearance or by their academic achievement or by any other superficial and unnecessary measure but, as MLK put it so clearly, by the content of their character. Character, you see, is something that transcends all of these other things – and I have found that mostly, not always, people with disabilities display many wonderful character traits.

Jesus said that we know a tree by its fruit (Matt. 7:16) and in the book of Galatians, we read that the Fruit of the Spirit is Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness and Self-Control. (Gal. 3:22-23)

Other positive character traits that I have noticed among people with disabilities, are: determination – they keep on trying, keep at it, even when it hurts or they are tired, they are persistent; the ability to forgive – when they have been wronged, I have seen that they are ready to forgive and move on; sense of humour – they can laugh at themselves and see the funny side.

Finally, I remember when I was in Primary School, my headmistress, Mrs. J. had a sticker on her car – it read "Disability is not inability." To put it in another way, because a person has disability, does not mean they are incapable of doing anything. I was about 10 when I saw that sticker – I am now 40 and it has stayed with me all these years. It was a good thing for people with disability to hear and to apply in their lives – but it is also good for people without disabilities to hear and apply in their lives – in terms of their perception of and attitude towards people with disabilities.

Disability

is not

Inability

2009-04-20T03:25:00.002+01:00

Recently I posted a status on my Facebook Profile that went as follows:

That I object to the use of the terms 'spastic', 'cretin', 'retard' etc. that have been used to insult and humiliate people with disability. We, as society, by and large have managed to eradicate the use of racial slurs, now let's unite against slurs against people with disability. Even using these words to insult an able-bodied person is not acceptable.

I was quite amazed by the responses of people, and from the comments I realised that they didn't quite understand what it was that I found so offensive. I was grateful for the two 'likes' I got, I did feel that I should explore this topic a bit more deeply, and thrash this issue properly.

I think it would be reasonable to state here that I grew up in a society that had racism at its very core, and although I personally was not subjected to hearing racist terms used all the time, I was aware of many of these terms, as any child growing up in that environment. Terms that one utters at your peril in today's society, and rightly such language is no longer tolerated. In writing this blog, in the hope of bringing to the fore another set of terms that I think should be viewed with equal disdain and disapproval.

Yes this group of words are those above that are connected in some way to people with disabilities. I will admit that some of these terms already are not so common any more. I'm also aware that many of the people who use these terms may not be aware of the disability connotation and thus may not be aware just how offensive the term is. I invite any person who knows of a person who routinely or even occasionally uses the words I'm speaking about here, to visit this blog and learn about what it is they are actually saying.

People who don't know me well, and certainly those who are just looking in here by chance or because my thing popped up on a search engine, will not realise that I have a physical impairment (we used to just say 'a disability' but apparently is not correct terminology any more). I was born without a properly functioning thyroid gland – a condition known as congenital hypothyroidism, literally that means that my thyroid gland was under-performing. Left untreated, or even if the condition is picked up too late, brain damage occurs and the result is a person who has stunted growth, and whose natural intellectual and physical development is severely affected. Such a person cannot expect a long life-span, and would be reliant on carers throughout his or her life. I was fortunate, no I'd say I was blessed that in my case the condition was diagnosed, for what at the time, was regarded as very early – 2 months – and so the brain damage that had occurred up to that stage, was halted and was minimal in comparison to what it might have been. The small amount of brain damage that did occur did not heal, but it did not get worse. Incidentally, today, this condition is routinely checked when a baby is born, in most western countries, anyway.

This blog is not about me but about this language and why I object to it. Before the term hypothyroidism was in vogue, children were referred to as cretins. I have always thought that the term derived in some way from "The inhabitants of Crete" – but a quick search online and I see that there are other ideas about this. The Wikipedia article suggests one possible origin is from a certain Alpine dialect of French and the way they pronounce the word Chétien – meaning Christian. Cretinism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – whatever the origin of the term, it was formerly used to describe people with congenital hypothyroidism – it is now used as an insult, and is generally taken to mean someone with such a low intelligence as to make them ineducable. It is for this reason that I find the word to be very insulting and unacceptable and on behalf of those who have the misfortune of having learning difficulties, I will speak out and object to this kind of speech. I saw a website that I will not advertise here where people were defining the words I have listed above, and more besides, but in the most hurtful and unnecessary way. Using words like cretin, only serve to deepen the prejudice against people with disabilities.

A term, that I admit I have not heard used for a long time, but I have since discovered by looking at the aforementioned website, is in use today, along with certain derivatives is spastic. The derivatives are spaccy, and spazz, to name a couple. I have just learnt that 'a spaccy spot' is a disabled parking bay. Today we refer to people with Cerebral Palsy. Cerebal Palsy (CP) is as a result of brain damage that occurs shortly before, during or shortly after birth. It affects different people differently and it effects are determined by the location of the damage in the brain and the extent of that damage. It typically manifests with physical impairments, and people with CP may be unable to walk properly, may have difficulty grasping things and may have their speech affected. The person may have learning difficulties, but this is not necessarily the case and should not be assumed to be the case. An organisation called SCOPE represents people with Cerebral Palsy in the United Kingdom and if you wish to find out more about people with Cerebral Palsy and truly engage with the reality that is Cerebral Palsy and not merely adopt the stereotypic ideas, go to their website. Homepage : SCOPE. Interestingly, SCOPE was previously known as the Spastic Society. For obvious reasons, this name was changed. When I was a child attending a school for the handicapped (as they were at that time known), there were a number of children in attendance at that school who were referred to as 'spastic' who had Cerebral Palsy. Today, with inclusive education, most children with Cerebral Palsy are educated in the mainstream, though there are still schools that cater specifically for children with CP too.

"Tropic Thunder" was a movie that was released last year that brought the next term to the fore: retard. At the time, when I heard that it contained this word and it was used in the way it was, without seeming to make it clear that calling someone a retard was not acceptable I was one of many who was calling for a boycott. Of course, I was a voice calling in the wilderness. However, I would like to say again here and now that calling a person 'retarded' or a 'retard' is hugely insulting and unkind, and as I am advocating here, part of hate speech against people with disabilities. The term comes from a shortening of the term retarded development and refers to a person whose mental age is significantly behind their chronological age. You may meet a man of 40 whose mental age is about 10. They are very innocent, and very susceptible to suggestion, so, can justifiably be referred to as a vulnerable adult. It is not something to be laughed at or made fun of, and so this is why the term retard is no laughing matter. If you are so unfortunate as not to know anyone with learning difficulties as such people are known in the UK, do yourself a favour, and I am not being sarcastic, try to get to know one. Just be polite, and kind and you will find that this person will be open and accepting of you. NB: Make sure you have the permission of the person responsible for their care first.

I have already written a lot and I have not nearly finished venting my spleen on this matter, but that will simply have to wait for another day and another post. I am going to publish this and I reiterate: PLEASE POST YOUR COMMENTS. I approve (or delete, where necessary) each comment. Please let me know of other terms that you think could constitute hate speech against people with disabilities.

2009-04-07T19:35:00.003+01:00

Jade Goody - R. I. P.

Jade was famous... for being famous it seems. She rose to fame as a Big Brother contestant. She participated in a second Bib Brother show in which she famously let rip at the Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty - and through that famous outburst caused the show to be suspended for a season as she went completely off her head and said some very offensive things. Jade, when she came out realised she had been very silly and apologised for her outburst she showed real regret, and then amazingly went to take part in yet another Big Brother show - this time in India. It was during this show, that she discovered that she had cancer - the cancer that would ultimately kill her.

Jade was 27 - and she had two little sons, Bobby and Fred. Many would on getting this devastating news would run away from the spotlight - demand their privacy and draw into themselves - and that would be understandable. Jade on the other hand took a different approach - she knew that her celebrity meant that the media would be wanting to cover her story and that thy would pay - she knew that she could get mre money for the story and so she allowed the media access and got money for her boys future.

In the kindest way, Jade was not known for her Intellect - and her genral knowledge was abysmal to say the least, but here was a lady who had grown up very fast and put the needs of her boys ahead of her own needs. Even though she is their mother and such attitudes go with parenthood, it is still something to be admired from a suffering lady.

Time was running out on jade and she took in my view three interesting decisions.

1) She Married her boyfriend.

2) She was baptised and had her boys baptised too.

3) She requested (so it is alleged) that her boys be spared the funeral.

In a day and age where marriage is being written off as just a piece of paper - Jade bucks the trend again in the right way, I think by marrying the man she loved. So for that Jade gets my congratulations.

The baptism - now that was interesting to me. As she stared death in its face - she knew that it would not be long before she would close for the last time, and she had this awareness that there is something beyond this life - something more. By being baptised as an adult she would have had to make a public profession of her faith in Jesus Christ. Some may sit with their arms crossed and with a cynacle glare and question the genuineness of her faith. I would caution however against that, and rather take her at her word. I find it hard to believe that anyone would given Jade's predicament, go through all of that, for 'appearances sake' - Nobody would have thought that she had not been baptised - it would not have occured to anyone. So her decision to be baptised was both a wise one and a brave one. She had her sons baptised too - now again - this is a biot controvertial. Baptists and Pentecostals (as I am) don't believe in infant baptism, since the baptisee cannot speak for themselves. These two little boys would in my opinion still be classified as infant baptisms even though they can speak for themselves. The decision was clearly not theirs but their mothers (and presumably their dad agreed.) However, I think in Jade's case it was a good decision. What - am I speaking heresy - let me explain. Having decised to be baptised herself - clearly Jade believed it was important and what Christian Mother would not want to be a witness to that occasion. Jade would miss out on birthdays Christmases, Easters, and other special occasions but this - this she could could witness and I think that in the memories of those little boys will be the day that they and Mummy were baptised. I hope it endures as a very happy memory and that they will be able to one day, stand up in Church and make that confession of faith for themselves.

I was baptised as a baby. My parents made promises to bring me up in the Lord, and I believe that they faithfully lived up to that promise, but when I was 14 - I went on a youth camp and on Easter Sunday of 1983 - I was baptised by full immersion, making a public declaration that I was a follower of Christ.

If you are a Pentecostal or Baptist believer do not look down on the traditionalist who have their children Christened as babies. That is judging them. Nobody is forcing you to do the same, but accept that they have a different outlook on things. Give praise to God that they bring their children to Church - that is not something that necessarily happens anymore. In the past, unless a child was of a diffenrent faith altogether, they were brought to the nearest Church to be 'done' but now in our post modernist society, it is an usual thing to happen and usually, can't say always those who take the ceremony seriously.

If you are of the more Traditional perspective don't judge us Pentecostals or Baptists either. We believe that first a person must make the decision to follow Christ, and then mark this by water baptism. Baptism is symbolic of cleansing from sin, that is accomplished by Jesus death on the Cross. It also represents death to the world and rising up, in Christ.

If you have not been baptised but believe in Jeuss Christ, while i would not go as far as some who make baptism a requirement for salvation, I would say it comes highly recommended. Speak to a Pastor or a leader in your Church about the possibility. If you were 'done' as a baby but feel the need to do it properly, speak to your leaders - they will I am sure gladly talk you through it. (I do not see a problem with a second baptism - it merely confirms and underlines the commitment made on your behalf - it is like the 'Confirmation' that is done in many churches and even Confirmation can be an empty ritual. )

However while baptism is not a condition for salvation, commitment is. Have you committed your life to Jesus Christ, acknowledged him as your Saviour. Do you believe that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one can come to God except through Jesus? Do you believe that Jesus died o the Cross for your sin? And that if you come to Him, he will forgive you your sin, and will save you - and ultimately we will spend eternity with him.

Speaking of eternity, Jade's decision regarding the boys not attending the funeral - well it was a decision made with good intentions, and to that extent we can understand. maybe given the public nature of the funeral, it would have been overwhelming for the boys but here is where I am inclined to disagree. I think it would have been quite acceptable to separate the public expression of grief, and the private family farewell to daughter, wife, and mother. The boys, in a STRICTLY private ceremony have been allowed to say good bye to their mum. Let them say their last good bye - lay a bunch of flowers on her coffin (preferably closed) and say in effect 'good night Mummy' - we will see you one day. The boys need to understand that their mum was very sick and that now all that hurting is over - and she is resting, with Jesus.

I think a graveside ceremony where they see a coffin being lowered into the grave - or at the crematorium where the coffin gets taken into the furnace - that could be difficult for anyone to watch, but a funeral service where the coffin is at the front - that is not a problem.

However, having said that, I do honour Jade and say - well done young lady - you 'did good.' R.I.P.

2009-03-30T08:32:00.002+01:00

Ben Freeth's Open Letter

WHERE ARE WE GOING?

Open Letter to the Prime Minister.

Dear Mr. Tsvangarai,

Our hearts all go out to you in this time of grieving and it is hard to write this letter as a result. However, write it I must, because soon it will be too late.

I write this letter openly because it affects us all and because, with your influence, we will hopefully enter a new era of openness in Zimbabwe.

Over the last nine years we have seen the vehicle called Zimbabwe have the engine stripped out of it. We now have an engine that is spluttering and smoking and back firing down a road. As far as I can see the road leads to nowhere because all the time more and more essential components continue to be stripped out of the engine even now.

Zimbabwe's engine is of course agriculture. We have huge agricultural potential; but without an engine the vehicle can not move. The "donors" can push the vehicle called Zimbabwe along the road for a time; but they will soon get tired of that. However hard they push, the engine can not be jump started and will not roar into life, until such time as the essential components of that engine are put back into place.

Without the engine, there can be no revival of education or rebuilding of the health sector or revamping of the "road network" which will allow the the vehicle to "go places." The future will remain very bleak indeed for us all.

Unfortunately there appears to be a reluctance to recognise what the essential components to the engine are. What was it that made the vehicle called Zimbabwe run along the road in the past so that we were the envy of Africa with our education and health systems and had such a superb infrastructure? How did we become the biggest exporter of white maize in the world at one time? How were we the second biggest exporter of tobacco in the world 9 years ago? Why did the engine suddenly go faulty?

We all know the answer. It is no mystery. It is the essential component: the engine has been stripped. Stop the engine being stripped and put in place measures to protect the "mechanics" [farmers and farm workers] that are able to rebuild the engine and the car called Zimbabwe will go again. Put in other words: stop the invasions and prosecutions of the farmers and their workers and reinstate title [which needs to be extended into the areas that never had title before], and we will not need to beg the rest of the world for their money and be at their beck and call.

Hard as it may sound, if people, however prominent they maybe, take the law into their own hands, they need to be arrested. If farm invasions are allowed to simply continue as they are, the engine will soon be no more. In 9 years, I do not know of a single prominent person that has taken a farm and been prosecuted for taking the law into his or her own hands. At the same time, not a single farmer in the whole of the last 9 years, has been evicted with a proper eviction order from the courts and given compensation for losing his home, his livelihood and his lives work.

What is so worrying is that the invasions and prosecutions of farmers are increasing. While we appreciate that there are good intentions to bring protection of investment and property rights back into play, so far this is most certainly not the case. There are 2 burning questions:

So far there has been no open policy decision of support from the Prime Ministers office regarding the SADC Tribunal Judgement of the 28 November 2008. As the first applicants in that case could you make clear what the position is on that? We are part of SADC and we have signed the SADC protocol establishing the Tribunal; but we are not yet following what this Human Rights Court and the highest court in SADC says regarding property rights. The Zimbabwe Government representative, in open court, stated that the Zimbabwe Government would abide by whatever Judgement the Tribunal gave. Many SADC Tribunal "protected" farmers and farm workers have been invaded, prosecuted, stopped from farming and thrown out of their homes with State assistance since they were given protection. What is being done about these abuses and what is the Ministry of Home Affairs instructing police on the SADC Judgement?
So far there has been no move by Parliament to strike down the Conequential Provisions [Gazetted land] Act that is being used to criminalise and stop almost every white farmer left from trying to produce. I don't understand why not? Over the last few weeks new prosecutions have been starting all the time and there are on going trials of white farmers and their workers all over the country. They are being told in the magistrates courts that they must get off their farms and stop farming. Some farmers and farm workers are being put in jail for committing the crime of farming!

If these 2 issues are not addressed very quickly there will be no engine worth speaking of left to drive this vehicle called Zimbabwe into a brighter future. Tens more thousands of people will be left homeless and without food.

If these 2 issues are not acted on quickly there will be no hope for the children to be schooled and no chance for the sick to be treated or the law enforcers to be paid.

If these 2 issues, and other related issues, are not grappled with, the huge collateral value in the land amounting to tens of billions of US dollars can never be realised; and all Zimbabweans will be the losers.

Time is very short. I appeal to you to act with the courage that so many people so admire in you, even in this time of terrible grief.

May God guide you and the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ fill you.

Yours Sincerely,

Ben Freeth.

[Chegutu].

Ben Freeth is a man who has endured terrible abuse at the hands of people in Zimbabwe wanting to claim his land for their own purposes. He has through the whole ordeal taken a firm stand to stay in Zimbabwe and be a farmer.

2009-03-30T00:57:00.002+01:00

Hey I'm back - I have been very quiet for a long long time and it is time I put something up on my blog, so, for the time being, I am just going to say I am still here - I now live in Dagenham.

I want to write a few things on my blog:

Jade Goody
Accused of rape - picture on the front page of the paper (not me, silly)
Dayeinu
Ivan Cameron (R.I. P)

Well as I say I will do my best to comment on each these topics very soon - not necessarily in that order.

So, folks as they used to say - watch this space.

2008-12-18T14:36:00.002Z

As a Substitute teacher myself, this cartoon is very close to the mark - both in terms of the students perception of the supply teacher and that of the schools. I got this off a Facebook group called "Supply/Substitute Teachers Have No Real Power (Lets Be Honest)"

2008-11-14T12:21:00.004Z

Baby P

This story encapsulates the worst of human kind. Three adults gang up on and torture a baby, visiting the most horrific injuries and eventually killing the little one at age 17 months. To make it worse, the so-called Child-Protective services were aware that there was a problem but failed to intervene and as a result the child died. The arrogance of the officials leaves one cold.

Apparently the baby's mother has since become pregnant and given birth to a little girl while in prison. She is demanding access to this child. She should not be allowed to see that child - the little one must be put up for adoption and all links with the mother definitely severed. That child should be protected from ever knowing she had an older brother and what happened to him.

If this were a one-off it would be bad enough but we heard yesterday of two children in Manchester who were killed (I think stabbed) by their mother - who had serious mental problems to the extent that she needed to be sectioned.

Also, the real story behind Shannon Matthews disappearance is emerging and we learn it was a scam - I want it to be noted that it is a mistaken idea to think that Shannon was not harmed - apart from the fact that they drugged her up - this whole thing must have been to some extent terrifying to the child. Clearly her mother will lose custody of Shannon, and that is only right, but it also means that Shannon, loses her mum and that must be awful for any child to endure.

This is in the United Kingdom, but every country in the world can point to some incidentents of extreme cruelty and barbarism. That an adult could do such things to small children, let alone their own offspring, is beyond understanding.

The papers say that the identity of Baby P should remain a secret. I do not understand why this is, since the child is dead. The only person who would be protected by this secrecy is the mother of the baby, and she has no right to this protection.

I do invite comments on this blog. If you want to know the details please put "Baby P" in a search engine. I could not bring myself to repeat the horrendous things that this little child went through.

I was also astounded by the ineptitude of the child protection services of Harringey.

This is in the UK - but I know these things repeat themselves in

2008-10-21T17:37:00.003+01:00

The Final Chapter - I did get there in the end.

I stood there on the platform at Stratford, my cardboard box looking a little worse for wear as a result of the pushing and shoving and picking up and putting down. I was cross with myself for not having closed it with sellotape. Well the train pulled up at the platform and I loaded the two items onto the train for the last time. I was being phoned by the taxi-cab company that had been commissioned to collect me. I explained that I was on my way to Ilford station and when I arrived I disembarked one last time. I called the taxi-company back but they could not come in unless they had bought a ticket. Eventually I managed to get all my katundu (things) along the platform and up the stairs and Muhammed the taxi driver came and helped me with the last few meters. After picking up the key and the the paperwork for new residence he took me to Romford and to my new accommodation. What a relief to be able to go and sit down. After I regained my strength - I unpacked the box and the suitcase and threw away the box!

2008-10-19T17:08:00.002+01:00

John's journey to Romford - chapter Two

On the 14:30 to Liverpool Street - London - due to disembark at Chelmsford. The train went through Diss, Ipswitch, and on to Chelmsford - I hear an announcement over the PA - "Ladies and Gentlemen, we are about to stop in Chelmsford" - if you are getting off here please ensure you have all your personal belongings. Next stop - Chelmsford. I move towards the section where my cardboard box and suitcase are stowed. By the time the announcement was finished the train was stopped at the Chelmsford station - I manoeuvre the box towards the door, and was about to open it when the train started moving off again. Oh no!

I spoke to the conductor when he came through and told him what happened - he must of thought I was a real idiot. Anyway he said the next stop was Stratford. So I pushed the box back into its place and put the suitcase back too. I got a phone call from my manager asking when I would be arriving in Romford - I explained what happened and that I would be needing to get back to Romford from Stratford. After a few minutes he phoned me back and told me to catch the train to Ilford - and not Romford and he would have a taxi waiting for me there.

This time I watched intently and waited with my box and suitcase by the door so that i could get out as soon as the train stopped. It did and I managed to disembark with all my encumbrances. I had a laptop case - that was safely slung over my shoulder, a pull along suitcase and a cardboard box that was becoming difficult to keep closed. I was wearing my 'double jacket' and a 'money belt' strapped around my middle.

So there I stood on Stratford Platform number 9 - and i had to get to another platform - not entirely sure which one. I carried my case a few meters - say 5, and then went to get my box which I carried pass the suitcase and put it down and so I progressed along the platform, down the stairs into a subway and along. I kept on hearing the announcement "Ladies and Gentleman, please ensure that you keep all personal belongings with you at all times." - Any luggage found unattended may be destroyed." - and so I had this huge dilemma - How to move these things along without 'leaving them' and making sure that none of them are unaccompanied. Eventually I managed to get to platform 8 - with the help of a young rail official who kindly carried my suitcase - leaving me to worry about the box that was feeling the effects of the journey as it was coming unstuck. I eventually got up onto platform 8 and needed to buy a ticket - I found out about the ticket machine and purchased a ticket to Ilford and ran back to my belongings - whew they were still there. Pushing the box up to the yellow line, I stood at the ready.

Here comes chapter three. Told you this would be a cliffhanger! Come back tomorrow for the final exciting instalment.

2008-10-18T15:12:00.002+01:00

John’s journey to Romford

On Tuesday, I had just finished my day at a Primary, and my Area manager came and met me and told me that they wanted me to transfer to Romford sooner rather than later and so, I had to hastily organise a train trip to Romford, Essex. However, Romford is by no means a sleepy little village it is for all intents and purposes part of Greater London.

So, I went to Staples a big stationery chain store ad bought a cardboard box into which I would pack my non-clothing possessions. I also booked a train ticket using the Internet. I was pleased that I managed to get a ticket to Romford for just £15.

On Thursday, the day of the trip, I ordered a taxi to pick me up at 12:30 pm. I loaded into the taxi, a cardboard box, a suitcase and my laptop bag that contained important documents etc.

I arrived at Great Yarmouth Station in good time for the 13:17 to Norwich.

At this juncture, I need to explain how my journey was supposed to have worked! As you can guess – it didn’t pan out as expected.

Depart Great Yarmouth 13:17 arrive Norwich 13:50
Depart Norwich 14:00 arrive Shenfield 15:29
Depart Shenfield 15:34 arrive Romford 15:48

So I loaded my big box and my suitcase on the train at Great Yarmouth and we proceeded to Norwich and arrived at the scheduled 13:50 I get off the train and unload said box and suitcase fully expecting to grab a handy trolley and proceed to next train – how naïve I was. I couldn’t find a trolley and I am no superman to carry to pieces of luggage simultaneously. So I asked a uniformed man on the platform where the trolleys were – he pointed in a direction and said they were their – I went there and had to be redirected. I eventually found the trolleys and dashed to get one. Problem: I needed a pound to release it. Fortunately I found a coin and after working out how the contraption worked released the trolley and ran (dangerously) to get my bags that, contrary to all the public announcements I had left unattended on platform 1 – fortunately they had not grown legs and nobody had blown them up.

I loaded them on my trolley and dashed at high speed back to platform three to see the train I was supposed to have been aboard pulling out of the station! How fed up I was.

I went to the ticket office half expecting to have to pay a full fare for another ticket to Romford (the internet fare is a lot cheaper). But fortunately after I explained my difficulty with the luggage and the lack of a trolley, they kindly let me catch a later train at no further cost. The train I caught was the 14:30 to London-Liverpool Street. Unfortunately, this train was not scheduled to stop in Shenfield. When aboard the 14:30 – I asked the conductor where I should disembark in order to get to Romford. He said Chelmsford.

I will call this the end of chapter one! But do not go away - stay tuned for the next exciting episode John's journey to Romford!

2008-09-17T12:46:00.000+01:00

The Black Hole Machine

by Martin Newell

Since science today is rasher
And doubtful of divinity
They made an atom-smasher
To peer into infinity
Research had been extensive
To analyse such dust
And fearfully expensive
Though analyse, they must.

A few expressed their fears
Still others thought it odd.
We'd labour all these years
To find a speckof God
Or something so unknown
It didn't have a name
And if the truth were shown
Life might not be the same.

Yet in the streets outside
The birds still sang in tune
The earth did not collide
With sun that afternoon
And if, as doomsayers choose
The world was nearly through
Then nothing on the news
Confirmed that it was true.

Our feet still felt the ground
All early qualms were banished
As particles whizzed round
the planet hadn't vanished
And with this new appliance
A victor claimed the day
But whether God or science
Was difficult to say.

I found this clever poem in the Sunday Express . I was amused by it and thought it would amuse many of you too.

As my friend said - I know who the VICTOR is! Do you?

2008-09-10T16:58:00.000+01:00

Mother 'drowned daughter because of cerebral palsy'

I was distressed this morning to see this horrific headline. I copy the link here. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053559/Mother-drowned-daughter-4-bath-ashamed-cerebral-palsy.htmlBeing one who is so keen to help children with special needs I felt outrage and dispair to think that a person could do this to a little child. My heart goes out to the father of this little girl, who according to the report did love the child. Sad that he did not realise what danger the girl was in with the child's mother. In a society where a mother can abort her child because it is 'inconvenient' and without consulting the child's father, I suppose it is not a big step to getting rid of children post-birth. (In their minds) God forbid that a child should cramp their style. I can only hope that a sentence will be passed down that will reflect the gravity of this crime, though, unfortunately capital punishment is no longer an option.

This is the little girl who was killed.
Much to my surprise two people have told me Facebook blooked this note. I wonder if it is connected to the picture?

I am providing alternative links for this story that I found.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7606111.stm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2706900/Mother-drowned-daughter-because-of-cerebral-palsy.html

Please add comments