Friday, 19 March 2010

Politics and Playgrounds

This is where I sit on the political compass, according to I don't think I'm really surprised. I would have thought perhaps a little more right leaning, but even then, I'm much less conservative than I would have been, say, 5 years ago. Amusingly, for those that follow the rather excellent Timothy Goodall, you will notice that our results match. I dearly hope I'm not merely a product of my culture... but I suppose I may as well just resign myself to it.


I don't want to say too much about Argentina and The Falklands, simply because, well, I'm well behind, and it mostly has already been said. However, I would like to point out one thing: having Hugo Chavez, the renowned big ball of crazy, on your side is never a good thing. Sorry, Argentina.

"Look, England, how long are you going to be in Las Malvinas? Queen of England, I'm talking to you," said Mr 'My Diplomacy Is Based Upon Playground Taunts' Chavez. "The time for empires are over, haven't you noticed? Return the Malvinas to the Argentine people."Still addressing the 85 year-old and fairly-impotent-when-it-comes-to-law-making, Queen, he went on: "The English are still threatening Argentina. Things have changed. We are no longer in 1982. If conflict breaks out, be sure Argentina will not be alone like it was back then." He described British control of the islands in the South Atlantic as "anti-historic and irrational" and asked "why the English speak of democracy but still have a Queen".

Just... where to start?

Saturday, 13 March 2010

The corporate face of worship in 50 years time

I've been asked to write about this by my friend Sam. I think it is quite apparent that this is a tough thing to write about, seeing as I considerably lack the skills to foresee the future (yet. I'm still holding out hope.) and Jesus may yet come back, which, obviously, would change 'worship' significantly. So if anyone has any of the former skill going spare, I might be able to tell you if the latter is going to happen, and nullify this blog, accordingly.

But presuming it is not rendered useless by the second coming, the first question one has to ask is what 'the corporate face of worship' actually means. If by it, we mean the coming together on a Sunday morning (or any other time of the week) of people endeavouring to be church together, and singing songs, then I would like to perhaps cynically suggest that it won't be much different from the process now. Songs will be sung and music will be played that is mostly a copy and a shadow of what is contemporary to the time.

But alternatively, if by it we mean the corporate life of the church as a worshiping community, I would dearly love to see that involving more social action, making the church go to the people, as opposed to the other way around, and letting people belong before making them subscribe to a set of beliefs. I think this could possibly be the most worshipful thing we could do.

As to whether that happens in a big way - no, I'm not sure it will. There will be pockets of it, but I can't see it being widespread.

The final option is the return of Jesus. I don't even for a moment want to try and presume what heaven will be like. Aside from noting that this will probably be the best possible outcome to it all.


From the sublime to the ridiculous: just started watching The Big Bang Theory. Oh so enjoyable.

Thursday, 11 March 2010

Baden Powell and footwear

"It is surprising how much meaning you can read from the boot. To wear your heels down on the outside means that you are a man of imagination and lover of adventure, but heels worn down on the inside signify weakness and indecision of character."



A minor addendum - I will sort out the rest of the requests for posts over the next few days. I have a weekend off, which more or less equates to lots of time faffing on t'internet. Watch this space.

Wednesday, 10 March 2010


Right, so, in brief, I have absolutely no idea what I am doing with myself. I am angry. I am tired. Exhausted, in fact. I am confused. I am faithless. I am scared. I am running.

Which is ironic. God made me to run, as Liddle once said. Except, I think I'm running to wrong way.

Monday, 8 March 2010


I've been keeping a wary eye on the case of Jon Venables, the killer of Jamie Bulger, and how he has been reincarcerated for a crime that cannot be divulged to the public.

Interestingly, Jamie Bulger's mother wants to know details of his most recent crime. Aside from the fact that the law protects us, and him, from such information being released, I really don't. Admittedly, I'm not someone who has been hurt by him in the past, but even if I was, I have no idea why I would want to stir up such hurt again.

I worry that if she or we were to find out, it would be used to justify an ongoing campaign of hatred against him. Yes, he's a criminal, but that's why he's been sent back to prison. Let the justice system do its job, and we, as a society need to learn to forgive.

Yes, forgive him.

Answers on a postcard.

Thursday, 4 March 2010


I mostly use that word because I like to confuse people. But partly because it's the correct word to use. But mostly the confusion.

Last night, at Alpha, after a scintillating debate on the Holy Spirit, conversation turned to baptism, and infant baptism in particular. Now, I have no problem with infant baptism. In fact, I think it's brilliant. It gives the parents a chance to dedicate their child to God, and to promise to bring them up in the faith. When it works, it's a fantastic testimony to the family, and the dedication of the parents. But that's just it. It seems to me that it's more about the parents. They're making a decision for the children. There's nowt wrong with that - they do it all the time throughout their childhood. Yet, if there is opposition to the idea of being baptised twice, they take away the opportunity of the future adult to make the decision to be baptised themselves. To nail their own colours to the mast, as it were. But then you have to ask why being baptised twice is such an issue? Especially when, normally, the first time is hardly at a cogent age.

Obviously, there is confirmation - an excellent chance for the child or adult to make their own commitment. But is confirmation a Biblical precedent? Does it do/say/show the same things as being baptised?

Are all these answers up for grabs?

Am I confused?