Eulogy

Someone dear to me, and even more dear to several of my friends, passed away a few days ago at the shockingly young age of 40. In the midst of this awful, awful tragedy, I think it's natural to ask (scream, more like) the question 'Why?'. Why does something this unfair, this brutal, happen to someone so good? Being someone who thinks too much, this question has been going round my mind; but for now I want to pay my own little tribute to my friend, whom I'll call Phoebe (although I expect most folks reading this will know who I mean).

I didn't actually know Phoebe all that well, but many of my good friends did and they are just devastated. It seems she was loved and cherished by all who knew her, whether as close friends, workmates or neighbours. Phoebe was known to many in her community, partly because she was involved in running some community activities and also through having children at the local school. I've heard that even people who only had a passing acquaintance with her were in tears at the news of her death. What a legacy.

All this outpouring of grief and the sense of loss makes me wish I knew Phoebe better and reminds me powerfully of a talk I heard at a church meeting recently. The key message from the talk was that we should value eternal things (like people) over temporary things (possessions, status, power and so on); making that which is temporary the servant of that which is permanent. It's like that famous quote: 'Nobody's last words are that they wished they'd spent more time in the office.' Our final thought is not going to be about that car we decided not to buy, or that extra work that we turned down...

So I'm going to redouble my efforts to spend more time with people. People are amazing. I can't know everyone, obviously, not even everyone in my church. But I can spend more time – and better-quality time – with my friends and family; I can also take more opportunities to get to know new people. It's not always my favourite option but it's the better option, I think. Because people are amazing.

Kevin has turned Conservative

What's this? A (mostly) Conservative government doing things I like? But... the Tories are the enemy; I grew up believing they were evil, child-killing monsters who didn't squeeze the toothpaste tube from the bottom! Anyway, two good things they've done recently: one about their economic approach and the other to do with a consultation on entertainment licensing in village halls and similar venues [Kevin loses most of his readers to the sound of collective yawning...].

The economy, then. I wrote a while ago of my belief that the Government is not actually destroying the UK's public services. In a speech a week ago (full text of speech here) the chancellor, George Osborne, contrasted the UK Government's approach to that of some countries in mainland Europe. He said:

We had an emergency budget last summer on our own terms - not this summer on the market's terms - unlike so many other countries.

Contrast this with the Labour party's approach. They keep saying that cuts are needed (albeit at a slower rate) but they hardly seem to have identified any cuts that they'd actually make. Unless I've missed something, all their comments on the economy are along the lines of 'This is an ideologically-based cut that will cause much damage to the nation's public services'. So, Ed and Ed, what would you cut?

My second reason for singing the Government's praises is a much more niche issue that I noticed at work yesterday. Currently, village halls (run, usually on a shoestring budget, by a management committee of volunteers) have to get a premises licence if they want to put on entertainment for the public and if they wish to sell alcohol. The licence just covering entertainment (showing films, putting on plays, hosting dances etc.) is free but there's still a fair bit of administration involved, and it all contributes to the workload of, in the case of charitable village halls, volunteer trustees who may well be put off by all the red tape. So imagine my joy when I had an email on Monday about a Government consultation on simplifying the premises licensing procedures. I'm going to quote the foreword in full (with key parts picked out in bold) as I think it's a wonderfully clear statement of intent. Simple language, a clear summary of the current situation, and a straightforward statement of what the Government proposes to change:

At the moment, the law and regulations which require some (but not all) types of entertainment to be licensed are a mess. For example, you will need a licence if you want to put on an opera but not if you want to organise a stock car race. A folk duo performing in the corner of a village pub needs permission, but the big screen broadcast of an England football match to a packed barn-like city centre pub does not. An athletics meeting needs licensing if it is an indoor event, but not if it’s held outdoors. A free school concert to parents doesn’t need a licence, but would if there is a small charge to raise money for PTA funds or if there are members of the wider public present. A travelling circus generally needs a permit whereas a travelling funfair does not. A carol concert in a Church doesn’t need a licence, but does if it is moved to the Church Hall. There are many other examples where types of entertainment are treated differently for no good reason – the distinctions are inconsistent, illogical and capricious.

But they cause other problems too. Whenever we force local community groups to obtain a licence to put on entertainment such as a fundraising disco, an amateur play or a film night, the bureaucratic burden soaks up their energy and time and the application fees cost them money too. Effectively we’re imposing a deadweight cost which holds back the work of the voluntary and community sector, and hobbles the big society as well.

Equally importantly, the various musicians’ and other performers’ unions are extremely concerned that all these obstacles reduce the scope for new talent to get started, because small-scale venues find it harder to stay open with all the extra red tape. There is also evidence that pubs which diversified their offer to include activities other than drinking were better able to survive the recession. Making it easier for them to put on entertainment may therefore provide an important source of new income to struggling businesses such as pubs, restaurants and hotels.

Last but not least, laws which require Government approval for such a large range of public events put a small but significant dent in our community creativity and expression. If there’s no good reason for preventing them, our presumption should be that they should be allowed.

So this is a golden opportunity to deregulate, reduce bureaucratic burdens, cut costs, give the big society a boost and give free speech a helping hand as well. Our proposals are, simply, to remove the need for a licence from as many types of entertainment as possible. I urge you to participate in this consultation so that we can restore the balance.

Death by Powerpoint

I've been away in Nottingham most of this week on a training course with work. It was interesting but most of the sessions were in the now-traditional style of a presentation with questions afterwards. I don't know about you but I can only take so much of this before I switch off, which is a shame as most of the presenters were giving us lots of useful information. If only they could vary the way they delivered their material; with more interaction, maybe a bit of learning by doing, and a short break or two. It's all about the learning styles.

Every time I have an experience like this it reminds me that most people find it really hard to deliver training and presentations in a truly engaging way. I guess I need reminding as it's one of the things I'm pretty good at. *Thinks how I might make a career out of this talent*

Mind you, there was one shining exception; we had a guy from the Charity Commission talking about how village hall trusts can change their governing documents (cue deafening yawns from my readers!) and he was great. It helped that he had a nice line in dry humour but he also got us to talk in little groups for a few minutes, so we weren't just listening to him for half an hour. The frustrating thing is that I bet all the other presenters we had would love to know how they could make their sessions more interesting, and I think it would just need a bit of training. It ain't rocket science...

Full-time Christian work

What do you understand by that phrase, then; 'full-time Christian work'? I went for a walk round Lepe with a good friend the other day and we were talking about this, as it's relevant to his life situation at the moment. I suppose if someone gets described as a full-time Christian worker most people would think of things like youth work, church leadership or missionary work. What it really means is that the person works for a Christian organisation. And that's fine, isn't it? It's quite a useful short-cut phrase.

But I think there can be a problem when we treat church-based work as somehow better or more holy than other kinds of work. Or when we celebrate 'Christian workers' in a way that we don't extend to those in sales, catering, retail, nursing or whatever. Now I don't mean to downplay what people like pastors and church administrators do, not at all. But maybe we should give equal credit, praise and support to the majority of us who don't have so-called Christian jobs. In my view, we have just as big a part to play in doing God's work (I said I'd explain what I meant by that, didn't I? Soon...).

So this conversation with my mate was a few days ago, and then yesterday I saw something about exactly this issue on a blog run by some American folks involved in various churches, universities and Christian magazines. The full post is here and I've picked out a few points below:

Here’s the problem – when we call people to radical Christian activism, we tend to define what qualifies as “radical” very narrowly. Radical is moving overseas to rescue orphans. Radical is not being an attorney for the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency]. Radical is leaving your medical practice to vaccinate refugees in Sudan. Radical is not taking care of young children at home in the suburbs. Radical is planting a church in Detroit. Radical is not working on an assembly line.

Paul [in 1 Corinthians 7] wanted to draw the Corinthians’ attention away from their circumstances and emphasize that the full Christian life could be lived anywhere by anyone if lived in deep communion with God. Do we really believe that? Really? Os Guinness reminds us that, “First and foremost we are called to Someone, not to something or to somewhere.” We should remember that the word radical is from Latin meaning “root.” If our lives are rooted in a continual communion with God, then every person’s life, no matter how mundane, is elevated to sacred heights – including a suburban mom’s, the office worker’s, and the EPA attorney’s. And it’s not just radical when they behave like a missionary or social activist in their free time. Even working the assembly line becomes a holy activity when done “with God.”

Paul... did not measure maturity or commitment to Christ based on how “radical” a life appeared on the outside, or the visible impact a person made either missionally or socially. These activities are good and important, don’t misunderstand me, but they are not the center of the Christian life. Rather maturity was seen by the depth of a person’s union with Christ. The truly radical life is the one intimately rooted in communion with God, through Christ, in the Spirit, and that responds obediently to his call – whatever it may be.

So I’ve come to embrace the reality that my place as a church leader is not to get people to do more for God. Rather, I believe my responsibility is to give others a ravishing vision, rooted in Scripture and modeled by my own example, of a life lived in communion with God. And there, as they abide in him, calling will happen. The Lord of the harvest will call and send workers. And he will call others to live quietly and work with their hands. Some may be butchers, and others lawyers, and some he will even call to be suburban moms. And all of their work will be holy, good, and, if rooted in communion with God, truly radical.

There's such an important message in that last paragraph, I think. Our churches should be communities where we are encouraged (and ourselves encourage others) to seek ever greater closeness with God, which does not mean being urged to do more activity. A healthy and sustainable desire to do more for God will gradually spring from a life of greater communion with our Lord. Dare I suggest that putting the activity ahead of the relationship is a form of idolatry?


To finish off, writing this has just reminded me of a talk I heard at New Wine a few years ago by Mark Greene, big-time workplace mission man and author of 'Thank God it's Monday'. I don't remember anything specific from the talk but what is still clear in my mind is that he gave everyone a red and white badge with the letters FTCW on it (just like that one up there). Full Time Christian Worker... God calls all of his children to be full-time workers for his kingdom, to make his will done on earth as it is in heaven. Are you in?

Choose to lose

Lent starts today and I've just read what Mike Breen had to say about it on his blog. Read it for yourself to get the full picture, but he wrote about how Jesus, when he was being tempted in the desert, basically faced attacks by way of the appetite, of affirmation and of ambition (yes, a three-word alliteration!). Here's what he says about the last of those attack methods; ambition.

Breen describes ambition as 'an addiction to winning or having to be successful', seeing ourselves as a Failure (capital 'F', because it's who we are!) if we lose, or don't get that promotion, or that raise, or that job, or if that person doesn't want to date me, or if that person beats me at that game.

So how do we break this ungodly way of thinking and behaving? Breen says we should 'choose to lose':

If an argument is going a certain way with your spouse, choose not to have the last word. Lose the argument for the sake of the relationship.

If you’re playing a board game or basketball or any kind of game, make the point of playing to bless your opponent and don’t care whether you win or lose. I’m not saying don’t play hard, I’m saying know when your obsession to win takes over. Change the motivation from winning to blessing.

Go above and beyond at work but don’t let anyone know. Choose to lose the opportunity of that something extra being in the back of your boss’ mind when your annual review has come.

When I run, I feel God's pleasure

Just a quick thought tonight. In the film 'Chariots of Fire' the runner who is a Christian says he feels God's pleasure when he runs, meaning – I guess – that running is what God meant for him to do. Well I had the same feeling at work on Thursday when I led a training session. I was really looking forward to it as I haven't had the chance to lead some training for quite a while. And sure enough, it went really, really well. We had nine people along for the session and seven of them rated it as excellent in all the categories on our evaluation forms. I absolutely felt God's pleasure while I was leading the session. When do you feel that God is most pleased with you?