Let the revolutions begin - end the tyranny no 2: the tyranny of news

I have been fed up with the way the TV and radio, and the newspapers for that matter too, give us our news, for years. The TV and radio are particularly bad. You get a small handful of headlines at the start - maybe 5 or 6, and that, dear reader, is your world news for today. No matter what else has happened, you ain't going to hear about it. And then the rest of the programme is taken up with the special editor for this or that appearing on location, in a hotel, or in front of a meaningful building "somewhere", telling us little more than the newsreader did, followed up by long minutes of speculation and opinion being thrown at us as if it were the news. I guess they think we are more inclined to be impressed by them if they are giving us the news "on location".
Then there is the aggressive interview. Some politician whose party or who personally has done something to make a headline is sat in front of a camera or a microphone and someone like Eddie Mair or John Humphrys fires off questions designed to get one word admissions and headline grabbing scoop statements so they can tell us that we heard it on their programme first. The belligerent aggressive tone of much of the interviewing is breathtaking. Moreover, if the interviewee declines to answer by bodyswerving the question, they are usually asked the same question again at least 4 or 5 times, albeit with slightly different words. But the answer which the interviewer wants to elicit is not so much news as a headline grabber. I want news, not the carousel of questions which the interviewer thinks will enhance his or her reputation.
So what do we do? If you can, you could always switch the news off after you have heard the headlines, because believe you me, you really won't know much more by the end of the programme. Perhaps we could all switch to buying the i, cheap and full of news.
The fact is, the media have trained us to expect and understand news in the way they deliver it. It is a tyranny and a conspiracy. I have heard of a couple of guys who run a news station in the New York I think, and all they do is give brief news headlines when they go on air. Great. And when I want opinions, I can listen to Question Time.....just don't get me started. 

Let the revolutions begin - end the tyranny no. 1: the unsolicited tele-sales call

Right. For all you who hate these calls but are a little unsure of how to deal with them, let me give some advice on how you can get a little fun out of these scourges of our existence.
The first thing you have to remember is that a tele-sales person relies on the fact that you are basically polite, won't tell lies, answer truthfully, and don't want to hang up without some form of closure like "No thanks, goodbye." They are never going to allow you to do that. They have learned to speak non stop for long minutes, and they will only ask you questions to which your ego or innate sense of politeness tells you the answer has to be either "Yes" or "I don't know" either of which will then give them permission to go on at even greater length.  If you happen to be lucky enough to get a recorded sales pitch, then fine, just hang up, they don't count.
The next thing you need to do is when you pick up your phone to answer it, never ever say who you are or even give out your number or any detail at all! This is very important. Say "Hello" and wait, or if you have the bottle, say nothing at all, because it's really up to the caller to greet you and introduce themselves. If it's an unwanted sales call they will ask if you are Mr or Ms John Smith. At this point if they have a wrong name, you just say, "Sorry wrong number" and hang up immediately! If they have the RIGHT name, this is where tactics need to be employed.
First, you ask, "Who is calling?" without having admitted that you are the person they have just mentioned. They then should give you enough information to decide on whether you want to take this call or not. If they don't give you enough information then persist with your questions, ignoring theirs, until you have the info you want. If you don't want to continue with the call, you have a number of options. If they want to sell you some home improvement stuff, double glazing or some such thing, simply say "I'm sorry, I don't own this house." This will probably be true unless you do own it outright and have paid off the mortgage. If you do own it outright, and don't want to tell a fib, or they want to sell you something which is not related to ownership of the property, then you could ask them to repeat who it is they want to speak to. If they ask you outright if you are that person, just say, "Hold on I'll see if he/she is available." That way, you are not lying, just buying yourself time. Put the phone down, and ask yourself if you are available for this particular call. The answer should be "NO" unless you have lost all sense of time, order and priority, and desperately want to hear the sound of another human being. Having decided that you are not available, you pick up the phone and say,"Sorry he/she is not available at this time." If they are quick enough to ask who you are, just say that you are a friend which is true. If they ask when the person might be available you simply say you don't know and need to go now, "Goodbye" and ignore any questions about when might be a good time to call back.
Now, if you want to have a little fun, you could use a different approach, although it does require a little dissembling, which in my book is ok with tele-sales calls. So, when they ask "Is that Mr/Ms/Mrs So and so?" you reply that Mr So and so has just gone to prison, but would welcome the opportunity to talk to this company if they (the caller) can just give you a number to pass on, and said person will phone them from prison if they can do a reverse the charges or free number call. Usually the caller beats a hasty retreat. You can invent any number of different scenarios which will also discourage the caller, like, "He's in the middle of a law suit against a tel-sales company for misrepresentation of goods". Really your imagination is your only limit.
Should the caller be trying to gain access to your computer, this is definitely a scam. Give nothing away. If they ask if you use Microsoft or Word tell them you don't know (act dumb), and do NOT do anything they tell you with regard to your own computer, like type in a code or address they give you. Ask the caller for his or her name - I once got Albert Einstein I kid you not! Then ask for the manager's name. Then ask for the manager's Microsoft Authorisation Code, which if they have the presence of mind to deal with, they will make up on the spot. At that point tell them it has too many (or too few) characters in it to be correct, and hang up.
So, take control of the process, be robust, creative and have fun. 

Communications

I used to think I was quite modern media savvy. I enjoyed emails, texting, online chatting, skyping and skype messaging. I knew how to navigate websites, blogged, and even put content into web pages. But it has been a revelation to me to see how these things have faded in comparison to the way Facebook is used as a way of communicating by Gen Xers and below. I was recently informed that if we in the church want to reach them, inform them, get them into our loops, forget web sites and blogs and get onto Facebook instead. I guess it's not just Facebook either. My falling behind includes Twitter. I don't tweet, yet. Nor does the church, but we are going to have to I reckon. This news is, to my generation, a staggering blow to the use of English and quite threatening to those us who fear the slithey hashtag prefix. Grammar and spelling are blown out of the water, and communication is reduced to fairly instant and ephemeral sound and readbites. But we are not going to change it by complaining. If we don't get on the ship, we won't even be noticed as not being there. I will however continue to blog as it serves very well as a kind of pressure vent for me. I can have my wee bit long winded comment (forgive the Scottish paradox), and then feel better. Besides, I know my generation does not have a monopoly on long windedness. You can hear today's teenagers on the bus having fairly extended rants and outbursts of enthusing too. "Mrs Green is sooo boring. I fell asleep in her class. She just goes on and on and on..." (like you my dear). Or, "I wiz oot o ma head last night. Did ye see Dave totally oot o it tae. Whit a night. Wicked man..." and more of the same, as others join in the game of "outdo" to see who was most drunk. This is NOT a criticism of today's dissolute youth, merely a reflection on the fact that nothing much changes, because we were the same...  except that now we have the ability to be able to communicate this stuff in a medium that truly deserves it. Now, where's the dinosaur park?

Scotland - what of the future?

Independence - the debate is hotting up. It will never be a cut and dried decision, but the hard evidence points to staying with the bigger unit, the U.K. Emotionally, for many Scots an independent Scotland is a tempting choice, but really, is it economically sustainable?  Sure, we have the oil, for now. But we won't have it forever. And what else do we have? Tourism, banking, light industry, a mini silicon valley? However, all that is I suppose is debatable. I would not want us to vote for the Union because we were frightened of the consequences of becoming independent. We are a resourceful resilient lot after all. But staying within the Union does not change that. Nor does staying within the Union diminish our sense of identity. We are taking up our emblems of identity as Scots with ever increasing fervour. The wearing of the kilt is growing in popularity, as is our folk music and the Gaelic and Scots tongues. We have devolved government with strong powers, and will probably accrue more in time to come. The ceilidh as a musical and social event is also a strong feature of the Scottish scene. We don't need independence to enable any of that, and independence won't bring increased prosperity or economical benefits to us. Whatever the SNP are promising, and they are making some attractive promises, will need to paid for. Revenue from oil may pay for some of the carrots being dangled, for a while, but in the long term, taxation of the working population must foot the bill. I don't mind paying taxes for social benefits, and would be willing to vote for higher taxation for an improved NHS and Educational and Benefits system even within the Union. The problem with an independent Scotland will be that there just won't be that many of us working to be able to foot the bill for increased quality and quantity in the area of state benefits. Our small population would not be able to generate the quantity of cash required for generous funding of state provision for our pensioners, our children and our sick. I believe we are better together, although if someone could show me a cash projection sustainable into the far future and tell me why currency, defence, and our trading relationship with Europe will all be fine, then I would be open to reconsider. 

Church of Scotland - what of the future?

I was listening to an article on the radio which went into a history of hijacking of aeroplanes by terrorists. Apparently there was one in the 1930's but the modern era of hijackings didn't start until 1970, when Palestinian terrorists attempted a co-ordinated attempt to hijack a number of El Al planes. I remember travelling first on a plane in September of 1969, over to Germany, Edinburgh to Dusseldorf, and I can still connect with the immense thrill of that first journey. We were allowed to smoke on board, and stewardesses distributed food and drink freely! There was no such thing as security. Gosh, how innocent (comparatively speaking), the world was then. Even after the era of hijackings began, things were still fairly laid back in 73, when I remember flying from Venice to London. I hadn't realised it had started with an El Al plane when I was scrutinised by Israeli security on my first visit to Israel. I had been well warned to play it very straight and serious with them though.  And of course, in those early days, turning up for a flight needed no allowance made for a 30-40 minute journey through security.
I wonder sometimes, when I think of the late 60's and early 70s if that would have been a good time to make the clock of time stick, given the relative innocence of it all then or is this just me wishing for my vanished youth? I think in many ways we have all got much more real since then. Nowadays we allow much higher levels of reality in drama, music, newspapers, and novels. Along with this comes ever increasing transparency and encouragment to whistle blow. The response to the Jimmy Saville revelations and more recent scandals surrounding the sexual abuse of young people are one aspect of modern life's openness that we should all be grateful for. This transition to a more open, more real kind of society, makes me think what has changed in church life. In the 1950's, 60's and early 70's we saw fairly good attendance in our churches. This however began to decline in the 70's and has continued as a trend ever since. People speak of a decline in Christianity. I'm not sure about this. I feel there has been a decline in paying lip service to the Christian Faith, but I doubt very much if there really has been a decline in active belief or faith. People are far less likely now to go to church unless they have firm levels of faith, or are sincerely searching, and equally are less likely to be put off by boring services or preaching. They are there for substance, not for entertainment. This is reflected in the levels of giving too. Now overall, church finances are less than healthy, but, the decline in giving has not mirrored the drastic decline in membership and attendance. This means that the smaller numbers who come must be giving in proportionately more sacrificial or "real" ways. I used to think that the decline in numbers had not affected the evangelical church, but apparently, even in this quarter there are signs of decline.
When we ask ourselves "What is to be done about this?" I think we ask the wrong question if we are looking to reverse the trend and get people back in through the doors on a Sunday. A better question to ask is, "What is happening in within the Christian Community outside of Sundays?" In many places the local church or churches are hosting a good number of midweek non-church community orientated activities, some weekly others regular but less frequent. These activities are seeing a relatively good response from the wider unchurched community. Some people are led to a deepening of faith through them, others are happy just to enjoy them. Moreover, there has been a subtle change in ways in which church goers get together to maintain fellowship. Home groups are on the increase, as are task orientated groups, some of which offer worship and faith teaching or learning opportunities too.
The problem is that many of these activities may not generate enough cash to keep a professional ministry and its administrative support in work. So are we going to see a radical overhaul of the way we do church? Not in my lifetime, but by the end of the century, yes. There will be far fewer ministers serving yet more widespread and diverse constituencies, working in team situations with colleagues some of whom are part-time paid, some of whom support themselves through other work and share in the ministry as volunteers. Some of them will have no formal qualifications or training, others will, to varying degrees. Many of our buildings which cost a disproportionate amount to run and maintain, will have been closed and sold. Will we still, in the Church of Scotland be claiming a territorial parish ministry, dispensing the sacraments and service of a Parish Minister to every person in the land? I think we might. But in a very different guise, to a population  the majority of which will by then  not be that bothered about what we might be offering to every person anyway. Many more people will be asking for humanist or civil celebrants at weddings or funerals. Baptisms are largely the activity of a tiny minority now, and will increasingly disappear from church life. Secular society will even compete with us in terms of our weekday community service. I saw an advert the other day for "Messy toddlers" or "Messy nursery" which is of course straightforward competition with "Messy Church".
So, from proud National Church to humble, irrelevant, sidelined and ignored church? Probably. Not a bad place from which to bear witness to the Gospel. 

Chemical Weapons of Mass Destruction

I am royally disgruntled - I could use a ruder phrase, but that will do. The media and the international community are dancing in the spotlight of outrage at the use of these, and Russia has cleverly outmaneuvered America in the diplomacy stakes with regard to doing something about it. I'm not annoyed about this latter development, but I am annoyed at the way this incident has made the real problem almost invisible. The two sides are tearing vast lumps out of each other on a daily basis. Millions of people are being rendered homeless and stateless and thousands have died and will continue to do so. The suffering is happening on an unimaginable scale. What is killing these people? Not weapons of mass destruction. Oh, so we don't have to jump up and down in a panic stricken sort of way then? Call me stupid, but if thousands of people are dying because of bombing and other fire power, aren't these weapons also causing mass destruction. Isn't this fine point just what gave the edge to the debate over gun policy in the USA? Surely no private individual needs to possess a weapon that is capable of shooting scores of rounds in a matter of seconds? There's a thin red line right there.
However, there is light in this tunnel. The Russian Foreign Secretary, Sergei Lavrov, has said that the current diplomatic activity will hopefully lead on to talks aimed at halting the conflict in Syria. Well, here's hoping, and praying. 
I know that there is a huge tension between standing by and doing nothing when countries begin to descend into the hell of their own internal conflicts, and trying to influence them to stop. The tension is ramped up further when the so called weapons of mass destruction are brought in by one side or the other,  although the logic that says this is a thin red line seems kind of arbitrary. Is genocide a weapon of mass destruction, or an attitude of mass destruction...?  When it comes to being able to influence others to stop doing bad and very bad things, the current model is instructive. We can bleat all we like about Russia's vested interests in the region and in Syria, but Assad sees them as his friends. They have influence through this friendship. The USA is big and tough, but hasn't been able to frighten Assad into doing anything, as far as we know that is, though the hawks will say that Assad gave way to Russia's plan because he needed to have something on the table to stop the USA from selectively bombing his arsenals to smithereens. But at least they were able to offer a face saver of a plan.
We now have to wait and see.

The Pope's remarks re Gays - Time Magazine reflects.

Time Magazine's article (Gene Robinson) sees the Pope's remarks as "Baby Steps". Robinson says in his article, "..Francis' softening in tone is being reflected elsewhere in the Christian church. Mainline denominations are taking an ever more tolerant approach to homosexuality. Conservative evangelicals, especially younger ones, are looking for a way to affirm gay Christians and the love they come to know with other people. Fuller Theological Seminary, the U.S.'s largest evangelical seminary, has a new OneTable group exploring a biblical way forward in how its members can more deeply accept their gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters in Christ. Even evangelicals understand that changing their stance on this issue may be key to attracting young people, whether gay or straight, to the church and keeping them."

On behalf of the evangelicals I would take exception to the last sentence. I do not think most thinking evangelicals change their thinking for pragmatic reasons. Getting people into the church has never been either a necessary or a sufficient reason for a seismic shift in Biblical theology. No doubt Time Magazine will get a post bag reflecting a certain amount of outrage at this suggestion.
However, I think that there are times when society at large outpaces the Church in understanding right and wrong. The Church is a flawed arbiter of the ethically high way. We might prefer it if God kept us in the loop or even gave us first dibs on new revelations concerning what is good, but, let's face it, He sometimes uses non church people to freshen up our thinking and understanding. We really don't like this, but occasionally it is necessary, both for our pride's sake and for the sake of people who need to be reached by God's love.

So, Fuller is opening up dialogue and debate around the topic as are many evangelical groups. Good on them. I hope that we may see more good debate around the topic, rather than the rather boring repetition of position statements, which is what happened at the Church of Scotland's General Assembly, albeit in a gracious, polite and well groomed way, and may be what reformist groups within the church are hoping they can do too: win the argument against by repetition and strength of numbers.