White is a colour

We're trying to re-decorate two downstairs rooms and hall for the first time in years and at the weekend we went shopping for paint. Armed with a 15% off voucher for Homebase we pulled up outside to see they were also doing a 'Buy 2 get one Free' offer on Crown paint.

After some debate about what colours went with what, we rolled up to the check-out with 9 tins of paint (spot the arithmetic), only to discover 'computer says no' to our third free tin. This also puzzled the Homebase staff, and as there were very few other customers in, several of them, including the manager, gathered round to try and find out what the problem was.

Eventually we worked it out. The offer was on Crown coloured paint, and we had one tin of white. It appears white is not a colour. According to Crown at any rate. In the end, at the insistence of the manager, we got another, tenth, tin free.

This made me think about the term 'people of colour' which I hear a lot to describe people who are not white, often used by those very people. To me this term implies that white is not a colour, and therefore the default by which everything else is measured. But surely the whole point is that white IS just another colour, like any other.

All bets are off!

At about 11.30 this morning I passed by our local shops and saw this scene. The security blind at the betting shop had jammed and two blokes were desperately trying to free it, watched by a gaggle of the regulars also desperate to get in and have another tilt at the tote. I don't know if or when they got it open, but maybe some money got saved today.

All people are equal. But some are less equal than others.

So Russell Brand has been sacked and Jonathan Ross suspended for their offensive joke played on Andrew Sachs (I wonder where the sacked/suspended line intersects with the audience figures). Quite right too - this was a no-no in a number of ways, not least that it was broadcast despite a request not to from Sachs.

OK, so for an up to date measure of what does and does not cross the line marked 'Too Offensive', we can now say publicly offending and upsetting a 78 year old man is clearly on the wrong side and there will be punishment.

How about a 68 year old man who fairly regularly has his sexuality questioned (because he happens to be single) and beliefs ridiculed (but only because he's a Christian - they wouldn't dare if he was a Muslim)? That does not appear to be a problem to the Guardians of PC.*

Or how about the glee with which some 'edgy' right-on people greeted the news that an 82 year old woman was suffering with dementia? All because they didn't like what she did when she was Prime Minister. Too far? Apparently not.

And nether, it seems, is the constant use of the name 'Jesus (and/or) Christ' as an exclamation on radio, TV and in print, either side of the watershed. I've blogged before about when Lenny Henry expressed how his heart still skipped a beat when he heard the 'n' word... which is what mine did a few minutes later when he used 'Jesus Christ' as a comic swear word. One is not OK, one is. Why are both not OK?

I remember the aforementioned Jonathan Ross apologising to the TV audience for a pre-watershed 'F' word from the stage during Live 8. But no notice was taken of a number of exclamatory mentions of You Know Who. One is not OK, one is. Why are both not OK?

It's all a matter of taste. But whose?

(*Cliff Richard. I was going to add 'not that I'm a fan', but that would be pandering to the Laws of Cool. So I'll leave you guessing.)

Why I Don't Go To Church

The other day I read this article entitled: "Why I don't go to church." It questions our assumptions about the word 'church' and how we use it, and how far we have drifted from the Biblical definition. Church = PEOPLE - we ARE the Church. How can we 'go' to it? Not only the building/organism confusion, we have also lost a sense of there being One Church, not in the universal sense (we seem to at least pay lip service to that concept), but in a geographical sense - as in "the Church of (fill in name of city)" - which is how Paul addresses his letters.

This of course means we have a shared responsibility for our city. All of it. All of us. Which has implications.

The photo is of the only church building I've ever seen that gets it right. "Meets here..." should be a compulsory add-on to all church building signs!

MPhil-ip me!

Well, it's official. My application to do an MPhil with the Urban Theology Unit in Sheffield has been accepted by their validating university, Birmingham, beginning October 1st. The old (and I mean 'old') academic chops are going to have to get not only restored but multiplied. To say I'm a bit daunted by this undertaking would be putting it mildly, but it seems to be 'right' to give it a good go. Maybe a Peter getting out of the boat situation.

I ended my 2007 sabbatical feeling I was entering a year of transition. I'd begun some study on "Mission With" as a theological back-fill on my involvement with Carisma and PeaceWeek which had opened up a number of other avenues of thought which needed more exploration. And I still had my 'itch'. The Urban Presence Trustees recommended I try to keep the study going a day a week. In December I gave a presentation on "Mission With" to the annual Urban Theology Collective, one of the members of which heads up the Post-Graduate bit of UTU. Afterwards he suggested I had the beginnings of a good MPhil. There followed several months of weighing up pros and cons, praying and taking advice, which was mostly "go for it". So I did. Recently I realised that October 1 is ONE YEAR EXACTLY from when my sabbatical finished. Spooky.

So, as best as I can work out, I think God is in this. Oo-er. The title of the research proposal is: "“Mission With” in Inner-city Manchester: Presence, Partnership and Power in Local Church Community Engagement" The sub-title is a quote from Steve Chalke: "True incarnation is when I go out and get involved in a local project where I don't run the show and I don't pull all the strings." No doubt I'll comment on progress here from time to time. Meantime, those of you who do, please pray for me!


P.S. The title of this blog sounds better said in a Belfast accent as it is a play on a local colloquialism. (This piece of information should, academically speaking, have a footnote leading to at least one verifiable source, referenced in a Bibliography, to demonstrate its accuracy... or you can take my word for it.)

Knock-down Countdown

In Asda the other day I came across a huge display of Ramadan Countdown Calendars. Each door had a question on it (e.g. How long do we fast for?) and just like our Advent Calendars a piece of chocolate behind it. They were half-price, so I bought one. I was curious as to why so many of them and why the price reduction. Was there a theological problem? Or some sort of disapproval of the concept?

Now I think I know...

The chocolate tastes AWFUL. Even my girls won't touch it and that is saying something.

Are you having a drink?

The last two weekends Judith and I have been guests at a friend's daughter's wedding. They are Muslim so the wedding takes place over several events spread over about 10 days. It was a great experience, lots of people having a great time, and of course fantastic food (there's not a lot I won't do for a decent curry!) Interesting to compare and contrast to 'our' weddings - some similar traditions, some that were new to me. Like trying to take something, preferably money, but a shoe will do, off the groom. Or everyone feeding wedding cake to the bride and groom.

The wedding service (there was a civil marriage some days beforehand) seems to take place in 2 parts. A ceremony with the Imam and the bride in a private room then another in the main room with Imam and the groom (to be honest I couldn't hear much of it). Then with much celebration the bride is brought into the main room and presented to the groom.

A big difference is that over the two events there was not one drop of alcohol consumed. Now hang on... didn't I say up there people had a "great time"? Is that possible without the imbibing of intoxicating liquids? Well, yes it would appear so. Contrast our white christian (small c) British culture where it is assumed the drinks have to be alcoholic for enjoyment to be possible, to the extent that the word 'drink' in certain contexts = 'alcoholic drink'. As someone who has had his manhood questioned BY FELLOW CHRISTIANS when ordering a soft drink in a pub I think this is a big problem in the Church also. I'm not teetotal, but I wonder if in these days of binge and alco-fuelled violence if we can learn something from the Muslim community and be more ready to challenge the cultural assumption behind "are you having a drink?"