Other Ramblings from the pen of the Terminally Confused...

... can be found at major-jim.livejournal.com

Mostly memes, fan fiction (Patrick O'Brian and Discworld so far, but watch this space) and general silliness.

Food, Food, Glorious Food...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

OK, it's maybe not up there with the Archbishop converting to Islam (which he hasn't done, by the way, although you'd think he had, the fuss some people are making over his recent comments, however misguided they may be - haven't read them so can't say), but it's still a bit disconcering.

Are you ready?

Deep breath...

Delia says 'eat tinned.'

Yep, that's it.

Actually, it's pretty accurate. If The Times are to be believed, anyway, and surely Murdoch wouldn't lie to us? Would he?

Well, probably not on this one. It'd be too easy to check.

So, Ms. Smith wants us to eat tinned mince. Why? It's foul and made out of bits of meat that the cow didn't even know that it had and it's TINNED for goodness sake. Surely that's enough. I mean, it's not hard.

So, we have a perculiar situation, where the government want everyone to learn to cook, but the chefs want people to eat a Tesco Economy McTinned Meal. With oven chips.

Meme: Movie Quotes

Well, if Mrs TC can do this, why can't I? Prizes (of the feeling-smug-and-self-satisfied variety) to the best guesses...

Meme rules:

1. Pick 15 of your favourite movies.
2. Go to IMDb and find a quote from each movie (not necessarily your favourite quote - they're often too easy!)
3. Post them here for everyone to guess.
4. Fill in the film title once it's guessed.
5. NO GOOGLING/using IMDb search functions.


1. "The ship is in ship-shape shape."

2. "Hey, what did I say? Did you hear what I said? I heard what I said 'cause I was standing there when I said it."

3. "There is no spoon."

4. "What about elevenses? Luncheon? Afternoon tea? Dinner? Supper? He knows about them, doesn't he?"

5. "I've never used the word "spinster" in my life. Okay, once, when I told my mother it was technically incorrect to call her son a spinster."

6. "Hey, we're flexible. Pearl Harbor didn't work out so we got you with tape decks."

7. "I create feelings in others that they themselves don't understand."

8. "By 'caliber,' of course, I refer to both the size of their gun barrels and the high quality of their characters... Two meanings... caliber... it's a homonym... Forget it."

9. "The only thing that France is adept at hosting is an invasion."

10. "You do not bang on the hood. You never under any circumstances drive. And you will certainly not put your coffee mug on the roof of the car. In fact, no coffee in the car whatsoever. Coffee goes on the ground, you get in the car, we go."

11. "You never get anyone in 'Wings of a Dove' saying 'Inform the Pentagon we need black star cover!'"

12. "I can't understand it. This car hasn't given me a lick of trouble in nearly 6 hours."

13. "Oh, [name], I've had a lot of birthdays - well, not a lot of birthdays - but this is the best birthday ever."

14. "I think we've all arrived at a very special place. Spiritually, ecumenically, grammatically."

15. "'Extremely dangerous. Keep out of reach of children.' Cool!"

Sceptical about Science?

I've just been struck by a post on Sam Allberry's blog, which is here if you're interested. But in his final paragraph, he says:

"...Nor is any of this exclusive to Nutritionism. As I thought through these four features, it struck me how true they are of contemporary Environmentalism, the other rising new religion of our day. I can't help feeling captive to the experts. In shrill terms we're told daily of how human carbon emmissions are driving us to the brink of an ecological apocalypse. Recycling and air-travel have become (opposite) moral absolutes. As a Christian, I am far from indifferent to the natural well-being of God's world. And yet I remain mistrustful of a scientific band whose ideology is often secularist and unacknowledged, who confer upon their theories the status of absolute truth, and therefore pillory the rising number of other scientists who do not share their assumptions and who question their findings. I don't like being a cynic, and I don't want to become one of those Christians who forever demonises "those scientists", but sometimes the experts leave us no alternative."

It's a valid point of view, that scientists generally come at a topic from an a-thiestic point of view. Indeed, many a violently anti-religion, and frequently anti-Christianity especially. But this leaves us with a quandry. Do we ignore the claims made by the mass of scientists on the basis that they come from a completely different world-view to Christians, or do we go with them?

This seems to be the root of the question, but it also seems one that has a simple solution. It's about recognising the questions that science as a tool can answer, and those it cannot.

Science is, in its fundamentals, the study of the natural world around us. Indeed, many early scientists called themselves 'natural philosophers,' presumably becuase their thoughts and ponderings were influenced by their observations of nature. (Incidently, I absolutely detest the scientific convention of capitalizing nature or biology, as in "Nature has done this.") Study leads naturally on from observation to hypothesis, from hypothesis to experiment, and from experiment to conclusion or theory.

For example, an observation is that something happens. This leads to the question "why does this happen?" and a guess - "maybe this happens becuase of this." To find out, one alters this and examines the results. Either it has an effect, or it doesn't, and after much hard work, one can draw a conclusion. Eventually, numerous conclusions may lead to a theory, and, once the theory has been tested, and shown to hold true again and again, the word is often changed to 'law.' (Laws are, of course, sometimes proven to be wrong or incomplete, such as the idea of a flat earth, or the assumption that Newtonian mechanics would hold true for sub-atomic particles such as electrons, which instead need quantum mechanics to describe them.)

In a round-and-about way, this leads me to my point. If a scientist tries to answer a question that science itself cannot answer, he is merely postulating, and his science is closer to philosophy or theology. If he tries to answer a question that science can answer, he may be correct or incorrect, but he's entitled to call his opinions 'scientific.'

Which brings us to global warming (or its absence). Firstly, although some scientists believe that the phenomenon does not exist, most believe it does. There is much observational evidence. Doesn't it seem warmer to you than it was this time 15 years ago? Birds which used to migrate seem not to bother any more. Satellite images show that the Arctic ice-sheets are shrinking rapidly. And simple experiments using a thermometer tell us that, on average, the years are hotter than they were.

So why? Here we come on the the hypothesis. The most common guess is that's it due to 'greenhouse gas' emmissions, i.e., the release of gases such as CO₂ etc. These allow sunlight to enter the Earth's atmosphere, but the reflected rays are absorbed, like the way a glass roof on a greenhouse makes the inside hotter than the outside. There is evidence to support this hypothesis. Ice cores taken show the temperature and CO₂ concentrations in the atmosphere for many thousands of years. The two cycle up and down, the temperature following the CO₂ level closely, although slightly behind. However, since the 1800s, the CO₂ levels, and the temperature, have been shooting up - and show no sign of coming down again any time soon. They're already way past where they usually got to in the 'natural' cycle. None of this is proof that human CO₂ release is causing climate change. But it's a correlation without any other obvious cause.

So what should we do? Should we argue that scientists have an axe to grind, so we'll ignore them? After all, they're scientists - they have a vested interest in science. Or should we decide to believe them, after all, they're the people who should know best? And if we decide to ignore them, who shall we believe instead?

I believe global warming is real. I believe it's at least in part caused by human CO₂ release. As an evangelical Christian I don't think this is incompatible with my worldview - after all, God made the world, and it was very good. But then came the fall, and the outworkings of that are seen all around us. Is it reasonable to expect that they would be limited to mankind's dealings with each other? As a consequence of Adam's sin, the first death is recorded in the Bible (an animal is killed to make clothes). The pattern of sin and death continues to this day. As custodians of the world, have we really made such a good job of it that this pattern will not reach a logical conclusion?

I must stress, however, that although global warming may well result in catastrophic consequences, I doubt it will signal the end of humanity. Many millions may die, species may become extinct, and whole countries become submerged. But in many ways, that's just an extension, albeit on a massive, horrific scale, of the human story ever since the time of Adam. Should we really be surprised?

So what should we do? Should we ignore it - after all, as rich Westerners we will probably be comparatively unaffected. Or should we try to act to affect it, making sacrifices if need be. Is this analogous (although not equivalent or sufficient) to repentence?

For more information, visit www.eci.ox.ac.uk.

Northern Rock II - the saga continues (and ends)

A long time ago, in a land far away, there was a bank. That bank was generally well run, and even contributed a fair proportion of its profits to charity. But one day everything went wrong...

Now the bank manager was more clever and business-minded than many other people. So one day he had an idea.

"I know," thought the bank manager. "At the moment I take the people's gold for a time, and then pay it back to them later with a bit extra, and in-between times I can lend it to other people at a higher rate of interest, and make a bit for myself. But what if instead I borrow a lot more gold, and do the same? If I charge more interest than I pay, then I'll make a King's ransom in profits."

So the very next day, the clever bank manager went to one of his rivals.

"Will you lend me 1000 sovereigns?" he asked. "And in a year or two, I'll pay you back 1050 sovereigns." The other bank manager thought that was a good deal, and agreed. So the clever bank manager took the 1000 sovereigns, and lent them to his friends.

"Look," he said. "I will lend you 100 sovereigns, and you can have them for a year or two, providing you pay me back 125 then."

Lots of people needed gold to buy food, so they did as he suggested.

But then one day there was bad news from the kingdom the other side of the sea. Some bad bank managers had lent money to people who wouldn't return it, and everybody started to panic.

Then the bank manager who had lent our hero 1000 sovereigns appeared and demanded his money back. But our bank manager didn't have it, for he had lent it to other people to buy food with. And so the panic continued.

One day the King heard all about the story of the bank manager, and said "I will stop the panic by paying everyone back."

And the people said "Hurrah."

But some people said "Oh no, this is a problem. Because to get his money back the king will want to sell the bank to somebody else. And this risks the status of the money that the bank still has."

So they sent off a form and had their ISA transferred to Intelligent Finance instead.

The End.

---

Actually, not quite the end. For, some days after sending off the form for the transfer, the following telephone conversation took place:

Hero: "Hello, you asked me to call you."
NR: "Did we?"
Hero: "Yes. Why?"
NR: "Ah, so we did. You see, the address IF gave us doesn't match the one we have."
Hero: "OK, sorry about that, shall I send you a utility bill to prove I have moved?"
NR: "No, we don't take those. What about a copy of your passport?"
Hero: "You do realise that passports don't have addresses on...?"
NR: "Don't they?"
Hero: "No."
NR: "Oh, well, OK, what about a letter from another bank?"
Hero: "Like the one you have from IF showing my new address?"
NR: "Yes, just like that one. But a different one."
Hero: "But still from IF?"
NR: "Oh yes, that's fine."
Hero: "Right... you do realise it'll have the same address as the letter you already have?"
NR: "Oh yes, but we need it. And we need you to give us a copy of your passport too."
Hero: "But you know who I am - the name's the same in both cases..."
NR: "I know. And we need you to write us a letter."
Hero: "A letter?"
NR: "Yes, one telling us your new address."
Hero: "Like the one you currently have, that sparked this whole thing off?"
NR: "Yes, just like that one. That way we'll know it's you."

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Anyone else got an ISA with Northern Rock? Anyone else worried?

So, on the one hand, if I panic like a frightened goose* and take my money out then I lose its tax-free status. And Gorden Brown gets enough of it already, so I'd rather not take this option. Also, this would then mean that I was contributing to the likelihood of the bank going bust, rather than supporting a generally fairly ethical and friendly business who have done exactly what I asked them to do for the last few years now.

On the other, if I panic like a rabbit caught in the headlights on the oncoming 4x4, and do nothing, then I risk losing the lot (minus whatever the government hand back from their contingency fund), and feeling a complete chump, as I could have done something, but didn't.

Loyalty is a fine thing, but when is enough enough? Hmmm...

UPDATE - The government have announced that, should Northern Rock fail, then they will underwrite 100% of all deposits, rather than the previous system whereby the first £2,000 would be underwritten in full, but only 90% of the next £33,000, and nothing thereafter.

-------

*Do geese panic? I don't know. I'm trying for something known to panic by flapping a lot. Any ideas?

The Sun Has Got His Hat On, Hip-Hip-Hip-Hooray...

Well, not here, he hasn't. But he had in Menorca. Which is where we've been over the last week (well, from 31st August to 7th September).

What can I say? It was gorgeous. Beautiful. Wonderful. Sunny. Warm. Laid back. Full of good cheese and cheap wine. What more could you want?

We stayed in Es Castell, which is a former British colonial town, built a couple of hundred years ago when Menorca was an important Mediterranean base. You could really see how the Mediterranean influences married with Georgian architecture. It had fantastic views across the harbour to Mahon (Maò in Menorquin), which is a fantastic place to explore - winding streets, good shopping and lots and lots of cafés, all with wonderful views across the bay.

I can't recommend it too highly.

Ferry leaving Maò

View from living room window

View from Maò towards Es Castell

Typical Menorquin boats - Calas Fons

Calas Corp

When I Rule the World...

I should know better. It's not good for my blood pressure. But I can't stand it any longer. Even more than The Archers, even more than Women's Hour, even more than most of the output of the Guardian, I'm fed up, here and now, with Britain. We are, without doubt, useless. So here is, in a concise and easy to handle list, exactly what's wrong. I'll probably run out of space. But here goes nothing.

1. Iraq. Let's get the big one out of the way first. I blush to admit that I believed the lying so-and-sos who told me that Saddam was an immediate threat to the UK, who had not only the means but also the inclination to wreak havoc on our green and pleasant land. Yeah, right. We shouldn't have gone in, but we did. We broke it, so we fix it. And yes, it's a war. That means that the other side are allowed to fire at us too. And no, it's awful when our soldiers die. But they're soldiers. It's in the job description. So let's equip them properly, let's support them properly, and let's do the best we can to mend it. And then let's go, when the Iraqi government are happy for us to do so. But until then, we're stuck there. Get over it.

Crime and Punishment

1. Right, let's offend some more people. Prison sentences. "Life imprisonment, and you should serve at least 12 years" is meaningless. If the crime is sufficiently grave to merit life imprisonment, then that's what you should get. If you should only serve 12 years, that's what you should be imprisoned for.
2. And whilst we're at it, let's lose the X-Boxes etc in the prisons. No, I'm not advocating solitary confinement and 20 lashes for breakfast, but let's not have a situation where prison is more comfortable than home.
3. Double the number of police. Put the extra ones on the beat, rather than behind desks.
4. "Antisocial behaviour" is playing music loudly. Beating up strangers in the street because they dare to stand up for themselves is assault. Let's find the kids, and start punishing them accordingly.
5. Lose the insultingly moderate sentences handed out for crimes such as murder, attempted murder, ABH, GBH, rape, muggings, etc etc.
6. In exchange, abolish the laws banning smoking in a public place.
7. Abolish the minimum drinking age. Or set it as, say, 12. Is it cool to eat chocolate? Not really. Yes, there'll be carnage for a few years. But it'll get better eventually. Alternatively, if you prefer to keep the legal limit as it currently is, then enforce it.

Politics

1. Climate change. It's happening. Tax the airlines on their fuel like the rest of the country. If and when the European CO2 emissions trading scheme starts working, they join it. Along with every other major business.
2. Research Funding. 65% of the allocated budget should be, well, allocated to specific projects. Cures for cancer, new power sources, medicines. Whatever. The remaining 35% split 60:40 in the sciences and arts for more esoteric research which may have no immediate applications.
3. Scrap the Olympics. Even now. I know it's late but really, £12 billion. Can you think of anything we should spend this money on instead? Oh, I know. Policemen. Schools. Hospitals. Parks. The countryside. Writing off third world debt. Reducing council tax. A giant fireworks show. I don't care. But two weeks worth of people running around a track. Please, no.
4. "Europe" isn't inherently bad. It's not inherently good either.
5. "Move forward or fall behind" is a false assumption. Staying still is the right decision sometimes.
6. Scrap road-pricing. Impose maximum legal emissions limits. If the car manufacturers can't sell their products in the UK, they'll soon change their specifications. And don't confuse congestion with climate change. An electrical car takes up the same amount of road space as a petrol one. And is still polluting (now how do we get that electricity...?)
7. Promote cycling, with financial advantages for those who do so.
8. Accept that public transport does not make money. If you want to encourage people away from their cars, make it attractive, rather than bullying. How about free school buses as a start? Subsidised train fares?
9. Reduce the BBC license fee, by abolishing those aspects that are not remotely "public service." Lose BBC Three. Radio 1? How controversial am I? Also allocate a portion of the fee to funding the National Film and Television Archives.
10. Set a minimum and maximum density for new housing.
11. Try to lose "short term" targets. Trends do not continue for-ever. "Ten years ago [quote statistic] whereas today [more statistics], so in ten years time...". By this argument, in 2020, one in three people will be an Elvis impersonator. Hmmm...

Education

1. Create an independent body (in the same way as the Bank of England is) to oversee school exams. Use people from our top universities, further education colleges, independent and state schools, and let's get an exam that ch alleges those who sit it.
2. An academic education is not for everyone. It should be available to everyone, but that's not the same thing. We need mechanics, builders, plumbers, and let's be honest: they'll earn more than they would with a 2:2 in media studies.
3. To this end, "education" should be compulsory until the age of 18, but this should include apprenticeships, A-levels, NVQs and vocational training courses.

Hmmm, that's all that occurs to me at the moment. Watch this space...

Hats Off to Ann Treneman

It's rare that I open a newspaper (well, click on the correct button) without ending up far more depressed than before I did so. It's all so bleak. Death, murders, stabbings, shootings. Outstanding areas of countryside being turned into Tesco supermarkets. Beautiful, architecturally rich buildings being torn down to make way for yet more cheap-to build, expensive-to-buy, nasty and ugly housing. David Beckham. It's just all so bleurgh.

So imagine my surprise to find not something that not only made me smile, but actually made me laugh out loud.

Firstly, if you haven't discovered Ann Treneman, then please do so. Now. She's the political sketch writer for the Times, which, I know, makes her sound about as much fun as spending an afternoon in the company of Alan Sugar. But she's witty, quick, sarcastic and surprisingly entertaining, given that she's essentially writing about a room of aging men and women who are paid to stand up and shout at each other. Well, that's what it looks like, anyway. But today's post made me smile more than usual, so I thought I'd flag it up. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

Apple and Cinnamon Loaf Cake

This is the recipe for an apple and cinnamon loaf cake that I made on Saturday. It came out, I have to say, rather well, and definitely didn't last long in the lab! It's adapted from the banana loaf in Nigella Lawson's "How to be a Domestic Goddess," which is probably one of the best baking books around. I like her style of writing and the pictures are good too!

Make sure you have the right size baking tin...

Ingredients:

100 g sultanas
25 ml rum
50 ml mulled wine (the kind you buy in a bottle ready to heat up)
175 g plain flour
2 tsp baking powder
¹/₂ tsp bicarbonate of soda
¹/₂ tsp salt
125 g butter, melted
150 g sugar
2 eggs
3-4 apples (you want 300 g once peeled and cored
1 tsp vanilla extract
1 tsp cinnamon

Method

Put sultanas, rum and wine into a small saucepan. Heat until almost boiling, cover and remove from the heat. Leave for one hour for the sultanas to adsorb the liquid.

Chop peeled and cored apple into largish chunks. Place in a saucepan with some water and boil until soft, adding more water if necessary. Once soft, continue to boil until any remaining liquid has evaporated. Using a potato masher (or a fork), mash the apple - you want it somewhat lumpy, not entirely smooth.

Mix flour, baking powder, bicarb, cinnamon and salt in a bowl. In a separate (larger) bowl, mix melted butter (you can melt it in the steam from boiling the apples) and sugarand beat until blended. Add the eggs, one at a time, and then the apple, beating after each addition. Then add the sultanas (and any remaining liquid) and the vanilla extract and beat. Add the flour mix, a third at a time, mixing well after each addition.

Line (or oil and flour) a 23x13x7 cm loaf tin and add the mixture. Place in a preheated oven, 170 ^oC/gas mark 3 for 1 - 1¹/₄ hours. Once cooked, an inserted skewer should come out clean.

Leave to cool completely before removing from the tin.

Glasgow Calling

So, back when the sun shone and the land was still above water (ah, those were the days), the missus and I went up to visit Zoe, a friend from Corpus, in the fair city of Glasgow. we had mch fun and were even fortunate with the weather - one day of rain out of six, which I reckon is better than par for Scotland. Hurrah! We did take quite a few photos, but, as they say, all things in moderation, so here are a select few.

"It's bigger on the inside..."

Glasgow Botanics

The Trossachs

Loch Katrine, The Trossachs

View across Loch Fyne to Inveraray

Helloooo!

Ahem. That is to say, I'm back, everybody. Did you miss me?

So, watch this space for photos of the other half and me in Glasgow on holiday, random thoughts on the news in general and articles to do with Christianity in particular, and a recipe for an apple and cinnamon loaf cake that was, even if I say it myself, rather good.

And so I leave you with news that it's not only me who isn't much good at recognising celebrities. Awww.

The Rights and Wrongs of a Silver Ring Thing

I don't know if you read the Times, as I do, but even if you don't, you can't have missed the recent uproar in the media regarding the case of Lydia Playfoot. If you do, you may, like me, have read a spiteful article in today's paper by Martin Samuel.

To summarise, she has taken her school (soon to be ex-school) to court for refusing to allow her to wear a silver ring as an outward symbol of her decision to refrain from having sex until she is married. The ring is supplied by The Silver Ring Thing (SRT), who are an evangelical Christian group who aim to promote this behaviour, and, as part of this, members make a declaration of their intention to remain celebate until they marry. Lydia claims her human rights have been breached, and that by refusing her wish to wear this ring, the school is discriminating against Christians. After all, Muslims are allowed to wear head-scarves, and Hindus can wear armbands. The school, on the other hand, are taking the stand that whilst such dress is compulsory for Hindus and Muslims, SRT rings are not compulsory for Christians (although if she choose to wear a crucifix, this would be allowed). As such, the SRT ring is nothing more than jewelry, and has no place in the school uniform.

Now, in my opinion, both parties have some basis for their arguments. The school is unquestionably correct that SRT rings, or indeed rings of any sort, are not commanded for Christians. Lydia has a point that her decision to wear such a ring is inspired by her Christian faith, and that for her it is an outward expression of her inward convictions. For what it's worth, it seems to me that an SRT ring has a similar level of necessity for an evangelical Christian as a cross or crucifix does - in other words it's not commanded, but I suppose that people like to express their faith in such a way. Maybe both should be allowed, or neither.

But this wrangling over what constitutes a necessary part of a Christian's dress is surely jeopardising an essential part of the Christian message - that salvation, necessary to every human being, is possible through, and only through, the blood of Jesus, shed on the Cross. Faith, not works. It's what one believes that matters, not whether or not one wears a ring.

So what should we conclude? It's unquestionably the case that, in this country, Christians are, increasingly, being stopped from doing things that just a few years ago would have been ignored. It's not hard to imagine a time when I would be breaking the law by writing this article (check out the paragraph above - now, that's not very "inclusive," is it - not as "tolerant" as we like to see here...). This persecution, albeit currently barely noticable compared to that faced by Christians in other parts of the world - China, North Korea, etc etc - is to be expected. God has told us, many, many times that we should expect it.

So should Lydia be fighting this case? Or should she accept her school's authority and let it go? I honestly don't know. At some point we have to stand up for our right to worship the God of the Bible, not the God of the people. Liberal Christianity will never be banned, becuase it has no solid position. In the face of opposition it shifts to fit in. Evangelical Christianity almost certainly won't be banned in the near future outright, rather I believe we should expect "salami tactics" - an attack to come one slice at a time. Is this the beginning? I doubt it. Is this one more slice in a process that's already started? Possibly. How should we respond? I honestly don't know. Apart from prayer.

One thought, which I offer without any theological basis, is as follows. The media has almost universally condemned Lydia's position. She's been portrayed as a misguided, foolish teenager, a victim of the latest "fad" (though I doubt it's one that will appeal to many non-Christians), a pawn in a game played by her hardly impartial parents (they are Director and secretary of SRT UK). If the world (that world which Christians are called to be in but not of) is so against her, my suspicion is that we should be aligning ourselves in support of her. It's not a gospel issue, so I don't think it should be the be-all and end-all. But should we side with those whom, although light had come to them, rejected it in favour of darkness, because their deeds were evil, or with someone who, possibly unwisely, is taking a stand for her right to worship God in a biblically principled way?

1 Corinthians 5: A Sermon

This is the text of a sermon that I recently gave at Stoke Poges Free Church. I found it harder to prepare than the one I gave on 2 Timothy 3. Comments gratefully recieved.

1 Corinthians 5

It's amazing how much attitudes can change over quite short periods of time. Ten years ago you'd have been hard pressed to hear anyone talking about global warming or climate change. Yet today it's a major concern for everybody from politicians and company CEOs through to members of the public.

Fifty years ago, it was almost unheard of to go out in public without wearing a hat, and indeed many people today feel that it's inappropriate to go to church, to a wedding, or to the theatre bare-headed. And, especially relevant this year, it's hard to imagine that just 200 years ago slavery was legal, socially acceptable, and that it would take twenty years for an act of parliament to be passed making the British trade in slaves illegal. It is amazing how attitudes can change.

Well, some changes are generally recognised as being positive - the vast majority of people rightly feel that slavery is immoral, and no-one would want to repeal the law banning it. But some changes in attitudes aren't so universally recognised as being good. So, whilst there are some arguments in favour of greater freedom of artistic expression, many people are concerned about the seemingly ever-more graphic depictions of sex and violence on television and in film. Similarly, language that would not long ago have rendered a film to be judged suitable for adults only is now heard on daytime television.

One major area in which attitudes have changed over the last forty years or so is in the field of sexual ethics. In 1979, 11% of un-married women described themselves as co-habiting - that is, living in a sexual relationship with someone to whom they were not married. In 2002, that number had increased almost threefold to 29%. People actually talk about the "sexual revolution" - the correlation in the 1960s and 70s of the development of reliable forms of contraception and abortion techniques with the changes in attitudes in general, and towards sexual behaviour in particular, following the end of the Second World War.

Well, there's no doubt that attitudes have changed considerably in the last century. Listen to lyrics from Cole Porter. He says:

In olden days, a glimpse of stocking
Was looked on as something shocking.
But now, God knows,
Anything goes.

Good authors too who once knew better words
Now only use four-letter words
Writing prose.
Anything goes.

Anything goes. If it feels good, do it. Cole Porter could have been writing about 1960s Britain. Or equally, he could have been writing about first century Corinth, because it's into this sort of permissive society that we find Paul writing this letter.

Let's just remind ourselves of the background to this letter. Paul's replying to a letter than he's been send from the church in Corinth asking him some fairly complex questions, about food and marriage and idols, and things like this, and in the later chapters of 1 Corinthians he answers them. But he devotes the first few chapters to addressing some problems in the church that have been reported to him, and I think you've been looking at some of these, such as the issue of division in the church, over the last couple of weeks.

Today we're going to look at chapter 5 of the letter, and we're going to see that Paul is now turning his attention to a new issue in the church – the fact that the church must not tolerate sin in its midst. So as we follow this case through the courtroom, we're going to briefly identify the charge, and then the verdict, before spending most of our time, as Paul does, on our final section, where we're going to look at the sentence. So firstly, the charge.

The Charge

Look at verse 1. Paul writes:

"It is actually reported that there is a sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that does not occur even among pagans: a man has his father's wife."

The situation is clear: a man, a member of the Corinthian church, was in an ongoing, acknowledged sexual relationship with his father's wife. In other words, he was sleeping with his stepmother.

Now, do note that Paul doesn't suggest in any way that this man was trying to live a faithful, holy life, and that he had fallen into this one sin, that he was remorseful, that he was struck with guilt, that he was prayerfully trying to fight that temptation. Not at all. This was open, flagrant, and unrepentant sin. So: the charge – unrepentant sexual immorality. Now Paul moves on to the verdict.
The Verdict

Look at verse 3. Paul writes:

"Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present."

As far as Paul was concerned, the verdict was clear - guilty. There was no need for discussion, or debate; no wrangling over the precise nature of the act and whether a response would be appropriate. God had made it very clear in His Word - which for the Corinthians was the Old Testament - that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable. He'd said it again and again – primarily in Leviticus 18, but it was repeated at several points in the Old Testament books. The Corinthians could not claim they didn't know it was wrong.

In fact, not only was it stated in the Old Testament, which the Corinthians seem to have largely ingored, it was even clear to non-Christians. Paul says – verse 1 – that such things "[do] not occur even among Pagans" – which was saying something! Corinth was renowned for its sexual licentiousness and its many temple and cult prostitutes. In fact, the temple of Venus, who was more-or-less adopted as the city's goddess of choice, employed over 1000 prostitutes, and I'm assured that there was actually a Greek verb "to Corinthianize", which was shorthand for living shamelessly and immorally.

Well, given the fact that even non-Christians would have viewed this man's behaviour as being wrong, we might wonder what the response of the Corinthian church had been. Were they struck with remorse, were they praying for wisdom about how to act? Well, no, they weren't.

Look at verse 2: Paul says "and you are proud!" It's not clear whether they're proud despite one of their congregation behaving in this manner, or even whether they're proud because of it. It seems there was an attitude of "we're free now we're Christians - free to do as we please - we're no longer under the law, the old ways have no call on us - and such is our freedom that we can even accommodate a man such as this…"

Well, Paul has no truck with this type of argument. He says: "Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this?"

Many of you will remember the tsunami that struck in the Indian Ocean back in December 2004, devastating large areas of India, Sri Lanka and Indonesia. Few of us can forget the images that were beamed to our televisions sets of just total devastation – of families that had lost everything, parents who'd lost children, husbands who'd lost wives. It's hard to imagine what it must have been like there – seeing everything that you'd worked for gone, ripped apart, utterly destroyed. How must it have felt?

Well, I suspect that most of us weren't directly affected by that terrible disaster, but most of us know what it feels like to lose someone. I guess for some of us here that feeling is all too real at the moment. And it doesn't matter whether it's been expected for some time, or whether it's a complete shock, death is still a terrible thing to cope with.

The word Paul uses which the NIV translates as grief is penthein in the original Greek, and it's the word used to describe the feelings associated with mourning the dead. Paul is saying that the Corinthian church's attitude to witnessing this sin in their midst shouldn't be to tut and raise their eyebrows, or to turn a blind, if somewhat disapproving eye to it – it definitely shouldn't be pride – they should be devastated, they should be inconsolable that such a thing should have happened.

Clearly the Corinthian Christians had not understood how they should have responded – they hadn't understood the seriousness of their toleration of sin in their church. Far from being grief-stricken, they were proud.

So: the charge, sexual immorality. The verdict: guilty. And so Paul now moves on to the sentence, and it's on this section that we're going to spend the rest of our time.

The Sentence

The remaining verses of the chapter deals with both the nature of the sentence, and the necessity of the sentence, and the two threads run together through the verses. And we're going to see that the sentence Paul sets out, the prescription for this spiritual disease, is for the church to act to discipline their member. So we'll look first at how the Corinthian church was to respond, and we'll learn something about the nature of church discipline. Then we'll look at why it was so vital for the church to act in this way, and we'll learn about the necessity of church discipline.

Firstly, the nature of church discipline. Look back at verses 2-5. Paul writes:

"Shouldn't you rather been struck with grief and have put out of your fellowship the man who did this? Even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. And I have already passed judgement on the one who did this, just as if I was present. When you are assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, hand this man over to Satan, so that the sinful nature may be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord."

Paul has already made clear that the Corinthians don't require him to be physically present with them to judge the case. They have all the authority they need in God's word – the Old Testament. In any case, Paul says that effectively he is with them, in spirit. Paul instructs the church to meet together, and when they are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus, and consequently with Paul in spirit, they are to "hand this man over to Satan."

Now, to us this sounds highly intolerant, and I'm sure it sounded just as controversial to the Corinthians. But what does Paul mean by this? Well, the world, the world which Christians are called to live in but set apart from, was viewed as Satan's realm, as belonging to Satan. So when Paul says that they are "to hand this man over to Satan," he's referring to excluding the man from the church community, and, effectively, handing him back to the world. In the words of verse 2, they are to put out of their fellowship the man who did this. Action must be taken, and in this case, the only action to take is the excommunication of this man, the breaking off of their communion with him.

But what was this exclusion to achieve? What was its purpose? Well, to answer that, let's look now at the necessity of the sentence, and we'll see that Paul says that the church had to act as he prescribed for two reasons – for the good of the individual and for the good of the church.

Look back at verse 5 again. Paul writes that they are to "hand this man over to Satan so that the sinful nature might be destroyed and his spirit saved on the day of the Lord." Far from being a vindictive act of revenge, Paul explains that the purpose of excluding the man from the church was that ultimately he might be saved.

Now, when Paul talks about the destruction of the sinful nature he's not talking about waiting until the man's death, at which point the body might die and set the spirit free – quite the opposite, in fact. Paul's point is that as a result of being excluded from the church, the man might recognise his sin and repent of it – in other words putting to death the sinful nature – and might therefore be counted amongst the saved on the day of judgement. One commentator puts it like this: "the purpose of exercising this discipline was not solely to punish, but rather to awaken." The longing would be that the man, after repenting of his sin, might be readmitted to the church, but in the absence of this happening, he couldn't be a part of the fellowship.

Well, if it was necessary for the church to exercise discipline for the good of the individual, it was also necessary, even more so, for the good of the church community itself. But why was this? Why was it essential for the church's well-being, that they acted in this way? Even if their actions might bring about the man's salvation, why was it essential to exclude him from their fellowship? Well, Paul goes on to explain in verses 6-8 why the church cannot tolerate sin in it's midst – irrespective of the exact nature of the sin, sexual or otherwise.

Look at what Paul writes:

"Your boasting is not good. Don't you know that a little yeast works through the whole batch of dough? Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast – as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed. Therefore, let us keep the Festival, not with the old yeast, the yeast of malice and wickedness, but with bread without yeast, the bread of sincerity and truth."

Paul compares the toleration of sin in the church with yeast in baking. In the same way that a little bit of yeast is enough to work its way through a whole batch of dough, Paul says that just a little sin can work it's way through a church fellowship.

We all love murder mysteries, don't we? I wonder which your favourite is. Coming from Oxford, I always enjoy Morse – it's fun recognising places I pass regularly. Maybe you prefer Midsomer Murders – although to be honest it's amazing that there's anyone actually left in Midsomer by now. Other people prefer Agatha Christie stories – maybe you like the fastidiousness of Poirot, or maybe you prefer the brilliance of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. Well, whichever you prefer, I'll place a small bet that at some point, a character has been bumped off by the villain by the time honoured method of dropping a small amount of white powder into their drink. It normally fizzes, so it must be poison.

The thing about poison, is that you really don't need very much of it to kill someone. If this sugar lump was made of cyanide (it's not, so don't worry!) it'd be enough to finish off at least six of us. And cyanide is, by poison standards, pretty pathetic. Well, Paul would say that to a church, the toleration of sin is like poison. It's fatal.

Well, Paul doesn't finish there. Not only is tolerating sin dangerous for a church, it's also completely inappropriate. Paul continues with his illustration of yeast and bread, and moves onto a related illustration, that of the Jewish Passover.

We're familiar with the story, although we don't have time to go into it in detail. It's described in the book of Exodus. Briefly, the Israelites were in slavery in Egypt under Pharaoh, who refused to let them go free. So God sent plagues amongst the Egyptians to demonstrate his power, and to persuade Pharaoh to let the Israelites go. And these plagues built up, culminating in God's decree that every firstborn child would die. But, in His mercy, God provided a way for the Israelites to be spared: they were to take a lamb, to kill it, and to daub the blood on the doors of their homes, and where there was blood, their children would be spared: the lamb would die for them.

Well, it worked. Pharaoh let the Israelites go free, although he soon changed his mind, and from that time on, the Israelites celebrated their release from slavery, and God's provision of a sacrifice to die for them, in their place, at the time of Passover. And one of the ways in which they celebrated it was to eat bread made without any yeast – in fact they were to remove all yeast from their houses completely.

Paul's point is this. In the same way that a lamb had had to die for the Israelites, Christ had already died for the Corinthians – he was their Passover lamb. They weren't to celebrate Passover to commemorate God's freeing of the Israelites from slavery in Egypt, far more they were to celebrate Christ's death for them, freeing them from slavery to sin, and meaning that they could be right with God. And Paul says that in the same way that it would have been completely inappropriate for the Jews to celebrate Passover with bread with yeast in it, it was completely inappropriate for the church to celebrate Christ's death, the new Passover (that's the Festival mentioned in verse 8), with the yeast of sin – verse 8 – present amongst them. They were to be like bread without yeast – bread of sincerity and truth, bread suitable for the celebration of Christ's death.

Well, how does one apply teaching like this? More particularly, how were the Corinthian Christians to apply this teaching? Well, Paul elaborates in verses 9 to 13.

He writes:

"I have written to you not to associate with sexually immoral people – not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat."

Paul has written to the Corinthians in the past, and although we don't have this letter, we can see that he has discussed how the church was to behave in regard to sexual immorality. Paul had told them "not to associate with sexually immoral people". Well, it seems that some in the Corinthian church had misunderstood what he meant, and had thought that Paul was saying that they shouldn't associate with any sexually immoral people, inside or outside the church. Given the sort of society that Corinth was, that essentially meant living in a Christian bubble, and not associating with pretty much anyone else.

Paul makes it clear that this is not what he had in mind. Look back at the passage: Paul says that he wrote to them not to associate with sexually immoral people, "not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters." In fact, says Paul, to do that you'd have to somehow leave this world! What Paul meant, and what he makes clear here, is that the Corinthians are not to associate with "anyone who calls himself a brother" – the word in Greek is adelphos and includes both men and women – "but [who] is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler."

Now, it's important to realise that Paul isn't saying that only perfect people can be in the church. Remember back in chapter one, that Paul wrote saying that he gave thanks to God for the people in the Corinthian church. And yet, if we look at chapter 6 verses 9-11 – do cast your eyes across the page to it – we learn that some in the church had led lives that were far from perfect. Paul writes:

“Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”

Paul’s point is this. No-one in the Corinthian church was perfect, and some had a background that, even by the secular standards of the day, was openly sinful. And yet, by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ into their lives, and repenting of their sin, as commanded by Jesus, they could be washed by the Holy Spirit and justified – that is, made righteous – and sanctified set apart as holy. Perfection was not the question.

So who is Paul talking about? Well, he’s referring to brothers (and sisters) who described themselves as Christians and claimed to be so, but who were living lives that denied the Gospel. Paul says that the Corinthians are to have no association with those who were openly, continuingly, and unrepentantly living in a way that was against the teachings of God. And this hard teaching continues in verses 12 and 13. Paul writes:

“What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside. ‘Expel the wicked man from among you’”

Paul makes it clear that the Corinthians are not called upon to cast judgement on those outside the church – God will judge those on the last day. But rather, the Corinthians are absolutely called, and charged to judge those inside the church. And, in the case where there is open, flagrant, unrepentant sin, action must be taken. And, if all else fails, Paul says, quoting from Deuteronomy, the wicked man must be expelled from the church community – not just, as we’ve already seen, that he might be brought to recognise his own sin, and repent of it, but also to protect the fellowship of the church.

Well, these are tough words, and they’re highly counter-cultural to us in 21st century Britain. But it’s important that we think about how we can apply them to our own situation, because they’re God’s words to us here today, here in Stokes Poges.

Firstly, there is a clear application for those of us in some form of church leadership. Paul is saying that, in the face of unrepentant sinful behaviour, the church is called to act in judgement. Paul makes it clear that action must be taken both for the good of the individual and the good of the church. And in the last resort, this action might culminate in having to exclude the member from taking part in some or all church activities. This isn't the first step: indeed Paul writes in elsewhere that one should "warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him." And he makes it clear that the attitude that should be taken is one of gentleness, treating him not as an enemy, but as a brother.

Paul also makes it clear that it's not the case that only sexual sins require this sort of action. Far from it: Paul expands his list to include immorality, greed, dishonesty, idolatry. And I'm sure that we could add to this list. So, for example, there are many in the worldwide and national church whose teaching directly contradicts Biblical truths. This is sinful, and it will damage both the individual and clearly the church community, if it remains unchecked. And so it is up to the church leadership to be guarding against such teaching, and exercising discipline should it appear in the church.

Well, that's just one example amongst many. But I guess that there're many here today who aren't involved directly in any form of leadership – so how should we apply this teaching?

Well, firstly, surely we should be praying for our leaders: praying that they might rest under the authority of the Scriptures; praying that they might act wisely when they exercise discipline; praying that they might act boldly, however unpopular or controversial their actions might be, praying that they might act and speak in gentleness, and love. We should be supporting our leaders at times when these sorts of issues raise their heads.

Secondly, we should be holding each other accountable. Now, I suspect that the particular issue Paul addresses here is not a live one in Stokes Poges, but equally I suspect that most of us found that list in verse 11 hit a little closer to home. We need to ask ourselves if we're falling into the trap of tolerating sin in our own lives? We might not think of ourselves as being idolaters, but have we stopped to ask ourselves what our little gods are that we live for from day to day? Are we living to provide for our families, or to be able to afford that holiday, or that new house, or that car. All good things, but not if they take the place of the one true God. We might not think of ourselves as being slanderers, but do we enjoy taking part in that juicy gossip in the office, or in the school playground? I suspect that all of us could think of a list of things that we do, that we know, hand on heart, to be sinful, and yet actually we're quite happy with, and don't even try to fight. I'm sure that exactly what they are will vary for each of us, but the point is that when we belittle our sins, or even dismiss them as not being sinful at all, we're belittling Christ's sacrifice for us. We're saying "Jesus, actually you didn't need to die for me, because my sins are so small, they're barely sinful – I don’t need your forgiveness." Are we dismissing Jesus in our lives? Are we celebrating His death at the same time as flaunting our dismissal of it? We must not tolerate sin in our lives. So let's help each other to fight the sins we know we commit: let's hold each other accountable. Why not get together with someone you know, someone you trust, and say to them, "I know I need to stop doing this. I know I need to change my behaviour. Will you help me, will you pray with me, will you challenge me?" We must rid ourselves of our toleration of sin.

Amen.

I'm Back!

Having been away for a while now, and greatly enjoyed it too (well, the holiday part of it anyway), I'm back! Expect more posts (possibly), some photos (eventually) and the odd enlightening thought (unlikely).

To get the ball rolling, as it were, have you come across the site Newsbiscuit.com? It's great. And I just loved this story (I think it's the photoshop job that does it for me...).

Have fun...

*evil laugh* Mwahaaaaaaa *cough*

Mwahaaahaaa

Why bother with a degree - it's now 100% official!



To take the test, click here

What kind of coffee are you?

Classic simplicity - refined - mmmm


What kind of coffee are you? Find out here

Is it sad that the spelling mistake annoys me?

Lamb Shanks in a Red Wine, Rosemary and Mint Sauce

This is the first recipe that I've posted. I'm a great fan of trying new recipes and, where necessary, making them up from first principles. This is a recipe I tried a couple of weeks ago - we decided to treat ourselves to lamb, and thought that we'd try the shank. The recipe book we have suggested a sort of tomato ragout to go with it, but I decided instead to try a traditional restaurant classic, the red wine, rosemary and mint sauce. It turned out fantastically; really really rich and tasty, and would be a fantastic sauce to make as a gravy if you prefered chops. I have to say, though, the natural fat in the shank makes it an ideal cut, plus it looks really impressive! The sauce made the right amount to casserole two shanks; if you're doing more you may choose to use larger quantities to enable the shanks to remain covered with sauce whilst cooking.

Ingredients:
1 lamb shank per person
1 onion
2 cloves garlic
250 ml beef stock (made with, for example, Bovril)
150 ml red wine
6 tsp mint sauce
1 tbsp dried rosemary
1 tbsp mixed herbs
2 bay leaves
250 g passata (sieved tomatoes, you can buy them in most supermarkets)
Worcester sauce
Salt and pepper

Method:
Brown the lamb shanks in a frying pan over a moderate heat for around 20 minutes. Place them on one side whilst cooking the sauce.

Skin and finely chop the onion; skin and crush the garlic. Fry over a low heat until soft. Add the stock and the wine, and simmer for a couple of minutes. Add the mint sauce, rosemary, mixed herbs, bay leaves, and passata, and cook fairly hard, stirring reguarly, until the sauce is reduced. Add worcester sauce, salt and pepper to taste.

Place the lamb shanks in a casserole. Pour over the sauce. Don't worry if part of the shank is uncovered, however in this case turn the shanks over every 20-30 minutes during cooking. Cook on a moderate heat for three hours. If necessary, reduce the sauce further post cooking to the consistency you desire; it should, however, be fine as it is.

Enjoy!

[Sauce contains 7 syns on original or green Slimming World eating plans]

House of Lords 2.0

Web 2.0 is, apparently, defined thus:

"the business revolution in the computer industry caused by the move to the internet as platform, and an attempt to understand the rules for success on that new platform. Chief among those rules is this: Build applications that harness network effects to get better the more people use them."

In other words, it's all about user generated content, and probably the best known example is Wikipedia, where users can create and edit online articles about pretty much anything. But its influence is spread around the interweb, from reviews of books at Amazon through to the video sharing monstrosity that is YouTube.

And it's put forward as the future; which, indeed, it may well be. And that's fine, and possibly dandy, and we can all enjoy watching timeless classics such as "My Cat Falling Off the Table," starring Tiddles and directed by Mike from Lewisham. Wonderful.

And providing I'm not made to watch it, I have no problems with this. We'll leave to one side the questions of legality, copyright infringement and censorship for another post. In general, I'm ambivalent. The web is all but infinite in size and hosts content from all manner of individuals and organisations. If you want to post your thoughts online (as indeed I do here), why, be my guest. Have fun.

The problem comes in with the question of authority. In particular, what authority does information presented as fact have when the author of that information is unaffiliated with any particular source? Do you want to trust - can you trust - what Bob from Slough says about a film, a book, the debate on fox hunting, Trident, or indeed any other topic that is outside his immediate expertise?

Now I have no problems with people having opinions. I have them myself, from time to time. But I strongly hold that policy should not be made by people who know nothing more of the issue than what is presented in the media. It's why phone-ins drive me mad. It's why I snarl at the radio when I hear the phrase "why not let us know what you think about this. Our message boards are now open," or "text us your views on 80116." I'd far rather listen to informed experts offering their opinions and, that way, I can make my own. For a different example, it's why I'd rather read what the Bible has to say on something than to consider what Joe thinks about what he percieves as being the general Christian attitude to something. It's a problem, also, (albeit not the main one) with liberalism in the church. If authority comes from man, why should we listen? After all, I disagree, and I'm at least as qualified to speak about this as you are.

Which all brings me, in a round-about sort of a way, to the proposed-come-underway reform of the House of Lords. The Commons were recently asked to vote on a number of options, from 100% appointed members through to 100% elected. The rationale, it seems, is that for the house to have "credibility" with the public, the public must have a say in its composition. But this misses the point. The only possible advantage of having a second chamber in the first place is that it offers a place where bills proposed by government can be examined in greater, largely non-partisan detail. Hitherto unforseen ramifications can be identified, inconsistencies with present laws spotted, and amendments which, in general, improve matters imposed.

By what authority do the Lords do this? Because firstly they have no major political axe to grind. The majority of Lords are unpaid and cross-bench. They do not aspire to higher political office - they will never be PM or on the front bench. All of which means that, if they believe something to be a bad idea, they tend to say so. Secondly, the house tends to be able to call on true experts in the field of discussion. GM? Let's call on a scientist. Asylum? Let's call on a lawyer.

The notion of having elected peers will largely lose the first advantage. To be elected most nominees will have to be affiliated with one of the major parties. The Lords will attract career politicians rather than interested and informed observers. The expertise gained by appointment will be sacrificed for the "accountability" of public election and enhanced scrutiny. The Lords will become, in all but name, an inferior Commons.

We may as well go the whole hog and settle all debate by text vote (possibly at a premium rate. We can always make the decisions first, and just take votes for profits. After all, if it's good enough for Blue Peter...). Maybe we could call it Lords 2.0.

I'd love to know your thoughts. Text them to me.

Lent: Why all the fuss?

I've discovered the website of the Church of England this week. I was wondering what I would discover in the news section - in particular I was curious as to whether recent media reports describing proposed reunificaion of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic church were quite as I'd made out. However, when I got to the news section, my eye was drawn to the story entitled "Your first action for Lent: Make someone laugh." I'd heard about this also (for I am an avid Radio 4 Today programme junky) so I thought I'd give it a glance.

I know I'm old-skool. I don't really go in for the whole "let's wave our hands in the air thing" (I kind of object to the sentiment, but am reminded of the question posed in Adrian Plass' An Alien at St Wilfred's "why are those christians surrendering to God?"). But I have to confess: an eyebrow was raised when I read about "a range of other initiatives designed to raise a smile [including] a training course for vicars in stand-up-style performance skills." Will, I ask myself, we see our dear Vaughan sitting on a bar stool at the front of Ebbes, pint (of something non-alcoholic, no doubt) in hand, givin' it large? "There was this vicar, right, and..."

I feel it's unlikely. But does this, in fact, have anything to do with Lent? A trip to livelent.net suggests not. By all means, let's be nice to each other - and if you feel like leaving money in a shopping trolley, letting a car out in the queue in front of you, or whatever, then do so. Maybe this comes under "love your neighbour as yourself." But, surely, Lent is so much more than this - it's a chance to consider Jesus as he faced and overcame the greatest and most human temptations over a course of 40 days; evidence of His divinity in His humanity. Let's not reduce it to a time of giving up chocolate and being nice.