Crimperman.org

Scott Zirkel drew this cartoon of Katie as a Jedi to encourage her

A heartwarming story came across my feed today. It tells of how Star Wars fan Katie Goldman (7) came home and asked her mum to change her school water bottle to a pink one because the kids in her class were teasing her about her Star Wars one which was apparently “just for boys”. The story is a wonderful example of humanity at its best and I won’t repeat the whole thing here. Go read it and then come back. As ever in these stories my thoughts turned to my own kids. My son is Katie’s age and my daughter is not far off and whilst not fans like Katie they both like Star Wars.

In case you want to read it later, Katie’s mum blogged about her daughter’s plight, this was read by a fellow Star Wars kid who is now all grown up and is also a girl – Jen Yates. She posted a message to other Star Wars fans to help encourage Katie. They responded and then some, including some of the actors in Clone Wars. Now people are wearing Star Wars clothes to work to support Katie and help negate the bullying.

It’s a great story and is rightly being trumpeted as a victory for all that is good about the Web but here’s what caught my attention. The web, like any other medium, would have failed Katie as it fails many other kids who are bullied had it not been for one thing: somebody acted. Had Katie’s mum said nothing, nothing would have happened. had Jen Yates just read the story, thought “how sad” and then gone back to WoW or whatever else she does with her time, Katie would not be famous or — more importantly — helped. Had the other fans Yates contacted done nothing, Katie would now be taking her pink bottle to school.

Somebody acted. Would you?

I follow someone on Twitter, @artsyhonker who every morning tweets “Good morning! What will you [blank] today?”. The blank is replaced by a different encouragement/question each day. Today’s one was “What will you persist in today?”. I am pretty certain she has already done this one but following the same lines I would like to say to you

Who will you encourage today?

That encouragement might be telling somebody they are doing okay, saying thank you for something they do as part of their job or in the case of Katie Goldman, telling them that they are not alone.

May the force be with you, Katie and all the other Star Wars kids out there.

Recently a phrase I hadn’t heard for a while has popped into my “life stream” again. (By which I mean I’ve heard it a few times recently). It is “the wisdom of the crowd” and it refers (usually) to the way that online forums and social media allows many people to share “wisdom”. Often this will be where one person can ask a question and get several answers with the best one normally floating to the top via some kind of peer review. This review will be a function of the interface or quite often just indicated by contributors saying “I agree with them”.

But are crowds really all that wise?

You can buy these posters from Despair.com

There has existed for some time a series of de-motivator posters which are intended to be a humourous counter to the often cheesy motivation posters that once (and maybe still) adorned office walls. One of my favourites is the one to the right. The caption reads “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups”. Sometimes the wisdom of the crowd is not only found to be lacking but that lack is amplified by being within a crowd. A good example of this, as others have said, is the Facebook cartoon picture chain.

Someone – nobody knows who but best guess is that it started in Greece in November – started a chain by suggesting everyone on Facebook change their profile picture to a cartoon character from their childhood. Not only was this bringing a warm glow of nostalgia to Facebook but – the chain said – it was supporting the NSPCC in its campaign against child abuse. Of course the problem was that not only did NSPCC have no idea about this but that simply changing your picture in no way supported their cause. Many, including myself, advocated also donating to NSPCC. And yet the “wisdom of the crowd” meant that people were copying the status text verbatim and changing their picture without stopping to think if or how this was going to help stop child abuse.

Skip forward a few days and a second chain began going around. This one decried the first chain claiming that the people behind it were in fact a paedophile ring and that this was confirmed on “Tonight’s news”. No link or reference was given to the news item or even which night it was on. And yet again the “wisdom of the crowd” meant people began copying this new status verbatim and swiftly removing their cartoon profile pictures. Once it gained enough traction it was picked up by the Daily Mail and the circle was complete.

So I ask again are crowds all that wise?

All is not lost

To be honest that’s a rhetorical question. The answer is to be found just a day or so later. Despairing as others have at the speed at which particularly the latter chain propagated I was pleasantly surprised to see a number of comments appearing against the “it’s all run by paedophiles” status updates. Suddenly people were asking pertinent questions: “Which news program was this on?”, “Did you actually see it?” for example. Others suggested using well known hoax websites such as Snopes.com. Others highlighted the tell-tale signs that both of the chains were probably not founded on any real truth. Slowly, much slower than the original chains though, the wisdom of the crowd is percolating through.

So it seems the crowd can be wise if you give it time. Perhaps the issue is how fast we expect the online — and thus the offline — world to move these days. Instant updates on our mobiles, feeds to our laptop, netbooks, desktops and tablets all drive us towards a dangerous tendency to knee jerk reactions. Even those of us who would consider ourselves above falling for such urban legends could still do with applying some patience before we fly off on a rant about other well-meaning souls. I lose track of how often I have seen (and sometimes joined in) the ridiculing of Facebook users by those on Twitter. And yet Twitter has it’s own variety of such chains. Every now and then you’ll see a flurry of auto tweets from some wunder-app which promises convenience and delivers annoyance. “I’ve found the greatest…” the tweets start and sometime later are followed by “Remove that app – it’s a spambot” or similar.

The truth is that crowds — like the people they consist of — have both wisdom and foolishness, common sense and little sense and can be incredibly annoying and uplifting. Often these things occur shortly after each other or even simultaneously. People, whether on their own or in a crowd are remarkable things and the world is frequently both better off and worse off for having them in it. “People” is also a term that includes me, in all my stupidity and (somewhat rarer) wisdom. I would like to apologise to anyone I have upset or offended with any outburst or ill-thought out flippant remark. I should remember that I everyone is still learning (and that includes me) and that my time would be better spent trying to help rather than ranting.

So here’s the idea: why don’t we all start taking a moment to wait, reflect and consider before posting any tweet, facebook status update, blog post or even opening our mouths. For the Christians among us it is worth noting that patience is a fruit of the Spirit. Wisdom is not in that list.

Yes really! After what is too long a wait I have finally added a new Noah & Sons cartoon. Hopefully this will be the first of many as i get back in the saddle as they say. Click the thumb on the right for the full image.

Like the others this cartoon is covered by a CC:By-NC-SA licence so feel free to include it in your non-profit newsletters and websites (Download link). The full Noah & Sons collection can be found here.

Should our churches adopt this model for teaching? (image by weathertation CC:By-NC-SA)

Yesterday I attended Evangelical Alliance’s Social Media for Social Change event in London and thoroughly enjoyed it . As others have noted there was probably greater emphasis on social media than social change but this was not really surprising or a negative thing. Something that came up almost as a side comment in one of the Q&A sessions was the issue of teaching within our churches. A comment was made about how the education system underwent a change from “a sage on a stage to a guide by your side”. This is rather catchy but it does sum up the issue well. I attended school well within the “sage on a stage” era but still encountered teachers who would very much work with me and were approachable, encouraging and available. They really did guide me through my studies rather than dictate what they felt I needed to know to pass an exam. By stepping away from he blackboard, taking time to listen and being more human they gained a greater respect from me than other teachers. Coincidentally I find I can now – all these years later – remember more of what they taught me than those who simply lectured.

A change or a return?

Anyway back to the church. Can and should the way teaching is undertaking in our churches undergo a similar change as the education system? And if so how? A round table discussion took place at the conference on these very points and various concerns were raised. Moving people out of their comfort zones is a risky business. Churches who had tried something other than a preach-cum-lecture approach had received significant negative feedback and yes as expected threats were made.

And yet something in me thought of this passage from Luke 4:

¹⁶ When he came to the village of Nazareth, his boyhood home, he went as usual to the synagogue on the Sabbath and stood up to read the Scriptures. ¹⁷ The scroll containing the messages of Isaiah the prophet was handed to him, and he unrolled the scroll to the place where it says: ¹⁸ “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, for he has appointed me to preach Good News to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim that captives will be released, that the blind will see, that the downtrodden will be freed from their oppressors, ¹⁹ and that the time of the Lord’s favour has come. ” ²⁰ He rolled up the scroll, handed it back to the attendant, and sat down. Everyone in the synagogue stared at him intently. ²¹ Then he said, “This Scripture has come true today before your very eyes!” ²² All who were there spoke well of him and were amazed by the gracious words that fell from his lips. “How can this be?” they asked. “Isn’t this Joseph’s son?” _{Luke 4:16-22 NLT}

When Jesus finishes reading the scriptures he sits and every eye is on him. This is because it was traditional at the time for Rabbis to sit in the synagogue when they taught. By sitting down Jesus indicated he was about to teach. I’ve been to a few Bar-Mitzvahs and most synagogues I’ve been to are not arranged in the same way as churches. There is no pulpit and the “congregation” are not facing in one direction. They sat around the teacher and listened. Another way to put it is that the teacher sat among them. Scholars suggest this may have been how synagogues were arranged in Jesus’ time. How different is this to the arrangement in our churches? Another difference is that Jesus when he teaches permits and even encourages interruption. Witness how he permits the children to come to him and how often we read of someone asking a question while he is teaching. How often have you sat in a church and somebody has raised a question only to be told that they can “have a chat” later with the preacher – which often sounds like “Sit down and be quiet while I make my point”. (I do appreciate why this is done and that it is not often what is really meant but it does sound like that).

A challenge

So here’s the challenge:

Can and should the teaching methods in our churches change? What would happen if the preacher/teacher sat among the congregation? What would happen if they were not only allowed but encouraged to ask questions?

It’s interesting to note that this happens in many churches already. Those who run a “cell church” model will already meet in a more “guide by the side” way. Home groups are often similar and many a youthworker will tell you that is how they work. All these are often successful within those contexts and yet when all this is put aside and we come to “do proper church” we revert back to “the sage on the stage” model. Another point to make is that I personally — and I know I am not alone here — am uncomfortable with the gravitas that is automatically bestowed upon anyone standing up the front. Sometimes it feels like you are taken as some kind of super-Christian when nothing could be further from the truth. Thankfully this is on the wane as people are remembering that preachers put their trousers on (if they wear them) the same as everybody else and might even get annoyed if they get their foot stuck.

I’m not sure how or even if this change should take place but surely it must be worth thinking about?

As usual the Daily Mail is leading the war on the (non-existent) "ban Christmas brigade" and look they'll even give you a Cliff DVD

Well it took a little longer than I thought but the silly season is upon us. I refer of course to the myriad of complaints I see about Christmas. Not the “it’s all so commercialised” ones or even the “it’s based on a pagan festival” ones but the “It’s PC gone mad” nonsense.

Today I came across an “article” entitled Christmas Cracker falls flat at Christmas.org.uk. I quote…

When a mother allowed her daughter to carry a box of Christmas crackers up to a supermarket till in Stowmarket, Suffolk, she was told that her daughter had just been breaking the law. The staff member on the till told Lisa Innes, 36, that crackers are classed as explosives and could not be carried around by her daughter, Tia-Rose. It was only when Lisa took the box and handed it to the staff member herself, that she was allowed to buy them.

This was a reworking of a fuller article at the Daily Telegraph which had more depth and pointed out that the shop assistant was simply trying not to fall foul of the law. A recent change in the law means anyone selling “explosives” to an under 16yr old could be imprisoned or fined up to £5000 and yes Christmas Craksers contains explosives. So maybe the law is (again) the ass here and the shop assistant was just making sure he didn’t break it. Incidentally the issue was not the child carrying the crackers but that by taking them off her the shop assistant could have been prosecuted by trading standards for selling them to a child.

What concerns me here though is that this made it to a national newspaper. Why is this kind of thing suddenly news? People have been refusing to do certain things because they were worried about getting in trouble for many years. Long before it was called “political correctness”. Incidentally why is it that the only time I hear that term it is in a complaint about it? I’ve never heard someone saying “We are just trying to be politically correct” only the accusatory “They are just being political correct” or the more customary “gone mad” whinge. Yes it’s a ridiculous situation and call me an old fart but what happened to just shrugging, dismissing it as ridiculous, moaning to your neighbours and getting on with your life?

There’ll be more where that came from

I’m also bracing myself for the usual yuletide suspects to arrive as well. You know “Christmas is banned”, “Winterfest”, “Decorations not allowed”, “Cliff Richard song banned” etc.

Cobblers! It’s all cobblers. I refuse to believe there is a conspiracy to remove “our culture”. I can even find a real definition of who “we” are or what “our culture” is. For the main part I can’t see what would be gained by such a conspiracy. Money? Doubt it – Christmas is boomtime for the retail sector. Perhaps it’s some spiritual attack? Except the stuff that is allegedly being “eroded” is also denounced as part of the “increasing secularisation” of Christmas. If a child is unable to buy crackers does that mean said child and their family will not attend a church?

The truth is that Christmas has only once been banned in this country – during the only time we were not a monarchy when Oliver Cromwell was in charge. Winterfest, Winterval et al were marketing terms used to describe a three month long period between November and January. I often find the same people who complain about the use of “Winterfest” also moan that “Christmas is starting earlier and earlier these days”. Decorations are usually not allowed because they were draped across a staircase or something or worse it turns out to be just a piece of tinsel was moved away from a lightbulb. I’m sure the same people who moan about this would moan if their workplace caught fire or they tripped and fell down the stairs. And I for one am quite happy that twee “Christmas” songs are not played (as opposed to “banned”) on the radio – regardless of who the singer is. I like Cliff as a person and he’s made some good songs but it doesn’t give him a right to being number 1 in the big marketing exercise that is the charts. Again there is some irony that those who moan about the over-commercialisation of Christmas will also complain that a musician’s attempt to sell lots of records on the back of the season is being foiled. Even if the record is for charity being the Christmas number one instead of three weeks at number two will not necessarily raise more funds for it.

Pot, kettle, black

Yeah I know I’m moaning as much as the people I’m moaning about but this constant “Out culture is being eroded” and “It’s a nanny state” rubbish gets me down. Here’s some advice – if someone refuses to sell your child some Christmas Crackers or asks you to move some tinsel or suggests your oh-so-funny musical “Santa” hat with the flashing lights is inappropriate for the workplace: don’t go to the papers, just buy the crackers yourself, move the tinsel and leave the hat at home. Cries of jobsworth-killjoys could easily be aimed at those who insist everyone must enjoy Christmas the same way they do – however that is. How about we focus on the stuff we enjoy, ignore the stuff we don’t and get on with more important stuff (he says after writing a blog post about it all – no lost sense of irony here you know!)

Bottom line? If you feel like Christmas is not what you wanted or expected it to be then in the words of Jean-Luc Picard it’s up to you to make it so.

Twitter - no longer the place to make jokes that could be taken the wrong way it seems

What a ridiculous state the UK has become. By now many of you will now of poor Paul Chamber’s plight. Back in Snow-laden January he tweeted a message which read

“Crap! Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your s**t together, otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

He was arrested, prosecuted, convicted and fined for that. He claims he was joking our of frustration and it would be hard not to realise that he didn’t really mean to act upon it. The police officers involved branded the tweet a “foolish comment posted on Twitter as a joke for only his close friends to see”. But yesterday not only did Paul lose his appeal against the conviction but his costs were raised to over £2000. The judge felt that given the current climate in the UK, the tweet could be taken as a real threat. Well clearly it wasn’t by the police but he was prosecuted anyway. Surely if ever there was a case for somebody to be rapped on the knuckles, apologise and not do it again, this was it.

Coincidentally another debacle unfolded on Twitter on the same day as Chambers lost his appeal. In a BBC Radio interview Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, a muslim writer, said that she felt it hypocritical for British politicians to lecture countries like Iran on human rights issues such as stoning given the Iraq war and the treatment of prisoners by British soldiers. Gavin Compton , a local government councillor in Birmingham then tweeted

; “Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death. I shan’t tell Amnesty if you don’t. It would be a blessing, really.”

Following complaints he was then arrested and like Paul Chambers he claims it was a joke.

Much has been made of these two tweets and the similarity between the two cases. Whilst I would say it seems likely that neither person wanted the action they described to happen I would say that the major difference between them is that Paul Chambers’ “threat” was that he himself would carry it out. Gavin Compton was asking for somebody else to carry it out. Again I will say that I don’t believe either of them actually wanted the result they were speaking of but it does strike me that Mr Compton, a councillor and a barrister, should have known a lot better. Maybe Mr Chambers should have too but given the publicity over that case and the fact that Gavin Compton was writing about a single person it does strike me as odd that it did not occur to Compton that it could lead to his arrest. Personally I think they are both not to be taken seriously and that is obvious but of the two it seems to me that Compton’s is the more likely to cause harm because another person of questionable political leanings and perhaps somewhat less stable could carry out what appears to be a request.

The real problem is that now that Chambers has been convicted and his appeal has been turned down, the UK justice system has set a precedent. Whereas Compton might have been able to confess to lack of forethought and got away with some public berating, now he must be prosecuted if only on the grounds that taken out of context his tweet has the greater threat level to life. It’s extremely sad that what could be perceived as a terrorist act and a death threat respectively could not have been given greater thought before posting. But it is ridiculous that this is the kind of timewasting nonsense that makes it to a courtroom. In both cases it’s likely an example either is or will be made of the “perpetrator” but I have to ask: was one required at all?

Photo by Bradley Newman CC:By-SA http://www.flickr.com/photos/bradley_newman/68921818

Some interesting thought patterns have been sparked off in my head by Twitter this week.

Cracked pedestals and treasure

The first is the fallout following Stephen Fry’s “fall from grace”. To be honest that’s a complete misnomer but what happened is that Stephen Fry – possibly one of the most popular people on twitter was quoted (he says mis-quoted) by the press as saying some things which at face value seemed rather sexist. The shock which reverberated around Twitter wads almost tangible. Millions of people “follow” Stephen Fry and is (particularly here in the UK) hailed as a sort of public treasure. Indeed he has been hailed as a National Treasure here many times. With excellent TV shows like “Last chance to see” and “QI”, he has somehow — and without him seemingly seeking it — been elevated to almost being worshipped by many who see him as a sort of modern-day wise-man. It’s important to note here that Mr Fry has not promoted himself in this way, he has to the most part been himself and because he comes across as likeable it is his “followers” who have elevated him to a high pedestal. He has as Shakespeare put it had “greatness” thrust upon him to the point where his word is often taken as truth simply because he says it. Again I imagine he’d be shocked at this but that is the scenario that was built around him. With all such situations it is inevitable then that the pedestal would reveal cracks and when it was even suggested that it did many of those who put him on it then criticised Stephen because he was up there. The irony of all this is not new. Stephen Fry is not the first “celebrity” who is worshipped and then pulled down or – in this case – vilified if he shows himself to be human. In fact the UK seems to have a real propensity for such behaviour. What is flavour of the month will next month be rejected as “uncool” (or whatever this month’s word is) simply because it has gained some traction.

Now set against all this we have the situation where those who worship God and in particular Jesus are more frequently portrayed as having some kind of delusion or ridiculed for daring to believe what “everyone” considers to be fantasy. The fact that Stephen Fry is himself a proponent of some of this is another ironic twist here. Don’t get me wrong I am sure Mr Fry has encountered more than his fair share of bigotry in the name of faith which has no doubt helped formed his opinion of religion. For that and other similar cases I am ashamed but it is interesting that in this dichotomy exists. On the one hand we have a world which seems to be increasingly obsessed with celebrity and is even redefining that term on a regular basis to suit whatever or whomever is on the flavour-pedestal this month. Andy Warhol was not a prophet when he said everyone would have 15 minutes of fame: he voiced something which then became a life-plan for many. On the other hand we have those of us who worship someone who is unchanging, ever-faithful and eternal and we are ridiculed. As I tweeted the other day:

Irony = In a world which worships that which is destined to fail, those who worship the One who is not are ridiculed.

Or as Jesus put it (better)…

“Don’t store up treasures here on earth, where they can be eaten by moths and get rusty, and where thieves break in and steal. Store your treasures in heaven, where they will never become moth-eaten or rusty and where they will be safe from thieves. Wherever your treasure is, there your heart and thoughts will also be. _{Matthew 6:19-22 NCV}

It’s all about the numbers

The second thought is along a similar line. There’s been some research again on social networking and the impact it had. These things will never go away. People always want to understand why something is popular or well-used. I guess for many of them this is so they can figure out to make some money out of it but maybe I’m being extra cynical there. Mostly we’re given the impression that “success” or “influence” on Twitter or Facebook is down to how many connections you have. For Twitter it’s how many followers you have; with Facebook it’s how many friends. Consider then the use of those words: follower and friend. Whereas Twitter calls a follower someone who is fed what you type but doesn’t always read it, Facebook calls a friend someone you have or wish to have some loose connection with. For some this is simply that your friends or followers have heard of you (see Stephen Fry above) for others it’s a bit more personal. Either way it’s an empty defnition which seems to apply an intimacy to relationships which often could barely support being called that.

Consider what Jesus meant when he spoke of his friends or his followers. Following and friendship Jesus said, is about sacrifice. Terms like laying down your life, taking up your cross spring to mind. We throw words like friend and follower around with great regularity these days and I am not suggesting we find a new term for people-i-have-a-loose-connection-with on Facebook or people-who-say-things-I-want-to-see on Twitter but I maybe those of us who consider ourselves followers or friends of Jesus should make clear in our own hearts and minds what that means. As for the numbers we should remember how many followers and friends Jesus has. We should also remember that any greatness does not stem from the number of relationships he has but the effort he puts into them.

This was sent to me by e-mail. I don’t often pass e-mail jokes on but this one made me laugh – I hope you like it.

The pastor asked if anyone in the congregation would like to express praise for answered prayers.

Suzie Smith stood and walked to the podium.

She said, “I have a praise. Two months ago, my husband, Tom, had a terrible bicycle wreck and his scrotum was completely crushed. The pain was excruciating and the doctors didn’t know if they could help him.”

You could hear a muffled gasp from the men in the congregation as they imagine the pain that poor Tom must have experienced.

“Tom was unable to hold me or the children,” she went on, “and every move caused him terrible pain.” We prayed as the doctors performed a delicate operation, and it turned out they were able to piece together the crushed remnants of Tom’s scrotum, and wrap wire around it to hold it in place.”

Again, the men in the congregation cringed and squirmed uncomfortably as they imagined the horrible surgery performed on Tom.

“Now,” she announced in a quivering voice, “thank the Lord, Tom is out of the hospital and the doctors say that with time, his scrotum should recover completely.”

All the men sighed with unified relief.

The pastor rose and tentatively asked if anyone else had something to say.

A man stood up and walked slowly to the podium. He said, “I’m Tom Smith.” The entire congregation held its breath. “I just want to tell my wife the word is sternum.”

The skill, talent and dedication on display here is inspiring. The message too. That’s all

Those who know me will know I care about freedom – a lot. I use it in my work and I have written about it here. I am particularly concerned about freedom within the Church. For too long now there has been a growing trend of possessiveness within the Church. Driven by some kind of mimicry of the way some businesses act, Christians have been placing higher and higher importance on protecting “their” works. The collective name for these works is the mythical Intellectual Property. Mythical because try as I might I can find nobody giving a legal definition of what it is or what its limits are. So we have draconian copy protection and threatening remarks placed upon Christian music and resources – resources which as I have said before surely should be permitted to be used to equip and encourage the rest of the family? In an earlier post I said:

It seems frankly daft that those who are using God given gifts to create wonderful ways to give him glory would seriously want to sue a fellow Christian for making an additional photocopy

Albert Einstein said “There are only two things that are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I am not that sure about the former”. It seems Einstein was right and my remark that it would be daft for Christians to sue each other over such things did not mean it wouldn’t happen. I have recently heard about two incidents where a Christian group is suing (or threatening to sue) another one because they feel their “Intellectual Property” is being infringed.

Absence of grace

How about practising what you preach?

The first one is the SteelRoots debacle. A UK Christian youth ministry has been threatened with legal action by a large US Christian media company – “The Inspirational Network Inc” (INI). Their crime? They use the same name for their ministry as one of the media company’s “ministries”. Looking close shows that other than Christian and Youth there is very little similarity between the two. The chances of somebody mistaking the UK ministry (which is a combined effort from local churches and Christian groups) for a US-based (e.g. not a UK company) TV station is pretty remote. And yet the big company has seen fit to bully the smaller ground-level ministry because they have the same name. INI claim that their broadcasts are sent to “98% of all UK households”. I call cowdung. Most estimates say there are around 22million households in the uk. At the best estimate there are around 10 million Sky customers. Take off some for pubs, clubs etc. add some for cable customers and you’ll end up with around the same number so that would be about 50% of UK households.

But facts and figures aside, this is a ridiculous situation! As ChurchSofa has said: what if no two churches were allowed to have the same name. SteelRoots UK has not sought to “trade” off the name, reputation or any other part of it’s US namesake and yet the threats have been sent. This action is entirely lacking in grace, love and adds nothing to the already tarnished name of Christianity. I bet nobody will be saying “See how these Christians love each other” upon reading this! In a final twist the SteelRoots·com website has a set of devotionals, one of the ones for today has this memorable quote:

“What if everyone around you watched your life to see if you were really a Christian? Would you pass the test? What if our actions can mean the difference in someone’s decision for Christ?…” (emphasis mine)

What indeed.

Absence of grace 2

The second incident has grabbed fewer headlines but is no less ridiculous or infuriating. A UK church published a poem it thought might encourage their members in the church newsletter. A copy of the newsletter was put on their website. It turns out the poem – which I believe was out of copyright in the UK – was under copyright in the US. Yep, you guessed it: the church received an e-mail from the US lawyers representing the “owner” of the poem. Their demands were simple – “You used our client’s poem, please pay us £7000″. SEVEN GRAND?! What happened to giving them a ring? What happened to asking them to put some kind of attribution? But again as I have said before what was the purpose of the poem? Was it to show off how clever the poet was, or was it to show how good God is. Maybe it was meant to encourage other Christians? Again this is a prime example of Christians behaving like the rest of the world – and worse than that – like the worst aspects of the rest of the world! If you use something from this site ( and you are welcome to in a non-commercial way ) and I want you to stop, then isn’t it better for me to call you, send a friendly “would you mind not doing that?” e-mail than a threat of “pay up or else”? And if you question why I restrict commercial use of my work, it’s simply because I offer this stuff for free and I don’t want anyone else being charged for it. The Creative Commons licence I use means that should someone want to use it in a commercial venture they need only ask (but I might still say no). Non-commercial uses nned not ask and can just go ahead. So go ahead use my cartoons and artwork and my poems (such that they are) in your church bulletins and projection systems. As long as you are not charging people for the work or to get in, I’m fine with it.

Do not write in anger

You may have guessed that I am angry about this. I was angry when I heard about last night but following my own advice I decided not to write about it then. I slept on it so I could write with a clear head. The trouble is these incidents and ones like them are ungracious, bullying and just plain wrong. As someone once said if the law supports this behaviour then the law is an ass! So although I have a clearer head I am still angry. If I wait until I am no longer angry I won’t be writing this piece.

I’ve been saying this for many years and now I am glad I am not alone: ENOUGH! What the heck are we doing to each other here? Christians caring more about some misplaced sense of “loss of earnings” and infringement of “intellectual property rights” than they do about loving each other and letting God have the glory. Why can’t Christians share any more? I’m pretty sure that Sundays Schools and youthwork programmes around the world are still teaching that sharing is good. As a father and a youthworker I know I try to pass that lessons onto those who are part of my responsibility and I am guessing I am not alone. So why are we teaching that if our actions don’t show it?

I don’t like to rant about others behaviour without offering suggestions for alternatives but I won’t waste space repeating myself here. Go read about the m108 project,  my proposal for a way for Christians to free themselves of these proprietary mammon-oriented principles.

As a closing remark. I once heard a sermon where the preacher asked how many people owned a TV, more than 10 CDs, more than two pairs of jeans, a car, a fridge etc. After the show of hands he turned and said “So you all own all this stuff? That’s odd because in my Bible it says ‘The earth is the Lord’s and everything in it’”. That’s the point here. This stuff, the poems, the names we use, the music, the artwork is not as precious as we think. Is “our” work so much better than God’s? He gave it to us to share, enjoy and look after. We slap copyright on it and threaten each other if we dare use the same name or share something that blessed us. To sort of borrow a phrase from the Daily Mail (of all places): this is Christianity gone mad and it has to stop! The only way it will is if we stop it.