Crimperman.org

(c) Nevine Zaki http://twitter.com/NevineZaki

Dear Christians around the world: this is a photo of Egyptian Christians standing in a human chain around Muslims in order to protect them while they pray. It was taken by Nevine Zeki. If you want to send a message to Muslims around the world, how about more like this rather than threatening to burn the Qu’ran, calling them names or lumping them altogether. We often read of how Jesus associated with those who he was “not supposed to”. It seems the Christians in this picture are following the same pattern and I am proud to think that I am part of their family.

Convenience is the anti-thesis of security

Part of my job is to do with security of websites and their underlying infrastructure. I’ve long held the view that the anti-thesis of security is convenience. Ask anyone dealing with computer system security and chances are they’d agree it’s not a good idea to let people choose their own passwords or pin numbers. There are factors such as the importance of what you are protecting that come into play but in general if you let people choose their own password they’ll go for something which is easy to remember and therefore guess or work out. Pin numbers will be the same: if they can get away with it most people will keep them the same on every system. Convenience for the person undermines security of the system. As this photo proves (I couldn’t find an attribution for this by the way so if it’s yours let me know).

But it’s not just security that suffers by convenience. I appreciate I will sound like Monty Python’s old Yorkshire men (“You tell that to kids today…”) but the truth is that we live in a world where convenience is the key. E-mail, Tweets and Status updates are pushed to mobile phones, bookings are made online or by SMS — preferably on the way to the venue and wireless internet connections are left unsecured and open because it’s easier that way. The phrase of our times seems to be “Can’t be bothered” (or a more colourful alternative) not because of apathy but because of pseudo-laziness. I say pseudo-laziness because this isn’t us not wanting to do something, it’s just us not wanting to take too much time or spend too much effort on it (which I suppose is laziness then). Some believe this is all a product of our drive for an instant world, I think it’s about convenience: you buy a new gadget and you want it to be charged already not wait for 24 hours, joint electricity and gas supply deals are sold not only because of cost savings but because it’s more convenient to deal with one company (until you actually have to deal with them then it’s anything but convenient!), people are encouraged to spend rather than save for things (presumably ‘spending’ on credit) and instead of buying your shopping “when the shops are open” it’s more convenient to dodge the shelf-stackers in the wee hours. I appreciate that there are good reasons for some if not all of these but the truth is that, to take 24 hour supermarkets as an example, once the store is open 24 hours it’s not just those who can’t get to the shops in normal hours who use them. We live in a world driven by convenience and whilst it can be both a nice thing and a dangerous thing it is not something that is likely to change.

Inconvenient truth?

It’s important to remember then that it is into this world we Christians are bringing our message. Our message which can sometimes make “store up your treasures in heaven” sound like “save for a rainy day”. A message which we too often present as “Thou shalt not” instead of “Have real and eternal life, more and better life than [you] ever dreamed of”. So what do we do? In a world which says “I can’t be bothered” how do we present “Love your neighbour as yourself”? Can it be that the Christian message is behind the times in ways we hadn’t considered before? Do we need to present it in ways which make it more convenient for people? In truth we already are. Fresh expressions, Messy church, Street pastors are all excellent examples of the Church making itself more accessible and removing the obstacle of inconvenience and they are not the only ones. But is this enough? Is it enough that organisations, churches and groups run these kind of projects or are we in danger of segregating the Church into the old and the new? Many studies have been made and papers written about the problems with running alternate ways for people to “do church” with many very clever people warning about the dangers of ending up with two “congregations”.

It’s up to us

But there’s something which keeps nagging at me. Whilst all these activities, projects and groups are great let’s not forget that many of the key moments in Church growth have come when God moves individuals to (for want of a better word) witness to those around them. This is important to remember. If the world around us is living by “Can’t be bothered”, the only way for me and you to teach them the importance of “Love your neighbour” is to do it. If the culture of saving seems foreign (no matter how good the advice) then the only way for us to demonstrate “Store up your treasures in heaven” is to do it and show it as it is: building for both now and the future. I am sure there are those who will disagree with me but Christianity is not about making God convenient, it’s about living as citizens of Heaven here and now: making God accessible through Jesus, through our words and actions. It’s about being inconvenienced ourselves so that other might experience life-changing grace. Yes it may involve changing our ways but the Church is all about change (despite the picture we present), it’s a “building” that is built of lives, hearts, hopes and love. No building remains the same while it is under construction so yes the Church must adapt, change and grow to keep its arms open to everyone but it’s not the building which lives but the stones it is made of – aka us. It’s been said that Christianity is supposed to be caught not taught and that you may be the only Bible people ever read. Now if you ask me both of those already sound like a convenience.

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.

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

Would you begrudge adding this to a £30 meal to help someone?

This weekend we had a meal at a local restaurant. It’s part of a chain and to be honest the chain is irrelevant. We had a good time and enjoyed the food. When it came to pay the bill they added a 10p donation to the World Food Program‘s World Hunger Campaign. We had no objection and happily paid the bill.

It got us thinking though. What if all restaurant meals had this? What if every restaurant meal over a certain threshold (let’s say £3) had an automatic “tax” of 10p? Not 10% just 10p? How much would this raise? According to one industry site, about 148 million restaurant meals were eaten in the UK last year. This does not include take-aways but if the “tax” I suggest included them I guess we would be looking at it raising around £25million per annum. I’m not an expert but that’s a lot of money.

Now what if this were used to fund something like the WFP or maybe even fund free school dinners for more children in the UK? We’re told that the average cost for a school dinner is about £1.50. Families on benefits get free school dinners anyway but something like this could help a greater number and raise the threshold so those who are just above the benefit threshold (but still on very low income) could get some help too. If a child had a free cooked meal at school wouldn’t that help keep the family budget down and thus help raise a lot of families out of poverty? I suspect the answer is yes because otherwise the government wouldn’t already offer free school meals to the poorest families in the UK. Many studies have also shown that eating a nutritious lunch helps with studies and learning.

Okay so I guess a lot of financial and sociological experts will pick holes in this idea. I’m also sure there would be a lot of people who would object because they don’t have children or they should be able to choose to whom, when, how much and even if they donate. I still think it would be worth looking into and could be acceptable to many because a) it’s flat rate – if your meal costs £500 you still pay 10p, b) it’s a paltry amount, c) it’s easy to pay and d) it could make a real difference very quickly.