I have noticed an increase of problem caused by these people:

These people are the ones we blame when we’re too lazy to give an appropriate name to those we accuse.
These people exhibit behaviour we deplore but that we rarely have evidence of.
These people follow whatever thought processes (if any) we wish to assign to make our point.
These people are a group of varying size but rarely do we think they really count.
These people are a convenient way for us to write real people off by lumping them together and not treating them as people.
Jesus said “Treat other people the way you want them to treat you.” Fortunately for us he didn’t specify how we should treat these people.

Too often we lump people into groups of our making so we can dismiss them out of hand and write them off. We decide what these people know, what they think, how they act and how they should be treated. At no point do we consider whether those we group together as these people actually want or – better yet – deserve to be in that group.

We owe them more than that. We owe them what we’d like them to owe us. A chance. A non-judgemental, open minded chance to be treated as an individual. Probably like you, I have had my turn at being grouped with these people and on occasion I have looked at those I am grouped with. Rarely do I find much in common with them. Other than being a human being who is being stereotyped by another human being of course.

This video is pretty well known and speaks for itself. But it’s good. Let’s stop talking about these people. Let’s talk about a person. Let’s look at them in the way Jesus did: one at a time.

Thanks to Robb (@changingworship) for highlighting this brilliant and cutting piece by Bill Maher in the US. Be aware that it has swearing in it. Also I feel it will probably make us Christians feel a little uncomfortable – if it’s only the swearing that does that then I applaud you.

The thing is that non-Christians have long been able to better tell how Christians should be behaving than we seem to be. “That’s not a very Christian thing to do”, “I thought you were a Christian?” – that kind of thing. We dismiss it with “I’m not perfect” and “God isn’t finished with me yet” but we need to ask are they right when they make such accusations and also why do they make them in the first place? For some reason they expect more of us than we often expect of ourselves. Maher says: “If you ignore every thing Jesus commanded you to do then you’re not his followers, you’re just fans” and he’s right. Yes we can laugh at the idea of “fundementalist Christians” holding babies under the baptismal water until they talk but let’s be careful not to distance ourselves too far from the message behind it. If the rest of the world has a poor view of Christians and Christianity then there really is only one place to lay the blame: at the feet of the Church – which we keep on telling ourselves is the people and not the building.

Recently I had a conversation with a new Christian (for want of a better term). They expressed a concern that they felt they still weren’t getting it right (after 3 weeks!). After 35 years of being in the same boat all I could say was “join the club”. In the end though we must remember that the message we bring (and should live) is that all fall short of the standard Jesus set and that God loved the entire world so much that he gave his only Son to make up the difference. This does not give us an excuse to stop trying and to live in ways that the person we claim to follow would not have done.

I’ve seen and heard an awful lot of stuff about tomorrow’s referendum on voting and to be honest a lot of it is the same-old, same-old. The main Yes and No campaigns seem to be more concerned with scaring us about the opposition than promoting their own case. In addition I’ve yet to see anyone describe what might actually happen in each case.  So I’ve decided to have a go at it myself. I’m well aware that this might actually make things more confusing but I think you can handle it – you clever people.

First past the post (FPTP)

This is what we use now.  Here’s a nice diagram of what NoToAV supporters suggest happens with FPTP.

Simple idea:  count the votes and the one with the most wins. That sounds good but it’s not usually what happens. They’ve ignored things like tactical voting (voting against the candidate you don’t want) and the 30-40% of people who don’t vote at all. The end result is that the winner probably has the support of far fewer than half the people they represent (let alone a majority).  Here’s a revised diagram.

The irony here is that with FPTP many people already vote for their second choice (represented by the red and yellow votes above) as they don’t think their first one has a chance (or they are not standing). So when the NoToAV campaign claim AV will let the second choice candidate win, they’re ignoring the fact that the current system does that already.

Alternate Vote (AV)

This is the competition. YesToAV campaigners suggest something like this will happen if we switch.

Another simple idea. You rank the candidates in order of preference and the winner is the one who eventually ends up with at least 51% of support. Except that’s also neatly avoiding some of the realities like the 30-40% of non-voters and the people who only put down one preference. Here’s a diagram showing what would probably happen.

So you see the winner is the one with at least 51% of the remaining votes not all the votes and certainly not all the people they represent. That said there is a greater chance that more voters prefer the winning candidate than with FPTP.

What to do?

I’m not trying to convince you to vote one way or another – make your own mind up but don’t fall for the campaign lines. Read up on both systems and work out which is best for you butdon’t just fall for the campaign leaflets. They are after all very biased.

That said it is difficult to write a piece like this and not have your own preference come through. For the record I do prefer AV over FPTP ( given the option I’d rather STV or another PR was on offer ). My reason is – I think – simple: I live in a very safe seat and AV would give me the chance of showing my preferred candidate that they have my support and yet still allow my preference between the two front runners to make a difference. I can see some of the benefits for FPTP in an ideal world but in truth we don’t live in one of those. What concerns me most is the way that these campaigns have been pushed as if letting the “wrong” system win would mean automatically letting the candidate or party you don’t want in as well. Both sides are claimimg the extreminst groups would have more chance under the other system. This is not true by the way. There’s no evidence to suggest that extremist groups would have a better chance under either system. Most commentators say that changing to AV would not have made much difference to recent elections so why would I want to make a change if it made no difference? I believe that over time AV (or better yet STV) could make a difference. After the election candidates would better know what kind of support they have among the electorate and could campaign and work to increase that support. Rather than grow somewhat complacent each candidate would need to work to gain not only more first preference votes but increase their second preference ones too. In the end that sounds to me like prospective MPs would have to do something I rarely see or hear of: campaign on behalf of consttuents at times other than elections. It could also mean the candidate who is prepared to win the most support locally will win. This sounds better than the red, blue or yellow campaigning we have now.

Having said all of that I am concerned that this referendum coincides with local government elections and yet I have seen no local campaigning at all. It would appear that not one local candidate really wants my vote. Given that state of affairs I am beginning to see why so many people don’t even bother. So above all else this is a call to candidates in any election – don’t presume upon our votes – win them. Convince us. Not with scaremongering or bogey-men but with work and effort. You want me or my neighbours to vote for you, then sh ow us what our vote is worth. Not with leaflets but with action and if you are going to send me leaflest or run billboard campaigns – make them a little more honest rather than marketing material. because if you don’t do those things then you will find an increase in the non-voters.

Update Although I said much of the AV stuff is same-old, same-old it’s nice to find that there are still some refreshing views out there. My friend Kneewax, for example, has a very interesting one with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Food for thought as we approach the time when we make a significant effort to “celebrate the resurrection”

( h/t Rev’d Lesley & Phil’s treehouse )

I don’t need to add anything here (except for my UK friends 8th grade is about 13-14 years old).

( h/t Jesus Needs New PR )

Do you see people who speak too quickly? There is more hope for a foolish person than for them. ^{Prov. 29:20 NCV}

In what seems to be an effort to show that we can be just as daft as the rest of the world (if not more so) there have been two very good recent examples of Christians not paying attention to the above scripture. The first concerns author and speaker Rob Bell. Apparently he has a new book coming out soon and it may or may not be a bit controversial. What has caused the controversy is quite frankly irrelevant because as yet only a handful of people have read the book (it is yet to be published after all). Now the cynic in me says that the publishers are quite happy with controversy and the associated furore as it will probably lead to more sales but like others it galls me to see so much vitriol directed towards Mr Bell (and even those who share his name) from so many who call themselves Christian and yet have somehow forgotten to think before speaking or acting – let alone actually consider showing any grace at all. This kind of behaviour reminds me of the mess with the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand phone call “scandal” where thousands of people who hadn’t heard a radio show, read that they might have been offended if they had heard it and so duly complained without actually hearing it! I posted a link to a very apt video a while back which might be useful for some of us to see.

The second example is the much-publicised case of the Johns. This Christian couple were reported as being banned from fostering because of their views on homosexuality. Except as the ever trusty Church Mouse reported (with credit to Peter Ould and Gavin Drake it never happened. The Johns were not banned. No Christian couple is banned from fostering and there wasn’t even a fostering case at the centre of this. The Johns were asking a Judge to rule against the possibility that their Local Authority might try to prevent them fostering on the grounds of their “traditional view of marriage and sexual ethics”. Yet again the Christian knee-jerk machine went into action and the “We are offended” placards were picked up and because we are in a connected world, the “fight” soon crossed to other countries. Again though is this a case of Christians taking an “offended” stance without checking if we actually should be? In fairness the popular media has clambered all over this story and mis-reported it so it really boils down to not believing everything you read in the papers at face value.

There is a worrying trend in the UK (at least) where Christians seem all too keen to presume that the world is out to get us and that we are being “persecuted”. The basis for this seems to be that because some people voice opinions opposing our own (and let’s be honest that happens enough within the Church) we are being persecuted. So we have mass band-wagon jumping whenever cases like these occur. The danger as I see it here is that the rhetoric used to defend Christians is remarkably close to the supporters of extremist political groups and we end up fuelling our own fears with talk of victimisation and persecution. But to date, in the UK: I have not heard of anyone imprisoned for saying “Jesus is Lord” in a public place; I have yet to hear of somebody being physically attacked for being a Christian and nobody has ordered a church closed down simply for being a church. Let’s stop jumping the gun here and pay attention to the scripture above. Okay, sure sometimes people might say or act towards Christians in an unkind, unfair and prejudicial manner but as the first of the examples above shows, the perpetrator is just as likely to be a Christian as well.

(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.