Saturday 29 March 2014

Charity and Giving Part 1: Sponsored Events



Those who know me are aware of an apparent glitch in what can most generously be referred to as my mental workings.  It is around the concept of sponsored events.  In school, and through the churches I went to as a child, I ended up doing sponsored walks and sponsored silences and sponsored fasts.  Money was raised and given to charities, and everything was fine and dandy.

Then a few years ago, I had some sort of neurological blue-screen, or possibly an epiphany depending on which way you want to look at it, and realised that the very concept not only doesn’t make sense, but may even be personally harmful from a spiritual point of view.

“Children are starving in Africa”, a hypothetical person says to me (hypothetically).  “I’m going to walk 20 miles to raise money for them.”

“Why?”

“Why?  Because children are starving, and the money will be used to buy food and medical supplies and things.”

“No, I mean why are you walking 20 miles?”

“To raise money.”

“How?”

“What do you mean?”

“I mean, children are starving in Africa, yes?”

“That’s right.”

“Well that’s terrible, I will most certainly donate money to help.”

“Great!”

“But why are you walking twenty miles?”

“Um… to raise money.”

“So I should pay you to walk 20 miles, and you’ll then give the money to starving children?”

“That’s right.”

“So what is it that I’m paying for?”

“You’re… uh… paying for me to walk 20 miles.  It’ll be really hard and tiring.  I’ll get blisters.”

“So you’re undergoing an arduous experience, in exchange for my giving to charity?”

“Yes!”

“Why don’t I just give the money to the starving children, since they so obviously need it, and save you the bother?”

“Oh, um, well…”

Do you see my problem?  If my hypothetical friend was selling cakes, and donating the money to charity, that would make more sense.  If it was a bob-a-job style arrangement wherein people paid for work, and that money was then passed on, that would be fine.   But the concept of sponsored walks and fasts and silences is a bizarre leap of logic that I have become unable to take.  However, it is so firmly embedded in our culture that to take this position makes me look like a miser at best, and an uncaring, cynical ogre at worst.  Also, it is undeniable that because they are so entrenched, they are very good at raising money for good causes.

It has been argued that it is done to raise awareness.  “Look at that chap!  He’s walking 20 miles.  That’s a curious thing to do.  Ah, turns out that the children in Africa are starving, and that’s why he’s doing it!”  Ok then, but you could just tell me.  Knowing that children are suffering unnecessarily should surely be enough for anyone, without a long walk required.  Perhaps it’s all a diabolical conspiracy by shoemakers?

Beyond their nonsensicality, my main objection to them is more theological; I can’t help but feel that the injunction in Matthew 6 to keep our charitable giving top secret is burst wide open by the naturally and necessarily public nature of a sponsored event.  In most cases, I am sure that self-publicity is no part of a person’s motivation.  Even so, they are seen to be doing good works, and even if it’s no part of their motivation, will end up being publically praised. 

In other cases, I know for a fact that it is almost the entire motivation.  There is such a thing as Event Marketing, in which a company attaches itself symbiotically to a charity or charitable event, and helps raise money.  The purpose of this is solely to generate positive publicity and increase sales.  The company’s employees might well believe in the cause involved, but ultimately the company wouldn’t support it unless they know they’re getting something out of it themselves.  I used to work for a major supermarket chain, who every year would be very publically involved in a high profile national charity event.  They would have posters and advertising splashed up everywhere, and make sure that everybody knew what a wonderful, caring company they were; the kind of company from whom you’d want to buy.

I flatly refused to have anything to do with it, or any of the events that were organised in-store to support it.  Nobody asked me why, but I was ready with logical arguments and biblical quotations in case they did.

It has been pointed out, quite correctly, that surely in this case it is the ends, not the means that matters.  If people can be persuaded to support good causes in exchange for someone sitting in a bath of baked beans for seven hours, then that’s just as good as if they just gave their money anyway, and they are more likely to do so.  Well… yes, but I can’t help but feel that they shouldn’t.  You shouldn’t require another person to undertake some random and unrelated act in order to be chivvied into giving money to a self-evidentially noble cause.  I strongly believe that motivations matter, and will be taken into account, as much as the end result, and I can’t help but feel that my giving an amount of money to feed starving children, because I’ve heard of their plight and want to help is inherently better than being persuaded to give money because someone else is going on a hike.

But I’m not certain, and if it’s true (depressing thought though it is) that people can only be persuaded to give to good causes under these circumstances, then it’s infinitely better than not giving at all.

Tuesday 18 March 2014

Thoughts on Blasphemy, Offense and Free Speech



A couple of posts ago, I made a light-hearted remark about Pakistan’s blasphemy laws, and how I would have been sentenced to death for saying that I don’t like every single one of Queen’s songs.  An off-the-cuff remark about a very serious subject, and a cause of extreme concern, especially for the non-Muslim minorities in the country.

Very happily, we no longer have a blasphemy law in this country, or at least not one that is enforced, and that is as it should be.  The concept of blasphemy laws is very tightly interwoven with the concept of freedom of and from religion, and freedom of expression.  I think most people would agree that not having laws banning people from blasphemy is a Good Thing.

However, it is also tightly bound up with the abuse of free speech.  I would argue absolutely for the fact that people ought to be allowed to blaspheme, but that doesn’t mean that I think they should.  Increasingly as time goes on, I am becoming more and more sensitive to what can perhaps be called casual or unconscious blasphemy, and it is this unconsciousness that is primarily what irks me.

Despite the protestations of some, it can be asserted with a fair degree of confidence that we now live in a post-Christian country.  The population as a whole is increasingly secular, and to most the very concept of blasphemy, if they are familiar with it at all, must seem bizarrely archaic.  As a result most of them aren’t even aware of what they are doing when they exclaim “Oh my God!” or “Jesus Christ!”  They might be aware that the latter is ‘swearing’ (although I wonder if they could tell you why), but the vast majority of people will be unaware that the former is even what might be considered bad language.  It’s just an exclamation, and one that is almost completely ubiquitous.  The idea that taking the Name in vain is a thing at all, let alone a bad thing, is totally alien to most people in this country.  Everyone is familiar with the concept of swearing in the sense of vulgarity, but this doesn’t overly bother me, although I don’t tend to do so myself.  You can use any of the popular four letter words and while I may consider them vulgar and aesthetically displeasing, they don’t bother me overly.  However, increasingly, hearing people say “Oh my God!” as the mildest form of exclamation makes me twitch internally.

It is that unconsciousness, that lack of understanding that gets to me more than the blasphemy itself.  I can’t help but feel that if you want to have a good blaspheme, then it is your right to do so, but you should do so in the full knowledge of what you’re doing.  Of course (or at least I assume), the people using these phrases aren’t religious, and aren’t using them in a context of religious swearing.  They’re just ‘things that you say’, and this in itself is saddening.

I can’t honestly say that hearing other people blaspheme ‘offends’ me as such, but I do severely dislike it.  I don’t believe that people have a right not to be offended, and I certainly don’t believe that religion should have any special protection from being criticised or even mocked.  On the other hand, I do think that people have a responsibility to use their free speech responsibly, and act in a manner that minimises the offence given to others.  I strongly believe that I should have the right to hurl racist abuse if I so choose (not, I hasten to add, that I ever would), but I also have a responsibility to use (or in this case refrains from using) that right in a way that avoids causing offence if possible.  And of course that doesn’t mean that you should refrain from opposing something that you feel is wrong, out of fear of causing offence; sometimes it’s unavoidable.

Most people are decent, reasonable human beings, and don’t wish to offend others needlessly, so perhaps education is all that is required when it comes to religious swearing, but I don’t usually feel comfortable asking people not to blaspheme around me.  This is in part due to the seemingly archaic nature of blasphemy in the first place, and partly due to questions of free speech and offence.  I might make the occasional sarcastic comment (“Oh my God!”  “No, I just look like Him.”), much to my wife’s irritation, but I’ve not asked people at work not to blaspheme around me, nor have I asked my friends not to. 

I am uncertain where the line is between allowing people to express themselves freely around me, and not feel awkward and self-conscious when talking in my presence, and standing up for my beliefs, and making them known.  If I harangued my friends every time they blasphemed (because most of them are not Christian, and therefore do not believe that there is anything wrong with it), I would swiftly become a complete bore, and not have any friends at all.  But then, shouldn’t my beliefs, including the commandment that you shall not take the Lord’s name in vain, take precedent over my desire not to alienate those around me?  I’m afraid I’m simply not that hard-line, and could it not be argued that by doing so, I would merely be lowering their opinion of Christianity, and thus acting counter to the interests of the Kingdom?

These are questions to which I do not know the answer, and I can’t imagine that they will resolve themselves any time soon.

Saturday 15 March 2014

Keeping Miracles Miraculous



There was a story this week on the BBC website about evangelical Christians who go around performing (or at least attempting) miraculous healing.  They claim to have cured heart disease and cancer, and even raised the dead.

They perform these miracles in front of large crowds, and “they are not interested in little effects that are on the border of statistical significance - they want big flashy miracles.”  As far as I can tell, the true purpose of these displays is not to heal the sick, but to demonstrate the power of God, and to make converts.

I believe in miracles, I truly do, but this makes me deeply uncomfortable.  It seems to me far too much like demanding proof, treating God almost as a mail order service, and worse, of putting God to the test.  They are apparently not disheartened when there miracles fail to materialise which happens frequently, but they are still making demands of God, and of trying to make miracles something every-day and ordinary, that can be performed on demand and that turn God into little more than a mobile surgical unit.

When (if!) this happens, they surely cease to become miracles.  They are no longer 'miraculous' merely inexplicable, which to me is not the same thing at all.  There is also the sneaking suspicion that it is not God at work here, but some mystic power of the faith healer.  After all, if all you have to do is pray for a miracle, then anyone could do it.  It could be argued that most people do not believe sufficiently strongly, but then surely if these miracles are there to make converts, why wouldn’t God zap them better and provide instant proof-on-tap.

Worse still, according to the article, some of these people have claimed to have gold teeth ”miraculously appear in their mouths”, and ”had enormous and unaccountable gems materialise during prayer sessions”.

Well firstly, I clearly go to the wrong church, and secondly, uh… really?  God is handing out shinies and dental blingery by way of miracles now?  I not only struggle to believe this (not that I’m trying), but I struggle to believe that anyone else believes it.  Surely a God that heals on demand, and worse, that doles out wealth on demand, is a God who’s on some seriously thin theological ice?  If He’s willing to lean into the world and pluck out a cancer on command, why on earth would he need asking, assuming he’s a benevolent God.  If He has no problem with dropping gems under people’s chairs, why is there poverty?

It also has deep implications for the concept of faith.  After all, these people are often referred to as ’faith healers’, but surely a directly observable incident of physical intervention negates the very idea of faith.  I wouldn’t believe in a god who was flashy and obvious and in-your-face.  I’d wonder what his angle was.  Thomas was told that he would have been far better off if he’d believed without seeing proof, so are these ’healers’ doing their flocks a severe disservice?  Would these people believe at all without these miracles and if so, of what value is this thin and fragile ’faith’ that demands constant proofs and reassurances?

I believe in miracles, and I believe in the power of prayer.  I do not believe in this.  Some of it may be sincere wishful thinking and a willingness to see statistical off-chances as the direct intervention of God.  Some may well be fraudulent and deliberate deceit, for the aggrandisement of the ’healer’.  Mostly though, I think they simply serve to obfuscate those true miracles that do, very, very rarely, and never on demand, actually occur, when God is willing to break his own rules for the sake of the game, and I think that this does immeasurably more harm than it does good, even for those poor people who will believe anything and try anything to get the miracle they think they need.

Saturday 8 March 2014

A Brief Musical Interlude, and Thoughts on Taste

This week, I offer something I've found on Youtube.  It's a video of the most highly talented set of identical nonuplets I've ever come across, all named Sam for the sake of convenience.

They sing very beautifully, and the video is very well-put together.  My own singing lacks a little something when it comes to quality, although I try and make up for this with quantity.  As a Catholic acquaintance of mine once said, 'The choir's there to carry the tune.  The rest of us are just there to add volume.'  This being so, I am always very admiring of those people who actually can sing, in this case all nine of them.

I have reflected in the past that God must be completely tone deaf, as well as totally colour blind.  In fact, God must be the least tasteful person in existence.  He seems to take delight as much in the dull and the insipid as He does in the gaudy and the tawdry, in the hideous and the discordant as much as the beautiful and the harmonious.  To quote Monty Python, 'All things dull and ugly, all creatures short and squat, all things vile and venemous, the Lord God made the lot.'   

If He was human, He'd be the kind of person who's house is chock full of pointless gewgaws and horrible china ornaments in offensively bright shades of colour, with 'With Love From Bridlington' written on the base in large, inelegant letters.  A magpie and a hoarder, unrestrained by such inhibiting factors as taste or discrimination.

Nowadays, we tend to use the word 'discriminating' negatively, in the sense of racial or gender discrimination, but one can also make a discriminating choice in a positive sense, in terms of making a careful choice after weighing the relative pros and cons.  Very happily for me and my singing voice, God doesn't seem to discriminate at all, in either sense of the term.  I also draw like a blind-folded three-year old in an earthquake.  I'd better stick to the writing I think.  After all, not everyone is as tasteless as God.

Anyway, here are The Nine Sam Robsons.  Enjoy!



Monday 3 March 2014

Political Satire

I don't tend to comment on current events.  Except for Queen's sales figures.  But apart from that, I tend to remain stoic and silent on the subject.

However, with everything kicking off over in the Ukraine, many people seem to be under a false impression of the cause of this situation.  The reality is rather more saddening than the common supposition, and thus it falls to me to illuminate you, via the medium of rhyming(ish) verse:



That poor Mr Putin is misunderstood.
He’s kindly and noble, distinguished and good.
This deadly debacle must be denounced,
For it is all down to how words are pronounced.

You see he was talking one day to a chap,
Who brought out a detailed and colourful map.
He showed him a region almost next door,
Unknowingly starting the crisis and war.

For Putin’s a tireless enforcer of law,
To sinners and hoodlums, he gives them what for!
Against all wrongdoing his quest is unending,
He’s fearless and bold, untiring, unbending.

For Mr Putin it’s quite an obsession,
To catch malefactors and teach them a lesson.
As soon as he finds the tiniest trace,
Of criminal dealings he’s right on the case!

Expecting no praise, no payment or thanks,
He readies the army, he sends in the tanks.
He hails them with rockets; he pelts them with shot, 
He hits the wrongdoers with all that he’s got.

And so the whole world’s come sadly a cropper,
Because Putin’s aide, he doesn’t talk proper.
And thus this bloke’s accent caused violence and fear,
For he showed him the map and said “Look, there’s crime ‘ere.”

Copyright Thomas Jones 2014