Women Bishops, Synod and Froth

I love women, me. I love women because they are sort of like blokes but different and they can do all the same stuff. A woman is like a man, only different. It is also fair to say that I love men too. I love men because they are sort of like ladies but different and can do all the same stuff and that. A man is like a woman, but with fewer glands. It's like we are the same, just a little different, init.

If you hadn't heard, didn't care, or were in the real world, you may not have heard that the famous veteran of the Jerusalem Wars, General Synod, is talking about none less that women bishops. It seems that the church is one of the few places where equality is laughed at like a dirty joke in a vestry, where mammaries are anti-mitre devices and that it is seriously believed, by even some people with more than an 'O' Level in woodcraft, that the God of the whole Universe would give a rat's behind about gender when dishing out shepherd jobs. 

Oh no. God has us to do that for him, for we are flawed and broken. 

Facebook, a whole array of internets and Twitter are now the playground of the "We Should" and "We Shouldn't" brigades. There will be name calling, there will be acrimony, there will be point scoring, there will be more froth than a branch of Starbucks. Perhaps less prayer than any of that, but much wordsmithery. 

Why? Because we are flawed and broken. 

I am in favour of all God's children doing what God calls them to do. I don't think God discriminates on the basis of gender, because such a God as that would surely have to discriminate on the basis of far more important matters like worthiness - and I'd still be peddling my woven wares in a warehouse. There is no argument (except for the words of one human man from a few decades back) against it. 

What I am not in favour of is seeing my beloved church turning into a torch-and-pitchfork organisation in the public glare of the all the world. I shall pray that the debate is dignified, that the Interweb output is steeped in humility on all sides, and that the world will see that Christians can be people of the grace they purport to have received from God. 

... and that anyone with a career-builder's heart in the middle of that debate, from either camp, may be consumed by pestilence. 

Twitterquette

The subject of good manners within social media has been written about many times over. Only not here - so here I go.

I am focussing upon Twitter in particular following a rather annoying thing that peeves me just a little bit. In simple terms, I sent a Tweet (a message of 140 characters or less, if by now you are unsure) to a priest who knows me personally and who holds some authority in the church (I lean on the word 'some'). Said priest then ignored me despite being rather active on the site. It wasn't a world-class message that I sent, but did demand a reply. I was ignored.

There are always little rules that accompany social interaction. Were there not, then rudeness and poor behaviour would quickly reign. On the whole, these rules require no printing or formal drafting, because they are the rules of good manners, and are largely innate in most of us. 

I think I was peeved because the priest in question is a conspicuous self-promoter and manifestly ambitious. I have no real concern with that, until they become too levitous to speak to others. Exchanged messages with bishops, even archbishops - that is fine. Just not curates. Grrr

With all things concerning the social media, I believe in absolute terms that you should never utter a word there that you wouldn't be prepared to say in person. It is easy to be one person in the flesh and quite another in the online world. In the real world, when someone addresses me, I respond. In the online world, I am not rude about someone for fun (or even to be serious), though I am happy with being critical in appropriate measure. I am happy to take criticism if it is warranted and the person delivering it has the right or insight so to do. If I borrow something from someone else, I try to ask first and thank them after. If I like something, I tell others, but I remember not to accidentally let that thing become mine. 

And so it is with social media, and especially Twitter and blogging. Ideas are (more or less) property. Interactions are no less real than any that would take place in my lounge over coffee. Equally, that means that I listen as much as I speak and I don't keep repeating myself - frequent offenses in social media, especially Twitter. If I address someone, I fairly well expect a reply. I try hard to afford that behaviour to others and look back on messages received when I have been offline, and reply to them in one form or another. When people propagate my ideas, I like to thank them. It seems obvious to me. 

So, person-in-question - please stop ignoring us mere lesser mortals on the ground. It is rude and it is unacceptable, and after all, you are a priest and that demands even more good behaviour. Enough said. 

But don't just take my word for it ...

With thanks to the ever excellent somegreybloke

Behind The Glass

I saw an advert on the telly the other day. As with most adverts, I can't tell you what it was for, but I remember the essence of the message.

Broadly, the advert in question created a scene of a typical busy walkway where people passed one another, presumably on their way to work etc. They weren't acting normally, however. They were aggressive and violent, abusive and rude: uneccessarily so, caricaturishly so. It was a scene of normal people acting obnoxiously. 

It alluded to the way many people behave when they are driving in their cars, the old road-rage thing. We are all guilty. Well, I am! It is that sense that we have a free hand to say or do things that we perhaps wouln't concieve of doing in person with the person concerned - and all because we are sitting in our cars. I am altogether more impatient when I am driving, even when I am not in a hurry. I do shout more, and I mostly remember to close my window first. Sometimes, I even remember that I am wearing a collar, but have been a couple of times when I have forgotten! Not good ...

The same thing happens with emails and telephone conversations. In my 'last life' in retail, people would talk to me like I was snail ooze, abusive and nasty at times. My wife recieves emails that are like that from others in her profession  which are along the same lines. Once, I had had enough, and a man who had threatened to hit me with a baseball bat once was invited into my store to do just that. He came in with said bat but seeing I was a frowning fairly broad grumpy six-foot man, and he was a tubby little oaf, he suddenly became the model of reconciliation. In the end he apologised, I told him it was fine, and the issues were resolved (like it was my fault the carpet fitters were all snowed in, I ask you!). Another person once offered me the benefit of their wisdom (their sign language was very compelling) behind their steering wheel - until I stopped and got out of my car to ask for clarification. There wasn't one - only an 'well, I was only saying....' type of comment. 

I wonder why we do that. We all do. We are altogether stronger behind the glass. It happens in church life too. The relative 'safety' of a church community means that people feel able to do and say things that outside, they just wouldn't. Learning from this, and in my own level of guilt, I will try to deal with people behind glass in the way I would do so without it.