Lazy Language

Now I am hardly the World’s brightest and I am not the most cultured.  In fact my East End of London upbringing means that I easily drop my “H”s and on occasions sound like I am a Barrow Boy or have been working on the Market for a number of years.

However, there are some words and phrases which make me cringe, particularly when they are used often.  “Basically”, what I mean is that “at the end of the day” “it is what it is”, but “here’s the thing”, “if it’s meant to be then it’s meant to be” because “everything happens for a reason”, “going forward”.  The last of these is beginning to become a favourite among a wide range of professionals, particularly when they are doing presentations or speaking to groups.  What on earth does it mean????  This phrase and so many others are time fillers, spaces to think, words for when we run out of words and anything useful to say.  I have just managed to create a sentence out of those phrases which contains plenty of words but says absolutely nothing!  It is a sign of laziness most of the time. 

I put swearing in the same sort of camp.  Yes I understand that swearing can be an involuntary response to something surprising or shocking.  However, it is not uncommon to hear swear words peppering conversations used routinely.  As far as I am concerned that both shows a limited vocabulary and is pretty lazy.

The current craze for text speak (or maybe txt spk) simply adds to the problem.  It is likely that this will lead to increased illiteracy at some level or another.

Is anyone going to take any notice of this?  No I shouldn't expect so.  I make the point though because words can be so creative, so special, and so expressive.  To sink into lazy language is just a bit of a disappointment.  As wordsmiths go I am not likely to set the World on fire but I do believe in a small way I can craft words into something special that can inspire, motivate and communicate.

In the Bible Ephesians 4:29 says “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen”.  That seems to me to be wise advice whether or not one is a person of faith.  It takes its place alongside Colossians 4:6a “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt”.

Lazy or wanting to exercise ourselves in speaking and writing that really does mean something?

Charity at a Cost?

A very sad story in the news is about the death of Olive Cooke who was a War Widow and who had sold poppies for 76 years.  The story can be found via many news outlets but this is how it reads in The Mirror online.

There seems to be concern that one of the stresses of Olive's life was the persistent approaches from charities. No doubt various enquiries and the Inquest will consider whether these approaches contributed to Olive's death.  This sad story of a woman who seems to have lived a life dedicated to helping others prompted me to think of the persistent approaches we have had in our own household from various charities and the connections we have with others.  

Being a Minister within the Methodist Church it could be argued that I work for a charity so I am not anti charity by any means.  However I have been disappointed at some of the charities that are very close to my heart changing their fundraising tactics in a way that I believe alienates some of their core supporters and which discourages others from supporting them in the first place.  I imagine charities change their fundraising tactics because they find the tactics work and they raise more money, but at what cost?  Maybe the cost is at making some members of the public resolve never to support that particular charity.

Let me give two examples of the way that charities have discouraged me from support.  The first concerns a Charity which purports to have a Christian ethos, although in their local centres or shops one would be hard pushed to find anyone that would confess to being a Christian or even have much of a clue about the mainstream church they are supposedly connected to.  This charity had a very strong supporter base within a particular denomination but many years ago decided it would start cold calling for volunteer collectors completely undermining the system of grass roots volunteers that already existed.  I suppose more money came in, but I am pretty sure more goodwill went out. The second example involves another very well known charity whose representatives kept calling asking for an increase in regular giving.  Despite repeated warnings that if they persisted we would cease support completely as we already support a number of charities (and work for one)  and have our charitable giving worked out - guess what?  They kept calling!

Of course the work of charities is important.  Of course it can be very hard for them to raise money.  Of course they should keep searching for creative ideas for fundraising in order to support the work of charities.  However, this does not mean that persistent calls, sometimes from organisations that represent the charity without being the charity itself, are wise or appropriate.  Sometimes the kind of approach is more akin to tackling a call centre than it is to speaking with a charity that has compassion.  It would appear to me that some of those who contact the public on behalf of charities actually do use call centre tactics, working with a script that is written for them, perhaps having little knowledge or understanding of the charity itself.  And that is without the huge number of letters that come through the post as well.

Am I arguing that charities should not phone or write to people?  No, not for a moment,  I am arguing though for compassion, courtesy and common sense to be at the heart of the way charities approach people.  Is that too much to ask? I think for Olive Cooke it was the least she could have expected.

Election 2015 Aftermath: Listen Carefully

I have seen a number of people declaring things along the lines of "What an awful day this is!". 

Maybe they are right; maybe they are wrong.  But underlying that are one or two points.  The first is that we are where we are because people have voted in a particular way.  The second is that those people include ordinary - sometimes poorer - people who have voted for the party of Government and not just rich people who have voted for them.

I suspect a malaise of politicians, and possibly the Church, is that long ago in quarters of politics and the Church (and of course that does not mean every part) we ceased to listen to ordinary people and moved more to a position of telling these people what they should think and how they should act - a kind of intellectual condescension - and once that happens we find that all sorts of things might happen in elections, including for instance that, although there may not be a great surge of UKIP in Parliament, the percentage of those voting in that direction seems to grow.  Listening to and engagement with those who have concerns - even about unreasonable things - is in my view one thing that has been lacking.  But listening and engagement probably works better than political haranguing about whatever liberal stance grabs the power politicians of the day.  Perhaps we can begin to listen more rather than just tell people off when they don't have the same view as us.

Make your Mark

We are on the eve of the General Election.  I hope we will all make our mark by voting. Edmund Burke (12 January 1729 - 9 July 1797) was an Irish political philosopher among other things.  He is known for these words “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”  In those days “men” would have meant men and women of course.

When people step back or turn away from responsibilities more often than not the gap that is created is filled by something else.  That something else can be very unsavoury.  I suggest then we have a responsibility to get out there and vote.

How should we vote?

1.  We should vote for someone with integrity that we feel will represent us and the constituency we are a part of.  First and foremost a local MP is your MP and my MP.  Yes it is relevant to take account of party politics and the potential for national Government, but always remember, whether they carry this through or not, an MP’s first allegiance is to his or her constituency.   It is the people of the constituency that choose the MP and the people of the constituency that can vote them out.  An MP who thinks they owe more to their Party than their Constituents may find that they end up being an MP for a relatively short period of time.

2.  We should vote for the good of others and not just ourselves.  This is sometimes very difficult particularly if we happen to be in a situation where we are poor or hungry and cannot see an easy present or future.  To only focus on ourselves though is to encourage individualism and selfishness.  To consider others means we are seeking to build a good community and fair society.

3.  We should vote remembering that “There is a higher throne” (a song by Keith and Kristyn Getty).  In others words MPs, politicians and Government are not the final authority.  There is much in the Bible about God working through the Authorities and Governing Bodies of the World.  There is also much which indicates that such bodies and individuals need to be challenged when they enact Laws or encourage behaviour which is contrary to those things that God reveals to us as healthy and wholesome, and which are designed to nurture our lives and build good communities.

It is relatively easy to write these things and much harder to come to a decision about what they mean in practice, but even in the midst of those challenges I hope we will still vote and make our mark!