I started thinking the other day about the way in which the church nowadays has become very music oriented with all the good and bad things that are related to it. I assume it mostly started with John Wimber in the 60s who as a professional musician wanted to write good songs and play good music in a church context and that seems to be a good aim.
This led me to thinking, how far have we taken this? Can we no longer have any church meeting without music? Do we do it because it is an easy low cost way to make people feel comfortable or happy or worshipful in meetings? If we subtract the music and an obligatory sermon we are left with roughly nothing. What about all the other parts of church life? Prophecy, encouragement, charity, evangelism? Spiritually speaking, music and teaching are easy to do. They have little real cost and can be faked easily enough if we are not actually annointed to do them. Other gifts that we conveniently push to the sidelines require us to engage with God or other people and these are much harder to do. In evangelism, although we can pretend to be annointed, if we are not then it won't take many rejections or lack of 'results' to provide an excuse to jack it in. Prophecy won't last long if we get it wrong. Even general charity and encouragement require a spritual energy that is not easy to fake over time.
I was also thinking about the big events that we like to do with churches in the West. Some of these attract thousands of people and often they cost large amounts of money which without being too killjoy could be funnelled into more deserving projects. I understand the logic of "people are encouraged by these events", which seems to be the most common justification of the events but the implication of that comment is that if people are encouraged (because it is big and fun and there are lots of people etc), they will always be encouraged and therefore we should always run the events - there is no real space for God's opinion.
A few years back I heard that New Frontiers had stopped running the Stoneleigh Bible Week despite massive support and popularity. It was refreshing that people had put their faith before the 'logic'. I'm not sure how many of us would have done the same.
I am often troubled by the egos that get polished at these events. It is often about a few very highly regarded speakers or 'worship leaders' teaching to several thousand listeners which doesn't seem very much like Church. What about everybody being able to exercise gifts? What about the fact that just because somebody has been annointed to teach in the past doesn't mean God won't decide to use somebody else in the future. The marketing is full of 'Speakers include John Smith and Charlie Brown' as if these names are selling the event! Shouldn't it say something like 'We believe God wants to use this event to encourage and teach you' and not bother with the 'names'?
The other flaw in the encouragement logic is that the big events can have the opposite effect. They feel so great when you are there that normal church life seems tedious or lacking even if it isn't. You can't have the buzz permanently so won't it make you feel like you are missing out for 51 weeks per year? I'm not even convinced that much equipping takes place because equipping is about a person engaging with God and if they can't do that away from the big events then nothing much will come of it. Sure there are life-changing events but these happen in many contexts outside of these big events.
I'm not sure. I keep wondering, is this Church or Show Business?
Friday, 1 August 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
Do I need God?
If you ask some people about God they say He doesn't exist - atheists, others might say they are followers of 'God' - religious people, but what about the band of people in the middle? The people who say "I don't need God, I am a good person" - what are they called?
If you ever visit the BBC News web site, go to "Have your say" where the site invites opinions on various news events, for example "Is it OK for a school to ban religious jewellery?", or, "Should Gordon Brown resign?". Many of the opinions expressed (certainly the most recommended ones) are very right-wing but it is the content of some of them which proves the point that people do in fact need God.
On one of the debates, they were asking "How can we control the drug use problem". Most of the recommended answers simply said we should legalise drugs and then be able to control or tax them and then the price would fall and dealers wouldn't make much money any more. An understandable view-point. There are other people however who said that the people who take drugs or deal them should be dealt with consistently and severely so that most people will not risk it. An opposite and equally understandable opinion. So which is right? Of course the answer is that no-one actually knows except God but people (including Christians!) rarely articulate this key fact. People often cite examples in other countries or sometimes pseudo or partial evidence for their view and the strength with which the view is expressed can be incredible despite this underlying ignorance.
So what? If you think for a moment why these people have such strong views when they don't actually know the correct answer you can only come up with one reason: Ego/pride. The fact that I will pour my heart and soul out to argue something that I really have no definitive idea about rather than saying, "i don't really know", or, "I suspect this would happen" says much about me and most other people in the world to some degree or other. It says that I am very inadequate in the knowledge department and I need someone to tell me what to know.
When you look at Jesus' life and when people asked him a question, he NEVER said, "it is six of one and half a dozen of the other", there was no politik. Either he had an answer or the question wasn't relevant and might have been answered in a different way. We believe of course that his answers were from God so we can be sure that they were right. So to go back to my earlier statements, people DO need God because he is the only one who can a) tell you the correct answers to something or b) tell you that the question is irrelevant and requires no answer.
I sometimes wonder how many of the "Have your say"s Jesus would write in to and what He would say!!
If you ever visit the BBC News web site, go to "Have your say" where the site invites opinions on various news events, for example "Is it OK for a school to ban religious jewellery?", or, "Should Gordon Brown resign?". Many of the opinions expressed (certainly the most recommended ones) are very right-wing but it is the content of some of them which proves the point that people do in fact need God.
On one of the debates, they were asking "How can we control the drug use problem". Most of the recommended answers simply said we should legalise drugs and then be able to control or tax them and then the price would fall and dealers wouldn't make much money any more. An understandable view-point. There are other people however who said that the people who take drugs or deal them should be dealt with consistently and severely so that most people will not risk it. An opposite and equally understandable opinion. So which is right? Of course the answer is that no-one actually knows except God but people (including Christians!) rarely articulate this key fact. People often cite examples in other countries or sometimes pseudo or partial evidence for their view and the strength with which the view is expressed can be incredible despite this underlying ignorance.
So what? If you think for a moment why these people have such strong views when they don't actually know the correct answer you can only come up with one reason: Ego/pride. The fact that I will pour my heart and soul out to argue something that I really have no definitive idea about rather than saying, "i don't really know", or, "I suspect this would happen" says much about me and most other people in the world to some degree or other. It says that I am very inadequate in the knowledge department and I need someone to tell me what to know.
When you look at Jesus' life and when people asked him a question, he NEVER said, "it is six of one and half a dozen of the other", there was no politik. Either he had an answer or the question wasn't relevant and might have been answered in a different way. We believe of course that his answers were from God so we can be sure that they were right. So to go back to my earlier statements, people DO need God because he is the only one who can a) tell you the correct answers to something or b) tell you that the question is irrelevant and requires no answer.
I sometimes wonder how many of the "Have your say"s Jesus would write in to and what He would say!!
Thursday, 10 July 2008
People who annoy me on roads
The roads can be pleasurable places to be. Doing 60 on a quiet country road in sunshine with music or maybe no music is bliss. But driving can also be strenuous, arduous, annoying (and expensive). I decided to make a list of people who increase the stress levels on the road for different reasons. How many of these do you relate to?
- Old people. Now to be fair not all old people fit the stereo type but you know the score, driving at 50mph in a 60mph behind a Nissan Micra and lo and behold, it is driven by some old gipper. To make it worse, they are allowed to drive during the rush hour to their unimportant meetings while the rest of us are trying to get to work.
- Motor homes and caravans. Great equipment to go on holiday with, fun to drive across Canada or the US with but they are NOT made for UK roads (except perhaps the motorways) they rarely drive at their legal speed limit and don't move out the way for those of us who do. Others drive way over their limit and wonder why their chavvy 4x4 ends up on its roof.
- White van drivers. Or more specifically nowadays van drivers of varied coloured vans! Nothing specifically against the van but it is annoying when so many of their drivers think they are exempt from the mobile phone usage laws. Also every now and then you get one doing 90mph or more down the motorway.
- People who don't overtake. When you are doing 50 in a 60mph limit, generally you feel slowed down even if it wouldn't add hours to your journey time. What is therefore more infuriating than a queue of people behind a slow vehicle, none of whom appear to be willing and/or able to overtake! Sometimes vehicles need to travel slowly and one reason for making lorries go 45 on an A road is so the rest of us can overtake easily.
- Middle lane drivers. Well not so much middle lane drivers as people on the motorway who don't follow the legal pattern of driving which is in the left hand lane except when overtaking. The number of times I have been boxed in by someone sitting in the middle lane only going slightly faster than me and who could have been behind me and given me room to pull out. This is not helped by the lawlessness with speed I experience on motorways in general.
- Policemen not being there when people are doing really bad things. The number of times I've seen someone hitting 110 or more in the outside and I've prayed for a cop car to pull them over and throw the book at them. It would given us a reason to obey the law whereas it is safest in the UK to dirve at 80-85 to keep up with everyone else. Apparently there are limited resources. Maybe they could take some of the money they give to welfare and teachers and pay for more policemen!
- Speed cameras. I don't mind speed enforcement but like most people I appreciate it when context is taken into account. A policeman will not stop you going 40 in a 30 in the middle of the night because conditions might well be favourable, however he would stop you doing 25 in a 30 if it is icy because it would be dangerous. A speed camera would do the opposite and does not distinguish between safe and unsafe driving or tailgaiting and does not provide the leaway of reason on limits.
- People who go ridiculuously over the speed limit. Despite not liking speed cameras, I also get annoyed by people going really fast, usually on motorways. Scenario: driving at 70mph in the middle lane and approaching a lorry overtaking another lorry and need to pull out. Look in mirror and should be able to pull out without thinking if the space next to me is clear because no-one should be going faster than me. Reality: Someone in the outside lane is going 90-95mph so I have spend time working out if I have time to pull out and if not waste another 10 seconds waiting for a gap, perhaps using my brakes or slowing down considerably while billy whizz is going past. Another reason for the police to be really tough on these things.
- Lorries overtaking other lorries on the motorways - 'nough said.
- Every man and his dog having a blue disabled badge, somewhat takes away the point of yellow lines when they are all blocked by blue-badgers!
- Toyota Pious, I mean Prius. It's not great, it looks pretty grim and when driven like most people do its economy is unimpressive for its price. I still fail to see why car companies haven't done something much more drastic. You can buy electric cars already so why not from the major manufacturers? Come on people, if I could buy a little car that is powered off the leccy and could do up to 70mph for, say, 100 miles before needing a relatively quick recharge then I would buy one. I saw this one they sell in London but you have to get it serviced and the range is not high enough to get from my house to a service agent - nice!
Monday, 30 June 2008
Guide to Plastering
Well, I am not a plasterer but I know how to plaster so I thought I might help the world and give my experiences with plastering so that you can have a go.
There are various plasters available and it depends on what you are plastering as to which sort you need. Basically there are undercoat plasters and there are finish plasters. All plasters are classified by the background they are designed to be applied to, some are for backgrounds that suck water a lot and others are for backgrounds that do not. So here is my advice:
1) One coat plaster is only really worthwhile for small areas, try and use separate plasters otherwise.
2) If you choose a plaster designed for low suction for a high suction background, it will crack as it dries. If it is a finish then you will have to start again or do loads of filling.
3) If you choose a plaster designed for high suction for a low suction background, it will take a long time to dry and this will affect the quality of the finish as you trowel it but is generally passable.
4) Make sure you get all the equipment you need ready to go before you start mixing anything. You will ideally need a bucket to mix in - a large one unless you are only plastering a small area (1 bag of finish will do about 10 square metres of wall). You will also need a finishing trowel, a spot board (a smooth board used as a table for the plaster), a hawk and something to get the plaster out of the bucket with. You will need something to mix the plaster with and the most popular are metal mixing paddles that fit into electric drills. You can use a battery drill but ideally it should be at least 18v because a lot of torque is required to stir wet plaster.
5) Finish can only be applied directly to walls that are basically flat and have no areas that suck a lot. If this is not the case, mix up an appropriate undercoat plaster so that it is a creamy consistency slightly tigher than a McDonalds milkshake. It should be able to make shapes in the bucket but it should have a wet look to it.
6) Don't take too long stirring it because it will start to harden but make sure there are no dry bits in it to cause lumps. You might have to use a scraper or something until you are comfortable using the paddle effectively.
7) Empty the bucket of plaster onto the spot board so it is quick and easy to get to. Use a bucket trowel or something similar to remove all the loose plaster from the mixing bucket and if you have an assitant, get them to clean the bucket and mixing paddle in cold water. Don't wash plaster down the sink!!
8) Scrape some of the plaster onto the hawk with the finishing trowel and use the finishing trowel to scrape plaster onto the wall. If you are undercoating, you might need about 10mm of plaster but if the wall is not flat, some areas might be more like 30 or 40mm deep but undercoat plasters can handle this.
9) Make sure that the plaster level is basically flat, you might need to buy a plasterers feather or use a dead flat piece of metal to run across the surface and make sure there are no major bumps or troughs. The flatter you get the undercoat plaster, the easier it will be to finish. Do NOT try and get a finish quality surface, you don't want it to be flat and it will waste time, just get the plaster on and make sure it is generally flat. Put any unused plaster into a bin bag or empty plaster bag and clean your spot board and trowel. Clean tools are happy tools!
10) Once the undercoat plaster starts to get firmer, scratch the surface in a diamond pattern every 4 or 5 inches apart to provide a key for the finish to grip onto.
11) Leave it to dry!
12) Finishing is a different beast, the tolerances are much closer, the plaster is applied more thinly and everything that goes wrong affects the look and might ruin the finish. You can always scratch it and do it again but you don't really want to.
13) The finish is mixed basically like the undercoat plaster to a creamy finish, do not make it too tight otherwise you will not be able to trowel it on.
14) It is very important that all lumps are mixed out of the finish, otherwise you will get holes in your finish that need to be fixed or filled later on.
15) Empty the plaster onto the spot board and wash the bucket and paddle.
16) The finish is applied in two stages, the first needs to be quick and will not be perfect - do not try and make it perfect. Stage one is simply covering the wall with a consistent surface of finish plaster only a few millimetres thick. If you have no lumps you should be able to do this fairly easily. If you get any major holes while you are skimming at this stage then put plaster over the top but you must do this now or wait until the plaster starts going off or you will pull the plaster from the wall.
17) You can trowel over any major marks AS YOU GO but do not be tempted to go back over previous plaster to correct things until stage 2. The end of stage 1 is to have a fairly flat but not perfect layer of plaster over the whole wall. When you are first learning to plaster, you will be slow which is why you should start with a small wall and then work up to a larger one.
18) Wait until the plaster starts to go off, that means if you put your finger onto it and pull away, it will not cause a little peak but will leave a finger mark. This means you are ready to start the trowelling and repairing.
19) At this point your wall will have various levels of defects so work in stages starting with the major defects and work down to the smaller ones. Using a wet trowel, flatten out any lines or peaks and if you have holes, take some of your existing plaster (do NOT mix up more plaster) and carefully push this into the holes as you trowel them. The more you do, the better your wall will become and you either stop when you are happy with the finish or when the plaster has dried so much that it will not trowel any more. Make sure you keep your trowel wet or it will pull plaster off of the wall. It is worth investing in a nice trowel for £30ish which will make trowelling much easier to do, especially when you are learning.
20) Any defects after the wall has dried can be sanded or filled with fine fill but unless you have plastered a lot, do not expect perfection here.
There are various plasters available and it depends on what you are plastering as to which sort you need. Basically there are undercoat plasters and there are finish plasters. All plasters are classified by the background they are designed to be applied to, some are for backgrounds that suck water a lot and others are for backgrounds that do not. So here is my advice:
1) One coat plaster is only really worthwhile for small areas, try and use separate plasters otherwise.
2) If you choose a plaster designed for low suction for a high suction background, it will crack as it dries. If it is a finish then you will have to start again or do loads of filling.
3) If you choose a plaster designed for high suction for a low suction background, it will take a long time to dry and this will affect the quality of the finish as you trowel it but is generally passable.
4) Make sure you get all the equipment you need ready to go before you start mixing anything. You will ideally need a bucket to mix in - a large one unless you are only plastering a small area (1 bag of finish will do about 10 square metres of wall). You will also need a finishing trowel, a spot board (a smooth board used as a table for the plaster), a hawk and something to get the plaster out of the bucket with. You will need something to mix the plaster with and the most popular are metal mixing paddles that fit into electric drills. You can use a battery drill but ideally it should be at least 18v because a lot of torque is required to stir wet plaster.
5) Finish can only be applied directly to walls that are basically flat and have no areas that suck a lot. If this is not the case, mix up an appropriate undercoat plaster so that it is a creamy consistency slightly tigher than a McDonalds milkshake. It should be able to make shapes in the bucket but it should have a wet look to it.
6) Don't take too long stirring it because it will start to harden but make sure there are no dry bits in it to cause lumps. You might have to use a scraper or something until you are comfortable using the paddle effectively.
7) Empty the bucket of plaster onto the spot board so it is quick and easy to get to. Use a bucket trowel or something similar to remove all the loose plaster from the mixing bucket and if you have an assitant, get them to clean the bucket and mixing paddle in cold water. Don't wash plaster down the sink!!
8) Scrape some of the plaster onto the hawk with the finishing trowel and use the finishing trowel to scrape plaster onto the wall. If you are undercoating, you might need about 10mm of plaster but if the wall is not flat, some areas might be more like 30 or 40mm deep but undercoat plasters can handle this.
9) Make sure that the plaster level is basically flat, you might need to buy a plasterers feather or use a dead flat piece of metal to run across the surface and make sure there are no major bumps or troughs. The flatter you get the undercoat plaster, the easier it will be to finish. Do NOT try and get a finish quality surface, you don't want it to be flat and it will waste time, just get the plaster on and make sure it is generally flat. Put any unused plaster into a bin bag or empty plaster bag and clean your spot board and trowel. Clean tools are happy tools!
10) Once the undercoat plaster starts to get firmer, scratch the surface in a diamond pattern every 4 or 5 inches apart to provide a key for the finish to grip onto.
11) Leave it to dry!
12) Finishing is a different beast, the tolerances are much closer, the plaster is applied more thinly and everything that goes wrong affects the look and might ruin the finish. You can always scratch it and do it again but you don't really want to.
13) The finish is mixed basically like the undercoat plaster to a creamy finish, do not make it too tight otherwise you will not be able to trowel it on.
14) It is very important that all lumps are mixed out of the finish, otherwise you will get holes in your finish that need to be fixed or filled later on.
15) Empty the plaster onto the spot board and wash the bucket and paddle.
16) The finish is applied in two stages, the first needs to be quick and will not be perfect - do not try and make it perfect. Stage one is simply covering the wall with a consistent surface of finish plaster only a few millimetres thick. If you have no lumps you should be able to do this fairly easily. If you get any major holes while you are skimming at this stage then put plaster over the top but you must do this now or wait until the plaster starts going off or you will pull the plaster from the wall.
17) You can trowel over any major marks AS YOU GO but do not be tempted to go back over previous plaster to correct things until stage 2. The end of stage 1 is to have a fairly flat but not perfect layer of plaster over the whole wall. When you are first learning to plaster, you will be slow which is why you should start with a small wall and then work up to a larger one.
18) Wait until the plaster starts to go off, that means if you put your finger onto it and pull away, it will not cause a little peak but will leave a finger mark. This means you are ready to start the trowelling and repairing.
19) At this point your wall will have various levels of defects so work in stages starting with the major defects and work down to the smaller ones. Using a wet trowel, flatten out any lines or peaks and if you have holes, take some of your existing plaster (do NOT mix up more plaster) and carefully push this into the holes as you trowel them. The more you do, the better your wall will become and you either stop when you are happy with the finish or when the plaster has dried so much that it will not trowel any more. Make sure you keep your trowel wet or it will pull plaster off of the wall. It is worth investing in a nice trowel for £30ish which will make trowelling much easier to do, especially when you are learning.
20) Any defects after the wall has dried can be sanded or filled with fine fill but unless you have plastered a lot, do not expect perfection here.
Thursday, 26 June 2008
NO2ID !!
I went to see the NO2ID cards website yesterday and it was interesting to read about the various to-ing and fro-ing in government circles about the whole thing. For some reason the whole idea of ID cards disturbs me, not because I have anything to hide but they really are so far off the mark for the situations they are suppose to resolve. I have listed a few below but there are many reasons why it is a bad idea:
1) The system will be ludicrously expensive. The NHS IT system is already over 10 billion pounds and it isn't finished and only relates to people with medical history! Our government has spent so much money that it would be like borrowing £50K from the bank to buy a 4 x 4 when we only earn £15K per year!
2) The government depts have shown a massive incompetence when dealing with our data. No way I want to trust them with any more, espcially data that is valuable.
3) Identity information, once stolen, cannot be changed without having eye and finger transplants. The risk is too great.
4) It is impossible to say with any certainty that the data will be safe. Just like a dam, one breach and it could all be gone. What happens when we get accused of crimes or screwed up with our finances because of mistakes in the system? The government will shrug their shoulders and be totally unaccountable just like they are with everything else.
5) There are thousands of illegal immigrants here who are not caught and when they are, are not deported for other reasons. ID cards will not change that situation one little bit.
6) The extra trust you would be given by having an ID card means criminals with the ability to forge them or get them by deception would have more access to various systems and locations in which to commit crimes.
7) Most people won't be able to check the validity of an ID card anyway so it has limited value as any sort of proof of ID.
8) Once they are introduced there is every possibility that the requirement will creep and more and more things will require ID cards, even if they are introduced on a partial or volunteer basis, once they are in, they will certainly increase in use.
9) Because most governments are incapable of admitting mistakes, once the system is in and paid for to the tune of 10s of billions of pounds, there is no way that they government would accept it was a waste of money and scrap it. Also, there is no way to prove its real value until the full price is paid, the government would always insist it will be better when it is finished.
10) It's just a rubbish idea that the government have come up with that most Joe public have no way to stop and no say. Stop pretending that the government care about what you think and do something about it. Write to councils, write to MPs sign up to NO2ID and vote for a party that will scrap the whole ludicrous idea!
1) The system will be ludicrously expensive. The NHS IT system is already over 10 billion pounds and it isn't finished and only relates to people with medical history! Our government has spent so much money that it would be like borrowing £50K from the bank to buy a 4 x 4 when we only earn £15K per year!
2) The government depts have shown a massive incompetence when dealing with our data. No way I want to trust them with any more, espcially data that is valuable.
3) Identity information, once stolen, cannot be changed without having eye and finger transplants. The risk is too great.
4) It is impossible to say with any certainty that the data will be safe. Just like a dam, one breach and it could all be gone. What happens when we get accused of crimes or screwed up with our finances because of mistakes in the system? The government will shrug their shoulders and be totally unaccountable just like they are with everything else.
5) There are thousands of illegal immigrants here who are not caught and when they are, are not deported for other reasons. ID cards will not change that situation one little bit.
6) The extra trust you would be given by having an ID card means criminals with the ability to forge them or get them by deception would have more access to various systems and locations in which to commit crimes.
7) Most people won't be able to check the validity of an ID card anyway so it has limited value as any sort of proof of ID.
8) Once they are introduced there is every possibility that the requirement will creep and more and more things will require ID cards, even if they are introduced on a partial or volunteer basis, once they are in, they will certainly increase in use.
9) Because most governments are incapable of admitting mistakes, once the system is in and paid for to the tune of 10s of billions of pounds, there is no way that they government would accept it was a waste of money and scrap it. Also, there is no way to prove its real value until the full price is paid, the government would always insist it will be better when it is finished.
10) It's just a rubbish idea that the government have come up with that most Joe public have no way to stop and no say. Stop pretending that the government care about what you think and do something about it. Write to councils, write to MPs sign up to NO2ID and vote for a party that will scrap the whole ludicrous idea!
Sunday, 25 May 2008
Trains and crap Britain
I like Britain and I enjoy living here for the most part. When I was in Central Asia last year for 6 weeks, I really missed some things in Britain like the things we have on offer to buy, the cool climate and things like electricity and fridges! However there are some things that are crap in Britain and the trains really say it all to me.
Britain has become fixated on money. It used to be subtle but it isn't anymore. Virtually all government arguments are about the cost and value of certain decisions, money being wasted etc. Strikes are common because people want to be paid more. People complain about expensive houses and want the government to basically give them money (which the government obviously magics up in a big money room and doesn't come from taxes!), even great institutions are made or broken on the cost.
Do we like the railways? Of course, virtually everyone likes travelling on a train, in a sense, because it is roomy, mostly quite fast and allows you to do things you can't when you drive like walk around, buy food on the move, make phone calls and work on your computer. What people don't like are the prices, the hassle and sitting on a train for 4 hours at a signal because of a broken down train or suicide or points failure or staffing problem (driver in bed asleep). I thought about the Swiss trains, which granted are based on a much simpler network, and wondered how can they not suffer the same things that we do? Of course they can and they do but the issue is not so much "is the train going to break down" but "we will reduce the chance of breakdown and deal with it effectively when it happens".
Back in the day trains were new and went about 25 mph which was like greased lightening but Stephenson wanted more speed, more power, better traction, lower maintenance etc and improved various aspects of his machine to achieve these. Did it cost money? Of course and lots of it but what he ended up with was something with higher value, he got back the money he invested with interest. Why do Britons not do this anymore? Why do we bulk at investment rather than make things better? Why don't we make decisions to prune the rail network and make it work better? Spend money on useful projects and improve what we have?
I still don't understand in this day and age why it is considered normal to have points failures and signal failures. If we can send a space shuttle into space with no room for failure then why not take the same approach with the railways and create equipment that either doesn't fail or fails in a way that can be predicted and dealt with before it actually happens?
Oh yeah, it costs money.
Britain has become fixated on money. It used to be subtle but it isn't anymore. Virtually all government arguments are about the cost and value of certain decisions, money being wasted etc. Strikes are common because people want to be paid more. People complain about expensive houses and want the government to basically give them money (which the government obviously magics up in a big money room and doesn't come from taxes!), even great institutions are made or broken on the cost.
Do we like the railways? Of course, virtually everyone likes travelling on a train, in a sense, because it is roomy, mostly quite fast and allows you to do things you can't when you drive like walk around, buy food on the move, make phone calls and work on your computer. What people don't like are the prices, the hassle and sitting on a train for 4 hours at a signal because of a broken down train or suicide or points failure or staffing problem (driver in bed asleep). I thought about the Swiss trains, which granted are based on a much simpler network, and wondered how can they not suffer the same things that we do? Of course they can and they do but the issue is not so much "is the train going to break down" but "we will reduce the chance of breakdown and deal with it effectively when it happens".
Back in the day trains were new and went about 25 mph which was like greased lightening but Stephenson wanted more speed, more power, better traction, lower maintenance etc and improved various aspects of his machine to achieve these. Did it cost money? Of course and lots of it but what he ended up with was something with higher value, he got back the money he invested with interest. Why do Britons not do this anymore? Why do we bulk at investment rather than make things better? Why don't we make decisions to prune the rail network and make it work better? Spend money on useful projects and improve what we have?
I still don't understand in this day and age why it is considered normal to have points failures and signal failures. If we can send a space shuttle into space with no room for failure then why not take the same approach with the railways and create equipment that either doesn't fail or fails in a way that can be predicted and dealt with before it actually happens?
Oh yeah, it costs money.
Revival, revival, revival
I'm bored of the those people who are always banging on about revival like we will click our fingers, maybe pray a bit and then everyone in the world is going to be saved. Don't get me wrong, I like optimism and after all, we know God wins in the end but it seems people want a quick fix. Let us think about what the Bible actually says about Christian work which might lead to a 'revival'. 1) Big things in the Bible occurred when one or more people were dedicated to God in prayer and lifestyle. That is not to say that God cannot work unless we are perfect but there is a fairly understandable link between our own holiness and the Spirit's ability to work. 2) If we look at Paul's journeys, at one point he was not allowed to enter Bithynia, the Spirit would not permit him to enter. This surely means that God is not doing everything everywhere all the time, you could say that He has a time for different people - presumably for various reasons. 3) Specific places are not more special than other places for God. Look at the Ethiopian in Acts. He went to Jerusalem to search for truth and where did he find it? in the middle of the desert with Phillip.
If you really want revival, you need to spend long periods of time talking to God and listening to Him. If we were really good at that then perhaps God would use us for just 3 years and change the whole world just like He did with Jesus!
If you really want revival, you need to spend long periods of time talking to God and listening to Him. If we were really good at that then perhaps God would use us for just 3 years and change the whole world just like He did with Jesus!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)