Living Wittily

Wednesday Nights are Wolf Hall.

The title of this blog is Living Wittily. The phrase comes from Robert Bolt's play A Man for All Seasons. The play is based on the life of Thomas More and explores the moral, psychological and theological morass created by Henry VIII and his ruthless determination to produce a male heir with or without Catherine of Aragon. Of course, it was going to have to be without her, which set Henry on a collision course with the Pope, the Catholic Church, and any close to him whose conscience prohibited approval of the King's dynastic goals.

Disapproval of the policies of a Tudor King may well be dictated by conscience but it was equally an act of political suicide and invited martyrdom. This was brilliantly captured in the most recent episode of Wolf Hall, in which the King's ruthlessness, Thomas Cromwell's manipulative cleverness, and Thomas More's adamantine refusal to violate his conscience. were composed into a concerto movement of tragic slowness, tortuous windings, and an outcome made certain in its fatal climax. The psychological subtleties and virtuoso ethical performances of More were never going to save him in a drama about power in need of substance, about evolving national identity, debts of remembered grievance being called in, and the beginnings of Parliamentary muscle flexing towards a more democratic distribution of power, at least amongst the nobility and between Parliament and King.

The portrayal of More's moral dilemma and spiritual crisis, was a brilliant narrative of a frightened man whose fear of death was only tolerable because the alternative would be the fear of an enraged God should he go against conscience. In Bolt's brilliant paraphrase of human tragedy and moral perplexity, More claimed he sought to serve God in the tangle of his mind. Equally brilliant, was Cromwell's deconstruction of More's own self-image as one who never sought another human being's harm. Although not made more prominent than it needed to be, the use of the rack, burning at the stake, and the whole hellish machinery of religious violence against those who believe differently, is a telling reminder in our own day of the cruelties and violations unleashed when an ideology with the status of a religion secures its dominance by a process of elimination. I welcomed the reference to the deceits behind Tyndale's capture, More's gloating piety, and Cromwell's much less religious distaste for religious persecution as justifiable on theological grounds.In this production More is saint and sinner, with the weight on the saint oblivious of his own deep and cruel sins against others.

Which doesn't mean Thomas Cromwell was himself above coercion of conscience and the use of force to suppress dissent; More's hounding to execution is part of the evidence against him. 

Another enjoyable and important strand in the production is the role of women in the making and breaking of power in a cultural context so structurally masculine. While serial Queens were to be taken and discarded if they failed Henry's obsession with succession, Catherine, and Anne Boleyn, are not portrayed as the wilting, timid, or unintelligent consorts in other productions. They are strong; they understand power; they form alliances and plot against dangers; their fears are real, but so is their courage and integrity. They are an important alternative narrative to the insecure King desperate to establish a dynasty, and the power hungry nobility and advisers whose loyalties are ambiguous, and whose own security has to be bought at the expense of others. 

A TV adaptation will always struggle to persuade those who are fans of the original book, but this one comes as close to the real thing as may be possible. The occasional historical anachronism is easily ignored in a production that varies in pace but is overall a leisurely unfolding, increasing in tension and crisis, and which therefore allows the chief characters to be developed and established in all their emotional complexity and political ambiguity in the mind of the viewer.

Thomas Cromwell is I think convincing, chilling, hard to read, but a man with a long memory for grievance and a passively violent way of settling things his way and in his own interests. Not sure what it says about me but so far I like him! His portrait being painted in this week's episode (by Holbein?) placed him in the classic partial side profile of Renaissance portraiture, and showed that same strong, unreadable face, unflinching in gaze, and coming alive only when he speaks in an understated, considered forcefulness of someone who always, but always, thinks before he speaks.

I can understand why Hilary Mantel is very happy with the adaptation. It will bear repeat broadcasting later.

State of Play, and Wolf Hall - two studies in the ruthlessness of the self

Over New Year we watched the six episodes of the TV version of State of Play - way much better than the Hollywood version. Whatever we think causes the moral malaise and public cynicism surrounding current politics and journalism, this drama tackles some of the underlying causes of that dangerous disillusion with the capacity of public figures to be trusted. It also explores the fankled mess of divided loyalty, blackmail, betrayal, the ruthlessness of the ambitious self, the ease with which relationships are peddled in the marketplace where power is brokered; and it does so against the background of corporate business, government, energy policy and those unprincipled decisions that shatter lives.

All in all, a satisfying confirmation that all have sinned, and that the insatiable appetite for power and self preservation drives human beings to deeds and dispositions that do indeed fall far short of the glory of God. And yet the series portrays human behaviour and its consequences as tragic, the broken lives and inflicted anguish as not in the end what was intended, but rather the consequences of actions which if they could have been foreseen.....

But of course foresight isn't in our gift as human beings; we can't foresee all the consequences of our compromises, betrayals, lies, power games. Not so. Foresight isn't a crystal ball we don't have access to; it is that creative process of moral imagination, awareness that actions have consequences for those near and distant to us. And foresight, in the ethical sense is to be responsible and responsive to that inner voice we call conscience, because when conscience is persistently shouted down by the claims of the strident self-determined ego, it is gradually silenced. But John Stuart Mill wasn't far wrong when he spoke of the conscience as that web of moral feeling which when violated is later encountered as remorse. And remorse is brilliantly portrayed by David Morrissey in this drama.  

Running parallel with my viewing of State of Play, my reading of Hilary mantel's Wolf Hall. Take most of the above review of human cruelty and cynicism, and the description of the State and the individual in ruthless pursuit of power, and the parallels become fascinatingly close. Especially when it is very clear that power is not grasped and wielded for its own sake, but for the sake of the person who pursues it and cultivates it. Yet both State of Play and Wolf Hall have characters who act within a recognised code of honour; the journalist in pursuit of the story, protecting sources, upholding the public right to know; Thomas Cromwel's rise as advisor to Henry VIII, making and breaking lives as he orchestrates the court intrigue and lethal alliances of Tudor politics. In Wolf Hall the question of morally generated foresight and the slow reorientation of conscience to the service of the self is also explored in the relationships and conflicts between political expediency and moral consequence. Mantel's novel is a partial rehabilitation of Cromwell, a sympathetic portrayal of the English Machiavelli whose volume The Prince is Cromwell's textbook on political survival and required ruthlessness.

All in all, a few days of enjoyment - laced with reflections on how power, tragedy, human ambition and failure, love and betrayal, cruelty and compassion, manifest themselves differently in different historical periods. But it is the same tragedy, the same broken glory of the human being, lacking moral foresight yet culpably ignoring their best lights, human life unredeemed but not unredeemable. Because against the bleak sense of the inevitability of the tragic, and the contemporary loss of faith in the goodness of life, the Christian story is of God entering into the full tragic consequences of human sin. And not as Machiavellian Prince bent on violent re-ordering and manipulative exploitation of the world, but as Prince of Peace. As self-giving love the Prince of Peace contradicts the will to power, and in his death all that makes for implacable death is crucified; and as the life and love and light of God, hope is resurrected as He is risen with healing, embodying the promise of a new kind of humanity, signal of a renewed creation, the beginning of the reconciling of all things.

The Annoying Habit of Being Pedantic - mea culpa!

Now I try not to be. But sometimes I am. Pedantic that is. And sometimes my pedantry is no more than my discontent that someone doesn't share my biased and idiosyncratic view of the world. Pedantry is a kind of low grade intellectual showing off! And now and again I'm guilty.

Like tonight. Songs of Praise for All Saints Day. Edward Stourton was wheeled in as the spokesperson on behalf of St Paul. Asked if Paul's legacy still influences the writing of hymns today - "Why yes", says Edward. And the example used as evidence was "Purify my Heart".

Now I don't want to be pedantic, but is it not the Letter of Peter that makes much of purifying the heart, the refiner's fire, holiness as set-apartness? Sure you could find a reference here and there in Paul to those ideas, but short of writing to Brian Doerksen, the writer of the hymn, my guess is that it is more likely to be Peter.  I happen to like the hymn and have never detected an obvious connection between it and the theology of Paul. Not as obvious as 1 Peter anyway - look at 1 Peter chapter 1.

Here's the words - what do you think? Am I just being pedantic?

Purify my heart,
Let me be as gold and precious silver.
Purify my heart,
Let me be as gold, pure gold.

Refiner’s Fire,
My heart’s one desire, is to be holy.
Set apart for You Lord.
I choose to be holy,
Set apart for You my master,
Ready to do Your will.

Purify my heart,
Cleanse me from within and make me holy.
Purify my heart,
Cleanse me from my sin, deep within.

Refiner’s Fire,
My heart’s one desire, is to be holy.
Set apart for You Lord.
I choose to be holy,
Set apart for You my master,
Ready to do Your will.

Brand, Ross, the BBC and the ethical boundaries of humour

The furore over that broadcast by Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross has several subsidiary themes worth a second thought. The following are my second thoughts, offered for reflection and not pushed as anything other than how I think and feel about all this.

Much is made of the fact that the night of the broadcast only 1 complaint was registered, with a few more the next day. Then a tabloid paper ran the story as front page news and the complaint count took off. By last night, with Brand's resignation and Ross's suspension confirmed and the Radio Two controller resigned, the tally reached 30,000+. This has led to a backlash suggesting that since most of those complaining hadn't heard the broadcast, and never listen to the programme, their sense of offence is hypocrisy and their complaints invalid.

Sorry. But having had full and unchallenged reports on the BBC itself of what WAS said, and to whom, and that it was broadcast, comes as information that entitles any responsible person to challenge the morality, even the legality, of such misjudgement of taste. When would an episode of suggestive crudity and thoughtless comment on potential suicide EVER be acceptable? And in what other circumstances could such a series of messages be left on an answering machine without incurring prosecution?

Further. Even if this episode had not been broadcast - what thought was ever given to how such messages on an answering machine would be received by an elderly man who had made the mistake of agreeing to particpate in a show sponsored by the supposedly responsible, publicly funded BBC? Sure the Controller had to resign for approving the broadcast. But had it not been broadcast then presumably that was to be the end of the affair. Not sure that's how I feel - I expect at least a minimal awareness in those entrusted with an audience of millions, of the impact on any individual subjected to their particular brand of 'pushing the edges' comedy. Did no one even consider the possibility that a Grandfather might be offended, and a young woman humiliated, by explicit and obscene references to her sex life? 

It is also claimed that it is all about audience. A quick poll of audiences queuing up for BBC recording of programmes revealed a sharp distinction between those attending Never Mind the Buzzcocks and a more sedate crowd queuing for a much less 'pushing the edges' programme. The Buzzcocks folks were unanimous in their opinion that the broadcast was not offensive, and that we all needed to lighten up, and that if you don't like the content of the programme no one forces you to listen to it. But that also ignored the fact that people are victims of such brutal humour, and that the audience's laughter is at someone's expense, which should always be within acceptable moral and humane limits. It also betrays a too often forgotten feature of humour; frequently one of its key components is cruelty, the capacity, even the compulsuon, to laugh at someone else's hurt. Thomas Hobbes that bleak realist was not wrong when he defined laughter as the grimaces of the face when we witness the misfortune of someone else.

Then there is the claim that the furore was all about salary envy. Jonathan Ross is paid £6 million a year to work two days a week for the BBC. To require extremely high standards of professionalism, maturity and reliability in enhancing the reputation of his employer seems to me to be a reasonable, even minimal ask for such a salary. Whether any TV celebrity fronting a twice weekly programme is worth an amount per annum that would pay 240 nurses' salaries is a separate matter. Salary envy is a rather hard charge against those who complained since the BBC is in fact a public service, funded by its own audiences, and is therefore publicly accountable. That public called it to account this week. Implied in that accountability are questions about the judgement of those who agreed to pay such a salary, and who when it went wrong took over a week to deal decisively with it.

All of which said - I listened to all of Russell Brand's statement of apology, and recognise the genuine remorse he expressed. No similar public statement has yet been released by Jonathan Ross. The codes of discipline and professional standards in broadcasting are hard to get right. I for one don't want humour, comedy, satire to be so domesticated that they lose their capacity for important social critique, as important vehicles for presenting alternative perspectives, and their long history of subverting assumptions that can often be oppressive, bigoted, abusive. What they must not do, and certainly not on public broadcasts, is make people targets for precisely that abusive and humiliating ridicule which diminishes and degrades, so that laughter becomes a way of desensitising our humanity.I don't think that was the intent of either the two comedians or the Radio Two Controller - but that they seemed unaware of that consequence suggest the need for some education on the ethical boundaries of humour.

Life returning to a more bearable abnormal - SPOOKS is back!

Sub Prime Mortgages. The run on Northern Rock. Credit Crunch. HBOS takeover. Major Banks bail out. Recession inevitable. The sequence of significant moments affecting the future welfare of the planet since last year, hasn't finished yet.

But, some of us who live on more than one level of unreality will find with apologies to Boethius, The Consolation of Spooks. The scarily plausible, brilliantly acted Spooks are back.

I have every intention of marking the occasion with whatever calorie laden sweetie I fancy at 9.00pm Monday night. And for the next 10 weeks there will be at least one TV programme I can be sure posits a worse case scenario than is being painted for the global financial markets - I think.

The Snow Leopard and Extreme Pilgrim

Last night for the first time in ages I watched two consecutive TV programmes and greatly enjoyed them both. The first was a Natural World feature on my favourite animal, the snow leopard.(photo courtesy of here). The second was Extreme Pilgrim, the first of three programmes presented by a Church of England vicar looking for a sense of meaning, identity and inner peace, and doing so at the extreme edges of religious devotion in three of the world's great faith traditions. (See here)

My interest in the snow leopard goes back twenty or more years when I first read Peter Matthiessen's masterpiece, The Snow Leopard. The book isn't so much about the animal, as the quest to see the snow leopard in its native habitat, the Himalayas. The expedition to Nepal and into the mountains was a quest not only for a sight of the rarest of the big cats, but for a new sense of purpose and worth in living, following the death of Matthiessen's wife. It is that human quest for meaning in the midst of grieving, alongside the naturalist's search for the ultimate prize of seeing the wild, elusive beauty and the sovereign freedom of a creature perfectly at home in wilderness, that makes the book a moving account of human longing.

Last night's programme was about this magnificent animal - it's sovereign freedom now being eroded by encroaching human activity. The scientist who trapped a mother leopard and fitted it with a large non camouflaged radio collar, explained that the data uploaded to satellites would be invaluable in helping understand more about the snow leopard. I can see why that's important; information about movement, habitat, breeding, human intervention will enable more strategic and effective conservation measures in the future. But I was upset by the sight of this magnificently adapted cat, whose camouflage makes it all but invisible against mountain rocks and screes, having the handicap of a high profile collar while hunting for food.

Extreme Pilgrim was another kind of search altogether, and yet just like Matthiessen who is himself attracted to Buddhism, Peter Owen-Jones was drawn first to the famous but now tourist-driven Shaolin Temple, and then to a less commercialised monastery, in search of enlightenment, or at least the first stages of freedom from self absorbing attachment. The rigours of martial arts training took a heavy toll on a man who was unfit, and whose lifestyle by his own cofession was more about self-dissipation than self-discovery. I started off being impatient, not liking him much - but as the programme continued I began to sense that behind the camera-conscious presented self, was a man genuinely searching for a sense of self, and not sure if he would like what he might find. Several of those with whom he spoke exuded the kind of peaceful purposefulness that is perhaps only possible to those for whom peace is their purpose.

Sure there are arguments, discussions, dialogues - choose your noun - to be had between any two of the world's great faith traditions. But alongside the theology and philosophy, the practices and the devotions, the traditions and the cultures, there is sanctity, the person in process, the human life, personality, character, soul, - and their awareness of that which is sacred and transcendent. Sanctity is not an argument, it is testimony. Sanctity has a transparency that much other religious baggage lacks, and last night, more than once, the discipline and wisdom of Buddhist monks contrasted with the fragmented anxieties of a Christianity torn between, on the one hand western consumerism and its addictive habits of thought, and on the other, the deep realisation that you cannot serve both God and mammon. The question for the church in the West and North, may well be one of where we think our treasure is; and the story of the rich young ruler has an oblique but searingly true light to shine upon a Church anxiously possessive of status and its own survival, and unwilling to sell all it has, give it away to the poor, and follow after Jesus. The question where our treasure is, what we are most attached to, should not need to be asked of us by a Buddhist monk. That it was, and with such courteous deference, should suggest our need for humility and repentance as urgent prerequisites to mission.

When Christ-like living gets the world's attention, witness happens.

Saturday morning spent reading the paper at Moyna Jayne's while having breakfast. What a civilised way to start a weekend. Then for various reasons we found ourselves in one of our old stamping grounds - Whiteinch.

What used to be Whiteinch Baptist Church is now, of all things, an antiques auction room called Great Western Auctions, run by Anita Manning, auctioneer, of BBC Flog It! fame (pictured). So went in to have look cos there was a sale on. And there standing at the back, with TV cameras and all the other paraphernalia were the team from Flog It! Now I know of church buildings that have been converted into night clubs (at least two in Aberdeen), a garage repair shop, a furniture warehouse, restaurans, or flats, or even a small church converted into a family home. But an antique auction room? What does that say about the life expectancy of traditional expressions of church now considered antique?

When I went to Partick Baptist Church in 1976, the Whiteinch church had just closed and most of the membership joined the fellowship at Partick. Some of them were memorable characters, people of a generation now gone. As Whiteinch Baptist Church closed, these good folk, many of them getting on in years, were some of the first to feel the finality of sociological changes brought about by urban re-developments, secular affluence, changing social habits, and that crisis of confidence that has since seeped deeply into the mindset of Christians used to privileged respect from the wider society, and not used to being marginalised by more powerful and persuasive voices representing a quite different kind of gospel.

The presence of a TV crew in a former Baptist Church building, recording an episode of daytime TV devoted to discovering we can get money by selling pieces of our family or personal heritage, was an irony not lost on me. Somewhere along the line, that part of us that valued the past, respected our heritage, and relativised money in the scale of values, has been subverted. In a neat reversal of Jesus' words, selling granny's china and grandad's medals becomes an act of secular wisdom, a pragmatic realisation of resources, which can go towards the new flat screen telly. 

Store up for yourselves treasure on earth, for where your treasure is there will your heart be also. Don't store up treasure in heaven - you might never see it.

But then again. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing to let things go that are no longer useful, or that used to be important in the life of a previous generation. If there was an edition of Flog It! that specialised in helping us to trade in on, and change into usable currency, some of our religious practices and ways of being Christian and approaches to Christian community, what would we be prepared to flog? What in our traditional ways of doing things, should be let go so that the resources they tie up can be used differently? What is now antique about the way we represent Jesus to the world? What would contemporary discipleship look like?

If we could relinquish our hold on granny's china (or its ecclesial equivalent), I can become quite cheerful about the prospects for Christian witness. If as Jesus disciples we actually live within his teaching, act out of a character formed and transformed by habits of following Jesus that are somewhere near the values of the Sermon on the Mount, and speak and act out of a world-view that has Calvary in the background and the empty tomb in the foreground, then we might just be strange enough in our lifestyle, character and conversation to attract attention. And when Christlike living gets the world's attention, witness happens!

Warning - prolonged rant, Part I

Every month we pay our TV Licence by direct debit. As a fully paid up licence holder I am entitled to express my response to Micahel Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, who makes the unqualified assumption he knows what I want. He says, and I quote,

"What [the public] want to hear...is every pound is being squeezed to get the maximum value. And the BBC is going to be more disctinctive in the future. The BBC needs to be more distinctive doing things that other people don't do, and also those things it does do, doing them in a distinctive way."

I am SO tired of the asumption that what I (a member of the public) want is value for money at all costs. And I am even MORE tired of the assumption that value is index linked to pounds sterling. I value the BBC for reasons that have nothing to do with money. In any case, value for money is such a subjective judgement. I happen to think that a couple of million spent producing quality drama is better value than half that amount spent on reality TV productions. Dr Who or X Factor, which is best value for money?

Simon Rattle conducting the Berlin Philarmonic or Spooks? Eastenders or Panorama, Casualty or Newsnight? Or again, take televised sport. The major sporting occasions are not value for money if it means the BBC has to outbid huge commerical interests to bring major events to terrestrial TV, and thus slash the budget for other forms of TV programme much more representative, educational, culturally significant - all of which are themselves fairly subjective judgements. And I am, unabashedly, fitba daft masel', like!

I'm not against reducing wasteful spending; or reviewing staff levels in relation to technological change; nor am I critical of any major public institution which must change in order to remain effective, adaptable and secure in its cultural and social role as an institution supported by and accountable to, the public. The BBC has an obligation to be financially prudent, but also a duty to preserve its fundamental values - which are not all financially calculable. Yes, include value for money in discussions about value; but also include values which are not indexed to finance, which indeed might cost significantly in order to preserve and promote precisely these values.

Like reporting on violence against Buddhist monks in Burma; or attempted genocide by stealth in Darfur; or the double standards of objecting to nuclear development in developing countries while new generations of nuclear weapons are commanding major budgets in the West. That kind of reporting will never be value for money - it's too important for that. So don't make value for money, filthy lucre, the benchmark value of any public I belong to.

Less factual, news based programmes is one of the key proposals, and where staff cuts will be deepest, according to the BBC's own News Programme. Now whatever else I expect, and value, from the BBC, naive as it may seem, I expect quality reporting which is politically independent, accurate and current, reflective of the realities in our world and informed about how they impinge upon our own cultural, social and political life. I expect the BBC to have some of the best correspondents, some of the most informed and reflective minds engaging with the events, people and circumstances that shape our history as today's news becomes yesterday. Good quality news coverage, factual documentaries whether political, current afairs, the arts, natural history or whatever, should not be reduced to release funds for more populist agendas. This is the hard dilemma of major educational and public institutions - do you give what is demanded, or seek to offer that which influences the culture out of which such demands come? Should the agenda be populist or elitist? Important questions - and not to be short-circuited by reducing everything to making sure every pound is squeezed to get value for money. There are other, more valuable values to be cherished.

I know, there is another side to all of this - but maybe Part II tomorrow.

Play it again

Just watched Jo Brand on the new BBC programme Play it Again. She accepted the challenge to learn the organ in four months, and play Bach's Toccata on the five manual organ at the Royal Albert in London, in front of 8,000 people at the Christmas carol extravaganza. Along the way she played on the Blackpool Wurlitzer for some ballroom dancers,(see picture), and played Ave Maria at a wedding - and re-connected with her mother through the music.

As good a reality celebrity programme as I've seen - human and humane, funny and moving, and a fine example of how TV can provide insight into people's loves and fears and hopes and vulnerabilities, their loveability and annoying traits. And all without being either vulgar or voyeuristic, and leaving me at least with a feeling of admiration and contentment that, but for a couple of wobbles, she pulled it off!

Humankind cannot bear very much reality. (Eliot)

An English College is trying to attract adults back into education by offering a course on BB - yep, Big Brother.  The cultural impact, the significance of celebrity, the nature of vicariously enjoying other people's fear, aggression, verbal wrangling, psychological warfare, alliance making, mickey taking, the whole package of what is ironically called Reality TV. Put that term into a search engine and you will come up with scores of articles from Time, New Yorker, a whole cluster of respectable broadsheets, offering serious social and cultural comment on one of the most powerful media developments in years. And now you can do the course.

The attraction of Reality TV, Big Brother, Temptation, Pop Idol, I'm a Celebrity etc, is explained by cultural commentators in various ways. Fascination with the psychology of trust and betrayal, a voyeuristic interest in other people's problems, desire for status and fame being nurtured by watching unknowns suddenly become famous, or infamous - depending on the article, and the vested interests of the writers, you takes your choice.

Made me wonder though, what does a church that believes in the reality of Jesus, have to say to a culture and its people, saturated in manufactured experience, fascinated by lives not their own, absorbed into the world of cctv video-gossip and relationships driven by the desire for audience approval? Would it be possible to win BB without being selfish? Could you survive if you acted in the best interests of others? Is truthfulness and sincerity an assett or a liability? How far does big brother dehumanise relationships by pushing contestants to forms of rivalry that require calculated alliances and personal betrayals? And what is taking place when BB creates a context of proximity to others and invasive spying from the outside - for one thing a worldview in which every 'other' is a rival for the prize.

Maybe the first thing the church is able to offer our culture is an unembarrassed sense of moral realism (NOT MORALISM) - all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Why be surprised by the relatively mild form of sinfulness that can be exposed by Reality TV? Maybe sin is one of the few truths that reality TV does accurately portray. Our original sin of putting self at the centre of the universe; the sin of Cain, jealous of his brother; the human capacity to dehumanise others who are a threat to our purposes and ambitions; our love of approval, even if it is bought by fundamental dishonesty....... and so on.

But a second offering from church to our culture is evidence of communities where we seriously resist all that makes Reality TV so precisely accurate in its portrayal of post-modern self absorption.  Yes, I know, post-modernity is resistant to any concept of the self - but in reality, the less sure we are that we have a self, the more frantically we go searching for who then we really are.

Whatever else the cross of Jesus means to the Christian, it is the place where we truly discover who we are, who God is. And there we discover too, that the reality of God and the reality of our sin, are taken into the deep purposeful love of God and we are given back the self God made us ( and is making us) to be, in Christ.

For freedom Christ has set you free - stand fast therefore in the liberty of Christ! In that freedom, there is created space for love, capacity for compassion, energy for peaceable peacemaking conversation, commitment to forgiveness, joy in the other's blessing, celebration of the other's gifts, defence of the other's worth - now that is reality. But whether it would make peak viewing........?