I'm not racist, but...

Here's an interview that BBC Radio Birmingham broadcast with the rapidly-becoming-institutional-figure-in-British-comedy-and-broadcasting, Hardeep Singh Kohli. It's perhaps the worst interview ever to have made it into our homes. Yet, tragically, as almost charicatured as the interviewer is, he remains an ambassador of how ignorant, prejudiced and white, British biased we remain in this country.

divorced from scripture

At risk of treading on a very thoroughly scholarly man's toes, i have a good handle on the way the expression "The Bible says..." closes down engagement with, and discussion of, scripture in quite a destructive way. I love the possibilities in scripture to have encounters of God and the people of God. It's desperately exciting that just because the words say "Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" isn't necessarily the full picture or meaning of what's written, and how that facilitates discussion on the living out of scripture. I find that, in no way, problematic. I can be found to quite enjoy that tension and earnest seeking of Godly living amist all life's challenges and complexities.

What i do have a fairly significant concern over though, is where a situation arises in which one party presents a case for an approach to scripture that says "these are the words so, plainly, that's its meaning" and a responding party (who have a much looser take on divorce) are unable to respond in relation to the Bible. They may talk about complexities in life as it's experienced, they be able to talk quite easily about the nature of God as they understand it, but to be rendered completely detatched from engagement with the Bible bothers me. Surely Christian theology is only such when it is done in relation to the Bible, even if it's simply to disagree with what it says, at least that would show due consideration and an honest response. That would be better than to fluff one's way through biblical critique in a way which reveals that one's theological, moral or ethical stance has been dramatically transformed without referrance to what 'the Bible says'.

nee knee in A n' E.

I had a knee once. It was a good knee - as opposed to my bad knee which seemed to creak and click a bit and was occasionally uncomfortable. No, my good knee was the best, good and strong, never complained about anything. It was the kind of knee i could always rely my weight upon, i would often do this as i swung the foot beneath my bad knee at a ball.

Isn't it funny how Saturdays can change things. Here was i, doing my thing, relying on my best knee, when a large weight, i assume a body of one which desired said ball, came in crashing to my good knee from the side. It did twist and it did give, though not in a way which was ought nor familiar.

I didn't know i even had a medial collateral ligament. That fact has changed. And folk are caught exactly between staring and looking away as i pass in a splint with a limp and an old man's stick, the stick of my late grandfather-in-law from whence he was dealt a similar tackle. Chief starers thus far are young, fit men whose own mortality is met in my limp. I'm ignored by Big Issue sellers and a three legged cat this morning saw fit to gawp quizzically at my peculiar immaneuverability.

my day out.

Look where i was on Saturday.



I'm only gutted because i was expecting to be allowed to have a ride.