I recently mentioned I had done some work on single people's experience of church (back in 2002).  I have uploaded the summary of that work which was published in the Baptist Minister's Journal which can be found here and the full thing (12k words plus loads of appendices and a mega impressive bibliography, if I say so myself who shouldn't) here

I also rediscovered some poems I'd collected on the theme and here is just one of them...

Singleness

Is the liberty

To be me,

To do what I like

When I like,

To travel

Unencumbered

The highways

Of the world

 

 

Singleness

Is the discipline

Of freedom,

The privilege

Of having more time

For others,

More responsibility

To give myself,

More space

To share.

 

 

Singleness

Is the pain

Of children

Never born,

Of being outside

On the outside

Of the family,

Mysteriously virgin,

Threatening to others.

 

 

Singleness

Is aloneness

In my one-person family,

The open door

And table,

The discovery

That I am loved,

Valued and of value.

 

 

Singleness

Is the ache

Of rejection,

Bereavement,

Desertion,

Of having

No living body

To throw my arms around

And love me

For myself alone. 

 

Singleness

Is the ability

To close my front door

On the world,

To enjoy my solitude,

Listen to music,

Paint,

Be at peace.

 

 

Singleness is my beginning

And my end,

My laughter

And my tears,

Myself and God,

Complete,

Loved and loving,

At home and free,

Celebrate with me!

By Betty Hares, From Mary O’Brien and Clare Christie eds. Single Women: Affirming our Spiritual Journeys Westport, Connecticut, Bergin and Garvey, 1993.  More can be found here (but please be careful with copyright, Nicola Slee's unpublished work was used with her permission as part of my dissertation work)

These days students are excpected to use inclusive language in their essays; this is a good thing.  The reality is though, that this is never as easy as people think it should be, and the loudest voices in favour of its use seem to come from quarters which replace one form of exclusion with another...

I am currently reading a book on a 'holistic theology of the atonement' written 15 years ago that refers to single human beings exclusively as 'he' and a book on practical theology written last year that exclusively uses 'she'.  The oft used argument that using 'she' language redresses the balance is not good enough - exclusion is exclusion however you dress it up.

English as a language does not really help much, there is no gender-neutral alternative; you could hardly use 'it' to describe a person could you?!  I'm not a great fan of alternating male/female pronouns but at least they make an effort in the right direction.  My undergraduate essays often opted for s/he on the basis that it only counts as one word and I guess it is a bit less clumsy than repeatedly saying 'he or she' or 'she or he' (and avoids any read in/out hierarchy) but it is not very elegant.  I also got quite good at ordering sentences to avoid the use of pronouns, but is that a cop out?

The other thing that I notice is the increase in British authors using American spellings.  Why is this?  When did the USA become normative for 'English' at least as it is written in the UK?  I accept that when I cite USA writers I need to use their spellings, but it grates more than somewhat when British authors no longer use 'British English.'  I'm not just referring to the use of 'z' rather than 's' (which apparently reflects older British English forms) but the absence of doubled consonants in verbal endings and use of 'inquire' to mean 'enquire' etc.  Are we ashamed of our own version?  Or is the quest for sales across the pond the altar on which we sacrifice our spellings and grammar?

The words we use are important, and maybe I'm just turning into my mother who was always hot on grammar and spelling, but I do lament what I see as the decline of written English.

I have a little cross stitch picture made for me many years ago by my mother that says

ENGINEERS: Practical ends are achieved by the application of scientific principles.

 

I like this (obviously!) but I think it says something important about the relationship of engineers and scientists - they actually need each other.  Doing science for its own sake is probably very interesting but can become very esoteric and otherworldy.  At the same time, engineers can be so earthly and practical that they are unable to innovate and experiment.  The two disicplines actually need to engage each other if there is to be a net gain.

Likewise theology.  There is an apparent split between 'real' theology and 'practical theology' with the systematicans/dogamtists like snooty physicists asserting their superiority over the prccticals/engineers (not that I have chips on my shoulder, not me!).  The reality is that they need each other.  It is I am sure, if you can understand it, fascinating to ponder abstract philosophies of God or the nuances of Greek grammar, and these do add to the overall body of understanding of faith but it can become so far removed from real life that the person in the pew fears it.  Local theologies can become so experiential that they lose sight of the important abstract concepts of faith and/or the need for reflection or engagement.  Enter the Theological Engineer!  The person who can relate the theory and practice, practice and theory in a reflective, critical way so that "practical means are achieved by the application of theological principles.'

Today I found a working definition of Practical Theology that I quite like :

'... critical, theological reflection on the practices of the Church as they interact with the practices of the world with a view to ensuring faithful participation in the continuing mission of the triune God.'

(from Practical Theology and Qualitative Research, John Swinton and Harriet Mowat, London, SCM, 2006, page 25)

I like its relational Trinity view, I like its missional focus, I like its balance of theory and practice.  It feels in tune with an (or, at least, this) engineer's eye view of their role as a theologian!

Last night the BBC in their infinite wisdom decided to show the film Shrek, which in my opinion improved Saturday night viewing at least a thousand fold.  I am not convinced it subverts the fairy tale, after all boy & girl meet, boy & girl fall in love, misunderstanding messes things up, misunderstanding is resolved and couple marry and live happily ever after.  Nonetheless, it is fun to watch and in places quite powerful.

I always find the scene where images of Shrek and Fiona are interspersed alongside the song Lonesome Hallelujah quite moving, and yesterday realised that it's the music rather than the story/images that effects this.

I looked up the lyrics - in Shrek's form and the orignal Leonard Cohen form (there seem to be a few differences) and was immediately struck by the Biblical threads that run through them.  Granted, Cohen (who has a Jewish background and is now a Buddhist) elides David & Bathsheba with Samson & Delilah, but I was really struck by the idea of a 'lonesome hallelujah.'  It seemed - seems - a very profound phrase that echoes aspects of the psalms and indeed other aspects of the God-story in the Bible....

The Lord gives and the Lord takes away - blessed be the name of the Lord

A lonesome Hallelujah

Even if I walk through a valley as dark as death, You are with me

A lonesome Hallelujah

If you had been here, my brother would not have died, yet even now...

A lonesome Hallelujah

My God, my God why have you forsaken me... into your hands I commend my spirit

A lonesome Hallelujah

 

Hallelujah Hallelujah.

More about Cohen's life and music can be found at places like Wikepdia, the full lyrics of the song are widely available on line.  Life can be tough: isolation, loneliness, failure, regret can all be part of our experience, yet we still have a choice, 'to curse God and die' or, if only through gritted teeth, to offer our own 'Lonesome Hallelujah.'

It's an odd song to include in what is essentially a children's film, but it has certainly given me something to think about.

When I was a cheery little theology undergraduate, I twice undertook pieces of work where I had just finished what I thought was a decent piece of (level appropriate) research when someone published something that did exactly what I'd just done, in one case in about three pages!

A good piece of primary research into how single people experienced church life was completed just as Kristin Aune published her book Single Women, Challenge to the Church (which is good stuff, just stole my thunder!).  Then my attempt to use a literary approach to explore the relationship of the fourth gospel with antisemitism turned out to have been pre-empted by Adele Reinhartz in a few pages of her stunningly insightful and eminently readable book Befriending the Beloved Disiple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John.

Now, just when I want to look at how Baptists write their own history, and I dare to suggest that they have not caught up with current trends in historical methods, two people publish books to undermine me!! Mind you at £50 and £35 each, I think I'll have to wait for libraries to get copies before I read them.

So, am I missing the boat or catching the tide?  My current area of research goes far beyond historical method, and if Baptist history writing is developing, far from undermining my thesis, it gives it more relevance.  Just makes the quest for originality that bit more elusive!