Eurovison is back!

It's nearly 3pm on Sunday afternoon, and I'm still buzzing from last night's Eurovision! I've always been a huge Eurovision fan, particularly since I've started getting to know people from some of the countries involved. It has to be said, the last few years have been a bit disappointing - the dodgy voting went from being amusing to annoying to insulting. In fact, the British entries followed a very similar pattern... But this year, I was left with the distinct feeling that Eurovision is back!

Last night wasn't about politics for once. Sure, the Balkans were all nice to each other, and Russia's neighbours were friendly in their voting. But last night was definitely about the music. Apparently we have Sir Terry to thank for inspiring a rule change, but either way it restored a bit of credibility to proceedings, and a bit of excitement to the voting.

OK, so we didn't win. But compared to last year's heart-breaking 14 point bottom spot, it felt like a win. Jade did us proud, and it was great to see national treasure Lord Andrew on stage (even though I had to explain who he was to some french guy). It didn't really matter, because europop was the real winner! I loved Norway's entry, and it rightly deserved to win (imho)!

I love Eurovision. I love that we're able to get 42 countries together for a night and have fun together. I love that I could watch the whole thing with a loud of random Europeans in Mojo's. And I love that for one night we can all celebrate cheesypop in such a Eurotastic way!

In case you missed it, here are my personal top 3...

Number 3: Germany


Number 2: United Kingdom (obv)


And number 1, the rightful winner, NORWAY!

More on Reading...

Huge thanks to Dave K for this. Yesterday I posted about the place of reading in preaching. And as I've thought more about it since then, there are lots of other ways we make access to the Bible dependent on being able to read. Then Dave pointed this out:

Reaching Nonbook People

Once again, it seems the folks at The Crowded House have got there first. And I'm pleased they have, because there stuff is great. If you're at all interested in this, you should give it a read. I think this sentence basically sums up what I was trying to say yesterday, but was probably a bit scared to:

"being word-centred need not equal being book-centred."

The material at The Crowded House is focussed on 'non-book' people, which means people who choose not to read, even though they can. Obviously this is different to being illiterate, but I think a lot of the issues will probably be the same. And although TCH don't try to suggest how many 'non-book' people there are, I'm guessing it's quite common and this will affect a lot of people.

How Important is Reading?

Last Monday I watched a documentary on Channel 4 called Can't Read Can't Write. Basically, the series follows a group of adults who can't read or write. For one reason or another they had never picked up the skill, and had gone through life trying to cope without being able to read or write. I can barely even imagine what that must be like - I wouldn't be typing this for a start. But even simple things like shopping or driving become incredibly difficult. It was pretty emotional stuff. Linda is 46 and can't read, but she's desperate to be able to read Shakespeare. Her frustration was hard to watch. But Teresa nearly moved me to tears when, at 58, she managed to read a book for the first time.

But, in a similar vein to some other recent channel 4 documentaries (involving TV chefs, and Phil and Kirsty talking about some tax or other), there's a politcal campaign behind the programme too. How is it that these people have never been taught to read? How must our education system change to help them?

But it got me thinking about preaching and teaching the Bible. The show revealed a statistic I found quite shocking. Over 5 million people have a lower reading ability than a 12 year old - many of them can't read at all. And I guess that number probably excludes a lot more people who struggle with reading but can pass the tests. Anyway, it's a huge number of people.

So over the past week I've been pondering whether the way I preach and teach would exclude people who don't find reading easy? I always try to point people to the text of the Bible, to rub their faces in it as I preach. But if I was speaking to someone who couldn't read it, how would they do? Would the fact I'm even expecting them to read be a barrier?

Linked to that, but slightly more subtle, do I expect people to follow the text to see where I'm going? On Sunday, I was talking my way through Colossians 1v15-23, and looking at the different statements Paul makes about Christ. But how obvious is it when I jump to the next one if the people listening can't follow it themselves? And is it obvious when I'm quoting and when I'm not if people can't see the words I'm using?

This is tricky if you believe that the Bible is the Word of God. When I preach, it isn't from my own authority, but God's. I want people to see that. It's the word of God written down which is infallible, not the words of the preacher. But it's through words that the gospel is passed along. I like this from Luther:

Because heresies threatened the living apostolic message, it had to be recorded in a book to protect it from falsification. Preaching reverses this process of conservation again, allowing the Scriptures of the past to become the tidings of the present... The Gospel has been committed to lifeless paper; fresh words can transform it into glad tidings again.

The written word is crucial. But how important is reading?

I'm pretty sure most of the students I'll be teaching in the next few years will be able to read - it's sort of a requirement. But I still think this is a serious question, otherwise millions of people might be hindered in hearing the gospel.

Can't Read Can't Write is on again tonight, Channel 4, 9pm.

Back to Reality

So, Big Brother is back. Again. We're up to series 9, and every year there is a flurry of blog posts and articles from Christians (especially when there's a Christian in the house. Apparently there are two this year. I guess we'll see how that works out...). So most things have been said. But, following on from yesterday's post, it got me thinking about what Big Brother saya about our culture - and particularly the way it's changed over the years.

When BB first started, it was the start of the boom in reality TV. We hadn't really seen anything like it - a random bunch of people trapped together for a bit too long. The attraction then was the novelty of the situation, and just watching how people acted together.

That in itself is interesting. We like watching people, we like seeing what they'll do. We especially like to see them at their worst - when they argue, when they get drunk, when they're horrible to each other. Perhaps we feel pleased that we aren't like them. Or that they are like us. People like watching people.

But the novelty didn't stay novel for long. After a while, as we got used to BB and reality TV in general (even the stomach-churning channel 5 kind), the producers had to find ways to spice things up. Hidden rooms, inequality, shock evictions have all come and gone. And the selection of victims, sorry, housemates, has become more and more random, designed to provide the maximum drama.

This year, a couple were put into the house, but then the guy was told to pretend he was with someone else. Apparently, they're going to get "married" on Sunday. I'm sure that will cause all sorts of controversy in itself. But the point is that we often watch TV because we want new experiences. We want to be shocked, we want to be appalled. But shocking things don't stay shocking for long. And so the boundaries of morality and even acceptability get pushed further and further out.

I think that's one of the things I was trying to get at in my last post. TV is hugely influential in not only showing where culture is at, but in changing it. And I think it's powerful because it's so gradual, but constant.

Who knows what else Big Brother will pull out of the bag this year. But it will no doubt be crazier and more shocking than previous years. But by BB series 11 we'll think nothing of it.

Telly-vangelism

Here's something else I've been thinking about for a while (I realise I've been asking questions without really suggesting answers. I guess that's the way my brain tends to work). Over on Peter's blog he recommends some resources by Ted Turnau on using films in evangelism. I've only skimmed it, but it looks good, as does his website.

One phrase in particular stood out for me though: "Let’s face it: movies are this generation’s literature." And I guess I agree - a lot of people will sit down and watch a movie who wouldn't sit down and read the book. And movies can engage with big ideas and challenge people just like a good novel will. This can make them a great tool for explaining the gospel to people.

But I wonder how many people would naturally watch a film in that way. I was taught to do it by Andy Shudall when I was a Relay worker. Before then, I would just watch a film without really thinking. I guess they may have shaped my attitudes a bit without me realising it, but I'm dubious how much. And when I think of a lot of my friends and family, I'm not sure they'd be much different.

I think a much more powerful force in shaping culture and worldviews is TV. I think it's sort of seen as a poorer relation of the movies, but think about it. It's there in most people's homes all the time. It plays a huge role in shaping how we view the world (whether via news, documentaries or chat shows). It passes on moral values (which, as far as I can tell, seems to be the whole point of Loose Women). In particular, I think soaps are massively influential. Regular viewers get to know the characters. They may like them or loathe them, but they care about what happens. And I reckon values portrayed in shows like these will be absorbed much more easily than if they are surrounded by Hollywood razamattaz.

So how would this shape the way we communicate the gospel? Good question. I think I'll have to think about it a bit more...

Arty Thoughts...

I'm reading a brilliant little book at the moment, called Imagine by Steve Turner. It deals with the place of Christians in the Arts, and outlines a vision of Christian artists using their unique perspective to get stuck into culture and engage with the big questions everyone is wrestling with. I haven't finished it yet, but so far it's been really thought-provoking.

I'm reading it partly to help me in encouraging arty students I'll be working with next year, and partly for my own interest. I've found myself getting artier over the past few years, and this book has been really helpful in thinking it through. It's also pulling together a lot of strands of thought I've been tugging on recently. Questions about how to engage with a culture which likes asking big questions but is suspicious of anyone who claims to have an answer. And if the gospel is relevant to every aspect of out lives, how does this work out in practice, and is it visible to those outside the church.

Turner explains that, for a long time and for various different reasons, there has been suspicion amongst Christians when it comes to the arts. And so Christian artists have largely either been confined to "Christian" versions of their disciplines, or been made to feel like sell-outs (or possibly like they had to sell out) if they joined in with the wider arty world. As the world has changed, the arts have addressed the big issues people have been wrestling with (and which the church has perhaps failed to address).

Last week I had dinner with some new friends in Reading, and we were talking about this over the dinner table. Someone pointed out that we tend to treat art as something to be consumed - we watch films, look at paintings in galleries, and read books. But, actually, we should see it as a conversation - every piece of art says something about the world, and as Christians we need to engage with it. Surely that's a much more constructive way of seeing things - art as an opportunity for dialogue, rather than as an attack on the things we hold dear. And it also elevates the role of Christian artists. Rather than using their medium as a platform for preaching (probably with little impact), they provide another voice in the conversation, challenging assumptions and asking questions. Only they are getting stuck in with the "renewed mind" they've been given (Romans 12v2).

A broken world has sold its soul
and filled the hole with miserable things.
Weary children chase worn out dreams.
And what is left?