What is in Kelvin's Head?

Last Year’s Predictions

31/12/2015

Each year I try to make some predictions at New Year. And each year I take a look back on Hogmanay to see how I did.

Here’s the rundown of how I did last year.

1 Those who voted YES in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as though they won. This may be unhelpful.
2 Those who voted NO in the Scottish Referendum will continue to behave as thought he referendum never happened. This may be unhelpful.

Well, I think I got these both right. I don’t see much sign that we’ve moved on from the referendum. Alan McManus’s magazine article was a breath of fresh air, but a rare one.

3 There will, I fear, be a Tory Prime Minister at the end of 2015.

Bang on with this one.

4 The Liberal Democrats will retain 10 – 14 seats in the House of Commons.

Well, I got the detail wrong – the Lib Dems did even worse in the General Election. When I made this prediction, most people were predicting a Lib Dem presence of 30 – 36, I think. My prediction of electoral catastrophe was just not taken seriously by those whom I know who should have taken it most seriously. I’m claiming this as a very near miss.

5 Nick Clegg will lose his seat and be Lord Clegg by the end of the year.

That’s a miss. Nick Clegg kept his seat if not his party.

6 The Labour Party will not be led by a Milliband by the end of the year.

Well I didn’t see Jeremy Corbyn coming but it was clear to me that Ed Milliband wasn’t going anywhere fast. Remember though that right up until the General Election, most of the polls predicted a hung parliament and uncertainty about who would be the PM.

7 The Church of Scotland will begin a new procedure under the barrier act to determine whether to accept ministers in same-sex partnerships who are married (ie not merely in Civil Partnerships).

Got this one bang on. Presbyteries have just voted by a narrow majority to send this back to the General Assembly for decision in May.

8 There will be legal victories for those seeking to extend Civil Partnerships to straight couples.

Well, we’ve not see as many legal victories as I expected. However, we’ve got a rather uncomfortable consultation just completed in Scotland in which the Scottish Government announced before consulting, that it didn’t want to do what a lot of people want them to do. I hope it sticks to its guns though and refuses to allow straight couples (or indeed future gay couples) Civil Partnerships.

9 Elizabeth Warren will become a household name.

Well, this one didn’t really come to pass. My fantasy of a dream Hilary/Elizabeth ticket doesn’t look like becoming a reality either.

10 (Some) straight liberals will lead the charge (such as it is) for (something less than) LGBT equality, (sometimes). Believe it or not, I’m excited by this and it is an improvement. [Remember that in 2011 I predicted that “No straight liberal in the church will feel the need to sacrifice anything at all for the gay friends they purport to support.” Things are changing a bit].

I’m claiming this one as a win. I could feel it all around me at Greenbelt but I’ve felt it in other places too. Increasingly, the things I’ve been fighting for are becoming mainstream. Deo Gratias.

11 Advances in e-learning in churches.

This one is a miss. I’ve dabbled a bit myself but there’s no real sign of denominations doing what they need to do if they are going to teach their people any better in the future than they have done in the past.

52 responses to “Inclusive Language – again”

ryan

11/10/2010

Kelvin – that cracked me almost as much as your last tweet on the left of your blog ;-)!

Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Ryan, although you address your comment to Kelvin like I am not there. I assume you are referring to my poem, I can assure you that it does not crack me up watching you making any opinion you may have untenable.

Reply
1. kelvin
  
  11/10/2010
  
  No Jimmy – I think Ryan was indeed referring to my last comment, above.
  
  Reply
Jimmy

11/10/2010

Thank you Kelvin and Sorry Ryan.

Reply
ryan

11/10/2010

No worries! Was indeed referring to the v.amusing coming out day tweets at the side.

I’m not sure there’s ever existed anyone, anywhere,at any time, of whom it could be said that *all* their opinions are ‘untenable’, so such rhetoric is dehumanising at best. Apropos nothing, I was moved to google the poetic stylings of the great David Brent. Who needs Auden? 😉
http://murfinsandburglars.com/2009/04/14/bad-poetry-for-tuesday-david-brent-edition/

Reply
Peter

12/10/2010

Kelvin; no, I think it distracts. It simp;ly reminds us that this is how your mind works: you make connections and delight in that sort of word-play. However, to sharpen up my point. Thank you for helping me to realise that, for some, ‘family’ is not a positive word in the way in which I experience it. For my part, this willl mean that I will be more careful about its use when others might feel excluded (and therefore hurt). Mutatis mutandi can you accept that I feel offended by what seems to be merely a casual linking between family and the f word? These are sensitive areas, but sensibilities are by no means confined to those who find family a painful or unhelpful concept.

Reply
Simon

29/10/2010

I am slightly nervous aboaut the alternatives to the 1982 Liturgy, not because I don’t share the inclusive sentiments expressed above (I do). I fear that, as so often in the history of the church, the steps we take to avoid one kind of mistake in the way we talk about God can lead us into another. The avoidance of pronouns as a measure to achieve inclusivity produces inelegant, strained and stilted English. How would it be if one were to use it in day-to-day speech? ‘I saw John this morning. I asked John’s how John’s health was. John said that John was over his flu, and hoped to be back at work on Monday’. This may not in itself seem to be a problem. But in fact, what very quickly happens when we adopt this idiom in addressing/expressing God, is that the very idea of a personal God begins to recede. My basic instinct is that the church’s language of pulbic prayer is properly anchored in that of the scriptures. There are dangers in departing from this. The perceived problem (rightly perceived) is perhaps better tackled by good teaching about the nature of God, than by linguistic contortions that produce stilted prayers, and possibly a less real and vivid idea of God.

Reply
Melissa

15/11/2013

About the family imagery – another reason to drop it in church is for the sake ones who, like me, do actually have the signifying family relationships.

There is too much pressure on day to day life with children when that life is forced to serve as some kind of example or testimony or witness to the world – or more likely one’s church friends – about the nature of God.

I think it sours love because in that kind of scheme loving children is more fundamentally a means to an end.

Reply