What is in Kelvin's Head?

Dear St George – here’s 3 dragons I’d like slaying

23/04/2015

Today is St George’s Day. Cue articles about how we know almost nothing about St George and bewilderment as to how he became patron saint of England.

Instead of that, here’s a few dragons that I like to see expertly slayed in our own day.

1 – Foodbanks in the UK.

When I went to the USA a few years ago on sabbatical I was filled with both admiration and horror at the amount of food that the churches were giving away in foodbank operations. Wonder at the sheer commitment and horror at the need. I proudly said that this kind of thing would never become a reality in the UK as we had a good social security system in place and if anyone ever tried to change that then the population would rise up against whoever was being so foolish. Sadly I was wrong – I came back to foodbank Britain not the Britain I’d left some months before. It isn’t nationalism or unionism that will stop foodbanks either. To kill this dragon we need a St George to rise up in the political world and bring an end to benefit sanctions and and ensure the timely processing of benefit claims.

2 – Xenophobia, anglophobia, islamophobia, anti-Semitism etc

The dragon of racism is stalking us again. Oh for a St George who could kill it once and for all instead of merely maiming it. People are just people.

It is difficult to believe that we are now having to tackle a real threat from the political right to the progress that we had made in freeing Europe from the tyranny of war. It is equally hard to believe that Jewish communities in the UK complain about insecurity. It grieves me greatly that my Muslim neighbours are often presumed to be complicit in terror.

3 – Same-sex marriage

This was a baby dragon that we adopted as a pet but the truth is, it has now grown up and become a little frightening. Whereas once same-sex marriage was a rallying cry for the cause, now the very words are being used against those who want equality, particularly in the church. We don’t want same-sex marriage in church, we want marriage to be open to straight couples and same-sex couples alike. One institution, one blessing, one God, one sacrament. It is time for same-sex marriage to die.

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