What is in Kelvin's Head?

Coping with horror

23/05/2013
I don’t mean how does the country deal with terror attacks. I mean how do we cope with news coming onto our screens that contains horrific events.

There have been a number of news items this week which have just been horrible. The suicide of a right-wing activist next to the altar of Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris. A feminist protest the next day in which a “mock suicide” was staged in the same place in the same cathedral. The continued terror attacks in Iraq – bombing after bombing. And now this ghastly murder on the streets of Woolwich.

How do we cope with hearing these things without becoming brittle? How do we cope with these things without becoming desensitized to the horror of what we see?

There are obvious political moves that are needed, such as the condemnation of those who would make capital out of such horror and try to use it to bring hate to the streets. The resurgence of the far-right, particularly in the south of England is a frightening reality in itself. But how to cope as a human being with hearing stories of horror?

Here’s some ideas for trying to live with it all:
- Don’t block out the news, try to take it in. But don’t sit listening to the endless repeated loops of 24 hour news stations.
- Read the opinions of those with whom one does not immediately agree.
- Know that the answers cannot always be found merely in words and thoughts – music and art and religious practice can be places where answers are to be found.
- Remember that faith and history teach us that horrific murders have always been part of human experience and remember that this does not excuse them.
- Try to judge people by their ideals rather than by one’s own fears.
- Be kind. Use bad news as a reminder to be kind.
- Pray for the peace of the streets and remember those whose vocation is keeping that peace.
- Write. Talk. Discuss. Listen. Understand. Act justly.
- The only acceptable revenge is living well.
Notre Dame, suicide, Woolwich attack

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