There's a business in a parish where a member of staff has suddenly died.The workplace is a close knit band of colleagues and deceased was well respected and loved by their colleagues and the customers of the business. Though many of the staff may not actually live in the parish, the majority of their week is spent in the parish at work.
So, what do you do as a minister of that parish? Do you regard them as part of the parish, as they spend most of their waking week there or not? Do you visit the business to offer pastoral support (or get the pastoral care team to do so, where one exists)? Or do you just not bother unless you are asked to do the funeral?
I know what I'd like to do. I would see those people as much part of the parish as those who live in it. I would offer my services. They wouldn't have to take it and I would respect that, but I think it is important the church goes where it is needed and, in circumstances such as this. For isn't that what the church is called to do?
Monday, 30 July 2012
Sunday, 29 July 2012
It won me over
I so wanted to avoid it. I really didn't give a monkey's and was relishing the time when it would be all over. I even went out to avoid it.
But it was on the big screen in the pub. I ignored it to begin with, but it drew me in. What were they doing? What did this all mean? Then I realised exactly what they were up to. They were forging the rings. That was the point where Danny Boyle's opening ceremony won me over.
I left when the athletes stated to come into the stadium, but the main show had been amazing. And hats off the the Queen for being up for being collected by James Bond. That was sooo cool. Well done ma'am.
Though I didn't see it, the final touch of the lighting of the torch. By 7 future heroes. Not past, not present, but future. What a brilliant symbol of what they have been telling up this is all about since it was won - to create a future for sport and where people all over Britain of all ages and backgrounds can enjoy taking part in sport. I hope that my cynicism about that will be proven wrong too.
But it was on the big screen in the pub. I ignored it to begin with, but it drew me in. What were they doing? What did this all mean? Then I realised exactly what they were up to. They were forging the rings. That was the point where Danny Boyle's opening ceremony won me over.
I left when the athletes stated to come into the stadium, but the main show had been amazing. And hats off the the Queen for being up for being collected by James Bond. That was sooo cool. Well done ma'am.
Though I didn't see it, the final touch of the lighting of the torch. By 7 future heroes. Not past, not present, but future. What a brilliant symbol of what they have been telling up this is all about since it was won - to create a future for sport and where people all over Britain of all ages and backgrounds can enjoy taking part in sport. I hope that my cynicism about that will be proven wrong too.
Thursday, 26 July 2012
Care of the elderly
I was doing a pastoral visit in an elderly care home the other day. As I was there I got to thinking about how the elderly are treated in this society. While I accept it is sometimes necessary for people to have to live somewhere with 24 hour care, it often seems it's a case of out of sight out of mind (and I am not just meaning the home I visited). Society doesn't want to see those who need everything done for them. Society just dumps them in a home and doesn't really think about them.
Around the world people can't believe how the elderly are treated in this country. The elderly are respected. Here they are often overlooked and patronised. Is it because they are old? Babies and children are seen in public every day. Their parents get child benefit, special deals in supermarkets, changing facilities etc, etc. They will be taken shopping, swimming, to the park, for walks and drives. Why doesn't this apply to the elderly? I know it's not straightforward, but it just doesn't seem right that the elderly are so poorly treated and disregarded.
Or are we scared to look in case we see the future? I do think that it's no wonder many people (myself included) sometimes say they'd rather go before that happens. Can a person in the latter stages of dementia have a good quality of life? I believe they can if we, as a society, want them to.
One thing I find fascinating is how little care workers in elderly care homes are paid. Sometimes, it's barely more than minimum wage. Those who look after children can be paid significantly more. But society is not prepared to ensure there is sufficient money paid for care to give a decent wage to carers. In doing so, the quality of care will improve, as it's possible to recruit the best staff with better pay.
So, should there be a 'national age service'? A guaranteed minimum level of care for the elderly, where caring is see as as much of a vocation as nursing. It would be nice, though I wonder if society would be prepared to pay for it. All I can say is a society is judged by how it treats the most excluded and marginalised. I would argue the elderly who need full-time care are pretty high up there.
Around the world people can't believe how the elderly are treated in this country. The elderly are respected. Here they are often overlooked and patronised. Is it because they are old? Babies and children are seen in public every day. Their parents get child benefit, special deals in supermarkets, changing facilities etc, etc. They will be taken shopping, swimming, to the park, for walks and drives. Why doesn't this apply to the elderly? I know it's not straightforward, but it just doesn't seem right that the elderly are so poorly treated and disregarded.
Or are we scared to look in case we see the future? I do think that it's no wonder many people (myself included) sometimes say they'd rather go before that happens. Can a person in the latter stages of dementia have a good quality of life? I believe they can if we, as a society, want them to.
One thing I find fascinating is how little care workers in elderly care homes are paid. Sometimes, it's barely more than minimum wage. Those who look after children can be paid significantly more. But society is not prepared to ensure there is sufficient money paid for care to give a decent wage to carers. In doing so, the quality of care will improve, as it's possible to recruit the best staff with better pay.
So, should there be a 'national age service'? A guaranteed minimum level of care for the elderly, where caring is see as as much of a vocation as nursing. It would be nice, though I wonder if society would be prepared to pay for it. All I can say is a society is judged by how it treats the most excluded and marginalised. I would argue the elderly who need full-time care are pretty high up there.
Wednesday, 25 July 2012
Cash-in-hand
There's been much coverage in the press regarding 'cash-in-hand' payments to tradespeople, ever since David Gauke criticised the practise the other day. If the whole idea of cash-in-hand is to avoid paying tax, it's wring (though I'd like to met the person who hand on heart could say they have never paid cash to a plumber, joiner, mechanic etc to get some sort of discount).
Without tax revenues there would be no schools, roads, water (in Scotland it's still a public utility), hospitals, doctors, bin collections, etc, etc. I know I'm not paying income tax at the moment for several years I was a net contributor to the tax pot. I didn't mind as it payed for others. That's the point. It's a benefit to all in society and make that society as a whole better in terms of welfare of the most vulnerable.
Yet Gauke's criticism came on the back of reports last week that there is approximately £13tn of tax hidden from the taxman by large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. So, a plumber taking cash in hand is morally wrong, but I can't recall Gauke making any moral judgements or public comments about this. Perhaps it's easier to target the small individual businessperson who may be struggling to get by in the current economic climate than to target the companies and individuals who are avoiding tax big style.
Besides, just because a person takes cash-in-hand (and maybe even offers a discount for doing so) doesn't automatically mean they are avoiding tax. As a mechanic friend of mine once told me, it's madness as all the parts he has to buy and the wages he has to pay are all traceable. If he didn't pay the tax he owed he'd get caught. So the method of payment does not affect how his business is taxed. I'd guess there are more tradespeople like that than the type Gauke is referring to. I also know this mechanic quite likes the idea of there being hospitals and doctors on the NHS, just in case.
As a Christian I will pay my dues to Caesar. Sometimes it may hurt, sometimes it looks like the money isn't being spent very wisely, but to not pay tax will just make things worse - like Greece where tax avoidance is almost a national sport, with only around a third of tax due actually paid and look where they are now. And it's the people with the least who suffer the most in these situations - the very people Jesus instructed us to look after.
Without tax revenues there would be no schools, roads, water (in Scotland it's still a public utility), hospitals, doctors, bin collections, etc, etc. I know I'm not paying income tax at the moment for several years I was a net contributor to the tax pot. I didn't mind as it payed for others. That's the point. It's a benefit to all in society and make that society as a whole better in terms of welfare of the most vulnerable.
Yet Gauke's criticism came on the back of reports last week that there is approximately £13tn of tax hidden from the taxman by large corporations and extremely wealthy individuals. So, a plumber taking cash in hand is morally wrong, but I can't recall Gauke making any moral judgements or public comments about this. Perhaps it's easier to target the small individual businessperson who may be struggling to get by in the current economic climate than to target the companies and individuals who are avoiding tax big style.
Besides, just because a person takes cash-in-hand (and maybe even offers a discount for doing so) doesn't automatically mean they are avoiding tax. As a mechanic friend of mine once told me, it's madness as all the parts he has to buy and the wages he has to pay are all traceable. If he didn't pay the tax he owed he'd get caught. So the method of payment does not affect how his business is taxed. I'd guess there are more tradespeople like that than the type Gauke is referring to. I also know this mechanic quite likes the idea of there being hospitals and doctors on the NHS, just in case.
As a Christian I will pay my dues to Caesar. Sometimes it may hurt, sometimes it looks like the money isn't being spent very wisely, but to not pay tax will just make things worse - like Greece where tax avoidance is almost a national sport, with only around a third of tax due actually paid and look where they are now. And it's the people with the least who suffer the most in these situations - the very people Jesus instructed us to look after.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
The wrong reading
On Sunday, the person reading the bible lesson did the wrong one. Right book, right verses, wrong chapter. Oops. As they read I could see members of the congregation look puzzled as it wasn't what the expected from the order of service. Following a quick consultation with my supervisor, it was decided to let them continue and then read the right one. I wanted to do the correct reading as it was long, though I knew exactly what tact I was taking with it, so could have skipped the bits that were not being referred to in the sermon at all. But my supervisor insisted on doing the reading to take the pressure off me.
It was something I recall coming up at my first candidates' conference and the consensus there was to do what I did. Also, I made the decision I did because I didn't want to get the reader in a tizz.It later transpired it wouldn't have bothered her and, when it has happened before, the reader has been stopped and the correct one read. I didn't know that at the time. Without that knowledge and knowledge of the person reading the lesson I feel I made the right decision. Knowing the congregation and the precedent which has already been set, I would have made a different decision.
It was something I recall coming up at my first candidates' conference and the consensus there was to do what I did. Also, I made the decision I did because I didn't want to get the reader in a tizz.It later transpired it wouldn't have bothered her and, when it has happened before, the reader has been stopped and the correct one read. I didn't know that at the time. Without that knowledge and knowledge of the person reading the lesson I feel I made the right decision. Knowing the congregation and the precedent which has already been set, I would have made a different decision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)