Stratocastermagic

Happy Easter!

2011-04-23T12:05:00.003+01:00

Those who know me well know that I'm a melancholy soul. I prefer advent hymns to Christmas carols and I am more at home in Holy Week than I am on Easter morning. Good Friday is my favourite day in the liturgical year! I like the research that suggests that those who are slightly depressed have a more realistic view of the world than those who are relentlessly cheerful. Happiness, it turns out, is a form of mental illness brought about by a failure to grasp the seriousness of the situation.

So, there is a part of me that is reluctant to let go of the Cross in order to welcome the Resurrection.

But on that first Easter morning, Jesus meets a tearful Mary and invites her to let go of her mourning and to embrace joy; to leave Good Friday behind and move on into Easter. For her, it even means letting go of the familiar, comforting, tangible presence of Jesus so that she may know his spiritual and eternal reality - his resurrection presence.

In the Easter vigil readings we are reminded of the story of the exodus: God’s people leave behind the slavery of their old lives in order to move on to freedom in the promised land. The trouble is, the old life was at least one where they knew where they stood. This new freedom lark turns out to be dangerous and unpredictable! Why not slip back into the old familiar patterns, walk the path that has been smoothed by many footprints, rather than break new ground?

In Romans 6:3-11 we read that our baptism is a baptism into Christ’s death so that we might also share with him in his resurrection. We are united with him in his death and so united with him in resurrection. The old self was crucified with him, the old sinful flesh destroyed; we are set free from slavery. But if we have died with Christ, we will also live with him, set free from death and all that goes with it. So, we are to consider ourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

I spend quite a large part of my ministry meeting families who are bereaved. And recently I have been involved in funerals that were particularly significant in our community. (All funerals are significant, of course; I mean that some funerals have a particular impact outside of the circle of family and friends.) In a way, preaching the resurrection at a funeral is easy! What is difficult is living and preaching the resurrection the rest of the time! We are always being pulled back by the things that are to do with death.

"It's life that defeats the Christian Church, she’s always been well equipped to deal with death."

Joe Orton

In Halewood, with Easter coming late this year, we found ourselves holding our Annual Meeting on the Monday of Holy Week. (It’s actually against my religion to hold meetings in Holy Week! If it were up to me, there would be no meetings in Lent either. Or Advent. Or during the Summer...) It definitely felt like a loss - that we had lost some of Holy Week for the sake of a meeting. And when the meeting is a somewhat turgid and lengthy one, as ours was, it’s easy to get bogged down. (We had long discussions about our Constitution and problems in presenting the accounts, we are short of money, short of people...) How difficult it is then to remember that we are in the business of living and preaching the resurrection! (I know those meetings are important and we have to have them. But it’s difficult to walk out of them with a spring in your step. How much of our church life is spent walking through treacle?!)

My point is that, unless our life together is characterised by resurrection joy, we’re doing it wrong! Not enforced jollity or superficial froth, but the shared joy of living the resurrection together. Sometimes we have serious things to do together; but even they should have a note of joy running through them. And we should have fun together, shouldn’t we? Or what’s the point?!

We live in a world that does death very well. The church should do life.

Happy Easter!

In the light of Easter

2011-04-18T16:55:00.001+01:00

I am writing this at the start of Holy Week and just a few days after the funeral service of a friend and parishioner, Terry Pollard. If you were at Terry’s funeral, you will know that it was a remarkable occasion. At the age of 51, knowing that his illness was terminal, Terry set about ‘putting his affairs in order’, including preparing his own funeral service. He chose the hymns and readings and wrote his own ‘reflections’ to be read at the service. He saw this as a unique opportunity to address his family and friends with thoughtful and loving words.

Of course, there is a downside to this way of doing things: if you had been asked to speak at a friend's funeral, you would, no doubt, dwell on their strengths and detail their accomplishments. If, however, you were asked to speak about yourself, you might well do what Terry did. Although he acknowledged that he might have some strengths, he seemed more conscious of his weaknesses. As I said at the time, many of his family and friends might have liked the right to reply! We would have had many very positive things to say about him!

What I found particularly interesting - and tried to say in my sermon - was the passage of scripture that Terry had chosen to be read. It was from Hebrews chapter 2, where the writer talks about Jesus as having been made “a little lower than the angels ” (v9) - that is, like us. This Jesus shares our life and our death with us. He is made perfect by his sufferings (v10 - and you thought the Son of God was already perfect!). Like us, he partakes of flesh and blood, shares our nature and is ‘one of us’. Amazingly, he is not ashamed to call us his brothers and sisters! (v11)

What the writer to the Hebrews says is that the problem we face comes in the shape of ‘flesh and blood’ - in other words, our human frailty, weakness and brokenness. So, in what shape do we find the solution? Also in flesh and blood - the flesh and blood of Jesus. In his very humanity, Jesus shares our sorrows and defeats our enemy, through his death on the cross. His body is broken and his blood is shed for us.

I have no idea what made Terry choose this passage, but it seems to me to offer the only hope that any of us has: that God’s love and strength are made known to us in the flesh and blood of Jesus, who invites us to share his life, the life that goes beyond this world’s brokenness.

As I say, I am writing this at the start of Holy Week: you may be reading it after Easter. Thankfully, we approach Holy Week in the light of Easter. We come to Good Friday in the knowledge that Sunday is around the corner.

We may live our lives in the shadow of the cross: we are also invited to do so in the light of Easter.

Alan Jewell

The Keighley and Ilkley Liberal Democrat Website - before it was pulled!

2011-01-19T15:48:00.002Z

I'm not sure who wrote this, but it appeared on the home page of the the Keighley and Ilkley Liberal Democrat Website, until it was pulled!

I created this web site in the days that the Liberal Democrats had principles. I think many local ones, Judith Brooksbank as a shining example, still have them.

However, the issue of fees for university students made me fall out of love with Nick Clegg and other 'Economic Liberals'. In consequence, I resigned from the Party.

The Party doesn't seem to have noticed, and sent me (and my wife) a Member's mailing. That includes a summarry of an interview with Nick Clegg about the issue of student fees. His responses, reported there, enraged me so much that I decided that it was just to call him to question here. Let me explain why...

The report says: "Nick then moved to take head on Evan's (Evan Harris, former Oxford West and Abbingdon MP) suggestion that ... Higher Education costs could be met by general taxation or a graduate tax.

"You are then calling for contributions from those who don't benefit from university to pay for those who do" said Clegg.

Let us pause for a moment to consider that statement: who does actually "benefit from university?"

Well, obviously, most garaduates benefit by getting paid more. However, after personal allowances, if they get paid more, then they pay more income tax than those who are paid less.

There is an anomaly here: those who get paid more than £40k above the threshold, see their National Insurance contributions above that drop from 11.5% to 1.5%. That's right, folk paid over 40,000 pounds pay 10% less on that income than earnings by everyone below that. Keeping in mind that only 30 years contributions are needed to get paid a full national pension (though, yes, it is a good thing that that pension is going up to £140 a week) most people pay NI for the best part of 45 years, so where does the other 15 years' contributions go? One place is the NHS - and it is right that the healthy should pay for the sick. Another is to pay for benefits for the disabled and those who cannot get a job. That is right too.

The thing is that these rights to support in time of need are exactly those that ought to be supported by general taxation. The distinction between Income Tax and National Insurance is wrong - and so is the 10% less paid by those who earn more than £40,000 above the threshold.

Back to my main point...

High pay ought to carry its own taxation burden. That has nothing to do with whether that pay is as a result of a university education or not.

Getting back to, "those who don't (and do) benefit from universtity." I hope I've dealt with the issue of pay - that should be taken care of by a decent Income Tax regime. Who else benefits? Teachers have to go to university and get a degree. I'd argue that school pupils (whose parents pay tax) are the ones who benefit most. Next, consider doctors, nurses and dentists (and vets). I'd think that their patients are the ones who get most benefit. Then there are all the other subjects for degrees, the other arts and sciences. The benefit there is less immediate, direct and personal, but the ultimate beneficiary is the whole of humanity.

That is why it isn't just graduates who benefit from their degrees - and why everyone (who has an income high enough to afford to pay) ought to contribute to the cost of educating graduates. Actually, I think that argument applies just as much to post-graduate studies. As a society, we probably benefit even more from those who are bright enough to get Master's or Doctor's degrees.

This time, I DON'T agree with Nick!

That goes on... Whether it is clearing snow and spreading grit, supporting the children of single mothers, funding public libraries, or whatever, those in need ought to get the appropriate help. Those who get paid more ought to accept a duty to pay more. It isn't the cost of supplying the necessary support that should be being targeted to balance the deficit, but the lack of contribution from those who are wealthy enough to afford to help those in need.

Today, the issue of bankers' bonuses has come up again. I was going to ask whether the 'stars' who caused the finnacial crisis really, really needed to be kept in this country to pay their 20% of the UK's tax (how does that compare with their responsibility for the financial crisis?), but The Indepedent has an ironic article that does it much better than I can.

With Christmas so recently past, we should remember the words of the carol, Good King Wenceslas. He went out to help someone more in need than he was. That's what I thought the Liberal Democrats were about. Nick Clegg seems to have a different inspiration!

Happy Christmas from the Jewells!

2009-12-20T10:08:00.002Z

News of the Jewells - Christmas 2009

ALAN IS OLD - HALF A CENTURY OLD

This year saw Alan's 50th birthday

- no, he couldn't believe it either. To help him come to terms with it, a weekend of frivolity was arranged. Family travelled from the four corners of the globe to be there. Well, not the globe exactly (and the globe doesn't have corners, does it?) but certainly from across the country. On the evening of Friday 13th November (“I was born on Friday 13th - want to make something of it?”) a party was arranged. Theme of said party was 'Decades', because it occurred to Alan that he had lived in 6 decades, thus far - from the Fifties (just!) to whatever this one is called. Guests were invited to pick a decade and come dressed appropriately. Not everyone understood the brief but many people made a decent stab at it. Alan himself chose the Seventies on the grounds that you can't go wrong with a silver suit, Brian May wig and platform boots. Photos show how successfully he carried this off.
Rose went for the Sixties because she found a nice 60s-style dress in the M&S Outlet store at Gloucester Quays. Topped with a Dusty Springfield style wig, Rose looked fab and made many people wonder why she didn't go blonde on a longer term basis. (Alan is still threatening to start a Facebook group campaigning for a blonde Rose.)

Chris opted for a 90s grunge look with a chopped wig and a shirt stolen from his dad. (Dad, who had been wearing the shirt since the 90s hadn't realised that it was now a period piece.)

Matt acquired dad's suit from the 80s (no, he wasn't still wearing it) and looked suave with shades and a fake 'tash.

Lizzy looked stunning, of course, in a 50s style dress.

Rose's dad, Austin, dug out a jacket and tie from the 70s and Alan's parents, Sylvia & George, earned widespread acclaim for turning up in the very clothes they had worn for Alan & Rose's wedding in 1982.

Entertainment

was provided by a succession of bands, many of which Alan was in (even the ones that didn't really want him). In all, nearly 30 guests played or sang something during the course of the evening in a set that ranged from The Shadows to the Sex Pistols; from the Beverley Sisters to the Spice Girls; and from the Beatles to the Arctic Monkeys. Highlights included a youthful and rousing version of Anarchy in the UK (for which Alan provided kazoo solo), a surprisingly competent rendition of Thin Lizzy's The Boys Are Back In Town and an "I think we got away with it" performance of Dire Straits's Sultans of Swing,. (An over-ambitious attempt at Kiss's God Gave Rock and Roll to You should probably be filed under "It seemed like a good idea at the time".)
During the course of the evening, Alan's 50th birthday present was unveiled: a 50th Anniversary Reissue of the 1959 Gibson Les Paul, one of the most iconic electric guitars ever. (Since learning that Alan was to have the guitar for his birthday, Les Paul himself, aged 94 and knowing that his work on earth was done, has gone to that great gig in the sky.)
The weekend continued with a family meal for 20 at Liverpool's Tavern Company Restaurant on the Saturday evening and, Gasp!, a leisurely Sunday morning with brunch. (Yes! Alan booked a Sunday off!)

Sunday afternoon saw him joining parishioners at the Church Centre for Afternoon Tea. As many of the guests were church folk, Alan suggested that, instead of wasting their money buying him presents, they might like to make a donation to church funds. As a result, over £1,000 was raised during the weekend. Alan was said to be "thrilled" with this result (but still wonders what he might have bought had they given him the thousand quid instead...).

ALSO THIS YEAR...

Alan & Rose spent a fortnight in Tenerife – the longest holiday they have ever had without the children. Their relationship survived. Actually, they quite enjoyed it.

Chris and Matthew, both students at Liverpool University, now share a house and work long, late-night shifts in Liverpool bars.
Lizzy is in her second year at Sixth Form College and is currently applying for university places: she fancies going further afield than her brothers.

Rose loves her job at Sir John Deane's College in Northwich but hates queuing to get over Runcorn bridge on days when the traffic is bad. Journey time varies from 35 minutes to a gruelling 2 hours and 55 minutes. (Lane closure on the bridge.)

Alan continues as Team Rector in the Halewood Ecumenical Team, having been re-licensed at Liverpool Cathedral in January. This year has also seen him take on the role of Chaplain to the Mayor of Knowsley, an arduous task that involves attending dinner dances, afternoon tea in the mayor's parlour and saying the occasional prayer. Asked to describe his role, Alan said that it was "putting the fear of God into the Mayor of Knowsley". St Nicholas' Church hosted the Mayor's inaugural Civic Service and a Carol Service.

The year has provided Alan with a number of challenges, including what to do when people complain that they can't get a seat because the church is too full. It doesn't (yet!) happen every week, but it has happened on a number of occasions in the year. (“The church seats 220 people: last Sunday we had to cram in 320. It's a headache!”) Extra morning services have been added, but Alan says, "It goes against the grain to be discouraging people from attending church".

Alan & Rose continue to enjoy their apartment at Gloucester Docks but find that they can’t visit it as often as they would like. They were pleased to make the acquaintance of their new (and only) niece, Ruby May, born on 4th May.

Happy Christmas!

Jesus and Politics

2009-06-28T22:06:00.002+01:00

(Written for the Mayor of Knowsley’s Civic Sunday at St Nicholas’, Halewood, 28th June 2009.)

I believe that when hairdressers are being trained, they are told never to discuss religion or politics with their customers. I don’t know if this is true, but it makes me wonder what it’s like when Desmond Tutu goes to the barbers…

“Going anywhere nice for your holidays, Archbishop? Got any plans for Christmas?”

Desmond Tutu is, of course, more than happy to discuss religion and politics. He once said:

“When people say the Bible and politics don't mix, I don't know which Bible they are referring to. It’s not the one I've been reading.”

I suppose the problem is with bad religion and bad politics – the sort of religion that supported apartheid in South Africa, segregation in the United States, and Nazism and anti-Semitism in Europe.

More recently, we have had the uncomfortable sight of the British National Party claiming to be “the only political party standing up for” Christian faith and culture. I’m not generally in favour of a blasphemy law (I tend to think that God does not need us to defend him in court), but the BNP came close to converting me with their election poster featuring an image of Christ crucified, a quotation from scripture (“If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you;” John 15:20) and tagline, “What would Jesus do?” – the implication being that Jesus would vote BNP to defend Christianity in this country! I’m not convinced that the BNP would welcome Jesus the Jew as one of their supporters!

So, what kind of politics emerges from the Bible that Desmond Tutu reads? Some ideas from the bible readings set for Sunday 28th June:

In 2 Corinthians 8, we read that the mother church in Jerusalem is in financial need - again. Paul writes to the Christians in Corinth to encourage them to make a gift to help their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. He reminds them of the example of Jesus who, though we was rich, became poor, so that we might become rich, at least spiritually. Other churches, Paul says, have given generously, sacrificially, but the church in Corinth seems reluctant. Paul wants them to see that it is not right for them to have plenty – more than enough – while their sisters and brothers in Jerusalem are struggling. He points out that in the Old Testament story of God giving his people the manna in the desert – the bread from heaven – each had just enough bread to eat every day: no-one had too much and no-one had too little. That’s how it should be amongst us, he says: no one should have too much; no one too little. Amongst Christians there should be a level of equality, not vast inequality between rich and poor.

So there’s a Christian, biblical principle – there should be a degree of fairness and equality in the distribution of wealth – but how to turn that into politics? Some would see this as a socialist ethic: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” – to use a phrase popularised by a certain Karl Marx. (Historian Arnold Toynbee described communism as a Christian heresy; others have pointed out that Marxism and communism had their roots in Judaeo-Christian soil.)

Others would argue that the scripture points in favour of capitalism: if the Christians in Corinth hadn’t created wealth, they would not have generated a surplus from which to help meet the needs of their poorer sisters and brothers in Jerusalem. They would say this wealth needs to be created in order to trickle down to those less able to generate wealth.

Getting from a biblical or spiritual principle to a political application isn’t always straightforward: hence Tony Benn’s assertion that the Labour Party owed more to Methodism than it did to Marxism; and Margaret Thatcher’s use, on becoming Prime Minister, of the Prayer of St Francis. Both Benn and Thatcher claimed to draw inspiration from Christian teaching, but their applications were diametrically opposed in political terms.

Because of this, I have never felt that there could be a Christian political party – although we were given the opportunity of voting for The Christian Party in the recent European elections. There are plenty of Christians whom I love and respect, but whose political views I do not share. We may draw our inspiration from the same source, but we differ over how to apply those principles.

Nevertheless, it is a biblical principle that there should be a measure of equality: God has provided enough manna to feed us all. Why then do some of God’s children live with obscene wealth and others die in obscene poverty? According to UNICEF, nearly 10 million children under five years of age die each year from causes related to poverty. Peter Singer, in his book “The Life You Can Save”, points out that one billion people in the world have less to live on each day than we would spend on a bottle of water2. He argues that world poverty could be ended relatively easily, if those who had the wealth were prepared to give a modest proportion of it to help those who have none. If you have clean water coming out of a tap that you could drink, but you choose to buy bottled water, you have more money than you need – while there are people in the world who have no access to clean water. Singer is not a Christian, but his argument seems to me to be eminently biblical!

In Mark 5:21-43, we see Jesus healing two people – a woman suffering from haemorrhages and a child who has died. If we are familiar with the Gospel accounts, we are not surprised by these stories. We might be aware that, in Jesus’ own day, religious leaders had little to do with women and children, whereas Jesus’ own ministry valued and honoured both women and children. But we might miss the fact that his contact with both of these people – the woman with the haemorrhages and the child – compromised Jesus’ religious purity, according to the religious culture of his day. A woman who was bleeding was considered ritually unclean: to touch her was to become unclean yourself. (In the gospel we read that she touches him, rather than he laying hands on her, but Jesus affirms her as well and healed and tells her that she may go in peace.) Similarly, a corpse is ritually unclean and it makes you unclean to touch a dead person. Jesus takes the dead child by the hand and speaks to her, “Little girl, get up!”

A woman and a child – both are dangerous to Jesus’ religious purity. But that doesn’t stop Jesus reaching out to them, literally and spiritually, taking them by the hand and affirming them as God’s children.

From this we discern a biblical principle: the priority Jesus gives to those whom religion and society would exclude or marginalise. What would Jesus do? Reach out to those who are excluded, marginalised. How then should a Christian behave? What should the church do?

And how to apply this principle in the political realm? Again, that requires each of us to make a judgement, informed by biblical thinking and supported by prayer; but it is clear that when we vote and act, we are required to think what our voting and acting will do for those excluded and marginalised by our society.

It’s fair to say that today, those who seek and hold elected office are not exactly held in high esteem. In fact, the expenses scandal means that MPs have done the impossible and replaced bankers as the people we all love to hate. (It looks as though BBC executives might be next!) The biggest problem is when voters, or those who should be voters, say, “a plague on all their houses” and opt out. As we know, this simply opens the door to extremists. In my experience, local politicians are good people, committed to serving their communities – to making the world (or at least their part of it) a better place. We need those we elect to be clear about their principles. Those who seek to serve would do well to listen to the biblical principles of commitment to social justice and to the needs of those excluded and marginalised by society.

May God bless us – all of us – as we seek to love and serve Him in loving and serving the communities in which live.

Alan Jewell

2009-06-27T06:37:00.001+01:00

Ah, Saturday morning! And what kind of weather will we have for the summer fete?

2009-06-17T22:47:00.001+01:00

Alone Again (Naturally)

2009-06-14T15:24:00.001+01:00

Sunday afternoon! Aahh!

2009-06-01T21:03:00.000+01:00

It's been a nice day. And a nice evening.

So, what sort of music do you like?

2008-09-09T16:34:00.008+01:00

If you were to stop me in the street (I hope you won't: I'm very busy) and ask, "So, what sort of music do you like?", I would probably come back with a triumvirate of Bob Dylan, The Beatles and Eric Clapton. But the more I think about this list, the less satisfying it feels. To begin with, although I will readily confess that I spend more time listening to Bob Dylan than any other artist, I would hate you to think that I was a Bob Dylan Fan. A Bob Dylan Fan is someone who can tell you where and when Bob wrote and recorded each of his songs, why this version is better than that, and what shirt he was wearing at the time. I don't know any of that stuff. I just like the music.

Secondly, while I know a lot of Beatles songs, it is only relatively recently that I have listened to any Beatles albums. And that's an eye-opener, I can tell you. Of course, there are the Ringo sing-alongs with their deliberately limited vocal range to suit his limited voice. (So why do you let the drummer sing, for goodness sake?) And then there is George's deep and meaningless preachy eastern stuff. (I have never forgiven him for writing 'Taxman'. Poor George! He's so rich that the wicked system parts him from loads of his hard-earned money - while leaving him one of the richest people ever to have walked the face of the earth - before allowing him to go on and write another song about how materialistic everyone else is.)

And then you have Paul's kitchy, sentimental tin-pan alley side and John's occasional sheer nastiness ('Run For Your Life', anyone? Because he's rather see you dead, little girl, than to see you with another man. He's jealous, you see, little girl, and if he catches you, it's the end. Little girl. Nice thought, John!)

As I say, listening to Beatles albums is an eye-opener (ear-opener?).

And that leaves Eric Clapton. I say I like Eric Clapton because I want you to know that I play guitar and if I could play like Eric, I would. But I'm blowed if I can remember the last time I listened to an Eric Clapton album. (I could say the same about Jimi Hendrix.) And when I listen to any of the Clapton compilations, I'm always surprised at how much there is that I don't like. (And that includes Cream, I'm afraid.)

Which means I need a better answer to the question, "So, what sort of music do you like?" And, having thought about it, I think the answer goes something like this:

I like people who write songs, play musical instruments and sing in an interesting and engaging way. That's my new triumvirate.

John Wesley, Donald Sinden, Avenue Q and Double Gloucester cheese...

2007-06-06T22:01:00.000+01:00

So, it was school half-term holidays and we had a weekend in London and a few days at our home in Gloucester.
The trip to London was great, even though DW was there for work. Still, we took in a show: Avenue Q – not the most mature choice, I grant you, but, hey!, great fun. I spent the first 20 minutes grinning at the stage like a simpleton. Got a sharp reminder that we were in London when we ordered our half-time drinks. “Two gin & tonics, please.” “Singles or doubles?” We’re here to have fun so we order doubles. “That will be £13.50, please, sir.” £13.50! (That's $27!) You wouldn’t pay that for a tray-full of drinks round our way, I can tell you!
Our other London moment: we’re walking around theatreland and see an old bloke pressing the intercom on the door to get in to some building or other: “Hello? Is there somebody there?” I recognise the voice, but before I can put a name to it, he says to the unseen doorkeeper, “It’s Donald Sinden…” And it was. Sorry to be impressed, but I am.
I have Saturday to myself, as DW is working until 5:00pm, so I do something I would only do on my own: I visit the Museum of Methodism. Yes, there is one and it’s in City Road in the crypt of the chapel that John Wesley built in 1778 as his London base. You also get to walk around the house where he spent the last years of his life and where he died. Highlights include standing in the pulpit from which John and Charles preached, seeing John’s gown (he was 5’ 4” tall, you know) and Charles’s organ (Oooh! No, Matron!). I stand at John’s grave (and later buy a postcard of it. Is that weird?) His mother is buried in the Dissenters’ graveyard over the road and lies alongside other non-conformists: Daniel Defoe, John Bunyan and William Blake.
I also got to use the oldest working toilets in London: they bear the illustrious Crapper name on the bowl and cistern. And they do work.
Saturday evening we had dinner with friends and a splendid time was had.
On Sunday morning, as we didn’t have to go to church we did something quasi-religious: we went to the V&A to see the Kylie exhibition. She’s tiny, you know, Kylie. Saw her gold hotpants and the Showgirls tour costumes and that white cat suit thing from that video. Bought another postcard.

Spent the rest of the week (it was school half-term holidays, you know) in Gloucester, my home town. Visited St Mary-de-Crypt and stood in the pulpit from which George Whitefield preached. (He was a contemporary of the Wesleys and very influential on John, and had the greater impact in his day. And he was born and brought up in Gloucester. His parents had the Old Bell Inn in Southgate Street. He’s not much celebrated in Gloucester, sadly.)
Also did the Cathedral, obviously, including an exhibition about the extraordinary east window; had a cream tea in Bourton-on-the-water and visited the farm where Diana Smart makes the Double Gloucester cheeses that they roll down Cooper’s Hill. She also makes Single Gloucester – one of only four places that has the (cheese-making equivalent of) appellation controlee for Single Gloucester.

You see, we know how to have fun!

Deep joy,

Stratocastermagic

Rose & Alan Crete 2006

2006-12-09T22:36:00.000Z

Fantasmic!

2006-10-02T10:23:00.000+01:00

BBC NEWS | News Front Page

2006-09-09T07:05:00.000+01:00

BBC NEWS | News Front Page

2006-08-24T08:58:00.000+01:00

Rocky Horror Show June 2006

2006-06-30T16:37:00.000+01:00

My Webcam

2006-05-18T07:18:00.000+01:00

http://192.168.1.5/

Rose

2006-05-16T21:52:00.000+01:00

Not bad for a passport photo...

First Morning: Magic Kingdom

2006-05-06T17:46:00.000+01:00

Me juggling with fire (not very well)...

2006-04-27T18:22:00.000+01:00

Chris Bliss juggling...

2006-04-08T22:57:00.000+01:00

The Audrey V

2006-01-21T20:54:00.000Z

The woman I love... aaahh!

2006-01-11T21:47:00.000Z

#75. The Kingdom in Your Midst (Luke 17:20-25) -- JesusWalk

2005-11-09T22:33:00.000Z

#75. The Kingdom in Your Midst (Luke 17:20-25) -- JesusWalk

Why Do I Write?

2005-10-28T06:38:00.000+01:00

Why do I want to write? Writing is what makes me who I am. Or at least, I am most concretely myself in my writing. As someone more at home in the interior world of ideas than the exterior world of people and things – what most people call, the ‘real’ world - it is in writing that my true self emerges and I am the better able to exist in that ‘real’ world. Of course, there are glimpses of my real self in my family life, in conversation with friends, and in my work outside of writing. But in writing, I am in control of what it is that comes out and feel most truly myself.
My writing self has time to think and shape the ‘me’ that emerges in a way that the speaking self never can. The speaking ‘me’ is often disappointed by the ‘me’ that is projected into that outer space, the world. But the writing ‘me’ can look at what emerges and see a greater correspondence with the thinking ‘me’, the ‘me’ that I most readily recognise as myself.
I want to write to prove that I exist and that I am good! Of course, I’d like to sell my writing, to earn just enough to buy that farm-house in the Cotswolds – the one with the Roman villa in the garden. But right now, I’d settle for a magazine article or two and enough money to pay for the Writing Course.

"Sharpening The Saw"

2005-10-27T22:42:00.000+01:00

Writing is "sharpening the saw".
The plan is to use Fridays as my primary writing day - when Rose is at work. From September, I will also probably have a regular appointment on Friday mornings, and I have promised that I will have finished my week's work so that Saturdays can be free.
I'm not sure about using the bedroom (where I am now): the wireless internet connection is unreliable and I don't find this chair and table comfortable.
Alternatives include my study or the dining room (if I can have the laptop - maybe I'll earn enough as a writer to buy myself a laptop!) or going somewhere else entirely - like Warrington, taking my handheld and keyboard, which is what I am using to write this.
What do I need to write? A computer - desktop, laptop or handheld; the writer's course binder (Do I take this with me to Warrington? Or just the current module?). Do I need a notebook and pen? (Fountain pen would be nice.) Pencil.