Monday, September 05, 2005

Pride & Prejudice

On the news this morning, the presenters were talking about a new film adaptation of Jane Austen's "Pride & Prejudice". I can't believe it; this must be the umpteenth time in recent years, that this particular book has been adapted for TV/Film.

I'm not a great fan of Jane Austen literature, its not that I don't like a romantic story... I just don't like the setting. I dislike English culture from Georgian through to Edwardian times... the people were far too repressed. The language was wrong, the clothes were wrong... everything was just plain wrong. Those people needed soul! Generally, cultures seem to start descending downhill when the men start wearing tights! I think the rot probably started with the Norman invasion, prior to that the Celts and Saxons had been pretty passionate about their art, music and beliefs. After that with the aristocracies taking over... everything became about control.

Anyway, watching this news triggered an odd debate between me and my father (at 8:25am is an odd time for these things to happen).

It started with me moaning about the film and asking why it was so popular that it could be done to death again and again without people noticing. Dad believes that it is because the plot deals with the rights and wrongs of people living in a "have/have not" society, the poor being denied anything be it jobs or relationships... simply because of their station in life, which is always relevant to any audience.

That took us on to Hurricane Katrina, and how all the rich people got out... but the poorer ethnic communities by and large were the ones left behind to suffer; be they black, Cajun, Latino or native.

Then we hopped on to church matters. Dad pointed out that there are people in his church who are on a mission committee, but that they spend a lot of their time making contacts with people who are wealthy, using it as an excuse for hob-nobbing. Dad sees that as hypocritical as they are what he calls the "church, church" the people who make out that they are the most devout and yet they talk to the popular cliques, rather than reaching out to people who have no-one. When the money from that clique dries up... they move on to the next bunch.

I then spoke of my disgruntlement with the church. How I saw our diocese as being highly Pharisaical and corrupt. The Archbishop of Canterbury has urged Anglicans to "think global, act local". How can we do this, when the diocese keeps ratcheting up the parish share every year, it is THEY who are spending money doing the global stuff. We have to pay more and more to them... leaving practically nothing for community work or outreach in our own areas. If that wasn't bad enough, a year has passed and they still haven't appointed a new vicar... and yet they still insist on taking full payment for clergy personnel! Meanwhile, John and Trish are forced to provide constant leadership, which is an unfair burden for them. Hopefully as time goes on, more of us will be able to help them.

Proverbs 30:15 says the leech has two daughters, "Give! Give!" they cry. how is it any different with these people? I sincerely pray God convicts the General Synod and every diocese, I am getting so upset about it i am preparing to write an assertive letter to the higher echelons of church leadership. It's time the Anglican church got back to basics - early church basics.

After all this it was 8:40am and I had to scoot fast, as I had work.

No comments:

Post a comment

The ideas and thoughts represented in this page's plain text are unless otherwise stated reserved for the author. Please feel free to copy anything that inspires you, but provide a link to the original author when doing so.
Share your links easily.