Why do we like sales?

At this time of year, it's easy to be seduced by sales tickets, promising an item at a price advertised as significantly lower than at a previous time.  In the UK these sales have a code of practice which is supposed to protect consumers from the ploys of companies touting a discount where non actually exists. But we're still seduced by the purported value of the saving.. of getting something for less... and many stores get around the rules by advertising higher prices in remote stores for 28 days previously..

You would have spent £100, now you only have to spend £50... the ticket exclaims, but we somehow fail to acknowledge that the item still costs us £50 (and before the sale, probably would have cost us £50 if we'd have been considering the item for some time..)  A shop is rarely going to offer for sale an item cheaper than they bought it, and below the price they can afford to sell it.   A sale price then is often not only a lie, but in the promise of a 'saving' you in fact don't make, it's an additional deceptive sham.

• I wonder what it is that attracts us to such things?  
• Why are we so easily mislead?
• Do we value something more if it costs us less? 
• How much are our feelings involved in our decision making?
• What does it say about what we need v what we want?
• How much does 'impulsiveness' play in our shopping habits? - and what does that prove about the fruit of 'self - control?'

What about women in pastoral ministry?

God can and does use all sorts of people (some very unlikely at face value) to fulfil his purposes, the question perhaps though is 'can and does God call women to Teach or have Authority' to which I'm not sure I've heard a satisfactory answer that confirms YES.  I'm inclined to agree with John Piper’s/Wayne Grudem’s reasoning that [authoritive] leadership is male, and hence since preaching conveys ‘at least a notion that a person is sanctioned to address the church gathered in ways which would not preclude them from leadership/eldership of it' such a task is prohibited to women, notwithstanding that I also infer that the literal interpretation of the relevant verses (1 Tim 2:12, 1 Cor 14:34, 1_Cor 11:5 and others) makes the most hermeneutic sense. [I should clarify that I don’t think Paul’s intention was that women are totally silent, given the advice in 1 Cor 11:5]  more on these two themes here.

Now because I have a wife and daughters, I am mindful too of the effect of this position, and mindful too that no-one (especially not anyone who belongs to a body that believes in 'freedom') likes to be told that they *cannot* do something.. but if God does not call women to preach, then what (is it that they are being barred from that) causes them some notion of distress? It would be as ludicrous to me as being distressed that I am barred from giving birth or giving a child suck..  But even if I was certain that God does call women to Teach, why does that seemingly automatically follow that such calling need to be exercised within a pastoral context, and not say, within evangelism, women's ministries, missionary activity...? What drives the need to 'preach to the church' when they are prohibited (at least as far as I am currently concerned) with leading it...? The two things appear incongruous to me unless you also remove the prohibition to leadership which would be a next logical step, [and a step observable within several other denominations as one of the next lines..if preaching then why not leading, if leading then why not eldership?]. Whilst we are to employ logic, we may be on dangerous ground if we attempt to extend scripture on logic alone to suggest that scripture a + scripture b MUST LOGICALLY MEAN scripture c applies to whatever agenda we wish it to affect.

To be wonderfully vulnerable and transparent on this matter, and mindful that I may find few who agree with me, I, personally, would be more comfortable with exclusive male leadership within every serving and leading team within a body, not because of in-capabilities but because the kingdom order of headship appears to be male led within the family, and the church. Let me be clear though I am not a proponent of any form of subjugation of women, nor am I suggesting that they are unequal in respect of status in the kingdom of God. They are no lesser saved nor lessor inheritors...  far from it... but we really must distinguish function and authority from equally saved and equally heirs according to promise. Is Jesus greater than God the Father?  Do they fight among themselves secretly wishing that they can function as the other is doing?  If Jesus understood this key concept of submission, why don’t we?

Do I believe that men are infallible as a virtue of their sex.... far from it and I am (thankfully still living) testimony to that fact! Also I have great sympathy for those ladies who have had such poor examples of male leadership whether in the home or church that they have felt it necessary to step up to lead in the vacuum, but however understandable or mitigating it may be, I believe that practice to be in error and never enables either male or female to reach their full potential in Christ.

That there are some women preachers who are eloquent (and seemingly effective) speakers, does not imply retrospectively that they have been given authority to preach nor infers therefore an understanding of scripture that permits that activity.  Scripture must be a higher authority than our own wants, observations, or social cultural bias surely?  And of course eloquence is not the domain of either sex and I am certain that I have heard enough poor, uninspired, life sucking, sermons to fill many days from men! So it is not 'the sex' of a person that determines this but other factors which are not the subject of this post.

I recognize that this is a sensitive and topical issue for not just women but for men and indeed the [newfrontiers] church.  I welcome opportunities to examine my convictions in light of biblical argument, but I'm cautious of arguments based predominantly around attempting to negate biblical instruction as 'societal/cultural' emphasis....as we seem to have a habit of revising history to fit our uncomfortability with scripture!  In the meantime, I sit where I have outlined and because of the need to guard my heart against every wind of doctrine and a desire to test and approve what God's will is I cannot at this juncture submit myself to the teaching of a woman or to someone who suggests I must.

Ephesians 4:14-16
New Century Version (NCV)
14 Then we will no longer be babies. We will not be tossed about like a ship that the waves carry one way and then another. We will not be influenced by every new teaching we hear from people who are trying to fool us. They make plans and try any kind of trick to fool people into following the wrong path.15 No! Speaking the truth with love, we will grow up in every way into Christ, who is the head.16 The whole body depends on Christ, and all the parts of the body are joined and held together. Each part does its own work to make the whole body grow and be strong with love.

Getting the tension right

One of the things I find most difficult to get right is how to manage the work, home, life tension.  I’m fortunate in that I can work at home for the majority of time, but this often means that I blend home and work time and often home loses out.  Work is where we spend a lot of our energies and the bulk of our workdays,. making sure that work doesn’t encroach, but making sure I do a good job is tricky.  Add to that the need to spend time with friends and interact with people in our community and we can be stretched more ways than we can accommodate.

The principles that seem to be important here are :

• Try to listen as much to the Spirit as to people’s requests for time
• Don’t make promises I can’t keep
• Prioritise family over friends but be aware of strangers needs
• Ensure that rest isn’t sacrificed to activity
• Enjoy everything I do because our time is short

Love: Decision or Emotion?

 

Adrian Warnock suggests it is a decision.

Dale Krebbs argues it’s a decision and an emotion

So who is right?  Is there another view?

1. Does it matter as long as there are actions?
2. Does love proceed or precede the action? – to put it another way, can you ‘make love’ by acting loving towards people you don’t yet have feelings of love for?
3. Does our understanding of love work for all of love’s applications (romantic, brotherly, plutonic etc)
4. Does love grow or is it a feeling to be protected?
5. Does God choose to love (decision), or does he love (feeling)?

Thinking about marriage

There’s always been a bit of a furore about marriage and sex in Christian circles. I wonder is it possible that we confuse our biblical understanding of marriage, betrothal, engagement and responsibility when looking the lens of [western] legal marriage concepts and societal expectation and if so how easy is it for us to separate what we have practiced as the norm from what the bible actually says?

For a whole host of reasons, I’m not offering an answer to that question – this is after all a blog which captures some of my struggles to understand and live right and I wouldn’t want to knowingly or unknowingly [Rob Bell like] lead any reader to conclusions I don’t support - but I share below some of the questions that have challenged my assumptions/perspective…

• Hypothetically: If it could be proved that Jesus had a sexual relationship (with Mary Magdelene ) would that challenge His divinity, or our understanding of sex[ual sin]?
  • If Jesus did ‘kiss Mary on the mouth’ (as suggested in gnostic gospel of Philip), and ‘loved her more than the other disciples’ (as Philip and gospel of Mary Magdelene suggests) does that redefine what we might see as appropriate loving contact ‘prior’ to marriage [if we assume that had Jesus have been married it surely would have been recorded?]
• Might the growing trend towards co-habiting, civil partnership and alternative lifestyle choices in our communities require us to redefine how we speak about marriage so that we are clear about what we communicate is God’s plan? If indeed God has but one blueprint for the way in which each of us should live.
• In cultures where plural marriage is permitted by law would we define God’s understanding of marriage differently? (Does God actually care how many wives/husbands we have (or had?). Is it important that the Trinity is 3 not 2 persons? Do we speak of responsibility to wives rather than singular wife? Do we promote divorce as a method of ‘making right’ something which is ‘wrong’?)
• In cultures where there is no marriage ceremony but where there is an understanding of ‘belonging’ would we define sexual activity within that relationship to be sinful?  If not, how do we respond to co-habiting couples in the West? – ie what exactly are we communicating is biblically sinful? (sex without legal contract? sex without clarity of exclusivity?)
• Is it right to conclude that faithfulness is not about how many wives or concubines a husband might have, but how you care for them? 
  • Is marriage then more about faithful responsibility (provision and offspring) not sexual monogamy?
  • What then is the biblical definition of adultery? Since if one even looks with the eye at another he has committed adultery in his heart (even before a sexual act has taken place!)
• Paul seems to suggest [1 Corinthians 7:32-33] remaining single is preferable to marriage, and that marriage is reserved for ‘if you can’t control yourself’… [1 Cor 7:36] So is God for marriage or against it?
  • For elders and deacons is it essential they are married?…
  • or if they ‘are’ married essential for them to only be married to one woman (presumably at once)?  
  • What then do we make of ‘it is not good for man to be alone?’
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of men available to sire children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, wives and sex subtly change?
• If there was a global disaster which significantly affected the number of women available to bear children and continue the species, would our biblical understanding of marriage, husbands and sex be different than if men were in short supply?

 

What I’m pretty certain of is:

• Marriage is a good thing for lots of reasons. Some biblical, some practical. some personal
• Taking responsibility for each other is serious and important.
• Providing stable environments for child rearing is essential.
• Loving relationship (as an antidote to brokenness) is always on God’s heart.
• How we speak about how people live demonstrates to them what the kingdom of God is like.
• I don’t think Song of Song’s is primarily about God and us,  nor am I certain (from the text) that the sexual activity was exclusively post marriage. [but then I voted for the Alternative Vote so what do I know :) ] .

You may find some answers to the questions above in some of these links: (* determine for yourself their validity to speak on the subject) better still do your own research / ask your elder..

• http://www.bethinking.org/right-wrong/whats-wrong-with-sex-before-marriage.htm
• http://www.gracecentered.com/biblical_view_of_adultery.htm
• http://www.thelivingwordtbc.com/1cor23.htm
• http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2009/07/is-john-piper-okay-with-polygamy/

Is Newfrontiers abandoning it’s commitment to Male Leadership?

 

In 2008 Mark Driscoll addressed the Newfrontiers leaders conference and commended our movement for holding to the biblical principle of male Eldership. Following the conference a critique of Newfrontiers position by a methodist minister, Dave Warnock suggested that our understanding of scripture on this matter was incorrect and several of our newfrontiersbloggers attempted to clarify and explain the position.

To answer my principle question, I do not believe at this time that there is any credible suggestion that Newfrontiers is abandoning it’s commitment to male leadership, but in my own recent research looking at the media download sections of several UK Newfrontiers churches it is clear that our understanding of 1 Timothy 2:12 differs widely enabling nearly 40% of our churches to [occasionally] permit women to teach when the full congregation is assembled.  (Teaching is assumed to be an eldership function, and as such the preserve of men)

Among my research, I found even  Wendy Virgo addressed an assembled congregation in Horsham on Mothers day (though interestingly CCK in Brighton – until very recently the longtime home for Wendy and Terry - is not one of the congregations that has permitted a woman to take to the pulpit on a Sunday) and in the first minute of her talk she taught that  “we don’t usually make a habit of women preaching on Sunday’s but we do feel that at time’s it’s appropriate”.    I found that this statement was somewhat odd. Either, we have a ‘habit’ [Note: not a biblical principle] that prevents women from exercising their gifting to teach, preach and encourage or we believe that preaching and teaching to a congregation that includes men requires authority that is provided by church government which is exclusively male led.

However I don’t want to get into the discussion that would require greater theological mind(s) than mine to probe questions such as: what exactly is teaching, what  is someone doing when they speak from the assumed pulpit on a Sunday, can women speak formally as long as they don’t teach, is the teaching in 1 Tim 2:12 something that is in reference only to her husband, can single women then be free to teach since they have no ‘head’ in the home, can elders delegate their authority to others, can those that have been delegated to set direction and all such other questions… as these are not the subject of this post… .

The nub of my question is, since a number of our congregations draw the line of where women can teach in different places sufficient to allow some to teach the assembled church, and with many church denominations already opening governmental positions to women, does that mean it’s only a matter of time before one of our congregations elevates someone to the leadership team (beyond children’s or women’s ministry) and enables them to have a directive or authoritive role (rather than a complementarian influential one) in church governance?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For those who haven’t seen the vision and values statements or who haven’t been following Terry Virgo’s series on these statements here’s the relevant ones to this topic.

7. A church where Biblical family life is highly valued, where husband and wife embrace male servant leadership and joyful female submission, where godly parenting is taught and practised and where the special value of singleness and its unique opportunities are affirmed.

8. A church led by male elders (one of whom is clearly understood to be gifted to be lead elder) who are ordained by the Holy Spirit, recognised and confirmed through apostolic ministry. These men are to be helped in fulfilling their calling through ongoing fellowship with trans-local ministries.

Contesting the incontestable: No2AV/Yes2AV debate

 

It is undeniable that the Alternative Vote (AV) system produces a result that is different from first past the post (FPTP) in constituencies where there isn’t a clear favourite among that electorate.   That AV doesn’t favour (nationally) either of the main parties (as FPTP does) is to its credit because it levels the playing field on which parties with broad support can compete.

• Voting to keep FPTP (because you don’t like AV or you would prefer Proportional Representation (PR) is saying to the government that you are not interested in electoral reform and support the current demonstrably unfair system
• FPTP is unfair in a race with more than 2 candidates, because in nearly every election, the winning candidate will only gain the support of around a 1/3rd of the electorate that bothered to turn out. In FPTP a candidate wins with a minority. 

 

According to the Telegraph.. Twenty MPs from the new intake – ten Labour and ten Conservative – have listed ten incontestable objections to the Alternative Vote system.  (Telegraph points in Italics, my response in normal case)

1. AV IS OBSCURE: Only three countries in the world use AV for their national elections: Fiji, Australia, and Papua New Guinea
1. It is correct to say that AV is only in use for national elections by three countries, but even in the UK there are many different forms of alternative voting that take place for different ballots.  In that regard AV is not obscure, but actually favoured for some elections including the election of the conservative leader!
2. The banality of this argument is obvious though… and one of principle, like saying that we shouldn’t have an NHS because other countries don’t.
   
2. AV IS UNFAIR: Supporters of fringe parties can end up having their vote counted five or six times – and potentially decide the outcome of the election – while people who backed the mainstream candidates only get one vote.
1. Alternative votes only come into play if there isn’t a candidate that passes 50% of the turnout in the constituency AND because their first preference is eliminated.
2. I understand that there will be a threshold in which the votes for fringe parties will be reallocated in the event that none of the candidates reaches that 50% in the first place.
3. This position assumes that those who might vote green or UKIP or even BNP would choose to show a preference for any other party than their own… or at least another one that might raise enough support across the constituency…  In the case of extremist politics, I think that’s highly unlikely.
4. In reality everyone’s vote in AV is counted the same amount of times in the constituency until there is a clear winner. What changes is the allocation of the vote preference. (your principle vote for a labour candidate or a conservative one will most likely be counted in every round against your first choice candidate)
5. In relation to the existing system, FPTP national elections are decided by a small number of marginal constituencies. All this proves is that with each proposed system there is some level of unfairness to some, the question is, is AV more fair than what we have now or less?
   
3. AV IS UNEQUAL: AV treats someone’s fifth or sixth choice as having the same importance as someone’s else’s first preference – but there is a big difference between positively wanting one candidate to win and being able to ‘put up with’ another.
1. No, AV treats someone’s second or third choice with a similar importance in the event that no clear winner is determined.
2. The truth is under AV EVERY voter has an equal chance of influencing the result. – This cannot be said about FPTP.
3. In FPTP, everyone who tactically votes is likely to be voting for who there 2^nd ,3^rd , 4^th etc choice.
   
4. AV IS ‘EVEN LESS PROPORTIONAL’ THAN THE CURRENT SYSTEM: So concluded the independent Royal Commission chaired by the senior Liberal Democrat Roy Jenkins in 1998.
1. Though the Jenkins report suggested that AV could produce IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES even less proportional results than the current system, the recommendation was that the best system for Britain was AV+ where 80-85% of constituency members would be elected ordinarily through AV whilst the remaining 15-20% would be elected on a corrective top-up basis. But regardless, the general point is moot because neither AV nor FPTP claim to be proportional.
2. AV isn’t proportional representation, nor does it claim to be.  It is simply a method of enabling more people’s vote to be ‘FOR’ a candidate or candidates, reducing the amount of wasted votes and enabling more people to be engaged with politics, and the result.
3. The reality is that the result will reflect the choices people actually make.  In recent history the most likely outcome is more seats for Liberal Democrats. (if you consider the actual share of the vote nationally)
   
5. AV IS ‘DISTURBINGLY UNPREDICTABLE’ – another warning from Roy Jenkins. Elections fought under AV would either wildly increase the majority of the winning party (e.g. Labour in 1997, the Tories in the 1980s) or create hung parliaments by giving the balance of power to the third party.
1. This is nonsense.  With FPTP with more than 2 parties and electoral constituencies with massaged boundaries the only predictable thing about FPTP is that the result won’t reflect the will of the majority of the UK.
2. The reality is that democracy, when allowed to be truly democratic, is unpredictable. I think that is a good thing, because it will return politics to issues.
   
6. AV IS NOT WANTED – EVEN BY THE YES CAMPAIGN: Before the general election, Nick Clegg described AV as “a miserable little compromise” and the Electoral Reform Society said they did “not regard it as suitable for the election of a representative body, e.g. a parliament”.
1. What is not wanted is AV to be the system that endures, but nearly all see AV as a stepping stone towards PR.   The likelihood is that if we don’t vote against FPTP by voting for AV, you will not get another chance to change the electoral system in the UK.
2. If AV is not wanted, then that is what the outcome of the referendum should decide.  But I want it (over FPTP) and so do lots of others. So the general statement is not only incorrect, it is also premature.
   
7. AV IS NO-ONE’S FIRST CHOICE: AV was not in the manifestos of either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats. Many people who want voting reform have spent years campaigning for proportional representation – which AV is not.
1. The Liberals would prefer PR to be on the ballot paper. It isn’t.  Given that the only options are FPTP and AV, AV is the first choice.
2. NO ONE voted for the coalition manifesto. That doesn’t mean the same as No one wants electoral reform 
3. The referendum is on which is BETTER, not which one is perfect.  I can’t see that FPTP is better than AV.. though I can certainly see faults with both.
   
8. AV IS COMPLEX: The Government will have to spend millions of pounds explaining to voters how AV works to prevent a fall in turnout at elections. In Australia, the only reason they have high turnout is because they made voting compulsory.
1. This is a nonsense too.  In Australia after AV was introduced the turnout rose.. This was BEFORE they introduced compulsory voting.
2. Anyone who can count to three can vote in AV. It takes no explaining.  Rank your preference 1^st choice, 2^nd, 3^rd.
3. I agree that voting should be compulsory (even if people only spoil their paper)  but with turnout being voluntary no-one really knows if it will increase or decrease.. wouldn’t it be interesting to try?
4. My own view is that anything that rewards peoples action to vote is likely to encourage voting.
   
9. AV IS EXPENSIVE: Under AV we won’t be able to count ballot papers by hand on election night if we want a quick, decisive election result. Local councils will have to purchase electronic counting machines that are very expensive and prone to malfunction.
1. This has already been refuted.  Manual counting is not just possible, but possible in similar time. 
2. Where there is a clear winner, the count will be exactly the same
3. In the event of reallocation of votes, the second and third rounds will take much less time because only some votes are being reallocated.
4. The benefit of electronic means of recording or counting the vote is a separate issue to be addressed whichever system of voting is used.
   
10. AV IS NOT THE REFORM WE NEED: There are lots of genuine reforms which would go some way to restoring people’s trust in politics – but changing our voting system to AV is not one of them. That’s why it’s a shame that we’re about to spend £90 million and five months debating a system that nobody really wants.
1. I agree that other reforms are needed. But that doesn’t mean this one isn’t needed, and this is the one before us on May 5^th.
2. Do you think it is likely that the Government will offer further reforms if we don’t turn out to vote?

Which Supermarket is the most ‘ethical’

 

Last Sunday I was in Southampton and I heard a compelling argument for why Christians needed to be concerned with ethical practices of the stores they used.  Now I’m not hippie (though it’s true I drive a 73 VW camper van), and considerations of where we buy our food, clothes and products for a family of 6 has usually come down to ‘where is the cheapest’. 

On that Sunday, I heard the suggestion that Tesco and Asda (Walmart) were amongst the least ethical, and in my own internet research I’ve had to look hard to find ethical claims or policies for other supermarkets. (even before you get into looking at the issue of large supermarkets killing off town centres, reducing overall employment and pricing little local guys and convenience stores out of business.)

For the preacher, the overriding principle (or golden rule) that we should look at when determining our purchasing is:  Matthew 7:12 (ESV)

¹²"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

at first glance this doesn’t seem to be relevant to the discussion until you see what the effects are of shopping in a place known to use exploitative labour.  The net effect is that I’m saying it’s OK to exploit child labour, underpaid labour, stupidly long manual labour so that I can have produce at a cost I want to pay… and given the above, I therefore acknowledge that I want to be exploited so someone else can have what they want at the price they want…  - see the problem?

Three things have begun to concern me (and I must confess at this point, I’m at the beginning of a journey, not anywhere near to reaching fully actionable conclusions across the board)…

1. Purchasing locally, from local producers ensures a local economy, local jobs, and fewer miles travelled (carbon footprint) why then do I (or any of us) need to purchase items that have travelled hundreds if not thousands of miles and have had to be covered in chemicals to keep them ‘fresh’.   But where I struggle here is that even though the conditions may be squallid and I wouldn’t ‘choose’ to work in them, in an environment where there is such mass poverty and very few jobs am I hurting them all the more by not buying the produce that is bought?  Certainly the effect on the ‘chain’ from UK is very likely to be nil by the inclusion or exclusion of my money, so I will also need to look at what I can do to work positively in the local regions of the food producers.  It really isn’t as simple as boycotting something and promoting something else.
2. What I’ve NOT seen to date is Supermarkets INVESTING in production environments to enable reductions of production costs.  So for supermarkets to be able to undercut other providers either means they,
   • have to carry an item at a loss,
   • have to squeeze the producer for the lowest possible cost,
   • use unscrupulous methods to produce, transport and provision items for our consumption. 
3. I am stinking rich compared to any folk in the developing world. I have stuff, far more stuff than I need and far more than I use. I am wasteful and materialistic, my surroundings are deferentially comfortable but not basic, I have more electronics than required to do my job.  I don’t turn things off to save power, I don’t consider walking much instead of driving and I’ve rarely thought about the effect on people other than those that I can see in the way I’ve chosen to live my life.

There may be all sorts of objections to what I’m concerned about, some legitimate, some just belly aching that perhaps we might have to examine another area of how we live… and it’s certainly easy for me to come up with objections of why this is not a current priority for me, and why it needn’t be for the church of God.

What struck me though in my own reflections on this, is the following 2 verses in Matthew 7

¹³ Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. ¹⁴For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few”.

I don’t want to infer that because the doors of Tesco (say) are wide they are the route to destruction… but just because a lot of people travel through them, doesn’t make it right.

So what am I doing about it?

• Food: Francine and I are discussing changing our food shopping habits.  This is painful for us because while there are two supermarkets that have ethical policies that seem very much on the right lines (co-op and Morrisons) neither deliver, which means that there is a cost right there to Francine in how we do shopping and how much time and effort it is going to make (Francine is not a woman that enjoys shopping!)  it is also going to mean that we will have to drive to a supermarket/town to get items that we would have had delivered and shared the cost of delivery with the other shoppers on our round… so there’s an actual cost…   and then there’s the inconvenience of having to get used to a whole new shopping place/items and costs… at best these will be opportunity costs, but I suspect there will also be some real cash costs to this too.
• What I’m finding particularly hard to work out is if the situation for any supermarkets has actually changed.. – I’ve read articles like this one that suggest that Tesco is being forced to review it’s policies, but that was 2007. Connecting the dots and finding out what the position is now, is very hard.
• At the moment I have no idea what this means to the budget for NEWDAY when we will be food shopping daily for around 80 people… Do I have a right or a responsibility to enforce ethical shopping on everyone else?  Especially when several of those people will be ones who can ill afford any increase in cost.  A thorny question indeed..
• Clothing: With very few exceptions I’ve been happy to buy my shoes from ebay and my clothes from Tesco. I’ve even bought things from Primark. I have looked in charity shops and have bought the odd ‘for best’ item for weddings or events from more expensive shops.   I will have to review where I can shop, and make more ethical choices…   I’m not sure if there are resources I can find to help me..  seems to me I could be making more ‘expensive’ mistakes, and I’d hate for those to go to the hands of business leaders rather than to the hands of manufacturers labourers where families would be fed.
• Banking: We’ve been making use of a one account.  This has enabled us to increase cash flow, which in turn has enabled us to be generous with giving.   I have no idea at this point how ethically each bank is run (and whether that ethicalness is limited to retail or investment sectors, or whether that should matter.  What I am certain of, is that if we need to move banks and ergo the mortgage that’s gonna cost us.
• Environment:  How we treat the planet is not a hippie notion, and my current selfish view of ‘the effects are unlikely to be significant for hundreds of years – assuming there are effects that we control’ just isn’t gonna cut it.  I’m going to have to consider if it is justifiable to work 100 miles away from home and whether the transport I use to get to there is protecting the environment I would want to inherit if I was to be born in 300 years time.  I need to consider the damage I’m doing by what I consume and what I throw away.   This is a big area to think about, and it’s gonna take some time to research it.

I’m sure there are going to be other things I need to consider.. but it’s a start, no?

Here are some resources I’ve pulled together which might help anyone else thinking of starting off down this road

• Why buy Ethically
• What is FairTrade?
• What is Christian Ethics?
• Make Wealth History
• OXFAM strategic plan