Twilight

I read the Twilight Saga this summer. I wanted to know what all the fuss is about. Now I've read them, I'm still not sure what all the fuss is about.

I guess they're easy to read, which helps with the whole popularity thing. There's kissing and fighting, so maybe something for everyone?

But generally, I found the series unfulfilling, disappointing and unconvincing, mainly for the following reasons.

1. 
   
   The classic vampire mythology (coffins, stakes etc.) is dismissed as (I quote) 'all myth', allowing Meyer to set up her new 'sexy vampire' mythology. This is convenient but flawed, because now I could write a book about vampires and dismiss classic vampires and Meyer's vampires as 'mythology' and write that real vampires are actually made of jelly and smell of lavender, and actually prefer a diet of lettuce and rubber. That Meyer shows such disrespect for the fantasy/horror genre mildly insults me, and I'm not even a particularly ardent fan of that genre. Compare with (inevitably) Rowling, who takes the original mythology of ghosts, werewolves, dragons, sphinxes etc, and applies it to her stories, while maintaining the integrity of the original myths.
2. 
   
   The story centres around the relationship between Bella and Edward, which is fine – it's basically a romance story. Not particularly my thing, but that's ok. But their relationship is portrayed as so perfect! When they're together, they never seriously argue, or if they do it's written in a very light-hearted way. Also, Bella's descriptions of Edward focus on his 'perfect, godlike body' and 'flawless, angelic face'. Only once that I can remember does she describe what she likes about his character, and that is only when someone directly asks her. This is all both vomit-inducing and unrealistic, and basically emotional pornography.
3. 
   
   The story, while easy to read, is mostly slow paced. For large sections, nothing actually happens. There's no pace or excitement, which is a bit of a problem for novels that try to mix the genres of romance and fantasy. Only for a few chapters part way through book 4 was I really gripped, and that was possibly because the focus was off the two rather boring lead characters and on Jacob, who is way more interesting but gets much less page time.
4. 
   
   Several times, questions were set up and kept me pondering, and then never actually answered. For example, the question of exactly why Bella smells so good to both Edward and James is set up in book one, as though it will be revealed later and will form a vital plot point or twist. In fact, it is never revealed. This is very disappointing. Again, contrast with Rowling, who sets things up in one book and reveals their importance 4, 5, 6 books later.
5. 
   
   Most of the story is written first person from Bella's point of view. A short section is from Jacob's POV – this is a really nice change but unfortunately comes across as gimmicky because it is the only other POV used and is relatively short. If the books had had several POVs, or if Jacob's POVs had been more like 40-50% of the series, it would have worked. Written as it is, it doesn't.
6. 
   
   There are so many deus ex machinas! For example, how the two alpha's discover they can communicate, how Nessie can communicate to Bella and not get stopped by Bella's shield, and, the massive one, how Jacob imprints on Nessie (disgustingly and unconvincingly convenient) – I thought Meyer was having a laugh and was about to say 'only kidding, that would be stupid!'
7. 
   
   By the fourth book, the series had become something of an X-men ripoff. Every other vampire has some sort of superpower (the origins of which are disappointingly not explained) and all the talk is of how to combine the powers to win the battle and how to take out the enemy vampires with key powers etc, etc. All very well but painfully unoriginal.
8. 
   
   There is no payoff at the end of the story, no climax. Everything is set up nicely for a big confrontation, and then they all say sorry and go home! No-one even dies (well, only one minor character who we've never actually met before and therefore have no attachment to). An incredibly weak ending.

Overall, a big disappointment. Ok, so I wasn't expecting a masterpiece, but I also wasn't expecting to be so continually disappointed and bored. It seemed as though some author somewhere had written some really good books, and I was reading some trashy fanfiction based on them.

Reviews such as 'Move over, Harry Potter' are at best laughable and at worst blasphemous, and I side with Stephen King, who said "the real difference between J.K. Rowling and Meyer is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer, and Stephenie Meyer can't write a darn.  She's not very good."

Lifehouse Intros

I have a friend called Joe. There are many reasons that I like Joe. One reason is that he doesn't get annoyed by my habit of creating lists and rankings of bands, songs, films, books, sports teams etc. A second reason is that he actively encourages me and does the same himself. It often gets silly – a couple of weeks ago we were debating the 'Five Greatest Lifehouse Intros'. After some cogitation, here is my ranking – not just 5, but 10 (I am so cool...).

1. Quasimodo
2. Take Me Away
3. Disarray
4. Blind
5. Smoke and Mirrors
6. Just Another Name
7. Spin
8. Anchor
9. Easier To Be
10. Unknown

Inception

Warning: Some spoilers below. If you haven't seen this film, don't read on. Watch it instead. At least twice. Here's the trailer, if you're interested.

Inception, directed my Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Cillian Murphy and Ellen Page, is the story of Dom Cobb (DiCaprio), an 'extractor', who can enter people's dreams and extract information from their minds – kind of psychological espionage. Cobb and his team, including Aridane (Page), are hired to perform 'inception' – the opposite of extraction – the planting of an idea in a target's (Murphy) mind without detection.

It's basically a crime/action thriller, with some psychological stuff thrown in. There is plenty of action and suspense, but with a very complex plot that makes the heist in Ocean's Eleven look painfully obvious. Added to these are brilliantly conceived ideas about how dreams work and a very personal story following DiCaprio's character.

The film was well received by critics and the public (87% on Rotten Tomatoes). In my opinion, it is about 50 times as good as Avatar and an early contender for film of the decade. It is genuinely one of the best films I have ever seen. That's one reason I saw it 3 times at the cinema (an honour only otherwise given to the three Lord of the Rings films). The other reason is that there's so much in the film that second and third viewings were necessary – the second to completely get to grips with the plot and themes, and the third to look out for hints about a theory a friend and I had about the film.

I will now attempt to explain exactly why the film is so good.

1. The plot. The storyline is involved and gripping. It is complex but well-explained. It makes you concentrate but doesn't make concentration a chore. There is plenty of suspense, but it is genuine rather than forced and interspersed with humour.
2. The concept. The idea of sharing dreams and extracting and planting information is interesting but fairly unremarkable, but the way Nolan incorporates so many features of dreams (e.g. they seem real while you're dreaming, they seem to last a lot longer than the 5-minutes or so of real time that you dream for, you start in the middle of a dream and can't remember how you got there) is very clever and makes the concept convincing. Combined with the complexity of the plot, this makes you think a lot and gives plenty to talk about.
3. Ambiguity. The ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation, but not in intriguing rather than an annoying way. In fact, the whole film can be interpreted in various ways. This has given rise to multiple internet discussions and theories in a very similar way to The Matrix about 10 years ago. Again, this makes you think hard, which most people don't do enough.
4. Cobb's story. Dom Cobb (DiCaprio) has a very personal motivation for taking the job offered to him, and his story (and backstory) gives the film a very personal angle as well as the standard heist/action stuff, and also adds a lot of suspense and tension, shown in the interactions between some of the team.
5. Score. The music is by Hanz Zimmer, who I consider to be one of the top 3 composers in film. In many films the music is good but nothing to write home about, but Zimmer's score is excellent and really adds to the mood of the film.
6. Effects. One effect in particular – a hotel corridor with gravity that keeps changing direction, filmed in a revolving set. This produces one of the coolest fight scenes ever.

Seriously, make sure you see this film – you won't regret it.

Films of the decade

Having produced a series of 'Albums of the Decade' posts at the end of 2009, I thought I should also produce a 'Films of the Decade' list. I tried to do this, but couldn't get 10. I either got stuck on about 4, or, having included a few more, rapidly shot up to about 15. So instead of going for the best films of the noughties, I've picked out 10 films from that decade that, for various reasons, you should watch. This is not my top 10 (you'll notice an absence of Stardust, Shrek 2, The Prestige, Equilibrium and others that would have been contenders). Instead, it's just 10 films I recommend that you watch, if you haven't already. Films in alphabetical order. Links take you to trailers.

A Beautiful Mind (2001)

Because it's some of the best writing and acting of the decade and because it's a superb portrayal of John Nash's life.

Bridge to Terabithia (2007)

Because it's jointly the most moving film I've ever seen (with Return of the King) and because its message is an important one.  Review here.

Gladiator (2000)

Because it's just awesome - acting, script, action, music...you name it.

The Lord Of The Rings (2001-2003)

Because it's the best damn film ever. Do not argue with me!

Memento (2000)

Because the storytelling style is so unique and because it will make you think hard, which is something you don't do enough.

Moulin Rouge (2001)

Because of it's unique wackyness and because it's actually a really good film too.

Shrek (2001)

Because it's the one of the cleverest films of the decade, and also very funny and moving.

The Dark Knight (2008)

Because it's almost the perfect action film, and because Christopher Nolan deserves to be on this list twice.

The Last King of Scotland (2006)

Because even though I'm not very into this sort of film, this one gripped me, and because the lead actors are superb.

Up (2009)

Because it represents so much about Pixar – excellent animation, the ability to make moving films about animated characters, and their strongest theme of unlikely friendships.

Playground games

I'm just wondering...what are your top five playground games?  I think mine are:
1. Bulldog
2. Forty-forty home
3. Build up tag
4. Off-ground tag
5. What's the time, Mr Wolf?

...and all the Kings men

About a year ago, I read a book called 'Why Men Hate Going To Church', by David Murrow. It was basically about why and how the church is geared more towards women than men. One thing the book discussed was the relative proportions of women and men attending church services.

I decided to find out what sort of 'gender gap' my own church, Kings Church Durham, has. Each Sunday service from September 2009 to July 2010 I counted the number of over-18 men and women at Kings. I decided on the over-18 cutoff because young children are generally brought to church by their parents, rather than of their own accord and, while teenagers tend to have more choice, I had to make a cutoff somewhere.

I counted numbers at each different type of Kings meeting – Morning Worship, Crux, Connecting with God, prayer evenings, evening services, evening guest services and the AGM. I used the numbers to produce a simple percentage – the percentage of the congregation that were male. I also calculated a 'minus team percentage' – the percentage if the 6 female and 10 male staff and interns are discounted, as they are required at the services as part of the job.

All this resulted in many Excel spreadsheets and graphs, but the most important are below:

The average totals for each service are interesting but not that unexpected. For reference, the most people at any service was on 11^th October, at 313 people. This was the first Sunday of the student year. The highest at Crux was 48, Connecting was 149 and prayer meeting was 52.

The male percentages are much more interesting. Here they are in table form:

Service type	Male %	Male % minus team
Morning Worship	43.26	41.5
Crux	61.32	60.48
Connecting	41.61	38.59
Evening (joint)	39.66	34.51
Evening Guest	42.59	40.41
Prayer meeting	49.87	42.19
AGM	55.56	51.72
Average over all services	43.9	41.31

So, overall, Kings has averaged 43.9% this academic year (41.31 excluding team). Morning worship is typical of this percentage. Connecting, joint evening services and evening guest services are slightly lower. Prayer meetings, the AGM and Crux get successively higher, up to 61.32% male at Crux (60.48 excluding team).

A few comments:

• 
  
  Surveys seem to show that male % in churches is generally below 40%, so Kings is doing better than average, but still well below 50%.
• 
  
  Possible explanations for the variations in services are: Connecting and similar services have lower percentages because they are more 'emotional', crux is higher because it is more 'academic', prayer meetings and AGM are higher showing a balanced (or even male dominated) 'core' in the church but a female dominated periphery or studentdom.
• 
  
  This survey does not examine male percentages within certain age groups.
• 
  
  This survey is purely attendance based, it does not look at involvement in cell groups and other church activities (though I would hazard a guess that the only church activities which are male dominated are setup and worship).
• 
  
  The December 2009 address list give a male % of 44.29%. The most up to date cell list gives 43.93%. These are consistent with average service attendance.
• 
  
  Not all services were counted. Sometimes I was either absent or not in a position to count.

The overall message?

1. 
   
   Kings, like almost every church, needs more men.
2. 
   
   There is something about Crux, prayer meetings and the AGM that attracts more men than women.

Hebron memories

Long time, no blog. It's been a busy few weeks with moving house, my housemate's wedding and the end of term. But here are the summer holidays. 6 weeks until school restarts.

At this time of the year, I would normally be in Dinas Powys in South Wales, a few miles outside Cardiff, leading a Scripture Union camp called Hebron. I've been to Hebron ten times, but 2009 was the final time we ran it. For various reasons, it was decided that Hebron would cease to run from 2010.

I heard this news in November 2009. It has taken me this long to write about it because I wanted to let the news sink in completely first. This has taken a while because of the deep impact Hebron has had on my life over the last decade.

I first went to Hebron in July 1999. I'd had a rough year at school (year 9), and did not enjoy my church at all. I was vaguely adolescent which just made me feel weird too, as it does to all teenagers.

I went to Hebron that year with 2 friends, Daniel and Tom. I won't try to describe what the camp was like, partly because I am nowhere near eloquent enough to do it justice, and partly because each Hebron year tends to fade into several others. But I remember a few things specifically, from that first year and the following two.

1. I met a whole bunch of people who were in the same situation as me – struggling at school, trying to hold together a faith, and just looking for some support or even just someone to say 'me too'. Rob, Kirsty, Jo and Paul are all people with whom I am no longer in touch, but they had a deep effect on my life over those three years.
2. My friends from camp, and also the leaders, loved me for who I was. This sounds cliched, but I hadn't reached the stage at school (an all-boys grammar school) where proper friendships had formed. At Hebron they did, and I was accepted for being me, not bullied into being someone else. The leaders in particular were inspirational in their love, service and respect for us.
3. I really connected with the worship times at Hebron. The worship at my home church was a complete turn off but at Hebron, like at Spring Harvest, I met with God in ways that I didn't elsewhere.

Hebron 99, 2000 and 2001 saved my faith, for the reasons above and for other reasons. It changed my life. I remember the 5-a-side football competition, the puppet workshops and performances (Heavenly Pie!), the BBQ on the lawn, round the table table tennis, going to see Shrek and The Phantom Menace at the cinema, visiting the Big Pit, Nexus, Rob climbing inside the pool table, buzz groups, wallball (the greatest game you've never played), Paul's hair, the shadow wall at Techniquest, breakfast talks, pitch and putt at Barry Park, Colin yelling 'Freedom!' and nearly giving us all a heart attack, Phil and Becky just sitting with me for about an hour on the last night of 2000, Matt's underwear theft, signing notebooks (in the days before MSN!), trying to sneak into the girls corridor, and last-night testimonies showing how it was my no means just me who owed their faith to that camp.

For the next seven years I returned to Hebron as a leader. I'd done a bit of youth work before, I was in love with Hebron, and I felt like I owed about 50 weeks of leadership and service to it. I knew leading would be different and tried not to draw comparisons with being a camper. But, me being me, I inevitably compared and the conclusion was clear. Being a leader was what it was all about for me. I was wired just right to be a leader on that camp. It was completely natural for me, and, while I've done youth work in lots of other contexts, I've never felt the same way about it as while I was at Hebron. Many of the most emotional times of my life have been when leading at Hebron. What made it so significant?

It was a chance to give back to the place, the people and the event that had changed my life. It was a chance to work with teenagers, who are far more interesting and exciting than adults. I worked on a team with some great friends like Becky, Dan, Dave and Ruth, Paul, Jenny, Amy, Matt and Phil. And worked under two of the most amazing Christian leaders I know, Colin and Margy, learning from them and being guided and encouraged by them. I could to use my gifts in preaching, organising and puppetry(!). I saw so many lives changed over those seven years. I saw people meet God for the first time, meet him in new ways, recommit their lives to him, discover his calling on their lives, grow in knowledge and giftings, and build such strong friendships with each other.

I remember blaring music on the minibuses, powerboating in Cardiff bay, the prayer tents, death swimming, shower pranks, washing up teams, the animal game on the sofas, running the bank, building towers of squash bottles, trying to learn the names of 65 teenagers on the first day, wandering round Cardiff city centre, sardines, football on the beach, piggy-backs in the sea, telling the doughnut story and explaining that God owns all your jeans, late night walks with other leaders, early morning prayer meetings, booking cinema tickets for 80 people, getting a turkey at tenpin bowling and beating Tom by a point, sleepovers in Rising Brook church, finding out that Dan lived with Aaron from Strangeday, Father Abraham, the prayer evening in 2007, sleeping in the tiniest room with Dan and Paul, the lying down game, fancy dress parties, Phil's 50^th birthday. Most of all I remember watching kids worship. This is still one of the things that is most guaranteed to make me cry – seeing teenagers worship. My favourite photo in the world is of one of the worship times at Hebron 2005.

Hebron had an unexplainable impact on my life. Colin and Margy were like parents to me when I was there, and I can't thank them enough for all the support and opportunities they gave me. I am still very sad that Hebron is over, but very grateful for the effect it has had on me.

A pebble in the moonlight

This is one of my favourite pieces of writing.  It's from a novel called Waylander, by David Gemmell.

I love how it describes fear, and overcoming it.

Danyal was awake, her lip swollen and a bruise on her cheek. Caymal sat beside her. The wagon was cramped and the baker's two young children were sleeping beside Danyal.

'Thank you', she said, forcing a smile.

'They will not trouble you again.'

Caymal eased himself past Waylander and climbed out over the tailboard. Waylander moved up to sit beside Danyal. 'Are you hurt?' he asked.

'No. Not much anyway. Did you kill them?'

'Yes.'

'How is it you can do these things?'

'Practice,' he said.

'No, that's not what I meant. Caymal tried to stop the man...and Caymal is strong, but he was brushed aside like a child.'

'It is all about fear, Danyal. Do you want to rest now?'

'No, I want some air. Let's walk somewhere.'

He helped her from the wagon and they walked to the cliff face and sat on the rocks.

'Tell me about fear,' she said.

He walked away from her and stooped to lift a pebble.

'Catch this,' he said, flicking the stone towards her. Her hand snaked out and she caught the pebble deftly. 'That was easy, was it not?'

'Yes,' she admitted.

'Now if I had Krylla and Miriel here, and two men had knives at their throats and you were told that if you missed the pebble they would die, would it still be easy to catch? Think of those times in your life when you were nervous, and your movements became disjointed.

'Fear makes fools of us all. So too does anger, rage and excitement. And then we move too fast and there is no control. You follow me?'

'I think so. When I had to give my first performance before the King of Drenan, I froze. All I had to do was walk across the stage, but my legs felt as if they were carved from wood.'

'That is it. Exactly! The onset of fear makes the simplest of actions complex and difficult. No more so than when we fight...and I can fight better than most because I bring all my concentration to bear on the small things. The pebble remains a pebble, no matter what hangs upon success or failure.

'Can you teach me?'

'I don't have time.'

'You are not obeying your own mantra. This is a small thing. Forget the quest and concentrate on me, Waylander – I need to learn.'

'How to fight?'

'No – how to conquer fear. Then you can teach me to fight.'

'Very well. Start by telling me what is fear?'

'An ending.'

'Make it worse.'

'Maggots and grey rotting flesh?'

'Good. And where are you?'

'Gone. Finished.'

'Do you feel anything?'

'No...perhaps. If there is a paradise.'

'Forget paradise.'

'Then I feel nothing. I am no longer alive.'

'This death, can you avoid it?'

'Of course not.'

'But you can delay it?'

'Yes.'

'And what will that give you?'

'The prospect of more happiness.'

'But at worst?'

'The prospect of more pain,' she said. 'Old age, wrinkles, decay.'

'Which is worse? Death or decay?'

'I am young. At the moment I fear both.'

'To conquer fear, you must realise that there is no escape from what you dread. You must absorb it/. Live with it. Taste it. Understand it. Overcome it.'

'I understand that,' she said.

'Good. What do you fear most at this moment?'

'I fear losing you.'

He moved away from her and lifted a pebble. Clouds partly obscured the moonlight and she strained to see his hand.

'I am going to throw this to you,' he said. 'If you catch it, you stay – if you miss it, you return to Skarta.'

'No, that's not fair! The light is poor.'

'Life is not fair, Danyal. If you do not agree, I shall ride away from the wagons alone.'

'Then I agree.'

Without another word he flicked the stone towards her – a bad throw, moving fast and to her left. Her hand flashed out and the pebble bounced against her palm, but she caught it at the second attempt. Relief swept through her and her eyes were triumphant.

'Why so pleased?' he asked.

'I won!'

'No. Tell me what you did.'

'I conquered my fear?'

'No.'

'Well, what then? I don't understand you.'

'But you must, if you wish to learn.'

Suddenly she smiles. 'I understand they mystery, Waylander.'

'Then tell me what you did.'

'I caught a pebble in the moonlight.'

Just catch the pebble.

Why England got knocked out

This is my World Cup rant. Enjoy. Here are the reasons England had a poor world cup:

1. Terry's affair. What a donkey. Because of John Terry's lack of faithfulness and self-control he lost the captaincy, his form dropped, and the squad lost unity, probably thinking 'I wonder if he's been screwing my wife too'.
2. Squad selection. Lennon, Wright-Phillips and Walcott are identical players, and none of them are that useful I agree with Capello that Lennon is the best of the three, but SWP was a waste of a squad place. He should not have been on the plane. I'm not sure who I would have taken instead – maybe Downing or Bent.
3. Ferdinand/King injuries. With Terry off form, We really needed Rio, both as a pacey defender and a captain. His injury was bad luck. Then King's injury was even worse luck.
4. Lennon was poor. No delivery. Not good enough. Milner was better.
5. Green's mistake. One of those things you can't predict, but it made a difference. It's not an excuse though, England should have still had enough to beat USA.
6. SWP coming on as sub. He's the same as Lennon, but even worse. He has no delivery. He should not be playing.
7. The Heskey/Rooney partnership did not work. I don't know why. Possibly because teams predicted it too well.
8. Heskey coming on as sub instead of Crouch. Capello played Heskey because, while he doesn't score, he brings the best out of Rooney. Once this stopped working, he switched to Defoe. Good decision. But then, when it came to replacing a striker, he brought on Heskey, who (a) cannot score, and (b) no longer works well with Rooney. Whereas Crouch can score (and does, frequently!), and would be a much better option.
9. Lampard's free kicks. Apart from the one when he hit the bar against Germany, Lampard's free kicks were abysmal. Either way over the bar or straight into the wall. Many chances wasted.
10. We had no tempo against Algeria or USA. We allowed the other teams to dictate the pace, and thus struggled to break them down because they had time to set up their defence. Ergo, we couldn't score more goals than them.
11. Missed chances against Slovenia. Way too many of them. Simply wasteful at this level. A single extra goal would have seen us top the group and play Ghana and Uruguay rather than Germany and Argentina.
12. Disallowed goal against Germany. Shocking decision that did change the game. Had it gone in, we would have been level, we would have had the momentum, Germany would have been reeling, and we wouldn't have had to commit 9 men forward at set pieces to get an equaliser and then get caught on the break.
13. Not bringing on Joe Cole for Defoe as plan B. Capello didn't really have a plan B. SWP for Lennon was like-for-like. SWP for Milner was a step backwards. Heskey for Defoe did not work, as discussed above. He should have brought Cole on for Defoe, put Cole on the left, and shifted Gerrard to the hole. Gerrard and Rooney are our two most dangerous players, and most of the exciting things England did in the four games was due to their link-up play.

All these things were factors in England's poor world cup. But the last reason is the main one: Gerrard's position. Steven Gerrard is a central midfielder. One of the best in the world. Don't play him on the wing! Especially the left wing, he's right-footed! A waste of one of our best players, and the single player who brings the best out of Rooney. Gerrard rarely has the discipline to stay out on the left, so he drifts inside. This reduces service to the strikers, stifles the central midfielders, means we lack width, and leaves Ashley Cole exposed at the back. With the lack of service to the strikers, Rooney dropped deep to get the ball and we had very little up front. Therefore we do not attack effectively and cannot defend effectively – we were continually exposed down our left side.

Capello's decision to play Gerrard out of position was the single biggest factor in England's downfall. To do well at football, you have to score and not concede (this really isn't a difficult concept!). With Gerrard on the left, we struggled to score and conceded too easily. Simple as.

Player ratings

Green – 3. Unforgivable mistake at this level. Otherwise fine.

James – 8. Good goalkeeping. Dealt with crosses well and made some good saves. Did everything he could

Cole – 8. Our best player (as ever). Solid defensively, good going forward. Did as well as he could with no cover in front of him for a lot of the time.

Johnson – 6. Sparky going forward, ok at the back. Not good enough for a world cup winning side, but not bad either.

Terry – 4. No pace, little confidence. Generally absent. Did not dominate like he used to.

King – 5. Fine until he got injured.

Carra – 4. See Terry.

Upson – 6. Generally did well. Only mistake was in the lead up to Klose's goal, but he wasn't exactly helped by the rest of the team.

Barry – 5. Nondescript. Very little to say, either good or bad.

Gerrard – 4. Some exciting moments, but too many wasted chances and way to little positional discipline (though it's not his fault he was put out on the left).

Lampard – 4. Good against Germany (unlucky not to have 2 goals), but otherwise very poor.

Lennon – 3. Did nothing.

Milner – 6. Not his fault that he was picked while ill against USA. In the other games he did well and was our main attacking chance-provider.

Cole – 5. Didn't get much of a chance, but did ok when he came on.

SWP – 2. Did less than Lennon.

Rooney – 3. 'The first touch of an elephant seal' (Robbo's blog). True fact. Very poor indeed.

Heskey – 3. Ok against USA, but his score is always limited by the fact that he never scores. Did very little.

Defoe – 6. Good goal against Slovenia, worked hard, good link up play.

Crouch – 5. Had no chance to shine.

Preaching > setup?

I've preached twice at my church.  Both times, I have received lots of positive comments from people, both in person and by text, thanking me for what I said and encouraging me.
I also lead a setup team at church, working for an average of between 1 and 2 hours each Sunday.  I hardly ever get encouragement for this work.
This is not me complaining about not being encouraged in setup stuff - I do it because it needs doing, I enjoy it and I'm good at it.  But I am aware that the work that the setup leaders and setup teams do at my church is very overlooked compared to the 'up-front' stuff like preaching or leading worship.  I think it's a shame that people put so much emphasis on something like preaching compared to something like setup, as if preaching was more important or more difficult than setup.

Emotional pornography

This is the first time I've written purely for the sake of linking to another webpage, but this guy (who I've been following for a couple of years) speaks truth.

http://www.nailscars.com/journal/2010/5/10/emotional-pornography.html

I guess it's like the idea that (and I quote) 'chick flicks are girl porn'.

Glee Plea

Glee seems to be very popular at the moment. The thing that intrigues me the most about its popularity is the range of different people who seem addicted to it – it appears to have almost universal popularity.
I've seen a few clips from Glee and didn't understand what all the fuss was all about, but I decided to watch an episode to give it a chance. I was very disappointed.
I have nothing against Glee. There is nothing there that offends me. But equally, there is nothing that is particularly commendable. I was firmly indifferent.
This is a plea for someone to explain what all the fuss is about. Two close friends have attempted to explain it to me. Their explanations included the following (my responses in brackets):

• It's very funny (I disagree – from what I've seen, it has the occasional amusing line, maximum. Is it just not my sort of humour?)
• It is an excellent mix between high school musical and Scrubs (maybe – I can definitely see HSM in there (personally I describe Glee as HSM on TV; however, I dislike HSM), and the style has similarities to Scrubs (but then, I haven't seen much Scrubs – of what I have seen, some is genius but much is unremarkable))
• The music is very good (I disagree. The music is not good. It's very much towards the poorer end of 'musical' music (however, part of the problem here may be that the songs are covers of songs I don't even know...having said that, I don't think I'd like the originals anyway))
• The mix of high school drama and random musical-ness is very entertaining (no it isn't, it's just unconvincing... American high school drama is 99% annoying, trashy musicals are 95% annoying, and the mix isn'treally any better - it's just quite silly)
• It's not to be taken too seriously (I understand that, and acknowledge that I have a tendency for hypercriticalness. But I still see no merit in the show.  If it's not a serious show, surely it should be entertaining...many people seem to find it so, but I don't understand why)

As far as I can tell, Glee is just High School Musical in series form. Part of me assumes I'm missing something – am I?
Someone, please explain what all the fuss is about! Although I don't watch things like 24 and Scrubs, I can see why people like them and I can acknowledge their merits. But Glee seems much more like Doctor Who – essentially unworthy of TV time.

Invading the Airwaves

Inspired by fans of Rage Against the Machine, who recently banded together and mass-bought a single to get RATM to Christmas number one, fans of Delirious recently attempted to get the song History Maker to Easter number one (it got to number four in the end).
The initiative was based at www.invadetheairwaves.org.uk, but word was spread mostly through Facebook, where over 70,000 people joined the group. I, a huge Delirious fan, was frequently invited to join, and frequently declined. I had three issues with what was being done.

1. This is a bad way to treat the music charts. The charts are designed to display the most popular songs of the week, based on people buying the songs because they like them. Not because they have an ulterior motive of trying to publicise a band (or song, or deity...more on this below). This campaign was essentially an abusive hijack of the music charts.

2. This is a bad way to evangelise. The organisers hoped that, as a result of their actions, people would hear the gospel and turn to God. This may have happened. But I expect that many more people would have been put off Christianity by what they see as a group of dogmatic obsessives trying to promote organised religion, and messing up the chart system at the same time. This is not a good way to evangelise. It is not a good way to spend hours of organisation and tens of thousands of pounds.

3. Even disregarding the above points, even if this was a great thing to do, the choice of song was very poor. Yes, History Maker is a great song, one of Delirious' best. Yes, it's iconic and inspiring and has an awesome riff. But it has two problems: it is not a single, and it is not good at sending a message to the nation. It is over six minutes long, and therefore the radio cut it after about four minutes. So no-one even heard the whole song! It's not even a new song, it's from the 1997 album King of Fools. History Maker is simply not single material. The message of the song is basically 'I will stand for God'. A good message, but not that evangelistic. As my brother suggested, God Is Smiling would have been a much better choice – it is shorter, catchier, from their most recent album, and the message is 'God thinks we're great, and love can make a difference in this world'.


So, there's three reasons why this campaign was a bad idea. Interestingly, invadetheairwaves.org.uk has now moved on to promote BeBe Vox's new single. ITA seems to be taking this very seriously, and I still think it's a bad idea. I know this is all very opinionated of me (as usual!), so feel free to comment and explain why I am wrong.

Homosexuality

Yesterday I returned from Spring Harvest, where the theme was 'Different Eyes' - all about Biblical ethics and ethical living. One issue under discussion was homosexuality. On night 4 there was a debate about homosexuality. On nights 3 and 5 there were other debates - on War and Peace, and Money.
The homosexuality debate attracted about 3 times as many people as the money debate (I'm not sure about the War one, I wasn't there). This is interesting, given that homosexuality is mentioned 6 times in the Bible, while money comes up, on average, every 8 verses. Discrepancy?

There are a few brief points to make:
1. Christians blow homosexuality out of proportaion compared to other sins, as if it is the worst sin and/or as if it is worse than any other sexual sin. This is not true. Look at the biblical time given to it, compared to pride/greed/selfishness/dishonesty/expolitaiton etc.
2. Homosexuality seems to be a very emotive issue. People think they have a right to sexual activity, and don't like being told that they can't have sex. This is a wrong assumption - not everyone gets to have sex - some are physically incapable, some choose to abstain, some don't find a suitable partner, either as single heterosexuals or homosuxuals.
3. Homosexuality, while getting big press in the media, isn't discussed enough in the local church/small group. It becomes a massive issue, with an element of taboo, and therefore as soon as Spring Harvest offer a debate, it is three times as full as other debates!
4. Homosexuality is treated as a person's identity rather than what it really is - their sexuality. Homosexuals often define themselves as 'gay' and it becomes a central part of their identity. Sexuality should not equal identity. Doing so makes it into a bigger 'issue' than it should be.

Disgustingly lucky

A year ago, I returned from Spring Harvest and wrote a blog about worship

I have just returned from Spring Harvest 2010. Again, I was very critical of the worship during the week. I think part of the problem is that I am dissgustingly lucky to be at a church where the main two worship leaders are superb, and they are just the tip of the worshsip-leading iceberg.

I was also disappointed with the teaching at Spring Harevst this year - again, I am disgustingly lucky to have some amazing teachers at my church.