Pressing Pause

During the month of August, this blog is going to be very quiet. No great loss to human civilisation. An infinite number of monkeys banging away writing blogs is still an infinite number, no matter how many stop for a month.

If you're very bored, read one of my favourite blogposts about our nation's irrational attachment to the NHS. It's here. There's plenty of other stuff if you want to click around.

Also, the show I co-write with Milton Jones is still on BBC7 here. Hut 33 is here.

You can also read that novel what I wrote, Crossword Ends in Violence (5) here.

Happy hols.

Writing or performing a Sketch

Next week I head off to do a Christian kid's camp for a week. It often turns into a bit of busman's holiday for me, as I often end up writing sketches and comic bits for the leaders to perform to the kids. No matter how many times I explain it, the reality is that clever word-play and carefully crafted sketches are not what 11-17s largely want to see. Despite all of their self-proclaimed sophistication, 11-17s really love some slapstick and some mess.

So here are my top tips for how to do a decent sketch on camp. They're insulting basic, but most sketches on camp break at least six or seven of these rules each time:

1. Work out what your parameters are. What does the sketch need to do? How long does it need to be? How many people are involved? And, crucially, is there any meaningful time to rehearse. Lack of rehearsal and poor execution is funny at times, but usually less funny that a sketch that’s actually been properly rehearsed. Don’t bother writing something clever and detailed if there is no time to rehearse properly.

2. There is a cunning way of getting round the problems highlighted above – which is writing a sketch in which someone is reading out a script and a small troupe are acting it out beside them. “How to make best use of the Tuck Shop”,”How to play golf”, “What not to do when loosing at tennis.” Or a bedtime story/fairy tale narrated by someone in a dressing gown.

3. Normally, the straighter the acting and the ‘less funny’ the performers think it is, the funnier it will be. As Eric Morecambe said to Andre Previn before going on their legendary Christmas show “We must never know that what we are doing is funny”.

4. Make sure the sketch is easy to understand. An audience that is confused cannot laugh. It’s really basic, but make sure you give the audience enough information to get the joke. And that it contains reference that the children will understand (remember, they've never heard of Ferris Bueller...)

5. Don’t talk over laughter or applause, should any occur – people will worry they’ve missed a joke or a crucial bit of info. And they may have done.

6. Funny costumes, and/or a wig and props, go a very long way and cover a multitude of performing and writing sins. Put some thought into props and costume as they can make an average sketch become a good sketch.

7. Remember that physical comedy, basic jokes and even corny gags go down surprisingly well when one is ‘among friends’.

8. Songs are good – especially if you have a musician who can actually play an instrument live. Original songs are obviously wonderful, but bootlegging a popular one from the charts is normally a winner if the lyrics are sufficiently similar but diverse in meaning. A while ago, I wrote a song that was sung by a group called the ‘Kaiser Chefs’. The song was ‘I predict a diet’. You get the idea. We did that over a karaoke track, that I got off itunes. A decent karaoke track is better than singing over the original song.

9. Music, intro-music and sound effects make a world of difference and make the whole thing seem better than it probably is. Make sure it’s loud enough, though.

10. Work out a proper ending, punchline or way of getting off stage so the audience know when to clap.

11. Almost all sketches almost always go on too long. Like speeches at weddings, they usually outstay their welcome. When you're written your sketch, work out which bits to delete. There will be some. Delete them. Honestly. It's better that way.

Hope that helps.

Pleasantly Subversive Friday Fun

Have a look here for a spoof Divinity School Application form for Liberals and/or emergent church folk. I wish I'd come up with that.

From Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton

I am currently loving every paragraph of Orthodoxy by GK Chesterton - a book that oozes wisdom and wit in equal eloquent measure. He is pre-empting the Post-Modernist arguments about knowledge in Chapter 3, summed up rather neatly by this:

To sum up our contention so far, we may say that the most characteristic current philosophies have not only a touch of mania, but a touch of suicidal mania. The mere questioner has knocked his head against the limits of human thought; and cracked it. This is what makes so futile the warnings of the orthodox and the boasts of the advanced about the dangerous boyhood of free thought. What we are looking at is not the boyhood of free thought; it is the old age and ultimate dissolution of free thought. It is vain for bishops and pious bigwigs to discuss what dreadful things will happen if wild scepticism runs its course. It has run its course. It is vain for eloquent atheists to talk of the great truths that will be revealed if once we see free thought begin. We have seen it end. It has no more questions to ask; it has questioned itself.

… We have no more questions left to ask. We have looked for questions in the darkest corners and on the wildest peaks. We have found all the questions that can be found. It is time we gave up looking for questions and began looking for answers.

And he begins Chapter 4, thus:

When the business man rebukes the idealism of his office-boy, it is commonly in some such speech as this: "Ah, yes, when one is young, one has these ideals in the abstract and these castles in the air; but in middle age they all break up like clouds, and one comes down to a belief in practical politics, to using the machinery one has and getting on with the world as it is."

Thus, at least, venerable and philanthropic old men now in their honoured graves used to talk to me when I was a boy. But since then I have grown up and have discovered that these philanthropic old men were telling lies. What has really happened is exactly the opposite of what they said would happen.

They said that I should lose my ideals and begin to believe in the methods of practical politicians. Now, I have not lost my ideals in the least; my faith in fundamentals is exactly what it always was. What I have lost is my old childlike faith in practical politics. I am still as much concerned as ever about the Battle of Armageddon; but I am not so much concerned about the General Election... As much as I ever did, more than I ever did, I believe in Liberalism. But there was a rosy time of innocence when I believed in Liberals.

Splendid stuff.

Living in Babylon

Looking at the Old Testament book of Daniel to find out how to live in a secular society is now very common in churches - and yet the details are easily passed over.

I've been thinking a little bit about this ever since preaching on Cornelius the Centurion, who becomes a Christian. How does a Roman Centurion work out his faith with fear and trembling? He has sworn an oath of allegiance to the emperor and ascribed him god-like status. He has to kill for his country, and execute criminals - indeed practice apartheid since Roman citizens were treated differently from outsiders. The pitfalls are endless.

Would it be sensible for a Roman Christian to seek military service and swear that oath as a Christian? Probably not. But what about those who become Christians afterwards? How do they live, on their word and obey Christ? (In the same way that believers should not marry unbelievers, but they are not to renounce their spouse on conversion. The marriage vows are sacred.)

Daniel gives us some clues. After all, he, a god-fearing Jew, ultimately became chief Astrologer in the court of the Babylonian Emperor - just as Joseph was Prime Minister of a pagan Egypt. And Cornelius ruled his century of well-trained, Roman killers.

Here are a telling couple of verses on which we should dwell for a moment:

8 But Daniel resolved not to defile himself with the royal food and wine, and he asked the chief official for permission not to defile himself this way. 9 Now God had caused the official to show favour and sympathy to Daniel...

Here we see Daniel making a conscious resolution to behave different. And he does this at the risk of losing everything. He may drop of out of the fast-track graduate training scheme he is on, but he cannot eat contaminated meat - or at least decides not too, even thought the pagan gods to which it has been sacrificed do not exist.

What does he do? Protest, placard and demand his rights? No. He asks for permission not to defile himself. He goes to an official and requests to be excused. One wonders how often Christians today actually do this. It is assumed we will be denied. It is assumed there is always a secular agenda. It is assumed that we are being persecuted. In actual fact, a basic conversation explaining the situation and the issue can reap dividends.

Perhaps it will end badly for us - and our faithfulness to God's law will be costly. If so, fine. But often it does not, if only we'd ask. Ultimately, it is God who controls everything and everyone - and He "caused the official to show favour". But Daniel is setting a pattern here, early on in his career. He is setting out his stall, not just to Babylon, but himself and to God. And he'll need to pass this test, because there are far greater ones to come.

6 So the administrators and the satraps went as a group to the king and said: "O King Darius, live forever! 7 The royal administrators... have all agreed that the king should issue an edict... that anyone who prays to any god or man during the next thirty days, except to you, O king, shall be thrown into the lions' den."

Now what is Daniel going to do?

About the BBC

Here's something from the Guardian Media section about the creative processes at the BBC which lengthy, well-written, a little over the top, but useful and ultimately true.

Pozzitive

For a few weeks a year, I have the pleasure of working for the independent production company Pozzitive, writing scripts with the splendidly funny Milton Jones, a series of which is being repeated on BBC7, and can be found on iPlayer here. If you look on Pozzitive's flashy new website, you'll find clips, jingles, info and tremendously time-wasting trivia to fill your lunch hour several times over. Why not get a sandwich and have a look here?

Bart and Lisa Illustration

I'm preparing a session for a Pathfinder camp (11-14 year old). In so doing, I've made an interesting discovery that may be of use to others involved in camps. Bart and Lisa Simpson are excellent parallels for the Parable of the Prodigal Son (or Parable of the Two Sons, since it's probably about the second son more than the first, progidal one.)

Bart is the first son - the one who wants to go off and do his own thing. He lives to please himself. Lisa is the second 'son' - who is a whining goody-two-shoes and wants her own efforts to be recognised. She would probably react the same way as the second son in the same situation. Both would receive a warm welcome from their mother, Marge. But I can imagine Lisa refusing that begrudging that love when it is extended to others less worthy. It's a useful angle, I think (although you may soon tell me otherwise). ANyway, I'm going to do a session along those lines and I just thought some of you might be interested.

A Letter to a Young(er) Christian Writer - Part 2

Dear Friend,

In the last letter, I asked you what you think you're doing becoming a writer. And, well, I hope you don't mind if I ask you again. This time, I don't propose to prepare you for the attacks, questions and queries of your own church, but am wondering what your motivation is for writing - as opposed to becoming a preacher (or, for that matter, a copywriter). So can we think about that for a moment?

Some are attracted to a career in media for better reasons than others. Naturally some are seduced by the fame and the potential for earning money. This one is easy to challenge in our case. Writers are rarely famous. Very rarely. And even fewer make serious money. If you've got an eye for spinning a yarn and getting rich, you'd make much more much faster in the Square Mile.

Maybe you are intoxicated by the poverty - and romance of being 'a writer', struggling to make ends meet whilst penning your magnum opus in a garret, smoking cheap cigarettes in cafes to avoid hunger pangs. This is okay for a while (although smoking, I'm sure you've heard, is bad for you). But you might meet someone, get married and have to provide for them and future off-spring. Your Christian duty, especially if you are a man, is to provide for your family and not be a burden on others. Besides, the romance, sadly, fades. But then romances always fades. That's why it's so romantic.

More likely, however, is that you want to put the Christian message across in some way. Ideally, the gospel of Christ himself. That's understandable. In fact, it's commendable. But be careful here. Didactic writing, movies 'with a message', are usually dreadful - because the moving image and the spoken word, story and character are ambiguous. Jesus told parables and the meaning of most of them is not always obvious - and some are very difficult and problematic. In some ways, that is why they have power. If you want to preach, may I recommend that you become a preacher, not a scriptwriter? If you want to be a scriptwriter, you'll need to think about your craft from a Christian perspective.

Don't worry, though. If you're not telling stories about characters becoming Christians, seeing the light and becoming more like Christ, that's okay. Jesus didn't tell those sorts of stories either. Think about films you really like - and why you like them. Are they didactic? Do they have a moral? They probably have some themes to think about, and some challenges to your thinking, but if you want to make didactic films, you're better off sticking to preaching, life-coaching - or making documentaries like that Al Gore one.

Hope that helps for now. More next time.

Best wishes,

jc

A Letter to a Young(er) Christian Writer - Part 1

Recently, I've come into contact with a number of younger Evangelical Christians who are interested in pursuing a career in writing TV, film and media. This has caused me to think what advice I'd offer such people. And here is the beginnings of that, in the form of a letter (I am, after all, a writer...).


Dear friend,

What do you think you're doing? It sounds like a confrontational way of talking, doesn't it, but that's the written word for you. Tone is everything - well, not everything - but the question "What do you think you're doing?" evokes a feeling of rebukes and hands on hips.

And yet this is a question for which you must have an answer if you want to be a writer and an Evangelical Christian. There are a number of reasons why it is important to know what you're doing.

The first is that Evangelical Christians, for all their joy and contentment, love to complain about television, films and computer games. It's understandable. I complain about all of those things at times. 85% of TV is unnecessary or unjustifiable. But if you are associated with these forms of media, you will sometimes feel obliged to defend them. No-one can defend Britain's Got Talent and nor should they. It's pretty vile, although that's not to say that no Christian can work on that show any less that a Christian could be a centurion in the Roman Army. Banks lend money to people we may not like, but it doesn't mean you can't bank with them or work for them - although sometimes it may. But you need to be aware that as a Christian in the media, you will attract comments, concerns and criticism from usually well-meaning, sometimes poorly thought-through, occasionally sanctimonious Christians. That's why you need to know what you're doing.

The second is that 'storytelling' does not seem all that useful in these utilitarian times. Christians love doctors, nurses, teachers and carers in general, because they help people in an obvious way. Christians don't mind bankers and lawyers as long as the give the church their money. Christians quite like public servants because they have the word 'public' in the title which sounds good. I exaggerate and paint with a broad brush - but what you're doing, or proposing to do, doesn't seem to them to be all that useful. It's storytelling. Who needs stories? Who really needs films? TV is, at best, a waste of time.

Naturally, I would argue that stories are essential. The Bible is mostly story. The Gospel is a story. Jesus tells stories. We are relational beings who are people-centred, not command-centred. So we shouldn't be surprised that humans are addicted to stories. But this is not obviously true to many. And Evangelical Christians are often those who prioritise evangelism - which is about explaining truth, not telling stories, it is thought. If you can tell stories, if you're good with words and all that - be a preacher, surely? Or an evangelist? If you're not going to be a preacher, or an evangelist, you need to know why. So let's have a think about that over the coming letters.

Yours,

jc

FCA, Nazir-Ali and all that

This morning, the expected happened. There was a representative of the Fellowship of Confessing Evangelicals today on BBC Radio Five Live today, because today is the big launch at a meeting at Westminster Central Hall (home of Methodism, no less). Nicky Campbell - whom I've met a couple of times and found to be polite and interesting - just kept asking question after question about Homosexuality. About seven in a row, I think. And it was he who suggested that the FCA are all about this one issue.

Bishop Nazir-Ali is lightening rod of hatred for this movement. Poor bloke. Naturally, for me to even show sympathy with him makes me as 'bad' as him. There's nothing I can do about that. These are strange, unpleasant and rather hateful times we live in. I wonder how long we can all continue in such shrill tones.

The reality about homosexuality is uncomfortable for both sides of the debate. Homosexuality is now 'no big deal' in the media. Celebrities and politicians are out in the open. And the public media-debate appears to be broadly over. So Nicky Campbell can ask the same question several times because he is sure he is on the side of moral correctness.

And yet, for a mixture of good and bad reasons, many people in Britian have a problem with homosexuality. Many don't quite know why - and would admit that it's prejudice. Most don't want to see homosexuals come to physical harm or suffer because of their sexuality. Some do - and that's bad, obviously. It requires no legislation, however, since its illegal to beat someone up whether they white, black, straight, homosexual or a Millwall fan.

But some have a problem with homosexuality and know exactly why - because of what the Bible says. (And Muslims pretty sure about it too) Here's the real problem for the national debate and Tatchell and co - Nazir-Ali and people like him are not going to change their mind. Nazir-Ali is convinced that homosexuality is wrong. Tatchell is convinced that Nazir-Ali is wrong. I don't think Nazir-Ali is proposing homosexuality be made illegal, but Tatchell, like many others, would like to see Nazir-Ali silenced or his views outlawed. And that's the real problem.

So George Pitcher writes in the Telegraph:

But [Nazir-Ali's] comments in yesterday's Sunday Telegraph, which he is expected to repeat today, that homosexuals should "repent and be changed" cannot pass unchallenged. Or rather, they should not go challenged only by homosexual rights campaigners, such as Peter Tatchell, who you would expect to be somewhat antipathetic to the expressed view.

However, a comment left by someone beneath that article observes rather shrewdly:

Pitcher, in fact, is having the debate he asks for in his last paragraph: but in fact he does not want debate. He wants the Bishop to shut up, and so do the broad swathes. That would be so much more comfortable. It has always been so, and that is why Socrates was poisoned and St Paul was beheaded.

The problem in this debate is that Tatchell and Pitcher are able to appeal to the likes of Harriet Harman to permanently silence - by force of law - one side of this debate. They may well succeed in the short term should Parliament lose its mind and pass thought-police legislation.

For an interesting article on the FCA itself and whether it's a good thing for Anglican Evangelicalism, Charles Raven has written some useful things here, mostly in response to Fulcrum's rejection of FCA, and allegations that FCA is determined to bring about schism. Raven writes:

Fulcrum is ultimately a distraction because it defines itself politically, as holding the centre ground. But preoccupation with this kind of ‘centre’ means that the gospel itself is no longer central since the Church’s chronic inability to go against the grain of the surrounding culture leads to the centre being pushed continually in a revisionist direction.

Read the rest of Charles Raven's thoughtful article here.

Cast Your Cares on the Lord

Catchy, visual and memorable. Great.