In May 2011 the elections created a seismic shift in the political landscape. Labour was punished for years of arrogance and the assumption of popular support simply because that is the way it has been. The Lib Dems got squeezed because of the coalition at Westminster, and the conservatives pretty much stood still, which is probably the best they could have hoped for. Scotland for good or ill, has rejected them for the past 30 years. Scotland has now more Giant Panda’s than conservative MPs!

  The SNP did the unthinkable, and won an absolute majority in a system that was designed to prevent that very outcome. Elected because as a minority government they were competent in the previous parliament and because Labour made themselves unelectable. There is no real evidence to support that Independence was the winning policy. It is right there is a referendum to settle the issue, it is right also it is not rushed for economic reasons. It is right however there is a balance between the rights of Scots to decide how they wish to be governed is balanced with the legal union that is the UK. This should be done in a considered and fair way. I would hate it to be dragged into the courts as seems the threat by the coalition; all views must be heard, but it must be done within a paradigm of democratic process rather than of party political or economic concerns. I am not a member of the SNP, but believe Mr Salmond understands this better than Messers Cameron, Milliband and Clegg.

To be fair, the church recognises its failings and faults which is helpful, but more worryingly is the deep indecision it has shown, on for what was for many was more of an ethical than a legal issue. Where should exactly the church stand in relation to inequalities promoted by capitalism. This it seems was further muddied by the fact that St Pauls comes under the jurisdiction of The City of London Corporation; a democratic oddity that has at its heart much of the big business that the protesters are opposed to.

At first under the somewhat hesitant leadership of the Bishop of London Dr Richard Chartres, it appeared that legal methods were to be employed which may well have ended in violence and a forced eviction. However now that is on hold, and there is a desire to engage in the issues and come to a consensus without resorting to such methods. It seems The COE is at last catching up with events and holding on to a principal of dialogue and understanding. The surprising thing for me is how the Corporation of London are pausing too.

At last the Archbishop of Canterbury has said something meaningful other than expressing regret for the resignations from the chapter. Writing in today’s Financial Times he recognises the church has become a unwitting lightening conductor for peoples unease at the financial sector.

All this is encouraging, but the Corporation has paused its plans for eviction not shelved them. It remains to be seen if they are set on a collision course with the church. St Pauls is as part of the establishment as is the stock exchange, but are we now seeing some real energy in the church wanting to play a transformative role in the country. The one sadness is that it has been through the hands of the occupiers that has forced the church to examine its own stand on such issues not through any real discomfort of its own thinking.

My own denomination, the Church of Scotland, remains deadlocked on the debate of homosexuality amongst its leaders. This of course chimes in with the Scottish Government considering changes to the law to allow same sex marriages.

Minsters forum the unofficial organ and place to rant for ministers has been dominated for many months by this debate. For me, it is sign that as the world turns and we are confronted with difficult ethical debates like the COE are engaging in, the COS would rather get bogged down in this. I do not attempt to diminish the importance or passions on both sides, but I can’t help wondering as the economy struggles, the world starves and our communities suffer if we are out of touch? Maybe we need something like what is happening at St Pauls? In the Bible God would often use a foreign nation to teach the Hebrews something about him and his will. Maybe the Occupy London camp is the modern day equivalent. Will we in Scotland too need something to confront the church to make a stand on something that affects our nation?

Many American political commentators will tell you that the debates are primarily about style over substance. But they are powerful. Those who win the presidential debates usually win the election. Nixon lost to Kennedy because he looked shifty and sweaty compared to a clean cut JFK. George Bush Snr lost to Bill Clinton because he kept looking at his watch. Gore lost to George.W.Bush because his body language was too aggressive. It is how they look that counts not the policy.

I wonder how our perception of Jesus would be affected if we saw him on TV. Would our perceptions be challenged. Do we sometimes want the smooth or passive Jesus that the church sometimes likes to portray? The story of Jesus cleansing the temple  suggests a wild eyed, sweating, raging Jesus. Or what about the steely eyed determined figure in the story of the rich young ruler; would you approach him let alone ask him to be lord and saviour.

Jesus is the son of God, but he does not always strike a figure that would attract us. But that is what makes him different. Unlike the electoral debates Jesus is about substance rather than style. The beatitudes are a kind of manifesto for the kingdom of God. A manifesto usually outlines promises and pledges, but the beatitudes outline the qualities that mark out the followers of Christ. Style isn’t important, substance is king here. It isn’t a vote winner because its hard and full of poverty of spirit, humility and mourning; many things we would choose to run away from.

I don’t think Jesus or his beatitudes would do well in a televised debate, It is counter cultural, goes against everything we would hold on to. The question is are these things reflected in his people who worship him in a Sunday morning, particularly so in “vibrant” middle class congregations?

Is the beatitudes reflected in the life and work in the people of God? How comfortable are we with the uncompromisingly honest Jesus? Or do we prefer our Jesus rehearsed, smooth perfectly groomed just like messers Brown, Cameron and Clegg?

This year has been hard with studies and my job. I think it is one of the hardest years for terms of work. But it would be wrong to lay the blame at that particular door

One reason is that I have discovered Facebook. I am not sure what I feel about it, but it certainly is seductive. Face book lists the number of friends you are connected to. I am not sure in what sense a lot of them are friends as opposed to acquaintances. Is this the future of friendship and human connectedness? Random quips and sometimes cryptic entries. What future is there for human relationships that we once called friendship. In some ways it is lazy friendship. There is little real investment in people communicating by Facebook.

I am not sure if it as black as it appears, as Facebook provides a platform to communicate effectively, albeit publically. I guess my fear and suspicion is that some of my friends on Facebook would rather keep in touch with a brief sentence rather than spend time with me. Even more scary is that there are people on the list of friends that if I am honest, I would not normally keep in touch with. What then do we mean by friendship?  Is there something dehumanizing about social networking, or is it another tremendous convenience offered by Information Technology?

Bob Holman for two decades lived and was active in Easterhouse. He left quite a comfortable life in Bath as professor of Social Policy to devote the rest of his working life to making Easterhouse, one of Glasgow’s most deprived areas, a better place. I am currently reading his book, faith with the poor at the moment where ordinary people voice their experience of poverty rather than the experts or social commentators doing it for them. It is sobering, joyful, funny and sad in equal measure.

Bob combines Christianity and Socialism, whilst often quite rightly fiercely criticising the labour party to whom be belonged to. Yet he was not so politically partisan that he would not lend his support to political opponents who tried to tackle the same issues he is passionate about. Through this he gained friendship and respect of Ian Duncan Smith the former Conservative leader.

So I’m going to miss his column… Thanks Bob

It’s all about the church’s hotel in Tiberius and the following article reflects how a real and possibly more relevant moral issue is lost amongst the spin and soundbites of liberals, evangelicals and those inbetween. It’s from the report from World Mission and a debate between the board and those who moved a motion that would make the church’s centres reject buying or selling goods and services that originate from the occupied territories in Palestine, which the board resisted. Ekklesia has a religious and political standpoint which has to be kept in mind however it disturbs me that the church might making a confusing statement about the complexities of life in Israel.

Below is the article from Ekklesia

The Church of Scotland’s General Assembly, meeting in Edinburgh this week, today (23 May 2009) decided to continue selling and profiting from goods from illegally occupied territories at its hotel centre in Tiberias in northern Israel – to the disappointment and dismay of many within the Church.

The Kirk operates three centres in Israel: two churches with hotels and a multi-cultural school. The Jerusalem church and hotel was initially created as a memorial to Scottish soldiers who died in the First World War Palestine campaign; the Jaffa school near Tel Aviv and the Tiberias institution by the Sea of Galilee originated as 19th century missionary enterprises.

In recent decades, the Church of Scotland has increasingly tried to make its witness in these centres reflect the complex situation on the ground. In doing so, it has moved from what was at one time seen as a strident pro-Zionist standpoint, to a position in sympathy with the dispossession of many Christian and Muslim Palestinian communities resulting from the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian and Syrian land.

In recent years there have been numerous calls from Palestinian civil society, including many in the churches, for the boycott of goods and services originating in the Occupied Territories. This movement has its origins in the boycott campaigns of the South African anti-apartheid struggle.

However, after recently refurbishing the Tiberias centre and turning it into a first class hotel, the Church of Scotland sells and promotes a number of products and services from the occupied Syrian Golan Heights and the Palestinian West Bank. In particular, wines produced in the Golan have been prominently advertised on the hotel website – with the bottles being promoted in the restaurant
‘wearing’ miniature kilts – and staff in the shop openly state that it does not sell any Palestinian or fair trade products, despite the Church’s Jerusalem centre hosting one of the most successful Palestinian fair trade businesses in the region, Sunbula.

Citing the Church’s World Mission Council report to the Assembly that its work in the region is an “expression of our vision of justice and peace which springs from faith in Christ as Saviour”, the Rev Sigrid Marten, from London Road Church in Edinburgh, argued that the Church’s “commitment to remaining alongside the people of the region, especially at this difficult time” entailed taking concrete action to support this and not profiting from the sale of goods from occupied land.

“Illegal occupation,” she said, “means taking land away from the rightful owners. Using that land to produce goods is not much better than theft. Selling these goods seems to me to be supporting that theft… The Church of Scotland has repeatedly spoken out against illegal settlements in these regions. I think we should ensure that we follow this decision up by avoiding produce and goods from these places at all costs.”

Noting that the Kirk’s “commitment to being part of a peaceful solution to the conflict in the region” necessitated the Church ensuring its actions “are consistent with [its] pronouncements”, Ms Marten also pointed to the need to further links to the Church’s Anglican partners in the region as well as relationships with other local churches. Taking such a stand would be seen as an expression of solidarity with the Scots’ Palestinian Christian neighbours.

The Rev Colin Renwick, the Convener of the Church of Scotland’s World Mission Council, expressed sympathy for the intention behind the motion, but argued against it. Though he did not cite any evidence, he denied Marten’s account of visitors to the shop being told by staff at Tiberias that no Palestinian or Fairtrade products were available.

Using arguments that critics accused of paralleling white claims from the South African apartheid era, Mr Renwick also said that adopting this motion would potentially harm Palestinian producers – though Palestinian organisations have themselves called for such boycotts.

He also said that the Church is working on an ethical policy for its work in the region, though he gave no indication of when this might be completed. Adopting the Rev Sigrid Marten’s motion would, he argued, prejudge some of the very issues the ethical review would be dealing with.

Supporters of the resolution expressed real concern that relations with the Church of Scotland’s Palestinian Christian and Muslim partners in the region will be harmed. However, Ms Marten’s motion was defeated.

“This means that the Church will continue to profit from the sale of products from territories illegally occupied by Israel, whilst at the same time preaching solidarity with those oppressed by that very occupation,” an observer told Ekklesia.

The Church of Scotland is the country’s national church, in the Presbyterian tradition