Worship chapter off to supervisor, later than I planned

Blue Sky through my window

Thought I would start with a picture of blue sky that was outside my window this morning. We do not get much of it so it is nice to have a record of when it happens.

This draft of thesis is definitely on the homeward leg now. I have got my chapter on worship off to my supervisor. The strange thing is the way it came together. I am happy with it for the reason that now I have got to the end I find that what I wrote now makes sense at other levels apart from the academic. This is a state I like to get to when I am doing statistics. The findings once I have gone through the process appear to be common sense. The feeling of "of course that is what is happening".  There is something though which is important being said and I think it has been missed in the literature. If that is the case then I think we may need to go back and rethink our approach.

Another thing I think I have learnt is that if people have not the power to change things themselves then they will lobby to get those with power to change things in the way they want them changed. Lobbying is a complex process with both positive and negative lobbying. Positive lobbying is not necessarily about lobbying for, rather it is lobbying that aims to make it pleasurable for the person with the power to change things in the way you want. Negative lobbying aims at making not complying with what you want a negative experience for the person with the power. It is very easy for positive lobbying to become bribery and it is very easy for negative lobbying to become bullying. Therefore it is essential to understand that lobbying originates in wanting a changing and not being able effect the change. They therefore reach for the tools by which they can affect it.

This means that when we get to situations where either bullying or bribery are present we need to ask questions about the power structures in the situation and why people are not happy with them. Sometimes the reasons can be stupid. I know of a situation where people were upping the anti with lobbying to affect a decision while not exercising their right to be part of the decision makers because that meant they would have to acknowledge that things had changed. Equally quite often what is driving them to desire a particular change is not what is presented.  Therefore, I am not necessarily in favour of giving people the power always but I am equally pretty sure that a simplistic attitude of centralising power when this sort of thing happens is just a form of wanting teacher to come and sort things out at best and calling on your big brother at worst. There is something in me that is beginning to ask how do you make direct democracy work.

That said next week will be interesting. There is a Society for Liturgical Studies student study day happening at Carrs Lane in Birmingham. I am not presenting a paper due to finishing thesis but I am going as it is chance to hear what others are saying. There is a paper on studying liturgy historically, I have questions to ask about how well that can be done when a liturgy is as ephemeral as the historic English Dissent, and if it can't cover such cases is it perhaps dealing with a very partial perspective. I would expect folk devotion within Catholicism to be largely as ephemeral as well. Another one looks at "Anglican Mission and Identity: Liturgy and Transformation". This means some moving around of things but I still hope to get pretty well the two plus writing days I am managing at the moment.